I doubt he would. The EULA binds the user to certain requirements (see that's where the name END USER License Agreement comes from). The company is not gonna bind themselves to anything they aren't legally obligated to.

It doesn't mean that they haven't made plans or taken precautions. It means they aren't making a legally binding commitment to you. Their lawyer would murder them if they did.

Steam takes several minutes to start up and once you've hit your internet cap, several more minutes to do anything. I'd rather just buy the game and drop it in whenever I want while everyone else has to wait for Steam to get in gear.

As an multiplayer gamer and big Valve fan, I use steam all the time.

I can see what all the fuzz is about if you don't use steam. You'll get used to it.

I rather buy stuff from steam nowadays than buy physical copy because how easy it is and what patching service they do. And no need to use DVD drive and swap disks if you decide to play something else!


That's your computer. Might want to de-frag those hard drives or just get faster computer.

So, does that mean you'll stop saying things like "If the company [Steam] were shutting down, those [locked games] would be released onto your account and you'd have the opportunity to download the games and the unlockers before they shut down'? Despite what you stated earlier, I think that you are now conceding above that Gabe Newell never made such a commitment, or at least one that should be taken seriously.

That sounds like a really long time! What kind of computer are you using?

My entire boot time from off to desktop takes only 12-13 seconds and Steam is one of the startup processes that loads when windows starts. I do have an SSD, but it shouldn't take that much longer with traditional platter hard drive.

I'm not sure what you mean about your internet cap, but you don't need to be online to play games installed with Steam. You can select "play in offline mode"

I clearly said that Gabe Newell has made that comment, not that it was a verifiable fact or guaranteed commitment. I believe him. I have no reason not to.

Feel free to live your life on the assumption that he is a lying SOB who is out to steal your money if you wish.

And therein lies the rub -- how then can you state that they have put into place methods to deal with that when legally they are not required to and have actually gone to putting in writing that they are under no obligation to do so !!

He also said releasing episodes for half life would decrease the dev time between games. Then he said Left for dead would be supported post release before releasing L4D2. As for the stealing money bit, hat fortress 2.

Because I honestly don't think Bethesda would sign an exclusive contract with them without having a way to deal with this problem.

I'll be honest and say I truly have no idea beyond the fact that Gabe Newell says they have plans, and publishers keep signing the deals. It doesn't bother me too much either way since no game I have ever bought has guaranteed I could play it in the future after active support ends. If they did, I'd still be playing Crimson Skies.

Skyrim will likely, based on current appearances, be a Steam exclusive title. I have no issues with that, others do.

I just wish they'd stop acting like Steam's failure and the theft of all your games is inevitable.

Common misconception about Steam:

Once Valve goes bankrupt, all your games will be lost.

- Nope, Gabe has stated before that they have a fix in case of emergency. (the original thread doesn't exist anymore, but here's a reply from their support: http://lh4.ggpht.com/_NRflXhEVEqs/TC5ShOl5TUI/AAAAAAAAAFs/azzZVUFtRuM/Capture2.PNG)

And:
You CAN go offline
You CAN choose to not update to the latest patch
It's not Valve's fault that Game Developers don't finish and/or test their games properly before launch. (thus all these "gigabyte big patches you have to download after purchase" are added shortly after the retail copies have been sent out)
YES, you only license the rights to play the game (you don't own the game itself), but the same applies to every other game out there, even Morrowind's EULA states that Bethesda can literally go take a dump on your disc if you do anything they don't fancy (they can even sell your mods without giving you a penny). That doesn't mean Valve nor Bethesda is out to rob you of your games or rights.
If you really manage to get your Steam account banned, you were probably doing something you shouldn't have done in the first place.

Really, stop making statements about things of which you have no idea what they are or how they work.

As you wish your lordship. Valve is making scads of money and their business is growing constantly. They're bound to go bankrupt at any moment.

Don't even care anymore.

This is the type of response that shows to me you are a very young person, and indeed you don't understand how the business world knows. There were so many businesses who were perceived as leaders in their field and looked to have a great business models and were "making scads of money" until they collapsed. Enron comes to mind; CitiCorp almost did, if it weren't because it is a bank and the US govt. didn't let it collapse because, well, is a bank... but anyway, why delve on this.

I know there is sadly no chance of this but I hope neather of them. I am not a huge fan of them, althrough I accept them.

I'm forty years old and both of those collapsed due to criminal activities.

Can you provide me with some proof besides your saying so that the publisher derives benefits from the game being Steam exclusive? I would be very curious to know about hte details of those benefits.

One thing I find concerning in these discussions about Steam: people do not seem to realize that Steam is not the only digital disbtirution service available. Gamersgate, Matrix Games, Ageod, and others offer their games via the same form of distribution.

In sum, the benefits of Steam from being digital do not require the imposition on consumers (or publishers) of Steam exclusivity.

It seems quite obvious to me that Valve benefits from Steam exclusive games, and I hypothesize that that is the primary driver for publishers "choosing" to make a game Steam exclusive, i.e., the pressure and or incentives in the deals that they make with Valve.

I would love to hear someone from Bethesda or 2K who was in the know comment on these matters. As a consumer who would like to make use of some of their products, but will not do so as long as they require me to use Steam, I would _really_ like to understand why they are increasingly choosing to distribute exclusively through Steam.

If it is steam (or any other thing LIKE steam) mandatory, then this will be the first in a presumably long line of ES games I avoid completely, I hate Steam with a passion and no one will change my mind about it, if you like it good for you but I personally hate it and will not support it in any way.

there is nothing wrong with steam. paranoia is the only problem.

