http://www.mcvuk.com/newsitem.php?id=235

Next game announced online distribution, and they are using their own system. Can't wait till every game has their own individual "content delivery" and "authentication" system, eh?

No biggie.

Yes. this could get annoying.

Really we need a company to create a system and allow aother companies to distribute games on it, then we wouldnt need to have a hundred programs.

That's what this is, but like anything, there will be tons of competitors plus a bunch of game developers who want to do it themselves.

meh, I give it 24 hours at the most before its cracked.

What about people who do not have a good (or no) connection?

Then you're left behind until you upgrade. Same way people who don't have a good enough system can't play HL2.

Oh and http://steamsteamlol.ytmnd.com/

They are saying (for that game anyway) that it will be available in stores, too. For some reason I'm doubting that option will be available in 5 years. But it probably still requires a network connection to "activate" and to play forever, just like steam.

um, not everyone can get a good connection. it's not a matter of simply upgrading.

Wahhh! And I can't play Halo 2 on Gamecube so I must buy an X-box! It's not fair!

It's a VIDEO GAME people. If you don't like it, don't play it. If thats the way the industry is going, then it's tough. I know the arguments how you have to be online to play, but only Steam requires that so far. I'm if other studios follow that trend, after a long period when they aren't going to support a game anymore, they would hopefully release a patch that would make it playable without the component.

There's three gaming consoles out there, and I know people don't like the fact that you have to buy all 3 to get all the exclusive games.

In the same way, if each company releases their own release thing, then if you want to play you must abide by its rules.

I am quite more concerned about the HD-DVD and Bluray issue that is going on. If a middle point isn't reached, that will suck. Horribly.

No that's not the point, the point it have a billion different programs on your computer eating up hard drive space and who knows what else they are doing.

I hate a cluttered up mess.

Z@NARDI I love you.

Personally, I think this internet desitrubution buisness is RUBBISH.

They're basically removing YOUR OWNERSHIP of the product purchased, and replacing it with a SERVICE RENDERED.

I can't do JACK about their service. If it fails, I'm screwed. They even aren't allowing me to sell property I PURCHASED WITH LEGAL TENDER, and that is BS in itself.

You've summed up pretty much why I hate steam and any steam clones that any other game might use.

When developers try to take away my right of ownership and instead treat it as a service, is it any wonder that I hope the pirates win?

What if the service goes bankrupt? Thus rendering it impossible to play the game.

Exactly my point.

I no longer have ANY CONTROL over something I've legally purchased, and should be my property.

It's TOTALLY jacked.

Z@NARDI,

The point still stands, if you don't want all those programs, DON'T BUY/DOWNLOAD THE GAME!!!

That's so freaking hard to understand, its unbelievable!

I agree on the fear of the ability to play the game if a company goes broke. However, Valve isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and we'll have to see how the rest handle it when they release the software. I'm sure if Valve was going out of business tomorrow, they would release a patch to fix the authetication of Steam requiring an online connection to play even offline. If not, they would face millions of lawsuits for sure. If they declare bankruptcy, I'm not sure how if the user has any legal action though.

However, again this amazing idea. Maybe if we don't like it, just don't buy it?! Instead of *****ing about it every single time something happens...

If you feel they're violating your legal rights, take them to court.

They're voicing their frustration with not being able to play games that they want to play, without using idiotic programs such as Steam. The point that you seem to be missing is that it shouldn't come down to people not being able to play good games without having to go through such idiocy. If it was Daikatana, you wouldn't hear anyone complaining. However, it's HL2, a great game, and I think their argument is logical.

Yes, but how many more posts is Brian going to make about his frustrating with the whole Steam concept? Are we going to start a new thread everytime a game company decides to go this route?

Just because you don't agree with or like Steam though does not mean it is idiotic. One major major perk I like about Steam is the ease of updating any games and the quickness of choosing the many mods I have for HL/HL2. I've never had a problem with it, so I enjoy steam.

I understand everyone's conspiracy's and their arguments, but if you wanted to play HL2, you knew you would have to go through Steam (Let's forget the smaller % that actual bought the retail game - that's a different discussion).

Steam had a huge beta period too where you could convert HL and the other mods over before HL2 came out. This allowed people to see Steam and use it in their decision. If you could not get steam working with the other mod's, why would you buy Steam then?!

It still stands that we're talking about a game here. I don't quite like the idea of MMORPG where you have to pay monthly. Do I go online every time a company releases a new one complaining? No, I just don't buy the game. It is simple as that. I know there's some good games out there, but I don't want to pay monthly.

We're lucky that Steam is free right now and that Valve keeps releasing content for CS:S, HL2DM, etc. Using your paragraph, I want to play games without having to pay monthly fees and the payment of the game. I know they use the fees to keep the servers running and add content, but what about Valve adding content to their games now?

Maybe Valve should make it so that Steam does not require you to be online, but they charge for every update? Will that make everyone happy here?

Yes, I'm going to keep posting, because I don't want people to forget that there was a time you could go to a store and purchase software and not have to "activate" it or let some company continuously monitor your activity. You don't need steam constantly monitoring you and screwing you over in order to have a good mod and patch management tool. You're talking about something completely different here - they have created a persistent world where you build up your character over time - it's a centrally controlled server where they have control over the game world. They have expenses such as keeping those hundreds if not thousands of servers up and running and paying for bandwidth - these are costs that typical games don't incur because the servers aren't run directly by the company. Many, many companies continuously release content for their games and they don't require steam to do it. Your arguments are not addressing people's concerns, they are simply saying "well I like what steam offers, therefore steam is good" - you are forgetting that it's arguably EASIER to create a patch/mod management tool and content delivery system that DOES NOT constantly monitor your activity, run in the background, take up a ton of system resources, and lock you out of your game for no good reason. Or maybe they should be like every other game developer and release their patches for free (since the game was flawed to begin with) and not require you to sign up for steam? You're argument is flawed, you're presenting a silly alternative for steam and not addressing the real concerns.

