master valve said: STOP PLAYING HL2 NOW!

[Guest]

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

"ChoyKw" <newsreader@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
news:42003dd7$1_1@news.tm.net.my...
> OldDog wrote:
>
> > Plus how do you know that I have a DVD player or
> > VCR?
>
> The same way they *know* ALL GAMERS GOT A BROADBAND INTERNET CONNECTION.
>
> LOL.

DVD player
Hi-speed.
And a 61 inch Samsung DLP HDTV. 😉

Ok, I'm out of here. I got to take my Jag for a tune-up. It's taking me
way too long to get up to 90mph thru my neighborhood.

 

[Guest]

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

Thusly "ChoyKw" <newsreader@newsgroup.com> Spake Unto All:

>OldDog wrote:
>
>> Plus how do you know that I have a DVD player or
>> VCR?
>
>The same way they *know* ALL GAMERS GOT A BROADBAND INTERNET CONNECTION.
>
>LOL.

I'm starting to wonder if perhaps Steam did a better job at stopping
pirates than I thought.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:47:32 -0000, "Stoned Monkey"
<tenny2k@NOSPAMrtennant.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>riku wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:16:40 GMT, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I almost forgot.
>>>
>>> Last night my cable TV went out!!!! I couldn't watch any of my TV
>>> shows. Can you believe it? I pay them a monthly fee and I expect
>>> 24/7 content.
>>
>> Did that prevent you from inserting a DVD in your DVD player and watch
>> it instead on your TV? No.
>>
>> Requiring online validation to play SINGLE-PLAYER game is comparable
>> to having to connect to some validation servers online if you insert a
>> DVD in your DVD player.
>>
>To be honest thats not a very good analogy really, he wasnt able to watch
>the tv programs that were on at the time, ssure he could have watch a
>different dvd but steam doesn't stop you playing another game

His analogy was a poor one. There's a very good reason why you can't
see cable TV programs if the cable TV system is down (DUH!), but there
is absolutely no good reason you shouldn't be able to install and play
a SINGLE-PLAYER GAME if Steam servers are down or inaccessible.

His analogy would be better if he was talking about online multiplayer
games. Hence, here's the correct analogy:

cable TV = online multiplayer games (apparently these don't work if
the connection to the cable TV company or servers is broken)

DVD movies = single-player games (you are still able to access them
even if the connection to the cable TV company or publisher servers is
broken. Or at least SHOULD be able to.)

 

[Guest]

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

riku wrote:

> DVD movies = single-player games (you are still able to access them
> even if the connection to the cable TV company or publisher servers is
> broken. Or at least SHOULD be able to.)

Not if they are DIVX movies ;-)

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:49:04 GMT, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com>
wrote:

>While I can't validate the recent glitch with Valve servers, it does sound
>like an issue that needs to be address. Now that I think about it, what's

The point was that downtimes like these should not affect one's
ability to install and play single-player games. This is EXACTLY the
type of thing that I do not wish to become more commonplace in gaming.
Dependence on the availability and existence of the game company and
its services.

This is yet another thing making console gaming more lucrative. Well,
unless they also try to implement similar systems where you are
required to go online to validate your single-player games, but I
don't see that happening soon. 3DO owners can still play their 3DO
games even if the system is not supported anymore, same with Sega
Dreamcast users.

I think Indrema was supposed to be a gaming console that gets its
gaming content online, but it seems it is dying off even before the
release, and the investors don't believe in it anymore. Just like what
happened with the pay-per-view Circuit City DIVX movies.

>the worse that could happen in the year 2009 when we're all forced to use
>Steam to play our pc games? The server goes down for 1min, 1hr, 10hrs,
>1day, 1week, 1 month...?

Exactly.

>Oh well. That's when we all walk away from our pc and go outside and talk
>to our neighbors.

True, but it still does not make it right that you need an online
connection for single-player games. From end-user point of view, that
makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Guest]

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

On 2 Feb 2005 01:22:17 -0800, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>The issue is that this shouldn't affect the single-player game. And if
>off-line mode worked properly it wouldn't.

It wouldn't, if you had installed the game already. But during the
downtime, you can't either install new single-player games in order to
play them.

Steam SP offline mode is analogous to being able to watch the same DVD
movie over and over again which you happen to have in your DVD player
currently, but not being able to insert a new DVD movie until the
connection to the Master Server is up again.

>All Valve need to do to correct this is to fix the offline mode so it's
>permanent.

