Support NeoGAF

[Garjon]

I dislike this. If you buy a game at retail or from a non-Steam marketplace (like Green Man Gaming, Humble Bundle etc) you are basically forced to use DRM that has minimal features to redeem it.

And that's before we get into the problematic precedent that this sets, what other services will now attempt to implement something similar.

 

[Enco]

"To stop the spambots"

Lol sure thing Valve.

I'm sure this waste only solution. Sure...

 

[KHlover]

I dislike this. If you buy a game at retail or from a non-Steam marketplace (like Green Man Gaming, Humble Bundle etc) you are basically forced to use DRM that has minimal features to redeem it.

And that's before we get into the problematic precedent that this sets, what other services will now attempt to implement something similar.

Like having to pay $60/yr to use core features like "playing online" at all?

 

[Leafhopper]

"To stop the spambots"

Lol sure thing Valve.

I'm sure this waste only solution. Sure...

Well this thread is hilarious I guess.

 

[Lingitiz]

"To stop the spambots"

Lol sure thing Valve.

I'm sure this waste only solution. Sure...

It's not the most elegant one but it will work.

Really anyone who feels like this is a shitty deal on their end would not even give a fuck in the first place.

 

[Mass Effect]

I didn't realize that spambots were such a problem on Steam. Luckily I haven't had to worry about them.

And that's before we get into the problematic precedent that this sets, what other services will now attempt to implement something similar.

As if anyone uses other services for anything outside of playing games. No one is using Origin's social features for example.

 

[Htown]

I dislike this. If you buy a game at retail or from a non-Steam marketplace (like Green Man Gaming, Humble Bundle etc) you are basically forced to use DRM that has minimal features to redeem it.

You are overstating the amount of features that this is taking away from unpaid accounts.

And that's before we get into the problematic precedent that this sets, what other services will now attempt to implement something similar.

Steam is far from the first game related service to lock communication features away from free accounts, and it won't be the last.

 

[Stumpokapow]

The services of the cafe, the comfort, etc, have previously been implied to be free.
You were actually invited into the cafe for free.
Now they say: you can come in for free, but there is a minimum you have to spend, if you want all features, the cafe previously used to lure you in.

And if you bought your games at retail or in the store did not make a difference.

Okay, but in this scenario, you are sitting and eating in a cafe. This cafe is letting you bring it outside food, for which they get $0.00. They don't mind you doing this. They also offer a variety of services in the cafe (say, a VIP area and a board game shelf and wifi) which are now for paying customers only. So, even though it's OK for you to bring in your food from the outside, there are some things you need to buy something in the cafe to be able to use. We would not consider this a scam if a cafe did it. Even if the wifi used to be free, we would recognize that the cafe would be OK to make it customers-only going forward.

And to be clear, customers-only here means "you need to have bought something at the cafe. Ever. Since the beginning of time. And you can buy something now. Or you can open a tab with which you can buy something later. Or someone else can buy something on your behalf. Or someone else can give you money to buy them something. All of these things count."

Your stance is basically that this is unfair, because when you bought your outside food a few years ago, the cafe said you could bring it for free and make use of their facilities. Again, they are still letting your bring your food and eat it for free and take up a table and you don't need to purchase anything. You just can't use the Wifi or the board games that they make available for customers.

No, my argument only applies to those, who have been shortcharged compared to others.
They used to give those features to all, now they take it away from some.

Right. And? Is this actually impacting anyone? Is it unfair? Is it a slippery slope for the company beginning to charge a $50/month subscription fee and hold your games hostage? It sounds like the sum total of your objection is that conceptually you can never restrict anything once you've offered it to anyone. I'm offering you some of my bag of chips right now. It may be the case that five years from now, I change my mind about this offer because there are panhandlers lining up out the door of my apartment reminding me of my free chip offer. You're still allowed to stay in my place.

Also I am not saying it is a "great moral wrong", please don't put words in my mouth.

Sure, I'm exaggerating what you're saying, but this is clearly causing you distress, and my position is that this is overly dramatic and not grounded in the real world impact of the policy. I know you don't literally think this is the end of the world, we just have a disagreement on the severity of what it is.

