[Farrah Barry]

the issue isn't the Digi-distro aspect of Steam (unless beth decides no one has Disc drives in their systems anymore), the issue is the "your PC games are belong to us!" aspect of Steamworks

[Yvonne]

The publishers care what statistics say. They want to know where the money is.



Another company would purchase it and most likely continue operations. Steam is a cash cow. I know Microsoft personally wants it, because GFWL is weak in comparison but they refuse to give up their plans of controlling the PC gaming market like they do Xbox.

Again, unless you are privy to Valve's books, you cannot ascertain with any degree of accuracy whether Steam is a cash cow. And even if Microsoft wants it, it would certainly not be because of Valve's profitability; it would be just to eliminate a competitor, even if it meant losing money (It wasn't long ago MS was throwing money at HD-DVD knowing pretty well it wasn't a viable competitor to Blu-Ray in the overall market place, as in outside gaming consoles...) ; and make no mistake, should Microsoft buy Valve, all Valve stuff will disappear, and all Steam customers will turn into GFWL customers within a few months. It'll take a small binary to remove Steam and install GFWL in your computer in a couple minutes.

But I do trust Valve. They seem to be morally good, unlike companies like Activision, and really take care of their players. If they cared so much about just making money, I don't think they'd give their games away for free like they do once in a while. I have two wonderful licenses for Portal and one for Half-Life 2, neither of which I paid for. In the event Valve goes under, I am confident that they would send out a patch that removed the lock-in for Steam games. Perhaps trade the licenses to the last surviving digital distributor.

I guess you are unaware of the practice of companies "giving stuff away" or offering heavy discounts on certain items to lure you into buying other stuff... and I put "giving stuff away" in quotation marks because they really don't "give it away". Whatever you download for free, or buy at substantial savings, it goes onto their balance sheet as a business expense and off their taxes. So don't think they are these "good guys" giving you these "crazy deals" ... they are not.. they are a business. Once lawyers are involved (as in drafting the EULA), there's nothing morally good about it.

Also going on this though, I don't forsee Steam ever going under. That isn't to say it's impossible, but the trend of going digital is very real and is happening now. This is why I have Netflix, I don't go to Blockbuster anymore. The Blockbuster in the town over just closed its doors because it isn't earning money anymore. I used to work at Target, and the CD section keeps shrinking every year to only include popular artists, ones that will still sell. I read my news online and watch it on TV, I don't have a newspaper. And while I prefer physical books, I've bought a few Kindle versions because it saved me a drive to the bookstore. Not everyone does this, but the majority does, and that's what matters in the end

Funny you mentioned Blockbuster.. when Blockbuster started, there was a lot of concern among movie theater owners that Blockbuster was going to hurt their business. Guess the theater owners had the last laugh. Anyway...

Sure everyone is going digital... but again, everyone is going digital, so competition increases exponentially. There was a time not long ago when people thought AOL was going to dominate ISPs forever because of the huge customer base (nothing came even close), or that Internet Explorer was going to control the internet browsing experience... well, that didn't happen, did it? So, don't be so sure that Valve cannot go away when the next best thing hits the net or someone like MS buys it and rebrands it.

[Noraima Vega]

The movie industry is a touchy subject, regarding the initial opposition to Blockbuster. The movie industry regularly and consistently tries to legally block technology advancement from the population in paranoia about piracy.

[Kristian Perez]

Any of you who say you "will not by if it requires steam" is lying.

Their threats are hollow! They'll tell us they won't buy it till their blue in the mouth, but when it comes release day 11-11-11 they'll be in line to get their copy!

You know this is beginning to get both tiring and offensive. I personally have yet to buy any game which requires Steam or some other intrusive DRM. Why on earth would I break my principles now?

Likewise I'm getting fed up with "If you're a fan you wouldn't..." comments. I have played TES since Arena and bought every version since. I am and always will be a fan, but being a fan doesn't mean you're a mindless drone who abandons their convictions, wisdom and personal experience. If Steam is mandatory to play that's the sad day when I stop giving Bethesda my money.

[Josee Leach]

I find it interesting how people start to bring up valid concerns and then proceed to jump off the deep end by randomly making up scenarios that they think are "likely."

Best case scenario for me is that the boxed version allows you to download through Steam too.