In addition to removing the need to validate your game online when you
install it or play it for the first time. Maybe giving a choice even,
those who don't want to have a CD check can validate it online (this
would remove the CD check), while those who prefer not validating it
ever, have to put up with the CD checks. I would be fine with an
option like that.

 

[Guest]

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

"Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107336137.193497.288280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> OldDog wrote:
> >
> > So when my cableTV goes out, I can't watch "Desperate Housewifes".
> And
> > no, it's not on DVD yet. Plus how do you know that I have a DVD
> player or
> > VCR?
> >
>
> In this analagy, the DVD/Video player is your CD/DVD drive or your
> harddrive. In other words, your ability to play single-plyer PC games.
> The point is that if cable goes down you can still put a DVD in the
> machine and watch the film in the same way that if the internet breaks
> you can still play a single-player game on your PC.
>
> Unless that single-player game/DVD film needs to access the outside
> world before it will run.
>
>
<snip>

My original post was more along the lines of how watching TV shifted from
using "rabbit ears" to a CableTV box. Forgot the DVD/CD player for a min.
Back when I had rabbit ears, there was nothing between me and the many TV
stations out there. If you can count the 3 major networks and 1 UFO ch as
many. Every time I wanted to watch a different station, I got up off the
couch, manually flip the TV station, and then spent 15mins adjusting the
rabbit ears. All content was broadcast over the airways.

In the late 70s, I switched to CableTV. While I enjoyed an amazing total
of 24 channels, if the CableTV box went out on me, I was hosed. No VCR or
DVD to switch to. And even if I could insert a VHS tape of DVD, I want to
watch the Super Bowl game which is being broadcast now, today, this instant
in time (assuming this is Super Sunday at kickoff time).

If some or all pc games go the route of Steam, it reminds me of Rabbit ears
(CDs/DVDs) vs CableTV box (Steam-internet). Some shows that use to be on
the major networks are now only shown on cable TV channels. If you only
have rabbit ears, you can't watch the football games that are shown on ESPN.
If you want to watch The Sopranos, order HBO. For some of us, it's no big
deal since we have CableTV.

Unless our cable goes down.
Or we live outside the cable lines, can't afford cable, can't afford a dish.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Chadwick wrote:
> riku wrote:
>
>>On 2 Feb 2005 01:22:17 -0800, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com>
>
>>install it or play it for the first time. Maybe giving a choice even,
>>those who don't want to have a CD check can validate it online (this
>>would remove the CD check), while those who prefer not validating it
>>ever, have to put up with the CD checks. I would be fine with an
>>option like that.
>
>
> If they do that, could you copy the CD and post it to me? I don't play
> on-line, so I'll be fine. Cheers. Actually, I could make further copies
> and sell them on, explaining that it will work so long as you don't
> register on-line, just use the CD-check.
>

What IS his gripe with one time online validation?

I bet he disagrees with "stop & search" police powers in violent,
dangerous areas too.


--
Walter Mitty
-
Useless, waste of money research of the day : http://tinyurl.com/3tdeu
" Format wars could 'confuse users'"
http://www.tinyurl.com

 

[Guest]

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

"riku" <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote in message
news:dch101togut9cbjveudtmu7fpbfvdcpbre@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:49:04 GMT, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com>
> wrote:
>
> >While I can't validate the recent glitch with Valve servers, it does
sound
> >like an issue that needs to be address. Now that I think about it,
what's
>
> The point was that downtimes like these should not affect one's
> ability to install and play single-player games. This is EXACTLY the
> type of thing that I do not wish to become more commonplace in gaming.
> Dependence on the availability and existence of the game company and
> its services.
>

As a gamer I'd like to see:

1. No copy protection
2. No CD required in the drive
3. No internet connection required for game play
4. Bug free games
5. A/I that can play realistically
6. .... (list goes on)

And then there's the developers/publishers issues.

1. IP rights
2. Piracy
3. Distribution
4. Cost
5. ....(list goes on)

Now some gamers are going to say that they don't care about the 2nd list.
Ok. Doesn't make it go away though.


> This is yet another thing making console gaming more lucrative. Well,
> unless they also try to implement similar systems where you are
> required to go online to validate your single-player games, but I
> don't see that happening soon. 3DO owners can still play their 3DO
> games even if the system is not supported anymore, same with Sega
> Dreamcast users.
>

Our family just finished watching "The Manchurian Candidate" on DVD. The
newer version. Just think if Steam required users to have an emplant?
Users would have to wave their arm across a bar scanner hooked up to the
internet, enter their PIN, and provide a urine sample before playing single
player game.

