Dragon Age 2 Disappears From Steam

[Griffolion]

What about if you already owned it through steam. Can you still access it?

Yes, you can. Same with Crysis 2, can't buy it, can still play it.

OT: Is it really true BF3 will not be coming to Steam at all? Great...

 

[Nikolaz72]

This Origin-Steam war is in no way a good thing.

Errr? How is it?

A monopoly over a market is not a good thing and more competition works in the favor of the consumer. I love steam and have used it since its early (shitty) days, but it's good to see other alternatives popping up.

Its not an alternative from steam if you are forced to use it. Its not an alternative way of downloading Alice Mass effect 3. Dragonage 2. Crisis 2. Battlefield 3. If its the only way to get it.

 

[Nickompoop]

Hey, EA.
I hate you. You set gaming back with you ridiculous marketing ploys, you saddle us with bullshit DRM, and now you're pulling all your titles from Steam so we're forced to use your overpriced Origin site.

This has gone too far. I cannot boycott you because you're Bioware's publisher (something they really need to rethink) but I can do the next best thing: buy the games retail. That's right; I hate you so much that I'm willing to actually buy games from Gamestop.

So you know what, EA?
FUCK. YOU.

 

[Still Life]

This Origin-Steam war is in no way a good thing.

Errr? How is it?

A monopoly over a market is not a good thing and more competition works in the favor of the consumer. I love steam and have used it since its early (shitty) days, but it's good to see other alternatives popping up.

Its not an alternative from steam if you are forced to use it. Its not an alternative way of downloading Alice Mass effect 3. Dragonage 2. Crisis 2. Battlefield 3. If its the only way to get it.

Steam integration forces me to interface my games through Steam, so I don't follow that line of logic. It's an alternative service all the same.

Snip*

I go retail where I can because I don't have to travel far to pick up physical copies. Hopefully EA will realise that Steam has been monolithically successful partially because of its pricing system and will follow the example accordingly. Steam sales are exceedingly popular and I'm finding that more and more people are willing to hold out purchasing in favor of a Steam sale.

 

[MonkeyPunch]

Slightly OT, but does anyone know if you buy BF3 from a retail store, whether or not you will have to have Origin installed/running regardless?
(I am pretty clueless about Origin and haven't used it - so don't know if it's like Steam or what. I used to use EA's (terrible) download service for BF2 expansion packs)

 

[Marudas]

Two things.

One, If you are under any other false pretenses, it should be fairly obvious that whatever the method, this is EA trying to break an agreement with Valve so they can go use their shiny new Origin service.

Two, If EA wants to try to step into the Digital Distribution market with their own product, it does not make them "Evil". Wanting full money for a product you're willing to host servers and update software for is not unreasonable. Its wholly within their rights to attempt to do this, and really, in theory anyway, its better for the customer when companies compete. (Note the in Theory part of this).

Now, my personal take. Well, EA is actually making a kind of ballsy move. Unfortunately, I don't think it will pan out for them. Customers are already chaffing under the number of accounts and programs they're being made to jump through in order to get the product they desire. Digital Distribution is the wave of the future, but you'd be hard pressed to find consumers who want to sign up for 12 different methods of distribution with 12 different accounts. Valve's "Monopolized" steam provides a nice convenience for customers at the moment by keeping their community in one place with all their games. This has become the standard for gamers, and trying to tear the market apart into separate little camps every time a developer wants to set up their own DD service will not be taken well.

As for a solution, well, I don't have any quick and easy fixes right now. Many developers seem content to let steam be their distributor, and have a healthy relationship. Steam provides publishers with a community and a method of distribution, and publishers provide Steam with content further than just Valves own offering. Not entirely unreasonable but somewhat greedy attempts to have their cake and eat it to, like what EA is doing, only damages the industry as a whole. I don't think EA's Origin will take off in any fantastic fashion, and all they're going to achieve is an even further jaded playerbase (Which adds nicely to EA's already *Stellar* reputation".

