Steam discussion

[jw custom 56]

I'm absolutely not a steam fan but arma 3 is a must have so i got over it, will most likely not happen with any other game(unless it's arma 4).

I must say that steam has not bothered me much so far, the download was nice and stable @4-6mb/s. same with updating/changing between dev/stable builds.

[dm 9]

Will you stop banging on about BI/Steam anyway... Im talking about steam itself and any software house

Sorry.

For me, on this forum, the only important thing is Arma. If I want to talk other steam games, I will visit their forums.

But I do get your point, so for that I apologise.

I don't see steam as being any more evil than your ISP or electricity provider, after all, they hold as much power to remove you from your games as anyone else [including valve/steam] does...

Yes it is if the eggs are Arma and the basket is Steam, the developers are hens, BI is the farmer, foxes are pirates, households are customers and the roads are the internet:

- You don't have to worry about developing and maintaining 5 different eggs with 5 different egg-shells to various baskets because of different anti-fox measures required by the basket providers

- You don't have to make sure each basket has your best egg, there's one basket, you work on having the best egg in it

- You don't have to be forced by 10 other basket providers to put different colored eggs in their baskets to draw attention to the egg in their basket

- The hens don't have to worry about baskets, it's all the same basket, the basket and the basket-manager will deal with it, hens do what hens are best at and develop good eggs

- Hens can concentrate on making eggs good instead of making eggs of different colors and different egg shells

- The basket has such features as extra padding, fox deterrent, etc. which eclipse other baskets

- The basket provider will deal with transport of the eggs, making sure you have enough of them to satisfy the demand (Sprocket-basket, while it was merely selling coupons for the eggs that will be delivered by the Steam-basket failed here, remember?)

The downside as you say is:

- Some households like other baskets and hate the basket the farmer chose for various reasons, some valid, some silly and some because they don't know any better and will believe anything anyone says about the basket without trying it themselves

- Some households don't have developed roadways where basket delivery trucks can reach them at full speed

- Some households have NO roadways

- Some households live across a drawbridge which means sometimes, when the drawbridge breaks, they can't get the eggs and will have to eat something else in case they didn't store enough eggs to eat while the bridge is being fixed

In the end, software is not an egg, if the basket fails the egg will be fine and the farmer and the basket provider has a good reputation so the household doesn't have to worry that it will be labeled as fox.

Farmer always has the master-template for the egg and can do with it what he wishes.

Oh my science.

This is the best analogy combination ever! You put it so much more eloquently than I've been trying to recently...

No, installing a retail CD from a box is easier.

Actually not possible. Installing from steam requires 3 or 4 mouse clicks, then after a short [depending on your internet speed] period, you're 100% up-to-date with the latest version of the game, assuming they've done their installers right, you'll get latest drivers for everything too. Installing from disk means actually putting the disk in the drive (harder) more clicks ("harder") then hunting down patches to make sure you're up-to-date.

No way on Earth that installing from disk is "easier"...

BIS has been around for over 10 year, they can't produce a box or a simple digital download without some 3rd party? You're not making any sense, and you're missing the point.

Clearly you have no idea of the amount of time/money/effort that goes into producing physical media. Protip: its the sole reason physical-media publishers still exist. Pressing disks is NOT cheap, printing boxart is NOT cheap, shipping those boxes worldwide is NOT cheap...

One digital download hosted off the BIS site, end of story. How do you do keep slipping Steam into the picture as though it's a fix to a problem.

Well, look at how the BI store folded on A3 alpha release day. They weren't offering downloads, just ~1Kb of disk codes, and the server crumbled... Now Imagine that they were offering 7+ GB of data too. Not gonna happen.

Steam is a "fix to the problem" as they already have billions of dollars invested in global server architecture with which to provide content. Something BI can never hope to do.

So they're not out for the passion anymore, but the larger publishing it sounds like.

You can come up with conjecture all you want. i know some of the leads (and developers) personally and I know that they have as much passion now as they ever did before. Do not confuse trying to reach a wider market with a lack of passion for the game.

