Steam - it caused a few headaches when Half-Life 2 released in 2004, did it not? We can still clearly remember the angry rants over authorising the sequel through the online service and the problems many encountered when trying to do so. You could hear the sound of gamers' teeth gnashing together reverberating around the globe...
Fast forward a little and Valve has ironed out the hiccups and the online gaming and digital distribution platform has gone from strength to strength. We've seen a number of major publishers leap on board in recent months, back-catalogue PC games appearing on the service and brand new titles available on release day.
It's become yet another Valve success story, tucked into the developer's belt and nestling in alongside the Half-Life series. Valve's director of marketing Doug Lombardi was kind enough to tackle our questions.
What was your vision for Steam when it was originally created?
Doug Lombardi: Way back in 1999, we started seeing our multiplayer games (Team Fortress Classic, Counter-Strike) surge in terms of simultaneous player numbers. Traditionally, the leading online action games would have a peak simultaneous player number of about 2 or 3,000 people. But both TFC and CS passed that number and never went back. CS is now over 200,000 simultaneous players, generating over 6 billion player minutes per month.
So, I'm not sure it was so much a vision as it was a function of watching the trend of player interests and thinking about how we could do a better job of managing the games played by all these people.
The first Steam feature set was more a list of things we needed immediately and some features we knew would be needed as the community grew - auto updates, better anti-cheat measures, being able to access your games from any PC, in-game communication systems, etc.
Once we were that far, the idea of selling the games was just another piece of the puzzle that made sense, and more features present themselves seemingly every day as we gain experience in this arena.
Do you have an ultimate vision for Steam and how far down the road are you to achieving it?
Doug Lombardi: Our goal is to provide value to gamers and tools to game developers and publishers. With new types of content and technology debuting constantly, it's unclear that a final "ultimate vision" will present itself as we tend to continually iterate on our products as new capabilities are enabled.
Steam has certainly evolved in the past year alone, and we've got many new features planned for 2007 and beyond.
In the last few months we've seen a number of publishers embrace Steam - what's the appeal for those companies?
Doug Lombardi: Profits and improving the customer experience. The word is out: Steam has established itself as a viable platform for selling and managing PC games. Many of the developers and publishers using Steam presently have more planned - from bringing new day-and-date titles to re-launching critically acclaimed but out of stock titles to over 10 million active gamers.
Of all the metrics we use to gauge the success of our efforts, the fact that our partners are excited and coming back for more is the most telling.
What protection against piracy does Steam afford software released through it?
Doug Lombardi: Steam's encryption system has proven effective for both electronic and retail distribution. The holiday Half-Life 2 was released was a big year for new releases. And like many holidays, unfortunately, many of the titles released that year experienced "Day Zero" piracy - meaning the final product is available on the black market but the retail versions are still in replication. Half-Life 2 was a noteable exception and the only title encrypted through Steam.
Is this the beginning of the end for traditional boxed set releases to retail (for PC games), or do you think the traditional retail release will always co-exist with digital distribution?
Doug Lombardi: Retail has always been very, very good to us. Perhaps surprisingly, some of the capabilities afforded by the Steam platform - such as the Free Weekends - have resulted in new ways to drive retail sales.
For us, it's not about moving sales from one channel to another, but offering new services and options for all of our customers.
Has there actually been any backlash from retail?
Doug Lombardi: Initially, I think they saw it as a direct threat. Now, as Steam and online distribution have matured, more and more of the myths about online versus retail are falling away.
Primarily the myth of online cannibalisation is getting debunked. Online is just another sales channel and all outlets benefit from a title being widely available and marketed to as many people as possible. So, I think that retailers have evolved to a new way of thinking about digital distribution.
Are we likely to see retailers 'set up shop' so to speak, within Steam?
Doug Lombardi: We've had conversations about how that might work with a few retailers, and we'll continue to pursue those. But we have no announcements to make in this regard just yet.
In a recent interview you spoke about how you've experimented with prices for releases on Steam and how, where you've lowered a product price, this has let you reach more customers yet generate the same amount of profit - are you considering seeing how far you can push this price lowering?
Doug Lombardi: We're going to continue to run pricing experiments. Just as we've made some shifts in our development process to move to episodic releases, we think there may be some alternative pricing structures that would appeal to gamers.
One question on our mind is whether your forthcoming Half-Life 2 releases on Xbox 360 and PS3 will be tied in with Steam - what's the score here?
Doug Lombardi: Nothing to report today.
Finally, how do you plan to develop Steam in 2007?
Doug Lombardi: We've learned a lot in the past two years, and surely anyone who's been watching the evolution of the system during that time has seen many changes - from the underlying functionality to the top-level interface to the sheer number of games now offered over the service.
As for what's next, we'll be extending our ability to extend more unique offers such as the Free Weekends. We'll also be introducing other payment methods in addition to PayPal, which was just rolled out. And I'm sure we'll think of more things to build.
I've always been impressed with Steams service, I like the price and convenience, and for those who like getting their games digitally (if like me you hate all the CD/DVD swapping nonsense) Steam is the best of the best.
Take a game back? Have you ever tried that? The shop assistant looks at you like you have just crapped in his mums handbag... You know exactly what they are thinking and they do all but call you 'Captain' and ask you where your parrot and wodden leg are. As for selling a game on, yeah - fair do - can't do that, however, Steam seems pretty cheap most of the time so you might have already saved most of the money that you could have got for selling a game on and you still get to keep the game (if you know what i mean)
You wanted to take a game back and sell it second hand because you didn't like it or something better comes out?
Personally, I haven't tried it before but if you buy the game thru steam and don't like it, don't pay the credit card bill. Probably they would just take the game off your 'My games' list or maybe shut off your account. Someone try it and lemme know.
STEAM is the pits!! I totally, 100% hate it. When I bought Half-Life 2, it took me 1 hour and 40 minutes to install it. With each passing minute, my dislike for STEAM grew and grew. Today, I don't buy software that runs via STEAM. Half-Life 2 is the only STEAM game I own, I haven't even invested in any of the addon's. Valve have lost a loyal customer here because of their utter stupidy over the installation method of single player games! I don't buy pirate software, I don't support piracy in any form, yet I was penalised by STEAM for being a loyal customer! BAH!!
STEAM is bad news for the PC. New PC owners will need to have net access in order to install PC games and if they can't afford or avail of a broadband connection, then it's dial up and that's a whooping killer when it comes to time taken for installing games. STEAM is wrong for single player games and we gamers shouldn't be penalised for being loyal. With almost two hours to install a game, no wonder people are switching over to consoles for their gaming pleasure.
I was on dial up, Half-Life 2 took about 5 minutes to unlock over this connection after installing with the CD. Feel free to dislike it but just because YOU had an issue doesn't mean it happens by default. There's always a margin for errors like that with any given system. Even the simplest CD protection method fills a game's forums with complaints from legitimate customers unable to play it come release day. Then we have the kind of CD protection that can actually damage your precious hardware (see Starforce and other similar solutions). I'll go for Steam instead, thanks.
