I couldnt get steam to run ANY games at all until I downloaded the beta thing. I am not really fed up with Steam otherwise, I am just fed up with the choices that some game companies make regarding it.

For example, Gas Powered and Supreme Commander 2.

No more should be said, other than WHY THE HECK DID THEY HAVE TO GO WITH STEAM ONLY?!?!?!?!?

Because SteamWorks is a stable and easily integrate able solution.

I don't like the auto-updates. Sometimes the new patches suck, and usually they're late (sometimes very late) being released. I thought that could be turned off though? I also don't like having to look at adverts and popups for crap I don't care about if I just want to play a single player game. If I get nostalgic for reinstalling HL2 or something, half the time I don't install it because Steam is a hassle. Not a large one, but much more so than installing every other game that I own.

 

Arguments of usefulness and DRM aside, there is one hugely compelling reason I will never, ever use Steam to buy a game. If you get banned, you loose all of your games. If my account get hacked, oh well. If my opinion differs one too many times from someone who has the power to do so, I could be suspended, or banned, and oh well. No matter how unlikely the scenario, it means that they don't get my money. I know that the $50-$100 I spend elsewhere a month on games doesn't hurt them, but it does help their competitors.

Auto Updates can be turned off, yes.

 

These things can also be disabled.

 

How so?

 

You already seem to own games like Half-Life 2 on Steam .

Having Valve's games on Steam is not the same thing as being "forced" to purchase a third party title through the system. Forced referring to the inability to purchase without the use of Steamworks.

Why do you quote me here? He was talking about that he will never use Steam to buy a game, because you can get banned. However, he already seems to have bought Half-Life 2, presumably in retail. But he will be unable to play Half-Life 2 none the less, if his account gets banned.

Yeah, and I am saying it's not the same. Any of the publishers can ban you from their forums, their services or a game. It's usually one game and not necessarily your entire account (Bioware has banned people across games before it seems). In any event, Steam ban's you, it's from your entire library and no refund, all publishers, all platforms, everything. It's not the samething as having EA ban you from an EA game. Stardock will do the same thing to you, but at least they force refund you.  I've heard of steam banning people for doing a chargeback on them, a chargeback because steam wouldn't refund a double charge or a gift given that was never received.

That does not answer 'why steam only?'

Or does the "...stable and easily integrate able..." steam only work if no other option to buy the game exists?

 

Nesrie, have you ever considered enrolling as a Paladin? They usually have a similar level of fevor when dealing with the 'undead'. (Maybe its just that avatar's stare. Following me around the room, that constant glare... umm what was I saying?)

I really don't like the account banning stuff. I have a lot of stuff on Steam and put a lot of effort in to say WoW. The idea that they can take away my 'belongings' (those licenses don't belong to me actually) with no recourse, no real reason and no 'due process' (like a trial in criminal law) scares me a little.

I don't do anything wrong but that wont save me. Even cheaters (online) deserve to only be cut off from online play.

Would you be able to provide some links to information on this?  I'd be interested to see how and why it happened.  I haven't heard of this myself.  I don't buy games from EA any more, but it doesn't surprise me that they'd happily destroy your purchased games.  I'm a little more surprised at Valve, however.  As far as I'm concerned, the abilitly to ban someone from a game is unethical.  Period.  They can be the biggest asshats in history however they still have rights and they still paid.  Banning someone from a forum is one thing as posting in the forums is not a right, and usually this would be enough to shut down the usual internet trash.  Banning someone's Steam Account then forces them to pirate those titles to actually get their product and that's simply not right.
Valve have terrible customer service even for their own games.  If you have a problem, they don't care.  Splinter Cell, for example, doesn't work on modern video cards (anything post 2003 it seems) and they don't advertise this fault on the game's Steam page leading one to believe it actually does work on today's hardware.  When it didn't work, I requested a refund for the non-functional product and was denied.  Contacting Ubisoft is about as helpful as hammering nails into your testicals, and so the money I paid is wasted because the game simply doesn't function through no fault of my own.  I buy games on Special on Steam.  If I want something serious, something proper, I buy from Impulse.  At least I know their Sales department aren't the same people who clean the coffee machine, service the CEO and empty the bins because their too god damn cheap to actually hire support staff.

Steam frustrates me and many people. As far as I know, they are actually allowed to destroy your copies and/or not give you refunds.

I think Valve and anyting they do are extremely overated. They remind me of the blizzard of the fps

I know... I was not saying that it's a good thing, I simply wanted to point out, that he already has Steam games on his Steam account and thus his comment about not buying anything on Steam since his account can get banned is weird.

