Steam - opinions and experiences survey

[Colossus 2]

I do understand that releasing games on Steam exclusively will help BI with the problems concerning logistics, and probably also make it more profitable per sale as you only need to focus on one distributer.

However, what Kegetys said pretty much sums up most of my concerns.

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.

I would also like to add the difficulties one might face working with mods and tools for games on Steam. This is a major concern of mine as ArmA/OPF's survivability relies on - but not without mentioning BI's fine work at keeping A2/OA patched up - addons and mods. It doesn't seem like Steam is very user-friendly when it comes to modding, unless they get directly intergrated to Steam by Valve (for example certain HL2 mods). That is, of course, only my experience with mods on Steam. And another thing would be Valve's slow reaction to upload new patches. It might take weeks, even a month, before you get a new patch up and running, after which everyone else have had that patch for quite some time.

I have games on Steam and it is an admissible platform to work with, but the consumer's cons outweights the pros here I'm afraid. I vote no.

It's really nice to see some sort of "consumer democracy", this is absolutely a rareity. In the end though, it's really up to BI to figure out what works best for the company.

Edited February 25, 2011 by colossus

[W0lle 1050]

Voted no because

1) I once had the 'pleasure' of using the Steam version and while trying to uninstall a part of it, it deleted the whole installation including installed Mods and user missions

2) Combining ArmA2 and OA is pain and only doable with 'hacks'

3) Patching the game means complete download which takes forever

4) Running any client software to play a game, which then logs god knows what is out of question for me

5) I have no control where to store the game, it took me quite a while to 'convince' Steam to run off my SSD instead the C drive. I have to deal with hard- and software every day, for me that was not such a problem. For 'average Joe' it might be an almost impossible task.

Download via Sprocket, yes. Steam? No thanks.

Edited February 25, 2011 by W0lle

[Defunkt 431]

I see absolutely no benefit to consumers in a Steam-exclusive or Steam-enhanced release. Is there an upside for BIS?

If all developers took this path would they not ultimately end up in thrall to a monopoly?

I purchased from Sprocket because I wanted to see BIS receive the greatest revenue, is the (presumably) higher margin not covering the additional operating costs?

[rangerpl 13]

No to Steam-Only.

Steam is great for games like Call of Duty which are both more compact and also less mod-able. ArmA is a very large game and its content changes all the time, and based on what the other people have said, it's a pain to patch it and combine A2 with OA.

I bought the boxed version of Combined Operations and installing it was a breeze. It even combined itself :bounce3:

[Trux 10]

Voted yes

While I can understand some of the frustrations on here for those that say no to Steam I personally have had no issues since buying AmA 2 CO + BAF & PMC through steam.

I use community mods with no trouble and a dedicated Steam release would likely iron out most peoples problems anyway.

I think Steam has done wonders for pc gaming and am delighted more developers are releasing there products through the Steam platform.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Trux
Spell

[W0lle 1050]

Please no Steam pro or cons discussion here. I'm sure there is another thread in which you can discuss this.

Keep this thread clear of any discussions and focus on the Poll so Marek doesn't have to read through your ... stuff. :)

[That guy 10]

I voted no to steam. i have never used steam with an arma game (those are hard copies), but steam was obnoxious to use and slowed my system down.

I dont like the trend of needing to be online to play single player stuff. its single player, not multiplayer!

i am on a laptop and travel frequently, so i am often with out net, so being unable to play a game that i have payed good money for, just because of the internet irritates me.

no to steam exclusivity, thank you.

[SWAT_CDN 0]

I voted NO.

I do not like the Idea of STEAM and the way they have control over ones moves.

“Publishers are creating a monster ***– we are telling suppliers to stop using Steam in their games.â€

The head of sales at a big-name digital service provider agreed: “At the moment the big digital distributors need to stock games with Steam. But the power resides with bricks and mortar retailers, they can refuse to stock these titles. Publishers are hesitant, but retail must put pressure on them.â€

Gaikai CEO David Perry told MCV Steam could become the games-equivilent of iTunes, where it dictates the terms of the market, not the other way around: “Steam has made it so easy for everyone and they have lots of users. But how long do you wait before you take control of your own digital strategy? Like with iTunes, at some point it’s going to be too late.â€

November 2010 Article link Below

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/41746/Retail-threatens-Steam-ban

Edited February 25, 2011 by SWAT_CDN

[djczing 10]

I dont have STEAM and dont want STEAM. I want full control over the software that I buy, the patches that go on it, and when patches go on.

