Steam, love it or hate it?

[Kleidophoros]

I don't care for the avarage gamer. Actually I do; I am worried that every game out there is tailored to suit their needs; a dumbed down experience with flashy graphics. If Steam is a part of this, I hate Steam for this too.
It "lets" me play the game yes. I have start Steam, wait for it to connect to the servers, close the pop-ups, daily deals and stuff, ignore people sending me messages/invitations, notice the sluggy connection, find out a random game is updating or Steam needs to be restarted.
Even though I don't buy the game from Steam, even when I buy it from a store in a nice little box, I will need Steam to play it. I don't like how Steam is being forced down my throat.

 

[mor2]

@Tralfaz

here we go again... steam is a service, part of that nice little thing called supply and demand.

the only reason why some games are steam exclusive is the publisher choice...
blaming steam is like blaming windows for the developer choice not making linux/mac versions...

/end discussion on topic.

 

[K-64]

blaming steam is like blaming windows for the developer choice not making linux/mac versions...

no mor, it isn't. First off, steam isn't an OS, so you don't have to port games from steam to windows for example. I like steam, but I still understand the point of view of those people who do not. Why should they be made to use a service that they don't even want to use and isn't even necessary for them to play the ****ing game that they paid for? For most people, they expect to buy the game, open the box, install and wayhay, there you go!

Instead they get buy game, open box, install, install 3rd party software, run game with 3rd party software that continually tries to get them to buy other games and occasionally craps out on them. Like I said, I like steam so I don't have a problem, but can very well understand where the people who do have problems with it are coming from. Seriously man, think of other people's opinions on a matter before you go off on one of your rants about how they're retarded for wanting a simple buy, install, play system like the days of old.

 

[EdwardWellcraft]

His point is valid. Nobody forced anybody to make games require Steam. You can pretty well expect a Valve game to require it, but it was the choice of the developers to make Empire: Total War and whatnot require Steam. Blame the game developers.

 

[Archonsod]

I think Google is going to be able to make it work with ad based income. There is no need to have a regular fee.

Yup, heard that one before too.

Steam doesn't have it

They're giving away their entire catalogue free now?

there are a ton of open source projects that are free but make money through advertising.

None of which incur the kind of expense you need to run a web based computer. Few in fact which incur any expense beyond domain space registration and server hire.

And again, I'm just saying that the average gamer isn't gonna care.

Nobody gives a flying **** about the average gamer. They're mostly idiots who play Bejewelled, Farmville, WoW and the Sims. The only steam they're familiar with is what comes out of an iron.

@EdwardWellcraft, dont waste your breath, they will not acknowledge that steam is just another service that they have the choice to use or not

Yup, because our only possible response when faced with something is to say yes or no. We're not allowed to say "go away and make it better", because the Valve fanboys arses come out in a strange rash when that happens.


****ing moron.

 

[mor2]

no mor, it isn't. First off, steam isn't an OS, so you don't have to port games from steam to windows for example.

steam is a platform and you do, a steam game is different from windows game.

Seriously man, think of other people's opinions on a matter before you go off on one of your rants about how they're retarded for wanting a simple buy, install, play system like the days of old.

i think you are mistaken in regard to who call other retarded for wanting something, just like the recent suggested online backup feature which starting the retarded rant about steam.

if you dont want a client choose one of the other dozen of digital distributors and go whine to the publishers that they neglect you but choosing a platform because its so successful (has the most verity/features/support/prices whatever) and asking to remove its core elements that makes it so successful its retarded, more so when you auto reject anything todo with it just because, online backup? nah, why? because client. i see 

 

[K-64]

I'm sorry, but if not liking the fact that to play a game I have to have some other software in the background that doesn't need to be there makes me retarded, then I must be retarded. It might be the developer's fault for making their game steam only, but it's just as much Valve's fault for making such an intrusive client. For an example of a digital distributor that does the whole process well, please refer to Gamersgate. However as I have said I'm not against steam itself, just how intrusive it can be for playing games. Especially singleplayer ones where you don't really need to know who's online and whatnot

 

[Tralfaz]

His point is valid. Nobody forced anybody to make games require Steam. You can pretty well expect a Valve game to require it, but it was the choice of the developers to make Empire: Total War and whatnot require Steam. Blame the game developers.

lol What, did the publishers go, "OH!  This Steam is awesome!  We'll only publish it for that!"  I doubt it.  Im sure it was that Valve was giving them a REALLY sweet deal on distribution fees if they made it exclusive, so yeah, I blame Valve for denying me(and others) the game in question, by our refusal to allow them to give us forced patches that dont always go smoothly on our systems, ESPECIALLY without the option to roll back to a patch that did work, not giving us the option of not having achievements/gameplay tracked, for other players to view, ect.

