Steam might be the best thing since sliced bread; I'd still want its presence to be optional when installing and playing an RPG which itself has absolutely nothing to do with other software.

The prospect of being required to run an additional service, none of the features of which I want to use, whenever running an entirely unrelated (for my purposes) service, irks me to no end. I'm a terrible control-freak and pedant as far as my PC and its configuration are concerned, but the fact that I exist is sufficient argument against Steamworks being compulsory for legal installations of Skyrim. Others have said this better already...

Bethesda, please have physical copies of Skyrim require only a disc check, or even better, no form of copy protection at all. Signed.

But, the OP showed some real ignorance of Steam:

As long as it doesn't affect modding it's cool with me. Steam isn't the piece of crap it used to be.

Please please please do not let the following be misunderstood.
I live in the RSA [Republic of South Africa]. I am fortunate to finally have Aol. I am one of a very small minority to be so lucky. I am also a complete idiot on a pc. Having recently installed the W7 o.s.
I fell victim to the Activate on Steam debacle. Having waited FOREVER for Fallout N V. a month later was still unable to activate my Steam acc. to install my game. In spite of eventually tracking down why the so called 'link' was not a link, I desperately made a gmail acc and tried to get them to send me a new link to activate the Steam account. I'm still waiting and it is now January 2011.
I do not have pay online facilities. Also a rare thing in RSA, I cannot order a copy online, very few game merchants will send to RSA anyway. Amazon USA and Amazon UK definately won't.
I have also been a victim of EA games activation, in that in the process of buying a new computer and having a new o.s., when I loaded my 'old' games reg. on EA they refused activation on the grounds that they had been activated to someone else!!
Never mind that I have the copies in my hot little hands, key codes and all.
Anyone interested in a pristine copy of NV? Never reg. never used, never activated?
Seriously, how sick is it when you then get into a game store and ask their advice you are told 'Yes, countless people have the same problem. Just get a pirate copy, you don't have to feel bad, after all you do own the game'
I've established by asking all over, that pretty much any game is available even pre-launch to whoever these pirates are get any game they want. What does that say about us 'white knights' who refuse to steal? I for one hate having to pay the price for those thieves.
SO....PLEASE don't make us have to activate online with ANYONE.
I fluctuate between being blown away by the prospect of Skyrim and feeling sick that I most probably won't be able to play it, if for any reason I can no longer afford my internet connection.

That svcks.

Sorry you have to deal with that.

Please, if anyone cares, this is my PRAYER.

Well, you don't need to buy Oblivion and Morrowind on Steam to play them on the PC, but they're there. I'm sure the same thing can be done with Skyrim. If that's not the case, then I'd rather there be no Steam version at all. It really has nothing at all to do with a game like Skyrim. I just don't see why.



I'm sorry, but what? If they don't want to buy the game off Steam, then why are you saying that it should be Steamworks only? And I would much prefer if "some Steam features" stayed out of the creation and design of Skyrim.

If by "Steam features" you mean Acheivements, then no, it breaks immersion and leads to the breed of "MLG COMPETITIVE" type players who plague certain OB mod videos. If you mean OL chat, that really serves no purpose at all for a single-player immersive RPG. (I also like how you twisted what I said to make me seem snarky and pissy). No but in all honesty, without resorting to some form of sarcasm or bashing, please calmly tell me why Skyrim should have anything to do with Steam.

Don't like some Steam features? Disable them. Simple as that. Steam doesn't force you to have those features on. You can even turn off achievements if I recall correctly.

Much better than GFWL having you be stuck with "features" you can't turn off.

I was referring more to him saying they should be built into the game itself.

Also, if you're saying that if we don't like Steam we should just disable all of Steam's features, wouldn't it be better to include the option to just buy the game without Steam? I mean, what's the point? :confused:

EDIT: Also, once again, let's not make this a debate between choosing the "lesser of two evils". Why make it either Steam or GFWL, why not just have the option to buy a clean disk?

EDIT EDIT: I'm not debating how good Steam is or not. I'm debating as to why it should be mandatory to use it for a game that has no use for it.

I'd imagine he wants a boxed that still has Steam features. That'll (most likely) happen only if Skyrim is Steamworks enabled, since then boxed copies require Steam activation. And i really don't see boxed copy of both Steam and non-Steam version being made.

Yeah I don't like the Steam feature... I'll disable them. How about option 2. I didn't have to disable steam feature because I didn't have to install it in the first place. Or at worst, Unistall steam completely after a 1 time only online verification. < which is how it is put. But not how it works.

Steam is better than GFWL if you consider one as just annoying and pointless. The other is just slightly more so.

So you're telling me you'd rather buy the game with something like SecuROM (which functions like malware) than something like Steam (which functions as a simple program)? I've never heard of a person preferring malware to be on their computer before...

