Civilization 5 disks were sold in stores. One must install the Steam client app and run Steam in order to play the game. My understanding is that Fallout New Vegas is the same.

You may wish to distinguish "requiring" Steam and "Steam exclusive" based on the fact that disks for these games were sold in brick-n-mortar retailers or amazon, etc. However, I believe that is fallacious.

At the end of the day, it was not possible to play either of those games without installing the Steam client app and running Steam to make the game run. Other than Windows and/or some Windows OS related apps (Direct X?) this requirement to patronize and use a third party app only applied to Steam.

Thus, in my opinion Civ5 and FONV both require Steam and are "Steam exclusive." Even versions of the game bought via other distributors still require Steam use = use is exclusive to Steam use.

In contrast, the example of Dragon Age 2 as well as Mount&Blade Warband are good examples of games sold with "Steam Optional."

I bought my verstion of Warband on Gamersgate, a strictly digital distribution service something like Steam. I authenticated it using their serial key proces, and now play the game whenever I want, and without any of the complications of being involved in Steamworks. Other guys who, for example, prefer to use Steam, bought their version on Steam online store, and their version requires Steam to play = Steam Optional, the best option for publishers to choose based on the distribution of respondents in the surveys that have been run here and on Survey Monkey.

By making Steam ONE of at least two if not several options for distributing, activating, and authenticating a game, all segments of respondents to the surveys that have been run can be satisfied customers. Making the game require installation of the Steamworks client app and networking to Steam to activate, authenticate, and continue to use the game in an ongoing fashion will clearly alienate a significant chunk of prospective buyers who either say they would prefer there to be options, or that they WILL NOT BUY it if it requires Steam.

Debates about Steam-Love vs Steam-Hate and how Steam compares to other distribution/security providers are moot. There is a chunk of prospective buyers who want other options.

Unless the financials from going Steam exclusive are clearly and sufficiently favorable compared to those of going Steam optional, Bethesda would be wise to weigh the decision to go Steam exclusive quite carefully because these data suggest they stand to alienate and lose significant segments of prospective buyers. This fact alone is in the medium to long-term going to contribute to growth of the "No DRM!" if not "No Steam!" policy segment among game publishers who may be well-positioned to step in and take those prospective customers alienated by Bethesda and make them brand loyal customers of their own.

I'll buy Skyrim no matter what, but I seriously hope it is not a Steam-dependent game. I want the game I paid $60 dollars for, not a license for a download (that can be revoked or altered at any time).

I do NOT think its fair that those of us who actually purchase the game have to be punished. It does nothing to stop piracy, nothing - so why do those of us who actually spend our money have to have Steam forced on us? A key code would be so much better, it does the same thing and it works just as well, and I get to feel like I actually own my game and have control over what I do with it.

As much as I am a fan of this series, if the make a Steam only release, I will not buy it. Plain and simple. :\ I won't hate on the game or Bethesda- I understand what their motives would be to use Steam, but I wouldn't buy it.

In response to a couple of fellows who have addressed the following points:

1. DRM is inevitable, and Steam is the least-bad of all the options.

2. You are lying to yourself if you think you will not buy Skyrim if it requires Steam.

In response to number 1, I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that network based DRM schemes actually prevent shrinkage any better than other simpler and longer-standing schemes, such as serial keys or one-time online authentications.

IMO, the _real_ value of Steam to publishers has to do with advertising, accessibility, brand loyalty, and volume. Gamersgate is an example of why none of these benefits depend on the intrusive structure of Steam. Paradox is growing and doing just fine, despite not using a shrinkage prvevention scheme (read "piracy" prevention if you prefer, but I find that word to be far too laudatory for the human filth scumbags who steal intellectual property like games; VERMIN low-lifes who do not deserve the privilege to own a computer much less play games is a more appropriate label; yes that is right Mr. "Pirate" I DESPISE you quite deeply and poisonously. It is your criminal acts of selfishness and irresponsbility which have led us to this point in gamer culture . . . but I digress).

