Steam Gets Civilized

[ThrashJazzAssassin]

I consider this entire argument irrelevant; I'm still playing Civ 2, and it's still brilliant.

 

[cyber_andyy]

I think I'll end up skipping Civ 5, at least until it's ridiculously cheap and bundled with all the inevitable expansions. I can live with Steam if it's giving me things almost for free.

Steam is really bloated for what most Civ players will want it to do: Install Civ 5. Impulse can do that easy, with no delays afterward beyond the actual game's loading times. But Steam needs to run every time the game starts, which adds 2-3 minutes of extra loading time. It's no huge deal-breaker, but it is irritating. It's like tacking a 2 minute long unskippable cinematic to the game, which plays every single time the game starts. I normally disable all the cinematics too... but Steam is no mere Bink video, sadly.

I think the biggest problem is that Steam is trying to be the Microsoft Windows of online game sellers. They want the Steam Client to do everything anyone could want it to do, and so it does. Which means it takes quite a while to boot up, since it loads everything on startup, not just the "I would like to play Civ 5" feature. And so the people (i.e. me) looking for that more specific function get annoyed, because we don't want chat, or blogs, or achievements, or news, or the store, or autopatching. Just Civ 5.

The worst part is that it's a great leap backwards for Civ fans. Retail Civ 3 has a CD check; no drm off Impulse. Retail Civ 4 had a CD check, later patched out by Firaxis; no drm off Impulse. Civ 5 has Steamworks... forever.

Oh my god! What is it with you people? Steam, DOESNT take 2 minutes to load, and autopatching can be turned of!

 

[gringbot]

well my problem is that with civ 5, its all or nothing with buying it on steam.

you want the map pack? preorder it on steam. want the extra race and other weird things, buy the deluxe, only on steam.

i want a box with those extras, but i wouldnt get the bonus map pack if i just get a box, and the extras on the deluxe alone arent worth it. i like having a nice clean box filled as something to show that i own it, and having the manual as a physical object is another very nice thing. its just so "steam or die", i hate ultimatums like this, because its not good for the consumer at all.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

The main reason I'm so annoyed with the fact that Civ V will be exclusive for Steam is that I won't be able to buy it without Steam. Correct me if I'm wrong but a Steam account isn't free. Why would I want to spend extra money on an account that I'll probably rarely use just so that I can get one game? I just wish you could buy it off Steam or buy a hard-copy of it (that doesn't require you to download it off Steam anyway).

I'm not that knowledgable about Steam so some of my arguement may be void due to invalid "facts", so in reality I might not have that much trouble with Steam. I'd still prefer to have the option to buy it in a store though.

 

[The Singularity]

Eh I mark it a a resource hungry virus. For the short time I used it with Vistas security turned all the way up I got to watch it mess with places it shouldn't have been in. But I got rid of vista and opted for ignorance with whatever it wants to do with my computer, because sure its editing stuff it shouldn't be but I never notice any difference?
I love Steams deals and no disk requirements and suggest it to everyone, but seeing it crawl around in my computer under Vistas unrelenting glare kinda made me afraid of it.

 

[Bruce Edwards]

The main reason I'm so annoyed with the fact that Civ V will be exclusive for Steam is that I won't be able to buy it without Steam. Correct me if I'm wrong but a Steam account isn't free. Why would I want to spend extra money on an account that I'll probably rarely use just so that I can get one game? I just wish you could buy it off Steam or buy a hard-copy of it (that doesn't require you to download it off Steam anyway).

I'm not that knowledgable about Steam so some of my arguement may be void due to invalid "facts", so in reality I might not have that much trouble with Steam. I'd still prefer to have the option to buy it in a store though.

1. STEAM is free with any STEAM-based game. Valve has never charged for owning a STEAM account.

2. Unless I've misunderstood something huge, you will still be able to buy CIV V in stores. It will still come on a disc. But you will need to create a STEAM account to activate it. Think of it as a kindler, gentler version of SecuROM. SecuROM with benefits, that tells you where and how it's installed and doesn't enforce activation limits. Actually, it's nothing like SecuROM. But my point is - you can still purchase Civ V instore.

