Valve killing the PC game market?

[Bullwinkle]

I've been raging against Steam for years and I'm not going to thrash it all out again.  Every time I bring up some reason as to why I don't want to use Steam I get a load of "well that never happens to me!" and "nope, not a problem for me! comments and I just can't be arsed any more.

Wow, Huw, it's like you're psychic.

[cheeba]

Why are you charging me the same $50/$60 that Best Buy does? 

Because they can. 

Because the publishers don't want to piss off the retailers.

[Huw the Poo]

I've been raging against Steam for years and I'm not going to thrash it all out again.  Every time I bring up some reason as to why I don't want to use Steam I get a load of "well that never happens to me!" and "nope, not a problem for me! comments and I just can't be arsed any more.

Wow, Huw, it's like you're psychic.

Same here - its a neccesary evil...some good deals, but mostly way to expensive to even consider it. I love thats its digital distrubtion, but GOG and Impulse does it much better. Steam was just there first

As I recall, Valve debuted Steam with the launch of Half Life 2.  Does anyone remember the incredible hype for that game?  Almost every serious gamer in the world probably bought it, so that immediately got Valve an enormous install base right off the bat.  Clever, really.  I probably didn't have the cash to buy HL2 at the time, or I was deeply engrossed in some MMO, otherwise I would have bought it and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

TiLT: thanks for your post, it's given me food for thought as there were a couple of points you made that I wasn't aware of.  Even if I did use Steam, though, I wouldn't use it for the majority of my purchases.  Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket.  I wouldn't trust any company to hold the key to my games collection - yes, even Stardock, which is why I archive games I buy on Impulse.  And Gamersgate, and GOG.

[theohall]

Everything purchased via Steam can just as easily be archived.  

Steam > Backup and Restore Games > Backup Currently Installed games - you tell it where to save them.  If you chose CDs/DVDs, it tells you how many you will need and lets you know when to swap out.
Steam > Backup and Restore Games > Restore from previous backup - tell it where the backup is located.  All those games are back.  If they need updates which were not there when backed up, Steam will get the updates without you asking it too, unless you specifically tell it not to.

Simple really.

But then, one who has never used Steam would not know this.

This simple tool was used extensively the past several years to move games from the main PC to the Laptop I took on deployments which was rarely connected to the internet.  Only requirement was to update the Steam client before going on deployment, then set it in off-line mode so the client version was guaranteed to be new enough for any backups.  Worked like a champion.

[heloder]

What exactly is the point of an archive when you need to use the service to be able to access them? If the service is down or you can't access it, the archives are worthless. If the service is up, then you can just get the game from the service, so the archives are worthless anyway.

I don't use any of these services, but I believe at least GOG is DRM free so the archives allow you to play the game you purchase whenever you want, so archiving the games makes sense.

[MaxSteele]

What exactly is the point of an archive when you need to use the service to be able to access them? If the service is down or you can't access it, the archives are worthless. If the service is up, then you can just get the game from the service, so the archives are worthless anyway.

I don't use any of these services, but I believe at least GOG is DRM free so the archives allow you to play the game you purchase whenever you want, so archiving the games makes sense.

Perhaps you missed the line in the post you're referencing:

Only requirement was to update the Steam client before going on deployment, then set it in off-line mode so the client version was guaranteed to be new enough for any backups. 

[heloder]

Perhaps you missed the line in the post you're referencing:

Only requirement was to update the Steam client before going on deployment, then set it in off-line mode so the client version was guaranteed to be new enough for any backups. 

No, I don't believe I did, because that line doesn't answer the question posed.

Hypothetically, say in fifteen years Steam no longer exists (or I just don't have access to it for whatever reason) and I've just built a new computer. How do I access my archived Steam games?

Step 1: Install Steam client.
Step 2: ????

Again I don't use it so I'm relying on your information here as I honestly don't know how it works.

[Lee]

One thing I have learned after 30 years of PC gaming. I almost never go back and play an old game from 5 or more years ago. When I do, if I can get it to work I am usually disappointed. So if Steam does go under, which is unlikely since they are doing so well, I am not too worried.

Also who ever said on page one (too lazy to go check) that you can't change where to install the games, you can.

