Steam question

[Eiolon]

I am new to Steam and am debating if I want to use it to get a game or not. If I buy a game and install it, can I re-download it at any time without paying again? I only have a 128GB on my SSD (60GB free) so I will eventually need to get a larger drive. I didn't know if it acted like iTunes where I can only download my stuff once.

 

[dremic]

I am new to Steam and am debating if I want to use it to get a game or not. If I buy a game and install it, can I re-download it at any time without paying again? I only have a 128GB on my SSD (60GB free) so I will eventually need to get a larger drive. I didn't know if it acted like iTunes where I can only download my stuff once.

games are attached to your steam account. when you buy a game via steam that steam account will always have it and you can always download it

 

[DeathPrincess]

Once bought you can redownload a game as many times as you want and install it on 2045460 computers if you so wish.

One tiiny issue is if the game developer chooses to use third party DRM like SecuROM, which only allows 5 installs, but you can email the developer and get more, and it's only on about 5 games...

 

[Forceman]

Once bought you can redownload a game as many times as you want and install it on 2045460 computers if you so wish.

Unless the game uses a third-party DRM system which limits it. The store page will say if it does though, so at least you'll know ahead of time.

 

[DeathPrincess]

Unless the game uses a third-party DRM system which limits it. The store page will say if it does though, so at least you'll know ahead of time.

NinjaEd!

 

[Deleted member 232162]

If you want to think of it like a virtual shelf for all your games, that's pretty much what it is. Instead of having the physical boxes, you have virtual ones.

 

[Eiolon]

Great, thanks everyone

 

[wabbitseason]

Steam is an intrusive service that sells you the license to play a game, and not ownership of the game itself. Be sure you understand that critical distinction. They can terminate that license at any moment of their choosing and you will have absolutely no recourse. If you wish to own your games and use them as you see fit, avoid Steam and all other forms of required malware bundled with them.

 

[dremic]

Steam is an intrusive service that sells you the license to play a game, and not ownership of the game itself. Be sure you understand that critical distinction. They can terminate that license at any moment of their choosing and you will have absolutely no recourse. If you wish to own your games and use them as you see fit, avoid Steam and all other forms of required malware bundled with them.

I'll think I'll take the risk. over 7 years of use and this has never happened to me. Not only that but before steam I often had to repurchase games because I lost the cdkey.

 

[Eiolon]

Steam is an intrusive service that sells you the license to play a game, and not ownership of the game itself. Be sure you understand that critical distinction. They can terminate that license at any moment of their choosing and you will have absolutely no recourse. If you wish to own your games and use them as you see fit, avoid Steam and all other forms of required malware bundled with them.

LOL - I used to fear that but now that the entire industry is going in that direction (or with another type of license instead of ownership DRM) I don't really have an option.

Besides, don't most games come with a product key that has to be activated server-side? I mean, even Microsoft could ban my Windows 7 key at any moment even though I have the physical media and a receipt saying I paid for it.

 

[Forceman]

Steam is an intrusive service that sells you the license to play a game, and not ownership of the game itself. Be sure you understand that critical distinction. They can terminate that license at any moment of their choosing and you will have absolutely no recourse. If you wish to own your games and use them as you see fit, avoid Steam and all other forms of required malware bundled with them.

All true, but everyone else has the same system now, so it isn't like it really matters that much. How many big-name games don't have online authentication nowadays?

 

[teh_chem]

Steam is an intrusive service that sells you the license to play a game, and not ownership of the game itself. Be sure you understand that critical distinction. They can terminate that license at any moment of their choosing and you will have absolutely no recourse. If you wish to own your games and use them as you see fit, avoid Steam and all other forms of required malware bundled with them.

You NEVER actually "buy" a game--you ONLY ever buy a license to use/play a game--whether or not it comes on a physical disc or via a download through Steam. The steam service is DRM like any other form, only better-implemented a lot of the time. If a developer/publisher implements their own DRM (as most do), and decide to unilaterally terminate your license (if they're idiots), you'd be in the same boat--whether or not you use steam.

Besides, unless it went out of business, why would steam want to kill your game? What would they gain? People have spoken rumors of the "what if" scenario that steam (for whatever reason) shuts down, that they'd likely issue a patch to allow you to play your games "offline" indefinitely. That's a rumor--never confirmed by any official steam statement ever. But really, what would it gain steam to arbitrarily kill your ability to play your games in a "what if" scenario? Nothing, so the silly what-if scenarios are just dumb little stories that conspiracy-theory-prone people love to latch on to.

