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

[jeff]

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

In article <6AjMd.2507$sr1.624@fe2.texas.rr.com>, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com> wrote:
>
>"Jeff" <jeff@work.com> wrote in message
>news:ctqngi$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.

Not a story that I'm particularly concerned with. Developers make and waste a
ton of money. They'll find no sympathy from me if they aren't gazillionaires
by the time they're 35.


>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.

Except that there is a good gameplay reason for requiring CPU X, video card
Y, and Win Z. Give me ONE good gameplay reason for requiring Steam.

Also, If it's only just Valve and its games, ever, that force Steam on to
gamers, if other developers stick with non-Steam distributions, then I could
care less, because I can live without Valve. It is only at the prospect of
all the major developers adopting a Steam-like model, driving me away from PC
gaming altogether, that I object.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Walter Mitty wrote:

> 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.

LOL! Besides that the opinions presented here probably don't represent the
gaming world outside, has anyone time enough to count anti- and pro-Steam
posters here to dis/prove the above?

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

 

[noman]

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

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 23:40:31 GMT, jeff@work.com (Jeff) wrote:

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

I looked through it. Besides that one guy never getting offline mode
to work, which I already mentioned, I don't see any offline mode
complaints. Even those posts are from first week of December.

I looked at http://www.steampowered.com forums and can't find recent
posts about this issue either.

By the way, thanks for providing the link.
--
Noman

 

[Guest]

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

The rabid paranoia was dircted at the anti-Steam fraternity, and you know
it.

I'm all for being cautious and keeping my AV up to date and stuff, but my
comments are about Steam.
I was just pointing out that if somebody smart enough wanted access to you
comp, they would get in. ZA or not.
What exactly would Valve gain by accessing home users PC's ? Apart from a
few months in litigation.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:59:19 +0100, Walter Mitty
<mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>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.

.... that it is a POS.... ???

> Heck, even you refer to me as "Mitty
>and cronies" now.
>

Naw, just "Wally" will do....

John Lewis


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

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff" <jeff@work.com> wrote in message
news:ctt9dc$e2r$1@cronkite.cc.uga.edu...
> In article <6AjMd.2507$sr1.624@fe2.texas.rr.com>, "OldDog"
<OldDog@citypound.com> wrote:
> >
> >"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.
>
> Not a story that I'm particularly concerned with. Developers make and
waste a
> ton of money. They'll find no sympathy from me if they aren't
gazillionaires
> by the time they're 35.
>

Ok. But their story (issues) is what's driving the gaming industry
changes. Product placement in games. Copy protection. Distribution.
IP rights. Have they called you and asked for your input on how to
develope/deliver their product. They sure haven't asked for mine.

ps I doubt that there's any industry out there that doesn't have some form
of waste. While the IRS wants me to keep records of every penny that I
spent, the US gov can't account for billions of dollars.

>
> >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.
>
> Except that there is a good gameplay reason for requiring CPU X, video
card
> Y, and Win Z. Give me ONE good gameplay reason for requiring Steam.
>

If the developers were to look at what benefits the gamer, all games would
be:

1. bug free
2. free
3. and hand delivered to the users front door

Now I could list several pros/cons of Steam, but my pros might be your cons.
What I might think is good, you'd find bad.

Just a thought, but does HL2 d/l thru Steam work without a CD/DVD drive?
If so, then the gamers out there that don't have a drive can play the game.
😉


> Also, If it's only just Valve and its games, ever, that force Steam on to
> gamers, if other developers stick with non-Steam distributions, then I
could
> care less, because I can live without Valve. It is only at the prospect
of
> all the major developers adopting a Steam-like model, driving me away from
PC
> gaming altogether, that I object.

So I gather that you don't have cableTV?

 

[noman]

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

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:50:16 -0600, "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com>
wrote:
>
>"noman" <ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:420150af.790402648@news.individual.net...
>>
>> 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.

Then try the games I mentioned. Besides the official servers
(Battle.net closed realm) which don't work with hacked .exe, a lot of
anti-cheating tools like Punkbuster also trip on them occassionally.

In any case, now we are far from the actual topic of the thread.

>> 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.

Okay, you can't find the CD you bought for any reason and you have the
game completely installed on your PC. Can you play it? What's the
purpose of putting CD in drive, other than to verify that you didn't
infringe with the copyright.

At least, Steam allows you to play in offline mode, with no
authentication whatsoever, unlike CD-checks which never go away.

>> 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.

