The Steam/Valve arguement, (Question! not starting a flame war)

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

And the "Con's" are:
- Draconian DRM
- "You DON'T actually own your games"
- Online/offline gaming
- "unfair" market share

Your thoughts?

-Hawk

-Well the DRM isn't actually that draconian, not when compared to say...Ubisofts always online one. I mean you don't have to have Steam running for most of the games, Valve games you do, but other than that you can pretty much just run them from the root folder without steam.

-Given you don't need steam, and you can make a backup installer for them, you mostly own them, plus Valve had said many a times that if they were to shutdown Steam for whatever reason, they would release de-DRM patches for all their games, I know it's not quite the same as physically owning it, but with a piece of software like Steam, this is the closest you're gonna get outside of Good Old Games or Gamers Gate.

-Err not sure what you mean here, there's an offline mode if you're getting at the fact that you need to be online.

-This is purely everyone else's fault. I see this one quite a lot and I can't get my head around it, so Valve got in there first and it took everyone else about 5 years to catch up, hardly Valves fault, the other companies should've gotten their asses in gear, and at least attempt to offer a competitive service (I'm looking at you Origin).

Granted they get you to buy in, as once you've got 100 games on your list why go elsewhere and have MORE programs running, but then I've got no reason to when I can buy 4 games for the price of 1, and get in on the delicious sales.

mostly agree with this, plus the sales are fucking amazing for the most part, so the pro's heavily outweigh the cons to me.

granted, i do try and buy from GoG anytime possible, but that's not viable most of the time with steams ridiculous sales.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

It's not a plus that affects me, but I imagine that it's an incredible boon to have so much automated.

What I mean is that game patches, C++ redist, DirectX, XNA, and other libraries are automatically taken care of for everyone before the game starts. That alleviates so many issues with bugs and crashes that people have, and thankfully they don't even have to think about it apart from a couple of minutes wait.

The other side of the coin is that I wish I had a say in the game patching aspect when the patch in question either causes more issues than it repairs or prevents certain mods/enhancements from working (looking at you GTA IV)

EDIT: Another negative that I realized is the box versions of games forcing you to install and use it through Steam in order to play the game. Yes, I know that people really don't get physical boxed versions of PC games anymore, and that having to install Steam is a preferred alternative to Securom or some rootkit garbage, but it is something to note.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

The entire interface could use some work and the client is laggy. Don't even get me started on the damn in game browser (seriously, don't).

wait..someone actually uses that?


you are a con to all of steam for actually trying to use that garbage, alt + tab that shit to chrome.

Spoiler

this is all in good jest, i tried to use it once and laughed at how horrible it was, so dont take it seriously, mein freund.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

The DRM is rather Draconian. I think the reason it can get away with locking games to a single account, locking the games to the client, adding friends into the system so you can't leave cos all your friends are there (this is what Xbox LIVE did too, and it tends to work), is because it offers so many pros in the process. It's locked to an account, but you get cloud saves and achievements. It's locked to a client, but you can access the client wherever there's a computer and download your games straight to any PC with an internet connection. It ties you to the community, but damn if the community isn't an active and colourful place.

I don't like the idea of having my library of 300+ games being at the behest of anyone - even Valve, bless 'em - but they haven't shown any evidence yet that they are abusing the trust. Everything they've done has either been for the consumer, or under the guise of being for the consumer, and as a result they genuinely seem to come off as caring about their consumers. It's worrying that they have the market share on what is essentially the world's biggest DRM client - and that people are excited to have to use it, I've seen people forgo cheaper retail copies because they so badly want their games on Steam - and the worry isn't misplaced. But Valve has definitely proven that, if things do go tits up at any point, they'll do everything they can to make sure, at the least, our trust in them is reinstated. They're a company who has no obligation to please shareholders, but every obligation to please their paying customers... and I think they'll honour that obligation for the foreseeable future.

No telling what will happen in the meantime, though.

 

[DoPo]

The DRM is rather Draconian.

Go on...

locking games to a single account

Well within scope. Not even close to "unusually severe". Or even "severe" for that matter.

locking the games to the client

A step up, but still not there.

adding friends into the system so you can't leave cos all your friends are there (this is what Xbox LIVE did too, and it tends to work)

Not DRM.

