heywood on 23/5/2013 at 04:31
Quote Posted by Queue
I agree with Lady Rowena. I absolutely hate the whole concept of Steam required activation. It's one of the reasons I gave up on PC gaming for new titles. So now, I have a 360 (without internet connection) for newer games, and won't buy anything that requires an internet connection.
It may seem silly to some, but I like the idea of just being able to pay my money at the store for a physical copy, then being left alone.
It's not silly, just unrealistic. I also miss the old distribution model. But these days, when you buy a physical copy of a new PC game all you're really doing is skipping the large download. I think the current gen consoles may be the last gaming platforms to be based on that model.
Besides, getting a PC game installed and working is usually less hassle today than it was during the 'golden age' of PC gaming. Installing and activating a Steam game isn't always a smooth process, but it's
usually a smooth process. That's more than I can say for PC gaming 10-15 years ago.
Quote Posted by New Horizon
Another reason why I'll wait for the bargain bin, if I buy it at all. By that time, there will no doubt be a 'way' to play without having to jump through all the online nonsense.
Only if the 'way' includes pirating. I doubt there will be a legit way to play future games (at least major ones) without online activation, regardless of what the price drops to. If the game is deployed to run on Steam, they're not going to spend more money to release a non-Steam version just for the bargain bin.
jtr7 on 23/5/2013 at 04:39
It's not unrealistic, it's not fitting in with consumer trends and business models. Models that exclude so many people and turn gaming into magazine subscriptions, and having a business that holds your goods and services for you, needs to be boycotted. Forcing people to rely on more and more links in a chain for the same end result needs to be cut out of the mainstream. Keep that kind of thing separate and optional, instead of an all or nothing thing. Put more control in the hands of the people and add convenient options, not exclude one for the other. You don't kill the market that made you to begin with, and you don't act surprised when your business chokes when you do.
Starker on 23/5/2013 at 04:47
Quote Posted by heywood
Only if the 'way' includes pirating. I doubt there will be a legit way to play future games (at least major ones) without online activation, regardless of what the price drops to.
That's what I did with Bioshock. Didn't even install the one I bought.
jtr7 on 23/5/2013 at 05:07
To reiterate what I've said when not having to battle off the Fiendish from Fiendlandia, if I have a copy of the game, it won't be because I purchased it or had someone purchase it, and not because I care to play the thing. If I have a copy and keep it, it will be for the gamefiles, not the game, for community projects. That is, if I can download third-party software to open compressed assets, like I had to for TDS with DX:IW Sound Drone and RAD Game Tools, or something.
heywood on 23/5/2013 at 09:36
Quote Posted by Starker
That's what I did with Bioshock. Didn't even install the one I bought.
I can see that for games which install malware like SecuROM. Like Bioshock.
But doing that just to avoid online activation seems silly. Online activation is a whole lot less hassle than using cracked copies (long downloads, risk of trojans, difficulty getting patches/updates, etc.).
jtr7 on 23/5/2013 at 09:40
I know it's hard for many of you to understand, but you have to imagine a world without Internet for your gaming machine, or too many experiences where there was a catch and not always immediate, but always regrettable at a bare minimum. It's silly if it's literally "just to avoid online activation", but it's not. It's more than that, and the more includes entirely unacceptable compromises. Convenience has a price and of course it's not always monetary.
heywood on 23/5/2013 at 10:39
Quote Posted by jtr7
I know it's hard for many of you to understand, but you have to imagine a world without Internet for your gaming machine, or too many experiences where there was a catch and not always immediate, but always regrettable at a bare minimum. It's silly if it's literally "just to avoid online activation", but it's not. It's more than that, and the more includes entirely unacceptable compromises. Convenience has a price and of course it's not always monetary.
I haven't been able to play a PC game without hitting the internet since about 1996. Around the time Thief 1 came out, every new game required downloading some combination of game patches, DirectX, D3D, OpenGL, video driver updates, and/or sound card driver updates to be properly playable.
I'm not convinced that being able to play without touching the internet during install is even a valid goal to set for a PC game. Some consoles are never connected to the internet, but PCs?
Starker on 23/5/2013 at 14:27
Quote Posted by heywood
I haven't been able to play a PC game without hitting the internet since about 1996. Around the time Thief 1 came out, every new game required downloading some combination of game patches, DirectX, D3D, OpenGL, video driver updates, and/or sound card driver updates to be properly playable.
I'm not convinced that being able to play without touching the internet during install is even a valid goal to set for a PC game. Some consoles are never connected to the internet, but PCs?
I have a couple that aren't connected. I just don't want to bother with setting up a LAN for them. And my laptop doesn't even have an Ethernet port.
SeriousCallersOnly on 23/5/2013 at 17:08
f*** steam. Never bought a online activated game - much less a cryptographically obscured one - never will
also, f*** achievements. is this facebook or what? f*** off
Xamiche on 8/6/2013 at 14:57
I know this will seem petty to some or even most people, but I can't get past the lack of Russell as Garrett's voice. I think they'd have been better off replacing Garrett as the main protagonist altogether. Or perhaps have a new main character with an old-man Garrett as a cameo offering some sagely advice to the young upstart at some point during the game.
Video game characters tend to have their trade mark characteristic; e.g. Link's green fairy clothes, Mario's Red overalls, Duke Nukem's cigar and muscle shirt, Guybrush's goatee and pony tail, etc. Most game character trade marks are visual, but what to you give a character who is designed not to be seen? The voice. Garrett's trade mark is his voice. It's the thing that first immersed me in the Thief world back in 1998. Russell has this way of combining cynicism with a kind of waggish energy to give Garrett more than just a thuggish or brutal disposition. I've heard the new guy, and he does a fair approximation of the character's voice, but it just sounds wrong to my ear. It would be like replacing Patrick Stewart as Picard with Alan Rickman. I just can't abide it. I mean, no Benny/Officer Sinclair? Philistines!
Perhaps I'm too old and have become set in my ways. Maybe the reboot, as they call such things today, will attract a new audience and bring life back to the old franchise. The cynic in me says that it's more likely that the 'new' audience will play it and forget about it as soon as they're done, but I hope I'm wrong. As for this old man, I'm having none of it. Eidos Montreal can take their fancy face and body capture technology and send it back to James Cameron for all I care. If it means that the character has to be voiced by the stunt man, I rather have the 320x200(or whatever size they were) cutscenes of olde. I swear, if I had the money I'd transcribe the dialogue from the new game, hire Stephen Russell to voice it and create a mod to replace the new Garrett's voice with the old.
