Gaming and Steam

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:55:35 GMT, Joe62
<jmcginnNOSPAM@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote:


>The time-frame sounds realistic. I'm convinced most games will be
>bought online by then anyway.

p.s. you start downloading gobs and gobs of gb's per month and you
will soon be getting a call from your ISP. Bandwidth don't come free.

 

[shawk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Andrew wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:24:01 -0800, Connected
> <connected@somewhere.here> wrote:
>
>
>>They better get a handle on all the spyware, trojans, etc. before
>>moving to this type of gaming model because I for one don't leave my
>>PC always connected to the internet even with broadband.
>
>
> They have these clever newfangled things called Firewall's now. I
> think they will catch on, you might want to check them out.

Lol. Just got off the phone with a friend who had broadband today.
Switched it and bang! - 7 virus's. Just talked him through enabling XP
SP1 Firewall. I'll be sorting SP2 for him tomorrow plus a good AV.

If they want this method of distribution to work and become popular
there is definitely some eductation for noobs and idiots required.

--
I mean, you've been around a bit, you know, like, you've, uh... You've
'done it'...
What do you mean?
Well, I mean like,... you've SLEPT, with a lady...
Yes...
What's it like?

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:51:51 +0000, Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses>
wrote:

>Lol. Just got off the phone with a friend who had broadband today.
>Switched it and bang! - 7 virus's. Just talked him through enabling XP
>SP1 Firewall. I'll be sorting SP2 for him tomorrow plus a good AV.

Get him to use the Sygate Personal Firewall. The XP one (SP2 included)
is a liability that should never be called a firewall.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:43:19 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
wrote:


>Get him to use the Sygate Personal Firewall. The XP one (SP2 included)
>is a liability that should never be called a firewall.

That's not what some Firewall experts in the Firewall newsgroup think.
I use Sygate though.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:itdh21tajaar4uns8r2dk6n827hpffjnjg@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:24:01 -0800, Connected
> <connected@somewhere.here> wrote:
>
> >They better get a handle on all the spyware, trojans, etc. before
> >moving to this type of gaming model because I for one don't leave my
> >PC always connected to the internet even with broadband.
>
> They have these clever newfangled things called Firewall's now. I
> think they will catch on, you might want to check them out.


I was just reading my local paper today. They had an article on how to be
safe while online. The first thing that they recommended to any user to do
was to hook their computer up to a router-firewall. Even if you're the
only pc on it. For dial-up users they recommended a software firewall like
ZoneAlarm.

Then they went on to cover anti-virus and adware software.

Sad when we have to put up a defense system just to logon. And then
deliquesce ourselves after surfing the net.

 

[shawk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Connected wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:55:35 GMT, Joe62
> <jmcginnNOSPAM@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The time-frame sounds realistic. I'm convinced most games will be
>>bought online by then anyway.
>
>
> Yea, sure, when many ISP's limit your bandwidth? I doubt it.

Which is probably why providers are gearing up to charge by bandwith
rather than speed in the UK. My provider just doubled my speed 'for
free' but has set a cap of 30GB with a charge of £1.95 per additional GB
after that. Matter of time before they all go that way.

--
I mean, you've been around a bit, you know, like, you've, uh... You've
'done it'...
What do you mean?
Well, I mean like,... you've SLEPT, with a lady...
Yes...
What's it like?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 23:26:15 +0000, Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses>
wrote:


>Which is probably why providers are gearing up to charge by bandwith
>rather than speed in the UK. My provider just doubled my speed 'for
>free' but has set a cap of 30GB with a charge of £1.95 per additional GB
>after that. Matter of time before they all go that way.

Well, you get 20gb more than me. I get 10gb down and 3gb up per month,
I'm not sure what the charges are after that because I've never gone
over.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:43:19 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:51:51 +0000, Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses>
>wrote:
>
>>Lol. Just got off the phone with a friend who had broadband today.
>>Switched it and bang! - 7 virus's. Just talked him through enabling XP
>>SP1 Firewall. I'll be sorting SP2 for him tomorrow plus a good AV.
>
>Get him to use the Sygate Personal Firewall. The XP one (SP2 included)
>is a liability that should never be called a firewall.

Links, please. We both know that Windows XP SP2 firewall is minimalistic,
but it at least gets the job done.

