This. Speaking as the biggest TES really devoted fan in the known universe, I would still drop Skyrim like a wet sack of trash in a blink of an eye if it's Steam DRM. While I accept the idea of having to activate a game once, Steam forces log ins every so often to play a game. This I absolutely can not accept. A single player game must be 100% offline except for a one-time activation ONCE. TOPS.

With GFWL you have to log in once to activate the game, then you can play offline. GFWL is always started in this offline mode but it doesn't connect to the internet.
With Steam you have to log in once to activate the game, then you can play offline. Steam is always started in this offline mode but it doesn't connect to the internet.
:)

In that scenario, then the game you are talking about is NOT a 100 percent offline game.
The game as you describe it has a mandatory online aspect, that will continue to bite players at each re-install.

A true 100 percent offline game would have an install key that is used to install the game and the key is NEVER checked online, and all patches and DLC for the game do not require any online access or the presence of online clients; to permit their installation.

Jenifur Charne

Can't it be both? Steam copies use Steam (obviously) and retail copies use GFWL. Or would it be too hard submitting each patch twice?

No, you don't see the problem because it hasn't happened to you. If you lose your internet unexpectedly after installing "Game X", and use Steam Offline mode to play it will work fine. For 3 days. There is a blob file in the Steam folder that forces the user to go online once a week to check for updates. If you can't go online, you can't play.

A single player game I bought has to always be in my possession to play. If Steam is in the way, that's like theft to me.

So no, I am boycotting Steam, and nothing will change that unless offline mode is back-engineered to always work when you need it.

Chronological order: Steam bit me, moved to GFWL, which bit me hard, approached Steam again with apprehension, which is now my best friend. What's GFWL? Never heard of it. Tho, I am known for holding a grudge and I'm sure it has improved since then. (Oh and yup, there is a dif between GFW and GFWL)

Apparently GFWL patching process is slow and a pain, it emulates Xbox Lives patching process (which required endless authentications and whatnot), Steam allows patches through their servers pretty much instantly given an employee is there. That's a huge plus and a reason why many developers are ditching GFWL.

Games For Windows.. simply is Microsoft's way of putting "PC" on a title. Games For Windows Live is different altogether.

I agree. I sure hope Beth realizes that using a "one size fits all" DRM strategy is not in their best interest with a fanbase this diverse.

I thought EA had one of the worst DRM's. It had the same sort of deal as Steam, except you had to go online once every 3 days to continue playing and you could only download a game a maximum of 5 times before it wouldn't let you. I lost my copy of Spore because I couldn't download it ever again.



My Steam version of Fallout 3 does this. It's essentially the same thing as the retail version of Fallout 3, except I don't need a disk and I can download it anywhere.

Hasn't been true for any GFWL game I've seen or played. I don't even have a GFWL account, so I don't even see how I was forced to log in once to activate anything since I have nothing to log in to.

You can't avoid this with Steam, for without a Steam account you don't get to play your game. Ever.

You need to have a GFWL account to patch the game or install any official DLC. If you don't, you're stuck with the version of the game that came out of the box. It's the same as having an Xbox or a PS3 without a Live or PSN account. You need to have a Steam account to patch your game at least. I've been using Steam for a while, but I've never actually purchased any DLC with it, so I don't know how that process works. I'm also not sure how different games that use GFWL are, but my experience with Fallout 3 was abysmal. The main difference I see between a GFWL and Steam game is that Steam is required to play a Steam game. You can play a GFWL game without using GFWL, but the experience is very poor and patching it is exponentially more difficult than patching a Steam game (which it does in the background whenever one is available).

I love steam, so I am hoping steam.

Not if you buy retail.

People repeat claims that have no basis often enough that everyone seems to accept it as fact. It's not. In Fallout 3's case specifically, you can patch the game to 1.7 manually using the file on Bethesda's website. That patch provides all that is necessary for all of the DLCs to work.

