My only problem with single-player games on Steam is that when my internet's down, sometimes (usually), I can't play those games. That really svcks hard.

What's with all this talk about gigabyte sized mandatory downloads on release? Is that how Steam protected retail games usually work?

That shouldn't happen. With the internet down, Steam should default to offline mode. However, you have to allow Steam to store your credentials on the computer (Menu item Steam -> Settings -> First tab "Account" -> make sure "Don't save account credentials on this computer" is NOT CHECKED.) As long as the games have previously been activated (and assuming they don't have another more intrusive DRM scheme active) then you should be able to play the game.


Normally, activation only requires a small download and a decryption process that can take a little bit of time. New Vegas had a patch available at launch, though, and it was automatically downloaded and applied during activation. It was quite a substantial size patch...almost two gigabytes, I believe.

Presumably, a non-Steam version of the game would have had a patch available to do the same thing. Odds are a downloadable version of the patch would have been smaller because a patch in an executable can be designed to modify your existing files on a bit-by-bit level (meaning it only has to contain the needed changes as data, the patching software and the location information for the patching). Steam seems to skip the option of updating your files in that manner and simply replaces the entire file with an updated version (meaning it has to download the entire file again).

This is a very interesting point - now I can understand why some folks are wary of installing Steam games.

You can do all of that on a Steam version no problem at all. Stop making up stuff when you haven't tried it!

Furthermore if you mess up an install with mods or other "tinkering" you can verify the game chache with Steam and it will automatically remove files that do not belong to the normal install or have been modified and replace them with the normal install files.

If anything Steam is a boon to moddable games.

I have a heavily modded and tinkered Fallout: New Vegas install on Steam and it works like a charm.

In answer to the question about the EULA: I just spent a couple of minutes looking in some other forum threads I've participated in, trying to find a link to the 10 or 15 item EULA that is required to install Steamworks. Couldn't find it.

Based on memory, there is one clause that basically says "In the event of a dispute, you agree to pay for all costs" something to that effect. I seem to recall that it also includes language to the effect that, they offer no assurance of the services that they make requisite to actually make use of your end-user license, i.e., connectivity.

Appreciate if someone can actually link to the EULA. I can't take the time to find it right now.

Frankly, it'd be a waste of time. The issue is simply divided between people who do not want a 3rd party control of the game they purchased and the people who love Steam who cannot seem to comprehend why we don't want it. it is like going to buy a car, and the salesman keeps telling you about the undercoat. You don't want the undercoat, but the salesman keeps telling you about all the "benefits" of the undercoat, which in reality, the only real benefit of the undercoat is profit for the dealership and a higher commission for the salesman... the only difference would be, in the case of Steam, the salesman believes the undercoat gives you a benefit and the salesman doesn't get a commission.

You are probably right, sadly. Moreover, maybe it is already too late. Especially given that Bethesda made FONV Steam exclusive.

But until I see that Skyrim has been released, and is only available via Steam, I will hold out some hope that we might convince to do the smart thing, the same thing that Taleworlds/Paradox seems to have done when they got Valve to 'allow(?)" them to distribute Mount&Blade Warband by other means besides Steam.

It is clear to me that many gamers love Steam, and I have no need to try to convince them otherwise, except for the fact that more of the game I would love to play are requiring it. It might seem logical to attack Steam itself, or try to undermine the merits of loving Steam. But why should I fight with my fellow gamers?

The Mount&Blade Warband examples shows me quite clearly that it is the publishers/developers (and perhaps to some extent Valve themselves) with whom I need to be in dialogue. Indeed, it strikes me that, because of the polarization and thrill-kill that these Steam debates provoke on fan sites, even the Steamophiles should take an interest in the 'solution' that leads to the least disagreement and consternation, i.e., for Bethesda to negotiate with Valve by whatever terms necessary to achieve a non-exclusive distribution deal. Distribute by Steam, distribute by Bethesda online store that requires no Steam account to validate or use, and by whatever other means of distribution they deem appropriate = instead of Steam Lovers vs. Steam Haters fights sapping the community enthusiasm, everyone can be happy because they can buy the game and use it how they prefer.

Everyone with one possible exception, Valve. But frankly, as a mere distributor, Valve should be happy they get to sell Bethesda's games at all, much less that they get exclusive distribution rights.

If the game is being 'developed in Steamworks' (whatever BS that really means) then maybe from a legal standpoint this is all moot. But I have not heard that yet.

Valve doesn't demand exclusive distribution rights. Steamworks is a benefit to the publisher and the publisher chooses whether to be Steam exclusive.

Granted, Valve might offer an incentive for exclusive rights, but it is not required. It was Bethesda/ZeniMax's choice because they saw benefit in it.

I understand why some people don't want to use Steam, but you can't compare it to getting scammed into buying an undercoat hehe.

there are a few benefits to having all your games on Steam, namely convenience.

