Steam discussion

[dm 9]

But the developer decided to force everyone to use steam .. why?

I'll tell you exactly why:

Because it makes their life easier.

I'm 100% sure I've posted this already, but I'll post it again.

Take Arma 2 and Arma 2: Op Arrowhead as an example.

There is the steam version.

There is the Sproket version

There is the Morphicon version

There are how ever many other versions that there are/were.

Each one of those versions required its own master to be made, and its own patching pipeline. For example, Sproket may have been released with content x, y, and z at version 123, Morphicon may have been released with content x and y at version 12 and z at version 1. So it needs different patching. Steam then also needed different patching because it [at the time] did not allow differential patching.

Having spoken to many people involved, I know that it was an absolute fucking nightmare for them to keep track of, let alone do.

The whole reason for switching to Steam is to make their life easier. They have ONE pipeline to look after now. If Morphicon wants to release a physical copy, they take a snapshot of the steam data, which is then patched to the latest version of the steam data the first time you connect to the internet. Sproket just sells you a code to be redeemed on steam (but the full value of the sale goes to BI).

Simple. As. That.

If I have to explain why, you haven't been around as long as I have.

lol

[ck-claw 1]

As DM says.

Alot of us have been around for yrs and know what to do,but theres alot of ppl that don't!

How many ppl had trouble installing/running the Beta patch in Arma2????

Now its just there to swap out between the 2 whenever ya want :cool:

[NoRailgunner 0]

BIS are just trying to increase their profits by selling their products to a bigger crowd. BI store is not so popular like Steam and casual gamers are somewhat lazy and usually can't be bothered to do much more than the simple click-to-play procedure or they simply expect somekind of instant/automatic features. It would be interesting to know why BI really would have an "absolute fucking nightmare" to keep track of their own projects. Seems more like saving cost/time not using tracking tools/software and even outsourcing QA (to fans/consumer).... One distribution platform to rule them all, one (or more) special sales offers to find them, one to bring them all in the darkness bind them. In the Land of Monopol where the Profit lies. :cool:

[Herbal Influence 10]

Even I, having played + installed all of the OFP-Series until now, had problems reinstalling Arma2.

And nevertheless I am so sad about BISs decision because its a further decrease and damage to the philosophy of BIS (see signature) and to the freedom in the software gaming market and kick in the ass for data privacy.

Steam is dominating the market, BIS follows and agrees.

Steam has power over publishers, more and more.

BIS subordinates its whole company under it kicking freedom in the a ....

They say they can easily withdraw from it and that might be technically true.

But if they do it, they lose much more than what they had before they signed with Steam.

Customers will stay with steam, because they lose all this "wonderful cosy comfy" environment babies need.

And BIS will return to a desert they helped to create: The free gaming world will be lost forever.

Because: Kids do no more know by then, (a) that it exists, (b) how to play games without the silky bed of steam and © because they don't ask no more for more, because steam games consume all their pocket money, brain und time.

And later no one will hinder steam from introducing 'new technologies' like Microsoft plans with their xbox: Patent pending for a software for the xbox than checks exactly who is sitting in front of the obligatory camera and license fees on video streams etc. will take that into account. You know that face recognition is more precise than a fingerprint?

[chortles 263]

interesting to know why BI really would have an "absolute fucking nightmare" to keep track of their own projects. Seems more like saving cost/time not using tracking tools/software and even outsourcing QA (to fans/consumer)....

Sounds like reason enough to go Steamworks! Oh wait, the announcement outright said that... :lol:

[dm 9]

It would be interesting to know why BI really would have an "absolute fucking nightmare" to keep track of their own projects.

You've obvioulsy never made a mod for any of the games so far then... You'd understand completely if that was the case.

I don't disagree that they are not trying to make more money. I just don't agree that they are doing it for the cynical reasons many of you think.

[Placebo 28]

casual gamers are somewhat lazy

Casual gamers don't play Arma, didn't before, won't now, it's not a casual game. Using Steam for Arma3 has nothing to do with casual gamers, if we were targeting Arma3 at casual gamers it would look/play/sound/feel like a COD clone.

