So, people who only buy physical copies of games on PC are now effectively even more fucked, because not only do they need to activate most of those games on Steam, but they cannot use online multiplayer properly?
Just got another fried request from a Lv. 0 bot with a private profile. Seems like they didn't implement this yet.
Sorry, I'm not playing on PC and only have a Steam account for some games a friend gifted to me, so maybe I understand this wrong, but, in order to manage your friendslist you need to have spent 5$ on Steam funds and without a friendslist you cannot play online with your friends (if not by chance), or am I missing something here?Why's that?
Sorry, I'm not playing on PC and only have a Steam account for some games a friend gifted to me, so maybe I understand this wrong, but, in order to manage your friendslist you need to have spent 5$ on Steam funds and without a friendslist you cannot play online with your friends (if not by chance), or am I missing something here?
The only restriction in place is that a person who has not spend $5 on Steam store (or added those funds to their Steam wallet) can't send friend requests. They can receive them or be invited to play sessions without restrictions.
There are already tons of active spambot accounts. I get spammed by a new one a few times a week.
I personally think that $5 USD seems a little low, but it is a good starting point and should at least limit the spam.
But two friends who only pay for retail games are fucked with their legally bought retail games just because Valve decides to change policy?
The only restriction in place is that a person who has not spend $5 on Steam store (or added those funds to their Steam wallet) can't send friend requests. They can receive them or be invited to play sessions without restrictions.
Fucked? Spending $5 on digital games one time is, at worst, a minor inconvenience. And how many more years do you expect buying only retail PC games to be viable?But two friends who only pay for retail games are fucked with their legally bought retail games just because Valve decides to change policy?
They can still play online together, just not add each other to their respective Friend Lists.But two friends who only pay for retail games are fucked with their legally bought retail games just because Valve decides to change policy?
Also these two friends have yet to add each other. Had they added each other some time ago they would still be friends, right?But two friends who only pay for retail games are fucked with their legally bought retail games just because Valve decides to change policy?
If you don't buy digital ever, you're paying 5$ for an arbitrary rule that might change whenever Valve wants to, potentially demanding another donation, for online play on a system that prides itself with its openness.They're not fucked. One of them are just required to add $5 to his or her Steam wallet, if they want to able to each other to their friend lists. Don't see how $5 for two people is "being fucked".
The friends list is not needed for that?They can still play online together, just not add each other to their respective Friend Lists.
PS3, Wii U, 3DS, PSV. That exact game? Probably none, because MS and Sony demand money for online play, however, you pay directly for online play, not for digital content and obtain the right to use the online mechanisms of games arbitrarily, too.To be fair, if they can't spend 5 bucks on the Steam Store, I don't know what systems they'd be otherwise playing these games on.
If you don't buy digital ever, you're paying 5$ for an arbitrary rule that might change whenever Valve wants to, potentially demanding another donation, for online play on a system that prides itself with its openness.
PS3, Wii U, 3DS, PSV. That exact game? Probably none, because MS and Sony demand money for online play, however, you pay directly for online play, not for digital content and obtain the right to use the online mechanisms of games arbitrarily, too.
I have to say I don't understand what that last sentence means.
If you don't buy digital ever, you're paying 5$ for an arbitrary rule that might change whenever Valve wants to, potentially demanding another donation, for online play on a system that prides itself with its openness.
If you don't buy digital ever, you're paying 5$ for an arbitrary rule that might change whenever Valve wants to, potentially demanding another donation, for online play on a system that prides itself with its openness.
Sorry, I'm not playing on PC and only have a Steam account for some games a friend gifted to me
Sounds reasonable.I believe he's implying that MS and Sony charging you $50 every year to be able to play online is better than Valve asking you to buy yourself a $5 game once to be able to use some tertiary features on their network.
Because MS and Sony didn't force you to buy digital content.
They just straight up charged you to access online features on their networks.
I know it should be like $5 each month, you know... to protect you .
I am skeptical this measure will work, this is effectively saying the value those spammers get is less than $5 per account which I find low too. Trouble is that raising it much more would not go down well with users.
I know it should be like $5 each month, you know... to protect you .
I am skeptical this measure will work, this is effectively saying the value those spammers get is less than $5 per account which I find low too. Trouble is that raising it much more would not go down well with users.
Two mornings now I've woken up, blearily fumbling for the latest news on GAF, and thought, "Surely that dumb Steam thread can't still be a thing, page after page of the same circular arguments, devil's advocates, and willful obtuseness," and yet, here we are.
Two mornings now I've woken up, blearily fumbling for the latest news on GAF, and thought, "Surely that dumb Steam thread can't still be a thing, page after page of the same circular arguments, devil's advocates, and willful obtuseness," and yet, here we are.
As someone who buys all his games retail (mostly because I greatly enjoy the smell of the manual), I agree with Yoshi, and I am very offended. This is why I only buy nintendo products these days, a company I can trust, unlike these anti consumer companies like Valve.
As someone who buys all his games retail (mostly because I greatly enjoy the smell of the manual), I agree with Yoshi, and I am very offended. This is why I only buy nintendo products these days, a company I can trust, unlike these anti consumer companies like Valve.
As someone who buys all his games retail (mostly because I greatly enjoy the smell of the manual), I agree with Yoshi, and I am very offended. This is why I only buy nintendo products these days, a company I can trust, unlike these anti consumer companies like Valve.
You can't think of each "account" as a "per account" value for spammers. They operate bot farms which easily replace accounts when they are banned because new accounts on Steam were basically free. If to do what they need to do now, they have to pay 5 dollars per account replacement, that will definitely change the bottom line. For example, how many spam accounts do you think get banned before they make a single cent?
So, people who only buy physical copies of games on PC are now effectively even more fucked, because not only do they need to activate most of those games on Steam, but they cannot use online multiplayer properly?
This is like people complaining about having to pay to remove 3DS browser restrictions, it's only a precaution. A one time, small fee. Hell, you can go buy a $15 card for Steam one time to buy a game or DLC and you're past it.
Phil Fish is Yoshi. Yoshi is Phil Fish.(from a Freedom Planet thread a while back that I remembered)
Why are you even posting in this thread?
This is like people complaining about having to pay to remove 3DS browser restrictions, it's only a precaution. A one time, small fee. Hell, you can go buy a $15 card for Steam one time to buy a game or DLC and you're past it.
I'm surprised Valve didn't do something like this sooner. To the best of my knowledge they had made requirements for participating in sale events (min level 8 or similar), but these anti-spam and anti-phishing measures are sorely needed.
Last thing I heard, Nintendo required me to buy a very specific $200 machine in order to access its features and online network. That's as anti-consumer as one can be, in my book.As someone who buys all his games retail (mostly because I greatly enjoy the smell of the manual), I agree with Yoshi, and I am very offended. This is why I only buy nintendo products these days, a company I can trust, unlike these anti consumer companies like Valve.
I don't get it. It's this an aversion to digital purchases? Even if you only buy retail, can't you take this as the cost of convenience and find something worth $5 to you? The amount and variation of content on steam is incredible. There is literally something for everyone.
The browser they probably don't even use.
I think this part of the swapnote controversy is basically the reason why:Is that restriction even in place outside of Japan? I just visited pornhub and watched a video to test it, worked without a problem. Also never heard about it again after the European and US launch of the New 3DS. I don't think the restriction exists for us at all.
http://kotaku.com/child-predators-were-using-nintendos-swapnote-service-1459304126 said:...Yomiuri Online doesn't specifically mention Swapnote and says that the girl used the 3DS's online function to access an online dating site...