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?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic 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.

Perhaps when uploading the results for the ladder competition, you could
simply add the version used for that game, so you'd only show results
from the most recent version, or have seperate result lists for version 1.1,
1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.1.5.7, etc.

> 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 don't have a problem with it. At least, not at the moment. But what if,
in 10 years, you're VP of gaming at EA, and Stardock has disappeared from
the face of the earth, and I don't like the eye candy from GalCiv VII
and prefer the simple brilliance of GalCiv 2 which got everything just
right? Will the validation server still be working?

> 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?

There are 2 situations when that's a problem:

1) In the future, the validation server may not exist anymore. You've
still made your sale, so you may not care, but players who think
that version of your game is absolutely brillant will. (I still
think PG1 is better than any later version.)

2) Some people may not have an internet connection on their gaming PC,
for whatever reason. Maybe they're poor or just backward, or maybe
they have a dedicated gaming PC. Perhaps they use linux for internet
and don't trust Windows security or something.


mcv.

 

[Guest]

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.]
> On 2005-01-18, Brad Wardell <bwardell@stardock.com.remove> wrote:
>
>> Me thinks you vastly overestimate the power of Usenet as an "advertising"
>> channel. Do a Dejanews (google groups now) search on me and you'll find
>> I've been a regular on usenet since 1993.
>
> I don't doubt you've been very active in the past at all.
>
>> What I am "engaging" in is research. When one comes onto usenet and sees a
>> gagillion posts arguing about Steam, it begs the question - what's the
>> precise issue people are arguing about? What means of electronic
>> distribution protection are acceptable to gamers and what isn't?
>
> Yes but the way you phrased it was very advertisy. Instead of
> just joining the discussions you posted about YOUR content
> system, mentioned your new game, and even asked for a comparison
> when I think you know pretty well that Steam goes overboard and
> your system (mostly) only requires people to login to download
> patches.

I think a comparison between SDC and Steam is a very appropriate topic
for discussion and certainly worth starting a new thread, if you see
the size of the Steam threads. Sure it gets a bit of extra attention for
his game, but I don't think that's his primary reason for posting. I can
understand that he is honestly concerned with what people will think
about the direction he wants to go with SDC. And as advertising goes,
this is the most legitimate and least annoying way to do it.

When I give a concert (once every half year), I also mention it in
local groups where I'm a regular and people know who I am. Nobody has
complained about it yet.


mcv.

 

[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 <Xns95E2D2DCE8719knight37m@130.133.1.4>, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:

>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.

And/or c) people who have a slow connection at home and don't want to spend
hours upon hours downloading content or patches, but DO want to keep their
games, at least partially, patched for playability and added or corrected
features and options,

[Expanding on this... just because patches haven't been huge yet, doesn't mean
they won't grow to be, particularly when you're having to reinstall all of
your Steam games. While it might be possible to backup patched games--again
and again after each patch, assuming you realize that patching has occurred,
at your time/expense--I'd question the feasibility of doing so, especially as
content sizes increase.]

and/or d) people who legitimately don't like the intrusiveness of having to
establish/maintain steam account(s), requiring personal contact information
for store-bought, single-player games,

and/or e) people who legitimately don't like the idea that their ability to
reinstall/play their paid-for game could (someday) be arbitrarily denied by
the folks at Valve,

and/or f) people who legitimately don't like the idea that their ability to
resell or give away their purchased game is either denied (by the EULA) or
unnecessarily complicated (by having to maintain multiple Steam accounts),

and/or g) people who are legitimately upset with Valve for forcing Steam on
them, like-it-or-lump-it style, rather than making it a completely voluntary
consumer option, with all the well-established and generally well-accepted
options also provided,

and/or h) people who are reasonably concerned that Steam is just another step
by the software industry towards pay-per-use software services that will
ultimately cost consumers more than purchased software.

The "angst" against Steam is a little more complex than you make it out to be.