[NoRailgunner 0]

DM you obviously know how QA tools and procedures work! As for "casualizing" A3 - DayZ (later Wasteland spin-off) brought a big chunk of casual gamers into Armaverse and most likely BIS are clever enough to try to hold + milk them not only via DayZ SA. Just look at the numbers of milsim gamers vs numbers casual gamers and what is less pain to make/develop and also where the gain of pain is much more profitable.... guess why there is no competition in this area at all? :)

[dm 9]

DM you obviously know how QA tools and procedures work!

Given that I get dozens of daily bug reports to manage from a QA team of 15 - 20 people, I'd say I had a fair idea.

You can continue to be cynical, but the direction A3 is being taken in is nothing but a good one. Including, for now, Steam as a distribution platform.

Edited May 30, 2013 by DM

[st_dux 26]

What, exactly, is the argument against Steam again? All I see in this thread is "I want to the freedom to choose against Steam because I want the freedom to choose against Steam"; I haven't seen a single substantive argument that mentions any real negatives of making the move to Steam-exclusive. Choice simply for the sake of having choice isn't very convincing in this case.

[dmarkwick 261]

What, exactly, is the argument against Steam again? All I see in this thread is "I want to the freedom to choose against Steam because I want the freedom to choose against Steam"; I haven't seen a single substantive argument that mentions any real negatives of making the move to Steam-exclusive. Choice simply for the sake of having choice isn't very convincing in this case.

I mentioned that I had my Steam account hijacked.

[maddogx 13]

I mentioned that I had my Steam account hijacked.

A lot less likely nowadays, provided you're using Steam Guard. :)

Basically someone would need to hack your e-mail account in order to gain access to your Steam account, by which time you probably have bigger problems.

[mrcash2009 0]

"I want the freedom to choose against Steam because I want the freedom to choose against Steam";

The key point in that quote is "choose" (choice) and "steam" ... as in, without steam there is no "choice" and as a result no actual freedom/option to be able to choose, that choice being other ways to get the game without the requirement of an entire single billboard advert / EULA (that can change later) / shopping centre cemented to it namely "Steam", which is mainly justified for one key area here in the defence of "patches and updates" but omitting the rest. :)

Just because something becomes the norm doesn't mean its a given, and proved in itself the actual lack of choice as .. there isn't one. Not that its going to change anything in Arma/BI's case but speaking about the subject of steam.

Edited May 30, 2013 by mrcash2009

[vilas 473]

What, exactly, is the argument against Steam again? All I see in this thread is "I want to the freedom to choose against Steam because I want the freedom to choose against Steam"; I haven't seen a single substantive argument that mentions any real negatives of making the move to Steam-exclusive. Choice simply for the sake of having choice isn't very convincing in this case.

- i cannot use product without being connected to the internet, when internet fails i cannot use games, what if there is problem with provider for week ? you cannot browse net, you cannot play, just sit on chair without anything,

- when i change computer, disc, it requires codes, so simply reinstal won't do the job, there is no instal, it downloads again huge packs,

- there is no installer of game, for people who have for example 312, 512 kb/kB ? connection (one friend in Lithuania, some friends in Poland still have such connection cause they live outside big cities, i live in big city, i have 10 MB connection from cable TV and i can sign agreement, they not, if you hire flat, you cannot sign with cable TV) it means no acces to game, downloading few days , etc.

- what if someone has mobile/radio internet and game on laptop ? etc. etc.

Steam is bad because it requires constant internet connection which in some cases/areas in globe means money and trouble, downloading game by someone with slow connection is ... worse than buying disc in shop (imagine downloading 9 GB by person with 512 connection from mobile phone payed 5 euro per 1.2 GB, Polish prices from Orange Pop card , my girl pay such money in her parents' flat where there is only mobile internet which has speed like 30 kb or kB/s often)

i still mess kb with kB so forgive me

Edited May 30, 2013 by vilas

[Ginastic 10]

- i cannot use product without being connected to the internet, when internet fails i cannot use games, what if there is problem with provider for week ? you cannot browse net, you cannot play, just sit on chair without anything

Well you can play on Steam without internet

[starstreams 0]

I'll tell you exactly why:

Because it makes their life easier.

