Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: DCFan on February 11, 2011, 05:55:07 pm
-
GameSpot just did an interview with the Duke Nukem crew, who seem to be playing the full game right now.
http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/dukenukemforever/video/6298430
-
Pretty interesting stuff.
In other news, apparently there's going to be a special edition (http://kotaku.com/#!5757907/duke-nukem-forever-gives-its-biggest-fans-balls-of-steel) of the game with a ridiculous amount of swag. I have to say, I'm sorely tempted.
-
I'm looking forward to doug huggem more though, with those good morals and stuff
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/doug-huggem-mega64/710388
-
Pretty interesting stuff.
In other news, apparently there's going to be a special edition (http://kotaku.com/#!5757907/duke-nukem-forever-gives-its-biggest-fans-balls-of-steel) of the game with a ridiculous amount of swag. I have to say, I'm sorely tempted.
Doesn't look that tempting. The extra stuff is cool. Was thinking the special edition had more duke catch phrases than the normal edition. Which that would be something i would shell out extra money for.
-
I'm looking forward to doug huggem more though, with those good morals and stuff
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/doug-huggem-mega64/710388
Christian values FTW!
-
As a sidenote, Duke Nukem Forever PC version requires Steam.
My opinion:
FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU...
-
My opinion:
FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU...
Steam will assimilate you all with its ease of use and ease of maintaining a library.
-
Steam will assimilate you all with its ease of use and ease of maintaining a library.
No. No it hasn't and it doesn't.
I'm not going to get a Steam account for a single game, or buy a console to play a single game. So there's only one way to go forwards, get a legitimate copy and then apply a crack.
-
No. No it hasn't and it doesn't.
Ah, so you're just whiney then. :P
-
I hate steam for what it represents, how it requires the internet, and how it won't let you play until it downloads the latest version of said game.
With steam you don't get to just install and play your game. Really, steam for dkf? I need to get a steam emulator so i can finally play orange box.
-
I'm with NGTM-1R on this one. Steam really isn't so bad. It's a helluva lot better than it was at launch, seeing as how most games actually can be played offline now, barring the ones that have some form of idiotic DRM in and of themselves. The auto-patcher is still a bit wonky so if you mod you have to be really careful with Steam games, but beyond that I have yet to run into anything terribly obtrusive. At the very least, it's actually better then the DRM on most recent PC titles.
Plus, and this is a question I posed to myself before I started using Steam, how often are you actually without an internet connection now? It's fairly rare for an ISP to drop for more than an hour or so, and if the problem is on your end, why would you be trying to play a game instead of fixing your connection, which is all but necessary nowadays?
-
I'm with NGTM-1R on this one. Steam really isn't so bad. It's a helluva lot better than it was at launch, seeing as how most games actually can be played offline now, barring the ones that have some form of idiotic DRM in and of themselves. The auto-patcher is still a bit wonky so if you mod you have to be really careful with Steam games, but beyond that I have yet to run into anything terribly obtrusive. At the very least, it's actually better then the DRM on most recent PC titles.
Plus, and this is a question I posed to myself before I started using Steam, how often are you actually without an internet connection now? It's fairly rare for an ISP to drop for more than an hour or so, and if the problem is on your end, why would you be trying to play a game instead of fixing your connection, which is all but necessary nowadays?
This, basically. Beyond the typical "it's DRM, therefore it's bad" and "the patcher is gay" and "I don't like being online to play my games" arguments, I don't see any real reason to hate steam with as much a passion as some people do.
Besides, Steam helps publishers a lot, because it holds a really big market share in the PC gaming industry.
-
Also, the "Why should I use Steam for only one game?" argument is weak because you'll eventually get more games for Steam, since their sales tend to be top-notch. Someone mentioned the Orange Box earlier, too.
I can confirm offline mode works just fine, no worries there. It's also surprisingly transparent now.
Anyway, for the people bashing Steam: If you haven't used it in the last 2 years, your argument no longer applies.
-
Steam is awesome. Trufax.
-
Steam is awesome. Trufax.
trufax, trufax
-
I'm with NGTM-1R on this one. Steam really isn't so bad. It's a helluva lot better than it was at launch, seeing as how most games actually can be played offline now, barring the ones that have some form of idiotic DRM in and of themselves. The auto-patcher is still a bit wonky so if you mod you have to be really careful with Steam games, but beyond that I have yet to run into anything terribly obtrusive. At the very least, it's actually better then the DRM on most recent PC titles.
Steam blows. It's a game leasing service (http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/). Steam may have been better than when it first launched, but it still sucks to use, sucks to be dependent on, and sucks for what it stands for. I also do find steam to be a very restrictive form of DRM.
In this game leasing service that it is, steam is a rip off. You'd just be purchasing a lease for duke nukem forever, why pay the money for owning the game when you don't get too? When you're at a pacman arcade, you're not required to pay for the whole arcade machine that doesn't get to belong to you in the end just to play through once. All games on steam should be much cheaper.
Plus, and this is a question I posed to myself before I started using Steam, how often are you actually without an internet connection now? It's fairly rare for an ISP to drop for more than an hour or so, and if the problem is on your end, why would you be trying to play a game instead of fixing your connection, which is all but necessary nowadays?
Plenty of people don't have internet connections. And plenty have ****ty connections. The other thing to realize about this is that sometimes when you buy a game, YOU JUST WANT TO PLAY SAID GODDAMN GAME! That means purchase, install, play. Not **** with internet, **** with steam, hope valve didn't benevolently ban your account for bs reasons, wait for huge ass game updates, game preloading, abide by steam license agreement, then play.
That's a lot of horse **** to play a ****ing game. People who have consoles can just play their games compared to this steam. I don't normally screw around with such nasty DRM like steam because it's a big waste of time, and i don't like supporting such customer hating practices. Steam is all about what valve gets to do with your game and hardly what you wanted to do with it.
Of which i use this metaphor for customer hating practices. Why upgrade to a smaller more comfortable butt plug when you have the choice of not going for a butt plug at all.
Valve hates you, valve doesn't trust you, ala steam.
-
Wow. That was...angry. In any case, arguments about Digital services are stupid, and considering that hating Valve is akin to hating Halo and Call of Duty nowadays, I see no reason to attempt to reassure you again. Suffice it to say, I, and apparently many others in this thread, have yet to run into any real problems with the service, nor have I had my games or accounts needlessly deleted because Gabe Newell is an evil man.
-
Steam blows. It's a game leasing service (http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/).
Unfortunate truth: court challenges have established that the "you are merely licensed to use software" is not legally supported.