 

[Guest]

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

"mcv" <mcvmcv@xs3.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:41ee33f8$0$6218$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic 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.
>
> Perhaps when uploading the results for the ladder competition, you could
> simply add the version used for that game, so you'd only show results
> from the most recent version, or have seperate result lists for version
> 1.1,
> 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.1.5.7, etc.
>
>> 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 don't have a problem with it. At least, not at the moment. But what if,
> in 10 years, you're VP of gaming at EA, and Stardock has disappeared from
> the face of the earth, and I don't like the eye candy from GalCiv VII
> and prefer the simple brilliance of GalCiv 2 which got everything just
> right? Will the validation server still be working?
>
>> 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?
>
> There are 2 situations when that's a problem:
>
> 1) In the future, the validation server may not exist anymore. You've
> still made your sale, so you may not care, but players who think
> that version of your game is absolutely brillant will. (I still
> think PG1 is better than any later version.)

I agree. Actually I find this to be a very compelling argument against
validation on games.

Simply put, the lifespan of the typical PC game studio is, coincidentally(?)
the same lifespan as the typical hamster.

So as a consumer, validation on games does make me nervous. I'll have to
think about that a bit more..

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
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?)

< cut >

> 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

I think this would be by far the best solution.

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?)

In article <ipGdnRW97IQheHPcRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
Brad Wardell <bwardell@stardock.com.remove> wrote:
>> 1) In the future, the validation server may not exist anymore. You've
>> still made your sale, so you may not care, but players who think
>> that version of your game is absolutely brillant will. (I still
>> think PG1 is better than any later version.)
>
>I agree. Actually I find this to be a very compelling argument against
>validation on games.
>
>Simply put, the lifespan of the typical PC game studio is, coincidentally(?)
>the same lifespan as the typical hamster.
>
>So as a consumer, validation on games does make me nervous. I'll have to
>think about that a bit more..

At the point when a game studio closes shop, they can release a patch that
lets you play without validation.

-Jasper

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:33:28 GMT, jeff@work.com (Jeff) wrote:

>In article <Xns95E2D2DCE8719knight37m@130.133.1.4>, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>And/or c) people who have a slow connection at home and don't want to spend
>hours upon hours downloading content or patches, but DO want to keep their
>games, at least partially, patched for playability and added or corrected
>features and options,
>
>[Expanding on this... just because patches haven't been huge yet, doesn't mean
>they won't grow to be, particularly when you're having to reinstall all of
>your Steam games. While it might be possible to backup patched games--again
>and again after each patch, assuming you realize that patching has occurred,
>at your time/expense--I'd question the feasibility of doing so, especially as
>content sizes increase.]
>
As an aside, there's also the group of people who have a network which
won't work with Steam (at least, so far as my understanding of Steam
goes). In my case, my gaming machine is connected to the 'net through
a very limiting proxy and firewall and I'd have to change that set-up
to allow Steam to activate and authenticate the games (much less
download patches), which would require a bit more effort on my part.

I don't really blame Steam for this, as it is not the only program
"broken" by my configuration (which is, in fact, the whole reason that
I've set up things like that; I don't want *any* programs talking to
the 'net without my explicit permission and using odd ports on my
proxy helps minimize this. On the other hand, since Valve is so
gung-ho about Steam that it doesn't offer any alternatives (e.g.,
activation over phone or via a webpage, or downloading stand-alone
patches) this just makes Half-Life 2 a less appealing product to me.
Moreso since other games provide as much entertainment value without
my having to bend-over backwards just to get the SINGLE-PLAYER
component to work.

But while I'm content to sleep in the bed I've made for myself,
there are other less computer-savvy people who are also connected to
the net by restricting proxies and firewalls (in particular, I am
thinking of users on a college network that restricts access to the
'net only through, say, port 80 (http/web), port 21 (ftp), etc.).

It is my understanding (although I may be wrong here, and will gladly
accept correction if so) that Steam connects to the Internet via some
"non-standard" ports (I believe it's somewhere in the 3000 range?). If
this is the case, a user could satisfy every requirement specified on
the box (including the infamous "Internet connection required") and
*still* not be able to use the product they legally purchased.

