I guess I won't be buying Civ5 now. Steam sure is saving me a lot of money these days.

So how far along is this Impulse Reactor thing? I recently noticed that the devs of Monday Night Combat are considering a PC version. The availability of a good multiplayer matchmaking service looks to be a big deal for them, and I'm afraid they'll end up putting it on Steamworks if someone doesn't find a better alternative. I don't want to have to take yet another game off my already very short buy list.

Funny, I've never bought a Steam game full price, always nearly 50% new games within a month of it's release, this always happens so the $$$ hogging you are talking about is nowhere to be seen by me. Valve doesn't control the prices of 3rd party companies, the companies do..

DRM will always be an issue, I believe the craziest being that of UBISOFT|EA. We all can make a huge debate about Wal-Mart since it's conception. It put all the smaller businesses in the area out because of it's prices. Steam has the power to do the same and is doing the same.. win/win in my book...

To all the people saying they won't play it, you'll be missing out on a potentially great game that I'll be wholeheartedly enjoying.

I can still play Fall From Heaven!  No news on steamworks there, um yet.

Actually, the reason that the Impulse Client doesn't support Steamworks DRM is because Steamworks DRM doesn't work with Impulse, it only works with the Steam Client and was designed this way.  Stardock made no decision in this, Valve constructed Steamworks in this way and as such any game that uses Steamworks DRM requries the Steam Client to be open and running regardless of its place of purchase.  If you were to buy Civilisation V via Impulse, when you double clicked on the game it would simply open the Steam Client.  This of course begs the question why even both using Impulse - it's an un-needed step.  You could simply just open the Steam Client yourself and bypass the Impulse step entirely.  The logical extension of this then is to simply ignore Impulse and buy the game via the Steam client yourself and save yourself some time.  This is why no other Digital Distribution Platform will host games using Steamworks DRM - it's sending your clients directly to Valve for their game. 

Here's an interesting one: has Steam offered support of Stardock's GOO DRM - which doesn't require the use of the Impulse Client - in anyway?  Why not?  Because Steam doesn't support other Digital Distribution platforms, their companies, their technologies or their games.  Period.  Stardock have already said they'd gladly host Steamwork enabled games if the DRM didn't require the installation and running of the Steam Client.  So why doesn't Steam do the same?  Based on the evidence at hand, and the inherint nature of the Steamworks DRM, it's because Valve doesn't want to support their competitors; in fact, they're actively working against them.  They want a monopoly on the market.

I refuse to allow Valve to establish itself as a monopoly where by if you game on the PC you have to go through them regardless of where and how you buy your games.  The number one reason people chose to continue to game on the PC is flexibility, customisation and personal control - to sum it up in one word; choice.  This issue isn't DRM, that's a seperate issue.  I don't give a shit about what Steamworks requires - and frankly I have no problem with a one-time activation - I give a shit about what it means for the industry as a whole, and about what it'll mean in the future.  What do I mean?  I own many titles on Steam, my personal favourites are Killing Floor and Torchlight, and I own two titles on Impulse - I'd own more if it's partners would actually sell their games to me and didn't restrict games based on regional pricing - which Stardock doesn't control.  If it's cheaper to buy a game on Impulse than it is in my local store, then the game is locked (EA are the biggest offenders).  On Steam, however, the game's price is inflated - AU$100.00 for the most recent 'The Sims' game, in stores it's AU$49.99.  If Steam kills off it's competition, I'd have no choice if I wanted to game but to pay.  This is why it's bad for the industry.

You can install their games fine without Impulse, you require Impulse to update them though.  However, you don't require Impulse to run the game, so the solution is simply to fire up Impulse when an Update comes out and let it automatically update your game, then close down Impulse and ignore it until the next update.  It's the way Digtial Distribution should be.

So you feel 2K Games is simply entitled to my dollars and my modding time then even though its success comes directly at the expense of what I work on? I'm sorry but are you insane?  

Previously, on the assumption that Civilization V was going to be a normal PC game release, its success would help all strategy games.  Now, its success basically helps solidify Steam's position. I certainly don't want that. So why should I help support that move?

Now, if you think that there being a single store (with no other viable options) to decide what is and isn't going to be available is a good thing then there's nothing to discuss.

Impulse exists because no one else bothered to come up with a credible alternative to Steam.  Without Impulse, the PC would certainly become a a closed platform where Valve gets to take 30%+ cut of every game that comes out because in the long-run, digital distribution is going to dominate.

