I dropped .13GB when logging off Steam, but I don't think that is a terrible hit. I got more of a hit stopping paging on my HDD. Anything reasonably called a gaming rig should have the RAM to cover Steam.

If Skyrim is Steam only, I won't mind. If Skyrim needs a simple disc check and no Steam I won't mind and I would likely buy it Retail then buy a backup copy on Steam during a sale. If Skyrim has GFWL I would get it, but it can't have an install limit [because I end up reinstalling TES much more often than other games] and it shouldn't require log-in to GFWL to play or save because GWFL's log-in seems much more temperamental than Steam's. Also, some GFWL titles like Blacklight: Tango Down have a log-in that is equal to Ubisoft's DRM. This is my main gripe against GFWL, the DRM scheme varies so much on it and some variations of it are horrible.

...also, Steam has better sales, so DLC will be available at the best possible price during certain times of the year. Of course, if Skyrim doesn't require Steam, Steam will still extend it's benefits to Skyrim players... but GFWL gives nothing but the chance of future aggravation.

I prefer Steam being optional for the game, but I will buy it anyway.

The 16mb is the /important/ bit, it can use as much memory as it wants so long as all but 16mb is paged out. Additionally, consider that with, say, 4GB RAM (According to steam, this is the average amount of RAM) a 32-bit game executable (read: most of them) can't even USE all your RAM, so steam could take up an entire GB and you wouldn't see a performance hit.

That tends to be DRM added by the game publisher, not a Steam policy. Unless you have a specific example of Valve doing this themselves?


Please watch your tone, we're trying to avoid having this thread closed.

I'd love to say I'd make a stand and not buy if it requires Steam but I know now it's just a lie....I'd buy it either way. I'm truly Beth's [censored].

I think you are confusing Steam with Ubisoft. They are the only publisher I know of that required a constant online connection to play their games - the steam client has a very effective offline mode when you set it up correctly.

Personally I love Steam, and have only bought my games through them for well over a year now,.

I'll state again for those who think I would avoid the game all together because of steam, I won't. I will be buying the game for the XBox. I will also buy the game for the PC UNLESS it uses steam in any way, shape, or form. I have used steam in the past, for Half Life, and I will never use it again. For those who say it's not bloatware, keep using it. I have, and I know the results. I'm guessing you use Nortons utilities as well, more bloatware and will never see the light of day on my computer. Just because it uses very little ram doesn't mean it won't chew up more the longer you use it.

I will buy skyrim even if it has steam as long as i get to have my nice physical boxed version on my shelf. That being said i detest being forced to download patches before i can play a single player game. Sometimes i dont want to wait for it to download , sometimes patches make things worse and i dont want to download a patch i know will break elements of my game. I also dont want to be stopped from playing my single player games because my computer isnt plugged into the internet or my internet is down.

Id better be able to mod my skyrim if it has steam :unsure2:

In my case, it is not "hate." It is simply a preference not to be required to use a networking app that is not integral to the game play. In fact, if I had a choice to use Steam, I'd probably use it. ADDIT: or at least give it a try (I already bought Rogue Warrior not realizing that (i) it requies Steam and (ii) it is evidently a very bad gam, but have never opened the shrink wrap).

I do not want to be forced to use Steam, or any other 3rd party product as part of buying and using a computer game; unless of course that 3rd party product is absolutely integral to the game functioning, e.g., a graphics engine or something like that.

I've heard Steam Advocates try to argue things to the effect that "because the game was developed in Steamworks, Steam mandatory operation IS integral to the game functioning." But if that were actually true, and not merely a technical red herring, it would presumably be impossible for pirates to be able to hack the Steam code and get a copy of the game to run without Steam. Moreover, how is it that "offline mode" works so well if the auto-connectivity aspect of Steam is so integral and fundamental to the game? How is it that Warband can be both Steamworks and not Steamworks game?

Mandatory Steam is a point-of-sale marketing/branding strategy as far as I can tell, and were it deemed to be a good idea by the publishers/developers/distributors, the games could be made to be Steam optional. Whatever technical hurdles exist to doing that must not be too complex if the pirates can figure it out.

I want my dvd with a map and manual.

When people talk about Steam exclusive, they only mean the PC version. And yes, there have been several such AAA titles. For example Fallout: New Vegs and Civilization 5, two games to which I was very much looking forward but later decided not to buy because of the bloody online activation.



