Steamworks, add it in or not?

[Dwarden 1124]

BIS is never going to break out of the current MP situation (largely worthless public servers vs. elite private groups) without borrowing someone else's MP infrastructure. They need the expertise from somewhere.

that's why we use Gamespy ...

and middleware is not going to solve Your MP situation w/o the game in first place

or got some 'worthy' suggestion? (aka explain what You mean by borrowing ? :) )

[Maio 293]

BIS is never going to break out of the current MP situation (largely worthless public servers vs. elite private groups) without borrowing someone else's MP infrastructure. They need the expertise from somewhere.

There is now way to "fix" the MP situation. ArmA is a sandbox, diversity is it's main strenght and at the same time it's enemy.Huge sales=large amount of players=mainstream=standardization.

Look at Apple and Android :)

[Pulverizer 1]

i used to be able to sell my old games (just like i sell any other no longer wanted item i own) but now more and more games are tied to Steam. and because steam want to boost their own greedy profits, they have deliberately created a system where you are unable to sell your old steam games.

to me, this is unacceptable, to be held hostage by Steam. they basically OWN any game that uses the Steam sytem.

SAY NO TO ANYTHING STEAM RELATED.

In many cases you don't really own immaterial property such as a game anyway, even when you buy it on physical media. You merely buy the licence to use it like any other software. If the licence doesn't allow you to resell it, then that's the way it is.

For example many games only allow you to activate a licence key once for a multiplayer account. If you resell such game without the info, the buyer can't get into mp.

[Nicholas 5]

P.S. Did you know BIS is still in business because of digital distribution? Marek Spanel said it himslef :)

Yup, Maruk has never said anything bad about Steam that I know of.

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.

I think it is possible that Arma community is simply too impatient for Steam.

Crucial - Decisive or critical, especially in the success or failure of something.

[rainbird 1]

In many cases you don't really own immaterial property such as a game anyway, even when you buy it on physical media. You merely buy the licence to use it like any other software. If the licence doesn't allow you to resell it, then that's the way it is.

For example many games only allow you to activate a licence key once for a multiplayer account. If you resell such game without the info, the buyer can't get into mp.

What?

err, yes, a game is licensed for a single instance. whether it is a multi-player online instance or a local installed instance - you have always only ever been able to own/use and install a single instance. any online multi-player service will check for duplicate instances of a game-key and prevent multiple instances across accounts. that is perfectly acceptable and is not the point I was making.

Steam are not simply preventing multiple instances of a game across accounts - they are artificially preventing their customers from selling their own property. they are doing this despite the fact that they have the means to enable game keys to be transferred between accounts. This is not about preventing piracy, this is about choking the used game market to increase new purchases.

like many gamers today, you have been fooled by recent debates as to whether "software can be owned by the people who pay for it". Well, yes it can. I do not own the right to make duplicates, but I own a single license which I am LEGALLY entitled to sell on. Of course, recent changes to Terms and conditions mean that this can be prevented. But shouldn't gamers say: "wait a minute, not long ago I was able to sell my used games and recoup some of my own money. NOW, suddenly because the industry has the technology to prevent that (ie: tied to online servers) they are suddenly preventing me from selling my own property!" :rolleyes:

but no, of course gamers will not say that. Like you, they will just repeat Steam's recent T&C and say "oh well, you're just not allowed to sell your own game".

I'm not sure when exactly humans entirely lost their spines and became invertebrate. show some indignation when companies are clearly pulling a scam on you! :butbut:

[Pulverizer 1]

I didn't mean that you would keep playing after selling a game, but for some services you use gamespy accounts etc, so you can't resell the single game unless you created invidual accounts for each.

You could create invidual Steam accounts too for each game. That's pretty much the equivalent of selling any non-steam multiplayer game that is already tied to an account.

Personally I think selling used games is wrong. It means that 100 people could play a single copy, while the developer only gets paid once for creating the intellectual property. It's like legal piracy.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Pulverizer

[dragon01 902]

ArmA doesn't need Steam integration. It'd be nice to be able to buy it through Steam, but it shouldn't require it. I prefer having a boxed version of such complex game, especially because of the paperback manual which could be read without alt-tabbing out of the game and running programs in the background (considering system requirements of AIII, my computed wouldn't be able to run it with anything running in the background).

