This is my blog. It's about gaming. Online.
Is a steamID as required as a copy of windows for gaming in the future?
Published on June 14, 2010 By coreimpulse In PC Gaming

(Im posting this in the forums since I can't post it like an article in the blog section.)

I remember the old days of gaming.  That long gone era called 2008.  Back when games were provided with their own custom installers, and were self-contained products that installed themselves separatedly on the computer you instaleld them.  I like to call this era the "Installshield Era" of gaming.  Back when game media only contained asset and binaries, and a registration window, when dialog box wizards ruled the gaming land, and when there weren't any remote validation hooks attached to executables.  That is why, with increasing concern, I am watching nowadays the way our most amazing form of entertainment is rearranging itself, how market forces and anti-consumer tendencies are beggining to shape the new landscape of gaming, at the expense of the average gamer.

  Big game releases nowadays are abandoning these old, anticuated components such as autorun main menus, install wizards, or dedicated servers, and have moved to the all encapsulating remote delivery methods of popular DRM schemes, such as Steam.  By itself, Steam is convenient, fast if you have good internet connection, and easy to deploy.  Many games were released in normal "retail" form, and were offered in Steam's store shortly after.  Those instances however, are nowadays mostly the case with PC only releases from eastern european studios it seems.  Steam's "next step" in gaming convenience is anything but that, and could mark the beggining of a new mandatory requirement for gaming in the future.  More and more games are now announcing their complete deployment based around Valve's new Steamworks framework, touted as the "least intrusive" DRM scheme, "convenient" to gaemers and publishers alike, which takes care of formerly manual tasks like patching.  They claim it isn't intrusive when compared to the likes of Securom or Tages.  But I would like to point out that it is more than that. It's not only indeed intrusive, it's THE most intrusive DRM scheme to come along yet. The game is not at all installed or even located completely in your computer when you realize it.  At least Securom installed itself after it let the installer copy YOUR game to YOUR hard drive. Steamworks' remote always-on cloud network remotely controls one of ITS game's installation, patching, running.  When you start the game, you send a signal to the autenticathion servers situatied remotely from your location, and the order is sent back before you are able to game.  You are asked for an authorization each time to play the games you paid a hefty premium  to be allowed some few hours of playimte. It's the arcade coin-up model.  We've gone back full circle, to the arcade machins of old times. It may as well place a coin slot in your computer.  It's like trying the games you paid for thru a remote terminal.  A service that, much like an arcade place, can close up in after hours, or at the discretion of their owners.  The access to the games you are allowed to try remotely can be switched off at any moment without any explanation from the providers, and you are effectively out.  Cloud based gaming, and software as a service don't look like a good idea afterall under these terms.

"Blah blah, who cares, I don't have to deal with DVDs anymore!"  Maybe this is really making mountains out of molehills.  Steam does have it's merits, which mostly come from giving smaller indie developers a storefront to showcase their creations without needing a traditional expensive distribution contract. Companies like Tripwire and 2d boy have been the most vocal about their praise for steam, with Tripwire saying they wouldn't be around without Steam.  This piece is not an anti-steam call to arms, it's just an informational soundbyte, just to express concern about the trend Steamworks is creating, which isn't 100% in reality as advertised in the package.  A steamworks game instantly becomes a steam exclusive game. That situation could become the beggining of a monopoly.  Maybe this is a good time for competitors to shine.

 


Comments (Page 16)
32 PagesFirst 14 15 16 17 18  Last
on Feb 16, 2011

Max Shaefer (Torchlight) wants Steam to become the standard for PC gaming:

 

Valve is bringing over Steamworks to the PS3 through Portal 2 - would you like to see it opened up to other developers on the console?
"Oh certainly. We elected not to go to PS3 in this case, because we're a very small studio and we focus on one thing at a time. But the Steamworks package in particular is very developer friendly, and in fact the whole of Steam is developer friendly, and we'd like to see that model, if not actual Steam, become the standard for PC development."

And to come to consoles as well?
"Certainly. We did the vast bulk of our business on Torchlight 1 with digital download, and the bulk of that was through Steam, and like I say, for an independent developer it's a godsend."

