StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Zixinus wrote:No, its not unreasonable, because the game (HL2 or whatever) told us it needed an internet connection right on the fucking box. In fact, it did have a sticker with big letters on the wrapping. I recall that Valve announced this requirement before release. Anybody who brought the game knew or should have known that the game requires an internet connection, something that's increasingly common. So, how is this "fucking over" the relative minority that does not have an internet connection?

Of course there are games that do it in a non-retarded fashion as well. IIRC HL2 only required you to have an active internet connection when you installed it, after that it wasn't necessary. I think Battlefield 2142 required something similar, an internet connection on install and after that nothing else.

Let me toss this in. I like Steam. As fugly as it is, as much useless overhead as it is. I love Steam and I intend to keep buying my Video games whenever possible off of Steam for three main reasons

1. Much less retarded DRM. Nearly all games come with some kind of DRM nowadays. Even if it's the anything to type in super long code thing I get to avoid all of that with Steam. Not of course on all games. Thank you Rockstar, your not getting my money until you remove the utter stupid DRM you left in the Steam version of Grand Theft Auto IV. I'd love to play your new game. But you know what? You've got steam, you don't need Windows Live or your retarded matchmaking service.

But aside from GTAIV of all the games I've gotten of Steam have had the appearance of being DRM free. No rootkits, no stupid services, no long arse CD Keys. It's just Steam, Steam is the only DRM I need to worry about and I can put up with it, internet connect required and all.


2. Price
Holy shit, they have sales on videogames? Who fucking new? And the price goes down as they get older? Fun fact you want to buy Mass Effect for the PC, go to Best buy and fork over 50 like it's brand new$, Gamestop most places sells it for 30$. Or you could get it for 20$ off of Steam. Holy shit sales on the weekend? Bundle deals where I can get twelve games at a massive saving? I'd buy it. Sad to say few of the bundles are worth it. But as time goes on your going to see even more absurd packages together like the ID Pack with fifteen games(Plus map-packs) for seventy dollars. And they just recently put that on sale for 50$

3. The games are all there.
Until the day Valve goes under(Which falls at number two of the "companies likely never to go under" with Blizzard at the number 1 spot) I have an easy to use service from which I can easy install and uninstall games onto any computer I owe with nothing but the download time required.
Should my apartment burn down in a giant fire, and the entire state of Kentucky fall into the center of the Earth. Assuming I make it out alive I need nothing more than my login details and another computer to get all my Steam games back.

And that admit it, is damn handy.

Friends lists, chat's I could care less about but between the ease of use, pricing and "it's always there". I really have grown to not love Steam but at least like it.

The idea that Steam 'helps' because it's portable is pretty disingenuous; anyone who loses their physical disks will just download an iso to replace it (and this is arguably not even illegal since you still own a licence). Regardless, it's DRM is pretty annoying even at the best of times, but polished enough that most people don't notice (except with Audiosurf which now takes two or three times as long to start due to LOL DRM). However, 'I like it' doesn't equal 'DRM is okay'.

Ohma, Sacred 2 lets you use the key twice for different installs (or without a key as a 24h-limited demo). However, it uses the retarded hardware check to 'stop' you moving the install, AND you have to deactivate the licence on the box in question (and not, say, on a centralised account website). They tried to be convenient and it backfired due to their terrible infrastructure (which is a symptom of the whole game; the multiplayer lobbies are just as bad).

Stark wrote:The idea that Steam 'helps' because it's portable is pretty disingenuous; anyone who loses their physical disks will just download an iso to replace it (and this is arguably not even illegal since you still own a licence).

What about lose the disks then have to re-format your hard-drive? I've had that happen to me and lost a couple games that way. Sure by time I lost them the games were bargin basement $10 used but once the disk is gone if you have to re-format then you are SOL. I can certainly see the advantage even though I don't use Steam mostly because I'm not that big of a gamer to begin with.

The point is that the ability to download a game again isn't a big Steam bonus because you can do it ANYWAY. New York destroyed = plug in laptop and download iso on super-fast connection = be playing again, Steam or no Steam. Once I own a game I have no compunction about doing whatever I have to to play it; the idea of buying a game again just because I lost a disk/disk got scratched/gf went mad and ate code wheel is retarded.

