Steam - opinions and experiences survey

[.kju 3245]

Only if STEAM had significant benefits, like larger player base.

At the same time many existing issues with STEAM would have to get resolved first

(patching, CO, complex install process, better DLC support), and very important the ease

of command line use, tools use, custom locations for profiles, missions, logs, addons need

to be retained.

[ben_s 11]

Steam would remove control from BIS over certain things; such as patches. As I hear its harder to roll out a patch over Steam than just post a link in a forum.

Not that I would mind it being Steam - I've had no problems with it thus far - It's just that I don't think BIS really needs to use it. They have control, a good setup and an easy way to distribute their products already in place. So why swap it all for Steam. It just doesn't seem a practical idea.

So, I vote No to this one.

[Fireball 16]

I mean if Steam was implemented to conduct a buddy list, that would be already a significant improvement, but then it should seamlessly support the modifications (mods) and probably also host approved mods, so they can be retrieved and integrated into the game automatically.

This would require though, that mods may be loaded with the game, without influence of playability of missions and servers, which do not utilize those mods.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Steam only = no money. Its like having no alternatives or independent choice of how to buy + play games.

Stay service agnostic, don't be a trendy lemming and don't force any of your current + potential customers to like only one way of distribution/service. :)

[kegetys 2]

No.

I simply have had way too much problems with Steam, ranging from issues with the application itself (cant count how many times I have needed to delete clientregistry.blob when Steam decides to break itself) to problems with the service (downtimes or very slow startup times, slow downloads). It is very annoying when I just want to play a game, but there is some issue with Steam and I have to start troubleshooting that. Or when it takes an extra minute to start the game when steam is connecting and then "preparing" the game.

The auto-patching is nice though, except it being forced on you can sometimes be a bit annoying. Especially when the download speeds are absolutely terrible when big updates come out and you can't play the game until the update is finished.

I also do not like the fact that it adds an extra dependency on running the game (Valve goes bust, there goes all your games) and the fact that Valve can, according to the subscriber agreement, terminate your purchases at any time without notice or refund.

Ever since the "euro=dollar"/zone based pricing change the standard price of games in Steam are also ridiculously high here (Finland). It is almost always the most expensive option I can find, even more expensive than the already high retail prices at supermarkets. Though there are some very good sales every now and then.

Also, I believe the steam subscriber agreement disallows game modding for any non-valve games without written permission from Valve (IANAL though so this may be wrong).

As a whole, the service just doesn't feel reliable or friendly to me and I dont want my purchases to rely on such. Of course I dont mind BIS, or any other, games being available there but as an only option its a big no.

[Xjiks 10]

Both Steam, DVD, and directdownload version shoud survive.

Steam because most of the "regular" don't play mods or specific configurations and like to have a "one click to install" and "one click to play".

BUT the DVD and directdownload version are best because you can install the game where ever you want (not in the steam folder) and you can have mods easily configured.

(I know to run CO on steam with mods we had to declare Windows Environnement variables to declare the A2 path in the shortcut, what a MESS !)

And in the end when you have the DVD you have nothing to download, so the installation is quicker.

No need to have the steam community, as people who play with their friend use Teamspeak or Mumble to be in the same server.

I only use steam for Valve's games. Other games are from the boxed DVD or direct download versions. And I'd like to keep it that way for the future of Arma series

Edited February 24, 2011 by xjiks

[shadowze 1]

No I would not like to use Steam , in fact I would not buy the game if it has it

I HATE steam ....... why I here you ask ?

Because the like to BUY games

I do not want to RENT them

More bloatware crap that is not needed , just give us the game Maruk

There are many reasons steam is bad , getting ur account hacked , getting banned improperly or wrongly etc ... nope I dont like it at all

Please give people the choice of media or downloaded version Without the

steaming pile of shit that is Steam

[theTog 10]

Ditto as Shadowze

[pipscouse 10]

Voted No. I am not a fan of Steam and stopped using it years ago. Sprocket on the other hand worked (almost) flawlessly for the two DLC. Overall I prefer to have my stuff on Disk where possible.

[glowbal 13]

I rather use Sprocket instead of Steam. Worked well, no issues. I like the fact you are able to chose between what kind of media you want to use.

[pika 10]

I voted: I am not sure, it depends... (please elaborate in your post)

And the reason being that I frequently try and arrange smallish games with about 10 individual players. At least 3 of these guys have the Steam version. They are the only ones who ever have problems.

Long and short I don't think ArmA2 is suited to steam at all. If you included a launcher or an OUT OF GAME mod manager\launcher where we could configure everything (This even gives you a little help with assisting the community, such as intergrating community tools similar to GPG.net for Supreme Commander for maps and mods) I'd be all for it on Steam.

