Yeah maybe for people that touch a video game(or PC) for the first time but honestly, I don't care having Steam run while I play games, it doesn't hurt in any way.
Also Steam is not in "control" of the games, it's just some kind of central hub to buy, manage and start games - it does not crash your games like GFWL does.
I've got about 50 games in Steam now and never run into any problems, it does not crash my PC or causes windows to hang, it's just there and that's fine, I like the automatic updates, the game-specific news, steam sales/deals and the central system for achievements.

I had such a hassle with the DRM in Bioshock that I just ended up downloading a cracked copy with the DRM removed.
DRM just causes problems for the people who buy the games, not the pirates who invariably (and quickly) get around the protection and enjoy a more hassle free version of the game.

Securom svcks that's why EA got sued and removed it.

Steam =/= Securom though





Lol. I'm sorry but this... this is just beyond stupid. Valve doesn't care how many people use Steam. They don't force any game company to put thier games on Steam and they sell entire game catalogs for nearly nothing. Its funny when someone gives you everything for as cheap as they can its suddenly a bad thing.

I wholeheartedly agree. Insinuating that because someone defends Steam they must be employed by Valve is just as insulting as insinuating that because some one decries Steam they must be a software pirate. (not in this thread but it has come up in quite a few Steam threads)

I, for one, am not worried a bit about privacy issues and Steam, however I do not see any aspect of it to be of particular convenience to me. I don't need it. I don't want it.





Steam is a service. Services are judged by the number of people they service. The entire business model is based on attracting new customers to the service. Why is it stupid to suggest that Steam behaves the same way? They have been aggressively marketing themselves as the end-all, be-all, ultimate answer to all your DRM, Patching and Marketing needs. Beyond the simple concept of increasing their customer base is the fact that because so many games will require you to use Steam, it is only natural that customers will begin to "skip the middleman" and buy directly from Steam.

It shouldn't be necessary to "register" or "activate" online a single-player computer game you buy in a shop.

I cannot fathom why any gamer would defend such a practice. Leaving praise or criticism of Steam in particular out of the picture here, I'm talking about the fundamental concept of having to validate your purchase across the Internet.

One poster here explained why game companies "need" DRM and so on. Guess what? We don't need to know about that. Consumers should be in no way affected by the efforts of companies to stop piracy by people who probably wouldn't buy the game anyway (even if they couldn't get a bootleg version). Here's a novel thought - maybe there would be less piracy if companies sold games at €20-30 on release rather than €50-60 (or more!)

I'm sick of this syndrome where everyone is increasingly regarded as guilty until proven innocent. Computer gamer = possible pirate. Shopper = possible shoplifter. Other examples in everyday life would be hyperbole for comparison, but the same thinking is responsible.

This is my problem with steam, there is absolutely no need for anything other than a disk check for a game that I buy in a store.

Market forces. Consumers have been the ones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_Cruise_Lines,_Inc._v._Shute since consumers were invented. Big companies always have all the bargaining power.

First step to making a difference? Don't buy.
Next step? Organize a boycott.
Last step? Pick a favorable jurisdiction and sue somebody with a class action.

Those are increasing difficulty and decreasing likeliness to succeed. I agree with you that it svcks that software giants treat consumers like trash, but that's not really the point. The point is that they do. If it were bad for business, they would change their models. There is http://torrentfreak.com/spore-most-pirated-game-ever-thanks-to-drm-080913/ that it is. I'm not sure how accurate or unbiased that article is (seems pretty slanted to me), but the point stands.

Companies do whatever sells. Right now, Steam sells, for whatever reason. I've given a few, I guess. That doesn't mean I prefer it, it just means I understand the reasons.

steam is a gaming system where you have to register and download.

you register the game in your steam account and after that it's not necessary to use the disk anymore
and steam updates your game via internet to the most recent version.

Because it does not hurt.

Of course game companies need a copy protection for their games (at least they think so, it's their right to).
And honestly if I have to choose one copy protection it is steam and I'm happy about every company that uses steam as their sole DRM because it is just much less bad than others.

Aggressive marketing....... LOL. Steam doesn't do marketing, There's never ads for it, They don't go out and yell USE STEAM ONLY IT IS THE ONLY WAY or anything like that. the only thing Steam/Valve do is allow game companies to put their games on steam.

As I will seriously consider not buying the game if Steam is used. Everyone I know hates Steam. It's not bad if you want virtual copies of the game or enjoy logging in every single time you buy a game, but for everyone else Steam is nothing but a pain.

Very well said sir! I applaud that well laid out post!

They don't market to gamers, they market to developers. The Steamworks SDK is now built into the new Unreal engine. So any developers who use this engine to create games now get "the awesome power of Steam free of charge!"

That's a bit harsh, although I agree Steam can just turn into an annoyance.

Actually Valve very much cares how many people use it. The more people they svcker in, the more developers they can then convince with the statistics. It's a vicious cycle. One which will eventually kill retail sales of games entirely. If you think that's stupid, well, then you're just plain ignorant. Definitely a Steam sycophant.

The price isn't what I'm on about. It's the level of control that a 3rd party now has over things they weren't even involved in selling. If I buy a game at retail, I should have a reasonable expectation that I don't need someone else's spyware application to be installed in order to run it. That means no Steam tie-ins. If the company is too cheap to maintain their own registration and authentication servers then maybe they shouldn't be selling games to the public. Or they should go back to NORMAL stuff like disc checks that nobody I know ever has issue with.

You can't really call Steam a spyware because you choose to install it yourself and of course you're aware if it runs.

Besides that, disc check is not enough for the game companies for copy protection, it is actually really easy to bypass.

Also, it is not solely about piracy - but instead someone got hold of a calculator and put some numbers in it, where they found out that renting games and re-selling games is a big loss of money, so they try to prevent it.
Steam is a good prevention of that, of course.

E: But if you read my previous posts (with actual arguments!), I still like Steam, because I don't feel the need of re-selling my games.

I agree that you shouldn't need a third party program running in the background but spyware it is not.
It doesn't mask itself as anything other than what it is, it doesn't hide itself, you choose to install it and can uninstall it at any time, it collects data only if you allow it to.
Saying it is spyware comes across as little more than fear mongering.

Yes not believing everything you say makes me a sycophant. Seriously dude, that's the most [censored] thing I've ever heard.

Sorry have people have opinions that aren't your own, but just becuase they do doesn't mean they are a sycophant and if you really believe that then I feel bad for you.

Also i suggest you look up what SPYWARE is becuase you obviously don't know what it means.