What if Skyrim Requires Steam? : V - Skyrim

» Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:38 am

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.

Digital data is copy-able. Forcing restriction on this data is impossible, that's why pirates exist. Removing restriction from this data but binding the ownership to an account is the real ownership. Every Steamworks executable is generated for your account, it is unique to you. You do own something to your own this way.

Now if your book was burned or got loss in midway after 10 years and 20 years later when you look for it, what will happen? You will search a copy just to find out it is out of order. Your best bet will be finding a digital copy.

Unreal
Half-Life
Oddworld
Doom
JK:Dark Forces
Riven
Quake
MDK
Kingpin
Hexen
Heretic

I can play all thanks to Steam in XP and 7. Steam even handles Dosbox emulator if necessary so I don't have to. I completely rely on Steam so I can play my favorite games 20 years later, above is a case in point.

» Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:06 pm

snip

I agree with this. The only thing is you can potentially get Steam Exclusives without steam if you pirate (which people shouldn't). Which isn't countering your point but it is something to note. I love Steam but I am still buying retail just because I like having a disc on hand for whatever reason.

» Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:38 pm

Now if your book was burned or got loss in midway after 10 years and 20 years later when you look for it, what will happen? You will search a copy just to find out it is out of order. Your best bet will be finding a digital copy.

Unreal
Half-Life
Oddworld
Doom
JK:Dark Forces
Riven
Quake
MDK
Kingpin
Hexen
Heretic

I can play all thanks to Steam in XP and 7. Steam even handles Dosbox emulator if necessary so I don't have to. I completely rely on Steam so I can play my favorite games 20 years later, above is a case in point.

On the flip side I can go to GOG.com and get a number of legacy titles, not to mention I still have my original discs for a number of the titles you list. The difference is I don't have the hassle that I experience of the Steam client. All I have to do is run the installer and then play without being logged into a third party client that I'm relying on the goodwill of. I can patch them, mod them and then run them as I see fit.

You're happy to choose Steam and that's great if it works for you. Personally I'll buy through a service that I know works for me. Retail and or sites such as gog work for me, not prepared to put all my eggs in one basket.

Steam despite numerous attempts just doesn't work reliably enough for me to tie purchases through it. That's why I will not buy a title that requires Steam. When there was the furore over Securom there was a pretty good consensus that because it can cause problems it's not a good method to use and fixes or alternatives would be best, removal tools and better support resulted. The double standard that exists regarding Steam is dissapointing as it does not work for everyone yet is forced with an almost evangelical zeal down our throats.

» Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:04 pm

There's no reason not to use steam.

I'm probably going to buy it on steam anyways, so It doesn't matter to me.

On the flip side I can go to GOG.com and get a number of legacy titles, not to mention I still have my original discs for a number of the titles you list. The difference is I don't have the hassle that I experience of the Steam client. All I have to do is run the installer and then play without being logged into a third party client that I'm relying on the goodwill of. I can patch them, mod them and then run them as I see fit.

steam does all of this.

For those of you worried about "owning a copy" if, for some reason steam ever needed to shut down, I'm fairly sure you could just back up all the games you have onto disk. "common" games in steam are identical to the normal retail version.

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.

When you purchase a copy of a game, and you sign the terms of agreement, you are now entitled to a "license" to play the game. That's essentially what you are doing, buying a license for the game, even if you purchase the game on disk. It's like buying a license for any software,, such as autocad or 3dsmax.

You don't own the game, you don't even own the data, the only thing you own is the plastic and film the disk is made of.

» Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:07 am

I highly doubt it will REQUIRE Steam. It is a single player game after all, not everybody has an internet connection.

The 1980's called, they want their "no internet" back.

I mean, seriously. In this day and age, not having a decent internet connection is like not having a kidney. Good luck surviving without either one, folks.

» Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:46 pm

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.