And that is what I mean when I say I've been around. I've seen this trend happen, so you can discredit, or post your LOL all you want. It doesn't change the facts.

The FACT is, that I don't give a shit about your credibility. I know what I know, and I know that the developers are still married to the core principles of what makes Arma Arma.

Just because they are trying to make the game better does not mean they have sold out to some soulless entity.

Again, Valve/Steam has ZERO input on how Arma is developed or what path it should take. It is purely a distribution platform.

Going the Steam route is actually better than if BI had signed with some major physical-media publisher, as it means just that - the publisher has NO say in how the game should be designed, they are purely a distribution medium.

So if that's the only choice, I've made mine, and so have the other 12 people in my clan. You're right, it's very simple. Save my money for something else.

Then one has to wonder why you have made the choice to stick around in the forums if you have made the choice not to play the game....

[starstreams 0]

Hang on that's idle speculation and scaremongering! :) .. Apparently. I guess the next stage is paranoid, and then also "alarmist", although Im personally joking here.

Well, it is speculation at this point. But speculation is often feed by some past experience. Google and Yahoo are perfect examples. Their messenger service use to be totally privet. Over the years they implemented all sorts of EULA/TOS rules giving them permission to use your information for marketing. Another reason I won't use services like Facebook. Next thing you know, your employer is in your business because you're life is all over the net.

Negative, sir! Windows is required for you to play (many) PC games, and it includes an embedded store. This was the context of my contribution to the discussion. The question being, do you draw the line at steam, or at any dependency of the software, so long as it has an embedded store?

I also wonder if you never use modern cell phones, cable/satellite television, and other amenities based on the same criteria?

Well, an imbedded store is different than a service like Steam. You're not required to buy anything from an embedded store. Steam on the other hand is a requirement, and an agreement both ways. If you buy and use software, I can understand the reason for the end user to have some responsibility in some rearguards. Such as not reproducing the product.

However, you the end user should not have to agree to give the manufacture certain permissions to use your information. The EULA can always chance, and if you don't agree with it, you also don't get your money back for the product you rightfully paid for. How is it that I had a two year contract with my ISP and now all the sudden they upped their prices because of upgrades I never asked for. It's a contact I signed and I can't do anything about it. Contracts shouldn't change, but they can, and do.

Look, I'll be fair about this.

Since steam can be turned off once the game is activated, I have nothing to complain about there. But I sure hope in the event ..that if steam ever dropped off the face of the earth for what ever reason: I just hope that they would release a patch for all the games that needed to be activated though their service. If they can promise that, then that's a big headache gone.

Edited June 1, 2013 by starstreams

[chortles 263]

Well, an imbedded store is different than a service like Steam. You're not required to buy anything from an embedded store. Steam on the other hand is a requirement, and an agreement both ways. If you buy and use software, I can understand the reason for the end user to have some responsibility in some rearguards. Such as not reproducing the product.

The thing is that due to what I described about what Steamworks is, you never have to send money directly Valve's way, and in fact at one point you had someone (Dwarden?) from BI outright saying "buy Arma 3 from BI store so that we get a bigger cut". This is the route I went. :D Also, at least in America both GameStop and Best Buy (and apparently Target) stores sell Steam Wallet codes/cards, which both allow "buying Arma 3 with cash" (albeit with a leftover amount at the current and beta price points of $33 and $45, GameStop at least only offers $20 and $50 codes) and allow you to never have to hand over financial information either. DM's remark about how the BI Store failed (yes you are perfectly welcome to find it "sad" but that's what happened) on release day even when it was only selling Steam keys for Arma 3 is valid, and somewhere on these forums is someone noting that Steam "saved the day" by also having Arma 3 for sale with a much sturdier infrastructure.

Personal anecdote: I was one of those who eventually finally got through long enough to buy Arma 3 through the BI Store, but even then I simply received an Steam key -- the burden of activation/authentication/validation and then actual content delivery was all on Valve/Steam.

Since steam can be turned off once the game is activated, I have nothing to complain about there.