 

[Plazmatic]

i have no particular love for ea, they keep making douche-bag moves against other company's buying, selling and firing people and making gamers look worse than ever with rediculus adverts

to cap it all they sold out crysis 2 to consoles, and made the pc version less impressive than the original

#edit#
yes, this IS ea's fault if they cant abide by the rules steam lays down when they enter an agreement that's called breech of contract

steam on the other hand practically give me games, with their mad -90% deals on game packs and other insanity

if you wait around, they'll give you free games ( ok maby only short, indie titles but still )

and overall the service is pretty slick and streamlined and an experience i'd happily recommend to anyone, and do on a regular basis

ea can't buy that kind of loyalty and that's something they don't seem to comprehend informed gamers will always support whoever supports the industry and their personal gaming fun

you cant exactly have any thing BUT a monopoly when it comes to things like steam. You have all your games on steam, you don't want to have another thing that only houses some of your games, that you have to boot up ALONG WITH STEAM or have the hassle to also close steam to run this digital distribution application, and then play those games, it simply isn't practical. No one wants 30 steam copy cats running at the same time.

Also Origin will always suck because it is run by a company with public investments, where as Valve is private, and doesn't give a shit what a bunch of people who just want to get a big return on their investments say, and will do the right thing, not the thing that fucks over the customer to make lots of money.

i dunno, it will give something for the 8+ cores, and quad channel ddr3 controller Intel seem desperate to sell us to do

also, valve employees are paid better than google or microsoft ones saying they don't do everything possible to make money seems illogical but they don't make you pay extra for pre-orders the way bioware is trying i suppose!

are you simply ignorant or just a troll? You obviously don't have any idea how the stock market affects companies regardless of how much they pay their own employees (which is completely separate from the stock market equation), so there's no point in me rebuking your claims.

 

[Plazmatic]

I think we may be seeing the beginning of the downfall of Steam. That sort of pisses me off too but that's the result of each publisher having their own download service, it sets up a sort of monopoly.

It's like if EA owned Target, they wouldn't want to sell their games at Wal Mart as that would compete against them.

Except target does not manufacture games, and this is not the downfall of steam, just the downfall of stocks over at EA, when share holders (like my self) see that they lose money with Origin.

Look unlike other products on the market, you cant exactly have any thing BUT a monopoly when it comes to things like steam. You have all your games on steam, you don't want to have another thing that only houses some of your games, that you have to boot up ALONG WITH STEAM or have the hassle to also close steam to run this digital distribution application, and then play those games, it simply isn't practical. No one wants 30 steam copy cats running at the same time.

Good point, and it applies in a different way. Competition only works when different distributors are able to sell the same product. Any Valve or EA produced game is never going to show up on the other's distribution service, therefore we don't have competition - we just have more monopolies.

Also Origin will always suck because it is run by a company with public investments, where as Valve is private, and doesn't give a shit what a bunch of people who just want to get a big return on their investments say, and will do the right thing, not the thing that fucks over the customer to make lots of money.

Aaaand here we part ways. I have bought my first Valve product and found it to be fun, but filled with glaring flaws in singleplayer and omglookittheexploitsandgriefing in multiplayer. I went to the forums and found out that it's been that way pretty much since release over 2 years ago, nobody is policing multiplayer, and indeed, even the most basic aspect of competitive multiplayer - matchmaking - is totally absent. There isn't even a difficulty selector on the multiplayer game so people can match themselves up by skill level.

Valve's handwave of an answer to these really game-breaking problems did not impress. Their "when someone feels like working on it" as far as fixing them in the future does not impress. Their "but the DLC will be free" does not impress, because "free DLC" does not mean "oh and we're going to fix the small-to-do but fundamentally critical gameplay problems too". If I'm not playing the game because it's broken in ways that make you lose in singleplayer and coop, and exploited against and griefed in competitive multiplayer, exactly what value does "free DLC" have?

So sadly, I can't agree that "Valve will do the right thing" when I own a very popular Valve product that I've stopped playing because they didn't do the right thing for years. I honestly don't see the difference between their behavior towards their customers and a big game company's behavior (SOE comes to mind).

first, are you even a PC player? because you are really coming off as a console player right now,

second, you completely missed my point let alone being wrong about your disagreement with me. I was talking monetarily, and you went on some other tangent entirely, I was saying unlike EA, valve wont fuck you over financially due to it being a private investment company, and not out to make money for share holders.

Third, you fail to mention the supposed "valve game" you were talking about, to my knowledge there is not a single valve game out there with problems that amount to what you portray. I'm having serious doubts that you are telling the truth about even owning a valve game, let alone one with problems.

Overall you fail to state specific examples and come off extremely ignorant on the subject, and don't even seem to be in the same market (IE not even a PC player) as well as completely missing the point I was trying to make in the first place.

 

[w00tage]

I think we may be seeing the beginning of the downfall of Steam. That sort of pisses me off too but that's the result of each publisher having their own download service, it sets up a sort of monopoly.