So...wait, why is it "draconian" again? Where is the severe part? Where is the cruelty? And most importantly, how are those two so out of bounds of normal mode of behaviour to be notable?

 

[Rack]

One thing, Valve's customer service is pretty much the worst in the business. It's hardly the same as the banking sector but if you ever have a problem with your games then EA will come out looking like angels next to Valve.

The DRM has been brought up and blown out of proportion, draconian is too strong a word but it's very very close to Ubi DRM, there are few pragmatic differences.

The thing is though that as game developers Valve put out nothing but gold. This disconnect makes you want to like Valve and unless you ever have to communicate with them that's very easily done.

 

[Aris Khandr]

Yeah, Jim Sterling uses "draconian" once, and now ERR'BUDY uses it! Give it time, and it'll beat "pretentious" for the award of "words used innapropriatlely."

But, even then, it still won't beat out "literally".

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

The DRM is rather Draconian.

Go on...

locking games to a single account

Well within scope. Not even close to "unusually severe". Or even "severe" for that matter.

locking the games to the client

A step up, but still not there.

adding friends into the system so you can't leave cos all your friends are there (this is what Xbox LIVE did too, and it tends to work)

Not DRM.

So...wait, why is it "draconian" again? Where is the severe part? Where is the cruelty? And most importantly, how are those two so out of bounds of normal mode of behaviour to be notable?

Oh, the worst part is that you don't actually buy games. You purchase subscriptions. Subscriptions which can be cancelled at any time by the publishers. You do not own any of the games you bought on Steam, you merely hold a license that can be revoked. Which, sure, is fairly common software practice, but when you factor in that games you buy physically could one day, at the behest of the publisher (or Valve), become useless... it's like registering for an MMO knowing one day the servers will get shut down. It blurs the line between you owning a product, and you merely opting in with your money to a service that provides you that game.

So many people spend thousands of thousands of dollars on Steam... and they don't actually own any of the games. They could all be revoked at any time, and on a user-by-user basis too, no less! ...that's where the "locked to an account" and "locked to a client" thing gets a bit spooky. Especially when Valve also withholds the right to shut down the Steam servers permanently at any point if they have to or want to.

Some people are fine with not actually owning the games they buy. Some are disgusted. But all this stuff is buried under a lot of legal jargon; the average user won't even know about this stuff. The fact is that a lot of people are buying games on Steam under the assumption that it will be theirs forever, and really, legally, that's not the case. There are European laws being passed around because of systems like Steam that pretty much say this is a shitty practice and the customer should be given the right to separate the software from the license. Valve then added more to their EULA saying you can't take them to court with a class-action lawsuit, pretty much making sure that you can't sue them for not abiding by European law should it pass.

It's notable, mostly, because there are so many people who use Steam. Tens of millions. It's not the worst - I will staunchly be a defender of Valve and Steam until they prove to me they don't deserve defending, which is not an event I anticipate in the slightest - but it is fairly bad when you factor in the customer ignorance. Steam is a system that hooks you in, almost by brute force, and chains you down to it in many ways. It's good business, in that respect, and I think Valve are clever bastards for doing it. It's just the way they sell this software isn't optimal, and the measure they've put in place basically ensure that you are essentially borrowing games from them for a fee. They have the killswitch to every product you have ever bought from them and their service - to many games you buy outside of their service, games that employ Steamworks - and, look, if that's not slightly worrying and Draconian a practice, I don't know what is. Even SecuROM put the power to revoke the license in the user's hands.

 

[Vigormortis]

snip

I feel your pain. The community servers, as well as a few other Valve server groups *cough*Left4Dead2*cough*, have been touchy lately. (understatement, I know)

However, I've come to learn that part of this "touchiness" is due, in no small part, to Valve attempting to vastly expand and transition many of their server clusters in preparation for the public release of Dota 2. The projected demand for the game has gone WAY beyond their first estimates.

I mean, good lord, Dota 2 hits at least 100,000 players a day....and it's still in closed beta. :|

That is, of course, not the only reason the servers have been "awful" lately, but once Dota 2 goes live we're much more likely to see things calm down again.