[heloder]

Really? Man I play 5+ year old games all the time. In fact every year I replay Fallout 1 and 2, Half-Life, and Diablo 2. Quake 3 also never leaves my hard drive. I always seem to go back to some others as well, like Deus Ex, X-Wing Alliance, and the AvP games.

In fact this year I just finished Thief, System Shock, and System Shock 2 for the first time.

Do you also generally not watch re-watch old movies?

[YellowKing]

Just an anecdotal story:

I've used Steam for awhile now, to the point that I now buy almost all my games exclusively on Steam. I like the convenience of digital download, the friend integration, not having to keep tubs of physical media and boxes, etc.

A co-worker of mine hates Steam. He's never used it, but he hates the idea of it (for many of the same reasons some in this thread don't like it). He think it is this complex, bloated piece of crapware that he doesn't want running on his machine.

So Black Ops comes out, and he decides to buy it through Best Buy digital download (not realizing that the game required Steam integration). When he finds out he has to install Steam, he hits the roof. But he's already bought the game and has no choice, so he installs Steam. He comes into work the next day ranting about how long it takes to download a 16gb game. Then he complains he started the game up only to find his computer blue screens (which he of course blames on Steam). He then swears he is going to go buy a physical copy so he can play the game, since Steam is junk.

He goes and buys a boxed copy, brings it home, installs it, and promptly blue screens. Seems he hadn't updated his video drivers in several months.

Moral of this story - I think a lot of issues blamed on Steam are a combination of non-Steam related issues with the PC, a preconceived prejudice against the service, or a combination of both. I'm not saying all are - I've run into my share of direct Steam issues over the years; but to say Steam is junk when millions of people use it every day with no problem is a little crazy.

As far as the "what will happen if Steam goes bankrupt" argument, I always counter with "what if your house burns down and melts all your game CDs?" You can play the what if game all day. I think chances are very high that if Steam should go bankrupt, some sort of arrangement would be made to issue patches so that games could be played, players would have a chance to archive their games, etc. If your house burns down, I think the chances are pretty low that you'll have stored off-site backups of all your CDs.

[heloder]

He then swears he is going to go buy a physical copy so he can play the game, since Steam is junk.

He goes and buys a boxed copy, brings it home, installs it, and promptly blue screens. Seems he hadn't updated his video drivers in several months.

So why didn't you tell him that the physical copy requires Steam as well?

[Lee]

Do you also generally not watch re-watch old movies?

Not really the same thing. I just don't usually want to replay a game years down the road. When I do the lack of resolution options usually puts me off. Kohan II would be the only exception, which I really wish would come out on Steam. I can't imagine life without Steam anymore.

[Bullwinkle]

Also who ever said on page one (too lazy to go check) that you can't change where to install the games, you can.

You can change where Steam is installed and that will move all games installed under Steam (well, you have to reinstall all of them).  You cannot, however, choose where to install each game.

[Lee]

Also who ever said on page one (too lazy to go check) that you can't change where to install the games, you can.

You can change where Steam is installed and that will move all games installed under Steam (well, you have to reinstall all of them).  You cannot, however, choose where to install each game.

Isn't that nit-picking? I have a games partition that Steam and Impulse install to. If you need games installed in multiple places maybe you are over complicating things?

[TiLT]

Hypothetically, say in fifteen years Steam no longer exists (or I just don't have access to it for whatever reason) and I've just built a new computer. How do I access my archived Steam games?

This is a pointless line of argument. We have no idea what will be required to play today's games in 15 years. Maybe Steam still exists and it has now adapted to include emulator features so that today's games can run on tomorrow's computers? If Steam exists at that point (and that's a big if. 15 years is a LONG time. 15 years ago I was happily playing Doom 2 which had just come out the year before), it'll probably have to do something like that anyway.

I can pretty much guarantee you that your games won't run on computers in 15 years without jumping through some big hoops, and probably not by installing from the original CD/DVD. You're probably just going to be rebuying the game from a GoG-like service for cheap because it's so much more convenient.

And then you'll be bored within an hour because you just realized that nostalgia got the better of you, and the game you thought was so fun 15 years ago is too ancient to enjoy now.

