These.

Oh, they are certainly not required to do that. But that's why it's important that they don't use online activations to begin with.

It's just that I don't think users should be forced to use cracks to play a game they paid for. Which they are if the activation server goes down and there's no official patch.


I don't agree, for two reasons.

• With Fallout 3, GFWL was entirely optional (as long you didn't want to buy the DLCs online instead of the Game of the Year edition of the game). You didn't need a GFWL account if you didn't want to, but could play the game anyway. So you didn't need to activate the game online to play it! Steamworks isn't optional, you need a Steam account to play a Steamworks game.
  
• GFWL launches while the game is launched. Steam have to launch first so you have to wait ~10 seconds before the game launches.

As I see it, GFWL only have one drawback compared to Steamworks which is that if you buy a Steamworks retail game you can just register the key code and then download the game from Steam. But if you have a GFWL retail game, you can't register the key code on the GFW Marketplace and download the game.

And what about our poor soldiers in 3rd world counties with laptops?
They often do not have Internet access to activate the games from disks.
They cannot play the games they are fighting for...ok that was melodramatic. <-- just to be clear I was joking here
But basically true, according to what my friends in the military tell me anyway. <--- but not here

Not so easy there. I read alot of posts where poeple have done exactly this and Steam still patched the game. Where is your answer there? Not Done at all.

So the commuinity banded together to patch the game you say? Did they have Steams permission? If not this is piracy.

wow... I just said why in my last post.... this is nuts, now I am getting a little stressed out. I going to get a drink and watch my samurai 7 videos...from DISKS! Good night you guys, try to not get nasty on this and lock up the thread.

Methinks they have more to concern themselves with than if they are able to get their Skyrim / New Vegas fix in the middle of [redacted].

(No, seriously, I have a friend in the [redacted] who [redacted] in [redacted] and had a [redacted ] laptop that couldn't play [redacted] let alone [redacted])

I was trying to be helpful. If you really want to make sure Steam doesn't patch a game, do what I said, make sure the game is set to "Ready" and then make sure Steam only starts up in Offline mode.

Uh, no. Tribes 1 and Tribes 2 were both released as freeware in 2004 by Sierra. So, no, not piracy. Good try, though. Also, Tribes 1 and Tribes 2 were never available on Steam.

And that's why games that need online activation/checks are bad from the get-go... the developers/publishers are under no obligation to fix it, thereby leaving you under the constant threat of when (not if) you'll be prevented from playing the game(s) you paid for. Any claims of "we'll patch it out later" should be taken with a grain of salt, because they do not have to follow through with that promise. And even if they want to, if they're going out of business, patching games is probably going to be one of their lowest priorities.

There have been cases where developers have had no forewarning. They just head to work one day like usual, and find the doors locked. There's also cases of developers' priorities changing.. particularly if they're bought out. The things they may want to do now may not be what they want to do later.

Stuff like this is why Steam (or any online check) is a dealbreaker. If there's no Steam or online requirement, I am more than likely going to be buying Skyrim. If such is required, I will not be.

You do realize that you don't even own the games you paid for, right? Even if you bought them from a retail store?

I'm not trying to defend online activation here - I dislike it. I wish it would go away. That being said, I love Steam as a digital distribution system. I really don't understand all the people who are getting in a huff over Steam being (possibly) bundled with Skyrim - you are seriously going to preclude yourselves from buying a game simply because it comes bundled with a 3rd party system that can (easily!) be basically turned off and ignored?

Well, if I must.

Never had a problem with Steam. So I really don't care.

I have to agree with this statement.. the more a company tries to secure something the more enticing it's going to be to cracker hackers.. Is there any game that has not been successfully cracked? All in all though I've never had a problem with steam.. just like crackers, modders find a way to mod.

People need to learn that DRM is made to deter children and college students from sharing programs, not stopping piracy.

I don't know, I don't care. I like Steam

Steam isn't going to stop me.

I really couldn't care less, as a general rule, if the game requires Steam.