If that was your reasoning, I wouldn't have said anything, even though
I'd still disagree. You said something like, "Valve is taking choice
away from the gamers because a single player game should never have to
use online mode" and I said that the same reasoning applies to
CD-checks which force you to keep CD in drive even when the game is
fully installed on your PC.

Then you diverted the argument by mentioning that you dislike Steam
because it's not as easy to circumvent as cd-checks. That's a
completely different issue.

I find cd-checks very irritating and intrusive and often times, I have
to find ways to circumvent them. Steam is a lot less inconvenient and
intrusive since a) it can function in both online and offline mode
unlike CD-check, where there's no way around a lost/damaged CD other
than to download the hacks or to ask publishers to send another CD
normally at a small fee and b) past the initial installation, it
requires no extra action on my part, again unlike CD check.

I never gave any personal information to Valve and I am not paranoid
at all about what Valve must be doing when the Steam is in online
mode, except for the bandwidth usage which I did monitor initially
(and I haven't found any abnormality there). I figured that if I
trusted them enough to run their executable files in WinXP
administrator mode, then worrying about online mode is quite absurd.

In any case, this is the last time I have talked to you in this thread
about the merits and demerits of Steam. The only reason, I replied to
you originally was because I found your wide eyed innocence regarding
"Steam is violating personal freedom" quite nonsensical when PC games
have always had copy protection schemes.
--
Noman

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, "Hank the Rapper" wrote:

> What you just accused Vader of doing is what you have been doing for two
> months.

untrue and unfair, but comming from you i would not expect anything else
yes i "forced" steam in some threads with no connection at all to it, but
i never did what "dark" vader did which was a copy/paste of some nonsense
song lyrics to every thread dealing with steam
what "dark" vader did was bad netiquette and you and him know it!
i never did that, and i would never do it!
its completely different
yes, i think too much about steam and i try to push it so its always the
main topic in this group but what "dark" vader did was pure "noise" so
we would give up completely on steam
he tried to condition, i never try it and i will never do it
yes, expect almost every post of mine being steam, but that's cause i
really can't think of any other topic currently in pc games

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam

please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html

 

[Guest]

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

difool wrote:

> you want to condition what we DISCUSS in the group
> please sir let me remind you... YOU DON'T OWN THIS GROUP!

> yes i "forced" steam in some threads with no connection at all

> its not you who will set what we can and cannot discuss in this group!
> do you understand?

> what "dark" vader did was bad netiquette and you and him know it!

> yes, i think too much about steam and i try to push it so its always
> the main topic in this group

> 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

> he tried to condition, i never try it and i will never do it

> yes, expect almost every post of mine being steam, but that's cause i
> really can't think of any other topic currently in pc games

You're an idiot.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, "Kroagnon" wrote:

> Why is it that you can't support choice?

because its the main issue here and they can't find an excuse
valve is acting like an arrogant ruthless dictator
who can excuse a dictator?
no one... so they keep quiet and refuse to accept anything else
for pc games other than steam

its really sad... and its the main thing that is causing so much
steam related posts in this group

basically the steam lovers want to force us into a system we don't
like, they are simply telling us to do the way valve says without
questioning like they did

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam

please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005, noman wrote:

> To me, CD checks are lot more incovenient because they require an

the word is intrusive! its intrusive! not inconvenient!
steam is not an inconvenient, its wrong! its intrusive! its abusive!
please read what one says and understand the meaning of the words!

> action on my part. I have to find the CD, swap it with whatever is in

you are too lazy to take of your own ass from the chair and pick up your
game which is a couple of feet away
i agree the word for having to play with a cd in drive is inconvenient...
cd in drive is inconvenient... steam is INTRUSIVE... very DIFFERENT!

> 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.

don't blame us for not knowing how to troubleshoot hardware
if you can't do it yourself call a professional but don't use it as a
lousy excuse to defend steam

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

wow, you don't complain about the requirement of having to move the mouse
and clicking on top of the icon... but its really alot of effort windows
makes you use only to launch an application... so much energy right?

> 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

again don't blame us for not being skillful with pc hardware, and that's
why there are professional who need to make a living

> you can't authenticate for the initial install because of Valve's
> server problems, you can always wait.

so you prefer to dependent on valve for everything this way they control
and you obey

you are whiling to pay the price of dependency but most of us don't!
i want personal freedom! i don't want to be dependant even if that
means i have too spend more time troubleshooting a pc game!