It can be "turned off" without interrupting your SP (both regular and LAN-with-bots) experience, but in my (brief and unregulated) testing it was was a seeming hassle to "get back online multiplayer connectivity"... then again, when a "Please use the full spectrum of Steam" thread had quite a few of the people who were against stuff like achievements, Steam Workshop and VAC-instead-of-BE simultaneously also cheerleading for a Steam server browser/friends-list-join-session capability instead of the current (WIP) server browser, I'm really not surprised at online MP seeming to be "powered by Steam" (and thus requiring keeping the Steam client/service running) right down to the error message.

But I sure hope in the event ..that if steam ever dropped off the face of the earth for what ever reason: I just hope that they would release a patch for all the games that needed to be activated though their service. If they can promise that, then that's a big headache gone.

There's a long-standing claim on the Internet that Gabe Newell promised this, but I can't seem to find any primary source for the claim... I wouldn't be surprised if Gabe Newell is perfectly aware of it and its effect on his reputation though. Edited June 1, 2013 by Chortles

[pvt_ryan 10]

No it won't . . . a decision has been made. You can choose ArmA 3 & Steam or no ArmA 3. That's it.

Are you unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "future", buddy? I assume that as a seemingly successful studio BIS will be making such decisions for future titles at some point. After all, this isn't an ARMA 3-specific subforum, in case you didn't notice.

[chortles 263]

I for one look forward to BI going all-Steamworks on all future titles. :D

[metalcraze 290]

I hope BIS gets rid of Steam DRM 3 months after release as usual. Steam client is an adware that I want to run the game without.

If BIS wants steamworks - let them disable it if Steam isn't running but get rid of the need to run an annoying advertisement/shop software that provides no useful features just to launch the damn game.

[NoRailgunner 0]

What about the analogy with drug addicted - dealer - drug producer? ;) Fact is that production cost of pressing CD/DVD's is pretty low a few cent's for x amount of CD/DVD and the boxart cost's as much as any other boxart of another game retail box. So please don't continue with such silly "NOT cheap" claims! The bigger issue is to get the poduct out and sold worldwide within a certain timeframe and ideally with just one big publisher/distribution system only. Guess most if not all people would be happy if BIS would have the infrastructure + staff to run their own independent online/offline gameshop. Sadly that's not the case and Steam had more things on the table than other distributors. How can you blame the bigger audience for insta- or auto-buying cheaper games or ALPHA's/WIP's?? C'mon selling more products for low price/special sales is more profitable than just a few for lets say 50-60 bucks. Don't let people think too much time about where their money goes and what they gain! Btw who cares about proper internal QA of game development if it can be outsourced and/or said that cheaper pre-releases are hip?? Quality doesn't matter if quantity makes profit.

[chortles 263]

The bigger issue is to get the poduct out and sold worldwide within a certain timeframe and ideally with just one big publisher/distribution system only.

Well, yeah, that's kind of what DnA outright said in that announcement, and "within a certain timeframe" came straight from the top...

Guess most if not all people would be happy if BIS would have the infrastructure + staff to run their own independent online/offline gameshop. Sadly that's not the case and Steam had more things on the table than other distributors.

You said it yourself right here too... though I would have just rolled my eyes if Arma 3 had been "Originworks". :lol:

[mrcash2009 0]

@DM

I don't see steam as being any more evil than your ISP or electricity provider, after all, they hold as much power to remove you from your games as anyone else [including valve/steam] does...

Its true and I agree that this can be used to shut the whole complaint down your right on that, point is, does everything have to go that way even for a simple thing like a computer game. Also I dont talk about evil companies here, I was talking about yet another box to enter into and contract to be involved in that can change and become more dominant, the likely hood of steam coming out on top is not hard to notice when you have to have the client in order just to play 1 game that has contracted to them via the software company. Or at the other end of the scale, your entire game purchase collection (the eggs in one basket analogy rides again! ;) )

Point is, its not THAT great for the end user if you really look at it (choices and retail business in the physical sense also) no matter how much the convenience overshadows it, and do we have to just keep accepting it just becuase other do?