I always assumed that every publisher would end up with their own e-store.  But if Steam (or anyone for that matter) takes over and the PC becomes effectively a closed platform, then why would anyone want to develop for it given the headaches of making a PC game? Might as well make iPhone games or Xbox games or whatever where at least the platform owner delivers a helluva lot of value.

If you want Valve to be the PC game platform owner, then more power to you. But I doubt most PC game developers feel that way.  I know I certainly don't.  My disappointment isn't with Valve or Steam. They make great products and Steam and Steamworks is a great system.  My disappointment is with Civilization.

 

 

 

It's been confirmed on Civ5's twitter feed that Steam is not required to be online to play Civ5.  

Heck, I have a LOT of Indie games through Steam (because I like to support the Indie scene) which don't even need Steam running.  Just run the exe directly from the steamapps folder.

Steam certainly isn't needed to run or play any of those games.  

I'm not arguing the perspective of 2K, Firaxis or Civilization as a series.  Your original comment implied you wouldn't participate with Civ5 due to the deal struck between Valve and 2K to use Steamworks.  From a purely business point of view I can totally understand that you would not want to favour Impules's direct competitor.  That I totally understand.

I was arguing the point that if you really are dropping Civ5 because of the inclusion Steamworks then that is a little hypocritical due to the requirement of Impulse for Elemental (as specified on the product page).  Like Civ5, Elemental will be available through brick 'n mortar, Amazon and other locations (I'm assuming) yet to participate in the community and receive patch updates, an Impulse account and installation will be required.  How is this different to Civ5?  It's NOT.

As mentioned in my previous post too, it's been confirmed that Steam doesn't need an active connection to run Civ5, it can be run totally offline and disconnected.  Same as Elemental.  Steam will publish community updates and patches to Civ5.  Same as Elemental.  Personally I don't understand (except from a purely business competitor perspective) how you can refuse Civ5 when you're doing the same thing with Elemental on Impulse.

I use Steam because of their catalog.  I also purchase a LOT of Indie games off Steam to help support Indie developers.  It's unfortunate that Impulse doesn't have the same depth and strength of options for me.  I also use Steam because 9 times out of 10 I can get the games for almost 50% of the price of brick 'n mortar.  I live in Australia where new releases cost me $100, whereas on Steam they are usually $50-60.

As a consumer I have these options.  As a developer using the same "locked-down" option to Impulse DRM with Stardock games as 2K has done with Civ5 to Steam, I'm sure you can understand why I believe it's a little hypocritical to accuse 2K of selling out when you do the same thing.  

Sorry, just my opinion.  

 

Or better yet, make your own stone-age-to-space-age TBS.  Global Civilizations!

I think this just marketing crap. Show me a PC game, and I will show you a game that NEEDS a patch. Until the publishers/developers actually release games that function properly out of the box, requiring Impulse to update the game is just as invasive as Steam. I can show you thousands of games that were pretty much complete garbage without their first patch, including a Stardock title.

Having said that, it's realy unfortunate that Valve keeps grabbing exclusives like this. It narrows the playing field, and a narrow playing field is bad for gamers. I've used Steam as a bargain sale store, to pick up titles I've passed over before and to pick up Valve's titles. I really don't want to feel forced to use their store. I don't take kindly to companies forcing me to do anything, and unlike with Impulse, when the steam servers take a nose dive, access to your games go with it. Since Impulse isnt' required to run to play (after the forced use for updates of course) at least you don't have to worry about that.

Oh wells, won't be the first of long running series I pass on.

 

What hypocracy in this thread.

Sony and Microsoft have been doing this to each other with their consoles for a long time, it's competition, Stardock need to step up.  If they aren't catering to Developers/Publishers as well as Valve then they need to improve.

 

 

What?  Steam takes away a lot of the headaches of PC game development, as you well know.  That's exactly what Steamworks is, and Steam itself.  It's a form of DRM (hear the crowds gasp) that most seem to accept so win for the Developer win for the consumer (Can I expect cheaper games because they sell more?).  Plus it gives them great multiplayer functionality that would take tons of money to produce so more money spent on game development or cheaper games.

With options such as Steam and competitors bringing development more in line with consoles why wouldn't people want to develop for PC?

I understand from a business perspective your position, you don't want to support the competitor, but don't dress this up as Steam being evil or bad for PC gamers, they are just selling themselves better than you and it's something you need to address.

In my country ( Hungary ) lots of games are cheaper in retail,than on Steam.