Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2011
Heh, indeed. Not being on Steam seems quite... Counter productive for your sales from what I can tell, it is by far the best digital distribution (even if it had a rough start) Especially so if you need more programs to run it due to DRM things...
<!--quoteo(post=1869823:date=Aug 18 2011, 11:11 AM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Talesin @ Aug 18 2011, 11:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869823"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As I read it, the main point of contention was that EA insisted on handling microtransactions/DLC separate from Steam, as they wanted to go with the MS Points trap...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Honestly not sure what you're referring to. You can buy games on Origin with your local currency, not points, and for the exact amount of the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wider distribution has hampered the growth and development of top-end games significantly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This doesn't even make sense and doesn't address the point I was making. My point was if EA can distribute directly to customers via the internet their distribution costs may be lower. I doubt anyone would consider digital distribution as a 'wider distribution' method when compared to buying a game in a store (stores came first, most gamers use that method, if you have the internet you likely have a store within driving distance, hence digital isn't 'wider'). It's just a more direct way to distribute games that, in theory as I haven't seen any numbers, leaves more profit for the developers and publishers.
<i>Ironically</i>, wider distribution methods (still not sure what you're referring to here) would, in theory, allow companies to see more profits. If they so choose, they could use these profits as a cushion to develop top-end games (you need a cushion because 'top-end' games are expensive gambles). By 'top-end' I assume we're talking about graphically pleasing? If so, it would still be a stupid choice as most PC gamers are done with the "buy new ###### every two years" phase. I've had my current video card (GeForce 8800 GTS) for almost six years. I can still play every game I want to.
Your other posts don't really refute anything I said; we're just on different sides. My side being "if it lets them stop piracy and see more profits through distribution then it's reasonable." You just seem to be against EA, as you chose to adopt the DRM that is Steam, which is fine. If you're waiting for DIII to patch out always connected DRM I think you'll be waiting for the remainder of your life. With the wild success Blizzard's seen with SC2, which has the same DRM, I doubt they're removing it soon. In this era most people who want to play their games online have some kind of broadband service; they're always connected anyways. If you're not always connected that's fine and you shouldn't buy the games. If you are, and you needlessly hold on to your 'no DRM!' stance, I think you're the one being unreasonable -- not game developers. They have to protect their games somehow and this method appears to work best as it's the least invasive to legitimate customers and the best at preventing pirates from being able to access all or some of a game's content / features.
Basically, they want full control over their ability to upload and release patches, DLC, etc. The only digital platform that allows them to do this is Origin. From the sound of it, both Valve and EA are willing to work together to come to an solution. That said, I can't imagine there is too much to talk about. Valve knows what EA wants and it's in their best interest to deliver.
<!--quoteo(post=1869878:date=Aug 18 2011, 03:29 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Swiftspear @ Aug 18 2011, 03:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->words<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Honestly I couldn't put it better. I never really think about buying a game that's not available on steam these days, because that's just where my games live. In today's game market, convenience rules all, which is why casual games and phone games do so well. If you're inconveniencing your customers, you're going to lose a lot of them.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited August 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1869904:date=Aug 18 2011, 04:30 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 18 2011, 04:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869904"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Honestly not sure what you're referring to. You can buy games on Origin with your local currency, not points, and for the exact amount of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, for the game itself. For the DLC purchases? EA was pushing their own 'points' system quite hard for a while on the previous incarnation.
Basically, they want full control over their ability to upload and release patches, DLC, etc. The only digital platform that allows them to do this is Origin. From the sound of it, both Valve and EA are willing to work together to come to an solution. That said, I can't imagine there is too much to talk about. Valve knows what EA wants and it's in their best interest to deliver.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Steam already allows significant patch/update (wait, aren't those the same thing? front-loading and obfuscation by a marketer? NEVER!) control for developers. The part that was slid along, trying to sneak under the rug was "...additional content, and other services..." which translates out of marketing speak as 'use dishonest tactics to push DLC and encourage up-sells' as well as "...manage this experience directly and establish a relationship with you..." which translates out to 'get your information for our marketing demographics database and sell it on to third-parties, which Valve wouldn't give us'.
The code is already there to use the Steam Wallet to support in-game purchases if they were to try crying about a seamless DLC purchasing experience. Pushing a code/DLC pack takes a couple of hours at most. This is about greed, and milking their userbase for every penny they can.