And I would like to add, that Valve, and the people who champion Steam also mention those features. I don't think they are supplemental anymore. Selling games is only a part of Steams business, because a lot of sales happen outside the storefront. Of the features of Steam I regularly use the storefront is the least important one to me. Because I don't have money to spent, and have more games that I want right now. And if I buy games, I look outside Steam's store for deals. Cross game friendlists, automatic game updates, etc are more important to me. And right now Steam has an almost monopoly on that in the PC-games market. If Steam were only a storefront, were almost nobody cares about the friendslist and its related features, I would look differently at the situation.

Okay, but we've already established that the account restriction doesn't apply to you (as multiple people, and I'm happy to join the list, would be willing to paypal you or anyone else on GAF $5 if it's a financial thing), so why are you talking about what you use? It doesn't impact you. I thought the basis of your anger was "the other people" that it impacts, like your multi-account using retail buying upstairs neighbor. Unfortunately no one can seem to establish a case where an actual person is actually impacted and doesn't have a remedy. This is the issue.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Not at all, he likes the badges, and he pays the gifts (unless I'm really gifting a game, like on holidays or birthday), he just doesn't have a credit card of his own.

I don't have a credit card either.
Doesn't steam let him pay with his bank account?

In my country there's options to pay with my bank card where I enter my pin, like at a store or at an ATM.

I agree fuck credits cards and having them required to use anything, but as far as I know steam has plenty of equally viable alternatives (ideal, bank contact, steam cards, paypal)

 

[MUnited83]

I dislike this. If you buy a game at retail or from a non-Steam marketplace (like Green Man Gaming, Humble Bundle etc) you are basically forced to use DRM that has minimal features to redeem it.

And that's before we get into the problematic precedent that this sets, what other services will now attempt to implement something similar.

Oh yeah , Origin will totally lock out their mobile chat, their trading cards and their Origin market system.




Oh wait

 

[Wanderer5]

Seems fair. $5 is not much at all really.

 

[Mendax]

as if this will work, spammers and scammers even pay sub fees or purchase full games to do their shit. Probably because hijacking or scamming 2 people already makes up for that initial investment.

they should put full community acces behind owning 10 games or spending $100 or something.

 

[Pakkidis]

If you've been using Steam for a long time and haven't paid 5$ yet, there is probably a good chance you don't even care about the restricted features.

I don't like having to spend money to unlock an account but this really seems like the only sure fire way to minimize spambots.

 

[Peagles]

Despite having my inventory private for years I started getting these spambot requests just recently, all with the picture of Gabe as a saint or something, it's a bit creepy.

Hopefully this puts a stop to that. But then again, I read that they use any accounts they hijack in order to hijack more accounts, so if they nab an account via phishing that has spent the $5 and use that as a spambot account, I guess we're back to square one.

 

[Stumpokapow]

as if this will work, spammers and scammers even pay sub fees or purchase full games to do their shit. Probably because hijacking or scamming 2 people already makes up for that initial investment.

You don't need to hijack or scam 2 people, you need to hijack or scam 2 people before your account is caught and disabled. That's what makes this effective leverage. If you try to scam 200 people, you might get one success (this would be exceedingly generous to spam success rates, which typically are WAY lower), but if somewhere in the first 199 failures you get reported and blocked, then you're out $5 and have zero successes, right?

That's the thing about these spam bots. None of them are around for long. Valve already has an acceptable process to detect and disable them. The issue is stemming the tide of new registrations and making it more "costly" to get in to begin with.

 

[JaseC]

Well this thread is hilarious I guess.

I mean, he hasn't bought a game on Steam for almost a year. But there's a reason for that and it has nothing to do with his seemingly implicit "allegiance" towards the PS4.

 

[Lanrutcon]

People who have Steam but haven't spent $5 bucks on it yet: how? dudes, just how? the sweet deals come so hard and fast on Steam, you gotta be some kind of monk or something not to buy stuff occasionally!

 

[Mendax]

You don't need to hijack or scam 2 people, you need to hijack or scam 2 people before your account is caught and disabled. That's what makes this effective leverage. If you try to scam 200 people, you might get one success, but if somewhere in the first 199 failures you get reported and blocked, then you're out $5 and have zero successes, right?