Now that's scarey.
I sure hope Valve isn't reading this.

> I think Indrema was supposed to be a gaming console that gets its
> gaming content online, but it seems it is dying off even before the
> release, and the investors don't believe in it anymore. Just like what
> happened with the pay-per-view Circuit City DIVX movies.
>
> >the worse that could happen in the year 2009 when we're all forced to use
> >Steam to play our pc games? The server goes down for 1min, 1hr, 10hrs,
> >1day, 1week, 1 month...?
>
> Exactly.
>

If so, I'll have to do the same thing when my cableTV goes out. Go bug my
wife. 😉

NOTE: To all 56k modem users and non-internet users, you have my deepest
symphony if this truly happens.

> >Oh well. That's when we all walk away from our pc and go outside and
talk
> >to our neighbors.
>
> True, but it still does not make it right that you need an online
> connection for single-player games. From end-user point of view, that
> makes no sense whatsoever.
>

From a gamers view point, agreed.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, riku wrote:

> On 2 Feb 2005 01:22:17 -0800, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >All Valve need to do to correct this is to fix the offline mode so it's
> >permanent.
>
> In addition to removing the need to validate your game online when you
> install it or play it for the first time. Maybe giving a choice even,
> those who don't want to have a CD check can validate it online (this

I agree. But don't forget seperate patches available from public servers
like fileplanet and such. Else with a modem you will still be screwed...

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

 

[Guest]

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

riku wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:47:32 -0000, "Stoned Monkey"
> <tenny2k@NOSPAMrtennant.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> riku wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:16:40 GMT, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh, I almost forgot.
>>>>
>>>> Last night my cable TV went out!!!! I couldn't watch any of my TV
>>>> shows. Can you believe it? I pay them a monthly fee and I expect
>>>> 24/7 content.
>>>
>>> Did that prevent you from inserting a DVD in your DVD player and
>>> watch it instead on your TV? No.
>>>
>>> Requiring online validation to play SINGLE-PLAYER game is comparable
>>> to having to connect to some validation servers online if you
>>> insert a DVD in your DVD player.
>>>
>> To be honest thats not a very good analogy really, he wasnt able to
>> watch the tv programs that were on at the time, ssure he could have
>> watch a different dvd but steam doesn't stop you playing another game
>
> His analogy was a poor one. There's a very good reason why you can't
> see cable TV programs if the cable TV system is down (DUH!), but there
> is absolutely no good reason you shouldn't be able to install and play
> a SINGLE-PLAYER GAME if Steam servers are down or inaccessible.
>
> His analogy would be better if he was talking about online multiplayer
> games. Hence, here's the correct analogy:
>
> cable TV = online multiplayer games (apparently these don't work if
> the connection to the cable TV company or servers is broken)
>
> DVD movies = single-player games (you are still able to access them
> even if the connection to the cable TV company or publisher servers is
> broken. Or at least SHOULD be able to.)

yeah dude I totally misread your post you analogy was correct

--


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

 

[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 <Yh6Md.225$uA.92@fe1.texas.rr.com>, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com> wrote:

>And then there's the developers/publishers issues.
>
>1. IP rights
>2. Piracy
>3. Distribution
>4. Cost
>5. ....(list goes on)
>
>Now some gamers are going to say that they don't care about the 2nd list.
>Ok. Doesn't make it go away though.

Doesn't mean it should be made the customer's problem either... at least not
to the point where the customer is harmed by them. In other words, those are
THEIR issues and they need to find solutions that don't significantly harm the
consumer... or else the consumer has the right to be upset, complain, and take
his/her business elsewhere.


>Our family just finished watching "The Manchurian Candidate" on DVD. The
>newer version. Just think if Steam required users to have an emplant?
>Users would have to wave their arm across a bar scanner hooked up to the
>internet, enter their PIN, and provide a urine sample before playing single
>player game.
>
>Now that's scarey.
>I sure hope Valve isn't reading this.

What is scary is that what might seem ludicrous today could very well be the
"wave of the future" in... well, the future. Too, what Valve seems to be
getting away with today probably seemed ludicrous 20 years ago.