Of course, it may very well be that Steam can (also?) authenticate via
port-80, in which case those users wouldn't have a problem (I still
would, but that's my burden . As I have no intention of using Steam,
I've only given cursory attention to this particular idiosyncrasy. It
just struck me as another troublesome issue with Steam; just another
reason to avoid it.

In other words, I'll probably be lumped in with the "a" group. ;-)

 

[Guest]

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

Jasper Phillips wrote:
> In article <ipGdnRW97IQheHPcRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
> Brad Wardell <bwardell@stardock.com.remove> wrote:
>
>>>1) In the future, the validation server may not exist anymore. You've
>>> still made your sale, so you may not care, but players who think
>>> that version of your game is absolutely brillant will. (I still
>>> think PG1 is better than any later version.)
>>
>>I agree. Actually I find this to be a very compelling argument against
>>validation on games.
>>
>>Simply put, the lifespan of the typical PC game studio is, coincidentally(?)
>>the same lifespan as the typical hamster.
>>
>>So as a consumer, validation on games does make me nervous. I'll have to
>>think about that a bit more..
>
>
> At the point when a game studio closes shop, they can release a patch that
> lets you play without validation.

Yes, they can. But will they care enough to do so? I very much doubt it,
in a situation where the game studio won't survive anyway.

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?)

Werner Arend wrote:
> Jasper Phillips wrote:
>> In article <ipGdnRW97IQheHPcRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
>> Brad Wardell <bwardell@stardock.com.remove> wrote:
>>
>>>> 1) In the future, the validation server may not exist anymore.
>>>> You've still made your sale, so you may not care, but players who
>>>> think that version of your game is absolutely brillant will. (I
>>>> still think PG1 is better than any later version.)
>>>
>>> I agree. Actually I find this to be a very compelling argument
>>> against validation on games.
>>>
>>> Simply put, the lifespan of the typical PC game studio is,
>>> coincidentally(?) the same lifespan as the typical hamster.
>>>
>>> So as a consumer, validation on games does make me nervous. I'll
>>> have to think about that a bit more..
>>
>>
>> At the point when a game studio closes shop, they can release a
>> patch that lets you play without validation.
>
> Yes, they can. But will they care enough to do so? I very much doubt
> it, in a situation where the game studio won't survive anyway.
>

There is an answer: if they give a no copy protection exe
to a bunch of lawyers and pay them 100 dollars/pounds/euros
a year/month whatever, NOT to put it on the web as a public
domain file. Then when the publisher ceases trading, the
file goes public.

Sadly this is unlikely to happen unless a court makes it
happen. But it would be a small price for a company to
pay to stop the EULAs being considered unfair terms of
contract in the eyes of the court.
____________
Tom.

 

[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:
>
> Simply put, the lifespan of the typical PC game studio is, coincidentally(?)
> the same lifespan as the typical hamster.
>

If the company dont remove validation (eg Steam does not require online
activation for each play), then a gacker will. Don't sweat 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?)

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:20:42 GMT, Courageous <dontwant@spam.com>
wrote:

>>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".

Does Steam prevent "casual piracy" any better than normal CD/DVD
checks? I would say: no. In fact you can play the same single-player
game on two machines at the same time with Steam, something that a
casual pirate can't do with normal CD/DVD games with CD checks.

I take it that by casual pirate you mean someone who tries to copy the
game to a friend of his without having knowledge of where to get tools
to crack the game, or where to get the whole cracked game.

 

[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, 19 Jan 2005 23:20:29 +0000 (UTC), jasper@a.shell.peak.org
(Jasper Phillips) wrote:

>At the point when a game studio closes shop, they can release a patch that
>lets you play without validation.

They certainly _can_, but nothing guarantees they will. In most such
cases I would say they will not use extra time for something like that
which does not bring them any more money, especially if the original
programming team has already scattered around to other jobs and
companies.

