rag doll kung fu
TalkShowHost
--
TalkShowHost
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A pet is for life, unless it dies...
BombayMix
No beacuse it's on stream!
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
>>Enough said, just get it...
>
> No beacuse it's on stream!
Feck off - steam is ACE! No more worrying about hunting for DVDs, no
more tracking down patches, cheaper games, no pikeys. The only people
who don't like steam are luddites.
Choobs
--
Sir Chewbury Gubbins | ____ _ _ ____ _ _
http://www.nelefa.org | / ___|| |__ (_)_ __ ___ / ___| ___| |_| |
| \___ \| '_ \| | '_ \ / _ \ | | _ / _ \ __| |
Gaming Diary and | ___) | | | | | | | | __/ | |_| | __/ |_|_|
General Misery | |____/|_| |_|_|_| |_|\___| \____|\___|\__(_)
Gunther Gloop
> On 2005-10-14, BombayMix <bomb...@altavista.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Enough said, just get it...
>>
>> No beacuse it's on stream!
>
> Feck off - steam is ACE! No more worrying about hunting for DVDs, no
> more tracking down patches, cheaper games, no pikeys. The only people
> who don't like steam are luddites.
>
And people who would like to know what is going on their computer -and
where. And people who do not like to have to download tens/hundreds of
megabytes in order to play a game they already paid for. And people who are
not connected to the net all of the time. And people who still use dialup.
And people who only connect to the net at work, but play games only at home.
And people who just want to buy a disc, load it on their computer and _play_
a game in the comfort of their own home without hassle and without forms and
procedures and long waits so often.
I have one paid-for, unplayable, original copy of Half Life 2 that I
wouldn't mind playing again, but is now rendered unuseable for one or more
of the above reasons.
I for one will *never* buy another game with Steam or anything like it. And
I *never* say never.
-Kevin.
--
Reply to: ne...@SPAMBEGONEgunthergloop.com
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
> Sir Chewbury Gubbins wrote:
>> On 2005-10-14, BombayMix <bomb...@altavista.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Enough said, just get it...
>>>
>>> No beacuse it's on stream!
>>
>> Feck off - steam is ACE! No more worrying about hunting for DVDs, no
>> more tracking down patches, cheaper games, no pikeys. The only people
>> who don't like steam are luddites.
>>
>
> And people who would like to know what is going on their computer -and
> where.
Those types of people don't run windows.
>And people who do not like to have to download tens/hundreds of
> megabytes in order to play a game they already paid for.
Why would you pay for a game that was only available for electronic
download if you didn't want to download it? That's just daft.
>And people who are
> not connected to the net all of the time.
Why should people who *are* connected all the time suffer because some
people aren't?
>And people who still use dialup.
Why should people who have broadband suffer because some people don't?
> And people who only connect to the net at work, but play games only at home.
Why should people with broadband at home suffer because some people
don't?
> And people who just want to buy a disc, load it on their computer and _play_
> a game in the comfort of their own home without hassle and without forms and
> procedures and long waits so often.
One form to set up an account. One wait while it installs, which you
have to do anyway.
> I have one paid-for, unplayable, original copy of Half Life 2 that I
> wouldn't mind playing again, but is now rendered unuseable for one or more
> of the above reasons.
Why?
> I for one will *never* buy another game with Steam or anything like it. And
> I *never* say never.
Fair enough - you're absolutely entitled to that opinion. I, however,
think steam is great.
The Rev
> Feck off - steam is ACE! No more worrying about hunting for DVDs, no
> more tracking down patches, cheaper games, no pikeys. The only people
> who don't like steam are luddites.
Steam is great when it works. When it doesn't it's a horrible, horrible,
horrible system.
--
Xbox Live Gamertag: Prinny
(You know, like the exploding penguin doods. No?)
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
> Sir Chewbury Gubbins wrote:
>
>> Feck off - steam is ACE! No more worrying about hunting for DVDs, no
>> more tracking down patches, cheaper games, no pikeys. The only people
>> who don't like steam are luddites.
>
> Steam is great when it works. When it doesn't it's a horrible, horrible,
> horrible system.
Yeah, I'd agree with that - those who remember my ranty posts when I was
attempting to get Half Life 2 to work will, I'm sure, share my pain.
Since then, however, I've had my HL2 and HL disks lost, built a new PC
and just downloaded them again. I've never had any othr hassle with the
system. Even bought Day of Defeat source last week, but I haven't had
the nerve to take it online due to my pwnophobia.
BombayMix
>> No because it's on stream!
> Feck off - steam is ACE! No more worrying about hunting for DVDs, no
> more tracking down patches, cheaper games, no pikeys. The only people
> who don't like steam are luddites.
>And people who would like to know what is going on their computer -and
>where. And people who do not like to have to download tens/hundreds of
>megabytes in order to play a game they already paid for. And people who are
>not connected to the net all of the time. And people who still use dialup.
>And people who only connect to the net at work, but play games only at home.
>And people who just want to buy a disc, load it on their computer and _play_
>a game in the comfort of their own home without hassle and without forms and
>procedures and long waits so often.
And people who spent hours download HL2 demo at a insanely low bit rate
only for it to crash and fuck up McAfee. I spent the rest of my game
time getting my PC to work again and not play games!!!
I've nothing against mmorpg download patches and game of the net.
Just Stream didn't work and is some massive application that takes
over.
James Sutherland
news:slrndkv1dk.6uk....@jem.yoyo.org:
> On 2005-10-14, Gunther Gloop <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>And people who do not like to have to download tens/hundreds of
>> megabytes in order to play a game they already paid for.
>
> Why would you pay for a game that was only available for electronic
> download if you didn't want to download it? That's just daft.
Half-Life 2 is available on disk, but you still have to download stuff in
order to play it. If you've not played a Steam game for a while, you can
guarantee it'll force you to download a load of extra data when you try to
play it.
> Fair enough - you're absolutely entitled to that opinion. I, however,
> think steam is great.
The main worry I have with Steam-like systems is that games companies have
a tendency to go bust a lot, and I don't want to be stuck with unplayable
games just because the people who made it don't exist any more.
Gunther Gloop
>>> Feck off - steam is ACE! No more worrying about hunting for DVDs, no
>>> more tracking down patches, cheaper games, no pikeys. The only
>>> people who don't like steam are luddites.
>>>
>>
>> And people who would like to know what is going on their computer
>> -and where.
>
> Those types of people don't run windows.
>
I run Windows. I'm not overly-protective of it, but Steam cranks up the
hard-drive for a long time and when I later look, I find tens of megabytes
in places I did not want them to be -and have no control over
removing/moving if I want to continue playing the game I paid for.
>> And people who do not like to have to download tens/hundreds of
>> megabytes in order to play a game they already paid for.
>
> Why would you pay for a game that was only available for electronic
> download if you didn't want to download it? That's just daft.
>
I'm not sure about Rag Doll Kungfu, but Half-Life 2 was a shop-bought,
Steam-riddled title.
>> And people who are
>> not connected to the net all of the time.
>
> Why should people who *are* connected all the time suffer because some
> people aren't?
>
? Huh?
Full-time connectees can successfully use many, many other non-Steam-riddled
titles. I don't get your point?
>> And people who still use dialup.
>
> Why should people who have broadband suffer because some people don't?
>
Again, you'll have to expand on what you're getting at here -I don't think
Steam is an essential part of the games that it infests.
>> And people who only connect to the net at work, but play games only
>> at home.
>
> Why should people with broadband at home suffer because some people
> don't?
>
They shouldn't. And they wouldn't have to.