>> >the worse that could happen in the year 2009 when we're all forced to use
>> >Steam to play our pc games? The server goes down for 1min, 1hr, 10hrs,
>> >1day, 1week, 1 month...?
>>
>> Exactly.
>
>If so, I'll have to do the same thing when my cableTV goes out. Go bug my
>wife. 😉

The difference is that a game is still considered to be more a product (book)
than a service (cable TV). You pay for the book, you expect to be able to
read it anytime, anywhere you like... without interference from or dependence
upon the book's publisher/author. You pay for cable TV, you expect to be able
to watch TV shows anytime you like... but you ARE dependent upon the cable
company to provide them... and should the cable go down due to the company's
actions (or neglect), you'd have every right to be upset about it... and even
due a refund.


>NOTE: To all 56k modem users and non-internet users, you have my deepest
>symphony if this truly happens.

How musical of you. ;-)


>From a gamers view point, agreed.

Since gamers are the ones laying out the cash for said games, it's the gamers'
viewpoint that should be considered first and foremost. Let businesses worry
about their bottom line and customers worry about thiers, but when it comes
down to who "wins"? There's an old saying in business: "the customer is
always right."

 

[Guest]

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

OldDog wrote:
> "riku" <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote in message
> news:dch101togut9cbjveudtmu7fpbfvdcpbre@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:49:04 GMT, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> While I can't validate the recent glitch with Valve servers, it
>>> does sound like an issue that needs to be address. Now that I
>>> think about it, what's
>>
>> The point was that downtimes like these should not affect one's
>> ability to install and play single-player games. This is EXACTLY the
>> type of thing that I do not wish to become more commonplace in
>> gaming. Dependence on the availability and existence of the game
>> company and its services.
>>
>
> As a gamer I'd like to see:
>
> 1. No copy protection
> 2. No CD required in the drive
> 3. No internet connection required for game play
> 4. Bug free games
> 5. A/I that can play realistically
> 6. .... (list goes on)
>
> And then there's the developers/publishers issues.
>
> 1. IP rights
> 2. Piracy
> 3. Distribution
> 4. Cost
> 5. ....(list goes on)
>
> Now some gamers are going to say that they don't care about the 2nd
> list. Ok. Doesn't make it go away though.
>
>
>> This is yet another thing making console gaming more lucrative. Well,
>> unless they also try to implement similar systems where you are
>> required to go online to validate your single-player games, but I
>> don't see that happening soon. 3DO owners can still play their 3DO
>> games even if the system is not supported anymore, same with Sega
>> Dreamcast users.
>>
>
> Our family just finished watching "The Manchurian Candidate" on DVD.
> The newer version. Just think if Steam required users to have an
> emplant? Users would have to wave their arm across a bar scanner
> hooked up to the internet, enter their PIN, and provide a urine
> sample before playing single player game.

sounds like difool has infected your brain like a virus, LOL

--


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

 

[Guest]

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

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

>Doesn't mean it should be made the customer's problem either... at least not
>to the point where the customer is harmed by them. In other words, those are
>THEIR issues and they need to find solutions that don't significantly harm the
>consumer... or else the consumer has the right to be upset, complain, and take
>his/her business elsewhere.

So, Steam is harming the consumer significantly HOW, exactly?

 

[jeff]

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

In article <kv82011v33oer7sl86vmde14fmg9ueo627@4ax.com>, Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Thusly jeff@work.com (Jeff) Spake Unto All:
>
>>Doesn't mean it should be made the customer's problem either... at least not
>>to the point where the customer is harmed by them. In other words, those are
>>THEIR issues and they need to find solutions that don't significantly harm the
>
>>consumer... or else the consumer has the right to be upset, complain, and take
>
>>his/her business elsewhere.
>
>So, Steam is harming the consumer significantly HOW, exactly?

And exactly HOW many times do you need the arguments against Steam listed??

 

[Guest]

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

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

>>>Doesn't mean it should be made the customer's problem either... at least not
>>>to the point where the customer is harmed by them. In other words, those are
>>>THEIR issues and they need to find solutions that don't significantly harm the
>>>consumer... or else the consumer has the right to be upset, complain, and take
>>>his/her business elsewhere.
>>
>>So, Steam is harming the consumer significantly HOW, exactly?
>
>And exactly HOW many times do you need the arguments against Steam listed??

Try ONCE.
So, how does steam "significantly harm the consumer"?

 

[jeff]

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

In article <6lh201td10qt19t3fofb3mk2v24dalpc1i@4ax.com>, Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Thusly jeff@work.com (Jeff) Spake Unto All:
>
>>>>Doesn't mean it should be made the customer's problem either... at least not
>
>>>>to the point where the customer is harmed by them. In other words, those
> are
>>>>THEIR issues and they need to find solutions that don't significantly harm
> the
>>>>consumer... or else the consumer has the right to be upset, complain, and
> take
>>>>his/her business elsewhere.
>>>
>>>So, Steam is harming the consumer significantly HOW, exactly?
>>
>>And exactly HOW many times do you need the arguments against Steam listed??
>
>Try ONCE.
>So, how does steam "significantly harm the consumer"?