The people who have problems with it are (I say this as a generalization... not a statistic) primarily those folks who are pissed off that they can't play the game for a week and sell it back, people who want to hand the disk off to their friend for free so that their buddy doesn't have to pay for it, and so forth. In terms of individuals who have a problem outside of those two, the vast majority are inconvenienced by the patches being required and people who are convinced that somehow that 40 - 60 meg of memory in the background is going to bring their computer to a halt.

Since I'm not one of them... I guess maybe I just lack sympathy... but I find it hard to be bothered. Why? Thanks to Steam, I can play my favorite games no matter where I go or what computer I'm on. I very rarely have no internet access... and I know how to play offline when I do lose the web... so it's no biggie.

Should it be optional? Sure... I wish it were, too. Then everyone who doesn't like it would shut up and go away.

But alas, the days when companies could make a game and put it out on the market with nothing more than a disc-check are over... and I really don't see them coming back. We don't live in that kind of a world anymore.

So... I guess I feel sorry for anyone who can't cope... but...

... I'm not gonna get dragged into someone else's moral dilemma. I'm gonna be too busy playing Skyrim.

Sorry!

Until a ruling is made that says otherwise, I do own it. I pick it up off the shelf, I give money to the cashier, I get a receipt, and walk out of the store -- the deal is done, I then own it just like a book or a loaf or bread. Just because someone says I don't, after the sale is made, doesn't mean I actually don't.


If it can be completely turned off and ignored, perhaps. But I bet if it requires Steam, it will require it to handle updates/patches, will require periodic server check-ins, can disable my game remotely (heaven help me if I ever lose the account I would need to get), and will be required to be running during play. Considering I don't play on Windows (I use Linux with Wine), it'll have enough trouble running as it is, so any extraneous software is, at the very least, one more potential point of failure.

I have not heard any official confirmation. But I hope it is Steam only because I love the Steamworks system.

Well, you've got a point (and I totally agree with it). But I think that even with that in mind, Reneer is right (in the actual legal sense). And anyway, tell that to the copyright lawyers...

I'm just relieved to hear that GFWL won't be involved. :unsure2:

It has been a few years since I last installed a game that required Steam. The last time I did it, my DVD drive went belly-up as I tried installing the game from the DVD. Maybe Steam had nothing to do with the drive failure, but I have been avoiding it like the plague ever since.

Why must it be Steam-only to have a Steam version?

I don't like Steam for two reasons. The first is my really bad internet connectivity. The other reason is not personal.

You only buy licences to use a game, when you buy it. But for games without DRM it is near to impossible for a publisher to revoke this licence. With DRM this is no problem for the publisher. They just have to disable your licence on the activation server.

With Steam you have a third party that controls your licences from different publishers. Steam can revoke your licence of any game you've paid for. And you need not to violate any of the EULAs of any of the games. A violation (or Steam's suspicion of one) of the Steam EULA is engough. So you need a licence to use Steam so that you can use the licences of your games. Am I the only one that sees this sceptical?

This again, I'd would'a thought 30+ threads on NV would've buried this.
Honestly I've never been given any reason to dislike steam, so could not give a flying frig's sake if Beth goes with them or not.

Plus don't forget the patch bug in the 2nd or 3rd patch release for NV, BethObs made critters essential.
Had to jury rig a fix, it got sorted in a few hours max, and instantly sorted via steam download.

I won't buy this game if it requires Steam. Simply because of the fact that I live in germany and almost EVERY game with a drop of blood is being censored. And we can safely assume that there will be a lot of blood and even dismemberment in Skyrim. While Oblivion was not censored, Fallout was and even though Skyrim's gore will be nowhere near Fallout's I think there will be some cut off arms in there somewhere. The problem with steam is: I can only activate a UK or US version if I am located there. Examples are L4D2 and Black Ops which where both heavily censored for Germany and foreign versions (or better the Original) could not be activated in Germany.

No info or hints yet. Open for complete speculation.
My take: It would make difficult the use of mods which by now are a staple of the series. I don't think Beth would go to that extreme.

I'd bet Steam had nothing to do with that. You could DL the install regardless whether you buy from Steam or buy retail if Skyrim is native to Steam.