You do realize that the raw power of a GPU is not capped by what API it is using I hope?

Secondly, limited graphics options have nothing to do with console vs. PC. I don't know why Crytek did it, but they showed such arrogance when they realized Crysis I wouldn't doubt they feel people don't "need" more options than those they bestow on their customers. Either way the direction they went with the sequel is much smarter market wise than bragging that most computers can't run their game (which they bragged with the first game).

Running in 64-bit only matters for RAM usage. It has potential issues for modders but is not significant for game performance.

I'm not sure where you're getting this "Wii-inspired" thing from considering the Wii also has traditional games as well, but either way your priorities make zero sense to me, no offense. It doesn't matter how the game plays or looks to you, only that you can't brag about what your hardware can do? Why even play games at all if your biggest concerns have nothing at all to do with how the game plays?

How is not supporting the tessellation performance of newer DX11 GPUs "making up scenarios"? I never said raw GPU performance is capped by the API, but supporting DX11 would mean a huge performance leap for GPUs that support it's tessellation features. DX9 is a bottleneck for newer DX11 GPUs, that is not even up for debate. 64-bit allows for more efficient memory usage, and with Windows processes running in the background on PC on a 64-bit OS and 64-bit CPU, it can help game performance. To say that isn't at all significant is just ignorant. As for what I meant by Wii-inspired, it was the success of the Wii that jump started this whole industry into the greed-driven frenzy of casual gamer bias that it is today. Now consoles are no. 1 priority for development, and the PC platform suffers because of it.

[Johanna Van Drunick]

Again, unless you are privy to Valve's books, you cannot ascertain with any degree of accuracy whether Steam is a cash cow. And even if Microsoft wants it, it would certainly not be because of Valve's profitability; it would be just to eliminate a competitor, even if it meant losing money (It wasn't long ago MS was throwing money at HD-DVD knowing pretty well it wasn't a viable competitor to Blu-Ray in the overall market place, as in outside gaming consoles...) ; and make no mistake, should Microsoft buy Valve, all Valve stuff will disappear, and all Steam customers will turn into GFWL customers within a few months. It'll take a small binary to remove Steam and install GFWL in your computer in a couple minutes.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0228/technology-gabe-newell-videogames-valve-online-mayhem.html.

Microsoft wants Steam, because it's easier to eat your competition than to let them go out of business. That's why AT&T ate T-Mobile in the US, so it could take its resources before they were run into the ground. The point is, if Microsoft took Steam, it'd still be there. Your Steam licenses would simply be converted into GFWL licenses, but you don't lose your games. That would be horrendous amounts of bad press for Microsoft.

I guess you are unaware of the practice of companies "giving stuff away" or offering heavy discounts on certain items to lure you into buying other stuff... and I put "giving stuff away" in quotation marks because they really don't "give it away". Whatever you download for free, or buy at substantial savings, it goes onto their balance sheet as a business expense and off their taxes. So don't think they are these "good guys" giving you these "crazy deals" ... they are not.. they are a business. Once lawyers are involved (as in drafting the EULA), there's nothing morally good about it.

Activision's never given me anything for free. Activision never added security measures on my WoW account to prevent someone from hacking it. Activision never put quality before quantity. Valve has done all of those things, which is why I consider it to be the Google of video game developers. It may profit in the long run, but it's a mutually beneficial system where I get free stuff and they may profit. In the worlds of Activison, EA, Microsoft, and Sony, they're not happy unless you're just giving them money. That's why there's a Steam fan following, but Activision is the scourge of video game developers now that EA has improved their image a bit.

Funny you mentioned Blockbuster.. when Blockbuster started, there was a lot of concern among movie theater owners that Blockbuster was going to hurt their business. Guess the theater owners had the last laugh. Anyway...

Blockbuster never had movies before the theaters did. Neither does Netflix. But Netflix has movies when Blockbuster does. But you're right, I guess all of those reports of how Netflix is killing Blockbuster are wrong, and Blockbuster isn't closing down stores because it's not earning money - it's just trying to trick people into thinking it's doing poorly.