>> And people who just want to buy a disc, load it on their computer
>> and _play_ a game in the comfort of their own home without hassle
>> and without forms and procedures and long waits so often.
>
> One form to set up an account. One wait while it installs, which you
> have to do anyway.
>
It took me 2 hours+ after first installing HL2 to be able to play it. Since
finishing it, I've been back a few times and had to endure 20+MB downloads
before being able to play a '5 minute burst'. I never wanted to play online
and I never needed any new files other than the ones that came on the dvd
that I had paid for.
>> I have one paid-for, unplayable, original copy of Half Life 2 that I
>> wouldn't mind playing again, but is now rendered unuseable for one
>> or more of the above reasons.
>
> Why?
>
Besides what I said above, I can't get broadband in my area. But even if I
could, I would object to Steam's unnecessarily-restrictive practices and
would _still_ never buy another Steam game ever.
>> I for one will *never* buy another game with Steam or anything like
>> it. And I *never* say never.
>
> Fair enough - you're absolutely entitled to that opinion. I, however,
> think steam is great.
>
I wouldn't believe I could change your mind. Such restrictions are
wedge-like implementations that can be introduced as "conveniences", but
over time can evolve into something else.
Besides Steam, I wouldn't like to have to register my watching of a movie,
or my listening to a song, or my switching on a computer -or to have my
private car tracked continuously for whatever purpose, without deliberatly
exercising a 'choice' each time.
Acceptance of one can and does often lead to a logical 'next step' approach
to another.
No I'm not being paranoid. I don't lie awake and worry about such things.
But none of that is purely science-fiction any longer. The thin end of the
wedge was some time ago. We're on rung-2 around now I would say.
Smid
> On 2005-10-14, Gunther Gloop <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> Fair enough - you're absolutely entitled to that opinion. I, however,
> think steam is great.
While I reckon the bloke has a point, its not one of those things which
bothers me about Steam...
It was the regular advertising of steam things to me. Day of Defeat:
Source. Half Life: Source. I bought yer sodding game, but I didn't give
you permission to spam me about the details of everything you create.
I lost my hard disc so the steam account is gone. I don't know if it
will come back if I reinstall the retail Half Life. But frankly, I can
do without the badgering...
Smid
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
That's a legitimate concern, and one which hadn't occurred to me.
*however*, if I were in Valve's position, I'd have an 'unlocker' tool
written before Steam was launched so cover that very eventuality. I'm
pretty sure Valve will have done something along those lines.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
All you do is install steam, log in, download the games you own.
Smid
>
> Even bought Day of Defeat source last week, but I haven't had
> the nerve to take it online due to my pwnophobia.
Does that mean the single player game is good then? Is there a single
player game?
Smid
The Rev
>
> It was the regular advertising of steam things to me. Day of Defeat:
> Source. Half Life: Source. I bought yer sodding game, but I didn't give
> you permission to spam me about the details of everything you create.
Doesn't it just give a single ad window every time you start it up? I
can deal with that. It may have changed - I've not started it up for a
few months.
The Rev
> Even bought Day of Defeat source last week, but I haven't had
> the nerve to take it online due to my pwnophobia.
I'm entitled to this, but haven't downloaded it yet.
Maybe I'll leave Steam to get it next time I turn on the PC to play some
Space Rangers.
Matt Hook
>> And people who would like to know what is going on their computer -and
>> where.
>
> Those types of people don't run windows.
I run windows and am that type of person, you are wrong.
>
>>And people who do not like to have to download tens/hundreds of
>> megabytes in order to play a game they already paid for.
>
> Why would you pay for a game that was only available for electronic
> download if you didn't want to download it? That's just daft.
>
You can buy it from a shop, not only by electronic download.
>
>> I for one will *never* buy another game with Steam or anything like it.
>> And
>> I *never* say never.
>
> Fair enough - you're absolutely entitled to that opinion. I, however,
> think steam is great.
>
Fair enough - you're entitled to your opinion that a service that forces
thousands of people who bought it on release day to wait for hours while it
registers their game and downloads god knows what instead of actually being
able to just play the game like they want to is good.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
No, there's no single player. It means I fired it up and watched a dozen
or so games as a spectator to see what kind of playing style the guys on
the server had. Then I chickened out.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
>>
>> It was the regular advertising of steam things to me. Day of Defeat:
>> Source. Half Life: Source. I bought yer sodding game, but I didn't give
>> you permission to spam me about the details of everything you create.
>
> Doesn't it just give a single ad window every time you start it up? I
> can deal with that. It may have changed - I've not started it up for a
> few months.
It gives you a news window when you first log in, but you can disable it
in the preferences. There are no ads.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
>>>
>>> And people who would like to know what is going on their computer -and
>>> where.
>>
>> Those types of people don't run windows.
>
> I run windows and am that type of person, you are wrong.
Then you can't possibly have any idea what is going on your computer, or
where.
>>>And people who do not like to have to download tens/hundreds of
>>> megabytes in order to play a game they already paid for.
>>
>> Why would you pay for a game that was only available for electronic
>> download if you didn't want to download it? That's just daft.
>>
>
> You can buy it from a shop, not only by electronic download.
Yes, I'm aware of that. However, you were talking about massive
downloads so I assumed that you were buying it electronically as the
disk version doesn't need massive downloads, other than patches which
you'd download anyway.
>>> I for one will *never* buy another game with Steam or anything like it.
>>> And
>>> I *never* say never.
>>
>> Fair enough - you're absolutely entitled to that opinion. I, however,
>> think steam is great.
>>
>
> Fair enough - you're entitled to your opinion that a service that forces
> thousands of people who bought it on release day to wait for hours while it
> registers their game and downloads god knows what instead of actually being
> able to just play the game like they want to is good.
Perhaps I'm just a little more patient.
Matt Hook
news:slrndkv8mq.l4f....@jem.yoyo.org...
> On 2005-10-14, Matt Hook <GoAwayN...@fromme.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And people who would like to know what is going on their computer -and
>>>> where.
>>>
>>> Those types of people don't run windows.
>>
>> I run windows and am that type of person, you are wrong.
>
> Then you can't possibly have any idea what is going on your computer, or
> where.
>
Yes, yes I do. You are wrong again.
I don't have a complete idea, but I do have it partitioned to keep games and
downloads on seperate drives, and the operating system on another. Steam
downloading to wherever it wants to doesn't help keep things organised like
this.
>>>>And people who do not like to have to download tens/hundreds of
>>>> megabytes in order to play a game they already paid for.
>>>
>>> Why would you pay for a game that was only available for electronic
>>> download if you didn't want to download it? That's just daft.
>>>
>>
>> You can buy it from a shop, not only by electronic download.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of that. However, you were talking about massive
> downloads so I assumed that you were buying it electronically as the
> disk version doesn't need massive downloads, other than patches which
> you'd download anyway.
>
I'm fairly sure the patch I'd need to download to play the game would run
into tens/hundreds of megabytes, as stated above. If so, your assumption was
wrong.
>>>> I for one will *never* buy another game with Steam or anything like it.
>>>> And
>>>> I *never* say never.
>>>
>>> Fair enough - you're absolutely entitled to that opinion. I, however,
>>> think steam is great.
>>>
>>
>> Fair enough - you're entitled to your opinion that a service that forces
>> thousands of people who bought it on release day to wait for hours while
>> it
>> registers their game and downloads god knows what instead of actually
>> being
>> able to just play the game like they want to is good.
>
> Perhaps I'm just a little more patient.
>
Maybe so, as I said, fair enough, personally I don't like backwards steps in
PC gaming when it comes to the install time of games, which I feel was long
enough anyway.