[sub]At least, I hope.[/sub]

On a side note though, I've never really had "laggy interface" issues. Maybe I'm a lucky case.

Though...I have had the Overlay stop responding, but only when I try to bring it up whilst loading a map or connecting to a server; and even then only in Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead 2.

Not sure why it only happens in those games.

 

[Vigormortis]

The only time I want to use offline mode is when my internet goes out, but since you have to be online to set it to offline mode it doesn't help me unless I can predict the future. Also I'm one of those people who has issues with Bloodlines, except I have a lot more rage.

Yeah, I get you. But they seem to have fixed it. Somewhat. Scroll up and see what Vuliev said - it requires you to login only once, if you haven't restarted the computer. I just tried it, too - I shut down Steam, killed my connection, and launched it - it asked me if I wanted to start offline. And it worked. I'm pretty amazed. Although, it wouldn't help you if you just started the PC, I assume. But I tend to only set it to sleep, so I'm not too worried.

The common misconception about Steams offline mode is that you have to go online to set it to offline mode.

This is simply not true. It really isn't. Now I know what you're thinking, but hear me out:

The only time Steam requires you to go online is either because one or more of the licenses for the games you're attempting to play are not synced with the current client version, or your client version was in the midst of updating.

The easiest way to ensure that Steam will open in offline mode, every time, is to just be sure that you shut down Steam before you turn off your computer. Or, more to the point, make sure, if it's updating, that it finishes the downloads.

Now, that doesn't really help if you're hit with a sudden power-outage. Though, even then, Steam still has a chance to open in offline mode. (though not as likely)

Still, as long as you make sure your games are up-to-date with your current Steam client version, offline mode (and subsequent game launches) should work every time.

Is a perfect system? Dear God no. Not by any stretch of the imagination. However, it's honestly no where near as bad as some people seem to think.

(though it sure as hell used to be. and it could still use a lot of work.)

 

[Joccaren]

The "Pro's" of Steam usually are:
- convience/ease of use
- daily deals & sales
- library selection
- modding & customer support
- automatic patches
- it's not origin

And the "Con's" are:
- Draconian DRM
- "You DON'T actually own your games"
- Online/offline gaming
- "unfair" market share

Your thoughts?

-Hawk

Welcome to the PC Gaming Master Race [And since I know someone is going to take that the wrong way, that was a joke :/]

Anyway, I'm mostly neutral towards Steam. I will avoid it if I can, but I won't not buy a game if it uses Steam, same as Origin.

For me, the ease of use really isn't a pro there. There is nothing easier about it than just double clicking the icon on my Desktop to launch a game, rather than having it connect through Steam, and turn me down if my Internet isn't working at that point. Updating is possibly easier with Steam, but I find it more annoying half the time when I want to play the non-updated game, because I don't have time to update it, yet Steam decides to insist on updating it for some unknown reason. Maybe there's an option for this, but that's not ease of use.

Daily Deals and Sales also don't effect me. I don't buy off Steam, and most of the games offered don't interest me at that time [Not interested at all/already have it], so they're just a flashy lights show in the end.

Not entirely sure what you mean by Library selection. The way its arranged? You get to decide what's in it? 'cause honestly, that applies to my Desktop too, but I don't have to be online to turn that on.

Modding is something game specific, rather than Steam specific, as, generally, is community support. I know Steam has sections for this, but in general I get higher quality mods and advice by going on Google and searching, rather than using Steam, or emailing the Developer/Publisher's support department for help, so Steam really has little gain there either.

Automatic patches I've covered above. They're annoying as they're generally forced, and I don't want to sit around for 3-4 hours because my connection to the Steam servers is shoddy when I could just play the non-updated game, and update later when I have the time.

It not being Origin is, IMO, just fanboyism. Yeah, I don't like EA either. Most of the problems with Origin were fixed. Is it as good as Steam in all aspects? No, but its not terrible either.