Humorguy, blame Bethesda for those $5 for horse armor deals. Valve, one of the biggest online publishers, has done nothing like that, while the title that Bethesda intorduced that system on was NOT available to buy online. That pricing was a direct result of Bethesda seeing Microsoft's Live Market's (or whatever they call it) potential as their previous title (which was only geared to PC and not consoles initially) only offered FREE plugins of the same type.
That's one thing you should blame cosoles for then, rather than turn it all around once again about how the PC gaming is doing bad moves and dying. Please don't compare with episodic content, if that's what you thought of, because that's also a good thing that's been happening for many years now and it's a publishing scheme MILES away from Bethesda's.
Also, who cares if it's "invisible" to retail stores? Your view of them is totally WRONG. They all are overpriced (so there's no change here), give you used products as new, and are basically there for the clueless casual gamers. Online purchases have been the best option way before downloadable purchases were introduced. Retail is KILLING the industry (not PC gaming only) rather than helping it as you seem to think. The big chains force incredibly outrageous terms on the publishers, they almost have more power than them when it comes down to it because if a big retail chain refuses to put your game up for any stupid reason they come up with, it WILL do bad.
I don't know if it will be a celebration when 50% or even 100% of games are sold online, but it will certainly not mean any further death for this industry. Snap out of it. You're just locked into the mindset said retail chains want you to. PC gaming's glory days were full of downloadable distributions. Doom started out as a SHAREWARE TITLE! Bringing that into the casual audience with the correct backing is only a good thing for the industry. If some misuse it it's up to them, and not this FANTASTIC tool with many examples of GREAT USE already. Enough said.
PS: Your DVD example should deal with retail DVD stores, not Cinema's, it's completely different and irrelevant presented like that.
I'm a bit of a steam fanboy after they supported Tripwire Interactive's Red Orchestra...its that kind of support for independant developers i really admire, and I think it will improve PC gaming overall.
Another good point in supporting Steam specifically, rather than something like EA's distribution platform. RO isn't the only example either. Valve's own Portal game is made by students they hired after seeing a little tech demo game they had made. Then there's Alien Swarm: Infested the Source based evolution of another UT2004 modification, and even The Ship and Garry's Mod. Sure Valve as a company do it for the money to some extent, but atleast we're lucky they're a company with a gaming clue that can see money in this direction too, rather than just in s**t uninspired games. They're willing to promote and invest in new ideas even if they don't come from a big development studio. Hell, even Steam's current official skin themes used to be a custom skin pack made by a fan
Feel free to ignore this paragraph, borderline off topic: Compare that with the arrogance of companies like Epic and how they believe what they do is the best thing ever. They had a GREAT engine last gen, a GREAT mod platform, GOOD tools, but all they could think of to keep that aspect of the game going was a contest. Once the contest was over, it all died down at the blink of an eye, they couldn't support a player and mod developer community... A big shame and I hope they do better with UT3 as their engine seems to once again be fantastic and could result in some amazing content being produced. Hopefully they will push for players to actually make use of that content so that developers keep making it, and maybe next time it won't be Valve that ends up promoting and investing in things spawned by the Unreal Engine, like RO and AS.
I never said their pricing is good, I simply said it's just as bad in stores. I don't feel any more safe having a disc than I do having just the data. You shouldn't either as you still only have data except on a different storage device. You should also ask yourself about the reasons behind Steam pricing being on the same level as retail. At least one of them is that with all the good it brought the developers, it has not yet made them not need the retail channel, therefor they have to please it and not shaft it by offering a much lower price. Like I said in my last post, nobody wants to p**s off retail chains because then he will simply do bad. For now.
If you want that kind of power put on clueless businesses that have pretty much nothing to do with game development rather than lead the industry to an era where people are comfortable with online purchases and most any developer can distribute his game online for the public to judge and enjoy, getting rid of as many middle men that bastardise it as possible, that's fine, but I don't have to agree with it.
Hell consoles are starting download distribution as well. PS1 games on your PSP? Virtual Console? Xbox Live Arcade? It's coming and it's not PC only, sorry to say, so again your 'PC gaming is doomed' speech is off. It's only going to take a bit longer there though if the PS3 ever gets off the ground, then that, and the subsequent generations of consoles will kickstart it given the large storage capacity they are sure to have.
Also you ignored most of my post there, and the rest of what you write is your usual pure bullspeculation about what the public or press will so certainly do.
Lets face it though, is the industry really likely to go completely download-only any time soon?! I like Steam but it is still a relative oddity in relation to the slick end-to-end service it offers (yes I know, when it works I've never had problems with it). Also there is still a huge demand for boxed content... even *gulp* PC games! Eventually, in years to come it may be the case that all software is streamed to your computer/console/device and you never actually install - or indeed own - anything, but that future is still a way off.
Call me old fashioned but I like to own my games. I like to have a nicely designed box that has a manual and a disc in it. I like to actually see that I've got something for my money.
For me download only sales will take the soul out of gaming, because half the fun for me is going out to the local stores and spending some time with my friends browsing what's out there before I decide what I'm going to purchase.
Is Epic the arrogant one? Epic just released Unreal Anthology... It doesn't have any kind of copy-protection Can you say the same about Half-Life Anthology? So who is the arrogant is all this?
For me Valves middle name is Arrogancy
What is more arrogant than forcing customer to register and identify themselves before playing a Retail PC Game they bought in a store? What is more arrogant than forcing customer to "Product Activate" a Retail PC Game bought in a store? What is more arrogant than forcing customer to "ask for permission" each time they want to play a game they bought? What is more arrogant than forcing customer to run a program each time you play games with the purpose of monitoring you? What is more arrogant than leaving out customers without internet access for playing single-player games without any credible reason? What is more arrogant than removing any kind of choice and forcing you to use a system even if its against your own will? What is more arrogant than turning PC Games into a service based system which is exactly what STEAM is
CVG is reporting this as a success, which is worrisome for me cause it shows in the PC Game market business acting arrogant and against customer can pay off. Valve acted in a agressive and arrogant way when they introduced STEAM, or should I say IMPOSED STEAM to PC Gamers, cause they never gave choice, they never "invited" customer to use it, instead by FORCED, and unfortunately many felt playing HL2 was more important than their own consumer rights and freedom. STEAM means more power to those selling and less freedom to those buying and playing. So for Valve that was a win and for us PC Gamers? do we win in having less freedom and choice? In history books when looking back the conclusion will be obvious: Brute force and arrogancy from a corporation like Valve won over consumer rights.
You wanted to take a game back and sell it second hand because you didn't like it or something better comes out?
At retail, Steam makes no difference. The second-hand buyer will need to take a digital photo of the cd key and e-mail it to Steam Support before they can use the game, but for the seller there's nothing to get hung up on.
Reselling credit-card bought games isn't possible, but that's largely because of proof of purchase issues with entirely digital downloads.
So for all of Valve's waffling, it about making huge profits off the back of a similar retail price but with no printed manual cost, no packaging cost, no CD/DVD duplication cost. Nothing.
In the case of most Steam games (the ones above $20 in the main, and everything about $30), publishers and/or retailers lock prices to prevent undercutting of traditional channels. You can tell the ones released on Steam first, because they are at the sort of price point you'd expect.
