Physical Steam Media

[H-Man]

Fallout 4 and DOOM are the main motivators of this thread, I suppose.

I suppose the effect Steam had on game development and accessibility cannot be understated. It cheapened things somewhat, it enables anyone with an internet access to have access to the games, and so on and so forth. But recently physical games are being sold that are strongly reliant on Steam - that is, you not only require Steam to play them, but the CD itself lacks most of the game content.

That, in itself, is an obstacle. It becomes worse if something goes wrong and you find yourself banned from Steam - because that means no access to your games, since you are only purchasing a license and not a product. It's like having a permanent rental of a car in my understanding; you've paid full price for a product that can be revoked at any time, unlike proper physical media.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?

 

[SEG-CISR]

There is an extended discussion on this at this reddit thread, and to be frank, I completely agree with you. I have never really liked Steam or such platforms, but they're what we have to use right now and there's no way around it. Valve has, again and again, promised to provide users with downloads/access to the games in the case of a company shutdown, but it's not legally-binding, which means I'm not counting on it. On the other hand, I want to play video games, so I'm still buying them. Because I'm a stupid, shortsighted animal, like everyone else.

 

[atlas_hugged]

If you don't like steam, Good Old Games provides DRM free copies of the games you buy through them. Their client, galaxy, provides a lot of the functionality of Steam, while also not requiring or using any sort of DRM.  GOG is a wonderful alternative to steam, if for some reason you don't like valve's policies regarding their client. Additionally, some games are available DRM free on HumbleBundle. There is also a very large open source gaming community.
Games have almost always been sold as licenses and not as products, if you read the fine print.  Steam hasn't changed that so much as made it enforceable. 
Steam has done enough real good things for me that I don't really care about the extremely hypothetical bad things.  They've promoted linux as a gaming platform. They've advanced or brought technology to the mainstream (such as in-home streaming), and they've sold me games for fractions of the cost it would take to get from Gamestop or similar, even if I only ever bought used from them.  The only actual bad thing I think Steam has done is made it impossible to trade or sell played PC games, like you can with a console.  But looking back on things before steam, I never did that anyways, so it's hard to care about.

 

[Yorae Rasante]

The thing is not about disliking steam though.

It is about buying physical copies and they being just mostly a key to download the steam game.

In fact, Steam is not the point. It is just an example. The thread is about Digital Copies, Steam is just the most popular.

 

[atlas_hugged]

The thing is not about disliking steam though.

It is about buying physical copies and they being just mostly a key to download the steam game.

In fact, Steam is not the point. It is just an example. The thread is about Digital Copies, Steam is just the most popular.

Physical media is cost prohibitive. I honestly don't think it will be around long for PCs at all, and it might even go the way of the dodo for consoles too.  Digital distribution is cheap.  Steam is just the most popular secure platform for digital distribution of games.  The reason I brought it up is that most of the concerns seemed to be related to steam, not any actual quirks of CDs and DVDs.  That's why if you are concerned, you should support GOG.  They're taking care of most of the concerns mentioned in this thread, while still being a digital delivery service.

 

[H-Man]

I'm fairly aware of GOG, yes.

I'm not against a full conversion to digital media so long as costs become more functional. Games costing 120 bucks [not dollars, I mean local prices] is fairly prohibitive when put in contrast with 5 bucks for actual trash and needs some better adjustments per se.

Steam's system, however, is a problem because Steam itself is a requirement to play. DOOM, as mentioned, is essentially being sold as a Steam product without any alternatives for PC, meaning that the physical version exists mostly for the sake of the limited edition itself with the statue, and if it had been a complete virtual release it would not be drawing out my irritation like this. I cannot go to the store to buy a copy of DOOM that will not force me to have a Steam account, as opposed to a copy of StarCraft back in the 00s where having access to Battle.net was not enforced by the system itself.

The only actual bad thing I think Steam has done is made it impossible to trade or sell played PC games, like you can with a console. But looking back on things before steam, I never did that anyways, so it's hard to care about.

This is very much an issue. Steam essentially forces you to pay money for extra copies for someone else to own. Being able to give those depending on the situation would be a lot more reasonable. [Certain restrictions like 'you must be a specific limited friendship level for X months', for instance.] It would not stop everyone from trying to game the system, but do you really think they aren't doing that now?

 

[shinzero01]

I'm fairly aware of GOG, yes.

I'm not against a full conversion to digital media so long as costs become more functional. Games costing 120 bucks [not dollars, I mean local prices] is fairly prohibitive when put in contrast with 5 bucks for actual trash and needs some better adjustments per se.

