Steam, Stardock Central

[Guest]

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

"mrlg" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:28ZGd.9818$C52.7629@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Brad Wardell wrote:
>>
>> Okay so from reading through the posts, the main issues with Steam seem
>> to boil down to:
>>
>> 1) It requires that it is always running to play their games.
>>
>> 2) In order to play the game, you have to have an Internet connection?
>>
>> 3) Even if you buy the game in the store, it still has to go through and
>> validate the files. You can't just install and play which means launch
>> days are problematic.
>>
>> 4) In order to install the game you have to have a net connection?
>>
>> I saw other things mentioned but these 3 things seem to be what is most
>> mentioned. If someone has a major beef I'm not listing here let me know.
>
>
> Being able to choose which patch you want to apply is
> important if the "latest" patch doesn't work as well
> as earlier ones on your particular computer. Steam
> doesn't let you choose. It always gets you the "latest."
> From what I've read, I don't think it lets you archive
> the patches separately from your game install.

That's a good point.

>
>
>> Right now, a user who buys say Galactic Civilizations at Best Buy can go
>> home and install it. They type in the serial # that comes with the game
>> at installation but they don't have to be on the net. If they want to
>> get *updates* to the game, then they download Stardock Central
>> (www.sdcentral.net), create a Stardock.net account and it'll show them
>> what updates are available using the existing serial # they typed in as
>> their ID.
>
> So if your gaming computer is not online, can you download
> patches onto a different computer and burn them to CDR or
> put them on a memory drive and feed them to your gaming
> computer later? Can you just log in at the Stardock
> website and download the patch? Or do you actually
> need to download and install Stardock software to
> get your patch and run it? (which would be an issue if
> you are using a computer at work for internet access)

Presently you can use the built in archiving to put it onto a CD to be put
onto another machine. We plan to keep it that way but I can see where Valve
is coming from in wanting to keep some loose idea of how many people are
using their games.

What we tend to do is look at game projects purely from a budgetary
aspect -- if the game is generating the expected or better revenue then
we're happy. We don't want to alienate customers with anything that
inconveniences them. But obviously, if you're not making your goals and you
see that hundreds of thousands of people are pirating your game, the
temptation to make those uesrs have to be validated to cut down on that
would be tempting.

I think there is a certain "critical mass" involved. That is, since
Stardock is smaller, people recognize that each sale of Galactic
Civilizations / TotalGaming.net makes a difference. And since we didn't put
any CD copy protection on GalCiv, I think people were more inclined to not
pirate it as a result. That sort of thinking (naive or not) I suspect falls
apart when you're selling millions of copies.

But from a business point of view, it's about competition. If consoles don't
hassle me to play but PCs do, then I'm more inclined to just buy the console
game. So PC games, to be competitive, can't inconvenience customers without
pretty solid reasoning. Hence this discussion.

We have guys that go around monitoring warez sites and what's on Kazaa or
Bit Torrent or whatever and so we have to make a conscious decision - how
many *real sales* is this keeping us from having? Is it worth potentially
angering paying customers? Thus far, the answer has been - no. Don't
inconvenience customers.

But there's obviously a slippery slope between where we're at -- no DRM at
all. And some horrific SafeDisc / Internet Activation combo. And so what do
people find objectionable and how will "copy protection" evolve as we go
into the future? Can you require that the person playing the game validate
their game via the Internet on the machine they're playing? I don't know.
We don't require that but I can definitely see why Valve or someone else
would want to do that.

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com

 

[Guest]

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

ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com (noman) wrote in
news:41ec00c4.233929592@news.individual.net:

> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:13:44 GMT,
> QQalextiQQ@videotron.few.useless.chars.ca (alexti) wrote:
>
>>Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in
>>news:hm1nu09pv1vpmmor2ioj9cnk6rtv38vqsr@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:51:17 GMT, "Jim Vieira"
>>><Whiplashr@wi.rr.com.remove.this.to.reply> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't need it to run "faster", and I doubt it eats enough
>>>>processor to affect the frame rate at all. I'm talking about
>>>>memroy. For me, that 20mb is pretty critical.
>>>
>>> If the Steam process isn't being used while playing HL2, then the
>>> chances are it will be swapped out to virtual memory.
>
> That's how the OS manages most of the idle processes and when the
> system is low on memory resources. Under idle conditions Steam app is
> likely waiting to receive a message (either from a game or from TCP/IP
> stack/directplay or a timer) and is pretty much doing nothing.
Unfortunately, this does not seem to work particularly well in windows (I
presume here the talk is about Win2K/XP etc and not about Unix/Linux).
That's part of the reason why all those background services hurt
performance (most of them just sit and wait for the event without doing
anything). Of course, if it's never activated, sooner or later it will get
unloaded onto the swap disk, but if it wasn't intended to operate it should
not stay running. And anyway, what they're doing with 20Mb in such an
application? It seems to be too much for the purpose.
>
>>Why wouldn't it terminate then, if it is not being used? Either it is
>>being used or it's just poor programming...
>
> It's a design choice, not a programming decision.
<snip>
Ok, let it be poor design 😉

I agree that what we see may just be a result of the first release and as
the time goes they may refine it into much better solution...

Alex.

 

[Roderick]

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

"Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com.remove> wrote in
news:6KidnSI2Ms-4WXfcRVn-1Q@comcast.com:

> Okay guys, this anti-Steam stuff is starting to scare me.
>
> Can someone put together a concise list of what it is about Steam that
> bugs you? The reason I ask is that, as time goes on, Stardock is
> moving more and more stuff to Stardock Central. That's what we use to
> deliver TotalGaming.net games to people (http://www.totalgaming.net).