Al3x, a retailer gets, at most, 20%, the distributor 60%+ (up to 75% if it's a smaller publisher!)
You seem to be outdated. Today retailers often have single-figure margins, while publishers typically commandeer 80-90% of sales, as well as demanding IP ownership. Valve were taking 40% two years ago, and that number isn't going to have gone up since. They don't take IP or want exclusivity.
What is more arrogant than forcing customer to register and identify themselves before playing a Retail PC Game they bought in a store?
You just spent 287 words repeating that. It remains unconstructive.
Not sure why Valve are seen as arrogant for creating and using Steam, they are merely looking after their own property that they licence to the end user. Don’t forget that Valve is a company trying to make as much money as it can - that is how the business world works.
If you don’t like Steam or Valve then don’t use it, it really is that simple. I just feel you will be missing out as they do make very good games. Also, if more money goes to the devs when selling through steam then the more resources they will have to create larger and better games, this is something that wouldn’t just apply to Valve.
Not sure Epic are arrogant either, Mark Rein may come across like that but you never know unless you meet him and talk to him. To me he sounds more boisterous than anything and proud of what Epic do.
when i first got hl2 i was on a 56k modem and steam took 6 hours to install. ive now got broadband and things are quicker,but its still a pain in the ass.the reason a lot of people want games on a disc is that,like me, i like to uninstall games when ive played them to make room for new ones.but every now and again i reinstall a favorite game like far cry in my case cos i fancy a blast.if i take hl2 off,id have to go through all the update/install bulls**t that steam puts you through yet again,and if its a download,id have to buy the game again!games like syn episodes were quite poor and not really worth the asking price.download is here to stay for sure,but untill its delivery is improved and the customer is treated with a little more respect,its still going to put people off buying.
Call me old fashioned but I like to own my games. I like to have a nicely designed box that has a manual and a disc in it. I like to actually see that I've got something for my money.
For me download only sales will take the soul out of gaming, because half the fun for me is going out to the local stores and spending some time with my friends browsing what's out there before I decide what I'm going to purchase.
You are just backing up what Valve said themselves in that interview! Steam is just another way of getting the game, for those who prefer to go down a shop they still can, but to suggest you dont own your game if you buy via steam is a bit daft.
when i first got hl2 i was on a 56k modem and steam took 6 hours to install. ive now got broadband and things are quicker,but its still a pain in the ass.the reason a lot of people want games on a disc is that,like me, i like to uninstall games when ive played them to make room for new ones.but every now and again i reinstall a favorite game like far cry in my case cos i fancy a blast.if i take hl2 off,id have to go through all the update/install bulls**t that steam puts you through yet again,and if its a download,id have to buy the game again!games like syn episodes were quite poor and not really worth the asking price.download is here to stay for sure,but untill its delivery is improved and the customer is treated with a little more respect,its still going to put people off buying.
Erm if you don't want to re-download then why don't you backup the steam cache files for the game on to CD and then just paste them back in, do a small update and get on with playing next time?
Hardcore PC gaming probably has been in a little bit of a decline over the last few years but the release schedule for 07 shows that it is fully back on track. No other platform offers the same quality and variety as the PC. Platforms like steam do nothing but help this. Try finding quality games like Psychonauts anywhere in a high street store for a reasonable price... or HL2 for that matter. It just doesn't happen. For the last 4/5 years there has only been 1 option for PC gamers and that is online stores, now with Steam we have a viable alternative distribution method that offers variety and good pricing.
Vista should go a long way to improving the PC gaming platform as well, with fast install and bumping up the minimum spec of graphics cards.
Take a look at the current Edge magazine for more on the future of PC gaming. It is certainly not dead. I am hoping things will start to pick up again and as i said 2007 release schedule certainly hints at this.
If you want to blame someone for PC gaming decline, blame Intel for its shoddy integrated graphics chips and blame publishers (yes, big bad publishers that cream the majority of money from retail games) for shoddy PC ports of games that used to be primarily developed on the PC.
If that really happens (though I doubt you have any valid stats to back that up) then why do you keep saying PC gaming is dying? I would consider it a revival if people really started paying more attention to the smaller developers and the gems they can make. After all, if a big developer wanted to make a game with the same system specs the indy devs do, I can't imagine they would make it any better. Also, once again, Valve do support indy devs via the Steam platform. Moreover, Online distribution becoming accepted also gave indy devs a way to get on consoles, via Microsoft's Xbox Live Arcade, though the competitors will have similar.
By the way, Half-Life sold more in the decade it was available, give Half-Life 2 a decade and the sales gap will be smaller, a lot smaller than it is now. Half-Life didn't get those sales in a week, it managed to get them because of the continuous support and flood of new official as well as fan content through the years. It was also a better game than Half-Life 2 but hey, s**t happens and most people bought HL1 for Counter-Strike anyway, as a simple stand alone single player FPS adventure could never achieve those sales on its own.
By the way, you can buy those 5 hour episodes on retail, so much for Steam being the harbringer of destruction with episodic gaming eh? Episodic distribution has nothing to do with online or retail, it can happen the same for both. By the way, on 360, Mass Effect will have an episodic nature. Damn, consoles must be doomed!
Also, 20 bucks for 5 hours is hardly a bad deal as long as you like the game (and who are you to say if HL2 episodes are worthy or not to someone who enjoys them?). How many hours does a single player FPS like Doom 3 or Prey last? 10 at best (while you also wish it ended sooner)? And they cost $50-60? There you go.
Also, just because it's the "in" thing to say now doesn't make it something new that came with Steam, as I said in my previous posts you've mostly ignored because of their valid examples of good use of Steam. It's been happening many years now and started by the independent developers you love (or should love) as they can't get publishers and the few times they can, they can't get shelf space thus they resort to the alternative distribution methods you hate in order to bring us their gaming gems.
Also, without episodic gaming, we wouldn't have the return of Sam & Max. The fact that distribution model became more accepted thanks to Valve and other companies, made them able to consider creating it without thinking it was sure to fail. Another semi-indy dev gem in development because of this change.
But no, all you want to do is ignore the examples of good use, make up some weird reasoning behind less sales of whichever thing, throw in a real bad example or two if available, throw some speculation about what the people/press will do and why they will do it, and all because you want to be able and go in a retail store, without realising all the harm they bring to the industry... The big chains actually SELL shelf space to the publishers ffs...
As for your comments on the future of PC gaming, that guy wanted to make a point by showing you more is coming. If more wasn't coming, that would mean the death of it. He didn't tell you what's out now because he assumes you already know... And there's a lot of good out now. Personally I'm playing Sam & Max, Gal Civ II, and sometimes I exchange GalCiv II with my friend's Medieval II or Guild Wars (another example of good episodic-like distribution that's nothing to do with Steam). Also getting the WoW expansion in a couple of days.
I was on dial up, Half-Life 2 took about 5 minutes to unlock over this connection after installing with the CD.
Al3x, you must have some superb dial up there. I am now on broadband and recently reinstalled Half-Life 2 from the disc. Over braodband, it took 20 minutes to unlock. Who is your dial up ISP? I have to sign up today !!