That's the thing about these spam bots. None of them are around for long. Valve already has an acceptable process to detect and disable them. The issue is stemming the tide of new registrations and making it more "costly" to get in to begin with.

Oh yeah thats true and now that I think about it the GW2 and WoW spammers and goldsellers etc might be more hacked accounts than new accounts paid for by the scammers - remember reading about it sometime. So now hacking other people's steam accounts might become more commonplace, great :S

People who have Steam but haven't spent $5 bucks on it yet: how? dudes, just how? the sweet deals come so hard and fast on Steam, you gotta be some kind of monk or something not to buy stuff occasionally!

maybe people buy just 1 code at retail or something and are stuck with steam then, having no interest in pc gaming except for that one game. Or f2p pc exclusive games. Doesnt sound so far fetched to me, the opposite really

 

[MUnited83]

Oh yeah thats true and now that I think about it the GW2 and WoW spammers and goldsellers etc might be more hacked accounts than new accounts paid for by the scammers - remember reading about it sometime. So now hacking other people's steam accounts might become more commonplace, great :S

Most of the hijacks are made with help of spambots in the first place. So no, its not about to become commonplace. There will be less hijacks.

 

[duckroll]

maybe people buy just 1 code at retail or something and are stuck with steam then, having no interest in pc gaming except for that one game. Or f2p pc exclusive games. Doesnt sound so far fetched to me, the opposite really

If they're only interested in one game and are "stuck" with Steam as a result of the game requiring Steam to run, and they have no interest in Steam as a platform beyond that, this doesn't sound like it will have much or any impact on them right? They'll still be able to launch Steam and play that one game. The expanded community features would mean nothing to these people.

 

[Mendax]

If they're only interested in one game and are "stuck" with Steam as a result of the game requiring Steam to run, and they have no interest in Steam as a platform beyond that, this doesn't sound like it will have much or any impact on them right? They'll still be able to launch Steam and play that one game. The expanded community features would mean nothing to these people.

what, then, if that 1 game is an online game that requires party formation through steam - and in light of that one might also want to add players to their friendlist?

(to me that would still be worth a 1 time $5 but I can see some ppl not liking it)

 

[foltzie1]

16 pages later and I still do not believe this actually affects anyone who actually plays games on Steam. Who has the computer and Internet access, but not the $5 (up to $20 if you don't have a CC and want to by a Steam card) if they somehow have not already made a purchase via the Steam Storefront?

If you are affected, are you really using the functionality that has been limited?

Does someone who objects to this change have a better alternative to prevent or catch spam accounts before they harass or harm actual users?

 

[duckroll]

what, then, if that 1 game is an online game that requires party formation through steam - and in light of that one might also want to add players to their friendlist?

(to me that would still be worth a 1 time $5 but I can see some ppl not liking it)

Is this a scenario where every single player this person wants to play with also only bought that one game from retail and has never bought anything from Steam and never wants to ever?

 

[Garjon]

You are overstating the amount of features that this is taking away from unpaid accounts.


Steam is far from the first game related service to lock communication features away from free accounts, and it won't be the last.

No I am stating that now people who just buy their games from places other than Steam will still have the same DRM as before but will now lose the features that make having DRM forced upon you less undesirable. The whole reason for Steam's success is that they offset their anti-consumer DRM with nifty features and they are wearing away those values with this decision. If all they wanted was to stop spammers they could have introduced (improved?) spam filters for players and other measures.

As for the second point, just because they aren't the only service to do this doesn't suddenly make it okay. It could quite easily prompt other services to do the same to see what they can get away with. It could prompt Valve to increase the minimum spend in the future. It is a totally anti-consumer move and is more disappointing to see it from a company that is so more known for its pro-consumer stance in the past.

 

[cyress8]

I only see 1 negative with this. The spam bots are going to start using stolen cards a lot more often. Valve will get their cut for awhile but the headaches afterwards will epic.

 

[Mendax]

Is this a scenario where every single player this person wants to play with also only bought that one game from retail and has never bought anything from Steam and never wants to ever?

Would that matter? Wouldn't everyone from said group have to make a purchase through steam first before they can friendlist/friend chat/invite each other etc.

