Steamworks, add it in or not?

[NoRailgunner 0]

Nice...

I got this info off from Steamworks main page.

Oh look - some advertising on their own site...

Still, I believe that integration of Steamworks can do nothing but overall improve the ArmA series.

...is it rhetoric or did you just watched too many political discussions? :p

[jdmt 12]

These features are for Arcade like games. I can't imagine any ArmA III player wanting to automatically go into a match like a console. Or have a spray. Achievements are a waste of time for a game like this.

I use Steam on a daily basis, I just believe ArmA III should stay as far away from it as possible.

[demonized 20]

Oh my,

I believe you got it a bit wrong, Steam is actually one of the best places independent developers can put their work with much more marketing and profits.

_neo_

what i meant was in regards to monopolize the sales market, meaning only steam can eventually sell games...

Maybe its great for independent developers, but for the customers its bad.

Customers, thats us.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Demonized

[enad 11]

@demonized- You gotta be kidding, some Indie devs wouldn't be ANYWHERE without Steam.

Steam is the best thing that's happened to alot of indie devs including the Tripwire Team.

Steam is also great for it's customers, it's easy and fast. I can't think of anything bad about it besides downloading takes longer than having a disk, but hell if you have a decent internet connection it's fine.

@JDMT- It's not automatically going into a server like a console, I'm sure you've played other valve games and when you want to join a friend just click the arrow next to their name and click Join Game and you're in, it simplifies things alot and would make it easier for everyone, not to mention alot more accessible for new comers.

[celery 8]

Steam is also great for it's customers, it's easy and fast.

Only as long as they are using Steam voluntarily. Steamworks makes using Steam very non-voluntary.

[Derbysieger 11]

Yeah IF you have a decent internet connection. For example I get max. 2.7MByte/s (and if I was willing to pay more I could have that doubled) but a friend who lives about 10km away only gets ~470kbit/s ... I usually d/l large patches for him and bring them to him.

[JojoTheSlayer 35]

I would say yes, implement it.

Since if they do all the patching issues will be gone because EVERYONE would need to use the client and therefor the only patched need to be released was the Steam one.

Further more steam has beta patch features that means you dont really need to do anything to patch or take parts in betas.

For vanilla stuff this would only mean that every client of A3 would be the same versions always. Unlike now.

And lets not forget the Community features.

For unpopular games its great to have a few community groups that post popups when special events are happening. Ergo you can attract more players on demand when you do special stuff.

--------------------------------

Edit:

People should start to get over there fear of online stuff because that is the future.

Maybe some people want more players for A3 than A2 has, but that needs the game to be accessible on the main seller platform. Right now the DvD release is easier to manage because there is a Dvd release. Basically the none Steamworks DvD and released manual installed patches are making issues for Steam. The main seller for PC games.

That is a economical issue in my view where I think people should look past their personal pref for the greater good of the gaming community tbh.

Edited May 22, 2011 by JojoTheSlayer

[Heatseeker 0]

If im buying retail i shouldnt have to run bloat just to play the game, i was too happy when i found where to disable that steam shite that pops up while im gaming.

Steam patching sux too, you dont patch, you download patched files and i dont see any advantage in re-downloading half the game every time BIS releases a patch.

Tbh i prefer clean software, the advantages are obvious.

[xxbbcc 6]

Integrating Steamworks will make the game require Steam to be installed. It does not force you to buy it on or through Steam.

As far as I'm concerned, it is the same thing. It doesn't matter that I didn't know the difference between the two - I'd promptly leave Arma if any connection to Steam would be introduced as a requirement.

An option, in which I could choose to not to install absolutely any part of it would probably be fine.

Just for the record, I consider Steam and their infrastructure spyware.

[SWAT_CDN 0]

I do NOT want Steam and will never, ever, ever buy anything there.

AMEN TO THAT :eek:

Steamworks = Steam Client install "SCREW THAT".

Something I don't understand is why this keeps coming up it has "LOST" in the surveys hands down numerous times.