Other unfortunate truth: all games licensing agreements today are worded in the same way as you are complaining.
Act your age.
-
Other other unfortunate truth: Valve has repeatedly stated that, in the extremely unlikely event that Steam ever has to shut down, they will ensure that everyone is able to download and permanently back up their purchases. Hell, forget that, you're able to make a physical backup copy of any game you purchase through Steam as-is. So yeah, drop the groundless fear-mongering.
-
I'd really like to see this Steam discussion split from the thread. (and yet, I contribute to it, my...)
The one and the only problem I ever had with steam was: I was given a copy of Half-Life Anthology MANY years back, about when Steam was just building..ah, Steam. I played it, enjoyed it, then completely forgot about it.
Then I got the Orange Box. And while I knew I had an account at one time, it was dead for over 2 years at that point. I tried getting the account resurrected, 9 phone calls and 20 emails later, no go. So, I created a new one (which was fine, I didn't like my old username anyway) and lo and behold: The product key for Anthology couldn't be added to the new account, even AFTER going through and following their directions to prove I had legitimate ownership. So, why did they have me taking pictures and what not to prove I had ownership if they couldn't transfer the damn thing in the first place?
In the end, I scored a deal that let me have Anthology again for $10 so I have the complete HL Universe available to me. Lesson here is: Don't forget your details. And while they have a few things left service side to work out, it could be a lot worse.
-
Unfortunate truth: court challenges have established that the "you are merely licensed to use software" is not legally supported.
Other unfortunate truth: all games licensing agreements today are worded in the same way as you are complaining.
Act your age.
I am acting my age, but aren't understanding me.
My point with bringing up the license is to show how they essentially say it's a game leasing service and how much it tells people to **** off. Not at all to say that other game licenses are friendlier. And not court cases.
Steam is a service that by design operates in a way that you don't own the games (steam is legal, it just sucks). In which case came my other point.
Paying normal video game prices for a game that you don't get to own is a rip off. In this i would say per example that owning half life 2 for xbox is much better than for pc since the xbox variant doesn't have steam. You would actually get the game in form that after purchase, you can toss it right into the gaming platform and just play your game. The pc variant requires internet, finagling with steam, mandatory updates, preloading, and then you can play. That's a lot of trouble to just go home and play your new game. At the time when half life 2 came out, they cost about the same for pc and xbox version, except the xbox version doesn't have steams grubby paws on it 24/7 (xbox version in this i would call the better deal).
There's no re-assuring me. I'm not talking about having technical problems with steam. I'm talking about how steam as a whole sucks and says **** you to the customer. Which in the end is, valve doesn't trust you, valve screws customers with steam, valve punishes their customers (all in the name of anti-piracy).
I don't like to support places that punish their customers. If you want to check into the benevolency of steam banning accounts, it's only a google search away. It also says in the license agreement to steam that they can for any reason ban your account. It has happened to people with steam accounts who had done nothing wrong. And steam in that case either does or doesn't reactivate the account. In which case if this happens, the person who has purchased a bunch of steam games and has their account banned, it is the equivalent of steam running away with that persons money with nothing to do about it.
I actually have not purchased a modern day game in a while. I bought quake 4 special edition (quake 2, quake 2 expansion packs, and quake 4) long ago. I bought it, i installed it, i could play it (i also didn't need internet). Quake 2 sure is great, quake 4 was boring, but the point is most games since then haven't been worth my interest. I mostly play oldies because they're a lot more fun, and less bs.
I sit here with orange box and a dialup connection. It's laughable for me even to try to play it with waiting for the massive amount of updates for all the games orange box has to finish (i got orange box for christmas long ago, i'd like to play the games at least once). I live in an area of alaska where dialup is as good as it gets.
At the end of it, the scheme of steam is to prevent piracy at which it excels. But, it's at too great of a cost for what i believe in and what i want. I don't pirate my games. Several good video game reviews will show me if something is worth playing, and that's where i slap down my money. After that, fso and other free opensource games have no bull****, and even encourage redistribution.
Steam sucks, you can't coin it any other way. Sorry for those who don't want to understand me. If all you read earlier was anger, know that i'm very unhappy about steam. They are the ones with the crappy service and the modern day games that do actually gain my fancy. I'm not angry at you guys. I'll play DKF on a friends computer whoever manages to get it to play. And i don't care who loves steam, steam blows big time.
In the end, I scored a deal that let me have Anthology again for $10 so I have the complete HL Universe available to me. Lesson here is: Don't forget your details. And while they have a few things left service side to work out, it could be a lot worse.
In the end after proving you had the game....they made you buy it again....yeahhhh......that sucks.
-
Steam sucks, you can't coin it any other way.
I'm sorry, but when we're talking about a subjective matter (i.e. does steam suck or not) you claim that your point is objective and the only one correct.
As an analogy, you sound like someone who would say "I don't like apples, therefore they are the worst fruit in the world."
-
And honestly, for those of us not stuck in the middle of nowhere relying on 15-year-old Internet connections, the downloading part isn't a big deal at all. Hell, I'm working on my download of Batman: Arkham Asylum right now, and it's cruising at a cool 1.5 MB/s.
-
Yeah, I think the gist of this is that you're angry at your internet situation, and you're coming up with other, mostly wrong, reasons to be angry at Steam. Which is fine, and I feel for you on the internet front, having been in a similar situation before, but now your'e evangelizing it at those who have no problems with said service, instead of just saying, "crap, I cant use it, that sucks."
-
I'm sorry to burst some of your guys' bubbles, but Steam does exactly what most games' license agreements say anyway.
You never, ever, own a game unless you buy the entire copyright for it. Otherwise, you are simply purchasing a lifetime lease to that game for your own use, or your family's use, or your workgroup's use, depending on what the license entitles you to. In any case, you're usually breaking that license by handing the software to someone else after you finish with it. After all, the company only makes the money of one copy of the game even though there might be 2-3 unlicensed users for your copy.
Unfortunately for software developers, it's impossible to enforce that license agreement if you give out physical copies. With Steam, however, such restrictions are actually enforceable.
Steam's service is actually pretty good in the case of losing account details, though (as with every SINGLE OTHER COMPANY IN THE WORLD) there are always some exceptions, like what happened to Zacam.
However, Valve knows that adding restrictions will just not go over well with consumers, so they added benefits:
1. Physical backups made easy.
2. Downloading and installing games to a new computer made easy.
3. Friend and group support and integration into your games (you can turn this off if you want, though).
4. Frequent large-markdown sales.
And a few others I forgot.
