-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
PC gaming WITHOUT Steam... is this possible?
- Thread starter ACH1LL3US
- Start date
I was talking about performing a 1:1 copy of the files on my hard drive. If you lost the disc, then it's certainly not the fault of the copying process itself. To me, losing a disc and losing my password are about as probable (neither will ever happen because I have a short list of passwords and a short list of places that I keep my CDs).brain_stew said:
What have you ever had to use to burn a disc that was any sketchier than the burning software that came with your burner (if it's retail) and maybe Daemon Tools?
brain_stew
Member
Fugu said:
What's the point of copying the files installed on your PC? Restoring them to a new machine isn't going to properly install your game. Some older games will play but they won't be properly installed and damn near every modern game will play silly buggers if you do this.
Any game with some kind of disc based copy protection isn't going rip/burn cleanly with a stock DVD burning software.
I rarely have a problem directly copying files and I've never had a problem that wasn't fixable in less than ten minutes (Either by registry faneggeling or by moving around a DLL). I dual boot so I have a lot of games that aren't installed on both operating systems but that I play on both anyway.brain_stew said:
I NEED SCISSORS
Banned
I hardly ever buy a brand new game on Steam. I always opt for the disc because it's cheaper at launch and includes some nice packaging (so far this year I have not bought BioShock 2, Metro 2033, Mass Effect 2, BFBC2, StarCraft II, DMC4, Burnout, Mafia II and Just Cause 2 on Steam). For me, Steam has it's uses as a vessel for super cheap games later down the line (especially at holidays) and as a sweet launcher which you can keep all your games in (including non-Steam games). I'm really liking that moveable steamapps folder idea too.
Fugu said:
There is a feeling among people who dislike Steam that it is being shoved down gamers throats whether they like it or not. I don't think anyone has a problem with Steam existing, we just want to be able to buy the games somewhere else (unless it's a Valve game, in which case using their DRM system is entirely understandable)
Seriously, there are people here who are gleeful at having one company decide everything- which makes me think most of those folks don't remember the crap Nintendo did in the 80s.
I'm not as worried, because I know that for most of the games I like, that they won't be Steamworks, and if they are (Civ V), there's enough stuff that I do like that I can just not give them my business and still be satisfied.
brain_stew
Member
Fugu said:
So messing about in the registry and with system files (with no guarantee of success) is easier than double clicking on a game listed in Steam? Quit viewing things from your own twisted and absurd viewpoint, your usage cases and your view of what is a convenience, is, quite frankly, absurd. Nothing will ever satisfy you but then no one else will ever have the same ridiculous and specific needs so it doesn't really matter anyway.
faceless007
Member
I don't think the complaint is that Steam is the only storefront through which to buy Steamworks games, it's that more and more games are becoming Steamworks games which necessitate Steam.
faceless007
Member
brain_stew said:
He's giving his reasons for not liking Steam and he's never claimed his usage case is normal. Is he not allowed to do that? "Stop doing things the way you like and do them my way" is hardly a convincing argument. Unless you're Apple.
brain_stew
Member
arstal said:
Gmaes include Steamworks support so that they can cheaply improve the experience for the vast majority of their customers. It brings a whole host of useful and tangible benefits that any reasonable gamer can appreciate as useful additions even if they don't make full use of them, themselves. The trade off? It pisses off a tiny fraction of potential buyers that have serious paranoid delusion and control issues, if you fall in that category (which you clearly do) then it suck to be you but fuck it, I'm not having my gaming experience severely hampered because of a few people with unreasonable demands. Things aren't going to change, so you either get with the program or bail out.
Steam and Steamworks are two of the best things to happen to PC gaming in many a year, and no competitor has come up with a viable free alternative. Competitors need to quit complaining that Steam has done it too good and focus on producing a service that surpasses it. Its not as if I'm adverse to using other services either, I own games on gog.com (the one service that can match/surpass Steam), Gamer's Gate, D2D, Impulse and GFWL but its no coincidence that my Steam list is bigger than all of them put together. They've simlply got a better product.
brain_stew
Member
faceless007 said:
He initially presented them as actual genuine complaints that might affect more than just him, but they're really nothing than the most absurd and personal reasons. He has also made several false claims which I have had to correct him on, I'm sorry but doing that is going to wear my patience.
poppabk said:
You won't get people to recognise and accept this. I assume everyone that boycotts Steamworks titles also boycott GFWL titles as well? Oh, and Stardock's games since they require an account to be created and logged in to get their patches which are mandatory to get their games actually working?
