Maybe Obsidian/Bethesda were sweet-talked into a deal. but I agree being a Steam exclusive title IMO hurts NV because it excludes those that can't or wont use Steam.

I started a similar thread over here

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1112991-steam-drm-and-similar-things/

I voted no, for reasons that are explicated in my posts in that thread.

Not unheard of. Assassin's Creed 2 also required a constant internet connection as the game connected with Ubisoft's servers every checkpoint to verify the game's integrity. Seems to be the way PC gaming is going... and I don't mind that. I'd actually enjoy it if they put Steam achievements in TES:V.

Once again, the Steam versions work perfectly with mods.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. I don't know how deep the mods are going to be next time around. I've already had issues with modding Steam games earlier. Big headache.

Of course it's not unheard of, ever since Valve started with this online DRM for Half-Life 2 six years ago, other developers and publishers been following with similiar solutions. And while it may be the way PC gaming is going, I don't like it one bit.

And I blame Valve for it, as for this they are the most vile company on the planet and I wish them a most unpleasant end. Things would be much better if they went out of business and all the Steam accounts of the world stopped to function. And there would be much rejoicing. Yeah, I'm bitter about it

I would not mind if it was on Steam, but if I could have it my way, I'd have it be a disk and a CD key.

Keep it simple, stupid!

"Can't" is a few hundred at the most, and "Wont" wont last long, if they really want to play it.


Your mean. I never had a problem with Valve, they make Awsome games.


The real people to blame are the Pirates who brought the need(?) for this to begin with.

That's still thousands in lost sales at least

well, Half-life (1) was an ok game, but I haven't got any of their games since the HL2 debacle

In the end I voted no. It will NOT stop piracy nor give us any special benefits.

BUT the main reason I voted mo was because Valve hasn't made Episode 3, yet. :stare:

I don't really care about Steam, I used it in the past but I really prefer having a good ol' solid copy lying around.

I do blame them, but I also blame the game companies who insist on forcing DRM on they're legitimate customers just to reassure the shareholders even though no DRM scheme actually stops the pirates.

Anyways I recently tried Steam to see if there might be something I'm missing. It;s OK as an alternate distribution method for those who want it, even though the so called "offline" mode is a joke since the Steam client still needs to call home to Valve's servers even in offline mode. Since the Steam client always needs to be connected to the internet it really isn't very different from Ubisoft's DRM in that respect and I came away with the feeling that I had just payed good money to rent the game. Steam is OK but it defiantly isn't as great as some people make it out to be, and there is absolutely no good reason whatsoever that a retail version of a game should require Steam.

This, only if it were for a retail copy. I don't see why people shouldn't have the option for buying it on steam. The retail version of games on steam don't require online activation so I really don't see your point. I will buy the Retail version when it comes out (and I do for most pc games) but that doesn't make steam any less useful or reliable as a service. Plus you have the ability to play games in offline mode with steam.

The offline mode works when I am offline. Steam client doesn't need internet connection to start in offline mode and playing games are just fine in offline mode too. You should check again if it is a 3rd party DRM or an outdated client version.

No no. It means Games For USA Live. Since the US is the only place it works properly.

I am perfectly fine with the option to buy/download from Steam.

I am adamantly against any and all forms of DRM that require an active internet connection after the initial check (this includes a forced download).

The whole "pirates made us do it" argument falls on deaf ears here. Just because some malicious nerds decided to sell your game you are not given the right to treat your legitimate customers like criminals. How about you spend more time making a game that people are willing to pay $60 for?

for New Vegas going online to activate it on steam is the initial check. The steam program does not need to be connected to the internet for you to access your account and play the games on it.

But it requires you to have Steam running to play the game right? If so, that is crap.

I voted "no", because I cannot abide Steam and therefore don't want the retail boxed version to come with a requirement to use that crap service to play the game when I'm only interested in the single player campaign and none of the online extras like achievements and all that pointless stuff (and please spare me any replies of the sort "but why? steam is so hot!" - I've only recently used it for some time to play single player only games, and the experience has been ... less than stellar, to put it mildly. It really ticks me off.)
Same goes for any other game, in particular Fallout New Vegas. I just had to cancel my preorder for the collector's edition since I learend of the glorious Steamworks integration - "[...] best, least intrusive experience for PC gamers." my ass! Hell I even like SecuROM better (especially if you can choose between disc check and online activation) or whatever Alpha Protocol is using. As long as I don't have to put up with any additional UI on top of the game's, don't have to be online to play and revoking authorizations is possible, I'm fine.

Of course, I have nothing against offering it on Steam as a download, though. To everyone their own.

call m crazy but i like my game box

You can completely ignore all the pointless online extras. Optional.
You can disable the in-game steam UI. Optional.
You don't have to be online to play. There is an offline mode.
Authorization/Activation happened the moment you bought the game from steam. That was all about it. It lasted maybe seconds and it was all done. You must be mistaken it with Ubisoft's DRM which requires constant connection during singleplayer and will kick you from the game without saving if the connection is lost.

I can understand disliking Steam because of the whole you have to be online the first time you launch the game thing, but I can't understand why that would make you completely against it's use as a DRM. I am not aware of everyone's situation, but couldn't you just go to the library with a flash drive and use public internet? I mean just install steam to a flash drive. You don't actually need to install the game to activate it. Now I understand this may sound like a hassle, but everyone should have some access to some form of public internet, so it's not like there is a significant number of people who are completely unable to play the game. Again, though, I am not aware of everyone's situation, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that everyone can access public internet nearby.

This discussion strikes me as a bit silly. It's like the "Should TES V be released on Mac" discussion-- why would anyone (89 people? Really?) want to limit how many people can play the game by limiting what platforms it's released on? If it doesn't affect moddability, I have zero issue with it. Of course, I like disc copies because they come with lovely manuals filled with lovely artwork, but that's personal preference.

Same here, I adore the feeling of holding a physical possession, rather than digital junk.

Those 89 people, don't care if Steam is available to distribute the game, but we do not want Steam as a mandatory to play the game.