Granted, there are other forms of protection available, such as the kind in WarCraft III or StarCraft where pirating the game is easy but it's extremely difficult to hack your way into the main selling point: the online service. But that doesn't apply to every game.
-
Yeah, I think the gist of this is that you're angry at your internet situation, and you're coming up with other, mostly wrong, reasons to be angry at Steam. Which is fine, and I feel for you on the internet front, having been in a similar situation before, but now your'e evangelizing it at those who have no problems with said service, instead of just saying, "crap, I cant use it, that sucks."
I just don't like steam for what it stands for and is. It's a base of customer untrustworthiness. Yeah my internet sucks. A lot of other people are stuck with dialup in the US too. Broadband expansion like in canada sucks over here. I don't necessarily use dialup because it's cheap. I use it because it's all i can currently get in my area.
This is mostly, "wow, this is a ****ty game service that shafts the paying subscriber", and a little bit of "i can't use it because i have dialup". Does anyone want a copy of orange box?
-
Does anyone want a copy of orange box?
Ah, careful with that. If you already logged it to your account, nobody else can use it short of you giving them access to said account. I actually forgot to mention that earlier, thats my one real gripe with Steam. If you buy a Steam game on a disk it's hit with the same "One account, forever" mentality as the online purchases, so there can be no passing on.
Yeah, that part sucks.
-
I know steam sucks. I'm very experienced with how their accounts work (this means i will be giving out my account, that's how you give steam games away). I doubt steam is going to know someone other than me is using it (i didn't use it that much). Again, i also don't buy any modern day games. Most games these days suck so much they're not worth my interest. Sucking so much in either the areas of DRM and crappy gameness (most of the time both). Case in point, screw getting assassins creed 2 for pc.
Again, i don't hate steam because i currently can't use it. I hate steam because the whole business model of it is about ****ing the customer. That of which i find scary that no one else can see this, and instead choose to think i'm deluded and say that i'm wrong. I am not wrong about steam, people's responses going as far to say that i'm angry because i can't use steam aren't understanding me. I don't hate it because i can't use it, i hate it because it sucks, through my own beliefs and principles i can't support such a business model that shafts people.
Whoever wants it can go ahead and tell me now. I'll install steam since that's no problem, and have a change of password and other things.
-
Can I have your stuff
-
Well, only do it if you don't have orange box. But sure you can. Send me a pm to remind me. I'll get to it as soon as i can.
-
I hate steam because the whole business model of it is about ****ing the customer. That of which i find scary that no one else can see this, and instead choose to think i'm deluded and say that i'm wrong. I am not wrong about steam, people's responses going as far to say that i'm angry because i can't use steam aren't understanding me.
Source please on the bolded part, and explanation for the rest, if you would.
-
Dude, it's not even worth it, he's just going to yell walls of text at you. This is a form of life beyond our ken or communion
-
Yeah, but I'm going to be really bored until fencing later, so I thought I could spend the time trying to figure out what he's actually pissed at. :blah:
-
inb4 links to the steam subscriber agreement which contain things that we've already debunked as being 'part of the software lease we pay for if we buy our games through places that aren't steam anyways'
-
I was enjoying it actually. Especially when it's mostly made of
I know steam sucks.
Most games these days suck. Sucking so much. i hate it because it sucks. Yeah my internet sucks. Steam blows, but it still sucks, sucks, and sucks. wait for huge ass game updates, going for a butt plug, more comfortable butt plug
-
That of which i find scary that no one else can see this, and instead choose to think i'm deluded and say that i'm wrong. I am not wrong about steam, people's responses going as far to say that i'm angry because i can't use steam aren't understanding me. I don't hate it because i can't use it, i hate it because it sucks, through my own beliefs and principles i can't support such a business model that shafts people.
Rest assured you are not the only one.
I don't like it how this trend is going to reduce the amount of used games in a game store - I'm usually not in any sort of hurry to play a new title and can easily wait for the 60€ titles to drop to somewhere more reasonable 30 € to 40€. Luckily, I have been able to find, buy and play quite a reasonable fraction of the good old stuff and given that there aren't that many that interesting games coming on, so even if new stuff is going to go to Steam I won't lose much. But DNF is not an acceptable casualty.
-
It's that exact mentality that makes me like Steam. Used games = NO MONEY for the developers. I'm not going to crap on everyone who waits to buy their games cheap and used, but if I like a game well enough to spend any money on it whatsoever, then I'm going to make damn sure the right people get it, so that they can continue making awesome stuff. Steam, and most Digital Purchase services I believe, give a larger amount of that money to the people that actually made the damn game. That is absolutely a good thing.
-
I think Steam gets something like 70% of a game's cost back to its developer/publisher, which is much more than your standard retail channel.
As far as used games go, I don't think I've ever seen a games store around here selling used PC titles, mainly because of the whole CD-key/activation thing. In fact, there are a lot of games on Steam where the only alternative to get them is getting lucky on eBay or Amazon. And given how frequently Steam has ridiculous sales on random titles, it's very easy to get what you want for dirt-cheap.
-
30%, according to the game design folks I keep in close contact with.
Also, larger AAA titles sometimes cut bigger deals than that, on a case by case basis.
-
Unfortunate truth: court challenges have established that the "you are merely licensed to use software" is not legally supported.
Other unfortunate truth: all games licensing agreements today are worded in the same way as you are complaining.
Surely that argument means that if Steam cut off your account, preventing you playing games, they have acted illegally then?
-
Are there any instances of Steam having done this?
-
30%, according to the game design folks I keep in close contact with.
That sounds more like what I would expect. I, though, note that the new Steam titles cost about the same as they do in the store. Common logic would dictate that the new games should be averagely cheaper, but that's just not there. But this was not entirely unexpected, given the example of the consoles. My gut feeling is that Steam is likely going to follow all too familiar path and make new titles more expensive in the long run, but only time will tell if this is right.
Why I buy used games? Simply because I feel I don't get the return of value from most of the new titles. And why from a store? I think it's just fun to pop in there occasionally, though the PC games shelves are indeed getting more bland and actually reducing in size compared to consoles'. Makes me wonder if the much toted cost savings by using consoles actually happen when the actual game and other necessary equipment prices are factored in. There actually were some interviews of lead game designers who were worried about new games being too expensive some time ago - and I completely agree with this. But I don't believe that digital distribution is going to be cheaper.
Now that I mentioned too high game prices, could that lead designer have been from Valve?
-
Are there any instances of Steam having done this?
There have been some complaints that Steam anti-cheating actions go a little too far and ban accounts that haven't actually done anything, similar to Microsoft's Live crackdowns, but I haven't actually encountered anyone who has had this happen to them.