Even though I'm already firewalled at the ISP level, I still notice a very
minor difference in the filtering of the default TCP packet.
http://www.dslreports.com/scan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Shawk wrote:
> Connected wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:55:35 GMT, Joe62
>> <jmcginnNOSPAM@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> The time-frame sounds realistic. I'm convinced most games will be
>>> bought online by then anyway.
>>
>>
>> Yea, sure, when many ISP's limit your bandwidth? I doubt it.
>
> Which is probably why providers are gearing up to charge by bandwith
> rather than speed in the UK. My provider just doubled my speed 'for
> free' but has set a cap of 30GB with a charge of £1.95 per additional
> GB after that. Matter of time before they all go that way.

how much you payin per month you should look into plusnet you can transfer
over for free from another provider and its £29.99 per month uncapped 1Mbps

--


You're not a God, you're a birthday cake!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Connected <connected@somewhere.here> wrote:

>p.s. you start downloading gobs and gobs of gb's per month and you
>will soon be getting a call from your ISP. Bandwidth don't come free.

<shrug> It's not rocket science to figure they'll find a way to
incorporate that cost into the price of buying the software.

Trucks, ships, prime real estate, packaging and discs, and sales
clerks don't come free either you know ... quite a bit more expensive
than bandwidth. So clearly they could set up game sales online to
cost, at worst, the same as store-bought games.

Joe

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

p.s. and you're a pussy for giving in so easlily.

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 23:37:22 -0500, bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau)
wrote:

>>Get him to use the Sygate Personal Firewall. The XP one (SP2 included)
>>is a liability that should never be called a firewall.
>
>Links, please.

As you don't seem to ever of heard of www.google.com or any other
search engine:
http://soho.sygate.com/download_buy.htm

> We both know that Windows XP SP2 firewall is minimalistic,
>but it at least gets the job done.

IMO it certainly does not get the job done.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[vinCe]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" wrote
> bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau) wrote:

>>>Get him to use the Sygate Personal Firewall. The XP one (SP2 included)
>>>is a liability that should never be called a firewall.

>>Links, please.

> As you don't seem to ever of heard of www.google.com or any other
> search engine:
> http://soho.sygate.com/download_buy.htm

>> We both know that Windows XP SP2 firewall is minimalistic,
>>but it at least gets the job done.

> IMO it certainly does not get the job done.

I think anyone switching from the XP firewall to ZoneAlarm will be shocked
at how many applications access the Internet.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 07:59:52 GMT, "Vince"
<vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:


>I think anyone switching from the XP firewall to ZoneAlarm will be shocked
>at how many applications access the Internet.
>

Um, I found 'sa.windows.com' accessing the internet when I used the
find feature. Look up what that does. It's benign. What else did you
find?

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 07:59:52 GMT, "Vince"
<vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>I think anyone switching from the XP firewall to ZoneAlarm will be shocked
>at how many applications access the Internet.

Yup. My faith in the SP2 firewall was destroyed within 5 minutes of
trying it - half of my applications that access the net didn't trigger
an alert and connected without a problem.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 08:09:39 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
wrote:

>
>Yup. My faith in the SP2 firewall was destroyed within 5 minutes of
>trying it - half of my applications that access the net didn't trigger
>an alert and connected without a problem.

It's not supposed to. Look, I use Sygate and I can do alot more with
Sygate than your silly ZA. But the XP SP2 Firewall is not fluff
either. They are just trying make it simple for the newby. I've used
ZA Pro and it is pathetic. Ask permissions for every .dll etc. WTF is
that? You know what all those .dll's are doing? I don't and I doubt
most people do either.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Hi
I am all for a steam like distribution system.
The only thing I don't like is that the games have to call home <copy
protection> everytime you want to play them.<although I already have a
emulator for steam runing on my pc>

I beleve d/l model for games great <see stardock.com>
It allows me to get the game quicker easier cheaper then the store.
I also feel that the people who write the games should get the lion share of
the profit not some suit.

By distributing there stuff by the inet It will alow the studios to produce
games that would never make it in the stores<the suits only want clones of
what sold eg doom3 ect>

Also allows them to deal directly with thier customers...thier customers
<what the customer wants for expantion support eg>

I can get them quicker i don't have to preorder at EB<another profit scam
>
I get it the day they release it<something Warez has better then retail now>
I don't have to spend 2hrs of my time going to the store to find out they
are sold out of the 2 copys they had<do you want to put a deposit down so we
will hold a copy for you ? >

It also allows the people who produce the games to get the profit
directly....
The courrent modle the retailers don't make thier money not by actuly
selling the games they rent shelf space to the Publishers /wholesallers.
The publishing houses make the money from the sale....
and the devloper gets a pitance maybe...