The whole reason for switching to Steam is to make their life easier. They have ONE pipeline to look after now.

I'm 100% sure I've posted this already, but I'll post it again.

Take Arma 2 and Arma 2: Op Arrowhead as an example.

There is the steam version.

There is the Sproket version

There is the Morphicon version

There are how ever many other versions that there are/were.

So put the burden on the customers who supported them for over 10 years? That's the number one thing you don't do in business.

And why are they selling all these versions in the first place?

I don't disagree that they are not trying to make more money. I just don't agree that they are doing it for the cynical reasons many of you think.

Well, I don't think there's anything cynical about them trying to make their work easier, and I can appreciate what you said with regard to managing a single pipe line. However, why are they even trying to develop all these pipelines in the first place? Why not just sell one digital download and release patches for that? Whether they use steam or not, they still have to develop for multiple platforms, Win7, Win8.. 32, 64.. ect. And with all this talk about making it easier for the less savy, I've always associated OFP/ARMA as having an older community. Who are they targeting now ..kids? That's another concern.

Kids have different requirements (laws) and expectations. If BIS does really well $ with a younger age group will they still deliver the same level of quality if they're able to make a profit from less demanding expectations found in younger consumers? Well, I'm being pessimistic with that last remark. But I don't understand why they're not just developing one digital download and managing the downloads from their site. I've built enough web sites to understand that mirroring patches (more efficiently if it's an issue now) is not a big deal. I'm not saying steam is not easier, I'm sure it is. But there's always alternatives. Why did we need ArmA III so soon? Is the new trend to pump out new games every year like Microsoft does with their OS? So now what happens to ArmA II? Will it get left in the dust?

What ever, same story falls on deaf ears.

Edited May 31, 2013 by starstreams

[st_dux 26]

I mentioned that I had my Steam account hijacked.

Fair point there.

The key point in that quote is "choose" (choice) and "steam" ... as in, without steam there is no "choice" and as a result no actual freedom/option to be able to choose, that choice being other ways to get the game without the requirement of an entire single billboard advert / EULA (that can change later) / shopping centre cemented to it namely "Steam", which is mainly justified for one key area here in the defence of "patches and updates" but omitting the rest. :)

Just because something becomes the norm doesn't mean its a given, and proved in itself the actual lack of choice as .. there isn't one. Not that its going to change anything in Arma/BI's case but speaking about the subject of steam.

I already conceded that Steam-exclusive obviously limits choice; my point was that this limitation isn't really meaningful unless Steam has some actual negatives associated with it.

- i cannot use product without being connected to the internet, when internet fails i cannot use games, what if there is problem with provider for week ? you cannot browse net, you cannot play, just sit on chair without anything,

- when i change computer, disc, it requires codes, so simply reinstal won't do the job, there is no instal, it downloads again huge packs,

- there is no installer of game, for people who have for example 312, 512 kb/kB ? connection (one friend in Lithuania, some friends in Poland still have such connection cause they live outside big cities, i live in big city, i have 10 MB connection from cable TV and i can sign agreement, they not, if you hire flat, you cannot sign with cable TV) it means no acces to game, downloading few days , etc.

You only need to connect to the internet once for validation (and later for patches if you want to update). After that, you can play offline always (or at least that is my understanding of it).

As for slow downloads, I could be wrong on this, but I don't think that "Steam-exclusive" means that there won't be any hard copy sold; I think it just means that Steam will be required. Thus, you could install the bulk of the content using a disc bought in a store, and then Steam would only be required for initial validation and patching. I am not 100% sure on this, though, and I can see this being a legitimate complain for people with slow internet connections if distribution were to be strictly digital.

[starstreams 0]

As for slow downloads, I could be wrong on this, but I don't think that "Steam-exclusive" means that there won't be any hard copy sold; I think it just means that Steam will be required. Thus, you could install the bulk of the content using a disc bought in a store, and then Steam would only be required for initial validation and patching. I am not 100% sure on this, though, and I can see this being a legitimate complain for people with slow internet connections if distribution were to be strictly digital.

