It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Pheace: particularly if devs don't enjoy seeing a (suspiciously) large percentage of sales for Russian prices.
Globalization works in both ways I'd say.
avatar
truhlik: Isn't steam savior of (PC) gaming? :)
avatar
Gonchi: PC gaming has no savior. PC gaming needs no savior.
Why not, console gaming has one.
Attachments:
savior.jpg (59 Kb)
avatar
MarioFanaticXV: Go into any store where you can buy video games. Compare the size of the PC selection to that of consoles. The PC section used to be about as large as the others, and often times larger even. Ever since Steam struck, they've been rapidly shrinking. Nowadays, you generally can only find PC games on digital distribution sites, and even physical copies are often locked to such. Steam is the one that popularized most of these practices.
The rise of the consoles and their conquest of the living room started with the Playstation 2 and Xbox - both launched before Steam did. By May 2007 Steam had 150 games on sale - by that time the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 had been released.
Digital distribution started with the Internet become more widespread and bandwidth affordable. Valve simple realised that opportunity first. The only thing I agree with, is that Valve started with the client-based DRM and made it popular - which however has nothing to do with retail sales or the problem that started this thread.

avatar
MarioFanaticXV: And seeing "why they did" something abusive doesn't justify the abuse. I mean, it's pretty easy to see why slave owners wanted to own slaves, that doesn't make it okay.
It's pretty easy to see why some gamers want to pay the russian price for their newest games. Not really hard to see the abuse here and why that change did come. But abusing the system then cry "abuse" when that hole get's stuffed - I'd call self-righteous greedy gamer.
avatar
MarioFanaticXV: Yes, consumers are the ones that decided that consumers should be treated like dirt and that consumers should have no rights. Let's blame consumers.

Now, granted, it is partially their fault for letting companies perform such practices and continuing to buy from them regardless, but consumers did not demand this shift.
Yet, they pretty much did. In capitalism consumers have ALL the power. What they support is what continues. What they don't support is what stops. Consumers embraced account-based digital "ownership" completely, and that is why it took off. They are the deciders and they decided.

And you can't blame ignorance. Consumers crave convenience, and Steam is much more convenient for most people compared to discs and boxes and manual patching and whatever else. Also most people don't care about DRM because they don't play old games or think the community will fix it if it ever needs fixing, so they don't factor that into their decision.

So, yes, consumers did it.
avatar
RudyLis: Origin is... great?! O_o Ha... Ha-ha... Hahahaha:D

Origin is great. What a wonderful joke. Made my year. Four of them, actually.
Context.

Out of context: Origin is not great, far from it. It's a DLC/DRM shop run by EA.

In context: Origin is great compared to fucking Steam.

Context: never post on the internet without it. :)
Post edited December 21, 2014 by Atlantico
I have to agree, Origin and Steam are pretty much identical but Origin runs quicker now and has that excellent 24 hour guarantee option.
Of course it isn't an ideal solution, but its either same prices everywhere, essentially making games in many regions too expensive to buy or regional pricing with restrictions. Its not a great development but i can understand why they do it and the way it is now is probably not as bad as the alternative. At least people everywhere pay about the same price (as in percentage of average income), well ideally at least. Its not an unfair solution in my opinion.

I guess no one would bother if there was the occasional game gifted, but with all those trading sites around it was probably just a matter of time.
avatar
truhlik: Isn't steam savior of (PC) gaming? :)
Just a quick question, why are Czech women so gorgeous?
avatar
truhlik: Isn't steam savior of (PC) gaming? :)
avatar
realkman666: Just a quick question, why are Czech women so gorgeous?
Same reason why is czech beer best. It's because of...
Ops, almost revealed you our secret:)
avatar
realkman666: Just a quick question, why are Czech women so gorgeous?
avatar
truhlik: Same reason why is czech beer best. It's because of...
Ops, almost revealed you our secret:)
FINALLY! This stupid thread has delved into a topic that someone of my intellect and sophistication can appreciate, chicks and beer! :D
avatar
tinyE: FINALLY! This stupid thread has delved into a topic that someone of my intellect and sophistication can appreciate, chicks and beer! :D
Every thread that doesn't end with chicks and beer, is a waste of time.
avatar
MarioFanaticXV: Yes, consumers are the ones that decided that consumers should be treated like dirt and that consumers should have no rights. Let's blame consumers.

Now, granted, it is partially their fault for letting companies perform such practices and continuing to buy from them regardless, but consumers did not demand this shift.
avatar
StingingVelvet: Yet, they pretty much did. In capitalism consumers have ALL the power. What they support is what continues. What they don't support is what stops. Consumers embraced account-based digital "ownership" completely, and that is why it took off. They are the deciders and they decided.