Web base distribution if fast convient and allows us to pay <or not pay> the
ones who make the games.


"OldDog" <OldDog@city.pound> wrote in message
news:3WLVd.34508$Qz1.32252@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> Since this seems to be a hot topic, I recently ran across this in the
> lastest PCGamer magazine.
>
> At this years CES, Epic Games, Firaxis, and Warner Brothers all agree that
> eventually (10-15yrs) all consoles & PCs will require an internet
> connection
> to play.
>
> This OldDog might be in a nursing home by that time.
>
>

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 02:00:07 -0800, Connected
<connected@somewhere.here> wrote:

>It's not supposed to. Look, I use Sygate and I can do alot more with
>Sygate than your silly ZA.

Try reading the thread, I use and recommend Sygate. After bad
experiences in the past and read many more, wouldn't go near ZA.

> But the XP SP2 Firewall is not fluff
>either. They are just trying make it simple for the newby. I've used
>ZA Pro and it is pathetic. Ask permissions for every .dll etc. WTF is
>that? You know what all those .dll's are doing? I don't and I doubt
>most people do either.

I wasn't referring to DLL's, I was referring to the fact that I had
actual non MS applications that got through the SP2 firewall without a
murmur. It is a complete liability that MS should be ashamed of.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:17:11 -0800, Connected
<connected@somewhere.here> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:55:35 GMT, Joe62
><jmcginnNOSPAM@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>The time-frame sounds realistic. I'm convinced most games will be
>>bought online by then anyway.
>
>Yea, sure, when many ISP's limit your bandwidth? I doubt it.

Yea, and I will have to hook my laptop up to an overpriced internet
connection when I fly so that I can play a single-player game to pass
the time ? Oh, I forgot there will be "offline mode".... I just have
to remember to enable it on my laptop and disable the game on my
desktop before I rush out the door to the flight. Can't have 2
runnable copies of a single download purchase....that would not
please G..weedledum and D..weedledee at Valve ( for example ) or
Rein-in-the-horses at Epic....

Yeah, right...and all I need today is just carry a selection of
game-CD/DVDswith me on my trip to legally validate play, with the
games already pre-installed ( and patched ). No futzing with inane
on-line permission-juggling from anal-retentive developers.....

Well, it seems that my large collection of classic stand-alone
single-player PC games ( including thick printed manuals for
many ) will suddenly become valuable in this future ??utopia??
of total-internet-connectivity and game-developer bully-boys.
Bring it on............

John Lewis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 19:51:07 GMT, "TheLoanArranger"
<somewhere@wallawallawalla.com> wrote:


>I don't think Valve want to cater to ranting pricks like yourself or your
>buddy DiFoooool.
>Good job, really.
>Tosser.
>
We have our millions of minions too don't forget.

 

[jlc]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YFdWd.294183$K7.75436@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Andrew" wrote
>> bk039@ncf.ca (Raymond Martineau) wrote:
>
>>>>Get him to use the Sygate Personal Firewall. The XP one (SP2 included)
>>>>is a liability that should never be called a firewall.
>
>>>Links, please.
>
>> As you don't seem to ever of heard of www.google.com or any other
>> search engine:
>> http://soho.sygate.com/download_buy.htm
>
>>> We both know that Windows XP SP2 firewall is minimalistic,
>>>but it at least gets the job done.
>
>> IMO it certainly does not get the job done.
>
> I think anyone switching from the XP firewall to ZoneAlarm will be shocked
> at how many applications access the Internet.

The best thing the ZA Pro does is block banner ads. It works very well, and
doesn't slow down page loading.It's also very handy to be informed about
which programs are trying to phone home.
Even MS optical mouse wants to phone home. And it doesn't have anything to
do with updating the drivers. A hardware firewall is the best way to go, and
simple routers are cheap these days, but a SW firewall is handy to see what
is trying to connect out from your PC. JLC

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Connected <connected@somewhere.here> wrote:

>...you dumb wise and beautiful woman.