[Bullwinkle]

Also who ever said on page one (too lazy to go check) that you can't change where to install the games, you can.

You can change where Steam is installed and that will move all games installed under Steam (well, you have to reinstall all of them).  You cannot, however, choose where to install each game.

Isn't that nit-picking? I have a games partition that Steam and Impulse install to. If you need games installed in multiple places maybe you are over complicating things?

It is not nitpicking.  Impulse will let me install wherever I want.  Every other download service will allow me to choose what to do with my games.  I don't have the room to move all of Steam, but I do have room to install a game to my other partition.  

Like Huw, I've gone round and round on this issue with many people telling me that what I am having a problem with cannot possibly be a problem because they don't have that problem.

[The Grue]

My main beef with Steam is the pricing.  Why are you charging me the same $50/$60 that Best Buy does?  Especially since they do not have to press DVDs or print boxes/manuals and then ship the physical contents to a store.  Digital copies should be at least $5 cheaper.

Bandwidth is free!!!!!

[wonderpug]

Er, I'm pretty sure that even if Valve wanted to charge less, they wouldn't be able to. The powers that be get all huffy if they think their precious cardboard boxes are getting undercut.  I think they don't want their products "devalued," similar to the stupid fights over how much less an ebook should cost.

Tryin to remember some solid examples of this--wasn't there a Stardock release where they couldnt do what they wanted to do for the digital release because the retail stores made a stink?

[heloder]

This is a pointless line of argument. We have no idea what will be required to play today's games in 15 years.

Incorrect. We know exactly what will be required to play todays games in 15 years - the same as what is required today. Well, assuming they're not tied to a service you have no control over, anyway. Other things, such as source ports, may happen, but the system requirements on the box will never change.

Maybe Steam still exists and it has now adapted to include emulator features so that today's games can run on tomorrow's computers?

And maybe it won't?

I can pretty much guarantee you that your games won't run on computers in 15 years without jumping through some big hoops, and probably not by installing from the original CD/DVD.

Doesn't necessarily have to be state of the art hardware / operating systems that I'm installing it on. As long as it's not tethered to a service, the system requirements are frozen in time.

And then you'll be bored within an hour because you just realized that nostalgia got the better of you, and the game you thought was so fun 15 years ago is too ancient to enjoy now.

Yeah nobody ever really enjoys playing 15 year old games.

[TiLT]

Sure, if you're the kind of guy who keeps 15-year old hardware around just to play your ancient games, you're going to suffer in the future no matter what.

Are you still using your old floppies to play the games from 15 years ago? If you are, you're one crazy son-of-a-bitch and I'll concede. If not, you're not playing the games you got back then.

Even in the worst case scenario where Steam goes under and there's no way to play your games through their service, there's still cracks (readily available already today, I expect) to make them playable. If you back up your Steam games, your backups even come with their own, separate installers, for crying out loud! This option is probably going to be considerably easier to pull off than getting your old DVDs to work on your discless system (you don't seriously expect computers to use DVDs or even optical media in 15 years, right?). That is, of course, unless you keep your system around for that long and can still keep it running at that point. Unlikely at best, and if you do you represent such a small fraction of gamers that it's not even worth bringing into a serious discussion about the future of gaming.

The discussion here is about whether a game bought on DVD today will be easier to get running on computers 15 years into the future than the same game on Steam, regardless of the status of Valve's servers. You say yes. I say bullshit.

[wonderpug]

This is a pointless line of argument. We have no idea what will be required to play today's games in 15 years.

Incorrect. We know exactly what will be required to play todays games in 15 years - the same as what is required today. Well, assuming they're not tied to a service you have no control over, anyway. Other things, such as source ports, may happen, but the system requirements on the box will never change.

Just like we knew about DOSBox, MAME, and ScummVM fifteen years ago? 

[CeeKay]

This is a pointless line of argument. We have no idea what will be required to play today's games in 15 years.

Incorrect. We know exactly what will be required to play todays games in 15 years - the same as what is required today. Well, assuming they're not tied to a service you have no control over, anyway. Other things, such as source ports, may happen, but the system requirements on the box will never change.

Just like we knew about DOSBox, MAME, and ScummVM fifteen years ago? 