Well, from my experience with steam in the past at least, you have to have it running while the game is running. Is this still the case? The problem I have is, I always like to manually backup my updates and add-ons. I don't like the idea of relaying on a service to provide these things. Because what often happens is, you're stuck using what they have at the time. However, I think I read that steam does allow you to run old updates in the event that your clan needed an older version for what ever reason. But when you rely on a service for these choices, you always have to wonder if they (Valve) will continue to provide these choices down the road into the future. I might want to play this game 6, 7 years from now and my video card might have issues with a new update. Can you guarantee me that steam will still have any update of choice available? When you backup your updates yourself (on your hard drive), this question is no longer a concern then. An example of what I'm talking about is this: My old car GPS allowed me to save updates on the hard drive. However, my new GPS uses a service like steam to update the unit. Well the company recently removed a feature I really liked and there's no option to roll back because the manufacture doesn't want you having that feature anymore because now they charge extra for it. I'm not saying BIS will do anything like that, but I don't like relaying on services to spoon feed me.

Aside from all that, as long as you can turn off steam while you're playing the game, i don't have too much to complain about, but if you have to run that service while you're playing It's a disappointment.

ArmA is a HUGE resource hog and we need every bit of resources. We don't need some mass marketing, mass consumption service running in the background. People wonder why the internet still runs on Linux and not windows. Because Linux doesn't run 50 million services like windows. Less is better. Less is faster. You're ability to activate your game requires steam to be working at that moment. Now you have to manage a second account and hope no one hacks that. Steam gets hacked all the time. I guess this is not such a big deal as they'll probably just give you a new activation code if you're account got hacked, but the resource consumption of steam is a concern for me.

Edited May 31, 2013 by starstreams

[dm 9]

So put the burden on the customers who supported them for over 10 years?

What burden?

If anything, it has made getting (and keeping up-to-date) Arma much easier.

You people [anti-steam people] even point it out yourself: point, click, recieve bacon Arma.

why are they even trying to develop all these pipelines in the first place?

Because (and if you've been around as long as you keep saying you have, you'd know) they are unable to secure a publishing deal that suits them with a large enough publisher to handle global distribution. So they have to go with smaller, regional, publishers which [as is becoming the disgusting norm these days] require specific "bonus" or different content to suit their region. Not to mention localisation and all that jazz.

Steam, being a global distributor, removes all that bullshit, and you're left with a single - clean - version to manage.

Why not just sell one digital download and release patches for that?

Thats exactly what they are doing... With Steam. ;)

Whether they use steam or not, they still have to develop for multiple platforms, Win7, Win8.. 32, 64.. ect.

Which really isnt such an issue - the only changes there are in the executable, and that has its own pipeline from source to production. You just include the relevant exe's and the installer does the rest.

The data remains the same across all those versions, unlike in the different snapshots that were used for the various Arma 2 publishers.

---------- Post added at 09:42 ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 ----------

The key point in that quote is "choose" (choice) and "steam"

Yes. You are free to choose whether or not you want Arma the way the developers are providing it.

If you don't want steam, your choice is to not have Arma 3.

I fail to see where this "we must have 46934394 versions to suit all our needs" opinion has come from?

You don't go to the pub and complain that you wont buy this beer because it comes in a glass and not a plastic bag.

You don't go to a car dealership and say that you'll buy this car, but only if the windscreen is replaced with wire mesh.

You don't buy bread and complain it comes in a plastic or paper bag instead of a metal tin.

[chortles 263]

I fail to see where this "we must have 46934394 versions to suit all our needs" opinion has come from?

I thought that the Steamworks announcement said that 'having all those versions had a directly negative effect on game development'...

[dm 9]

I thought that the Steamworks announcement said that 'having all those versions had a directly negative effect on game development'...

That it did. (Is also what I have been explaining in my recent posts)

[chortles 263]

Well, from my experience with steam in the past at least, you have to have it running while the game is running. Is this still the case?

Aside from all that, as long as you can turn off steam while you're playing the game, i don't have too much to complain about, but if you have to run that service while you're playing It's a disappointment.

Just gave things a shot, using the Steam client by itself, PlayWithSIX and then headswe's A3 Launcher (these two don't seem to actually bypass the Steam client unlike Arma 2, hence "Steam client by itself").