Yes, yes it is. Zero day piracy is huge. Imagine Skyrim just got released without any sort of DRM and there is a pirated version available somewhere on the internet. You could either shell out $50 to buy the game legitemately or just download it without paying a penny (and people who can't figure out how to do that probably wouldn't play the PC version to begin with). To make matters worse many pirates consider themselves to be some sort of freedom fighters combating the wicked money grabbing corporations. Which is nonsense because piracy itself is a thriving business. Several pirate sites rank in the top 100 or top 200 most visited websites in the world (out of some 180 million websites total) so they can make big money with adds. In http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html I read that a popular pirate site was sold for $7.8 million in June 2009. Piracy isn't about freedom, it's about easy money at the expense of gaming companies.

Anyway, returning to the issue of day zero piracy, forcing potential pirates to wait a few days or maybe even a full week before they can get their hands on the game is pretty much the main thing that the legitemate copies have going for themselves. Well, except for the warm fuzzy feeling that you helped your favourite developer put food on the table, but I fear that for most poeple not having to pay $50 for the game is a stronger factor.

As a social scientist, the issue of crime is very interesting to me, and theft of computer games via illegal networking particularly fascinating. It would be a whole Ph.D. dissertation to really address it, but . . . I keep coming back to those statements I read, quotes of Brad Wardell, the head of Stardock. I can try to find them if you want.

Basically he said "DRM doesn't work; in fact it promotes piracy." His philosophy seemed to be: "strive to make your company beloved among gamers and you will not be a target for nearly as much piracy. If gamers respect and admire a game company they will want to support it by buying not pirating" being the main idea.

I do not have the evidence to substantiate his claims, but it seems intuitively appealing to me based on what I know about consumer psychology.

ADDIT: and another more practical response. Assuming that this "Day One Piracy" really is the main issue, then a simple solution would seem to present itself.

Release the Steam version of the game, with all its DRM, 3 days in advance of the other non-Steam versions. Piracy on Days one through three presumably reduced (which I actually doubt; it is my understanding that Steam is cracked within 24 hours after most launches), and the option to purchase without Steam preserved. Heck, even if the non-Steam distribution started a full month after initial release it would still be preferable to many.

How long do we expect until a version of Civ5 or New Vegas that does not require Steam will be available? Ever?

Gonna buy it to PS3 so i dont need steam... I wish i would have a better computer. :shakehead:

Warning, the following is sarcasm:

"I haven't used Steam since Half-Life 2 came out, so I know exactly how it behaves 150 version upgrades later. Also, I know you all must use this other software I hate because you're all dumb (I also haven't used Norton Utilities in years and have no idea what the current version is like). What's more, I'm so smart I know that Steam will eat up resources continuously, even if you shut it down when not playing games."

Like we don't know how to monitor a program's resource use if we want to.


Steamworks integration for the purposes of Achievements and Stats is simple to add or remove. Valve made it that way intentionally. Steamworks is integral to how New Vegas functions because it is the DRM for the game. Whether or not pirates can break it from Steam is a moot point because they are illegally bypassing the DRM.

Removing Steamworks entirely would require adding an alternate DRM. DRM is not optional for a company like Bethesda Softworks.


Basing a business model on the respect of the player for the company is a fools game. Look at the response by players to the problems with New Vegas (not Steam related, just game bugs) and ask yourself whether the people wanting the entire company fired would respect the ownership rights of the company that made the game? I wouldn't risk it.

And the "3 day in advance" thing wouldn't work because you would simply be advertising to pirates when the crackable version would be available to them. Steam's major advantage is that there is no "complete" version of the game available to anyone until Steam's activation goes live. You really don't want to announce a schedule to people who plan to steal from you.

I haven't heard any plans for a non-Steam version of Civ5 or NV, so I'm assuming the companies are happy with their decision. Or that Valve locked them into a contract with a gag order and they have to wait for it to expire before they can offer a non-Steam version. We really have no way of knowing which.

And how exactly do you know that? I asumme you don't know the people who said they wouldn't. Besides, some of us would just buy one of the console versions instead. Besides, if you are not willing to deal with Steam, there is other ways... not implying that i would do it myself but i don't doubt for a second that some people could get the idea to justify it because of Steam.



Well i can only speak for myself but i wouldn't say i actually hate Steam. I just don't want to be forced to join them and i don't wan't to be forced online in a single player game.

Advocating piracy is a "capital offense" on these forums - even if you add a "disclaimer".
If people want to keep their accounts I strongly suggest the topic of piracy is kept well clear of. OK?

That may be true. But then there is also this perspective on it too:

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/46282/Brad-Wardell-Interview



Wardell sounds like a smart business man to me. Respectful, reasonable, and gracious too.

No hard copy on DVD then no sale. Bricks and mortar for ever.

