[POLL] Would you use Steam for Rebirth?

[Nanook]

I've lost count how many times this thread has been archived,but the ratios to the response to the poll has dramatically become very distinct..

It seems that many now are happy with activation and updates,compared to when I started this thread.
Definitely in the lead now...

I think what it really shows is the influx of new players that were already Steam users, as the result of all the sales of X games on Steam. I highly doubt it reveals a change of heart in most of those opposed to Steam-only X games.

The fact that the current X games are pretty much only available through Steam now is why there aren't more new forum users voting against it, I'd guess. So in that regard, the poll has become highly biased and probably not of much value anymore.

[theeclownbroze]

i would buy the super limited boxed edition with all the extras and then activate and for updates with steam

[TEKing66]

Nanook, I would have to agree with your thinking there. Having the games only available through Steam will/has kinda shifted the voting towards a "Steam Happy" crowd. Not to mention that anyone stating they are not "Steam Happy" will, typically, get a little roasted by saying so.

And, while I have tried Steam, and tried to be open minded toward it. I still say that I would much prefer a Steam free version of games verses having Steam powered games. And so, I have not changed, nor would I change, the way I voted.

Not that my opinion really matters to anyone except me.

[Slashman]

Err...the thing is that no one can change the way they voted. Neither the person who is now happy with Steam nor the person who has turned against it.

So essentially, there is no way to tell about people who have shifted in either direction and voted already unless they posted.

[TEKing66]

Which is exactly why I made me last post, to reaffirm that I still fell the same way.

[Nanook]

Err...the thing is that no one can change the way they voted. Neither the person who is now happy with Steam nor the person who has turned against it.

So essentially, there is no way to tell about people who have shifted in either direction and voted already unless they posted.

Exactly. And if someone did change their mind, either way, they'd probably post in this thread. I can't say I've seen any of those. My guess is that the number of mind changers would make very little difference to the poll results.

[Deleted User]

In the case of sharing games with a friend, there is nothing to stop you creating a either a specific account for each game shared or a single account for all the the games and sharing the relevant account details with your friend.

Good luck with that, Roger. Whilst you may agree with Steam, I find it slightly puzzling why you should advise others to pursue activity that may well get their accounts banned.

[Deleted User]

Yes, it would seem that they more powerful computers get, the less control the individual user actually has over what and how they can use these machines. It seems that today governments and big businesses have all the power, the individual consumer can either accept what they say or fade into nonexistence.

i would say this is more to do with the users than the technology

Back in the earlier days of computing, almost everyone who used them were people who were into computers and therefore knew what they were doing.

as time has gone on, more and more people are using computers, and have less and less knowledge about them.

So its easier to lock things down than to have to deal with all the problems that happen due to thier lack of knowledge

I disagree entirely and the industry would probably agree if they were honest about it.

The technology is improving at a vast rate, far faster than traditional industry can cope with. That is why puny attempts to control the user are put in place.

If users were not aware of what the industry is trying to implement, there would be no such feeble attempts at control.

[Yohandis Yololo Yum VII]

I think what it really shows is the influx of new players that were already Steam users, as the result of all the sales of X games on Steam. I highly doubt it reveals a change of heart in most of those opposed to Steam-only X games.

The fact that the current X games are pretty much only available through Steam now is why there aren't more new forum users voting against it, I'd guess. So in that regard, the poll has become highly biased and probably not of much value anymore.

There is no evidence to support that the poll is biased. The mere assumption that because x is "pretty much only available through Steam" therefore it is biased argument can be used both ways. For example, when x was primarily sold at retailers the poll must have been biased towards anti-steam (using that logic).

Everyone, non-steam and steam users, has access to this poll at this time. If this poll is even representative, who knows? But we shouldn't make assumptions.

[eladan]

Things will change regardless of what you do. I mean you could create a nice retro bubble around your house where all games exist in a non account-bound form and give yourself the illusion that you've done something significant.

Sure they will. That doesn't mean that I have to jump on board every change as soon as it arrives (as some people seem to suggest that you do, lest you be called a technophobe or worse) nor be silent when things change in a way I'm not happy with.

