let both systems compete! traditional vs download

[Guest]

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

Jeff wrote:
> In article <1107967299.520026.313410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hitherto, you have been able to play single-player games "in privacy
at
> >any time without depending on some third party jackass being alive".
> >Now you do need a jackass, just like you do for a multi-player game.
>
> Then can't you see how upsetting this is for folks who have to deal
with too
> many jackasses as it is? ;-)

I can understand it being inconvenient because the install takes longer
than expected and there is no guidance in the retail box on what to do.

I sympathise a little with those who feel they have been
disenfranchised because they don't have an internet connection, or they
have a very slow one. They must be disappointed. The box does say
"internet connection" under minimum requirements, but it should make
clear that this is a necessity for single-player as well, and that a
fast connection is recommended. However, I don't think it is "wrong" of
Valve to make this a requirement any more than it is wrong of them to
force me to get another graphics card to play the game. The internet is
becoming ubiquitous - this is just another aspect of that.

And, although it hasn't (yet?) affected me, I can see why people are
upset that they need Steam to be up and running to install the
single-player game and get updates. Steam does make it easier to
download and install patches and new content, but what happens if it
fails technically or commercially? Your game isn't available, that's
what happens.
This is the way multi-player online games are organised (necessarily)
and now Valve is saying a game is a game is a game. Doesn't matter how
many players - the same framework is used for supporting the game.
Is this morally wrong, or illegal? I think not. Inconvenient? sure, if
you can't get validated for whatever reason. Upsetting? yes, if you
don't have a (good) internet connection, or if Steam won't validate
you.

And I suppose it must be upsetting for some people that they can't
easily sell the game afterwards or lend it to a friend.

(Valve could easily address some of these issues by including better
documentation in the retail box on what Steam is and how to install it
& HL2 (Vivendi may disagree😉), making the internet requirement clearer
on the box itself, and making it possible to de-register a game from
your Steam Account so that it can be sold on.)

You have to judge whether HL2 and its extended family are worth the
inconveniences of Steam. Are you OK to run the risk that one day Steam
might not be around, and your game might be no more than a HL2 themed
coaster? These are the same questions that multi-player gamers have had
to answer for some time. Now you have to answer them for a
single-player game.

 

[jeff]

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

In article <1107967299.520026.313410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hitherto, you have been able to play single-player games "in privacy at
>any time without depending on some third party jackass being alive".
>Now you do need a jackass, just like you do for a multi-player game.

Then can't you see how upsetting this is for folks who have to deal with too
many jackasses as it is? ;-)

 

[jeff]

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

In article <nQuOd.32439$uL5.23364@fe2.texas.rr.com>, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com> wrote:

>A system that works well?

Yes, very well.


>The current system is messy for some of us; I
>don't want to drive to a store to buy a CD in a box. It's a waste of gas
>and trees. So Steam does benefit some of us besides the developer.

You can save the gas by walking to the store then... and recycle the box. ;-)

S'okay, really concerned about the environment, are you? What about all the
energy required to power the Steam servers? Hell, maybe you should give up
gaming altogether, since your computer is also soaking up valuable energy
resources. Don't be a hypocrite, man... sell your car, convert your house to
all-renewable energy sources, recycle everything!


>As to benefitting themselves....
>
>http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/09/20/news_6107712.html
>
>"Valve sued Vivendi for copyright infringement back in 2002 over their
>unauthorized distribution of our products to cyber cafés," Lombardi told
>GameSpot last Friday. "We later had to add breach of contract claims for,
>among other things, refusing to pay us royalties owed and delaying Condition
>Zero out of the holiday season."

Ahem... yes, benefitting themselves. Quite obviously.


>""...Vivendi responded by making a number of claims in an attempt to
>invalidate our agreement and be awarded the ownership of the Half-Life
>intellectual property.

Here's the other side of the story:

Valve did not originally own the IP rights to Half-Life, Sierra did.
Publishers that fund the development of a project typically own the product...
in this case the IP rights of the software.

"In 1997, Valve and Sierra entered into two agreements whereby Valve undertook
to develop certain computer games and Sierra undertook to manufacture, market,
and distribute the games. Among other benefits, these 1997 agreements granted
Sierra intellectual property rights in the games."


Sierra only gave the IP rights to Valve because Valve wouldn't work on HL2
otherwise...

"Beginning in 1999, following the success of its first game, Valve began to
threaten Sierra that it would halt or slow development of the remaining games
it was obligated to develop unless Sierra relinquished certain rights under
the 1997 agreements. Sierra eventually capitulated to these demands and,
relying on misrepresentations by Valve, entered into a new software publishing
agreement (SPA) with Valve in 2001."