Either way I see that this will only affect a very very small amount of people and I'm sure they don't mind buying a dlc hat or bikini costume or whatever this 1 time lol.

 

[BobLoblaw]

I'm ok with this. It'll clean up a lot of annoying bot crap, but it'll also help with people being scammed. Win-win. $5 is a very small price to pay to clean things up.

 

[fallout]

It is a totally anti-consumer move and is more disappointing to see it from a company that is so more known for its pro-consumer stance in the past.

I don't get how this move is anti-consumer. The entire purpose of this is to reduce the scamming of user accounts.

Does this also help Valve? Sure, but it's not the 5 bucks that helps them. It's the reduction of scammed accounts that helps them.

To expand on my thoughts, I can definitely see cases where this will negatively affect legitimate consumers. However, I don't think that inherently makes this move anti-consumer. It's unfortunate that it negatively affects some, but in the long run, it'll hopefully result in a better experience for most.

 

[paradise_circus]

Are the psn linked steam accounts excluded?

 

[robb_w7]

Good news

everyday i get at least 2 level zero accounts adding me....


Hopefully this will stop now

 

[duckroll]

Would that matter? Wouldn't everyone from said group have to make a purchase through steam first before they can friendlist/friend chat/invite each other etc.

Either way I see that this will only affect a very very small amount of people and I'm sure they don't mind buying a dlc hat or bikini costume or whatever this 1 time lol.

Yes it matters. Anyone who already has a non-limited account can just invite the limited person.

 

[Mr_Zombie]

People who have Steam but haven't spent $5 bucks on it yet: how? dudes, just how? the sweet deals come so hard and fast on Steam, you gotta be some kind of monk or something not to buy stuff occasionally!

I love how people in this thread keep ignoring PC games retail market, which is especially strong in Europe. So yes, if you're not a passionate gamer who constantly buys new games, has huge backlog and yet still hunts for new games during Steam sales, it is very possible to have dozens of games (Valve's included) and not one bought on Steam. Especially since majority of nowadays PC games use Steam as their primary DRM or implement Steamworks so you have to use Steam service whether you like it or not.

If they're only interested in one game and are "stuck" with Steam as a result of the game requiring Steam to run, and they have no interest in Steam as a platform beyond that, this doesn't sound like it will have much or any impact on them right? They'll still be able to launch Steam and play that one game. The expanded community features would mean nothing to these people.

Someone already gave an example. Two friends - both without Steam accounts yet - buy that new hot multiplayer game that uses Steamworks for network functionality. The game is bought at retail or in another shop and only activated on Steam. Since both of them are now users with limited access, unless one of them buys another game (that he doesn't need right now - he wants to play this new game he has just bought) they can't even add each other as friends (and thus even chat with each other via Steam).

Dunno, but this looks like a major inconvenience to me. Especially since a lot of games these days use matchmaking and unless you invite someone to a game, whether or not both of you will be put in the same game is random.

 

[macfoshizzle]

I disagree with this on a principle perspective.. Valve needs to implement another solution fo spam bots

 

[DoT2]

Yea I dont know, I am pretty neutral to this decision. It will reduce spambots but at the same time, I still feel maybe its a little too extreme.

 

[Xpliskin]

I love how people in this thread keep ignoring PC games retail market, which is especially strong in Europe. So yes, if you're not a passionate gamer who constantly buys new games, has huge backlog and yet still hunts for new games during Steam sales, it is very possible to have dozens of games (Valve's included) and not one bought on Steam. Especially since majority of nowadays PC games use Steam as their primary DRM or implement Steamworks so you have to use Steam service whether you like it or not.



Someone already gave an example. Two friends - both without Steam accounts yet - buy that new hot multiplayer game that uses Steamworks for network functionality. The game is bought at retail or in another shop and only activated on Steam. Since both of them are now users with limited access, unless one of them buys another game (that he doesn't need right now - he wants to play this new game he just bought) they can't even add each other as friends (and thus even chat with each other via Steam).

Dunno, but this looks like a major inconvenience to me. Especially since a lot of games these days use matchmaking and unless you invite someone to a game, whether or not both of you will be put in the same game is random.