The other bad thing about it is the apparent structural difference in the game layout, which appears to be a big impediment to those who want to mod the game.

I disagree with a single point of distribution through steam -- and if steam will be used at all, the structural layout of the game should be the same as the other distributions.

Personally, I go for sprocket every time.

[AnimalMother92 10]

What is your opinion, should we make our games Steam only or provide Steam specific enhancements or not?

I love Steam *ducks for cover* and I have bought Arma 2, OA, BAF & PMC off of it. However, like others have said: loss of choice == bad.

I would be all for stepping it up with Steam though, as there have been plenty of frustrating moments over the past few years due to Steam and Arma. Increased support would be great and I would welcome integration with Steam features.

To be honest, I barely even see Steam since I'm playing with the beta patch through an external launcher anyways. So no time tracking or in-game overlay etc. But it is handy for chat and purchasing.

Whatever you do, don't drop Steam support, just improve it. Like a reward for sticking with it through all the late patches and messed up CO business :p

[SWAT_Glock 10]

Absolutely not. I want full control of what I spend my hard earned money on. Please do not go the Steam route. I will not buy games where I have to use Steam.

I bought Black Ops on PC-DVD when it came out. It made me create a Steam acct to be able to play online. I didn't like the game. I was not able to sell or even give it away because it was linked forever to the Steam account. I canned the Steam account and will never buy another Steam linked game.

Edited February 25, 2011 by SWAT_Glock

[Capt. Sand 10]

voted Not Sure.

The way I see it is: if BIS doesn't have a choice, then I don't have a choice.

If you guys feel it's going to be financially necessary in the near future, then do what you have to. I just hope the steam experience only gets better for us, by then(currently using steam). That said, I'm going to feel bad for those who are on anything but fiber optics right now(was recently on 1.5mb DSL).

(Hey, better Steam than GFWL, right?)

Edited February 25, 2011 by Capt. Sand

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

no..plz no!

I do not want any more intrusive software running in my back ground, other than what is needed.

PMed other reasons, so not to start world war 3 here.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

I voted NO.

I'm NOT against Steam in any way (i have a Steam account with +40 games in it) but in this case it seems most ppl having problems with CombinedOPs are ppl with Steam.

1. Managing the mod line / start parameters is more complicated on Steam. Custom launchers / updaters working alongside Steam is another story.

2. BIS biggest advantage is the constantly fast distribution of beta's and patches. On Steam this won't be possible anymore and will come down to a crawl.

3. Steam has problems with game versions of different countries. We here in Germany love to buy UK versions and lately Steam has issues when i try to activate my game on my german account. Valve announced 'they are looking into it' but thats not going to happen soon and nobody knows what they'll come up with.

4. Steam running in the background is another app which could be avoided as its not necessary. It might not be a resource hog like Microsofts GFWL, but as we all know ArmA2 needs every system resource it can get so why make this harder than it already is.

5. Steam's friend system might be interesting but when looking onto ArmA2 MP community i get the feeling its not needed at all.

- public servers fill up with random ppl and missions tend to get cheated to death after 1 hour anyway. no friend list needed here since you dunno who you meet on a public server.

- clan servers are passworded for obvious reasons making you register on their forums anyway. most of them have teamspeak / server monitors on their websites so a quick look reveals who's playing - again, no need for Steam friends.

- Loose groups which share the same interests can schedule matches here on the BIS forums via PMs anyway.

So: Steam complicates things and is not needed. Plz don't do it.

[Rak 0]

YES

I have most of my library on Steam and a Steamworks enabled ArmA would be a big plus.

[swargy 10]

I'm a pretty hardcore Steam player. Just about every PC game I own is on Steam. But making ArmA 2 Steam Only is a bit no thanks. It's always nice to have CD's and a pretty looking box to keep them in. I voted no.