However if things remain the same as they are now with ArmA2, then no, absolutely not.

[Egan 10]

I've never bought a Valve game, never had any software from them on my computer and have no plans to ever buy a game buy them. I have become increasingly sick of the amount of games by non-valve companies that demand a Steam account in order to play it. Not one of the apparent benefits of Steam are, in any way, important to me and I dislike being forced into allowing software by a third party onto my machine - especially when I've bought a game from a shop or some other source.

Whether many of the stories I hear about Steam are true or not I don't know and I don't care. I'm well aware that many people love Steam, and that is great for them but for me this is about my freedom of choice, and I choose not to have Steam on my machine. Why the hell should a portion of my money go to Valve for the privilege of controlling and tie-ing my account and game playing to them?

Now, I have no problem with ArmA being offered on Steam as long as I can get a version that I can use and play without Steam being anywhere near my computer. If you decide to make it only playable via Steam then I'm afraid that the current game is the last one I'll buy from you. ArmA is one of a select handful of games that still appeals to me, and I would find it a tremendous shame if I could no longer play it, but I simply won't be forced into using Valve's system.

[Lincks 10]

Voted No

The loss of choice is always a bad thing

[PogMoThoin 10]

Although I'm a fan of steam I feel it doesn't suit Arma with all the mods and constant upgrades so I voted NO

[boneboys 0]

Dear community,

Steam is becoming very significant part of today's PC Gaming as well as it was crucial part of the success of Arma 2 / Operation Arrowhead.

There are already many games that are simply Steam only but Bohemia Interactive so far tried to stay service agnostic as we did not like concept of enforcing our users in any direction. What is your opinion, should we make our games Steam only or provide Steam specific enhancements or not?

I have to refer to to my experience with TWI and the RO/Steam implementation. Everything is co-ordinated and at the same time, mods and maps are easily accessible, (although the system is not the same, no doubt).

Which means I am still able to modify my ini.files/profiles, set my G5 gaming mouse & all.

I am pretty sure you are more than able to keep your independence, whatever route you choose.

EDIT: I just checked the results and I see that I voted against the grain...

My reasoning is that I find the ArmA playing community over de-fragmented, unnecessarilly...

I'm at about 75% Steam anyways.

Thanks...

Edited February 24, 2011 by BoneBoys

[kdjac 19]

I voted yes Steam is a very good organiser of games, for mods is fine along with Spirited machines arma launcher but its best to keep your mods on a different HD.

The biggest gripe i have with steam is having to download the entire game every time its patched which i assume is a BI issue as no other game has this "feature".

Also be nice if steamworks was fully implemented and Join freinds worked.

[Gunter Severloh 4067]

should we make our games Steam only or provide Steam specific enhancements or not?

Voted no,

I bought all BIS games on DVD and never had issues with them as far as installation, mods and patches.

From what I have read over the past year about players with problems with the game on steam,

I really seeing no point on putting all BIS games on steam without steam. Steam I think is nothing but

a hassle and a problem especially for a new guy to the game it seems more complicated then a DVD or even sprocket download.

I think what we have now is best the main thing should be DVD, and the rest sprocket download with the option of steam,

steam needs a better setup system and support for mods.

I wouldn't buy anything BIS on steam if you gave me the money.

[-=Grunt=- 10]

Steam is nice and all but it's patches are way too big in my opinion when downloading the patch through Steam. For people with slow connections like me, it's a real pain if it's a couple of GB.

I bought my A2 and OA retail but I've been using Steam for more than 5 years now.

[vohk 10]

Not sure/Maybe.

I like Steam. I really do. It's a solid overall service. You can set it to offline mode, I have yet to have major problems with it, but most of all it just isn't that invasive. It both manages to not make my eyes bleed and actually adds some value. It is a nice way to avoid needing to hang onto a pile of CDs, DVDs, and serial keys for years. You can even back up your games to prevent needing to redownload the entire thing, although you still need an internet connection. Say what you want about Steam, but it's generally better than the alternative DRMs. The only real issues with ArmA2/OA on Steam are the late deployment of patches and the limited number of characters you can cram into the launch parameters. I don't know, or care, who's fault the patches are but that needs to get sorted out if you guys continue to use multiple formats.

On the other hand, I see no compelling reason to switch exclusively to a service like Steam other than maybe a few corporate kickbacks. Steamworks is cute, and even somewhat useful for more 'arcade' style games, but really offers nothing for a game like ArmA. The in-game overlay is only useful if you already use Steam for your friends list and communication. Xfire and co. generally do a better job anyway. One of my favourite features of OA is the ability to run the game without Steam integration using the beta. Nothing against Steam per say, but convenient.