 

What do you mean? You can buy the game anywhere, not just on Steam.

This ain't rocket science... the meaning is quite clear.

Syneptus said: "No more should be said, other than WHY THE HECK DID THEY HAVE TO GO WITH STEAM ONLY?!?!?!?!?No more should be said, other than WHY THE HECK DID THEY HAVE TO GO WITH STEAM ONLY?!?!?!?!?"

You replied to him: "Because SteamWorks is a stable and easily integrate able solution."

ie -- you're claiming they went with "steam only" because it's <insert your blatant PR-speak spiel>

Now there's 2 options regarding that reply of yours:

1- Your answer is the fallacious argument Non Sequitur -- your answer doesn't follow the question.

The reason your answer doesn't follow the question is because that while steam may be "...a stable and easily integrate able solution...", that is no reason to go with steam only.  It's a reason to go with steam, but not to preclude other outlets.

...or...

2- The only way your answer isn't the fallacious argument Non Sequetur is if you think steam is only a "...stable and easily integrate able solution..." when steam is the only outlet -- you're saying they have to preclude other outlets and go with "steam only" so steam would be "...stable and easily integrate able..."

So which is it -- 1 (Non Sequitur) or 2 (you think steam is good if it's the only option)?

As I said, this ain't rocket science...

Kapish now?

 

Uhm... no . Why did you say? You can buy the game anywhere you like, not just through Steam.

 

To elaborate more on the decision for SteamWorks: during the development of Supreme Commander 2, GPG had to decide how to implement their Multiplayer Matchmaking service. There were 3 options basically: the GPGnet client, GFWL and SteamWorks. Luckily they went with SteamWorks and according to GPG they didn't regret it, since SteamWorks provides a very stable matchmaking and more important for Supreme Commander specifically: a stable connection setup service.

The GPGnet client is old, outdated and bugged. It only provides very, very basic connection facilitation and if they would have used GPGnet, they would have reprogrammed the whole client from scratch (the developer who originally designed the GPGnet client does not work at GPG anymore).

I personally do not have any experience with GFWL, but from what I hear, the connection facilitation is quite awful and there are a lot of other issues.

 

The fact that SteamWorks is a good and stable solution is not a "blatant PR-speak spiel". It was the best option for GPG, since it provided them with a good and stable solution without having to create an in-house solution and thus it saved time and money (both of which were lacking for Supreme Commander 2). I am glad they went with that and not with the GPGnet client, GFLW or any other custom solution.

In post #51 Syneptus said: "No more should be said, other than WHY THE HECK DID THEY HAVE TO GO WITH STEAM ONLY?!?!?!?!?"

In post #52 You replied to him: "Because SteamWorks is a stable and easily integrate able solution."

Your reply was the fallacious Non Sequiter -- it did not follow from his question.  It's a Non Sequiter because that while steam may be "...a stable and easily integrate able solution..." that is no reason to go with steam only.

The only way your answer wasn't a Non Sequiter is if you are claiming that steam is "...stable and easily integrate able..." onlyif no other option exists.  That's logic, it's how logical arguments (argument as in discussion) work.

And to you the phrase "Because SteamWorks is a stable and easily integrate able solution" isn't a PR-speak spiel?  Really?  Non-PR folk talk like that normally???

I still don't understand what you are getting at. Maybe there is a general misunderstanding here. I'll try to make things clear.

• Supreme Commander 2 can be bought from every retailer that offers it, not just online through Steam.
  
  
• Supreme Commander 2 uses SteamWorks, a free development and publishing suite, which contains APIs for various Steam modules. Supreme Commander 2 uses it for matchmaking, connection facilitation and online leader boards. According to GPG is was easy to use and the connection facilitation works excellent, especially when considering, that the Moho Engine from Supreme Commander 2 uses peer-to-peer networking. If you compare it to Supreme Commander / Forged Alliance and Demigod, you will see how well it works.
  
  
• Since Supreme Commander 2 uses SteamWorks, a free development and publishing suite, which contains APIs for various Steam modules, it is tied to Steam services.

It doesn't matter if that phrase sounds like "PR talk". There is no need to phrase it differently, just so that it doesn't sound like "PR talk" for Nick-Danger.

 

Maybe you are trying to make this too complicated, or too simple...

Syneptus didn't ask 'why steam' he asked 'why steam only'.