I dont see why the games developers dont just allow gamers to download games directly from there websites. If downloading is the future and the way forward, then it makes alot more sense. Developers would save even more money maybe the prices of games would be less also. And the we would finaly be able to do away with the f**king middle men! can you imagine a world without middle men leaching off of everybody. Mmmmmmmm! happy days, just be careful not to catch a virulunt disease off of a telephone, as there wont be anyone around to sanitize it
Humorguy, no, it's not really fair, why should PC gaming be like you describe? Just because you want it to be like that? It never was like that, consoles were more mainstream (DUH, plug & play factor) since they were introduced, and games never worked optimally on the "average" PC. Even back in the day upgrading was the way it is now. Still, I've only done 3 upgrades since 2000, only one of them major, and have always been able to play the latest games fine. My current 3.0Ghz CPU I've had quite a while and it's only now starting to show its age. Starting.
Vista is bringing another bump that is perhaps too early to pass but it's not going to be a must-have just yet and in the long term it's good for the industry as it will force s**tty manufacturers like dell to provide decently equipped PCs to the average and low end user.
As for your other points, I'm a gamer, I don't need to see something I like on TV or in mainstream magazines to justify its purchase. If anything, the things said magazines and shows are interested in are usually crap. As with the examples I gave before, there are plenty of good PC games out there, and plenty more coming, more than I have time to play even, and certainly more than C&VG or any website can cover. I don't see why it matters more if they appear in mainstream media than if they are good games.
Also, I never said PC gaming is doing great, I just said you blame certain things in incredibly ignorant and speculative ways (like Steam) while often you contradict yourself. You even blamed the PCs for things that originated from the consoles and have a bigger presence on them, like the aforementioned Bethesda plugins marketing scheme.
As for magazines, the internet was their downfall, not the decline of PC gaming. Why would the majority of users pay for a magazine when they have access to the internet which offers the same and more information, faster and at a constant rate rather than once a month. Every time I bought a magazine in the last years because I felt nostalgic, I ended up reading the same things I had seen even weeks ago online. Demo discs, a good reason (for some) to buy a mag in yesteryear, are also useless now with the majority being on broadband.
Anyway, you've used the above point before and I answered in the same way but you keep bringing it back. In short, if PC gaming is not how you want it and you see no hope for it and every single thing that happens to the industry is a bad thing regardless of examples of good use, then feel free to move to the consoles and stop caring about PCs, since consoles apparently do all you want as they don't need upgrading, and they appear in mainstream media the like. Have fun and don't look back, I'll be having fun too though, just as I am now with the games I mentioned.
Maybe some things I said are harsh (and I even deleted a couple of paragraphs) but I find it quite irritating when people show you what you hate (Steam in this case) can be and has been used for good and that the alternative you prefer has been used for "evil" already so it can be a good thing if it loses power, you just ignore them and go on another generalised rant about PC gaming's death. Just like you did in your last reply I'm now responding to.
Stev69, people (like humorguy) are the reason developers don't do that. I think that currently, to them it's not worth the cost of developing the proper backend needed for a convenient and safe system if most people will just prefer retail anyway, and when they also have pressure from the publishers and retail chains to consider.
The good news are that some developers change their mind. Blizzard finally made The Burning Crusade available as a download. Sam & Max is available as a download. Stardock titles are available in download form (but they're sorta indy). Even EA (please don't support their service, the last thing we need is an EA monopoly of the online distribution) do it now. All that just from the company's website rather than some third party platform like Steam, or questionable service like Direct2Drive.
Still, a platform like Steam is useful because it has a strong company backing it so that slowly people (some of them forced to get it because of a series they like) begin to realise there's nothing to be afraid of with digital purchases (hey, it helped the music industry, why not bring it over?), which will eventually lead to more developers offering their games in that way and people being comfortable with purchasing their products.
Even EA (please don't support their service, the last thing we need is an EA monopoly of the online distribution) do it now. All that just from the company's website rather than some third party platform like Steam, or questionable service like Direct2Drive.
What? EA download service becoming a MONOPOLY? And STEAM is a third party service? You really must be kidding right Al3x? You have to be joking! ...I guess its like that 5 minute dial-up thing The real danger is STEAM turning into a MONOPOLY not the EA online service and STEAM is not a third party but rather a service from a first party. Valve is the exclusive owner of STEAM and Valve is also a developer and publisher! so Valve/STEAM is not a third party!
Now... do you see EA online service providing games from other publishers? Do you see EA online service being IMPOSED to Retail customers? Does Sims, C&C or NFS or any other major title from EA being exclusively available via EA online service? Does EA make you use its online service if you buy the Retail version? No, but STEAM does it all! STEAM not only provides games from Valve but also from other publishers and developers. STEAM IMPOSES itself even if you buy the game in Retail cause you are forced to use STEAM no matter what, no matter were you buy the game either online or in Retail you always have to use STEAM STEAM is present in ALL Valve Retail games like Half-Life 2 with no exception so if you don't want to use STEAM you can never play Half-Life 2.
So its STEAM the danger! and a real one! Seeing STEAM getting bigger and closer to a MONOPOLY. Probably the first thing will not be a total MONOPOLY on PC Games but only in for example First Person Shooters for the PC
And is this what you want? STEAM being the only service for FPSs for the PC? So what happens to choice? So what happens to alternative? So what happens if you like First Person Shooters like myself and don't like STEAM? Don't I have the right to dislike STEAM? Don't PC Gamers have the right to play PC Games without STEAM? Should I be forced to use STEAM to play First Person Shooter for the PC just cause STEAM became a MONOPOLY for that genre? And please don't insult my intelligent by saying the must used reply from STEAM LOVERs: "Don't like STEAM? get a console!" I've been a PC Gamer for over a decade! I have the right to play PC Games without being forced to use STEAM! Who the hell does Valve think they are? Ruler? Boss? Dictator? Oh no at least without me giving them a fight!
And you Al3x, the way you talk, the way you argue, and even your sig tell it all (no I have no intentions to check your site) You really seen like a STEAM Propaganda Agent Does Valve pay you for all this? or its just STEAM becoming your new love, your new "religion"?
If there is choice then I don't have any problem with STEAM, but STEAM is removing choice so then it became WRONG STEAM is a restricted system STEAM is turning PC Games into a SERVICE based system STEAM is cutting choice from PC Games STEAM is removing Privacy from PC Games STEAM is INFECTING the PC Game Retail market And there is a clear and real danger of STEAM becoming a MONOPOLY And MONOPOLY will never ever be good for customers!
Now if you want STEAM to become a MONOPOLY say it! OK! no need to write long talks, just say it Al3x "I want STEAM to become a MONOPOLY for First Person Shooters!" "I want every PC Gamer in the world to be FORCED to use STEAM if they want to play First Person Shooter PC Games" "I want Valve to become the Master of all PC Gamers, and turn PC Gamers into SLAVES" Come on, say it, I know you are dying to say it...
