[Guy Pearce]

I am not going to trust a company than can and has revoked access to peoples single player games. Sorry. Thats how it is.

This.

At the crux of my resistance to Steam, or any service like it, is the fact that someone can take my games from me. If I pay my hard earned money for a game I want to actually have the game, not just the opportunity to play when the conditions are right. And before someone raises the "you don't own the game you just bought a revokable license to play" argument, yes when I install a game I agree to abide by the EULA. However Steam can lockout my account, thus effectively revoking all game licenses, for reasons not listed in any games EULA. If someone hacks my account, or steals my credit cards, or some piece of software on my computer conflicts with the Steam anti-cheat detection; then I lose the ability to legally play the games I purchased. I refuse to pay actual money for something I will never actually own.

[Rex Help]

I refuse to pay actual money for something I will never actually own.

You don't own your other games either.

[Lynette Wilson]

To those who are worried about Valve going out of business...

per employee, Valve is more profitable than Microsoft.

they should hire more people then

[naana]

Some games are available on Steam and not on Steam -- both ways like Fallout 3. When there are updates for drivers, operating systems, etc. this affects a lot of things, which may cause many new things to go wrong with a complicated game. Remember the things that were unavailable or didn't work on Steam related to Fallout 3. My experience with Steam is that a whole new level of complexity is added to the way a game is supposed to run. Steam hasn't been very good about updating their front end in a timely fashion or at all when something is updated that affects their front end to the game I am playing. So, why should I like Steam when their stuff works less well and more slowly and has less features than a stand-alone PC game. Bethesda has very complicated games because of the modding capabilities. Steam cannot keep up and won't keep up. There is a current bug fix that is unavailable for FNV, and I'm guessing because of the extra complications with their front end. No, I will never buy another game that restricts itself to run under the Steam environment.

[Mrs. Patton]

And what if people like the Steamworks features? If a game uses Steamworks and you don't like those features, you can disable them.... you cannot do vice-versa.

So much for "choice".

You still have the choice of buying the game through Steam for those features. Why should someone who buys a store copy, and has no intention of using any of the Steam options, be forced into the system? It's not even an effective anti-piracy method, New Vegas was hacked within days of release. For many people it's just another layer of inconvenience that they have to put with in order to play their game. For that reason alone, I refuse to buy any Bethesda title that uses the system on release day. I'll wait at least until the GOTY edition is released, if even then, so I'll have to deal with Steam as little as possible. There'll be no patches or DLCs to download, I'll just have to activate and turn Steam off after that. I'm certainly not going to reward Bethesda for making my life more inconvenient. I'm tempted to just forget about their products altogether frankly, but I do like their games.

[JD bernal]

You still have the choice of buying the game through Steam for those features. Why should someone who buys a store copy, and has no intention of using any of the Steam options, be forced into the system? It's not even an effective anti-piracy method, New Vegas was hacked within days of release. For many people it's just another layer of inconvenience that they have to put with in order to play their game. For that reason alone, I refuse to buy any Bethesda title that uses the system on release day. I'll wait at least until the GOTY edition is released, if even then, so I'll have to deal with Steam as little as possible. There'll be no patches or DLCs to download, I'll just have to activate and turn Steam off after that. I'm certainly not going to reward Bethesda for making my life more inconvenient. I'm tempted to just forget about their products altogether frankly, but I do like their games.

Uhh... many people who buy store copies DO use Steam features.

[Shiarra Curtis]

It’s not just Steam; I dislike all online activation because the physical media can outlast the online presence. When someone installs a Steamworks game from a disc, let’s say it’s Fallout: New Vegas, the install program first makes them logon to their Steam account. If the Steam servers are ever taken offline how would the install executable on that disc know that the online component is no longer required? I’ve heard time and time again that there is a contingency plan involving an official No-Steam patch; but again, with the Steam servers taken down, how do we get that patch?

