Those hardware surveys may collect data automatically, but the user has the choice to submit or not.
I have taken two of those surveys, and they are literally multiple choice answers of your hardware. I had a HD 3850 at the time, but they didn't have any ATI card option other than X1900. The end of it did pull the drivers from my OS, but that was the only thing that wasn't explicitly asked in the survey (even that had an option to confirm/deny). So unless they have changed the way they do it since then (and looking at the survey results, it doesn't look like it), then I would say they still do the survey manually. Your spyware comment is off base, but then you didn't really understand how it worked when you made that comment.
Yep, but that data is persistently being tracked and collected by your client. Again, it has to in order to maintain some of its core functions, like keeping your games up to date.
LMAO, just because they ask you questions doesn't mean they actually use it for anything. If I had to guess its just to verify data or make you feel like you're actually actively helping them out. Don't believe me? Open up your Steam client, hit "Help" and click on "System Information". It lists literally everything you see in the Steam survey down to random, obscure info like Free HD space. Unsurprisingly...it also provides a link to the Steam Hardware Survey..... I'd say the info in there is certainly going to be more accurate than relying on the input results of people who most likely don't know the answers to the questions anyways.
As for my comment being off-base, again, its quite obvious Steam collects more information about me and my PC than SecuROM ever would. I'm quite sure of it actually, as I can't recall the last SecuROM title I installed that had its own Privacy Statement detailing all the different kinds of information collection you subject yourself to when agreeing to the terms of use.
I love steam. I wouldn't of bought half the games I did without it and it's awesome because I always lose my game discs. Long live STEAM.
WildW
Senior member
I like Steam too - I've bought quite a few games through it recently. I like how you can easily install on multiple machines, and buy games without having to go out and find it.
I do resent the way you can't transfer/sell games to other folks - it's not just the selling issue. Anything else I have I can lend to my friends or give away when I get bored of it. Hey, I liked this book/movie/XBox game/CD but I'm tired of it for now , wanna borrow it? Not with Steam.
I can see exactly why they do it. Unlike physical media a Steam game loses no value - no disc to be scratched, no manual to be lost. If you could sell the games on, anything that was on Steam for $20 would be $18 on eBay for the exact same product. . .why would anyone buy anything "new" ever again when there's no difference between new and used? I'm not defending Steam in this respect, they're still scum, but I understand it.
I do resent the way you can't transfer/sell games to other folks - it's not just the selling issue. Anything else I have I can lend to my friends or give away when I get bored of it. Hey, I liked this book/movie/XBox game/CD but I'm tired of it for now , wanna borrow it? Not with Steam.
I can see exactly why they do it. Unlike physical media a Steam game loses no value - no disc to be scratched, no manual to be lost. If you could sell the games on, anything that was on Steam for $20 would be $18 on eBay for the exact same product. . .why would anyone buy anything "new" ever again when there's no difference between new and used? I'm not defending Steam in this respect, they're still scum, but I understand it.
Red Irish
Guest
- Mar 6, 2009
- 1,605
- 0
- 0
There are a number of points in relation to Steam that bear discussion:
1) Cost
In this thread, Steam has been described as inexpensive. Obviously concepts of what is or isn?t expensive are highly subjective. Moreover, despite the fact that Steam users are not provided with a physical copy of the game, Steam prices are not cheaper. In addition, Steam requires an Internet connection. In Spain, for example, an Internet connection costs around 40 euros per month, plus a further 20 euros for the phone line.
2) Functionality
There are two questions that should be considered in this regard: a) Does Steam work from the user?s point of view, i.e. can I consistently use Steam and download content without encountering problems; b) Does Steam work in terms of its intended purpose, i.e. does it effectively combat piracy?
On the whole, users seem to be satisfied with Steam, although problems have been reported. The fact that the service requires Internet gives rise to two possible sources of problems: the Steam server itself and the user?s Internet connection.
With regards to piracy, I would suggest that Steam, as is the case with any other form of copy protection, fails to fulfil its intended purpose. Anyone who wants to pirate a game will find a way of circumventing Steam.