I don't have a list, but I can tell you what bothers me about Steam. I
purchased HL2 retail and still had to register a Steam account, it
really didn't bother me, but WHY? I don't play multiplayer at all, so
why should I have to bother? I registered Steam and don't have any
problems with it and never have, so I'm not just ranting...

The other problem I have with Steam is that it's engineered to assume
I'm a thief, which your system is not. I own GalCiv, Political and
Corporate Machine. If I'm all registered and authenticated through
Steam, why do I need my retail CD in the computer? Why is there no
option to download patches and patch my game without having to have an
internet connection? Why do I need a connection to play a game single
player?

Valve assumes that everyone wants Steam installed on their PC. I'm not
a big fan of having things run in my sytem tray, I'm just anal that way.

When there's an update for GalCiv I boot up Stardock Central and get it,
it's no constantly running. I can download patches for GalCiv if I
choose. I have GalCiv installed on my laptop and desktop. Your system
lets me use MY software how I choose, Steam doesn't.

You have nothing to worry about Brad. I don't know if Valve does or not,
as I stated I haven't had any problems with Steam, but it doesn't mean I
like it or the direction Valve is taking with it.

Rod

 

[Guest]

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

"Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com.remove> wrote in
news:iLidnYTdfeAw9nHcRVn-rw@comcast.com:

> I think there is a certain "critical mass" involved. That is, since
> Stardock is smaller, people recognize that each sale of Galactic
> Civilizations / TotalGaming.net makes a difference. And since we didn't
> put any CD copy protection on GalCiv, I think people were more inclined
> to not pirate it as a result. That sort of thinking (naive or not) I
> suspect falls apart when you're selling millions of copies.

It may be not the "critical mass", but rather your target audience which
makes the difference. I suppose that Stardock games target more educated
crowd who also likely have more income, and who is likely to understand
implication of pirating. This probably significantly reduces pirating by
itself.

Admittedly, it may be hard to sell millions of copies targeting this
audience only...

Alex.

 

[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 Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:04:21 -0500, "Brad Wardell"
<bwardell@stardock.com.remove> wrote:

>>>4) In order to install the game you have to have a net connection?

>But what about #4? In exchange for not having to have a CD in the drive,
>what about having to "activate" the game via the Internet when you install?
>ala Windows XP or something?
>
>Nothing will eliminate piracy and I've said before I don't think piracy is,
>in general, as big of a problem in the PC game industry as some people seem
>to believe. But some of the peer sharing technologies do make it pretty
>easy to get CD ROM images. Does activation stop a lot more pirates (or
>convert them to customers) than the # of legitimate customers it
>inconveniences.

No it doesn't. They claim there are cracks/cracked versions of
Half-life 2 that get rid of the online activation, so pirates are
still playing HL2. I wouldn't know since I steer clear of them
(potential viruses/trojans, it's illegal etc.).

>All my machines have net connections. Certainly most new ones do. If it
>only comes up on installation, how significant of a problem is that?

1. What if you want to install it on a machine with no net connection
during install, like a laptop?

2. What if you want to install the game a few years from now, when
Steam servers may or may not be available anymore? The install fails
because it can't connect to the non-existing Steam servers. If all my
old PC games had used online validation, I'd have quite a few useless
games in my collection because the developers/publishers don't exist
anymore. Unless I would be able to find a crack for all of them, which
I couldn't even if I wanted to (again: trojans, viruses, illegal
according to DMCA and Euro-DMCA).

 

[Guest]

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

Brad Wardell wrote:
> "Jasper Phillips" <jasper@a.shell.peak.org> wrote in message
> news:csgvqn$l09$1@a.shell.peak.org...
>
>>In article <reKdnU67x8oBe3bcRVn-sg@comcast.com>,
>>Brad Wardell <bwardell@stardock.com.remove> wrote:
>>
>>>Okay so from reading through the posts, the main issues with Steam seem to
>>>boil down to:
>>>
>>>1) It requires that it is always running to play their games.
>>>
>>>2) In order to play the game, you have to have an Internet connection?
>>>
>>>3) Even if you buy the game in the store, it still has to go through and
>>>validate the files. You can't just install and play which means launch
>>>days
>>>are problematic.
>>>
>>>4) In order to install the game you have to have a net connection?
>>
>>5) It downloaded things you didn't ask for, and didn't want. I don't know
>>if Steam still does this, but I believe it did during it's beta. This
>>includes demos and advertisement, but also patches for games.
>
>
> Gotcha. I saw a couple other posts that mention this too.
>
> So the general consensus seems to be these 5 things?
>
> My question (mentioned in the other post too) is how problematic are each of
> these? I agree with #1 completely, that's not necessary IMO. Same for #2.
> Same for #3. And same for #5 UNLESS you're playing some sort of competitive
> (ladder type thing) game.
>
> But what about #4? In exchange for not having to have a CD in the drive,
> what about having to "activate" the game via the Internet when you install?
> ala Windows XP or something?

I have nothing against this if and only if it is done by a developer I
trust not to include spyware into their software. I would not buy
such a game from Microsoft (and if I could reasonably avoid XP, I
would do so because of the forced activation alone).

On the other side, I have absolutely no problem at all with placing
the game CD in my drive when I start playing. For a security-conscious
gamer, this is the less intrusive option by far.