In sum, the fact that other publishers and developers continue to grow and make good games without resorting to using Steam or "DRM" schemes of similar ilk tells me that the idea that "DRM is inevitable and Steam is the least-bad of all the options" is highly debatable. I imagine the execs at Valve would love for you to think it is not debatable, but I would argue contrary.

In response to number 2: the survey doesn't address this point. It is conceivable that a survey could be done, though restricting it to those who actually responded to this one might be problematic.

In any event, I stand as one example of a prospective buyer of already released Steam Exclusive games (Civilization 5 and Fallout New Vegas) who HAS NOT BOUGHT EITHER GAME BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIIRE ME TO INSTALL AND USE STEAM.

I loved Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. I loved Civ 1 through 4. I eagerly looked forward to buying both games. I would have bought both games had there been options for purchase, installation, and authentication and use which did not require me to make use of Steam.

Because both games require Steam, i.e., are exclusive Steam authenticated games, I did not buy either one, and have even less motivation to do so now than I ever did. I suppose that if, eventually, cheapo versions of either one are available that do not require Steam, I may buy them.

That's the most sensible post on this thread. I applaude you sir.

Just checking your responses and noticed something interesting

327 have voted yes they want to buy skyrim

126 would buy steam exclusive
126 would not buy steam exclusive
73 would prefer nonsteam exclusive.

Over 1/3 of those that have answered would NOT buy it steam exclusive.

Too bad we can't get a decent random sample here.


I can tell you that I'd buy FO:NV if it wasn't steam exclusive.

In order to be strictly and truly "random" the methodology would need to insure that every individual who was a prospective buyer of the game was equally likely to participate in the study. If we had $10,000 to run a market-segment study, and a staff of 3, we could probably move substantially _toward_ that ideal endpoint of a truly random sample. The most likely prospects for achieving a more random sample would involve use of email databases, large numbers of gamer blogs, gamer review sites, game publisher forums, etc.

However, even with that amount of effort, we likely would only move incrementally toward a truly random sample, for the simple reason that a lot of prospective buyers probably are not yet involved in any of those communities or media, and maybe have not even heard of the game yet.

The method that has been followed here is far from ideal but it I would argue it is sufficient to show quite simply that: it is unlikely that those who might not buy a Steam exclusive Skyrim are a "minority" either in a distributional or probabilistic sense. From a distributional sense, contrary evidence would constitute a significantly smaller fraction of respondents saying Response #3 (Won't Buy it) as compared to Response #1 (Will Buy It). From a probabilistic sense, contrary evidence would amount to a very small total proportion of respondents, so small that they reprsent a separate population with respect to prospective buyers. For example, the classic alpha <= 0.05 would be one clear indication that the "Will Not Buy" segment were inconsequential, though we might even consider less than 10% as a reasonable cutoff in this instance.

The method followed here is fairly simple. I made up the survey based on responses to the online Polls done here on TES forums, and with the very specific intent to address the question: "Are those who might not buy the game if it requires Steam a minority, else an inconsequential proportion?" The survey is not intended nor suited to address any other questions.

As far as recruitment to the study, I have simply posted the links to the survey in a few gamer forums where I am a regularl: 1BC Civ Forums; Paradox Interactive Forums; Kalypso forums; Mad Minute Gamers forums; Civfanatics; of course here at TES forums; and perhaps one or two other ones I am forgetting.

If all of you folks will help out, and pass along the links in my signature to your online friends and acquaintances, if not put them in your signatures on various sites (including this one) then we could ostensibly get the sample size up quite a bit. In lieu of a sampling methodology that truly strives for random recruitment, a large sample is the next best thing.

I will buy Skyrim even if I have to run steam in the background, as you could when HL2 came out. You know ,offline mode. Although it's going to be a complete pain in the buttocks. I'm one of the new internet underclass who isn't fortunate to have a "permanet" connection,I can barely get a decent signal on my mobile, so I'll have to lump my rig to a friends house which is several miles from where I'm located. Then go through the installation and get it verified. I wouldn't do that for any other game and that is fact. But for more adventures in tamriel I'll go that extra mile, well like about five really there and back.