[ste parker]
> On 2005-10-14, Smid <smid...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Sir Chewbury Gubbins wrote:
>>
>>>Even bought Day of Defeat source last week, but I haven't had
>>>the nerve to take it online due to my pwnophobia.
>>
>>Does that mean the single player game is good then? Is there a single
>>player game?
>
>
> No, there's no single player. It means I fired it up and watched a dozen
> or so games as a spectator to see what kind of playing style the guys on
> the server had. Then I chickened out.
>
You're serious? What does it matter?! Just go on and play, the
majority of servers aren't setups where teams who all know what each
other is doing anyway. If you find yourself getting murdered every 5
seconds then change server, there's hundreds to choose from!
--
[ste]
Your Play Rank: MADAMADA ikuyo-
Nathan
planet and maintain peace!!!
> Maybe so, as I said, fair enough, personally I don't like backwards
> steps in PC gaming when it comes to the install time of games, which I
> feel was long enough anyway.
>
I think a point worth making is, would I put up with this lengthy process
on my gamecube?
Course I bloody wouldn't. Not sure why I put up with it on a PC, then.
I haven't boycotted steam, and I'm a-ok with verification stuff and I'm
okay about the installation part of things. I just hate being forced to
patch when I want a five minute go months after I did all the verification
part and months after they established that I legitemately bought the game.
I'm also a little worried that years later down the line, I may not be able
to just casually reinstall Half Life 2 for a quick go because steam isn't
working or because my ancient windows XP machine isn't connected to the
internet.
All that said, there are ways of getting round such things. Like for
example, that I can run first encounters without using dosbox, just some
other utility. Or be able to play SNES games on a PC. So I don't think
HL2's reliance on steam will be a problem, when steam can no longer be
relied on.
--
Nathan.
Bow to the Cow!
Gaming Diary: http://blog.cowfields.com
Dr. Boggis
"BombayMix" <bomb...@altavista.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> Enough said, just get it...
>
> >> No because it's on stream!
>
> > Feck off - steam is ACE! No more worrying about hunting for DVDs, no
> > more tracking down patches, cheaper games, no pikeys. The only people
> > who don't like steam are luddites.
>
> >And people who would like to know what is going on their computer -and
> >where. And people who do not like to have to download tens/hundreds of
> >megabytes in order to play a game they already paid for. And people who are
> >not connected to the net all of the time. And people who still use dialup.
> >And people who only connect to the net at work, but play games only at home.
> >And people who just want to buy a disc, load it on their computer and _play_
> >a game in the comfort of their own home without hassle and without forms and
> >procedures and long waits so often.
>
> And people who spent hours download HL2 demo at a insanely low bit rate
> only for it to crash and fuck up McAfee. I spent the rest of my game
> time getting my PC to work again and not play games!!!
Why do people even *bother* with PC games?
--
-Take out Ron to reply-
My games blog: http://bloggisgames.blogspot.com
GT4 pics slideshow: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_boggis/sets/162932/show/
Chris F
<ja...@guybrush.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Sir Chewbury Gubbins <chewbury...@nelefa.org> wrote in
>news:slrndkv1dk.6uk....@jem.yoyo.org:
>
>> On 2005-10-14, Gunther Gloop <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>And people who do not like to have to download tens/hundreds of
>>> megabytes in order to play a game they already paid for.
>>
>> Why would you pay for a game that was only available for electronic
>> download if you didn't want to download it? That's just daft.
>
>Half-Life 2 is available on disk, but you still have to download stuff in
>order to play it. If you've not played a Steam game for a while, you can
>guarantee it'll force you to download a load of extra data when you try to
>play it.
half life 2 doesnt actually download anything from steam per se
(except patches that is, obviously) it merely verifies/unlocks the
disk installation, which for some reason takes fecking ages.
not that i ever had an offline copy of the game........*ahem*
>
>> Fair enough - you're absolutely entitled to that opinion. I, however,
>> think steam is great.
>
>The main worry I have with Steam-like systems is that games companies have
>a tendency to go bust a lot, and I don't want to be stuck with unplayable
>games just because the people who made it don't exist any more.
yeah, thats a bit of a worry i suppose.
--
gamertag: chrisflynnuk
Live Line-up: To Be Updated When I Can Be Arsed.
Revok
"Nathan" <cowf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96EF8D10...@130.133.1.18...
> Matt Hook has fallen from outer space. Launch them back to defend the
> planet and maintain peace!!!
>
>> Maybe so, as I said, fair enough, personally I don't like backwards
>> steps in PC gaming when it comes to the install time of games, which I
>> feel was long enough anyway.
>>
>
> I think a point worth making is, would I put up with this lengthy process
> on my gamecube?
>
> Course I bloody wouldn't. Not sure why I put up with it on a PC, then.
To be fair though - the Gamecube doesn't make piracy exceptionally easy -
the PC does.
Nathan
planet and maintain peace!!!
> To be fair though - the Gamecube doesn't make piracy exceptionally
> easy - the PC does.
>
Well, it's my personal opinion that that aint my problem.
Besides, the extent of the piracy check shouldn't be *every* time you run
the game. I mean, sometimes I have to wait for *steam* to update, rather
than Half Life 2. I just think that they could still do the whole
verification thing and waste less of my time.
I mean I'll buy another game that's on steam if needs be (I'll be buying a
HL2 expansion if it comes) but the constant updating seems to be overkill
in terms of piracy protection.
Revok
I think he constant updating is obviously something that Valve have done to
cut down on support costs - instead of telling users to apply the latest
patch it does it automatically.
Personally - I don't mind steam. I can see what it is trying to do - and I
think it is basically a good thing. I do agree that the updating is
annoying - but then I don't play Half Life 2 everyday so I am not too fussed
about it.
And at the end of the day - the quality of the game speaks for itself
really.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
> "Sir Chewbury Gubbins" <chewbury...@nelefa.org> wrote in message
> news:slrndkv8mq.l4f....@jem.yoyo.org...
>> On 2005-10-14, Matt Hook <GoAwayN...@fromme.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And people who would like to know what is going on their computer -and
>>>>> where.
>>>>
>>>> Those types of people don't run windows.
>>>
>>> I run windows and am that type of person, you are wrong.
>>
>> Then you can't possibly have any idea what is going on your computer, or
>> where.
>>
>
> Yes, yes I do. You are wrong again.
> I don't have a complete idea, but I do have it partitioned to keep games and
> downloads on seperate drives, and the operating system on another. Steam
> downloading to wherever it wants to doesn't help keep things organised like
> this.
Steam doesn't do this. It will install stuff to wherever you tell it to
in the preferences. What we're seeing here is evidence of someone who
dislikes something because it's trendy to dislike it, and is happy to
jump on whatever little niggles he can find to strengthen his case.
>>>>>And people who do not like to have to download tens/hundreds of
>>>>> megabytes in order to play a game they already paid for.
>>>>
>>>> Why would you pay for a game that was only available for electronic
>>>> download if you didn't want to download it? That's just daft.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can buy it from a shop, not only by electronic download.
>>
>> Yes, I'm aware of that. However, you were talking about massive
>> downloads so I assumed that you were buying it electronically as the
>> disk version doesn't need massive downloads, other than patches which
>> you'd download anyway.
>>
>
> I'm fairly sure the patch I'd need to download to play the game would run
> into tens/hundreds of megabytes, as stated above. If so, your assumption was
> wrong.
Don't be so fucking stupid. I've never had to download a patch bigger
than ten or fifteen meg, and I'm pretty damn sure you download fix
patches for other games which aren't on steam.