> Nothing will eliminate piracy and I've said before I don't think piracy is,
> in general, as big of a problem in the PC game industry as some people seem
> to believe. But some of the peer sharing technologies do make it pretty
> easy to get CD ROM images. Does activation stop a lot more pirates (or
> convert them to customers) than the # of legitimate customers it
> inconveniences.
>
> All my machines have net connections. Certainly most new ones do. If it
> only comes up on installation, how significant of a problem is that?

For people like me, it's not the inconvenience that counts (which is
negligible), but the principle of the thing. Any measure that's not
strictly local induces suspicion, and the bigger the developer, the
bigger the suspicion. The impression is that every such measure is
a tiny step into the direction where control of my machine is taken
from me. And I can't express in words how I resent that.

I would like an alternative: either have the CD in your drive while
playing or activate your game over the net. I think that would satisfy
most gamers.

Werner

 

[Guest]

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

"riku" <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote in message
news:8gepu0p3k80oolmj5r7ofbnlviokr1coj1@4ax.com...
> No it doesn't. They claim there are cracks/cracked versions of
> Half-life 2 that get rid of the online activation, so pirates are
> still playing HL2. I wouldn't know since I steer clear of them
> (potential viruses/trojans, it's illegal etc.).

There are.. Plenty. I happen to know several people who are
into this sort of thing. It's where I got that link I posted a few
days back to the site on how to exploit steam for free games
and how to setup all the latest versions and cracks.

Some people want to live with their heads in the sand and pretend
like it's not happening, but it is. Valve utterly failed with Steam
as far as anti-piracy.

 

[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 Mon, 17 Jan 2005, "Alfredo Tutino" wrote:

> I bought GalCiv in a store, and could play without ever connecting -
> connection is only required for patches, updates and so forth. This is quite

you need internet access to patch a single-player game?
i'll take right away my "seal of approval" from galciv!

no single-player game can ever have internet access as mandatory to
install or play or patch!
this is sacred!

--
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,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, shadows wrote:

> Brad is engaging in astroturfing. Seriously. Posting asking for
> comparisons about your own product with Steam is just a way to
> get free advertising. He should have just asked his own customers
> on his own fourms.

its the other way around!
cause his "own" customers like yourself can't add anything at all

your posts regarding this matter are worth ZERO

Mr Brad Wardell made the very good decision to crosspost to the
"action" group which has hands-on knowledge about steam, cause what
worries Mr Brad Wardell is the "anti-steam" movement and not your
limited thinking that everything coming from those who work in the
industry has to be free advertising

you're so bind to see
if someone from a pc gaming publisher comes to the usenet to post about
future releases its no ADVERTISING its INFORMATION!

--
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,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, "Brad Wardell" wrote:

> Precisely. Stardock Central is purely about obtaining new updates to the
> games or downloading the entire game from scratch from the net.

you don't need to be connected to the internet to patch your game do you?
this is very important, at least for me
don't make it required be connected to the internet to patch a game
but instead do for example
you can get the patch in file format from a cd magazine
you can get the patch in file format from a friend in usb memory stick
you can get the patch in file format and copy it to any portable storage
and take to the computer you have your game and apply there the patch
this is extremely important!
don't make it required to connect to the internet to patch a game!

> Okay so from reading through the posts, the main issues with Steam seem to
> boil down to:
>
> 1) It requires that it is always running to play their games.

that's true, steam has always to run, and its insane
it almost feels like a policeman following us around whenever we go

> 2) In order to play the game, you have to have an Internet connection?

yes!
that's not a question, that's true! that's a statement!
you cannot install or play hl2 without internet connection
and its extremely wrong!
steam completely neglect the millions of pc games without net

> 3) Even if you buy the game in the store, it still has to go through and
> validate the files. You can't just install and play which means launch days
> are problematic.

there is no two version of hl2
that's why i call the version sold in retail stores a big lie!
the thing sold in retail stores should be renamed
"steam for gamers without broadband"
and its exactly the same and behaves exactly the same as the version you
download from steam
it makes steam always run
it makes steam connect to the internet to activate "ask for permission"
you even have to create an account in steam like if you bought it via
steam
the hl2 retail version is exactly the same from the steam version, the
only difference is you don't have to download 4GB of data from the net!
and what is most outrageous about all this is
valve lies! valve is selling hl2 retail version as a "NORMAL" pc game
like all the other, and its not! its COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from anything
else and valve doesn't warn the gamers
each time a gamer buy hl2 in a retail stores, he's being deceived, cheated
and mislead by valve!!!! and i don't see anyone doing anything about it!

> 4) In order to install the game you have to have a net connection?

yes! yes! again its not a question its a statement!
its mandatory you having internet to install and play hl2
i guess you ask it twice cause for you its almost unimaginable
yes its true! its insane! and unbelievable but its really true!
unbelievable what valve is doing

> I saw other things mentioned but these 3 things seem to be what is most
> mentioned. If someone has a major beef I'm not listing here let me know.

the other big thing is valve wanting to destroy the traditional way of
selling pc games in physical medium version like cd/dvd

and the other one is having the freedom of patching your games manually
and being able to get patches in file format so even without internet
access you are able to patch your game, this is very important

> As many of you know, Stardock Central preceeds Steam but this Spring we're
> going to be making a lot of changes to it as well as have the beta of
> Galactic Civilizations II. So obviously, we don't want thousands of people
> mad at us when we put out the next-gen Stardock Central. We don't have
> anywhere near the installed base of Steam but we also live and die on the
> "good will" of the net community (after all, not like you're going to see
> Galactic Civilizations II on the cover of a game magazine any time soon).
> So we definitely don't want to rouse angst.