OP, I've used steam almost exclusively for the past 6-ish years, and I've never had any problems whatsoever. Unlike most other drm-related and digital-distribution systems, steam is always prompt and fast and they're very secure. Not to mention very fast with updates and patches. I've found the advantages of being able to re-download any game I purchase on there (as opposed to having piles and piles of CDs and DVDs that can potentially break/get scratch, or you lose the product key for) far outweigh the hypothetical "what if they shut down" question. Unless they've got some crackpot idea, more than likely steam (or its next iteration) will exist far longer than you'll be playing your games for.

 

[teh_chem]

Last point--it's no different than if Microsoft were to go out of business--you'd be unable to authenticate your copy of Windows 7. Why not stop using Windows for the exact same reason too?

 

[PrincessFrosty]

comment deleted -Oldie

It's not nonsense.

Digital media is protected by copyright, when you "buy" software of any kind, digital or not, what you're buying is a limited licence to use a copy of the software under specific conditions, the fact that we used to get physical media such as discs is largely irrelevant, while you own the disc you don't "own" the software itself.

 

[FreiDOg]

comment deleted -Oldie

Digital vs physical delivery has no impact on the license, and given the overwhelming majority of software of all types requiring some form of online activation at least at installation, Steam is generally not more or less restrictive to the use of the software than a physical media purchase would be.

"Oh Steam has nothing to gain by screwing over its users!" "Oh I've used Steam for so many years without a hitch!" These statements are totally irrelevant.

No, those statements are anecdotal.
The statements themselves, that Steam has been both reliable and handled themselves fairly well in customer service issues is of course relevant to refuting your argument that it is a less safe or desirable means of distribution because of its online/cloud nature.

 

[Forceman]

Besides, unless it went out of business, why would steam want to kill your game? What would they gain? People have spoken rumors of the "what if" scenario that steam (for whatever reason) shuts down, that they'd likely issue a patch to allow you to play your games "offline" indefinitely. That's a rumor--never confirmed by any official steam statement ever. But really, what would it gain steam to arbitrarily kill your ability to play your games in a "what if" scenario? Nothing, so the silly what-if scenarios are just dumb little stories that conspiracy-theory-prone people love to latch on to.

OP, I've used steam almost exclusively for the past 6-ish years, and I've never had any problems whatsoever. Unlike most other drm-related and digital-distribution systems, steam is always prompt and fast and they're very secure. Not to mention very fast with updates and patches. I've found the advantages of being able to re-download any game I purchase on there (as opposed to having piles and piles of CDs and DVDs that can potentially break/get scratch, or you lose the product key for) far outweigh the hypothetical "what if they shut down" question. Unless they've got some crackpot idea, more than likely steam (or its next iteration) will exist far longer than you'll be playing your games for.

No, those statements are anecdotal.
The statements themselves, that Steam has been both reliable and handled themselves fairly well in customer service issues is of course relevant to refuting your argument that it is a less safe or desirable means of distribution because of its online/cloud nature.

Unless they decide to change their TOS and you don't agree to the new terms, in which case you lose all access to your games. Which happened, oh, just a couple of days ago. So to act like Steam is some kind of "pure" corporation who will never screw you out of your software is simply naive.

 

[Sugaree]

Steam is an intrusive service that sells you the license to play a game, and not ownership of the game itself. Be sure you understand that critical distinction. They can terminate that license at any moment of their choosing and you will have absolutely no recourse. If you wish to own your games and use them as you see fit, avoid Steam and all other forms of required malware bundled with them.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but nowadays many game developers/publishers are doing other things that have the same result.

Take Diablo 3 for instance. I can go to the store, buy the box, and download it onto any computer I own. But Bli$$ard decided to make the game online only, and so I have to connect and stay connected to their battle.net service to play it. They can at any time cancel my battle.net account and I have no way to play the game offline. So what are you really buying in this case? More and more publishers are pushing "on line requirements" which in effect make you only a license holder or an account holder.

Still games out there like TL2 that are lan capable and do not require an internet connection to play, but the major publishers are moving away from stand alone games.
Steam, Origin, and many more seem to be the new normal unfortunately. That's why I support indie game companies who disregard such greedy actions.