-
30%, according to the game design folks I keep in close contact with.
That sounds more like what I would expect. I, though, note that the new Steam titles cost about the same as they do in the store. Common logic would dictate that the new games should be averagely cheaper, but that's just not there. But this was not entirely unexpected, given the example of the consoles. My gut feeling is that Steam is likely going to follow all too familiar path and make new titles more expensive in the long run, but only time will tell if this is right.
Why I buy used games? Simply because I feel I don't get the return of value from most of the new titles. And why from a store? I think it's just fun to pop in there occasionally, though the PC games shelves are indeed getting more bland and actually reducing in size compared to consoles'. Makes me wonder if the much toted cost savings by using consoles actually happen when the actual game and other necessary equipment prices are factored in. There actually were some interviews of lead game designers who were worried about new games being too expensive some time ago - and I completely agree with this. But I don't believe that digital distribution is going to be cheaper.
Now that I mentioned too high game prices, could that lead designer have been from Valve?
Game prices going up for a variety of reasons. Some of them off the top of my head: 1) games get more expensive to produce, 2) inflation, 3) increased demand means they can get away with it (and why not? A corporation's entire reason for being is to make money). That said, accounting for inflation, games today are cheaper than in the 90s. A new copy of Ocarina of Time in 1998 cost $60. If it were released today and with a price tag that takes inflation into account, it would be $80.
tl;dr quit *****ing it's natural.
-
tl;dr???
Feeling hyperactive or what?
It might be worth mentioning here that the inflation of the $ might not have happened in € countries. I checked this with the value of € compared to old marks, and yes, newer games are ~ 5 - 10 % more expensive than games 14 years ago, including inflation.
Why do you think I don't know how the markets work? Or put it reversed, why do you think I have chosen this way to deal with increasing game prices? The other thing is, your definition of corporation sounds very American to me. If you said that loud to the people in this country, you would look like an idiot if you didn't add an additional sentence there.
-
Dude, it's not even worth it, he's just going to yell walls of text at you. This is a form of life beyond our ken or communion
People are asking me why, and i'm doing my best to explain. All you do lately is go into a topic where i posted and say "he's cookoo-cachoo; he has no point or argument, he's always wrong". You aren't helping and you're encouraging people to not understand each other.
If a wall of text kept people from not wanting to figure out what i'm going after. Then i'm sorry, but sometimes you cant say some things in a sentence. Walls of text has been mostly replies to people. Wall of text does not equal it shouldn't be read. And wall of text does not equal, "time to be lazy for read".
If people didn't find out right now, my argument is that steam punishes the customer to prevent piracy.
And honestly, for those of us not stuck in the middle of nowhere relying on 15-year-old Internet connections, the downloading part isn't a big deal at all. Hell, I'm working on my download of Batman: Arkham Asylum right now, and it's cruising at a cool 1.5 MB/s.
Well, you are one of the many people who live in an area where high speed is delivered. And yes, with a download speed like that mandatory updates is a pinch. My main problem with the updates is that they're mandatory. My secondary problem is that they come often, they're huge, and my connection speed realistically doesn't permit in any timely fashion to get these mandatory updates. There are millions of people out there who live in areas where dialup is the only thing (mainly canada and US). In america it's mostly about big ISP's not expanding infrastructure (no expansion of infrastructure was where metered billing came in as an idea for the current infrastructure that cannot keep up with ever increased bandwidth usage) and just being greedy little piggy's with their money instead (but that's a different problem for a different thread).
Connection speed is the least problems with steam, in fact connection speed is my problem. Mandatory updates is one of the reasons i don't like steam. Talk about another way to force specific usage upon people.
Source please on the bolded part, and explanation for the rest, if you would.
I thought the steam license agreement/subscriber agreement/end user license agreement (http://[quote author=Scotty link=topic=74493.msg1477207#msg1477207 date=1298316529) says pretty good what they will do. That and you pay an ownership price for games you don't get to own, no freedom to do what you want with your purchase aside from playing it, they can ban your account for any reason = they ran away with your money if they did and games you don't get to play, you don't get to just go home with your new game install and play...you get to mess around with steam first, blablabla they do screw each and everyone of their customers (they're business model really goes after this). That and i've already stated several times in here why i don't like steam.
Steam punishes the customer to prevent piracy.
It's that exact mentality that makes me like Steam. Used games = NO MONEY for the developers. I'm not going to crap on everyone who waits to buy their games cheap and used, but if I like a game well enough to spend any money on it whatsoever, then I'm going to make damn sure the right people get it, so that they can continue making awesome stuff. Steam, and most Digital Purchase services I believe, give a larger amount of that money to the people that actually made the damn game. That is absolutely a good thing.
Developers never liked second sale, the company selling the game never liked second sale. Despite second sale being legal, the game industry is in the area of trying to make video game consumers think that it's a very bad thing when it's not. Video game developers don't like second sale because they don't make a dime off of it. That's the big reason why most big companies or corporations dont like second sale.
The steam business model prevents second sale very well (another thing steam punishes the customer for). This only means that if you're tired of your games it is next to impossible for any kind sale of your own. Second sale is not bad or illegal. If you like supporting a certain developer, buy more of their stuff. When that certain developer releases something that you bought and it sucked, you like many others will probably try to sell it off.
Unfortunately for software developers, it's impossible to enforce that license agreement if you give out physical copies. With Steam, however, such restrictions are actually enforceable.
However, Valve knows that adding restrictions will just not go over well with consumers, so they added benefits:
1. Physical backups made easy.
I do have an orange box sitting right next to me for example with an install dvd or two in there. It's the same thing as the option of making a physical backup now offered by steam which is just as useless as having an official install disc. Because of how everything is tied to steam, you can't use that official install disc/backup without steam and an internet connection.
It's a lettuce on my sandwich caveat; steam only offered to let people make physical backups because they know that there's a significant portion of gamers that actually care about having tangible items (in which case, the now made into a tangible item from digital distribution service, still doesn't mean much of anything). And because of the way steam handles it's official install disc/backup, it's anything but impossible to enforce the license agreement. Being able have an official install disc/backup of your steam game is largely useless because in the end it's still that game tied to that specific steam account and still requires internet. Having a physical copy of a steam game is so useless that you might as well just depend only on the digital distribution of games through steam.
I'm sorry, but when we're talking about a subjective matter (i.e. does steam suck or not) you claim that your point is objective and the only one correct.
As an analogy, you sound like someone who would say "I don't like apples, therefore they are the worst fruit in the world."
What is subjective...I don't like steam, i think they're pretty bad for a game company, and i liken they're DRM to a buttplug.