As far as DRM goes, yes. I remember the original Spore DRM, which prevented you from installing your copy on more than TWO computers. Which initially could NOT be changed, until EA came out with an application to 'un-register' a system. Including reinstalls of the same system... nuke-and-paves were fairly common things. I remember the original Mount and Blade (before they got on Steam) who had a hardware lock cap of five machines, also non-revokable, but if you hit six your entire license was invalidated. I remember the weeks of players being locked out of games with no apparent rhyme or reason through no fault of their own due to a screwup on the publisher's authentication system.
Comparatively, Steam is the lesser of the evils. Games tied to your account, NOT your hardware. Centralized downloads of the full games. Invisible background-patching enabled by default, unless you specifically turned it OFF for a game. Not to mention the time they screwed up and banned a bunch of people for less than half a week... then came back, gave a BIG mea culpa, and gave everyone affected copies of games for free as an apology. Thirty individual copy-protection schemes crapping up your system, quite often breaking after patches or due to the publisher screwing up. Or one centralized master-token, handled by an authority who have proven to be responsible (or at least PR-savvy out the butt). I'll take the latter, thanks.
Given Valve's endlessly deep pockets, though, it's amazing how people can call them 'gamer-friendly' when there's so many critical features Steam needs that they never fix or add.
As an example - most countries have 'fair use' broadband limits during the day.
Do you know how ###### annoying it is to come home and find that Steam helpfully downloaded a 6 gig update to ArmA,by way of redownloading the whole game? All they've needed to do was put a little scheduler in like uTorrent has saying when it should and should not download updates, but they can't, because they're inept.
<!--quoteo(post=1869977:date=Aug 19 2011, 12:51 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Aug 19 2011, 12:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869977"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you know how ###### annoying it is to come home and find that Steam helpfully downloaded a 6 gig update to ArmA,by way of redownloading the whole game? All they've needed to do was put a little scheduler in like uTorrent has saying when it should and should not download updates, but they can't, because they're inept.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually it's a matter of how Steam pushes patches. Seeing as how it affects a relatively small amount of games, how there's already an option to keep games from automatically updating, and how they've already addressed fixing this specific scenario, it doesn't seem like much of an issue.
<!--quoteo(post=1869980:date=Aug 19 2011, 08:31 AM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Crispy @ Aug 19 2011, 08:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Or you can just turn it off, and manage your own internet use. I don't see this as something you can't work around with a modicum of effort.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's the entire point of the complaint, moron, I shouldn't have to do that.
DERP
The same reason it doesn't even have a bandwidth *limiter*, are you seriously telling me the idiots behind Steam never once thought about how that could be necessary? That it hasn't been suggested thousands of times since then?
No really, a tiny program made by one guy for free to download torrents can get all these features, Valve's making a million or more a day on theirs, and they can't find time to patch it in?
Of course, Crispy, ironically you completely missed the point in your desperate attempt to defend Valve's honor and be a <!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->Keep it civil. -Talesin<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> - people are stupid enough to think they're "gamer-friendly" when extremely simple, obvious features that are seen in every other program on earth that downloads large files are and have been conspicuously absent from Valve's program, and even though their customers have been asking for these features they never once acknowledge the customer and you will never, ever see it show up. Because Valve <b>does not care</b>.
<!--quoteo(post=1870021:date=Aug 19 2011, 05:50 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Aug 19 2011, 05:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1870021"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->even though their customers have been asking for these features they never once acknowledge the customer and you will never, ever see it show up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I love you, Temphage. You bring such a colourful side of the internet along with you.
And no, no one is challenging your straw man questions from your last post [:
As you're selectively disregarding my post anyway, I'm sure you won't mind me citing the source that points out Valve addressing the exact issue you point out from a statement that's all but over a month old by now. Let alone the fact that the real issue at hand here is their patching system.
<!--quoteo(post=1869977:date=Aug 19 2011, 08:51 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Aug 19 2011, 08:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869977"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As an example - most countries have 'fair use' broadband limits during the day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? I've travelled quite a lot, and I've only been to two countries where this is actually the case (these happen to be Canada and the USA, and I'm betting this has changed since I last visited these countries).
<!--quoteo(post=1869977:date=Aug 19 2011, 08:51 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Aug 19 2011, 08:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869977"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Given Valve's endlessly deep pockets, though, it's amazing how people can call them 'gamer-friendly' when there's so many critical features Steam needs that they never fix or add.