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Linux, fuck yeah.Fredescu said:
I have had to involve the registry once and I've only ever had to insert a Direct X 9 dll. That's about as many problems as I've had transfering Steam games and I've had to transfer games normally far more times.brain_stew said:
You absolutely refuse to believe that there might be people out there who don't want Steam for legitimate resons, do you? How many times have I stated in this thread that I'm not making an effort to convert anyone else to not using Steam?
You say that I'm not satisfied and that's horse shit; I am fully satisfied not using Steam, and that's why I don't use Steam. Steam offers me absolutely nothing. I am not inconvenienced at all by having to not lose my discs, but I am certainly inconvenienced by having yet another chat protocol and an application that has to go with my games. I am also bothered by the lack of ownership that I hold over games that I pay for; if given the option to choose between ownership and licensing, I will always choose ownership.
EDIT: Upon reading your posts about Steamworks, I've realized that the root of this issue is that you're entirely dismissive of any concern that you don't share. This is a pointless debate until you acknowledge that the concerns of others are not intrinsically invalid.
brain_stew
Member
Fredescu said:
I'm sure they'll enjoy Tux Racer on Linux just fine. No worries about corporate control with open source software.
If a game wants to add community features, wants to offer unlimited downlaods to users, wants to support cloud saves and wants to add decent multiplayer for free, wants to keep multiplayer users upto date, then tell me what is the solution, other than a service like Steamworks or GFWL? A service like this can't be delivered by the OSS community, its completely infeasible for individual developers to setup and having 100s of different logins is not even desirable anyway. If gamers want these features in their PC games and don't want to see the platform ignored by publishers then they're going to have to accept that someone needs to provide this service. Currently Valve do and they do it better than anyone before them, and until there's a viable competitor in this field, Steamworks support will continue to rise.
faceless007
Member
We're talking about fucking video games. Is one supposed to have non-personal reasons for preferring one thing over another?brain_stew said:
brain_stew
Member
Fugu said:
Nope, notice how I didn't call out anyone complaining about the chargeback situation? I just feel that your personal complaints, while genuine for yourself, are very personal and abstract and don't reflect the concerns of anyone but the smallest of niches, possibly no one other than yourself. That's fine, you have every choice to ignore the service as does anybody else. No one is forcing you to use Steam.
brain_stew
Member
Fugu said:
PC gaming in 2003-6 was in the worst state its ever been in actual fact, retail was being rolled back but with nothing to take its place. Its recently seen a huge renaissance thanks in no small part to services like Steam. The needs of consumers and publishers change over time and not having basic community features as well as solid (but reasonable) DRM just isn't acceptable in this day and age, its a sure fire way to kill your product before its even launched.
I am not the only person who believes that the issue of licensing is a real one and I am, in fact, not the only person to bring it up in this thread. I also know for a fact that I am not the only one who considers the Steam application to be an inconvenience. So why are you arguing with me?brain_stew said:
It was? In what way?brain_stew said:
In what way has DRM become necessary?
brain_stew
Member
Fredescu said:
But Gamespy is a service just like Steamworks and GFWL, just an incredibly shit one.
faceless007
Member
Yeah, that's the reason. Publishers are ambivalent at best about the fact that it's a DRM solution.brain_stew said:
I'm not entirely with Fugu here but dismissing the anti-DRM side (that statement is not specific to Fugu) with a patronizing ad hominem like that doesn't exactly put you in the pro-consumer camp.
Ah, the old "STFU, get out of my hobby" card.
