rampantandroid
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,962
When compared to 10 years ago you just downloaded the maps from the server or DLed them ahead of time - exactly. They took something previously free and charged money for it.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
steam pwns other game companies yet again
- Thread starter jiminator
- Start date
When compared to 10 years ago you just downloaded the maps from the server or DLed them ahead of time - exactly. They took something previously free and charged money for it.
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
Actually no your not. I haven't touched them in BLOPS and just a handful have in my clan. We haven't had any issues playing. Your not forced to buy anything, a clan member didn't have any mappacks for MW2 and it was fine there as well.
Also for CoD4 and WaW if I remember Nvidia payed them so they would be free for us. Console gamers had to pay the map packs, so they technically weren't free. You were just lucky that Nvidia gave a shit about gamers back then.
jojo69
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2009
- Messages
- 11,267
I thought steam was a virus...sure acts like one
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,594
My opinion in general as well. I don't have anything against Steam or Valve, I use and enjoy their products and services, but I feel the need to point out double standards. Valve and Steam are not perfect, they have many faults and areas in which they can improve, even when compared to their competitors.
If you are a fan and want to continue enjoying their products and services, you should be willingly to recognize these faults and want improvements. That is the difference from a fan boy, who just glosses over issues and applies double standards and fails to (or is unwilling to) actually critically and rationally analyze things.
You do realize that they are two 100% completely different systems right? You have to see that
Nothing wrong with not liking Steam or prefering another DD system, but in general, most of the stuff you post regarding Steam is also wrong or flat out a blatant lie, like your post above. The new "online pass" costs you 10.00 after you've already bought the game. Steam doesn't charge you twice to play online, you can thank Ubisoft, EA, and Activision for that. As far as Steam "locking" down a game so you can't resell it, I understand that is a problem for many, but I still have pretty much every game I've ever owned going back to my C64 days. I never saw it as a problem and never understood the mentality of selling one's old games. I wouldn't be amiss for DD sites allowing you to sell off old games, but just because Steam doesn't let you do this doesn't make them evil.
Tit for tat, Steam isn't perfect and I know that, but atm it is the best all in one DD solution out there and they continually upgrade and advance their systems and do more for PC gamers than most every other site out there. D2D and GoG is top notch in their content delivery for stripping out DRM or making old classics available for PC gamers on modern systems. Those systems are the ones I prefer to use, currently as it stands many of the others are either shoddily implemented, too restrictive, or simply just lacking in overall content or features.
Valshistixol
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,809
Well at least I can trade my soldier medal for a few games I guess.
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,594
You do realize that they are two 100% completely different systems right? You have to see that
Nothing wrong with not liking Steam or prefering another DD system, but in general, most of the stuff you post regarding Steam is also wrong or flat out a blatant lie, like your post above. The new "online pass" costs you 10.00 after you've already bought the game. Steam doesn't charge you twice to play online, you can thank Ubisoft, EA, and Activision for that. As far as Steam "locking" down a game so you can't resell it, I understand that is a problem for many, but I still have pretty much every game I've ever owned going back to my C64 days. I never saw it as a problem and never understood the mentality of selling one's old games. I wouldn't be amiss for DD sites allowing you to sell off old games, but just because Steam doesn't let you do this doesn't make them evil.
The online pass is a system designed to discourage second hand sales and transfer of ownership, you do not need to pay extra for an online pass if you buy the game new. The reason it was implemented, and even according the comic, is because second handle sales do no generate any revenue for the original content producer. Valve making games account tied to Steam completely blocks the option to transfer ownership even for single player games.
Either you don't care about being able to transfer ownership of games you buy, like you mention, in that case neither system should affect you. If you do care, than Valve's system should be viewed as worse, since it completely prevents you from doing so.
Please explain where I am wrong?
The comic specifically mentions "used game sales" which companies charge you extra for the online pass in regards to purchasing a "used game". So basically once you buy a used game, you also have to pay an additional fee on top of the purchase price to take full advantage of the game. Honestly, I think that sucks but understand why companies would try and reap some profit from used game sales. Steam isn't any worse than any other DD site since they prohibit you from selling games you've purchased through their sites. While I probably wouldn't take advantage of selling my PC games I don't see nothing wrong with a DD site trying it out as it gives gamers more options and freedoms to their own games.