Wait, you mean if someone buys a retail disc with a steam key (e.g wolfenstein tno) and adds it to his/her account, it won't count as being spent on the steam store ?

 

[Kenai]

I love how people in this thread keep ignoring PC games retail market, which is especially strong in Europe. So yes, if you're not a passionate gamer who constantly buys new games, has huge backlog and hunts on those games during Steam sales, it is very possible to have dozens of games (Valve's included) and not one bought on Steam. Especially since majority of nowadays PC games use Steam as their primary DRM or implement Steamworks so you have to use Steam service whether you like it or not.

Pardon my misunderstanding but is there something about Europe that makes it intrinsically more difficult to add $5 to your account? I'm pretty sure you can use Paypal and other services too. I'm finding it exceedingly hard to believe that a "passionate PC gamer with lots of games" has never found anything worthy of $5 on steam ever.

Someone already gave an example. Two friends - both without Steam accounts yet - buy that new hot multiplayer game that uses Steamworks for network functionality. The game is bought at retail or in another shop and only activated on Steam. Since both of them are now users with limited access, unless one of them buys another game (that he doesn't need right now - he wants to play this new game he just bought) they can't even add each other as friends (and thus even chat with each other via Steam).

Dunno, but this looks like a major inconvenience to me. Especially since a lot of games these days use matchmaking and unless you invite someone to a game, whether or not both of you will be put in the same game is random.

The problem with this scenario is that a game doesn't have to actually be bought with that $5. They put it on their account and if they don't see anything they want, it can stay there until they do find something. No one's forcing someone to actually use that $5, just to keep it there and "verify' that they aren't another bot, and only if they literally never buy anything else from Steam prior.

I do think it can be an inconvenience for people, but I do think they amount of people inconvenienced by spamming/bots is far greater than the amount of people that will fit the narrow scenario of "buys lots of hot new games for PC but has spent nothing on Steam for him/her or their friends". And i certainly can't call it a "major" inconvenience in those scenarios either. The "I only play f2p and never buy anything in them" crowd is probably the biggest case and even then, they can stand to "put in" $5 for the amount of time those games have given them imo.

 

[Kuga]

I don't relish the precedent that this sets for PC gaming (paying for basic online functionality / service) but at the same time it is an entirely understandable move. Monetary costs are one of the few ways to stop spammers and I'm not sure that Valve can be expected to monitor all accounts at all times for phishing/scamming activity. Also, they left alternative methods of spending $5 by allowing Steam Wallet gift cards so a credit/debit card is not required.

 

[duckroll]

Someone already gave an example. Two friends - both without Steam accounts yet - buy that new hot multiplayer game that uses Steamworks for network functionality. The game is bought at retail or in another shop and only activated on Steam. Since both of them are now users with limited access, unless one of them buys another game (that he doesn't need right now - he wants to play this new game he has just bought) they can't even add each other as friends (and thus even chat with each other via Steam).

Yes, that someone was me.

 

[Revolutionary]

Just got another spam account friend request. Up the requirement to $10 plz Gabe thx

 

[Mr_Zombie]

Pardon my misunderstanding but is there something about Europe that makes it intrinsically more difficult to add $5 to your account? I'm pretty sure you can use Paypal and other services too. I'm finding it exceedingly hard to believe that a "passionate PC gamer with lots of games" has never found anything worthy of $5 on steam ever.

No, it's not hard. But many people simply don't need to buy anything on Steam since they either a) don't play that much (and buying games just for the sake of buying games isn't their thing) or b) can find those games cheaper somewhere else. Not everyone is a GAF member - there are people who buy that one game and play just that one game for months.

The problem with this scenario is that a game doesn't have to actually be bought with that $5. They put it on their account and if they don't see anything they want, it can stay there until they do find something.

That doesn't matter. You still need to shell out another $5 (even if it just sits in your Steam wallet) just so you can fully enjoy a multiplayer game - that you've just payed $60 (or equivalent) for - with your friend.

I just don't understand why can't Valve offer another way to verify that you're a legit person and not a spambot without requiring you to buy something via Steam. Dunno, SMS or e-mail account verification for example?

Yes, that someone was me.

>_>
<_<

shit.