Unfortunately, the world will still continue to march onward in the direction it's going to go. And all it would take is an unfortunate accident or two to render all that hard work moot. Because in the end, you aren't going to live forever, and all the physical boxed games you own are going to end up in a dump, owned by someone who doesn't care about them or otherwise forgotten. And no one will really care either way.

I don't understand your reason for posting this at all. Whatever I do, I do because I want to do it. Nothing lasts forever? No kidding. Doesn't mean that I have to prematurely retire things that I don't want to, or not make any effort at continuing to enjoy the things that I do. Whether someone else thinks that is a waste of my time, I really couldn't care less, and they can take a flying leap if they think they can tell me what I should do.

It's kind of like Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes. He worked all his life, built all this great stuff and now someone else was going to own it who never worked for it and wouldn't appreciate it. At the end of the day, its vanity and it doesn't mean squat.

Wait, what? It's vanity to want to enjoy my games for as long as possible? Sorry, but that's patently ridiculous.

[elexis]

There is no evidence to support that the poll is biased.

A: It's in a forum B: On the internet and C: It's a poll.

By definition it is biased.

[quase]

I think what it really shows is the influx of new players that were already Steam users, as the result of all the sales of X games on Steam. I highly doubt it reveals a change of heart in most of those opposed to Steam-only X games.

The fact that the current X games are pretty much only available through Steam now is why there aren't more new forum users voting against it, I'd guess. So in that regard, the poll has become highly biased and probably not of much value anymore.

There is no evidence to support that the poll is biased. The mere assumption that because x is "pretty much only available through Steam" therefore it is biased argument can be used both ways. For example, when x was primarily sold at retailers the poll must have been biased towards anti-steam (using that logic).

Everyone, non-steam and steam users, has access to this poll at this time. If this poll is even representative, who knows? But we shouldn't make assumptions.

I have to agree with Nanook. If the X-series would be on Amazon-downloads, Gamersgate, McGame or GOG.com without the additional force of using Steam, we would probably see a less biased poll. Although Steam is in the current lifecycle of the X-series probably the only place where the games sell anyway. At least I think it is safe to say that the physical retail sells of X these days are insignificant. The conclusion must be that new people who come here are most certainly Steam-users in the first place.
Furthermore, the games were always on Steam while this poll was up, so it was never biased towards "not-Steam-users". There was also never a reason for somebody using Steam to complain about the situation, unlike for people who do not want to or can not use Steam.

Anyway, with Star Citizen or Elite: Dangerous and a few smaller developments in the space simulation genre that will come without the need of Steam, I think I can easily pass on Rebirth. In the end it is the decision of the publisher/developer if they want to sell me their product or not. I can only decide if the contractual situation and the offer from them suits me or not. Steam is a sudden death criteria which does not meet my requirements for a purchase.

[BAD_POOL_HEADER]

i would say this is more to do with the users than the technology

Back in the earlier days of computing, almost everyone who used them were people who were into computers and therefore knew what they were doing.

as time has gone on, more and more people are using computers, and have less and less knowledge about them.

So its easier to lock things down than to have to deal with all the problems that happen due to thier lack of knowledge

I disagree entirely and the industry would probably agree if they were honest about it.

The technology is improving at a vast rate, far faster than traditional industry can cope with. That is why puny attempts to control the user are put in place.

If users were not aware of what the industry is trying to implement, there would be no such feeble attempts at control.

No, Cycrow is entirely correct. The vast majority of users have no real idea how their hardware works and don't care to know either. All they want to do is be able to turn it on and do whatever they want to do with it. Tweaking is for geeks.

From an industry standpoint having a locked down uniform system makes technical support a vastly simplified and therefore cheaper. You like to make it out to be some nefarious goal of the super-illuminati to take away our rights but when it comes down to it it's really just common sense at work.

[eladan]

From an industry standpoint having a locked down uniform system makes technical support a vastly simplified and therefore cheaper. You like to make it out to be some nefarious goal of the super-illuminati to take away our rights but when it comes down to it it's really just common sense at work.

I'm pretty sure that there are other elements at work there. Namely that lockdown of platforms means that the company is defacto in control of distribution on a platform, with various benefits (to the company, not to their customers) such as control of revenue, and being able to skim a proportion of every transaction, and the possibility of being able to lock out that pesky application from a rival which competes with the one the company made and wants to sell.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

In the case of sharing games with a friend, there is nothing to stop you creating a either a specific account for each game shared or a single account for all the the games and sharing the relevant account details with your friend.

