Steamworks (Being the update feature of Steam) I believe requires the client to be installed. The benefit is that it allows Bethesda to release micro-updates whenever they want if a problem arises, and they don't need to host bulk patches on their websites that come along every few months or years and it installs those patches cleanly. The downside is that you need Steam, otherwise the point of Steamworks becomes moot.

I'll also say it again, half of the complaints in this thread are just exaggeration or outright falsifications. While there are legitimate issues that some people have, there are legitimate issues that come with anything. I certainly don't want to use SecuRom ever again, after I lost my copy of Mass Effect. Yes, you can call, and you can provide your key, but if you don't have they key, you are SOL when it comes to getting the 3x activation removed. Defeats the purpose if your computer dies. At least with Steam I can download games on as many computers as I want.

yet not all securom protected games have a install limit. I don't believe FO3 imposed a limit & it used Securom as well

if the choice is between SecuRom's kit & Steam's removal of the users basic control of the the game install I'd say kit me up.

You can stud a piece of crap with as many diamonds as you want, but it's still a piece of crap. With all those pretty things that Steam may do, at the heart of it, it's still just a system to take control of your games away from you and place them in the hands of a third party, dictating what you can and cannot do with them.

Or you could just say hello to 2011 and get some internets and honestly
steam
saved
pc
gaming

I use Steam, I wish I didn't. But I have to in order to play some games I like.
I will still buy and play Skyrim. But this kind of saddens me.

We both know which way they'll go.

Actually, FO3 was GFWL.

And I'm sorry to say this, but I have no other words right now. That is the most ignorant statement I've ever read. You'd rather have a program force install a rootkit (A FREAKING ROOTKIT) behind your back than have it tell you that it's installing a measly program, all because of your assuming Steam gives you less control?

If anything, compared to SecuROM, Steam gives you more control. Sure you can't really choose where it installs to, but everything else after that you have full control over. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know how to work with Steam at all.



It really seems like most of you are just complaining for the sake of complaining. I can understand basic complaints by people who don't even have internet at their house, but the complaints about loss of control are just lacking sense.

Besides, most of you who say you aren't going to buy are going to anyways...

Inb4 inevitable flames towards me. bliviongate:

You never owned those games in the first place, just the licence to use them. The future of gaming is download, that's just the way it is. As for my games on Steam? Since i've upgraded to fiber optic broadband, i have no trouble with my games, that includes installing Mods and such. I have the same amount of control over my games on Steam as i do the vast collection of old games i've collected over the last couple of decades.

You don't have control. What you have is an illusion of control. You can only do those things so long as Steam decides to let you do them. If for any reason at any time Steam changes it's mind, you're screwed. You'll lose it all.

Some of us have no idea what Steam is, or how to use it.

I play on PS3 and that's the version I intend to buy. Does this even pertain to me?

It's the same with all other forms of DRM besides that of the simple disk check.

But that old form has been rendered "obsolete" as of this day and age (which I think is rediculous), so...


Nope. Not at all. This is just a PC concern.

And that is the inherent problem with DRMs and why they just ultimately screw the paying customer.

I can agree somewhat there. It's just that compared to other DRMs, I really don't see how Steam gives you less control.

As I said, at least on my end, it gives me more control. And I can assure you that the control I'm talking about is not an illusion of control. You know, besides what you just said.

I would really love to have just a simple disk check...

Other systems don't force you to install their client through which they can keep tabs on you.

Well, as stated, they do, but they just don't tell you.

And when most of them do, it's not as easy to remove as say, uninstalling a program like Steam is.

Indeed. I would rather a boxed copy ship with the option to install (or download) Steam to enable Steam dependent features to those that wish them, and not hassle end users that don't wish them. I would rather not run Steam, or even have it installed. The second mod I looked for was one to disable achievements :shrug:. I don't need that stuff, and don't need a nanny app actively monitoring my gaming sessions for a social network that I do not participate in. Nor should I have to have all that garbage forcibly installed whether I use it or not (as in the case of Offline mode).