While the post you were responding to was over the top too (they seriously suggested you have bad Internet access if you can't download several gigabytes in fifteen minutes) don't make stuff up either! The part about "trying to play without being irritated with spammy UI junk" is just plain untrue! Firstly, Steam doesn't have any pops or anything while you play the game, though it does show a small screen advertising sales when you close a game. Secondly Steam UI integration into the game is bound to a keyboard combo and you can disable it entirely! In addition, you can set a desktop shortcut to the game and save your username and password, such that you double click the game and log in. This takes little time at all. The unskippable logo screens in Mass Effect 2 take several times longer than the Steam login, which goes by so quickly I don't even think about it.

I'm not saying Steam is perfect, but I far prefer it to systems with a history of malware-like behavior like Securom. I always hear GFWL is a total nightmare was well.

» Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:25 pm

Steam is good at what it does, it is also a good anti-piracy methods as it goes in it's own right and it means later on, if you want to go back to a game you can install it and play it. I would much rather have Steam then some dodgy DRM or Games for Windows, these two systems svck past comparison and it's in Zenimax's/Bethesda's interest to have some form of anti-piracy in place, from that perspective I am in favor of having the game require Steam as much as it svcks for some, it is a good system for it does, it is FAR better then any other alternatives. And for those that want "nothing", that would be very very decrimental to skyrim, since rather then buying for it, people would pirate it, all you'd need is a Disc Image.

» Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:46 pm

While the post you were responding to was over the top too (they seriously suggested you have bad Internet access if you can't download several gigabytes in fifteen minutes) don't make stuff up either! The part about "trying to play without being irritated with spammy UI junk" is just plain untrue! Firstly, Steam doesn't have any pops or anything while you play the game, though it does show a small screen advertising sales when you close a game. Secondly Steam UI integration into the game is bound to a keyboard combo and you can disable it entirely! In addition, you can set a desktop shortcut to the game and save your username and password, such that you double click the game and log in. This takes little time at all. The unskippable logo screens in Mass Effect 2 take several times longer than the Steam login, which goes by so quickly I don't even think about it.

I'm not saying Steam is perfect, but I far prefer it to systems with a history of malware-like behavior like Securom. I always hear GFWL is a total nightmare was well.

Your right, I never phrased that correctly. I didn`t mean the Advertising while playing the game but when navigating around the open Steam UI itself.

However, that part aside, I still like to have an actual solid copy of a game and then it`s up to me if I do wan`t to sell it on one day rather than sit and collect dust. I imagine there are other people who haven`t got lots of cash to flash around that may feel the same.

I made the mistake of buying the digital download version of Two Worlds 2 when it came out. When I realised how much garbage it was (shouldn`t have fallen for the German reviews), I felt annoyed that I couldn`t sell it on and try and recoup some of that ￡38.00 it cost. Otherwise I would have sold it as "Used like new" and got a decent percentage of the cost back and put it towards something else.

I still think having the option of both digital download via Steam and physical copies with some other protection (would be a good choice for the consumers.

I wouldn`t say Steam makes a big difference from an anti-piracy point of view as every steam game has been cracked by the Pirates - the same as all other protections. Hell, even Windows 7 was hacked and cracked within days of release. Unfortunately the hackers always seem to get round the latest types of protection. Look at the AC2 fiasco by Ubisoft.

I understand people want to have Steam copies, fine. Just do not make it the only requirement.

» Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:42 pm

I wouldn`t say Steam makes a big difference from an anti-piracy point of view as every steam game has been cracked by the Pirates - the same as all other protections. Hell, even Windows 7 was hacked and cracked within days of release. Unfortunately the hackers always seem to get round the latest types of protection. Look at the AC2 fiasco by Ubisoft.

I understand people want to have Steam copies, fine. Just do not make it the only requirement.

You'd be surprised how just making something take a few days longer can effect these things. You would also be surprised how horrific some DRM is... unless you have watched the whole Spore DRM issues when those came about for example. I'd rather have developers use something like Steam then attempt to write their own DRMs.

» Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:41 am

The 1980's called, they want their "no internet" back.

I mean, seriously. In this day and age, not having a decent internet connection is like not having a kidney. Good luck surviving without either one, folks.

I guess the definition of "decent internet connection" goes here - I have DSL that works well with browsing, email and such, but I don't play games on-line. When I purchased a new video card, it had a free game download included and when I downloaded the 6 gig game, it took multiple hours.

Now you say that in order to play single player games I should upgrade my connection and pay $60/month so that the developer can express to the shareholders how much profit they make from digital downloads? I may pass on that.

Also, I know one person that is alive and well with only one kidney....

Jimc

» Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:51 am

On the flip side I can go to GOG.com and get a number of legacy titles, not to mention I still have my original discs for a number of the titles you list. The difference is I don't have the hassle that I experience of the Steam client. All I have to do is run the installer and then play without being logged into a third party client that I'm relying on the goodwill of. I can patch them, mod them and then run them as I see fit.

You're happy to choose Steam and that's great if it works for you. Personally I'll buy through a service that I know works for me. Retail and or sites such as gog work for me, not prepared to put all my eggs in one basket.

Steam despite numerous attempts just doesn't work reliably enough for me to tie purchases through it. That's why I will not buy a title that requires Steam. When there was the furore over Securom there was a pretty good consensus that because it can cause problems it's not a good method to use and fixes or alternatives would be best, removal tools and better support resulted. The double standard that exists regarding Steam is dissapointing as it does not work for everyone yet is forced with an almost evangelical zeal down our throats.

GOG.com is good for old games too. No DRM. :goodjob:

Securom was the beginning. We now have Tages(no revoke), always online DRMs and worse. Are you relying on the goodwill that they will release revoke tools? You are willing to go through support to tell you have filled your 3 activation limit and ask for additional activations? And then you call Steam a hassle. Forgive me if I am having hard time to understand this.

I just want to learn why exactly people are against Steam and want to clear the misinformation regarding it. We are all free individuals, no one can force us. It is people's choice at the end.

» Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:19 am

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 ?

Ok think of this senario... A hundred years from now one of my grand children has recieved some things I have saved through out my life, one of those items is a boxed set of Skyrim in perfect condition. My grandchild takes the item to Antiques Road Show and finds out it is worth say 10,000 bucks and she sells it. Does she have to give that money to Bethesda? Or does she get to keep it?

» Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:33 pm

When I purchased a new video card, it had a free game download included and when I downloaded the 6 gig game, it took multiple hours.

It might have been slower downloading this game for various reasons unrelated to your own internet. This is like saying, the internet is down cause I can't access Facebook, better call my internet provider.

Now you say that in order to play single player games I should upgrade my connection and pay $60/month

No... you don't need to 'upgrade' your internet to play, you just need to have it. The speed of your internet you desire is your choice. If you don't feel like paying $50 or $60 per month, don't expect to have the same internet experience as someone else.

» Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:25 am

They can do as they pleases with their COPY of the game because nowhere in the rules does it state that if you sell this game on a certain percentage goes to Bethesda. All they are saying is you need a one time connection to play the game why is this such a big deal ? I dont like paying taxes but ya know what ? I have to because its the RULES. I can understand if someone doesn't have a solid connection or no internet at all, but surely in this day and age of technology you can get it from somewhere.

People still see Steam as this big clunky horrible mess and it's not it runs on my pc fine. People on here don't seem to be offering a valid reason as to why they dont like steam, they don't want it purely because they dont and that's not a valid reason. It's ridiculous feet stamping tactics and like I said before unless they can turn everyone against steam and against buying the game, Bethesda are free to treat their customers anyway they choose. Plus, they know that people want to buy the game and that tactic of " I'm not buying it" works only in a few isolated cases.

Like I said you either play by the rules or move to console.

» Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:24 am

Sample is up to 334 prospective buyers. Based on central limit theorem, that is more than 10 times the minimum needed to estimate the distribution of responses from the population of interest.