[xxbbcc 6]

Also, I agree that the benefits of Steamworks to the customers are not very obvious, but it would allow BIS to better integrate the game with Steam and fix all of the issues that people are always compaining about in the first place.

You're making a circular argument - use Steamworks integration to better integrate Steam into the game to fix issues with Steam. How about just not having Steam at all and then no issues to fix and no need to integrate.

If BIS wants to sell the game on Steam to people who want to buy it there, fine, it's their decision. If they're also making a Steam-specific version to Steam users, that's fine too. However, if the game starts requiring any registration with Steam or use Steam components in a mandatory way, I'm leaving immeditately.

I'm not willing to sponsor a company (Valve) whose only purpose in existence is to make it problematic to use the product I own and paid for.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

You're making a circular argument - use Steamworks integration to better integrate Steam into the game to fix issues with Steam. How about just not having Steam at all and then no issues to fix and no need to integrate.

Because dropping Steam support would be an extremely foolish move by BIS. It's quite implicit that Steam has greatly influenced ArmA 2's sales. Fixing any issues that the game has with Steam will increase the amount of customers on Steam.

I'm not willing to sponsor a company (Valve) whose only purpose in existence is to make it problematic to use the product I own and paid for.

Yes, you've made your ignorance very well known. You have even admitted that you don't care to understand the details; so I don't see any reason why anyone should listen to your objections.

I'm not saying that people should like Steam, but it's disgusting how ignorant people are about it.

---------- Post added at 11:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 PM ----------

Something I don't understand is why this keeps coming up it has "LOST" in the surveys hands down numerous times.

It will continue to resurface, even after this. It won't go away, and the demand will only increase. And since just about every argument against it has been countered, the people who do want it will keep asking.

[Flogger23m 2]

If it is the Steam version, sure. But I do not want Steam for ArmA 3.

For the same reason I don't want the Steam versions of DCS. My PC will run them poor enough already, I don't want another program running in the background.

I like Steam for other games, but wouldn't want it for ArmA 3.

The issue of auto updating and the inability to play older patch versions (only the latest) is annoying to. Many mods require certian patches to work.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Flogger23m

[AnimalMother92 10]

I'm all for it. I'd love to see BI products enhanced by Steam.

[therev709 10]

I like Steam, it works; easier to install games every time I rebuild my rig or reinstall some new version of Windows; no complaints. Steamworks, sure, for the steam version why not? Honestly I'm indifferent because with or without it it doesn't affect me.

[metalcraze 290]

As the poll shows 2/3 of people want to have a choice.

The fact that there is already a Steam version of ArmA2 and yet people still complain proves that all that they want are childish avatars and achievements.

There are many alternative server browsers for ArmA2 and nothing stops BIS from improving their own - so "server browser is crap!!1" is just an excuse.

[xxbbcc 6]

Yes, you've made your ignorance very well known. You have even admitted that you don't care to understand the details; so I don't see any reason why anyone should listen to your objections.

Exacatly which part of my argument shows ignorance? I admitted I didn't know how Steam and Steamworks weren't the same but seeing how both requires Steam to be installed, I fail to see how that makes a difference.

I'm not saying that people should like Steam, but it's disgusting how ignorant people are about it.

Why should anyone be enthusiastic about it at all? It's s a 3rd party service that makes software more expensive and limits your rights. Why would I, in any way, be expected to even know about it? (Which I do, but that's not important.)

If BIS wants to make a specific Steam version of the game (in addition to the normal one), I'm ok with it - if a customer feels like paying extra for no added value, who am I to interfere with that?

I, however, (and I repeat myself, so I'll stop) don't want that trash on my computer. If you do, that's your choice but if BIS makes that choice a requirement, they'll lose money on the other side.

[Leader 0]

No Steam thanks.

[PanamanianDevil 1]

Steam is awesome... Steamworks is even better. I vote yes.

I can understand why some don't want Steam in the mix but they should be accurate with their claims. I have seen where Steam servers being down prevent multi-player gaming. This is a true claim. But it's hardly ever down.

Steam offline mode had to be activated while online in the past. That really did defeat the purpose of the mode but has been fixed a long time ago. Now it's not required.