*Offline mode is not an acceptable solution. I have a desktop in rural Mississipi with no internet access, (doesn't need it), and I cannot install my purchased software on it without hauling the entire tower into town to the public library or some fast food restaurant with wifi; (None of these places would actually let me do this anyway). The last option is to haul it out of state to a dedicated internet connection that I control, do the install there, and haul it back ~and hope that Steam doesn't arbitrarily decide that I have to connect and re-authenticate. : :flame: :
This hassle is non-existent with my other games (including Fallout 3 and Oblivion both). It is ruthless and wrong that entire countries must suffer for the criminal behavior...(what is it? 1%) of others. The honest customer has to put up with the DRM, while everyone else gets around it.

I could say the same about you. How long will your hard copies last? A lot of my older games simply refuse to run on Windows 7 because they're so old. Why is windows blocking access to all of my great old games? It's not of course, It's just that software and technology march on. You have a rather ridiculous view of Steam, almost bordering on the conspiratorial. If you really want the illusion of control over your copy of Skyrim, just have Steam make a back up hard copy of it, and if by some amazing stroke of misfortune, Steam should be out of business in 10-20 years.. You'll have your hard copy to play with. If the service ever stopped, it would merely be patched to run in perpetual "Offline" mode. I've yet to see one legitimate complaint about Steam in this thread, apart from those who suffer under the yoke of Dial up internet.

Actually, FO3 was SecuROM. It used SecuROM for a disc check, GFWL was optional as you didn't need to log into GFWL to play the game.

So? You run them where they expect to run. GOG sells 16bit games that won't work on Vista un-aided, but they package them so that they will work. And they do. :shrug:

Still not acceptable to me; but in the very least, Valve should maintain a dedicated 800 number for Steam authentication by dial-up. (Large chunks of the US can get nothing else that's affordable.)

**Also I have trouble believing the claim that they can strip out the DRM legally if they fold; unless that's a condition they stipulate to their clients in the terms of use. Otherwise they would have to get permission on a title by title basis; and some would say 'no'.

Good god I had no idea so many people really seemed to hate steam, I really cant see whats wrong with it, I personally find it very convenient for not only patching my games and stuff but also because I dont need to use a disc anymore. I remember back in the day one of my favourite games of all time was Homeworld and im pretty sure I almost cried when I lost the disc, if there had been steam to install it on it wouldnt have mattered. And frankly its a hell of a lot better to deal with than GFWL as anyone who tried to install the Fallout 3 DLC can attest to!

I can still run DOS games on my computer if I just run a DOS emulator.

Granted, finding a 5.25 floppy drive might be a challenge, but the point remains. Either way it's a technical thing, not the bidding of a third party.

And the reason you have yet to see a legitimate complaint is because you're blinded by it's bling. You either refuse to see, or don't care, what it's doing beneath it. And I find that very sad.

Great arguments all around, but I still don't see any any other option for Bethesda but to use Steam if they are committed to DRM - it's the best available.

It really isn't that bad to be frank, I was skeptical at first too - but later became a big fan.

To play Skyrim on a PC, we will have to use Steam - simple as that.

Miax

Steam doesn't sell Homeworld ; nor Myth 2 either. Those that "hate" steam don't dislike it as an option... only that it shouldn't be the ONLY option.

*I'll buy from Steam if I can get it nowhere else.

The GOG point is not really relevant to the point i made, as i'm talking about old hard copies of games i paid for years ago that no longer work under Windows 7. The point is that no matter how you buy your games, they have a limited shelf life, given the nature and speed with which software and hardware change over the years.

As for Dial up, i feel your pain, as someone who was stuck with it until late last year i can understand your frustration. There should be some sort of service like that. You should still be able to activate it with your dial up connection, but any sort of patch at all will require you lugging your comp somewhere with a fast connection.

Doesn't matter... You can do the same thing GOG does. :shrug: (the software is free)