Wait, you mean if someone buys a retail disc with a steam key (e.g wolfenstein tno) and adds it to his/her account, it won't count as being spent on the steam store ?

Yes. That's because you can buy games with Steam activation codes even for $0.01 (e.g. Humble Bundle) or even get them for free and Steam can't different between retail disc keys and, for example, Humble Bundle ones.

 

[Garjon]

I don't get how this move is anti-consumer. The entire purpose of this is to reduce the scamming of user accounts.

Does this also help Valve? Sure, but it's not the 5 bucks that helps them. It's the reduction of scammed accounts that helps them.

To expand on my thoughts, I can definitely see cases where this will negatively affect legitimate consumers. However, I don't think that inherently makes this move anti-consumer. It's unfortunate that it negatively affects some, but in the long run, it'll hopefully result in a better experience for most.

It is anti consumer because it makes an extra demand of the consumer without giving anything in return, regardless of how big of a deal you consider it. It wouldn't be a problem if Steam were not needed for pretty much every retail PC game made nowadays but that's how it is.

 

[KHlover]

It is anti consumer because it makes an extra demand of the consumer without giving anything in return, regardless of how big of a deal you consider it. It wouldn't be a problem if Steam were not needed for pretty much every retail PC game made nowadays but that's how it is.

Wrong, you get whatever you buy with those $5 in return. "Not giving anything in return" would be if you had to pay a fee directly to Valve to unlock those features.

 

[Hollow]

Looks like I'm on the limited access list.

All I've got on my list is free games and the Portal 2 key from the PS3 version.

 

[Deadbeat]

I got up this morning and saw one invite and it was from a normal person doing a trade. Life is good.

 

[fallout]

It is anti consumer because it makes an extra demand of the consumer without giving anything in return, regardless of how big of a deal you consider it.

You seem to be just ignoring what this is all about and distilling it down into a generic consumer rights issue.

This doesn't lock anyone out of playing games. It reduces some of the functionality that some users had, but it benefits more users overall by reducing spam bots and ultimately, accounts from being scammed. Furthermore, the barrier to regaining that functionality is incredibly low.

Also, out of curiosity, do you also consider requiring Steam Guard for Steam trading to be anti-consumer?

It wouldn't be a problem if Steam were not needed for pretty much every retail PC game made nowadays but that's how it is.

That's a fair point, but this is hardly a case where I see Steam's dominance as that much of an issue.

 

[Card Boy]

I am all for a restriction on accounts with zero games but I think retail games should unlock it be honest. Not everyone wants to give money to Valve or invest in the Steam store. Some people can spend hundreds of dollars on Steamworks games but it doesn't have to be on Steam itself. I feel this system is punishing those people.

In my 8 years on Steam I have never ONCE encountered a spam bot by the way. The same goes for family and friends.

 

[Sendou]

I am all for a restriction on accounts with zero games but I think retail games should unlock it be honest. Not everyone wants to give money to Valve or invest in the Steam store. Some people can spend hundreds of dollars on Steamworks games but it doesn't have to be on Steam itself. I feel this system is punishing those people.

It's just that you can get retail keys for cents or free even. There's no distinction between keys that come with the game you buy from a retail store and keys you get from buying a game online from somewhere else than Steam.

 

[funkystudent]

Dont have a problem with most of it but registering a retail game should be enough to let you access the features.

 

[MUnited83]

I am all for a restriction on accounts with zero games but I think retail games should unlock it be honest. Not everyone wants to give money to Valve or invest in the Steam store. Some people can spend hundreds of dollars on Steamworks games but it doesn't have to be on Steam itself. I feel this system is punishing those people.

Dont have a problem with most of it but registering a retail game should be enough to let you access the features.

One can get keys for free or very cheap thanks to indie bundles and giveaways, so no, it wouldn't work if retail games were allowed to lift the limit.

Wait, you mean if someone buys a retail disc with a steam key (e.g wolfenstein tno) and adds it to his/her account, it won't count as being spent on the steam store ?

Of course not. First because of what I mentioned above, second because Valve doesn't really get a single cent from that purchase unless it's a Valve title.

 

[Parsnip]

As it happens, you can right now get Space Hack for free from indiegala store and it would count as a retail key as well.