Is it just me, or is it unimaginable to NOT have Steam nowadays?

[archcommus]

Valve comes out with updates practically every freaking other day, a lot of them offering tons of great benefits (for example, just released the 64-bit version of the Source engine). Imagine, if Steam did not exist, every update we so happily get immediately would have to be put off for months until some mammoth 100 MB update came out, just like how it is for all other games.

To me, Steam seems more and more great every day. However I am not saying I wish something like it existed for ALL games because, quite frankly, most games do not necessitate such a service. However Half-Life, with its huge community, and with such an active developer, definitely reaps tons of benefits with such a system. I don't really understand how you can actively use HL2, its mods, it's multiplayer, and possibly even map for it, and still wish that Steam didn't exist.

 

[Xyclone]

I still remember the days of 1.5. That was kinda weird, I prefer steam.

 

[Heifetz]

Why couldn't they release the updates in the same increments w/o Steam? I think the primary benefit of Steam is for Valve to make sure that everyone is running the same version of the game, which makes support and patching a lot easier, as well as getting rid of the piracy.

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: Heifetz
Why couldn't they release the updates in the same increments w/o Steam? I think the primary benefit of Steam is for Valve to make sure that everyone is running the same version of the game, which makes support and patching a lot easier, as well as getting rid of the piracy.

Well, that too.

 

[duragezic]

I've always liked it in the first place, but I didn't ever use it until I bought HL2 at the end of 2004. I do believe there was quite a rough start, so some of the flaming was justified.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

If it didn't require you to spend $40 on a game and wasn't so unpredictable (random errors that prevent you from playing online and such) it would be great.

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
If it didn't require you to spend $40 on a game and wasn't so unpredictable (random errors that prevent you from playing online and such) it would be great.

No game is required to be purchased to use Steam, and if you're complaining about HL2's cost, well, then, uh....

 

[0roo0roo]

well i tolerate it for valve since they've got a good record with games and such. i wouldn't be so happy if another shady company like ea or whatnot tried the same. and yea the updates/new maps and such for cs source are just sweet

 

[swtethan]

you vs me, css, now!

 

[Gatt]

I like the theory behind Steam, but I think the implementation is flawed.

Steam could've been the Google of gaming, a simple, easy to use, non-intrusive gateway to games of all sorts from many different developers. But to do so, Steam would've had to bucked the traditional Publisher-Developer payment relationship and provided a great deal more revenue to the Developers encouraging them to do Online releases instead of store releases where draconic publishers take most of the money.

But from what I'm hearing, Steam is charging nearly the same amount to "Publish" a game for developers as existing, Retail chain based, Publishers charge.

Steam could've made a *mint* if they chose not to be greedy. Online releases are the wave of the future for Developers, and it readily allows indie and small-budget developers to compete fairly for the dollars provided they have quality products.

It's Steam's loss. Someone else *will* create a "Steam" that does just that, and it will become enourmously popular. Simply because it'll allow the "Bastard child" genres to be rediscovered.

PC Gaming is going to hit a major revolution in the next 5 years, Online Delivery will be a big part. Steam could've been that delivery, but they need to move to a system that loses large revenues per product by making up for it with a more small-budget accessible format that cultivates Indie and Small-budget development houses.

Truth be told, that's where nearly all of the Classics came from, Indie or Small budget studios. Not the EA's or the Activisions, but small studios focused on making a game, not a product.

 

[The Green Bean]

an online delivery system would also reduce piracy

 

[skace]

I always thought Steam was a good idea and never really had any problems with it. The thing I could have never imagined, is all the innovative small games that are becoming a reality because of Steam, that completely blindsided me.

 

[Malladine]

Originally posted by: Gatt
I like the theory behind Steam, but I think the implementation is flawed.

Steam could've been the Google of gaming, a simple, easy to use, non-intrusive gateway to games of all sorts from many different developers. But to do so, Steam would've had to bucked the traditional Publisher-Developer payment relationship and provided a great deal more revenue to the Developers encouraging them to do Online releases instead of store releases where draconic publishers take most of the money.

But from what I'm hearing, Steam is charging nearly the same amount to "Publish" a game for developers as existing, Retail chain based, Publishers charge.

Steam could've made a *mint* if they chose not to be greedy. Online releases are the wave of the future for Developers, and it readily allows indie and small-budget developers to compete fairly for the dollars provided they have quality products.

It's Steam's loss. Someone else *will* create a "Steam" that does just that, and it will become enourmously popular. Simply because it'll allow the "Bastard child" genres to be rediscovered.

PC Gaming is going to hit a major revolution in the next 5 years, Online Delivery will be a big part. Steam could've been that delivery, but they need to move to a system that loses large revenues per product by making up for it with a more small-budget accessible format that cultivates Indie and Small-budget development houses.

Truth be told, that's where nearly all of the Classics came from, Indie or Small budget studios. Not the EA's or the Activisions, but small studios focused on making a game, not a product.

Good call.

I think it will be more difficult than it sounds to make a "game gateway" to deliver games from multiple developers electronically. It would require lots of teamwork between (likely) competing houses. It's possible though, and it would be a great thing for gaming imo. They could even have a regular website front end that features reviews, etc. But then I guess it would become a pseudo-gamespy network...