Sure everyone is going digital... but again, everyone is going digital, so competition increases exponentially. There was a time not long ago when people thought AOL was going to dominate ISPs forever because of the huge customer base (nothing came even close), or that Internet Explorer was going to control the internet browsing experience... well, that didn't happen, did it? So, don't be so sure that Valve cannot go away when the next best thing hits the net or someone like MS buys it and rebrands it.

It can go away, just as AOL has done. But you never stop owning the games you bought from it. Nor does that mean it will never be used by anyone the moment something comes along that is more popular. Internet Explorer doesn't control over 50% of the browser market share. It controls the majority chunk, but more people don't use Internet explorer than do. That doesn't stop them from releasing Internet Explorer 9, because competition is the best environment for innovation. AOL didn't adapt to the times, and because of that, it died. Steam itself is adaptation to the times, because it's taking over an emerging market that's slowly crushing a different market.

[Kayla Keizer]

I don't know if Obsidian begged Bethesda for Steamworks but Bethesda was the publisher & typically it is the publisher's decision on the choice of DRM






granted some may cave in but I do have a space that would have been for New vegas but alas it's not there simply because of Steam. that will be the same for Skyrim unless Steam itself changes for the better IMO (and I don't see that happening)

New Vegas isn't TES 5.

The amount of people who won't buy because of steam is such a small minority that the main profits for TES 5 wouldn't be hurt at all.

[Jonathan Egan]

New Vegas isn't TES 5.

The amount of people who won't buy because of steam is such a small minority that the main profits for TES 5 wouldn't be hurt at all.

I think there's a hefty group of people who won't buy TES5 because it's on Steam, but you're still right that sales won't be hurt. I think it'll be more because it'll be featured on Steam and one day get the deals all Steam game has, and hurt sales will be regained simply by convincing Steam users who haven't been following this game, who wouldn't normally buy it, to give it a try.

[Dj Matty P]

I think there's a hefty group of people who won't buy TES5 because it's on Steam, but you're still right that sales won't be hurt. I think it'll be more because it'll be featured on Steam and one day get the deals all Steam game has, and hurt sales will be regained simply by convincing Steam users who haven't been following this game, who wouldn't normally buy it, to give it a try.

And yet if Steam is not a requirement that "Hefty group " has a better chance to enjoy as well (more $$$ for beth) so it would be best in Bethesda's financial interest IMO to not forsake those that want to buy the game even if they can't use Steam

[KiiSsez jdgaf Benzler]

I think there's a hefty group of people who won't buy TES5 because it's on Steam, but you're still right that sales won't be hurt. I think it'll be more because it'll be featured on Steam and one day get the deals all Steam game has, and hurt sales will be regained simply by convincing Steam users who haven't been following this game, who wouldn't normally buy it, to give it a try.

And yet if Steam is not a requirement that "Hefty group " has a better chance to enjoy as well (more $$$ for beth) so it would be best in Bethesda's financial interest IMO to not forsake those that want to buy the game even if they can't use Steam

I'm still not convinced. I was thinking that the majority of the sales would be for the consoles. Some of that "hefty group" will just get it for the console instead. Making the group of those who will not buy even smaller. Eventually people will give in, and the only one who didn't buy it will be Systemshock.

PS Love you still Systemshock.

[rae.x]

Then I will get it on Steam.

[Lyndsey Bird]

I'm still not convinced. I was thinking that the majority of the sales would be for the consoles. Some of that "hefty group" will just get it for the console instead. Making the group of those who will not buy even smaller. Eventually people will give in, and the only one who didn't buy it will be Systemshock.

PS Love you still Systemshock.

Systemshock.wont be alone unless consoles allow mods, keyboard, mice or steam becomes dial-up friendly & starts letting people choose what patch they want to apply, I don't see either happening as things are.

added: I often hear people say "Steam is saving PC gaming." but is it truly saving it or just offering a slow death

[Erin S]

Activision's never given me anything for free. Activision never added security measures on my WoW account to prevent someone from hacking it. Activision never put quality before quantity. Valve has done all of those things, which is why I consider it to be the Google of video game developers. It may profit in the long run, but it's a mutually beneficial system where I get free stuff and they may profit. In the worlds of Activison, EA, Microsoft, and Sony, they're not happy unless you're just giving them money. That's why there's a Steam fan following, but Activision is the scourge of video game developers now that EA has improved their image a bit.