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/interviews/a303967/max-schaefer-torchlight.html

on Feb 16, 2011

Guest83
Looks like Randy Pitchford changed his mind:

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/67528

 

He used to be a Steam skeptic, saying he doesn't trust Valve and called the current situation "really, really dangerous for the rest of the industry".

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/randy_pitchford_talks_borderlands_piracy_and_why_he_doesn%E2%80%99t_trust_valve?page=0%2C2

Not really a surprise since Gearbox added Steam achievements to Borderlands a while ago. At some point they probably decided that it was better then dealing with the suck of Gamespy.

 

on Feb 16, 2011

Fistalis

 not to mention my refusal to buy anything steamworks integrated.

So explain the logic behind your position of not buying Steamworks exclusive games, but buying Reactor exclusive games.  It's the same thing.

on Feb 16, 2011

It's not, because if you support steam you're supporting a (near) monopoly. If you're supporting reactor you're supporting competition. It's about what you want for the future of pc gaming.

Don't trust Steam to stay the same.

on Feb 16, 2011

Heavenfall
It's not, because if you support steam you're supporting a (near) monopoly. If you're supporting reactor you're supporting competition. It's about what you want for the future of pc gaming.

Don't trust Steam to stay the same.

And how do I support Reactor? Where is it? What games are using it?

What I've found about it is a year old journal entry, and link to a whitepaper that is 404'd.

If it's not available, then it doesn't count. Steamworks provides a working solution for developers to use today. Until somebody has something that is competitive on a technical level, why wouldn't a developer use it?

on Feb 16, 2011

Steamworks is just the "in" for them to make developers flock to Steam. While steamworks is free for developers, if Steam gains a true monopoly status then Steam WON'T be free for consumers. So the danger of using Steamworks is that it will come back and hurt the consumer.

And you're right, Steamworks (as a complete solution, not just the DRM part) has no real competition today (certainly not reactor).

Imho, Steamworks is a perfect form of DRM because it fits me perfectly as a consumer (I recognize that that won't be true for everyone). BUT - if it means I end up paying money to Steam, then that is a major issue. Now, not every steamworks game is only available through steam and that is important because paying Steam is what we want to avoid.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this. Steamworks in itself is fine. But what it's being used for is not fine. It's being used to manipulate the developers and the consumers into using the Steam platform. That's bad. Therefore, refusing to buy Steamworks games is a direct stand against the (near) monopoly of Steam.

Edit: Here is a list of games that are sold through impulse and use reactor. Again, I don't consider reactor a true competitor in anything else than the function of DRM.

 

on Feb 16, 2011

coreimpulse

larrypeterscomment 22I have to wonder if this is a test of sorts for Sony and if it works they integrate Steam further into PSN.  For Sony it beats having to build their own offering to compete with XBL.  Steam is already there and has infrastructure in place.Like Tridus, I also seriously doubt this will change anything for Steam powered games.Later,LAR 
 

Wouldnt having full steam support chip away at their playstation network service?

 

I wouldn't be shocked if the PS4 is Steamworks.  PS3 it's probably too late.  I'd take Steamworks on a console any day over XBL gouging.  (if Sony charges for online next-gen, I won't buy a console.  I may not anyways as console gaming has stunk the joint this gen)

As for PSN, it's win-win for both sides.  Sony doesn't have to put as much effort in, Valve gets into the lucrative console market, and Steam > PSN for consumers.

on Feb 16, 2011

Tridus

And how do I support Reactor? Where is it? What games are using it?

All legitimate questions. It has been quite some time since Brad last posted any information in regard to Reactor v2 and I'm honestly wondering why that is the case. Lack of interest? Is it available or still WIP? Are Stardock doing some advertising "in the industry" behind the scenes? Secretly plotting and scheming to take over the world?

I was genuinely impressed and excited after watching the video below. The ominous silence for almost a year was the last thing I expected, to be honest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXK7BtheeUA

on Feb 16, 2011

InternetNerd

Quoting Fistalis, reply 216
 not to mention my refusal to buy anything steamworks integrated.
So explain the logic behind your position of not buying Steamworks exclusive games, but buying Reactor exclusive games.  It's the same thing.