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,594
My point isn't about whether Steam is better or worse, nor am I debating the issue of being able to transfer ownership of games (reselling). For this issue specifically, both are done simply to limit this, where one gives you the option to transfer at a cost and the other prevents it completely. The issue I have is it is a pretty blatant double standard if you think one is unethical over the other.
The comic is poking fun at companies trying to maximize profits by controlling second hand sales. Is this not what linking games to Steam inherently does as well, and even more so?
If you are of the view that limitations of being able to transfer ownership of games you own is not an issue, then you shouldn't find a problem with either method of doing so. If you do find it an issue, then you should have a problem with either method of doing so.
But how can you say having the option to pay to transfer a game license is somehow "evil" while linking a game license permanently to an account is not?
eh, I know it is against the crowd, but I don't think there should be sales or transfer of "used" games. The entire concept is silly to me, that you can have a full gaming experience then give the game to someone else so they can have a full gaming experience and repeat forever. Yeah, you can complain about greedy kotick and so forth, but reality is many game companies are suffering. Lets take away more money from them, then watch sequels for your favorite games get shitcanned.
All of the major gaming companies were tying keys to accounts long before Steam was coded, much less released. Stores had already ceased allowing video game returns and used PC buybacks. It was already irrelevant to what I'd consider rational people given that you got pennies on the dollar for used games, but I suppose if trading a $40 dollar game in for $5 dollars credit was your idea of a good deal then sorry for your loss.
rampantandroid pointed out a so-called double standard--except he left off the fact that the complaint wasn't that Valve was miffed about having to release DLC to the player base via LIVE, no it was that they couldn't do it for free. Interesting way to spin the reality into an anti-Valve talking point...
ironcross for some reason doesn't comprehend the distinction between a company charging for maps and a company allowing its players to charge for hats within the game's infrastructure. first of all, plenty of steam users are upset at valve for introducing the hat system. secondly, if players could design maps and sell them for COD no one would give a rats ass. And I'm fairly certain most wouldn't care if they simply sold them to the players. But that's a huge difference from selling content and simultaneously locking the game down to make it impossible for players to create and exchange what they want for free--which is a more accurate portrayal of the complaints levied against Activision.
rampantandroid
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,962
And I don't accept that. Plenty of games give me content for free on live. I also remember him complaining about Live's certification process being too picky (anyone remember how buggy TF2 was back in the day? I lost count of how many game crippling bugs there were.)
oh ok, well I don't have an xbox so I can't argue with you. I can only say I've never heard of any of those games (and you didn't bother listing any for reasons only you know). If it's a grand conspiracy then THQ/Relic and Rockstar are in on it, too since they made the same claims.
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,594
What major single player games were account tied preventing transferring your copy to another person before 2003?
What major multiplayer games locked your cd-key to an account and not the install prior to 2003?
Also your missing the point entirely with your latter comments. The issue being debated isn't whether or not you should be able to transfer game licenses. The issue being debated is why other companies are perceived as being "evil" and called out for putting barriers in place to prevent this, while Valve is not? This is an example of a double standard.
Either you have no issues with this, and so all companies should get a pass. Or you need to hold them all to the same standard on this issue. Calling out 1 company for charging $10 to transfer a game license while letting another company get a pass for not allowing this at all seems like a double standard to me, explain how I am wrong here.
D
Deleted member 88227
Guest
+1 MILLION
I'd also like to be able to buy multiple copies of a game (especially when it's on sale) so I can give them as gifts to my friends who don't have the game for their birthdays or Christmas gifts DURING their birthday or Christmas.
? Why would they now be able to ban them without being hypocrites?
Amusing how negative people become even for things that have no real impact on them.
Question #1: I don't find it fun when someone moves the goalposts on me.
Question #2: I personally consider Blizzard and Microsoft to be "major." If you're looking for titles the ones off the top of my head were: WarCraft, StarCraft, WoW was released after 2003, but clearly it wasn't a *response* to Valve's move...don't know if you think it'd be fair to list all prior MMO's from other "lesser" developers/studios, the AoE series...would you consider online keys and Gamespy accounts to be infringements? If so, Ubi should be in that list.
Unless you want to say that the Steam ToS barring people from selling accounts is substantively different from online keys with similar ToS restrictions from reselling your account then it's difficult to lay the blame at Valve's feet in my opinion.
