Poll: Will Steam take over the world?

[SnowBurst]

thing is valve make amazing games half life, portal (personally not fond of left 4 dead but thats just me not like arcadey zombie shooters) and others, they make HILARIOUS meet the squad videos so they make great games great films and steam isnt a headache to use and its just easy and usefull the one thing they can do better is source engine, its good at what it does but valve could make a tonne more if they made engines as powerful as cryengine (major crytek fanboy here lol) and unreal engine because it opens up the ultra real graphics market sector to them so if they do that and do it well then theyve pretty much boned every developer out there. i noticed crytek are releasing that "warface" f2p cryengine 3 cod style shooter which will own everything out there probably knowing crytek but i could see valve coming in with something better doubt they will but cud happen

 

[Fluffythepoo]

certainly hope so.. their desks are on wheels... ON WHEELS I TELL YOU!

 

[TheSteeleStrap]

It very well might. That would be ok with me. No one takes PC games in trade as far as I can tell anyway, so having them all digital isn't a problem with me.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

Not everyone wants all of their games to be digital. I prefer my physical games. As long as people like me exist, I don't think Steam will take over the world. It'll become a big big service, but won't take over the world.

I go half-and-half when I can help it. I refused to buy Borderlands 2 digital, because a download is not worth $60 to me. However, I was able to buy a boxed copy that links into Steam, so I got my physical copy along with my always available Steam copy. Sure, if Steam goes down, I will lose access to the game, but so will everyone else with the digital. At least I will have another box for my collection.

I think if publishers want me to let go of boxes completely (I like being able to by physical things!), then they are going to have to get around the idea that their games are worth $60. When you've cut out the retail and production middlemen, you're just trying to gouge customers, and I won't be a part of that. I'm far more likely to buy your game when it's $5 or less (and maybe never play it, but why would they care if I do or not?), so sell it to me at that rate.

Games are 60 bucks because of all the physical stuff. The Blu-Rays/DVDs, the books(even though it's minimalistic enough not to count as much of a cost), the cover art, the boxes themselves. And I agree, because what the publishers don't seem to realize is that the physical goods are what rockets the price up to 60 bucks, not the games themselves.

 

[SajuukKhar]

And I agree, because what the publishers don't seem to realize is that the physical goods are what rockets the price up to 60 bucks, not the games themselves.

No they do realize that, but they also realize that undercutting the retailers isn't a good idea either.

As long as games are sold at 60 dollars in brick stores, they will be sold online for the same price, except at places like amazon, which brick stores despise.

 

[Vegosiux]

The comparison was for the legality of these actions. If you lose your Steam account, you lose the license you paid for, allowing you to legally download those games. Because your license to that game is gone, the copies you download later are illegal. Doesn't matter that you've "paid your dues" or not.

Wait wait, didn't Valve recently say that they'll let you access the games you bought off Steam even after your account is terminated for any reason? So that you can still play what you bought, just can't use the service anymore?

Or did I get that bit wrong?

Also, I'd rather not see Steam take over the world. Valve is good the way it is, but the system they have running now is not something they could keep running on a bigger scale...plus, someone has to be out there, reminding us of all the crap that can happen to us if we get complacent.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

The comparison was for the legality of these actions. If you lose your Steam account, you lose the license you paid for, allowing you to legally download those games. Because your license to that game is gone, the copies you download later are illegal. Doesn't matter that you've "paid your dues" or not.

Wait wait, didn't Valve recently say that they'll let you access the games you bought off Steam even after your account is terminated for any reason? So that you can still play what you bought, just can't use the service anymore?

Or did I get that bit wrong?

Also, I'd rather not see Steam take over the world. Valve is good the way it is, but the system they have running now is not something they could keep running on a bigger scale...plus, someone has to be out there, reminding us of all the crap that can happen to us if we get complacent.

Sorry, but I didn't say anything about not being able to play the games you downloaded. So yeah, you did get that bit wrong. But what if you deleted your games whether on purpose, accident, or it ended up that something went wrong and you needed a new computer? If you can't use the Steam service, can you still download your games again? I don't use Steam, but to me, being unable to use the service implies being unable to redownload your games. But I could be wrong.

 

[velnalops]

It might. Or might not. Steam has some flaws even right now ("unavailable or too busy servers", half of the game library being impossible to launch in offline mode, etc.), and the competitors like GOG, Gamersgate and Origin (with over 20 million registered accounts right now) are at least starting to see Steam in the horizon, so I would at least hope that it stays in the range, where the competition matters. Also, I think it would be better for the pure service part of Steam, if the user-base is not the whole gamer population at once.

 

[Signa]

Not everyone wants all of their games to be digital. I prefer my physical games. As long as people like me exist, I don't think Steam will take over the world. It'll become a big big service, but won't take over the world.