I think there is room for both sides of the coin, doesn't all have to be about evil companies and some "hate" mission :)

What about the analogy with drug addicted - dealer - drug producer?

I had a few more to do with insects & cats, but I felt it was just taking it too far :)

[nettrucker 142]

Are you unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "future", buddy? I assume that as a seemingly successful studio BIS will be making such decisions for future titles at some point. After all, this isn't an ARMA 3-specific subforum, in case you didn't notice.

No I'm not. Future == Steam. That's how it is. And as long as Steam is not going to be a complete failure or disaster which it isn't . . . the Devs won't do nothing to change that. All people who don't like Steam, myself included, have one choice . . .to not purchase ArmA 3. That's the choice you have.

[Yairweinberg 1]

Steam is great! they done no wrong by me and got me some cool games over the years... They wont die out at least not for a while I expect it to last at least 30-50 more years of course while having some major upgrades and modifications

[PuFu 4600]

I hope BIS gets rid of Steam DRM 3 months after release as usual. Steam client is an adware that I want to run the game without.

If BIS wants steamworks - let them disable it if Steam isn't running but get rid of the need to run an annoying advertisement/shop software that provides no useful features just to launch the damn game.

It is NOT going to happen.

[Deadfast 43]

It is NOT going to happen.

Or rather is very, very, very unlikely to happen.

[pvt_ryan 10]

No I'm not. Future == Steam. That's how it is. And as long as Steam is not going to be a complete failure or disaster which it isn't . . . the Devs won't do nothing to change that. All people who don't like Steam, myself included, have one choice . . .to not purchase ArmA 3. That's the choice you have.

Facepalm. Right.

[starstreams 0]

I'm haring Adobe is going the same route with their software now, but even worse, you'll pay by month. I hope the games don't get that way.

Installing from steam requires 3 or 4 mouse clicks, then after a short [depending on your internet speed] period, you're 100% up-to-date with the latest version of the game, assuming they've done their installers right, you'll get latest drivers for everything too. Installing from disk means actually putting the disk in the drive (harder) more clicks ("harder") then hunting down patches to make sure you're up-to-date.

No way on Earth that installing from disk is "easier"...

Come on man, you've mentioned how easy it is to update via steam multiple times, and I've said I agree there. But what's the point? It's not like you're updating your copy every hour, maybe once a month. So it takes what, a few more minuets to download a patch yourself? I'm not against steam for the way it functions and agree that it can help elevate some hassles. But it can complicate the activation process down the road for the honest consumers when the hackers always get the games either way. So whats the point in all this. And I'm just not buying this idea that we need some distribution service to download patches that should really be hosted at the developers site along with all the mirror links. Are people that lazy today that they need some 3rd party app to update their software. It's amazing we ever got this far. What are we a bunch of wimps today?

No Brave New World - Iron Maiden

Raise The Fist of The Metal Child - Savatage (it was called ROCK n RoLL at one time)

-- We need more tanks with diesel power, not steam -- haha. J/K :p

Clearly you have no idea of the amount of time/money/effort that goes into producing physical media. Protip: its the sole reason physical-media publishers still exist. Pressing disks is NOT cheap, printing boxart is NOT cheap, shipping those boxes worldwide is NOT cheap...

Pressing the disk is nothing, the advertizing and distribution is another story. Fine forget the box then.

Then why not just distribute a digital download WITHOUT steam integrated, and host the darn thing on their servers. Easy

I think I know what you're going to say, and the answer is in the paragraph below.

Well, look at how the BI store folded on A3 alpha release day. They weren't offering downloads, just ~1Kb of disk codes, and the server crumbled... Now Imagine that they were offering 7+ GB of data too. Not gonna happen.