As an example - most countries have 'fair use' broadband limits during the day.
Do you know how ###### annoying it is to come home and find that Steam helpfully downloaded a 6 gig update to ArmA,by way of redownloading the whole game? All they've needed to do was put a little scheduler in like uTorrent has saying when it should and should not download updates, but they can't, because they're inept.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know you can turn that off, and tell games to update only when you want them to.
Also why are you leaving your computer on while you're out of the house if you're having trouble affording good internet?
<!--quoteo(post=1870046:date=Aug 19 2011, 11:47 AM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cereal_KillR @ Aug 19 2011, 11:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1870046"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Really? I've travelled quite a lot, and I've only been to two countries where this is actually the case (these happen to be Canada and the USA, and I'm betting this has changed since I last visited these countries).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Worst thing I know about around here is P2P throttling during rush hour. Depends on your provider though.
I've had a monthly bandwidth limit all my life here when not abroad, and this limit has always been very low compared to other countries. Still, Steam was never an issue. Just close it. The only benefit of leaving Steam running is to let it update your games, which obviously does not suit your situation. That, and maybe getting some messages from friends, but come on now.
<!--quoteo(post=1870051:date=Aug 19 2011, 04:37 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Aug 19 2011, 04:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1870051"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also why are you leaving your computer on while you're out of the house if you're having trouble affording good internet?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What are you, 12?
<!--quoteo(post=1870032:date=Aug 19 2011, 01:46 PM:name=JediYoshi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JediYoshi @ Aug 19 2011, 01:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1870032"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As you're selectively disregarding my post anyway, I'm sure you won't mind me citing the source that points out Valve addressing the exact issue you point out from a statement that's all but over a month old by now. Let alone the fact that the real issue at hand here is their patching system.
<b>Eight years</b> and they're just now getting around to letting you decide to throttle your game downloads so you can use the internet for other things in the meantime, and you're criticising me for missing it by a month?
The point is we still don't have it, we didn't have it last year, or six years ago. Eight years, and they just now are getting around to implementing something that every single person who has ever made a piece of software capable of downloading things implemented in their first releases. I'm sorry, what's your point, that they clearly do listen to their customers because it took them almost a decade to put in a basic feature of a program designed to download gigs upon gigs of data?
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
<!--quoteo(post=1870142:date=Aug 19 2011, 09:49 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Aug 19 2011, 09:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1870142"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Eight years</b> and they're just now getting around to letting you decide to throttle your game downloads so you can use the internet for other things in the meantime, and you're criticising me for missing it by a month?
The point is we still don't have it, we didn't have it last year, or six years ago. Eight years, and they just now are getting around to implementing something that every single person who has ever made a piece of software capable of downloading things implemented in their first releases. I'm sorry, what's your point, that they clearly do listen to their customers because it took them almost a decade to put in a basic feature of a program designed to download gigs upon gigs of data?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So... complaining at first that they didn't have it.. and when it's pointed out that they've already said they're planning to implement it, complaining LOUDER that it wasn't put in before?
As noted, there's a method for controlling your bandwidth usage. It's called 'turning off your downloads like a responsible person'. Schedulers are a convenience (and were NOT included in the first releases of the BitTorrent or uTorrent clients, as well as MANY other download managers). Throttling was manageable via workaround (lying to the client about how much bandwidth you have available WOULD cap the download speed).
They expect their users to be at least slightly intelligent. A great failing on their part.
Not that I'm going to bother explaining it to you, I've known you since early NS1 and there's just no helping some people. In your mind, Valve finally might be doing something, so it completely makes up for the fact that they didn't have it done already. Thus means they are the greatest developers ever and care deeply about the wants of their customers, even though they've never really demonstrated anything to this effect in the past.
With backwards logic like that you must vote for the Tea Party.
If not having an automated download manager implemented in Steam is really the biggest gripe you can come up with against Valve then that puts them in pretty good standing if you ask me.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
<!--quoteo(post=1870191:date=Aug 20 2011, 06:12 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Aug 20 2011, 06:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1870191"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yet you still miss the point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->No, I see the point you're trying to make. Which simply comes off as uninformed and with a crazy level of personal entitlement.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In your mind, Valve finally might be doing something, so it completely makes up for the fact that they didn't have it done already. Thus means they are the greatest developers ever and care deeply about the wants of their customers, even though they've never really demonstrated anything to this effect in the past.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Kindly stop asserting what is and is not in my mind. A vast majority of their users simply <i>don't care</i> about scheduling their downloads. Their time was better-spent on improving the overall service than catering to a minority who were slightly inconvenienced by having to act as adults, and take responsibility for their own systems.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->With backwards logic like that you must vote for the Tea Party.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Nah. I'm not entitled or brainless/dead enough for *that*. Though your interpretation (or lack thereof) of my argument shows strong points in that direction.