And you can't blame ignorance. Consumers crave convenience, and Steam is much more convenient for most people compared to discs and boxes and manual patching and whatever else. Also most people don't care about DRM because they don't play old games or think the community will fix it if it ever needs fixing, so they don't factor that into their decision.

So, yes, consumers did it.
Except Steam doesn't exist within a truly capitalist system. If it did, people would be able to resell the games they've bought. Steam is quite the enemy of capitalism, and quite the enemy of customer rights. Also, if this was about capitalism, they'd allow the free market to compete against them, instead of locking games to specified regions. If they want to have regional pricing? I'm fine with that- but they should have to deal with the reality of sellers buying from those regions and selling to others. They're making a profit off of this, why can't the Russians? There's something ironic when Russia is more capitalist, free, and pro-consumer than a company founded in the US.

Also, manual patches are a good thing. There are many times where a patch will break a game, and thus you would want to revert to an earlier patch (trust me, I'm having a lot of troubles with reverting Command & Conquer 3 to an earlier patch right now).

And are you seriously implying that physical discs are a down side?
avatar
MarioFanaticXV: Except Steam doesn't exist within a truly capitalist system. If it did, people would be able to resell the games they've bought. Steam is quite the enemy of capitalism, and quite the enemy of customer rights. Also, if this was about capitalism, they'd allow the free market to compete against them, instead of locking games to specified regions. If they want to have regional pricing? I'm fine with that- but they should have to deal with the reality of sellers buying from those regions and selling to others. They're making a profit off of this, why can't the Russians? There's something ironic when Russia is more capitalist, free, and pro-consumer than a company founded in the US.

Also, manual patches are a good thing. There are many times where a patch will break a game, and thus you would want to revert to an earlier patch (trust me, I'm having a lot of troubles with reverting Command & Conquer 3 to an earlier patch right now).

And are you seriously implying that physical discs are a down side?
Not trying to be insulting but I don't think you understand my points and such enough to really continue this debate. Have fun with the rest of the thread.
avatar
StingingVelvet: Yet, they pretty much did. In capitalism consumers have ALL the power. What they support is what continues. What they don't support is what stops. Consumers embraced account-based digital "ownership" completely, and that is why it took off. They are the deciders and they decided.

And you can't blame ignorance. Consumers crave convenience, and Steam is much more convenient for most people compared to discs and boxes and manual patching and whatever else. Also most people don't care about DRM because they don't play old games or think the community will fix it if it ever needs fixing, so they don't factor that into their decision.

So, yes, consumers did it.
avatar
MarioFanaticXV: Except Steam doesn't exist within a truly capitalist system. If it did, people would be able to resell the games they've bought. Steam is quite the enemy of capitalism, and quite the enemy of customer rights. Also, if this was about capitalism, they'd allow the free market to compete against them, instead of locking games to specified regions. If they want to have regional pricing? I'm fine with that- but they should have to deal with the reality of sellers buying from those regions and selling to others. They're making a profit off of this, why can't the Russians? There's something ironic when Russia is more capitalist, free, and pro-consumer than a company founded in the US.

Also, manual patches are a good thing. There are many times where a patch will break a game, and thus you would want to revert to an earlier patch (trust me, I'm having a lot of troubles with reverting Command & Conquer 3 to an earlier patch right now).

And are you seriously implying that physical discs are a down side?
You could you honestly imagine the shit that would happen if people could resell games? It would make a complete and utter joke of every sale they ever had.
avatar
MarioFanaticXV: Except Steam doesn't exist within a truly capitalist system. If it did, people would be able to resell the games they've bought.
People reselling = less sales for Steam = less profit for Steam = not capitalistic.

avatar
MarioFanaticXV: Also, if this was about capitalism, they'd allow the free market to compete against them, instead of locking games to specified regions.
Free market = other competitors. You DON'T want your customers turn into competitors in a capitalistic system.
Region lock - please check about the grey market and how it is handled in non-gaming businesses. Exactly the same way. Capitalism.

avatar
MarioFanaticXV: Also, manual patches are a good thing.
Sure. Still a large part of customers decided that they prefer Steam over retail and manual patches. That's free market.

avatar
MarioFanaticXV: And are you seriously implying that physical discs are a down side?
a) the bigger the collection of games you own, the bigger the space they use in your room. Some like that, some prefer to use this space otherwise.
b) a physical disc can get scratched or break. Still have C64, Amiga or PC games on floppys lying around? Expect a large part of them being unreadable.
.... now where do I find a floppy drive for my PC nowadays, so that I can install Darklands again? .... scrap that, I'll use my digital distribution copy - problem solved.

Again, some may prefer them, some don't. But don't claim that there is no downside to a purely physical collection.
And again, the customer decides in the end. Not Steam, GOG, Microsoft, Apple or any other company. Just. the. customer.