You might be pleased to know that you can (and always could) purchase a game and email it to an address you control and gift the game(s) later at your discretion?
Hornet
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 6,624
Gifting games is one thing, but why would any digital distributors want to allow their customers to trade games, especially if its been used? No any gaming company would want to sell their games on Steam if Steam allows everyone to trade their games after they've played it.
calebb
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2000
- Messages
- 8,758
A lot of games were. This started back in the mid to late 90's.
It isn't the same at all. Pc games are not allowed to be resold from DD accounts. Console games are. If you purchase a used game then there is an additional fee allowing the publisher to recoup some margin of a lost sale. Pc games sold through DD sites are expressly barred from being resold because they are tied to an account you setup. Preferably your own personal account. It has been this way for many years and all DD sites follow this setup. Faulting steam for this but not the others is a double standard; comparing used game / second hand sales of console games that have an online pass to buying a brand new PC title from a DD site is not the same thing nor is it a double standard.
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,594
How were the goal posts moved? The issue involves linking access to a game (or features) permanently to ones account, preventing the transfer of ownership, and why are some companies are criticized for this and not others?
1) Companies only granting a 1 time use online key per game license sold tied to an account. This means in order to transfer your game license you need to pay extra for a new license.
2) Valve and Steam grant a 1 time use key locking your game to an account and provide no options to transfer it. This applies to both single and multiplayer. This is a barrier from transferring your game license to another party.
How can you have moral objections to one but not the other? The both prevent the same thing. Either you have no problems with both, or problems with both, explain how anything else is a double standard?
Starcraft did not tie cdkeys to accounts, the key was tied to the install. The cd-key also was only important for multiplayer functionality, unless this was later hard patched in? I must've stopped playing by then. Warcraft 3 I can't be 100% sure about (since I wasn't a fan of the game), but I'm pretty sure it used the same system. SC2 as far as I know is the first nonMMO by Blizzard to link the key you buy to an account.
WoW like you mentioned was released after Steam. My original statement was that Valve was one of the first major publishers to tie a cdkey to an account, even the single player component, and that it may have been the first. Whether or not it was influential in the industry adopting this practice is debatable, but not the subject of this debate.
Also I'm not sure how WoW game licenses and keys work as I've never played it. It is also a MMO, which was has consistently had different limitations placed upon it due to the game model. On another note, Blizzard is also a game company that does receive a fair amount of immunity to criticism (similar to Valve).
I'm not sure what specific Microsoft game had keys tied to an account, whether single player or multiplayer.
Again this is missing the point. First off gifting is not even anywhere near the discussion. It was about being about transferring ownership of games you already own and played. Secondly it isn't even about whether or not you should be able to do this, but how you can have a double standard of accepting some game companies from putting barriers in preventing this and not others.
Your automatically assuming I have a stance of wanting the ability to freely transfer the ownership of games, when I haven't even said what my view on this is. But for this discussion your view on it shouldn't matter. The whole point is you should have a consistent opinion on companies stances towards this issue.
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,594
What are examples of this? I cannot think of single player games utilizing accounts or cdkeys. Games with multplayer games had cdkeys linked to your install, not some central account along with all your other games. For instance using Starcraft, since that was brought up, I could freely give my copy/sell or whatever to a friend along with the cdkey.
You cannot do this with online passes being instituted without giving away your entire account. Nor can you do this if the game is linked permanently to your account either without giving away your entire account.
This is has nothing to do with DD sales, Valve games are sold retail as well. Many games requiring being linked to Steam are sold retail as well. You could freely transfer the ownership of PC games bought retail in the past. For instance we can compare Half-Life with Half-Life 2. If you wanted to sell/loan/give away your copy of each to a friend what are the implications?
The argument is really this. If you don't care about the ability to freely transfer ownership of games you purchase, then there is no need to be critical of any companies efforts to prevent this. If you do care about the ability to freely transfer ownership of games you purchase, why be critical of some companies adopting a stance against this and not others?
@limitedaccess
you may not have noticed, perhaps you're answering from your phone, but my response was to someone else who specifically lamented the fact that he can't purchase and gift games he already owns. So while it may not be an important factor to you, my directions on how to achieve that was for him and within the purview of this thread.
