I have no idea what steam is and therefor have four questions? A. Does it requirre the internet running (my internet is a piece of [CENSORED])? B. Does it cost money? C. If yes to B how much? D. if yes to B is it a monthly payment?

I would prefer the game to not use Steam. But if it does, I would be fine with it. I currently have Steam up and its taking up close to 78MB of RAM. While not a lot, it is mildly annoying having it try to run in the background whenever I go to play a game. Though two things that are really annoying is, trying to get a Steam game installed to a non-steam location. I have all my games installed onto my 300GB Velociraptor (10,000RPM drive), except for Fallout 3 since having FO3 installed to my SSD helps the loading and stuttering when in the wasteland go away. (Oblivion didnt see a huge performance gain having it installed to the SSD). But this should be fixed with the new engine, it will hopefully be optimized enough to run fine on my Velociraptor.

The other issue that I see with having the game installed to a default steam directory, is that while it is still moddable, it is really annoying to get the the directory. I ended up creating a shortcut directly to the folder, so that I dont have to go to D:\Steam\steamapps\common\fallout new vegas every time I want to install a mod. But even then some programs like Winzip wont see shortcut folders so that defeats the purpose. I use 7zip mostly anyway.

I don't like the idea of any DRM, whether it be a disc check or always-online phone-home stuff. Steam rests comfortably on the "disc check" side - it's very lightweight, actually brings some advantages, and most importantly doesn't affect anything other than the game.
Resources are cheap enough that the only reason to care about steam's resource usage is mild OCD (Not, of course, that I'm above that), as with any amount of RAM over 2GB you have space the game couldn't use anyway.

It's by far the lesser of two evils when you compare it to something like securom, and while no DRM is obviously the superior choice, if bethesda feels they must have advanced DRM I would rather they chose steam than pretty much anything else.

@Starforce9; You should take a look at NTFS Symbolic Links, they're basically shortcuts, except applications see them as the original files. You could symlink your FNV folder to SSD:\Games\FNV and have it both loading off the SSD /and/ in the correct place for steam to know it.

@NeverComingBack; So long as you can make the initial connection to validate the game, you don't need the internet after that, and it is a free service - the games cost money, the service does not.

A. Does it requirre the internet running (my internet is a piece of [CENSORED])?

No. Not really. You occasionally need to renew contact [sign in online] and being online when you start a game more or less counts. Only rarely do I need to retype, otherwise there is the "offline mode" if you don't have internet everywhere [if this is a laptop you're using]. If you don't want to DL games, don't buy from Steam, buy retail and use the disc to install.


B. Does it cost money?

Nope, free.

I want your version of Steam. I decided to start Steam (only have it because of HalfLife 2) just to see how much RAM it used. 100mb. 100mb to sit in the background and eat RAM, bandwidth and CPU cycles like... like... MALWARE!

100mb of RAM to run a fancy shiny UI keep it all responsive seems fine. They key issue here is that steam knows when you launch a game, you can watch its RAM usage drop like a stone if you like.

Of course, it's much easier to attack things baselessly without doing the research, so you could keep doing that.

PhYoshi, that's with the UI closed.

I get that once in a while too. So far the "later" has meant the next try two seconds later



Signing up with the army causes inconveniences? Whodathunkit?



That ruling has already been made: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6275683.html

That's a single country. What's about Canada, England, Ireland, Australia, etc etc.

It is true that Steam saves me a lot of money. Whenever it is a requirement then the game gets ignored, latest to the list is Duke Nukem Forever. Never mind the sales that get so much coverage and fawning, the faintest whiff of Steam and it becomes an instant no-sale along with;

Half-Life 2, Zeno Clash, SiN Episodes, Civilisation 5, F.E.A.R 2, Metro 2033, Alien vs Predator, Mafia 2, Dawn of War II, New Vegas. Quite a lot of saved money there.

My internet connection is unreliable at the best of times and to likely have to download a 1-2gb quantity of data before even playing the game makes it a deal breaker. To be treated like an idiot that is incapable of finding a patch and to then be expected to coo and applaud that it features auto updating and a community I have no interest or desire to be involved in is insulting - same goes for the ridiculous fad of achievements. All Steam(works) is to me is an restrictive, inconvenient and unreliable form of DRM. Even Dead Space and it's activation limit when there was the ability to revoke them was less irritating by comparrison.

Just to sweeten the deal when trying out a demo of Zeno Clash under a year ago it took three hours to be able to try it out due Steam being a requirement, all that just for a demo?! Despite enjoying what Zeno Clash had to offer the irritation that would have ensured made that another no-sale.

I've enjoyed Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind and Oblivion which have all been either purchased legitimately or in the case of Arena and Daggerfall released by Bethesda. Hopefully Skyrim will be another in the series that I'll look forward to playing. If Steam however is a requirement that's money in my pocket and a no-sale.

I've read through the http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf. There's more to that case than a declaration of "EULAs are valid". What happened was, CTA got copies of AutoCAD from AutoDesk. I'm not actually sure of how you get AutoCAD (grab it in a store? contact AutoDesk?), but that's not too important. AutoDesk and CTA got into a legal dispute over use of the old version after upgrading, and eventually settled -- the terms of that settlement included CTA licensing the software from AutoDesk, meaning it was a fully court-recognized licensing, not simply a shrink-wrap-click-through affair. CTA then went out of business, and Vernor bought the copies at a sale.

Now, because CTA, by court order, were only licensees, the sale to Vernor was never legal. So Vernor, EULA or not, couldn't resell because he should not have had them in the first place.. he was neither an owner or licensee.

