PDA

View Full Version : What I think Steam needs more of!


bRownies_21
01-07-2010, 06:49 PM
I think steam needs more games that REQUIRE to download and use steam, like all valve games, and COD MW 2. I think this would be amazing, and greatly enlarge the community bringing all types of players and would help improve PC gaming all together :D

Justin K.
01-07-2010, 06:52 PM
Yeah, that's the one step MW2 took in the right way ;/

Rossco
01-07-2010, 06:56 PM
Yeah, that's the one step MW2 took in the right way ;/

One step forward and 12 steps back.

They only did it because any DRM/anti-cheat they tried to implement was completely ineffective.

I agree, more games should drop SecuROM etc and just use Steam, it makes it so much easier for the customer.

sypros
01-07-2010, 06:56 PM
Yeah, that's the one step MW2 took in the right way ;/

It did because Steam is Pc gaming.

MovieMan999
01-07-2010, 08:24 PM
I don't entirely agree with this. The idea that Steam is easier and more convenient is our opinion. We enjoy the software and think it should be expanded as much as possible. Others may not feel this way.
When you start forcing people to use a program they don't desire to use, that's when your reputation begins to fall. Some people might rather have loads of SecuROM crap instead of requiring Steam. If Steam were to force people to use Steam it's no better than GFWL.

{Yotsuba}
01-07-2010, 08:48 PM
I personally don't agree with this at all. But then I expect most wouldn't when they find that games requiring Steamworks can be completely IP blocked from being used in your country at the whim of some idiot who thinks you shouldn't be able to play a game simply because of where you live.

psychodude
01-07-2010, 10:59 PM
As long as punishments such as VAC bans or account disabling effecting all games are there, I don't think many will be wanting to be placing too much faith in putting all their games on steam. Considering they lose ownership of the game, but are just having a temp license to use from Steam.

The moment steam changes things towards game based ownership, no game affecting another, it'll have better chances.

Edit: And added to that, regardless of what Steam does to your game on such a thing, singleplayer should always remain playable.

Only with that guaranteed I'd be for as many games as possible integrating steamworks.

Rossco
01-07-2010, 11:08 PM
As long as punishments such as VAC bans or account disabling effecting all games are there, I don't think many will be wanting to be placing too much faith in putting all their games on steam. Considering they lose ownership of the game, but are just having a temp license to use from Steam.

The moment steam changes things towards game based ownership, no game affecting another, it'll have better chances.

Edit: And added to that, regardless of what Steam does to your game on such a thing, singleplayer should always remain playable.

Only with that guaranteed I'd be for as many games as possible integrating steamworks.

They don't lose ownership of the game. They're just blocked from connecting to servers with that use the same engine. They can still connect to Non-VAC servers and play the single player mode if it's supported.

I think VAC banning is pretty lenient. No matter how much cheating you do, you can always connect to servers that don't have VAC. You keep all the games on your Steam account and you can play them whenever you want.

{Yotsuba}
01-07-2010, 11:36 PM
They don't lose ownership of the game.

Not for cheating no, but what if you purchase a game over the Steam store and you bank/credit card company then makes an error resulting in an unauthorised charge back? You'll lose all your games then. You may think that the chances of this happening are slim and that it will be easily resolved, but going by the reports of recent experiences from others this may not be the case.

Once such example is a guy over on the GOG forums who lost access to his account for several months due to the actions of his bank/credit card company. And another example was detailed in a recent topic on these forums, where the that person still hasn't gotten their account back because their bank refuses to reverse the charge back.

So yes, there really is a need for Valve to stop this current account disabling practice of theirs.

Rossco
01-07-2010, 11:46 PM
That is very unfortunate, but most of these are isolated cases. If it's the banks fault, chances are it's a either a mistake or illegal practice, both of which can be resolved with some effort. If it can't, you can take your complaint straight to the top. Most banks deal with millions of transactions daily though, so most of the time it's the user's fault.

If you initiate a chargeback, Steam has every right to close your account indefinitely as you've broken the terms of the SSA. If you've not got enough money on the account or you're going into your overdraft or something like that, that's also the user's fault. It would be no different if you were buying something IRL.

