I own Ostfront and will pay another 25.00 for a version of Ostfront sans Steam

[The_Countess]

All in all, it doesn't have any advantages I could see.

then you missed something. it has many advantiges for TW, not least of whichs is the fackt they themselfs keep controle of the game and not the publisher like they would with basicly any other publisher (yes bold games does something simular, but since its still near impossible to get a boxed version in europe for example they arent the most effective of publishers (with all du respect they, i realize they are only a relativly small company)

and i think you should see STEAM more as a service provider, and not something you actualy bought (because you didnt in the first place, the game itself is still TW's, just the same way you actualy didnt buy the movie 's on those DVD's you have under your TV, just the DVD disk itself)
with a service provider, you pay them money and then you trust them to provide you with a service. a service like cable TV or the internet for example for which you pay every month.
execpt that with steam you pay once and get a life time subscription.

the reason those service provider models work is because the customer trusts them, and that if they break their promices consistantly they'd loss all their customers and would be bankrupt pretty quickly. not to mention the fact that they would then be in breach of contract with ALL their costumers creating some pretty massive legal repercussions.

btw, maybe this will make you feel a bit better, if valve ever decides to stop with steam they have allready sayed they'd provide a patch for all the games available on steam so that they can operate without steam.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

If I hadn't bought RO yet and they offered a version with and without Steam, I would go the without. I have nothing against Steam, just prefer a version that didn't rely on it. I have always been capable of downloading my updates by myself, if I so choose (yes, I know you have a choice with Steam). To me, it just really isn't necessary.

 

[PasserBy]

I just registered for the sole purpose of letting you guys know this: There are many people like me, who are greatly concerned about our ever-eroding rights as consumers and citizens, people who will NOT buy anything having to do with Steam, or any other similar methods of depriving us of our rights for the benefit of various contents makers.

Some of us find this issue FAR more important then being enterntained by a game, and we find the idea of giving up these rights truly appalling. Ironically, the same rights for some of which people died, it seems only so that "games" can be made to re-enact the wars in which they died, so that some very shallow-thinking individuals can throw away these very rights in exchange for being enterntained by these games.

Such unthinking, short-sighted, ignorant and lazy attitude is truly frightening.

Although one should not be surprised that this attitude coincides with a willingness to give up far more important rights in order to avoid even a smallest modicum of personal responsibility, be it for making hard decisions in important matters, or be it having to download a patch for one's game. And so we have "daddy knows best" governments appear who openly flaunt laws of the land, because "daddy will protect you from evil bearded men under every bed" and thus "daddy" needs to dispense with trivialities such as personal liberties.

I for one, considering myself a free man, and someone who values his rights and liberties far more then a silly piece of enterntainment, will clearly NOT be buying this game, as long as it is any way associated with Steam or any other similar method of controlling me. Many of you it seems, on the other hand, like this idea, and it is unfortunately your right, to give up your rights. Just do not act surprised when the inevietable consequences of such sheepish mindset come home to roost.

I hope however that there are some of you who still retain enough personal pride and insight into history to see where all of this is going, and to refuse to play along.

The Steam enthusiasts may now commence their "and do not let the door hit you on the way out"; comments, as is inevietable. Have fun with your game, and may the shepards and herd minders be merciful with you when the time comes to feel the shears.

P.S. Speaking of security and safety, this forum is totally busted and near unusuable with JavaScript disabled.

 

[Hyperion2010]

Passer, I can see where you are comming from, however I do not think it is fair to give this such an extreme interpretation. Valve is covering their ass legally here. If it weren't for the ****ing wackos who will sue at the drop of a hat (or the removal of a steam account) this wouldnt be a problem either. Remeber that these people's rights are being protected too, even if they abuse them to the limit of the law and beyond all sembelance of reason. We cannot deprive them of their rights lest those who stay within the limits of reason be deprived too. Therefore you end up with EULA's and contracts which seem like they deprive you of your rights, but hey, its only becuase we have to protect the wackos rights too.

 

[PasserBy]

Hyperion,

The problem is not with the fact that some contractual protections are sometimes required in the EULAs and the like, under the current scenario where copyright is the primary method of ensuring renumeration to authors, but with the egregious over-reach on the part of the distrubutors, publishers and makers of entertainment which they commited in pursuit of profit and control over their consumers.

The idea is to convert all of the software marketplace to "rental" or "micropayment" or "pay-per-use" models, whereby the consumer ends up owning and controling nothing, and the "rights holder" controlling everything.