... and they were misled to believe that they'd be HL2's primary distributor.

"Among other concessions, Sierra agreed to relinquish intellectual property
rights and to allow Valve certain rights to the online distribution of games.
Valve did not disclose during the negotiations over the 2001 SPA that it was
in the process of developing a new technology called Steam that would allow
consumers who would normally purchase games from Sierra/VUG at retail to
purchase those products online directly from Valve."

"During the parties' negotiations...Counterclaim Defendants [Valve] repeatedly
and falsely assured Sierra and VUG that retail sales would remain "the key to
[their] strategy." In September 2000, for example, Newell told Hubert Joly,
then VUG's CEO, that "online is a way to nurture the retail business" and that
he 'could not understand how one can make money online today.'

"Sierra and VUG would later learn that these statements were flatly
false...Incredibly, Counterclaim Defendant Newell also stated that he 'could
not understand how one can make money online today,' plainly with the
intention to falsely imply that Valve had no present or future strategy to
engage in widespread online distribution of the games. This misleading
half-truth was Newell's deliberate concealment of the extent to which Valve
intended through the parties' negotiations to appropriate the substantial
value of the distribution rights to Valve, rather than to Sierra and VUG."


Part of the agreement where Sierra turned over the IP rights to Valve was that
Valve would diligently and continuously work on HL2 to completion, instead of
dragging their feet as they'd threatened to do before. Instead Valve slows up
development ("oops, someone somehow stole the source code to HL2") so that its
release coincides with Steam's.

"... including Sierra/VUG's promissory fraud claim based on Valve's false
promises that it would continuously develop games to completion; Sierra/VUG's
fraud claim and claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing based on Valve's concealment of Steam and its strategically delayed
development of the Valve games to coincide with the commercial release of
Steam...."


>Not to mention that Valve only get's 30% of the sales when the game is sold
>thru a store (Publisher get's the other 70%).

Ahem... so?


>So you've got a developer that is getting under paid, not paid, and the

"Under paid, not paid"? Who are you kidding.


>publisher wants to claim its intellectual property.

Reclaim, you mean... after being lied to.

"... and Sierra/VUG's claim for declaratory relief regarding its right to
reversion of the Half-Life intellectual property based on Valve's failure to
continuously develop the Valve games."


>No wonder the
>developer looked into other distribution methods.

Wrong. They were probably already working on "other distibution methods," ie.
Steam, when they got the IP rights to HL in 2001.

 

[jeff]

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

In article <1108035326.274989.225340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Is this what you dislike about Steam? That you do not have the option
>of manually checking for, finding, downloading and installing an
>update, but are forced to use the auto-update if you want to update at
>all?
>Is that the choice that you feel is missing in Steam games, but that a
>lot of other games offer?

That is one of the reasons. I primarily don't like Steam because it requires
me to give up my anonymity to install and play the single-player game and it
dramatically reduces my assurance that I'll be able to install, patch, and
play my purchased games unhindered.


>that. If they do that and other companies follow suit, then I guess
>we'll need to add "broadband" to our next upgrade as well as "decent
>graphics card".

That's simply not an option for many people. Not unless they're willing to
spend $10K-$100K to phone companies to install the infrastructure necessary to
get DSL to their homes. And even if BB is available, is it affordable?


>Personally, I think there are still plenty of people who have to or
>prefer to buy the boxed version. Enough to keep the shops alive for the
>foreseeable future. Beyond that, I do not have a crystal ball. Perhaps

I am hoping that this proves to be so. I just won't have my worse-case
scenario happen because I never objected.


>we should keep an eye on the music industry where this is already
>happening. We may get a glimpse of the future there.

If this is happening in the music industry, I really wasn't aware of it.

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff" <jeff@work.com> wrote in message
news:cufu50$9e8$1@cronkite.cc.uga.edu...
> In article <nQuOd.32439$uL5.23364@fe2.texas.rr.com>, "OldDog"
<OldDog@citypound.com> wrote:
>
> >A system that works well?
>
> Yes, very well.
>

Show me a system that works well for everyone, everytime, and everywhere,
and I'll show you the true meaning of life.

>
> >The current system is messy for some of us; I
> >don't want to drive to a store to buy a CD in a box. It's a waste of gas
> >and trees. So Steam does benefit some of us besides the developer.
>
> You can save the gas by walking to the store then... and recycle the box.
;-)
>

Can't walk too well due to bone spurs in my heels. But I'm looking at
riding a bike 12 miles to get to the mall. That's if some fool in a gas
guzzling car doesn't try to take me out.

