...what?
Why in God's name do you think Bethesda would do this..?

Because New Vegas required it.

Nope, that doesn't work. Steam will tell you to close whatever game you have running.

Also, it's not like Steam eats up resources. It uses, maybe, 5-10 megabytes of RAM. Explorer.exe uses more RAM. If you are really concerned about 5-10 megabytes of RAM, then your computer probably can't run Skyrim.

As for all the people here who are saying that "Steam takes 10 minutes to log in!" are you using dial-up or what? Steam takes maybe 10 seconds to log in for me. I've never once had a problem launching a game from it. And, yes, Offline mode is just that: offline mode.

While I do believe that Steam should be optional for Skyrim, I'll likewise have no worries if it is required.

:facepalm: :banghead:

Did it occur to you that maybe the matchmaking servers were down?

Currently, steam is using 80MB and Explorer.exe is using 37. But then again, Explorer.exe is more important then Steam in the operation of ones Windows based computer. Without it, you couldnt even launch steam cus there would be no interface to interact with.

@Madcat: How could privately run servers interfear with the game even starting up?

I have been corresponding with Tec support to try to get my Fallout Vegas to work for a WEEK now.
Over 7 hours of my playtime wasted on this troubleshooting this (not to mention my $50)

I finally gave up and am trying to accept that I only got 16 hours of play for my $50.

The game CTD right after the intro, with NO mods, on a NEW install for both steam and the game with both savegames and new game

This happen right after their last update to the game.
All my other steam games work, so it is NOT a PC issue.
No way to prevent the update that casued this as it is forced on me, off line will not prevent this because the game will not start until it gets update after the first install.


no...I really hope Skyrim is not steam requeired...God I hope so...

How do you think the multiplayer mode is made aware of the private servers? Through a service integrated into Steam.

Also, if you're so conscious of memory usage, turn it to Offline mode. Mine only uses 16MBs.

Why are you so incensed about Steam anyway? You have L4D2, so you already need it.

Sorry, you're right. I put the wrong info into Google and got very wrong numbers - my Steam client is currently using 40MB of RAM, while Explorer is using... 44MB. But you may not be aware of the little "trick" of closing Explorer.exe after starting up a game - that's been a trick for a long while now. But really, 40MB (or 100MB) is a literal drop in the bucket when you have gigabytes of RAM in your computer.

*Confused* So... how is this a Steam issue, exactly? If the game crashes AFTER it is launched, that's a game issue. Sounds to me, in fact, like it's a problem with an ESM file missing or something like that.

Because "steam" is forcing the update.

Game has been reloaded from scratch as well as steam, no missing ESM.

The game worked for 16 hours after I loaded it from the RETAIL disk a few months ago. I stopped playing to mod Oblivion.
Came back to the game last weekend. STEAM forced an update on me and well you know rest.

If not for steam I could play it as was off the previous rev. Steam should allow you to turn off the forced update.

Until then steam not good....

And I couldn't start the game and play single player because...?

Steam uses 14MB for me when sitting idle. Though when a game is running, Steam is not idle.

Skyrim isn't L4D2. Skyrim wont have multiplayer content in which a service like Steam will be necessary. Steam is not a blood vein in the operation of Skyrim. Therefore, I don't want it. If I buy a game trhough steam, then that is my choice, so I am fine with that. I don't buy physical copis of games just to be slammed with a pointless 3rd party program.

I like steam, i got many games there but forcing ppl to use it like that i don't find appropriate. For me it matters not, couse i use it anyway but there sure are ppl that don't want to use it so it kinda svcks and "forces" them against their own will :confused:

Considering the past 2 games from Bethesda used Steamworks, I think it's likely Skyrim will too. Which is unfortunate.

Steamworks is horrible, when you buy a retail disc in and the DRM requires a single player game to be activated online, something is very wrong. Console players doesn't have to put up to that nonsense, why should PC players?

I have 20 year old games from publishers that doesn't exist anymore. If those games required online activations, who honestly think it would still be possible to play them today? No chance that the activation servers would still be up.

In 40 years from now when I'm a retired 70 year old, will Steamworks still exist to let me play Skyrim or not? I bet it will not, online activations are simply not future proof.

Yes, it did. You do realize, however, that you can tell Steam not to keep games updated, right?

Game Library -> Right-click on Game -> Properties -> Updates -> Do not automatically update this game.

Done.

Let me tell you a story.

Back in 2010 or thereabouts, the authentication servers for Tribes 2 were finally shut down. Within a month or so, the community had banded together to A. Patch the game and B. Create their own authentication servers.

While I won't get into specifics, there are ways to get around any sort of authentication system - whether it is online or not. No need for doom and gloom here. Steam - and every other online authentication system to date - has or will be broken.

@Odd Elf

AFAIK, to avoid this problem Valve said that they'll patch steam so it requires no activations whatsoever, think of it as a backup plan If they run out of business or sumtin like that...

You must not have installed a steam game form retail disk for a long time have you?

After the first install the update is forced, THEN you are able to reset the update settings for the game.
But until the first update right after the install you do not have that option.

I did mention their Tec support worked with me for a week on this right?

I appreciate you trying to help, believe me I WANT my dam game to work. But it should not take this much trouble...just give me my game,the one I paid for I did not steal it... retail disks... with out steam OK?