>>>>> I for one will *never* buy another game with Steam or anything like it.
>>>>> And
>>>>> I *never* say never.
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough - you're absolutely entitled to that opinion. I, however,
>>>> think steam is great.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fair enough - you're entitled to your opinion that a service that forces
>>> thousands of people who bought it on release day to wait for hours while
>>> it
>>> registers their game and downloads god knows what instead of actually
>>> being
>>> able to just play the game like they want to is good.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm just a little more patient.
>>
>
> Maybe so, as I said, fair enough, personally I don't like backwards steps in
> PC gaming when it comes to the install time of games, which I feel was long
> enough anyway.
It's not a backwards step, it's a pretty substantial leap forwards and I
look forward to the near future when all software is delivered this way.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
> Revok has fallen from outer space. Launch them back to defend the
> planet and maintain peace!!!
>
>> To be fair though - the Gamecube doesn't make piracy exceptionally
>> easy - the PC does.
>>
>
> Well, it's my personal opinion that that aint my problem.
>
> Besides, the extent of the piracy check shouldn't be *every* time you run
> the game. I mean, sometimes I have to wait for *steam* to update, rather
> than Half Life 2. I just think that they could still do the whole
> verification thing and waste less of my time.
You don't *have* to - just tell steam not to auto-update. It's very easy
to find things to complain about with the platform, ,but the fact is,
most of the complaints are completely bogus. There's no point in all
that arm waving and shouting STEAM IS TEH SUXXOR just because you don't
like the *default settings*. Not you, by the way - others in the thread
:)
> I mean I'll buy another game that's on steam if needs be (I'll be buying a
> HL2 expansion if it comes) but the constant updating seems to be overkill
> in terms of piracy protection.
It's not - it's gameplay patches. And you don't have to install the
updates if you don't want to.
Nathan
> You don't *have* to - just tell steam not to auto-update.
Ah, fair enough then, well scrap all my comments.
It didn't really bother me but I thought it was a valid point but if the
verification thing can be done only at startup, that's fine.
When the steam servers no longer work and you can no longer activate your
half-life2, I bet there's some sort of haxx0r work around. Just like you
can still play DOS games with dosbox, and so on.
So yeah it's alright. But it's enough to put one off PC gaming, it's fair
enough, like I say, gamecube game, in the cube, loaded in a minute.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
> enough, like I say, gamecube game, in the cube, loaded in a minute.
Damn tootin - between patching, load times, trying to book time with the
TV, my GB Micro has revitalised my interest in gaming.
Gunther Gloop
>> Besides, the extent of the piracy check shouldn't be *every* time
>> you run the game. I mean, sometimes I have to wait for *steam* to
>> update, rather than Half Life 2. I just think that they could still
>> do the whole verification thing and waste less of my time.
>
> You don't *have* to - just tell steam not to auto-update. It's very
> easy to find things to complain about with the platform, ,but the
> fact is, most of the complaints are completely bogus. There's no
> point in all that arm waving and shouting STEAM IS TEH SUXXOR just
> because you don't like the *default settings*. Not you, by the way -
> others in the thread :)
>
Urm, I assume you're talking about me. There's plenty about Steam that _is_
"TEH SUXX0R" as I have outlined previously (and won't go into again here),
but the offline play option _can't_ be switched off for more than a few days
at a time. ie. you can switch to offline mode and it will allow you to play
without connecting for a few days, but after that it _forces_ you to connect
to the internet again in order to play the game you paid for (and previously
validated).
There were plenty of reasons I gave for disliking it and there's no need to
bring it down to personal slagging just because people don't agree with you.
It'd be great to have a Steam-type *option* on all games (as an 'opt-in'
choice), but it's not at all acceptable in my view to have it as a
requirement each (or most) time(s) you want to play a game. What's _wrong_
with it being optional??
>> I mean I'll buy another game that's on steam if needs be (I'll be
>> buying a HL2 expansion if it comes) but the constant updating seems
>> to be overkill in terms of piracy protection.
>
> It's not - it's gameplay patches. And you don't have to install the
> updates if you don't want to.
>
Yup. You do. There are cracks available to play offline, but it's awful to
have to do that too.
Gunther Gloop
> Sir Chewbury Gubbins has fallen from outer space. Launch them back to
> defend the planet and maintain peace!!!
>
>> You don't *have* to - just tell steam not to auto-update.
>
> Ah, fair enough then, well scrap all my comments.
>
> It didn't really bother me but I thought it was a valid point but if
> the verification thing can be done only at startup, that's fine.
>
Nope. You're gonna have to unscrap those comments. You were correct in what
you said. You can't play offline (for very long).
> When the steam servers no longer work and you can no longer activate
> your half-life2, I bet there's some sort of haxx0r work around. Just
> like you can still play DOS games with dosbox, and so on.
>
That can be done already, but it's not a nice thing for someone to have to
do after paying proper, decent money to play a goddammed game.
> So yeah it's alright. But it's enough to put one off PC gaming, it's
> fair enough, like I say, gamecube game, in the cube, loaded in a
> minute.
...but how long would consoles be so free 'n easy if the likes of Steam get
away unopposed?
Matt Hook
> On 2005-10-14, Matt Hook <GoAwayN...@fromme.com> wrote:
>> "Sir Chewbury Gubbins" <chewbury...@nelefa.org> wrote in message
>> news:slrndkv8mq.l4f....@jem.yoyo.org...
>>> On 2005-10-14, Matt Hook <GoAwayN...@fromme.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And people who would like to know what is going on their
>>>>>> computer -and
>>>>>> where.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those types of people don't run windows.
>>>>
>>>> I run windows and am that type of person, you are wrong.
>>>
>>> Then you can't possibly have any idea what is going on your computer, or
>>> where.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, yes I do. You are wrong again.
>> I don't have a complete idea, but I do have it partitioned to keep games
>> and
>> downloads on seperate drives, and the operating system on another. Steam
>> downloading to wherever it wants to doesn't help keep things organised
>> like
>> this.
>
> Steam doesn't do this. It will install stuff to wherever you tell it to
> in the preferences. What we're seeing here is evidence of someone who
> dislikes something because it's trendy to dislike it, and is happy to
> jump on whatever little niggles he can find to strengthen his case.
>
OK fair enough, I was relying on my memory for this and got it wrong. Maybe
my issue was with the fact that steam and its apps all end up in the same
place (as appears to be the case on my system, it's so long ago I can't
remember what the problem actually was).
>>>>>>And people who do not like to have to download tens/hundreds of
>>>>>> megabytes in order to play a game they already paid for.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would you pay for a game that was only available for electronic
>>>>> download if you didn't want to download it? That's just daft.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can buy it from a shop, not only by electronic download.
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm aware of that. However, you were talking about massive
>>> downloads so I assumed that you were buying it electronically as the
>>> disk version doesn't need massive downloads, other than patches which
>>> you'd download anyway.
>>>
>>
>> I'm fairly sure the patch I'd need to download to play the game would run
>> into tens/hundreds of megabytes, as stated above. If so, your assumption
>> was
>> wrong.
>
> Don't be so fucking stupid. I've never had to download a patch bigger
> than ten or fifteen meg, and I'm pretty damn sure you download fix
> patches for other games which aren't on steam.
>
so the patches I'd need to download now would run into tens of megabytes as
stated above. Who's being fucking stupid here, your point was based on said
massive downloads (tens/hundreds of megabytes), don't construct arguments
around things that aren't true, it doesn't help your case, and have the
grace to admit it when you are wrong (as I did above).