please inform your costumers
don't use valve tactics, hiding information for gamers
please continue to support costumers without net access
always have available the game in physical medium version like cd/dvd
always have available patches in file format so they can be easily
distributed and gamers without net access can still patch their games
don't ever be the arrogant, lier, coward and deceiver like valve is

> No system will satisfy everyone. I saw someone post that Stardock Central
> is "Spyware" (it's not, it sends us no data except your serial # and usual
> stuff that a web browser would send).

why can't you satisfy everyone?
you can if you try
is it so difficult to make patches available in file format so they can
be easily distributed and gamers even without net access can patch
their games and the more tech savvy ones can do it manually so they can
control what version they run?
i don't see a reason why choice and freedom will not be present in games
please don't be restrictive like valve is!
valve make it everything mandatory!
valve requires everything done only one !
with valve is, or you do as you're told or you're out!
its wrong! so please don't make the same mistake
be flexible! flexible!!

> From a copy protection point of view, my big thing is CD-ROM protection. I
> don't like having to have a CD in the drive. So I tend to be very flexible
> on what a copy protection mechanism will do such that I don't have to keep

don't forget steam is a gazillion times much more RESTRICTIVE that any
cd copy-protection available
as a gamer i also think cd copy-protection is bad but i rather use it
than steam
cd copy-protection is bad but acceptable
steam is completely unacceptable

> the CD in. It's Item #4 above that I wonder how upsetting is. From a basic

point 1 i would not mind if steam would be there if net access would
not be mandatory to install, and patches would be available in file
basically i would let "steam" run each time i played hl2 but i would
never ever use its features
much more important than steam always running is making steam features
OPTIONAL! steam features have to be optional
but optional is a word valve doesn't know at all

point 2 needing net access to play is at least in the present solved
with what valve calls "off-line" you can play hl2 without being connected
but i'm sure it will the a fazed out feature and in the future you will
be required to be always online to play the game

point 3 is important cause i think the regulator would make illegal any
steam based game be sold in retail stores as a normal game, its a lie
hl2 sold is retail stores is not a normal game and its deceiving all the
costumers who buy it

point 4 is extremely important, and its for me completely unacceptable
making a single-player game requiring internet access to install, not
acceptable at all ever

> protection point of view, it would be nice that when you installed the game
> if it had to connect to the net to verify a serial #. Just on installation.
> Once installed, you could run it without a CD and without being on the net.
> I wonder how many people consider that a good trade off -- no CD protection
> in exchange for a 1 time "activation" type system?

it would be nice for you!
but for me not!
i would rather have 10 cd copy-protection than having internet access
required for a single-player game

but if some like one way and others the other, why not make it optional?
for example
you buy the game in the store and you don't need to connect to the
internet to install or play it, and for those, its required to keep
the cd in the drive cause of copy protection
for those who hate cd copy protection the solution would be they could
register the game online and this way they didn't need the cd in the
drive while they play

i don't mind others having this solution as long as you keep single
player games without needing internet access

basically what i'm asking is choice
give us choice
let the gamer decide
be flexible!
please be flexible!
and don't make it required internet access for single-player games

> Right now, a user who buys say Galactic Civilizations at Best Buy can go
> home and install it. They type in the serial # that comes with the game at
> installation but they don't have to be on the net. If they want to get

that's great! that's the way it should always be
please continue to release your games this way

> *updates* to the game, then they download Stardock Central

i'm sorry but i think that's really wrong!
so what about your costumers who don't have internet access and have
bought your game? can't they patch it?
they have bought the game like anyone else, so they have the right
to patch the game like all the others
so i don't think its acceptable!
please let gamers without internet access patch their games
you only need to make patches available in file format so they can
be easily distributed

> (www.sdcentral.net), create a Stardock.net account and it'll show them what
> updates are available using the existing serial # they typed in as their ID.
> But the user doesn't have to have a CD in the drive. In fact, they can toss
> their CD entirely since they can install the entire game from the net at
> that point.

its the second time you write "toss their cd away"
i don't throw away something i bought!
i like to keep everything from the game, the full package!
i like to collect games, and i know many of other gamers too
and again, where do you keep the backup?
there has to be a backup!
cd are made for that to be a backup
leaving the game in your local hard-drive is no backup at all
there is no assurance at all if you leave software which costs money
to be left in a hard-drive which can crash tomorrow

> BTW doesn't Steam allow users to keep Steam from loading on start-up? Then
> you'd just need it when you actually play HL2 or another Valve game?

yes, but that's only a very small and insignificant detail in all this
evil doing with valve and steam

please, don't use valve as an example
valve is doing it all wrong! all wrong!
they have neglect me and other gamers!
i'm extremely disappointed at them!
they have treated me and other gamers like trash
they have put us in the trash can like some disposable waste
we are only asking for a little respect
please just a little respect!

ps: sorry for the lousy english, its not my language but i try my best

--
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,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, "Brad Wardell" wrote:

> Gotcha. I saw a couple other posts that mention this too.
>
> So the general consensus seems to be these 5 things?
>
> My question (mentioned in the other post too) is how problematic are each of
> these? I agree with #1 completely, that's not necessary IMO. Same for #2.
> Same for #3. And same for #5 UNLESS you're playing some sort of competitive
> (ladder type thing) game.

