Digital Distribution may be the way of the future, but Steam is not the only form of digital distribution. I also feel that Steamworks is detrimental to the future of digital distribution. It does not establish customer loyalty, as all other businesses do, through offering the same products/services at better prices or with better customer service or both. Instead Steamworks mandates customer loyalty through title exclusivity. If a game is bundled with Steamworks then the point of purchase is irrelevant, you must go through Steam regardless. This gives very strong incentive to just make Steam your point of purchase. The question has been repeatedly asked “What happens when Steam goes out of business?” And the answer repeatedly given is “Gabe Newell has promised to release Steam-Free patches for all the games”. I’m willing to accept that Mr. Newell is a stand up guy, but even if he is the world’s most benevolent CEO he is still only human and therefore susceptible to the heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to. Should something happen to him tomorrow, what guarantee is there that his successor will keep any of Gabe’s promises? What guarantee is there that Steam would even keep the same business model?

Whenever I see the posts of people claiming to have 50 games, 100 games, all their games or $700 worth of games through Steam I actually shudder at the thought. What would these people do if Steam decides to charge a monthly membership fee? What if Steam makes any business decision they don’t like? How much can they complain without getting their account shut down? As has been stated many times in these threads, you never actually purchase a game, you only purchase a license to play. That license can be revoked at the discretion of the publisher and/or developer should you not adhere to the conditions laid out in the EULA. If I were to misuse my copy of Oblivion, Bethesda has reserved the right to take it away from me, the same can be said about all my other games. Activision, EA, Take Two Interactive, Atari, Microsoft, Blizzard, Snowblind and many others all have the right to take away any of thier games that I have. But what exactly gives Steam that right? If I were to get into a dispute with Steam and they decide to deactivate my account as a result then they have effectivley revoked all my game licenses, even though I have not violated a single EULA for any of the actual games.

I'm not willing to risk the potential loss of any game based on the supposed goodwill of a third party. I made the purchase with the good faith that, in excange for my money, I would recieve a product that can be used at the times and places of my choosing. I went to the store with money in hand to purchase New Vegas, but I walked away from that purchase because of Steam. If Skyrim requires Steam I will again walk away from the purchase.

I just took the survey as well. If there had been an option for preferring Steam in the first place, I would have chosen that.

I realize that liking Steam puts me in the minority on forums, since everyone likes to get on forums and complain about it, but that's how I feel.

Aside from a few exceptions that weren't available on Steam, I haven't bought a retail boxed PC game since 2005.

Really? There are some really die-hard Steamers around here that say they are the majority.

Although it doesn't explicitly say it, I figure response item #1 pretty much covers that perspective. If you will buy it no matter what, and given how response #2 is distinctive from #1, I think it is implicit you either prefer Steam or are not opposed to it.

In terms of total gamers, they may very well be the majority. I was speaking more of forum-dwelling gamers, who tend to complain about Steam and other forms of DD. But that is the nature of forums, people use them to discuss something they have a strong opinion about, and usually in the negative ones.

I once had a very large library of physical game media, I ended up selling most of it because it just took up too much space. That and I'd lose or damage discs. Half of my physical media PC games are burned copies now, although the keys are legit and they're in retail boxes.

Just FYI, if you've clicked on the "Response" link in my signature, you'll see that the actual summary of responses for the survey up to the last time I updated "Share Responses" is readily visible to all. Fortunately, it uses the same url from one update to the next. However, it only updates when I go into Survey Monkey and tell it to update. I'll make a point of doing that from time to time over the next few days so you can watch how the results change over time if you like.

So far we have 44 respondents, 41 of whom are interested in buying Skyrim for PC. Here is the break down in preferences for Steam and intent to buy among those 41.

I will buy Skyrim whether it requires Steam or not. 41.5% 17

I would prefer if there are non-Steam options for authenticating and playing Skyrim (e.g., gamesas online store with a unique product CD key). But I will probably buy it if it requires Steam anyway. 24.4% 10

I will not buy Skyrim if it requires installation of the Steam Client and internet connection for Steam authentication. 34.1% 14

So far, the pattern of results do not differ substantially from those in the forum poll. But it has only been up for 4 or 5 hours so things could change.

