Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Nov 2010
O
stranger
Offline
stranger
O
Joined: Nov 2010
it likes steal to use temporary but still you are a thief.
think you want to buy an xbox360 from a shop since you careful with your money more you steal that for a testing purpose like how games work on xbox360 and what are drawbacks? but it doesn't matter u careful with your money you have stolen the xbxo360./! then you become a thief at first place.
cause people can't read your mind so they don't believe your story.
now who are the master of thieves??

Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
K
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
K
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
Originally Posted by Dwagginz
Originally Posted by Knight Flyer

Kind of a shitty choice, dont you think?

It's the choice. Steam or no Steam with some games, and it's no different to, say, Sins of a Solar Empire requiring Impulse past a certain update level nor a game requiring SecuROM to run. Steam is just one thing publishers can use, but like Impulse, Valve have made Steam more attractive to both the publisher and the user by making it useful

Its not attractive to me
Originally Posted by Knight Flyer
And said patches are forced upon you whether you want them or not.

No. It has an option to disallow updates.

Even when set to disallow updates - it updates

Originally Posted by Knight Flyer
A monopoly is never a good thing no matter how well intentioned.

Steam is in no danger of becoming a monopolistic entity.


It already is a monopolistic entity



You like Steam, so we will never agree, but time will tell.

Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
K
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
K
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
Originally Posted by eisberg
Originally Posted by Knight Flyer


As for offline mode, dont make me laugh, do you really believe that?

Check your net traffic while your in so called offline mode, use your heads, how on earth does it know theres patches available when its supposed to be offline?



Believe it? I no for a fact that it works in offline mode. The only way my laptop is connected to the internet is either I plug in an Ethernet cord from a router or I plug in my wireless adapter. Guess what, I play my single player games all the time in offline mode when not connected to the internet.

Thats the only real offline mode, when you unplug it, but when it decides that it does want to connect you wont be able to do squat with it untill you connect

Originally Posted by Knight Flyer

Steams intentions are making money and having total control, so keep feeding the monster if you wish, but it will all end in tears.


Only speculation on your part. I could say the same exact opposite and it would only be speculation on my part. In other words what you just said there is meaningless, you have no proof or even an example of it happening in the industry.


Yes its speculation, but my speculation is much more likely than yours and that equals a meaningful speculation.

Last edited by Knight Flyer; 06/12/10 11:48 AM.
Joined: Nov 2010
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2010
Originally Posted by Knight Flyer
Originally Posted by eisberg
Originally Posted by Knight Flyer


As for offline mode, dont make me laugh, do you really believe that?

Check your net traffic while your in so called offline mode, use your heads, how on earth does it know theres patches available when its supposed to be offline?



Believe it? I no for a fact that it works in offline mode. The only way my laptop is connected to the internet is either I plug in an Ethernet cord from a router or I plug in my wireless adapter. Guess what, I play my single player games all the time in offline mode when not connected to the internet.

Thats the only real offline mode, when you unplug it, but when it decides that it does want to connect you wont be able to do squat with it untill you connect

Originally Posted by Knight Flyer

Steams intentions are making money and having total control, so keep feeding the monster if you wish, but it will all end in tears.


Only speculation on your part. I could say the same exact opposite and it would only be speculation on my part. In other words what you just said there is meaningless, you have no proof or even an example of it happening in the industry.


Yes its speculation, but my speculation is much more likely than yours and that equals a meaningful speculation.


lol, Your speculation is more then likely? Based on what? Like I have already said, other Digital Distributions have gone out of business only to be gobbled up by another Digital Distribution service, and nothing bad happened to the customers from the old service. Your speculation has no merit what so ever, especially when reality has shown different.

Also, I have been using Steam since it has released, and I have never had a time where I couldn't play my single player games on my laptop in offline mode. Not one time have I ever not been able to play my games because Steam wanted me to connect to the internet first.

Also, I have several games that I have set not to do automatic updates, and guess what, they never get updated unless I tell it to.

Here is one fact, you have never used Steam, period. The things you say are so far from reality it is not even funny. Ok, at best you probably used a beta version of Steam before it released.

Joined: Nov 2010
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Nov 2010
Originally Posted by Knight Flyer

It already is a monopolistic entity

How is it?

Let's look at this piece of news. Retail was still ahead by 2m units, and right behind Steam is Direct2Drive. That was earlier this year, and I doubt it's changed by much.