Steam's system, however, is a problem because Steam itself is a requirement to play. DOOM, as mentioned, is essentially being sold as a Steam product without any alternatives for PC, meaning that the physical version exists mostly for the sake of the limited edition itself with the statue, and if it had been a complete virtual release it would not be drawing out my irritation like this. I cannot go to the store to buy a copy of DOOM that will not force me to have a Steam account, as opposed to a copy of StarCraft back in the 00s where having access to Battle.net was not enforced by the system itself.

The only actual bad thing I think Steam has done is made it impossible to trade or sell played PC games, like you can with a console.  But looking back on things before steam, I never did that anyways, so it's hard to care about.

This is very much an issue. Steam essentially forces you to pay money for extra copies for someone else to own. Being able to give those depending on the situation would be a lot more reasonable. [Certain restrictions like 'you must be a specific limited friendship level for X months', for instance.] It would not stop everyone from trying to game the system, but do you really think they aren't doing that now?

The thing about digital PC games is that you can grab most of them for at least 20-30% under MSRP at launch if you go to websites like Green Man Gaming, who are authorized cd key sellers. The discounts get higher the more time passes. It kinda offsets the need to let people 'borrow' games. Particularly when you consider that the cost of a new game has usually been in the $50+ range since the Super Nintendo era. Though I remember games being around $75 on average in the N64 era.

 

[da_fox2279]

Steam's system, however, is a problem because Steam itself is a requirement to play. DOOM, as mentioned, is essentially being sold as a Steam product without any alternatives for PC, meaning that the physical version exists mostly for the sake of the limited edition itself with the statue, and if it had been a complete virtual release it would not be drawing out my irritation like this. I cannot go to the store to buy a copy of DOOM that will not force me to have a Steam account, as opposed to a copy of StarCraft back in the 00s where having access to Battle.net was not enforced by the system itself.

Okay, I was not aware of DOOM being like that. I thought it was like any PC game in the last few years: insert disk, play game. You want DLC, store it on your PC/ExHD.

I gotta agree here: making it a requirement to have a Steam account in order to play is BS, especially for a physical game-on-disk. It's one thing if you buy the game through Steam, or if it was a Steam exclusive; but it's not - PC, XB1, PS4. Do you need a MS / PS account to play the game on those systems?

Hell, do you need one to play any game on those systems? (Clearly, I am not a current-gen system owner.)

 

[PCHeintz72]

This development is of no surprise to me whatsoever.

This is actually a magnification of a problem that started with the onset of on-line gaming itself, it is a natural progression, and one of the primary reasons I got out of gaming.

A brief history of a progressing problem.

It used to be, you bought a game, as a single one time purchase, you got everything you needed for that game in a physical format you were responsible for... as long as you had the requisite console and hardware, you could play that game, be it 1 day, 1 month, 1 year, 10 year, or 25 years later. You could take that to a friends house, and as long as they had the same console, you could play.

Then you had games that were playable on a network, and gaming LAN parties were born... but the games themselves were still basically the same as prior, just with a LAN awareness for multiplayer, instead of merely a additional controller.

Then, you had the on-line gaming, still in its infancy, where you still got a physical media with initial purchase, but could play on-line as opposed to LAN, the game was in most cases at this stage playable without being on-line, but some functionality cut off. Playing on-line was a nominal monthly fee if using official servers, that when taken in context, was likely very lucrative to the gaming industry. Private servers existed and still do, but were/are not as well known.

Then, games came out you needed to be on-line for, or could not play at all... so accounts became required.

Then, the games purchased were not always entirely complete, updates, add on packs, were made available, as a sometimes additional cost item, and likewise bug fixes. This while did not close the door on private or free servers, severely hampered the appeal.

Then, they added buying enhancements/mods to that list, which not same as add on packs...

As you can see, the trend is toward games requiring more and more additional content, extra cost content, and accounts...

Thus, many games today will be worthless down the road when eventually the support drops, even if you have access to a console of same make... Why? Because you may no longer have or be allowed that account, you would not have access to bug fixes, patches, add-ons, and it would need to be able to go on line based on the protocols from its intro point, which prossibly changed.

 

[shinzero01]

Steam's system, however, is a problem because Steam itself is a requirement to play. DOOM, as mentioned, is essentially being sold as a Steam product without any alternatives for PC, meaning that the physical version exists mostly for the sake of the limited edition itself with the statue, and if it had been a complete virtual release it would not be drawing out my irritation like this. I cannot go to the store to buy a copy of DOOM that will not force me to have a Steam account, as opposed to a copy of StarCraft back in the 00s where having access to Battle.net was not enforced by the system itself.

Okay, I was not aware of DOOM being like that. I thought it was like any PC game in the last few years: insert disk, play game. You want DLC, store it on your PC/ExHD.