Stark wrote:The idea that Steam 'helps' because it's portable is pretty disingenuous; anyone who loses their physical disks will just download an iso to replace it (and this is arguably not even illegal since you still own a licence). Regardless, it's DRM is pretty annoying even at the best of times, but polished enough that most people don't notice (except with Audiosurf which now takes two or three times as long to start due to LOL DRM). However, 'I like it' doesn't equal 'DRM is okay'.

Stark it still leaves you the issue of finding an ISO to begin with which came take time on some games. Not to mention it does not solve the "I lost my damn CD key because I lost the manual/CD case" Which has happened to me before. Never again will I play Jedi Academy again because I lost the damn CD key somewhere. If there ever (and I hope there will be) Lucusarts on Steam I'd pick it up again since it likely would be on sale for five bucks, ten at most.

I guess that's true for old/niche games, but Steam has bugger-all of those games anyway. Do you want me to find you a JA key? It should take at least five seconds.

Stark wrote:I guess that's true for old/niche games, but Steam has bugger-all of those games anyway. Do you want me to find you a JA key? It should take at least five seconds.

You need to be in the mood to play JA.
But more to the point, not everyone is free to rush to accept the cracking side of old/niche games.

Zixinus wrote:No, its not unreasonable, because the game (HL2 or whatever) told us it needed an internet connection right on the fucking box. In fact, it did have a sticker with big letters on the wrapping. I recall that Valve announced this requirement before release. Anybody who brought the game knew or should have known that the game requires an internet connection, something that's increasingly common. So, how is this "fucking over" the relative minority that does not have an internet connection?

Oh, that's right, because it doesn't meet unwritten expectations, despite the fact that it gave specific warnings.

Also, online activation is one of the few working copy protection systems and Steam does compensate you for requiring an internet connection: for an account, you have auto-updates and in-built anti-cheat software, the game permanently attached to you, save games stored on-line, etc. So, its not like you don't get something for doing what the game tells you to do.

Way to go ignoring my first post in the thread dumbass. EA has refused to acknowledge their level of DRM protection on Warhead. And just because it has a warning on the box doesn't mean jack and shit.

How do you get Steam to refuse to let you play a game? I've tried telling my firewall to turn off all internet traffic, adding steam to the blocked programs list, unplugging my modem from my router, and disabling my network adapter. All my Steam games play just fine no matter what I do.

This is a specific case of a game with a constant-callback system, not Steam games in general.

Stark wrote:This is a specific case of a game with a constant-callback system, not Steam games in general.

What the hell thread are you reading?

Dominus Atheos wrote:

Stark wrote:This is a specific case of a game with a constant-callback system, not Steam games in general.

What the hell thread are you reading?

The one about DRM and its apparent necessity to stay connected to the internet for asinine reasons.

You know, this one.

Zablorg wrote:

Dominus Atheos wrote:

Stark wrote:This is a specific case of a game with a constant-callback system, not Steam games in general.

What the hell thread are you reading?

The one about DRM and its apparent necessity to stay connected to the internet for asinine reasons.

You know, this one.

No seriously, you're clearly reading a different thread then this one if you think Steam isn't one of the topics, so which one? Is it the x-com one? Would I understand your post better if I went and read that thread? Or are you just a goddamn idiot who can't RTFT?

Or, here's a thought, maybe I'm saying that

Dominus Atheos wrote:

Stark wrote:This is a specific case of a game with a constant-callback system, not Steam games in general.

What the hell thread are you reading?

is a fucking retarded response. The thread is about games with a constant-callback, so I honestly don't know why you're getting so cranky about the idea that it's not. But no, maybe you're right, maybe you'd have to be a complete idiot to think that if someone got the idea that it wasn't about Steam games must be reading the wrong thread.

After counting, 20 out of the 41 current posts in the thread have the word "Steam" in them.

Zablorg wrote: But no, maybe you're right, maybe you'd have to be a complete idiot to think that if someone got the idea that it wasn't about Steam games must be reading the wrong thread.

Good, you agree with me. Discussion closed.

Way to go ignoring my first post in the thread dumbass. EA has refused to acknowledge their level of DRM protection on Warhead. And just because it has a warning on the box doesn't mean jack and shit.

I didn't and I was not talking about Warhead, unless you got the game off Steam. Skimming trough your first post, you didn't.

What I got off, is that EA promised to not use DRM any more and it did, despite of its own promises. You are right to complain about that and I agree with your position regarding them.