Try reading any of the many posts here that've already done so. Sheesh.

Here, this should get you started:

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=steam+consumer+right

Or go back and reread the "Steam, Stardock Central" thread.

 

[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:ctr4e2$mph$1@cronkite.cc.uga.edu...
<snip>
> >NOTE: To all 56k modem users and non-internet users, you have my
deepest
> >symphony if this truly happens.
>
> How musical of you. ;-)
>

A musical mind is such a terrible thing to waste.
I kan't tail you the numbur of tymes where meye mind thinks one thang, and
my hands type something else. You'd think afturd 48 yeers that I'd be
butter at it.

 

[Guest]

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

"Mean_Chlorine" <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kv82011v33oer7sl86vmde14fmg9ueo627@4ax.com...
> Thusly jeff@work.com (Jeff) Spake Unto All:
>
> >Doesn't mean it should be made the customer's problem either... at least
not
> >to the point where the customer is harmed by them. In other words, those
are
> >THEIR issues and they need to find solutions that don't significantly
harm the
> >consumer... or else the consumer has the right to be upset, complain, and
take
> >his/her business elsewhere.
>
> So, Steam is harming the consumer significantly HOW, exactly?
>
>

I don't think it's actually "harmed" anyone. No reported cases of it
causing physical damage to anyone. However, some folks might claim that it
has mentally harmed them.

Here's a few "issues" that I seem to recall that some folks have posted
about Steam. (others can correct me or add to this list).

1. Some users have 0 access to the internet. Nor is it easy for them to
drive some where and attempt to gain access just to validate Steam for the
one time install.

[Course the box does state Internet Connection required. But some folks
might consider this just to be for the multiplayer aspect of the game; not
realizing it's also for single play.]

2. Some users like to resale their old games.

3. Some users only have 56k dialup connections.

3a. Some of the above users pay by the min to be online (in the UK, AUS, and
some other countries?).

4. Some users are concerned that down the road, Valve will go out of
business, and if they ever go to "reinstall" HL2, they'll be hosed (to put
it politely).

5. ....

Now are these significant issues? You and I might not think so cause we
don't resale games and have super duper internet connection. But to
others....

 

[Guest]

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

Thusly "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com> Spake Unto All:

>> >Doesn't mean it should be made the customer's problem either... at least
>not
>> >to the point where the customer is harmed by them. In other words, those
>are
>> >THEIR issues and they need to find solutions that don't significantly
>harm the
>> >consumer... or else the consumer has the right to be upset, complain, and
>take
>> >his/her business elsewhere.
>>
>> So, Steam is harming the consumer significantly HOW, exactly?
>
>I don't think it's actually "harmed" anyone.

Of course it hasn't. Neither physically or emotionally. While the
reduced resale value and the time spent activating might be considered
financial harm, it can not be considered "significant".
Jeff knows this of course, hence his song and dance number.

>causing physical damage to anyone. However, some folks might claim that it
>has mentally harmed them.

I think people like difool were plenty harmed even before refusing to
try Steam.

>1. Some users have 0 access to the internet.

Says on the box. Plus you can return the game.

>2. Some users like to resale their old games.

Yes. It's a minor inconvenience that the account has to be sold with
the game, I'll grant that. Hardly significant harm.

>3. Some users only have 56k dialup connections.

So turn off patching.

>3a. Some of the above users pay by the min to be online (in the UK, AUS, and
>some other countries?).

So turn off patching.

>4. Some users are concerned that down the road, Valve will go out of
>business, and if they ever go to "reinstall" HL2, they'll be hosed (to put
>it politely).

Hypothetical. Just like the hypothetical patch Valve might release
prior to going down.

>Now are these significant issues? You and I might not think so cause we
>don't resale games and have super duper internet connection. But to
>others....

I still think the complainers fall in to one of the following
categories 1) they're paranoid or 2) they're pirates or cheaters.
Or both.

 

[jeff]

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

In article <LLlMd.5109$uL5.3108@fe2.texas.rr.com>, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com> wrote:

>I don't think it's actually "harmed" anyone. No reported cases of it
>causing physical damage to anyone. However, some folks might claim that it
>has mentally harmed them.