>>>>>> I for one will *never* buy another game with Steam or anything like
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>> And
>>>>>> I *never* say never.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough - you're absolutely entitled to that opinion. I, however,
>>>>> think steam is great.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough - you're entitled to your opinion that a service that
>>>> forces
>>>> thousands of people who bought it on release day to wait for hours
>>>> while
>>>> it
>>>> registers their game and downloads god knows what instead of actually
>>>> being
>>>> able to just play the game like they want to is good.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I'm just a little more patient.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe so, as I said, fair enough, personally I don't like backwards steps
>> in
>> PC gaming when it comes to the install time of games, which I feel was
>> long
>> enough anyway.
>
> It's not a backwards step, it's a pretty substantial leap forwards and I
> look forward to the near future when all software is delivered this way.
>
You need to learn your opinion isn't fact (or stop stating it as if you
think it is gospel).
In many people's opinion increasing the complexity and length of time it
takes to get a PC game up and running is a massive step backwards in
creating games that will bring more people to PCs.
Ask the majority of console owners if they'd be happy when they get their
brand spanking new halo 2 game home and they can't play it for hours because
everyone is simultaneously trying to log on, register and download their
game. This happened with halflife 2 and it wasn't good enough. Maybe they've
sorted it out now, we won't really know until the next AAA release from them
though.
I too look forward to being able to download all software, I don't however
look forward to any games I have gone and bought in a shop taking hours to
register when I get home before I can play them.
Matt Hook
> enough, like I say, gamecube game, in the cube, loaded in a minute.
>
Precisely, I fail to see how anything that puts people off PC gaming is
described as "a pretty substantial step forwards", but each to his own...
Gunther Gloop
>> Steam doesn't do this. It will install stuff to wherever you tell it
>> to in the preferences. What we're seeing here is evidence of someone
>> who dislikes something because it's trendy to dislike it, and is
>> happy to jump on whatever little niggles he can find to strengthen
>> his case.
>
> OK fair enough, I was relying on my memory for this and got it wrong.
> Maybe my issue was with the fact that steam and its apps all end up
> in the same place (as appears to be the case on my system, it's so
> long ago I can't remember what the problem actually was).
>
Like you, I can't quite remember the main problem in this regard, but one
thing I do recall is that I installed STEAM a long time before buying
Half-Life 2, and Steam was no longer in a place that I wanted to have it by
then. I don't recall if I had chosen that location for Steam or had it
imposed, but one thing for sure -it couldn't be moved (easily).
I _think_ also some files were automatically placed under My Documents. A
lot of software now does this (so it's not unique to Steam or HL2), but it
drives me maaaad! ...Well I wouldn't say mad, but I don't like it.
:^./
Nathan
the planet and maintain peace!!!
> Nope. You're gonna have to unscrap those comments. You were correct in
> what you said. You can't play offline (for very long).
Well this is the first time I've had an argument with someone on Usenet
claiming that I was *right* rather than wrong :)
> ...but how long would consoles be so free 'n easy if the likes of Steam
> get away unopposed?
Well, that's sort of my point with "it's enough to put you off PC gaming".
Playing console games is an opposition to the whole patching and unlocking
process. You never know though, Xbox Live might start to become compulsory
and actually part of owning an Xbox 720 or whatever comes afterwards since
Live seemed to be the best way (for MS) to stop piracy.
I don't mind the whole lengthy verification thing for downloading HL2 but
it took far too long for the DVD version - I bought the DVD version to get
round all that long process. So that part irked me some.
I don't *like* steam, what's to actually *like*? But I don't hate it
enough to boycott it, which ultimately is Valve's concern I guess.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
Can't remember - probably.
>There's plenty about Steam that _is_
> "TEH SUXX0R" as I have outlined previously (and won't go into again here),
> but the offline play option _can't_ be switched off for more than a few days
> at a time. ie. you can switch to offline mode and it will allow you to play
> without connecting for a few days, but after that it _forces_ you to connect
> to the internet again in order to play the game you paid for (and previously
> validated).
Yeah, but that involves a single transaction which takes seconds -
easily achievable on the slowest of modems without and pain.
> There were plenty of reasons I gave for disliking it and there's no need to
> bring it down to personal slagging just because people don't agree with you.
Now just calm down a minute - there is no personal slagging from me on
this thread - I don't care enough about the issue to get personal. If
you've read something into it then I apologise, but it wasn't intended.
If I was getting personal, you'd know about it :)
> It'd be great to have a Steam-type *option* on all games (as an 'opt-in'
> choice), but it's not at all acceptable in my view to have it as a
> requirement each (or most) time(s) you want to play a game. What's _wrong_
> with it being optional??
Because it would defeat the whole point of the system - the prevention
of piracy - which can only benefit the consumer in the long run.
>>> I mean I'll buy another game that's on steam if needs be (I'll be
>>> buying a HL2 expansion if it comes) but the constant updating seems
>>> to be overkill in terms of piracy protection.
>>
>> It's not - it's gameplay patches. And you don't have to install the
>> updates if you don't want to.
>>
>
> Yup. You do. There are cracks available to play offline, but it's awful to
> have to do that too.
No, you don't. You right click the game title, select properties and
tell it not to auto update. As you don't have a fast enough internet
connection to play online anyway, it doesn't matter if your install is
compatible with the servers.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
>
> I don't *like* steam, what's to actually *like*? But I don't hate it
> enough to boycott it, which ultimately is Valve's concern I guess.
I think a large number of the boycotters (and I'm not including you,
Gunther, before you go off on one about me being insulting again ;-))
are opposed to Steam simply cos it forces them to buy games.
I really don't see any legitimate problems with it. So, you have to
validate your install every few times you connect. Whoopee. It takes a
second.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
>
> so the patches I'd need to download now would run into tens of megabytes as
> stated above. Who's being fucking stupid here, your point was based on said
> massive downloads (tens/hundreds of megabytes), don't construct arguments
> around things that aren't true, it doesn't help your case, and have the
> grace to admit it when you are wrong (as I did above).
Nonononono, because as I've stated more times than I like to think
about, you don't *have* to update anything. Just switch the auto update
off. Problem solved. Sure, you won't be able to play online-multiplayer,
but then if your bandwidth is so poor/non existant you wont want to play
online anyway. And sorry about the 'fucking stupid' thing - this
particular topic always frustrates me :-/
>> It's not a backwards step, it's a pretty substantial leap forwards and I
>> look forward to the near future when all software is delivered this way.
>>
>
> You need to learn your opinion isn't fact (or stop stating it as if you
> think it is gospel).
> In many people's opinion increasing the complexity and length of time it
> takes to get a PC game up and running is a massive step backwards in
> creating games that will bring more people to PCs.
>
> Ask the majority of console owners if they'd be happy when they get their
> brand spanking new halo 2 game home and they can't play it for hours because
> everyone is simultaneously trying to log on, register and download their
> game. This happened with halflife 2 and it wasn't good enough. Maybe they've
> sorted it out now, we won't really know until the next AAA release from them
> though.
>
> I too look forward to being able to download all software, I don't however
> look forward to any games I have gone and bought in a shop taking hours to
> register when I get home before I can play them.
That's fair comment. As someone who rarely buys stuff on release day
these days, I can't really comment with the whole rush thing. I guess
we'll just have to see how it all pans out.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
I think the only people being put off PC gaming or those who don't
actually want to pay for the games. Broadly speaking, of course - no
sweeping generalisations from me - oh, no.
Revok
"Gunther Gloop" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3rd2ehF...@individual.net...
> Nathan wrote:
>> Sir Chewbury Gubbins has fallen from outer space. Launch them back to
>> defend the planet and maintain peace!!!