Joe the Programmer says to his new boss: "Gee, boss, can I take time
off from my current project to make a few cracks to some older games I
made in my previous company five years ago?"

Boss: "Why? Will it bring us any money? You are already late with your
current project schedule, did you know that?"

Joe: "No it doesn't bring us any money, but..."

Boss: "Discussion closed. Next time, think before you ask me something
like that."

 

[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 wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:20:29 +0000 (UTC), jasper@a.shell.peak.org
> (Jasper Phillips) wrote:
>
>
>>At the point when a game studio closes shop, they can release a patch that
>>lets you play without validation.
>
>
> They certainly _can_, but nothing guarantees they will. In most such
> cases I would say they will not use extra time for something like that
> which does not bring them any more money, especially if the original
> programming team has already scattered around to other jobs and
> companies.

He couldn't do it on company time anyway, don't you work?

Aside from that there is a Steam crack out there...get over yourself.

 

[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 Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:32:49 +0100, Walter Mitty
<mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Brad Wardell wrote:
>>
>> Simply put, the lifespan of the typical PC game studio is, coincidentally(?)
>> the same lifespan as the typical hamster.
>>
>
>If the company dont remove validation (eg Steam does not require online
>activation for each play), then a gacker will. Don't sweat it.

Where can I find a noCD crack for e.g. The Dark Eye or The Journeyman
Trilogy? I thougth you implied a crack is guaranteed for every
obsolete game, either from the developer or some cracker.

 

[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 <cso0ph$b5m$1@news1.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>,
Werner Arend <nefar@arcor.de> wrote:
>Jasper Phillips wrote:
>> In article <ipGdnRW97IQheHPcRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
>> Brad Wardell <bwardell@stardock.com.remove> wrote:
>>
>>>>1) In the future, the validation server may not exist anymore. You've
>>>> still made your sale, so you may not care, but players who think
>>>> that version of your game is absolutely brillant will. (I still
>>>> think PG1 is better than any later version.)
>>>
>>>I agree. Actually I find this to be a very compelling argument against
>>>validation on games.
>>>
>>>Simply put, the lifespan of the typical PC game studio is, coincidentally(?)
>>>the same lifespan as the typical hamster.
>>>
>>>So as a consumer, validation on games does make me nervous. I'll have to
>>>think about that a bit more..
>>
>>
>> At the point when a game studio closes shop, they can release a patch that
>> lets you play without validation.
>
>Yes, they can. But will they care enough to do so? I very much doubt it,
>in a situation where the game studio won't survive anyway.

In Brad's case, since he runs Stardock, that is for him to decide.

I can easily see a studio making a statement that it would release a
no-validation patch in the event of it's demise and then following through
on it. It'd probably be as easy as just making some warezed version the
official one.

-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?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:20:29 +0000 (UTC), jasper@a.shell.peak.org
> (Jasper Phillips) wrote:
>
>>At the point when a game studio closes shop, they can release a patch that
>>lets you play without validation.
>
> They certainly _can_, but nothing guarantees they will. In most such
> cases I would say they will not use extra time for something like that
> which does not bring them any more money, especially if the original
> programming team has already scattered around to other jobs and
> companies.

But the company could make the patch in advance, kept in escrow, perhaps,
only to be released when the company goes bust.

That could inspire confidence in customers and therefore make new sales.


mcv.

 

[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 21 Jan 2005 09:39:34 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv@xs3.xs4all.nl> wrote:

>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:20:29 +0000 (UTC), jasper@a.shell.peak.org
>> (Jasper Phillips) wrote:
>>
>>>At the point when a game studio closes shop, they can release a patch that
>>>lets you play without validation.
>>
>> They certainly _can_, but nothing guarantees they will. In most such
>> cases I would say they will not use extra time for something like that
>> which does not bring them any more money, especially if the original
>> programming team has already scattered around to other jobs and
>> companies.
>
>But the company could make the patch in advance, kept in escrow, perhaps,
>only to be released when the company goes bust.
>
>That could inspire confidence in customers and therefore make new sales.
>
>
>mcv.

