You may want to go back and actually read the terms of service, friend... If Valve decides to shut down their Steam service, they can and will take away all of your games and have a legal right to do so as you agreed to it when you made your Steam account. The problem is all of these games are linked to Steam. If Steam goes, so do your games. It's not like GOG where you can actually separately download the game irrespective of any kind of DRM service.

Im actually fully aware of this, but that was some of the older battlefield games (all of which ive played) most of which were actually pretty good. I was actually referring to recent additions to the battlefield series, which in my opinion, are clones of each other. I suppose I should have clarified, thats my fault. Ive actually followed most of the coverage of Battlefront and it just looks to much like Star wars Battlefield, combine that with the lack of planets and space battles, it just feels meh.

I haven't played it though, mabye it feels better when played.

Fair enough.

I feel I should say I do enjoy most of your posts and such. I just have abit of animosity towards EA, and Ubisoft after what they have done to several games which I have enjoyed.

It's just something you'll have to play. I own every Battlefield game from 1942, 2, 2142, Bad Company 2, 3, 4, etc. (Hardline wasn't done by DICE) and Star Wars Battlefront is definitely different. It's just something you'll have to play, but it feels a lot like a Battlefront game (with much better FPS controls of course). My only criticism would be of the tokens you have to collect to use vehicles, special weapons, and heroes as well as controls for vehicles are a bit wonky and simplistic.

I didn't find space battles in Battlefront 2 to be particularly that compelling. What Battlefront 3 was doing would have been amazing, but Lucasarts scrapped that game. DICE is clearly just trying to build a solid foundation with the game. I'm sure their "premium membership" will offer more planets and more features as is their general trend these days.

I definitely understand your frustration. EA has done some terrible things in the past and Ubisoft has as well. If not for EA though, BioWare would not have been able to create Dragon Age Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, and Mass Effect 2 (I would add Mass Effect 3 but I know that game is divisive to some). Dead Space (even if 3 was disappointing) would not exist. EA has a lot of great properties and while some don't come out well, many do, especially in more recent times.

Ubisoft definitely treats their PC fan base poorly. I loved Watch_Dogs, but the PC port was trash. Most of the Assassin's Creed PC ports have been trash with the exception of AC IV: BF. Far Cry has been relatively solid all along on PC though. It's easier for me to hate on Activision considering what they did to Call of Duty. I'm also not a fan of Destiny and what Bungie turned that game into.

Either way, everybody has their preferences.

Did the previous GOG versions of FO1 and FO2 come bundled with the Hi-Res patch? I bought the Fallout Classics bundle on Steam since the Bethesda take-over, and they included it. That could be the difference, since this version will be the Bethesda re-package.

I hope they paid those people for their patches if so. Terribly unethical to take their work and then sell it. I would assume they did pay them, but I've heard nothing about it.

The original releases did not include user patches IRRC. I remember that they had the graphical problems of the originals [Dx5] ~when run on Dx9.

They gave credit to the modders who put together those patches, but I've no idea if any money changed hands.

Edit: the Bethesda release of FO2 includes the original game version 1.02, pre-patched with sfall 3.2 and Fallout 2 High Resolution patch 4.1.8. The Steam version also includes Steam Cloud support.

They include the documentation (readme files) for both mods, and the option to disable the HR patch and play in "classic" mode.

re: GoG Fallout games.... ah, just the PC versions. I'd wondered, since the old D&D games that they just released were PC/Mac/Linux, and the version of FO1 I played way back when was Mac. Not that I'm looking to buy another copy at the moment, was just curious.

re: EA.... I've always thought that "worst company" thing was moronic. Just goes to show what a short-sighted selfish popularity contest polls on the internet are. For EA to win "worst company" over financial/energy/chemical/other companies that are actively & deliberately ruining the lives of large numbers of people, just because they make decisions that interfere with some gamers' recreational activities? It's a total joke.

Depends, if it is just download, or you need steam to start it. I hate steam with its restarts, connection problems, useless updates and passwords ... there is still a steam account somewhere with a new copy of half life 2 that nobody uses anymore because i fergot password for it.

I realy just want a key and download, and then just put it offline, so i don't need to care about internet connections and hackers.

I don't have the GoG release of the Forgotten Realms Archive [I have the CDs], but I would assume they are running in DOSbox; and by that method that they are Mac & Linux compatible. The Mac versions were probably 'System 6' native.

*Two interesting things about Fallout Mac version...
It took them about a week to port it to Mac.
Tim Cain wanted (and got) save game compatibility, so that players could play on mac or PC, and later switch platforms and use the same save games.