Your answer doesn't address why steam _only_.  It answers 'why steam' but he didn't ask that.

Reasons might include GPG being made an offer they couldn't refuse, Valve taking a smaller cut to distribute, packaging deals, etc.

Instead of answering his question you evaded with a PR-speak spiel right out of a sales manual.

It's not that it sounds like PR-speak spiel, it is one.

Nope, no need to phrase it differently, unless of course you don't want to have your words considered as PR-speak instead of an unbiased opinion.

Ah, I see now. The reason is, that they use SteamWorks. I think that's where the misunderstanding is .

I assumed that you and he knows, that if a game uses SteamWorks, the game is automatically tied to Steam (since SteamWorks essentially an API for Steam services, for which you have to use Steam itself in order to use them).

That's where SteamWorks is different from Impulse::Reactor. The Impulse::Reactor API provides functions to directly communicate with the Impulse servers for the various services it offers, without having to have the Impulse client installed for example. It's completely standalone.

SteamWorks being tied to Steam or more specifically the Steam application on each user itself may or may not be arbitrary, but that is something you would have to ask VALVe.

(And the consecutive question would be, why they decided to use SteamWorks and that's why I tried to give an answer to that too.)

 

Of course SteamWorks is not the sole reason for the game being tied to Steam. They may as well have chosen GFLW for matchmaking etc. and Steam for DRM for example. Steam as a DRM service most likely factored in the decision to use Steam or SteamWorks too.

GPG have choosen to use Steamworks for handling multiplayer in Supreme Commander 2 since it was a free, robust and eprouved library. But the use of Steamworks forces the user to have the Steam client installed and running on its computer when launching Sup Com2. As a result all other DD store (like Impulse, Direct to Drive) have decided to not sell this game since it will install a competitor store.

 

Yep, we were talking apples&oranges. 

I'm focusing on the steam _only_ part because I do know about steamworks (well, as much as is reasonably discoverable to us civilians -- for example their API Overview) ie as you say here:

... and, as you further say, how steamworks differs from Impulse.

I focus on Syneptus' 'why steam _only_' question because what I've learned about steam/steamworks tells me that 'steam _only_' isn't for the benefit of the gamer (because it limits his/her options), it's for the benefit of Valve by increasing market share, collecting more information -- aggregate, individual, and personally identifiable -- that they share with unnamed third parties, getting their software to run on more computers (see the above API Overview link for some of what it does), etc.

Steam may be the best thing of its type since sliced bread, but that doesn't mean making the game steam only (as per what Syneptus meant) is in the player's best interest, and is why your answer to Syneptus left me... unfulfilled

Thank you for your polite replies, and if I mine have been less so, my apologies.

 

I use Steam regularly, and I still hate Steam.

@Nick-Danger: it is or can still be in the player's interest, due to how well SteamWorks works for the game. Syneptus might prefer a game which is tied to Steam and has a robust matchmaking and connection facilitation system, over a game that does not use Steam and has a potentially crappy multiplayer system (as seen in Moder Warfare 2 for example).

Also the "Steam only" part only limits the options in such a way, that the game will not be sold on other online distribution services, but is still sold in regular retail stores.

Piracy.

Bar out of complete necessity, you will never see me pay for a Steam game.

It's not in my best interest to play a game that is 'steam only' because:

-I don't want unnecessary third party software running in the background to play a single-player offline game

-I don't want steam collecting info on me, including unspecified personally identifiable info

-I don't need steam to find me MP partners

-I don't care for achievements, in fact I think they detract from games

-I don't need steamworks anti-cheats as I don't play with cheaters (just old friends)

-I don't need steam to make a game difficult or impossible to play via LAN or direct IP connection

-I don't need steam DRM to be constantly running (beyond a one-time authorization)

-I don't need steam monitoring my computer for game file fragmentation or out-of-date drivers and whatever else it does

-I don't want steam being the 800# gorilla with its market share

-I don't need to have my legally bought games rendered useless if steam bans me for innocuous reasons (like disputing mistaken charges)

Nothing steam provides can't be done, and hasn't been done, in other ways -- ways just as effective.

Steam is used not because it benefits players (as shown above) but because it benefits publishers and steam.

Some like steam and I'm glad they can get it.  Some don't like steam and that some games give those folks no choice and force steam upon them, not good.

Actions speak louder than words.  If publishers truly thought steam was a benefit to all players, and if players were truly what they cared most about, then it'd be optional not forced.  The reason it isn't is because it benefits publishers to make it mandatory.