3) Securom
Unlike Securom, it appears that the Steam user is made fully aware of the implications of using the service. Indeed, in the original post, Valve are obviously referring to Securom when they favourably compare Steam to other protection systems that install ?root kits?. I refuse to purchase games that contain Securom [cf. thread entitled ?Securom on Games?]; however, whilst Steam refrains from installing ?root kits?, I am not ready to applaud like a circus seal just yet and I do not see Steam as the panacea that will save us all from the sorrows of Sony?s Securom. I do see Valve?s system as the lesser of two evils, but an evil nevertheless.
4) Ownership
Steam users and users of software containing Securom with activation limits are renting rather than purchasing their games. Each of these methods of protection prevents resale. I would argue that this, rather than piracy, represents their main objective. The Steam user is dependent on an external server. It is unlikely that the server will cease to operate in the near future; however, this dependency exists and should not be ignored. Promises to remove online activation requirements in the event of an unforeseen catastrophe remain just that: promises.
Let me make one thing very clear: I do not pirate games, nor do I advocate piracy. However, I am unwilling to accept a situation wherein companies use piracy as a pretext to attack second-hand sales and acquire greater control. I feel that all this increased security does little to hinder the determined pirate and simply places obstacles in front of the legitimate user.
Is there any convincing reason why, a few months subsequent to a game?s initial release, Valve do not simply remove the requirement of activating via Internet?
1) Cost
In this thread, Steam has been described as inexpensive. Obviously concepts of what is or isn?t expensive are highly subjective. Moreover, despite the fact that Steam users are not provided with a physical copy of the game, Steam prices are not cheaper. In addition, Steam requires an Internet connection. In Spain, for example, an Internet connection costs around 40 euros per month, plus a further 20 euros for the phone line.
2) Functionality
There are two questions that should be considered in this regard: a) Does Steam work from the user?s point of view, i.e. can I consistently use Steam and download content without encountering problems; b) Does Steam work in terms of its intended purpose, i.e. does it effectively combat piracy?
On the whole, users seem to be satisfied with Steam, although problems have been reported. The fact that the service requires Internet gives rise to two possible sources of problems: the Steam server itself and the user?s Internet connection.
With regards to piracy, I would suggest that Steam, as is the case with any other form of copy protection, fails to fulfil its intended purpose. Anyone who wants to pirate a game will find a way of circumventing Steam.
3) Securom
Unlike Securom, it appears that the Steam user is made fully aware of the implications of using the service. Indeed, in the original post, Valve are obviously referring to Securom when they favourably compare Steam to other protection systems that install ?root kits?. I refuse to purchase games that contain Securom [cf. thread entitled ?Securom on Games?]; however, whilst Steam refrains from installing ?root kits?, I am not ready to applaud like a circus seal just yet and I do not see Steam as the panacea that will save us all from the sorrows of Sony?s Securom. I do see Valve?s system as the lesser of two evils, but an evil nevertheless.
4) Ownership
Steam users and users of software containing Securom with activation limits are renting rather than purchasing their games. Each of these methods of protection prevents resale. I would argue that this, rather than piracy, represents their main objective. The Steam user is dependent on an external server. It is unlikely that the server will cease to operate in the near future; however, this dependency exists and should not be ignored. Promises to remove online activation requirements in the event of an unforeseen catastrophe remain just that: promises.
Let me make one thing very clear: I do not pirate games, nor do I advocate piracy. However, I am unwilling to accept a situation wherein companies use piracy as a pretext to attack second-hand sales and acquire greater control. I feel that all this increased security does little to hinder the determined pirate and simply places obstacles in front of the legitimate user.
Is there any convincing reason why, a few months subsequent to a game?s initial release, Valve do not simply remove the requirement of activating via Internet?
You are aware, that even if you use Steam, you still get all the SecurROM goodness aren't you?
If this new method is a one shot deal and I get the decryption key forever (in case Servers go down etc.), then this might be tolerable.