As to the box. They don't recycle cardboard in my area. 🙁

> S'okay, really concerned about the environment, are you? What about all
the
> energy required to power the Steam servers? Hell, maybe you should give
up
> gaming altogether, since your computer is also soaking up valuable energy
> resources. Don't be a hypocrite, man... sell your car, convert your house
to
> all-renewable energy sources, recycle everything!
>

I asked that question awhile back. What the enegry cost was for d/l vs
retail box? While I'm waiting for that answer, I've decided to cut back on
HL2 use, online use, and chatting about Steam. 😉

As to recycling, I'm trying. Now if I can just get the $%#$% post office
to stop sending me junk mail.

>
> >As to benefitting themselves....
> >
> >http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/09/20/news_6107712.html
> >
> >"Valve sued Vivendi for copyright infringement back in 2002 over their
> >unauthorized distribution of our products to cyber cafés," Lombardi told
> >GameSpot last Friday. "We later had to add breach of contract claims for,
> >among other things, refusing to pay us royalties owed and delaying
Condition
> >Zero out of the holiday season."
>
> Ahem... yes, benefitting themselves. Quite obviously.
>

I've fired off an email to Bill Gates requesting him to provide the
following benefits to users:

1. Deliver bug free software
2. Low cost software (as in free)
3. And a cup of coffee with that software

I'm still waiting for reply.


>
> >""...Vivendi responded by making a number of claims in an attempt to
> >invalidate our agreement and be awarded the ownership of the Half-Life
> >intellectual property.
>
> Here's the other side of the story:
>
> Valve did not originally own the IP rights to Half-Life, Sierra did.
> Publishers that fund the development of a project typically own the
product...
> in this case the IP rights of the software.
>
> "In 1997, Valve and Sierra entered into two agreements whereby Valve
undertook
> to develop certain computer games and Sierra undertook to manufacture,
market,
> and distribute the games. Among other benefits, these 1997 agreements
granted
> Sierra intellectual property rights in the games."
>

These seems to be the case in most agreements with Publishers/Developers.
Even when the developer actually creates the product on their own.

>
> Sierra only gave the IP rights to Valve because Valve wouldn't work on HL2
> otherwise...
>

This is a little unusal in the software Developer/Publisher relations isn't
it?

> "Beginning in 1999, following the success of its first game, Valve began
to
> threaten Sierra that it would halt or slow development of the remaining
games
> it was obligated to develop unless Sierra relinquished certain rights
under
> the 1997 agreements. Sierra eventually capitulated to these demands and,
> relying on misrepresentations by Valve, entered into a new software
publishing
> agreement (SPA) with Valve in 2001."
>
>
> .. and they were misled to believe that they'd be HL2's primary
distributor.
>
> "Among other concessions, Sierra agreed to relinquish intellectual
property
> rights and to allow Valve certain rights to the online distribution of
games.
> Valve did not disclose during the negotiations over the 2001 SPA that it
was
> in the process of developing a new technology called Steam that would
allow
> consumers who would normally purchase games from Sierra/VUG at retail to
> purchase those products online directly from Valve."
>
> "During the parties' negotiations...Counterclaim Defendants [Valve]
repeatedly
> and falsely assured Sierra and VUG that retail sales would remain "the key
to
> [their] strategy." In September 2000, for example, Newell told Hubert
Joly,
> then VUG's CEO, that "online is a way to nurture the retail business" and
that
> he 'could not understand how one can make money online today.'
>
> "Sierra and VUG would later learn that these statements were flatly
> false...Incredibly, Counterclaim Defendant Newell also stated that he
'could
> not understand how one can make money online today,' plainly with the
> intention to falsely imply that Valve had no present or future strategy to
> engage in widespread online distribution of the games. This misleading
> half-truth was Newell's deliberate concealment of the extent to which
Valve
> intended through the parties' negotiations to appropriate the substantial
> value of the distribution rights to Valve, rather than to Sierra and VUG."
>
>
> Part of the agreement where Sierra turned over the IP rights to Valve was
that
> Valve would diligently and continuously work on HL2 to completion, instead
of
> dragging their feet as they'd threatened to do before. Instead Valve
slows up
> development ("oops, someone somehow stole the source code to HL2") so that
its
> release coincides with Steam's.
>
> "... including Sierra/VUG's promissory fraud claim based on Valve's false
> promises that it would continuously develop games to completion;
Sierra/VUG's
> fraud claim and claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
> dealing based on Valve's concealment of Steam and its strategically
delayed
> development of the Valve games to coincide with the commercial release of
> Steam...."
>
>
> >Not to mention that Valve only get's 30% of the sales when the game is
sold
> >thru a store (Publisher get's the other 70%).
>
> Ahem... so?
>

So we might be paying a lot of $ to the publishers?