That would seem logical to us here, but how much confidence would it
inspire in most customers when they see Valve publicise the fact that
they have writtena patch for when they go bust? If you were going to
but an appliance from a store and they said, "By the way here's
another store that will take over your warranty if we go bust?" would
you still buy the appliance?

That kind of thing doesn't engender much confidence. I also doubt
that Valve are planning on going bust or believe that they will.

Lynley

 

[Andrew]

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

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:17:12 +0200, Lynley James
<lynley.james@gmail.com> wrote:

>That would seem logical to us here, but how much confidence would it
>inspire in most customers when they see Valve publicise the fact that
>they have writtena patch for when they go bust? If you were going to
>but an appliance from a store and they said, "By the way here's
>another store that will take over your warranty if we go bust?" would
>you still buy the appliance?

In the case of an appliance personally that would give me a lot more
confidence. If I know by reading on the net that hardware company x is
in deep doodoo then I don't tend to buy their products in case I can't
get it repaired in the future. If there was a backup route for
repairs, then I would give the product a chance and maybe help the
company stay afloat.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[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.rpg Lynley James <lynley.james@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2005 09:39:34 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv@xs3.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:20:29 +0000 (UTC), jasper@a.shell.peak.org
>>> (Jasper Phillips) wrote:
>>>
>>>>At the point when a game studio closes shop, they can release a patch that
>>>>lets you play without validation.
>>>
>>> They certainly _can_, but nothing guarantees they will. In most such
>>> cases I would say they will not use extra time for something like that
>>> which does not bring them any more money, especially if the original
>>> programming team has already scattered around to other jobs and
>>> companies.
>>
>>But the company could make the patch in advance, kept in escrow, perhaps,
>>only to be released when the company goes bust.
>>
>>That could inspire confidence in customers and therefore make new sales.
>
> That would seem logical to us here, but how much confidence would it
> inspire in most customers when they see Valve publicise the fact that
> they have writtena patch for when they go bust? If you were going to
> but an appliance from a store and they said, "By the way here's
> another store that will take over your warranty if we go bust?" would
> you still buy the appliance?
>
> That kind of thing doesn't engender much confidence. I also doubt
> that Valve are planning on going bust or believe that they will.

This sort of thing is actually very common in industries where confidence
is important, like banks and insurance. Banks and insurance companies
tend to have deals that when one of them goes belly-up, the others take
over the commitments to the customers.

It does engender confidence. It's a kind of warranty in case the worst
happens, which is always possible. A company that claims it doesn't need
precautions because it says it won't go bankrupt, is the one with
confidence problems.


mcv.

 

[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 2005-01-21, Lynley James <lynley.james@gmail.com> wrote:

> That would seem logical to us here, but how much confidence would it
> inspire in most customers when they see Valve publicise the fact that
> they have writtena patch for when they go bust? If you were going to
> but an appliance from a store and they said, "By the way here's
> another store that will take over your warranty if we go bust?" would
> you still buy the appliance?

For an appliance I wouldn't care. Also the store rarely puts a
warranty on. It's the manufacturer you have a beef with.

> That kind of thing doesn't engender much confidence. I also doubt
> that Valve are planning on going bust or believe that they will.

I think given their customer base most of their customers would
understand if they announced they had such a contingency plan in
place.

Lynley, people get paid to work in "communications" and write up
announcements that ALWAYS sound good.

 

[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 <81p1v0t476kis5nc7bi7ijvgpdp39gl1i8@4ax.com>,
Lynley James <lynley.james@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 21 Jan 2005 09:39:34 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv@xs3.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>>But the company could make the patch in advance, kept in escrow, perhaps,
>>only to be released when the company goes bust.
>>
>>That could inspire confidence in customers and therefore make new sales.
>>
>>
>>mcv.
>
>That would seem logical to us here, but how much confidence would it
>inspire in most customers when they see Valve publicise the fact that
>they have writtena patch for when they go bust? If you were going to
>but an appliance from a store and they said, "By the way here's
>another store that will take over your warranty if we go bust?" would
>you still buy the appliance?
>
>That kind of thing doesn't engender much confidence. I also doubt
>that Valve are planning on going bust or believe that they will.