It's like if EA owned Target, they wouldn't want to sell their games at Wal Mart as that would compete against them.

Except target does not manufacture games, and this is not the downfall of steam, just the downfall of stocks over at EA, when share holders (like my self) see that they lose money with Origin.

Look unlike other products on the market, you cant exactly have any thing BUT a monopoly when it comes to things like steam. You have all your games on steam, you don't want to have another thing that only houses some of your games, that you have to boot up ALONG WITH STEAM or have the hassle to also close steam to run this digital distribution application, and then play those games, it simply isn't practical. No one wants 30 steam copy cats running at the same time.

Good point, and it applies in a different way. Competition only works when different distributors are able to sell the same product. Any Valve or EA produced game is never going to show up on the other's distribution service, therefore we don't have competition - we just have more monopolies.

Also Origin will always suck because it is run by a company with public investments, where as Valve is private, and doesn't give a shit what a bunch of people who just want to get a big return on their investments say, and will do the right thing, not the thing that fucks over the customer to make lots of money.

Aaaand here we part ways. I have bought my first Valve product and found it to be fun, but filled with glaring flaws in singleplayer and omglookittheexploitsandgriefing in multiplayer. I went to the forums and found out that it's been that way pretty much since release over 2 years ago, nobody is policing multiplayer, and indeed, even the most basic aspect of competitive multiplayer - matchmaking - is totally absent. There isn't even a difficulty selector on the multiplayer game so people can match themselves up by skill level.

Valve's handwave of an answer to these really game-breaking problems did not impress. Their "when someone feels like working on it" as far as fixing them in the future does not impress. Their "but the DLC will be free" does not impress, because "free DLC" does not mean "oh and we're going to fix the small-to-do but fundamentally critical gameplay problems too". If I'm not playing the game because it's broken in ways that make you lose in singleplayer and coop, and exploited against and griefed in competitive multiplayer, exactly what value does "free DLC" have?

So sadly, I can't agree that "Valve will do the right thing" when I own a very popular Valve product that I've stopped playing because they didn't do the right thing for years. I honestly don't see the difference between their behavior towards their customers and a big game company's behavior (SOE comes to mind).

first, are you even a PC player? because you are really coming off as a console player right now,

second, you completely missed my point let alone being wrong about your disagreement with me. I was talking monetarily, and you went on some other tangent entirely, I was saying unlike EA, valve wont fuck you over financially due to it being a private investment company, and not out to make money for share holders.

Third, you fail to mention the supposed "valve game" you were talking about, to my knowledge there is not a single valve game out there with problems that amount to what you portray. I'm having serious doubts that you are telling the truth about even owning a valve game, let alone one with problems.

Overall you fail to state specific examples and come off extremely ignorant on the subject, and don't even seem to be in the same market (IE not even a PC player) as well as completely missing the point I was trying to make in the first place.

Not that your response is worth answering, since all you did was throw mud at a differing opinion, but I'll give it one post so your mudslinging isn't the last word.

a) although I am a PC-only player and don't own a console, I still call bullcrap on your forum elitism about console vs PC. If Valve puts out games for consoles, console players have every right to be upset if the game is broken and Valve doesn't fix the problems with it. And they have every right to post here about it if they wish.

b) anyone who can read can see that I understood your opinion about how evil public companies are and how wonderful Valve is by comparison, and provided a recounting of my experience with Valve which is at odds with your opinion.

c) I don't care if you believe me or not or agree with me or not. Everything I wrote about my personal opinion of Valve is based on my personal experience with a current, popular-selling Valve game, and I don't have to justify it to you in order to be telling the truth. Deal with it.

I would discuss my experience with the game and with Valve in detail with you if you'd shown actual interest, including naming the game and linking in Steam forum posts where we've all discussed the problems to death for years now. But you're obviously out to promote Valve and suppress any dissenting opinions at any cost, so there really isn't any chance of discussing anything with you. You're just going to argue, and there's only one way to win an argument on an Internet forum.

 

[w00tage]

Digital Distribution is a full priced rental, you have no physical copy so you can't do what you want with it. Physical copies though can be resold, loaned out and even flushed down the toilet.

not really, anyone with a dvd burner and a decent idea how steam works could quite legaly and legitimately make a data disc containing their game files and or the steam system

or, more likely just dump it on a backup drive

as for loaning it out, just send them the confirmation code from steam and your biddies can use your account untill you update your password

it's possible, not as easy for sure but possible

This is all true but what I was saying is that Steam still retains the right to "turn your games off", this doesn't happen with a physical copy unless it is tied to some online account. In the case of older games, this isn't even a possibility.

