I was reading a forum post about Braid somewhere where the person said they were going to wait until it came out on Steam because “they like all their games on Steam”. The thing is, you can put all your games on Impulse with a simple drag and drop:
As a Steam user myself, I keep Left4Dead updated still with Steam but play it via loading up Impulse.
I'd just like to mention how utterly badass that particular function is. It's Bruce Campbell, replete with chainsaw and boomstick, badass.
That's how harsh competition is in the AllLines distribution ways, if 1.5 million sites (and counting) can spread the truth i don't see why common titles wouldn't be available in more than half that much simultaneously, asynchronously, daily and beyondly.
It's been like this for - what - a decade or more. Get real, you might even find Videos on it.
Buy wherever you please, i'm watching wallet in hand.
Umm...Question..
Does clicking and dragging your game on to Impulse allow you to Patch it via Impulse? Or to redownload it later?
I'm assuming not, I doubt "where he loads it from" was the reason he was waiting for it on Steam.
I'm imagine he wants it on steam for the support for the game offered through Steam, the same reason I get games through Impule when I have the option, so I can redownload them easily when I need to, and so that I can keep everything up to date, no hassle.
Which program you use to launch a game from is irrelevant in every aspect if the program doesn't come with support for that game.
Here's the problem:
You can fairly easily add your games to Steam as well.
Don't be upset though, they just have a larger library and, generally, release games on their release date. For some reason Impulse gets them weeks (or longer) later. We're still waiting for the remainder of the THQ collection that was being toted as "Coming Soon" on the weekly Impulse Updates... in January...
Perhaps you should hire a few people who's sole job is to get the product on there and make the deals happen faster/more frequently.
I imagine they were doing some more coding on the Impulse client before adding more titles. They did go several months without much added, seemed like it must have been intentional.
However, I admit I'd like to see a lot more, and wonder what happened myself.
So launching it from Impulse will inevitably get Steam up and running to get the game going...so now I have both running! I'm just content that I don't need Impulse running to launch their games.
I don't use Steam because I don't have any games that need to be updated with it. I was about to download the Empire: total war demo, but then I realized I'd have to install steam. I was afraid it'd eat system resouces, so I balked. Plus, I feel like Stardock is always reading these posts. What other company actually listens to input? It's absurdly cool. Customer loyalty -100%.
i can't understand people saying they don't buy a game only because it's not on either steam or impulse (whatever they prefer). if you like a game then go for it. there is no loyalty problem here, it's just business and you support everyone as long as you buy everywhere.
i can understand a PS3 console gamer doesn't want to drop some hundreds of dollars only to play mass effect or halo 3 or any game exclkusive to xbox 360 but on PC it doesn't cost you anything to use several digital platforms. actually, you have more choice and competitive prices and offers. it's a win-win for you and for these platforms.
i hope not too many people have these ideas cause if steam users start to all think "omg demigod isn't on steam so i won't buy!!1!" the game is gonna suffer commercially.
by the way, about the method from OP, it's pretty useless imo. your icons are showing on impulse tab but they don't belong to it. if you launch a retail version of a game through impulse it'll ask you a DVD, if you launch a steam games it will connect to your account....lol i don't see the point beside maybe tomake it look like you have a bunch of games on impulse when you don't.
Ok people, you obviously don't explore your software.
Drag and drop. It's like sex for the gui. If you want a text file in your list of games, it's simple drag and drop. If you want to put your porn collection in Impulse, it's simple drag and drop. It can even have it's own tab...
You can't add text files to Steam unless you create an executable to run them. You can't add anything to Steam by drag and drop. Steam was coded by control freaks that did everything imaginable to avoid making it useful, it wont even run in the DMZ.
Did I say drag and drop?
Once they have Impulse Now configured to add them in as well, they'll have something wonderful.
I still buy stuff from retail stores. I'm just not downloading steam. Period. I have no reason to download it, wheras Impulse updates Sins, gave me fences for free, and allows me easy access to these forums, which given the amount of time I've wasted on them, were probably worth the value of the game in the first place. Added to that, this satisfaction builds customer loyalty. Why would I switch to Steam, a company I don't know, when this one has historically been worthwhile. Another example is EA tricked me into buying spore with a fun creature creator demo, so I'm pissed at them. I won't buy another one of their games unless one of my friends personally tells me its the best thing, ever. Critics liked Spore for some reason. I usually trust them, but I think they might be smoking some of the wacky when it comes to EA games.
Using Steam/Impulse to launch games is like using iTunes or whatever to listen to music. Why bother when you can just launch games/music straight from your file browser? All my game icons are right on the desktop. Easy. I know lots and lots of people like using game and music managers, but they seem like extra cruft to me.I like Impulse precisely because I don't have to see it. To me, it's a nice patch manager and nothing more. Steam is starting to get on my nerves; whenever I want to play a game of Civ IV, I have to wait an extra 20-30 seconds for the stupid client to launch and check for updates. Steam would be more attractive if it operated like Impulse.
Here's my current game collection on Impulse.
The Steam games I purchased followed two basic rules: I really wanted them or they were at a good price. Plus, they weren't available on Impulse.
Other indicated games are pre-Impulse.
Braid and Demigod will probably be my May purchases.
I myself prefer to stick with one distributor, unless I don't have a choice or the price is too enticing to ignore.