I mean, it's not like I'd mind if the option existed. But the subject has never come up for me since I just have flat rate (and I'm not going to try to make guesses as to how it works in "most countries"), so it doesn't matter really. What'd I'd RATHER have is the option to mark certain games as "it's okay to download in the background while I'm playing this," because it really doesn't matter that Steam is sapping my bandwidth when I'm playing a singleplayer game anyway.
Where you going buddy, don't you wannah know how I got these scars? <img src="http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/07/13/ledger_narrowweb__300x377,0.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<!--quoteo(post=1870275:date=Aug 21 2011, 07:55 AM:name=Monkfish)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkfish @ Aug 21 2011, 07:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1870275"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->bf3 is fun is anyone else excited for it I like video games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1870303:date=Aug 21 2011, 12:09 AM:name=Psyke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Psyke @ Aug 21 2011, 12:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1870303"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->BF3 is not on Steam<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ORIGIN SUCKS EA THINKS IM GOING TO FALL FOR IT????
Comments
Honestly not sure what you're referring to. You can buy games on Origin with your local currency, not points, and for the exact amount of the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wider distribution has hampered the growth and development of top-end games significantly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This doesn't even make sense and doesn't address the point I was making. My point was if EA can distribute directly to customers via the internet their distribution costs may be lower. I doubt anyone would consider digital distribution as a 'wider distribution' method when compared to buying a game in a store (stores came first, most gamers use that method, if you have the internet you likely have a store within driving distance, hence digital isn't 'wider'). It's just a more direct way to distribute games that, in theory as I haven't seen any numbers, leaves more profit for the developers and publishers.
<i>Ironically</i>, wider distribution methods (still not sure what you're referring to here) would, in theory, allow companies to see more profits. If they so choose, they could use these profits as a cushion to develop top-end games (you need a cushion because 'top-end' games are expensive gambles). By 'top-end' I assume we're talking about graphically pleasing? If so, it would still be a stupid choice as most PC gamers are done with the "buy new ###### every two years" phase. I've had my current video card (GeForce 8800 GTS) for almost six years. I can still play every game I want to.
Your other posts don't really refute anything I said; we're just on different sides. My side being "if it lets them stop piracy and see more profits through distribution then it's reasonable." You just seem to be against EA, as you chose to adopt the DRM that is Steam, which is fine. If you're waiting for DIII to patch out always connected DRM I think you'll be waiting for the remainder of your life. With the wild success Blizzard's seen with SC2, which has the same DRM, I doubt they're removing it soon. In this era most people who want to play their games online have some kind of broadband service; they're always connected anyways. If you're not always connected that's fine and you shouldn't buy the games. If you are, and you needlessly hold on to your 'no DRM!' stance, I think you're the one being unreasonable -- not game developers. They have to protect their games somehow and this method appears to work best as it's the least invasive to legitimate customers and the best at preventing pirates from being able to access all or some of a game's content / features.
/edit:
Good read:
<a href="http://www.gamespot.com/news/6329649/we-want-eas-games-on-steam-newell?tag=updates%3Beditor%3Ball%3Btitle%3B5" target="_blank">http://www.gamespot.com/news/6329649/we-wa...all%3Btitle%3B5</a>
Basically, they want full control over their ability to upload and release patches, DLC, etc. The only digital platform that allows them to do this is Origin. From the sound of it, both Valve and EA are willing to work together to come to an solution. That said, I can't imagine there is too much to talk about. Valve knows what EA wants and it's in their best interest to deliver.
