Could you guys at Stardock make a non-Steam version of this game? I'm still not clear on all the details (I'm still searching for them), but having a copy of the game that does not require Steam at all (during any stage of installation and there after) is a big deal for me.I'm quite willing to negotiate on details. The game doesn't have to be Steam free during development, but I would like it to be Steam free at release. I'm even willing to accept some time after release. Just please make it available without the need for Steam in some form (that is worth getting).You would have my many thanks if you can make this happen.
Dunno I miss the 'puke green' GUI ^o^
And it was better than WON and all so... Steam has traditionally only been 'good' because the competition has been 'bad' by comparision ironically. And not like the competition is all 'that' bad. For all the hate uPlay and Origin aren't nearly as terrible as people claim they are. I actually like uPlay's infrastructure, as it actually has decent competition to Steamworks but its only for Ubi games which is dumb. Origin is more or less competent as a game distribution network, so it's basically where steam was 5 years ago. And again Origin isn't nearly as 'terrible' as people make it out to be. GFWL is really the only service that sucked mostly because their update process was utterly terrible
Ah WON...second time that's been mentioned to me over the last seven days. Memories.
-HM
Some games require Steam to run, some don't. It's all how the developer creates their game.
The difference really is if a game simply uses Steam as a delivery mechanism vs. using Steamworks for things like achievements and multi-player.
If Steamworks is integrated into the game then Steam will need to be running most likely to run the game. If not then usually it doesn't.
For example, many older Paradox games like EU3 do not need Steam to be running because Steam was just an online store for the game. Launch a shortcut from the exe directly and viola, game runs and no Steam.
A great example of this is Skyrim. On launch day it was discovered you could run the Skyrim exe directly and not have Steam running. However, that was an "ooops" from the developer and in first patch the first week the exe was patched such that Steam had to be running to play Skyrim.
So it's possible for sure to not have Steam running, but it all depends on how the developer programmed their game and if they use Steamworks. Since GC3 uses Steamworks for multiplayer and achievements among other things I would assume Steam will be required for the game to run *unless* they program it in such a way to run anyway without Steamworks (like disabling multiplayer and such), assuming that's even possible. Usually what I've seen for games that use Steamworks and also sell on GOG is they will have a "non Steam" version of the game with all the Steamworks stuff disabled.
Does anyone really care if Steam is running in the background? Is anyone's computer so crappy that they notice any kind of slowdown because of it? I know I never do.
I care about it, but not because it weakens my computer's performance. That is negligible. My problem is, that I just don't understand, why I have to run the client in the first place.
If it is only a download manager, like Frogboy said earlier in this thread, then why do I have to run it in order to play my games? If it were an emulator or otherwise necessary for the game to work (like Flash, Java, or Visual C++, for example) then I would understand it.
However, as it is, it smells too much of a control-measure (read: DRM), and I don't like that at all. If Valve (or the puplisher of the game) doesn't trust me, and feels it is necessary to treat me like a potential criminal, then why should I trust them and use Steam (buy their games)?
Mostly because Steam was initially designed to solve a specific problem. How do I ensure that everyone is playing the exact same version of the game with minimal time between 'conversions'. Everytime you launch a game it checks if the game has a new version. Which is why it needs to be running. These roots are in the old CS days as migrations between patch revisions were somewhat hectic affairs.
Thus the client not only downloads the game initally but keeps it up to date. WHile this may not be a huge issue with some games, for competitive MP games with frequent patches (CS/CS:S/TF2/CS:GO) this is pretty important
Of course you run into weird things like in Civ5 where patches would inevitably 'break' save games and the inabilty to control 'revisions' was problematic (though this is somewhat mitigated now by 'beta' streams you can publish via Steam).
Okay, but how does that make sense for games without a multiplayer component (like Overlord), or for games that have already received their last patch (like NWN2), let alone while playing in offline-mode? Why is it still necessary then? Also, why does the client keep running, if a one-time check at the start of the game is all that is necessary to see, if there is a new patch?
That's more about companies incorporating Steam's DRM CEG into the exectuable.
"Techncially" you don't have to as with all the Steamworks features, but most devs/publishers throw it in (other throw more stuff just for fun)
Seriously... that just sounds like lies to me.
I have to agree I recall vaugely that SoaSE didn't have any DRM, taht was kinda the point. It didn't even have the Impulse GOO thingy.
Whatever happened it wasn't because of the game
What real effect does having steam running in the background have on your games? What real control is it forcing on you? Having it running in the background is a non-issue.
Quite correct. The only 'DRM' that was applied was that you had to have Stardock Central / Impulse to *patch* the game. If you didn't want patches... and heck, I think they released at least one or two stand-alone patches before they went that route.
It doesn't, and that's the point.
That I need to run it in order play my games, despite it not being necessary for them to work.
For you apparently. For me, it is a big issue, and I'm not alone in that.