[soul_assassin 1750]

After reading all the complaints with steam patching and all the problems people had with their steam versions, I'm glad Ive bought my copy through Sprocket :)

[Deadfast 43]

No.

I have nothing against Steam itself, Steamworks is another matter.

[Dead3yez 0]

The only BI game I have on steam is OA and BAF. It's horrible to manage.

• My target line often runs out of space because of steams long file paths.
  
• Larger patches
  
• Copying back and forth files when patching to SSD an running them via -mod
  
• Issues running CO (mainly just creating work for me)
  
• Had problems getting the beta patches working (to allow me to at least play without steam)
  

If it wasn't for the fact I won OA, I would definately have gone with the DVD or Sprocket version. And, the same for anymore future ArmA titles. I have many games on steam, but I do not think that steam easily allows the freedom that this game sometimes needs.

If Steamworks support includes things such as joining games through the friends list and being able to view/add friends in current games then it could be a potential improvement towards the multiplayer community.

[Neopas 10]

I voted no,for reasons that are aready repeated a lot of times in this thread,especially for having to be online to use the editor,not being able to choose installation path and that I don`t really care about "achievements".

The real question though is why BIS is even considering it,having already their own digital store and a solid copy protection.Which of its features caught their eye.

Is financially the gain so huge by going "only on Steam" ,and what that would mean for us ?

Would we end up with an (even) better game and (even) more expansions for it?Or it will leave us with less options and support,because a 3rd party exclusive distributor will be involved ?

Arma is not the only game that suffers with Steam when it comes about patching and modding.

No prejudice here with Steam,but as it is now,I don`t think that less options would be something good.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Neopas

[Alwarren 2767]

I am not sure whether this would be a good move or not.

I have a good number of Steam games, and I generally think Steam works very well, with very responsive customer support and mostly hassle-free DRM (some games still choose to use GFWL or other DRM on top of it).

However, there are a number of downsides of Steam:

• They haven't figured out how to let you install games on different disks. Granted, you can copy and link the games back into the SteamApps directory, but this is counter-intuitive, and I frequently run into disk space issues because all has to go on one disk.
  
• Games bought on Steam cannot be re-sold by their owner. This is not an issue with any ArmA games since they will have to pry them from my cold dead hands, but it is a general issue.
  
• You have to run games through their interface. It becomes a hassle to set up a shortcut or use a launcher, which IMO is very important for a game like ArmA.
  
• I hate their pricing policy. This might or might not be an issue with steam, but when I see a game cost, say, USD 30 or EUR 30, I cannot help but feel ripped off. I suppose this is a matter of the individual game, though.
  
• Activation lockout. I am not sure how it generally works, but some games prevent you to unlock and play an international version in Germany. I hate German dubbed versions of games, and I always try to get the international version if at all possible. Steam successfully prevents this on occasion.
  

Like I said, I am not sure about such a move.

[oldbear 390]

No!

As every old-timer I do like having my DVD of the game in a nice box ... but I am not against dematerialized software and I am feeling Sprocket can be good solution, I have tested it with BAF and PMC ... and I have a Steam account ^^.

It seems Steam is not fully adapted to the kind of game/release BI is doing, too much problem with updates, with CO and with MP play.

[Muahaha 10]

Voted No.

1. I prefer to own a disc rather than digital copy

2. The country I am living have crappy net speed. I don't know how much bandwidth is needed to ensure a smooth steam experience but I won't want to risk it.

[pauliesss 2]

Voted NO.

1. I don´t like Steam.

2. Prefer to own a disc.

3. I don´t like the whole application.

Don´t do this BIS.

[JojoTheSlayer 35]

I would vote a strong maybe... :j:

I like Steam. Depending on how games are released.

Automatic patching is great and you can turn it off if you need a game for a mod that only support patch X. Still, in regards to Arma I still use a third party launcher to start the game. Some times doing that excludes stats being uploaded to Steam or being able to use the ingame browser etc.

The Steam launch of AO wasnt that great for people that already owned A2.

I would view that as a minus running Steam. You always seem to be the second guy in the line to get whatevers new.