4 ms·

From what I remember, people originally got on Steam because that's how you got Half-Life 2, which the world was clamoring for. They put up with the problems un

From what I remember, people originally got on Steam because that's how you got Half-Life 2, which the world was clamoring for. They put up with the problems until it got better because Steam was how you played CS and HL. As for the DRM... has it ever really been onerous? The only case I think of is if you don't always have access to an internet connection, and they have workarounds for that, though they admittedly are imperfect. True, the hypothetical/potential failure modes suck - being locked out of your account and losing your games; Valve goes out of business and you lose your games; you're offline and can't switch to offline mode and thus can't play your games until you find an internet connection. That said, I've always been of the impression that most people don't mind Steam's DRM that much because doesn't stop them from doing what they generally expect to be able to do and want to do with their PC games, which is sit down at any PC where they can log in on Steam and play them. This is unlike DRMed music and movie files: sure, DRM prevents you from making unlimited free copies for your friends, which I think most anyone would agree is reasonable, but it also can prevent you from doing things like changing formats or resolutions or storing/viewing from certain devices.

jasonjei 14y ago
There is precedent for software developers to responsibly shut down activation servers, such as Adobe (gasp!) who made available a serial number and software download for CS2. http://autodesk.blogs.com/between_the_lines/2013/01/get-free-adobe-creative-suite-2-now.html http://autodesk.blogs.com/between_the_lines/2013/01/get-free...
pmh 14y ago
I'd say it was onerous at the time. Steam brought an "always-online" component (offline mode was utterly broken for years) to games you may have bought years prior, and this was in 2002/2003. In 2013, it's basically the status quo and other publishers have adopted similar schemes. I think the interesting part is that in spite of that past behavior and almost no PR, the gaming community just rallies around Valve and will vilify most other publishers that attempt to follow Valve's footsteps with Steam.
- jholman 14y ago
  I agree there's a bit of double-standard, but you don't need to be incredulous. It's simple; the double-standard was earned! Most gamers seem to have found that every time they trust Valve, they're happy with the result (so far!), and it's a much iffier gamble with most other publishers. No one I know found the always-online aspects of Steam particularly onerous. Especially because when it was introduced, it was mostly used for games that were only interesting online anyway. HL mods, HL2 and mods. That "no one I know" is just anecdata, I admit it. And it integrates features that are actually features. E.g. Steam friends-chat is actually useful, unlike all other inter-game chat I've seen (on the PC). And the Steam store is such a boon. It makes me want to give game-devs money. As my disposable income has grown (massively), Steam was in the right place at the right time. Brick and mortar game stores don't exactly inspire loyalty. And I like the fact that digital distribution lowers intermediate costs, and I like the fact that I get a share of that savings with the crazy-deep-discount steam store sales. On the other hand, I can't remember the last time I interacted with DRM from another publisher without being afraid, and without paying a burden that actually was onerous. It messes with my router, or it turns out to be an exploitable rootkit, or it pops up inexplicable warnings, or it eats RAM, or I have to create an online account for one stupid game that I don't even know if I'll like yet, or... I agree with nlawalker.... getting us acclimatized as a precondition of playing Must Play games (online HL mods after 2003, HL2, Portal) was brilliant. Of course, if Valve in their wisdom were to decide my account was violating TOS, I'd be pretty boned.
  - _delirium 14y ago
    A few people I know actually still had dialup when Steam first started becoming popular (in 2004, U.S. broadband penetration was only around 35-40%), and they found it pretty onerous to have to dial up every time they wanted to start a single-player, offline game. Less of an issue nowadays.
- sgift 14y ago
  Steam never had always online (obviously this excludes online games like TF2). Steam has (ignoring offline mode here to honor your statement that it was broken for years) "check at start", i.e. the moment the game starts you must be online. Nothing else. Always online is what Ubisoft tried with Assassins Creed 2, i.e. the game communicates all the time with the server and if the connection dies you cannot play anymore.
shocks 14y ago
You don't need to switch to offline mode while online anymore. If you start Steam with no internet access it'll just start in offline mode provided you have it set to remember your password and auto-login.
MartinCron 14y ago
As for the DRM... has it ever really been onerous? Steam's DRM is only offensive in theory. In practice, it works perfectly well for the vast majority of the users for the vast majority of the time.

jasonjei 14y ago

There is precedent for software developers to responsibly shut down activation servers, such as Adobe (gasp!) who made available a serial number and software download for CS2. http://autodesk.blogs.com/between_the_lines/2013/01/get-free-adobe-creative-suite-2-now.html http://autodesk.blogs.com/between_the_lines/2013/01/get-free...

pmh 14y ago

I'd say it was onerous at the time. Steam brought an "always-online" component (offline mode was utterly broken for years) to games you may have bought years prior, and this was in 2002/2003. In 2013, it's basically the status quo and other publishers have adopted similar schemes. I think the interesting part is that in spite of that past behavior and almost no PR, the gaming community just rallies around Valve and will vilify most other publishers that attempt to follow Valve's footsteps with Steam.

jholman 14y ago
I agree there's a bit of double-standard, but you don't need to be incredulous. It's simple; the double-standard was earned! Most gamers seem to have found that every time they trust Valve, they're happy with the result (so far!), and it's a much iffier gamble with most other publishers. No one I know found the always-online aspects of Steam particularly onerous. Especially because when it was introduced, it was mostly used for games that were only interesting online anyway. HL mods, HL2 and mods. That "no one I know" is just anecdata, I admit it. And it integrates features that are actually features. E.g. Steam friends-chat is actually useful, unlike all other inter-game chat I've seen (on the PC). And the Steam store is such a boon. It makes me want to give game-devs money. As my disposable income has grown (massively), Steam was in the right place at the right time. Brick and mortar game stores don't exactly inspire loyalty. And I like the fact that digital distribution lowers intermediate costs, and I like the fact that I get a share of that savings with the crazy-deep-discount steam store sales. On the other hand, I can't remember the last time I interacted with DRM from another publisher without being afraid, and without paying a burden that actually was onerous. It messes with my router, or it turns out to be an exploitable rootkit, or it pops up inexplicable warnings, or it eats RAM, or I have to create an online account for one stupid game that I don't even know if I'll like yet, or... I agree with nlawalker.... getting us acclimatized as a precondition of playing Must Play games (online HL mods after 2003, HL2, Portal) was brilliant. Of course, if Valve in their wisdom were to decide my account was violating TOS, I'd be pretty boned.
- _delirium 14y ago
  A few people I know actually still had dialup when Steam first started becoming popular (in 2004, U.S. broadband penetration was only around 35-40%), and they found it pretty onerous to have to dial up every time they wanted to start a single-player, offline game. Less of an issue nowadays.
sgift 14y ago
Steam never had always online (obviously this excludes online games like TF2). Steam has (ignoring offline mode here to honor your statement that it was broken for years) "check at start", i.e. the moment the game starts you must be online. Nothing else. Always online is what Ubisoft tried with Assassins Creed 2, i.e. the game communicates all the time with the server and if the connection dies you cannot play anymore.

shocks 14y ago

You don't need to switch to offline mode while online anymore. If you start Steam with no internet access it'll just start in offline mode provided you have it set to remember your password and auto-login.

MartinCron 14y ago

As for the DRM... has it ever really been onerous? Steam's DRM is only offensive in theory. In practice, it works perfectly well for the vast majority of the users for the vast majority of the time.