>
> >So you've got a developer that is getting under paid, not paid, and the
>
> "Under paid, not paid"? Who are you kidding.
>

Show me a single person on this world that thinks they're overpaid, and I'll
show you a unicorn. 😉

>
> >publisher wants to claim its intellectual property.
>
> Reclaim, you mean... after being lied to.
>

Probably a poor choice of words on my part. If the original agreement was
truly in fact the way that the publisher stated it.

> "... and Sierra/VUG's claim for declaratory relief regarding its right to
> reversion of the Half-Life intellectual property based on Valve's failure
to
> continuously develop the Valve games."
>
>
> >No wonder the
> >developer looked into other distribution methods.
>
> Wrong. They were probably already working on "other distibution methods,"
ie.
> Steam, when they got the IP rights to HL in 2001.
>

Let's call Gabe and find out. 😉

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff wrote:
> > >Can't walk too well due to bone spurs in my heels. But I'm
looking at
> >riding a bike 12 miles to get to the mall. That's if some fool in
a gas
> >guzzling car doesn't try to take me out.
>
> No buses? If not, you should move to where you'll have access to
public
> transportation. Or here's a thought... Amazon.com.
>

</pedantry>

If we're trying to remove exhaust emissions from the purchase process,
then neither a bus nor a delivery van will be of any use. Better than a
car, I grant you.

</pedantry>

 

[Guest]

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

Chadwick wrote:
> If we're trying to remove exhaust emissions from the purchase
process,
> then neither a bus nor a delivery van will be of any use. Better than
a
> car, I grant you.

In what sense is the exhaust emission from a bus or delivery van,
spewing out carcinogenic particulates into the atmosphere, 'better than
a car', which produces very little pollution at all?

And, in any case, how can anyone who claims to care about pollution
justify wasting maybe 500W of power for hours at a time playing
computer games?

Mark

 

[jeff]

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

In article <PbVOd.33364$uL5.25851@fe2.texas.rr.com>, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com> wrote:
>"Jeff" <jeff@work.com> wrote in message

>> Yes, very well.

>Show me a system that works well for everyone, everytime, and everywhere,
>and I'll show you the true meaning of life.

I dare say that the retail model satisfies most gamers very well... far moreso
than Steam. However, if there's a market for Steam, it's fine with me if they
add it as an option.


>Can't walk too well due to bone spurs in my heels. But I'm looking at
>riding a bike 12 miles to get to the mall. That's if some fool in a gas
>guzzling car doesn't try to take me out.

No buses? If not, you should move to where you'll have access to public
transportation. Or here's a thought... Amazon.com.


>As to the box. They don't recycle cardboard in my area. 🙁

Well, you could always eat them. You probably need the fiber in your diet
anyway.


>As to recycling, I'm trying. Now if I can just get the $%#$% post office
>to stop sending me junk mail.

Good luck on that last one.


>I've fired off an email to Bill Gates requesting him to provide the
>following benefits to users:
>
>1. Deliver bug free software
>2. Low cost software (as in free)
>3. And a cup of coffee with that software
>
>I'm still waiting for reply.

Let me know if you ever hear back. I may have heard a rumor that Gates is
looking to acquire Starbucks....



>> Here's the other side of the story:
>>
>> Valve did not originally own the IP rights to Half-Life, Sierra did.
>> Publishers that fund the development of a project typically own the
>product...
>> in this case the IP rights of the software.
>>
>> "In 1997, Valve and Sierra entered into two agreements whereby Valve
>undertook
>> to develop certain computer games and Sierra undertook to manufacture,
>market,
>> and distribute the games. Among other benefits, these 1997 agreements
>granted
>> Sierra intellectual property rights in the games."
>>
>
>These seems to be the case in most agreements with Publishers/Developers.
>Even when the developer actually creates the product on their own.

Actually, I seriously doubt that last bit. In any case, it was clearly stated
that Valve didn't create HL1 on its own.


>> Sierra only gave the IP rights to Valve because Valve wouldn't work on HL2
>> otherwise...
>
>This is a little unusal in the software Developer/Publisher relations isn't
>it?

I'd have no idea... though it did sound incredibly childish on Valve's part.
I got the image of a little boy holding his breath until he gets his way.


>> >Not to mention that Valve only get's 30% of the sales when the game is
>sold
>> >thru a store (Publisher get's the other 70%).
>>
>> Ahem... so?