I like Steam, I am not saying DD is bad. I am arguing that with DD you don't own your games in the same way you own SNES, N64, DS, PS2, etc... games.

Not to break in between you two, but I just wanted to add that this is a concern of mine too. I've heard that if your Steam service gets shut off, you can lose access to all of the games you paid for, regardless of the reason for the service shutdown.

That's way, way out of line. The last thing we need in our civilization is for private companies to be able to take away something you've already paid for. And I don't CARE what the lawyers got put in the EULA, if you paid money for a product, you either get to keep it, or the company should have to refund the money to you.

 

[Plazmatic]

I think we may be seeing the beginning of the downfall of Steam. That sort of pisses me off too but that's the result of each publisher having their own download service, it sets up a sort of monopoly.

It's like if EA owned Target, they wouldn't want to sell their games at Wal Mart as that would compete against them.

Except target does not manufacture games, and this is not the downfall of steam, just the downfall of stocks over at EA, when share holders (like my self) see that they lose money with Origin.

Look unlike other products on the market, you cant exactly have any thing BUT a monopoly when it comes to things like steam. You have all your games on steam, you don't want to have another thing that only houses some of your games, that you have to boot up ALONG WITH STEAM or have the hassle to also close steam to run this digital distribution application, and then play those games, it simply isn't practical. No one wants 30 steam copy cats running at the same time.

Good point, and it applies in a different way. Competition only works when different distributors are able to sell the same product. Any Valve or EA produced game is never going to show up on the other's distribution service, therefore we don't have competition - we just have more monopolies.

Also Origin will always suck because it is run by a company with public investments, where as Valve is private, and doesn't give a shit what a bunch of people who just want to get a big return on their investments say, and will do the right thing, not the thing that fucks over the customer to make lots of money.

Aaaand here we part ways. I have bought my first Valve product and found it to be fun, but filled with glaring flaws in singleplayer and omglookittheexploitsandgriefing in multiplayer. I went to the forums and found out that it's been that way pretty much since release over 2 years ago, nobody is policing multiplayer, and indeed, even the most basic aspect of competitive multiplayer - matchmaking - is totally absent. There isn't even a difficulty selector on the multiplayer game so people can match themselves up by skill level.

Valve's handwave of an answer to these really game-breaking problems did not impress. Their "when someone feels like working on it" as far as fixing them in the future does not impress. Their "but the DLC will be free" does not impress, because "free DLC" does not mean "oh and we're going to fix the small-to-do but fundamentally critical gameplay problems too". If I'm not playing the game because it's broken in ways that make you lose in singleplayer and coop, and exploited against and griefed in competitive multiplayer, exactly what value does "free DLC" have?

So sadly, I can't agree that "Valve will do the right thing" when I own a very popular Valve product that I've stopped playing because they didn't do the right thing for years. I honestly don't see the difference between their behavior towards their customers and a big game company's behavior (SOE comes to mind).

first, are you even a PC player? because you are really coming off as a console player right now,

second, you completely missed my point let alone being wrong about your disagreement with me. I was talking monetarily, and you went on some other tangent entirely, I was saying unlike EA, valve wont fuck you over financially due to it being a private investment company, and not out to make money for share holders.

Third, you fail to mention the supposed "valve game" you were talking about, to my knowledge there is not a single valve game out there with problems that amount to what you portray. I'm having serious doubts that you are telling the truth about even owning a valve game, let alone one with problems.

Overall you fail to state specific examples and come off extremely ignorant on the subject, and don't even seem to be in the same market (IE not even a PC player) as well as completely missing the point I was trying to make in the first place.

Not that your response is worth answering, since all you did was throw mud at a differing opinion, but I'll give it one post so your mudslinging isn't the last word.

a) although I am a PC-only player and don't own a console, I still call bullcrap on your forum elitism about console vs PC. If Valve puts out games for consoles, console players have every right to be upset if the game is broken and Valve doesn't fix the problems with it. And they have every right to post here about it if they wish.

b) anyone who can read can see that I understood your opinion about how evil public companies are and how wonderful Valve is by comparison, and provided a recounting of my experience with Valve which is at odds with your opinion.

c) I don't care if you believe me or not or agree with me or not. Everything I wrote about my personal opinion of Valve is based on my personal experience with a current, popular-selling Valve game, and I don't have to justify it to you in order to be telling the truth. Deal with it.

