Steam? Bleh.

I see this enough that I''m starting to notice a trend. Those who have used Steam on a regular basis have had few issues (aside from launch) and usually come to enjoy the features that go along with it. Those who can only go by what they read or haven''t used it for any length of time tend to view it differently. Can''t play online because Steam is down? Guess what, you couldn''t when the WON Cd-Key authentication server was down either.

The bottom line is you can play offline without Steam if you want, you can stream the game (or any Steam-enabled game) to your system and start playing almost immediately and you don''t have to worry about waiting in line at download sites to get patches.

This is an oversimplification of the situation, as the fact that this thread exists at all attests to. Obivously there''s more to it, or when Steam went down Vega would''ve been playing single player just fine. It''s like Gaald said, the fact that this thread exists at all is what worries me. You can play offline under certain arbitrary circumstances, and those circumstances aren''t made clear to the customer.

The thing is that people who have problems with Steam don''t use it very much, it''s a catch-22. If Steam doesn''t work for us should we keep using it just so we have credibility, on the internet? I have used Steam before, it sucked, I stopped using it. Other than offline mode, I see nothing that has changed about it. Even offline mode has it''s problems. In fact, I think everybody who''s complained about Steam in this thread has admitted to using it at one point. We think it sucks, that''s why we stopped using it.

I also said I had no problem waiting to see if they fixed it with HL2. Right now though, it sucks and I''m not going to pretend it doesn''t because it works for some people. 97% of the internet uses IE, that doesn''t mean it''s the greatest browser ever made and that there''s no room for improvement. Nor does the fact that I don''t use it invalidate me from complaining about it, I have used it and I know what''s wrong with it, precisely because I use other browsers that don''t have these problems. Likewise I see what''s wrong with Steam because I primarly don''t use it and use other games that don''t have these random problems. Stardock''s service, for instance, is great. If they had Half-Life on there I don''t think there''d be any contest, everyone would be using Stardock. The best we can hope for is Valve fixing Steam to the point that it''s as good as Stardock, which I seriously doubt but it''s the best shot.

"Dr. Ghastly" wrote:

They didn''t build the engine. id did.

Actually HL was based on Quake 1, and by the time it was released they had pretty much rewritten everything. I think by all estimates it was around 80%-90% their engine by the time they were done.

Right now though, it sucks

Gaald complains and he only tried it when it was first released. How about you?

Gaald complains and he only tried it when it was first released. How about you?

I tried it when it was first released and I think I tried it during my Natural Selection stint which was last year. Again, how does this invalidate our argument when all that''s changed is that they''ve added an offline mode? I think it sucks because of what it does and how it does it, not because it doesn''t work.

I tried it when it was first released and I think I tried it during my Natural Selection stint which was last year. Again, how does this invalidate our argument when all that''s changed is that they''ve added an offline mode? I think it sucks because of what it does and how it does it, not because it doesn''t work.

I''m not saying your complaints are invalid of course, but some of them are based on hearsay and limited personal experience with old releases. It could very well be that in practice Steam is not as bad as you think it is.

Anyways, we''ll see how HL2 goes. I''m more or less spent on this subject

I''m not saying your complaints are invalid of course, but some of them are based on heresy and limited personal experience with old releases.

Geez Certis, its just Steam!!

I think he meant ""hearsay"", not ""heresy"".
I think.

"duckilama" wrote:

I think he meant ""hearsay"", not ""heresy"".
I think.

You know he didn''t, you''re just part of the underground Steam zealots.

Damn you spell checker, you''ve lulled me into typos again!

"Certis" wrote:

It could very well be that in practice Steam is not as bad as you think it is.

Hear hear well said bruce!

It could very well be that in practice Steam is not as bad as you think it is.

Again, my complaints are as much with the way Valve treats Steam, the why and how of it, not the details. So how well it works in practice isn''t the point, it''s about control. I don''t like having control of how and when I play the game I paid for taken away, for whatever reason. Steam does that. The fact that they currently don''t restrict you beyond the offline mode strangeness is irrelevant, it''s the fact that they feel they need this much control over their customers. It''s a philisophical difference as much as anything. I don''t like to pay people to have them treat me like I can''t be trusted. Steam loading up really fast or not being blatantly annoying doesn''t change that.