That ruling does not hinge on whether someone clicked "I Agree" to a EULA on store-bought software. It hinged on CTA being a licensee instead of an owner, which they were due to the previous court settlement agreement.

To install, set up games and patch them yes I think you need to run it online then, but not to run or play single player games.
So all the time internet connection is not needed.

It's free, but has features that allow you to buy games online over it and directly install them on your PC, it will then update, patch them and be used to run the games.

...yes? Why would you have the UI open when you were playing video games anyway?
I heard if you encode video at the same time as playing games it makes them lag, video encoding is such bloat(!)

I'll save my rants for when/if it's confirmed.

I see, there may be hope yet

Still, that's the closest thing to a precedent we have :shrug:

You're running Linux with Wine. You, honestly, shouldn't even expect Skyrim to run, let alone for Steam to run (though, of course, Steam is Platinum / Gold in the AppDB, depending on who you ask). Steam does not require periodic server check ins (at least, no one has come across that). If you patch your game, tell Steam to not download updates for it, and then put Steam into Offline mode, then, in theory, it shouldn't check for updates anymore.

My version of Steam is usuing 50 megabytes when opened up. The people who complain about RAM usage drive me up the wall. This is 2011, people. It's not like your OS doesn't chunk through RAM like it's pennies on the dollar anyway. It's not like you don't have gigabytes of RAM just sitting unused half the time. Hell, most games won't even recognize over two gigs of RAM anyway.


Dunno. Also don't care, since I live in the United States. Next I'll bet someone is going to tell me that they want to move so they won't be restricted by EULAs.

Right. But anyone who buys software and clicks "I agree" on the EULA is entering into a contract with the company. That's completely legal and enforceable. Shrink-wrap EULAs, however, are still under some scrutiny. I despise EULAs and I despise not owning the software I paid for, and just getting a 'license' to use it. However, my annoyance doesn't mean that I'm not going to enjoy Skyrim when it comes out, regardless of Steamworks being required or not.

Take a look at Bulletstorm. Made by Epic Games (known for their FPS games) but published by EA. EA choose securom, gfwl, and possibly their own drm tacted onto the PC version. I actually did have an interest for the game until I felt discouraged due to all the drm crap tacted on. I'm not a pirate and it feels unfair and unfortunate to the ones who are innocent of this drm garbage. Same applies to Spore, I had an interest but the drm pushed me away.

Answer this, how many people encode video while playing a game? I certainly wouldn't do both at the same time unless my system could handle it. It sounds like the Steam client has to be running in some form. You do not have to encode a video. If your system is close to the requirements this could be a big issue for you.

Exactly, that was my point. You wouldn't encode a video while you were playing, steam won't keep it's UI loaded while you're playing. It has to be in memory sort of, but we're talking a dozen or two MB of RAM that can be swapped out without issue. There is no serious performance impact, and if your machine is so close to the limit that putting things in swap has a noticeable performance impact, well, you're not running the sort of machine that can run skyrim anyway. You're barely running a toaster.

... for the love of... if your system is truly +/- 100 MB from the minimum specs, you shouldn't be running the game. Go spend $15 bucks and buy yourself another gigabyte of RAM if that really is the case.

If the retail box version requires anything more than a disk check, then I'll pass on Skyrim. No single-player game should require an internet connection, and any game that is dependent upon an online server is nothing more than a rental (worth about $10).

You were talking about a Story. I thought this was relating to Steam. Now you are saying your story doesn't relate to Steam? You are changing the topic then. This is about Steam not other companies going under.Thing is Sierra released it as freeware. What if Steam went under and doesn't release their games as freeware? What if Steam doesn't release a patch to be able to play them? Then its piracy.

It's one thing if a company says it's ok to do it, it's another if they say you can't. We have no idea if Steam will do this or not. That is why alot of people get antsy about it.


This is what I don't understand. If you read the EULA from the game company they say the game can be run on one computer. How can Steam say you can run it on as many computers you want, but only one at a time? If you do this, you are breaking the law because of the EULA for the game company.

Also if you pay $50 in the store, how come you are still paying $50 from Steam? Shouldn't the game be $30 cheaper because you are not paying for transportaiton, so no gas or trucks involved. No paper products so costs should be less. You are not saving any money, and actually paying for more because these costs are supposed to be included in video games when you buy them. So you are actually paying more for less then when you buy from Steam. I could understand if you pay 33% less but you don't, when buying Brand New Games.

... my overall point was that, even if Steam does in fact go down without releasing a means for circumventing their own authentication systems (which they have, on multiple occasions, stressed that they will do if the company is ever in danger of going under) then the community will step up and fix the problem.

Also, it's not piracy, either. If you had examined the DMCA, there is an exception that says this:
This means, of course, that if Valve (or any other company) goes out of business, it is lawful to to circumvent any security flaws inherent in their software.

Obviously Valve is not breaking the law. Nor are players. That is just ridiculous to consider. Either Valve has a special arrangement with game publishers (which I am quite sure they do) or something else has been arranged.

Steam typically has sales that lower the price of games 50+%. Games bought through Steam are also generally cheaper than games bought at the retail store, with very few exceptions.

Last time I checked Skyrim isn't an expansion.

Prices are set by the publishers, not steam - you'll notice valve's own games *do* reflect the lesser distribution costs. Note lesser, because operating a service with an average of 3 million users online at any one time isn't cheap at the best of times, never mind when you're also shifting around colossal amounts of data on a daily basis.

If steam does go down, and it is no longer *possible* to authenticate your games legally, there are many cracks for the service which, I believe, become legal the moment valve collapses, and certainly become morally ok.