> fallback on during regular play. Since this time window is
> insignificant compared to the entire time for which you'll play the
> game, the probability of you running into problems is also fairly
> negligible.

false!
steam was down for 14 hours straight and lots and lots of gamers were
not able to play the game they payed for! and this for a game only 2
months old... i bet in the future this black outs will be more frequent

i pay for the game, i don't want to be dependant on a publisher to whether
or not i'm able to do it!

> On the other hand, the CD-check doesn't happen with just the game
> install. Every gaming session for that game requires it.

off-line mode will be fazed out in future version of steam
you bet everything it will

> 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.

liar!
this is a lie!!!
you must connect to the internet and download yourself using steam the
patches for hl2!
hl2 has no individual separate file patch for you too freely distribute!
don't lie you lousy steam lover!

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam

please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html

 

[jeff]

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

In article <42024c73.854854305@news.individual.net>, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 23:40:31 GMT, jeff@work.com (Jeff) wrote:
>
>>In article <42014f9a.790126141@news.individual.net>,
> ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:
>>
>>>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
>
>I looked through it. Besides that one guy never getting offline mode
>to work, which I already mentioned, I don't see any offline mode
>complaints. Even those posts are from first week of December.
>
>I looked at http://www.steampowered.com forums and can't find recent
>posts about this issue either.
>
>By the way, thanks for providing the link.

I'll give you credit for putting the effort into looking... that's more than I
have time to do. Perhaps I am mistaken then... unless those who posted before
speak up, I'll let it drop.

 

[jeff]

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

In article <36f2kbF4qqs0uU1@individual.net>, "redTed" <redted@nthellworld.com> wrote:
>The rabid paranoia was dircted at the anti-Steam fraternity, and you know
>it.

I'm anti-Steam... though I have no fraternity pin. Does the pro-Steam
fraternity give out pins? As for where you directed your remark... it was in
direct response to my reply, so shouldn't I expect to take it as being
directed at me unless you state otherwise (you didn't)?


>I'm all for being cautious and keeping my AV up to date and stuff, but my
>comments are about Steam.

So were mine.


>I was just pointing out that if somebody smart enough wanted access to you
>comp, they would get in. ZA or not.

And I'm just wondering why that point needs to be made? What does that mean
to the debate over Steam? In a backhanded way, your "point" only strengthens
the point you seemed to be arguing against, that Steam only makes such access
easier... and does so without good reason to the single-player gamer.


>What exactly would Valve gain by accessing home users PC's ? Apart from a
>few months in litigation.

That assumes that 1) Valve gets caught, and 2) it's Valve and not someone
else subverting Steam to harm you (similar to Internet Explorer).
What does Valve have to gain? How about marketing information about you...
your game preferences, gaming habits, etc. Actually, to some extent, Valve is
already openly doing this (read the privacy notice). What would some Hacker
have to gain? Your identity.

 

[jeff]

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

In article <42029dda.875692969@news.individual.net>, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:

>I never gave any personal information to Valve and I am not paranoid
>at all about what Valve must be doing when the Steam is in online

Explain this. Does Steam not require you to enter in personal information?
(Yes, you can always lie, but I submit that Valve could then use that fact
against you at some point and kill your account, thus killing your access to
your games... if not immediately, then upon re-validation after a reinstall.
BTW, I consider an email address to be personal information as well.)


>I figured that if I
>trusted them enough to run their executable files in WinXP
>administrator mode, then worrying about online mode is quite absurd.

I think you're being naive.

 

[jeff]

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

In article <kFwMd.5976$sr1.3336@fe2.texas.rr.com>, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com> wrote:

>Ok. But their story (issues) is what's driving the gaming industry
>changes. Product placement in games. Copy protection. Distribution.

I submit that that is the problem here. That their issues are being put off
onto the consumer is something to which the consumer has a right (and
the obligation) to object.

Let me demonstrate via a short play (raise curtain):

Business: "Gee, I'm not as stinking rich as I want to be."

Consumer: "Gee, kiss my ass."

🙂


>IP rights. Have they called you and asked for your input on how to
>develope/deliver their product. They sure haven't asked for mine.

I think they should have.


>ps I doubt that there's any industry out there that doesn't have some form
>of waste. While the IRS wants me to keep records of every penny that I
>spent, the US gov can't account for billions of dollars.

From some of the (published) stories I've read about certain game developers
that've gone under, it wasn't just some cost-of-doing-business waste... it was
the heyletsbuildalavishnewofficebuildingandthrowabunchofpartiesinit-kind of
waste. I can only imagine what the other forms are.