Don't give me that BS. if they're servers were getting hit that hard, they must be selling a TON of these games. The world wide web is full of unlimited hosting for average users, are you going to tell me a company like BIS can't afford sufficient hosing to host one copy of their game including any updates? ...And like everyone is buying a copy of ArmA at the same time that the servers will get crumbled. Ya maybe for the first week everyone hits the servers, but that's where a company like BIS should make a deal with a hosting company to get the extra bandwidth that week at a good cost, I'm sure plenty of hosting company's would be happy to host a successful title like this. If BIS needs extra money, they should charge for their updates, I think that's fair as the amount of work involved in producing updates is more reason to charge the consumer then some ridiculous reason such as not enough bandwidth.

My gosh, do I need to drive over there and show BIS how to do it. J/K

Steam is a "fix to the problem" as they already have billions of dollars invested in global server architecture with which to provide content. Something BI can never hope to do.

And why do you think they have billions of dollars? Because they get people to sign their contracts.

The FACT

Just because they are trying to make the game better does not mean they have sold out to some soulless entity.

Adding Steam into the mix does not make the game better. All these fixes to the issues you're mentioning seem redundant. A smart company called Value has figured out how to provide better hosting and advertizing to game developers for a fee, and at the expense of integrating their marketing conglomerate junk into the game code making the consumer eat out of their plate. It's called a monopoly. Some of us dispute the decision more so because of core principles then the actual content being provided. Again, you can layout all the good things about steam, I wont disagree.

Let me ask you something: If Valve/Steam decided to change their contact down the road and started charging you the consumer for maintenance fee, what are you going to do about it?

What makes more sense to me is if BIS would:

1. Forget about steam.

2. Charge consumers for updates starting now.

( I have no problem with BIS charging for game updates because at least I know the money is going to them, and not Valve

Also, fixing issues and producing updates is not easy, they should get paid for that. But if Valve decides to change the rules, they might start charging fees for things like bandwith.. ect and that money would go to them, and not BIS).

Edited June 1, 2013 by starstreams

[jt445 10]

It is NOT going to happen.

Then I and my Arma2 playing clan will NOT buy Arma3.

We are not interested in Steam. Period. We are willing to wait until the Steam DRM is removed from Arma3 and we'll buy it, not before.

[nettrucker 142]

Facepalm. Right.

Look I'm not attacking you here. I'm just stating facts. I don't like it either but there's nothing that we can do. We can manifest our disappointment and argue to death it won't change anything. The decision has been made and that's it. Let's face it. We have only the choice to not purchase ArmA 3 in case we don't accept Steam. If you want to play ArmA 3 you have to accept Steam.

No pun intended.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

I'm haring Adobe is going the same route with their software now, but even worse, you'll pay by month. I hope the games don't get that way.

Subscription based MMOs already exist.

But what's the point? It's not like you're updating your copy every hour, maybe once a month. So it takes what, a few more minuets to download a patch yourself? I'm not against steam for the way it functions and agree that it can help elevate some hassles.But it can complicate the activation process down the road for the honest consumers when the hackers always get the games either way. So whats the point in all this. And I'm just not buying this idea that we need some distribution service to download patches that should really be hosted at the developers site along with all the mirror links. Are people that lazy today that they need some 3rd party app to update their software. It's amazing we ever got this far. What are we a bunch of wimps today?

Actually, we get updates to A3 5 times a week. But you're forgetting that it's not only (ignorable) convenience for us, it's also (pretty important) convenience for BI. Difference between A2-style development patches and A3-style development patches is that BI doesn't have to restrict themselves in any way what they deliver to us. A2 beta patches work because they're tiny and only ever contain code fixes without data. A3 dev patches contain whatever BI wants them to contain because size is irrelevant this time around, because they don't have to deal with it.

Pressing the disk is nothing, the advertizing and distribution is another story. Fine forget the box then.

Then why not just distribute a digital download WITHOUT steam integrated, and host the darn thing on their servers. Easy

I think I know what you're going to say, and the answer is in the paragraph below.