You also have to wait for it to be made public beyond this forum to get different results from this forum.

I posted it at one other forum so far, but the big key will be getting the UESP, Nexus or Bethblog to advertise it.

Same here. I sincerely hope that no online activation is required for Skyrim. Also, I am glad to see the issue of DRM getting plenty of player feedback on these forums. I assume that gamesas is listening.

I have posted links to it in my signature at the Taleworlds forums, Matrix Games, Ageod Games, 1BC Civ Forum, CivFanatics and Nexus forums, as well as contacting the admins for Bethblog, and UESPwiki. I have accounts at a few other forums where I could post it (A2A; Slitherine; Naval Combat War Simulations) but haven't got around to posting it in the signature there. I think those communities are not likely to take that much interest in Skyrim.

I encourage any and all of you to post it whereever you think there are PC gamers who might take an interest in what happens with TES V Skyrim.

I'm a pc gamer and believe or not I don't know exactly what Steam is.
I never played a game with it's logo and I know nothing of it.
From what I read at posts by various people it seems it's something that people use to "activate" their games.
But I only know games that are activated by connecting to the developer's servers,so instead of having their own servers they decided to rent Steam's servers ? That's what Steam is all about ?

P.S. I hate the mistrust of software companies against windows users.
Most applications on a Mac doesn't need to be activated.
No product keys,no internet required...
It seems Apple trust and respect it's costumers.

Aside from lack of internet/fast internet, the main objections to Steam are that you cannot remove Steam after activation, it has to run while the game is running (but not be connected to the internet), certain features seem to fail for some people, and the game is permanently tied to your account and can't be sold second-hand.

That and a moral/philosophical objection to tying a single player game to an online service in general.

Its called legal action. - and most likely a class action.

I'm in the anti-steam camp. A coworker game me Left 4 Dead 2 as a gift and while I found the experience relatively painless, it was a hassle as I had to set up an account, download the 0 day patch before I could actually play the game. I shortly uninstalled it and steamworks.

If Skyrim were to be a steam activated game I would likely buy the game, but never install it. I could instead, find another method of obtaining a copy of the game that didn't require steam for anything.

And so i must conclude: Steam - by design - is intrusive.

Let me elaborate:
The TES series - by design - are solely single player.
Activation/validation is a once-only action.
There is no valid reason whatsoever to have Steam permanently installed, either in a system tray or in a process list.
Valve should adapt their software for this type of game. Steam should never be permanently installed on the customers computer for Skyrim.
Updates/patches should be retrieved by the player, and not by Steam's decision.

Note: i have no particular problem with Steam in MP.

Steam validates the game every time you run it. It validates your account every time you run it.

The DRM doesn't stop with activation.

Nor is DRM the only benefit to the developer. Automatic updating is a benefit to the developer by cutting down on support issues.

I can't deny your belief that Steam is not needed to be installed permanently for a single player game, but it is designed that way for a reason. Don't expect it to change.

Not having the Internet these days is like not being able to read 25 years ago.

How has a simple question turned into an 8 page thread?

Because New Vegas requires Steam, I think a lot of us are concerned that Skyrim will require it. The three polls that have been run all indicate approximately the same things

Something like half of prospective Skyrim buyers would prefer to have non-Steam options, i.e., not require the internet to play it.

Moreover, something like 20 to 30% of prospective buyers say they "will not buy it" if it requires Steam.

It seems pretty clear that a majority _will_ buy it if it requires Steam or not, but even among those who will, a significant chunk of them (about half in the ongoing Survey Monkey survey that now has 74 respondents) indicate they'd still prefer non-Steam options.

I'd say those are the basic reasons that such a simple question turns into an 8 page thread. We are all extremely jazzed about the game being released, but some of us are simultaneously worried, if not very worried that it will require Steam or some other form of internet connection to play it. A "one-time" thing to validate it would be one thing. But that is not how Steam works, as Showler pointed out a post or two above.

Results as of right now




Having the internet is one thing. Having a high fidelity internet connection is another.

I just have one thing to say:
What happened to CD-Keys?