 

[wabbitseason]

major publishers are moving away from stand alone games.
Steam, Origin, and many more seem to be the new normal unfortunately. That's why I support indie game companies who disregard such greedy actions.

This was my point as well. As I've stated in the past, video games are art, and true developers are artists. Not businessmen. They create because they have the talent and the means and they wish to share it with the world, and perhaps make an honest comfortable living doing it. The money is secondary. This was the case with Blizzard long ago. It is the case no longer.

 

[jwcalla]

Besides, unless it went out of business, why would steam want to kill your game? What would they gain? People have spoken rumors of the "what if" scenario that steam (for whatever reason) shuts down, that they'd likely issue a patch to allow you to play your games "offline" indefinitely. That's a rumor--never confirmed by any official steam statement ever. But really, what would it gain steam to arbitrarily kill your ability to play your games in a "what if" scenario? Nothing, so the silly what-if scenarios are just dumb little stories that conspiracy-theory-prone people love to latch on to.

It's not a completely obnoxious concern. Who knows, some day somebody (read: a competitor) could come in, buy out Valve and shut your crap off for whatever reason they might have. It's not even improbable.

Imagine if someone came along and said your entire movie and music collection is now defunct. It's kind of ridiculous if you think about it.

This kind of DRM is basically a rental service. You pay money to play until they decide you're not allowed to play anymore.

Last point--it's no different than if Microsoft were to go out of business--you'd be unable to authenticate your copy of Windows 7. Why not stop using Windows for the exact same reason too?

Glad I've moved over to Ubuntu. I wouldn't put it past MS at all to terminate "non-enterprise" Windows 7 licenses and tell everyone to move over to Windows 8. (If they could legally.)

 

[teh_chem]

Digital vs physical delivery has no impact on the license, and given the overwhelming majority of software of all types requiring some form of online activation at least at installation, Steam is generally not more or less restrictive to the use of the software than a physical media purchase would be.



No, those statements are anecdotal.
The statements themselves, that Steam has been both reliable and handled themselves fairly well in customer service issues is of course relevant to refuting your argument that it is a less safe or desirable means of distribution because of its online/cloud nature.

QFT, well said.

Unless they decide to change their TOS and you don't agree to the new terms, in which case you lose all access to your games. Which happened, oh, just a couple of days ago. So to act like Steam is some kind of "pure" corporation who will never screw you out of your software is simply naive.

I never said that steam is a "pure" corporation (whatever that means). And the same is true about any contract. And as per steam's modified TOS, you're welcome to enter into independent arbitration if you feel they are not honoring your usage up until that point.

But people, honestly, I would reiterate--what would steam gain from arbitrarily deactivating your games? Don't you think they're just passionate about what they do, they want to provide good service to users, and also they like to make money? You people and your doom-and-gloom conspiracy theories. Again, Steam is no different from any of the other forms of DRM that developers/studios use, it's just that it has a well-known face to it. If Ubisoft or EA or Blizzard's authentication servers went down, you wouldn't be able to play those games either (cough Diablo 3 cough). And you're welcome to not buy those. But spouting this "steam can lock all of your games" nonsense is like saying your mortgage lender can foreclose on your house if they have cause. Going to not buy a house too?

It's not a completely obnoxious concern. Who knows, some day somebody (read: a competitor) could come in, buy out Valve and shut your crap off for whatever reason they might have. It's not even improbable.

Imagine if someone came along and said your entire movie and music collection is now defunct. It's kind of ridiculous if you think about it.

This kind of DRM is basically a rental service. You pay money to play until they decide you're not allowed to play anymore.



Glad I've moved over to Ubuntu. I wouldn't put it past MS at all to terminate "non-enterprise" Windows 7 licenses and tell everyone to move over to Windows 8. (If they could legally.)

I fully respect your view that it's a concern--but the way people scream about the paranoia that steam is going to shut down and leave them without their games, as if they got the same games from some other venue will result in a different outcome with its DRM is just silly.

And don't get me wrong--I don't support DRM, and especially after my recent Uplay/Driver SF experience, I am fully-aware that DRM generally does nothing but inconvenience the user. But Steam does it better than anyone else, and if there was precedent of steam mass-locking users games for no reason, then there is sense worrying about it.

