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
Kristian: Stuff like this is why some of us will choose Steamworks titles over titles using other forms of DRM any day.
Stuff like that is why I almost completly stopped getting involved with new games.
avatar
Aver: Of course we can have casual discussion about our preferences etc., but don't try convince me that I'm wrong because I like different thing than you. ;)
avatar
jamyskis: I don't think many - if any - of the DRM-free crowd have been trying to convince the Steam fan(atic)s that they are wrong for using Steam (HiPhish briefly perhaps, but not really anyone else). As I and others have said before, if Steam works for you, that's great. What many of the DRM-free crowd are campaigning for is more a matter of choice. Steam doesn't work for everyone.

Sure, you can use Steam if you want, and Steam can be a fine thing when it's not a leash, but many reasonable folk would rather have the option of a DRM-free copy (possibly foregoing Steam's features in the process). That's why the Humble Bundle approach - THQ bundle notwithstanding - is really the way to go.

So there is nothing wrong with 'liking' Steam. There is, however, something wrong with insulting people who prefer a DRM-free option as being 'backward', 'unreasonable', 'quaint' or 'old-fashioned' as people like SimonG, FredDM or Pheace seem to do on a regular basis. People like this don't want to accept that Steam is not a one-size-fits-all solution. They think because it works for them, that anyone for whom it doesn't work must be stupid or doing it wrong.

People who see themselves as superior because they use what they perceive as 'superior technology' and look down on people who stick with what works for them are the worst kind. Just imagine how things will be if streaming ever takes off. The streamers will be looking down on Steam users as being 'quaint', 'obsessed with local storage' and 'backward'.
What the hell, why isn't this high rated? Best post in the entire thread.
avatar
FAButzke: I cannot answer the first question because I've never used Steam Workshop (the mod section of Steam). But, as for the second question, you can disable auto-updates for all games or the one you are modding to prevent that you've mentioned from happening. I've modded a few games MANUALLY that way and didn't have any problems at all.
Doesn't work tough, more often that not, steam will either reset or ignore your setting and install the update anyway.

avatar
KyleKatarn: Mods
avatar
Fenixp: The way Skyrim mods work is following: you 'subscribe' to mods from workshop, which creates a list of mods tied to your account. When you launch Skyrim, all those mods get downloaded, installed and activated for you - when you unsubscribe, mod uninstalls etc. And when an update to a mod comes out, it just installs automatically over the old version next time you launch your game.
You forget the part where it can break your save game if the mod update changed some scripts since it doesn't give you a proper heads up on the update procedure.
avatar
dksone: You forget the part where it can break your save game if the mod update changed some scripts since it doesn't give you a proper heads up on the update procedure.
Well yeah, it works fine as long as both content creators and developers can actually only roll updates that don't break absolutely everything. I do suspect it was probably Bethseda's fault, as they tend to do pretty stupid stuff when updating their products. I for one wouldn't know as I just use Nexus Mod Manager (what can I say, in case of TES modding, I like control over convenience)
avatar
Fenixp: I for one wouldn't know as I just use Nexus Mod Manager (what can I say, in case of TES modding, I like control over convenience)
Plenty of users for that probably since the people who don't own the game legit have no other choice. Doubt the nexus will disappear any time soon.
avatar
FAButzke: So, shut the fuck up, will you?

Oh yeah, and besides the "patch thing" every other thing you mentioned you still had to do it to run the game so I was right. The only reason you did not see the game patching on Farcry and you saw on Ghost Recon is obvious and you already solved the mistery, the rest of your "problems" are still there in Farcry 3:

Another client. Another account. Another overlay. Punkbuster.
Is this angry and judgmental enough? Oh wait, you just did that to me. Nevermind.
avatar
StingingVelvet: Whoa there buddy, no one shit in your cereal. I said you come across a certain way, I didn't personally insult you like you just did to me. Try and calm down, thanks.

My main issue was the long patching process, which Far Cry 3 did not impose on me. Also if it installed punkbuster I didn't notice, another aspect Steam automated. I took your dismissal of these things as a desperate attempt to imply Steam isn't doing much, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. If you meant it some other way then sorry, but you obviously came across as superior and dismissive, just like you do in that other thread right now about your taste being superior.
My tastes are l33t! I'm R0X0R and you SUX0R! H444444R!

Yep, you did insult me but since you apologized I won't make a big deal of this. I'll also apologize since apparently what I've said before was misunderstood because I wasn't clear enough about my intentions on the matter.