That said, I dislike Steamworks as DRM simply because it locks out D2D and Impulse. If this was Microsoft pulling moves like this, we would be damning them for anti-competitive practices.

(I do like STEAM though. Has made migrating PC's and managing my games much easier.)

 

[ender214]

I think its great that Civilization has come to Steam. Steam has always been a great client in my opinion and has never given me too many problems for the convenience it provides.

In fact, I would actually like Steam to become the standard of PC gaming. It would be nice to see the PC have a consolidated platform that the consoles have, and it would be really nice to see Steam become for PC's what Xbox Live and Playstation Network are for Xbox 360 and PS3, though I admit it still has a way to go (connection failures, I'm looking at you).

 

[ender214]

I don't get why people are so confused about Steam, it updates the game for you, even if you don't like online gameplay, that's not a bad thing.

It does it whether you want it to or not, and not every patch has actually improved/fixed a game, I've lost count of the number of times a patch has caused problems and instability all on its own. It gathers data about your playing habits and system, including installed software and transmits them for third parties to use (boot Steam up on a system with an ATI card installed and then one with an nVidia card installed, the prices in the store change depending on your system), and those are the features we "know " about, what else is/could be running?.

It's all well and good to ask us to "trust them" that their software does what they say it does, and nothing else. How about they "trust us" that we're not going to pirate the games, and give us the option not to use their system?

And that is the biggest point, most fundamentally, it limits your choice as a consumer.

You can turn off auto-patching if you wish, it will just remove online play, which happens even without Steam if you don't patch a game you get out of a box. Companies can gather this information about your system with or without Steam using their own private DRM, which 2K would have used if it had not switched to Steam.

DRM does not give you a choice to use their system either. And I have found Steam's system to be quite liberal. They only force you to connect to Steam network if you have downloaded the game on multiple computers. Otherwise you can play the game without connecting to the Steam network. Just set it to offline mode or block it with you firewall if your concerned about them taking system information.

You can still buy the game in a box. You'll just need to install Steam before playing it.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

The main reason I'm so annoyed with the fact that Civ V will be exclusive for Steam is that I won't be able to buy it without Steam. Correct me if I'm wrong but a Steam account isn't free. Why would I want to spend extra money on an account that I'll probably rarely use just so that I can get one game? I just wish you could buy it off Steam or buy a hard-copy of it (that doesn't require you to download it off Steam anyway).

I'm not that knowledgable about Steam so some of my arguement may be void due to invalid "facts", so in reality I might not have that much trouble with Steam. I'd still prefer to have the option to buy it in a store though.

1. STEAM is free with any STEAM-based game. Valve has never charged for owning a STEAM account.

2. Unless I've misunderstood something huge, you will still be able to buy CIV V in stores. It will still come on a disc. But you will need to create a STEAM account to activate it. Think of it as a kindler, gentler version of SecuROM. SecuROM with benefits, that tells you where and how it's installed and doesn't enforce activation limits. Actually, it's nothing like SecuROM. But my point is - you can still purchase Civ V instore.

That said, I dislike Steamworks as DRM simply because it locks out D2D and Impulse. If this was Microsoft pulling moves like this, we would be damning them for anti-competitive practices.

(I do like STEAM though. Has made migrating PC's and managing my games much easier.)

Oh cool. I thought I heard that Steam cost money to make an account and that I thought that it was only going to be avaible on Steam. I'd still rather be able to play Civ V without having to go through the hassle of getting a Steam account and downloading it onto a computer.

 

[Delusibeta]

A lot of the rage isn't helped by misinformation. No retail version and Steam costing money to create an account seems to be the more popular urban legends lately. I have no idea where Cartographer got the "price changes depending on your graphics card" idea from.

 

[MooseHowl]

Oh my god! What is it with you people? Steam, DOESNT take 2 minutes to load, and autopatching can be turned of!