Honest question: If Valve is so good and honest, why do they force themselves on gamers?

I think there's a hefty group of people who won't buy TES5 because it's on Steam, but you're still right that sales won't be hurt. I think it'll be more because it'll be featured on Steam and one day get the deals all Steam game has, and hurt sales will be regained simply by convincing Steam users who haven't been following this game, who wouldn't normally buy it, to give it a try.

No one is advocating that Skyrim, or any other game, shouldn't be available through Steam. There are plenty of older games that I never got a chance to play for one reason or another, I can't find them in stores but they maybe available through a digital download service. Right now I can look at all the download services and see which one has the best price. In 5-10 years if I want to buy Skyrim, New Vegas, Civilization 5, AvP or any other Steamworks infected game, I have no choice but to give Steam/Valve my money and if they are still around then some money goes to the publisher. Alluding to the first part of my post, this does not seem like the business plan of a good and honest company.

[e.Double]

Honest question: If Valve is so good and honest, why do they force themselves on gamers?

How are they forcing themselves on gamers?

[Matt Fletcher]

I often hear people say "Steam is saving PC gaming." but is it truly saving it or just offering a slow death

Well I could ask you an equally unanswerable question and let you try and answer. It depends on if PC gaming would be dieing faster or slower without Steam. I'd rather the PC gaming industry die slowly than quickly, at the very least it gives others a longer chance to try and save it.

Edit: @Proditus: I wondered the same thing. If Valve decides to use Steam as DRM they go into it full well knowing that some people won't buy their games because of it. The same with Bethesda and Square Enix and anyone else who uses a DRM. Heck I don't like Ubisoft's DRM, and I know people who won't buy a game if it has a disk check.

On a somewhat related note (although it is more about people feeling like they are watched rather than Steam), I work at a store that handles checks electronically and I see the occasional person go off on a tangent about how using electronic checking is letting the government pry into where they shop and how much they spend. I always think to myself, "Does this person know that he get's his checks from a bank and that anyone with a subpoena can find out every time he/sh ever even so much used an ATM?" But the main fact is it doesn't matter unless you did something that warrants a subpoena being drawn on you.

[kyle pinchen]

the issue isn't the Digi-distro aspect of Steam (unless beth decides no one has Disc drives in their systems anymore), the issue is the "your PC games are belong to us!" aspect of Steamworks

Steam is the only direct download company, where you actually own the game. Before I started using Steam I download a game off of Direct 2 Drive. After I had to reformat my computer, I went to the site to redownload my game, and discovered that with Direct 2 Drive you don't own the game. You just own one digital copy of it. If that one copy gets deleted, corrupted, or made incompatible you can never replace it. You have to buy a whole new copy. With Steam you can download your games unlimited times and on as many computers as you want. You actually own the game, it doesn't belong to Steam. Steam DRM also isn't even close to as bad as people claim it is. As I said you can download it to as much computers as you want. All you have to do is type in a password when you play, this measure is not to keep you form stealing the game it's to keep people form stealing it form YOU. You can also play on offline mode which allows you to play without an internet connection. I don't understand why people get mad about DRM in the first place. I've never seen DRM that prevented me form playing a game. Typing in a code or a password isn't that annoying. The only reason you would want no DRM is so that you can make illegal copies of a game and give it to all your friends. I get very weary of people who don't like DRM.

[Matt Fletcher]

Honest question: If Valve is so good and honest, why do they force themselves on gamers?



In 5-10 years if I want to buy Skyrim, New Vegas, Civilization 5, AvP or any other Steamworks infected game, I have no choice but to give Steam/Valve my money and if they are still around then some money goes to the publisher. Alluding to the first part of my post, this does not seem like the business plan of a good and honest company.

Are you kidding? Are applying that Steam takes most of money and only gives the developers some of the money? Well guess what thats the way it works for EVERY PRODUCT! It's the same if you buy it form the Store, the game developers never get the whole $50. I bet they only sell there games for a maxim of $30. It's not like they get 100% of the money form stores, why would the stores even sell it if that happened? I bet they actually get even more money when someone buys it off Steam because they don't have to package it.