I will buy Skyrim whether it requires Steam or not. 39.5% 132

I would prefer if there are non-Steam options . . . 22.5% 75

I will not buy Skyrim if it requires installation of the Steam Client . . . 38.0% 127

No matter what any of us have to say pro- or against Steam, these data say something important.

Out of a sample of three hundred and thirty four people who saw this link on gamer forums and who said they are interested in buying Skyrim, 60.5% of them expressed a preference for Steam to be OPTIONAL, not required as with Fallout New Vegas. As with the previous polls on this site, those who say they will buy it no matter what are in the smaller fraction of the total sample (39.5%). More than two-thirds of respondents indicate they would prefer if Steam is not required.

More than half of those folks, 38% of the total n=334 sample, said that they will not buy the game if Steam is required.

To put it a different way: more than one-third of respondents are saying that they will not buy the game if Steam is required.

Please Bethesda, for your sake, and for ours, weigh the decision about Steam distribution carefully.

» Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:39 am

Sample is up to 334 prospective buyers. Based on central limit theorem, that is more than 10 times the minimum needed to estimate the distribution of responses from the population of interest.

I will buy Skyrim whether it requires Steam or not. 39.5% 132

I would prefer if there are non-Steam options . . . 22.5% 75

I will not buy Skyrim if it requires installation of the Steam Client . . . 38.0% 127

No matter what any of us have to say pro- or against Steam, these data say something important.

Out of a sample of three hundred and thirty four people who saw this link on gamer forums and who said they are interested in buying Skyrim, 60.5% of them expressed a preference for Steam to be OPTIONAL, not required as with Fallout New Vegas. As with the previous polls on this site, those who say they will buy it no matter what are in the smaller fraction of the total sample (39.5%). More than two-thirds of respondents indicate they would prefer if Steam is not required.

More than half of those folks, 38% of the total n=334 sample, said that they will not buy the game if Steam is required.

To put it a different way: more than one-third of respondents are saying that they will not buy the game if Steam is required.

Please Bethesda, for your sake, and for ours, weigh the decision about Steam distribution carefully.

I can only wonder how many people know enough about statistics to make any meaningful sense of this.

Yes I agree, response bias may skew the results slightly, but the proportion of people against it is still high meaning that there is still going to be a significant proportion of the population against it. Not to mention the number of disgruntled customers who will purchase it unaware, be forced through the process, and dislike the experience (although there will be some who will like it and learn to prefer steam surely)

» Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:37 pm

If Skyrim came requiring Steam, was caked in fresh cat faeces and a man who constantly kicks you in the dad bags whilst you play........
.......I'd still buy it!
With a smile!

» Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:09 pm

I just want to learn why exactly people are against Steam and want to clear the misinformation regarding it. We are all free individuals, no one can force us. It is people's choice at the end.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's misinformation. I've worked tech desk at a few large lan parties, and you wouldn't believe how many people come up saying "I need to put steam into offline mode in order to play counterstrike". The only reply we can give is to keep trying.

Or the years when they released major patches *during* the party, and nobody could play counterstrike.

Or the year that steam banned us because they didn't like so many people connecting from one IP.

Based on these experiences and more, I will never install steam, and unlike those MW2 kids, when I make decide to boycott (no matter the reason), I stick to it. Even though I bought all civs since civ 2 (and loved 2 and 4), I haven't and will not touch Civ V. Or FONV. Hell, I haven't even touched a Nintendo product since they announced Windwaker would be cell shaded.

Edited for grammar.

» Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:29 am

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's misinformation. I've worked tech desk at a few large lan parties, and you wouldn't believe how many people come up saying "I need to put steam into offline mode in order to play counterstrike". The only reply we can give is to keep trying.

Or the years when they released major patches *during* the party, and nobody could play counterstrike.

Or the year that steam banned us because they didn't like so many people connecting from one IP.