Yes, it does take that long to load. 1 minute and 40 seconds, last I counted, and longer if there's a patch somewhere on the internet that it decides to look for. Even longer than that for many people, because my computer is relatively new, and Steam doesn't always play nice with antivirus/firewalls/windows.

Additionally, the disable autopatching option is extremely buggy, and resets its state frequently - for example, Steam has started downloading Portal patches twice this week for me, even with autopatching for Portal turned off. Had to pause them both times to resume later, to keep my connection usable.

Like I said, if you use a lot of Steam features (the non-buggy ones, I mean), it becomes worth it. Otherwise it's a waste of system resources, and a speed-bump to accessing the programs hidden behind it.

 

[Woodsey]

"I get the sense that a good portion of the Civilization fans are pretty much hardcore strategy types, with a preference for old-school depth and turn-based gameplay. They don't seem to go in for shooters and other action games, which explains why they're just now becoming aware of Steam."

Huh?

There's 100 entries in the "Strategy" section of the Steam store, and the highlighted section of that sentence really doesn't make sense to me.

Besides, in-store shelf space for PCs is getting smaller and smaller, and I can't imagine strategy games being top priority for that dwindling space.

 

[Signa]

I know the last thing you want is another Steam fanboy shoving his opinion down your throat, but I just wanted to say that I felt the same as you when I bought the Orange Box. However, now that I have it, I find it to be a program that I want to run on my PC. The chat and friend list stuff makes it functional in more ways than I could have expected. I wasn't planning on buying any games from their store because I like my physical copies, but when they started offering games for $3-$5, I couldn't say no. I'm at 186 games now, and I have no regrets and no problem with the way Steam treats me. Maybe you will have a similar experience, maybe you won't, but I feel in control of the games I own because Steam treats me like an adult. GfWL came with another game I got, and it feels so restrictive by comparison.

Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware of how good Steam is and the services it provides. Not least because the majority of this site may as well be on Valve's payroll. I have absolutely nothing wrong with the application itself.

However on a principle level, I should be able to choose to install it or not. You can argue I do still have the choice by not buying the game, which I indeed will not. I refuse to encourage such behaviours, because whilst at the moment it is harmless and may benefit me in setting up said installation; it is the beginning of a slope I wish the games industry wouldn't slide down.

I still don't know why developers can't just return to paper activation codes if they really want to do something about piracy. If they can place DRM in the game, someone can take it out - and if I can see this I don't see why they can't.

Instead, they've removed one sale from someone who's bought every game in the series. And I'm sure they'll be others.

Yeah, I hear you there. I'm just shocked to find out that Civ4 was DRM free, and this is the route they take with Civ5. I remember boycotting HL2 for the same reason. I ended up pirating a no-steam version, but I technically owned it because I was given a voucher for it with my video card (Radeon 9600XT FTW!). Luckily, when the Orange Box came out I was able to pick it up legitimately then, and the value of the Orange Box wasn't diminished by pre-owning one of the games.

 

[Snow Fire]

Steam for me takes only a few seconds to start up, and patches, and updates take no more than a minute to finish. I see no issues with Steam eating up resources. Stand alone, it takes up 1.49 MBs of space, uses less than 16,000k of memory, and uses 0 CPU for me.

Steam for me is extremely convenient.

 

[Doctor VonSexMachine]

Great article. You really made a die-hard steam fan think about why this might not appeal to everyone. I appreciated the reminder about EA. We need to judge companies by what they are doing *right now* instead of remembering what they once were. Thank god Valve is still rocking my socks.

 

[Fenixius]

boot Steam up on a system with an ATI card installed and then one with an nVidia card installed, the prices in the store change depending on your system

Please provide more details. I have not heard of this, and would investigate it thoroughly.

 

[Fenixius]

With regards to people complaining about lack of choice with Steam, that's fine, but you should have started about 10 years ago, when people first used SecuROM and Starforce and whatnot. Any third party program, or any program entirely designed to limit your rights as a consumer is a bad thing. The reason there's so much opposition to your arguments here on this thread is that this particular program does a lot for you, too, instead of just limiting your rights. You get something back in exchange.

