God, I don't love it (s-t-e-a-m)

[vinCe]

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

"difool" wrote
> noman wrote:

>> Do you boycott games publishers, when they force you to keep the CD in
>> drive when you have the game fully installed on your PC?

> worthless argument!
> consoles do it all the time!
> pc games have been doing it for at least 8 years!

Irrelevant. That doesn't make it right.

Or will you accept Steam after a certain time has elapsed?

>> In fact, there is no equivalent of
>> offline mode with CD-checks, i-e if your DVD/CD drive breaks down (or
>> if the CD gets damaged), you can't play the game at all.

> worthless argument!
> hardware malfunction happens all the time!
> hardware malfunction makes you stop using your computer!
> hardware malfunction will make you stop playing any game including hl2!

Hypocritical. Valve's server malfunctioned and that's what you are currently
whining about.

 

[vinCe]

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

"riku" wrote

> Just because you lose objectivity does not mean they are "all
> identical". I had not even written about Steam for quite awhile, but
> when you read walter mit... errr, "difools" messages, I guess your
> brains become muddled.

Rubbish.

Like Difool, *all* your posts are about Steam.

 

[vinCe]

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

"redTed" wrote

> Just take a few minutes and have a look on your PC for any other products
> that access the internet automatically for updates . Or programs that
> require online validation.
> I'll bet you have a few.What's the difference between those and Steam ?

Sorry Ted but that argument's going nowhere.

Most of the Steam-haters don't appear to run a proper Firewall so they don't
realize that loads of software (including games) 'phone home' when you start
them up.

 

[jeff]

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

In article <4200fcc8.768923743@news.individual.net>, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:57:12 GMT, jeff@work.com (Jeff) wrote:

>To me, CD checks are lot more incovenient because they require an
>action on my part. I have to find the CD, swap it with whatever is in
>the drive and then start the game. Some games in particular do not
>like my CD drive and it takes up to 30 seconds for the initial checks.

Wow... 30 WHOLE seconds??? Yeah, I can see where inserting a CD into a drive
is a lot more inconveniencing than lugging a computer over to a friend's house
any time one needs to re-validate or patch a game. But, hey, I wouldn't have
you inconvenienced even a little bit... just have Steam be an option (like it
should've been), instead of an unnecessary requirement and everyone can be
happy!


>With HL2, I just click its desktop icon and the game starts right away
>whether I am online or offline.

Unless something goes wrong... of which it is far more prone to do from what
I've seen in postings by Steam users.


>>What's more likely to fail, your CD drive or your internet connection? What's
>>more likely to fail, your CD or Valve's servers?
>
>Since we are talking about a failure event, let's say you bought a
>game on CD and it doesn't install because it's incompatible with the
>drive. How 'd you get out of this situation (without returning the
>game)? Wait, till the drive auto-repairs itself? At least with HL2, if
>you can't authenticate for the initial install because of Valve's
>server problems, you can always wait.

And wait... and wait... and maybe it gets fixed and maybe not, since you have
zero control over getting it fixed. I can always replace the oddball CD
drive, cheaply and simply, with one that's more compatible.

Even so, if it were a widespread problem, you'd expect that there would be
complaints about it and I'd certainly not criticize or insult those
complaining. In fact, I might even avoid such a publisher myself on the
grounds that no copy protection scheme should unduly inconvenience or prevent
customers from playing their purchased game.


>Besides, the only time when you have to rely on Valve servers to be up
>is during installation. That's the time, you can get into situation of

Then why have there been so many complaints about being locked out of playing
(even offline) whenever the Steam servers are down?


>In one case, you are troubled about what would happen at times of
>failure (when the critical time is only the installation time). In the
>other case, no matter what happens, you have to go through the
>explicit checks every time you play the game.

Steam doesn't come without its problems... and it's price, one that many are
unwilling to pay. Personally, CD validation has always been trouble free...
and while I realize that's not so for all, the arguments against Steam are
fueled by Steam being a requirement, not a choice. That Steam serves to
validate the software is no answer to why it is a requirement precisely
because CD checks are equally (if not more) effective at stopping casual
piracy.


