Bazillion times less dumb than any other DRM solution.

not sure if this is still a thing, but back when i tried to install fallout nv it required a internet connection to install it, kinda pissed me off

well, i think that was mostly owing to steam and such, not sure why i would have to have internet to finish installing a game i paid for but oh well

The required internet connection is partly to ensure that it is a game you paid for, rather than one you obtained illegally. Another part is to make sure you have the latest patch so you're not bothering their technical support about bugs that were fixed in a day 0 or subsequent patch.

Whether one agrees that those are good reasons, or if the actuality lives up to the theory, are hotly debated .

Given the staggering levels of piracy seen with DRM free games, I don't think there's a hope in hell of any Bethesda game not being tied to some form of DRM, whether Steam or Bethesda.net. Whether DRM is worth enough to a game publisher in preventing sales lost to piracy to make up for sales lost to outraged/inconvenienced customers is a different discussion - and one I don't have the industry insight to get involved in

Why would you think that's stupid? It's the current go-to standard for how to sell video games nowadays... and is exactly how Bethesda sold its previous games and is currently selling the various games it publishes.

It's backhanded is why. It's not likely serious.

Actually that is optional. You can right click on the game (in steam) and change that setting.

Are you talking about the turning off auto patch? That has issues, back when I first tried it, it would turn itself back on every now and then. Secondly, it'd not allow you to pick and choose which patch to use. Not even sure how reinstalling works, pretty sure it'd force the latest patch on you. For example, if there are three versions of the game, release, patch 1, patch 2 and patch 2 breaks something, your out of luck if you install it. (At least until folks either mod around it or its fixed)

*shrugs* Either way it's an issue that I have learned to live with. I just don't have to like it.

I am not against a company going the cheap and lazy way and having a Steam or Gog etc. version but to not release the retail "product" in retail stores is stupid IMO.

I don't want to pay for a "Service" (Steam Games) I want to own a retail "Product" that I can buy at my local brick and mortar store. I want to OWN the game not just pay for the right to play it from a third party as well as support my local economy.

Everyone including the companies know that going DRM/Steam service etc. is not about pirating but about money. Ever notice that Steam only games are the ones most pirated and EVERY AAA title has a Steam crack that allows you to play without being connected or having Steam active? Making it Steam only will make sure it is cracked and pirated and that makes Bethesda NO money does it : (

I would buy it for PS3 like the rest of my Bethesda games but they will not release it for the PS3 and I sure as hell will not buy a new console for one game.

The Witcher is starting to look better and better or just wait and see what Cracks : (

It's only optional so long as you continuously remain in offline mode. Steam has a nasty habit sometimes of spontaneously finding it's way into online mode, and then you suddenly find yourself with an update you never wanted, nor asked for. This is one of my major gripes with Steam, there really isn't much of a choice.

Sure, sure, I get that there's an option (at least used to be) to turn off auto updates, but that works about as well as offline mode...again, suddenly you'll find yourself with an update you never asked for nor wanted.

Still though, given some of the other alternatives, it's the better option out there.

Unfortunately, there are forces out there working to make "service" software happen. Office 365, for instance. I was disheartened to find out I could only rent Adobe Photoshop anymore, as well. And did you see the latest hilarity? The basic Windows Solitaire included in Windows 10? Has advertisemants that interrupt you when playing, like a f2p game.... and the only way to get rid of them is to pay a monthly/yearly fee.

Where did this idea come from that it won't be available as a physical DVD available from retail stores? Is it just paranoia or what?

Past experience does show that any physical DVD copy will still need Steam to install and play it, and will come with a Steam key.

Anyway, nobody ever 'owns' a computer game. All you ever do is buy a license to play it. The only thing that changes is whether the data that enables you to play it is delivered via a physical media or via digital distribution. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no games from any publisher on any platform that you 'own'. Only games you license.

If anybody knows different (and can quote the license terms that prove they own the game they bought), I'd be fascinated to know.

[edit]

Now those sort of license terms, I agree, are only sensible when they apply to hugely expensive software with a high level of customer support guaranteed. A license fee for solitaire? I... can't actually use the words I'd want to use to describe that idea on this forum. "A rabid, greedy, conscienseless, senseless, mocking exploitation of your customers" would have to do.

I don't have a problem with it. I like digital platforms. I use Steam, Starport, and GoG. Quite honestly, they all seem the same to me.

Fallout is Steam now. Even beforehand, it was *shudder* Games for Windows Live. Which was not only terrible to use (my personal experience) but is also now defunct.

So Steam it is, which honestly I find convenient. I like having digital backups in the event of disc damage (even though I prefer to install from disc), and it means the game can be verified with Steam - even offline - so I don't need to keep the disc in the tray.

I can't think of any big games that don't use Steam, Uplay, or Origin at this point. Of those three, I definitely prefer Steam and cannot stand Uplay.

This why I don't bother with them. I have my Adobe discs, and my Office discs, and they work; there has been nothing worthwhile to me in the 'improved' new versions of either. Office 2k and 2007 still print, and I don't care about version compatibility. I prefer Office 2k between the two. Even Photoshop 6 was fine; the extended undo completed it as a product, there was no reason to buy later versions; though I did. I've no use for the recent subscription versions.

