188 réponses à ce sujet

[Rubbish Hero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...Involuntary patching and the need to be online to play (for many games) is not a positive feature.

This is one very minor things in comparison to the benefits, which most will see as a benefit anyway. You do not need to be online. Regardless of how you feel, the majority have elected steam king of the universe, nobody is forcing them, very few games actually use steam currently and to be honest, I would much rather Bioware used it for DLC  than this "Bioware 250 points" nonsense, but it wont happen.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 13 août 2010 - 05:33 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Hawksblud wrote...Personally, I far prefer DLC to DRM..

25 million people willingly use steam because aside from a game, they are getting a beneficial, not detrimental service, which includes completely free DLC with years, not months of support. Whereas many companies are chastising you in order to get profit, Valve attempt to give you a better customer service.

We get it.

You like Lord of the Rings, Robocop and Valve.

But I like Lord of the Rings, Robocop and Valve

I don't think I am become Rubbish Hero...

[Dave of Canada]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

But I like Lord of the Rings, Robocop and Valve

I don't think I am become Rubbish Hero...

But you don't enforce your liking of those things in every post.

[Hawksblud]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...Involuntary patching and the need to be online to play (for many games) is not a positive feature.

This is one very minor things in comparison to the benefits, which most
will see as a benefit.

I'd have to disagree. For myself, involuntary patching and a necessary internet connection are both dealbreakers. Yes, many people use Steam... but I would bet for those 25 million Steam users, there are another 25 million not using it. Not everyone wants those 'benefits'... and DLC is good in that it is a CHOICE. DRM does not give you that choice.

[Rubbish Hero]

Hawksblud wrote....I'd have to disagree. For myself

You are one person, not the majority and also wrong.  This cancels  out the rest of your post, so it's probably for the best that I don't read the  rest as it will most likely  be a void of if''s and buts "I feel deep down inside, personally" nothingness. Valve are for winners and if you do not wish to become a winner, that is your own personal chioce that doesn't need expressed as it's not very relevant substance wise.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 13 août 2010 - 05:44 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

This is one very minor things in comparison to the benefits,

Minor to you, maybe.

which most will see as a benefit anyway.

Involuntary patching is one of the major drawbacks of console gaming.  I certainly don't want it in my PC gaming.

And yes, I do routinely refuse patching of my games.  I stopped patching DAO after 1.02 because I didn't want unshatterable lieutenants.  I waited over a year to patch NWN when BioWare removed friendly fire from enemy mobs because I didn't want to lose that feature.

Involuntary patching is the EULA gone mad, and I will have none of it.

[Dave of Canada]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Hawksblud wrote....I'd have to disagree. For myself

You are one person, not the majority and also wrong.

Great to see that you yourself are the majority and can tell other people's opinions are wrong.

[Hawksblud]

Rubbish Hero wrote...
You are one person, not the majority and also wrong.  This cancels  out the rest of your post, so it's probably for the best that I don't read the  rest as it will most likely  be a void of if''s and buts "I feel deep down inside, personally" nothingness.

There are no words. When you find relevant statistics or factual basis of any kind for your statements, we'll talk.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Involuntary patching is one of the
major drawbacks of console gaming.  I certainly don't want it in my PC
gaming.

This. This so hard.

[Rubbish Hero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...Minor to you, maybe.

And the other 25 million active users, obviously.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...Involuntary patching is one of the major drawbacks of console gaming.

It is, however Steam is still extreamly open in comparison to Xboxlive or PSN, it's nowere near as closed.
Also, when, like me, you are sitting with this amount of games...

steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970701643/games


Having them all automatically patch immediately as soon an update is available (and done on the fly as consoles cannot do that) even when I am in the middle of a game in the background,  it's practically a god-send.   I have been pc gaming for many, many years and thank Christ  the days of downloading patches and waiting 3 hours  for Battlefield 2 to install a patches in a specific order are almost gone. It's mostly just with MMO's now, which are a major pain in the butt, Lord Of The Rings: Online took about an hour to install and literally, not  metaphorically, two days to update after downloading the latest patch, which took about an hour also. Thankfully, all MMO's ever suck balls and I gave up on it. But you get the point, for you? Yes. For the majority? Major benifit.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 13 août 2010 - 06:07 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Having them all automatically patch immediately as soon an update is available (and done on the fly as consoles cannot do that) even when I am in the middle of a game in the background,  it's practically a god-send.

How do you know the patch is one you want?

Don't you want to decide that for yourself?  Or are you honestly content to let someone else control your experience and tell you what's best?

[Rubbish Hero]

Hawksblud wrote...There are no words. When you find relevant statistics or factual basis of any kind for your statements, we'll talk.

You don't appear to be comprehending, you made an original point, it was completely destroyed, and now you are using limp personal preference to attempt to justify a point that doesn't exist anymore.

Facts: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_%28content_delivery%29

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 13 août 2010 - 06:05 .

[Rubbish Hero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...Don't you want to decide that for yourself?

For 247 games? Christ no.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 13 août 2010 - 06:05 .

[Hawksblud]

Rubbish Hero wrote...
You don't appear to be comprehending, you made an original point, it was completely destroyed, and now you are using limp personal preference to attempt to justify a point.