Check numbers on steam, you are alone
Hardly, I reluctantly use Steam since there is a lack of any alternative but Steam at the moment. You can buy on GoG or Amazon but the majority of times nowadays that'll just bring you a Steam code. Steam has essentially monopolized the market as it is.
You have to understand that when it comes to Stardock here, this place tends to be Anti-Steam. We could go arguing over the concerns I have with Steam (many of which are rooted in principle) but I doubt you all care to hear that.
Except that the game doesn't have to do that. That's by choice of the developer.
I just tried it with AI War. Kill Steam, launch AiWar.exe. AI War opened, Steam did not. With Steam shut off there's no overlay or Steam achievements of course, but the game runs just fine.
Civ 5 probably won't do that, because they're using Steam for their multiplayer invite system as well and at that point it's easier to say "require Steam to be on" than to say "if Steam isn't on, don't enable the entire MP system of the game".
That's what I'd expect Galciv 3 to do as well. Writing your own versions of that stuff just for the tiny minority that are still not on board with Steam really isn't worth the extra developer effort and bugs.
Seems that you dislike it, not for a real reason, but just for the sake of disliking it. Which is common among steam detractors.
GalCiv III "should" allow you to play your singleplayer (and hotseat?) experience without Steamworks stuff active (no Steam) and without internet connection. If you want achievements, friend lists, multiplayer... hit Steam.exe and there you go. One can dream, right?
My Steam games collection has been increased mainly because of free game (Bard's Tale) and free Steam keys for Kickstarter/Indie games (like FTL, Xenonauts, Shadowrun Returns...). Otherwise, it's a really small collection. Games like XCOM:EU, GalCivIII or Dawn of War 2 (with the initial GFWL+Steamworks combo) are worth all the useless features (to me) of the made-out-of-candy-DRM known as Steamworks.
I know, but that is the case for too often.
What benefits do I have then by having to run Steam in the background? There has to be a reason for wanting this, right?
Keep in mind though, that I only play in offline-mode, and am a singleplayer-only guy. I just don't care about the whole social gaming business (like achievements, trading cards, or friend lists).
Myself I had a personal experience where 'auto patching' of the game would have saved my bacon
I was playing Dragon Age2. Doing pretty well and I used Isabela a lot as my Rogue. About 3/4 way through the game, I'm noticing my main character seems to be attacking slowly. I thought well maybe I got some kind of spell cast on me. Oh and I did change my armor. Maybe it's just that. Further on my main character is literally moving like molasses. Attack speed even worse than a 2 handed weapons (and I'm doing a stick/board build). It's really confusing.
That was patched out awhile ago, but I never checked so my character was basically moving through molasses in combat because of Isabela.
Yes it was a game bug. But auto patching can, at times, save your bacon.
You have a point. However, auto-patching doesn't apply in offline-mode (well, except when it does). It is also more of a case of convenience. If I'm playing a game, that is still actively patched, then I'm also reading the forum, and keep the game up to date myself, if necessary.
However, auto-patching can also be a bad thing, if the patch introduces a game-breaking bug. With Steam, you cannot choose not to play the latest version. Manual patching is in that case superior.
Certainly auto-patching is a double edged sword. It would have saved me in DragonAge2. But Ive also been victim to the bad side of that too. Civ5 patches were certainly extremely disruptive (though important as they included lots of good fixes generally speaking) because they usually broke saves. So yeah losing your save, or in some cases where major gameplay changes were introduced and destroyed your save even if it loads(happiness being local instead of a global resource) are problematic.
Not for me, and that is the difference between us.
Just to clarify something, I'm not a Steam-hater. I don't think Steam is evil, or any of that nonsense, some fanatics like to spout. I just don't like having to use it.
I tried Steam a couple years ago. First when Half-Life 2 came out, then again in 2010. About two years ago I stopped using it, because I didn't like the experience. It felt too restrictive for me. The whole "Agree to our new SSA, or say good bye to your games"-business last year didn't make me want to go back either.
If you like to use Steam, then that is fine. I'm happy for you. I, however, prefer to have a choice where to buy my games, and to have control over how and when I play them. With the continuing move to Steam-only releases, the former is less and less possible. Though there are gladly still exceptions. The latter, however, is often restricted through the Steam-client. It doesn't matter, if that is because of publisher-demand or not. The result is the same.
When FE:LH came out, I got a free Steam-key fo it, because I was one of those, who pre-ordered E:WoM. I liked FE, but not enough to go back to Steam for LH. With GalCiv, however, I am willing do so, because I love the series.
Frogboy already said in this thread, that a non-Steam release is not going to happen. So, all I'm asking for now is, that GalCiv 3 not require the client to be running in order to play.
That isn't unreasonable, is it?
I'm just saying that it might be best to prepare for the fact that GalCiv3 is going to use features of Steam that need it running to work. YOU may not want the features that need Steam running, but if Stardock wants them, well, that's life in The Big City.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