The nonsubjective part. Steam is bad, they screw their customers by terribly restrictive DRM and other requirements, the subscriber agreement says they will get to run away with your money for banning your account for whatever reason they wanted, and that does make them a bad company, blablabla...steam punishes their customers to prevent piracy. In other words, it's not all subjective (don't know how you thought it was).
inb4 links to the steam subscriber agreement which contain things that we've already debunked as being 'part of the software lease we pay for if we buy our games through places that aren't steam anyways'
Uuuuugghh, again, i don't know what the point was about quoting a course case earlier from ngtm-1r (i'm figuring it was for showing that game licenses don't matter in court of law). I brought up the license agreement for steam because it shows what they will do, what they say they're not responsible for, how they're business model works for them, and hardly how it works for the customer.
I didn't bring up the steam license agreement/subscriber agreement/end user license agreement to somehow show that it's different than that of other games or game services. I did it just to show how much steam sucks. It doesn't matter if they're license agreement/subscriber agreement/end user license agreement even holds up in the court of law. It does show you what they're inclined to do and what they're not inclined to do (what they will and will not do are the things they will and will not do and are the things that screw customers).
Are there any instances of Steam having done this?
There have been some complaints that Steam anti-cheating actions go a little too far and ban accounts that haven't actually done anything, similar to Microsoft's Live crackdowns, but I haven't actually encountered anyone who has had this happen to them.
Like how psycholandlord says, except i would change his word of "some" to "many". There have been many instances of account bans happening to innocents when they shouldn't have. Most steam bans happen through their VAC system (valve anti cheat), the other part is where steam just bans somebody (for now irregardless of the reason, all that matters right now is that there's two ways they do it).
For reasons to do it, steams software on their end isn't working so great which has lead to bans on innocents, steam going after the wrong people, and also steam going after the right people. Example of steam screwing up (http://www.gamertell.com/gaming/comment/valve-gives-away-left-4-dead-2-to-banned-players/), example of steam working properly (http://kotaku.com/#!5449767/steam-account-sells-for-1000-on-ebay).
The guy who sold the steam account, he collected his money, and the account later got banned because it gained too much attention and i believe he refunded the money to the buyer. It's not illegal to sell one's steam account, but it does breach the terms of service for steam (steam is designed to prevent second sale based on steam license agreement/subscriber agreement/end user license agreement, that is why steam banned the account).
As far as sourcing account bans on innocents that were not caused by a steam malfunction and was just steam going after the wrong people. I don't know how much authenticity people would feel if i was quoting a bunch of forum threads from other forums to back a claim up. That's all google wanted to pop up with for that kind of steam ban scenario.
-
My main problem with the updates is that they're mandatory
Everything about this is correct except the statement that the updates are mandatory (right click on game, select 'do not automatically update this game')
Oh so the entire statement is wrong that's funny
Developers never liked second sale, the company selling the game never liked second sale. Despite second sale being legal, the game industry is in the area of trying to make video game consumers think that it's a very bad thing when it's not. Video game developers don't like second sale because they don't make a dime off of it. That's the big reason why most big companies or corporations dont like second sale.
One would think that with AAA games dying (especially on PC) you'd be eager to support those developers
What is subjective...I don't like steam, i think they're pretty bad for a game company, and i liken they're DRM to a buttplug.
'what is subjective'
'i don't like steam'
hrm
the subscriber agreement says they will get to run away with your money for banning your account for whatever reason they wanted
on the literally miniscule chance your account is banned for an unjust reason, just crack your games
anyway posting in s99 thread
-
Everything about this is correct except the statement that the updates are mandatory (right click on game, select 'do not automatically update this game')
Oh so the entire statement is wrong that's funny
You got me there, that's something i actually didn't know about steam.
One would think that with AAA games dying (especially on PC) you'd be eager to support those developers
I'm not too eager to support a developer selling its games through steam. Modern day game DRM such as steam and the type that assassins creed 2 has is where modern day pc games have just gone wrong. And when a developer comes out with some game that is trash, that's a die hard developer fan determined not to go back to game stop like the rest and sell back or sell to a friend. The main point, second sale is legal. The second point is that when a developer comes out with something bad, most people get rid of it...they don't want it.
What is subjective...I don't like steam, i think they're pretty bad for a game company, and i liken they're DRM to a buttplug.
The nonsubjective part. Steam is bad, they screw their customers by terribly restrictive DRM and other requirements, the subscriber agreement says they will get to run away with your money for banning your account for whatever reason they wanted, and that does make them a bad company, blablabla...steam punishes their customers to prevent piracy. In other words, it's not all subjective (don't know how you thought it was).
'what is subjective'
'i don't like steam'
hrm
What isn't subjective...you took that out of context big time.
on the literally miniscule chance your account is banned for an unjust reason, just crack your games
anyway posting in s99 thread
I guess you didn't get it again. The steam license agreement/terms of service agreement/end user license agreement/subscriber agreement says that steam can do it. This is irregardless of how many times there's been an unjust ban. The fact that they say they will do it, means that when they actually do it, that they have ran away with someones money. It also says that they can ban anyones account for any reason. The fact that they try not to at steam is sort of a saving grace.
-
What I think is funny is that you don't like steam because their EULA say you only buy the rights to play it. The EULA on EVERY GAME YOU'VE EVER BOUGHT A HARD COPY OF says the exact same thing.
-
Steam punishes the customer to prevent piracy. Again that's why i don't like it, it's a horrendous DRM scheme to prevent piracy.
The games with EULA's like that i haven't required the internet to call home to play.
-
The games with EULA's like that i haven't required the internet to call home to play.
That still isn't a valid argument because no game that did not require that in the first place has that requirement due to Steam. There is an offline mode, and it works for ALL Steam games that do not already have internet-based DRM. This has been stated before in this very thread.
I understand your dislike of Steam now, but many of your points are simply wrong and you refuse to acknowledge that when presented with evidence to the contrary.
-
One would think that with AAA games dying (especially on PC) you'd be eager to support those developers
I'm not too eager to support a developer selling its games through steam. Modern day game DRM such as steam and the type that assassins creed 2 has is where modern day pc games have just gone wrong. And when a developer comes out with some game that is trash, that's a die hard developer fan determined not to go back to game stop like the rest and sell back or sell to a friend. The main point, second sale is legal. The second point is that when a developer comes out with something bad, most people get rid of it...they don't want it.
Introversion exists, as a studio, because of a Steam sale. A Steam sale saved their ass. Introversion - one of the best development houses out there.