Honestly I couldn't put it better. I never really think about buying a game that's not available on steam these days, because that's just where my games live. In today's game market, convenience rules all, which is why casual games and phone games do so well. If you're inconveniencing your customers, you're going to lose a lot of them.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://www.gamespot.com/news/6329649/we-want-eas-games-on-steam-newell?tag=updates%3Beditor%3Ball%3Btitle%3B5" target="_blank">http://www.gamespot.com/news/6329649/we-wa...all%3Btitle%3B5</a>
Basically, they want full control over their ability to upload and release patches, DLC, etc. The only digital platform that allows them to do this is Origin. From the sound of it, both Valve and EA are willing to work together to come to an solution. That said, I can't imagine there is too much to talk about. Valve knows what EA wants and it's in their best interest to deliver.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Steam already allows significant patch/update (wait, aren't those the same thing? front-loading and obfuscation by a marketer? NEVER!) control for developers. The part that was slid along, trying to sneak under the rug was "...additional content, and other services..." which translates out of marketing speak as 'use dishonest tactics to push DLC and encourage up-sells' as well as "...manage this experience directly and establish a relationship with you..." which translates out to 'get your information for our marketing demographics database and sell it on to third-parties, which Valve wouldn't give us'.
The code is already there to use the Steam Wallet to support in-game purchases if they were to try crying about a seamless DLC purchasing experience. Pushing a code/DLC pack takes a couple of hours at most. This is about greed, and milking their userbase for every penny they can.
As far as DRM goes, yes. I remember the original Spore DRM, which prevented you from installing your copy on more than TWO computers. Which initially could NOT be changed, until EA came out with an application to 'un-register' a system. Including reinstalls of the same system... nuke-and-paves were fairly common things. I remember the original Mount and Blade (before they got on Steam) who had a hardware lock cap of five machines, also non-revokable, but if you hit six your entire license was invalidated. I remember the weeks of players being locked out of games with no apparent rhyme or reason through no fault of their own due to a screwup on the publisher's authentication system.
Comparatively, Steam is the lesser of the evils. Games tied to your account, NOT your hardware. Centralized downloads of the full games. Invisible background-patching enabled by default, unless you specifically turned it OFF for a game. Not to mention the time they screwed up and banned a bunch of people for less than half a week... then came back, gave a BIG mea culpa, and gave everyone affected copies of games for free as an apology.
Thirty individual copy-protection schemes crapping up your system, quite often breaking after patches or due to the publisher screwing up. Or one centralized master-token, handled by an authority who have proven to be responsible (or at least PR-savvy out the butt).
I'll take the latter, thanks.
As an example - most countries have 'fair use' broadband limits during the day.
Do you know how ###### annoying it is to come home and find that Steam helpfully downloaded a 6 gig update to ArmA,by way of redownloading the whole game? All they've needed to do was put a little scheduler in like uTorrent has saying when it should and should not download updates, but they can't, because they're inept.
Actually it's a matter of how Steam pushes patches. Seeing as how it affects a relatively small amount of games, how there's already an option to keep games from automatically updating, and how they've already addressed fixing this specific scenario, it doesn't seem like much of an issue.
That's the entire point of the complaint, moron, I shouldn't have to do that.
DERP
The same reason it doesn't even have a bandwidth *limiter*, are you seriously telling me the idiots behind Steam never once thought about how that could be necessary? That it hasn't been suggested thousands of times since then?
No really, a tiny program made by one guy for free to download torrents can get all these features, Valve's making a million or more a day on theirs, and they can't find time to patch it in?
Of course, Crispy, ironically you completely missed the point in your desperate attempt to defend Valve's honor and be a <!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->Keep it civil. -Talesin<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> - people are stupid enough to think they're "gamer-friendly" when extremely simple, obvious features that are seen in every other program on earth that downloads large files are and have been conspicuously absent from Valve's program, and even though their customers have been asking for these features they never once acknowledge the customer and you will never, ever see it show up. Because Valve <b>does not care</b>.
I love you, Temphage. You bring such a colourful side of the internet along with you.
And no, no one is challenging your straw man questions from your last post [:
As you're selectively disregarding my post anyway, I'm sure you won't mind me citing the source that points out Valve addressing the exact issue you point out from a statement that's all but over a month old by now. Let alone the fact that the real issue at hand here is their patching system.
<a href="http://store.steampowered.com/news/5856/" target="_blank">http://store.steampowered.com/news/5856/</a>
Really? I've travelled quite a lot, and I've only been to two countries where this is actually the case (these happen to be Canada and the USA, and I'm betting this has changed since I last visited these countries).
As an example - most countries have 'fair use' broadband limits during the day.
Do you know how ###### annoying it is to come home and find that Steam helpfully downloaded a 6 gig update to ArmA,by way of redownloading the whole game? All they've needed to do was put a little scheduler in like uTorrent has saying when it should and should not download updates, but they can't, because they're inept.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know you can turn that off, and tell games to update only when you want them to.