No.
brain_stew
Member
Fugu said:
It requires a personal account and CD key to access the online portion (which is often the major portion of a game) of a game. Its DRM.
brain_stew
Member
faceless007 said:
DRM was here a long time before Steam and its here to stay, like it or not. Steam offers one of the most consumer friendly approaches to DRM and that's why I see the complaints as rather over baked. No large third party publisher will even think of releasing a game on the PC without a robust DRM solution. these days. I don't particularly like it but that's the harsh reality of the situation. Given that, wouldn't you rather get a bunch of awesome tangible extras out of the deal?
What's the alternative that people prefer? Publishers starting to yank support for the platform? Widespread adoption of UBI DRM, TAGEs or Securom? I'd love all games to be DRM free as well, but its not going to happen and people need to stop kidding themselves of that fact.
brain_stew
Member
Fugu said:
Absolutely. The retail decline was in full force, and there was no replacement for it yet.
Fugu said:
In the way that any medium-large publisher won't even begin to think of releasing a game on the platform without a robust DRM solution. DRM was here long before Steam and its here to stay, like it or not. Given the choice between Securom, TAGEs, UBI DRM, GFWL account based DRM, is Steam really has horrific as you make out, really? None of those other solutions offer you the numerous tangible benefits that comes with Steamworks, GFWL delivers a few but its missing key features like unlimited downloads and cloud saves.
brain_stew
Member
Shambles said:
All Steamworks titles are pirated eventually, but pirating Steamworks titles certainly involves a more convoluted and risky process than pirating a DRM free title does, that's beside the point anyway.
Steamworks is not a bullet proof DRM solution but then nothing is. It completely eliminates all day zero and casual piracy and that's valuable to a publisher. If a free solution deters a mere handful of pirates then its inclusion is worthwile and preventing the game from appearing on Torrent sites weeks before release certainly deters a certain number of pirates as does preventing people to share/copy discs among friends. It doesn't matter if DRM increases or decreases sales anyway, that debate will never be settled (although I'd find it very hard for anyone to argue that Steamworks support has a negative effect on sales), what matters is that publishers have already made their mind up about this long ago and they're not going to change their stance.
P.S. Disc checks are DRM as well btw, and one of the forms of DRM I find the most restricting. I'll take a form of DRM that actually offers me several significant benefits over one that restricts my ease of access to a game.
Hellsing321
Member
Steamworks stops day zero piracy. Thats the biggest thing that publishers worry about.Shambles said:
But DRM never became necessary, it just became standard. All DRM is bad, including Steam. That there are worse implementations of DRM doesn't make Steam any better.brain_stew said:
The alternative I would prefer is CD-keys or no DRM. Publishers did fine without DRM before and nothing changed (other than arguably the quality of their work).
He said "service like GFWL or Steam". It is nothing like either of those; it is a matchmaking service.Firestorm said:
No, it's not. It's a service like GFWL or Steamworks.Fugu said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameSpy_Technology
Yes I did. GameSpy Technology provides services (one of which is digital rights management) that can be integrated with a game much like Games for Windows Live and Steamworks. Is your argument that GameSpy does not provide a GUI for the user and is therefore not a service?Fugu said:
jim-jam bongs
Member
I have little more to add to the discussion except to say that Gamespy is truly balls. Pretty sure that was what soured me on UT3 too. You can't even save your single player progress without it.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
arstal said:
That's a really poor analogy.
A closer to the truth real world example would be that people under suspicion of money laundering have their assets seized and their bank accounts frozen.
arstal said:
But as other people keep rebutting to those people;
- Valve isn't a monopoly, has no chance of becoming a monopoly, and as soon as steamworks in any way becomes a consumer hindrance (as opposed to the MASSIVE BOON it currently is) it will stop being used as the gaming market is self-correcting of dumbass anti-consumer moves (see the 'popularity' of GFWL thanks to MS attempts to charge PC gamers for online play)
- By idyllic utopian standards, Valves DRM system is annoying. By actual modern real world contemporary standards, it is absolutely nothing at all and provides multiple benefits to offset its single annoyance (that you must go online once to register a game). Which really, anyone complaining about by using a PC to post on messageboards is capable of doing.