I gotta agree here: making it a requirement to have a Steam account in order to play is BS, especially for a physical game-on-disk. It's one thing if you buy the game through Steam, or if it was a Steam exclusive; but it's not - PC, XB1, PS4. Do you need a MS / PS account to play the game on those systems?

Hell, do you need one to play any game on those systems? (Clearly, I am not a current-gen system owner.)

Technically, yes. You need the console accounts to play online.
The PC version is also technically a Steam exclusive. It uses Steam as DRM.

A lot of developers use Steam for PC releases because it literally makes game development a lot easier. Steamworks handles online play, matchmaking, voice chat, and anti-cheating measures. Not to mention achievements, leaderboards, etc.  It's kinda like how nearly every FPS used to use Gamespy. It also lets developers automatically update, retrieve sale data, track & control regional sales, encrypt their physical media, and use cdkey authentication. Not to mention that Valve provides the distribution servers and handles all the bandwidth issues.

Basically at this point devs have more incentive to use a service like Steam to make their game more readily available and open to what has now become the standards of online play. No one really seems to notice just how much responsibility Valve takes on PC gaming as a whole while waiting for Half Life 3.
EA & Origin are getting close to providing the same service but it doesn't look like they handle as much of the online infrastructure for their games. Which leads to things like Battlefield's matchmaking issues (which also seems to be related to the Dice Engine).

 

[atlas_hugged]

I gotta agree here: making it a requirement to have a Steam account in order to play is BS, especially for a physical game-on-disk. It's one thing if you buy the game through Steam, or if it was a Steam exclusive; but it's not - PC, XB1, PS4. Do you need a MS / PS account to play the game on those systems?

Hell, do you need one to play any game on those systems? (Clearly, I am not a current-gen system owner.)

I still can't see it as bullshit.  Game companies want some form of DRM for their PC products.  Rather than choose something obnoxious like the now defunct GFWL, something malicious like those old DRM rootkits, they use Steam, the only form of DRM that isn't annoying, and also adds a ton of neat features.  To me, Steam requirements represent the most effective compromise between the developer's goal of protecting their product from piracy, and my goal of getting to play the game with no inconvenience. 

Ideally everything would be released DRM free on GoG or something.  But if a publisher has to choose some DRM, then I'd rather they go with Steam, the least annoying alternative, than something like Origins: Spyware edition or worse.


Now what really grinds my gears is when I order a game on steam and it comes with mandatory accounts to other services.  Ubisoft is pretty bad for this.  Seems to me that Ubisoft relied on GFWL until it was defunct, then just reskinned GFWL and slapped the new version onto everything.

 

[shinzero01]

I gotta agree here: making it a requirement to have a Steam account in order to play is BS, especially for a physical game-on-disk. It's one thing if you buy the game through Steam, or if it was a Steam exclusive; but it's not - PC, XB1, PS4. Do you need a MS / PS account to play the game on those systems?

Hell, do you need one to play any game on those systems? (Clearly, I am not a current-gen system owner.)

I still can't see it as bullshit.  Game companies want some form of DRM for their PC products.  Rather than choose something obnoxious like the now defunct GFWL, something malicious like those old DRM rootkits, they use Steam, the only form of DRM that isn't annoying, and also adds a ton of neat features.  To me, Steam requirements represent the most effective compromise between the developer's goal of protecting their product from piracy, and my goal of getting to play the game with no inconvenience. 

Ideally everything would be released DRM free on GoG or something.  But if a publisher has to choose some DRM, then I'd rather they go with Steam, the least annoying alternative, than something like Origins: Spyware edition or worse.


Now what really grinds my gears is when I order a game on steam and it comes with mandatory accounts to other services.  Ubisoft is pretty bad for this.  Seems to me that Ubisoft relied on GFWL until it was defunct, then just reskinned GFWL and slapped the new version onto everything.

Sadly, GWFL was great in concept but executed very poorly. Like Microsoft's Zune mp3 player that had horrible software but great hardware.
Ubisoft though... theirs is the only mandatory platform I hate.

 

[Christopher Robin]

At least Ubisoft still sells games through Steam, even if you still have to use Uplay. EA wants to promote Origins so much they didn't even sell ME3 or DAI on Steam.

 

[shinzero01]

At least Ubisoft still sells games through Steam, even if you still have to use Uplay.  EA wants to promote Origins so much they didn't even sell ME3 or DAI on Steam.

Supposedly EA didn't like Steam's DLC practices. Which I think basically came down to them not being happy with whatever deal they cut w/ Valve in Steam's early days.

Oh and them making all the money from Origin rather than paying someone else.