I don't want to go online everytime I decide to play a game.
I don't want my Computer to "phone home" everytime I turn it on.
Corporations are neither trust worthy or ethical, why would I trust what they're saying here?
Otherwise, if it walks like a Duck, swims like a Duck, and quacks like a Duck . . . .
Red Irish
Guest
- Mar 6, 2009
- 1,605
- 0
- 0
Yes, I am aware that Electronic Arts, known for their infinite wisdom and efforts to ensure client satisfaction, have maintained Securom on various titles that they have released through Steam. However, as far as I am aware, Steam, unlike the original packaging on the game, lists any third-party protection. In any event, the developments outlined in the original post seem to suggest that Valve is attempting to convince other companies to refrain from using Securom when they release through Steam. DRM, the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea...
CoinOperatedBoy
Golden Member
- Dec 11, 2008
- 1,809
- 0
- 76
I don't think Steam has really been described as inexpensive; maybe you're referring to my comparison to a Blockbuster rental. Either way, you're right -- Steam's prices usually match or even exceed the best you can find for a physical copy that doesn't go through Steam's authentication. Even when their prices are cheaper, it doesn't seem to offset the inconvenience of being tied to their service and having no physical copy.
I've read that retailers have pressured publishers to either forgo digital distribution entirely or use unattractive pricing so as not to undercut the brick & mortars. Retail outlets are very much threatened by platforms like Steam. From a consumer standpoint, the back story arguably isn't that important; the price is. But the blame for high pricing doesn't fall entirely on Steam, I think.
I think including the cost of an Internet connection as part of Steam's cost is a little spurious, at least if you're counting that as a negative compared to games acquired through other means. Besides, you could say the same of any (non-Steam) multiplayer game. I don't have figures to back up this claim, but my gut tells me that most PC gamers already have a persistent Internet connection. If they don't, I doubt that they would be inclined to purchase a Steam game in the first place. I understand your point, though.
I agree with you on these points, but I wonder if "combatting piracy" is indeed Steam's main purpose. Valve was already using authentication and VAC before Steam was released. Steam may be DRM disguised as a content delivery system, but it wasn't strictly necessary for Valve to stop the pirates.
Steam seems to aspire to be the main channel of online distribution for games. This is an absolute goldmine for Valve, and I would guess that all other aims are secondary. They need to tout copy protection and a fair distribution contract to attract publishers. They need to provide convenience, competitive (give or take) pricing, and stability to attract customers. It's a balancing act that they're pulling off pretty well, considering they have over 500 games on there and over 20 million users.
Like I've said before and as you have brought up, a tertiary benefit to Valve and the other publishers is how Steam destroys the resale market -- that way, the platform strengthens its position as a distributor and potentially increases sales.
Valve is in a powerful position, not unlike Apple with the iTunes Music Store, and they can leverage it for good or bad. They talk some good game when it comes to the consumer experience, but their overall design seems more aligned with the publishers to me. And publishers have shown a startling lack of understanding when it comes to DRM, so that's scary.
Anyway, good to see you throw your hat in, Red Irish.
What I've never understood is why everybody loves Steam.
Seems like you've got everything out there hangin' in the wind to me.
Lose connectivity, Servers go down, Out of Business, config FUBAR, etc. - you're out of luck.
Supposedly not as bad these days with 'Offline' mode.
Still don't like having to depend on someone/something else to use something I've paid for . . . .
CoinOperatedBoy
Golden Member
- Dec 11, 2008
- 1,809
- 0
- 76
So as long as it's listed on the packaging, you find it more agreeable?
Not trying to put words in your mouth... just trying to pin down your stance.
Red Irish
Guest
- Mar 6, 2009
- 1,605
- 0
- 0
Hi CoinOperatedBoy,
Just to clarify, check out Raduque's post on the first page:
"Reselling to cover costs of a new game is the only reason I could think of, but it's not like games are expensive, unlike hardware - sell a $200 videocard to buy a $300 one, for example." [my bold]
I agree with you that most gamers now have Internet access, but I'm not sure that we should accept this as a requirement to play games. I also agree that Steam is a form of DRM, rather than an alternative approach to copy protection and it most certainly is not focused on reducing piracy.