- The only examples of Steam as a retailer being forced upon people is by other DD services making their own boneheaded decisions to not sell steamworks games, which - hilariously - is an anti competitive move by the competitors. Other retailers can compete with Steam as a retailer on the same things that retailers have always competed on; price, availability, quality of service and quality of product (in this case getting their own preorder bonuses - this is why I bought Civ 5 on D2D rather than Steam).
faceless007 said:
Steamworks is worse than other DRM solutions?
Is worse than GFWL?
Is worse than the requirements of DirectX and Windows for most PC games?
Is worse than Gamespy?
Is worse than fileplanet having a near monopoly on patch and mod distribution?
Peoples problems with Steam near inevitably boil down to 'it's a problem because its a retailer AND a DRM solution, and although it does nothing wrong at the moment MAYBE IT MIGHT DO SOMEDAY!'
brain_stew said:
Exactly.
Stardock bitch and moan the loudest, all the while playing catch up in terms of features while simultaneously being unable to work out of they want to be a gaming platform or some kind of shareware apps marketplace.
D2D gave up their first mover advantage and massive corporate backing by having a frankly shoddy digital distribution system that required game-specific patches purely for D2D that would often arrive long after normal patches were available.
GFWL assumed they could just rip people off like they do on console because achievements are SO AWESOME people would pay for the privilege.
GOG have carved themselves a niche by offering a service that nobody else does, gaining customers and goowill along the way (even despite hilariously poor marketing stunts).
Steam continue to innovate in the consumer space and gain marketshare while doing so; even just recently offering auto-updating of GPU drivers and OSX ports of games that are available to both Mac and PC users with one purchase.
There are still plenty of areas where PC gaming could be improved if Steams competition genuinely wanted to be competition (for example *nix ports of games), but as long as they just add 'me too!' features after Steam has added them with no consumer benefits while crying about how popular steam is, I cannot take their attempts at competition seriously.
They're like uncompetitive businesses begging the government for subsidies and trade restrictions to try and keep them competitive in the face of better run busineses elsewhere. That is what is genuinely anti-competitive, not steam.
MrNyarlathotep said:
a) I'm worried about the innocent, not the guilty. It is newsworthy when Valve does screw up, which means it's very rare, but it does happen. As for Steam, its fanboys have proven to me that even if Steam became a hindrance, they would still lap it up, the same way console fanboys do. Steam's solution is to assume guilt, and since their support is slow, it just makes it worse.
b) As for valve being a monopoly- they've already started to use their market power to deny certain games being on Steam (Din's Curse, Star Ruler initially)- and Steamworks DRM when used by big publishers denies Steam's two biggest competitors from putting games on their service. They are showing monopoly-like power already- even if they aren't trying to be evil about it- yet. Din's Curse is an excellent game, and not being on Steam did cost them.
As for the example you mentioned, the reason the other services couldn't sell the game, is because if they did, the profits would go to Steam for their cut of it. It's like Pepsi having to give Coke a nickel for shelf space in a store. D2D only was able to compete due to not caring since no one buys their crap anymore anyway, so they have to resort to those tactics.
c) You don't have the right to tell me what is annoying and what isn't. A number of people find Steam DRM annoying. Is it worse then the others- usually not, but sometimes yes. I'll say this- from my one experience with GFWL (SFIV). The Impulse version with GFWL was superior to the Steam version in functionality. The Gamespy service- no one uses it because it is complete garbage, it's irrelevant. GG is a different service then Steam entirely- less BS, but no client (I prefer that). Impulse is closer to Steam, you lose out on community size and game selection, but get a better DRM, smoothing running client, faster DL speeds, and IRC integration. I prefer all those features, and since I"m not a huge MP person outside of fighters, Steam's benefits mean jack to me, and its downsides mean everything.
There are non-intrusive DRM's out there, that I don't think are reasonable to complain about, but that's my opinion, and I understand why others think differently. I think companies have a right to DRM their updates. I don't mind serial-key checks, or online activations that don't require a bloaty third-party client to run every time you play the game.
I do think some people were playing Civ V early via cracks. Many of them were people who had gotten their hands on Civ V early, but Steam wouldn't let them play it. I'd bet many of those people found out about Steam cracks due to that. (denying people the right to play what they bought). It is as effective as stopping zero-day piracy as other DRM's. What makes it work for publishers is Steam effectively price dumps (which is anti-competitive) whereas the other DRM schemes make a profit on their DRM. In that regard, Steam is good, because it's putting the DRM protection racket out of business.