Don't give me that BS. if they're servers were getting hit that hard, they must be selling a TON of these games. The world wide web is full of unlimited hosting for average users, are you going to tell me a company like BIS can't afford sufficient hosing to host one copy of their game including any updates? ...And like everyone is buying a copy of ArmA at the same time that the servers will get crumbled. Ya maybe for the first week everyone hits the servers, but that's where a company like BIS should make a deal with a hosting company to get the extra bandwidth that week at a good cost, I'm sure plenty of hosting company's would be happy to host a successful title like this. If BIS needs extra money, they should charge for their updates, I think that's fair as the amount of work involved in producing updates is more reason to charge the consumer then some ridiculous reason such as not enough bandwidth.

My gosh, do I need to drive over there and show BIS how to do it. J/K

Yes, digital distribution is hard. What you're saying above is the same as saying "Fuck, I can make a copy of Google myself, i just need to put an input on the webpage and then it will simply crawl the web". It doesn't even have to be digital distribution, look at the things like every single Blizzard title launch, Reddit that gets pounded to bits and tons of other products that get bogged down due to underestimated demand. Shall I mention Sprocket situation again which worked fine with trickles of people buying BI titles over the years, but then A3 comes along, where they "only" had to take your money via a 3rd party payment provider and give you a line of text in return?

Solving the load balancing problem effectively to the point where it works requires money and a lot capable workforce. Which is what Valve has and BI in no way has. I mean no disrespect here, but five guys with a small budget aren't going to do it. I'm sure BI would rather make games and sell them via other developed and proven distribution methods like Steam instead of throwing all their money on Sprocket and hoping they will one day be able to compete with Steam. Would you rather we get awesome Arma 3 / Arma 4 than Sprocket 2?

And why do you think they have billions of dollars? Because they get people to sign their contracts.

You're thinking the other way around. They have billions of dollars because they give developers a fair solution to their problems with a great product. Ignore Steam as a client software here for a second. If I'm making a game out of my basement, my concerns are exposure, marketing and delivery. I'd gladly give Valve a cut of my sales if that means they'll solve those problems for me, and I'm sure that's one of the many reasons BI chose them.

Adding Steam into the mix does not make the game better. All these fixes to the issues you're mentioning seem redundant. A smart company called Value has figured out how to provide better hosting and advertizing to game developers for a fee, and at the expense of integrating their marketing conglomerate junk into the game code making the consumer eat out of their plate. It's called a monopoly. Some of us dispute the decision more so because of core principles then the actual content being provided. Again, you can layout all the good things about steam, I wont disagree.

Let me ask you something: If Valve/Steam decided to change their contact down the road and started charging you the consumer for maintenance fee, what are you going to do about it?

What makes more sense to me is if BIS would:

1. Forget about steam.

2. Charge consumers for updates starting now.

( I have no problem with BIS charging for game updates because at least I know the money is going to them, and not Valve

Also, fixing issues and producing updates is not easy, they should get paid for that. But if Valve decides to change the rules, they might start charging fees for things like bandwith.. ect and that money would go to them, and not BIS).

So you don't have a problem of forking over cash, you have a problem with who you'll give it to. I get that. But your money is not important. Literally. Anyone would trade your money for more money. It's money, it's how it works.

Fortunately, I don't see Valve doing it. Why? Businesses are better customers than we as individuals are. Always will be.

Valve will rather offer you a free service if it means they can say to BI or anyone else: "Look at all the possible customers for your product we have!" and that's what other publishers say as well. Except that other publishers will tack on other requirements and whatnot, Valve does not seem to give a damn if they get "Epic lazor gun DLC exclusively on Steam" or if you as a developer use any copy protection at all.

And anyway, let's remind ourselves of a tiny little predicament BI was in that the entire community was concerned about, let's say 8-9 years ago, when BI had no publisher and it looked kinda bleak that we'll see Arma at all due to that.

How about Morphicon and the most shitty build of Arma 2? And I'm sure there was StarForce involved at some point.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Sniperwolf572

[dm 9]

Adding Steam into the mix does not make the game better.

You seem to think I'm suggesting adding steam makes the game better? I'm not. If you read the full part of that section you quoted, you would see I said that despite your misgivings, the devs are sticking to the core principles of what makes Arma great and trying to make the game better.