>By the way, you can patch the game in offline mode. It's just that
>most people would rather connect and manually update their game
>through Valve servers because it's more convenient even on dial-up.

Really? How?

 

[Guest]

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

Thusly difool <john.difool@mail.telepac.pt> Spake Unto All:

>i really know what you are doing
>and its a disgusting low blow
>you want to send NOISE to anything related to steam
>you want to condition what we DISCUSS in the group
>please sir let me remind you... YOU DON'T OWN THIS GROUP!

Talking to yourself again?

>make all the NOISE you can, cause we know you don't give a damn about
>this group or about newsgroups or about the usenet, cause for you what
>is important is trying to force us all to discuss what you want

I'll take that as a yes.

 

[noman]

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

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:54:29 +0100, Werner Spahl
<spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:

>On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, noman wrote:
>
>> To me, CD checks are lot more incovenient because they require an
>> action on my part. I have to find the CD, swap it with whatever is in
>
>Ever heard of nocd cracks or do you just ignore them to praise Steam?

You can use Steam hacks to bypass Steam authentication as well. If we
are talking about hacks, I'd compare noCD hacks to Steam hacks.

The original poster to whom I replied went on about how Valve games
should be boycotted because they are forcing you to run games in
certain way (a single player game requiring online connection). I
replied that if it's a matter of principle, the same distaste against
"violation of personal rights" should exist with CD-checks as well,
since the game publishers force you to put the CD in drive, even when
the game is fully installed on hard-disk.

The next person replied that Steam is more intrusive and inconvenient
than CD-checks. To that, I replied what you quoted.

In any case, no-cd cracks (just like Steam hacks) have to be updated
when a game patch is released. Steam, to me, is almost an official
no-cd patch which I can always keep updated if I want.
--
Noman

 

[jeff]

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

In article <qM8Md.45610$B5.26531@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, "Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>"redTed" wrote
>
>> Just take a few minutes and have a look on your PC for any other products
>> that access the internet automatically for updates . Or programs that
>> require online validation.
>> I'll bet you have a few.What's the difference between those and Steam ?

I'd bet I don't... at least none that do so without my initiating or allowing
the connection on my terms. But if I do, then I'd certainly be pissed about
it... NOT accepting of it.


>Sorry Ted but that argument's going nowhere.

I tend to agree, but for different reasons.


>Most of the Steam-haters don't appear to run a proper Firewall so they don't
>realize that loads of software (including games) 'phone home' when you start
>them up.

I use Zone Alarm. Is that a proper firewall??

 

[jeff]

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

In article <4201246a.779069672@news.individual.net>, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:

>The next person replied that Steam is more intrusive and inconvenient
>than CD-checks. To that, I replied what you quoted.

Steam is more intrusive (CD checks are anonymous, Steam accounts are not) and,
for many, less convenient... but then that is a matter of opinion.

 

[noman]

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

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:16:24 GMT, jeff@work.com (Jeff) wrote:

>In article <4200fcc8.768923743@news.individual.net>, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:
>>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:57:12 GMT, jeff@work.com (Jeff) wrote:
>
>>To me, CD checks are lot more incovenient because they require an
>>action on my part. I have to find the CD, swap it with whatever is in
>>the drive and then start the game. Some games in particular do not
>>like my CD drive and it takes up to 30 seconds for the initial checks.
>
>Wow... 30 WHOLE seconds??? Yeah, I can see where inserting a CD into a drive
>is a lot more inconveniencing than lugging a computer over to a friend's house
>any time one needs to re-validate or patch a game.

Again, you are comparing something that'll *always* happen (a
CD-check) to something that probably a handful of HL2 buyers would
have to do.

A game can't sell 1.7 million retail copies, if even 0.01 % of its
buyers had to take their PC somewhere else to install the game.

>>Besides, the only time when you have to rely on Valve servers to be up
>>is during installation. That's the time, you can get into situation of
>
>Then why have there been so many complaints about being locked out of playing
>(even offline) whenever the Steam servers are down?