Oh, re: IRS and Microsoft, didn't your mother ever give you the
"if your friend jumped off a bridge...." speech? Bad precedents aren't
justification for a bad decision.


>If the developers were to look at what benefits the gamer, all games would
>be:
>
>1. bug free
>2. free
>3. and hand delivered to the users front door

That would be nice, wouldn't it?


>Now I could list several pros/cons of Steam, but my pros might be your cons.
>What I might think is good, you'd find bad.
>
>Just a thought, but does HL2 d/l thru Steam work without a CD/DVD drive?
>If so, then the gamers out there that don't have a drive can play the game.
>😉

This is why "choice" and "options" are often the key points of complaint
about what Valve's doing with Steam.


>> Also, If it's only just Valve and its games, ever, that force Steam on to
>> gamers, if other developers stick with non-Steam distributions, then I
>could
>> care less, because I can live without Valve. It is only at the prospect
>of
>> all the major developers adopting a Steam-like model, driving me away from
>PC
>> gaming altogether, that I object.
>
>So I gather that you don't have cableTV?

Nope, I have Dish. ;-)

But then, if you're again trying to equate Steam to Cable TV, I (and others)
have already explained (successfully, I think) why that's a poor analogy.
I think my comparison to books to be more apt... and, no, although it's an
option, I do not prefer to read my books online or on a computer. :-b

 

[jeff]

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

In article <42024c73.854854305@news.individual.net>, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 23:40:31 GMT, jeff@work.com (Jeff) wrote:
>
>>In article <42014f9a.790126141@news.individual.net>,
> ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote:
>>
>>>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
>
>I looked through it. Besides that one guy never getting offline mode
>to work, which I already mentioned, I don't see any offline mode
>complaints. Even those posts are from first week of December.
>
>I looked at http://www.steampowered.com forums and can't find recent
>posts about this issue either.
>
>By the way, thanks for providing the link.

BTW... though, perhaps it's not a "can't play offline" issue... have a look at
the new thread "Steam Down?" started by "Dark Helmet." Maybe you can help?

 

[Guest]

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

"noman" <ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42029dda.875692969@news.individual.net...

> >> 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.
>
> Then try the games I mentioned. Besides the official servers
> (Battle.net closed realm) which don't work with hacked .exe, a lot of
> anti-cheating tools like Punkbuster also trip on them occassionally.

I've played many a Punkbuster enabled game and never had this problem. I
don't play any monthly fee games so I can't attest to Battle.net.

> Okay, you can't find the CD you bought for any reason and you have the
> game completely installed on your PC. Can you play it? What's the
> purpose of putting CD in drive, other than to verify that you didn't
> infringe with the copyright.

Assuming I lost both the backup I made and can't find a no-CD crack on a
CD/DVD that's been itself archived twice OR online, yea I guess I'd be
screwed. That is unlikely however.

> At least, Steam allows you to play in offline mode, with no
> authentication whatsoever, unlike CD-checks which never go away.

But if Steam goes away, what will you do?

> >> 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.
> If that was your reasoning, I wouldn't have said anything, even though
> I'd still disagree. You said something like, "Valve is taking choice
> away from the gamers because a single player game should never have to
> use online mode" and I said that the same reasoning applies to
> CD-checks which force you to keep CD in drive even when the game is
> fully installed on your PC.
>
> Then you diverted the argument by mentioning that you dislike Steam
> because it's not as easy to circumvent as cd-checks. That's a
> completely different issue.

I never said I disliked Steam at all, just that I disliked (and won't
tolerate) being forced to use it. Lots of people here have agreed with this.

Yes, Steam takes more effort to keep cracked if you play multiplayer.

I hear what you're saying about the CD checks but I still disagree that they
are more intrusive than Steam.

> I find cd-checks very irritating and intrusive and often times, I have
> to find ways to circumvent them. Steam is a lot less inconvenient and
> intrusive since a) it can function in both online and offline mode
> unlike CD-check, where there's no way around a lost/damaged CD other
> than to download the hacks or to ask publishers to send another CD
> normally at a small fee and b) past the initial installation, it
> requires no extra action on my part, again unlike CD check.

Fine, you prefer it to CD-checks. I don't. I don't want anything to do with
Steam no matter how "convienent" it is. That should be my choice.