There's a poll up on the Bohemia forums, makers of Operation Flashpoint and the Armed Assault series where the developers CEO is asking for views and opinions on Steamworks exclusivity. It'd be interesting if the same were to happen here. The discussion is as expected part resonable discussion and part flaming, if Steam can be that divisive then surely that says something to developers and publishers.

Problem with such polls is that it attracts a LOT of the people that are against but the vast majority of the players are in the "I don't care anyway". This is the truth, we are all (both side of the argument :'() a vocal minority :/

Response bias is always a concern, but seeing the numbers can still help.

Besides, we on this forum may be a minority, a dying breed, but I'd like to think (despite my usual pessimistic behavior) that Bethesda won't forget about us. We should mean something more than a couple of sales in a vast ocean of sales. But my optimism is showing, and now my pessimistic side must remind myself that its all still just business...

And that is exactly what you are a minority. Bethesda are a business and as long as the minority stays that way, they dont give a [censored] wether people who dont like steam buy the game or not as long as they make a profit which is the way it should be.

Sure, turn sensible concerns into a, "Be quiet minority" arguement...

I don't need to repeat why some people don't like steam, there are plenty of good reasons.
Some people like renting games, some like owning them. And it does not make an ounce of sense to only allow for one.

I expect an account won't have problems on its own either. That will probably be a rare case, if it happens. If we ask people to tell their stories of disc problems, we will get plenty of them too. My little brother put his finger in the hole of Morrowind disc and stuck. I considered cutting his finger, but it was just one of many Morrowind discs. Then I used some oil to take it back. One day later, I learned he did it again and this time, my parents ended up destroying disc to rescue his finger.


This is an online service, so there will be a need for internet connection at some point. We should acknowledge this, expecting otherwise would be paradoxical. Your university can block a number of things, this is a matter of personal rights.


But you wanted to uninstall it without losing data, I am just trying to help you. You can move files too instead of backup. You will have to verify it though after both methods.


Only Steamworks titles, exclusives. Other games can have additional restrictions. For saves, Windows 7 forces saves to be stored in documents folder for security reasons. Steam uses online storage for saves. I like having multiple installs so maybe Bethesda can make a special case or maybe modders. Protip2: You can duplicate game folder for steamwork titles, they work just fine. These types of restrictions are all gone in Steam's DRM solution. Securom has a list of programs flagged as blacklisted. Forexample, Process Explorer is a nice utility by Microsoft which lets me manage my system usage, background utilities etc. Securom wants it closed or it wouldn't start the game. Before, it was requiring it to be removed completely! I mean, I am not capable of cracking the game like millions of gamers. Do they think it would prevent a real hacker? They are ridiculous, seeing everyone as potential hackers. These men with this intelligence can't ever stop pirating naturally.


Morrowind was a 2002 game but Steam release happened years later. Mod sorting depends on file dates, luckily file date changing is not harder than installing mods. Mordy explained these better.

Steam isn't required for single-player. Steam is required for digital distribution and DRM. It is inevitable.

PS. DRM: Securom or Tages.

They are another layer of software. They can prevent you from playing your games, running programs or even restrict access to your hardware. You don't see them because they are hiding, they are essentially rootkits. Steam could be a rootkit like those but it chooses to be transparent and gamers complain why it is transparent. :shakehead:

There is also Ubisoft's always online thingy.

You are a better man, or woman, that I.
Lets just say the body would have never been found...


And why steam as a DRM is an enevitability i'll never know. There are other options.
Alas, console and independent games for me then.

I will state what I stated in the other thread. You DO NOT OWN THE GAME BETHESDA DO. They allow you to purchase a COPY of the game. So you own a copy of the game. I honestly wish the minority would be quiet instead of bringing this futile argument up every single time like they think something is going to change. Until you get every single last person who plays these games to turn against steam you will always be in the minority you will never win. You don't like steam as a DRM fantastic, we get it but seriously unless you can do the above why even bother wasting your energy ?