Simple consumer choice.  I choose not to have a contractual relationship with steam or valve. If publishers and game devs continue to require me to go into a contract with a 3rd party in order to play their game they should at the very least allow ME to choose which entity i want to be contractually bound to.

I Own no reactor games that require me to use impulse.

Further more i Choose to deal with impulse/stardock over valve/steam for a few reasons.

1. Don't have run to Impulse every time i want to play my games.

2. Don't have to deal with a buggy offline mode if my internet is not up.

3. Never have to log into impulse again if I don't want to, but I can still play my games

4. No 3rd party game has tried to force me to use Impulse in order to use their product.


Sure i could roll over hop on steam and accept it as the future of gaming. But i refuse to let the future of gaming be dictated by one company, and I refuse to be coerced into a contract I don't want. I chose to enter into Impulses agreement.. I was never given the option of "Join impulse or don't use our game". Which is what i find most abhorrent about the steamworks system. If the option they continue to present me with is join steam and agree to the SSA or don't buy their game I will continue to choose the latter. If ever I agree to any contract with any entity it should be by my choice... not coercion.

on Feb 16, 2011

Alstein

Quoting coreimpulse, reply 24
larrypeterscomment 22I have to wonder if this is a test of sorts for Sony and if it works they integrate Steam further into PSN.  For Sony it beats having to build their own offering to compete with XBL.  Steam is already there and has infrastructure in place.Like Tridus, I also seriously doubt this will change anything for Steam powered games.Later,LAR 
 

Wouldnt having full steam support chip away at their playstation network service?
 

I wouldn't be shocked if the PS4 is Steamworks.  PS3 it's probably too late.  I'd take Steamworks on a console any day over XBL gouging.  (if Sony charges for online next-gen, I won't buy a console.  I may not anyways as console gaming has stunk the joint this gen)

As for PSN, it's win-win for both sides.  Sony doesn't have to put as much effort in, Valve gets into the lucrative console market, and Steam > PSN for consumers.

 

Let steam take over the console gaming industry - I don't like console games and never play them. But if steam is able to take over pc gaming, we'll likely see pc gaming looking like console gaming with pc game quality and variety going out the window. This is besides the increased costs to the customer and lack of consumer control that steam would institute once they got powerful enough to get away with it.

on Feb 16, 2011

scratchthepitch

Let steam take over the console gaming industry - I don't like console games and never play them. But if steam is able to take over pc gaming, we'll likely see pc gaming looking like console gaming with pc game quality and variety going out the window. This is besides the increased costs to the customer and lack of consumer control that steam would institute once they got powerful enough to get away with it.

Until you actually need to get approval from Valve to put out a PC game, the PC situation and console situation are not comparable. You CANNOT put a game on the 360 without Microsoft's approval (and the various fees they charge to do so).

Anybody can put a game for sale on their website for the PC right now. Unless Valve takes over Intel and Microsoft, that's not likely to change anytime soon.

on Feb 16, 2011

Fistalis

Quoting InternetNerd, reply 228
Quoting Fistalis, reply 216
 not to mention my refusal to buy anything steamworks integrated.
So explain the logic behind your position of not buying Steamworks exclusive games, but buying Reactor exclusive games.  It's the same thing.

Simple consumer choice.  I choose not to have a contractual relationship with steam or valve. If publishers and game devs continue to require me to go into a contract with a 3rd party in order to play their game they should at the very least allow ME to choose which entity i want to be contractually bound to.

I Own no reactor games that require me to use impulse.

Further more i Choose to deal with impulse/stardock over valve/steam for a few reasons.

1. Don't have run to Impulse every time i want to play my games.

2. Don't have to deal with a buggy offline mode if my internet is not up.

3. Never have to log into impulse again if I don't want to, but I can still play my games

4. No 3rd party game has tried to force me to use Impulse in order to use their product.


Sure i could roll over hop on steam and accept it as the future of gaming. But i refuse to let the future of gaming be dictated by one company, and I refuse to be coerced into a contract I don't want. I chose to enter into Impulses agreement.. I was never given the option of "Join impulse or don't use our game". Which is what i find most abhorrent about the steamworks system. If the option they continue to present me with is join steam and agree to the SSA or don't buy their game I will continue to choose the latter. If ever I agree to any contract with any entity it should be by my choice... not coercion.