This hopelessly lopsided lanscape is developing in many areas of the marketplace, slowly converting citizens from private property owners to mere tenants of someone's property, "intellectual" or otherwise.

The gap between the median income population and the richest people is increasing rapidly, the corporate power skyrocketing and many other trends are under way, all inter-related, and all rooted in the all-encompassing assault on our rights as citizens by those who would seek to control us for their profit.

Steam is a tiny, but very, very sympthomatic, piece in this grand scheme of things.

 

[The_Countess]

The idea is to convert all of the software marketplace to "rental" or "micropayment" or "pay-per-use" models, whereby the consumer ends up owning and controling nothing, and the "rights holder" controlling everything.

newsflash, you didnt own any of the contant on any of your CD's or DVD's in the first place.
which i have allready stated in the post above.
steam chances nothing.
steam is just a service provider you get a lifetime subscription to when you buy a game from them. read my post for a more detailed discription.

The gap between the median income population and the richest people is increasing rapidly, the corporate power skyrocketing and many other trends are under way, all inter-related, and all rooted in the all-encompassing assault on our rights as citizens by those who would seek to control us for their profit.

can someone say 'conspiratie theory' ?
your first line just mean a few really rich people are getting even more rich fast (but thats the way its always been anyway, and has nothing to do with this)
as for corporate power, sure they get more powerfull, but skyrocketing is a vast overstatment, and there are still laws, and they arent in power just yet.
as for "all-encompassing assault on our rights" thats what we have laws for, if they break them report them.
and as long as you dont live in the US under a republican goverment, you can protest any challange to those laws and get heard.

 

[TedSmith]

Ironically, the same rights for some of which people died, it seems only so that "games" can be made to re-enact the wars in which they died, so that some very shallow-thinking individuals can throw away these very rights in exchange for being enterntained by these games.

ROFL

Somehow I don't think anyone died in any world war over what 'rights' you're talking about. That's a very manipulative and very underhanded way of arguing your point. The big bad video game companies are not stealing away my liberties.

There are some very serious problems in the world and there are people out there that are trying to curtail civil liberties under the guise of 'protecting' the people in a fear dominated society. I have no illusions of that, but at least fix your sights on the right people and the right things. STEAM is a software delivery system, not a fascist propaganda device.

You ranted on and on about pay-per-use systems and whatnot that have exactly NOTHING to do with Red Orchestra, or STEAM aside from the fact that STEAM allows episodic content as a possibility whereas the current model of store bought games does not. With that, you have the same rights as every other consumer. If you don't like an episodic model, don't purchase it.

You're free to have whatever delusions you like about STEAM or online software sales, but let's at least -try- to keep our eyes on the ball, shall we? You're a passionate and obviously intelligent person. Go use that for something more important than decrying a software delivery system with dubious associations to fascism.

 

[Lionel-RIchie]

I'm still suspiciously thinking that Steam's system is the reason for the long startup and loading times. With 1 gig of RAM I shouldn't have 3-5 minute loads (and with all the precache stuff turned off too).

 

[GonzoX]

I find it ironic that for the most part, people are having their fair use rights in slowly taken away from them in the name of convenience and corporate control and yet they feel compelled to defend the very people who are doing this too them.

"Hey England, You arent charging us enough taxes for this tea you shipped to Boston. Can we send you more money?"

The worst case situation (hypothetical) is that company A and company B go out of biz and the game will simply cease to function and you can not even play against bots because you are required to get permission to play the game from a company that no longer exists (hypothetical).

Now that would be an extreme case but there are lots of smaller more realistic weaknesses that could show their faces in the future. Game being drummed down via patches by future rights owners for example.

You can say that this will never happen but it has many times before. My second favorit game is Vietcong2 and it was basically born stillborn. One mediocre patch was released and then all future support was cancelled via a buyout. Think 3Dfx here as another example. And VC2 is still a new game.

Yes, I have control over my check book. That is not in dispute and I should not have somebody throw that in my face every time I comment on STEAM here.

Again, I do have control of my credit card but apparently the software companies want to be in control of everything else.

There are many games that I did not buy because of STEAM. RO is the exception to my rule. I wanted it bad enough to install STEAM off my RO CD but that does not mean I like STEAM and I will continue to be critical of it here regardless of what others think. I am entitled to my opinion after all and it is a valid concern if you look at all the ramifications.