 

[PseudoKnight]

But from what I'm hearing, Steam is charging nearly the same amount to "Publish" a game for developers as existing, Retail chain based, Publishers charge.

Actually, it's not the same. Developers typically get around 15% of the revenue made by a game. With Steam, Developers get around 40%. Valve gets around 60-70% for the games they release over Steam. Those aren't exact, but it's close.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: skace
I always thought Steam was a good idea and never really had any problems with it. The thing I could have never imagined, is all the innovative small games that are becoming a reality because of Steam, that completely blindsided me.

I have a 256k line and before that had slow dial up. Its nearly impossible to download a game on those. It would take 20 days to download CS:Source on a bad cable connection where I would get dced from steam every 10 mins.

Now it takes a few hours.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: PseudoKnight

But from what I'm hearing, Steam is charging nearly the same amount to "Publish" a game for developers as existing, Retail chain based, Publishers charge.

Actually, it's not the same. Developers typically get around 15% of the revenue made by a game. With Steam, Developers get around 40%. Valve gets around 60-70% for the games they release over Steam. Those aren't exact, but it's close.

You also have to add in the extra markets offered to a developer by Steam.
A major publisher publishing a small game (ie: indie developer) might only release in the UK/US markets, Steam however has worldwide appeal, so even small countries that may not have got a copy (such as many mainland European countries) have equal access.

I can't imagine a retail release of something like Darwinia would have much worldwide penetration in shops, but through Steam there are people all over who can get it.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Yeah I love it when they release lots of little patches that fvck the game up in new and interesting ways. Beats sitting around waiting for another BF2 SNAFU.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I have a 256k line and before that had slow dial up. Its nearly impossible to download a game on those. It would take 20 days to download CS:Source on a bad cable connection where I would get dced from steam every 10 mins.

Now it takes a few hours.

Fortunately, I can't relate because I've had a solid broadband connection for a long time now. I wouldn't tolerate a bad cable connection and if I was on dialup I wouldn't be playing CS (you get kicked from most servers).

Ah well.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
an online delivery system would also reduce piracy

lol, not. There are a few steam cracks out there that allow you to download any content at will off of steam.

Personally, I don't like the way steam is implemented, at least for how it works with HL2, don't know what effect it has on any other games. You have to log in to steam to play the game, and patches are forced, not optional.

 

[Mavrick007]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
an online delivery system would also reduce piracy

lol, not. There are a few steam cracks out there that allow you to download any content at will off of steam.

Personally, I don't like the way steam is implemented, at least for how it works with HL2, don't know what effect it has on any other games. You have to log in to steam to play the game, and patches are forced, not optional.

Exactly, you "have to" install the patch, otherwise you are not able to access any of the online networks. It would be fine if it was like other games, such as UT2k4 (or any of the older ones) or BF2 where you see the version of servers out there and you can access them if you want. Obviously most servers will have an updated patch but you do not have to use it if you don't want to (especially if the patch is buggy). UT always tells you in the news section any new patch that is released and that you should update but you don't have to to continue using the program. Also, I'm not sure if it's true for all of the Steam games, but I have a hard time connecting to a game if I'm not first connected to the internet to verify my login information. This is a pain if I want to just play a game on a small network not connected to the internet.

 

[archcommus]

What is the problem with the forced updates? If it negatively affects something there's usually an uproar and it's fixed immediately, at least from what I've seen. And you have to admit, it's extremely nice for everyone to have the exact same copy all the time.

 

[PseudoKnight]

Updates aren't totally forced. You can opt to not automatically update any game in Steam.

I understand people's issues with Steam, and most of them are inherent to the system, but I think Steam benefits gamers and developers much more than it hurts anything. Digital distribution is an exceptional alternative to the harmful developer/publisher relationship and a great first step in revitalising the gaming industry.

(I can't wait until Friends starts working again. )

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: archcommus
No game is required to be purchased to use Steam, and if you're complaining about HL2's cost, well, then, uh....

If you buy the boxed version you can't register it with Steam, can you?

 

[Malak]

I've said this a million times and I'll say it again. You don't need Steam to download games, patches, or reduce piracy. People have been downloading games for years(downloaded my first game in 1997), patches can be set to auto-update everytime you play the game(without a seperate program that slows it down), and it hasn't helped at all in reducing piracy.

Steam doesn't help us, it's nothing new, and it's a pain in the ass.

 

[xtknight]

It's a steaming pile of ****. It sure did "revolutionize the industry" for me, making it practically inoperable.

Freezes every time I start it, hangs CPU for about 5 minutes, making it impossible to play games until that grace period of crappyness expires. Reminds me how much I hate that stupid piece of crap. Its disadvantages far outweigh its advantages. The interface has stupid quirks. For example, if you add an IP address to the server list you don't know which one just appeared or if it already existed in there. Real helpful. :roll: A game this popular should have decent interfacing software. Any code monkey could have made something more apt. I have had more problems with Steam than Battlefield 2.