Steam is just am additional tool that allows them to concentrate more on making the game better, than having to spend money, time and effort on sorting out their distribution issues.

I wont address the other points, as Sniperwolf has already answered them better than I could.

What makes more sense to me is if BIS would:

1. Forget about steam.

2. Charge consumers for updates starting now.

Of course it makes sense to you, you don't like steam.

To me, as someone who understands the trials and tribulations BI are going through, that makes no sense.

As sniperwolf says, they would happily trade your money in for more money.

There is a few hundred, maybe a few thousand "old school" who are throwing their toys out the pram over this steam thing. But there are thousands and thousands more people who would not otherwise get Aram if it were not available on steam. So in the long run, BI still wins.

[dmarkwick 261]

Further to my own misgivings (which I already posted) I WILL say that using Steam makes sense during the development alpha & beta processes. As the game is progressing & changing so much (far more often & wide-ranging than post release patches) then making that process as easy as possible makes sense. Upon release, different story, but during dev, fair enough.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Further to my own misgivings (which I already posted) I WILL say that using Steam makes sense during the development alpha & beta processes. As the game is progressing & changing so much (far more often & wide-ranging than post release patches) then making that process as easy as possible makes sense. Upon release, different story, but during dev, fair enough.

Why is it a different story? Dev branch could stay and receive unstable updates, serve just the same as the current beta patches for A2 do, except they could be much more efficient than with the current A2 beta patches. Stable patches could also probably be more common than they are with A2 due to fricion-less delivery method that can be hotfixed in seconds without fear of having:

Update 1 - v1.01

Update 1 hotfix - v1.01a

Update 1 hotfix 2 - v1.01b

[Sealife 22]

Why is it a different story? Dev branch could stay and receive unstable updates, serve just the same as the current beta patches for A2 do, except they could be much more efficient than with the current A2 beta patches. Stable patches could also probably be more common than they are with A2 due to fricion-less delivery method that can be hotfixed in seconds without fear of having:

Update 1 - v1.01

Update 1 hotfix - v1.01a

Update 1 hotfix 2 - v1.01b

On that point , you think it would be a possibility A2 and TKOH could be added to Steam in future so we can benefit from the simple updating and dev branch system that A3 has at the moment ?

[mrcash2009 0]

We have only the choice to not purchase ArmA 3 in case we don't accept Steam. If you want to play ArmA 3 you have to accept Steam.

I know and realise im on a repeat loop :) But as I highlighted before its a sorry time to get to a finite stage that to enjoy a game you have to accept >>> "A shop you dont want / a single option of a EULA contract (can change)/ A fixed DRM to that shop you dont want and the contract shoved under your nose / Only one source to get anything downloaded or updated which is great (as justified by all) unless you have issues *see a list of many reasons posted prior in this thread* whereas mirrors last time I checked were useful in this tech world".

... .... .. . ... to play a milsim you like.

The shop aspect is the advert for steams coffers and sales, think again about those that just want 1 game to play, but get a store advertisement (use it or not its still one big advert).

It isn't a choice in the sense of a strong healthy set of options. I dont know why people keep saying buy Arma3 ... they should just advertise steam only with no game covers and just the steam logo, and then we can find it, because that comes above all else as clearly stated by all ... nothing without it.

I want to search the BI forums for the past few years and search out posters who had white knuckles and shut down low post count people who mentioned or opened topics ref steam in the last x years or so and see where they are now, that would be interesting :)

Edited June 2, 2013 by mrcash2009

[Sniperwolf572 758]

On that point , you think it would be a possibility A2 and TKOH could be added to Steam in future so we can benefit from the simple updating and dev branch system that A3 has at the moment ?

No I don't. I doubt they will do that since Steam versions of A2 and TKOH are not built with Steam as a primary distribution platform.

It would only add more complexity/headaches for the devs that maintain those products, which at this point, probably isn't more than a few people, making the release channels even more messy than they are right now. Additionally they'd still have all other versions to deal with anyway so there would be no real benefit.