What really gets me is that they make the retail box version with the same exact limitations of the downloaded version. I waited for the box version thinking it would at least be slightly different although I knew STEAM was still included and required for online play.

Hell, I can't even install the thing on my D or E drive. They did not have to design the retail CD version this way but they chose too anyway for some reason. IMHO, I should not have to get permision from STEAM to play against bots offline! What's up with that?

 

[Comrade Wasabi]

As far as I can tell, Steam was something of an only option for TW. They had to pick between mass distribution of boxed versions (an expensive option, considering they had no publisher) or a cheaper, more easily-attained mass distribution via Steam. TW was LUCKY to find Bold Games to publish their box version.

By the time the boxed version was agreed upon I'm sure that the Steam distribution was pre-loaded and ready to go. How early were we able to pre-load? Earlier than that, the Steam deal was irreversible, so even though they had a boxed version available, it was required to be a Steam product, similar to my boxed HL2.

Steam provides a gigantic distribution system with little to no intrusion as long as you set the program up properly. While it's true that there are issues with the program; overload of servers (HL2 release day, anybody?), possibilty of an EULA-breaching game shutdown *cough*, data mining money laundering schemes...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that RO and Steam are locked in stone now, as far as I can tell.

 

[The_Countess]

The worst case situation (hypothetical) is that company A and company B go out of biz and the game will simply cease to function and you can not even play against bots because you are required to get permission to play the game from a company that no longer exists (hypothetical).

Now that would be an extreme case but there are lots of smaller more realistic weaknesses that could show their faces in the future. Game being drummed down via patches by future rights owners for example.

your worst case has allready been coverd by valve.
they have stated that if they ever stop with steam, they would release a patch for every game available on it so it will function without it.

as for your 'more realistic' scenarios they are equaly unrealistic as it would represent a breach of contract giving them a whole host of legal issues.
not to mention a complete loss of future costumers.

STEAM is just a service provider, and as with ANY service provider model there needs to be a bit of trust for it to function.
you trust your ISP to provide you with internet when you pay then, why cant you trust valve to provide you with the game when you pay them, whats the big difference?

on the whole your ISP can do a whole lot more scary things with all your data then steam will ever be able to, and they can do it all without you even being able see that they are doing so (with steam you can monitor the traffic generated by the programe if your really paranoid, but with your ISP they can just copy whatever you're transmitting)

and yet, dispite all that, you trust them not too. why is valve any different?

Hell, I can't even install the thing on my D or E drive.

install steam on your D or E and the games get installed there aswell
or beter yet just move the directly manualy and edit the shortcuts, works without a problem (steam dusnt imput a lot of data into your registery and dusnt care where its started from basicly.)

I'm still suspiciously thinking that Steam's system is the reason for the long startup and loading times. With 1 gig of RAM I shouldn't have 3-5 minute loads (and with all the precache stuff turned off too).

i got 1 GB of ram aswell yet i load ANY map in under a minute (which is faster then BF loading times for example)
im usualy somewhere between 2de and 5th on the map.
i run steam aswell so its unlikely to be the cause of the problem.
did you turn off precaching in your ini files?

 

[Helmut_AUT]

STEAM is just a service provider, and as with ANY service provider model there needs to be a bit of trust for it to function.
you trust your ISP to provide you with internet when you pay then, why cant you trust valve to provide you with the game when you pay them, whats the big difference?

I bought a game - I don't care for a "service provider". If my ISP stops my internet services, I can just chancel his monthly payments.

If Vavle stops or trough technical difficultys prevents RO from lauching, I can not chancel payments, because I already paid.

Yes, in theory you can sue them. Good luck with that.

If Valve decides one day "hey, Tripwire, your game isn't selling well - we need more customers, so add more quake-style gameplay" then what are you gonna do? Steam is going to download the patch for you before you even realize it, and suddenly RO is gonna be Quake Arena.

Last example: Napster Music. Not sure if you followed the story, I did a bit. Last year, Napster was looking to raise the monthly prices for their music service. They are not only selling single songs, but also monthly subscriptions. Now they were looking to raise the prices for their subscription-customers.

That's their company right I guess. But in fact, what would have happened for those subscripers not willing to pay the higher prices? Simple, Napster could have disabled all their existing music librarys by a simple DRM procedure. I can't find the whole story on Google now but it was quite a media echo back then because customers felt treatened by the possibility to lose all their downloads.

I guess in the end it didn't fly, but this story shows that big companys (and Valve IS becoming a big company) are not afraid to milk the customer, sometimes with questionable moral and legal standing.

