It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
mechgouki: I'm not talking about playing every single game. I'm about that single one. Skyrim.
Copy-pasta:

Edit 2: To put it in another light - your choice where never taken away from you, you made this choice long time ago. The choice was - to use or not to use steam (Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the light or the slings and arrows of DRM , Or to take arms against a sea of troubles), and you said - not at all. There is many other options here, which other people have taken, for example 'only for games only on steam', 'only for the DRM free games', 'only for games under $5.00', and so on and so forth. Your choice was a total abstinence.

The CONSEQUENCES of this choice, then , is among others that you do not get to play Skyrim (unless Bethesda decides to do a non-steamworks version...). This was a moral choice you took, and this is the consequence. All choices you make in life do have consequences, and we just have to deal with it, especially on luxury choices, as this most definitely is (this is not a life or death choice, it is not a high impact choice at all). I, for example, have made a choice of never buying Tommy Hilfiger cloths, and yesterday there was a sale on Hilfiger jeans in a cloths shop (Next I think?). I did not storm into the shop and demanded that they put other brands on sale, instead I did not buy any pants. It was a moral choice I made a long time ago, which I am still sticking to. Consequence is that I did not get cheap jeans yesterday. I was not taken away the choice by Next, by my own morals had I opted myself out from it, just as you are opting out of anything from Steam - which is the choice you made.

to re-iterate:

1- you are not entitled to play Skyrim.
2- it is a situation completely made by your own willing choice
3 - it is not a "eat or starve" choice, it is a "should I eat chocolate or cream cake" choice.

Edit - if you now regret the choice you made back then.... well.... maybe you made the wrong choice?
Post edited January 16, 2013 by amok
avatar
mechgouki: @crassmaster

For crying out loud, that was just an analogy. The point is, the primary objective is to play Skyrim, and then look at your options from there.If you want to argue that "take it or leave it" is a valid choice, do it with someone else.

If you don't want to take me seriously, that's perfectly fine. But seeing how you chose to respond anyway, despite said claims, you are obviously not the mature person you think yourself as. Seriously, leave the personal attacks at the door. Or maybe that's just not possible for you.
May I suggest less insane analogies down the road.

And yes, take it or leave it IS a valid choice. You have no 'God given right' to Skyrim. You have no real, actual 'need' to play Skyrim. Avoiding playing Skyrim is not actually going to harm you in any way. So avoiding playing it because you don't like the Steamworks integration IS in fact a valid choice, as much as you want to pretend that it wasn't.
Too much focus on semantics. It's obvious that when he says "no choice" in this context, he means no alternative to play Skyrim without Steam. Perhaps we can move on from attacking a specific choice of words. And perhaps this thread has run its course.
Post edited January 17, 2013 by fuzzknuckle
avatar
fuzzknuckle: Too much focus on semantics. It's obvious that when he says "no choice" in this context, he means no alternative to play Skyrim [i]
without[/i]
Steam. Perhaps we can move on from attacking a specific choice of words. And perhaps this thread has run its course.
except we make choices like this every single minute of the day... doing one thing excludes doing something else. taking a stance for or against something have consequences on something else. Either you care enough about something to do so, and suffer the consequences of your choice. or you do not care and suffer the consequences of that choice. If the consequences feels to hard for you to counter whatever you have given up, then for you personally it may have been the wrong choice. I want to play Halo Reach, but not enough to cave in and get an Xbox. I want cheap jeans, but I still feel enough against Hilfiger to take advantage of the sale....

Demanding to have your cake and eat it too.... it just feels to much of a spoiled brat thing....
And let us not forget that if he despises Steam so much, the console versions have nothing to do with Steam. So, pick it up for Xbox 360 or PS3 since all you have to deal with there are Xbox Live or the Playstation Network, respectively. I've heard the 360 version is superior to the PS3, and they've gotten the DLC a month ahead of either PC or PS3, so far.