[celery 8]

Personally I think selling used movies is wrong. It means that 100 people could watch a single copy, while the makers only get paid once for creating the intellectual property. It's like, legal piracy.

Edited for increased perspective.

[Pulverizer 1]

Yes, you can replace games/movies with "immaterial property".

[celery 8]

Yes, you can replace games/movies with "immaterial property".

So where have you drawn your moral line when it comes to selling off things one has bought? Is getting rid of your tabletop games by way of selling or giving away immoral? What about music CDs? What about books? Why/why not?

[krazikilla 5]

No No No and NO!

Not for no reason my "forced" steam name is: ideclaretotalewaronsteeaaam !!

Its just.. BAD, to say it in mature words. I cannot even find the words how i hate this system.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

No No No and NO!

Not for no reason my "forced" steam name is: ideclaretotalewaronsteeaaam !!

Its just.. BAD, to say it in mature words. I cannot even find the words how i hate this system.

I hope you don't ever have to use Origin then lol.

[rainbird 1]

I just find it amazing how easy it has been for game companies to sell this bogus idea to many that selling used games is wrong.

Personally I think selling used games is wrong. It means that 100 people could play a single copy, while the developer only gets paid once for creating the intellectual property. It's like legal piracy.

come on, you don't really think that. you were told that by Cory Ledesma / THQ, a person who can only be described as a crook himself:

"That's a little blunt but we hope it doesn't disappoint people. We hope people understand that when the game's bought used we get cheated"

http://kotaku.com/5620280/thq-buying-used-games-is-cheating

He's a genuine trailblazer and you should hear some of the other new trends he would like to see for the games industry. ie: making it "the norm" that customers RENT their games with continuous monthly subscriptions ON TOP of the one-off $40-$60 retail price.

but I'm sure you'll be happy with that also. unbelievable. If in the 90s gamers were told they were "not allowed to sell their Nintendo SNES cartridges" - they would not be in business today.

But today's generation of gamers find it perfectly acceptable. lol

Edited January 29, 2012 by rainbird

[Pulverizer 1]

No No No and NO!

Not for no reason my "forced" steam name is: ideclaretotalewaronsteeaaam !!

Its just.. BAD, to say it in mature words. I cannot even find the words how i hate this system.

Actually you can chance your player name that's visible to others in Steam. What you can't change is the login/username.

So where have you drawn your moral line when it comes to selling off things one has bought? Is getting rid of your tabletop games by way of selling or giving away immoral? What about music CDs? What about books? Why/why not?

It's a very complicated matter, not black and white. But I wouldn't sell an used tabletop game, music CD or book. I would totally download a car though.

[celery 8]

It's a very complicated matter, not black and white. But I wouldn't sell an used tabletop game, music CD or book. I would totally download a car though.

I didn't ask what you in particular would sell, I asked if it was immoral to give away or sell them (and why) because I want to know the precise logic in your statement that redistributing a certain kind of consumer product is wrong.

[rainbird 1]

Celery: Amazon resell games. By Pulverizer's logic, they are pirates.

or no, perhaps he thinks it's ok only for companies to resell the goods they own...but not lowly individuals - that's just wrong and immoral.

[Pulverizer 1]

Humans aren't perfectly logical beings so you are asking for the impossible, and frankly I haven't given enough thought to it to write an essay on the subject from every possible perspective. But in a nutshell "immaterial property" sums up my views what shouldn't be resellable for the reason in the original quote you edited.

[celery 8]

Humans aren't perfectly logical beings so you are asking for the impossible, and frankly I haven't given enough thought to it to write an essay on the subject from every possible perspective. But in a nutshell "immaterial property" sums up my views what shouldn't be resellable for the reason in the original quote you edited.

Are you able to argue for your stance at all? Stating that immaterial property shouldn't be sold off by consumers because it's immaterial property is not an argument at all, you're just declaring it as a basic premise for no good reason.