It's impossible to convince any major publisher to release PC games with zero DRM; they'll always have something, and you don't get a choice. Suck it up or leave. Some DRM I will deal with, like Steam. Some I will not, like UPlay.

Now, on to discourse with others:

Um... a game shoudl never be exclusively on steam. That's fucking retarded.

So you're saying the console gaming market is stupid, too?

... no, I'm not. A distribution service is not the same as a fucking console.

Yes, it is, in this case. A console is a PC with a ridiculous amount of DRM on it. Steam is on a PC, with a tiny bit of DRM. It's even nicer than a console.

Disks are a form of DRM. They limit the ways in which you can play the game. Specifically, only on one machine at a time, with the physical authentication device. You may or may not be able to bring your data from the original machine where it was created to another. You may also only play on one very specific kind of machine - a specific console. You may not mod. You may not host your own servers. Finally, you will not get as many patches, if any at all, and they will be delayed, due to obnoxious and difficult authentication processes set up by the people who own the specific console. Hell, you may not get free DLC, either. Microsoft at least will not let you, as it undermines their arbitrary and forced pricing scheme.

So... how is Steam different than a console, please?

 

[Plurralbles]

With regards to people complaining about lack of choice with Steam, that's fine, but you should have started about 10 years ago, when people first used SecuROM and Starforce and whatnot. Any third party program, or any program entirely designed to limit your rights as a consumer is a bad thing. The reason there's so much opposition to your arguments here on this thread is that this particular program does a lot for you, too, instead of just limiting your rights. You get something back in exchange.

It's impossible to convince any major publisher to release PC games with zero DRM; they'll always have something, and you don't get a choice. Suck it up or leave. Some DRM I will deal with, like Steam. Some I will not, like UPlay.

Now, on to discourse with others:

Um... a game shoudl never be exclusively on steam. That's fucking retarded.

So you're saying the console gaming market is stupid, too?

... no, I'm not. A distribution service is not the same as a fucking console.

Yes, it is, in this case. A console is a PC with a ridiculous amount of DRM on it. Steam is on a PC, with a tiny bit of DRM. It's even nicer than a console.

Disks are a form of DRM. They limit the ways in which you can play the game. Specifically, only on one machine at a time, with the physical authentication device. You may or may not be able to bring your data from the original machine where it was created to another. You may also only play on one very specific kind of machine - a specific console. You may not mod. You may not host your own servers. Finally, you will not get as many patches, if any at all, and they will be delayed, due to obnoxious and difficult authentication processes set up by the people who own the specific console. Hell, you may not get free DLC, either. Microsoft at least will not let you, as it undermines their arbitrary and forced pricing scheme.

So... how is Steam different than a console, please?

... you proved my point. It's a service on PC.

 

[Gunner 51]

Granted, I have stepped out from the PC gaming for quite some time, trading all that lovely hardware upgrading for the comfort of my couch, HDTV and a Xbox360 console.

This sounds much of a hassle for me. I am somewhat 'happy' I am using Xbox Live. Auto-patches, everything in reach with a few scrolling and clicks. Fast and reliable. No activations needed, no idiotic DRM from publishers.

All in all, I wonder where PC gaming is going towards lately. An interesting article!

Welcome to the Dark Side, Straying Bullet. I hope all the X-box Live squealers aren't giving you a hard time when you play multiplayer. But I have noticed what I think is DRM creeping into console gaming nowadays.

In Dragon Age: Origins, there's a bit where you have to sign into the EA Servers. (Albeit, done quickly and automatically.)

If you have a shaky connection to Live and can't sign into EA - some of your DLC won't load. (Such as the new chapter: Awakening.) I don't know if this problem was with my console or if it's DRM though. But either way, I'm totally paranoid about DRM since what EA are doing to the PC Sector of gaming.