I go half-and-half when I can help it. I refused to buy Borderlands 2 digital, because a download is not worth $60 to me. However, I was able to buy a boxed copy that links into Steam, so I got my physical copy along with my always available Steam copy. Sure, if Steam goes down, I will lose access to the game, but so will everyone else with the digital. At least I will have another box for my collection.

I think if publishers want me to let go of boxes completely (I like being able to by physical things!), then they are going to have to get around the idea that their games are worth $60. When you've cut out the retail and production middlemen, you're just trying to gouge customers, and I won't be a part of that. I'm far more likely to buy your game when it's $5 or less (and maybe never play it, but why would they care if I do or not?), so sell it to me at that rate.

Games are 60 bucks because of all the physical stuff. The Blu-Rays/DVDs, the books(even though it's minimalistic enough not to count as much of a cost), the cover art, the boxes themselves. And I agree, because what the publishers don't seem to realize is that the physical goods are what rockets the price up to 60 bucks, not the games themselves.

Yeah, some time after this post, a friend was texting me, and I think I said it better then. You're just buying a digital flag for an account. That is not worth very much at all. Yes, that digital flag can be worth hundreds hours of enjoyment, and that is why I can not feel bad about paying a system $10 to change an .ini file from a "Signaownsthisgame=0" to "Signaownsthisgame=1".

But $60 for that flag? Get the fuck out! The only way that is happening is if BL3 is digital only. I still don't mind full price if I think a game deserves it, but most games don't deserve it.

 

[SnowBurst]

certainly hope so.. their desks are on wheels... ON WHEELS I TELL YOU!

just got portal devs all spinning around lmao

 

[SnowBurst]

It very well might. That would be ok with me. No one takes PC games in trade as far as I can tell anyway, so having them all digital isn't a problem with me.

imo the only REAL digital distributor is steam tbh i dont know of any others that are up to par

 

[SnowBurst]

Not everyone wants all of their games to be digital. I prefer my physical games. As long as people like me exist, I don't think Steam will take over the world. It'll become a big big service, but won't take over the world.

I go half-and-half when I can help it. I refused to buy Borderlands 2 digital, because a download is not worth $60 to me. However, I was able to buy a boxed copy that links into Steam, so I got my physical copy along with my always available Steam copy. Sure, if Steam goes down, I will lose access to the game, but so will everyone else with the digital. At least I will have another box for my collection.

I think if publishers want me to let go of boxes completely (I like being able to by physical things!), then they are going to have to get around the idea that their games are worth $60. When you've cut out the retail and production middlemen, you're just trying to gouge customers, and I won't be a part of that. I'm far more likely to buy your game when it's $5 or less (and maybe never play it, but why would they care if I do or not?), so sell it to me at that rate.

Games are 60 bucks because of all the physical stuff. The Blu-Rays/DVDs, the books(even though it's minimalistic enough not to count as much of a cost), the cover art, the boxes themselves. And I agree, because what the publishers don't seem to realize is that the physical goods are what rockets the price up to 60 bucks, not the games themselves.

agreed bu also if people buy the game all the time they bump the price up cough cod cough lol

 

[SnowBurst]

It might. Or might not. Steam has some flaws even right now ("unavailable or too busy servers", half of the game library being impossible to launch in offline mode, etc.), and the competitors like GOG, Gamersgate and Origin (with over 20 million registered accounts right now) are at least starting to see Steam in the horizon, so I would at least hope that it stays in the range, where the competition matters. Also, I think it would be better for the pure service part of Steam, if the user-base is not the whole gamer population at once.

origin users mainly only use origin because of EA games they would buy it on steam if they could i only have it for bf3 tbh and i dont have that problem with steam but im british so diff servers

 

[SnowBurst]

Not everyone wants all of their games to be digital. I prefer my physical games. As long as people like me exist, I don't think Steam will take over the world. It'll become a big big service, but won't take over the world.

I go half-and-half when I can help it. I refused to buy Borderlands 2 digital, because a download is not worth $60 to me. However, I was able to buy a boxed copy that links into Steam, so I got my physical copy along with my always available Steam copy. Sure, if Steam goes down, I will lose access to the game, but so will everyone else with the digital. At least I will have another box for my collection.

I think if publishers want me to let go of boxes completely (I like being able to by physical things!), then they are going to have to get around the idea that their games are worth $60. When you've cut out the retail and production middlemen, you're just trying to gouge customers, and I won't be a part of that. I'm far more likely to buy your game when it's $5 or less (and maybe never play it, but why would they care if I do or not?), so sell it to me at that rate.

Games are 60 bucks because of all the physical stuff. The Blu-Rays/DVDs, the books(even though it's minimalistic enough not to count as much of a cost), the cover art, the boxes themselves. And I agree, because what the publishers don't seem to realize is that the physical goods are what rockets the price up to 60 bucks, not the games themselves.