I now leave a message to all opposing STEAM, don't give up fighting! don't give up! Don't let Valve get more and more power! don't let Valve turn PC Games into a STEAM MONOPOLY. Do you want your children to many years from now ask you: "Daddy is it true there was a time in the past you could play PC Games without you having to identify yourself, and be monitored and choose when to play and what to play?" And you reply: "Yes Son, there was once a time when PC Games had freedom, now no more..." The Future is in your hands! so please don't let the future of PC Games be STEAM! fight for FREEDOM in PC Games! Fight for FREEDOM in PC Games! Don't let Valve turn PC Games into a PRISON called STEAM!
1) You sir are a total moron and your post reveals that much, especially since you judge me because of my website while stating you won't even check it out, or because of my post here, that you even fail to make any sensible argument against, only try and insult it, to no effect of course.
2) My point with what you quote was that EA sucks, and you DON'T want them to become a monopoly online as they have almost become that "offline". I wasn't saying they are currently a threat. They are not (thanks to Steam already dominating that area), and it's a good thing that we should ensure remains as is because they ruined the industry as they did achieve to more or less dominate it in many ways.
3) EA's service is un-needed to run the games because it's a purely publishing service and does not offer any actually useful for developers or gamers features built into it. And what's that about not offering other companies' products through it? EA are mostly a publisher, which means what they do is offer other companies products, both on retail and online. And if said products sell well, then they buy its developers and destroy yet another great IP.
Instead, you can support a developer focused company like Valve who have shown interest in unique ideas regardless if they are part of a well known franschise or have gigantic budgets put behind them or their creators wish to keep their IPs. They show support for quality indy devs among other things therefor push the industry toward the right direction.
4) Excuse me but Steam IS a third party service as far as games from other companies are concerned. It's a first party for Valve's own titles, but it's a third party for any other title. For the record, I didn't even try to make any major point with that mention you quoted just enough to twist its meaning. Someone asked why developers don't offer their games from their own sites and I simply gave examples of a few that do that. And you go off at a simple factual mention like that just because I snuck in a negative word about EA? What can I say, no comment other than my first couple of lines here.
5) If you really want to fight against a bad market state, then you should start supporting online purchases until people are comfortable with it and do it from the developer's own site, until all developers are willing to offer that. Do that so retail loses the power it currently has and so that publishers (like EA) also lose some of their power (but not all of it, funding from them will always be needed I guess).
However, since your ignorant and insulting forum rants do not manage to make the public any more comfortable with such purchasing schemes, a platform like Steam and a company like Valve are doing a world of good toward that goal. Many thousands of gamers took that step because of them. Taking that step without them would sure have been ideal, but they simply would not have done it at all in that case.
6) Steam is NOT imposed on retail customers unless the game's developer/publisher CHOSE to use its features (antipiracy, auto updating, server browsers, anticheating etc). I don't see retail buyers of the likes of Call of Duty, The Longest Journey, Gun, Painkiller and many other titles need Steam to play them just because they got published through it. In fact, the majority of the titles available on Steam do NOT require it if you buy them in retail (the majority of titles on Steam are not Valve's) or via other available means like Popcap's or Introversion's own websites. See how pathetically misinformed you really are?
7) If you wanted to play games that do use Steam's features therefor require it even if bought at retail, then if you hate Steam so much you should have made a petition for the developers. You should have asked them to waste resources to provide the features Steam can already provide by developing them in house instead, Or simply that you wanted the game without those features at all. Maybe they would have listened. If they wouldn't, it would be that company's choice, and not something imposed by Valve/Steam as I mentioned earlier.
How do you "have to identify yourself" to play games via Steam? All that's really required is an e-mail address. You can't exactly be tracked down through that if you use hotmail or similar. I imagine that it asks more when you try to purchase things via Steam though, but that's simply the way credit card purchases work anywhere on the internet, not just via Steam.
9) What the f**k? Less choice? Dominate the FPS? What do FPS titles specifically have to do with Steam? It's a publishing service for any kind of title, not a specific genre. And how exactly does it give you less choice by giving you another way to purchase games? How does it give you less choice by offering titles that would otherwise never see the light of day? How does it give you less choice by allowing the developers to use features they want to see in their games even if they do not have the resources/time to make them on their own? How does it give you less choice by helping make small developers and their titles that previously had a very small following famous worldwide?
Because you have to run Steam? News flash, you already have to run a specific program to run 90% of the retail games out there and it's called Windows. Wanna fight against a monopoly? Start with that you ignorant hypocrit.
10) Steam is strong but it will never be a monopoly. First because retail is not going anywhere any time soon and second because as soon as customers start being comfortable with such schemes, more and more companies will start providing their products online independently and not via Steam. In fact, many of them already do. But until things like that become the normal rather than the exception (to the general public's view, as most of them aren't aware of companies like Stardock and Garage Games and many others who already do that), Steam will seem to be the dominant platform just because of Valve's own high profile titles.
In short, your little flame war here does nothing but show how clueless you are. You don't have to burn Steam at the stake just because you read somewhere on the internet it's bad and you want to fit in with that group. Think for yourself next time, and think thoroughly.
1) Insults from a STEAM LOVER like yourself are a praise for me! So please keep it up mister!
2) Who is distributing Valves/STEAM INFECTED games in Retail? EA! Who did a strategic partnership with EA? Valve! Who is calling EA the best in Retail? Valve! EA and Valve are buddies! So who is the ignorant in all this?
3) EA is evil and Valve is God? What a joke! EA and Valve are partners! PARTNERS! EA is Valves best friend! OK! Why? Cause after the "divorce" with Sierra Valve desperately needed someone to help them spread the STEAM INFECTION over Retail cause online only STEAM could never survived and they found their "soul mate" EA! EA and Valve are two of the same! both monopolistic! both greedy! both arrogant! EA is Valve biggest and most important partner in all this and if it wasn't for that STEAM would have never succede if it wasn't for EA you bet Valve wouldn't be in the position they are now! its just like a marriage made in HELL! Great for both but very worrisome for us customers, and btw the EA online system has code and help from Valve, cause why do you think they are so similar in many ways? EA and Valve have a strategic partnership and we don't know were that can lead, although now I'm much more afraid of Valve than EA.
4) STEAM is owned by a developer/publisher called Valve! so any developer and publisher that makes their games available via STEAM is letting the competition (Valve) have access to its sales and its customer base, so there is a clear conflict of interests! So a dare challenge Valve to spinoff STEAM and make it a independent and separate company! Why do you think 3DRealms didn't like the idea of letting Prey be available via STEAM? Cause Valve is competition for 3D Realms! COMPETITION! do you understand! and obviously they don't want the competition to have access to their sales and customer base!