If Valve says in ten months "sorry guys, the Steam Servers are getting too expensive to run...either you pay 5 bucks a month or we'll disable your account" - what are you gonna do then? I'm sure in the EULA and usage clauses there's somewhere a backdoor that would allow them to do that. You can always fight a lawsuit costing many thousand dollars of course, but who would?

 

[Greasemonkey]

I don't understand all of this Steam hatred. Last time I had a problem with Steam was the first week it was released- couldn't download DOD, constantly crashed, etc. After the first week or two, things began to run smooth. I absolutely HATED Steam when I first downloaded it. But guess what- it doesn't cause me any problems, so I don't mind using it in the least.

Plust Steam is great for the smaller developers like Tripwire who have a hard time convincing a publisher to put their game on the shelf. Steam is an amazing tool for low budget teams and basement developers.

 

[SOAD]

no, cuz even without steam it still wont work

 

[Lionel-RIchie]

i got 1 GB of ram aswell yet i load ANY map in under a minute (which is faster then BF loading times for example)
im usualy somewhere between 2de and 5th on the map.
i run steam aswell so its unlikely to be the cause of the problem.
did you turn off precaching in your ini files?

Yes I turned off the precaching and even tried setting my cache size to 256mb. Maybe it has to do with the anti-cheat software? I know, for example, that I could load BF2's maps fairly quickly but it took me 2 minutes to "verify client data."

 

[GonzoX]

no, cuz even without steam it still wont work

Exaclty!

To those people who are cunfused why some of us do not like STEAM:

You can't play it unless you have an online STEAM Account PERIOD!

Some of us purchased the box retail version with the hope that we could maybe install it on an internet-less system and play against bots if we decided to give Steam the old boot from our hard drives at a later time.

Even thought the CD installation gives this option, it does not work as you are forced to reinstall STEAM even just to play offline. Now do you get it?

And do I need to remind you all that this is only one of many of our gripes?

 

[The_Countess]

I bought a game

actualy you didnt. you never have.
all you bought is the right to play the game you dont own the game itself.
the same with music, movies and just about every other media content.

If Valve says in ten months "sorry guys, the Steam Servers are getting too expensive to run...either you pay 5 bucks a month or we'll disable your account" - what are you gonna do then? I'm sure in the EULA and usage clauses there's somewhere a backdoor that would allow them to do that. You can always fight a lawsuit costing many thousand dollars of course, but who would?

now your just making stuff up. unless you can point that out to me in the EULA im going to asume its not in there, or tripwire, or any other distributer, would never have agread to use STEAM.

and who would fight them with a lawsuit? tripwire, Malfador Machinations(space empire), black cat games, adrenaline gamer, and every other developer who distributes his games over steam.
and in the case of RO:O, do you think tripwire would agrea with that? and if valve pushes ahead regardless it wouldnt take tripwire to long to switch distributer and provide a no-steam patch for RO:O.

Even thought the CD installation gives this option, it does not work as you are forced to reinstall STEAM even just to play offline. Now do you get it?

no i dont, steam is what? 9MB? its not rooted into the registry, its not picky about where it located (you can move it any time you want) it'll work right away even after a full windows reinstall, it dusnt load .dll's into windows when its not running and it dus't started untill you start your game (just tick off the "start with windows" box )
so really... what is the problem?

You can't play it unless you have an online STEAM Account PERIOD!

....
so?

 

[Helmut_AUT]

actualy you didnt. you never have.
all you bought is the right to play the game you dont own the game itself.
the same with music, movies and just about every other media content.

Legally speaking yes, but the customer has gotten used to the fact that what he buys, is his to use forever. This is not the case with DRM-licensed games and applications like Steam.

now your just making stuff up. unless you can point that out to me in the EULA im going to asume its not in there, or tripwire, or any other distributer, would never have agread to use STEAM.

Haven't you learned by now that big companys with expensive legal teams will always find a loophole if they need one? Also, in current world it's not so much about things being legal - it's about the question if you can out-spend the other party on court costs.

So if Valve decided in ten months they wanted 5 Bucks a month for providing the Steam "Service" as you called it, who's realistically gonna stop them?

and who would fight them with a lawsuit? tripwire, Malfador Machinations(space empire), black cat games, adrenaline gamer, and every other developer who distributes his games over steam.
and in the case of RO:O, do you think tripwire would agrea with that? and if valve pushes ahead regardless it wouldnt take tripwire to long to switch distributer and provide a no-steam patch for RO:O.