I would discuss my experience with the game and with Valve in detail with you if you'd shown actual interest, including naming the game and linking in Steam forum posts where we've all discussed the problems to death for years now. But you're obviously out to promote Valve and suppress any dissenting opinions at any cost, so there really isn't any chance of discussing anything with you. You're just going to argue, and there's only one way to win an argument on an Internet forum.

So you claim that I threw mud on you, yet you do the same thing? ok thats fine.

Point A, when did I say I was an elitist/dis on consoles? All I did was ask you if YOU were a console player since you did not state specific examples and I thought you could be talking about valves console released games, which WOULD have made sense and I would have accepted that, but in the end you still fail to state any examples at all, and it just looks like you want to argue.

Point B, maybe every one else understood, but you obviously didn't and STILL don't. Again Im not talking about any support functions on the technical side, and I really hate doing this, but I guess Ill have to re-iterate my self again.. I. Am. Talking. Monetarily. Not in the compassion of its individual employees, not its work schedule not its support on games, im talking money wise. Your opinion does not conflict with mine because it isn't even addressing what I was talking about in the first place.

Point C, The problem was that you were not stating any evidence. and you continue to avoid posting evidence and try to provide bogus excuses and personal attacks on me, and all I wanted was a name, that was it, and you cant even provide that, this is why it looks like your putting up a pointless facade, this is why it seems you are lying, not because i'm here to "promote valve", it's because you fail to provide ANY proof.

Finally, on your last, but most condescending point, you make a final attempt to evade the burden of proof, and try to turn the tables on me. I'm not the one who was asked to provide evidence for claims, and failed to provide the most basic proof in order to support them, and yet continues to act like some white night against bias. Don't "throw mud on me" and act like you're not a hypocrite, and don't try to push an argument with out evidence. The worst part about it is that you say that I don't care what you say for the mystery game that you say has been so terrible, when you have yet to actually answer the question and I was the one in the first place who initiated it, why would I have asked If I didn't care in the first place.

Now I've been thinking about the game you were talking about while writing this response, You said current, but you also talk about years of posts and complaints, so it can't be Portal 2, So that would leave either Left 4 Dead 2, and Left 4 dead 1 which could possibly have that many complaints, but the only one I can think of that has a lot of problems between valve and the community is Left 4 Dead 1 (due to its lack of support in pretty much all categories). I'm guessing that's the game you are talking about, but for all I know there could be some huge glitch in left 4 dead 2 that's never been fixed, so it could be the second.

 

[tipp6353]

So help me if Mass Effect 3 is not on Steam, I don't know what I will do.

I would have worried about the same thing... but then I remembered I already ordered the Mass Effect 3 Collector's edition on Amazon... so I'm covered anyway.

It'll be a cold day in hell before I support Origin. I'll go to D2D first if I'm really desperate.. I already have a few games on there anyway.

I actually hope they do make BF3 exclusive to Origin. I wasn't planning on getting it anyway... So hopefully it will crash and burn while MW3 does as well as ever. Stupid EA.

No I really don't want MW3 to do well because Activison wants money too, not to mention 15 dollars for every damned mappack. Everyone will buy the game, say how great it is for 1 or 2 weeks and then ***** about how crappy it is.

 

[Garrett Richey]

I find it interesting, funny and worrying how everyone is saying how stupid and evil EA is doing something like this. All we know at the moment about the reason is this:

EA claimed that Crysis 2 was removed from Steam because EA had a deal with another distributor that violated Steam's rules , rules, EA added, that other distributors do not have.

ie: It's Valves fault. I know that's coming from EA etc. etc. But it's certainly not entirely wrong, and probably mostly right.

I like Steam a lot, but I find it a bit worrisome that people basically bash EA for something that Valve has done. Valve has earned a lot of credit over the years, but that isn't a reason to stop reading and just assume Valve/Steam = right, other guy = wrong. Even if that other guy is EA.

