Tiberian Fiend
Veteran Member
It is reasonable to assume computer users have internet access. But you know what they say happens when you assume. Simply listing ALL the requirements (and copy protection schemes used) for the game in the requirements section would satisfy my concerns. How difficult is it to say "An Internet Connection is Required for"...pick one - Activation, Multi-player, Always-On DRM, etc. Or to say "A Steam Account is Required". If those requirements don't bother you, great. If that's something you do not wish to accept, well that's okay too.
They also make the perfectly reasonable assumption that their customers aren't paranoid about using the internet.
And is online activation the only thing they do? I read about the Steam client being installed and updates being made even when they aren't requested.
I don't see any option in Steam to turn updates off completely, but you can set Steam to offline mode and it'll stay that way until you turn it back on. Dunno if it will update in offline mode or not.
When you connect to the internet and allow a website to "do it's thing", you really don't know what is happening.
Do you ever patronize restaurants or mechanics or, god forbid, doctors?
If someone downloads a game from Steam, then they know what they are getting. When someone buys the physical copy of the game, it's a different story. You don't know what is needed unless it is listed in the requirements.
This should help some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_using_Steam_authentication
This is just too unbelieveable to even consider as a serious statement. What company, once they have gone out of business or are on the verge of going out of business, is going to put in the time, money and manpower to modify their product? The thought is simply ludicrous.
That's their claim, regardless of whether you choose to believe it or not.
By the way, I don't see how Steam really fights piracy. If I understand correctly, while it does prevent a single copy of the game from being run on more than one machine at a time (in online mode), it doesn't prevent that same game from being installed and useable on many machines (and at the same time in offline mode if I understand correctly). So a group of people sharing one or more Steam accounts could easily share games amongst themselves.
Two or three people could share an account, maybe, but 60 couldn't. They'd be constantly kicking each other off while downloading stuff; plus, that many people using an account is going to make someone suspicious. And, believe it or not, most PC gamers actually enjoy Steam's social features. I have a friend in Israel I can chat with, invite to games automatically, and even talk to with Steam's built-in VOIP.
Let me ask this question...would you buy a game which expires some number of days after you purchase it - not use it, but simply purchase it?
I surely would. In fact, I wish publishers offered a lower price on new games that limits play to three days or a week or whatever. It'd save me a lot of money. Let me ask this of you: do you buy movie tickets or rent movies? I do. It's entertainment. Entertainment is typically less entertaining the second time around, and a lot less entertaining the third time around. Why do I need something to hang on to forever? I just sold a stack of 40+ boxed games because I realized I'd never play them again. Games on Steam are so cheap and so plentiful I don't have enough time to play the ones I've bought but haven't gotten to yet.
Example...you have a catalog of physical games which can run on Win XP. You have vintage machines (this is a vintage forum after all) which are running Win XP in the year 2025 - why?...because it works for you and the machine isn't powerful enough for anything else. However, although Steam is somehow still around, it requires you to be running an internet browser which can not run under Win XP. Plus, the Steam website doesn't support Win XP any more. Where does that leave your catalog of games?
Game publishers sell games to gamers, not to museum curators. And why are you being so negative? Valve can simply stop developing the XP client and leave it running as a legacy version (Steam doesn't require an internet browser BTW; the client program has its own built-in one that isn't used in installing or launching games). Moreover, if Valve chooses to remove any game that requires XP from the store, they'll incentivize publishers to release versions compatible with newer operating systems, since they actually make money from old games people buy through the Steam Store (unlike those boxed games you bought from the bargain bin).
Kinda. I'm still a little unsure about exactly what occurs when a physical media game requires a Steam account to activate. Does it download additional software such as a Steam client which is required even if running in offline mode? Does it simply activate the game and then never bother you again (like Windows XP activation), leaving no software behind?
I've already answered this. If a game uses Steamworks for authentication, you have to have the Steam client installed and running, then run the game through the Steam client. If you attempt to run the game directly by launching the executable, you'll get an error message and the game won't run. It's also worth noting that once you use your Steam game code, the game is locked to your account forever, so you can never sell or buy used copies.
The point is DRM: If you buy something, do you own it? Or do you not? What some people here (including me) don't accept is that even when you buy something you don't own it. In fact it can be taken away from you, without compensation, at any time. THAT is the issue. Not the internet, that's just a tool to take ownership rights away from you.
The issue is one of your perspective and your perception. When you buy boxed software, you're actually buying a license to use a copy of the software. The copyright holder is the one who owns the software. The only difference between games now and games in the past is that you actually have to account for your license now. Publishers would've done so in the past if the technology existed.