Either way, there are options; you are limiting yourself to PC and further limiting your options due to your absolute hatred of a service many accept, for better or worse.
avatar
amok: Demanding to have your cake and eat it too.... it just feels to much of a spoiled brat thing....
For many, myself included, it's less of a demand and more of a disappointment with the lack of choice. I can't agree that someone who dislikes the lack of choice is automatically a spoiled brat. I don't think someone is wrong for voicing that opinion either. However, I can sympathize with with people that are tired of hearing about it. But really, the only answer is for those people to try and avoid engaging the discussion further. Just like the only answer for Steam haters is to deal with it, however they can.

Lately I've really been beginning to see the beauty in what some of the bundle sites are doing, where you can buy a game and get it both on Steam and DRM-free (and/or other platforms). It's the best of all worlds. If you like Steam, great! If you don't, then gift your Steam key but still get the game DRM-free! How awesome is that?
Post edited January 17, 2013 by fuzzknuckle
Okay, I suggest you guys read this again.
If you want to argue that "take it or leave it" is a valid choice, do it with someone else. The primary objective, obtain the game on PC, and then look at your options from there.

Maybe "leave it" is a valid choice to you. But that is not really relevant here. Find someone else to argue about it.

This is all really irrelevant. The point that I am trying to stress, is that companies like Bethesda, should be giving us more options, instead of limiting those options, and forcing us to accommodate for those limitations.

For instance, for Skyrim, what they could have done is to NOT force Steam on the RETAIL games. And Steam users still get to buy the game online. That way, they would have satisfied BOTH Steam users, and non-steam users. Everyone is happy.

But instead, Bethesda force the retail game buyer, to accommodate to THEIR needs. The buyer of the retail game MUST conform to using Steam. Steam is necessary for a retail physical hard copy game, about as much as cancer is necessary. These developers disregarded the needs and the choices of the consumer, and instead focussed on their own.

The whole purpose, the whole point, why I am bringing this up, is to point out that companies like Bethesda, are not above criticism. They deserved to be criticised about this. They limit user options, forced the consumer to accommodate to their needs, shouldn't that alone be enough grounds to criticise them? Or do you think that they are so damn perfect, they are above any kind of criticism?

And why the hell am I complaining about Steam, but not GOG? Because GOG gives me full control of MY games! Steam on the other hand, controls MY games.
avatar
fuzzknuckle: Lately I've really been beginning to see the beauty in what some of the bundle sites are doing, where you can buy a game and get it both on Steam and DRM-free (and/or other platforms). It's the best of all worlds. If you like Steam, great! If you don't, then gift your Steam key but still get the game DRM-free! How awesome is that?
0_0

Can you show me? Because if something like that even existed, I would really love to see it.
Post edited January 18, 2013 by mechgouki
avatar
mechgouki: 0_0

Can you show me? Because if something like that even existed, I would really love to see it.
This site is constantly updated with the latest bundles:
http://www.indiegamebundles.com/

Not all bundles include both DRM-free download + Steam keys, however. On occasion, some bundles will consist entirely of Steam keys.
avatar
fuzzknuckle: 0_0
Can you show me? Because if something like that even existed, I would really love to see it.
I suppose you haven't heard of any of these?

http://www.humblebundle.com/
http://www.indieroyale.com/
http://www.indiegala.com/
http://groupees.com/

Some of these (Indiegala and groupees come to mind) don't always have a drm-free download for the games in their bundles, but Humble Bundle does (not counting the recent THQ bundle, but that was an exception to the rule) and Indie Royale has only had a small handful of titles that were only Steam keys instead of Steam/Desura/DRM-free Download.

There's usually a thread on here whenever a new bundle comes up from any of them and more, so keep an eye out.
avatar
mechgouki: But instead, Bethesda force the retail game buyer, to accommodate to THEIR needs. The buyer of the retail game MUST conform to using Steam. Steam is necessary for a retail physical hard copy game, about as much as cancer is necessary. These developers disregarded the needs and the choices of the consumer, and instead focussed on their own.

