Steam Sux! andor Rox!

[alanschu]

He stated earlier that had a keylogger on his machine and presumably his account was compromised in that way.

[Malcador]

Hm, always impressed at how vehemently people like Steam.

 

By the way, am not really calling you an idiot MW.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Malcador

[Mamoulian War]

 

http://arstechnica.c...malicious-code/

 

http://www.exploit-d...exploits/17459/

 

And as I said, I got already one game stolen from me...

 

Errr, the first link requires the user to actively choose to open a link that has the Steam URL (that then does something nefarious.  This is akin to someone foolishly clicking on a link in an email.  If you use a capable browser and don't autoload external links just by clicking on them, you sidestep the issue completely.  Unfortunately the details for how the second one can be exploited are a bit light.

 

As for "I had one game stolen from me already."  Well, maybe that just "says a lot about your personality."  You were stupid and got taken advantage of because you didn't know any better.  People can be just as stupid and let their houses get caught on fire or their doors wide open for people to come walking in and take their stuff.

 

The funny thing is, in that other thread it was someone else's problem, and their own damn fault that stuff fell into disrepair.  However, here, instead of going "whoops, I was stupid... but it was my fault" (you don't seem to be to willing to allow other people to make mistakes in their life because they are "young and stupid."), it's big bad Steam's.  No responsibility for making sure you don't do stupid things.  It's Steam's fault that you were stupid.

 

The point of the post  was about unhelpful customer support. I have stated in my post that it was only my fault, that I got lost the CD-Key because of keylogger, not Steams... Skewing around the meaning of the sentence says a lot about your personality.

 

If customer support of Valve is not willing to help you out with your issue, it is their fault, not yours.

 

Being dependent on someone else good will, to be able to play your favourite game is stupid idea...

Edited February 25, 2013 by Mamoulian War

[pmp10]

He stated earlier that had a keylogger on his machine and presumably his account was compromised in that way.

He said his cd-key got stolen and registered by someone else.

Back in the day even EA would issue a new one with proof of purchase.

[Mamoulian War]

Hm, always impressed at how vehemently people like Steam.

 

By the way, am not really calling you an idiot MW.

 

Oh noes, and I was already on search of my RAPORT BATTN, you spoiled all of my funz :/

 

 

 

 

No worries, I can read between lines sometimes

 

 

 

 

He stated earlier that had a keylogger on his machine and presumably his account was compromised in that way.

He said his cd-key got stolen and registered by someone else.

Back in the day even EA would issue a new one with proof of purchase.

 

 

You sir, are correct. At that time no one was caring about people in 3rd world countries like Slovakia... Now, when we are in EU, we have better possibilities how to defend our customer rights from foreign corporations. But you know the saying... Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me...

Edited February 25, 2013 by Mamoulian War

[AwesomeOcelot]

I know it is not forced, therefore I avoid it, and everybody knows Steam is very popular in the World, but the thing is, if they are having this trivial exploit in their product, and do not care about about addressing it, why should I believe, that such software developer have no other undiscovered flaws, maybe even bigger, within their system?

If you use Microsoft Windows, Office, Internet Explorer, or Outlook you're* on very thin ice with that argument. Also Sun's Java, Adobe's Flash and Reader, they've all taken months to fix issues, while having a crazy security policy in the first place. Chances are high that several of the manufacturers that make your hardware have had privilege escalation exploits in their drivers at some point. As I've said, many games from Ubisoft, EA, and Activision will have bugs that could be exploited but they're not due to lack of an install base, more people will target Steam than any game because it's installed on many millions more computers than any game. Valve is flawed when it comes to security, but lets not single them out, if trivial exploits were a concern you wouldn't install any game. Edited February 25, 2013 by AwesomeOcelot

[Mamoulian War]

You are of course right, but as you said, the bigger the install base, the bigger the threat. I use mainly Linux at home and in the company where I am working, I use Windows computer with extremely strict rules in the proxy, firewalls and update mechanism. I can say easily, that my current expose to external threats are as minimized as possible and due to the nature of my job, I have to maintain it this way...

 

I use at home Windows only for gaming, nothing else, and all of the games, except LoL, have denied communication with internet in my firewall setting, a thing, which I am unable to do with Steam client...