Most complaints have been about not able to 'install/validate the
game' and even these were there during the first week of release.

The offline mode has been working fine since then. Don't forget that
you have to take into account the two-month 1,700,000 retail sales
number of HL2 when you consider the "many" complaints.

This newsgroup at least is not seeing a lot of offline mode problem
posts. There's only one person I recall who couldn't manage to run the
game in offline mode.
--
Noman

 

[jeff]

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

In article <42012ed7.781739271@news.individual.net>, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:

>Again, you are comparing something that'll *always* happen (a
>CD-check) to something that probably a handful of HL2 buyers would
>have to do.

Remember, this was a Valve-suggested course of action, right off their
website... one that I doubt they'd make, on the grounds of its sheer
ridiculousness, if there weren't more than a "probable handful" of people to
which it applied. Even so, you're nitpicking the 5 or so (I think 30 is way
overstated) seconds it takes the drive to check your CD? As I said... wow.


>A game can't sell 1.7 million retail copies, if even 0.01 % of its
>buyers had to take their PC somewhere else to install the game.

If people didn't understand/recognize the requirement until after they'd made
their purchase, it might... the proof will be in how well the next game sells.


>>Then why have there been so many complaints about being locked out of playing
>>(even offline) whenever the Steam servers are down?
>
>Most complaints have been about not able to 'install/validate the
>game' and even these were there during the first week of release.

Yes, but I wasn't referring to those. I was referring to more recent posts.


>The offline mode has been working fine since then. Don't forget that
>you have to take into account the two-month 1,700,000 retail sales
>number of HL2 when you consider the "many" complaints.

So if there are only a few thousand complaints, they don't matter? Should you
ever find yourself amongst that handful, will they matter then?


>This newsgroup at least is not seeing a lot of offline mode problem
>posts. There's only one person I recall who couldn't manage to run the
>game in offline mode.

I believe that I've read several... and at least one indicated that there were
a lot more in Valve's forums, where you'd expect most complaints of this sort
to appear. But whatever... they must be lying trolls, clueless "noobs," or
they don't matter (tough noogies), right?

 

[Guest]

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

>>> Just take a few minutes and have a look on your PC for any other
>>> products
>>> that access the internet automatically for updates . Or programs that
>>> require online validation.
>>> I'll bet you have a few.What's the difference between those and Steam ?
>

You're agreeing to something intruding on your machine the second you read
this message or click the "Run/Save" button to start a download.. You are
giving various remote PC's/users permissions every time you go on the 'net.
Just because there isn't a pretty picture in your sys tray doesn't mean it's
not happening.
And, I'll bet you do have some software on your super dooper "Zone Alarmed"
(lol) PC that access's the internet at some time.
Rabid paranoia won't change the facts.

 

[jeff]

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

In article <36d0feF4tlrc1U1@individual.net>, "redTed" <redted@nthellworld.com> wrote:
>>>> Just take a few minutes and have a look on your PC for any other
>>>> products
>>>> that access the internet automatically for updates . Or programs that
>>>> require online validation.
>>>> I'll bet you have a few.What's the difference between those and Steam ?

>You're agreeing to something intruding on your machine the second you read
>this message or click the "Run/Save" button to start a download.. You are

Yes... and???

If I agree to one, must I therefore agree to all? I don't think so.


>giving various remote PC's/users permissions every time you go on the 'net.
>Just because there isn't a pretty picture in your sys tray doesn't mean it's
>not happening.

Doesn't mean it is either. Prove it otherwise.


>And, I'll bet you do have some software on your super dooper "Zone Alarmed"
>(lol) PC that access's the internet at some time.

Accesses the internet without my permission? Again, prove it.


>Rabid paranoia won't change the facts.

Neither will insults and pugnaciousness.