5) Retail is the best! Retail is the only market that can give proper competition and choice! I fight against MONOPOLISTC systems like STEAM that make games have fixed pricing and force you to buy from only one supplier! can you choose the store when you buy STEAM games (not the Retail version)? No you can't and only one supplier means MONOPOLY! MONOPOPLY means higher prices! and that will always be BAD BAD BAD from consumers! BAD BAD BAD! do you understand! Its the Retail market the most DEMOCRATIC, easy and affordable of all! In STEAM you need a credit card and do you think all PC Gamers have a credit card? NO! and with Retail you just need some cash and youre done! In STEAM you need a always on high speed broadband and do you think all PC Gamers around the world have it? NO! and in Retail you just need your PC and youre done! And above that, you can always find Retail versions with a lower price than the ones available via STEAM why? cause Retail has competition! COMPETITION! Retail is the best! BEST! I will always support and defend the Retail market and all the ones that work in it, developers, publisher, distributors, retailers! cause all are helpful and all make the Retail channel the best for the consumer! And you doubt my support for the retail market? Just look at the Retail versions I've been buying in the last year: http://pcgames2006.tripod.com/pcgbought.htm And you wonder who many STEAM INFECTED games did I bought? take a guess STEAM LOVER http://pcgames2006.tripod.com/nobuy.jpg
6) STEAM is being IMPOSED since NOVEMBER 2004! STEAM is being FORCED upon PC Gamers and many use it against their will! If you want to play Half-Life 2 YOU ARE FORCED TO USE AND ACCECTP STEAM! And cause Half-Life 2 is such a fantastic game many couldn't resist and ended up behaving in a submissive and obeying way, letting Valve become their MASTER and turning them into SLAVES, STEAM Slaves! I'm a hard-core FPS fan, and I've been waiting for Half-Life 2 for years and I still have not been able to play it cause VALVE FORCED ME TO BECOME A STEAM SLAVE and I simply DON'T ACCEPT IT!
7) I've been asking developers and publisher to not use STEAM since the first day! I emailed Valve, obviously no answer, they don't give a damn about customers like myself, I posted in Valves official forum, obviously they again ignored, I even created a petition one year ago to ask for a Half-Life 2 Retail version without STEAM, http://www.petitiononline.com/NewHL2SE/ But Valve was not the only developer I have asked to not use STEAM in Retail, I asked Ritual to release a version of Sin Episodes without STEAM and they said NO I've asked Arkane and Ubisoft for a version of Dark Messiah without STEAM and fortunately they said Yes, and for that I thank them and extra reward them by buying this: http://pcgames2006.tripod.com/dmbuy.jpg and I can go on and on... I've been fighting for STEAM FREE Retail versions of many games for 2 years now! and I will continue so!
STEAM KILLS PRIVACY in single-player games! You can no longer play single-player PC Games anonymously with STEAM! I want privacy when playing single-player PC Games and STEAM KILLs that! so not only you are forced to identify yourself but also STEAM MONITORS you like a criminal! a criminal in a PRISON! cause STEAM must be running ALWAYS when you play STEAM INFECTED games! and why? why do I need STEAM to be always watching me when I play PC Games!
9) You know why STEAM didn't failed? you know why STEAM managed to be successful? It was not cause of its qualities! It was only cause of Half-Life 2! Blame it all on Half-Life 2! Valve FORCED anyone wanting to buy and play Half-Life 2 to use STEAM! It didn't matter if they bought it in Retail or online, all had to use STEAM, and cause Half-Life 2 managed to be such a fabulous game many weren't strong enough to say no and instead even against their will and even disliking STEAM ended up accepting and turning themselves into STEAM SLAVEs. Now with so many Half-Life 2 players, which the majority are FPS players being totally brainwashed with STEAM other publishers are seeing this and associating STEAM with FPS, and that is why you are seeing many older FPS becoming available via STEAM and this makes it a greater danger of STEAM MONOPOLIZING the FPS market although my hope goes all to Epic and id, I really don't believe Epic and id will ever let their games be in STEAM and become another Valves BITCHES like Ritual, 3D Realms among others have become
9A) TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT! OK! OK! DO YOU UNDERSTAND! TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT! Just cause Microsoft has MONOPOLY and is ABUSING PC Users that doesn't mean Valve (which by the way is also from Washington and is owned my a former Microsoft employee and that is no coincidence) can now create a second MONOPOLY now in PC Games, do you understand! NO TO A SECOND MONOPOLY! NO! NO! NO! TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT!
10) It doesn't matter how you sell STEAM INFECTED Games either online or Retail! didn't you hear Valve saying they are very pleased with Retail, Retail is Valve friend cause no matter were you buy the game you always have to use STEAM, and you always become a STEAM SLAVE! Don't forget it was Retail that SPREAD the STEAM infection! Valve owes all to Retail! Half-Life 2 Retail version is a door to the STEAM PRISION and to becoming a STEAM SLAVE just like if bought via download. The MONOPOPLY will be the same if its download only or also Retail cause if Retail is STEAM INFECTED like Half-Life 2 is its USELESS and under Valves control! Valves CONTROL!
And to end all this let me tell you, I'm not a developer! I'M NOT A DEVELOPER! I'm a PC Gamer! I'm a customer! STEAM type systems is HEAVEN to developers and publishers cause it given them all the power! so its the customer ME that ends up losing! end up having less and less freedom, less and less choice and less and less power So Mister if you want to defend developers do it! do so! but don't pretend that is good for customers cause it isn't! You are in developers side, and you have all the right to do it but that means you defend their side not our side! the PC Gamer side!
Your post is not even responding to most of the points I made, is confusing the points I made about online purchases in general with comments that apply on Steam specifically, therefor completely twisting their point, is for the most part incoherent, presents imaginary arguments (I never said Valve is God) and ignores most of the discussion that happened before your first reply in this thread (especially the comments about the retail channel specifically). I won't repeat things and lead this conversation in an endless cycle, in hopes that you will come up with a valid response, because you have simply demonstrated that is very unlikely to happen. Have fun arguing with yourself, you are very, very good at it.
I like having the last word. Also I like you not replying to anything I've said cause it was always been like this with STEAM LOVERs, you simply don't have arguments to defend your Master Valve
To summarize: . STEAM is acting in the Retail PC Game market like a INFECTION, its just like bird flu... the flu in STEAM, the bird is Retail, the flu (STEAM) uses the bird (Retail) to spread its DISEASE and at the same time kill the bird (Retail) in the end.
. Valve is a ARROGANT, GREEDY, MONOPOLISTIC DICTATOR! and they know it and I bet they are proud of it.
. STEAM is turning PC Games into a SERVICE BASED SYSTEM meaning the customer becomes a SLAVE totally dependant on the service provider (Valve)
. STEAM makes any PC no matter how powerful a DUMB terminal totally controlled by a server system (STEAM) which decides WHAT you play! WHEN you play! HOW you play! Always monitoring you! and the customer only PAYS and OBEYS! and in the end the customer own PC is turned into a PRISON
. Not only cause of Valves own nature (arrogant, monopolistic, greedy, dictator) but also cause of STEAM own nature (closed, proprietary, exclusivity) makes the danger of MONOPOLY in PC Games even greater.
. Unfortunately the WEAK, SUBMISSIVE, SHEEP like behavior many PC Gamers have shown toward the abuse Valve has made, makes all this even worse, cause every time someone in the world give money to Valve/STEAM they are only helping in the creation of a MONSTER, yes a MONSTER that will kill PC Games like we know it and turn it into a MONOPOLISTIC service based system controlled by a DICTATOR Valve.