OMG! DON'T PLAY IT! THIS SOLVES ALL PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD!

OMG! DON'T GET CANCER! THIS CURES CANCER!



See where I'm going with this?

THIS IS A PROBLEM. Eventually, the majority of games will be distributed VIA a content management program, much like steam. If you're denying that having to have like 8 of these just to play all the new games is a problem, then you're not seeing the big picture. Infact, I'd be inclined to say NO ONE BOTHERED TO TAKE THE LENSE CAP OFF FOR YOU. The camera also has no film in it.

The problem is, is that theres NO WAY to develop any kind of standard.

And really, your OMG DON'T PLAY GAMES argument, is piss poor. Like I pointed out, thats like telling cancer patients that not getting cancer is the cure for cancer.

You choose to buy games.

You don't choose to get cancer.

Bad analogy. Try again.

Not really.

By saying, simply by NOT doing something a problem will go away is a bad argument. Thats what the analogy was poking fun at. SATIRE MAH BOY, SATIRE.

you chose to buy games, you don't choose to get the crap that the people bundle with it so that you can use that game

I think I like the concept that developers have greater ability to protect their property but I'll tell you what I don't like about it. If games will require me to have an internet connection to register or receive necessary content, I'm screwed when I'm deployed to a third world country with limited internet connectivity. Fortunately I should only have to worry about that four more years, fitting into your five year prediction! I rarely buy PC games anyway.

That's how capitalism works. You don't like a product you don't buy it and you try to get as many friends not to buy it too. Eventually, if enough people protested online distribution companies would ahve to go back to store-bought copies.

Way to look out for your pals that will be there longer than 4 years. >:(

Quick response since Brian had a good counterargument, while Rob's was bad...(I wonder how you would've done on an SAT analogy test?)

Why do you keep referring to Steam as "screwing you over"? Are you meaning that Steam is a buggy program or what? Cause I've never had a problem with Steam in messing up on me. I do agree that it is quite a resource hog for a background program.

Also, my comment on Valve updating is not on the updates to fix the game, its on updates where they keep adding new levels, weapons, game modes (HL2DM), bots, etc. Stuff they actually don't have to include at all to make the game playable, but they keep adding.

I'm guessing people say that when the servers go down.

Gosh, you took that so literally. It's just that I'm torn between understanding the need to protect the software and inconveniencing the consumer. I don't mind slight inconvenience but I mind a product that can't be used if you don't have a "permanent" internet connection. You are far smarter on this specific issue than I because I have zero experience with any of this kind of software. The most recent PC game I have is JA and I bought that within the last few months.

You guys chose to look at this thread and respond to it.

Is their free will now? = ]

Except you do choose it since you know that stuff will come in the bundle.

Except sometimes you DON'T know. I just bought a piece of software from walmart called Logo Design Studio. I installed it, and it demanded that I give it access to the internet so it could "activate" itself - there was no mention of activation on the box OR on their web site (yes I did research the product BEFORE I bought it). You can't find out about this till AFTER you open the box, and once you do that, you can't return it. I emailed the company and asked them for my money back and their response was that I had to activate due to fraud and they wouldn't give me my money back.

If I recall correctly, you never actually buy "ownership" of a game, but instead you buy a license to play that game.

and therefore if you dont want that license anymore, you should be able to sell it, am i wrong?

If you don't want your fishing license anymore, can you sell that?

Or how about driver's license or pilot's license? We're talking about a whole other kind of license here.

Oh, in a recent Valve interview.

"Gamecloud - How has the Steam system worked so far and are there any plans to improve it and also allow other third party games to use the system?

Doug Lombardi - In addition to opening a new avenue for selling our products, Steam has proven very effective in curbing piracy and assisting with the administration of the CS:Src and now DoD: Src betas. It's also allowed us to roll out updates and new content (such as HL2:DM) directly to customers, without having to send them to an FTP site to hunt for the files. We plan to continue the development of Steam and we'll be announcing the first set of third party games to be offered on Steam in just a few weeks."

So it at least seems that not EVERY studio is going to have its own program, but some will at least use Steam for third party.

Well, we knew that was coming. However, have you seen the crap where they release patches and then roll them back the next day? What a huge waste of time - this is a huge benefit of "hunting for ftp sites" - you don't have to d/l the patch until you know, or at least have a reasonable expectation, that it's stable and will work on your computer.

As I have said before, I don't have a problem with so-called content delivery systems in general, I just have a problem with the way valve has implemented it - forced updates, crappy servers, no ability to play in offline mode, no ability to play w/out using the freaking content delivery system, feeling like I'm a criminal, etc. Their problem is that they're trying to be so much more than a content delivery system - they rolled in anti-piracy measures (which didn't work), forced upgrades (which piss people off because they don't test properly before they force the upgrades), product activation (which doesn't let you play the game until you wait hours for the damn thing to be decrypted), forced use in the first place (you should be able to play your game w/out starting steam once it's been "activated" - FOREVER w/out ever again connecting to steam servers). All in all, I think it's a dismal failure, and everywhere you go and steam is mentioned, dozens if not hundreds of people talk about all the problems they are having with it. I hardly think that is successful, no matter what that ahole says.