2, 3 and 4 are basically the same, internet access mandatory
obviously if the game is being distributed only via electronic means it
does not make any sense at all talking about it, but cause hl2 is being
sold in retail stores, that's why its an issue

the first issue is, for me the best way to distribute games is the way
it has been for over 10 or more years, the traditional physical medium
being it cd or dvd or another new physical medium it might appear in
the future, and this is for me the main way to distribute games
so when you distribute games this way, it cannot be required you needing
internet access! the product has to be self-contained meaning you buy
it in a store and you are ready to install and play it in your computer
without being dependant on anything at all!

so lets put 2 and 3 and 4 together and say, don't make internet access
required to install and play a single player game you bought in a retail
store!

as for 5, i already wrote, there has to be flexibility when it comes to
patches, so please don't force gamers to patch a game in only one way
be flexible and let gamers patch games using individual files that can
be easily distributed
don't make it mandatory internet connection when patching pc games
give options to gamers, let them choose, be flexible!

> But what about #4? In exchange for not having to have a CD in the drive,
> what about having to "activate" the game via the Internet when you install?
> ala Windows XP or something?

don't use microsoft as an example
like valve, microsoft is a bad example
if you ask me i will never exchange for anything in the world having a
pc game self-contained meaning i don't need anyone or anything else to
install and play after i've bought it legally in my retail store!

> Nothing will eliminate piracy and I've said before I don't think piracy is,
> in general, as big of a problem in the PC game industry as some people seem

glad to heard that
as a gamer i worry about piracy, cause the only ones who will suffer from
it are us the gamers, cause you who work in the industry will for sure
change business to other where you are not robbed of your work

and fighting piracy is something the publishers must do but also us
i think us gamers have to actively fight piracy, by for example say no
to p2p networks, not buying counterfeiting and pirated cds in the local
street market, or not lending our games to friends when we know the
game is easily and cheaply available on our retail store
one thing is showing our friends games and letting them try, another is
giving them away for free which i think its wrong

> to believe. But some of the peer sharing technologies do make it pretty
> easy to get CD ROM images. Does activation stop a lot more pirates (or
> convert them to customers) than the # of legitimate customers it
> inconveniences.

i have accepted cd copy-protection
so please use cd copy-protection to fight piracy and protect your work
and not online activation!
please don't ever use online activation as a copy-protection mean

> All my machines have net connections. Certainly most new ones do. If it
> only comes up on installation, how significant of a problem is that?

don't neglect gamers without internet access!
not even once you talked about gamers without internet access!
don't discriminate gamers without net access!
don't send gamers without net to the trash just cause you feel like it!
don't forget them as valve did!
don't do the same mistakes valve is doing!
if you are wisely afraid of anti-steam movements don't copy them
cause you will end up having the same movements against 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,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, "Brad Wardell" wrote:

> Presently you can use the built in archiving to put it onto a CD to be put
> onto another machine. We plan to keep it that way but I can see where Valve
> is coming from in wanting to keep some loose idea of how many people are
> using their games.

please explain me why does anyone want to burn his own backup copy in cd
of a game he just bought, wasting time and more money when he can easily
buy a much better and much reliable and probably much cheater in his
local retail store?
owning the MANUFACTURED cd is much better than any HOME-MADE one

> What we tend to do is look at game projects purely from a budgetary
> aspect -- if the game is generating the expected or better revenue then
> we're happy. We don't want to alienate customers with anything that
> inconveniences them. But obviously, if you're not making your goals and you
> see that hundreds of thousands of people are pirating your game, the
> temptation to make those uesrs have to be validated to cut down on that
> would be tempting.

publishers have to work hard in fighting piracy!
they have to pressure the legal authority and have to mobilize the gamers
but please don't use the piracy as excuse to force online activation for
pc games sold in physical medium in retail stores

> I think there is a certain "critical mass" involved. That is, since
> Stardock is smaller, people recognize that each sale of Galactic
> Civilizations / TotalGaming.net makes a difference. And since we didn't put
> any CD copy protection on GalCiv, I think people were more inclined to not
> pirate it as a result. That sort of thinking (naive or not) I suspect falls
> apart when you're selling millions of copies.

i congratulate you for not putting cd copy protection in your game
for me its just an happid putting the cd before playing a game
i just forget what was the last game i ever played without it
nowadays i don't even start a game without the cd, cause i know what
will happen

> But from a business point of view, it's about competition. If consoles don't
> hassle me to play but PCs do, then I'm more inclined to just buy the console
> game. So PC games, to be competitive, can't inconvenience customers without
> pretty solid reasoning. Hence this discussion.

exactly that!
i've read many posts in this group about pc games threatening changing to
consoles only cause of steam and valve

> But there's obviously a slippery slope between where we're at -- no DRM at
> all. And some horrific SafeDisc / Internet Activation combo. And so what do
> people find objectionable and how will "copy protection" evolve as we go
> into the future? Can you require that the person playing the game validate
> their game via the Internet on the machine they're playing? I don't know.
> We don't require that but I can definitely see why Valve or someone else
> would want to do that.
>
> Brad

if a publisher requires a game i buy in a retail store have online
activation to install and play i'll refuse it immediatly

if all the publisher require all the games we buy in retail stores to
have online activation to install and play i'll give up completely on
pc games all together

what valve is doing has only one excuse GREEDY MONOPOLIMS!

--
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,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c55a8b5492a7c8b989d2b@news.indigo.ie>,
gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie says...
..net).
>
> Things that annoy me about Stardock Central:
>
> 1. Every time you load it, it wants to update itself. Finish it
> already, guys! Would you eat in a restaurant where every time you
> lifted your fork, the waiter rushed in, took away your dinner to garnish
> it, and brought it back?
>
> 2. The browser kills articles you have read in the forums, and there
> seems no way to read them again.

