Fixed that. Just because offline mode doesn't work for some people sometimes doesn't mean they obligue you to be online to play.

Ding, ding, ding - the Russian gets it :)

What it's doing is giving developers information so that they end up making crap games that nobody wants, because they took notice of a small bit of data that, in the grand scheme of things, is flawed.

Look at EA. They make half of their decisions from "focus groups" and have destroyed practically every franchise they've been involved with because of it. Has anyone seen the trailer video for Dead Space 3? It's CRAP, and much of it was developed from what "focus groups" said they wanted, not what the gamers who bought the first two games wanted. And EA wonders why 5 MILLION people won't buy it!!!

Plus, what Steam does is FUCKING INVASIVE :)

(Honestly, I don't get riled up about it. I hate Steam but, to each their own - if you want to give your money to a company that's also sucking all your personal data -- just like those folks that still use Google for searches - hey, more power to ya :)


Exactly!

Hey, I"m a privacy freak but, if you ask me or you tell me and give me a right to refuse and I think it's reasonable, I'll give it to you. But don't suck it from me without my knowledge because then I KNOW it's being used for nefarious reasons.

I sometimes just don't get it. How many mega-corporations have to screw people over without more people being suspicious and refusing to hand over their cash?

You can't play a game without being online at least once. I'd say that being online is mandatory with Steam.

So... you're blaming Steam, because you think the Devs are dumb enough to take some extended game sales information, and base their game on that? And you'd rather they keep doing it on less information? I guess this is the issue here, and it seems to be a personal one.

And the only reason something gets sucked from you without your knowledge in this case is because you don't seem to have taken the effort to actually inform yourself about it, not because they keep it from you.
Having been online, yes. Being online, no. That's a big distinction which i'm sure you can differentiate between. One is Always Online DRM and the other is a single moment online check after which you can be offline. .

And this yes. I assume these same people complain they need to be online to get a GOG. Really, how hard is it to do an online check with a CD/DVD? Even if it didn't, wouldn't you patch up a game you just got from the store anyway? I certainly would.

I realize it can be an annoyance if you don't like the control being taken away from you, but it seems to be the idea rather than the impracticality of it because for most people arguing it's probably a non-issue most of the time.

Unless you get a prosthetic...

You can install from a backup without an internet connection. Requiring internet to download is common sense, but requiring it to install, even when you have all the files? Pretty sure that's what Alexrd is talking about.

Umm - isn't this exactly the argument for getting player data? as opposed to focus group and sale figures?

With player data they end up making the games that players play, not necessary what they buy...

Pheace, we'll have to agree to disagree.

You don't seem to care if your personal information is taken from you without your knowledge (you think you know what Steam is doing with it -- you have no idea really).

I, however, avoid services that I know do that. That's why I love GamersGate and GOG. GOG is completely DRM-free and GamersGate occasionally requires a one time activation (only five or six times out of over 50 games I've bought). After that, every time I go back to GG they're not taking more of my personal information as their download client has already been deleted.

Like I said, still boggles my mind that people continue to be so trusting, with what are nothing more than mega-corporations where profit is the only thing they care about. But...you certainly hear the noise when it comes out they've been getting screwed all along :) Look at Facebook and Google. Now THOSE were obvious to me too, which is why I have limited contact with Google and none with Facebook.
No, because as I said, the player data is 'flawed'. Ask anyone who has a Steam account and see if the amount of hours they log online is actually how many hours they're playing. It's never even close.

Besides, there's an easier non-invasive way to do it. Put up an online survey for gamers who bought the game. They answer questions, then submit an activation code to prove they bought the game, and they get a coupon for a couple of bucks off their next game. It worked for decades and was non-invasive and voluntary. What they are doing now is not.

Anyway, I have to go. Have work to do :)

I was pretty sure that this is what he was aiming at. I was invoking the hyperbole more tongue in cheek. I acknowledge the difference, but I find that this is no longer an issue in 2012. Even if people aren't always online, they are regularly online at least. "online enough" to get a Steam game installed. Or the backup activated, if traffic is an issue

If went to GOG to buy a game, I use the internet enough for that.

There might still be a few people that go hardly online, but those are a minority, that doesn't need special catering. I don't bitch and moan about devs for not providing games for visually hampered people, like those that are colour blind. Which are, imo, a much bigger and more "protection worthy" group.

What I'm trying to say through the whole thread is that a lot of folks are more critical of Steam because it is Steam, not because the restrictions of it are an actual downside to them.

I think we established that offline mode doesn't require an internet connection and therefore you can play when not online.

Can you point to a game which can be played without an internet connection when bought elsewhere but doesn't work with Steam offline mode?

And yes, Steam does require you to be online to activate any game. That doesn't contradict anything I said.

Yawn... somebody wake when this argument gets to something new that hasn't been hashed out on these and about a dozen other forums hundreds of times already.

We certainly will, because I'm sure not going to agree that giving a developer *more* information is somehow a bad thing by the people providing the information. If anything you should be blaming developers for doing the wrong thing with the information given. Nor do you have any clue what they're doing with it.
Firstly, there's no mystery that your personal info is taken. You're the one typing it in after all. This is the same argument as before. The only time information gets taken from you is when you give it to them. They don't steal your information. You don't. That's just the point. You're just assuming they are. And you're assuming GG isn't, even though they might be doing the exact same thing with whatever information they get their hands on from you. (even if it's less) Trusting about what? There's no information Steam has on me that is of any particular importance, or that countless companies I depend on don't already know (gas/electric etc etc). Heck, I've filled out as much for mall bonus cards before probably. Although I imagine you don't use those since they track your purchases D:

I can understand privacy freaks to some extent, when it's vital information. But not when it comes to irrelevant information that's handed out at countless occasions already. I hand it out every time I order something online for home delivery. Heck, they can look me up in a phone book. And that's talking about personal information. How much I play or what I play? Sheesh, why do I care that someone knows that? I happily stream my gameplay if/when I can which will show exactly when and what I'm playing. Countless people enjoy Gamercards that show how long and what they are playing. People around here love Backlogger which tracks which games you own and which you've finished.

People give out their info all day every day, and let me tell you. That information is really nothing special.

So yeah, disagree. Have fun at work :)

I'm kind of tired of these DRM-free vs. Steam discussions, because I think both services have their merits and whether you're in favor of one or the other, both sides have a right to their opinion, and all of that is seldom acknowledged in these heated discussions. Steam does cater to the preferences of some, and not to the preferences of others. DRM-free is important for some, unimportant to others. Steam is neither evil nor perfect, and supporters of the DRM-free concept are neither the saviors of PC gaming nor ignorant hipsters and conspiracy-theorists. It all comes down to your preferences, And that's it, as trivial as it sounds.

And does it really matter who's part of a niche and who's in the majority, or if one side thinks the other one's preferences are ridiculous just because they don't share them and can not comprehend them? Why can't we just accept that people have different preferences and a right to address them, to let publishers know about them or support who they like, without being bashed or monopolized by others pretending to know why they do it. In the end, I think it's not what you say, it's how you say it - and that goes for all sides alike.