Okay, one last try: Personal preference is the only avenue that you, or I, have. Without relevant statistics, neither of us can speak for millions of people who are not present. o.0
My original point was that DLC is not included in the base game purchase.  That is a fact, irrefutable by any of our personal opinions. It's held up by copyright law, etc. The counterargument was, I assume, that some uncounted number of gamers prefer to
have DLC included in base game purchase.
Sure, we'd all love free stuff. But we didn't pay for it, so we don't
get it.
I added the personal opinion that I prefer DLC to DRM as a form of revenue management. You appear to prefer DRM, okay, fine. Your opinion does not have to be the same as mine. But do not try to tell me that I am wrong in my opinion of disliking DRM-- that's pretty ridiculous. I find constant internet connectivity is difficult to sustain as we are not all priviledged with 100% 24/7 connectivity. Of course, looking at Steam users, you have taken a portion of the population who is willing to make that trade-off, as a bloc of digital download customers. They speak for themselves; they do not speak for all gamers, everywhere.

[Rubbish Hero]

Hawksblud wrote...Okay, one last try

Please don't, I have no plans on reading it as it's simply dragging the argument to the ends of the earth.
Your point was moot, we are moving on.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 13 août 2010 - 06:23 .

[The Edge]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Hawksblud wrote...Okay, one last try

Please don't, I have no plans on reading it as it's simply dragging the argument to the ends of the earth.
Your point was moot, we are moving on.

Well, I read it, and a valid point was made. Your loss, I guess.

[Dave of Canada]

The Edge wrote...

Well, I read it, and a valid point was made. Your loss, I guess.

He / She did read it, couldn't think of a conclusion and just went "You lose" instead because it takes less time than trying to handwaive it with star wars and lord of the rings references.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 août 2010 - 06:29 .

[StingingVelvet]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Hawksblud wrote....I'd have to disagree. For myself

You are one person, not the majority and also wrong.  This cancels  out the rest of your post, so it's probably for the best that I don't read the  rest as it will most likely  be a void of if''s and buts "I feel deep down inside, personally" nothingness. Valve are for winners and if you do not wish to become a winner, that is your own personal chioce that doesn't need expressed as it's not very relevant substance wise.

Wow, you're immature, egotistical and really annoying.  I guess that makes you happy in some way, to be like that?

[Rubbish Hero]

Making coordinated group based  personal attacks will not cease making me any less correct.
Truth and justice always prevail in the end.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 13 août 2010 - 06:39 .

[StingingVelvet]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Making personal attacks will not cease making me any less correct.

You can't be correct, you are arguing opinions.  People who act like their opinion is factually correct aren't pleasant to talk to.

[Sylvius the Mad]

*Sylvius would rather not get banned*

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 13 août 2010 - 06:43 .

[Rubbish Hero]

StingingVelvet wrote...You can't be correct, you are arguing opinions.

Backed by facts that practically make me right. Practically sounds vaguely similar to factual, which makes me factually correct. I know this may come across as terribly rude, but I feel you are being a rather petty loser, Your problems seems to be with me personally than my objective factually based points. If I have wronged you in anyway, then I apologies. However, I am correct and you are living in the past.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 13 août 2010 - 06:54 .

[StingingVelvet]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

*Sylvius would rather not get banned*

Well I hope I don't either, but I had to jump in and call him out for being so rude.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Practically sounds vaguely similar to factual, which makes me factually correct.

That is just patently false.

[Rubbish Hero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Practically sounds vaguely similar to factual, which makes me factually correct.

That is just patently false.

It's pretty apparent you are completely bias towards steam, making any argument on this comment bias and thus an unreliable source.

[Saibh]

You know, in a niggling sort of way, seeing the "SPEND MONEY TO CONTINUE" option on DAO's world map bothers me.

However.

Talking about Shale, I feel like it would be very, very difficult for the dev team to not include a new party member (inaccessible) in the actual game. Every party member has banter with each other, with various NPCs; they occasionally get mentioned offhand. In order to create a new party member in a DLC and have them not feel like a cardboard cutout you place behind you that can do damage, they would need to rehire all of those party members and NPCs to interact with them. Not only that, I'm sure it's easier and less buggy to implement content inside of the game than try to patch it in later.

Having DLC already inside in the game at least ensures it will be treated as a full-fledged portion of the game, rather than a random stand-alone patch.

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Backed by facts that practically make me right. Practically sounds vaguely similar to factual, which makes me factually correct. I know this may come across as terribly rude, but I feel you are being a rather petty loser, Your problems seems to be with me personally than my objective factually based points. If I have wronged you in anyway, then I apologies. However, I correct and you are living in the past.

Point out these facts to me. The number of users Steam has? Alright. Would you like me to compare it with the number of gamers Steam doesn't have? Oh. Also: 

Valve person wrote...

It depends on how you measure "users".

We've peaked at 2.7 million users online at once. There are more than 12 million accounts that have created Steam Community profiles. I think the last press release we issued said there were 20 million active users, where active is defined as having logged in and used the account within a certain, recent time period. There are many more actual accounts than that.

Regardless, I don't think either system is inherently right or wrong--I think it depends entirely on the game.

Modifié par Saibh, 13 août 2010 - 07:04 .