It''s a philisophical difference

Exactly. It''s the principle of the thing, which is why I didn''t feel out of place posting about it without using it.

(Pre-posting edit: I wrote a really long bit justifying that, but it was unnecessary and pedantic, so I''ll leave it at that.)

I don''t like to pay people to have them treat me like I can''t be trusted. Steam loading up really fast or not being blatantly annoying doesn''t change that.

I''m curious where did you get the opinion that by moving to Steam for content distribution/online play/patch management etc.. do you feel Valve ceased ""trusting"" their customers.

You feel you lose control of how and when you play but other than some specific reasons for downtime which could be applied to just about every possible client/server/online game model why is Steam removing that more so than anyone else?

If you buy the HL2 CD I''m willing to bet you''ll be able to play it fine without ever putting your PC online...the SP portion that is.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]
Again, my complaints are as much with the way Valve treats Steam, the why and how of it, not the details. So how well it works in practice isn''t the point, it''s about control. I don''t like having control of how and when I play the game I paid for taken away, for whatever reason. Steam does that. The fact that they currently don''t restrict you beyond the offline mode strangeness is irrelevant, it''s the fact that they feel they need this much control over their customers.

I can see that side of it as well. My overall position is that companies are within their rights to use DRM to protect their IP,so long as it doesn''t place undue burdens on the end user.

Steam is almost at the point of undue burden for me, but not quite. I do want to play Half Life, and since that''s the conditions they''ve placed around the game''s use, I have to deal with it.

The same with all other games, the major operating systems, etc.

Ah, a philosophical thing. That''s very different.

For me, so long as I don''t have to cybersex steam into working, I''m really okay with it since I''ve pretty much been playing Day of Defeat for free for the past year (even, if like Xfire, it were to keep track of how much I play and what servers I play on. Frankly I just don''t mind.)

I''m curious where did you get the opinion that by moving to Steam for content distribution/online play/patch management etc.. do you feel Valve ceased ""trusting"" their customers.

You feel you lose control of how and when you play but other than some specific reasons for downtime which could be applied to just about every possible client/server/online game model why is Steam removing that more so than anyone else?

If you buy the HL2 CD I''m willing to bet you''ll be able to play it fine without ever putting your PC online...the SP portion that is.

What I just said however is even Steam works fine and doesn''t effect me in any way, that''s not the point. You have to look at what the program is actually doing to the game.

Normal games use something like safedisc to check to see if there is a CD in the drive, or you have a user input CD key that you use to authenticate online with only for online play, or a combination of both. You can remove the CD check easily, and really the publisher or developer doesn''t try to stop this behavior, it''s a speed bump. The online authentication merely checks your user input CD key every few minutes. Other than the fact it exists, your CD key doesn''t affect the game at all and is very user visible. Almost every user who installs the game knows what the CD key is, and has it physically printed on his manual or box. The user has control over where and when it''s used.

Steam encrypts everything, the content, the game data, the client program. It then holds the key on Steam''s servers, which you can then ask for the key. When Steam sees fit, it can give you the key or it can remove your key and your game ceases to function in any way whatsoever. Online, offline, whatever, as long as that key is gone your game stops working. Who controls when and where the key is? Steam. The user has no idea it exists, nor would it matter if they did. The key is actually functionally needed to decrypt the game and it''s never trusted to the user to deal with it. Notice I didn''t say it was removed out of convenience, if it was you could copy your Steam authentication key to a file to backup, or copy to another offline computer. You could even write it down ala CD key. But you can''t, and judging from Valve''s attitude towards it, it''s basically a matter of trust. Therefore the key, and by extension your game, can only be used in ways explicitly approved by Steam and those arbitrary rules can change at any time. Also, your computer checks with Steam for every piece of data you load. Not only does Steam control when and where you play the game, it also controls how. Just because they currently let everybody play the game how they want, barring the strange offline rules, does not mean it is going to stay that way. There''s been several instances already where otherwise free content has been moved to Steam, and as Valve themselves have said one of the purposes of Steam is to allow them to charge for content by the piece. It''s not so much that they want to do this, it''s the fact they feel they need this much control in order to do that. They don''t trust their users. That''s their perogative, but I don''t want to pay to be one of the people they don''t trust.