I was told about them through my time traveling hearing aid.

[heloder]

Just like we knew about DOSBox, MAME, and ScummVM fifteen years ago?

Yes that would fall under the "other things" that I mentioned in the paragraph you quoted.

But I'm glad we got to the bottom of my original query. Yes, Steam archives are basically worthless.

[Lee]

Like Huw, I've gone round and round on this issue with many people telling me that what I am having a problem with cannot possibly be a problem because they don't have that problem.

Ok. If that is a deal killer so be it. Myself, I am willing to deal with the very slight drawbacks to use a good service. The anti-Steam arguments have been pretty weak for me. It isn't a perfect service, but I like it.

[MaxSteele]

Perhaps you missed the line in the post you're referencing:

Only requirement was to update the Steam client before going on deployment, then set it in off-line mode so the client version was guaranteed to be new enough for any backups. 

No, I don't believe I did, because that line doesn't answer the question posed.

Hypothetically, say in fifteen years Steam no longer exists (or I just don't have access to it for whatever reason) and I've just built a new computer. How do I access my archived Steam games?

Step 1: Install Steam client.
Step 2: ????

Again I don't use it so I'm relying on your information here as I honestly don't know how it works.

If Steam shuts down, Valve has said they will remove the requirement to use Steam for running games you have purchased.  That is where the archival option will come in.  You'll have a copy burned to a CD and able to play it whenever you wish.

If you don't have access to Steam, but want to play your games offline, you must access Steam at least once with the PC the game is installed on, and select the option to play the game offline.  Once done, you never have to touch Steam again to play that game.

[heloder]

If Steam shuts down, Valve has said they will remove the requirement to use Steam for running games you have purchased.

Did they pinky swear?

Honestly, does Valve even have the authority to strip the DRM protection from properties they don't own?

If you don't have access to Steam, but want to play your games offline, you must access Steam...

Yeah.

[TiLT]

Just like we knew about DOSBox, MAME, and ScummVM fifteen years ago?

Yes that would fall under the "other things" that I mentioned in the paragraph you quoted.

But I'm glad we got to the bottom of my original query. Yes, Steam archives are basically worthless.

I presented a solid argument for why the Steam archives are much more worth than a DVD with the game on it. You ignored it, and still claim the opposite. So let me rephrase your statement:

But I'm glad I got to the bottom of my original query. Yes, Steam archives are basically worthless.

[heloder]

Er, you said if you had a Steam archive without access to Steam you could just download a crack (assuming one is available). So basically, it just saves you from downloading the full pirated version of the game. That doesn't seem to be worth much to me.

I think I'd rather have a non-Steamworks boxed copy, to be honest with you.

[TiLT]

Er, you said if you had a Steam archive without access to Steam you could just download a crack (assuming one is available). So basically, it just saves you from downloading the full pirated version of the game. That doesn't seem to be worth much to me.

I think I'd rather have a non-Steamworks boxed copy, to be honest with you.

Yeah, because then you'd be FORCED to download a pirated copy of the game instead. Victory is yours!

(the cracks are already available, btw)

Admit it: You just don't like Steam, to the point where you're willing to make completely irrational arguments to make yourself feel better about it. Come on, just be honest. I'd be more inclined to accept it if you just said you don't like Steam because, but instead you're using illogical statements about Steam making it harder to play your games in 15 years. As long as you keep doing that, I'll keep calling you out on it.

[heloder]

Yeah, because then you'd be FORCED to download a pirated copy of the game instead. Victory is yours!

This is a pointless line of argument. We have no idea what will be required to play today's games in 15 years. Just like we didn't know about DOSBox, MAME, and ScummVM.

Admit it: You just don't like Steam, to the point where you're willing to make completely irrational arguments to make yourself feel better about it. Come on, just be honest. I'd be more inclined to accept it if you just said you don't like Steam because, but instead you're using illogical statements about Steam making it harder to play your games in 15 years. As long as you keep doing that, I'll keep calling you out on it.

Of course I don't like Steam. I've stated that many times on this very forum. This argument started because Huw said he liked being able to archive his games from GoG and other services, and somebody stated that Steam could do that as well. I merely pointed out how Steam's archiving is different and for the most part, completely pointless. It is.