But I do have to point out this:

And just because it has a warning on the box doesn't mean jack and shit.

What the fuck do you need, neon signs? If a game doesn't work on your computer because you don't have the right hardware, who are to blame? The developer, for daring to use technology that requires certain hardware, that they clearly outlined on the box or you, who was too fucking lazy to check whether your computer can meet those specifications?

If I'm a rude, violent, arrogant racist bastard, but I wear a nametag that says 'Hi, I'm Ben, and I'm a rude, violent, arrogant racist bastard. Fuck you too,' then I don't magically become a decent person. I'm still a shithead, I just happen to be a shithead with a label that identifies me as such. Yes, labelling a requirement of an internet connection for a single-player game allows users to avoid that particular brand of idiocy, but that doesn't mean they should need to.

White Haven wrote:If I'm a rude, violent, arrogant racist bastard, but I wear a nametag that says 'Hi, I'm Ben, and I'm a rude, violent, arrogant racist bastard. Fuck you too,' then I don't magically become a decent person. I'm still a shithead, I just happen to be a shithead with a label that identifies me as such. Yes, labelling a requirement of an internet connection for a single-player game allows users to avoid that particular brand of idiocy, but that doesn't mean they should need to.

Except we are not talking about a person, where we have expectations of decency but a product. We are talking about a game with a certain requirement, that is essentially a luxury product: you don't need it and it serves no other purpose but to entertain you. You can choose not to get it and there is nothing stopping you from doing so. Unlike a person who you may have to live with or work with, a game is something that you can reject and ignore.

So, what do you propose instead? Developers have the right to use copy protection on their games, no matter how futile it may be. Coded wheelbarrows and manuals? What if you lose either? Those too can be pirated with just as much ease as today's games, so what should be done? Rootkits? Broken with just as much ease, yet it will actually scare away costumers.

On the subject, why do most games require you to have a pixel-shader compatible graphics card? They can certainly do without it. Or soundcards, or DirectX or Windows. Yet, we both know that it doesn't work that way.

Steam and consequentially all of its exclusives does have a requirement that not everyone can use, but so does allot of other games. Even Indie games require certain programs, like DirectX, .Net framework or just Windows. Even Indie games have certain hardware requirements.

If you think that such a requirement is asine, then don't buy the game. If the developers/publishers warned you, say by putting this requirement on the box, then they are not to blame. If you want to protest against it, take it up with the developers/publishers and don't buy the game. Again, this it is a luxury product.

Just to note, when HL2 came out, I was one of the few people that didn't have internet on their PC. I was annoyed by it, but I still understand why it was there. So, I just took down my computer downstairs, hooked it up temporarily with the internet, activated the game and then took my computer upstairs. I finished the entire game offline and has have been using Steam ever since.

Steam level DRM is annoying. The DRM used by EA (Securerom) is downright criminal. Limited installations, requirements to call tech support. Treats the customer like a thief but doesn't actually stop piracy.

DRM fucks over legitimate customers with simple "problems" like getting a new computer, more than it fucks over piraters.

Given how Portal, Left 4 Dead, HL 2 and others are so easy to pirate why does Valve even bother with copy protection ?

Sarevok wrote:Given how Portal, Left 4 Dead, HL 2 and others are so easy to pirate why does Valve even bother with copy protection ?

Because what DRM does do is reduce the people selling the games second hand. A portion of those people who would be willing to buy the game second hand are also willing to pay Valve for the game, meaning more profit. Especially if Valve lowers the price from the original retail price.

bilateralrope wrote:

Sarevok wrote:Given how Portal, Left 4 Dead, HL 2 and others are so easy to pirate why does Valve even bother with copy protection ?

Because what DRM does do is reduce the people selling the games second hand. A portion of those people who would be willing to buy the game second hand are also willing to pay Valve for the game, meaning more profit. Especially if Valve lowers the price from the original retail price.

Which is extra bullshit, given that people have the legal right to resell games they own. Thanks for bringing that up, I'd forgotten that point.

Sarevok wrote:Given how Portal, Left 4 Dead, HL 2 and others are so easy to pirate why does Valve even bother with copy protection ?

I may be wrong here, but its because its not immediately pirated at launch, when sales are the highest thus is the most important.

EDIT: Also, because they want to protect their work. Look above.