{Yotsuba}
01-07-2010, 11:55 PM
If you initiate a chargeback

But that's the point isn't it. It's not the user initiating the charge back in either of these cases. It's someone at either the bank/credit card company. And if the bank/credit card company refuses to comply with your request, you've lost your Steam account permanently or for a very long period through no fault of your own. What Valve and any decent company should do in such cases is remove access to the effected games. Not the entire account regardless of who is at fault.

bippukt
01-07-2010, 11:59 PM
It would be no different if you were buying something IRL.

How can you make that assertion with a straight face? It is so wrong...:confused:

sweetbeard
01-08-2010, 12:04 AM
I am not really sure how CODMW2 did it.. but I sure wish borderlands did it... whatever it is!

minerva79
01-08-2010, 12:10 AM
Steam should have more games. There are still a lot of indie publishers not on Steam yet and they would benefit by getting involved here. Also, I really wish to see Stardock games on Steam. I really really wish to get GalCiv on Steam. :P

ninjaz1337
01-08-2010, 12:14 AM
It's like you guys are asking for a monopoly.
You really want Valve to get sued?

Rossco
01-08-2010, 12:15 AM
How can you make that assertion with a straight face? It is so wrong...:confused:

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying if you bought a recurring service IRL and you initiated a chargeback or something that halted the payment for the service, the service would continue because they trust you to pay them eventually?

Rebel44
01-08-2010, 12:16 AM
If you initiate a chargeback

But that's the point isn't it. It's not the user initiating the charge back in either of these cases. It's someone at either the bank/credit card company. And if the bank/credit card company refuses to comply with your request, you've lost your Steam account permanently or for a very long period through no fault of your own. What Valve and any decent company should do in such cases is remove access to the effected games. Not the entire account regardless of who is at fault.

If that happened I would give bank 2 weeks to resolve it - if its not resolved in 2 weeks I would sue bank for damages, my time, lawer expenses etc. = ♥♥♥♥load of money(and it would be easy to win such lawsuit because where I live such unauthorized action of bank is illegal).

minerva79
01-08-2010, 12:21 AM
It's like you guys are asking for a monopoly.
You really want Valve to get sued?

Stardock runs its own distribution. They also supported developers for their games.

EA runs its own distribution. They also supported developers for their games.

I mean, what's preventing Stardock to actually allow their title to be on Steam, and still continue on with Impulse? It's like there's anything wrong at the moment for EA to allow their title on Steam and running their distribution store at the same time. It's perfectly legit. How would that even be illegal?

bippukt
01-08-2010, 01:11 AM
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying if you bought a recurring service IRL and you initiated a chargeback or something that halted the payment for the service, the service would continue because they trust you to pay them eventually?

If I bought a game on retail and there was a payment dispute, the store won't come to my home and take away my DVDs. Obviously, the payment dispute would need to be resolved or else a case might be filed, but it is not like they can pull the rug from under my feet.

For recurring subsceription payment obviously you will be barred, but we are comparing games here, not club memberships.

Throstle
01-08-2010, 01:24 AM
I bought Prey from an online vendor many years ago! Back when the Great Buffalo roamed the field of gold. The pale face that sold me the great game of Prey took my money online and went down into the great hole and was never seen again. The Great Steam Engine came steaming across the prairie from a East. The man who smiles a lot said, he would give me my sacred game of Prey for Free, and I should not fear the online winds from the East. I took his offer and was glad. Yet the great buffalo spirit made me wonder if ever The Great Steam were to grow old and weather as we all must, if our sacred Prey, or what every your games may be might go down the great hole too.

chopstix
01-08-2010, 01:59 AM
Stardock runs its own distribution. They also supported developers for their games.

EA runs its own distribution. They also supported developers for their games.

I mean, what's preventing Stardock to actually allow their title to be on Steam, and still continue on with Impulse? It's like there's anything wrong at the moment for EA to allow their title on Steam and running their distribution store at the same time. It's perfectly legit. How would that even be illegal?

EA and Steam are partners, as EA distributes Valve created titles, and Valve puts EA products on their store. Considering their close partnership, it seems to make sense.

As for Stardock, no way to know. Many services are now refusing to carry Steamworks titles. It could be possible Valve work the same way, and do not want to carry titles that would bring a competitor storefront to light (Demigod requires Impulse I believe?). Or it simply could be Stardock wants to keep what few exclusives they have (their own games) in hopes to attract customers.