And sure all you guys can say that testimonial experiences with steam being fine and not bad doesn't mean anything. Okay, so go ask the rest of the millions of steam users. If a company were putting out crap and legitimately abusing users, people wouldn't use it. Haven't had a problem with any of my games going poof. Sure, you can't resell them, and that's a legit concern for those who care, but so far, the service is great.

And what do I care if years from now my games might be arbitrarily locked. As if I'll have a system compatible to play them by then.

 

[squad]

Steam really use ful. Have everything in one spot and could re download games as much as you want!

 

[limitedaccess]

I'd like to point out that the situation with Steam is not quite the same as say Windows and MS or other games and there respective rights holder.

In the case of say Windows and MS or Starcraft 2 and Blizzard (using two examples) yes you are actually entering a license agreement with MS and Blizzard respectively as opposed to owning the software outright. However in those cases you are not also entering into an agreement and beholden to the place of purchase which we will say hypothetically is Best Buy. In other words after you purchase said software form Best Buy what you purchase is now essentially independent of them. For instance Best Buy cannot block you from access to said software should you not agree to their new TOS.

Now with a digital platform like Steam this is not quite the case. Let's say compare a purchase of Batman AC, one with Best Buy and the other with Steam. In the former case you only enter a license agreement with Warner Bros and the DRM they chose (in this case GFWL), Best Buy has no control over your software post purchase. In the latter however you enter into an agreement with both Warner Bros and Valve/Steam and as such your software is now subject the control of both parties.

In some cases however Steam is more than the distributor of course. They may be the original rights holder (eg. Valve's own games) or be acting on behalf of another (eg. Steamworks games).

This is my main issue with the current prevailing trend of digital distribution (and not just for games). DRM for the product has actually been around for quite some time even with physical copies. But now consumers are also being asked to essentially have distribution DRM and enter into an agreement with the place of purchase.

 

[wabbitseason]

Shut up, you just sound like an idiot. And see below's competent and understanding response...

Touchy are we, old boy?

I'll summarize your post for you: "Oh Steam has nothing to gain by deactivating games." "Oh they just want to provide a nice service." "Oh these paranoid conspiracy-theorists ." "Oh I just don't care about my own possessions or privacy, as long as everything is convenient for me. Not only that, I'll berate members of a forum I just joined because they don't share my incredibly foolish point of view."

 

[rudy]

I'll think I'll take the risk. over 7 years of use and this has never happened to me. Not only that but before steam I often had to repurchase games because I lost the cdkey.

Yep and ironically if you think you own a game because it is on a disc you are mistaken, I owned the game of tribes 2 and then they shut down the master servers, I hear EA has done this with games too. You may still have the disk butwhat good is a MP only game with no MP servers? Now lets take valve on the other hand I can go play a game of just about any mod for halflife the original game to this day which came out before tribes 2. I can do this on valves official server browser.

The fact is you own nothing that requires any sort of service and when hell freezes over and steam dies or whatever then hackers will crack the games and put up their own servers. Any company can go the way of the dodo when ever that happens all bets are off regardless of what you think you own.

 

[Oldie]

Touchy are we, old boy?

I'll summarize your post for you: "Oh Steam has nothing to gain by deactivating games." "Oh they just want to provide a nice service." "Oh these paranoid conspiracy-theorists ." "Oh I just don't care about my own possessions or privacy, as long as everything is convenient for me. Not only that, I'll berate members of a forum I just joined because they don't share my incredibly foolish point of view."

Length of time here doesn't give you or anyone else an excuse to be rude to other members, and if anyone here is "berating" it's you, so can it or we can arrange a nice time out.

 

[Forceman]

I'd like to point out that the situation with Steam is not quite the same as say Windows and MS or other games and there respective rights holder.

In the case of say Windows and MS or Starcraft 2 and Blizzard (using two examples) yes you are actually entering a license agreement with MS and Blizzard respectively as opposed to owning the software outright. However in those cases you are not also entering into an agreement and beholden to the place of purchase which we will say hypothetically is Best Buy. In other words after you purchase said software form Best Buy what you purchase is now essentially independent of them. For instance Best Buy cannot block you from access to said software should you not agree to their new TOS.