Edited February 25, 2013 by Mamoulian War

[Dream]

You might get hit by a car when you walk around, but I do you willingly go and run across the road when there is fast car approaching to your position? This is the same situation as willingly allowing a software to compromise your security...

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.

And yes, Microsoft is at fault for releasing few games as Xbox only...

How? Or do you honestly expect them to fund Gears and then release it on the playstation?

[Zoraptor]

There is another option you know, the one with the two letter name which runs on a MS operating system?

 

 

That's facile- I can say that MSOffice provides no benefit without having to code a word processor myself, if Open Office exists and I'm happy with it.

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.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Zoraptor

[Mamoulian War]

 

You might get hit by a car when you walk around, but I do you willingly go and run across the road when there is fast car approaching to your position? This is the same situation as willingly allowing a software to compromise your security...

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.

 

Because there is no way, that a multi-billion dollar corporation would ever think about putting malicious code into their programs intentionally, not in billion years... Right...

 

Ever heard of Sony Root-kit debacle?

 

Edit:

 

And the best interest of these companies is to make as much money as possible, and high security = high costs... Therefore we see all the time news about companies hacked and personal information stolen from their servers... Heck even Blizzard, which is the second name to money printing machine, has been compromised this way few times, because of inadequate security... And do I need to remind you about the Sony PSN outage last year? They made their best as well, right?

 

And being not alone is not an excuse... Being not alone means, that there are many very bad companies, which do not care about exploits in their products...

Edited February 25, 2013 by Mamoulian War

[Gfted1]

I guess Im in the Steam rox camp. Its highly convenient and has been 100% reliable for me. I just dont have the energy to muster up rage if it doesnt work for someone else/harshes their sensibilities/DRM ending the world, etc...

[AGX-17]

The only problem I ever have with steam is connectivity or server issues. Like when it says "DERRR YOU CAN'T PLAY THAT NEW SINGLE PLAYER GAME/GAME THAT DOESN'T USE STEAM FOR MULTIPLAYER CONNECTIONS THAT YOU JUST DOWNLOADED BECAUSE TOO MANY PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO PLAY IT SO WE CAN'T GIVE PERMISSION RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE SHOULD INVEST IN MORE SERVER CAPACITY AND/OR INCREASED BANDWIDTH. Also buy this new TF2 hat for only $14.99! These funds will not go towards improving the aforementioned issues, or Half-Life 2 Episode 3. Or Half-Life 3. Or Left 4 Dead 3. Or Portal 3. Or anything with the number 3 in it because that's the first digit in GabeN's weight, and we have big-budget Hollywood-quality props from WETA workshop to fill our offices with."

 

THAT SAID, all they've done over the years is improve Steam, especially with the Workshop allowing you to download and install/uninstall mods easily and seamlessly (even in-game without needing to restart in the case of some titles, like Civ V,) and you can do it without having to wallow through the **** encrusted sewer infested with perverts that is the "nexus" family of mod sites that has come to dominate the modding scene over the past few years.

Edited February 25, 2013 by AGX-17

[Tigranes]

Steam has become a lot more reliable and robust a programme, which makes it easier for me to rationalise the fact that I use it a fair bit now. But really, I know the real reason - Steam used its position as market leader to broker Steamworks exclusive deals for several high profile games, and as they predicted, I caved, because I wanted to play New Vegas and I didn't want to pirate. Now, there's nothing wrong with Steam being a market leader, especially since it has done that by offering good services to many people (which didn't include me, but that's fine). But the plain fact is that they are using that clout to make Steam less and less of a free choice and more of a default option.* Whether you judge that as 'bad' or 'good', laudable business strategy or distasteful, is up to you. What is not in question is that they are pursuing an effective strategy for effective (though not absolute) monopolisation of the sector.

 

If Steam didn't embark on this strategy of making games Steam-exclusive (that is, Steamworks DRM on all copies, even boxed), then the argument that "more options are good for the consumer, don't use it if you don't like it" would be perfectly valid. But they did, so Steam actually reduces options for the consumer in that sense. I don't see how that is a good thing for anyone. If you loved Steam, then you could have bought every game on Steam even if it wasn't exclusive, and I could have got it somewhere else. I am not going to rage incessantly about them, because of course, if they were that baby-eatingly-terrible I would have just refused to play games like New Vegas. But they remain a distasteful outfit to me and I hope opportunities (other than piracy) arise to avoid buying anything from them. 