True, it would be better to not buy the game with Steamworks or any form of DRM, but we both know that's not going to be happening. So would you prefer something that installs silently, but can cause a lot of problems down the road (most other DRMs), or something which is less problematic overall and only takes up a small space in your system tray, not to mention made to cater to the user (Steamworks).

And actually, in all honesty, I'd prefer the Battle.net way of DRM. But since TES is not made by Blizzard, we're not going to be getting that type of DRM anytime soon.

And I wasn't trying to make this a debate between the "lesser of two evils." I was just stating one of the positives that Steamworks has over Bethesda's last implementation of DRM.

While it may be true that they will probably use a DRM, I can always hope, can't I? :tongue:

It's already pretty late in development, I'm sure they've already made all the contracts for how the game will be sold. This thread is probably just a pointless battle of ideals, so I may as well support what I think would be the ideal side.

Steam is my preferred choice of DRM but I like to have physical copies of my games as well. I bought a DVD of FO:NV but I still had access to Steam. That is what I prefer for Skyrim.



I actually meant Steam Cloud.

Still this is something I've noted over multiple threads. "You dare criticize the authority of Steam? OMFGZ, you blasphemer! [thread gets crucified before it actually started]" It always just gets blown out of proportion. What a shame. I wonder why. The things in that one sentence weren't his major concerns either. From post 2 on, this thread seemed to take another direction. Or that's my humble impression.

I suppose you can. I, for one, am hoping the same thing as well, even though it's quite clear Bethesda wants to choose whatever has the lowest risk of piracy attached to it. We should at least be happy that Bethesda hasn't opted for a "Be online at all times" DRM, because that would be a HUGE problem for everyone. Even though it's technically the best defense against pirates.

And I see.

Now that makes sense. I'm on the same page about that.

What if.... and this is completely hypothetical as I am very unfamiliar with Steam:

I know in Steam you can add games that you didn't get through Steam by just adding the file path to the .exe manually. What if we could choose to do that if we wanted, and then Steam would allow us to either link directly to new patches for download and install or just announce that there is a new patch, new DLC, etc.? They wouldn't even need to host the files, just use the same link that Bethesda does on it's site for patches.

That way people who want to use Steam can, and people who just want the simple Disk Check don't have to add it.

In most cases, it actually works out exactly like this. You can add the game to Steam if you have the CD key (you can add it via .exe, but then it will be counted as a non-Steam game and you won't receive updates and such I think), and it'll post the latest news concerning the game you registered, including links to patches and the like.

Now if you're saying Steamworks should function like this, then you just might have an idea on your hands there. Perhaps bring that up with the heads at Valve or something.

Replace Steam with "Justin Bieber" and see how false your statement is.

That sounds like a reasonable compromise :thumbsup: . Sounds like it would work for most people except for the 3 posters on AOL in this thread that couldn't get it to work.I just don't know if Steam can actually work that way.

I hope it can work out as well as it did with Oblivion and Morrowind being on Steam, but the days of no DRM are over.

Although, I would still prefer not to install Steam AT ALL. But this is a compromise I'd be willing to accept

Would the Disk Check have to occur every time I install the game? The one problem I see with this is if I am tampering with some of Skyrim's files and messing one of them up makes it an invalid version.

If they could use a disc check when the disc was in the drive, and Steam when not, that would satisfy everyone.

But, I don't think it would be that easy. First, I doubt they want to implement two types of DRM. Second, Valve would have to agree.

Anyway, here's what gamesas had to say about Steam for FO:NV (from the http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1096751-fallout-new-vegas-fan-interview/):

Steam is the lesser of many evils. It's also a very convenient service. If that makes me obnoxious, then so be it.


I really don't get all the Steam hate. Unless you have a poor or no internet connection (a tiny minority these days. Most are able to connect at least for a couple of minutes to activate their game), I really don't see what there is to complain about. But then, I'm a person who has never sold on any of my games, so that old chestnut about not being able to sell on really doesn't bother me. If Bethesda are going to go for a different DRM method to satisfy those who don't want Steam, I hope they also go for a New Vegasesque Steam option too, for those of us with an internet connection and who don't mind sacrificing 3mb HD space and 1kb of RAM.

:banghead: That still wouldn't help people like me who,
1 Don't have pc skills other than 'gaming'
2 Don't have internet access.

Does the rest of the world really not have the same budget restraints that make internet access a given? I ask this sincerly, I'm not being difficult.

All I can say about this is that maybe Bethesda should consider having different forms of DRM for different parts of the world. Kind of like how S.T.A.L.K.E.R. had a simple disk check in the US, but the Russian version had the horrid StarForce DRM. Perhaps just give something like Steamworks to larger cultural areas where the majority of the population has internet access, and a disk check to areas like yours that have barely any access.