You can add non-steam games to your steam library. look under games, when on the steam client, the bottom one is add non-steam game to my library.

One of my main complaints is that, sometimes, even going in Offline mode doesn't work when I travel. I can't use Steam at all if I don't close it right before I turn off my laptop and relocate to a place that has either extremely limited.

And it's even worse when I also need Windows Live in order to be able to play a game, because the account I have for Xbox Live / Games for Windows Live is locked because I keep forgetting my password for it, so some of the games that I have - that I need GFWL for - I can't even play.

That is a tad concerning, I haven't had a problem with Steam while traveling myself and I was stuck at 5 or 6 airports over 4 days trying to get home last Christmas. Were you using different computers? And as for the GFWL thing that is kind of your fault because you can't remember your password for it and didn't write it down. But GFWL isn't relevant in this particular thread anyways.

I would like retail copy to have Steam support, but not dependent on it. e.g, ID and hours played is displayed.

As a side job, I build computers, and the majority of them are used for gaming purposes. My clients all use Steam, and have never had any of the issues I see people experience across the web. I think Steam is an excellent distribution service, and I use it myself. Additionally, I'm in the midst of an upstart development team. We will use Digi-Distros like Steam because of the costs related to boxes, disc's, manuals, etc. IF we get something to market as a viable product.
Anyways.
I also have ridiculously high speed internet too, so I may not notice the same problems some people do when it comes to Steam. With that said, Steam has been the least intrusive DRM I've ever used personally. Once you activate a single player game, 99% of them don't require you to be connected to Steams servers, or the internet for that matter. The only games I know where Steam must be running, are multiplayer games, and I don't suffer from the issues others have.
And to those who think the member base on these forums matter when it comes to the DRM issue? The members here are nothing more than a fraction of total sales and voices. Not everyone who plays a game will be apart of the forum. They either don't have the desire, or care to do so. So, if only 300,000 people out of 3 million say they don't like DRM, that's not enough for them to consider dropping it.
Now, with that said:
Morrowind had a disc check.
Oblivion had a disc check.
Skyrim will most likely have a disc check.
I see a pattern.

Just because other games have used other forms of DRM within the BGS catalog, it doesn't mean they're gonna do it to their pride and joy.

Semi Off topic but I just realized how many people use Steam. Over 30 million active accounts, and that only countss people who have been online in the last 30 days, so it doesn't even take into account the people who use Offline mode only. That is a lot of people. An estimated 70% market share for digital distribution for video games. svck it Xbox Live and PSN

300,000 is still 10% of customers, and that's a fair amount.

but if the other 90% dont have a problem with it AND it helps stops the pirates i think they would use the DRM

It doesn't stop pirates. Name a game where DRM has EVER stopped pirates. It stops the sale of used games.

Personally I don't mind Steam. I like Steam. I know the reasons why people don't like it, and why they hate it for that matter.

Whatever Bethesda decides to use.... I'm in. I'm not going to sacrifice missing out on TES latest edition based on Bethesda's choice of DRM.

Ok, I understand that there are people here that like Steam. However, I'm noticing that Steam is being defended very forcibly... kinda reminds me of religion... "Believe what I say or I'll hurt you!". Which also makes me wonder if a lot of this defense is... humm... sponsored in some way.

Anyway, MY personal experience with Steam... Keeping in mind that I do not have a bunch of money to throw at my computer so I do not have one of these super duper systems with 8 gigs of ram and a mucho macho processor. When Steam is running in the background I DO take a performance hit. As for this thing about running it in offline mode, I get periodic moments of lag as if something is searching for an internet connection... funny thing is that it only happens when Steam is on and I'm not connected. And last, twice I have been prohibited from playing new vegas by Steam because steam could not get a connection... the second time for two days... this was long after initial activation.

As I stated before, using Steam to stop piracy is a bunch of bull... it doesn't work. Using Steam to this end is like a bunch of the laws that society has... the only thing that they accomplish is to punish and hold back the honest.

I am not saying that Steam should be completely done away with. What I am saying is that Skyrim should NOT be made dependent on it. In this way those that like Steam can use it to purchase Skyrim from the internet till their heart's content. And people like me can go to a store and buy the disc and never be bothered with steam. Why is this so hard to understand?

One thing that I do promise is that if it is dependent on Steam I will NOT be buying it... just that simple.

I'm assuming you've never played a game that requires directX. You must not use any software that requires .net framework either. Oh, and clearly you don't watch or listen to any media that requires codecs to play.

You can't possibly use any of these things because they are, in fact, 3d party software that takes away the complete autonomy of your applications. Ya know, like Steam does.

Codecs is hardly a good comparison. If I don't agree with the licensing of a codec, I can just get the media in a different codec. DirectX is a standard graphics API, and unless Steam is going to replace DirectX, also not anywhere near the same comparison. Steam has no advantages, only disadvantages. Everything you listed (with the except of .NET ) has advantages.

Yeah... pretty much this.

People don't seem to understand that 3rd party software and quote-unquote "Digital Rights Management" software is already in use -everywhere- on their computer. They think that because it has a shell interface that lets you do all sorts of nice stuff, that it's somehow taking away their control. You don't HAVE any control on your computer, anymore, unless you're using 100% pirated software and an OS like LINUX.

Otherwise, DRM and third-party controllers are in -everything- you do. Everywhere you go.

Don't believe it? Go ahead. Check out what half of your idle processes -really- do for you. They're mostly 3rd party programs that manage everything going on in the background of your computer, from your graphics chip to your CPU's bios. All of it has a purpose for why it is there. Some of it even automatically fires off error reports without -ever- telling you.