Damned, I feel old reading that because I only buy games through Steam (or Origin, UPlay, BNet etc. etc.) if they are on sale and if I wouldn't have gotten them otherwise

Don't like not having a box (sure: All the box does is take up room and collect dust - but I sure like my shelf full of games (looks great IMHO!))...I don't feel like I own something if it's just data on a server somewhere (I don't trust the companies much...I'd love it if they got rid of all those launchers (like Steam and Origin etc.)...it's one of the reasons I like the "The Witcher" games, because they aren't tied to any launcher if you get a physical copy

Not that the companies will oblidge me, they love their damned launcher and accounts (and they love having control over game re-selling (or making it impossible to re-sell a game...I admit: I normally didn't re-sell any games I liked, but games I hated? - Sure!) -.- sorry, but I just hate peeping toms who feel the need to control everything -.-)

greetings LAX

ps: I know they invented all those systems to combat illegal copying, but these sorts of policies actually make me sympathise with game-pirates! (If the honest customer gets treated like a criminal under suspicion it stops being OK IMHO!)...and CD-Project RED (the devs of "The Witcher") show that one can be successful without all that, too (they don't use DRM, they don't use launchers etc. and they make money by the truckload!)

Unless I'm confusing with another game, I think he also said the save compatibility was a huge pain and in retrospect probably a waste since he figured hardly anyone used it. Is this from a post mortem at an event or something, not too long ago?

I know this is off topic, but I dont ever remember encountering that, cause I had left 4 dead and had to play steam in offline mode for about a whole year. it worked perfectly fine for me....

Honestly I've grown used to using steam, and most of my friends are on there anyways, so even if I did get a non steam version it would end up on there for me anyways.

He did; and it was mentioned in the post mortem. He sort of belittled it ~which was a shame I thought.

The thing is it can be shut down, simple as that. They may make profits now but what about in five years? Promises made about games still being available are worth nothing. It′s the same deal as with politicians; they say what we want to hear but down the road it′s obvious they never once cared for us, only our money.

Politicians and big companies are never to be trusted, sadly.

Yeah many people don't think about it but you are correct, it could shut down someday. The only hope for that situation is that some other large organization would buy it, take it over, and hopefully not totally screw us as they make a likely transition to their service.

It's stated in the ToS, but Gabe Newell definitely mentioned that if their service ever went out of business they'd provide users access to them without the need of authentication and what not. GN stated it on the Steam forums a long time ago, and their support staff seem to http://i.imgur.com/4sa1Ln6.jpg.

You do realize that just because Gabe Newell says something doesn't make it true? Again, look at the actual Terms of Service. That is a legal document. Valve has legal authority to take away your games if their service ever ended. Regardless of whatever Gabe says or a CSR, it's the legal document that has authority over everything else. We can hope that Valve would not screw over the millions of PC gamers who have games on their service, but the adhesion contract is explicitly clear in our rights and Valve's rights. If Gabe decided to take back his words and say "oh we aren't going to give you your games back," there's nothing we can do from a legal perspective. A class action lawsuit would never even make it out of the pre-trial phase as we signed our rights away.

Are they even able to disable authentication without getting sued by their clients? (The development studios)

They can. But will they? Who knows. All we know is that they have stated they would do A in situation B. The thing is the hypothetical situation B (Valve failing) is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

I imagine they wouldn't make statements like that casually without some foreknowledge. Users themselves can already disable the authentication process though and force steam through offline mode.

This is my point: give everyone the possibility to play the game, Steam platform users and PC gamers.
How and how much to integrate the Steam API in the game code is actually totally up to Bethesda/Zenimax.

That's a joke though. Offline mode is for gaming on the train, or for the time it takes for your your ISP to reconnect your service. It's useless for an offline PC; (and there are offline PCs). Many parts of the US are Dial-up or Satellite only, and both give crappy service that's useless for gaming. The user would have to physically take their PC into town to an Internet connection every time Steam decides it needs to go online.

*You cannot even http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Install_loop.gif Steam games from the disc without going online: aka DRM. Which is utter nonsense, as they would still want to authenticate to play.

**That means you'd have to go into town with the Desktop, to install a game ~because you know for a fact that Steam will demand to update the Steam Client as soon as you connect.

Quite untrue, having had steam in offline mode for almost a year and a half at one point, it never 'decides' to online at all.

When is the last time you installed a game?

(What specifically are you claiming is untrue?)

_____

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1403396

The only way to truly verify this is to keep a PC physically unplugged from internet and see what happens, I've read of people doing that who had to plug back to internet, I don't have a link, though.

I will get the physical copy. As long I can play FO4 offline I'm fine with using Steam for activation ONLY, if not, they done fked it up.