The nonsubjective part. Steam is bad, they screw their customers by terribly restrictive DRM and other requirements, the subscriber agreement says they will get to run away with your money for banning your account for whatever reason they wanted, and that does make them a bad company, blablabla...steam punishes their customers to prevent piracy. In other words, it's not all subjective (don't know how you thought it was).
'what is subjective'
'i don't like steam'
hrm
What isn't subjective...you took that out of context big time.
You can't seriously make the argument that you were saying "what isn't subjective" when I just quoted you saying "WHAT IS SUBJECTIVE" and "IT'S NOT AT ALL SUBJECTIVE"
You are actually saying the exact opposite thing you did a couple posts ago and trying to pretend otherwise.
on the literally miniscule chance your account is banned for an unjust reason, just crack your games
anyway posting in s99 thread
I guess you didn't get it again. The steam license agreement/terms of service agreement/end user license agreement/subscriber agreement says that steam can do it. This is irregardless of how many times there's been an unjust ban. The fact that they say they will do it, means that when they actually do it, that they have ran away with someones money. It also says that they can ban anyones account for any reason. The fact that they try not to at steam is sort of a saving grace.
'irregardless' is not a word
every EULA in the world does this, better deal
-
Are there any instances of Steam having done this?
As was pointed out, there are instances of this happening.
Let's say I buy a copy of a non Steam game. I go on the forums and act like a complete twat. I go into the game and act like a complete twat. I hack the game and cheat at it. I get banned from the game servers (as I should be). I still own the game. I can still play it singleplayer. I can reinstall it whenever I want to if I have a crash or get a new PC. I still own what I paid for.
Now let's say I have a Steam game. I act like a twat. I get my Steam account cancels. I'm up **** creek now. I can't validate my game any more without the banned account. Nor can I get a new account and move the games there. The example given above by Zacam shows how reluctant they can be to do that.
So that's a concrete difference between Steam and non-steam games. Everyone keeps going on about the EULA being no different from other games as if it matters. The other games have an EULA that is completely unenforceable. It doesn't matter what it says, they can't do it without bringing a court case against you. Steam can and have enforced their EULA. Until someone actually forces Steam to turned a banned account back on or they completely stop with the policy of banning people there always will exist the chance that one day your entire games collection will become unusable.
-
And hopefully they learned an important life lesson about not being a twat. So long as there is an ability to have your case reviewed by Steam in case of a mistaken action then I don't see much problem with them purging idiots. If you repeatedly break the rules in real life you stand to be punished or fined. Quite frankly the idea that there can be a consequence to your internet actions warms the cockles of my heart.
Take it with a grain of salt though, my sympathy for assholes and rule breakers isn't one of my strong suits.
-
That still isn't a valid argument because no game that did not require that in the first place has that requirement due to Steam. There is an offline mode, and it works for ALL Steam games that do not already have internet-based DRM. This has been stated before in this very thread.
I understand your dislike of Steam now, but many of your points are simply wrong and you refuse to acknowledge that when presented with evidence to the contrary.
I could have said it better now in hind sight. Like kara said. Steam does enforce their eula where as other games may or may not, but on steam, enforcing it is a given since steam is a requirement. It's not that my points are wrong with evidence to the contrary. It's that kara said the magical word "enforcement" that i was just too dumb to think of when mentioning the steam eula. Other game eula's that are not enforced i tend to like better because it's not a son of a ***** and half to play those games. My points with how steam operates because of their eula still stand.
And the offline mode is almost not even worth mentioning. You still require internet so you can set up a steam account so the steam games can call home first, then you get to click offline mode. You also require to be online when adding other steam games to your account, then you get to click offline mode again.
And hopefully they learned an important life lesson about not being a twat. So long as there is an ability to have your case reviewed by Steam in case of a mistaken action then I don't see much problem with them purging idiots. If you repeatedly break the rules in real life you stand to be punished or fined. Quite frankly the idea that there can be a consequence to your internet actions warms the cockles of my heart.
Take it with a grain of salt though, my sympathy for assholes and rule breakers isn't one of my strong suits.
Since the eula is enforced, their eula does say that they steam can be twats when banning an account. Steam itself ensures enforcement of their eula.
Introversion exists, as a studio, because of a Steam sale. A Steam sale saved their ass. Introversion - one of the best development houses out there.
Good for introversion. In my opinion still not good for the gamer because of steam.
You can't seriously make the argument that you were saying "what isn't subjective" when I just quoted you saying "WHAT IS SUBJECTIVE" and "IT'S NOT AT ALL SUBJECTIVE"
You are actually saying the exact opposite thing you did a couple posts ago and trying to pretend otherwise.
Not really. You took a partial quote of what i said to take it out of context, and even went so far as to not include a link back to the post you were quoting me from. It was quite apparent to me you were being very selective there. I rectified this. You were being counterintuitive.
on the literally miniscule chance your account is banned for an unjust reason, just crack your games
People shouldn't need to crack their games if they obtained them legally.
-
Not really. You took a partial quote of what i said to take it out of context, and even went so far as to not include a link back to the post you were quoting me from. It was quite apparent to me you were being very selective there. I rectified this. You were being counterintuitive.
No, I quoted exactly what you said. Either you misspoke or you are stupid, please indicate which
on the literally miniscule chance your account is banned for an unjust reason, just crack your games
People shouldn't need to crack their games if they obtained them legally.
So you're telling me I should give up the ability to support my favorite studios while getting games at absurdly low prices (sometimes 60-80% off) because of the risk of something happening which has never happened to me or anyone I know and probably never will?
Might as well give up driving because I might get in an accident.
-
Just because they CAN ban you doesn't mean they WILL. It's basically like saying that I CAN go out there and murder somebody with an axe or the US government CAN draft everybody into the military, but such things are extremely unlikely to happen.
-
Steam enforces its EULA. That makes it bad.
Summed up for clarity. Maybe now you'll realize how retarded your arguments sound.
-
No, I quoted exactly what you said. Either you misspoke or you are stupid, please indicate which
You quoted exactly what i said, but not all of what i exactly said. This took it out of context which you did on purpose.
So you're telling me I should give up the ability to support my favorite studios while getting games at absurdly low prices (sometimes 60-80% off) because of the risk of something happening which has never happened to me or anyone I know and probably never will?
Might as well give up driving because I might get in an accident.
Everybody can do whatever they want. For me and my beliefs, steam is not something i can support.
Just because they CAN ban you doesn't mean they WILL. It's basically like saying that I CAN go out there and murder somebody with an axe or the US government CAN draft everybody into the military, but such things are extremely unlikely to happen.