I can't speak for others, but for me it's the fact that EA is a big publisher and publishers having complete control of the content distribution (and the ability to switch it off on a whim) is why I won't be using Origin. I know Valve requires Steam for all their games but they're the developer as opposed to the publisher and have a great track record as far as their treatment of customers (adding value through steam as opposed to locking legitimate purchasers out of games). It's not that Valve can't do anything wrong, just in this case they're the significantly lesser of two evils. I'm all for competition but it won't come from publishers because all that leads two is every publisher only selling their games through their own proprietary service which means assuming you don't buy games only published by one company you've got 4 or 5 (more?) different services you have to deal with as opposed to one (even if there are competing services to allow for choice).

 

[Strazdas]

it is sad that it takes an awful company to take the first step into destroying the giant monopoly that steam has while the good companies are acting like puppies on short leashes and comply with ridiculous steam rules.

 

[DeaconSawyer]

Not to break in between you two, but I just wanted to add that this is a concern of mine too. I've heard that if your Steam service gets shut off, you can lose access to all of the games you paid for, regardless of the reason for the service shutdown.

That's way, way out of line. The last thing we need in our civilization is for private companies to be able to take away something you've already paid for. And I don't CARE what the lawyers got put in the EULA, if you paid money for a product, you either get to keep it, or the company should have to refund the money to you.

If you are caught hacking game binaries (Mind I do mean hacking not using mods, but things like adding dlc and replacing a launcher to crack or things like that) your account may be suspended, and if you get caught but VAC (valve anti-cheat) you may lose multi-player privileges, but you always have access to your games as far as I know, even if your service is blocked. Consider the fact that you can still play games in offline mode. Offline mode does stop you playing games like CSS or Brink which require steam play, but all access to your game still works, and other services like Games for Windows live or Gamespy also function.

If you want to see what I mean, just unplug or disable your Ethernet when you start Steam. Then when the program is launched in offline mode, plug it back in. Personally I think we should be able to mess around the files without hindrance, but I understand why the measures are there, and since it does hinder modding, I really see no problem. Apart from that, not hacking or cheating are in the terms of service (as frankly they should be) so if you get caught, they are in the right to respond.

 

[w00tage]

Not to break in between you two, but I just wanted to add that this is a concern of mine too. I've heard that if your Steam service gets shut off, you can lose access to all of the games you paid for, regardless of the reason for the service shutdown.

That's way, way out of line. The last thing we need in our civilization is for private companies to be able to take away something you've already paid for. And I don't CARE what the lawyers got put in the EULA, if you paid money for a product, you either get to keep it, or the company should have to refund the money to you.

If you are caught hacking game binaries (Mind I do mean hacking not using mods, but things like adding dlc and replacing a launcher to crack or things like that) your account may be suspended, and if you get caught but VAC (valve anti-cheat) you may lose multi-player privileges, but you always have access to your games as far as I know, even if your service is blocked. Consider the fact that you can still play games in offline mode. Offline mode does stop you playing games like CSS or Brink which require steam play, but all access to your game still works, and other services like Games for Windows live or Gamespy also function.

If you want to see what I mean, just unplug or disable your Ethernet when you start Steam. Then when the program is launched in offline mode, plug it back in. Personally I think we should be able to mess around the files without hindrance, but I understand why the measures are there, and since it does hinder modding, I really see no problem. Apart from that, not hacking or cheating are in the terms of service (as frankly they should be) so if you get caught, they are in the right to respond.

Thanks, I knew about offline mode, but wasn't sure it could be done without a Steam login. Re denying access to multiplayer, that's my preferred answer to hackers and griefers.

However, putting the tendency of carrion birds to flock together and the recent trend to "bombing" ratings together, I am concerned that griefers and cheaters can falsely flag you as a cheater or griefer just by reporting you en masse. From what I understand, Valve does not actually look at game logs, just goes by how many reports you have (which is about as unprofessional as you get) so this is not an impossible scenario.

One other thing (what started me thinking about this in the first place), I learned that the Left 4 Dead series (which I own and play) don't let you restrict your play to official servers, instead connecting you to private servers at their whim. Then I discovered that private server admins can change your game's autoexec files to some extent (saw it happen when I was connected to a "competitive" server and I had to reset the changes by hand afterwards).

I'm not sure how much a server admin / plugin can do to your config, but you can personally make your game's autoexec run other scripts on startup, so if that's possible on the server-side, then it's perfectly possible for someone to make your game run hax scripts just for the lulz of getting you VAC-banned.

So those are my three main concerns about Steam or any other service that holds my apps for me. They're not guaranteeing a proper investigation into reports against you (do they even notify you?), they're not providing a trusted online service to connect to, and they may not have properly secured the game against remote hax.