3 ms·

Regarding the first part, I'm pretty sure that Steam had an offline mode from the start. Perhaps it required an initial connection to set up an account, though.

Regarding the first part, I'm pretty sure that Steam had an offline mode from the start. Perhaps it required an initial connection to set up an account, though. I was lucky to be in an area that had very early access to DSL, so it wasn't a problem for me. The "always on" features was actually pretty awesome and novel if you had a permanent connection. In general I've been impressed by Steam from the start. On the other hand, we can see what the success has caused down the line. Now every publisher wants to replicate it with their own proprietary launchers, undoing all of the cleanliness and centralization that made Steam awesome in the first place. If anything it's now more confusing than ever to keep track of which launcher has which game and which friends had been added where. I suppose the total Steam hegemony was always going to be a temporary thing.

goosedragons 5y ago
It was pretty terrible. I had dial up at the time and so used offline mode a lot. It was a regular thing where the game would get to 100% ready, I'd launch it online to see that it worked, switch to offline and disconnect and it no longer worked. So you'd repeat this about 6 times and maybe it would stick. There was NO avoiding being online for the first install. I had to spend 2 nights connected to dial up to get HL2:Episode 1 playable and I bought that from a DVD. I played HL2 on Xbox just to avoid Steam.
globular-toast 5y ago
> Regarding the first part, I'm pretty sure that Steam had an offline mode from the start. Perhaps it required an initial connection to set up an account, though. It did but it still had problems. You did indeed have to be online initially to "activate" the game but the main problem is whenever it detected there were updates available you were forced to wait for them to completely download before you could play. This led to me being very careful about when I would allow Steam to have internet access. If you weren't careful you could go online and then not be allowed to play HL2 until you spent hours downloading an update (which you couldn't always do until night time because of tying up the phone line). It was incredibly frustrating.
BlueTemplar 5y ago
Steam wouldn't have happened if Windows had a proper package manager (and if Valve hadn't been screwed over by Sierra). I'm wondering about what cleanliness you are talking about, after all Steam (thankfully) never got a 100% market share (Games For Windows Live, Stardock's Impulse, GamersGate, Matrix/Slitherine, Blizzard games, Good Old Games, Ubisoft's horrible launchers, various boxes-only games, indies...) - if anything it has killed indie gaming that was briefly freed from having to have a full blown publisher and physical distributor - these days smaller developers have a hard time to sell from their own website and sometimes even to just forego from using Steamworks-only services (which make non-Steam versions second class citizens) like multiplayer matchmaking and mod Workshop. (And some other programs like Xfire have tried to centralize game libraries too, also offering other services like chat, matchmaking, game hour counts, video recording and upload...)
- mekkkkkk 5y ago
  I'm sure there are some significant downsides to Steam being a dominant platform, as is always the case. That being said, I think Steam has been pretty decent for Indie devs in other ways. The Greenlight program seems pretty successful, and the barrier for entry into the Steam catalog isn't too steep. However, you are right in that you are pretty much forcing indie devs to come in under the Steam umbrella to get exposure, and that's of course questionable. As for pure practicality as a gamer, Steam was unbeatable in the 10's. There were a lot of other offerings like you mentioned, but none were really competing on a large scale. The push of every publisher to restrict their games to their own Steam clones is a thing that seems to really have ramped up during the last ten years or so. Some were early though, Blizzard being a prime example.
- Strom 5y ago
  > it has killed indie gaming That's quite the take. I'd say Valve did more good for indie gaming than anyone else with the introduction of early access. Almost all the indie gaming being done in my social circles is through Steam's early access program. Before that people just didn't play indie games.
  - BlueTemplar 5y ago
tomc1985 5y ago
> If anything it's now more confusing than ever to keep track of which launcher has which game and which friends had been added where. I've been using Playnite to consolidate my games list across launchers. It works pretty well once it's set up, except for titles where the launcher you bought it on launches another launcher
- mekkkkkk 5y ago
  > except for titles where the launcher you bought it on launches another launcher That's just comedy. I know this happens for a lot of Ubisoft games in my Steam library. I guess they want to keep the cake and eat it to. Exposure on Steam, walled garden in Connect. I'll definitely check out Playnite. Thanks for the tip!
  - tomc1985 5y ago
    It's even worse with Rockstar games on Epic