Yeah, some time after this post, a friend was texting me, and I think I said it better then. You're just buying a digital flag for an account. That is not worth very much at all. Yes, that digital flag can be worth hundreds hours of enjoyment, and that is why I can not feel bad about paying a system $10 to change an .ini file from a "Signaownsthisgame=0" to "Signaownsthisgame=1".

But $60 for that flag? Get the fuck out! The only way that is happening is if BL3 is digital only. I still don't mind full price if I think a game deserves it, but most games don't deserve it.

dont forget you dont have to buy a seperate console for exclusives or an os because pc is pc everythings done for windows (maybe virtual pc a older os)

 

[Kragg]

The comparison was for the legality of these actions. If you lose your Steam account, you lose the license you paid for, allowing you to legally download those games. Because your license to that game is gone, the copies you download later are illegal. Doesn't matter that you've "paid your dues" or not.

Wait wait, didn't Valve recently say that they'll let you access the games you bought off Steam even after your account is terminated for any reason? So that you can still play what you bought, just can't use the service anymore?

Or did I get that bit wrong?

Also, I'd rather not see Steam take over the world. Valve is good the way it is, but the system they have running now is not something they could keep running on a bigger scale...plus, someone has to be out there, reminding us of all the crap that can happen to us if we get complacent.

Sorry, but I didn't say anything about not being able to play the games you downloaded. So yeah, you did get that bit wrong. But what if you deleted your games whether on purpose, accident, or it ended up that something went wrong and you needed a new computer? If you can't use the Steam service, can you still download your games again? I don't use Steam, but to me, being unable to use the service implies being unable to redownload your games. But I could be wrong.

That is exactly why I try to avoid Steam and other digital portals, I want control over my own stuff. Seems a very dangerous thing to let one company control all your games, I know people with dozens to hundreds of games in their library.

Makes it sounds like a bank and I dont think there is such a thing as "too big to fail" for companies like Valve.

 

[SnowBurst]

The comparison was for the legality of these actions. If you lose your Steam account, you lose the license you paid for, allowing you to legally download those games. Because your license to that game is gone, the copies you download later are illegal. Doesn't matter that you've "paid your dues" or not.

Wait wait, didn't Valve recently say that they'll let you access the games you bought off Steam even after your account is terminated for any reason? So that you can still play what you bought, just can't use the service anymore?

Or did I get that bit wrong?

Also, I'd rather not see Steam take over the world. Valve is good the way it is, but the system they have running now is not something they could keep running on a bigger scale...plus, someone has to be out there, reminding us of all the crap that can happen to us if we get complacent.

Sorry, but I didn't say anything about not being able to play the games you downloaded. So yeah, you did get that bit wrong. But what if you deleted your games whether on purpose, accident, or it ended up that something went wrong and you needed a new computer? If you can't use the Steam service, can you still download your games again? I don't use Steam, but to me, being unable to use the service implies being unable to redownload your games. But I could be wrong.

That is exactly why I try to avoid Steam and other digital portals, I want control over my own stuff. Seems a very dangerous thing to let one company control all your games, I know people with dozens to hundreds of games in their library.

Makes it sounds like a bank and I dont think there is such a thing as "too big to fail" for companies like Valve.

you install the games to HDD so you can launch them offline from steam

 

[Something Amyss]

No, blocking people from playing things they've paid for and then saying "oh, well fuck you, you paid full-price for an indefinite license" is unfair.

Except that IS what you're paying for.

If you don't like it, maybe you should not sign up. If the principle bothers you so much, then make a stand. Do something else.

Steam still has the right to change its EULA at any point. And if you don't like their new EULA, it's splitsville for your games.

 

[SnowBurst]

No, blocking people from playing things they've paid for and then saying "oh, well fuck you, you paid full-price for an indefinite license" is unfair.

Except that IS what you're paying for.

If you don't like it, maybe you should not sign up. If the principle bothers you so much, then make a stand. Do something else.

Steam still has the right to change its EULA at any point. And if you don't like their new EULA, it's splitsville for your games.

can kinda get the games off the install folder and convert them not to use steam i guess in theory it would work

 

[SnowBurst]

I'm hooked at this time. They can aggrevate, but not more so than others. At least I get some great deals there and can play in more than one location.

i look at this market ie the digital distribution as steam at the top looking down on every other one try to be better while fighting each other, basicly its the halo effect halo dominates fps's

 

[SnowBurst]

personally idc what os as long as it holds steam because i can deal with the rest but if i was to choose it wud have to be linux. ive allways loved the variety of linux and ubuntu is free after all so i sorta hope windows dies but sorta hope it doesnt because id have to get used to a new system