>So we might be paying a lot of $ to the publishers?

Again, so? It's not like we would paying any less overall.


>> >So you've got a developer that is getting under paid, not paid, and the
>>
>> "Under paid, not paid"? Who are you kidding.
>
>Show me a single person on this world that thinks they're overpaid, and I'll
>show you a unicorn. 😉

Actually, I'm fairly certain that I could (though getting said person to
admit it openly might be harder), but... show me a modern pro football player
who isn't overpaid (IMHO) and I'll let you ride that unicorn. ;-)


>> >publisher wants to claim its intellectual property.
>>
>> Reclaim, you mean... after being lied to.
>
>Probably a poor choice of words on my part. If the original agreement was
>truly in fact the way that the publisher stated it.

Yeah, if... but I'm sure the original agreement had to be documented.


>> >No wonder the
>> >developer looked into other distribution methods.
>>
>> Wrong. They were probably already working on "other distibution methods,"
>ie.
>> Steam, when they got the IP rights to HL in 2001.
>
>Let's call Gabe and find out. 😉

LOL. Yes, I'm sure that he'll give you the straight story. ;-)

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff" <jeff@work.com> wrote in message
news:cuidkv$960$1@cronkite.cc.uga.edu...
<snip>
> No buses? If not, you should move to where you'll have access to public
> transportation. Or here's a thought... Amazon.com.
>

The point is to reduce emissions & gas consumation from vehicles used in
obtaining a game. Taking a bus or ordering from online web site achieves
neither of these.

However, if we were to look at all the game boxes delivered across a country
like the US, and counted up all the trucks used (and gamers car), mileage,
emission, and gas consumation and compared that to a Steam like system.
What would be the final total?

I'm betting that it's with the current gas guzzling system.

>
> >As to the box. They don't recycle cardboard in my area. 🙁
>
> Well, you could always eat them. You probably need the fiber in your diet
> anyway.
>

I do need fiber. And most cereal is just carboard anyway. So no harm in
adding a little pc game box to my morning diet.

<snip>
> Let me know if you ever hear back. I may have heard a rumor that Gates is
> looking to acquire Starbucks....
>

Just think, MS software for free, and a cup of Starbucks to go with that.
Is that heaven or what.

>
>
<snip>
> >
> >Show me a single person on this world that thinks they're overpaid, and
I'll
> >show you a unicorn. 😉
>
> Actually, I'm fairly certain that I could (though getting said person to
> admit it openly might be harder), but... show me a modern pro football
player
> who isn't overpaid (IMHO) and I'll let you ride that unicorn. ;-)
>

I heard that. But again, you got to get him to say he think he's over
paid. And no use of drugs, shock, or other forms of torture. 😉

 

[jeff]

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

In article <1108138505.602910.17810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Jeff wrote:
>> > >Can't walk too well due to bone spurs in my heels. But I'm
>looking at
>> >riding a bike 12 miles to get to the mall. That's if some fool in
>a gas
>> >guzzling car doesn't try to take me out.
>>
>> No buses? If not, you should move to where you'll have access to
>public
>> transportation. Or here's a thought... Amazon.com.
>>
>
></pedantry>
>
>If we're trying to remove exhaust emissions from the purchase process,
>then neither a bus nor a delivery van will be of any use. Better than a
>car, I grant you.
>
></pedantry>

🙂 a) Buses will run their routes regardless, so you may as well ride, and
b) some cities use buses that run either electric or hydrogen fuel cells.

 

[jeff]

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

In article <uXaPd.37403$uL5.34864@fe2.texas.rr.com>, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com> wrote:
>
>"Jeff" <jeff@work.com> wrote in message
>news:cuidkv$960$1@cronkite.cc.uga.edu...
><snip>
>> No buses? If not, you should move to where you'll have access to public
>> transportation. Or here's a thought... Amazon.com.
>>
>
>The point is to reduce emissions & gas consumation from vehicles used in
>obtaining a game. Taking a bus or ordering from online web site achieves
>neither of these.

Buses and mail delivery run by your house regardless.


>However, if we were to look at all the game boxes delivered across a country
>like the US, and counted up all the trucks used (and gamers car), mileage,
>emission, and gas consumation and compared that to a Steam like system.
>What would be the final total?

We're not looking at cross-country totals, we're looking at you, who is soooo
"concerned" about it. Seriously, any gamer that's that concerned about the
environment shouldn't own a computer... at least not for gaming, anyway.


>I'm betting that it's with the current gas guzzling system.

Do you seriously think that Steam will affect that "system" either way?