>>
>>> You don't *have* to - just tell steam not to auto-update.
>>
>> Ah, fair enough then, well scrap all my comments.
>>
>> It didn't really bother me but I thought it was a valid point but if
>> the verification thing can be done only at startup, that's fine.
>>
>
> Nope. You're gonna have to unscrap those comments. You were correct in
> what you said. You can't play offline (for very long).
>
>> When the steam servers no longer work and you can no longer activate
>> your half-life2, I bet there's some sort of haxx0r work around. Just
>> like you can still play DOS games with dosbox, and so on.
>>
>
> That can be done already, but it's not a nice thing for someone to have to
> do after paying proper, decent money to play a goddammed game.
Well....you could make that agurment about any DOS game that no longer works
on Windows XP surely? I must have spent thousands on games that now require
absolutely enormous amounts of effort to play.
It is the nature of the beast. At some stage an operating system will come
out that will make all WIndows XP games very difficult to play - making the
Steam server issus a bit irrelevant (IMO).
Gunther Gloop
>> have to do after paying proper, decent money to play a goddammed
>> game.
>
> Well....you could make that agurment about any DOS game that no
> longer works on Windows XP surely? I must have spent thousands on
> games that now require absolutely enormous amounts of effort to play.
>
They still work on the systems they were designed to run on. I wouldn't
expect my SNES carts to play on a record player.
Gunther Gloop
>> Yup. You do. There are cracks available to play offline, but it's
>> awful to have to do that too.
>
> No, you don't. You right click the game title, select properties and
> tell it not to auto update. As you don't have a fast enough internet
> connection to play online anyway, it doesn't matter if your install is
> compatible with the servers.
>
This is starting to get repetitive, but that option only works for a few
days. ...and that *does* include "auto updating". It's not just
auto-validating.
It's a pain having to do that every few days. The game was _already_ validly
registered. It should not require further connecting -ever.
And I never had a yearning to play the game online.
You say it only takes seconds to validate after that. My experience proves
you wrong. Also, after connecting, the game is automatically started and
it's then 'painful' to try disconnecting while the game is running.
Awful, awful system that I will never be supporting. Goodbye pc gaming (once
that becomes the norm of course).
[ste parker]
> On 2005-10-14, Matt Hook <GoAwayN...@fromme.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes, yes I do. You are wrong again.
>>I don't have a complete idea, but I do have it partitioned to keep games and
>>downloads on seperate drives, and the operating system on another. Steam
>>downloading to wherever it wants to doesn't help keep things organised like
>>this.
>
> Steam doesn't do this. It will install stuff to wherever you tell it to
> in the preferences. What we're seeing here is evidence of someone who
> dislikes something because it's trendy to dislike it, and is happy to
> jump on whatever little niggles he can find to strengthen his case.
>
Where? I've just launched Steam (which can't connect due to the work
firewall), and I can't see anything to change where to install things in
the settings. I do seem to recall the first time I installed Steam I
ended up reinstalling as I didn't realise it would install the games
under the directory into which Steam was installed.
[ste parker]
>
> Why do people even *bother* with PC games?
They're varied and fun, and far cheaper on release than console games.
I've rarely had any more problems running a PC game than I have a
console game, in recent memory.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
wrote:
>Awful, awful system that I will never be supporting. Goodbye pc gaming (once
>that becomes the norm of course).
Oh for heaven's sake - I'm not going to waste any more time arguing
round in circles about this. Ok! So the sky is falling in! Run away!
If it makes you happy to stamp around like a drama queen, then that's
fine.
Choobs
Redsmartie
<chewbury...@nelefa.org> said:
lol
--
gt: redsmartie
www.redsmartie.com
"Game experience may change during online play"
BombayMix
>They're varied and fun, and far cheaper on release than console games.
>I've rarely had any more problems running a PC game than I have a
>console game, in recent memory.
And its the only game what I've ever had problems with. Others work
straight away. Even when people are loads of problems I always seem to
getting it running first time.
The only exception being HL2. Not sure if it was the game or Stream
either way I'm not getting either ever again.
Gunther Gloop
There you go again with your personal attacks. I stated plenty of reasons
why Steam is a bad idea and why I dislike it. You had nothing to say on any
of them that would ease those problems. Then you came up with some
nonsequiters that were also mostly incorrect anyway.
When all else fails, use slagging and duck for cover.
I said plenty of times that I do not lie awake worrying about such things.
Steam doesn't bother me since I will not be using it into the future. I hope
it doesn't spread. *Then* it would bother me if it became widespread.
Stick to the issue or just bow out of it gracefully. I do understand you
have a personal preference towards using Steam. That's fine by me.
I see nothing wrong with others stating what they don't like about it (or
anything else). No need to cry.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
wrote:
>There you go again with your personal attacks. I stated plenty of reasons
>why Steam is a bad idea and why I dislike it.
No, you said it was the end of PC gaming. That's just a ridiculous
powder-puff-explosion of a statement, now, isn't it?
> You had nothing to say on any
>of them that would ease those problems.
I addressed all of the points and was met with the usenet equivalent
of 'lalala still not listening'
>Then you came up with some
>nonsequiters that were also mostly incorrect anyway.
Er, no.
>When all else fails, use slagging and duck for cover.
No, I wasn't slagging, I was expressing frustration with the
chicken-licken style assertions that it was the end of PC gaming
because *you*, rightly or wrongly, don't like steam.
>I said plenty of times that I do not lie awake worrying about such things.
>Steam doesn't bother me since I will not be using it into the future. I hope
>it doesn't spread. *Then* it would bother me if it became widespread.
>
>Stick to the issue or just bow out of it gracefully. I do understand you
>have a personal preference towards using Steam. That's fine by me.
>I see nothing wrong with others stating what they don't like about it (or
>anything else). No need to cry.
I'm bowing it of it gracefully because it's quite clear that it's a
subject which attacks zealots and advocates.
Choobs
Gunther Gloop
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:38:23 +0100, "Gunther Gloop" <m...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>> There you go again with your personal attacks. I stated plenty of
>> reasons why Steam is a bad idea and why I dislike it.
>
> No, you said it was the end of PC gaming. That's just a ridiculous
> powder-puff-explosion of a statement, now, isn't it?
>
It is. But I never said it.
(For the record, I think Half-Life 2 is a great game... I wish I could still
play it!)
>> You had nothing to say on any
>> of them that would ease those problems.
>
> I addressed all of the points and was met with the usenet equivalent
> of 'lalala still not listening'
>
Heheh. Have another look.
I made some points. You threw mud. None of it stuck. Then ignored everything
by inventing your own reasons why people dislike Steam.
>> Then you came up with some
>> nonsequiters that were also mostly incorrect anyway.
>
> Er, no.
>
>> When all else fails, use slagging and duck for cover.
>
> No, I wasn't slagging, I was expressing frustration with the
> chicken-licken style assertions that it was the end of PC gaming
> because *you*, rightly or wrongly, don't like steam.
>
You said (more or less) "I like Steam -Anyone who disagrees with that is a
nutjob."
Gimme a break.
Even now (as you bow out gracefully) you are crying over imaginary
generalisations.
>> I said plenty of times that I do not lie awake worrying about such
>> things. Steam doesn't bother me since I will not be using it into
>> the future. I hope it doesn't spread. *Then* it would bother me if
>> it became widespread.
>>
>> Stick to the issue or just bow out of it gracefully. I do understand
>> you have a personal preference towards using Steam. That's fine by
>> me.
>> I see nothing wrong with others stating what they don't like about
>> it (or anything else). No need to cry.