[Reemul]

Pointless really. Everyone that uses Steam does so because they are happy with it. I can't see anyone sayinG anything to change that as it would mean stop playing what you already own if you stop dealing with Steam.

As to those who won't use it, well that's their choice and if they don't feel they are missing anything well more power to them. Unfortunately i think we will see more and more steamworks games and in the future they could be missing out on plenty of good games however at the moment for many it doesn't seem to be issue.

[cheeba]

Honestly, does Valve even have the authority to strip the DRM protection from properties they don't own?

If they ever go out of business, authority doesn't really matter at that point, does it?

[Arkon]

Pointless really. Everyone that uses Steam does so because they are happy with it.

I posted earlier, but I will say it again.  I use Steam because I see it as a necessary evil, however I absolutely hate it as a service.  The steam app is very sluggish for me, it will often pop open at odd times for no apparent reason, other than to tell me about some new sale I don't care about.  When playing a game like Civ V, it takes over my PC for about 5 minutes every time I exit the game to do some sort of bullshit synchronizing of the save games.

Could I turn all of that off?  I have no clue, I have set options to turn off steam cloud support, yet it still seems to think I want it.

Instead it sits here, chewing up 45 megs of memory, that could be better used by something I actually want to have running.  Let me do like Impulse, use the service to download the game and patch the game, all other times let me not have it running because I don't care about any other features.  I don't care about the social aspects, I am not social in general.  I don't care about the fourms, I have Gaming Trend.  I don't care about the worthless achievements.  But it doesn't matter, I have to have the bloated client running for a bunch of shit I don't want.

Will I stop using Steam...no I won't because I like gaming and it is becoming apparent that I will have to accept the piece of garbage that Steam is if I want to play some of the best games out there.

[Reemul]

45 meg of memory really i mean come on, sure when we had DOS memory was an issue, ram is and has been cheap for years. Don't tell me, it's not your system it's highly configured  .

Confused at the bloated, you don't have to have friends, don't have to visit the forums (though maybe it would solve your issues) in fact you don't ever need to bring it to the foreground if you don't want, just click the icon to run the game and steam will start, i mean how difficult is it. Heck my supermarket has 150 aisles but i don't go down all of em to do my shopping.

Like i said those that bitch about Steam, even if they use it won't  really affect anyone else opinion unless they are having issues with it and it seems to me most aren't. The web isn't full of major issues or more than those that crop up when any game is ever released.

I see what you are saying but don't understand why, why is it doing this, why don't you know how to fix it or change settings to make it run like you want why are you just putting up with it. Get out there, fix the issues, try to get it to work how you want because it seems most don't get those issues so maybe it can be a better experience for you.

Heck who wants to put up with a shite experience if you can improve it. Maybe then it would be a better option for you. Or if you can't fix bitch at those that can, you never know maybe you can get the experience you want, however having no idea doesn't really work anymore.

Then again maybe the fact i've spent my entire life trying to offer and get a service i want (careers eh, who'd pick em) i'm different, who knows 

[Arkon]

Is 45 megs an issue?  No it isn't, but then $.50 cent bank debit fees aren't that big of a deal either, yet no one wants to pay them.  The fact of the matter is, it is resources being spent that I should not have to spend.  If I wanted all of the extra features, then obviously I need to have the client running.  If I just want to play my game, why should the client have to run.

I see what you are saying but don't understand why, why is it doing this, why don't you know how to fix it or change settings to make it run like you want why are you just putting up with it. Get out there, fix the issues, try to get it to work how you want because it seems most don't get those issues so maybe it can be a better experience for you.

I have tried fixing the issues I have.  I have steam cloud support turned off, yet for some reason Civ V when I play it still ends up doing the synchronize step.  I can't find any way to turn of the pop up ads.  I kill the process when I am not playing a Steam game, but then launching a Steam game then takes an extra 30 seconds while Steam does whatever the hell it does on start up.

I know it is a loosing battle, and I don't expect to change anyone's minds about Steam.  That doesn't make my opinion any less valid.

[MaxSteele]

If Steam shuts down, Valve has said they will remove the requirement to use Steam for running games you have purchased.

