Opinion of Valve's Steam

[directhex]

The reason EA doesn't make risky games is because we don't buy them. And because they don't have to.

it's the latter part of that which saddens me - are we really now so addicted to sequel and clone after sequel and clone that there's zero incentive to release $next_big_thing instead of $fifa_game?

even more worryingly: yes. ubi took a massive hit on Beyond Good and Evil - really great game, but very few sales, so the trilogy has been killed off at number 1. shenmue will never have its final part released. system shock 2 had a cliffhanger ending, but there's no chance of a SS3.

i blame gamers who aren't me.

[dkmech]

I blame myself, but. With online games the experience doesn't stop after 20 hours of play. I am currently playing WoW and BF2 and they take all of my time. I haven't finished GTA:SA because of those two (partly because it really isn't all that). Before that i bought HL2 (played quite a lot of CS:S), GTR (which i never get round to playing, however i suppose you could just possibly class it as not a mainstream game)... All mainstream low risk titles. But all a highlight in the list of games this year, and all - not to be missed.

My friend brought Painkiller for me to play - I can't be bothered - BF2 and WoW keep me coming back. I just need to give it back to him.

I have stalker on preorder. Its innovative with its life simulations and trying to push the boundaries of behavioural realism. Does it count as a risky game or a mainstream title? I don't really know.

Another part of this vicious circle is that a good innovative game spawns sequels.

To be fair to EA i'd say the Sims was a risky and innovative game. It was possible that hardcore gamers won't wanna play with some doll house and that people new to games will not bite the bait and will not start playing. It turned out to be an enormous success and EA are milking it a lot. But this just showes that an innovative game that will reward its makers with success will get milked to death with sequels.

So online games taking all of our time and breakthrough titles spawning sequels are the culprits.

[directhex]

To be fair to EA i'd say the Sims was a risky and innovative game.

it was also backed by will wright, one of the biggest names in pc gaming

and one innovative title (the sims) spawned how many expansion packs? let's count

The Sims: Unleashed
The Sims: Superstar
The Sims: Makin Magic
The Sims: On Holiday
The Sims: Hot Date
The Sims: House Party
The Sims: Livin' Large/Livin' It Up

And sequels?

The Sims 2
The Urbz
The Sims (console versions, little in common with PC version)

And expansions to sequels?

The Sims 2: University
The Sims 2: Nightlife

at which point did "innovative" stop, and "milking like corporate whores" begin?

[dkmech]

You don't have to spell out things i actually said, you know.

It turned out to be an enormous success and EA are milking it a lot. But this just showes that an innovative game that will reward its makers with success will get milked to death with sequels.

And i agree that The Sims went way over the top with sequels.

But at which point must sequels stop?

We have a lot of 2's, which are great (HL2, BF2, etc...)

3s - I was not a fan of Doom 3 - i thin its an example of a sequel too far - no innovation in gameplay, pretty graphics and scary in a cheap and tacky way, but thats about it.

But we have had Thief 3 (I haven't actually played any of the series, as i am not really into the stealthy side of things) which is apparently a very good game.

But there are also some silly numbers. Should there be Quake 4? Should we get a new version of UT every couple years? What about Civilisation?..

[directhex]

But there are also some silly numbers. Should there be Quake 4? Should we get a new version of UT every couple years? What about Civilisation?..

hey, i prefer UT to 2003/2004, and Civ2 to Civ3...

[dkmech]

hey, i prefer UT to 2003/2004, and Civ2 to Civ3...

Not Civ 1 then? And have you tried Civ 4?

[Yohji]

Not Civ 1 then? And have you tried Civ 4?

Civ Call to Power was good!

[unreal]

So we're probably best to just agree to disagree here i think, don't want a flame war over it but steam sux

LOL fair play, I never tend to flame anyhow, but I was just trying to have an agressive point fair play


..


Steam FTW!!!11one

*runs*

[directhex]

Civ Call to Power was good!

played it for about 30 minutes - hated it

[kalniel]

Meh.. steams ok I guess.

It works great when you have an always on connection, but when you have download caps it's a bit of a pain - the offline mode is unplayable on win 98 - you have to wait up to five minutes before it fails to connect and let's you play offline. And when I am connected I had problems of it downloading large amounts of content when I didn't ask it to.

But their technical support was good and things are ok now.

However, I still vastly prefer something like guild wars as a digital distribution method. There's no hassle, you just launch quickly and patches/game content are streamed really smoothly.

I really like the idea that you don't have to have all this stuff unique to your computer - you just have a user name and password and that will pretty much let you play your game on any computer.

I can see a time where we basically don't have to buy and install games - we just purchase an account and then we can basically play the game on any computer that has a net connection. Don't have a fast enough PC/connection? No worries - just pop into a gaming cafe and use your account there.

[badass]

I havn't bought HL2 and Steam is the reason why.

HL2 is the only pirated game I have and steam is the reason why.
They made it a major pain in the arse for legitimate users in order to reduce piracy, when regardless of what happens it will get pirated. I wasn;t going to suffer all of that and be made to pay for it aswell so I didn't bother

[Davey W]

Steam looks and sounds useful, a good idea to resolve issues of patching that have plagued games for some time.

The aspect I dislike is that in order to play Half Life 2 legitiamately, I have to run Steam. To even install it, I have to run steam.

Steam runs on my system when I play HL2, and *only* at those times.

[Mutley]

Same here (or DoD:S). It does annoy me that you must have a network connection in order that steam can, again and again, verify that you are allowed to play the game you already paid for. When that credentials system breaks, you can't play.

Yes, I know they implemented a way for you to play offline, but its a complete hack, and requires that you have a network connection in the first place.

If you bought a CD or DVD, you aren't required to verify you can still play it, at least not by connecting to an external sevice which you can't be sure will always be there.

[keith.ftm]

Steam sucks, fouls up my online experience and is generally annoying. However Halflife 2 is worth the hassle

[jiffz]

Steam does well considering all the awesome game it manages. I play a lot of CS:S and DOD:S and I dont really have any problems with steam!

[Mutley]

I think the last two posts some this up quite well!

Steam sux0rs/r0x0rs at the same time.

Perhaps its like this:
When Steam is working well, and if you are not bothered by the control and DRM issues that it might represent, then it seamlessly merges into the background - it helps you gaming.

If the above isn't true for either part (working well/DRM), then it sucks.