 

[noman]

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

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:52:22 GMT, jeff@work.com (Jeff) wrote:

>In article <42012ed7.781739271@news.individual.net>, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:
>
>>A game can't sell 1.7 million retail copies, if even 0.01 % of its
>>buyers had to take their PC somewhere else to install the game.
>
>If people didn't understand/recognize the requirement until after they'd made
>their purchase, it might... the proof will be in how well the next game sells.

The proof is in the continued sale of HL2. Word of mouth travels fast
and if Valve are still big issues in the initial installation of HL2,
then the game will not stay on top 10 list. I believe it'll be there
in some shape and form for next 2-3 years.

>>The offline mode has been working fine since then. Don't forget that
>>you have to take into account the two-month 1,700,000 retail sales
>>number of HL2 when you consider the "many" complaints.
>
>So if there are only a few thousand complaints, they don't matter? Should you
>ever find yourself amongst that handful, will they matter then?

You can ask the same question to all those who can't play new releases
because of incompatibility of the CD-check scheme.

>>This newsgroup at least is not seeing a lot of offline mode problem
>>posts. There's only one person I recall who couldn't manage to run the
>>game in offline mode.
>
>I believe that I've read several... and at least one indicated that there were
>a lot more in Valve's forums, where you'd expect most complaints of this sort
>to appear. But whatever... they must be lying trolls, clueless "noobs," or
>they don't matter (tough noogies), right?

Where are these several recent posts in this newsgroup which bemoan
about offline mode? Can you give Google links? Thanks
--
Noman

 

[noman]

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

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:21:39 -0600, "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com>
wrote:

>"noman" <ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4200158a.709726662@news.individual.net...
>
>> >You should boycott Valve because they are taking the choice from you and
>are
>> >forcing you to install Steam in order to play an offline single player
>game.
>> >Isn't that enough?
>>
>> Do you boycott games publishers, when they force you to keep the CD in
>> drive when you have the game fully installed on your PC?
>
>Nope, they don't force me to do so as I apply no-CD patches to all of them.

They *are* taking the choice away from you, but you find ways to avoid
it. So in a way, your argument is not that Steam is forcing you to do
a thing certain way, rather than what they are doing is not easily
hackable.

That's a different issue. In any case, Steam hacks do exist.

>I certainly don't approve of it but they're easily patched without affecting
>multiplayer so I don't have that big of an issue with it. Steam is something
>different altogether.

With most games, you can't play multiplayer with noCD hacks. It's
certainly the way with Diablo2, Civ3 etc.

>> What's the difference between that and online checks in Steam? A lot
>> of vitriol against Steam would be warranted, if there were no offline
>> mode but that's not the case. In fact, there is no equivalent of
>> offline mode with CD-checks, i-e if your DVD/CD drive breaks down (or
>> if the CD gets damaged), you can't play the game at all.
>
>There is no need for an online check for a offline single player game.
>That's the whole point. Again, this is about choice - what if I prefer to
>have a CD check than asking Valve if I can play?

With CD checks, you are asking the publishers whether you can play the
game. You prefer CD checks over online check. I don't.

> As many have stated,
>"offline" mode is not as offline as it should be, it *still* calls home.

Offline mode works when you are offline. It can't talk to Valve server
because you are not online. I think, that should be obvious to
everyone.

>I don't want to use Steam, period. I don't care about its advantages as its
>drawbacks outweigh them. I want to choose whether or not to use Steam.
>What's the problem with that?

No problem. I commented on your call for boycotting Valve games, since
the reasoning you used applies equally well to CD-checks as well.
--
Noman

 

[Guest]

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

> Yes... and???
>
> If I agree to one, must I therefore agree to all? I don't think so.

Of course not..but again, what's the difference ?

>
>>giving various remote PC's/users permissions every time you go on the
>>'net.
>>Just because there isn't a pretty picture in your sys tray doesn't mean
>>it's
>>not happening.
>
> Doesn't mean it is either. Prove it otherwise.
>
>
>>And, I'll bet you do have some software on your super dooper "Zone
>>Alarmed"
>>(lol) PC that access's the internet at some time.

http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/free/securityAlert/8.html Off their own
site.
http://computercops.biz/article2184.html
http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/5HP0C0K35S.html
plus many more.
See, you're never completely secure no matter what you may think.

