Sort of. Sony does the same thing, and has in the past locked out games and peripherals simply because they were not approved. This particular instance may only have affected Xbox, but it's not a localised phenomenon.

Besides, what;s wrong with DRM? We've had anti-piracy laws literally for centuries, but for some reason it's wrong for companies to try to protect the lawful distribution of their products? DRM is an entirely ethical, entirely justified practice. It's ALWAYS been part of the gaming industry, in one form or another, and people shouldn't expect it to go anywhere.

Frankly, i'll take Steam over other models any day. I still can't play Shivering Isles without the workaround Bethesda themselves had to send me. Steam helps protect the rights of game developers (and yes, they DO have rights, it's not ALL about the consumer) while offering easy access to my game library in the process, and facilitating the distribution of a massive indi market that would be smothered by overhead costs in the process.

That's preaching to the choir; of course they have rights [including the right to enforce DRM]; but DRM doesn't work in an Internet age, and usually comes with onerous side effects. With Witcher 2, it was the DRM that slowed the frame rates so much that they got rid of it.

DRM is not really the problem; people are; their bad behavior is the reason DRM exists.

There is a man I know of that sells an application that has no DRM, but his shopping cart brands the executable to the purchase receipt, and anyone with access to it, can login to the purchaser's account. That puts the burden on the user to protect their own digital rights. (It also checks its own image for tampering.)

People are also the only reason laws exist. The Human equation needs to be factored in, and until everyone can be trusted and no one ever works to manipulate the collective whole to their own selfish ends, we're stuck with what we have.

As far as DRM models go, Steam is generally non invasive, reliable and easy to use. It's a hell of a lot better than... well... every other model i've experienced.

This is somewhat my situation due to Steam as well, but for me it is not about the DRM. I don't specifically care about their DRM or how they do it. I just don't want that dirty third party Steam company's software sitting on my hardware, I do not want to be their customer in any respect, I do not want them having personally-identifiable information about me (or my hardware), and I definitely do not want my hardware connecting to them in an uncontrolled fashion over the internet.

I think I could achieve most of this + get to play Fallout 4 (assuming no real version of Fallout 4 is forthcoming), but it would take a pile of extra work and potentially require money spent on additional hardware. This is not fair to me. I come as a potential customer who wants to buy a video game, not someone who was looking for a game installation microsurgery project due to a design fault with the product.

It is not necessary or ideal to "defeat" Steam. It is more like, what does it take to install and run the game with its bad Steam software intact and have the end result be acceptable. The reason you would want to retain the Steam in some form is to aid in being able to keep the game updated.

Things which could solve the problem probably involve setting up a dedicated hard drive and operating system installation for only this game and its poisonous Steam install and being sure it is denied network access except at the places and times that are arranged and expected. The ideal would be doing the installation virtualized, never allowing Steam's network connections to happen outside the virtualization, and in practice, never allowing the hardware to expose itself to them over the network. Note how any updates to the software would have to be handled with the same approach as whatever the install used, and how it gets to be a bigger pain in the ass the farther you want to isolate the bad software from your hardware.

Depending on how Steam does things, it might also require a dedicated email address which has the option of being thrown away if Steam proves to be spammy (or maybe, being able to control the email address well enough so it bounces any unwanted contact attempts straight back to them). It might also involve Steam wanting to identify me personally, and me declining to cooperate? That would be interesting, but I am not sure since I have never had a Steam login before.

All of this trouble is a lot to ask. It's not really fair to have to deal with all that. Usually, it's people paying me to fix strange computer issues, not the other way around. Can I send them an invoice for the time spent to get it working? yeah...

Aha. So you never had Steam, but you know it is bad. Great. Next up you fear that your hardware is scanned. And yes it is scanned, if you choose to do so! It麓s called the steam hardware survey. It takes place once a month and that麓s it. As for finding out who you are. STOP USING THE INTERNET RIGHT NOW. You know generally. It only takes your IP address, which can be read by any site. But for someone who apparently is tech savvy, I shouldn麓t have to mention how it works no?

Not only am I against being forced to use a third-party online client in order to play my single player offline game, but I麓ve also heard many Skyrimers going from one automated patch to another, and suddenly they get constant CTDs.

But since the raiders, mutants and other critters never stop showing up, I麓ll still have plenty to do in Fallout 3 when Fallout 10 comes around

I still don't see how not playing the games at all is better than playing them on Steam. You can play your other games outside of Steam and play the ones that require it on Steam. It's a far better solution than just skipping the games.

Have they been using mods? For me it was the last patch that f麓ed up the game badly. CTDs and ILS all around. Before that, nothing. But is the problem here steam麓s automated patch system or bethesda releasing a faulty patch?

