Dys said:
See above rant. They may not get to decide 100%, but they have absurd region locking policy and, when boxed copies from stores can be cheaper (I don't frequent at game stores, but last time I went game shopping I saw black ops for $60au-this was within a week of release) the "they don't determine the price" argument doesn't excuse it. Especially if we're talking about how EAs platform could potentially succeed (fun fact, EA DO control the price of their games, and can sell them for whatever damn price they want to attract people to their online service).
Ok, I can see your point on that, though I do honestly think that the region locking was put in at the behest of other third-party developers. Does EA separate its own store based on region? And does it have high Australian prices, while blocking them from the rest of the store? Sure, they may be able to set their own prices, but it doesn't mean they will when they can get away with upping the price. I haven't checked, though, and if they do use a more fair system, then credit to EA, and I'll drop this point. As it stands, it's a rather slim point anyway, because of the fact that Aussies get charged so much on Steam.
Dys said:
The complaint is about when they're updating, not the initial download. And yes, all other platforms that I've used will let you play a game while the update files are being downloaded (either paused or actively downloading in the background). This amazing, groundbreaking ability to download updates then later patch them at your leisure was discovered way, way back when patches were first made available. First, you'd acquire the patch in its completion. Then, you would install it. If you're internet cap ran out or connection died, it didn't prevent you from playing the unupdated version of the game.
Ah, that makes more sense. Yes, I do think it would be better if Steam did that. In fact, I'm going to go suggest that to them right now. Even I find it annoying to have to wait when I just want to play my stupid game. A better system would be for them to cache the downloads somewhere else, and then overwrite the main game files when they're available, instead of just downloading straight to the main game files directly, and then screwing people out of playing the game until it's done updating. I'm interesting in seeing how Origin does this, especially if other D2D services already do so.
Dys said:
Look, that was a mess of a point so I'll straight up admit that it's my fault there's confusion with what I meant. To (hopefully) better explain my issue, I'll give an example:
The university I go to blocks pretty much all connections (even pop email is blocked). I have a horrible timetable, and have many dead spots in my days. I tend to counter this by using my laptop to game at uni during said breaks, however, my laptop is also used for work. The horrible issue is, that any instability in my system that necessitates a reboot fucks steam (even battery failure can have this effect). I can no longer log in as 'offline'. This is very frustrating.
This is, of course, part of the nature of how steam works and I get that its a DRM first...only, I see no reason why if it can retain the username/password from a previous session why it can't also retain the information that I was logged in and online a few hours before (and automatically switch to offline mode)....It's more of a bug than a design flaw (in that I doubt valve consciously decided for the system to work that way), but it is irritating.
Hmm, that is strange. After a computer restart, Steam won't let you log in offline? Or is it something that forces Steam to close, like a crash, before it can properly save it's data? If it's the first one, that definitely shouldn't be happening. If you go offline once, you should be able to keep signing in offline as many times as you like before going online again.
Dys said:
It isn't frequent. In fact, it would be fair to say it crashes rarely, but because of how harshly it penalizes users when it does crash I felt it should be mentioned. This would be solved if the above mention bug were to be ironed out (it crashes, but automatically logs back in offline).
I expect that the reason this is happening is because(and this is speculation, I don't actually know how Steam works, but it seems to make sense to me) Steam is constantly using the cache file, for more than just user data. If Steam crashes, the data can't get stored properly. Normally, they just rebuild the data upon the next login, but obviouly that can't happen if you're offline.
One way I can suggest to fix this is to make a backup copy of the cache upon starting Steam and signing in. That way, if the cache gets invalidated somehow, it can restore from the backup and keep using it from there. This might also solve your problem up above, if the computer's being restarted is improperly closing Steam.
Dys said:
An INTERNET connection is not always available, especially if one isn't home or one has gone over their data cap.
I apologize for that one, after thinking it over, it was honestly a pretty stupid thing to say. After all, you're using offline mode for a reason
Dys said:
That option is periodically reset with platform updates (in fact, I think it may be reset every platform update). Again, there would be a simple fix to my frustration here, but after some 10 years it hasn't been addressed.
Agreed, Steam should properly save user data between updates, instead of overwriting them. I expect the reason for overwriting is because of a change of available user options, which necessitates a different user data layout than previously, but instead of converting the old file, it just overwrites it with the new one with defaults.