Did they pinky swear?

Honestly, does Valve even have the authority to strip the DRM protection from properties they don't own?

If you don't have access to Steam, but want to play your games offline, you must access Steam...

Yeah.

Thanks for taking my quote out of context.  I don't care if you don't like Steam.  I gave you reasons for 1) If Steam shuts down and 2) How to play games off of Steam without having to connect every time.  Take that as you will.

[Giles Habibula]

... That is, of course, unless you keep your system around for that long and can still keep it running at that point. Unlikely at best, and if you do you represent such a small fraction of gamers that it's not even worth bringing into a serious discussion about the future of gaming.

I guess I'm one of that very small fraction then. While I haven't kept every single system I've ever owned since 1993, I have always known that there was a good chance that my old games would not work on new hardware and OS's. So, having the love that I've always had of revisiting my old games, I do keep a selection of systems around (at least one of every DOS/Windows OS since 1993) specifically so I can play those old games without hassle (along with the spare parts I may need someday). And it works out fine for me that way. No mucking around with emulators. Pop the disk in, install, and play. True, some games do require patches to get them up to spec, but that's why I also archived those patches onto CD. I own upwards of 600 games (all in original boxes), and I like not having to be online with every single rig that I have in order to install a game. For all practical purposes, despite the fact that I only own licenses, I still feel like I own my copies of these games, and am free to install them wherever and whenever I like. And, FWIW, my original 486 DX2/66 is still sporting the two original hard drives I had it built with in 1993. And every 3.5 floppy I've tried still works as well (although I did back up all my floppy games to CDs back when I bought my first burner).

Over the top? I guess, but I recon I've got $25,000 stuck into games alone, and I do take measures to ensure future playability.

But since I'm in such a small minority, people like myself simply don't matter to you. And I'm fine with that.

[frost]

... That is, of course, unless you keep your system around for that long and can still keep it running at that point. Unlikely at best, and if you do you represent such a small fraction of gamers that it's not even worth bringing into a serious discussion about the future of gaming.

I guess I'm one of that very small fraction then. While I haven't kept every single system I've ever owned since 1993, I have always known that there was a good chance that my old games would not work on new hardware and OS's. So, having the love that I've always had of revisiting my old games, I do keep a selection of systems around (at least one of every DOS/Windows OS since 1993)

I have to ask.  Do you have an entire room of your house dedicated to your setup of rigs?

[Giles Habibula]

... That is, of course, unless you keep your system around for that long and can still keep it running at that point. Unlikely at best, and if you do you represent such a small fraction of gamers that it's not even worth bringing into a serious discussion about the future of gaming.

I guess I'm one of that very small fraction then. While I haven't kept every single system I've ever owned since 1993, I have always known that there was a good chance that my old games would not work on new hardware and OS's. So, having the love that I've always had of revisiting my old games, I do keep a selection of systems around (at least one of every DOS/Windows OS since 1993)

I have to ask.  Do you have an entire room of your house dedicated to your setup of rigs?

Yes. One room for computers and games, and another room with just games on shelves (along with two full-size pinball machines).
And the computers are on a long table just along one wall of that room. I have two complete retro rigs that I use frequently. The rest of the machines share a monitor/keyboard/mouse, as I need them much less frequently. The whole 17 years of my hobby/collection really doesn't take up that much space.

[kronovan]

I don't like playing games with a virus checker active and I don't like being connected to the Internet with Virus checking disabled. It's for that reason that I take advantage of that steam feature often.

A good virus checker will allow you to exclude your games directory from real-time scanning.

Fair enough, but I don't like the overhead of a virus checker -or any other background processes I deem nonessential - running while I'm playing a game. I'm willing to make exceptions for online games, but for SP campaign play I don't want a virus checker taking up even a minuscule fraction of my CPU.

[Edit] Oh...and those who think the Steam client is so hastle free with a minimal footprint, try running the client on a legacy laptop when it does an update. That process kicks the living shit out of my legacy laptop I play legacy games like Civ 3 and Hearts of Iron 2 on. Most Gamers are running relatively recent or bleeding edge computers - they have no idea just how piss-poor Valve's Steam dev teams' coding skills are.