> Accesses the internet without my permission? Again, prove it.

Tricky when I cannot see what's on your HD..I'm not Steam you know !
But I'm still 99.9% sure you do not know what certain apps are doing while
you are online.

>>Rabid paranoia won't change the facts.
>
> Neither will insults and pugnaciousness.

Well, explain yourself then. What terrible deeds are Valve doing to your PC
when Steam is running ?
Just answer that. And please don't say "it's the humiliation of begging
master valve to let me play HL-2", or words to that effect

 

[Guest]

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

"Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qM8Md.45610$B5.26531@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "redTed" wrote
>
>> Just take a few minutes and have a look on your PC for any other products
>> that access the internet automatically for updates . Or programs that
>> require online validation.
>> I'll bet you have a few.What's the difference between those and Steam ?
>
> Sorry Ted but that argument's going nowhere.
>
> Most of the Steam-haters don't appear to run a proper Firewall

Your evidence backing this up is?

 

[jeff]

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

In article <36d3s2F4vq4r3U1@individual.net>, "redTed" <redted@nthellworld.com> wrote:
>> Yes... and???
>>
>> If I agree to one, must I therefore agree to all? I don't think so.
>
>Of course not..but again, what's the difference ?

The difference could be anonymity, for one. It could be just the principle of
being forced to it versus it being only an option.


>>>giving various remote PC's/users permissions every time you go on the
>>>'net.
>>>Just because there isn't a pretty picture in your sys tray doesn't mean
>>>it's
>>>not happening.
>>
>> Doesn't mean it is either. Prove it otherwise.
>>
>>
>>>And, I'll bet you do have some software on your super dooper "Zone
>>>Alarmed"
>>>(lol) PC that access's the internet at some time.
>
>http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/free/securityAlert/8.html Off their own
>site.

Doesn't apply to me.


>http://computercops.biz/article2184.html

Doesn't apply to me... and quite old.


>http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/5HP0C0K35S.html

Would apply if I had run the trojan that opens the door. Here's where that
caution that you called "rabid paranoia" comes in....


>plus many more.
>See, you're never completely secure no matter what you may think.

So, that means that I should just not care and let any and all have their way
with my computer??? And you're laughing at me?!


>> Accesses the internet without my permission? Again, prove it.
>
>Tricky when I cannot see what's on your HD..I'm not Steam you know !
>But I'm still 99.9% sure you do not know what certain apps are doing while
>you are online.

Based on the evidence that there are a lot of bad people putting out bad
and/or illegal programs intent on evading my firewall's security in an attempt
to do unscrupulous things. But then I'm "rabidly paranoid" if I would seek to
avoid this?


>>>Rabid paranoia won't change the facts.
>>
>> Neither will insults and pugnaciousness.
>
>Well, explain yourself then. What terrible deeds are Valve doing to your PC
>when Steam is running ?

They're not, obviously, since I'm not running Steam. What Steam does do is
send statistics about your gameplay back "home" (as stated in their own
privacy disclosure). Beyond that, who can truly say for sure? You
certainly can't... unless you're going to dismiss the above alerts that you
just threw at me. Perhaps you naively trust that Valve will always protect
your privacy (and itself) from the unscrupulous... I tend to side with
common-sense caution and avoid making it any easier for them as much as is
reasonably possible.


>And please don't say "it's the humiliation of begging
>master valve to let me play HL-2", or words to that effect

When have I ever? Perhaps because I jumped in here, you're getting confused.
Please keep track of who you're replying to.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:52:33 GMT, riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:

>
>I know this will bring out the walter mitty crowd down on me, and I
>don't want to troll, but I honestly am not loving this whole "steam"
>thing. So much so that I felt compelled to add my voice to the
>"non-pro-steam" crowd, no matter how little it changes things on this
>newsgroup.
>

Hey. You succeeded. Congratulations.

After 47 replies (so far), Wally has not replied.

