That's a clear sign you need to get a better net connection. But the point about patching still stands. Steam's new system is getting just as slow as traditional patching methods.

Let's downvote the original post because he has an opinion we disagree with and we're weak, pathetic little losers. Yay!

Anyone who has been subjected to Uplay's nonsense should be able to understand the existence of this thread. It's seriously infuriating when you just want to sit down and play some games, especially if you only have a few hours to do so. Compare this with the ability to remotely install something while you're at work so that those 10 gigs download while you're not home...

Exactly in that order. That's how bad it is...

[Citation needed]

Look, whether you like it or not, PC gaming is a niche market. The barrier to entry is steep, and consoles are, quite frankly, way more accessible and comfortable. I'm primarily a PC gamer, but pretending the console market isn't far more lucrative is ridiculous.

Well, from what I hear Steam has been very effective at keeping PC gaming relevant. Can't really say I've bothered to research more. It's a great service, but that's no reason to single out a single person as a saviour. What does it matter if people get a bit weird about him? The vast majority don't even know who he is.

...

I hate you.

I have a 65kbps connection.

I think it's funny some people complain about having to wait "a few minutes". At least you get to play the same day.

I have one game on UPlay, 5 or 6 on Origin and maybe 10-20 on Steam and I always found all three worked roughly the same for installation and game patching, if anything for retail games it's usually a lot faster on Origin and UPlay while on Steam you have to wait forever for it to "activate" the game after installation.

Seriously. I mean, my connection isn't quite as bad as yours, but I'm lucky if I get over 200kbps for my downloads. It usually sits around 156kbps. And I can only download at night, because the rest of my family likes to get on the Internet in the evening (and occasionally during the day). This means that with bigger games, I either have to wait until Friday night to start downloading (because nobody works on Saturday, so we sleep in longer), or start the download one night, pause it in the morning, and then start it again that night.

Best post of the thread.

For what reason was this topic even made?

In the mid-80s it was believed that after the Atari crash all gaming would revolve around the glorious PC (or home computer at that time) gaming master race. Then Nintendo happened. Since then PC gamign and Console gaming have been existing parallel to each other. You cannot make PC gaming more mainstream, because PC gamign was never mainstream. The first arcade game was not Pong, it was Computer Space, but no one wanted to play that game. It was very popular among engineers due to its scientific roots, but regular people preferred Pong which had more familiar (to them) sports roots. You will never be able to sell turn-based fantasy strategy games to the average person, because the average person simply isn't interested in it. The reason PC gaming was able to live side-by-side to the Nintendo was exactly because it was not trying to do console stuff, it differentiated itself just like the Nintendo differentiated itself from the PC. Trying to bring console atitude to the PC won't do anything, those are simply two parallel lines; they belong together, but they don't intersect. The best way to keep PC gaming relevant is to offer games the consoles don't and by making it as accessible as possible. This means removing all the bloat no one needs, like extra clients and services. Make it easy for those people who would be interested in a turn-based fantasy strategy game to start playing. There is so many things that can still be improved and adding yet another layer of software on top of everything is not part of it. Part of the reason why the PlayStation got popular was because it made it easier to play PC-style games on it.

This myth about Steam keeping PC gaming relevant is a self-fulfilling prophecy; everyone locks games into Steam -> Steam gets more users and more games. How many of those users really wanted to use Steam and how many used it because they had to? The only thing Steam has really done was offer publishers a commonly accepted DRM platform. A software-console.

I've also had download speed problems specifically with Amazon.
EDIT: And I have no speed problems in general. It was that site. And, yes, I like Steam for basically the same reasons as the OP.

Never mind - it is really not worth the hassle. Have a good life. I am of to play on my console.

I just want to agree with the "this is the dumbest thing EVAR" people that everything said here is the dumbest, stupidnesst thing I've ever seen in my life, NOTHING can possibly top it.

I doubt that anything said here ever happened and it's all made up.
I can't believe that other people have different experiences.

(Seriously?)