I expect the reason for this is to solve the issue of backwards compatibility; obviously, just supporting the previous user data layout wouldn't be a problem. Just read the current data and add what you need. But Steam goes through tons of iterations; what if someone doesn't update their client in a while, and missed a couple user data updates? It might corrupt the file to try to update that.
Of course, an easy fix for that is to just examine the data layout. If it seems to match the previous version, update it as you know how, otherwise, overwrite it.
Dys said:
See, I'm a bit of an oldie in these gaming communities. I remember that, back before steam, DRM was a code printed on the back of an instruction booklet, a requirement for the games disc to be in the tray and occasionally some form of write protection on the disc. Needing to go online to validate or a game, having to use only a single source for downloading patches and having to run a non-essential program in the background were all unnecessary, way over the top and a general pain in the ass. While other publishers have interpreted steams success as gamers being masochistic and, as such, have delivered much more horrible DRMs, steam still is, at least in my eyes, extreme and hugely unnecissary.
I can see that as a valid point, as well, it's mainly the developers that aren't willing to go back to those days anymore, though. It's very hard to find a game these days that doesn't require to you, at the very least, go online to activate it. Then there are the games that need to have you constantly having a direct internet connection to them, or tell you that you can only install it on 3 computers, and after that, screw you. That's what I was comparing Steam to, and I guess I didn't think to compare it to how it used to be. Comparing it with that, while I don't see running Steam as a nuisance myself, because of the fact that it doesn't have a large footprint and computers can easily handle it, as well as being connected to my friends, I can see the point being made, because you really didn't need all that before. It does seem silly to be necessary now. To have Steam running as a bonus, with friend connectivity and all that? Sure. But needing it to always be running, even after the game was activated? We could do without that.
While I can see a problem with there only being a single source for Steam patches, it should be noted that the Steam servers are pretty good at handling loads, so it's not often that you'll run into problems updating. It would be nice if we could get the file separately somewhere else and apply it within Steam somehow, though.
Dys said:
Also, worth noting that this response isn't only at the dark freak. I've had PMs and several replies on this thread and I want to make it clear that I'm not saying, by any stretch that steam is "the worst" or whatever. It has some very irritating bugs that could easily be fixed and have not. imo the reason they are not is because PC gamers are not immune to the rabid fanboyism of the console wars. The "I have an xbox, xbox is superior" train of thought it was alive and kicking within the steam community, if people stopped rabidly defending their choice of platform and actually gave objective criticisms everyones experience would be improved. [
b]Every[/b] platform, DRM, and design choice is flawed (this includes the best, the worst, the mediocre and the undeveloped), when someone points out a flaw it isn't necessarily a flat out attack on that product, merely an observation. If everyone was level headed enough to make the same observations, the problems would be fixed.
As the thread is about the possibility of EA launching a competing product on steam, and whether it could or could not be a success, the answer is it certainly could be. We haven't seen the product yet, but EA have a huge library of popular IPs that people will buy, EA have direct control over the price of the games they sell (meaning they could easily undercut valves prices on steam) and, if they are smart, they will model their system off of steam, imitating or developing on the features that people like (ie masses of free shit in TF2, free weekend trails of multiplayer games etc) and cut out the things people don't like (the shit I've been crapping on about through the rant). Hell, they could even add in some cool features (savegames could be backed up online, single player games do not need the client to be running after they have been authenticated ->whatever). And, as many people have no doubt realized, having a platform that can actually compete with steam can only be a good thing.
Most of this, I honestly agree with. You have to be willing to look at the good and the bad of something to be able to get anywhere. While I do agree that some competition for Steam would cause nothing but improvements, I really don't think that competition is going to come from EA. Maybe they can change their ways, but I do not like their track record at all. While Valve could do with improving Steam in quite a few ways, they at least haven't tried some of the shit EA has. If they are able to do so, then kudos to them, but as I've said, I just don't see that happening.
Also, I note that EA has put Alice: Madness Returns on Steam, but one week AFTER the release, and it didn't put the deluxe edition that came with extras, along with a downloadable copy of the original game. Even dumber, they took the deluxe version off of their own site, which, now that the game itself is on Steam, would have been one of the only reasons to buy it off of Origin.