Most of your post is irrelevant to my question.  I asked a specific question.

You say you don't own any reactor games.  Don't you own EWOM?  And doesn't it force you to use reactor in order to use the product?

There is no alternative.  If you purchase EWOM you are forced to use a third part application (reactor) and enter the reactor contract or not use the game.

I'm sorry, but there's still no difference between EWOM-reactor and say Civ5-steamworks.

If it's purely to not support a monopoly, then good for you.  But don't spin any of the other bullshit mate because it's just simply wrong.

on Feb 16, 2011

InternetNerd


Most of your post is irrelevant to my question.  I asked a specific question.

You say you don't own any reactor games.  Don't you own EWOM?  And doesn't it force you to use reactor in order to use the product?

There is no alternative.  If you purchase EWOM you are forced to use a third part application (reactor) and enter the reactor contract or not use the game.

I'm sorry, but there's still no difference between EWOM-reactor and say Civ5-steamworks.

If it's purely to not support a monopoly, then good for you.  But don't spin any of the other bullshit mate because it's just simply wrong.

Elemental doesn't require me to install or run impulse to play it.  Apparently you're simply misinformed about elemental and impulse.

Civ V requires you to run steam every time you want to play civ V.

Elemental does not require you to run impulse to play.

I do happen to have impulse installed... however i can UNINSTALL IT and STILL play Elemental.

You cannot uninstall steam and still play civ V.

You cannot install civ V from a disc and play it without installing steam.

You can install elemental and play it without installing Impulse.

How do you not see a difference? I own NO game which requires me to use or install impulse to play it. That is the major difference between the 2 for me. Which is what i explained in my post and you choose to ignore, which was entirely relevant to your question.

There is no spin here, one game forces an application and a contract with a third party on me i don't want  the other one doesn't. How simple is that? Yet you ignored the entire post explaining it and tried to draw a false parallel. If you disagree with my preferences fine but at least get your facts straight before you do. Claiming facts that are not at all true in order to try to bolster your opinion do nothing but minimize your argument, and my likely hood to take anything you say seriously.

 

on Feb 16, 2011

Tridus

Quoting scratchthepitch, reply 235
Let steam take over the console gaming industry - I don't like console games and never play them. But if steam is able to take over pc gaming, we'll likely see pc gaming looking like console gaming with pc game quality and variety going out the window. This is besides the increased costs to the customer and lack of consumer control that steam would institute once they got powerful enough to get away with it.
Until you actually need to get approval from Valve to put out a PC game, the PC situation and console situation are not comparable. You CANNOT put a game on the 360 without Microsoft's approval (and the various fees they charge to do so).

Anybody can put a game for sale on their website for the PC right now. Unless Valve takes over Intel and Microsoft, that's not likely to change anytime soon.

You'll be surprised to know you can put a game on the 360 without Microsoft approval, it's called Indie Games, and they are peer-reviewed, not reviewed by MS, in fact, MS employees are forbidden to do peer-review.

on Feb 16, 2011

Fistalis



Ya mount and blade is available on steam.. but its not steamworks integrated. (not sure about warband for the MP aspect though).

Something I think alot of people misunderstand is the difference between steam and steamworks API. Just because you can buy it on steam doesn't make it steamworks integrated. And as the list above shows.. some games choose to do steamworks only for the steam version of the game... meaning they plan on using other distribution channels and not requiring steam. What really annoys me is retail boxed and other distribution versions being integrated with steamworks. Plain and simple I feel if i wanted to deal with steam I would buy it from steam.. not amazon, D2D, impulse, walmart or any other distributor.

Its gotten to the point I literally have to research if a game is going to Force me to use steam prior to purchasing no matter what venue i purchase from.(other than impulse my last sanctuary) I don't want steam and no matter who adopts it and tries to force it down my throat its not happening. I'll simply take my meager business elsewhere.

You wont have to do much effort in researching, since you could be certain 100% that every big AAA, high profile release that is on consoles too will be Steamworks enabled, unless mentioned it's not.  I'd say from now on all non-Stardock games released here on Impulse will either be re-released old titles that don't have Steamworks, or some indie games, nothing new.

32 PagesFirst 14 15 16 17 18  Last