If he took "harm" as physical, then he's just being obtuse. There's mental
harm, as you point out... there's also financial harm (in the sense of a user
being arbitrarily denied access to games he's paid for).


>Here's a few "issues" that I seem to recall that some folks have posted
>about Steam. (others can correct me or add to this list).
>
>1. Some users have 0 access to the internet. Nor is it easy for them to
>drive some where and attempt to gain access just to validate Steam for the
>one time install.
>
>[Course the box does state Internet Connection required. But some folks
>might consider this just to be for the multiplayer aspect of the game; not
>realizing it's also for single play.]
>
>2. Some users like to resale their old games.
>
>3. Some users only have 56k dialup connections.
>
>3a. Some of the above users pay by the min to be online (in the UK, AUS, and
>some other countries?).
>
>4. Some users are concerned that down the road, Valve will go out of
>business, and if they ever go to "reinstall" HL2, they'll be hosed (to put
>it politely).

It might not just be down the road. If Valve kills/loses/whatever your
account, you're screwed (to put it not-so-politely).


>5. ....

5. Some users are concerned with sacrificing their privacy/anonymity to Valve.
It is MY privacy... and I don't see that Valve should force me to give it up
to them just to play a single-player game. There isn't sufficient reason that
I must... so I object.


>Now are these significant issues? You and I might not think so cause we
>don't resale games and have super duper internet connection. But to
>others....

One thing I like about you "you OldDog" is that you do seem capable of
empathizing with others. The world would be a better place if this were a
more common trait.

 

[Guest]

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

"Mean_Chlorine" wrote...

> That's several hundred posts worth of ramblings.
> Detail how Steam "significantly harm the consumer".

Actually, when I first bought HL2, I banged my head in joy...... got real
messy...
Couldnt you then say that Steam harmed me ?

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff" <jeff@work.com> wrote in message
news:cttbfn$fne$1@cronkite.cc.uga.edu...
> In article <LLlMd.5109$uL5.3108@fe2.texas.rr.com>, "OldDog"
<OldDog@citypound.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't think it's actually "harmed" anyone. No reported cases of it
> >causing physical damage to anyone. However, some folks might claim that
it
> >has mentally harmed them.
>
> If he took "harm" as physical, then he's just being obtuse. There's
mental
> harm, as you point out... there's also financial harm (in the sense of a
user
> being arbitrarily denied access to games he's paid for).
>

If anyone has mentally been harmed by Steam, they need medical help. As to
financially harm, either attempt to sale the game to someone else, give it
away as a present, send it back to Valve for refund, or chalk it up to life
experience.

As in, never buy anything without researching it. In my case, been there,
done that, been burnt, ....

This reminds me of a story. Back when I was a young lad of 30, my wife
goes off to one of them finincial seminars. I'm not that interested, cause
I'm young, stupid, and want to drink beer while watching the Celtics play
the Lakers. She comes back after a few hours and shows me all this cool
financial stuff that they "gave" her. She's got books, and charts, and
guides to help us save and invest money.

Turns out that the seminar was just a chance for them to get up and put on a
song and dance so that they could bait people into signing up with their
company for a merge $1500 (USD). We never used any of that stuff.

Go Celtics!

>
<snip>
> >5. ....
>
> 5. Some users are concerned with sacrificing their privacy/anonymity to
Valve.
> It is MY privacy... and I don't see that Valve should force me to give it
up
> to them just to play a single-player game. There isn't sufficient reason
that
> I must... so I object.
>

I've never had to regrister WinXP.
But what info is required by MS?
Name, address, ZIP, phone number, .... ?

Plus now you're making me think. I have to go back and check what info I
provided Valve. I do seem to recall giving them my email address. Dang!
I hate when you guys make this OldDog think about stuff. 😉

>
> >Now are these significant issues? You and I might not think so cause we
> >don't resale games and have super duper internet connection. But to
> >others....
>
> One thing I like about you "you OldDog" is that you do seem capable of
> empathizing with others. The world would be a better place if this were a
> more common trait.

Maybe it's because this OldDog has had the fleas, been stepped on, kicked
around, and forced to eat dog food. 😉

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005, "OldDog" wrote:

<snip again another impressive post>

wow! now i'm impressed!
seriously i had to read it twice to believe in it
its the second time you write a very reasonable and worth checking post!
i'm completely speechless
can only say to you... thank you!

--
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 Thu, 03 Feb 2005, "OldDog" wrote:

you're doing great so please don't ruin everything!

--
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