Opps, I see you fixed the latter (or maybe it was my mistake) and there
don't seem to have been updates in a while.

So I guess you already fixed both of the things I was complaining about.
Sorry ;-)

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Guest]

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 <reKdnU67x8oBe3bcRVn-sg@comcast.com>, Brad Wardell wrote:
> From a copy protection point of view, my big thing is CD-ROM protection. I
> don't like having to have a CD in the drive. So I tend to be very flexible
> on what a copy protection mechanism will do such that I don't have to keep
> the CD in. It's Item #4 above that I wonder how upsetting is. From a basic
> protection point of view, it would be nice that when you installed the game
> if it had to connect to the net to verify a serial #. Just on installation.
> Once installed, you could run it without a CD and without being on the net.
> I wonder how many people consider that a good trade off -- no CD protection
> in exchange for a 1 time "activation" type system?

Not a good trade off for the user.
You are making your purchase reliant on a company continuing to offer the
registration service. What if you try to reinstall the game a year later and
the registration site isn't there anymore?
When you buy a game it should be yours, not subject to someone else's whims.
Clearly for multiplayer, server-based games you would have this problem anyway,
but for singleplayer and/or lan-based games there is no reason to require
anything else to exist.

 

[Guest]

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

>Some people want to live with their heads in the sand and pretend
>like it's not happening, but it is. Valve utterly failed with Steam
>as far as anti-piracy.

I'm not convinced you know that. I say this, because anti-piracy
efforts aren't targeted at the hard core pirate. They're targeted
at the mainstream, to prevent "casual piracy".

C//

 

[Guest]

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 <y8SdnYmL0pE483HcRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
Brad Wardell <bwardell@stardock.com.remove> wrote:
>
>"Jasper Phillips" <jasper@a.shell.peak.org> wrote in message
>news:csgvqn$l09$1@a.shell.peak.org...
>> In article <reKdnU67x8oBe3bcRVn-sg@comcast.com>,
>> Brad Wardell <bwardell@stardock.com.remove> wrote:
>>>
>>>Okay so from reading through the posts, the main issues with Steam seem to
>>>boil down to:
>>>
>>>1) It requires that it is always running to play their games.
>>>
>>>2) In order to play the game, you have to have an Internet connection?
>>>
>>>3) Even if you buy the game in the store, it still has to go through and
>>>validate the files. You can't just install and play which means launch
>>>days
>>>are problematic.
>>>
>>>4) In order to install the game you have to have a net connection?
>>
>> 5) It downloaded things you didn't ask for, and didn't want. I don't know
>> if Steam still does this, but I believe it did during it's beta. This
>> includes demos and advertisement, but also patches for games.
>
>Gotcha. I saw a couple other posts that mention this too.
>
>So the general consensus seems to be these 5 things?
>
>My question (mentioned in the other post too) is how problematic are each of
>these? I agree with #1 completely, that's not necessary IMO. Same for #2.
>Same for #3. And same for #5 UNLESS you're playing some sort of competitive
>(ladder type thing) game.

Agreed. The First 3 are simply bad ideas. Part of my problem with Valve is
that this is immediately obvious, they've had plenty of feedback about it,
and they didn't fix it. Gives the impression they just don't give a damn,
which is an immediate turn off for me. It's not like there aren't other FPSs
to play instead, so why do I want the potential hassle from dealing with a
developer with a bad attitude?


>But what about #4? In exchange for not having to have a CD in the drive,
>what about having to "activate" the game via the Internet when you install?
>ala Windows XP or something?

I have zero problem with number 4 if the game is bought online, especially if
you allow people to come back and get it again later in the off chance they
lose it. However, requiring an internet connection or even a phone call is a
pain in the ass when installing from a CD you bought. I understand how game
companies rationalize it, but I don't like it. Makes me want to buy a
console game instead, which I'm not treated like a criminal.


>Nothing will eliminate piracy and I've said before I don't think piracy is,
>in general, as big of a problem in the PC game industry as some people seem
>to believe. But some of the peer sharing technologies do make it pretty
>easy to get CD ROM images. Does activation stop a lot more pirates (or
>convert them to customers) than the # of legitimate customers it
>inconveniences.

Hard to say. It's not going to stop someone who's downloading a cracked
version, but it might stop casually copying a friends game. But even then,
is there a real impact? Couldn't one just lend the game to a friend anyway?
For multiplayer games it has more impact, but couldn't you instead just check
for duplicate keys?

In general I think Stardock's approach of registering to get patches and free
updates is the best way to go.

-Jasper

 

[Guest]

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

"Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com.remove> wrote in message
news:y8SdnYmL0pE483HcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...

>>>4) In order to install the game you have to have a net connection?

> But what about #4? In exchange for not having to have a CD in the drive,
> what about having to "activate" the game via the Internet when you
> install? ala Windows XP or something?
>
> Nothing will eliminate piracy and I've said before I don't think piracy
> is, in general, as big of a problem in the PC game industry as some people
> seem to believe. But some of the peer sharing technologies do make it
> pretty easy to get CD ROM images. Does activation stop a lot more pirates
> (or convert them to customers) than the # of legitimate customers it
> inconveniences.

Number 4 is something I wouldn't be upset about, afterall I have a fast net
connection at home. But what about the people that don't have one? What if
I'm stuck in Africa out in whoop whoop {which often happens due to work}
with nothing but my laptop and a few game CD's I've brought with me. I go to
install GalCiv 2 on my laptop, if I needed a net connection I'd be flat out
of luck right?