Pyro...

Don''t take this the wrong way..

But your way to paranoid.

That being said..I respect your position.. I''m not saying its wrong or right.. In then end its your choice.

But your way to paranoid.

Look, I''m not just inferring from my experiences here. It''s the way every DRM system on the planet works. Do a little research, you''ll see any online music store, or MovieLink, the secure computing initiative or any other DRM enabled store works the same way. It''s the way DRM is designed, to keep the key out of the users hands. That way, they can''t put it up on Kaaza.

A technical discussion of iTMS and FairPlay. Notice the FairPlay part, that''s essentially how Steam works. It checks your computer, asks Steam if you have permission to hold the key, and then Steam gets the key if you do. When Steam determines you should no longer have the key, it removes it. Also notice in the FairPlay part that any user interaction breaks the process, such as copying the SCInfo file. It''s because users aren''t supposed to interfere with what DRM does, it''s designed so that the copyright holder (Valve in this case) can determine when and how you use the data. If you give the user any degree of control at all it defeats the purpose of DRM. If you trust your users, DRM is pointless.

I just don''t want you to think I''m pulling this out of my ass, it''s pretty well documented how and why DRM does what it does.

I think this is how the public will respond to Steam once HL2''s released:

"snpp.com" wrote:

Lisa: Wait a second, you planted a phony skeleton for me to find. This was all a big hoax.

Sid: Not a hoax, a publicity stunt.

Lisa: You exploited people''s deepest beliefs just to annoint your cheesy wares. Well we are outraged, aren''t we?

Wiggum: [unenthusiastically] Oh yes, we''re outraged. Very much so. But look at all the stores. A pottery barn!

Moe: And 20 percent off everything! Does that include rat spray?

Sid''s partner: Oh yeah.

Agnes: Out of my way shorty.

[they all run down to the mall]

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]

But your way to paranoid.

Look, I''m not just inferring from my experiences here. It''s the way every DRM system on the planet works. Do a little research, you''ll see any online music store, or MovieLink, the secure computing initiative or any other DRM enabled store works the same way. It''s the way DRM is designed, to keep the key out of the users hands. That way, they can''t put it up on Kaaza.

A technical discussion of iTMS and FairPlay. Notice the FairPlay part, that''s essentially how Steam works. It checks your computer, asks Steam if you have permission to hold the key, and then Steam gets the key if you do. When Steam determines you should no longer have the key, it removes it. Also notice in the FairPlay part that any user interaction breaks the process, such as copying the SCInfo file. It''s because users aren''t supposed to interfere with what DRM does, it''s designed so that the copyright holder (Valve in this case) can determine when and how you use the data. If you give the user any degree of control at all it defeats the purpose of DRM. If you trust your users, DRM is pointless.

I just don''t want you to think I''m pulling this out of my ass, it''s pretty well documented how and why DRM does what it does.

No...I wasnt infering that I didnt believe your explanation or description. I do. Its simply that I think your paranoid about the whole thing. Me.. I''m more along the lines of <shrug> as long as I play a game I enjoy no biggie.

Oh, well if you disagree you disagree, I thought you were saying I was paranoid for thinking that was the rationale behind Steam. If you''re just saying ""thinks about it too much"", I agree with you. I just hate being chained for whatever reason, and I care about games and think about them alot. Otherwise I wouldn''t write for a gaming website.

If you''re just saying ""thinks about it too much"", I agree with you.

Bingo! I understand where your coming from.. I would agree that in better times this whole blasted DRM thing would simply go away.. but I know better.. its here to stay and Publishers and Developers are looking at ways to protect their content.

Is Steam the best way? probably not.. Is it better than SafeDisc 3 or the various others coming out that do a similar thing? dunno..thats arguable. I''m sure in the next couple years we''ll see what eventually pans out.