Just so I don't muddy the issue further, I should clarify that Steam can validate both the game files and your account for DRM purposes while in "off-line" mode using stored information on the computer instead of connecting to the internet.

So, when I said "Steam validates the game every time you run it. It validates your account every time you run it." I didn't mean it would connect to their servers every time. It just checks the CRC (or whatever the newer one is) of the main executable for changes and checks that the game is valid for the account you are signed in to.

If you order it to "validate game files" it will connect, because that is a more in-depth check, but that is completely optional.

....I hope that's not muddying the issue further.

Mostly ineffectual for DVD copies of the game, and basically useless with digital download versions.

Assuming that (i) that works flawlessly on 99% of all rigs, (ii) is easy to setup, (iii) does not spontaneously turn itself back to default settings, and (iv) does not eventually require you to regain an internet connection to be able to keep the game playing (I saw some guy say it will only stay in "offline mode" for about two weeks before it needs to reconnect), then I'd admit, that that sounds not so bad, and fits the claim of "one-time internet connection for Steam authentication."

But based on the number of folks I've seen post to ask questions, or express complaints about all four of those points, I do not believe that it actually works that way. Had I not had a bad customer support experience with Valve back in about 2003 with them not providing any help to fix a stuck elevator bug in Half Life 2, and telling me it was because of my sys pack or OS or something, then I might be able to trust that they really wanted to provide an truly effective "off-line mode." But based on my past experiences, the numbers of complaints by active Steam users, and my hypothesis about how online exposure to their store is a primary motive in their business model, I don't trust that the Steam Offline stuff is actually what it should be or is implied to be. Call me a cynic, but that is basically why I do not wish to participate in it.



No offense Showler but: what proof do you have to back up that claim? Until I see solid numbers that project the impact of various forms of copyright protection on sales under different experimental market runs, I'm skeptical that any of them do or do not work.

Moreover, Gamersgate, a digitial distribution service for Paradox, etc., uses serial keys. You buy your game, and you get access to a DL app. You download the app and by the time that is done your serial key is generated and visible on your My Games portion of your account page. Now you DL your game (takes an hour or so for me generally depending on the game) and when you fire it up, type in the serial key to activate it. Short of reinstalling the game, you never have to do anything else with the Gamersgate site, or any other validation process. You now have the digitally downloaded version of the game on your machine.

Now unless Gamersgate is actually losing money because piracy (which I doubt given they've been running same as always for years now and have expanded their product line) else, the games they sell are so unpopular that no one cares to pirate them (which I also find very hard to believe) the example of Gamersgate seems to suggest that serial keys work, or are at least sufficient.

Of course the mitigating factor here is: company reputation. According to Brad Wardell, it is the company reputation which accounts for piracy as much or more than anything else. Again, I've seen no proof of that either, but that is what he seems to think.

Paradox, and Gamersgate seem to me to be fairly well liked; I certainly don't see as much negativity on their forums as I see on various game forums about Steam.

So, assuming Paradox is so well liked that they don't suffer piracy, it would also be possible that the serial keys they are using are "not effective," but in this case the effectiveness would be moot anyway.

None, because I'm having a bad night and confused "CD-key" with "Disc check". I meant to say that disc checks (like most DRM) are very, very short term solutions for piracy on DVD releases, and useless for digital downloads (no DVD to check).

CD-keys are a different matter, but they require one of three (that I know of) methods of verification. 1. Built in list of good keys: Rare and easy to beat. 2: Algorithm processing of the key to determine if the key fits a specific pattern: Far more common, but no better at protecting the game. 3: Calls in to online server for verification: Best chance of working, still beat too often, requires online or phone connection.

I'd assume CD-keys are less common for AAA titles now because there are more intricate methods available, and the game publishers think they'll work.

That I think is the key: the methods are more intricate, and publishers THINK they'll work.

If they were more intricate, but no less hassle for users, I'd say, sure, whatever. Let them do their thing.

But the fact is, most of the more intricate methods also impose more on users. Thus, I think we as users should insist on good arguments from them that these things actually protect their property better. If they don't, then it is a big farce. They are spending money on something that doesn't actually work better, and hassling us in the process.