Cheese and Crackers, people. I don't work for Valve, or Bethesda, but some of the benefits are really obvious.

Yes, Valve may pay for an exclusive. That would be one benefit to Bethesda. I have no idea if Valve would pay enough.

Two, Valve may offer the Steamworks DRM in exchange for an exclusive. That saves Bethesda money, time and resources in purchasing and supporting a different form of DRM. Valve handles all NV DRM authentication through Steam as part of the installation process.

Three, Steam exclusivity means that the vast majority of players will have their game automatically updated as patches are released. This cuts down on support costs for most publishers (people complaining of bugs who haven't installed the patch that fixes the bugs is a major and common problem for tech support). Steam also provides a nice simple installation method, with automatic updating of Direct X if needed which Bethesda no longer has to worry about. And Steam offers a handy little "Verify integrity of the game files" button which can eliminate a lot of problems people have by repairing the game in case of a file error (this also updates the game if necessary).

It's also possible that exclusivity means a more prominent position in Steam's store (New Vegas has been in their "hot releases" banner since before it was released), which means more sales.

I don't know about any specific contracts, or why Bethesda chose to go Steam exclusive. Maybe it was all about Valve flashing cash, same as Dead Money and MS, but regardless of the reason it was Bethesda's decision, and so far I've seen no signs of them regretting it. GStaff reported just a day or so ago that there are "no plans for a non-Steam version of New Vegas", so the "backlash" against NV being Steam exclusive seems to have no dissuading effect on Bethesda.

I really got to stop responding to Steam threads.

....No it won't, in fact I'm doing that right now with Morrowind.

This presumes that the Steam DRM actually provides a benefit to the publisher though. Ostensibly the point of the DRM is to reduce shrinkage from illegitimate copies of the game. My understanding is that Steam is no less a joke on this account than any other form of DRM.

Moreover, based on the thinking of some (e.g., quotes by Brad Wardell of Stardock) DRM such as Steamworks may actually promote piracy by creating an adversarial relationship between publishers and consumers. According to Wardell, making good games and having warm and friendly relations with the gamer community is the key. This makes sense to me. A would-be pirate or former pirate is more likely to pay a game company that they respect and admire, but more likely to want to harm a company that they find loathsome and alienating. In this respect, I suspect the "benefit" to the publisher actually works in exact reverse to the direction you are arguing, i.e., that it represents an overall reduction in profits.



Also problematizes modding, and creates technical problems of its own by potentially inadvertently leading to patching when an end-user did not wish to do so. Also funnels user problems through Steam's support, which I understand is quite useless, and if nothing else, is just the distributor, not the actual maker. Moreover, Steam is unnecessary to derive the benefits you list, as far as I can tell. It appears that Paradox does just fine keeping their myriad patched games going without resorting to Steam's auto-patching aproach. Really what this point is about is volume, and reducing the actual level of support which a publisher risks having to engage in with end users, i.e., an increasingly corporatized model of game production in which there is more distance between end-user and maker with Steam in between.

Right now Valve has dominance. But the fact that selling through the dominant distributor may increase volume is not a good argument to NOT sell through every other distributor too. Not unless Valve is engaged in contractual practices that compensate for the costs in terms of profit share. Based on comments by Devs, I have my doubts that Valve actually does that. I've seen at least one forum poster with a Dev 'rank' say that "30% is what they all charge." So if Bethesda can get Valve to distribut FONV or Skyrim by sharing 30%, and they can get D2D, Impulse, Gamersgate, Amazon, etc., to all ALSO distribute for 30% where is the real value to Bethesda? I honestly just don't get it.



If Valve is not about about promoting gaming, then the quality and popularity of the game should determine the prominence not the reverse. Again, this 'benefit' shows the sippery slope of an increasingly corporate model in which, hype and advertising begin to take over as primary determinants of sales from quality and value.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Pretty much sums up my feelings about Steam. It would actually make me NOT buy the game if it requires Steam. At least for a while until I couldn't stand not playing TES anymore, and then I would probably buckle under the pressure.

PLEASE! no Steam!

If it had mandatory steam I probably wouldn't buy it. Bethesda is a large company, they don't need Valve to release it for them. Steam version? Sure. Steam mandatory? Blow it out your... nose.

Phoss, please allow me to comment and suggest what you really meant?

Please! No Steam Exclusivity.

Let the Steam users get it their way, via Steam; but please don't make ALL of us become Steam users to get it. Please also make it available via the Bethesda online store or other means of distribution.

Simple solution. Controversy over. Steamophile-Steamophobe endless contentious threads no more, all fans happy, and we can get back to doing what we all love: playing and talking about these games.

I've seen so many of these threads discussing Steam which get locked into going in circles because the two sides in the debate fail to properly integrate this point into the discussion.

EVERYONE (with the possible exception of Valve) _CAN_ have their cake and eat it too.

Mount&Blade Warband shows this. A game can be distributed by Steam, and readily available at their pricing for those who want it that way.

But simultaneously a "non-Steam version" that does not require the end-user to ever have ANY interaction with Steam, Steamworks or Valve can also be distributed.

This is exactly how Warband has been distributed for, what? the past year? If a relatively small-fry developer/publisher like Taleworlds/Paradox can pull off this sort of arragement with Valve and make it work, I simply do not understand why Bethesda should not be able to pull it off?

That's why I wrote 'if it requires Steam. =)

But I agree with you. I want the option of never having to install Steam on my computer.