Based on these experiences and more, I will never install steam, and unlike those MW2 kids, when I make decide to boycott (no matter the reason), I stick to it. Even though I bought all civs since civ 2 (and loved 2 and 4), I haven't and will not touch Civ V. Or FONV. Hell, I haven't even touched a Nintendo product since they announced Windwaker would be cell shaded.

Edited for grammar.

I don't call anything misinformation because of my likings. Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread unintentionally. There is also disinformation. If you catch a mistake of mine, please correct it.

I'm sorry to hear the bad experiences you had. I am not a long time user but I had problems too, in my experience Steam improved so greatly in this one year, it is almost a day-night difference. I still have some problems. Latest update combined the separate download tab to a drop down list, it is harder for me to reach it now. Total bugger.

Best of luck in your boycott. Just consider that whatever you were protesting may not be the case anymore.

» Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:21 pm

I guess the definition of "decent internet connection" goes here - I have DSL that works well with browsing, email and such, but I don't play games on-line. When I purchased a new video card, it had a free game download included and when I downloaded the 6 gig game, it took multiple hours.

Now you say that in order to play single player games I should upgrade my connection and pay $60/month so that the developer can express to the shareholders how much profit they make from digital downloads? I may pass on that.

Also, I know one person that is alive and well with only one kidney....

Jimc

o snap. I meant "liver". Whatever.

And it's 6 gigs. Of course it's gonna take several hours. Your argument doesn't really work.

Annnyway, the point I'm trying to make, is that you need internet access for everything these days. Applying for a job? Need an email address. Booking plane tickets? Gotta do it online. Need to pay a bill? Well, it just so happens that most comapnies dislike paper bills these days, so unless you're interested in paying a surcharge for that, you'll need an email for the bill, and you'll have to pay it through their website.
Not having access to the internet makes it very difficult to function in the modern world.

» Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:05 am

I can only wonder how many people know enough about statistics to make any meaningful sense of this.

I know enough statistics to say that 300 people in this case is a really small amount.

So these rates doesn't really mean mean much.

» Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:08 pm

I personally love Steam and have not had any issues with it since its very early beta stages. I use it online and offline at LANs to play a variety of Valve and non-Valve games and I think it's a great software distribution platform. As such, I do hope that there is a Steam option. HOWEVER, I can certainly understand why some people don't like it, and I don't think it would be in Bethesda's best interest to require it and potentially alienate a percentage of their customers. For example, a lot of Steam-only games get swamped by negative reviews on Amazon by people who don't understand what Steam is (and would be anti-DRM even if it meant getting paid to play games instead of paying for them).

More importantly, Steam's auto-update features might not set well with people who mod heavily - updates can break mod compatibility and crash the game, sometimes even rendering saved games unloadable in extreme circumstances. So, for the case of Skyrim, hopefully there will be a Steam option, but not a requirement.

» Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:26 am

I know enough statistics to say that 300 people in this case is a really small amount.

So these rates doesn't really mean mean much.

Not to mention that it's ridiculously easy to use statistics to say whatever you want.

I like how the person who posted that said that 1/3 of the people polled said that they wouldn't buy Skyrim with Steam... completely disregarding the 2/3's who would.

» Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:11 pm

Not to mention that it's ridiculously easy to use statistics to say whatever you want.

I like how the person who posted that said that 1/3 of the people polled said that they wouldn't buy Skyrim with Steam... completely disregarding the 2/3's who would.

1/3rd is quite a proportion. Thats like saying beth would like 2/3rds of their potential profit.
And 300 is a large enough sample to cover outliers. That means it represents a population with a degree of accuracy.

» Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:43 am

I know enough statistics to say that 300 people in this case is a really small amount.

So these rates doesn't really mean mean much.

300 can be plenty, depending on the set size, with appropriate sampling technique.

However, Internet polls are invariably biased - since only those with an interest in the outcome (or pranksters) tend to vote on them. In that case, it's probably not a reliable indicator.