>
> I'm bowing it of it gracefully because it's quite clear that it's a
> subject which attacks zealots and advocates.
>
Thankfully I haven't seen it attack anyone. ;)
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
wrote:
>Heheh. Have another look.
Ok. I'll dredge my way back up the thread and find your post and
follow up to it directly.
Choobs
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
wrote:
>And people who would like to know what is going on their computer
This can be achieved using the power of Windows Explorer.
> -and
>where.
This can be achieved by looking in the SteamApps folder. All your
SteamApps. In One. Convenient. Handy Place.
> And people who do not like to have to download tens/hundreds of
>megabytes in order to play a game they already paid for.
As I have addressed many many MANY times before, bring up the games
list. Right click. Select properties. Tell it not to auto aupdate.
> And people who are
>not connected to the net all of the time.
As I have addressed many many MANY times before, bring up the games
list. Right click. Select properties. Tell it not to auto aupdate.
>And people who still use dialup.
As I have addressed many many MANY times before, bring up the games
list. Right click. Select properties. Tell it not to auto aupdate.
>And people who only connect to the net at work, but play games only at home.
This is just contrived. It really is. Please, give me the name of
someone you know who owns a PC, plays games, and has *no net access
whatsoever* at home.
>And people who just want to buy a disc, load it on their computer and _play_
>a game in the comfort of their own home without hassle and without forms and
>procedures and long waits so often.
As I have addressed many many MANY times before, bring up the games
list. Right click. Select properties. Tell it not to auto aupdate.
>I have one paid-for, unplayable, original copy of Half Life 2 that I
>wouldn't mind playing again, but is now rendered unuseable for one or more
>of the above reasons.
Given that I have addressed all of the above reasons with primarily
the same response, would you care to tell us why you can't play it?
Are you the mysterious person with no net access?
>I for one will *never* buy another game with Steam or anything like it. And
>I *never* say never.
Fine.
Choobs
Gunther Gloop
>> And people who would like to know what is going on their computer
>
> This can be achieved using the power of Windows Explorer.
>
>> -and
>> where.
>
> This can be achieved by looking in the SteamApps folder. All your
> SteamApps. In One. Convenient. Handy Place.
>
What are those files? What are they doing? Why do they grow cancerously on
my pc every time I want to play a game? (a game that I had previously
validated anyway.)
Should they be allowed bloat and belch ad-infinitum?
> As I have addressed many many MANY times before, bring up the games
> list. Right click. Select properties. Tell it not to auto aupdate.
>
As I have counter-addressed MORE times... ***It doesn't work***. At least a
few months back it didn't work -for more than a few days. The "Play in
Offline Mode" (or whatever the exact text) *ALSO* doesn't work for more than
a few days.
Steam insists on auto-validating and insists on auto-updating after a few
days.
...And even if it did work the way it is supposed to... Why should I have
that shit on my computer just to tick a box marked "no"?
Take another non-Steam validation system as an example... Trackmania
Sunrise.
That forces the player to validate online (which I also did not like one
bit), but after doing so once, you are free to play the game forevermore
without having to connect _at all_. ...Now what's wrong with *that*?
You can also *choose* to connect via that system to download patches,
track-updates, etc. ...Or you can choose to ignore that and just play the
game as you had paid for.
It does not shove a load of unassociated bloatware onto your computer. It is
not overly invasive or slow when you just want to play a goddammed game.
It also has no proper nocd patches available, which is the main reason I
stopped playing it sooner than I would have (probably). Still, I'd guess I
got many more enjoyable _playtime_ hours out of TS than I did HL2. (If you
add "Steamtime" to the HL2-time, then I likely spent a lot more with the
Valve title.)
Apart from anything else, I can understand that you like the "convenience"
Steam brings, but why would it *possibly* be more favourable to a system
such as that?
>> And people who only connect to the net at work, but play games only
>> at home.
>
> This is just contrived. It really is. Please, give me the name of
> someone you know who owns a PC, plays games, and has *no net access
> whatsoever* at home.
>
Y'know it's silly to even justify that.
> Given that I have addressed all of the above reasons with primarily
> the same response, would you care to tell us why you can't play it?
> Are you the mysterious person with no net access?
>
You've addressed the above with the same invalid/incorrect 'fix'. You
clearly haven't read or paid no attention to anything I said subsequent to
your cure-all holy grail.
And I also gave other valid reasons for disliking Steam (as have others). I
also previously stated why HL2 is now unplayable for me. I really don't feel
like going over that again, since you're not listening anyway.
>> I for one will *never* buy another game with Steam or anything like
>> it. And I *never* say never.
>
> Fine.
>
I said fine first!
FIN!
--
Reply to: ne...@SPAMBEGONEgunthergloop.com
[ste parker]
Surely it was blatantly obvious he was talking from a personal point of
view anyway (re: the "goodbye PC gaming" comment)?
Also: I'm trying to run Steam without it autoupdating itself, yet to do
this is appears I'm going to have to disable my wireless connection. Is
it a good thing that I can't just launch Steam as it is and play the
game I have paid for, which is perfectly fine as it is?
In the meantime, I'll time how long it takes me to launch Fable vs. Half
Life 2....
Fable: 18 seconds (to load game screen)
HL2: 165 seconds (to load screen, including Steam loading and update)
After the Steam update, it's back to just under 40 seconds to launch HL2
to the launch screen, but in between I've had to piss around
reconfiguring Steam to show the same basic game view as it was doing
before it decided to update itself. Yes, it's a relatively small amount
of time but why is it a positive thing that I am I forced to, on
occasion, spend 4x longer than normal to do this when HL2 was perfectly
playable anyway?
Also, even with the updated Steam I still can't find where in the
settings it lets you modify where it installs the game content to.
I'm not particularly enamorous of Steam, yet neither do I have a
vendetta against it, I'm just trying to be objective and point out why
people may want to break it into tiny pieces, something you seem to be
struggling to understand.
--
[ste]
"Throw me your matches 'cause I like to burn stuff"
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
wrote:
>What are those files? What are they doing? Why do they grow cancerously on
>my pc every time I want to play a game? (a game that I had previously
>validated anyway.)
>Should they be allowed bloat and belch ad-infinitum?
I don't know what all the individual files are. I don't really see why
I'd need to. I've not noticed anything 'bloating and belching ad
infinitum' either. Perhaps your PC is sick :)
>As I have counter-addressed MORE times... ***It doesn't work***. At least a
>few months back it didn't work -for more than a few days. The "Play in
>Offline Mode" (or whatever the exact text) *ALSO* doesn't work for more than
>a few days.
That's not been my experience. I'm running the October 13th build of
steam. Which one were you trying?
>Steam insists on auto-validating and insists on auto-updating after a few
>days.
>...And even if it did work the way it is supposed to... Why should I have
>that shit on my computer just to tick a box marked "no"?
To prevent piracy, and to provide valuable functionality for those of
us who want it. Do you have any SCSI drives? Because windows has
installed all kinds of SCSI drivers on your hard drive without your
permission which you probably don't need.
>Take another non-Steam validation system as an example... Trackmania
>Sunrise.
Haven't played it so I can't comment.
>That forces the player to validate online (which I also did not like one
>bit), but after doing so once, you are free to play the game forevermore
>without having to connect _at all_. ...Now what's wrong with *that*?
There's nothing wrong with that.
>You can also *choose* to connect via that system to download patches,
>track-updates, etc. ...Or you can choose to ignore that and just play the
>game as you had paid for.
That sounds like a good system.
>It does not shove a load of unassociated bloatware onto your computer. It is
>not overly invasive or slow when you just want to play a goddammed game.