The cogency of your argument defeats me. I bow before your
intellectual prowess.

Joe

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 16:18:39 GMT, Joe62 <NOSPAMjmcginn@shaw.ca> wrote:


>The cogency of your argument defeats me. I bow before your
>intellectual prowess.
>
>Joe

Thx, It's wonders what meds and a case of beer can do for one's
intellect.

 

[vinCe]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Alfie [UK]" wrote

> I jumped from BTO to PlusNet when BT were introducing BTY. It seems most
> ISPs have trouble providing a Usenet feed these days

My own provider, Blueyonder, has a perfect Internet service they don't
guarantee Newsgroups at all.

I sometimes think I miss half of the posts on this group.

Now if I could only choose which half...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:26:13 -0500, "Rick Ryan"
<nighthawk@axecessnet.net> wrote:

>Hi
>I am all for a steam like distribution system.
>The only thing I don't like is that the games have to call home <copy
>protection> everytime you want to play them.<although I already have a
>emulator for steam runing on my pc>
>
>I beleve d/l model for games great <see stardock.com>
>It allows me to get the game quicker easier cheaper then the store.
>I also feel that the people who write the games should get the lion share of
>the profit not some suit.
>

Must be a FPS and arcade-style game-player. Dumb enough game-play
not to need any sort of game-manual.

Wanna download, print and bind the >100-page manual for a decent RPG
or >200-page manual for a decent flight-sim ? I just happen to have
the NWN Platinum Edition manual handy ---- 224 pages.....very nicely
spiral-bound too....

Ever try thumbing through a detailed manual on a computer screen when
you are not looking for a specific topic, or when you are just trying
to familiarize yourself quickly and efficiently with a new game or
productivity tool ?

Haven't seen any of the download-proponents factor in the print and
bind (and time-wasted) cost for a DIY-on-one's-printer-manual.
Currently included in the retail price for those games that need
manuals --- sale price better.

BTW, haven't seen many download developers offer 1 or 2-week sale
prices... no need, they have a monopoly.

For example, look at Valve's current prices on Steam for HL2, compared
with the current retail prices. Oh... I see that they have now reduced
the HL2 "Gold" on Steam from $89.95 to $84.95.... how very generous!!
Babbage's standard price for the retail Collector's Edition is now
$59.99 ( and Babbage's is NOT noted for discounts ) and typical
pricing for the base retail HL2 is now $39.99, with sale-discounts to
$34.99.

Yeah... downloaded games is sure the way to go.....right !
Certainly convenient ( and a useful ALTERNATE to retail ) for those
out in the sticks with high transport costs ( and no UPS delivery ?),
but this group does not represent the demographics of the majority
of PC game-players. Of course, there will always be the game-fanatic
who requires the instant gratification of download/play immediately a
game is released ... they will be quite happy to pay any
price....since they have no other life (apart from work.. if they
work)...the PC/console equivalent to the TV couch-potato.

John Lewis




>By distributing there stuff by the inet It will alow the studios to produce
>games that would never make it in the stores<the suits only want clones of
>what sold eg doom3 ect>
>
>Also allows them to deal directly with thier customers...thier customers
><what the customer wants for expantion support eg>
>
>I can get them quicker i don't have to preorder at EB<another profit scam
>>
>I get it the day they release it<something Warez has better then retail now>
>I don't have to spend 2hrs of my time going to the store to find out they
>are sold out of the 2 copys they had<do you want to put a deposit down so we
>will hold a copy for you ? >
>
>It also allows the people who produce the games to get the profit
>directly....
>The courrent modle the retailers don't make thier money not by actuly
>selling the games they rent shelf space to the Publishers /wholesallers.
>The publishing houses make the money from the sale....
>and the devloper gets a pitance maybe...
>
>Web base distribution if fast convient and allows us to pay <or not pay> the
>ones who make the games.
>
>
>"OldDog" <OldDog@city.pound> wrote in message
>news:3WLVd.34508$Qz1.32252@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>> Since this seems to be a hot topic, I recently ran across this in the
>> lastest PCGamer magazine.
>>
>> At this years CES, Epic Games, Firaxis, and Warner Brothers all agree that
>> eventually (10-15yrs) all consoles & PCs will require an internet
>> connection
>> to play.
>>
>> This OldDog might be in a nursing home by that time.
>>
>>
>
>