His message header scanner seems to have been fooled by your
spelling of s-t-e-a-m. 🙂 🙂

John Lewis

 

[Guest]

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

John Lewis wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:52:33 GMT, riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:
>
>
>>

<snip>

>
>
> Hey. You succeeded. Congratulations.
>
> After 47 replies (so far), Wally has not replied.
>
> His message header scanner seems to have been fooled by your
> spelling of s-t-e-a-m. 🙂 🙂
>
> John Lewis


haha

--
best regards, mat
np: [winamp not running]

www.pdxshows.net

 

[jeff]

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

In article <42014f9a.790126141@news.individual.net>, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:

>>So if there are only a few thousand complaints, they don't matter? Should you
>>ever find yourself amongst that handful, will they matter then?
>
>You can ask the same question to all those who can't play new releases
>because of incompatibility of the CD-check scheme.

I don't have to, since I'd sympathize with them. ;-)


>Where are these several recent posts in this newsgroup which bemoan
>about offline mode? Can you give Google links? Thanks

Googling them up directly would be rather difficult... but only because
there's so many possibilities... on wording and in hits.

Here's my one and only attempt... you can weed through it if you're
truly interested and not just trying to wear me and the point ragged:

http://groups-beta.google.
com/groups?q=offline+valve+forum+steam&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLC,
GGLC:1969-53,GGLC:en&sa=N&tab=wg

 

[Guest]

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

"difool" <john.difool@mail.telepac.pt> wrote in message
news:hue101lm2t2oc6u0rk27a0ouanhgamqemj@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005, noman wrote:
>
> > Do you boycott games publishers, when they force you to keep the CD in
> > drive when you have the game fully installed on your PC?
>
> worthless argument!
> consoles do it all the time!
> pc games have been doing it for at least 8 years!

So the fact that it's being going on for 8 years makes it valid?
Interesting statement. I'm trying to think how I can use this.
"But honey, I've been seeing that other woman for 8 years now. It's ok."
"Listen officer, I've been speeding and drinking while driving for 10 years
now. It's ok."

> with needing cd in drive to play you are not DEPENDENT on anything else
> besides yourself!

But aren't you dependant upon the CD & the drive?
Which also makes you dependant upon the publishers and the stores.

<snip>

Post made on a WinXP-free computer
I said "NO" to MS and its online registration.

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff" <jeff@work.com> wrote in message
news:ctqngi$d4n$1@cronkite.cc.uga.edu...
<snip>
> Many people live in areas where broadband is simply
> unavailable or grossly unaffordable, and there is no good gameplay reason
that
> an internet connection must be a requirement for the single-player game.
>

At least not from the gamer aspect. The developer's perspective is another
story.

And when using the cost factor, there's a lot of pc gamers out there that
can't afford to upgrade their current system to meet Doom3, FarCry,
NewGame-ABC hardware requirements.

So we have developers that say all you gamers that don't have CPU X, video
card Y, WinXPZ, and can't afford to upgrade, are out of luck. And we have
another developer that has produced two of the highest rated/praised games
every released for the pc tell gamers that if you don't have an hardware
device X, then you're pretty much out of luck.

Oh, and we have the world's biggest OS developer tell users that you must
register their new OS either online or by phone.

Can't wait to see what the year 2006 brings us. 🙁

 

[Guest]

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

"noman" <ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4201246a.779069672@news.individual.net...

> You can use Steam hacks to bypass Steam authentication as well. If we
> are talking about hacks, I'd compare noCD hacks to Steam hacks.
>
> The original poster to whom I replied went on about how Valve games
> should be boycotted because they are forcing you to run games in
> certain way (a single player game requiring online connection). I
> replied that if it's a matter of principle, the same distaste against
> "violation of personal rights" should exist with CD-checks as well,
> since the game publishers force you to put the CD in drive, even when
> the game is fully installed on hard-disk.
>
> The next person replied that Steam is more intrusive and inconvenient
> than CD-checks. To that, I replied what you quoted.
>
> In any case, no-cd cracks (just like Steam hacks) have to be updated
> when a game patch is released. Steam, to me, is almost an official
> no-cd patch which I can always keep updated if I want.