You are so wrong, it must hurt yourself. Don't you think before you write?

First, the developers have their own contracts with Valve, and Valve certainly has their own backdoors in those contracts as well. And if not, why would the Developers even sue? What Valve does with Steam is none of their business. They can at best chancel distribution with Valve.

And if Valve was to do something like asking 5 bucks a month for Steam, do you think it would matter even ONE inch if Tripwire agrees or not? They can't provide a "no-steam" patch either because the Steam Encoding works all trough Valve, and they also have a legal contract with Valve that likely denys them the right to release a "Steam-Less" version of the game content.

Some of you guys are not up-to-date how Publisher/Developer Relationships work, it seems. Generally speaking, the Publisher has the cash. The Dev Teams have no rights other than to find another publisher. That's about it.

And yet here you are, defending the PUBLISHER and DRM-based strangling of customer rights.

Another example about big companys:

I own a legal Windows XP version. But when I go to Microsoft for a download, I have to run trough the "genuine Windows check". Somehow my Disk comes out as illegal (it is an official winXP disk with a legal key). Do you think Microsoft cares? Do you think anyone is gonna sue Microsoft because they do not provide support for legal windows XP installations?

In this day and age, companys like EA, Ubisoft, Sony especially, etc. take as much freedom from their customers as they can get away with as long as no one has the funds to sue their pants off.

And you're applauding the fact that Steam has the same potential for abuse?

 

[baff]

Exaclty!

To those people who are cunfused why some of us do not like STEAM:

You can't play it unless you have an online STEAM Account PERIOD!

Some of us purchased the box retail version with the hope that we could maybe install it on an internet-less system and play against bots if we decided to give Steam the old boot from our hard drives at a later time.

Even thought the CD installation gives this option, it does not work as you are forced to reinstall STEAM even just to play offline. Now do you get it?

And do I need to remind you all that this is only one of many of our gripes?

I'd love to buy this game but until I can find a Steam free version I will not for the reasons given above. I look for some kind of solution to this in "all the wrong places" daily.

To my mind this tallies with the other (worryingly few) opinions concerning consumer rights.
Overzealous DRM schemes are the bane of PC gaming.




To the person who thinks he does not own any of the content on his DVD/CD's. You are mistaken. If you bought it, you own it.
What you don't own is the copywright, so you aren't allowed to reproduce and distribute it, rent it or steal the secrets of it's code for use in your own product without the copywright holders prior permission.

Licenses often say that the buyer does not buy the software but instead pays for the right to use the software. In the US, the first-doctrine, Softman Vs Adobe and Novell, Inc vs CPU Distrib., Inc. ruled that software sales are purchases, not licenses, and resale, including unbundling, is lawful regardless of a contractual prohibition.

EULA is a cynical sales trick. Nothing more. It has spit all basis in law.

Of course if you are the kind of consumer that likes to bend over and enjoy being shafted, you have my fullest permission to carry pretending that it does. To each his own.

Lisences are for vendors and rental agents, not end users.
A company that does not wish to give away the ownership of it's software may always refuse to sell it. They have that right in law. They can't sell it and still own it. How stupid would that be?

Steam seems symptomatic of publishers these days. It's wish to force extra sales of it's product is having the opposite effect on me.

Not everything about Steam is bad.
I like the online updater, and the online distribution system, and I also like the back-up tool.
Unfortunately the non-ability to play on LAN, the non-capability for resale/giving it to a friend when you have finished with it, and the ability for Steam to terminate your account, effectively disabling your game on whimsy is wholly unacceptable. Sharp practise even.

My only experience of Steam to date is what I have read on this forum. It is currently enough for me to realise I shall never purchase anything that requires it.



Publishers to my mind should take more note of this seasons best selling games. Oblivion Elder Scrolls, for example, requires no such interfering systems and is still the best selling game, no.1 in all the games sales charts, as I type. It doesn't even use copy protection.

Steam is not the only online distribution service. I happily use others.

I wouldn't touch Steam with yours.
It's a shame to have to take a stand with games like this on offer. But a stand must be taken. Quite apart from Steam disabling my preferred method of multiplay (and then falsly advertising that it doesn't), lunatic publishing methods like this must be stopped.
I've been buying computer games for the last 30 years. I'm in it for the long haul.

Supporting Steam is very short sighted.

 

[-MM!!-Lazarus]

Well, If it wasn