Now with a digital platform like Steam this is not quite the case. Let's say compare a purchase of Batman AC, one with Best Buy and the other with Steam. In the former case you only enter a license agreement with Warner Bros and the DRM they chose (in this case GFWL), Best Buy has no control over your software post purchase. In the latter however you enter into an agreement with both Warner Bros and Valve/Steam and as such your software is now subject the control of both parties.

In some cases however Steam is more than the distributor of course. They may be the original rights holder (eg. Valve's own games) or be acting on behalf of another (eg. Steamworks games).

This is my main issue with the current prevailing trend of digital distribution (and not just for games). DRM for the product has actually been around for quite some time even with physical copies. But now consumers are also being asked to essentially have distribution DRM and enter into an agreement with the place of purchase.

Excellent point. Another reason the "Steam might go down" issue keeps coming up is because many people have aggregated their entire collection of games in that one place, so while the likelihood of Steam going down is no different than anyone else, the severity of the loss if it were to happen is much greater. If Origin goes down, I lose 1 game, but if Steam goes down, I lose 25 games.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

What if scenarios are just pointless speculation, at this point Valve are so big and earn so much money you might as well speculate not using a Microsoft OS because what happens if they go under and can't provide future activation or security patches.

It's a given that MS will always be around, as will Valve, but valve have one major benefit in that they're privately owned with no shareholders or investors, which means that there is no driving factor to take a large established user base and screw them over for short term profit, it makes steam just about one of the safest bets around.

The day Gabe sells Valve to EA or something like that, that's when I'll be worried.

 

[Ebernanut]

Unless they decide to change their TOS and you don't agree to the new terms, in which case you lose all access to your games. Which happened, oh, just a couple of days ago. So to act like Steam is some kind of "pure" corporation who will never screw you out of your software is simply naive.

Yep, I had a hard time bringing myself to click the "I agree" button and for a few days I was locked out of the games I had purchased. I dislike several of the changes but what bothers me the most is that valve held my games hostage until I agreed to the new terms. If I stand to lose hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of games then I'm not really agreeing of my own free will which I consider unethical and it's legality seems questionable to me as well*.

*IANAL

 

[teh_chem]

Touchy are we, old boy?

I'll summarize your post for you: "Oh Steam has nothing to gain by deactivating games." "Oh they just want to provide a nice service." "Oh these paranoid conspiracy-theorists ." "Oh I just don't care about my own possessions or privacy, as long as everything is convenient for me. Not only that, I'll berate members of a forum I just joined because they don't share my incredibly foolish point of view."

OH! Thanks for paraphrasing what I said--I didn't understand what I was saying until you kindly paraphrased it. Thanks so much!

I couldn't care less if you or anyone else share my point of view, and how long I've been posting at [H] is irrelevant.

 

[CrimsonKnight13]

Grey market bought Steam keys for games can & most likely will be deactivated. I'm saying this from experience.

Just a friendly warning. Be sure to buy keys that are native to the region in which you're using Steam with. Otherwise, you might be in a world of hurt when your hard spent money goes down the drain & Steam Customer Support blocks you from proving that you "own" whatever game was (stealthily) removed from your game library.

 

[Intel_Hydralisk]

This got derailed fast.

 

[jwcalla]

What if scenarios are just pointless speculation, at this point Valve are so big and earn so much money you might as well speculate not using a Microsoft OS because what happens if they go under and can't provide future activation or security patches.

It's a given that MS will always be around, as will Valve, but valve have one major benefit in that they're privately owned with no shareholders or investors, which means that there is no driving factor to take a large established user base and screw them over for short term profit, it makes steam just about one of the safest bets around.

I don't know, man... avoiding the "what if" questions seems very naive. RIM and Nokia were big companies just a few years ago and now they seem almost doomed. The tech industry is so fickle and faddish, there aren't any sure bets. Big names get taken down so frequently that you can't rely on that. The current big companies are control freaks (Apple, Google, MS, etc.) that love telling customers how things are going to be "and if you don't like it GTFO".

And I'm not so optimistic about Valve's future. They might be okay, but I dunno. There are big players that would love to take their piece of the pie, and there are ways to do it (MS app store, e.g.).

I am a Steam customer so I do think there is relative security... but I don't have a huge library yet either. I have Doom 3 and Quake 4 on disc so I can play those at any time, even if my network is down. If I bought those through Steam I would have less freedom.

I'm not paranoid, but I'd be pretty pissed if I had a huge library that one day got switched off.