Lol I bought 2 games using that crap "that blows my" Steam and I ended up downloading first game from warez to avoid half minute waiting and to be able to install standalone mods/patches and second one is unplayable for 3 months because of some update to steam itself. Bit*hes know about problem and no solution, nor they will stop selling game, they just steal money as much as they can. Steam is worst thing that ever happened to me. The more I hate steam, the more I love Impulse.
"Launch it from Impulse."
Err, why would you start a program to start a program for you?
Vista itself isn't a bunch of executables dependant on each others' goodwill?
(PS; I tried clicking on the Registration link above and all i got is a "game-collection.jpg" image? What's goin' on around here?!? )
Wow you people actually use impulse, I don't even bother, I only use impule to update the games not to run them lol, All start menu ftw
Why anyone would be using Vista is a separate mystery.
But even if you look at the OS as a program, the question just becomes why you would start a program to start a program to start a program for you. Impulse is an unnecessary additional step, no matter the configuration in question. Why start a game from Impulse when you could just start it direct from Windows without needing to run Impulse? Heck, the whole advantage of Impulse is that, unlike Steam, it doesn't have to be running all the damn time when you want to play a game.
WTH is wrong with Vista? I've been using for a couple years, and its been fine. With the free mycolors "thinkgreen" desktop, the free object dock, and fences, Vista looks pretty much like the Mac OS anyway. You can even download the free soundpackager and load Mac sounds if you want. But I have digressed. I think the truly important point here is... holy crap!!! Look how many games aLap has!
I have one game. Sins of a Solar Empire:entrenchment. And I just uninstalled it because I'm a fool and keep wasting my time playing it. (It's really fun....)
I was thinking about buying demi-god for the summer, but then I realized it wouldn't run on my laptop. Lame. But I hope Elemental will. I like turn-based games more anyway. I can multi-task while playing them, like i'm doing now with this forum.
@Vinraith, because launching a game through steam gives me the steam overlay, which I find love having easy access to.
That said, I've still not bought any games on impulse, I'm currently considering demigod when it comes out. But the ability to split up the games between multiple tabs certainly would make me consider using it.
In impulse? You can make new tabs. Hit that + button near the tabs
You seem to be under the impression that I want my OS to look like some horrible Apple product, but I'm unclear where you could possibly have gotten that impression. I run XP, I continue to run XP because there's simply no reason to "upgrade" to Vista, which introduces a bunch of new problems and no new benefits of any note to me.
I tend to be on the trailing edge of OS development. As long as the platform I have serves my needs (in this case, as long as Windows is able to run games, since I use Linux for all the real work) why would I go to the trouble and expense of changing it?
Re: VistaGranted, Vista wasn't as bad at launch as XP was at launch.
However:-When XP launched, we had recently been treated to ME, the worst piece of shit MS has ever come up with.-Prior to that, 2K worked badly enough that scores of people were still on 98. (This doesn't mean 2k was a bad OS, per se-just that it was a workstation OS, although I personally don't like it and it shows, even though XP was built off of it.)-The difference in functionality between 98 and XP was miles.-When Vista launched, XP was stable and everyone loved it.-Vista was in betas/development for quite a bit longer than XP was, with a much larger userbase involved in it.-The launch looked worse than it was, and the whole 16GB installation thing and the appearance of eating up all your RAM didn't help either.-The 95 different flavors wasn't a good move. Okay, so it was only four. But one of them's useless (though people will still choose it anyway!), and XP only had 2 choices, where the choice didn't really matter. (XP Media Center Edition was introduced much later, and to my knowledge has only been available in a preinstalled state anyway. Besides, it's basically Home with more toys.)-Personal pet peeve: There's still a 32-bit Vista. A lot of us, as it turns out, were hoping MS would wise up and go full bore with 64-bit.
Conclusion: Vista launch needed to be impressive and was disappointing instead, which is why everyone looks down on it, regardless of how good it may have been and regardless of how good SP1 may have made it.
This has been your offtopic for the day; tune in next time for an Apple rant (or whatever else comes up).
I will be the first Vista lover to come out and say they launched it in a pretty unusable state. I've been using it since before it launched, and three months after launch it was better than XP. They needed to extend the beta period, if for nothing else to get peoples launch drivers up to standards...not to mention a few of the performance killing bugs at launch could've been worked out and less bitching would've ensued.
XP was less usable at launch as far as I'm concerned, though. Of course, not too many people choose to remember that.
As for 32 bit, I don't care for 32 bit either (of my three copies of Vista, not one is 32, though my brother and moms are) but consumers don't care. They want their apps to work no matter what apps they happen to have, which is one thing 64 bit Vista doesn't provide.
I'm all for Vista, but I can definately see why some people haven't been. It wasn't without its flaws.
It's not a matter of not remembering it, it's simply unimportant. I didn't switch to XP until 2006, for the same reason I haven't switched to Vista.
You always wait for the first service pack to switch, that's just common sense.
The biggest problem with Vista is it's useless. For about 99% of the population.
32 bit Vista has little use. All those performance features require ram. Sure you can load all your programs into memory and save loads of time, but you still need the ram. If you have eight gigs of ram, even 64 bit XP just doesn't matter. It can use it, but it can't actually do anything with it. That's where 64 bit Vista comes in, using all that wonderful ram to cache your frequently used programs and turn that piece of shit slow poke hard drive into near instant load times.
If you've got two gigs of ram, no flash drives, none of the features that Vista actually takes advantage of to give superior performance, switching from XP is paying a couple hundred bucks for a coaster. You get to load your browser into ram, your word processor, a few other pointless things that come up almost instantly. Anything of size that actually benefits from being cached eats too much ram.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