Bethesda owns the intellectual rights to the game. I own a copy. They are not renting me the game, I am purchasing the game. I do not own the rights to it, but I own that copy.
Steam doesn't sell a copy of a game, they rent you a license to use it under their conditions that they can revoke at any time they feel it necessary.
I want to own my game, not rent it.

you forgot some steps with your first one

1: drive to store
2: find game in store
3: not at store
4: go to different store
5: find game in store
6: wait in line to buy game
7: buy game 49.99/59.99+tax
8: drive home
9: wait in 5pm traffic FUUUUU
10: get home
11: turn on computer
12: install game
13: deal with 99 problems
14: Have to deal with obtrusive DRM
15: accidently everything

steam

After booting up your comp and having steam auto start.
1: click buy on preorder save $5, (44.99/54.99 NO tax because steam is digital if your state/province/country has tax stop being such a noob and use a proxy/TOR)
2: have not crappy internet connection and game downloads in about 10-15 minutes
3: browse webs/play other game...meh quakelive
4: Patches to make sure your game doesn't accidentally
5: Oop internet just d/c
6: don't care play with steam in offline mod
7: have no issue installing mods because i know how to computers.

Also if there is a fire...guess what you still have a record of all your steam purchases and you're good. If you're "university" blocks access just to steam...well that's illegal at least in the US...and you could always learn how to use a computer to get around such things.

I'd prefer a simple stand-alone disc that I didn't need Steam to use. I'm not going to punish myself if Steam is involved though. In the back of my mind, I'm hoping that if Steam ever goes down and is gone, they'll have something in place so that I can still play my game.

If Beth made the Skyrim disc standalone but steam-compatible (coming with a product key that is steam-linkable) I think that would be the best option for Bethesda to appease most the fanbase

More like..

Pre Order copy from Play.com/Amazon

1. Game arrives via mail
2. Unwrap, insert into DVD Drive and Install
3. Play Game

4. If and when bored with Game, sell on Play/Amazon and use money towards next game. I`ve bought a few used games on Play by selling completed games.


Steam -

Go through all the install steam/game and activation crap, wait for updates, play game and try not to get irritated with advertising spammy UI junk.

When bored with game, your stuck with it. The lovely people at Steam will not let you transfer your CD key (that includes boxed games like Empire total war that required steam).


Sorry but I like the option to sell on my games when i`m bored with them,and use the money towards another game, as is my rights like any other things I may want to flog on Amazon, whether it`s CD`s or DVD`s etc.

I don`t understand the Steam fanatics that feel everyone HAS to love it and use it :facepalm:

Steam does NOT stop Piracy at all. In fact NO protection so far has been successful in solving the Plague that is Piracy.


Steam should be optional. Allow both.. digital download versions via Steam and physical copies that don`t have to rely on Steam activation, just securom or whatever. At least both camps would be happy!

Until Steam allows me to resell my games I have no intention to buy Steam exclusive games(other than small indie games).

The problem I have with Steam, and most of these Internet activation schemes, is that they destroy the concept of "owning a copy" I understand I don't "own the game", but I should at least own my copy, to do with as I please within the bounds of copyright.

Right now, I if I buy a paper copy of a book, I own it. I can read it, burn it, sell it. Fast forward 20 years, I can still read it, burn it, or sell it. If I buy a digital copy, I *should* be able to read it today, I might not be able to read it in 5 years, and in 20, I'll be lucky if it even opens on what ever gadget is being hawked then. I will never be able to sell it - and burning would be a bit pointless.

That might be fine for a beach thriller, or a newspaper, but for a serious book I intend to reference for a long time, it is NOT acceptable.

Now, the same thing applies to games. I still, if I wanted to, could go back and play Ultima Underworld, Daggerfall, Morrowind, or Deus Ex - because I own the game discs, and can install them any time I wish. In 20 years, with the right emulator, I could still play them.

Would I still be able to download and activate Fallout 3 in 20 years? I'm going to guess not. I'll be surprised if you can stlil activate in 5 years. It's an indefinite lease that works because most people get bored of stuff so fast, and don't even realize they just paid $60 for a rental.

If I wanted to rent stuff, I'd expect to pay a LOT less, and get a definite time period. Paying full price, and not knowing exactly how long the rental period is annoys me.

YES!
I have been using steam for years and years with NO problems and I only buy games on steam. I hate retail.

haha no it's not. Their connection, it's their right to block WHATEVER THEY WANT.