> I never gave any personal information to Valve and I am not paranoid
> at all about what Valve must be doing when the Steam is in online
> mode, except for the bandwidth usage which I did monitor initially
> (and I haven't found any abnormality there). I figured that if I
> trusted them enough to run their executable files in WinXP
> administrator mode, then worrying about online mode is quite absurd.

Valve has your E-mail address and tons of system info. That's not "personal
information"?

> In any case, this is the last time I have talked to you in this thread
> about the merits and demerits of Steam. The only reason, I replied to
> you originally was because I found your wide eyed innocence regarding
> "Steam is violating personal freedom" quite nonsensical when PC games
> have always had copy protection schemes.

Valve is certainly violating your freedom to choose between Steam and no
Steam.

 

[vinCe]

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

"Jeff" wrote
> "redTed" wrote:

>>I'll ditch the "rabid", but your paranoia is still completely un-founded.

> Unfounded?! How so? How is it "unfounded" when you so often hear about
> people having their credit ruined by criminals who've stolen their
> identities.

Do you know what 'non sequitur' means?

 

[Guest]

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

Thusly jeff@work.com (Jeff) Spake Unto All:

>>I figured that if I
>>trusted them enough to run their executable files in WinXP
>>administrator mode, then worrying about online mode is quite absurd.
>
>I think you're being naive.

Your brain is in neutral. You really should think a bit about what he
just said, and what it means for your argument.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:00:28 GMT, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (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?
>
>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.

By the way noman, when exactly did you change your opinion about
having to validate HL2 retail single-player online? Checking google, I
can see you were one of those who used to claim Valve is not stupid
enough to make HL2 retail SP require online validation. Even you
seemed to think it would be totally unthinkable this would be the
case, when there was the discussions about the part in the old Steam
FAQ that suggested you would need to validate HL2 single-player
online.

I assume you changed your opinion the second it was confirmed that
this was the case after all, right?

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 09:00:25 GMT, riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:

>By the way noman, when exactly did you change your opinion about
>having to validate HL2 retail single-player online? Checking google, I
>can see you were one of those who used to claim Valve is not stupid
>enough to make HL2 retail SP require online validation. Even you

Here's one of those old 2003 threads discussing it. It so refreshing
seeing both noman and walter mitty (!!!) claim back then that HL2
retail version will NOT require online validation for either
single-player nor LAN games. My my, how time flies and opinions change
with facts. ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/5dz45

Longer version:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=fi&lr=&threadm=KkPab.390133%24cF.119662%40rwcrnsc53&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DSteam%2BFAQ%2Bgroup:comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action%2Bauthor:noman%26hl%3Dfi%26lr%3D%26selm%3DKkPab.390133%2524cF.119662%2540rwcrnsc53%26rnum%3D3

See the thread from the very start. And there were other similar
discussions.


>seemed to think it would be totally unthinkable this would be the
>case, when there was the discussions about the part in the old Steam
>FAQ that suggested you would need to validate HL2 single-player
>online.
>
>I assume you changed your opinion the second it was confirmed that
>this was the case after all, right?

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:18:11 GMT, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman)
wrote:

>The offline mode has been working fine since then.

You forgot about the expiration timer it had but which was "removed"
or hidden further when users found out about it? Who knows how many
similar timers it still has.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 22:35:12 GMT, ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman)
wrote:

>>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.
>
>Okay, you can't find the CD you bought for any reason and you have the
>game completely installed on your PC. Can you play it? What's the

The point you are missing here is that with CDs, at least you can do
something about it, like keeping your CDs in a safe place. However,
there's nothing you can do if the connection to Steam servers is
broken if you try to validate your Steam game, because Valve/Steam
does not exist anymore, or for any other reason like the recent 14
hour downtime. It is completely out of your control, you can just wish
for the best.

(I am forgetting the illegal noCD hacks and Steam emulators with
possible viruses and trojans for a minute here.)

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:14:46 GMT, "Vince"
<vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>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.

Does Kerio Personal Firewall count? Because that is what I am using.

Did you have any point to make, or are you just trying to be an ass?
There are lots of pro-Steam people like you around who just go on
making wortless and stupid one-liners, and are not willing to discuss
about that drawbacks in Steam.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:04:54 GMT, "Vince"
<vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

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

You have selective memory, or then you can't read.

But I am happy to prove you wrong though, check out discussions about
e.g. "HDTV spells end to the computer gaming", or "DICE 2005: Epic on
XBox 2, PS3", or various discussions about e.g. FarCry or Doom.

Like always, you have no point whatsoever.