I absolutely loathe Steam, so count me in on this. I just cannot rely on something that isn't futureproof. And Steam is so very, very far from that.

Please do not equate design decisions with business decisions in the same sentence.  As a game designer myself I am highly offended by this.  

I've seen many awesome design documents destroyed by suits.  Designers don't make games now, suits do.  And suits make games for profit, not for fun.  The only good in-depth games coming out these days are when the designers and suits are the same people (Stardock and Paradox for examples).

 

I've read the entire thread so I know about Steam and Steamworks. It was an answer to the guy with the monkey/alien avatar that he would "never ever" buy a game that requires online activation. I just said that that is not a problem for me.

Actually, I support it.   1 license/computer.

 

 

 

Dale

 

I want to know more about that. Create a new thread titled something like: "How the suits are destroying gaming" and tell us what you know

I love the CIV series as well - and why I can live without CIV V.  I'll be playing CIV III and IV until hardware and software no longer runs them. Wish someone at the game studios would actually try to find out how many lost, real sales (not pirates who never would have bought it in the first place) are due to the hoops like Steam that many folks just don't want to jump through.

Love technology, but the implementation of it baffles me sometimes. 

 

 

 

The future isn't even future proof.

 

I don't think civ 5 willl lose that many sales from it being on steam, they might even gain more in total if there are some new fans coming in (after 18 yearolds right now were born after civ1 lol).

Had no idea Impulse vs. Steam was even an issue, or that so many 'It's a slap in the face!' style drama queens were involved in such an issue. 

[rant removed for ramblingness]

Let's just say this:  I don't give a flip if you think you have been wronged, give me a better product than the competition or watch me and my money walk away.

True. But I mean "bar meteors", here.

All of my old games, which I own myself, on disc, is still fully playable. Yes, I may have to run it on an old machine, I may have to hit it with a wrench. Yes, I may have to run it through one emulator, or maybe several.

But I'll always have them. At least until the discs degrade.

Not too long ago, I was banned from the Bioware Social Site for arguing with one of the developers, without explanation. When this happened, everything I had bought on my EA account was also invalidated (they're tied). Every DLC for ME2 and DAO that I had paid for, and that one DLC from ME, all gone. Poof.

Everything that relies in any way on being online, or online validation, is inherently dodgy.

Agreed Luckmann

Actually, this made my day when I read it. Coupled with the lack of any real, further information and system requirements, I went on and happily spent my money on Elemental instead. And to celebrate the purchase, I went on to buy GalCiv II Ultimate, Osmos, Plain Sight and Highway to the Reich (Matrix Games) along with the strategy guide as well. Meanwhile, Civilization IV Complete is in transit, so my Civ itch will certainly get scratched, and I am about to drop even more money on wargames from Matrix.

Something tells me I'm going to have a much better time with these products anyway.

Well first off, t's not a Steam vs. Impulse or a Steam vs. anything. 

Secondly, YOU didn't choose anything.  2K Games made the choice for you.  You act like you somehow made some sort of choice here based on a "better" product.  You didn't. That is the crux of the issue.  

Well for me personally, I decided against buying it.

Yes, I really wanted the game, but I decided to make my own little stand against the game using Steamworks and requiring the client for single-player.

I ended up buying Civ IV off Impulse a week ago and will just evaluate Elemental when it comes out.

Elemental:

" Rich, single-player campaign with over 30 hours of gameplay. "

I hope it will be more than that .

Agreed. They're out to kill the secondary market, milk fans for every penny they can get by selling DLC at outrageous prices, yanking servers to push players onto newer sequels and now they want to be able to literally take your ability to play a game at will. Boy with all this added "value", it's hard to believe I spend less and less on my games as years go by.

 
We're slowly leaving the era of consumer ignorance behind thanks to the availability of information on the internet.  A bad business decision, such as DRM, is as damaging to a game's sales as a bad design decision, such as repetitive gameplay.  The invisible division between making the game and selling the game doesn't exist in today's industry. 
For example, the majority of the educated gaming population doesn't appreciate restrictive DRM software on their titles.  DRM software is expensive and has been proven to be completely ineffective against actual piracy.  It prevents the uneducated user from backing up their game, however.  A Developer who signs a publishing contract that forces DRM onto their game is held accountable by their customer demographic for this decision through a decrease in sales.  It may seem harsh or unfair to punish the Developer for this, however that's simply the way the industry is being forced to evolve.  It's unfair to the people who buy their game to be subject to both the restrictions of product law and license law and receive the protection of neither.  This has forced people to be conscience of the ramifications of their purchase, lest companies like Activision and EA continute to rape the industry.


Then the industry will evolve in time.  Retail publishing companies like EA Games and Activision are trying to keep up with technology and get their claws into things such as DD, because if DD ever goes mainstream they're no longer needed.  DD Allows Independant studios to self-publish and still have access to a wide audience, however it also forces Independant studios to evolve too. 
Marketing campaigns, such as the hundred million dollar one launched for Modern Warfare 2, sell games to the mass audience at retail and provides a one-time cash injection at the products launch.  Suits make that happen, often to a disasterous backlash such as Modern Warfare 2 which will cause the next title in the series to sell less.  Relying on word of mouth and review scores ensures constant sales (see Stardock's early titles) at the expense of the size of the one-time cash injection at launch.  Developers make this happen, often creating loyal fanbases (see Blizzard pre-World of Warcraft).
Companies like EA and Activision can't innovate because it costs too much at the level that they operate at and so they're eventually going to kill their franchises off.  Look at Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, Need for Speed, Spore, Call of Duty, Medal of Honour, etc.  Companies like Stardock, however, are able to innovate and create platform specific titles that appeal to niche markets and achieve financial success and happy customers on a smaller scale.  Profits or loyal fanbase.  This is the choice Developers today are foced to make when signing deals.  It's not fair, however as I said, this is the way the industry has been forced to evolve.

I don't know, I don't mind being forced to install something.  When I bout Fallout 3 game of the year edition, I had to install windows live.  Guess how many times that bothered me while spending 180+ hours on this fabulous game and it's expansions...zero.