There is undoubetedly a better way to frame the idea! For example saying
such a patch will be released after a fixed amount of time, when a sequel is
released, or in general when the interest in the game has waned.

This could generate good PR in the same way that release an old "abandoned"
game for free does, and could be the first step in that direction.

-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?)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:42:51 +0000 (UTC), jasper@a.shell.peak.org
(Jasper Phillips) wrote:

>In article <81p1v0t476kis5nc7bi7ijvgpdp39gl1i8@4ax.com>,
>Lynley James <lynley.james@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 21 Jan 2005 09:39:34 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv@xs3.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>But the company could make the patch in advance, kept in escrow, perhaps,
>>>only to be released when the company goes bust.
>>>
>>>That could inspire confidence in customers and therefore make new sales.
>>>
>>>
>>>mcv.
>>
>>That would seem logical to us here, but how much confidence would it
>>inspire in most customers when they see Valve publicise the fact that
>>they have writtena patch for when they go bust? If you were going to
>>but an appliance from a store and they said, "By the way here's
>>another store that will take over your warranty if we go bust?" would
>>you still buy the appliance?
>>
>>That kind of thing doesn't engender much confidence. I also doubt
>>that Valve are planning on going bust or believe that they will.
>
>There is undoubetedly a better way to frame the idea! For example saying
>such a patch will be released after a fixed amount of time, when a sequel is
>released, or in general when the interest in the game has waned.
>
>This could generate good PR in the same way that release an old "abandoned"
>game for free does, and could be the first step in that direction.
>
>-Jasper

This I agree with, it would be a great PR exercise. As to the other
posts in reply to mine, they are good responses, but in my case I
would just find another dealer instead.

Lynley

 

[Guest]

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

mcv <mcvmcv@xs3.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
41f0cdd6$0$6210$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:20:29 +0000 (UTC), jasper@a.shell.peak.org
> > (Jasper Phillips) wrote:
> >
> >>At the point when a game studio closes shop, they can release a patch
that
> >>lets you play without validation.
> >
> > They certainly _can_, but nothing guarantees they will. In most such
> > cases I would say they will not use extra time for something like that
> > which does not bring them any more money, especially if the original
> > programming team has already scattered around to other jobs and
> > companies.
>
> But the company could make the patch in advance, kept in escrow, perhaps,
> only to be released when the company goes bust.
>
> That could inspire confidence in customers and therefore make new sales.
>
>
> mcv.

In an ideal world, they might even issue a statement that they are going to
release such a patch after x years - i.e. after they'll have reaped
practically all the possible revenues from the game, and they'll have moved
to selling some new version or some other games altogether.

Alfredo

 

[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 2005-01-22, Alfredo Tutino <powernews@libero.it> wrote:

> In an ideal world, they might even issue a statement that they are going to
> release such a patch after x years - i.e. after they'll have reaped
> practically all the possible revenues from the game, and they'll have moved
> to selling some new version or some other games altogether.

You don't make promises to customers unless you're 100% sure you
can keep them. Otherwise it leaves a very bad taste in your
customers mouth. Valve is getting away with no promises thus far.

 

[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@work.com (Jeff) once tried to test me with:

> and/or h) people who are reasonably concerned that Steam is just
> another step by the software industry towards pay-per-use software
> services that will ultimately cost consumers more than purchased
> software.

How do you know it will cost more than purchased software?

There's a lot of software I'd LOVE to have a pay-per-use option. There's a
lot of software I rarely ever use but when I want to use it, I need THAT
software and it's more or less the only thing that does what I need. If I
could just pay a nominal fee to use it that one time instead of having to
buy an unlimited license which I do not need, that would SAVE money.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.