Hell, I played something (maybe Team Fortress) once, WAY back before Steam(had it with a demo of something), then went to play again a while later, and "You must install Steam to use this program".  WTF?  Why the hell do I have to install this?  I already have the game, why do I need another program?  Hell, I start up Battlefield, or CoD, or MoHAA, or any of my other games, except for CSS and the Orange Box ones, it doesnt tell me to run another program, it just starts, I go to the server list, pick one, and play.  No rigamarole.

 

[EdwardWellcraft]

It's still the choice of the developers to limit themselves to the Steam platform. Can't blame Valve for making an attractive development platform. Attractive to most people anyways.

You make good points though, and I would rather see the Steam platform separated from the Steam distribution system. However, the integrated platform is obviously working out well for them, a number of developers, and a number of consumers.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

99.99% of the people dont backup their game data or dont know how to and adding the ability to do so for people with a good connection, with a simple checkbox counts ass added value, simple as that.

Why are you arguing from popularity again? I thought we went over this.
"Everyone does P, therefore you should do P too, is not a valid argument.

Of course if you're a arguing from a seller perspective this is relevant stuff. But in saying that 99.99% of people don't even back up their games you took down burning things to CDs as well as Steam's cloud saving. Besides that, if you know how to buy a game online, I'm pretty sure you know how to find free burning software on the net. It's about as easy as installing it and running the program.

as for the i have a crappy connection whining or rather do it locally etc, heard it all before and still dont give crap about it, its not console crap its still a PC and thus verity of choice for very of people for verity of needs is still king.

So you're discriminating people who aren't able to get a good internet connection? It's like saying there aren't any problems with vital public buildings that don't have any wheelchair or handicap accessibility because 99.99% of the people don't use wheelchairs.

 

[EdwardWellcraft]

Why are you arguing from popularity again? I thought we went over this.
"Everyone does P, therefore you should do P too, is not a valid argument.

This isn't a logical fallacy when talking about the subjective quality of a service. In fact it's one of the only pieces of data you actually have on the topic. How else do you measure the overall quality of a product other than by popularity? It doesn't say anything about the quality of the code in Steam or other such things, but it is the ultimate statement about the overall quality of the service. At least with non-essentials people don't **** around with ****ty quality.

So you're discriminating people who aren't able to get a good internet connection? It's like saying there aren't any problems with vital public buildings that don't have any wheelchair or handicap accessibility because 99.99% of the people don't use wheelchairs.

Except video games aren't vital or public. It's more like an indoor rock climbing facility being forced to be handicapped accessible. Or an electronics store being forced to be Amish accessible. 

 

[Tralfaz]

Why are you arguing from popularity again? I thought we went over this.
"Everyone does P, therefore you should do P too, is not a valid argument.

This isn't a logical fallacy when talking about the subjective quality of a service. In fact it's one of the only pieces of data you actually have on the topic. How else do you measure the overall quality of a product other than by popularity? It doesn't say anything about the quality of the code in Steam or other such things, but it is the ultimate statement about the overall quality of the service. At least with non-essentials people don't **** around with ****ty quality.

So you're discriminating people who aren't able to get a good internet connection? It's like saying there aren't any problems with vital public buildings that don't have any wheelchair or handicap accessibility because 99.99% of the people don't use wheelchairs.

Except video games aren't vital or public. It's more like an indoor rock climbing facility being forced to be handicapped accessible. Or an electronics store being forced to be Amish accessible. 

By how well it works?  Something can be utter ****, but if its all you have, then its popular, but still ****.  If theres a small town where everyones car is at least 20 years old, and in bad shape, thatd be popular, but I dont think theyd like them.

Many places are required to be hanicapped accessible, and a rock climbing place, Im sure, wouldnt get an exemption.  The Amish thing is mutally exclusive, as youre aware, and just ridiculous.

 

[mor2]

It might be the developer's fault for making their game steam only

great progress, its the same thing why we keep getting games for "wider audience", because they dont give a **** they know where the big money is and know that you'll keep buying their stuff, so the blame is on them and us.

but it's just as much Valve's fault for making such an intrusive client.

its intrusive for you, i consider it as well tailored service for my needs, i got a good 24/7 connection and i dont need to apologize for it.

For an example of a digital distributor that does the whole process well, please refer to Gamersgate.

that is exactly what i told you there is dozens of such digital distributors its just that some publishers prefer not to use them.

I'm not against steam itself, just how intrusive it can be for playing games. Especially singleplayer ones where you don't really need to know who's online and whatnot

you dont seem to realize that steam platform is not a content delivery system, otherwise you wouldnt had to run the client afterward.