If it wasn't for DRM though , Steam would not have gotten the third-party exclusives that it did. There would be no business reason to shut off 10% of your sales if it wasn't for the price dumping DRM.
While I really dislike the DRM providers, they would have a good case for anti-competitive behavior lawsuit against Valve.
Logic check: would companies pay for Steamworks DRM the same way they'd pay for Securom, knowing that the use of Steamworks DRM costs them extra sales from Steam haters (even if that's a 5% figure), if the benefits of Steam weren't included? How many third-party Steamworks exclusives use additional DRM on top of Steam would be a good indication of the answer there.
Also, go to the Civ IV mod site. Fileplanet does NOT have a monopoly there.
d) Stardock doesn't really complain- they just state that a DD monopoly is bad for their business, which is why they made Impulse. In terms of features, if you've actually played Elemental (I wouldn't right now, but I have)- its integration into Impulse is SUPERIOR to Steam's with their games. As for what it wants to be- the answer is both. It has to be both , as the majority of Stardock's business is its apps. (seriously, you give money to Stardock every time you buy windows)
The best case scenario for SD right now would be for Microsoft or someone else to get serious on DD, accept SD's model, and put some marketing muscle behind Impulse as a way to prevent a monopoly, or for them to somehow buy GG or Paradox, and corner the strategy game market (which would be bad for me), forcing fans to get Impulse the same way big-box game fans have to get Steam. That would be a bleak scenario though, and I'd be complaining about SD in that case.
You're right about D2D and GOG, I'll give you that. As for Valve innovating with Mac stuff, Gamersgate was doing it at least one year prior.
You also know nothing about how monopolies work- they are what is called a market failure, which means it's anticompetitive to keep them around. I don't think an argument can be made that it's in the public interest for there to be a Steam monopoly- except for the Steam Sunshine Squad-GAF, who would be bitching when prices rose and DRM got worse without competition to keep Valve honest. Anyone who doesn't see how combining a store and a DRM solution in one go will cause problems if it gains too much market share- fails at understanding the economics behind market failures.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
This isn't true though. Nothing prevents other download services from putting steamworks games on their service, in fact I have several steamworks games that I bought on D2D and through THQ's own store that I actually downloaded through steam saving D2D and THQ the bandwidth. I buy games from pretty much any online store that allows unlimited downloads (Gog, Gamersgate, D2D, EA store, impulse) from retail and I will purchase steamworks games from stores that don't allow unlimited downloads - Steam has a lot of competition.arstal said:
poppabk said:
Let me ask you this then- if the games didn't have Steamworks DRM, would D2D be selling it with Steamworks? The only reason D2D sold Civ V was because they're not getting much of any business right now, they've been eaten up by the other 2nd-place DD services and Steam. So they decided to compete on price, because that's the only selling point they have left. It's not a viable long-term strategy.
Buy from Steam= DRM , but you get something out of it.
Buy from D2D= activation-limit DRM without the benefits of Steam.
Buy from GG/Impulse= less DRM without the benefits of Steam, plus Impulse benefits in the case of Impulse.
Why would you pick D2D over Steam, or even GG/Impulse?
This is why I say D2D is in trouble, compared to the other services. I just can't see how they'll compete in the future except on price, and that isn't a long-term solution.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Why does Valve need market power to reject a game being on Steam? They reject games if they disagree with the proposed pricing, like 30$ for an indie game. It is their service so they can reject any game they want, just like impulse rejecting Steamworks games.
Also, Impulse and others should sell Steamworks games if they sell GFWL games. It's exactly the same concept for both and they look like complete hypocrites. And anyways, if their service was good enough they woulodn't have to worry about Steamworks games convincing people to jump ship.
Also, Impulse and others should sell Steamworks games if they sell GFWL games. It's exactly the same concept for both and they look like complete hypocrites. And anyways, if their service was good enough they woulodn't have to worry about Steamworks games convincing people to jump ship.