The DLCs are all still available in retail box packages, along with the GOTY version of the game. There are those of us out here that buy everything that way.

So I will repeat once again. I have no GFWL account. I've never had to log into anything to make FO3 (and plenty of other stuff) work right out of the box.

This is not something you can do with Steam infected games because someone got the oh so brilliant idea to only offer patches through Steam and the even more genius idea to only offer DLC through Steam. It's about the most intrusive and restrictive environment I can imagine trying to game under. It's just wrong on too many levels to count.

I never needed an account to patch the game (we are talking FO3 right?) yes GFWL was needed if the the DLC was obtained via LIVE

from my experience Steam patching was a not a good thing, it rendered the game useless for "who knows how long" until it finished. to me downloading then installing at my convenience is is much more convenient.

I've played games while they were patching. I don't think it applies the updates until you're done. But the updates never take long. The thing about Steamworks is that they push out microupdates, which are just streamed to you. For the most part, they fix small issues one at a time and so they don't take long to download. In theory, big downloads can occur if they're fixing a lot of issues in bulk, but by design Steamworks makes it so that you don't need to do that. I just prefer to always have the most up-to-date versions, so Steam is good for me in that regard. I've been fine with downloading patches from the developer, though they don't always tell you when they become available, so it can take a while for people to actually find them. But patching through GFWL is just one of the worst things I've had to deal with. It takes usual patching and just makes it 10 times more broken.

Id prefer nither as they are not needed if I bought the DVD in a store. for digital maybe depending on who you "bought" your digital copy from. If I buy a DVD of a game that has no multiplayer of anykind then I should not be forced to install GFWL or Steam. Why do I want to have steam when I play Dragon Age or Mass Effect or Oblivion if its not even required because they have no multiplayer function. Its like getting a water cool system on MAC computer its pointless.

I hope that GFWL is included in this game, since I usually play games on the Xbox 360, but I'm buying Skyrim for pc because of the modding community. However, I like to hunt for achievements since it adds replay value to a game. I find it useless though to hunt for achievements on steam or on pc only, since I want the gamerscore to be carried over to my 360.

This is a fail anology. What your anology would actually translate to is buying the game from a shop and then having to contact them to bring it to you whenever you want it.

An anology you should have used is

"It's like buying a car from a dealership and then when it's in my garage I have to press a button on the door to log in so the dealership knows its me using the car."

Microsoft doesn't care about GFWL. Valve cares about Steam. One product evolves and adds functions to be useful and justify it's existence. The other is updated once a year and doesn't offer anything worthwhile unless you're a Xbox Gamerscore Hunter, see some posts above me...bad reason to prefer one service over another.

Maybe there's something I'm missing here. It might be something so trival none of you even bother mentioning, but I have no clue what it is.
Why in ther world would you have a 3rd party program attached to your game when you can have a clean game?
I mean, why? What benefit does that ever offer to have your game connect to some server over the net when you can have it privately offine?
It's not even like we're going multiplayer, are we? All your game data should come in the Installation Disc.

Why do we need DRM? We don't, but it's there anyway. Obviously having nothing, optionally steam is the best answer: but this is working on the assumption that we're getting *something* we don't like. The lesser of two evils!

Meanwhile, the people who don't care about digital distribution, and are just commenting on which to use for DRM....... I'd rather have it like Fallout 3, because I could just ignore/remove it, after install. Much less intrusive.


(But, yeah.... buying a FO3 DLC from GFWL svcked. But then, I'm not a big fan of digital shops. I want my disc)



Best solution, of course, would be to have a normal disc-check for DRM, and let people who like Steam use it for DLC downloading.

DRM is only a small aspect of the use of Steam - It is mostly to kill re-sale of the game. With FO-NV, even if you bought the retail boxed version, you had to use Steam to activate the game. Once activated, the game was pretty much useless for trade in.

JimC

I'd prefer none. Don't give a crap about GFWL or Steam. I only care about Skyrim the game, and that is all.