For years now, companies ~game studios and package developers, have written into their license that all we own is the plastic disc... Not the contents. So common is it, that even the disc's contain the Steam version of most games.


Gog is pretty good. I only buy through them and Humble; sometimes Humble's version is Steam, but at least they aren't Steam.

I'm extremely confused by why u-play exists to begin with. Didn't ubisoft's CEO come out 4 or 5 years ago and admit that their DRM was [censored], and would no longer push DRM in their games?

People rejecting our lord and saviour St Gaben-sama still in 2015..

The joke calling Gabe Newell PC gaming's lord and saviour, Lord GabeN or our saviour ST Gaben-sama or whatever else is getting old and tiring.

VALVe never saved PC gaming, just made it easier for indie video game development companies and indie video game developers to get noticed, PC gaming was thriving before Steam got so popular, there where still indie video games being released every year, not a lot of broken indie video games and MineCraft clones are accepted on Steam to be sold, while hiding the actual good and very well developed indie video games, Like Divinity: Original Sin, Wasteland 2, etc.

What's getting old and tiring are those people who fail to acknowledge Valve practically single-handedly saving PC gaming in a time where even prime PC developers were abandoning the platform due to pirating and the bigger part of PC gaming revenues had ended up monthly subscriptions for WoW, resulting in everybody and their aunt hopping on the MMO bandwagon and a good bunch of them ending up bankrupt. Steam actually opened up markets where no game sales existed, I know well as I live in a country where pirating was the de facto way to play any game 10 years ago. You wouldn't be even able to buy a game because it wasn't even sold. Nowadays everybody is paying for games and money is the blood of any industry. PC not only got revitalized and regained those companies which abandoned it, but also, for the first time in its history, even brought over many prolific console companies with their console exclusives.

Actually, it was also Steam who enabled companies like Larian and Inxile to continue funding their ongoing projects after their Kickstarter time ended: They sold their games at premium prices pre-launch for years thanks to Steam.

I was hating Steam before it was hip, back in 2006. Valve and Gaben won me over years with what they did, I can afford games thanks to them and them only, nobody else. Not gonna hate them because they heralded the death of discs for PC gaming. That was already coming.

VALVe never saved PC gaming it was always flourishing and thriving.

Steam sales? I was able to purchase physical boxed versions of the PC versions of video games from brick and mortar retailer stores like GameStop, etc for $5 dollars (USD) or $10 dollars (USD) many months after the video games released for sale.

Even now with Steam sales existing more than ever I can still purchase physical boxed versions of the PC versions of video games cheaper than on Steam most times. I saw at GameStop and BestBuy physical boxed versions of the PC versions of AAA video games that released for sale go for $10 dollars (USD), while on Steam they were still selling on Steam for $50 dollars (USD) or $60 dollars (USD).

No, it was dying as I already told and explained. Piracy was widespread, entire countries weren't even buying any games. The world isn't just US & West Europe.

Places like Gamestop harm developers since they get NO cut from resells, what are you talking about? What you were doing actually was the other big problem of PC gaming aside from piracy.

Good job paying 10$ to a resellers and giving Bethesda none, way to go. You could as well pirate the game, same deal as far as the developer is concerned. While I'll buy a Steam copy and actually vote with my wallet so Bethesda will want to make FO5 for PC as well.

You are wrong PC gaming was never in danger at all.

Also I never purchased video games when they went on sale. I purchase video games at full price only. All I said is I was able to, but I never did. You were not allowed to resell used PC versions of video games in 2005. It was around 2000, 2001 or 2002 that GameStop stopped selling used PC versions of video games.

Video games being sold as used do not harm video game publishing companies or video game development companies at all.

Look we got the PlayStation 4 (PS4) and Xbox One, which still allows for used video games to be sold at GameStop.

Dont forget Steam is also the reason why People like Jim Stearling was able to net a 11k a month paycheck Via Patreon for bashing the Scam atrists out there..

Which is odd because im in the weird place of likeing steam and also hateing them for bascialy letting the crap in without even trying to police it or give the customers the means to police it until recently.

You're wrong. Because of it companies lose far more money than from piracy.

Yeah, unfortunately my copy of Photoshop is old enough that it no longer will run on Yosemite/OS X 10.10.

(And really, if you think about it from a business perspective - the fact that many people would buy a copy of a program and then use it for 5+ versions without updating is exactly why they've gone to subscription. Sticking with Creatuve Suite 1 for over a decade was nice for my budget, but didn't do a lot for theirs.)

A more sensible and fair approach, in my view, would be to sell a product as is, and then offer a subscription for bug fixes/support, and an additional subscription for new features.

But they don't want to conduct business like every other product supplier out there. instead they want to sell a service, whether their customers want a service or not. If all their customers want is a product, that's just too bad, they'll have to go elsewhere.

Of course these companies are entitled to conduct their business any way they want, and their customers aren't forced to do business with them. But some of these moves to a 'subscription or get stuffed' business model do carry with them a feeling of complete lack of respect or trust for the customer on the part of the company. Well deserved lack of respect and trust? Possibly. But if so, I'm not sure the solution is a good one.