That should be your choice whether or not you want to use Steam for what you
consider a benefit just as it needs to be our choice not to use it. I won't
submit personal info to Valve or any other game company to play a game
online or offline.

Why is it that you can't support choice?

 

[Guest]

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

"noman" <ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:420150af.790402648@news.individual.net...
> >> Do you boycott games publishers, when they force you to keep the CD in
> >> drive when you have the game fully installed on your PC?
> >Nope, they don't force me to do so as I apply no-CD patches to all of
them.
> They *are* taking the choice away from you, but you find ways to avoid
> it. So in a way, your argument is not that Steam is forcing you to do
> a thing certain way, rather than what they are doing is not easily
> hackable.
>
> That's a different issue. In any case, Steam hacks do exist.

I didn't say they didn't exist, the Steam emulator is pretty flawless
actually.

> >I certainly don't approve of it but they're easily patched without
affecting
> >multiplayer so I don't have that big of an issue with it. Steam is
something
> >different altogether.
>
> With most games, you can't play multiplayer with noCD hacks. It's
> certainly the way with Diablo2, Civ3 etc.

In all my years of multiplayer (almost 10) I have *never* had *any* game not
play multiplayer because of a no-CD patched EXE. And I patch every game I
play that wants the CD, single or multi.

With Steam I'd have to play on a cracked server... and while I have the
ability to host a cracked server, I don't want to host this game. So I
choose not the buy the game.

> >There is no need for an online check for a offline single player game.
> >That's the whole point. Again, this is about choice - what if I prefer to
> >have a CD check than asking Valve if I can play?
>
> With CD checks, you are asking the publishers whether you can play the
> game. You prefer CD checks over online check. I don't.

You just described *Steam*, not games with CD checks. How is it that you
need to "ask the publisher" to play a game with a CD check? You have to ask
Valve to play HL2, however.

> > As many have stated,
> >"offline" mode is not as offline as it should be, it *still* calls home.
> Offline mode works when you are offline. It can't talk to Valve server
> because you are not online. I think, that should be obvious to
> everyone.

But if you are online it will still call home. There are several people who
have attested to this both here and the Steam forums. Folks even had their
single player game disabled for allegedly using cheats. Not very "offline"
is it?

> >I don't want to use Steam, period. I don't care about its advantages as
its
> >drawbacks outweigh them. I want to choose whether or not to use Steam.
> >What's the problem with that?
>
> No problem. I commented on your call for boycotting Valve games, since
> the reasoning you used applies equally well to CD-checks as well.

As others have stated, CD checks are no where *near* as intrusive as Steam
is any day of the week. When I buy a game other than HL2 I don't have to
submit personal info or authenticate just to play the single player game. I
just patch the EXE and go. And for multiplayer, it verifies that the CD key
is valid and you remain anonymous. While I don't approve of that either it
is nowhere NEAR as intrusive as Steam.

Sorry, but you're not making a very convincing argument as to why Steam is
better for single player games than CD checks.

 

[Guest]

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

John Lewis wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:52:33 GMT, riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I know this will bring out the walter mitty crowd down on me, and I
>>don't want to troll, but I honestly am not loving this whole "steam"
>>thing. So much so that I felt compelled to add my voice to the
>>"non-pro-steam" crowd, no matter how little it changes things on this
>>newsgroup.
>>
>
>
> Hey. You succeeded. Congratulations.
>
> After 47 replies (so far), Wally has not replied.
>
> His message header scanner seems to have been fooled by your
> spelling of s-t-e-a-m. 🙂 🙂
>
> John Lewis


Not really. But you "anti steam" guys have taken a hammering and you
know it. The points needed to display Steam in a fair light have been
made and most people are convinced. Heck, even you refer to me as "Mitty
and cronies" now.

In addition diFool is killfiled : enuff is enuff ... He is either a very
tenacious pisstaker or completely mad.