Back on topic: What I've said is that, besides the patch thing, every other issue you would also have if you would've bought the game on Steam, thus, making your complaint void. Since you estabilished that the thing that bothers you the most is the patching (therefore implying the other issues are minor nuisances) then I understand your point. I don't exactly agree but I understand and then I take back what I've said. I hope this clears it up.
avatar
FAButzke: Back on topic: What I've said is that, besides the patch thing, every other issue you would also have if you would've bought the game on Steam, thus, making your complaint void. Since you estabilished that the thing that bothers you the most is the patching (therefore implying the other issues are minor nuisances) then I understand your point. I don't exactly agree but I understand and then I take back what I've said. I hope this clears it up.
I've also said about five times that the comparison was to Steamworks games, not games bought on Steam. Steam lovers bitch about Uplay too. Though at least it would have killed the patch issue.

Does that make sense to you?
Ah... the internet...
avatar
FAButzke: Back on topic: What I've said is that, besides the patch thing, every other issue you would also have if you would've bought the game on Steam, thus, making your complaint void. Since you estabilished that the thing that bothers you the most is the patching (therefore implying the other issues are minor nuisances) then I understand your point. I don't exactly agree but I understand and then I take back what I've said. I hope this clears it up.
avatar
StingingVelvet: I've also said about five times that the comparison was to Steamworks games, not games bought on Steam. Steam lovers bitch about Uplay too. Though at least it would have killed the patch issue.

Does that make sense to you?
Yep.

Just one question: You did read my posts on those links I've pasted before, right? I've done that just to be clear that I'm, like you, a steam fan. But, I just trying to be realistic here, because, the way I've read your OP, I could detect a fair amount of bias on it. So I was trying to point that Steam would not prevent all of that from happening. And since, the tille refers to 'Steam' and not 'Steamworks Games', I think my reaction to your OP was justified. I'll not nitpick about that now, of course, since you already cleared that up and I agree, to some extent, with you.
avatar
FAButzke: Just one question: You did read my posts on those links I've pasted before, right? I've done that just to be clear that I'm, like you, a steam fan. But, I just trying to be realistic here, because, the way I've read your OP, I could detect a fair amount of bias on it. So I was trying to point that Steam would not prevent all of that from happening. And since, the tille refers to 'Steam' and not 'Steamworks Games', I think my reaction to your OP was justified. I'll not nitpick about that now, of course, since you already cleared that up and I agree, to some extent, with you.
I'm not really a Steam fan. I tend to post rants of brainstormy logic and "seeing both sides" so much that people assign opinions or whatever to me that don't really apply. I've been called a console hater and a console fanboy, a Steam hater and Steam fanboy, all in quick succession.

The original post is making a statement about the pain in the ass non-Steamworks install process of a game and then connecting the dots to say that avoiding that bullshit is one reason people like Steam. Note the "people" term rather than an "I" term being used. I like to look at what's popular and think, from a consumer perspective, why that is. Obviously with Steam it is social features and convenience features that for most people outweigh any DRM or control concerns. When people argue Steam is shit I defend it on the basis of "obviously most people don't think it's shit." We need to see beyond ourselves.

My own personal views on Steam are pretty much ambivalence. I usually keep it in offline mode and launch my games from desktop shortcuts, making the whole thing invisible. I don't worry about the DRM because I assume Valve will be around for decades and patch it out when needed, or I can simply crack the games if I have to. That's my thoughts on Steam from a personal perspective.

As for you I assumed things because you were being (no offense) kind of an ass in another thread, and I shouldn't have done that.
Back to the OP post: GOG would get a larger audience if have some kind of persistent client that updates automatically (being the client optional). But for me seems much of the gogers people here would hate that, just because GoG wouldn´t be your "precious" anymore.
avatar
tokisto: Back to the OP post: GOG would get a larger audience if have some kind of persistent client that updates automatically (being the client optional). But for me seems much of the gogers people here would hate that, just because GoG wouldn´t be your "precious" anymore.
I think as long as the games were DRM free and could run outside the client only the super loony fringe would have a problem with that. I would assume it hasn't happened yet solely because of time and budget investment.
avatar
cw8: Steam autopatched my Empire Total War once before and installed a patch I couldn't choose not to install which made all text unreadable. So it was play without patches at all or play with the faulty patch. I'd rather have the freedom to choose which patches to install.
This is one of the reasons i recently uninstalled steam with the intention of never getting involved with it again (unless i give in to the urge to buy skyrim...). Even when i tell it not to automatically patch a game, I log out then log back in sometime and it has reset to automatically patch again. I would much rather have full control over patching and for that matter other issues such as reinstalling directX for every other game without the option to refuse.
avatar
erplander: This is one of the reasons i recently uninstalled steam with the intention of never getting involved with it again (unless i give in to the urge to buy skyrim...). Even when i tell it not to automatically patch a game, I log out then log back in sometime and it has reset to automatically patch again. I would much rather have full control over patching and for that matter other issues such as reinstalling directX for every other game without the option to refuse.
Steam forces patches. The "don't automatically patch" thing only applies to starting a download while Steam is idle. If there is a patch available when you sign on or try to launch the game it always patches.