Have a good one
Just to clarify, check out Raduque's post on the first page:
"Reselling to cover costs of a new game is the only reason I could think of, but it's not like games are expensive, unlike hardware - sell a $200 videocard to buy a $300 one, for example." [my bold]
I agree with you that most gamers now have Internet access, but I'm not sure that we should accept this as a requirement to play games. I also agree that Steam is a form of DRM, rather than an alternative approach to copy protection and it most certainly is not focused on reducing piracy.
Have a good one
I was attracted to it because it was convenient, relatively seamless, and a great organizational tool.
EXACTLY. Once I purchase a product - be it software or a microwave oven - it's MINE to use WHENEVER I see fit to use it, and MINE to give away/resell WHENEVER I see fit to give it away or resell.
I can live without the secondary distribution ability, but I absolutely refuse to get on board with a product that makes me dependent on remote systems/parties to use it.
Red Irish
Guest
- Mar 6, 2009
- 1,605
- 0
- 0
No, but I find it more honest. One of my biggest criticisms of Securom is that it hides behind a vague EULA and at no point is the user expressly informed that third-party software will be installed on his/her system. At least Steam allows the user to decide prior to installation. On the "Securom on Games" thread, one poster only became aware that Securom had infected his/her system as a result of the list I cited. My stance? Empower the customer: give us all the relevant information beforehand and let us decide. Personally, I'm against either form of so-called "anti-piracy" protection as they fail to affect piracy whilst potentially inconveniencing paying customers.
First off, I have a stable network connection so all of the network connectivity crap goes out the window the second you are stable. And when my network goes down, I'm usually not playing a game or playing my DS.
- Steam replaced xFire and my need to communicate with other gamers while playing a full screen game. And it did it without all of xFires instabilities.
- Steam gave me Xbox style achievements and did them extremely well.
- Steam allows me to see what all my friends are playing at a very quick glance, even non-Steam games such as Lotro, once added to the applet allow me to track who is playing Lotro without ever logging in.
- Steam gave me an in-game HUD that allows me to simply right click on a friend and connect to their game.
- BETTER YET, Steam gave me the ability to play on 1 server while my client continually tries to connect to a better yet full server in the background.
- Steam gave me a Software Distribution System that automatically updates my games without me ever having to do things
- Steam gave me the ability to preload games on my computer before they are even released.
- Steam gave me the friends community, which tells me all of the happenings of the past day.
- Steam allows me to install 100 games without ever inserting a CD or reinstalling a game, even after a reformat.
- Steam gave small time developers a real place to showcase their games, which has given me many games I might never have seen, such as Darwinia, World of Goo, and Aquaria.
That's why I love it.
In all seriousness, I think it's time to can all of the "fix your router/PC/ISP" nonsense. Steam has network issues, plain and simple. The real issue, however, isn't the network's availability: it's what happens when there's no availability. That's what's being discussed here; not the stability of the network itself.
I think most of us here are intelligent enough to know that if the Steam network is inaccessible and the rest of our online resources are also unavailable, we shouldn't come here complaining about Steam. When I lost connectivity yesterday, I was still working through my client's VPN, able to play non-Steam games online, and post to AT to bitch about it. The outage was random and unrelated to installing new software, and it came back online without me changing a darn thing.
So really, there's no need to constantly try to write people's Steam connectivity gripes off as uneducated users. It's old, not applicable, and irrelevant to the current argument.
1. I wasn't talking about your experience
2. I didn't call anyone uneducated
I said my network is stable. That's it. I don't see what you see. Why do you see what you see? Who knows. But I probably play games more often than you do any day of the week and I never see that. Is it your router's fault, is it Valve's fault, is it your PC's fault, is it your ISP's fault, is it a backbone's fault? Who knows. I don't care.