Good luck with that, Roger. Whilst you may agree with Steam, I find it slightly puzzling why you should advise others to pursue activity that may well get their accounts banned.

I have never been in the position where I would buy a game and share it with people and will never be. I adhere to the licensing regulations strictly.

The Ts&Cs are more to do with sharing a game for profit rather than sharing in a limited environment (e.g. a home where everyone may use the same account on the same group of computers - not simultaeniously though). Where Steam is concerned, you can only be logged into the same account on one computer at a time.

From clause 2A of the current Steam License:-

Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Software for your personal use in accordance with this Agreement, including the Subscription Terms.

This implies that the license can not be shared via one interpretation but clause 2F explicitly states the non-commercial gain restriction aspects with an exception for registered Cyber Cafes. In addition, Clause 13 has to be considered

You agree to comply with all applicable import/export laws and regulations. You agree not to export the Software or allow use of your Account by individuals of any terrorist supporting countries to which encryption exports are at the time of exportation restricted by the U.S. Bureau of Export Administration. You represent and warrant that you are not located in, under the control of, or a national or resident of any such prohibited country.

The implication of this is that as an individual, you are permitted to allow friends and family to access/use the account. However, it also means that if you have say a friend who is a national from country X and the US is currently holding an embargo against country X then you are not permitted to allow them to access your account (regardless of their country of residence).

In general, it is safer not to allow anyone to access your own personal account but under limited circumstances it would appear to be permissable although you are held responsible for any breach of license as consequence of their access.

[EDIT]WRT my own opinions on Steam and similar technologies, I do not personally care either way.

As a user I like the fringe benefits that Steam offers, but am neutral on the licensing aspects since I have faith that come what may Valve (and the developers of whatever software I use through Steam) will play fair with me as a customer/end-user.[/EDIT]

[strude]

Anyway, with Star Citizen or Elite: Dangerous and a few smaller developments in the space simulation genre that will come without the need of Steam, I think I can easily pass on Rebirth. In the end it is the decision of the publisher/developer if they want to sell me their product or not. I can only decide if the contractual situation and the offer from them suits me or not. Steam is a sudden death criteria which does not meet my requirements for a purchase.

You sound fairly certain that those titles you mention won't use Steam. Why is that? They will need to distribute the software, as does any developer. If Steam offers them a method of distribution, with the benefit of 'bolt on' DRM should they choose to implement it, why would they not take advantage of that?

I'm not having a go either, just asking. I've not looked into either of those titles, so I have no idea what has been announced in regards to DRM or their distribution.

[quase]

Anyway, with Star Citizen or Elite: Dangerous and a few smaller developments in the space simulation genre that will come without the need of Steam, I think I can easily pass on Rebirth. In the end it is the decision of the publisher/developer if they want to sell me their product or not. I can only decide if the contractual situation and the offer from them suits me or not. Steam is a sudden death criteria which does not meet my requirements for a purchase.

You sound fairly certain that those titles you mention won't use Steam. Why is that? They will need to distribute the software, as does any developer. If Steam offers them a method of distribution, with the benefit of 'bolt on' DRM should they choose to implement it, why would they not take advantage of that?

I'm not having a go either, just asking. I've not looked into either of those titles, so I have no idea what has been announced in regards to DRM or their distribution.

In fact I am certain they would use Steam if the have the chance to do so. It would probably be wrong not to do so, but there will be DRM free download-able installers as well to download and install the game (most probably even offline) I am sure. Although I think Star Citizen for example seems to heavily rely on distributing the game themselves over their website and it might as well be OK for them due to their high profile/reputation in the gaming scene. Why give away money to Valve (or other digital distributors) if you can do the distribution yourself? They could be better off to distribute the game solely over their own homepage and use classic publishers to sell only the retail copies in brick and mortar stores.
Elite on the other hand might be better off using all distribution channels they can to reach as many people as possible. Although the game is already financed so it can not be a financial loss for the company, they will of course want to earn as much money as possible with their product when its released.