 

*No, "but nobody's forcing you to use Steam / play Steam exclusives / play games" is not a useful argument. Of course they're not forcing me, this isn't a life or death issue. That doesn't make everything OK, so it's a totally pointless rebuttal.

[ShadySands]

I don't think it necessarily sux or rox, I just want the option to not use it to play the games I enjoy. As I mentioned before I don't play Valve games and I don't want my only options to be either don't play the game or to become a Valve customer. I just want more options.

[Dream]

 

There is another option you know, the one with the two letter name which runs on a MS operating system?

 

That's facile- I can say that MSOffice provides no benefit without having to code a word processor myself, if Open Office exists and I'm happy with it.

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.

[Zoraptor]

It's perfectly fine to blame Valve, as they're the only company offering 3rd party lock in- nobody else does, there is no Originworks, for example- and it would suck equally if there was. As such Valve's attitude is the aberration in the DD market, not the rule.

 

And there's no point trying to blame devs specifically. Paradox are a bunch of lying liars who lie for example, and I wouldn't trust them if they said the sky was blue, but even I'd admit they are over a barrel with respect to steam as steam could bankrupt them near instantly if they wanted to- and every single person involved knows it. If the pressure comes on to make their games steam exclusive then that is what will happen no matter if Freddie and Johan et al have waxed lyrical about drm free and how they look forward to selling on GOG within the past year, as the alternative is going out of business. It's somewhat amusing to watch the same person who had been laying the smack down on issues like the arbitrary delay Divine Wind suffered on steam backpedalling franticly now, but it is also understandable, as steam has the power of a publisher but none of the responsibilities.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Zoraptor

[AwesomeOcelot]

In a perfect world there would be a GOG or something else version of every Steamworks game, and for multiplayer Steamworks games would have an open API counter part like back in the day when you had Gamespy3D and All Seeing Eye on top of Gamespy Arcade, Ingame browser, and MSN Gaming Zone. I would feel a lot better if people were given true choices about Live, Origin, Uplay, and Steam. I'm happier when a independent developer like Valve does things like this compared to a publisher EA because developers created their own systems for multiplayer and services all the time, they don't have nearly as much franchise leverage as the major publishers.

[Tigranes]

Why would blaming devs/publishers make more sense than blaming Valve? Valve is the one that set the rules of the game that the devs/publishers had to follow to stay afloat. Valve, as a successful forerunner, to a much larger extent could set its own rules of the game. It chose to exercise that freedom in a way that sensibly furthers their profit margins (great), but also makes a move which reduces all gamers' options without giving them anything positive. It's simple enough.

[ravenshrike]

Since this is pretty much the antithesis of vide(a)o game news and I'll be able to dig it up every 60 odd days...

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.

The 'whole point' of steam is to allow you to have everything under one canopy? Not to, for example, make GabeN money?

 

The original purpose of Steam was to give Valve it's own publishing outlet and allow them to further lock down the multiplayer servers with VAC2 to help prevent cheaters. Half Life on the old PB setup had more cheaters than XBL has foul-mouthed 10 year olds and VAC1 was pretty faulty.

[Dream]

It's perfectly fine to blame Valve, as they're the only company offering 3rd party lock in- nobody else does, there is no Originworks, for example- and it would suck equally if there was. As such Valve's attitude is the aberration in the DD market, not the rule.

Maybe that's why Steam works better than Origin (and is more successful).

And there's no point trying to blame devs specifically. Paradox are a bunch of lying liars who lie for example, and I wouldn't trust them if they said the sky was blue, but even I'd admit they are over a barrel with respect to steam as steam could bankrupt them near instantly if they wanted to- and every single person involved knows it. If the pressure comes on to make their games steam exclusive then that is what will happen no matter if Freddie and Johan et al have waxed lyrical about drm free and how they look forward to selling on GOG within the past year, as the alternative is going out of business. It's somewhat amusing to watch the same person who had been laying the smack down on issues like the arbitrary delay Divine Wind suffered on steam backpedalling franticly now, but it is also understandable, as steam has the power of a publisher but none of the responsibilities.