In my experience, neither does Steam.
>It also has no proper nocd patches available, which is the main reason I
>stopped playing it sooner than I would have (probably). Still, I'd guess I
>got many more enjoyable _playtime_ hours out of TS than I did HL2. (If you
>add "Steamtime" to the HL2-time, then I likely spent a lot more with the
>Valve title.)
Fair enough.
>Apart from anything else, I can understand that you like the "convenience"
>Steam brings, but why would it *possibly* be more favourable to a system
>such as that?
As I've said, I've never used the other system but it sounds fair
enough. I don't remember ever claiming Steam was the best available
system, just that I liked it and didn't think it was the 'pc gaming
killer' others thought it was.
>> This is just contrived. It really is. Please, give me the name of
>> someone you know who owns a PC, plays games, and has *no net access
>> whatsoever* at home.
>
>Y'know it's silly to even justify that.
It was you that said it - I thought it was silly too.
>You've addressed the above with the same invalid/incorrect 'fix'. You
It's neither invalid nor incorrect as it works perfectly for me.
>clearly haven't read or paid no attention to anything I said subsequent to
>your cure-all holy grail.
Clearly I have otherwise I wouldn't be able to answer your questions.
Perhaps you're confusing 'haven't paid attention' with 'don't agree'.
>And I also gave other valid reasons for disliking Steam (as have others).
Indeed - which is fine.
>I also previously stated why HL2 is now unplayable for me. I really don't feel
>like going over that again, since you're not listening anyway.
I must have missed your reasons why you couldn't play Half Life 2. I
find it remarkable that you think I'm not listening, though, when I'm
repeatedly answering you point by point.
>I said fine first!
Right. Well, that's that then. I like Steam. You don't. Any chance you
could stop following up every post I make on any topic with some
stupid rant, please?
Choobs
The Rev
> Enough said, just get it...
I went to find it last night and after waiting for ten minutes for Steam
to start up and update itself - like the new look - I was shocked -
shocked! - to discover that I was meant to pay fifteen bucks for it and
that there was no demo. And no reviews anywhere, according to GameRankings.
Tch.
--
Xbox Live Gamertag: Prinny
(You know, like the exploding penguin doods. No?)
Gunther Gloop
>> I said fine first!
>
> Right. Well, that's that then. I like Steam. You don't. Any chance you
> could stop following up every post I make on any topic with some
> stupid rant, please?
>
There you go yet again, labelling what I say with derogatory remarks. You
said you were bowing out gracefully around 5 posts back. You've not done it,
gracefully or otherwise.
A looong time back in this thread I stated it was fine for you to like Steam
and that I had valid reasons for disliking it. You are free to use Steam to
your heart's content. I hate it so I won't be using it. Simple as that, no?
Nothing you say mitigates the fact that I (and many others) find/found Steam
to be awful. Nobody has tried to convert you. People pointed out their
dislikes and suggested alternative procedures.
There's no need to laugh at the concerns or make up generalised arguments
for which to rail against.
I haven't used Steam in many months so I can no longer give specifics. It
was not possible for me to do what you seem to find very easy and quick and
non-invasive. Well done to you. By all means -enjoy it.
I can/will not have it on my computer. What's it to you?
Please, if you're going to reply yet again, try not to be rude this time.
Toby
> TalkShowHost wrote:
>> Enough said, just get it...
>
> I went to find it last night and after waiting for ten minutes for Steam
> to start up and update itself - like the new look - I was shocked -
> shocked! - to discover that I was meant to pay fifteen bucks for it and
> that there was no demo. And no reviews anywhere, according to GameRankings.
Have you not seen the gameplay footage available on the web?
This game looks brilliant.
--
Toby.
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject
field to circumvent my email filters.
Ignore any mail delivery error.
[ste parker]
> On 2005-10-18, The Rev <the_rev_y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>TalkShowHost wrote:
>>
>>>Enough said, just get it...
>>
>>I went to find it last night and after waiting for ten minutes for Steam
>>to start up and update itself - like the new look - I was shocked -
>>shocked! - to discover that I was meant to pay fifteen bucks for it and
>>that there was no demo. And no reviews anywhere, according to GameRankings.
>
>
> Have you not seen the gameplay footage available on the web?
> This game looks brilliant.
>
Link(s)?
The Rev
> On 2005-10-18, The Rev <the_rev_y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I went to find it last night and after waiting for ten minutes for Steam
>>to start up and update itself - like the new look - I was shocked -
>>shocked! - to discover that I was meant to pay fifteen bucks for it and
>>that there was no demo. And no reviews anywhere, according to GameRankings.
>
> Have you not seen the gameplay footage available on the web?
Nope.
I did read an interview with the guy who wrote it, though. Well, half an
interview. It was quite long.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
wrote:
>Please, if you're going to reply yet again, try not to be rude this time.
>speechless<
I used to think you weren't a fuckwit.
Choobs
Gunther Gloop
It seems everyone you're communicating with on uk.games.* is a fuckwit these
days.
I'm sure you're a nice enough chap. But you are a little testy lately.
Toby
[ste parker]
> On 2005-10-18, [ste parker] <imag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Toby wrote:
>>
>>>On 2005-10-18, The Rev <the_rev_y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>TalkShowHost wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Enough said, just get it...
>>>>
>>>>I went to find it last night and after waiting for ten minutes for Steam
>>>>to start up and update itself - like the new look - I was shocked -
>>>>shocked! - to discover that I was meant to pay fifteen bucks for it and
>>>>that there was no demo. And no reviews anywhere, according to GameRankings.
>>>
>>>
>>>Have you not seen the gameplay footage available on the web?
>>>This game looks brilliant.
>>>
>>
>>Link(s)?
>
>
> http://files.filefront.com/rdkf_gdcavi/;4160526;;/fileinfo.html
>
Well, that's me sold! Looks like fun, or at least enough fun for the
little it costs.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
<imag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Well, that's me sold! Looks like fun, or at least enough fun for the
>little it costs.
It is pretty good, but it'll cost you your soul.
Choobs
[ste parker]
How's the online aspect, any good?
Sir Chewbury Gubbins
<imag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Sir Chewbury Gubbins wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:09:49 +0100, "[ste parker]"
>> <imag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Well, that's me sold! Looks like fun, or at least enough fun for the
>>>little it costs.
>>
>>
>> It is pretty good, but it'll cost you your soul.
>>
>
>How's the online aspect, any good?
Blindingly good, but for all the wrong reasons :) It's impossible to
play the game without looking utterley inept. As a result, the online
multiplayer is like watching the three stooges or something. It's very
entertaining, but more so because everyone looks so fecking stupid :)
I'm sure there are really good players out there, which explains why I
keep losing, but *everyone* looks like they're really crap :)
Choobs
Toby
I bought this yesterday and have plugged about 2 hours into it. It's already
worth the money IMO, just because it's so fresh.
I've nearly finished the single player campaign. The videos and subtitles
are excellent. Good british humour :) For some reason, it says I haven't
downloaded the high-quality movies from Steam yet, although the game is 100%,
so maybe they will be released as a patch?
I'm looking forward to making my own skin tomorrow. Does anyone know if skins
are shared in online play? Digital camera awaits ... :D
Online is chaos. We should meet to play sometime! To be honest, I'd rather act
out my own kung-fu movie than fight, but I am getting much better at fighting,
the more I play.
Still not mastered air combat, but when it happens by luck, it's brilliant!
I tried connecting two USB mice to my PC and it detected them fine, so now I'm
waiting for a mate to come over to try offline multiplayer. Maybe the
'Shaolin Soccer' minigame :)