[Chris Cross Cabaret Man]

Well I could ask you an equally unanswerable question and let you try and answer. It depends on if PC gaming would be dieing faster or slower without Steam. I'd rather the PC gaming industry die slowly than quickly, at the very least it gives others a longer chance to try and save it.

I think pc gaming would be in better shape without Steam, definitely better without Steamworks, there are alternatives to what steam offers.It's just that there are people who are addicted to using steam now.

[Damian Parsons]

How are they forcing themselves on gamers?

When you purchase a Steamworks games, regardless of where, you have to login to your Steam account to play it. If you do not have a Steam account your have to create one. Imagine if you went to your local hamburger stand and ordered your meal and they gave you a receipt and told you that you have to take it to the McDonald's across the street to actually get your food you ordered. If you're just going to end up ad McDonald's anyway why not just go there to begin with? This is how Steam has grown to 3 million plus users.

I've never seen DRM that prevented me form playing a game. Typing in a code or a password isn't that annoying. The only reason you would want no DRM is so that you can make illegal copies of a game and give it to all your friends. I get very weary of people who don't like DRM.

That is a very disgusting and offensive comment. Just because you have never had a DRM scheme cause issues with your setup does not mean that all DRMs are harmless. I don't find disc check or serial keys that annoying, but apparently enough people do that they constantly give it as their favorite feature of using Steam.

[michael danso]

When you purchase a Steamworks games, regardless of where, you have to login to your Steam account to play it. If you do not have a Steam account your have to create one. Imagine if you went to your local hamburger stand and ordered your meal and they gave you a receipt and told you that you have to take it to the McDonald's across the street to actually get your food you ordered. If you're just going to end up ad McDonald's anyway why not just go there to begin with? This is how Steam has grown to 3 million plus users.

You think making an account is annoying? How did you get on this forum? You have to type in a password to use Facebook, Xbox live, eBay, and just about EVERY online app. Any one who thinks it's annoying to type in a password also must be find it annoying when they have to blink or move, because it's not that hard.

[Ashley Clifft]

You think making an account is annoying? How did you get on this forum? You have to type in a password to use Facebook, Xbox live, eBay, and just about EVERY online app. Any one who thinks it's annoying to type in a password also must be find it annoying when they have to blink or move, because it's not that hard.

No, I think forcing some one to make an account and then pointing to the number of accounts created as proof popularity is dishonest.

[Manuela Ribeiro Pereira]

No, I think forcing some one to make an account and then pointing to the number of accounts created as proof popularity is dishonest.

What you just said is completely off topic of what we were talking.

[Sophh]

Again people are completely missing the point. This thread isn't "Is Steam good/bad"? It's about Steamworks.

I've bought one Steamworks game(Civ 5) and I don't think I ever will again. Seriously giving you a disk with the Steam install on it and that's it is just ridiculous.

I think Steam is fine as a Digital Distribution Method. But it definitely shouldn't be used as DRM, or forced into the installation of anything but a Valve product.

[Stephani Silva]

You know this is beginning to get both tiring and offensive. I personally have yet to buy any game which requires Steam or some other intrusive DRM. Why on earth would I break my principles now?

Honestly speaking, most DRM is intrusive in one form or another. So on your principle, you probably miss out on a lot of games. Not saying there's anything wrong with that, just saying you're limiting what you can play.

Likewise I'm getting fed up with "If you're a fan you wouldn't..." comments. I have played TES since Arena and bought every version since. I am and always will be a fan, but being a fan doesn't mean you're a mindless drone who abandons their convictions, wisdom and personal experience. If Steam is mandatory to play that's the sad day when I stop giving Bethesda my money.

I don't agree that you're still not a fan if you don't play Skyrim, of course you're still a fan. You're just going to miss out on potentially one of the best Elder Scrolls in the series, or close to it. I wouldn't have implied anything about being a mindless drone...

[^~LIL B0NE5~^]

Again people are completely missing the point. This thread isn't "Is Steam good/bad"? It's about Steamworks.

I've bought one Steamworks game(Civ 5) and I don't think I ever will again. Seriously giving you a disk with the Steam install on it and that's it is just ridiculous.

I think Steam is fine as a Digital Distribution Method. But it definitely shouldn't be used as DRM, or forced into the installation of anything but a Valve product.

QFT