should steam rule the gaming world?

[Vakz]

Short answer: No. One platform having monopoly is bad for the costumers.

Long answer: While I do like Steam, and with the sales they've had the last year or so, the amount of games I own on steam have risen from 5ish to 37. I think it's the currently best developed platform for selling games online, and can't remember the last time I had problems with it (would probably be when MW2 was released, but it was hard to separate the Steam-related problems with the ones caused by IWNet). That said, with Steam being the only major platform for doing this, they can set pretty much whatever prices they want (within certain limits of course. Too high, and people will just order games through the mail and wait until the next day or two). They already have higher prices than most normal stores, despite not having to deal with any physical media, nor sending physical mails, but it's usually too small margin to be bothered, as it's still a store that's available 24/7, and you get the game instantly. As long as Steam keeps having their sales, a (more or less) problem free client and fast download speeds, I won't be the one to complain. I guess all we can hope is that Steam has learned something from Google's "don't be evil"-motto, or that a strong competitor rises soon.

 

[TheWwwizard]

Monopolies are bad mmmkay

 

[UggBoot]

Let me point out that you can install a game from a CD and add it onto your games list. You still get the steam overlay and everything, even if it's not a steam game.

 

[Godhead]

Competition encourages a better work output. If McDonald's didn't have Wendy's or BK to compete with it would be all the shittier (and for the other two). If Steam completely takes over the PC gaming distribution then that means there is nothing to stop it from becoming a complete and horrid mess, at the most obvious they would probably stop doing the steam sales.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I can't believe there is anyone who would *support* this, after seeing the damage monopolies have done to the mass public in the past. Holy crap, let's all use iPhone's and iTunes, let our music and movies be DRM'd to be used on a single device ever in it's life regardless of if you lose damage it, how about rootkitted software and media? A bodged up insecure OS's on our computers, allow Facebook and cloud computing to hold all our data, and be charged with whatever they feel like in the process coz they 'RULE the WORLD'?

Oh but beyond all that, the main reason I am anti-Steam? 5 hours to install Half-Life 2 (more than once), on a Cable connection. I buy a game, means I want to freaking play it, you bastards. And offline mode only works once you've 'updated' (Steam platform and game) to the latest. Defeat the f**king purpose much??

 

[Justank]

I bought a new computer about six months ago and had no problem installing about 15 games from Steam. None of the ones I've bought since then, particularly from the recent Thanksgiving sale, have had any problems either, and I've never had a game come close to taking 5 hours to download. They usually take an hour or two tops. That's including stuff like Dawn of War 2, Borderlands, and Bioshock 2. The only problem I've had with offline mode is when a game like DoW2 requires me to be logged into Games For Windows Live as well to play, which I can't do offline.

 

[IsaacAmrenZhouTai]

I would say yes, definitly yes. Because anyone that lets you get free GOOD games and gives you discounts on others while helping you get patches and updates for those games will get an A++ in my book along with my trust. And everyone and anyone who said no has either had bad expirences, is a Debbie Downer, or a complete fanboy of another thing(like xbox).

 

[The_Fuzz22]

Not that I'm FOR this as a general idea but...

Buying games retail that register through Steam before being available offline, then complaining that you don't have an internet connection is the modern day equivalent to saying "Fire?! No no, we don't have any of that in this cave. Raw meat for us".

 

[The_Fuzz22]

I would say yes, definitly yes. Because anyone that lets you get free GOOD games and gives you discounts on others while helping you get patches and updates for those games will get an A++ in my book along with my trust. And everyone and anyone who said no has either had bad expirences, is a Debbie Downer, or a complete fanboy of another thing(like xbox).

Discounts you say?
Compared to what?

If they're the only people selling games the only thing you'd discounts on is their original price, which could be whatever they want it to be.
At the end of the day, you'd pay what they want you to pay or just not have the game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

 

[jboking]

You dont have to be online to play

Can't play Half-life 2 in offline mode. Therefore, you are wrong.

Spoiler: A challenger approaches

It's not HL2, but it is another single player Valve game that I own via steam, and it's running in offline mode. I'm seriously confused as to what non-multiplayer focused games aren't running in offline mode. I'll redownload HL2 and try it in offline mode if I must.

However, I insist that the truth to this argument is that SOME games run in offline mode quite well, the ones that don't usually have a multiplayer component.​

OT: Hell no. Every company needs competition to keep them from price gouging and other similar dick moves.

EDIT:

Spoiler: Scratch that, I'm totally wrong

Apparently games with a major online component work just fine too. What games are you guys having a problem with again? and are you sure it's not on your end?​

 

[Crystal Cuckoo]

It already rules my gaming world, so I would see no problem for me.

However, all the horny fourteen year olds from Xbox Live would migrate to my precious TF2 servers, so I would prefer it if Steam didn't have a monopoly.

 

[Dys]

No. Fuck no, a million times no.

Not everyone likes steam, in fact, some of us loathe it. If there's no reason for it, it shouldn't be included. I fucking hate that my boxed copy of DoW2 requires steam....it's unnecessary and tedious.

If we *must* mandate a store client to organist our games, at least go with something like impulse that can both run games without needing the client to activate, and properly backup game without needing to re-download half the fucking internet before they can be played. Oh, and next time I cop a "disconnected from the steam server" message in TF2, hence disallowing me to use unlock-able weapons until I disconnect from the server (which almost always results in my losing my place) I'm going postal...