goosedragons 5y ago

It was pretty terrible. I had dial up at the time and so used offline mode a lot. It was a regular thing where the game would get to 100% ready, I'd launch it online to see that it worked, switch to offline and disconnect and it no longer worked. So you'd repeat this about 6 times and maybe it would stick. There was NO avoiding being online for the first install. I had to spend 2 nights connected to dial up to get HL2:Episode 1 playable and I bought that from a DVD. I played HL2 on Xbox just to avoid Steam.

globular-toast 5y ago

> Regarding the first part, I'm pretty sure that Steam had an offline mode from the start. Perhaps it required an initial connection to set up an account, though. It did but it still had problems. You did indeed have to be online initially to "activate" the game but the main problem is whenever it detected there were updates available you were forced to wait for them to completely download before you could play. This led to me being very careful about when I would allow Steam to have internet access. If you weren't careful you could go online and then not be allowed to play HL2 until you spent hours downloading an update (which you couldn't always do until night time because of tying up the phone line). It was incredibly frustrating.

BlueTemplar 5y ago

Steam wouldn't have happened if Windows had a proper package manager (and if Valve hadn't been screwed over by Sierra). I'm wondering about what cleanliness you are talking about, after all Steam (thankfully) never got a 100% market share (Games For Windows Live, Stardock's Impulse, GamersGate, Matrix/Slitherine, Blizzard games, Good Old Games, Ubisoft's horrible launchers, various boxes-only games, indies...) - if anything it has killed indie gaming that was briefly freed from having to have a full blown publisher and physical distributor - these days smaller developers have a hard time to sell from their own website and sometimes even to just forego from using Steamworks-only services (which make non-Steam versions second class citizens) like multiplayer matchmaking and mod Workshop. (And some other programs like Xfire have tried to centralize game libraries too, also offering other services like chat, matchmaking, game hour counts, video recording and upload...)

mekkkkkk 5y ago
I'm sure there are some significant downsides to Steam being a dominant platform, as is always the case. That being said, I think Steam has been pretty decent for Indie devs in other ways. The Greenlight program seems pretty successful, and the barrier for entry into the Steam catalog isn't too steep. However, you are right in that you are pretty much forcing indie devs to come in under the Steam umbrella to get exposure, and that's of course questionable. As for pure practicality as a gamer, Steam was unbeatable in the 10's. There were a lot of other offerings like you mentioned, but none were really competing on a large scale. The push of every publisher to restrict their games to their own Steam clones is a thing that seems to really have ramped up during the last ten years or so. Some were early though, Blizzard being a prime example.
Strom 5y ago
> it has killed indie gaming That's quite the take. I'd say Valve did more good for indie gaming than anyone else with the introduction of early access. Almost all the indie gaming being done in my social circles is through Steam's early access program. Before that people just didn't play indie games.
- BlueTemplar 5y ago

tomc1985 5y ago

> If anything it's now more confusing than ever to keep track of which launcher has which game and which friends had been added where. I've been using Playnite to consolidate my games list across launchers. It works pretty well once it's set up, except for titles where the launcher you bought it on launches another launcher

mekkkkkk 5y ago
> except for titles where the launcher you bought it on launches another launcher That's just comedy. I know this happens for a lot of Ubisoft games in my Steam library. I guess they want to keep the cake and eat it to. Exposure on Steam, walled garden in Connect. I'll definitely check out Playnite. Thanks for the tip!
- tomc1985 5y ago
  It's even worse with Rockstar games on Epic