With Impulse, Direct2Drive, GamersGate, Metaboli etc selling digital copies of games, Steam can not be a monopolistic entity. It has competitors, and those competitors often carry games that Steam doesn't (And, in return, Steam carries games they don't). The vast majority of PC games do not require Steam (Nor utilise Steamworks as DRM), either.

Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
K
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
K
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
Originally Posted by Dwagginz
Originally Posted by Knight Flyer

It already is a monopolistic entity

How is it?


Only Steam forces you to install their full software package and takes over your game installs in order to activate a game that you have already PAID FOR in a high street shop.

Only Steam makes you dependant on having their software installed and continually running to continue playing the games that YOU have already paid for.

Only Steam makes you agree to a EULA that is illegal in most EU countries in order to play the games that you have PAID FOR.

Only Steam States that if they go tits up they can ply a patch that will make all your "Steam powered" games none Steam dependant, a patch that can do that? Really? If that was so, the pirates and hackers would have already sussed it and done it.


So Steam's not a monopoly?

Yeah right.


Stop letting the fact that you like Steam blind you to the facts about it.

Joined: Nov 2010
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Nov 2010
I never said it would stop your games being Steam dependent, I said it would neutralise the need to connect to the internet.

As for your second point; Uh, what about Games for Windows Live? What about Rockstar's Social Club?

And the first point? Impulse. Games for Windows Live.

Valve do not have a monopoly on digital sales, game management nor the PC market. They cannot be a monopoly because the competitors are out there and are succeeding. I think you've got your definition of monopoly wrong, Knight Flyer.

Oh, and P.S. I'm not really a big Steam fan. I'm more... Impassive towards it.

Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
K
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
K
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
We're not going to agree on this as I'm not going to change my mind and my definition of monopoly is accurate.

You may think Valve/Steam isn't a monopoly but give it time.

To me, Steam is a growing monopoly and I believe its going to keep growing, which could be good news for people who have a lot of money invested through buying all their games through it. Then again, some not very nice surprises may be not to far ahead.

The big shock that may come is if/when Valve start charging a monthly subscription for using their software/service, something every Steam user agreed to accept if it was ever implemented as it is provisioned for in the SSA / Steam Subscriber Agreement. Don't scoff at that and say it will never happen, they made provision for it for a reason.

If it did happen it would be stinker as it would mean cough up or you don't get to play your games, hope it never happens for you guys but its one to bear in mind if you've bought a lot of games through Steam.

As I said, we're not going to agree so we may as well put this one to bed, lets see what another year brings.

Regards, KF

Last edited by Knight Flyer; 08/12/10 12:26 AM.
Joined: Dec 2010
D
stranger
Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Dec 2010
I'm surprised no one blamed Obama yet


IDK what to put here, so don't bother reading it, you're just wasting your time... STOP READING IT!
Joined: Nov 2010
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2010
Originally Posted by Knight Flyer
We're not going to agree on this as I'm not going to change my mind and my definition of monopoly is accurate.

You may think Valve/Steam isn't a monopoly but give it time.

To me, Steam is a growing monopoly and I believe its going to keep growing, which could be good news for people who have a lot of money invested through buying all their games through it. Then again, some not very nice surprises may be not to far ahead.

The big shock that may come is if/when Valve start charging a monthly subscription for using their software/service, something every Steam user agreed to accept if it was ever implemented as it is provisioned for in the SSA / Steam Subscriber Agreement. Don't scoff at that and say it will never happen, they made provision for it for a reason.

If it did happen it would be stinker as it would mean cough up or you don't get to play your games, hope it never happens for you guys but its one to bear in mind if you've bought a lot of games through Steam.

As I said, we're not going to agree so we may as well put this one to bed, lets see what another year brings.

Regards, KF


Just so you know, Cyber Cafe owners are also subject to that SSA, and they do get charged a recurring fee. So yes, it is there for a reason, just not the reason your paranoid self thinks it is. Also, it would be considered to be bait and switch for them to start charging us to play our games that we have already bought, download them as many times as we want, and download patches. IF Valve ever did that they would be in a world of hurt with legal issues and more then likely put themselves out of business.