My personal guess is, Steam violates Stardock's self created "Gamers Bill of Rights," and thus won't support it. Just speculation though, who knows.

{Yotsuba}
01-08-2010, 02:13 AM
Demigod requires Impulse I believe?)

Demigod and all other Impulse titles only require access to the Impulse client during installation and patching. And unlike Steam, the store front in that client also isn't the default window -- your product/game list is. And it's the fact that Steam defaults to the store window while also requiring the client to be running in order to even play, which is causing concern for other distributors.

minerva79
01-08-2010, 02:20 AM
Demigod requires Impulse I believe?)

Demigod and all other Impulse titles only require access to the Impulse client during installation and patching. And unlike Steam, the store front in that client also isn't the default window -- your product/game list is. And it's the fact that Steam defaults to the store window while also requiring the client to be running in order to even play, which is causing concern for other distributors.

What sort of concerns may that be?

Flame
01-08-2010, 02:28 AM
And it's the fact that Steam defaults to the store window while also requiring the client to be running in order to even play, which is causing concern for other distributors.
You can go into Settings-> Interface and change your Favorite Window to Games, Friends, or Community by the way. Same goes for the pop-up advert, you can disable it there as well.
Although, yes the default settings are the store page with the pop-up enabled and that's probably not something most users want.

{Yotsuba}
01-08-2010, 02:34 AM
You can go into Settings-> Interface and change your Favorite Window to Games, Friends, or Community by the way.

Yes I know you can change it, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's the default setting and most users never bother checking options to change it.

What sort of concerns may that be?

Basically, that they are giving a competitor direct access to their own customers and the fact that Steamworks enabled games require a third party client to run. It's pretty much these reasons why Direct2Drive, GamersGate and Impluse now refuse to sell games that have Steamworks in them. It's also why the version of King Arthur on those sites is single player only (they've had the Steamworks enabled muliplayer portion stripped out).

StingingVelvet
01-08-2010, 04:14 AM
I think steam needs more games that REQUIRE to download and use steam, like all valve games, and COD MW 2. I think this would be amazing, and greatly enlarge the community bringing all types of players and would help improve PC gaming all together :D

So... you want to force even more people to use Steam whether they like it or not?

Ok then.

Personally I like having a choice.

dannythefool
01-08-2010, 04:18 AM
It would be nice to leave the choice to the users. I'd appreciate if I could buy a boxed game in a retail store, then activate it on Steam and never have to install from disc again, and not have to bother with any other DRM ever. The only game I own that allowed this is Saint's Row II, but there it's forced upon people who don't actually want Steam. I don't think forcing anyone to use Steam is such a great idea, but I'd really love to have the option...

psychodude
01-08-2010, 11:16 AM
If that happened I would give bank 2 weeks to resolve it - if its not resolved in 2 weeks I would sue bank for damages, my time, lawer expenses etc. = ♥♥♥♥load of money(and it would be easy to win such lawsuit because where I live such unauthorized action of bank is illegal).

And how long do you think that takes? And how many people do you think can afford to take these steps?

You have to pay your lawyer initially, and chances are the bank has more money to hire more expensive lawyers, giving them a better chance in many cases. Still, even if you have a good chance, it takes months before crap like this is settled in court. Sometimes even years.

And should there really be a need for it? Sure, your bank might be at wrong, but Valve's 0-tolerance bull♥♥♥♥ in the end is what messes you over.

I'd be more pissed at Valve than at my bank in an occasion like that; customer is king is something we say here. However that just doesn't apply the moment the company places you as customer as the one in wrong, rather than any bank, company, retailer, whatever in the middle.



A more appropriate and customer friendly course of action imho would be to give you as customer the following option in case whatever is messed up with one of your items:
- Ditch the item from your account and have it done with
- Give you the opportunity to repurchase your item

It might be me, but it sounds like a very customer friendly resolve in my ears whilst you can resolve the underlying issue with your bank, retailer, whatever other company in the middle.

And only in case things repeatedly would be suspicious on your account I think it's time for Valve to begin looking at alternative approaches to said account.