That's also one of my big concerns with online activation. The Steam servers don't even have to be down, they just have to decide that they're no longer going to support a title, and the paying customer ends up being screwed. There could be a number of scenarios that could result in this happening, like Steam no longer feeling it's profitable enough to support a title, or some legal issue that crops up between them and Bethesda. Bringing a third party into the mix when it comes to video games just creates too many uncertainties for me to feel comfortable with any online system, no matter how benign. I don't even like games that require me to install their patches from within the game. I want patches that I can download independently and store for some later use if necessary. Like my system goes down, or I go through a major upgrade and have to reinstall everything again. Having to rely on some online system just leaves me vulnerable to having a game I can no longer play later on, or I have to play in the original buggy state.

[Jarrett Willis]

If you mean servers going down temporarily, I don't think that even happens except for maintenance, which they will announce beforehand.

Oh please! Look what just happened to Amazon and the Playstation network. Steam isn't invulnerable to those sorts of issues, it can happen to any online entity. They've just been fortunate to have good IT people working for them. But a change in management down the road, with an eye to cut a few corners in order to save money, could change that very quickly.

[e.Double]

:huh: No I'm just saying that it isn't likely they'll go out of business any time soon.

They don't have to go out of business, they just have to decide that they're no longer going to support a particular title.

[Jerry Jr. Ortiz]

Uhh... many people who buy store copies DO use Steam features.

If that's what they want, then they can get the game through Steam itself. I have absolutely no interest in achievements, in chatting etc. so why should be forced to put all those option on my computer? To me Steam is nothing more than another copy protection scheme, one that's much more inconvenient than simply typing in a code. It isn't even all that effective at it either. Both New Vegas and Civilization 5 were hacked within days of release. Plus it adds all sorts of variables that make me feel uneasy about my chances of playing a game down the road if I'm required to reinstall it as some point.

[carla]

If that's what they want, then they can get the game through Steam itself.

So in other words, only your opinion is what matters.

And geez, 4 posts in a row is not necessary.

[Ana Torrecilla Cabeza]

So in other words, only your opinion is what matters.

And how is that any different than your insistence that non-Steam users be forced to install their services? Your comment is like the pot calling the kettle black. Anyone who wants to use the Steam features will always have the option of downloading the game from them. Those of us who don't want anything to do with Steam only have the option of buying Bethesda's games or not. Not much of a choice now is it? I'll say it again, Steam for me is no more than a copy protection scheme that offers me absolutely nothing of value, yet adds another layer of inconvenience when I go to install my game. It's not even an effective copy protection scheme, with New Vegas and Civilization 5 being cracked within days of release.

And geez, 4 posts in a row is not necessary.

I had some catching up to do. I reply to posts sequentially, if you don't like it complain to a moderator.

[Bek Rideout]

And how is that any different than your insistence that non-Steam users be forced to install their services? Your comment is like the pot calling the kettle black. Anyone who wants to use the Steam features will always have the option of downloading the game from them. Those of us who don't want anything to do with Steam only have the option of buying Bethesda's games or not. Not much of a choice now is it?

Yes that's true, but you want to remove features.

Just because I like Steam doesn't mean I agree with buying my games in a digital-only format. If you don't like certain features then just ignore them, all PC games have DRM anyways so it's not like they're going to develop two different versions with two different DRM methods.

[Lizbeth Ruiz]

If you don't like certain features then just ignore them,

But I can't ignore them if I'm forced to use Steam to activate my game. While I may not actually use any of those features, they will still exist in my system whether I like it or not. It will be yet more bloat-ware running on my computer that I don't have any use for.

all PC games have DRM anyways so it's not like they're going to develop two different versions with two different DRM methods.

That wouldn't be necessary. Secure-ROM has worked fine for many years, about as well as the Steam system obviously. I see no reason why I should be forced to log-in to Steam just to play a single-player game. If people don't like Secure-ROM, then they'll still have the Steam option. Or, if Bethesda really wanted to cash in, they could create their own user-friendly copy-protection and sell it to other companies who wanted to use it.

[Alyesha Neufeld]

That wouldn't be necessary. Secure-ROM has worked fine for many years, about as well as the Steam system obviously. I see no reason why I should be forced to log-in to Steam just to play a single-player game. If people don't like Secure-ROM, then they'll still have the Steam option. Or, if Bethesda really wanted to cash in, they could create their own user-friendly copy-protection and sell it to other companies who wanted to use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securom#Controversies. At least you can uninstall Steam....

[Amber Hubbard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securom#Controversies. At least you can uninstall Steam....