I am also certain that most of the independent developers will use different distribution channels beside Steam as well. As most of them spoke out against DRM (at least in case of Star Citizen and Elite I am sure they did say so), unlike Egosoft/DeepSilver, there seems to be no need to limit themselves to Steam. I am fairly certain we will see most new independent releases at least on GOG.com if not on any other digital distribution platform available. And that's the way to go, not force people to Steam! This is also what we as customers need, you buy at Steam, I buy at McGame, the next using the Windows Store or GOG.com. Freedom of choice and competition between the distributors that is not artificially disturbed by a forced Steam-usage.

[Deleted User]

In the case of sharing games with a friend, there is nothing to stop you creating a either a specific account for each game shared or a single account for all the the games and sharing the relevant account details with your friend.

Good luck with that, Roger. Whilst you may agree with Steam, I find it slightly puzzling why you should advise others to pursue activity that may well get their accounts banned.

I have never been in the position where I would buy a game and share it with people and will never be. I adhere to the licensing regulations strictly.

The Ts&Cs are more to do with sharing a game for profit rather than sharing in a limited environment (e.g. a home where everyone may use the same account on the same group of computers - not simultaeniously though). Where Steam is concerned, you can only be logged into the same account on one computer at a time.

From clause 2A of the current Steam License:-

Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Software for your personal use in accordance with this Agreement, including the Subscription Terms.

This implies that the license can not be shared via one interpretation but clause 2F explicitly states the non-commercial gain restriction aspects with an exception for registered Cyber Cafes. In addition, Clause 13 has to be considered

You agree to comply with all applicable import/export laws and regulations. You agree not to export the Software or allow use of your Account by individuals of any terrorist supporting countries to which encryption exports are at the time of exportation restricted by the U.S. Bureau of Export Administration. You represent and warrant that you are not located in, under the control of, or a national or resident of any such prohibited country.

The implication of this is that as an individual, you are permitted to allow friends and family to access/use the account. However, it also means that if you have say a friend who is a national from country X and the US is currently holding an embargo against country X then you are not permitted to allow them to access your account (regardless of their country of residence).

In general, it is safer not to allow anyone to access your own personal account but under limited circumstances it would appear to be permissable although you are held responsible for any breach of license as consequence of their access.

[EDIT]WRT my own opinions on Steam and similar technologies, I do not personally care either way.

As a user I like the fringe benefits that Steam offers, but am neutral on the licensing aspects since I have faith that come what may Valve (and the developers of whatever software I use through Steam) will play fair with me as a customer/end-user.[/EDIT]

It is stated clearly in the steam subscriber agreement that you may NOT share account details:-

http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/

When you complete Steam’s registration process, you create a Steam account ("Account"). Your Account may also include billing information you provide to Valve for the purchase of Subscriptions. You are solely responsible for all activity on your Account and for the security of your computer system. You may not reveal, share or otherwise allow others to use your password or Account. You agree that you are personally responsible for the use of your password and Account and for all of the communication and activity on Steam that results from use of your login name and password. You may not sell or charge others for the right to use your Account, or otherwise transfer your Account, nor may you sell, charge others for the right to use, or transfer any Subscriptions other than if and as expressly permitted by this Agreement (including any Subscription Terms or Rules of Use).

[Rabiator der II.]

Although I think Star Citizen for example seems to heavily rely on distributing the game themselves over their website and it might as well be OK for them due to their high profile/reputation in the gaming scene. Why give away money to Valve (or other digital distributors) if you can do the distribution yourself?

There are others who seem to have no problem doing it themselves. For instance, the makers of Vendetta Online.

Vendetta Online is a product of Guild Software, Inc. We are a tiny company of four people located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.

Obviously, it is not impossible for companies smaller than Egosoft .

[Deleted User]

No, Cycrow is entirely correct. The vast majority of users have no real idea how their hardware works and don't care to know either. All they want to do is be able to turn it on and do whatever they want to do with it. Tweaking is for geeks.

From an industry standpoint having a locked down uniform system makes technical support a vastly simplified and therefore cheaper. You like to make it out to be some nefarious goal of the super-illuminati to take away our rights but when it comes down to it it's really just common sense at work.

<Quote correctly re-attributed. Alan Phipps>

Listen to yourself.

You support (and even more bizarrely consider purchasing) a locked down uniform system that benefits....

Think about it (the word lock is a hint and no illuminati are required)