Not for me. I rather miss out on what I want than bow down and take whatever麓s coming to me. Besides, if they implement stuff I don麓t want in products I do want then suddenly I don麓t want the product at all and so no problem

Not sure if they used mods. Could be.

Both

Steam doesn't even do anything bad.

Why don't you get a PS4? I plan on getting FO4 for both.

Steam would be a great thing if it was optional but not when it麓s mandatory.

I prefer using my PC for gaming. The only time I use a console is when I need to get my NES fix

I like PC, too, but if I had option of not playing a game or playing it on PS4, I would choose PS4. Don't gotta worry about steam, being online, etc. Which is why I will eventually have both versions of game.

You hate Steam because it's mandatory so instead of only using it for the games you need, you just don't use it at all. You aren't doing anyone a favour. You're not hurting Steam at all and you're missing out on games that Steam doesn't interfere with at all. You could also play the games on consoles but you prefer not playing the games at all to that. You're ridiculous.

I wish they had up-voting of posts here. That is indeed the crux of the problem.

(That and that Steam continues to run on the platform during the game.)

Some of you here hate Steam and are saying that they'd much rather just not buy it and stick with FO3. I suppose that means you're content with GFWL, then? I don't see how that crap was any better than Steam.

their just being fallout hipsters

I don't see how PS4 is better than Steam. You have even less control over your console than over a PC with Steam.

that certainly is your prerogative, but you seem to be cutting off your nose to spite your face. steam is not going to harm you or your PC in any way, your just being obstinate. reminds me of all the people that whined about not being able to remove features like IE from windows and stuff. and in that case, and with other stuff like office and such, you of course can opt not to use windows. but at the end of the day, your really the only one who is missing out. all over some bizarre sense of self-righteousness

When the term DRM was introduced yes it was soley for the purpose of preventing piracy but those days have long past. Digital rights managment is more than that now, Steam in it's current form IS digital rights management simply because the program is required to install it's associated games so that it can verify(manage) your right to own and use the digital software your trying to install. Furthermore should you openly and publicly break any rules set forth by the lending company, they can revoke your rights without having to come to your home with law enforcement in tow.

Now to all you cats with no clue as to why Beth would use this form of distribution when it in no way prevents piracy well...i think you already know the answer to that but i'll enlighten you anyway.

1. Steamworks is more than just an always online DRM. It provides realtime feedback to developers with system data, crash dumps and player usage.

2. Steam workshop is a no brainer for a company that has the most moddable games in the industry.

3. Reliable physical distribution requires offices all over the world and 100's of millions in initial investment for shipping.

The question is why would Bethesda use anything else?

FO3 works for just clicking the executable. I was very impressed by them for that, until I learned that it was that way only because they made a mistake.

One's game console is for games, if the console wants to run internal DRM ~so what(?), it's a game console; but Steam is demanding to run on the PC, and one's PC is usually far more than just something to play games on. It's a double standard sure, but it's the same kind as letting kids play in the mud wearing old clothes, because you don't care if the clothes get messed up, but you would care if they were wearing the best outfits they had. I wouldn't care about 3rd party apps on a console; I do care about them on my PC.

Case in point [not Steam], Adobe did the insane, and tampered with their customer's Master Boot Record on their hard drives; because they could, and because they wanted to install DRM for their app. Nobody knew about it until they were caught.

You can always count on Bethesda to have a bug-riddled mess of a game. Luckily for them a lot of those bugs are hilarious or useful.

The point is, however, that I don't see why anyone is annoyed at Bethesda for this. Using Steam is perfectly keeping with their track record. They've never been a company to go DRM-free. They do seem to try and use the "best" DRM that they can, however. There are many worse way to have DRM than Steam, a service that many, hell probably most, PC gamers already use anyway.

That makes it a tempting target. If the IRS can get hacked, so can Steam.
(Not to mention that Steam is so commonly demanding an update, or handling things automatically, that if it did get hacked... Who'd notice?)

I don't only use Steam exclusively I also use gog.com. I'm also thinking of making a Electronic Arts (EA) Origin account as well, but for now I will only use gog.com and Steam.

Well, one, the IRS was not hacked. Their servers and database was never infiltrated. The criminals simply stole a LOT of social security numbers through various means and used them to gain information through the IRS. They went through the normal procedure you do when filing taxes, they just did it using some else's information, which allowed them to gain even more information.

And, really, it's surely prudent to give your personal information to as few people as possible, but I don't think you can really go through life not making accounts just because it's possible that they may be hacked. Not these days.

Yeah I use a bunch of different services as well. Steam is just the biggest one of them all.