Not if you want to play a game that uses it. Granted that Secure ROM isn't the greatest, but like I said, if Bethesda really wanted to cash in then they could always come up with their own system. And there doesn't need to be very much security on a disc, just enough to prevent "Cousin Abe" from making a copy of a game for "Uncle Leo" and giving it to him for free. Anything more complex is going to be broken by the pirates anyway, so why bother having something more elaborate in order to prevent copying. Other than that, all you need is a disc check to ensure you're not installing your copy on every computer in the neighbourhood. While I'm not positive, there's no doubt some other system out there besides Secure ROM that meet those criteria.

[Kit Marsden]

Yes that's true, but you want to remove features.

Do you intentionally misinterpret posts? Please point out where he said "I want steam gone from all versions of the game". Because all I saw is "I want steam features to stay in the steam versions, and retail to remain steam free"

[Chrissie Pillinger]

Do you intentionally misinterpret posts? Please point out where he said "I want steam gone from all versions of the game". Because all I saw is "I want steam features to stay in the steam versions, and retail to remain steam free"

"Uhh... many people who buy store copies DO use Steam features."

"Just because I like Steam doesn't mean I agree with buying my games in a digital-only format."

So yes, for me (and many other people) it is removing features.

[GLOW...]

"Uhh... many people who buy store copies DO use Steam features."

"Just because I like Steam doesn't mean I agree with buying my games in a digital-only format."

So yes, for me (and many other people) it is removing features.

to me it would be best if Bethesda made the retail version Steam compatible (Steam community is to big to not acknowledge) but not Steam dependent (IMO there is a viable market outside the Steam community)

Let's say two people buy the game..

Gabe can put the disc in, install it, using an included product key link it to his Steam account, he downloads his first patch (which patches out the disc-check in that copy).

Stan can put the disc in, install it & play using the included disc-check DRM.

So to me both can exist even for the retail disc.

[Dorian Cozens]

to me it would be best if Bethesda made the retail version Steam compatible (Steam community is to big to not acknowledge) but not Steam dependent (IMO there is a viable market outside the Steam community)

Let's say two people buy the game..

Gabe can put the disc in, install it, using an included product key link it to his Steam account, he downloads his first patch (which patches out the disc-check in that copy).

Stan can put the disc in, install it & play using the included disc-check DRM.

So to me both can exist even for the retail disc.

That would be great for everyone. My only question is: would it be viable for the developers to work on two different DRM?

[Rebecca Dosch]

Plenty of Steam accessible games have securom or whatever else came with them.

[Kanaoka]

Plenty of Steam accessible games have securom or whatever else came with them.

True. I believe the Steam version of GTA 4 comes with both GFWL and Rockstar Social Club. Talking about redundant...

On the other hand, the Steam version of Mirror's Edge doesn't use the Securom DRM that the retail version does.

[Lynne Hinton]

That would be great for everyone. My only question is: would it be viable for the developers to work on two different DRM?

I don't really see that it would be a problem. Bethesda doesn't have to create anything for them, the parent companies take care of that. They just have to point the installers to the different versions. And that would only involve the game's launcher, the actual content would probably be the same for both. So if you don't want to use Steam, the installer would place the Secure ROM launcher on your system, and vice versa.

[Hairul Hafis]

I don't really see that it would be a problem. Bethesda doesn't have to create anything for them, the parent companies take care of that. They just have to point the installers to the different versions. And that would only involve the game's launcher, the actual content would probably be the same for both. So if you don't want to use Steam, the installer would place the Secure ROM launcher on your system, and vice versa.

The "Steamed" disc-checkless executable be it the launcher or the game wouldn't even need to be on-disc, it could be part of the initial patching that Steam does.

[Philip Rua]

"Oh please! Look what just happened to Amazon and the Playstation network. Steam isn't invulnerable to those sorts of issues, it can happen to any online entity. They've just been fortunate to have good IT people working for them. But a change in management down the road, with an eye to cut a few corners in order to save money, could change that very quickly. "

What makes you think they have good IT people? It's good system programmers that you want. And talking about features, you have less features within the game if you have more overhead in front of the game -- I prefer more features within the game, bug fixes more timely and less complication to get the game running. And what about those LA Dodgers?