Honestly, I don't understand how people are so willing to lap it up, how many years was it before they fixed the glitch where the "do not update" box was rechecked with a client update? Steam is an abysmal piece of software.

Oh, and to anyone from valve who happens to chance read this, I'd like for my updates to finish downloading before they start installing....downloading 50% of a package and instantly installing 50% (hence disallowing the game to be run until it has finished downloading) is stupid. Download to 100% before changing files for fucks sake.

 

[EllEzDee]

Not everyone enjoys steam. I hate that it takes like 5 minutes to startup sometimes, and a lot of people hate having to be online to play their games.
And i'd hate to give Gaben a monopoly on the markey, since it just means more money to spend on delaying EP3.

You dont have to be online to play.... Theres an offline mode..

I think it should be standard... It already is for me anyway...

Let's say you bought New Vegas retail, and don't have an internet connection. You just want to play the game you bought, but you have to be online to register for offline mode first.

Then you check the game requirements before you buy a game and dont buy it if you dont meet those requirements... Easy as that... Thats almost as saying that the game developers should give you a new graphics card because the one you have is outdated...

Unless the game wants you to hook it up with Steam and cant be played wihout that... And if so, Theres propably a big, fat sign on the back that says that... If then, read section above...

You defend the dumbest of the dumb parts of steam with a likewise answer.
Not everyone has an internet connection. There's nothing on the boxart which states that you REQUIRE an internet connection. That said, the offline mode works rarely; it depends on how lucky you are. Using your analogy, it's like the back of the box having no graphics card requirement.

And can people stop quoting me saying "guhhh you only haf 2 be online once" when that was pretty clearly mentioned in what i said: "you have to be online to register for offline mode first".

 

[GWarface]

Not everyone enjoys steam. I hate that it takes like 5 minutes to startup sometimes, and a lot of people hate having to be online to play their games.
And i'd hate to give Gaben a monopoly on the markey, since it just means more money to spend on delaying EP3.

You dont have to be online to play.... Theres an offline mode..

I think it should be standard... It already is for me anyway...

Let's say you bought New Vegas retail, and don't have an internet connection. You just want to play the game you bought, but you have to be online to register for offline mode first.

Then you check the game requirements before you buy a game and dont buy it if you dont meet those requirements... Easy as that... Thats almost as saying that the game developers should give you a new graphics card because the one you have is outdated...

Unless the game wants you to hook it up with Steam and cant be played wihout that... And if so, Theres propably a big, fat sign on the back that says that... If then, read section above...

You defend the dumbest of the dumb parts of steam with a likewise answer.
Not everyone has an internet connection. There's nothing on the boxart which states that you REQUIRE an internet connection. That said, the offline mode works rarely; it depends on how lucky you are. Using your analogy, it's like the back of the box having no graphics card requirement.

And can people stop quoting me saying "guhhh you only haf 2 be online once" when that was pretty clearly mentioned in what i said: "you have to be online to register for offline mode first".

Im pretty pretty sure it says at the bottom of the back of a retail game that you require an internet connection if it does, unless they have changed that sinces i last bought one...

But maybe we just got supah informative box art here in Denmark, who knows?

 

[Jester00]

i think most of the gamers today have a steam account.

That right there is wrong. I guess you are a bit ignorant (not meant in a mean way) of the entire gaming world, but most console gamers (and a lot of PC gamers even) out there don't have a clue what Steam even is.

yeah, sorry, i forgot to say that i mean pc gamers. the playstation guys have their ps network and the xbox ... i dunno, but i think they have something.

 

[lacktheknack]

Let's look at the facts shall we?
Valve = Evil.
Digital Distribution = Evil.
A digital distribution platform that Valve runs and profits from = The greatest threat to gaming there is.
It must be stopped.

I still don't understand this. Explain?

 

[Assassin Xaero]

i think most of the gamers today have a steam account.

That right there is wrong. I guess you are a bit ignorant (not meant in a mean way) of the entire gaming world, but most console gamers (and a lot of PC gamers even) out there don't have a clue what Steam even is.

yeah, sorry, i forgot to say that i mean pc gamers. the playstation guys have their ps network and the xbox ... i dunno, but i think they have something.

I think there is an xbox live market place or something... I guess like GFWL, only it works? I dunno. But anyway, competition is always good for the PC market. Mostly because competition means more sales, more sales mean cheaper games, and being a poor college kid... yah, cheap shit!

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Fuck no.

Steam is great, imo.

But having competition is best. It spurs innovation, and sales.

Is this site so brainwashed and in love with Valve to really think that making money isn't #1 on Valve's business priority list? Without competition, they'd have no need for the Steam sales, and interface updates.

 

[SomeBoredGuy]

While it's never good to have one company holding a monopoly, there are a lot worse companies to pick than Valve. For all the mishaps that have gone on (Portal 2 before Episode 3?), they're still pretteh cool guys. Especially the sales.

Wait, scratch that. Steam should definitely not get a monopoly. If it does that, then bye-bye sales.

 

[SomebodyNowhere]

I enjoy Steam, but a monopoly would not be in the general consumer's best interest.