I mentioned that I felt you had moved the goalposts by originally stating that Valve was the first major gaming company to tie an account to a cdkey. It's only later that you are limiting your analysis to single player games. Your actual claim should be that *your* exposure to this was first initiated by Valve, not that they were the first to implement it. WoW is an interesting counter-point because clearly Blizzard already had the infrastructure to do this, they also had it coded in their most popular game before HL went live, they had it in their roadmap for years prior to HL, and WoW affects gamers by a few orders of magnitude greater than all of Valve's customer base. There isn't much reason to belabor the point, more than myself have pointed out to you a number of games in the mid-90's were already linking accounts to cdkeys. Whether you had exposure to them or not is immaterial.
As to your bottom line: do you see me being critical of any company for limiting the ability to transfer one's games?
you may not have noticed, perhaps you're answering from your phone, but my response was to someone else who specifically lamented the fact that he can't purchase and gift games he already owns. So while it may not be an important factor to you, my directions on how to achieve that was for him and within the purview of this thread.
I mentioned that I felt you had moved the goalposts by originally stating that Valve was the first major gaming company to tie an account to a cdkey. It's only later that you are limiting your analysis to single player games. Your actual claim should be that *your* exposure to this was first initiated by Valve, not that they were the first to implement it. WoW is an interesting counter-point because clearly Blizzard already had the infrastructure to do this, they also had it coded in their most popular game before HL went live, they had it in their roadmap for years prior to HL, and WoW affects gamers by a few orders of magnitude greater than all of Valve's customer base. There isn't much reason to belabor the point, more than myself have pointed out to you a number of games in the mid-90's were already linking accounts to cdkeys. Whether you had exposure to them or not is immaterial.
As to your bottom line: do you see me being critical of any company for limiting the ability to transfer one's games?
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,594
I will admit I took the context of that portion of your response wrong.
I still don't see how I was moving the goal posts. The entire discussion is about barriers in place to prevent transfer of ownership. And the specific method being discussed is linking a game (or features of that game) to an overall account, since you do not want to give away your entire account.
You can look back at my posts, I've never claimed definitively that Valve was the first major company to do, only that it was one of the first and might have been the first. Also you've still not mentioned an earlier example of this. I already explained why your example of Starcraft is not the same thing, Half-Life 1 also used a cdkey system before Steam. Except before the advent of Steam these keys were tied into your game install. When you bought Half-Life 1, I could give it away along with the cdkey after playing it for a month. If you bought Half-life 2 could you do so without giving away your entire account?
What are these specific examples of games being permanently linked to an account in a way that prevents you from transferring ownership?
Regardless, that isn't even all that important. The main point is various game companies implement measures to prevent the transfer of ownership. Either you should be against them all due to this policy, or none of them, not selectively picking which ones you agree and disagree with based on favoritism or hate towards one.
I'm not commenting on you specifically. I'm commenting on the attitude itself of forming different opinions on companies that are doing the same thing. If you have no issue with any company doing this, then that is fair and not the problem I am discussing. The same would apply if you take issue with every company doing this.
I still don't see how I was moving the goal posts. The entire discussion is about barriers in place to prevent transfer of ownership. And the specific method being discussed is linking a game (or features of that game) to an overall account, since you do not want to give away your entire account.
You can look back at my posts, I've never claimed definitively that Valve was the first major company to do, only that it was one of the first and might have been the first. Also you've still not mentioned an earlier example of this. I already explained why your example of Starcraft is not the same thing, Half-Life 1 also used a cdkey system before Steam. Except before the advent of Steam these keys were tied into your game install. When you bought Half-Life 1, I could give it away along with the cdkey after playing it for a month. If you bought Half-life 2 could you do so without giving away your entire account?
What are these specific examples of games being permanently linked to an account in a way that prevents you from transferring ownership?
Regardless, that isn't even all that important. The main point is various game companies implement measures to prevent the transfer of ownership. Either you should be against them all due to this policy, or none of them, not selectively picking which ones you agree and disagree with based on favoritism or hate towards one.
I'm not commenting on you specifically. I'm commenting on the attitude itself of forming different opinions on companies that are doing the same thing. If you have no issue with any company doing this, then that is fair and not the problem I am discussing. The same would apply if you take issue with every company doing this.