I should not and do not want to be forced to need to be a hacker or doing "things we will not get into specifics about " to play my game, that is why I pay my money for the game.

Lets say that I am one in the billion that has some fluke on my PC, OK return my money. but no I cannot even get my money back for this so I can use that money to buy Skirim or Portal 2.

Actually, no, I never have installed a Steam game from a retail disc. And the problem isn't with Steam. Steam is forcing you to apply the update that crashes the game - that is compounding your problem, but it isn't the source of your problem. Bad coding on the part of the New Vegas patch is to blame. Yell at Obsidian, not Valve.

And I can understand how frustrating it is to have a game not work - and I don't really know why Bethesda / Obsidian chooses to "bundle" their games with Steam. All I know is that Steam works well for me.

@spookyfx.com

That's correct, after you install your game it starts a automatic update and only after that you can choose to switch the updates off, but why would you want to play the outdated version anyway?

I was wondering when the next "I HATE STEAM BECAUSE X AND Y" thread would pop up so I could post this drawn out and quite true statement about DRMs in general.

Anyway, here are my words on this matter:



DRMs in themselves are NEVER optional. They are all required, all force something onto your system (whether you like it or not), and all take away some control from the user. The only form of DRM that doesn't is a disk check, but unfortunately most companies have labeled them as "obsolete" and "ineffective".

That being said, I'd still say Steamworks is the best option for a DRM one could have. Sure it requires you to register the game ONCE online, and sure you can't choose where it installs (as of now anyway), but after that, you have FULL CONTROL over your product. And it at least tells you it's installing something. Not to mention extra bonuses like downloading the game on different computers as much as you like, automatic patches, etc. And if you don't like any of the features, you can simply disable them. Not to mention it's easy to remove from your system if you ever have to.

Most other forms of DRM force borderline malicious content to install onto your computer without telling you, can deny access to your product if verification messes up (even if you still have the hard copy) with NO way to change that, and are a right pain to remove from your system (even if you can without wiping the drive) if you ever choose to.

Not to mention the other forms that require CONSTANT connection to the internet in order to let you play the game.

All in all, I dislike all forms of DRM except for the disk check. I honestly wish we could just be rid of it. But since companies don't share the same mindset we do on this subject (well, CD Projekt does), we're going to be stuck with a DRM. I'm honestly glad they chose Steamworks, because so far (not including the internet registration), it's the most accessible, least intrusive, least invasive, and most user friendly option.

I do hope Bethesda distributes the game with a different DRM in regions were internet access is scarce though.

That's a lousy story. Unofficial hacks and cracks should never be the solution. A company should never force the userbase to fix stuff, they are the ones that should release proper patches and so on for their product. It's not up to the users to do such thing.


For that to work, they need to patch every single game, and that's something I very much doubt they do or are even allowed to do by the publishers who hold the copyrights for the game. Valve will pretty much only do that to their own games.


Sometimes patches introduce bugs. For example, with both Deus Ex: Invisible War and Hitman: Blood Money, the 1.1 patch works better than the 1.2 patch.

That is both unrealistic and untenable. Companies go out of business, for one. Companies also have no obligation to patch / fix games that they release, especially after (checks) 9+ years. Running authentication servers and master gameservers cost money for no return on investment (again, after almost a decade).

And obviously you don't know the storied history of Tribes 2 patches. They had to, once, release a patch... to undo an earlier patch. Also, without a strong community that is willing to take matters into their own hands, most older multi-player games (like Tribes and Tribes 2) would be quite dead.

It's not unrealistic at all. The vast majority of single player games do not have this problem, because they didn't have online activations to begin with. It's the online activations that ruins it all, and for that they are the worst DRM in existance, including Steamworks.

Also, let me tell you of another story. Last summer SEGA released Alpha Protocol which had online activations, but only after half a year they released a patch that removed it. So kudos to them for that.

here are some common myths and misinterpretations about steam

http://gbxforums.gearboxsoftware.com/showthread.php?t=117613

I never said I liked online activation. I, in fact, dislike it intensely. However, the point of the matter is that companies are not required to patch their games to remove authentication requirements or even to fix bugs - they may be shooting themselves in the foot, but it's their prerogative. From my vantage point, you seem to be insisting that it is the developer's responsibility / requirement to patch their games - that is certainly not the case.

And good on SEGA. They did the right thing by their users. But, again, I would much rather have a community that is willing to go the distance in terms of patching a decade-old game than hoping that a company will still be willing to release patches a decade down the line and several years after they stopped seeing a dime from game sales.

I do not mind Steam. I mind the publishers who are trying to find any way they can to milk every extra penny possible out of customers (*cough* Ubisoft*cough*). What they are trying to do with the DRM is stop the people who share copies of programs with friends, since that is a very common practice (also against the EULA since the license is for YOU to use it and not EVERYONE you know). I know that after installing a bunch of games from a variety of publishers my internet connection (which is [censored] satelite) runs a lot worse. Even though I do not have the games running their damn DRM is ALWAYS active. At least steam allows you to close it when not using its related programs.

I forgot what my point was, but I do not mind Steam.

IMO, Games For Windows Live is much worse... if you run out of activations there you need to re-buy the game?!