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.

Why would blaming devs/publishers make more sense than blaming Valve? Valve is the one that set the rules of the game that the devs/publishers had to follow to stay afloat. Valve, as a successful forerunner, to a much larger extent could set its own rules of the game. It chose to exercise that freedom in a way that sensibly furthers their profit margins (great), but also makes a move which reduces all gamers' options without giving them anything positive. It's simple enough.

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.

[Tigranes]

"a move which reduces all gamers' options without giving them anything positive"

 

Cutting deals where Steamworks DRM is applied to all versions of a game, making Steam a requirement if you want to play the game, is a move which has no positive benefits. Whether Steam as a whole is positive or not has no relevance.

 

Obviously, they do it because it's part of a long term strategy to make sure Steam has a virtual monopoly on PC gaming and that all PC gaming business goes through Steam, making it a cash cow for years to come. That's very smart of them. Except I don't work for Steam. I'm a consumer. I'm interested in getting good service, and having options to choose where I get service. Steam is actively working to reduce those options. Therefore, I don't like them, and I'll criticise them. Why should I applaud their smart money-making when it doesn't benefit me? 

[Zoraptor]

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.

Or, they'd be happily selling their games through other DD sellers, sellers with a lot less leverage over them. Again, most of the 'benefits' steam has provided are benefits of DD selling in general, not steam in particular. Some companies, large ones like EA and small ones like Matrix, do fine without steam, there's no reason to think that everyone else would have failed to adapt if Uncle Valve hadn't happened along.

 

To further what Tigranes said, I don't think I've ever seen anyone advocate there not being a steam version of a game at all, just that it shouldn't be the only version. It is however in Valve's best interest that the steam version is the only version, hence why steamworks is offered with such 'reasonable' terms.

[Dream]

"a move which reduces all gamers' options without giving them anything positive"

 

Cutting deals where Steamworks DRM is applied to all versions of a game, making Steam a requirement if you want to play the game, is a move which has no positive benefits. Whether Steam as a whole is positive or not has no relevance.

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).

Or, they'd be happily selling their games through other DD sellers, sellers with a lot less leverage over them. Again, most of the 'benefits' steam has provided are benefits of DD selling in general, not steam in particular. Some companies, large ones like EA and small ones like Matrix, do fine without steam, there's no reason to think that everyone else would have failed to adapt if Uncle Valve hadn't happened along.

 

To further what Tigranes said, I don't think I've ever seen anyone advocate there not being a steam version of a game at all, just that it shouldn't be the only version. It is however in Valve's best interest that the steam version is the only version, hence why steamworks is offered with such 'reasonable' terms.

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?

[BruceVC]

People talk about Steam being ineffective addressing issues of fraud. I have a story that I think disputes that

 

About 15 months I bought several games in hard copy format from my local gaming store. One of them was Dead Island , anyway I installed it and then proceeded to register the  game on Steam. I received a concerning message " this code has already been registered by someone in an East European country, please contact Steam support "

 

Amazing that someone had "hacked" a registration code as obviously my copy and code was legitimate.

 

Anyway I contacted Steam support and was told they could help but I needed to scan the original receipt and user manual with the registration code and email it to them

 

I never keep my slips but luckily the software store  could find the transaction and gave me a copy. It was an annoyance and inconvenience but  end of the day after a 3-4 day delay I was able to play Dead Island.

[alanschu]

Why would blaming devs/publishers make more sense than blaming Valve? Valve is the one that set the rules of the game that the devs/publishers had to follow to stay afloat. Valve, as a successful forerunner, to a much larger extent could set its own rules of the game. It chose to exercise that freedom in a way that sensibly furthers their profit margins (great), but also makes a move which reduces all gamers' options without giving them anything positive. It's simple enough.

 

 

Steamworks works with developers and provides a lot of assistance (for free).  Using Steam does not require Steamworks.  Valve just knows that using Steamworks helps ensure Steams relevancy.  Hence, they provide a service to the developers by providing Steamworks.

 

 

If you're going to "blame" anyone for this, the developers seem like a better choice.