Dream

Except W2 is an actual sequel and P:E isn't called Baldur's Gate: Eternity. On the other hand this new Torment is you taking a 15 year old game and deciding that NOW it's apparently a "thematic franchise" just so you can make a sequel to it that has absolutely zero link to the original game outside of a set of elements you arbitrarily picked which can basically be summarized as "good writing." Outside of that I can totally see how they're the same thing.

It's more difficult for a product that is better than steam, that meets even more of the needs and wants that you have, from being delivered. But would that better product even exist if Steam hadn't paved the way for it. Also who's to say that Valve wouldn't adopt that new product's features in order to improve Steam (probably by poaching the people that developed those features). I'll admit that Valve has certainly done things that one may consider anti-competition, but at the same time I feel that in the end they have our best interests in mind (if only because it's in their best interests to do so). Beside that though I think whichever way you feel about it the issue is a skosh more complex than "we'd all be better off if Steamworks was never invented." While that may be true; you yourself opened the door to the concept of self interest.

Without question, eh? Here's one: if Steamworks is part of the reason Valve is able to have such a massive chunk of market share and that market share is what allows Steam to have its sales then how is that bad for me (assuming Valve doesn't go all evil empire once it takes over the internet)?

Not at all. I want more than anything for this to succeed and be as good as Torment, but the way Fargo is hyping this just feels wrong. He talks about wanting to make a game like this for a while, but was somehow unable to until he got the rights to the Torment name (despite the game having absolutely zero tangible links to PS:T). I hope I'm wrong but I guess we'll see.

Based on how they've been trying to sell this even if MCA was involved I'd still be leery; it just feels too much like a cash grab. After all, as Warren Spector has shown us, making one or two amazing games does not guarantee much.

For every company that that worked for you can name just as many, if not more, for whom it didn't. Ford, Blackberry (remember when smartphone and Blackberry were basically the same word?), Blockbuster, etc. As for Microsoft; their strategy isn't exactly working out too well nowadays is it. The whole market is shifting toward devices that don't even use Windows, and while MS has finally made its own tablets and smartphones it really is a case of too little too late (not to mention Apple is growing by leaps and bounds in PC market share as well). So even your example really supports my point more than yours.

But all those things go hand in hand. The massive success that has allowed Steam to be so polished and heavily iterated is, in part, directly attributable to Steamworks. You can't really separate the two. I can get that argument, but the way I see it Steam's been top dog for a while now and they've shown no sign of slowing down their attempts to improve the platform (from a consumer standpoint; you'd know better if they've been improving the dev tools as consistently), so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they'll pull a **** move and just sit on their mountain of market share someday, but that's not exactly a viable long term business strategy in this day and age and I think they know that.

You can't separate the two though. The way Steam works is the reason it's so successful, and many of its benefits stem from that success. The massive market share it wields is one of the things that allows Valve to have its constant sales (which are a definite plus for the consumer). So now Valve's crime is providing an easy avenue for devs' to sell their games? Like you said there are companies such as EA and Matrix who do fine without Steam, so there's no reason to think everyone else can't either if they just try hard enough, right?

Maybe that's why Steam works better than Origin (and is more successful). Except a lot of these devs probably wouldn't even exist without Steam to sell their games through. Not everyone can be Minecraft and sell millions of copies through sheer word of mouth. Because they're the ones that flocked to Steam in the beginning before it became the juggernaut it is today. Also nothing positive? PC gaming is probably more accessible than ever now because of Steam.

So what you're saying you don't care about a lack of choice as long as the option you're happy with exists. Sounds familiar. Seriously, if you are you not a native English speaker I'll cut you some slack, else... there isn't even the slightest implication there that if I used OO I'd want MSO to not exist simply because I personally was happy with OO, and it's clearly a hypothetical as well. I've already said that I don't care what store people buy their games from, the more the merrier, my objection is to steamworks and its lock ins and attempts to turn PC gaming into steam gaming. It's the same with pretty much everything, more options are good and it doesn't matter in the slightest whether I use one, several, many or none of the options personally. [edit]To be absolutely explicit as it may save some time long term- if you buy a steamworks game it requires steam. Thus if you run around the forums advocating steamworks and asking "What's so bad with steam drm?" whenever someone doesn't want to use it you are advocating lack of choice because steamworks and steamworks drm require steam the client and shopfront. That is, from Valve's POV, the whole point of offering steamworks for free, it undercuts alternatives and ensures that their shopfront is bundled into the game as a default option, and then more people use those 'free' (not really, a 30% cut on sales is what Valve gets out of it, along with the increased market share) features as the market share builds up. It's classic loss-leader monopolism, and classic Embrace Extend methodology where pre-existing PC features are co-opted under a central authority. So now Valve is evil for providing a good service that people like? Does Valve use it's position as market leader to further its own cause? Yea, but that's true of pretty much every single corporation ever. Besides it's not like they're simply sitting on their laurels; they constantly improve their product to make it better for both consumers and devs. If you really want to blame someone then blame the devs for jumping on the Steam train back in the day, or blame their competition for not coming out with compelling alternatives, but don't blame Valve for doing what companies do.