It's unfortunate.
avatar
KyleKatarn: Mods
avatar
Fenixp: The way Skyrim mods work is following: you 'subscribe' to mods from workshop, which creates a list of mods tied to your account. When you launch Skyrim, all those mods get downloaded, installed and activated for you - when you unsubscribe, mod uninstalls etc. And when an update to a mod comes out, it just installs automatically over the old version next time you launch your game.
I see. How well does it manage mods? I like to use mods that I think will help with immersion, like rule changing mods, economy mods, and mods that edit NPC stats or behavior. I like some texture mods too because they can help with immersion as long as they don't get ridiculous. However, if a mod adds only one merchant somewhere that sells uber shit or a mod replaces items with new ones that look better but keep old stats, it can break the whole immersion part of the game for me which is what I would rather have. I have to be a bit of a control freak with these kinds of mods, but I've found that I don't really like doing that because it almost ruins the game for me because I would rather be playing it.
avatar
KyleKatarn: Multiplayer
avatar
Fenixp: It's simple, really: By developing a MP game, you create something that gives people more incentive to buy at release / something more 'valuable', less likely to sell, or just something they've got to tie with an account. Now, with Steamworks and similar, this kind of profit is in SP games as well, since they cannot be resold.
I still don't follow the logic. I thought the goal of tacking on MP was to create a game that people would not resell because they're too busy playing MP, and thereby somehow increasing profit. If that actually works, it follows that the argument for making SP games forcefully unsellable is that it will increase profits without having to resort to tacking on MP like some games do to try to persuade people from reselling their game without coercion, and then SP games will be able to happily focus on SP.

Now it's that creating a MP game gives people more value as incentive to purchase the game who otherwise would not in order to increase sales and profit. If creating a MP element for a game creates value to persuade more people to buy at release who otherwise would not have, what does disallowing used sales do to create value for incentive to buy SP games? There were plenty of high-quality, SP, PC exclusive games before Steam. If anything, it decreases value to the potential buyer. Trying to create value for incentive to buy and disallowing resale shouldn't be in the same category. Maybe the argument could be made that more people will buy the games when prices drop because most people aren't willing to pay that much money for a non-transferable game though. That seems like a rule for digital in general though to me, not something that DRM is needed for. Plus digital products can afford to be cheap.

I really don't agree that tacking on MP provides much more incentive to buy a game at release anyway. Gamers who want MP games will not generally care that much about the SP element and vice versa for SP gamers. With consoles, a gamer that wants a MP FPS will still trade in a game that is mediocre at MP to keep playing Halo or Call of Duty. A gamer that wants a SP immersive game will still trade in a game that is bad at that but has decent MP. Yeah, consoles still have plenty of SP games even though they can be resold; Heavy Rain, Batman games, God of War (which might have tacked on MP in the newest game, which I think could hurt the series in the long run), Castlevania; Lords of Shadow, Dragon Age, Skyrim.

Both kinds of gamer (not that they're always mutually exclusive) will resell games that don't do either very well, but I concede that maybe both kinds of gamer would buy the same game hoping it would provide the fix they want. I think the Halo games are good, not amazing like some believe, and they are some of the few games that do both MP and SP pretty well. Both kinds of gamer have reasons to keep these games and tell others how much they like them or lend them out without being tied to an account.

It seems that if MP servers are offered to play on for free and if people played MP longer, this would actually cost the company money for network maintenance too. They would have to subsidize it with other deals. i think it's a strange business model.

avatar
FAButzke: You're welcome. But just a small remark: It's not a big deal really because if you don't use Steam, you would still have to reinstall your mod when a new patch comes out (that's true for most games as most patches break most mods.) So, you can disable the auto-update, install your mod, wait for the patch, wait for a new version of the mod (compatible with that patch), turn on auto-update again, download and install the new version of the mod. =)
I would find it very, very annoying if I had a program installed that kept trying to patch Temple of Elemental Evil to the latest official patch of 1.3. The Co8 community even says not to install this patch and to use 1.2. GOG uses 1.3 but they don't try to force 1.3 on me all the time after I fix it. That's one game that comes to the top of my head right now. Didn't a Skyrim official patch screw up games too? Or was that just a console issue? I can't remember. I have my consoles offline most of the time so it didn't affect me.
Post edited February 28, 2013 by KyleKatarn