If they ever wanted to start charging a monthly fee to access the games one has bought, download them, and download patches, they would have to do it for future games where those terms are spelled out before buying those games. We have a better chance of winning the lottery while getting hit with lighting 2 times before Valve would do a boneheaded thing like that.

Last edited by eisberg; 08/12/10 04:10 AM.
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Soviet Empire
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Soviet Empire
Originally Posted by DSabre
I'm surprised no one blamed Obama yet

It's obviously Obama's fault, that's why we even didn't mention him.

Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
K
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
K
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
Originally Posted by eisberg
[quote=Knight Flyer]
So yes, it is there for a reason, just not the reason your paranoid self thinks it is.


My paranoid self is starting to think that you are rather naive.

This is business as far as Valve are concerned, they're not doing what they do purely for your entertainment or to not make money.

What you have missed is that by using Steam, you have agreed to the SSA, in the SSA there is a paragraph that states that by agreeing to the SSA, you have agreed to the fact that they may in future charge a subscription fee and that you agree to pay that fee in order to continue to use Steam.

So, if they start charging a subscription fee, you have already agreed to pay them or stop using Steam.

If you stop using Steam you will loose access to your games, the games you have already paid for.

There would be no legal issues as you have already agreed to pay them.

So before you call someone paranoid I suggest that you take a look at all the facts, ie: read the SSA.

Joined: Nov 2010
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2010
Originally Posted by Knight Flyer
Originally Posted by eisberg
[quote=Knight Flyer]
So yes, it is there for a reason, just not the reason your paranoid self thinks it is.


My paranoid self is starting to think that you are rather naive.

This is business as far as Valve are concerned, they're not doing what they do purely for your entertainment or to not make money.

What you have missed is that by using Steam, you have agreed to the SSA, in the SSA there is a paragraph that states that by agreeing to the SSA, you have agreed to the fact that they may in future charge a subscription fee and that you agree to pay that fee in order to continue to use Steam.

So, if they start charging a subscription fee, you have already agreed to pay them or stop using Steam.

If you stop using Steam you will loose access to your games, the games you have already paid for.

There would be no legal issues as you have already agreed to pay them.

So before you call someone paranoid I suggest that you take a look at all the facts, ie: read the SSA.


I think I know what section you are talking about, but I am understanding it in a different way then you are.

But lets say you are right. Do you seriously believe that Valve would do such a boneheaded thing like that? Seriously, who in their right mind would pay a monthly subscription to play their fully bought games that is not an MMO, especially when there are other avenues to get the game that does not require a monthly subscription, like buying from other Digital Distributors or even buying the physical copies. The only way Valve could have any hope of making that work and not go out of business, is if the whole industry did it as well, meaning that you would even have to pay Gamestop a monthly fee to play any of your physical copies of the game you bought from them, or Go Gamer, or even Wal-Mart.

"Can they" and "Would they" are completely different things.

Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
K
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
K
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
Originally Posted by eisberg
"Can they" and "Would they" are completely different things.


It would be a bloody awful thing to do in my opinion, but:

"Can they" equals - they can.

"Would they" equals - if they thought they could get away with it.

Theres no sympathy in business and to them, gaming is business.

Joined: Nov 2010
Location: OH
D
stranger
Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: OH
Huh. The only thing I've gotten from this thread so far is that someone in the UK has no idea what a monopoly is. No, your definition of a monopoly is so far from "accurate" that it's ridiculous. A monopoly prevents competition. Valve hasn't. What exactly do you think that they have monopolized? Requiring you to run a software program means monopolization? No. That's called DRM. A company protecting their software from being pirated has next to nothing in common with a company crossing the boundaries on preventing competition.

Valve is not the only seller of ANY product other than their own games.

Your speculations are a complete joke. You are fear mongering over something that would be horrible horrible HORRIBLE bad business on part of Valve. They are doing great in revenue as a result of their distribution system and are making money hand over fist on sales that publishers and developers are incredibly happy to take advantage of. Never before has their been an easy to find marketplace for video games that include all the big names in PC, right alongside indie developers. And more often than not, indie developers will have a spotlight right on the homepage providing a sale for those games.

Did you sleep through economics? Using your econ book as a pillow apparently gave you your definition of "monopoly" as well as your thoughts about where Valve is going to go in the future.

Joined: Nov 2003
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2003
Originally Posted by eisberg
...Do you seriously believe that Valve would do such a boneheaded thing like that?
Why would it be boneheaded?

