HAHA

I want Valve to choke on their own smugness. The idea of Steam having total digital control is terrifying to me.

Steam has basically ruined PC gaming for me. Any game that forces online activation, even a single time is offensive in concept to me and I will not stand for it nor support it. Buying on steam is basically renting and takes all control away from the user. A friend of mine moved, upgraded to a new PC and was unable to get internet access for at least 3 months, in this time he was unable to play any of his games because he's only bought from Steam. It's so easy to forget about the total reliance on the internet this service requires.

But where steam really burns me up is the way it's wormed itself into retail. I like owning a retail copy of a game, and DRM services like steam have basically killed this.

I am a solo gamer, online play has almost zero interest for me... now, if any game I want comes out using steamworks, I can't buy it. I am required to install a 3rd party piece of online software and make an online account, and then activate my disc copy of a single player game online before I can so much as install it. I will never understand how people find this acceptable... See, steam's online service is great for hooking up players and matches online, that's all well and good for those who want it but it's not optional, it's forced on everyone, and as a solo player, this does nothing but significantly impede my gaming experience.

I constantly hear the limp rebuttal of 'you know it has an offline mode right?' ...you realize that you have to go online and verify the games cache to get to offline mode in the first place right? This sounds like a good thing when playing a single player game to you?
Even more frustrating is the 'that's the way things are going, get used to it" doormat response, and to this I say... Why? I should go back on my stance and moral objection because It's inconvenient? It's lazy backpedaling like this that prevents things from changing for the better.

GoG is the only thing that's kept my faith in PC gaming alive. I'd still rather own physical discs, but at least on GoG I know I own my purchases, I know that I can, at any time and anywhere, go to my local files, run an installer and any update patch files that I have stored locally and then just play the game. The way it should be.

It is possible to use steam in offline mode via using a method that is posted on this website.

http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/19234/is-there-any-way-to-start-steam-in-offline-mode-without-logging-in-first

Of course, They posted a reference to the original steam poster who was banned, so take it as you will. (He was banned 3 years after he posted that method.)

Ah, it's been a while since we've had a "Steam is PURE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL!" thread.

The fact of the matter is that people want a unified option, and through Valve's willingness to allow developers activate their games on Steam without taking a cut, it's looking increasingly likely that Steam is that unified option. Add in the fact that (outside of this forum) Steam is pretty much universally accepted as the "best" DRM (I realise it's an oxymoron, but THQ and Bethesda ain't going to be releasing their games DRM free any time soon) and that Valve has gained a hell of a lot of goodwill over the years (outside of this forum) and you'll get the situation we have at the moment.

thank you for the post^^ you are a legend, makes me rest easier to know that I can make steam work like that.

Thanks for the link. I might find it useful one day.

I still find it funny (in a sad sort of way) how this entire anti-Steam thread and original article came out of a message that put GOG and Steam in the same boat.

Judging from the comments on the site, the method might not work anymore. I would ask for a recent confirmation by a Steam user before relying on it.

Steam is successful, nobody denies this. But I can think right away of better services, for example ones that can do without DRM. And if not all publishers want to go this way then I would rather not have the unified option. I don't really need a unified option. No much real advantage in this. Probably a monopoly is always bad, also if it would be Steam.

I'll run a test, Other sources on the internet seem to point out that this method still works but ill just check over it.

Just a minor correction: technically speaking, Steam can do without DRM. There are several DRM-free games on Steam I know of; implementing the CEG (=DRM) part of Steamworks, just like any other part of Steamworks, is not mandatory to get your game on Steam.

I can confirm the method on the website i linked still works.

Those valve/steam zombies will get theirs in due time. I personally can't wait for it.

I don't think anyone really accuses Steam of being "pure evil". DRM aside, Steam is no better and no worse than other platforms, and certainly no more guilty of the sins it is accused of than other platforms - GOG and Gamersgate included.

It's the Steam fanboyism elevating Saint Gabe to godhood and so forth that's really irritating. Double standards are at large when it comes to Steam. Look on the Steam forums and you'll see people decrying UPlay and GFWL for being "DRM" because you have to log in to their respective services to play (bear in mind I mean the "friendly" UPlay DRM that allows you to play offline), whereas the Steam account system is not "DRM", it's part of the service. You see people there decrying Gamersgate, GOG and Origin sales for "damaging the industry", and yet Steam sales supposedly "help PC gaming". You see people decrying EA for making Battlefield 3 Origin-exclusive, and yet Half-Life 2 and Source Engine exclusivity on Steam is supposedly perfectly OK.

Your are a bit misleading Sir, there exist atleast the same amount of people on this world who cry against Steam for the same matter...
And the devalueing part came from inustry people not Gamers... People have always something to cry about the sad thing about that is that the crying is about things which not really matter in life, for real problems we are best in closing our eyes or look in another direction

You can choose to, who would you give the monopoly Valve or Microsoft? Yes neither choice is the true one.
Steam did something right else it failed long ago, or why is it that GFWL failed long ago?(And Micrfosoft has quite some money to force it down our throats.
But here is a sad but true fact, and Steam has nothing to do with it.


DRM will ever exist in one or another form.

Yep. Dungeons of Dredmore, despite using pretty much all of the Steamworks features, does not use Steam DRM. Companies can choose to not use the DRM. They just don't.

Another point that hasn't come up yet, and is very important, is that Steam in itself is nice little money generator. I'm not talking about the sales here, but those aggregated data collected by Steam is probably worth a lot more than what we might think. I'm not in that kind of industry, so I don't know the numbers, but Facebook is a pretty valuable company considering their only value is that data. And Steam is getting some really tasty data freshly cut a pretty damn accurate. (This is probably the reason why Steam is still clinging to the mandatory client running in the background).

Is that a privacy problem? It's aggravated data, so not really. From your ISP provider to the mobile company you are using, you give away a lot more sensitive data. And Steam is pretty clear in their privacy statement that they only share aggregated data with third parties. I actually believe that, because they would be susceptible to punitive damages in the US if they would do any other shady deal with our data. And there are quite a few companies out there that really would love to screw Valve over. Not worth the risk for Valve.

Which in the end, is also good for us as gamers, because as long as aggregated data is considered a valuable commodity, Steam will literally pay for itself.

Edit: Removed the gamma radiation.