Or are you just ruling that sort of person out {granted it would be annoying
for me but not a show stopper}. You already said that your customers are net
reliant/based, as your advertising wont go to the "land bound" masses via
magazines etc. Because of this are you willing to risk upsetting the
small(but loud generally) % that may be effected?

Ceo-

 

[Shadows]

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

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.]
On 2005-01-18, Jasper Phillips <jasper@a.shell.peak.org> wrote:

> Agreed. The First 3 are simply bad ideas. Part of my problem with Valve is
> that this is immediately obvious, they've had plenty of feedback about it,
> and they didn't fix it. Gives the impression they just don't give a damn,
> which is an immediate turn off for me. It's not like there aren't other FPSs
> to play instead, so why do I want the potential hassle from dealing with a
> developer with a bad attitude?

If you bought HL2 to play the single player game then you deserve
to be treated with a bad attitude. Seriously, there's not much
there. Counterstrike, Day of Defeat, and other HL mods is the
only good reason to use the HL engine for gaming and all those
games are online so the problem with Steam begins to have less of
an impact.

I would be *pissed* if Galciv ran out of Steam (pun intended
It's a good Single Player game and shouldn't require any kind of
online component to activate.

> I have zero problem with number 4 if the game is bought online, especially if
> you allow people to come back and get it again later in the off chance they
> lose it. However, requiring an internet connection or even a phone call is a
> pain in the ass when installing from a CD you bought. I understand how game
> companies rationalize it, but I don't like it. Makes me want to buy a
> console game instead, which I'm not treated like a criminal.

Actually Xbox Live accounts are disabled if Microsoft thinks
you've got a tricked out Xbox.

> In general I think Stardock's approach of registering to get patches and free
> updates is the best way to go.

I'm OK with that insofar as Stardock never divulges my personal
info and securely keeps my information somewhere. That's beyond
the scope of this discussion though.

I forgot. Brad do you keep our personal info or just ask us to
create a username/pass and link serial codes to it as we buy
them? That would be the best way to do things. Everyone stays
happy on either side.

 

[Guest]

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

< cut >

> > want, internet connections. For them the old standby of the mail-in
> > registration card needs to be kept.
>
> Mail in registration cards have always been useless from a consumer point
of
> view - at least as far as the UK is concerned. Your consumer rights have
> not been enhanced one iota by returning them - and the company concerned
has
> a load more data they can sell and/or use about you in return for asking
> them to honour their legal obligations.
>
> I think I'm getting bolshei in my mid age...

Maybe ;.)

But I think you're right.

Alfredo

 

[Guest]

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

Schrodinger <no@way.com> wrote in message
3_BGd.869863$O24.127049@news.easynews.com...
> "Arcana Dragon" <this@ress.is.invalid> wrote in message
> news:41eae6be$0$250$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
> > "Schrodinger" <no@way.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> > news😀rBGd.869813$2W1.66990@news.easynews.com:
> >
> >> I think I'm getting bolshei in my mid age...
> >
> > OT: How's your cat doing these days?
> >
> > --
> > Arcana Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
>
> Dunno, I keep meaning to open the box - but the suspense keeps me
awake....

Do you know the one about its (the cat's) name?

"It was Lucky. Or maybe not."

Actually, there was a whole "thread" on the name of Schrodinger cat on the
"New Scientist" magazine, a few decades (?!) back. This one has stuck to my
memory, but there where several other good ones...

Alfredo

 

[Guest]

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

< cut >

> From a copy protection point of view, my big thing is CD-ROM protection.
I
> don't like having to have a CD in the drive. So I tend to be very
flexible
> on what a copy protection mechanism will do such that I don't have to keep
> the CD in. It's Item #4 above that I wonder how upsetting is. From a
basic
> protection point of view, it would be nice that when you installed the
game
> if it had to connect to the net to verify a serial #. Just on
installation.
> Once installed, you could run it without a CD and without being on the
net.
> I wonder how many people consider that a good trade off -- no CD
protection
> in exchange for a 1 time "activation" type system?

Personally, I'd rather not. BTW I'm among those who find the need to have
the CD in the drive only a bit annoying, but acceptable - at least if the CD
is not continuously accessed.

My main reason for not accepting the activation method you propose is that
it would have to be repeated for every new installation on a different
computer or even on the same computer in case the files gets corrupted, or
damaged, or I've to re-install OS and all, etc.

I may accept (but still dislike) it only if I can validate the game but
once, and then be able to install it on any computer I wish, without any
further connection, for as long as I can get the relevant hardware. I do not
know is it's feasible, and it probably wouldn't satisfy your concerns,
however.

My main reasons for this are: 1) after regularly paying for it, I want to be
able to use a piece of software that is fully functional by itself, without
any further obligation. I do not recognize anyone's right to question my
good faith and to verify the regularity and lawfulness of my behavior -
except the proper authority of the country I live in, within the limits of
the law. This is a very strong matter of principle, IMO: and I do believe
that rights must be defended even in seemingly small matters; 2) when I like
a game (and I like GalCiv 1, and hope to like GalCiv 2 even better) I often
keep reinstalling it on every computer I successively own, even after a
quite long time. I'm still playing Sid Meyer's Colonization, for instance,
now and then. And I still have Civ 1 installed on the PC I'm currently
using. I plan to do the same with GalCiv 1. As human matters are inherently
uncertain, however, I cannot reasonably expect that the online validation
procedure will still be available in, say, 10 or 15 years from now. This is
a practical concern, and there might be some workaround to ease it.