What if, in a few years, Valve went bankrupt eh? And Steam won't be supported anymore. Then we're stuck with a game that we'll never be able to play anymore, because it's dependent on a program that doesn't work anymore. When I purchase a game, I want it to be mine completely. To be able to do with it whatever I want. I don't want some stupid online company to actually be able to completely break my game.

Valve is as likely to go bankrupt as Microsoft, and Gabe Newell has reported that they maintain unlockers that free the games from their Steam dependence anyway. If the company were shutting down, those would be released onto your account and you'd have the opportunity to download the games and the unlockers before they shut down.

Ahh well, that shuts me up then

There's no way Valve is allowed to do that with games that are published by other companies. So it would mean they just unlock their own games, Half-Life and so on. Fallout: New Vegas wouldn't be among them.

Unless it's in the contract for distribution. Anything is allowed if Valve wrote it into the contract.

It could easily be a case of Valve creating the unlock tool and providing it to Bethesda. Bethesda would have to give permission for the unlock tool to be distributed to the legal owners of the game, or distribute it themselves.

This particular worry has been around since Valve created Steam, and I'm sure Valve has taken steps to try to prevent it from ever being a problem.

I doubt Bethesda would want to take the flack for a million or so people being unable to play the game due to Valve shutting down Steam, so a method of preventing that seems like good business practice.

That Valve-Microsoft comparison is not even close.
Hopefully, those un-lockers will work better than FNV's autosave and quicksave.

I never said they were financially equal. I said their odds of bankruptcy are equal. They're both leaders in the field and very profitable. And Valve doesn't even have as much overhead as MS does.

Then there would have to be a mechanism for publishers to allow games to be played without steam. Otherwise the legailty and future operatiosn of all online distributers would be questionable and the value of your purchase is essentially nil. That said I cant see steam going under anytime soon.

Valve doesn't need exclusive distribution rights if Steam is a requirement. No matter which distributor gets the sale every customer has to go to Steam, eventually they will fail to see the point of buying games from other distributors.



I remember when Xerox was the leader in its field, as well as IBM, Motorola, Netscape, PanAm, Woolworths...

Most games I buy end up requiring steam. That said I choose different distributors based on pricing. Steam is not always the cheapest although it does have good sales.

Steam doesn't even require that Steam's DRM be an exclusive. Bethesda could have released a Steam version of the game and a non-Steam version that didn't use Steam or it's authentication services at all. They chose not to. I'm certain Valve encouraged them not to, because as you say every Steam required game encourages more customers, future game sales and future sales of the Steamworks and Steam DRM service. But it is still the publishers choice as to whether or not Steam is a requirement. Beth/ZeniMax made NV Steam only, not Valve.

You also remember when MS was the leader in its' field, and when Apple ruled the MP3 player market. There are no guarantees for any company, but most of the ones you mentioned are still in business.

The main point is "what if Steam shuts down?" is not a new question, and it's not a question that Bethesda likely forgot to ask Valve. There are plans and mechanisms in place in case of a disastrous problem with Steam, but there is always a risk.

Buy a lot of games these days, and if the activation server for the game is shut down by the company, you've bought a shiny coaster. It's a reality of DRM. At least Valve is fairly upfront about the issue, even though the risk is currently very small.

Eh, if it happens it won't happen anytime soon but 20+ years into the future, and how many will then care they can't play a ~20 year old game anymore?

Sure, people will complain, but not millions. I doubt even hundreds.


That's already the case. You don't buy games on Steam, you just rent them for an unspecified amount of time. They are allowed to kill your account whenever they please and they don't even have to notify you about it.

The only exception is pretty much GOG.com and dotemu.com which offer games without any kind of DRM. As you then can download the game from them and then have total control over it without relying on some client to play the game.

Thanks for clarifying with respect to the whole piracy issue... this makes a lot of sense, the article was interesting and I hadn't thought it through that far.

Have heard of quite a few Steam games cracked early in the first week, though, so I'm not sure if it's all that effective?

But yeah, it would be nice if intrusive DRM was lifted later in a game's lifespan.

I haven't tried GOG or D2D, but I purchased a few games from the EA store prior to trying Steam and I found Steam to be a lot more convenient and quicker than the EA Download manager when replacing laptops, etc.

Also they have a large catalog and great package sales, so it's nice to have a one-stop shop. I probably have around 60 games in my steam library at this point, most of which I haven't installed yet.

I'm sure if they started arbitrarily banning people in a malicious way there would be an uproar.

BTW, my friend was involved in creating the Blu-Ray specs - they also have EULA terms that they haven't made use of yet, allowing studios to do things like kill your blu-ray player remotely if you try to play a pirated disc, etc. For some reason, this doesn't dissuade me from buying blu-rays of my favorite films.

And where exactly has Valve/Steam made this commitment? Certainly not in its EULA (http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/) or on its website (http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/). I really do wish that people would stop saying that Steam will unlock their DRM'd games in the event of bankruptcy, collapse, etc. If this were so, Newell or some other Valve executive would put this in the Steam EULA for all to see.