 

[Archonsod]

How else do you measure the overall quality of a product other than by popularity?

Quite a few ways. Steam isn't a work of art, it's an application with a clear intention, purpose and modus operandi, all of which can be objectively assessed.

Popularity doesn't tell you ****. Windows is the most popular operating system. Is it qualitatively better than Linux or MacOS?

It's more like an indoor rock climbing facility being forced to be handicapped accessible.

They are over here. But then y'know, people in wheelchairs can generally climb quite well using their arms. They just don't take the chair with them

 

[EdwardWellcraft]

By how well it works?  Something can be utter ****, but if its all you have, then its popular, but still ****.  If theres a small town where everyones car is at least 20 years old, and in bad shape, thatd be popular, but I dont think theyd like them.

Steam works very well. All of your complaints are subjective issues that you have with it, but that don't necessarily apply to anyone else. They are legitimate issues, not trying to deny that, but they are still personal issues and don't necessarily indicate a wider problem with the system.

Steam does exactly what it is supposed to. You don't have a problem with the system, you have a problem with the intention behind the system. The system itself functions quite well at what it is supposed to do. 

Many places are required to be hanicapped accessible, and a rock climbing place, Im sure, wouldnt get an exemption.  The Amish thing is mutally exclusive, as youre aware, and just ridiculous.

Hence the 

My point was simply that video games are neither vital nor public, and aren't required to cater to the "handicapped" gamers. Many do because that's just good business, but it is hardly a requirement. Should video games also always be scaled back to run on low end systems?

 

[mor2]

Windows...Is it qualitatively better than Linux or MacOS?

since you dont specify for who and for what use, i'll have to say YES.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Why are you arguing from popularity again? I thought we went over this.
"Everyone does P, therefore you should do P too, is not a valid argument.

This isn't a logical fallacy when talking about the subjective quality of a service. In fact it's one of the only pieces of data you actually have on the topic. How else do you measure the overall quality of a product other than by popularity? It doesn't say anything about the quality of the code in Steam or other such things, but it is the ultimate statement about the overall quality of the service. At least with non-essentials people don't **** around with ****ty quality.

I know, addressed here:

Why are you arguing from popularity again? I thought we went over this.
"Everyone does P, therefore you should do P too, is not a valid argument.

Of course if you're a arguing from a seller perspective this is relevant stuff.

One sentence below the section your quoted.

Spoiler

So you're discriminating people who aren't able to get a good internet connection? It's like saying there aren't any problems with vital public buildings that don't have any wheelchair or handicap accessibility because 99.99% of the people don't use wheelchairs.

Except video games aren't vital or public. It's more like an indoor rock climbing facility being forced to be handicapped accessible. Or an electronics store being forced to be Amish accessible. 

Being vital or public is irrelevant to that point. The point is, that saying certain people with poor internet connections just don't matter because there are so few of them is using the same form as the ignoring the needs of a minority. While there isn't an obligation on the part of Steam, it is relevant when these people can be a source of additional revenue to them. If the argument is whether or not this type of client is a good business decision, it's relevant.

 

[K-64]

its intrusive for you, i consider it as well tailored service for my needs, i got a good 24/7 connection and i dont need to apologize for it.

It's intrusive for quite a few other people, otherwise I would probably be the only one taking this stance in the argument.

that is exactly what i told you there is dozens of such digital distributors its just that some publishers prefer not to use them.

And Valve could learn a valuable lesson from them, couldn't they? I would be much happier if the chat/store client was an optional download as opposed to it being a requirement. Cater to everyone's preferences, you know?

you dont seem to realize that steam platform is not a content delivery system, otherwise you wouldnt had to run the client afterward.

That's... kinda the point I'm trying to make. The fact that it is a content delivery system. Think about it, you pay them money, they give you access to the game. Content delivery there. It's the extra tacked on stuff that people dislike

 

[EternalSerfdom]

hate it. rather not have access to my $30 game weigh on whether or not I have an internet connection and password + info

 

[mor2]

@Swadius, You are basing this on faulty assumption that by suggesting an online backup someone is neglected, As opposed to improvement of service for different groups with different needs. (btw steam hw survey).

@K-64, Last time, You dont seem to realize that steam platform is not a digital distribution system, That means that they also provide download/update/game/chat servers and multiple features for the users but they are also provide DRM and many other tools for the developers, this balance is the reason is why the are so popular and because of that the client is not and will never be optional.

Dont like it? Choose one of the "pure" digital providers, With their full sack of valuable lessons.


@EternalSerfdom, because people like you, publishers do whatever they want, go get a refund.