[rainbird 1]

Pulverizer: let me make it clearer for you. The use of an individual license key can be monitored. When you purchase a game you are purchasing the right to use that game at any time. Now, because the use of that key can be monitored, its transferral of ownership is very simple and, in fact, Steam HAS the ability to easily transfer keys between accounts (they openly admit this)

So the material/immaterial argument is invalid. A key's usage manifests itself "materially" on Steam's system.

i hate using the word, but it's appropriate in this case: the whole thing is a SCAM by Steam.

[Pulverizer 1]

Are you able to argue for your stance at all? Stating that immaterial property shouldn't be sold off by consumers because it's immaterial property is not an argument at all, you're just declaring it as a basic premise for no good reason.

That wasn't my "argument".

I just feel that it's the developer/artist's right to be compensated n times when n people enjoy the work, much like a ticket to a show, instead of getting paid once per x people circulating a single copy of the work.

---------- Post added at 01:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:48 AM ----------

i hate using the word, but it's appropriate in this case: the whole thing is a SCAM by Steam.

How is it a scam when people willingly agree to it, perfectly understanding the conditions? It's not like they try to hide it.

[jibemorel 10]

I never bought a game on Steam nor I will.

[rainbird 1]

How is it a scam when people willingly agree to it, perfectly understanding the conditions? It's not like they try to hide it.

Pulverizer: because you, and many gamers, clearly do not understand (or just don't care about) the concept of "ownership". Steam know this. If gamers (in general) were a little more concerned about their rights, they would not get away with it. People would boycott them and they'd be out of business and another company with decent lawful T&C's would replace them. So in a real sense, it IS a scam.

But, this will end-up a circular debate. So, I will bow out of this discussion.

Enjoy buying games for Steam to own.

[spec_ops_sniper 0]

Steam is great, i bought CO on steam after my discs were destroyed by time and so far so good, my mods are not broken and performance is not hindered. Six updater works fine with it. I think steamworks would be good ONLY for the steam version but not for the physical retail version.

Edit:

Pulverizer: because you, and many gamers, clearly do not understand (or just don't care about) the concept of "ownership". Steam know this. If gamers (in general) were a little more concerned about their rights, they would not get away with it. People would boycott them and they'd be out of business and another company with decent lawful T&C's would replace them. So in a real sense, it IS a scam.

But, this will end-up a circular debate. So, I will bow out of this discussion.

Enjoy buying games for Steam to own.

There is nothing illegal about steam and it is not a scam. by buying a game on steam you own the license to the digital copy and you own that license for ever. You have agreed to this method by making a purchase. I do not feel scammed, i know i do not physically own a game I simply own the digital license.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Spec_Ops_Sniper

[celery 8]

That wasn't my "argument".

I just feel that it's the developer/artist's right to be compensated n times when n people enjoy the work, much like a ticket to a show, instead of getting paid once per x people circulating a single copy of the work.

If you truly had the notion that replayable media was like an admission to a show, you'd want to pay the makers in full each time you watch a movie you have on disc, or start a game that you've completed before. You know that it doesn't work that way. Through the ages, no party has had a problem with reselling and giving away used entertainment media until the distribution methods have allowed companies to restrict it.

So, do you think that it's immoral to give away books, movies, tabletop games and music CDs that have been paid for once? Why?

---------- Post added at 01:34 ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 ----------

There is nothing illegal about steam and it is not a scam. by buying a game on steam you own the license to the digital copy and you own that license for ever. You have agreed to this method by making a purchase. I do not feel scammed, i know i do not physically own a game I simply own the digital license.

The problem that is discussed in this topic is that forcing Steam integration will leave people only with a binary choice of either buying or not buying the game instead of buying it where the terms and conditions match the consumer's idea of fairness.

[NeMeSiS 11]

That wasn't my "argument".

I just feel that it's the developer/artist's right to be compensated n times when n people enjoy the work, much like a ticket to a show, instead of getting paid once per x people circulating a single copy of the work

Why dont you extend this line of thought to, for example, cars? Why dont you feel a car manufacter has the right to be compensated n times why people (re)buy their car?

I dont really care too much about this issue since i never sell/buy 2nd hand games, but i dont really see your reasoning behind this.