Also why are you leaving your computer on while you're out of the house if you're having trouble affording good internet?
Worst thing I know about around here is P2P throttling during rush hour. Depends on your provider though.
I've had a monthly bandwidth limit all my life here when not abroad, and this limit has always been very low compared to other countries. Still, Steam was never an issue. Just close it. The only benefit of leaving Steam running is to let it update your games, which obviously does not suit your situation. That, and maybe getting some messages from friends, but come on now.
What are you, 12?
<!--quoteo(post=1870032:date=Aug 19 2011, 01:46 PM:name=JediYoshi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JediYoshi @ Aug 19 2011, 01:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1870032"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As you're selectively disregarding my post anyway, I'm sure you won't mind me citing the source that points out Valve addressing the exact issue you point out from a statement that's all but over a month old by now. Let alone the fact that the real issue at hand here is their patching system.
<a href="http://store.steampowered.com/news/5856/" target="_blank">http://store.steampowered.com/news/5856/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Eight years</b> and they're just now getting around to letting you decide to throttle your game downloads so you can use the internet for other things in the meantime, and you're criticising me for missing it by a month?
The point is we still don't have it, we didn't have it last year, or six years ago. Eight years, and they just now are getting around to implementing something that every single person who has ever made a piece of software capable of downloading things implemented in their first releases. I'm sorry, what's your point, that they clearly do listen to their customers because it took them almost a decade to put in a basic feature of a program designed to download gigs upon gigs of data?
The point is we still don't have it, we didn't have it last year, or six years ago. Eight years, and they just now are getting around to implementing something that every single person who has ever made a piece of software capable of downloading things implemented in their first releases. I'm sorry, what's your point, that they clearly do listen to their customers because it took them almost a decade to put in a basic feature of a program designed to download gigs upon gigs of data?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So... complaining at first that they didn't have it.. and when it's pointed out that they've already said they're planning to implement it, complaining LOUDER that it wasn't put in before?
As noted, there's a method for controlling your bandwidth usage. It's called 'turning off your downloads like a responsible person'. Schedulers are a convenience (and were NOT included in the first releases of the BitTorrent or uTorrent clients, as well as MANY other download managers). Throttling was manageable via workaround (lying to the client about how much bandwidth you have available WOULD cap the download speed).
They expect their users to be at least slightly intelligent. A great failing on their part.
Yet you still miss the point.
Not that I'm going to bother explaining it to you, I've known you since early NS1 and there's just no helping some people. In your mind, Valve finally might be doing something, so it completely makes up for the fact that they didn't have it done already. Thus means they are the greatest developers ever and care deeply about the wants of their customers, even though they've never really demonstrated anything to this effect in the past.
With backwards logic like that you must vote for the Tea Party.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In your mind, Valve finally might be doing something, so it completely makes up for the fact that they didn't have it done already. Thus means they are the greatest developers ever and care deeply about the wants of their customers, even though they've never really demonstrated anything to this effect in the past.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Kindly stop asserting what is and is not in my mind. A vast majority of their users simply <i>don't care</i> about scheduling their downloads. Their time was better-spent on improving the overall service than catering to a minority who were slightly inconvenienced by having to act as adults, and take responsibility for their own systems.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->With backwards logic like that you must vote for the Tea Party.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Nah. I'm not entitled or brainless/dead enough for *that*. Though your interpretation (or lack thereof) of my argument shows strong points in that direction.
I mean, it's not like I'd mind if the option existed. But the subject has never come up for me since I just have flat rate (and I'm not going to try to make guesses as to how it works in "most countries"), so it doesn't matter really. What'd I'd RATHER have is the option to mark certain games as "it's okay to download in the background while I'm playing this," because it really doesn't matter that Steam is sapping my bandwidth when I'm playing a singleplayer game anyway.
*reads last few posts*
*leaves*
*reads last few posts*
*leaves*<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*intercepts 6john*
Where you going buddy, don't you wannah know how I got these scars?
<img src="http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/07/13/ledger_narrowweb__300x377,0.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
STEAM SUCKS.
--Scythe--
--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BF3 is not on Steam
ORIGIN SUCKS EA THINKS IM GOING TO FALL FOR IT????
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ7f6wEACFo&feature=player_embedded" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ7f6wEACFo</a>
srsly yootoob