. If in the end Valve wins, it means the BAD guy won which unfortunately has happen in the history of humanity, but in history books it will be reported as a LOST, a LOST for PC Games, a LOST for PC Gamers, a LOST for customers, a LOST for consumers, and a LOST for consumer rights! Always a LOST!
I did not reply to your points because you are not making anything other than unfounded claims, while once again you are the one who did not give any rational response to anything I said, you are the one who twisted the points I tried to make by putting comments about digital purchases in the same pot as comments about Steam specifically, and ignored most of the discussion that took place here, while also adding some parts to it that never occured.
Why should I bother stating the same things all over again just for you? You ignored them and twisted them once and went on with your rants like nothing happened, you are bound to do it again.
Keep it up but the fact you can think of many allegories about Steam being like a disease or this and that thing doesn't make you any more right. I did respond to many of the points in your previous post and you failed to make any solid counter argument however, at least not with things I've not already covered in previous replies, especially about the retail channel that you hold in so high regard I would think you are a part of it somehow.
I will however reply to the one sort-of-point you made, about EA and Valve's partnership. That only shows how far EA dominates the industry, even companies you accuse of driving a monopoly have to rely on retail publishers like EA to get their products out to the public. It also reinforces the point I made earlier about Steam never being able to become a monopoly, even though that's your main point for hating it.
All in all, in my replies here I've talked about why digital purchasing (in general, not just Steam) is a good thing, why the retail channel in its current form is a bad thing, and why Steam in the long run helps in promoting digital purchases in general. You've yet to say anything about the points I made other than Steam sucks and retail owns, cos it gives you choice. It doesn't, which store you buy something from does not make a difference when said stores limit your choice by only putting in stock the things they want (titles by EA and a few other companies get the most exposure) or got paid for shelf space from its publisher. Maybe local no-name store does not do that, but local no-name store is not what shapes the industry, and if the industry keeps driving smaller devs to extinction then local no-name store can't stock games from them either.
Well f**k, I guess you made me repeat things after all. I don't know why I'm even writing this post, my last reply pretty much still applies. In fact most of my replies in this thread still apply as they've yet to be counter argued with anything but silly flaming and twisting the things I say into all different meanings.
I tried to make by putting comments about digital purchases in the same pot as comments about Steam specifically
This is not about digital distribution The majority of Valve/STEAM sales have been on Retail! and that is why Valve says Retail is good for them. So the issue is not digital distribution cause again Valve with STEAM is selling big not online but Retail! the issue here is turning PC Games into a SERVICE BASED SYSTEM! and Mister do you know what this concept is? do you know what it means software/games becoming a SERVICE? The majority of STEAM users don't! and this is the main issue, SERVICE BASED SYSTEMs is a complete paradigm shift in PC Games and completely changes all the rules in the market and are those rules good for consumers? for me its clear NO STEAM is a SERVICE BASED SYSTEM, meaning you don't buy games, you pay a subscription to a service that gives you access to games, meaning you only play the games as long as you use the service and its irrelevant if you buy the subscription via Retail (which is the majority of sales) or online, its always the same, you pay for a subscription to a SERVICE called STEAM For example, I don't know if you read about this, but STEAM support for Win98/ME will end in the middle of this year, and many still with Win98/ME will stop using STEAM and in consequence stop playing the games they payed for. Conclusion, they still have the subscription valid, the games still run in Win98/ME but the problem is the SERVICE STEAM will no longer run in Win98/ME so if the SERVICE will no longer run in Win98/ME they will simply not be able to play the games they bought cause again they didn't bought games but instead a subscription to a SERVICE. Those users only solution is upgrading the OS, or buying a all new PC with a new OS and that old computer will not run any more any games from the SERIVE STEAM cause STEAM is no longer compatible with that old OS. Now with PROPER Retail games this would never happen. I know PC Gamers that have old computers still running DOS and still running DOS games and as long as the hardware is functioning they will be able to use all the software/games they bought cause its not tied to a SERVICE like STEAM and its self-contained and independent. Many PC Gamers that have become STEAM users live in darkness and in ignorance cause they don't realize STEAM is a SERVICE and I hope this issue now with Win98/ME make them realize what STEAM is all about, its a SERVICE, a SERVICE! You can only play STEAM Games as long as you use and accept the STEAM SERVICE and the STEAM SERVICE can change and any change like now not being compatible with Win98/ME you must accept it and OBEY cause otherwise you will not be able to play the games you payed for. And this is the main issue for me and its why I fight against Valve/STEAM, I simply don't agree with this. I don't want games or even software for the PC to be SERVICE based. Probably you also don't mind using a Office suite based in a SERVICE system. I mind and I will never accept that and that is why I use Open Office. Being it games of any kind of software I simply don't accept and will always say NO to SERVICE BASED SYSTEMs for Games or Software in the PC. Valve introduced SERVICE BASED SYSTEMS in PC Games with STEAM and did it in a way you don't have any CHOICE. They removed choice cause you cannot play Half-Life 2 without using a SERVICE. There is no Half-Life 2 version not tied to a SERVICE like STEAM and for me this is totally unacceptable and that is why I label Valve as "GREEDY", "ARROGANT", "MONOPOLISTIC", "DICTATOR" Even if you bought Half-Life 2 and even if you have a computer still working with Half-Life 2 system requirement you will not be able to play if you use Win98/ME cause the SERVICE will no longer run in your machine, the game will run, but the SERVICE will not and its the SERVICE that control. This for me is not what I want for the present or future in PC Games. Yes we are now talking about Win98/ME which is very old but the issue is not Win98/ME cause in a couple of years it will be Win2k, and then XP and so on... The issue is the customer totally controlled by a SERVICE with no FREEDOM. I simply will not accept living in such kind of market and that is why I will always fight against Valve/STEAM As for you, you really have to stop all that HIPOCRISY about digital service being so wonderful and start talking about what STEAM is really, a SERVICE, and if a friend of yours that still has a Win98 machine and working fine ask you why he can no longer play the STEAM games he has bought, you tell him he has to THROW away his entire computer to the trash cause a SERVICE called STEAM made it obsolete not cause the computer doesn't work or doesn't run all the games he has bought but cause a SERVICE BASED SYSTEM called STEAM said his computer no longer could be used and they have the power to decide this, decide when your own computer becomes obsolete and you have to throw it away. Will you have any problem explaining this to your friend? I bet not.
I don't pay any subscription, the moment they introduce monthly fees or something of that sort you can start complaining, as long as it's mandatory and as long as it's introduced in games that shouldn't have it that is, don't go blaming them if they eventually have some sort of MMORPG as those always have had fees.
Anyway, like I said before, most Steam titles do not include Steam when you buy them retail. So far only Valve's titles do, and a few more titles where the developers CHOSE to use Steam features like auto updating, server browsers, etc. And they still have no service fee, you get the data of the game the same as you would on a disc, it just so happens some of the titles require Steam functions to work, and that's covered in the title's requirements.
The only chance of being unable to play the titles is if Valve goes bankrupt, but until that happens, and we see that they do not take their precious little final time to make a patch that enables offline based gameplay of those titles, you really have no grounds to complain about such a possibility. And hell, most of the titles, being multi player and all, would not work anyway, even without Steam, since they require the master servers for authentication and server browsing, like more or less any modern multi player title.