That's true, for the most part steam does do pretty good with the people who have accounts with them; they do actually care when account bans and stuff happen to see if it was something they did and rectify the problem.
The games on steam i would not call money well spent since steam can revoke privileges so readily. It's also why having a physical copy of a steam game is largely pointless. A short example. I have a physical copy of quake 4, and a physical copy of orange box. If id software disappeared, i still have and can play quake 4. If the steam game service disappeared (or my account got banned), i still have orange box, but i cannot play it.
Summed up for clarity. Maybe now you'll realize how retarded your arguments sound.
Just randomly going in and calling someone wrong because you didn't bother finding out why i kept bringing up the steam eula is also retarded. All i kept getting from others is that other game eula's are the same. I kept bringing up the steam eula because it is not the same as most games since everything is tied down to steam. My argument is not unintelligible because at first i didn't use the word "enforced" in front of "eula". Some of my points are wrong. But largely because of the enforced eula, many of my points stand.
-
My argument is not unintelligible because at first i didn't use the word "enforced" in front of "eula". Some of my points are wrong. But largely because of the enforced eula, many of my points stand.
Does anyone else find this statement contradicting?
-
oops, sry. seems like i opened the wrong door. i expected a discussion about duke nukem to happen here....
-
And hopefully they learned an important life lesson about not being a twat. So long as there is an ability to have your case reviewed by Steam in case of a mistaken action then I don't see much problem with them purging idiots. If you repeatedly break the rules in real life you stand to be punished or fined. Quite frankly the idea that there can be a consequence to your internet actions warms the cockles of my heart.
Take it with a grain of salt though, my sympathy for assholes and rule breakers isn't one of my strong suits.
My point is that many were claiming there is no difference between the EULAs. And there most definitely is.
-
My argument is not unintelligible because at first i didn't use the word "enforced" in front of "eula". Some of my points are wrong. But largely because of the enforced eula, many of my points stand.
Does anyone else find this statement contradicting?
Not really. It's two things that was being talked about here.
1. My argument is not unintelligible because at first i didn't use the word "enforced" in front of "eula" (steam eula is different, but i sure didn't know how to say it better until kara came in here and used the magical word "enforced"). My point with the steam eula and how everything is tied to steam and requires steam signifies the difference between that eula and other game eula's despite eula's being worded the same or similarly.
In other words, other game eula's worded the same or similarly may or may not have the steam (or similar) requirement. This is saying the same thing without using the word enforce.
2. I also made an admittance that some of my points about steam were wrong such as the mandatory updates can be ignored, forgetting about offline mode (though offline mode is pretty moot since you still need internet and steam to enable offline mode), and whatever other stuff.
But, because of the enforced eula, many of my points still stand. It's a restriction laiden game environment where everything is in favor of valve and steam, not so much the gamer. Steam came to be to control what the gamers can do with those games. A very big one of those reasons for such the control on pc gaming, is to decrease piracy. For which this is the very reason i mentioned assassins creed 2 for pc as another example of an anti-piracy measure similar to what steam does. Because of this i don't consider it money well spent on games because of a business model i myself don't want to have anything to do with.
Something entirely separate here. Does anyone want my steam account for free orange box? I got it for christmas years ago and was only able to play through half life 2 when i was at my parents (they live in an area with a dsl offering). Since 2007, i just don't care about it. You can make my old account yours, it is in good standing with steam. Recommended for somebody who doesn't have a steam account and wants some free games. Digital distribution means that it's all a download away. I'm done in here.
-
The big question here for me is that why is the software industry allowed to kill second hand sales, while it has been perfectly acceptable and legal with any other products for a long time? And why aren't people complaining more about this? My personal view is that the developers' already got (if they didn't, they even should be removed from the business) their money when the game was sold first time. Reselling a game is just a way to cut your own losses if you didn't like the game.
I'm not as blind sided to worship a company that releases a well received game, the price still has to be right for me to pick it up. I don't accept being milked for cash no matter how raving reviews the game gets. My pain threshold for a new game is around 50€, anything higher and it's a pass, and I very rarely pay that 50 €! I note that it is the new PC Games that are cheapest around here, with a 20 to 25 € margin to new console games - 80 € for a game is just insane! What it comes to "Death of the PC gaming", I'm yet to see that.
Boy, I just can't wait for this trend to be adopted by other industries.
WAT? The rumor goes that STEAM should be installed in to play DNF demo too????
FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
-
Surely that argument means that if Steam cut off your account, preventing you playing games, they have acted illegally then?
Quite possible. No one has brought a challenge against this particular model of business, however. The previous challenges on the "we're just licensing it" have revolved around attempting to prevent resale of programs, something that is not a concern here.
The Steam model can present things as a method of keeping order and removing troublesome personalities, much like banning from a forum, so it is possible they could make a sufficiently different case not to fall under previous judgments. Until such time as arguments are presented, it is impossible to know.
However, for now, the wording is essentially the same; and as with all EULAs, essentially meaningless. An EULA is simply not a legally binding document like most contracts and provides no more than a fig leaf to protect the company; if something ****s up your computer the EULA disclaiming responsibility does not mean ****.
S-99 meanwhile is babbling that Steam can actually enforce the rules and is therefore bad. How many times do you actually violate a game EULA when you purchase it anyways? I mean, seriously, what do you do, buy games for the sole purpose of cracking them and making copies to distribute to your friends just so you can say "I violated the EULA mother****ers, can't stop me!"?
-
The big question here for me is that why is the software industry allowed to kill second hand sales, while it has been perfectly acceptable and legal with any other products for a long time? And why aren't people complaining more about this? My personal view is that the developers' already got (if they didn't, they even should be removed from the business) their money when the game was sold first time. Reselling a game is just a way to cut your own losses if you didn't like the game.
That's what second-hand sales do ideally, and I think they're great myself for games from previous generations that are now out-of-print (I've been known to raid a few GameBoy and N64 bargain bins in my time), but I think the problem that the games industry really has is with retailers like GameStop, which tend to put their used copies of new releases on even more prominent display than the new ones. You can go in there, buy a new game on release day, and sell it back to them in perfect condition a few days later...and they'll probably only give you less than half of what you paid. It's essentially one big profiteering racket, since GameStop and their ilk make a killing out of short-changing used game sellers and then marking up said titles when they put them back on the shelf. (I've largely stopped shopping there myself; smaller chains like Play 'n' Trade tend to have far broader selections anyway, and their used stuff is in much better condition.) As I said before, though, all of this only really applies to console games; I've never seen a used games store that has used PC titles, and I'm not even sure that they're allowed to in the first place.