The DRM wouldn't be Draconian if it worked as intended. As it is, its the same always online DRM used by other companies for all intents and purposes. Steam, for me, and for a number of people if the Internet is to be believed, does not like to enter offline mode, and whenever you try to will simply tell you that it could not connect to the Steam servers [No shit, your offline], and fail. Were I able to launch offline mode and play my games, I wouldn't care. As is GFWL has a better system in place, as I can still play my games offline, I just can't save. If Steam worked as intended its DRM would be almost non-existent.

The other issues don't really bother me.


Steam is, at times, a necessary evil. If possible, I prefer to avoid it and everything it entails, however I don't mind using it if I have to. Its not terrible, but its certainly not great either. It simply is.

 

[thirion1850]

Everything you've mentioned aside for "draconian DRM" and "offline/online gaming". Their DRM is miniscule compared to some other companies I could mention, and you can actually play many of your steam games in offline mode (unless said other companies I could mention COUGH UBISOFT COUGH prevent you from doing so).

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

- Draconian

Steam's DRM system is one of the tamer ones out there.

Now Ubisofts and Diablo 3 Always Online system are Draconian system.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

It not being Origin is, IMO, just fanboyism. Yeah, I don't like EA either. Most of the problems with Origin were fixed. Is it as good as Steam in all aspects? No, but its not terrible either.

Does it no longer try to scan my photos and documents and send data back to EA about them? Because Steam never did that.

 

[distortedreality]

snip

Sorry to burst your bubble, but buying games from Steam is no different to buying a physical copy in most of the aspects you mentioned.

In every case when buying games, you're buying a license, you never at any point own a game. That license can be revoked whenever, for any reason, by any publisher or dev. In an age when just about every game released on PC has some form of online authentication, it's pretty bloody easy for you to be locked out of a game if someone from up above chooses to do so. There is literally no difference between Steam and physical copies in this case.

As you said, it really does come down to trust, and I - like you - trust Valve way more than I trust any other publisher. We're essentially playing russian roulette with our money and games - but that's the way industry has been for decades, it's just more obvious, and more dangerous now. And Steam is the most obvious, and to me, the least scary, of the various evils out there.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

snip

The short answer is that people are just uncomfortable with one group having most of the power.

Even if that group great and virtuous.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

snip

Sorry to burst your bubble, but buying games from Steam is no different to buying a physical copy in most of the aspects you mentioned.

In every case when buying games, you're buying a license, you never at any point own a game. That license can be revoked whenever, for any reason, by any publisher or dev. In an age when just about every game released on PC has some form of online authentication, it's pretty bloody easy for you to be locked out of a game if someone from up above chooses to do so. There is literally no difference between Steam and physical copies in this case.

As you said, it really does come down to trust, and I - like you - trust Valve way more than I trust any other publisher. We're essentially playing russian roulette with our money and games - but that's the way industry has been for decades, it's just more obvious, and more dangerous now. And Steam is the most obvious, and to me, the least scary, of the various evils out there.

Well, I guess the difference is that we depend on Steam to also provide the content. If our licenses are revoked for boxed software we still have a disc we install from, and can usually activate (even if it is in some rudimentary fashion and not fully registered). Steam's licenses aren't so much what you're allowed to do, and more what you can do, from point of sale through to installation and to whatever happens when it's shut down.

It's not just Steam to blame here, mind. It's pretty much a case with all digital download services, even GoG to some degree. It's something we'll have to work out in the decades ahead, especially if physical points of sale deteriorate or disappear complete. Steam, however, is ahead of the curve on this one... I think it seems reasonable to hold Valve to it. Especially since they are, for all intents and purposes, the "good guys" - huge market share, dominating platform, legions of fans. I think pressuring them to lead people who we can not trust with similar services by the nose will be extremely important. Where Steam goes, what profit Valve spins, other companies will follow. ...I mean, it's all purely hypothetical, but I think it's pretty important not to sit content where we see there's any room for a change for the better.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

For me, the insane sales cover all the bases, even the negative ones. The mandatory client, TOS, etc are all valid reasons. They are also why I never ever pay full price for a game on Steam. It's an inferior product with all this baggage, so I will pay less to reflect that. I'm also a cheap bastard and it lets me buy more games, but the point remains.