My prediction however is that Arma 3 will be available on Steam, but I'm guessing it won't be a Steamworks title. Either way, if it's on Steam, I'll be happy. The biggest reasons I like Steamworks is for the cloud (I play on multiple PC's) and achievements. Achievements really are achievements when they relate to how you strategized to beat a particular scenario. I realize developers make gimme achievements, but I like the more structured ones.

[onlyrazor 11]

Steam is the devil's bloatware. Sure, it's useful every now and then, but once Steamworks is implemented, it's forced. You can't opt out if you want to play the game.

NIET

[ziiip 1]

The fact that there is already a Steam version of ArmA2 and yet people still complain proves that all that they want are childish avatars and achievements.

Not sure if you noticed, but achievements are the fundamental pillar of any good game. Why should devs waste time and resource on advanced physics when then can spend that time creating such epic achievements as "congratulations, you managed to start the game".

[Pulverizer 1]

The fact that there is already a Steam version of ArmA2 and yet people still complain proves that all that they want are childish avatars and achievements.

Yeah, it can't possibly be because BIS takes forever to upload patches on Steam and because you can't join Arma2 servers via friends list etc etc. It must be the achievements no one actually gives a shit about :rolleyes:

Only pirates and game-reselling communists dislike Steam, it's proven by my magic 8-ball.

[rangerpl 13]

No.

Hell no.

Achievements, Leaderboards and pointless shit would just invite more arcade shooter noobs and K/D whores to crap on our game. Steamworks is fine for Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead, but please, let's keep it out of ArmA.

[iratus 71]

Sell ArmA 3 on Stam? Yes.

Those people who like the services Steam provides for them (mainly autopatching and all that) may buy it there. And the presence there will result in more sales for BIS (wich then means more money can get invested in cool addons, ArmA 4 and so on)

I own many games on Steam, but I will buy ArmA 3 boxed or at Sprocket (if digital) because I want to run mods on it - Steams habit of autopatching and saving the gamefiles in predefined locations sometimes doesn't work well with mods. So I want to stay in control here.

Integrate Steamworks into ArmA 3? No.

If Steamworks gets integrated in ArmA 3 we all have to register it (aka soulbind) to Steam even if we bought it elsewhere, and we have to run Steam in the background. And what advantages do we get? Achievements, leaderboards, profiles, and avatars? I don't need them (and we allready have squad.xml including squadlogos wich are way cooler). Matchmaking? Sure, the ability to invite friends directly onto the server you are currently playing comes in handy, but i don't want to get "soulbinded" just to have the option to be lazy. I dont see the pros outweigh the cons here.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

Not sure where you lot have been for the last 5 years, but you can't really sell second ahdn PC games these days, even retail. They're almost all linked to some kind of account (SOME aren't, most are), and what's worse is the added value to getting the full price thing is gone as you get codes for the DLC and so on, but they're linked to that account I mentioned before.

Also, again, not sure where you've been, but most places don't even sell PC games any more, and if they do their selection is pitiful at best. It's just a shelf full of The Sims 3 and its countless addons/DLC and some ancient games from PC's glory days in a 3 for £10 deal. Steam is about the only place you can get new games these days, for good or bad.

---------- Post added at 03:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 AM ----------

No.

Hell no.

Achievements, Leaderboards and pointless shit would just invite more arcade shooter noobs and K/D whores to crap on our game. Steamworks is fine for Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead, but please, let's keep it out of ArmA.

Really? I can't see that. ArmA games are so far removed from the kind of games you see people compete for things like that in they'd give up pretty soon as it doesn't fit their game style, or they'll learn to love it and become a new member of the community and open their minds to new kind of combat games that don't have "Call of Battlefield: Warfare Duty" in the name.

I don't understand this mindset that new people joining the community is a bad thing, it's extremely elitist and arrogant. If people join in that are used to more fast paced games, they'll soon leave if they can't handle it, or they'll learn to play. What do we stand to lose if more "casual" people start playing other than our false sense of superiority?

Edited January 29, 2012 by Madus_Maximus