-
S-99 meanwhile is babbling that Steam can actually enforce the rules and is therefore bad. How many times do you actually violate a game EULA when you purchase it anyways? I mean, seriously, what do you do, buy games for the sole purpose of cracking them and making copies to distribute to your friends just so you can say "I violated the EULA mother****ers, can't stop me!"?
No, i just buy games to play them. My preference is buying the game, take it home, throw it in the computer, and play. Steam is an extra added step of wackiness to it where i find you're jumping through hoops more with steam than playing the games.
I highly doubt just playing a game i bought legally for the single player is going to violate an eula. I'm not really into multi, and i only share games that can be redistributed such as openarena (the rare times i do multi). If an eula states platform specificity such as windows, then not even then since wine can pass the windows genuine advantage software scanners would i have breached that part of an eula (wga is being retooled so wine can't pass wga). I am no angel or perfect. If i bought a game, my intended use will be legal. If i find something crappy, i try to get it to somebody who would like it.
As far as cracking, hacking, and pirating software, i haven't had the interest or the need to do it for a while (hacking, cracking, and pirating stuff is usually a ***** too). Really, people jumping through hoops just to bypass a windows activation? Example: if you have the right service pack, right registry modifications, using a certain program, on a certain day and time maybe you and others too can bypass windows activation. I'd rather fork over my money for windows shlitza and be happier than dude trying to get past activation if i were to use windows. I want an office suite, oh hey look...openoffice. I want quake 3, oh hey look at that openarena. I need an os, awesome linux. I like software that is least trouble, and i don't like things that punish the customer. For me that has been a lot of usage and dabbling in free opensource; it's been so awesome i'm sold.
-
No, i just buy games to play them. My preference is buying the game, take it home, throw it in the computer, and play. Steam is an extra added step of wackiness to it where i find you're jumping through hoops more with steam than playing the games.
I just installed Batman: Arkham Asylum on Steam the other day. The sole "hoops" I had to jump through were with getting its required Games-for-Windows element to play nice, and I can happily lay that blame at the feet of Microsoft. Steam itself added absolutely no overhead to the process, and in fact saved me some bother by having a convenient button to copy the multiplayer key to the clipboard the first time I played.
-
However, for now, the wording is essentially the same; and as with all EULAs, essentially meaningless. An EULA is simply not a legally binding document like most contracts and provides no more than a fig leaf to protect the company; if something ****s up your computer the EULA disclaiming responsibility does not mean ****.
S-99 meanwhile is babbling that Steam can actually enforce the rules and is therefore bad.
As he's subsequently pointed out his issue is that Steam can choose to enforce their interpretation of the EULA not the actual EULA itself. Mentioning the EULA is simply a way of pointing out what Steam believe they have the right to do should they choose to do so. Other companies have similar EULAs but since they can't or don't enforce them very few people give a toss about them.
How many times do you actually violate a game EULA when you purchase it anyways? I mean, seriously, what do you do, buy games for the sole purpose of cracking them and making copies to distribute to your friends just so you can say "I violated the EULA mother****ers, can't stop me!"?
If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have to worry about with the new anti-terrorism laws?
S-99's issue appears to be that Steam have far too much power with no system of checks or balances. Most people would not accept buying a CD only to be told that you can't sell it to other people or lend it to a friend for them to listen to it.
-
What I see here is that most people don't really care being treated like garbage.
-
What I see here is that most people don't really care being treated like garbage.
You're right. Fortunately there are those proud few of us who have the backbone to get cutthroat deals on a platform that saves enormous amounts of money, saves entire developers and cuts away most of the hassle of PC gaming.
-
If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have to worry about with the new anti-terrorism laws?
Perspective. It's very important, and I'd suggest acquiring some.
In fact, this is absolute bull****. Criminal charges in the real world are based upon the collection and interpretation of so many types of evidence that are subject to the expression game that your argument makes sense. Things spoken and not meant or misheard, things done that might be part of construction a bomb or might mean you just needed some fertilizer, etc. Your argument carries weight there because not everything is absolute.
But we are not in the real world. We are dealing in absolutes with Steam, in the 1s and 0s of digital code which can only do one thing and be interpreted in one fashion, and Steam professes that they would wish it no other way. They openly support game modding even if the developer does not and have as a policy that modded game files related to the actual play of the game or the use of third-party programs like trainers are not a cause for banning.
Because we are dealing in absolutes, the argument of "nothing done wrong, nothing to fear" is a valid one, as it also deals in absolutes.
S-99's issue appears to be that Steam have far too much power with no system of checks or balances. Most people would not accept buying a CD only to be told that you can't sell it to other people or lend it to a friend for them to listen to it.
S-99's issue is an inability to write or argue in a coherent manner. Stop enabling him. :P
-
Perspective. It's very important, and I'd suggest acquiring some.
Given your rant at some simple hyperbole I'd suggest you check your pockets and notice I stole yours months ago. :p
Because we are dealing in absolutes, the argument of "nothing done wrong, nothing to fear" is a valid one, as it also deals in absolutes.
Except as was pointed out earlier to you there are cases of the Valve Anti-Cheating system being taken too far and banning people who were perfectly innocent. So your argument doesn't hold water. You can do nothing wrong and still lose your access.
Besides, **** it, cheating at a game should at most ban you from being able to play it online. You shouldn't lose the ability to play the game singleplayer without having to buy it again. Let alone any other game you bought from the same company. Can you imagine the outrage if Sony said that being caught with a copied mp3 of one of their songs would result in all your legitimately bought CDs stopping working? Why are people who would be outraged by that suddenly having no issue with similar behaviour from Steam?
-
Besides, **** it, cheating at a game should at most ban you from being able to play it online. You shouldn't lose the ability to play the game singleplayer without having to buy it again. Let alone any other game you bought from the same company.
Insofar as I know, this isn't true. I copped a ban for obscure reasons (I was accused of account sharing) back in the first days of HL2 but continued to be able to run stuff in the offline mode except for HL2. The incident did sour me on Steam for a few years, but what you are suggesting did not occur. And they were honestly quite apologetic and helpful. I probably could have gotten it reactivated, but I wasn't impressed with HL2 and didn't really care to.
There's no one else in this thread who has a ban for any reason. At all. Present some evidence. Pyscho just says there are "complaints" and we have no idea of legitimacy or who complained or whether the complaints even actually exist.
-
What I see here is that most people don't really care being treated like garbage.
You're right. Fortunately there are those proud few of us who have the backbone to get cutthroat deals on a platform that saves enormous amounts of money, saves entire developers and cuts away most of the hassle of PC gaming.
So much win and no catch whatsoever. It's brueeilleant.