TL;DR: Only for multiplayer. :D Also, once Arma 3 is downloaded/installed/activated, a lack of Internet access/connectivity doesn't seem to affect anything about offline Arma 3 single-player or even LAN multiplayer (though I only tried this with AI bots) except the "Intel" window at the main menu; I posted my results earlier in this thread.

Re: resources: As of this post Arma 3 loaded normally loaded is taking up 457.7 MB while the Steam client takes up 19 MB, the "game overlay UI" process takes up 7.7 MB, and an associated Steam process takes up 2.8 MB, so less than 30 MB in all... while the Power Options and Network Connections windows together take up 43 to 45.5 MB. :p

It has been reported that there will be a hard copy sold when "final release"/"full game" happens (ETA Q3 2013), published in Europe by Morphicon/Peter Games.

Why did we need ArmA III so soon? Is the new trend to pump out new games every year like Microsoft does with their OS?

Two words: development hell. The game was announced back in early 2011...

- i cannot use product without being connected to the internet, when internet fails i cannot use games, what if there is problem with provider for week ? you cannot browse net, you cannot play, just sit on chair without anything,

I already answered this above -- yes you can play Arma 3 without being online, and I have done so, in my case I took myself offline by disabling the network adapter through Windows 8's "Network Connections" to test this.

- when i change computer, disc, it requires codes, so simply reinstal won't do the job, there is no instal, it downloads again huge packs,

Interestingly enough, you can "reinstall" by moving the Steamapps subfolder (of the Steam directory) to the new computer or drive. :D More information at this GiantBomb thread. You'd have to move the "Arma 3 Alpha" (current name) folder in My Documents yourself, of course.

- there is no installer of game, for people who have for example 312, 512 kb/kB ? connection (one friend in Lithuania, some friends in Poland still have such connection cause they live outside big cities, i live in big city, i have 10 MB connection from cable TV and i can sign agreement, they not, if you hire flat, you cannot sign with cable TV) it means no acces to game, downloading few days , etc.

What do you mean by "there is no installer of game"? I mean, right now there just is no retail disc because that's months away, but from what I've heard there will be a retail disc.

[bearbison 10]

A few things people seem to misunderstand here, other than for initial activation and downloading you don't need to have an internet connection to play the game. Change Steam to offline mode and hey presto you can play local if your internet connection dies and you only need to go online to update the game if you so wish. You can even play MP games in offline mode :)

You can also back your game up onto discs so that if you ever have a HDD fail or whatever you don't need to redownload more than just any updates since your last backup, sounds about the same as a disc version.

I am not a great fan of Steam but I can see it's benefits for all parties and I have had my account hacked in the past, serves me right for using an easy password, it was fixed quickly and easily and even now if they get past my new password then I have SteamGuard enabled to help combat any issues.

EDIT: Beat to the point in above post for some areas :)

[dm 9]

It has been reported that there will be a hard copy sold when "final release"/"full game" happens (ETA Q3 2013), published in Europe by Morphicon/Peter Games.

Yes, but that will just be a snapshot of the steam data (which is the "master" version) at the time the disks are pressed. You will still need to use steam, and when you first install A3 from the disk, steam will update to the latest version of the data. (Thankfully, due to differential patching, this should not be a full re-download)

[nodunit 397]

Why did we need ArmA III so soon? Is the new trend to pump out new games every year like Microsoft does with their OS? So now what happens to ArmA II? Will it get left in the dust?

Armed Assault (Arma 1) came out in 2006, Arma 2 in 2009 and Arma 3 in 2013...so it took an extra year as opposed to Arma 1-2, there is nothing "so soon" about that.

It may seem more soon due to Take on Helicopters in 2011 and the Hinds expansion in 2012, but they aren't the same thing.

Your question of Arma 2 being left in the dust is rather shocking considering well into the release of the standalone expansion of Operation Arrowhead, they were still focusing on patches for BOTH as opposed to putting all resources into OA and saying "screw you, if you don't have our expansion then you miss out", furthered by releasing DLC's for free as to not create a "have and have not" scenario.

Edited May 31, 2013 by NodUnit