The whole purpose, the whole point, why I am bringing this up, is to point out that companies like Bethesda, are not above criticism. They deserved to be criticised about this. They limit user options, forced the consumer to accommodate to their needs, shouldn't that alone be enough grounds to criticise them? Or do you think that they are so damn perfect, they are above any kind of criticism?
Hasn't all of this already been addressed? For example amok already wrote this:

"It is as simple as this - developers do as they like, and if you do not like it, then just do not play their game

edit: God - I should start complaining about Xbox or PS3 exclusive games and demand they are released on all platforms, as the option is taken away from me.... I can not play Halo Reach on my PS3 and therefore I must starve. To clarify - I do not have an Xbox, so instead of complaining about Halo Reach I say "bugger it" and play Kingdom of Amalure instead... Life is much more enjoyable like this." and then later "you are not entitled to play Skyrim. "

this is just going in circles
I know you said that those types of replies were irrelevant, but...they aren't irrelevant
Post edited January 18, 2013 by CaptainGyro
avatar
mechgouki: But instead, Bethesda force the retail game buyer, to accommodate to THEIR needs. The buyer of the retail game MUST conform to using Steam. Steam is necessary for a retail physical hard copy game, about as much as cancer is necessary. These developers disregarded the needs and the choices of the consumer, and instead focussed on their own.
and again and again and again:

1 - It is their game, they can do as they like. Developers are actually looking at their needs also, you know, everybody can not please everybody else - choices have to be made. To reiterate, expecting everything to be made after your needs is not only highly unrealistic, but also extremely selfish. What about what I like? What about the silly "no-steam no-buy" gamer? Do you really think they should make different copies for every single one of us? If you have problems with what someone does - then yes, tell them and then choose something else, especially in a over-saturated marked like games. You are not entitled to anything! Bethesda can focus on exactly the consumer they want to focus on,and this time it was not you. Get over it.

2 - Steam is still useful for retail games, for example for patching, forums etc - which Bethesda do not need to cost (Workshop integration also now, off course. And if it was multiplayer...) You do not like Steam, but this do not mean it is useless, and many developers do like to have one point of access for all users - makes things much much simpler. Simple = cost reduction.

3 - Bethesda are disregarding a very small minority of users (Fear us, for we are.... ummm... few... but VOCAL... we will scream... ). If you did not notice, the DRM free community is not very large, and most gamers don't really care as long it is not to draconian. I am sure Bethesda did a cost-profit analysis of the savings made by using Steam vs. income lost from the Steam haters... this is what they wanted... Darn them to heck for trying to make a profit - they are a volunteer non-profit organisation made to please you!

the only thing you can do is send an email to Bethesda and let them know why you did not play Skyrim. That's all. (and by the way, this do not make Steam "retarded")

avatar
CaptainGyro: I know you said that those types of replies were irrelevant, but...they aren't irrelevant
They are irrelevant because they don't agree with him? :)
Post edited January 18, 2013 by amok
avatar
fuzzknuckle: Lately I've really been beginning to see the beauty in what some of the bundle sites are doing, where you can buy a game and get it both on Steam and DRM-free (and/or other platforms). It's the best of all worlds. If you like Steam, great! If you don't, then gift your Steam key but still get the game DRM-free! How awesome is that?
can we also just add that keeping the DRM free copy and gifiting the steam keys is in most cases against the TOS and more or less the same as piracy? You buy ONE copy when you buy a bundle, and it is only through their goodwill they give you choice of platform. Abuse this to much and the practice will stop (which I think is one of the reasons we see more and more Steam only bundles).

Taking advantage of these indie developers and bundle sellers is really very very low practice, and makes you a scallywag.
avatar
mechgouki: Okay, I suggest you guys read this again.
If you want to argue that "take it or leave it" is a valid choice, do it with someone else. The primary objective, obtain the game on PC, and then look at your options from there.
Maybe "leave it" is a valid choice to you. But that is not really relevant here. Find someone else to argue about it.

This is all really irrelevant. The point that I am trying to stress, is that companies like Bethesda, should be giving us more options, instead of limiting those options, and forcing us to accommodate for those limitations.