I have NEVER pirated any intellecutal property of any kind, and never will. I damn all intellectual property thiefs, "pirates" if you will, with the strongest possible condemnations. You are the lowest of the dregs of humanity and not only do I not condone or advocate what you do or your self-serving attitude but I would gladly work hard to make you suffer for your crimes if I had the opportunity. ADDIT: I would add, that I believe we as gamers should adopt as harsh, intolerant, and fierce of an anti-piracy--"We will turn you in and help them prosecute you"--attitude as we possibly can manage. THAT is the most promising 'solution' to the game piracy epidemic. We bona fide gamers need to not only humiliate, and derogate all pirates, but terrify them. I'm convinced that if we can effect this sort of shift in the culture of gaming, piracy will decline.

Piracy is absolute scummery. I don't care how corrupt and exploitative the companies might be, two wrongs do not make a right. That is my personal view of it, and I would encourage all of you, even if you are incredibly frustrated by not being able to buy a non-Steam version of a game, to NEVER engage in ANY form of intellectual property theft. It is far better to simply forego playing it altogether.

In the interest of understanding the phenomenon, and in particular an interest in putting Wardell's argument in perspective, along with the claims that Steam's DRM is ineffective, I did a google advanced search using: Exact phrase: Steam / All words: Cracked.

I'm not going to name any site names or offer any links, nor am I going to followup on any of the 10+ pages of links that search revealed. Suffiice to say, the plethora of online videos, guides, directions, forums, and indeed it appears entire WEBSITES devoted to cracking Steam's security suggests to me that the putative benefits of Steam's DRM are likely to be illusory. This would also suggest Wardell is correct: direct steps like intrusive DRM in efforts to prevent piracy probably doesn't add to a firms bottom line for the simple reasons that (i) the pirates probably wouldn't buy it anyway; and (ii) digital piracy appears to be quite pervasive and evidently very difficult to actually stop.

I can't counter anything you said, but I would remind you that DRM has more purposes than merely preventing privacy.

DRM must be included with the software in order for the publisher to claim certain legal rights and protections. The law doesn't require that the DRM be absolutely effective, but it has to be a good faith attempt at a DRM solution for those legal rights to be enforceable. Bethesda couldn't just put a simple disc check and call it done because they would know that was completely ineffective.

DRM is also important because the company has a fiduciary responibility to protect the best interests of their shareholders. Failure to do all they can to protect their legal property would open them up to lawsuits from their own owners.

I hate steam and will never buy a game that requires me to install Steam to play

this is the first I've heard of this. then what of the publishers that don't use DRM?

IMO, any DRM should be a good fit for the the medium used & to me Steam isn't a good fit as a disc based DRM, just like a disc check would be horrible for digi-distrobution protection. but someone getting the disc version should have the choice to hook it to Steam if they so wish it.

Unless it's badly received, I will buy the game regardless of how it's released. Here's my order of preference for possible distribution methods:

Gladly
Hesitantly
Begrudgingly

Boxed without DRM > Boxed with activation through Steam > Boxed with unobtrusive and benign DRM > Boxed with coupon for download through Steam > Downloaded through Steam only > Boxed with "malware" DRM > Downloaded only through any existing digital distribution method besides Steam.

I disagree. Announcing the schedual is not a problem if the hype machine does it's work (and from what I see, it's doing a great job for Skyrim). People are generally focused on short term benefits. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-4flnuxNV4 If you ask people if they wanted $50 now or $60 in a month, most of them would decide for the $50 now, even though if you look at it purely logically it would have been better to wait a month. And it's simlair with games. You confront people with game + paying $50 now or just game without paying anything in 1 week. We can't just assume that everybody will buy the game (if they did piracy wouldn't be a problem), but I think that we can assume that if the game is properly hyped a large part of the people who can afford paying $50 for a game will do so. And the people who can't afford to pay $50 wouldn't have bought it anyway.

And CD-check only retail copies don't need to be available 3 days after launch. They can easily make them available 2 weeks after launch (so there is still no complete version of the game until Steam activation goes live) and it will still be early enough to hit Christmas season. I think releasing a Steamworks version a t first and then offering a retail version 2 weeks later would be a brilliant solution to make everybody happy.

Presumably, they've chosen not to fight piracy but to rely on the good intentions of their customers instead. A valid idea for some, depending on the business size and ownership situation.

edit: I would love/hate to see the reaction if Bethesda announced they were releasing a Steam version on 11/11/11, but people who don't like Steam could have a copy two or three weeks later.

These board would be inundated and the language used would be spectacular. The mods nearly lost it when NV players found out that the patch was being delayed about a week for Steam certification.