So, please, if you decide to protect your game this way, continue to be kind
and correct as I've always found you to be and state it clearly on the box,
and possibly inform this NG too. I'll wish you good luck, but (with regret)
will not buy the game. Probably 🙂.

From you, whom I've learned to trust - and who have, after all, Gandalf'
Parkers endorsement! ;-) - I might accept, as a compromise, a statement
that you plan to put out a patch, or something, that cancels the need for
online activation after a specified period of time - say after 2 or 3 years,
when you'll be probably able to launch GalCiv 3 or will have at any rate
already sold practically all the copies you may hope to sell. If the game is
very good, mind...

Alfredo

 

[Guest]

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

< cut >

> Things that annoy me about Stardock Central:
>
> 1. Every time you load it, it wants to update itself. Finish it
> already, guys! Would you eat in a restaurant where every time you
> lifted your fork, the waiter rushed in, took away your dinner to garnish
> it, and brought it back?

I find it very annoying too. I hope it will matter less, to me, when I'll
upgrade to a faster connection. But even then, as I'll still be billed by
connection time, I'd rather avoid unnecessary updates and downloads. I find
that the concept of Stardock Central is in fact more user-friendly than its
actual implementation. Something should really be done about it!

< cut >

Alfredo

 

[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 Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:54:04 +0000, difool <john.difool@mail.telepac.pt>
wrote:

>you can get the patch in file format from a cd magazine
>you can get the patch in file format from a friend in usb memory stick
>you can get the patch in file format and copy it to any portable storage
>and take to the computer you have your game and apply there the patch
>this is extremely important!

You can ALMOST sing this to the tune of "Yellow Submarine", but not quite.
Please to try harder!



--
Hong Ooi | "COUNTERSRTIKE IS AN REAL-TIME
hong@zipworld.com.au | STRATEGY GAME!!!"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- RR
Sydney, Australia |

 

[Guest]

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

"Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com.remove> once tried to test me
with:

> Okay guys, this anti-Steam stuff is starting to scare me.

[snippity]

> The system *seems* to work very well but we've only got ~300,000 users
> using Stardock Central whereas Steam no doubt has a few million.
>
> I bought Half-Life 2 via Steam. It downloaded fine. Works great. I
> even copied it to another machine here and it works fine there too. No
> CDs involved. So am I missing something here? Steam seems to work
> pretty well. I understand the problem where people bought HL2 at the
> store and that first day was problematic. Stardock Central doesn't
> have that level of validation of the CD version but that doesn't seem
> like a problem inherent to Steam but rather a single bad incident one
> suspects.

Yeah, it works great for me too. Bought it online with Steam. Works like a
champ. I prefer this to buying from a store.

> So what I want to know is why is there all this angst about Steam and
> what do we need to do to avoid that with Stardock Central? Or have we
> already done something different in Stardock Central that isn't
> raising these concerns? Because in March Galactic Civilizations II
> goes into beta (distributed via Stardock Central) and the last thing
> we want are people mad at us.

The angst against Steam is from either a) idiots who don't know how it
really works, or b) people who legitimately do not have a network
connection and can't play the single player game because they don't have a
network connection. Since you're not marketing to group b), the only people
that will be mad at you for your delivery system will be a) idiots.

> Brad
> --
> Brad Wardell
> Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations
> http://www.stardock.com
> TotalGaming.net - http://www.totalgaming.net

Brad, on TGN, it says you can subscribe to TGN and get all the games plus
all the games in the future. However, when you click on the subscription
details link, you get this:

"Games currently available through the TotalGaming.net Network include
Galactic Civilizations, The Corporate Machine, Disciples: Ultimate Edition
and The Political Machine with more coming all the time."

But there are lots of other games listed on the main page. So which is it?
Am I only getting a certain few games when I subscribe, or do I get my
choice of ALL of the games available on TGN, and that statement is just out
of date?

If I'm being limited, then how do I know the next game that's released on
TGN isn't going to be limited and thus my subscription isn't really buying
me all the games that come out.

If that statement is out of date, I suggest updating it and making
sure it stays updated, or removing it, since it's confusing things.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

 

[Guest]

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Brad Wardell <bwardell@stardock.com.remove> wrote:
>
> Okay so from reading through the posts, the main issues with Steam seem to
> boil down to:
>
> 1) It requires that it is always running to play their games.
>
> 2) In order to play the game, you have to have an Internet connection?
>
> 3) Even if you buy the game in the store, it still has to go through and
> validate the files. You can't just install and play which means launch days
> are problematic.
>
> 4) In order to install the game you have to have a net connection?
>
> From a copy protection point of view, my big thing is CD-ROM protection. I
> don't like having to have a CD in the drive. So I tend to be very flexible
> on what a copy protection mechanism will do such that I don't have to keep
> the CD in. It's Item #4 above that I wonder how upsetting is. From a basic
> protection point of view, it would be nice that when you installed the game
> if it had to connect to the net to verify a serial #. Just on installation.
> Once installed, you could run it without a CD and without being on the net.
> I wonder how many people consider that a good trade off -- no CD protection
> in exchange for a 1 time "activation" type system?

I'm all for it, but would this mean that people without an internet
connection (or perhaps an unconnected dedicated gaming PC) won't be
able to play the game. Also something to consider.

But personally, I'm all on your side. CD checks are really annoying, and
I have a constant internet connection.


mcv.