We're not talking about a sketchy .exe from a torrent site here; this is the flagship program of a multi-billion dollar corporation. I'm going to guess they're doing their best to make sure Steam is safe. Are they perfect? No, but as Ocelot said they're not exactly alone in that regard. How? Or do you honestly expect them to fund Gears and then release it on the playstation?

And every time you leave the house you can get hit by a car; **** happens. But if you're that paranoid then I guess just don't use Steam, or any program for that matter. Or computers in general. How is it Valve's fault that devs are too lazy to make alternate versions? That's like saying it's Microsoft's fault when a game only gets released on Xbox.

So what you're saying you don't care about a lack of choice as long as the option you're happy with exists. Sounds familiar. Yea dude, Valve is totally going to steal all your financial information. I can see how that's a valid concern; there are probably thousands of hackers in China waiting with bated breath to get their hands on your video games. Additionally (to everyone who's hating on Steam), Steam is optional; no one is forcing you to use it. Just buy non-Steam copies of games.

Pretty sure the desire the ride the nuts of PS:T inspired their idea to call it a "thematic franchise."

What's wrong with Steam as DRM though? This isn't exactly Starforce we're talking about here. That's like saying there's no benefit to programming languages since you can code everything in binary, or no benefit to cars since you can walk everywhere. Steam makes doing things you could do before easier. Also I thought you were all about competition so how is another program doing something a current program already does a bad thing?

What? You could describe every single thing under the planet that way. We're talking about what purpose Steam serves for the consumer. No benefit? What about an easy overlay to chat with and keep track of your friends, a simple way to track all your games and provide access to them at any time, cloud storage of your saves, and a ****load of other quality of life features. And what negatives come from it being a "gatekeeper over an open system" exactly? I can still mod my games, I can still play offline, I can still do pretty much everything I could before except now I also have access to a ton useful features that weren't available to me previously. And what happens if your computer takes a **** on itself or you decide to get a new one. I guess now you have to hunt down all the discs, downloaders, and passwords required to get all your games back. Sounds fun.

I think the bigger question is: why are these types of responses still coming? What happens when you later want to play with certain Steam features? I know, wait for it... buy a second copy? That's mind-nimbingly illogical when you could have 1 copy that gives you both options. And suggesting that you're opposed to wasting dev time and then wanting them to spend time adding DRM to a game is also illogical. How do some people figure that it takes time to not add something? Why not just buy the Steam copy then? What's so bad about Steam's DRM anyways; the simple fact it exists? This isn't Starforce we're talking about.

If you really want a reply create a new thread- as doing it in here every time must be boring for others- but if you ain't got my beef with steam from what I've said in the last couple of posts it's unlikely you'll ever get it since I can't really be much clearer. You haven't been clear outside of "it's got no competition," but the whole point of Steam is to allow you to have everything under one canopy because it's far easier than remembering a hundred different passwords for a hundred different digital distributors. Also is bull****. Plenty of things have very little competition because having more than one would just make life a pain for the consumer.

There must be a dozen plus programs that are constantly running in the background of your computer, and Steam isn't exactly resource intensive. So, I ask again, what exactly is the negative; what is so bad about Steam? How does it limit your options?

Which is cool, I really don't have a problem with people liking steam, my problem is pretty much entirely with steamworks as I have a problem with the unlevel playing field, shift towards lock in and closing of an open platform, all of which are ultimately very large problems. The rest is just frustration at, well, steamtards. The sort of people who celebrate lack of choice because the only choice is one that they like. If I were appointed God For A Day I'd never in a million years do the reverse and wave my hand to make steam disappear yet many steam fans would clearly be happy to force everyone to use steam just because they like it and anyone with other preferences can go asterisk themselves, an attitude that for anything other than steam would be widely deplored. It's unimaginable that you'd get hordes of people advocating only one flavour of ice cream or milkshakes or one make of car or one television provider, yet only one flavour of PC game supplier? OH GOD ITS HEVAN, to quote the great philosopher ~aphatmc. Anyway, bored now, next steam rant in 60 days. What exactly is so bad about Steam though? You can still mod games, still play offline, hell it doesn't even limit people playing the same game on the same account at the same time (as long as one is playing offline).

I want to see that data.

Most people don't give a **** about Steam's "DRM."

Your use of the word "logic" doesn't fit its definition. So... you think Obsidian must have DRM on Steam because it would otherwise deflate the purpose of their being a GoG DRM-free version? Your "point" is that one must shoot oneself unnecessarily in the foot for the pure sake of idiocy. And I've been around since the beginning. The relevant questions are: 1. Why should someone who has the Steam version HAVE to have meaningless DRM? 2. Why would you bother caring that someone else have the option to play DRM though their retailer of choice? 3. Are you about done being a child? What exactly is so bad about Steam's DRM? Is this just irrational hate on your part or do you honestly think Valve is spying on you?

Except those games are what Diablo would be like with a controller, and if you put them on a PC the only sane control scheme would be Diablo's. How exactly is DS3 fundamentally different from any number of other Diablo clones? Do you honestly Diablo on consoles would play as a point and click game? Really? Yeah, no. So what do you think D3 is going to control like on the PS3/4? Not like a "console action RPG?"

"Innovative ideas for strategic cipher abilities before and during encounters" What does **** like that even mean? You may as well just say "make the game interesting."