My point is that since my Steam is stable, it's pointless for me to consider a non-existent a negative.
For instance, I could sit here and say "Unreal 3 is the worst game ever because the server down the street from me is always down". Well really, that's a crappy way of judging Unreal 3 because obviously I'm not going to see that issue you are seeing. However, since Unreal 3 is only as good as it's multiplayer, I do understand your point. Had it been me, I would have put more thought into my solution though.
I used to have a problem with Half-Life 1 back in the day. Network would cut out. However due to time out periods the only thing that would be impacted would be my game. Didn't make any sense. Turned out my router needed a firmware update for fragmented packets and the fragmented packets were crashing my router. Never would have known what was going on and would have assumed the game code/servers were just pieces of shit had I not troubleshooted it in the manner I did.
I would be more supportive of Steam if:
1. The price was less than buying a physical copy. You're getting less than buying a physical copy (no discs, no manuals, no box, etc.), and it costs the developer less to create a digital copy than to worry about printing, shipping, etc. a physical copy. The "value" added by Steam itself is not worth the full price of admission when you're just realistically renting the game.
2. They did something about always requiring an online activation. There's no reason why a game should require an online check five years from now. Server instability, network issues, Valve going out of business, etc.
Honestly, I can see the positives of Steam, but in my opinion, the negatives outweigh it so far. The only reason I've used Steam is because The Orange Box (which I bought at Best Buy for like $10) required it. It was okay, but paying full price for a digital copy of a game you don't really own is lunacy...at best.
1. The price was less than buying a physical copy. You're getting less than buying a physical copy (no discs, no manuals, no box, etc.), and it costs the developer less to create a digital copy than to worry about printing, shipping, etc. a physical copy. The "value" added by Steam itself is not worth the full price of admission when you're just realistically renting the game.
2. They did something about always requiring an online activation. There's no reason why a game should require an online check five years from now. Server instability, network issues, Valve going out of business, etc.
Honestly, I can see the positives of Steam, but in my opinion, the negatives outweigh it so far. The only reason I've used Steam is because The Orange Box (which I bought at Best Buy for like $10) required it. It was okay, but paying full price for a digital copy of a game you don't really own is lunacy...at best.
Red Irish
Guest
- Mar 6, 2009
- 1,605
- 0
- 0
Skace, I disagree with this stance. The onus should not be on the customer to troubleshoot. When copy protection gives rise to issues or conflict with users' hardware/software, it is overstepping the line. Where, in addition, such protection fails to prevent piracy, then we can begin to ask questions about its true purpose. Avoidable incoveniences should be avoided, rather than justified.
Software prices on Steam are not dictated solely by Valve. Valve doesn't go to EA and say "Hey we want to charge $5 for XYZ game, you cool with that?" Publishers dictate their pricing and for Publishers to maintain retail floor space they need to keep those prices competitive with retailers. The retailers can then turn around and give you a $10 MIR or drop the price to make their offer look more inviting. It's a big game.
The only games on Steam that are completely price independent are those being sold by independent developers and only available online. Most of which do have significantly lower prices.
The only thing Valve could do to rectify this is offer a service that sells you the box/media/etc and then hope publishers and developers remove their products from B&M stores completely. Or that the situation gets dire enough that B&M stores don't have enough weight to throw around and dictate prices.
As for Online Activation, remove it from Steam and all you've got is a NewsGroup dump with a pretty front end. The warez groups .nfo files would just say "See: Steam".
The only games on Steam that are completely price independent are those being sold by independent developers and only available online. Most of which do have significantly lower prices.
The only thing Valve could do to rectify this is offer a service that sells you the box/media/etc and then hope publishers and developers remove their products from B&M stores completely. Or that the situation gets dire enough that B&M stores don't have enough weight to throw around and dictate prices.
As for Online Activation, remove it from Steam and all you've got is a NewsGroup dump with a pretty front end. The warez groups .nfo files would just say "See: Steam".
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter