In recent discussions on the stardock forums, it was mentioned some Steam games can run without the Steam app. I don't suppose anyone could give a sure fire way to start a Steam game without the Steam client, such that I could create desktop or ideally taskbar (Win7) shortcuts to start Steam games without the Steam client?
Many thanks.
Right Click on the program in the library and select create desktop shortcut.
+1
Is it possible for FE:LH to receive this treatment please? It would be very very nice if I didn't require steam to load to play the game.
... doesn't work if it's steamworks game (like lh) surely.
i mean, i would imagine the ones that don't require steam client to be loaded are simply using steam as the shop and not the other stuff.
Depending on the game this will still launch steam, all you're doing is jumping straight to that game without having to navigate in steam, but steam will will load.
If playing offline is the goal, perhaps Steam's offline mode would work.
https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=3160-agcb-2555
It would depend on the game though. Only single player games would work in offline mode and each one would need to be tested.
Playing without having steam load, online or offline, is the goal.
Steam is DRM, you cannot play most (perhaps all?) games without steam running. There are some exceptions such as the non-game software DisplayFusion can run without steam.
That isn't to say its impossible, as many pirated games are steam versions that run without steam. It just isn't something that you are supposed to be able to do.
it depends on what the dev/publisher did to the game or what they want to use steam for. if a game's exe tells it to run steam, it'll run steam.
even playing games with steam offline would still require steam loading 1st.. for games that loads steam upon execution.
^^ This, as per my OP for those who read it . Several folk mentioned in another thread that they can kill Steam while playing their game using the Windows Task Manager, and their game would still run ... I'm wondering how to create a shortcut for those games that will launch the game without having to launch Steam at all. I don't care to have Steam run at all when I am playing a game, I want the maximum amount of system resources devouted to the game I am playing and don't want to waste a single clock cycle on software I don't care about (such as the Steam client).
My computer is a 5 years old bargain priced Dell and I really haven't noticed a problem with having Steam running in the background as I play games, am I missing something? Seems like a lot of work for little gain.
So do that then. You can't start (most) steam games without also launching steam. Killing steam after the game has launched is apparently possible. I guess you'll have to suffer through an alt-tab and some mouse clicks.
Why even bother killing steam after launching a game. Steams footprint is minuscule, any machine made after 2004 isn't going to be struggling to run it.I dunno, I mean, I get wanting a physical copy of games "in case" (which is why I try to support GOG, they come close with letting you download the installer). But I just don't get the vitriol for Valve. They are probably one of the most benevolent game companies out there. They still update their games that are 5+ years old!
Take a look at this thread on the GOG forums. It's a list of all Steam-games, that can be played without running the Steam-client. However, I'm not sure, how up to date it is.
This has nothing to do with the footprint of the client. It's about having full control over your games and what programs are running on your PC. Taking good care of the security of your system should be in everybody's interest.
So basically just no good reason other than paranoia? Thanks for answering my question.
So Steam is a security vulnerability? Curious, I've never heard that.
By the way, you do have a choice on whether or not Steam runs on your computer. You make that choice whenever you install Steam or buy a game dependent upon Steam. It's not stealth installing itself on your computer.
Complaining about Steam is like complaining about Windows. They're platforms that without which the hobby we all love would be no where near what it is today. Sure, they're "required", except that they're not. Not really. You're free to use OSX or Linux for you computer just like your free to use only non-Steam games. That's your choice. Just because you don't like that choice doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Not at all. Apples to asteroids.
I chose what I buy and what I ignore. For some games, be it future GalCivIII or present XCOM, I'm willing to "suffer" Steamworks (I survived Dawn of War 2's Steamworks+GamesForWindows...). But let's say that in general, except for those few exceptions, when I run a game, I don't want to also run the Notepad++, or the VLC player, or the Paint or who knows what else. I just want to run the game which I paid for. I don't car about footprints or mumbo jumbos. If I don't need the Notepad++ to run in order to play my game, it should stay off.
And then you say: "But Steamworks requires you to run Steam so GTFO". Steamworks offers me nothing but publishers/developers insist of trying to convince me that I love it. I don't. Neither do I hate it. I don't need the social stuff (never used it). I don't need the achievements. I don't need the screenshot feature. I don't need it to autoupdate my game (I can check myself that stuff, thanks). I couldn't care less about multiplayer stuff. I don't care about the adds when I close a game (WTF???). So basically, having to start Steam to play the (very few) games bought in Steam with my hard earned money is quite pointless to me. It'd be almost like requiring Facebook integration to play GalCivIII (I have never cancelled a pre-order but for this, I would cancel it).
As I see it, and probably I'm alone, developers/publishers (in general, big/middle ones) are becoming very lazy and greedy (it has been like that for a while). Abusing internet use to release crappola that may or may not be fixed ("It's ok, we have internet so you can download the patches!"), force undesired features by suspicious/baffling reasons (Sim City what?),...
I'm not a Steam(works) hater. I'm a Steamfanboy hater though. Steam(works) takes away some choices while giving others. I may accept that for some games (which I can count with the fingers of one hand) but that doesn't mean that I like it, just that I have already assumed that the shortsight of the industry has already doomed us.
The good news are all those indie gems out there...
Nahh. Kantok is right. No one forces you to use Steam. Use it or don't. Both choices are fine.
If you don't want devs/publishers to use Steam, vote with your dollars. I'm voting with my dollars against EA. It won't make a difference for either one of us: they will still make money, and I will still have ways to entertain myself. The sun will still rise tomorrow.
What has paranoia to do with this? Making sure that no unnecessary software is running seems perfectly logical to me. It reduces the risk of software-incompatibilities, and the possibility of security vulnerabilities. I had enough crashes due to the Steam-client, when I was trying it, two years ago, that it isn't just a ungrounded fear. At least now it seemed to have gotten a little better, but I haven't played LH that much yet.
For some older games on steam, you can drop some no cd cracks into it to remove the steam dependency. I have plenty that I do that to if I know they won't be updated anymore. It's always subjective depending on which title.
The only time it's really a problem is when your internet goes out, and you're trying to launch the game, and Steam tries to connect to the internet first. Will cost you a minute or two. Mainly been a problem during power outages- but I try to keep a couple of non-Steam games on my PC (single-player) for that purpose.
I don't hate Steam, I used to, not so much. Steam does have some drawbacks and nuisances, and sometimes I want to not have to deal with it- I do see it as a form of DRM, though one that so far hasn't been too bad. If it ever did become bad, I used to crack every game I bought, I'd do it again for the games I need to crack.
It's why I'll probably get AOW3 on GOG instead of Steam, and this is also why I wish Stardock had a command line parameter for LH that allowed it to run without Steamworks starting.
Steam does have some functionality for me that makes me wish to keep it on though- namely it's friends-client- Steamworks has almost replaced AIM.
you read about the fact that steam offline mode as it stand is totally bugged (though functional some/most of the time) and they are still working on a proper fix?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-04-valve-working-to-make-offline-mode-indefinite
One or two good responses, most of the rest sheer ignorance. Welcome to the internets.
Actually, you might find that in some sections of the regular population too if you talked to them about tech subjects. Remember, the internet comes from the regular population too, so it makes sense that some people would be knowledgeable and some not so much.
I would argue that complaining about Steam is like about complaining about Xbox or PS3 consoles... not windows OS. You don't NEED steam to use your computer for non-game purposes. You only need steam to play steam contracted games. Xbox and PS3 work the same....you can't play those contracted games unless you meet the software/hardware requirements of the console.
What makes steam unique is that it only has software requirements; utilizing your computer as the hardware components. This is a can of worms though, as developers have a choice as to what their distribution platform will be. That said, the more that jump on the steam ban wagon, the more pressure will be placed on those that would not want to use steam....ultimately it becomes harder for those developers to distribute their product.
What's frustrating is steam's business practices. The forced advertising. The forced EULA upates. The forced platform updates. It's all about control...and the people running steam are not stupid people. They know what they are doing. They know they CAN offer a flexible product like gog, but chooses not to in order to flex that control. By requiring steam, they are pushing to create a monopoly on PC gaming.
While this in and of itself is the purest for of capitalism, it's not condusive of a free market economy.
Playing in 'offline mode' means that the game you are playing isn't using your internet connection. The Steam Client running in the background will still use your internet connection for scheduled tasks, most of which you didn't schedule. To truly keep the Steam Client off-line you have to disconnect from the internet.
There are two generations of Steam DRM currently in action.
With the 'activation required' generation you can install the game (which will automatically install the Steam client), but once you have it activated you can remove the Steam client (uninstall, then delete approx 200 files the uninstaller mysteriously misses, including the reinstall hook it leaves in processes, then use a registry cleaner to remove it from the registry).
With the latest generation you're just sc...ed. The game will run a check to make sure the Steam client is installed or it will not run.
Unfortunately there hasn't been a lawsuit yet to force proper disclosure on packaging, so you can't tell which SteamDRM you are buying into. They both just say Steam required for activation.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