Aside from that, some people just hate Steam and download services in general. Judging by the fairly uncomplimentary Steam references on the BI forums, you'd be alienating a large part of your market. I, on the other hand, have a passionate hatred of DRMs like Securom. The way it is now, we all win.

Personally, I think you guys just need to do a better job of advertising Sprocket and the game in general. I bumped into ArmA by complete accident. The reviews barely got any press, no advertising anywhere, no real hype outside of the existing community, and the rather buggy release certainly didn't help. Your community does a great job spreading the word, but I feel that BI relies too much on the game to sell itself.

[Leon86 13]

I also voted no.

I have a lot of games running in steam but thats either because they were really cheap or because the dvd version required steam as well. It doesn't add anything substantial.

Blizzard has a pretty good approach I think, where you have an account coupled to your email adress, login on the site and download an installation client that also uses torrents so never grinds to a complete halt. An auto-update before game start would also be a plus for me. Some people might not but you can easily add a backup function to be able to start all previous versions as well.

I'd even like the "always online" concept blizzard has with starcraft 2. As long as you can still play if your server crashes (that went wrong very often with sc2). Dont bother with crap like twitter/facebook integration though.

[mosh 0]

NO.

I really like Steam, I have over 20 games I have bought through them. They have some great sales, easy to use software, and update games automatically.

That being said, Arma to me is different. I want complete control. It isn't just a game to me and I don't want some other program taking care of it for me.

But if you, as a developer, can make it work how you want it to... I'll adapt.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i've voted No because ain't like steam, it's full of advertisement, it stores the game where it wants and not where i want, it runs behind the game that i want to run, it haves problems with game's configurations as for example keyboard issues; i only have a single game on Steam, but the people that i know that have Steam have told me about alot of issues with the Steam games that they've aside of other problems... .

As Günter has said... i've bought in CD or DVD all my BIS products and never had an installation problem too and don't gonna buy any BIS product on Steam, now or ever. I go with the retail copy or not go. Let's C ya

[Von_Lipwig 10]

Steam is a very good program and I buy quite a few games through it, but I would prefer the ArmA games to offer the choice between retail/digital and Steam version, mainly because the two simply don't combine well. I'm not sure if it is even possible to merge a Steam ArmA2 with a retail Arrowhead or the other way around, but if it is, it's probably a lot of hassle to get it working. As soon as this compatibility is improved to the point where there's no difference between a retail version and a Steam copy, this would present a far smaller problem.

If, however, you're talking about an entirely new installment and are considering Steam-only for ArmA3 or whatever elusive project is going on, I can understand where you're coming from as a Steam-only release is undoubtedly a lot cheaper than a release that includes retail copies. I would still prefer a solution that allows choice to the user but when there's no compatibility issues with previous titles the problem is less glaring.

So I guess my answer is, in points:

-As long as compatibility between Steam and retail copies is a problem, please don't switch to Steam-only

-As long as you have any options to keep distributing the game in hard-copy, financially, please keep doing so

---

The big question is whether the cut in distributing, packaging and production costs of the hard copies will outweigh the (possible) loss in revenue due to people not encountering the game in shops/not willing to buy a digital copy of the game/not able to pay online. Judging from a few polls on the forums, many people prefer to own a disk with the game as opposed to a digital copy. However, I'm also fairly certain that most people who play ArmA2 are so loyal to the series that they will play the game regardless of whether it gets a Steam-only release or not ;)

I'm sure you guys consider these questions well before making any decisions, though :)

Turned out kind of long-winded I guess. Sorry for that :p

EDIT: for additional info: I have ArmA2 from retail and OA, BAF and PMC from Sprocket.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Von_Lipwig

[Mr. Charles 22]

Tho i use Steam everyday and i have lots of games on it, i'd still like ArmA and all it's followup games to have no "Steamworks only" need. At the moment it's integration into Steam is bad and i am glad that i just buy retail copies or from Sprocket. No problems there.

[maturin 12]

I use Arma with Steam, and it works just fine.

But Steam only? Hell, no. Don't waste time with special Steam features either.

Instead focus on making beta patches that work easily with both Steam, mods, and CO. Currently getting it to work is hellish.

And YOU MUST TELL US IMMEDIATELY whether released patches are compatible with Steam. If given a choice, I would take a downloadable patch released on time over a large Steam patch released days later.

Arma 2 is the pinnacle of PG gaming, and PC gaming is about control and options. I do not favor Steam exclusivity, and I think such a move would lose you some customers (for the reason that PC gamers are whiny bitches). But if it's financially necessary, do it, because BI's level of support is amazing and should be maintained no matter what.

Edited February 24, 2011 by maturin