This is the age we live in.

Autonomy is dead.

anolog is dead.

Disco? Dead.


I guess we're just going to have to see. Anyone who 'refuses' to buy Skyrim if it uses steam, you come back here and tell me how it feels to have the moral high ground, while the rest of us are enjoying our amazing game. Okay?

The difference is, all of them actually *do stuff*. What does Steam do for me? Takes up RAM and CPU cycles.

Fixed.

That doesn't do anything for the enduser.

It does as much as DirectX! You don't fire up directX every day and use it do you? Didn't think so, it's there for software companies to use. That's what the steam SDK is, a set of tools for steam games to use.

Do you install the Windows SDK if you want to load up some programs? Of course not. Same comparison; You installed the DirectX SDK I suppose?

Uhm, yea you do. You installed the windows SDK when you installed... windows. You installed DirectX when you installed any game that requires DirectX, just like when you install steam whenever a game requires steam.

The only difference is that steam has a tray icon.

No, you did not. Do you even know what an SDK is? Judging by your posts, I'd say "No". http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/bb980924 You install it seperately. You know what SDK stands for, right? Software Development Kit. It's the tools used to build programs. It's never included by default with any program unless you explictly ask for it. The DirectX SDK is similarily not included, same with the Steam SDK. You have to ask for it. So again, what's in it for the enduser to use Steam? I see lots of developer perks, but ZERO player incentives.

I must disagree there, there is a lot more than a tray icon.

Steam has some sort of advantage. Otherwise Bethesda would never use it or implement it. They have some legitimate reason for wanting to use Steam, even though it apparently pisses off people such as yourself since it takes a marginal amount of your precious CPU cycles to run.

More than likely, the number of people who like Steam / don't mind Steam is a much larger group than the people who dislike Steam - if the reverse was true, Bethesda would never use it for their games (which, again, we are all assuming they will).

What does Steam do for you? Apparently nothing you want or need. But, as I stated, Bethesda is choosing (we think) to use it for one reason or another. Whether or not it is a good reason in light of all the people complaining about Steam is another matter, however.

Uh, no. You install DirectX, which includes all the stuff that the SDK does, roughly. Of course, the SDK uses debugger versions of the DLL files and such, but, the point is that DirectX (and Steam) both include their SDK functionality in their code.

There are many player incentives. Just none that you seem to like.

What does it do for you?

For one, it lets you play your game even after the dog chews up the CD, your disk drive burns out, or your whole damn computer explodes five days after you accidentally sat on the disk and shattered it into a thousand pieces.

It provides updates IMMEDIATELY after the publishers release them, without having to hunt them down from whatever site they run with their bogged down servers. Sure, you could do it yourself, but it's convenience.

When a new game comes out, you can get it BEFORE it is released, and sometimes for LESS than the retail store price! In today's world economy, a little break in the wallet-expenditures can help out a lot.

There's more, too... but it's all stuff you'd have to actually have -used- it, to know about... because it's a program that highly personalizes itself to the user. If you don't use it, it can't offer you anything. It's the same way with people who -hate- DVR... you really have to get to know how it works before you condemn it across the board.


As for your complaints:


Right now, I have Steam open. It's using exactly 25,224 K of ram. That's WITH it flashing advertisemants for sales and all my online friends and new, upcoming games. Do you know how INSIGNIFICANT that is? Firefox alone is eating up more than 200,000 K. My 'svchost.exe' files eat up 30,000 K a piece. Hell! Windows AUTO-UPDATE is using more, and I have auto-update DISABLED!

CPU cycles? It's currently using precisely ZERO here... and I've got New Vegas running in the background!


The people decrying steam have only -two- valid arguments, and they sure as hell isn't MEMORY usage or CPU cycles or serving no purpose.

If you want to complain legitimately, argue about the regional-copy rules and the needing to activate the game online once. At least those points are semi-defensible.


Do you want to know why people come out defending Steam so fiercely? It's because the people who -hate- it so much and try to make it out to be the devil... can't even be bothered to LIE well. The arguments they use are so lazy, unimaginative, and -old- (your complaint about RAM and CPU dates back to the earliest iteration of the software) that people who don't even LIKE it all that much can't help but call [censored].

I'm not about to go run out and write thank you letters to Valve... but it's a decent program with a good idea for an otherwise bad situation, and it does it's job.

So yeah.


Like I said. Tell me how it feels on the high ground... I'll tell you how great Skyrim is.

Fair enough?

How in the world is a perk for the developer not a perk for the end user? If the developer gets a good deal then we get better games, faster. That's we as in the endusers.

Also, SDK may not be the right word. I'm not a programmer at all, but there are resources that Steam has that software developers can use. I don't know how it works, but it seems to be something like libraries of standard functions that most games can take advantage of. By using these Steam resources, the game doesn't need to program in its own versions of those functions.

Call that whatever you like, it's a perk to you in that those are functions that Steam is taking over from Bethesda so that Bethesda can focus on the things that make its game unique, instead of focusing on re-doing the things that have to be done every single time.

From what I understand, it's the same concept as DLL's and SVChost. By combining standard functions into little kits that get served up to software, each application running on windows doesn't have to write code for every single little detail. Windows comes with standard "features" that these software apps can use. Examples include the window that is drawn around the application, as well as buttons like minimize or even features like "save." From what I understand, windows takes care of all that so that the software itself doesn't have to.

That's what steam has to offer, a set of functions that the game developers can basically outsource.