For instance, for Skyrim, what they could have done is to NOT force Steam on the RETAIL games. And Steam users still get to buy the game online. That way, they would have satisfied BOTH Steam users, and non-steam users. Everyone is happy.

But instead, Bethesda force the retail game buyer, to accommodate to THEIR needs. The buyer of the retail game MUST conform to using Steam. Steam is necessary for a retail physical hard copy game, about as much as cancer is necessary. These developers disregarded the needs and the choices of the consumer, and instead focussed on their own.

The whole purpose, the whole point, why I am bringing this up, is to point out that companies like Bethesda, are not above criticism. They deserved to be criticised about this. They limit user options, forced the consumer to accommodate to their needs, shouldn't that alone be enough grounds to criticise them? Or do you think that they are so damn perfect, they are above any kind of criticism?

And why the hell am I complaining about Steam, but not GOG? Because GOG gives me full control of MY games! Steam on the other hand, controls MY games.
avatar
fuzzknuckle: Lately I've really been beginning to see the beauty in what some of the bundle sites are doing, where you can buy a game and get it both on Steam and DRM-free (and/or other platforms). It's the best of all worlds. If you like Steam, great! If you don't, then gift your Steam key but still get the game DRM-free! How awesome is that?
avatar
mechgouki: 0_0

Can you show me? Because if something like that even existed, I would really love to see it.
I agree. It would be nice if they realized that some people like to buy a game, take it home, and play it, and not have to create an online account, or be online to play it, or have to give up any personal information to play something in the comfort of one's home.
I'll admit, I've been a bit miffed at Steam sometimes, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't put that aside from time to time to take advantage of their sweet deals and PC exclusives. It's disappointing that some developers/publishers don't want to explore other venues on the PC, but as people have mentioned here, it's entirely their choice. The best one can hope for is that the input that you and others put forward will eventually get them to reconsider their position somewhere down the line. In that instance, be sure to be curt and respectable to get the maximum effect from your feedback.

There is one other alternative to consider, though. One could always watch someone else play the game (and demonstrate mods in the case of PC ports). It's not quite the same as playing the game, true, but it can prove entertaining all the same. I know I've had my share of laughs and fascination with the Let's Plays on Something Awful's LPArchive. In some cases, it might even be better to follow an LP than to play the game, since the added narrative/comedy/introspective might spice up an otherwise dull game for you.

I have to say, It's rather nice that the market's been saturated with great games. Even if you were to miss out on one great game and its mods due to a dislike of Steam, there's plenty more lying in wait in stores like GOG. And this isn't even getting into consoles and handhelds!
avatar
CaptainGyro: Hasn't all of this already been addressed?

this is just going in circles
The same goes for what I've said. Hasn't it already been addressed? Companies like Bethesda, are not above criticism. How many times do I have to repeat this?

Edit: If you feel that strongly about those exclusive releases, criticise them for it. Duh.

A lot of games, after receiving enough feedback, they actually extend to more systems. For example, Final Fantasy, Devil May Cry, used to be Playstation exclusives, not any more. The less exclusive they are, the more bucks they make. And the more people happy.

avatar
amok: can we also just add that keeping the DRM free copy and gifiting the steam keys is in most cases against the TOS and more or less the same as piracy? You buy ONE copy when you buy a bundle, and it is only through their goodwill they give you choice of platform. Abuse this to much and the practice will stop (which I think is one of the reasons we see more and more Steam only bundles).

Taking advantage of these indie developers and bundle sellers is really very very low practice, and makes you a scallywag.
The end-users can do whatever the hell they want. Including pirating it. If they do anything wrong, they'll be the ones answering for it.

What was provided is a benefit to them. How they use it is to their discretion.

Personally, I highly doubt that giving the user more advantages and avenues will actually affect these developer's business negatively. Take a look at GOG. No DRM. Is it about to fall into ruin due to easy piracy because of no DRM? I don't think so.
Post edited January 18, 2013 by mechgouki