Do the figures - Valve claim to have over 30 million active accounts. Imposing a $5/month "maintenance fee" would bring in an extra $1.4 billion per year, assuming an 80% acceptance rate, with virtually no extra work needed on their part.

The only downside would be the loss of new customers but that could be countered by buying in more "Steam exclusives" - half of the $1.4 billion should cover a fair few, leaving the rest for other things (Bugatti Veyrons, lap dancers, champagne, etc).
Originally Posted by eisberg
Seriously, who in their right mind would pay a monthly subscription to play their fully bought games...
Any subscriber with more than, say, $100, linked to their Steam account who would face considerable expense trying to obtain (legitimate) non-Steam versions.

With Steam, Valve have a life-or-death power over all your purchases which they have been perfectly willing to exercise.

Given this and the increasing incentive for Valve to force a subscription fee onto purchases, I would consider Steam the most dangerous form of DRM available. No other system has the same ability to hold you to ransom (other digital distribution systems like GamersGate or Impulse could pull a similar stunt, but you would only lose the ability to reinstall if you refused). GOG is the only safe digital distributor being totally DRM-free.

And for those extolling Steam's offline mode, there are plenty of reports of it not working. If Valve do intend to bring in a subscription fee, then it would clearly be in their interest to keep it from working properly - anyone care to suggest another reason for it not being fixed after so long?

Joined: Nov 2003
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2003
Originally Posted by DeTard
...A monopoly prevents competition. Valve hasn't. What exactly do you think that they have monopolized?
Try finding a copy of Napoleon: Total War, Civilization V or Half Life 2 that doesn't require you to use (or create) a Steam account. That should refresh the memory of what a monopoly is.

Joined: Nov 2010
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2010
You know this same claim was brought up by Activision against Valve, who in turn said 'What the hell are you talking about?"

Valve does not have a monopoly, a monopoly would be Valve making all the profits and desginers being FORCED to work with Steam, no one forces a developer to do so, and though I am not sure (maybe Larian can confirm or deny) but Steam allows you to use a distributor and get a much larger profit back as Steam wouldn't charge as much as say EA would per copy to distribute your product.

Joined: Nov 2010
Location: OH
D
stranger
Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: OH
Originally Posted by Stargazer
Originally Posted by DeTard
...A monopoly prevents competition. Valve hasn't. What exactly do you think that they have monopolized?
Try finding a copy of Napoleon: Total War, Civilization V or Half Life 2 that doesn't require you to use (or create) a Steam account. That should refresh the memory of what a monopoly is.


LOL. That's not a monopoly. You still do not get it, do you? Valve does not own the rights to the game (except for HL2), the publisher does. If the publisher chooses to use Steam as their only outlet for gameplay, that's their choice.

The ONLY way that would ever be considered a monopoly by any court, regardless of country, is if those software titles were required to run on something like 50% or more of the world's computers. This is why Microsoft got into trouble with Internet Explorer. Are you required to run those games? Uh... no. There's no argument you can possibly come up with where anyone is going to reasonably agree with you that you have to be able to run those games to function. That is not a Valve problem (again, other than HL2), so take those problems up with the publishers. You might as well say that game stores that have exclusive DLCs have a monopoly on those DLCs. "Exclusive deals" are not the same as a monopoly.

And on the topic of Civilization V, you don't have to buy it through Steam. Yes, you have to run Steam to play the game, but once more, you don't have to buy it through Steam. Monopolies are ONLY monopolies (by definition!) if you can only BUY from one entity.

Stop confusing what you think should be considered a monopoly and what is, by definition, a monopoly.

Joined: Nov 2010
Location: OH
D
stranger
Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: OH
Originally Posted by Setch Dreskar
You know this same claim was brought up by Activision against Valve, who in turn said 'What the hell are you talking about?"

Valve does not have a monopoly, a monopoly would be Valve making all the profits and desginers being FORCED to work with Steam, no one forces a developer to do so, and though I am not sure (maybe Larian can confirm or deny) but Steam allows you to use a distributor and get a much larger profit back as Steam wouldn't charge as much as say EA would per copy to distribute your product.


Exactly. Setch is dead on. Any claim of Valve to have any monopoly, in any form, is laughable at best.

Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Bvs, ForkTong, Larian_QA, Lar_q, Lynn, Macbeth, Raze 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5