There are services of the type you mention but Steam is not doing that currently. And if you think this discussion is not about digital purchases then I guess you really did ignore most of the things I've said so far. Not that I'm shocked, just funny you've been suppodelly arguing with my points while you are even trying to discuss something completely different and imo off topic.
Win98 is unsupported by its manufacturer, pursue satisfaction from Microsoft instead of Valve, they are what made it obsolette after all. It is a big problem, I'm not saying it's okay, but that is the nature of the computer world, things get obsolette fast, Valve is hardly the first company to drop support for an OS. Pursuing support for old systems only compromises what they can offer owners of newer systems. Still, when Valve do drop support for Win98 (it's not happened yet), I'm sure owners can get some sort of a refund or other satisfactory solution, as long as they pursue this in the right manner and not with silly forum rants.
You are slow, really slow but I'll try a last time... (I hope this is the last time I write this)
1. STEAM is a SERVICE BASED SYSTEM for PC Games, and its not something you can argue about its a FACT just read the license agreement
2. It don't matter if they don't have monthly fees, (although you bet they will introduce them sometime in the future) even without monthly fees and with a system of pay once use forever, you still have to subscribe to STEAM, yes its a SUBSCRIPTION and again its not something you can argue about, its a FACT just ready your license agreement
3. It doesn't matter if Microsoft says Windows 98 is obsolete and doesn't give support or even if Valve also tells its obsolete and doesn't give support, if you have a working computer with Windows 98 installed you still can continue using it if its useful for you, do you understand this concept? do you? Its not cause Microsoft or Valve says your PC is obsolete that you will now throw it away, its you that decide that and if your Windows 98 machine still is useful and still works and still plays the games you enjoy you have the right to keep using something you have payed for, now if you have the Half-Life Sierra Retail edition like myself you will be able to play Half-Life in a Windows 98 as long as you want and as long as your PC is working and nobody can stop you cause its your PC! if you are unfortunate and have the STEAM INFECTED Half-Life version then you are SCREWED by Valve cause they decided you no longer can play their games if you use Windows 98. For you this is totally acceptable FOR ME ITS NOT and I bet many more feel the same.
4. Digital distribution with no SERVICE BASED SYSTEM like for example what id Software does in their store is perfectly good for me, digital distribution with SERVICE BASED SYSTEM like STEAM is for me BAD and I will never pay any money for it, so don't pretend digital distribution is STEAM cause its not, I've been buying software via digital distribution way before Valve was even created, so I like digital distribution cause its another way to buy software, but that doesn't mean digital distribution has to be done like STEAM is doing, and if you ask me STEAM is giving digital distribution a bad name cause its restrictions only make customers fear it.
5. I'm POSITIVELY sure you will again deny everything I just wrote like you just did in all your previous posts and just like its expected from a STEAM LOVER like yourself but go ahead be my guest cause I'm out of here and I will leave you talking alone by yourself or probably with your God/Master Valve.
I did agree that stopping support for Win98 is a bad thing, I don't see a reason for you to repeat it. Then again it's the only valid criticism you have done so far therefor you have to do that I suppose... But like I said earlier, I'm sure people are eligible for a refund or a similar solution if they pursue this in the right manner. Does that make it a good thing? Nope, just saying. Just repeating even, even though I shouldn't have to.
As for your other points, dude, so what? I was just saying it's not a service like the one you described which sounded like you rent the games and at some point in time they will take them away from you. Currently that is not how it's done, that is not how Steam works, and there are other services that work like that but Steam is not one of them.
If you pay for a game once, you get to play it for as long as you please, minus the Win98 issue. If in the future they introduce a monthly fee for games, THEN criticise them for it. Don't go doing random guesses about what they will do just to make another imaginary point.
I suppose we should also be against anti-cheating of any form that bans cheaters from servers because they bought the game and should have the right to play it as they please, with or without third party cheats, even if it breaks the experience for others.
The license agreement is hardly any stricter than any other software license agreement as well.
The rest you wrote was the usual flame drivel so... Keep it up, lol. You only void the few rational words you had to say with that kind of attitude and s**tty incoherent posting structure. Of course I don't have to resort to that tactic and therefor still respond to the only valid comment you made as you can see.
The idea of downloading game content instead of going to the store is ok, like itunes but igames I guess. I like that.
But to force an honest paying patron (ie: customer) to register online before insalling his game and to force singleplayer games to be verified online before playing is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!
I will never buy another game that requires steam to play again. I will also be selling my HalfLife 2 copy on ebay.
I can say this, game prices include the loss due to piracy, which is why games cost upwards of $40. Its part of the business plan of game developers. This being said, I dont see prices getting lower for the games that require steam. They are basically stealing money from the customer by charging the same price as is charged for games that are loosing profits due to piracy.
BEST THING WE CAN DO, DONT BUY ANY GAMES THAT REQUIRE STEAM. ONCE STEAM AND VALVE ARE OUT OF BUSINESS THE MARKET WILL AGAIN RETURN TO NORMAL, WHICH BY THE WAY IS PLENTY PROFITABLE.
The idea of downloading game content instead of going to the store is ok, like itunes but igames I guess. I like that.
But to force an honest paying patron (ie: customer) to register online before insalling his game and to force singleplayer games to be verified online before playing is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!
I will never buy another game that requires steam to play again. I will also be selling my HalfLife 2 copy on ebay.
I can say this, game prices include the loss due to piracy, which is why games cost upwards of $40. Its part of the business plan of game developers. This being said, I dont see prices getting lower for the games that require steam. They are basically stealing money from the customer by charging the same price as is charged for games that are loosing profits due to piracy.
BEST THING WE CAN DO, DONT BUY ANY GAMES THAT REQUIRE STEAM. ONCE STEAM AND VALVE ARE OUT OF BUSINESS THE MARKET WILL AGAIN RETURN TO NORMAL, WHICH BY THE WAY IS PLENTY PROFITABLE.
Hey Al3x, If we all accept STEAM now and all games are forcing STEAM on us, and then they decide to charge for the service, we are all screwed.
Its kind of like Iran with the Nukes. Once they get the power there is no stopping them.
This is why we should be proactive instead of your suggestion of being reactive.
We should take to the offensive right now and nip this thing in the bud by not buying games that require the STEAM service or any service concept in general, inluding MMORPG. The MMORPG is what started the service based concept and things are spiraling down hill now, MS office, HL2, CIV V, etc etc.
The list is growing and we as consumers must protest by avoiding titles that force this service based "mindset" on us, unwillingly I must add.
Please let me know if you agree after reading my explanation...
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
I've never had problems with it). Also there is still a huge demand for boxed content... even *gulp* PC games! 
Eventually, in years to come it may be the case that all software is streamed to your computer/console/device and you never actually install - or indeed own - anything, but that future is still a way off.
How do you "have to identify yourself" to play games via Steam? All that's really required is an e-mail address. You can't exactly be tracked down through that if you use hotmail or similar. I imagine that it asks more when you try to purchase things via Steam though, but that's simply the way credit card purchases work anywhere on the internet, not just via Steam.
