Scratch Civ V off my buy list. » Forum Post by Alstein

Quoting scratchthepitch,

I don't see any reason to get into a pissing match with you over my personal dislikes about Civ4, kid. Part of growing up is the realization others can and do have different preferences and opinions and learning how to live with that. You'll have to find someone else to have your ego boosting, irrelevant argument with.

No worries, I wasn't trying to have a go at you. If I sounded harsh then I apologize. I loved Civ 4 and the points that you see as weaknesses I see as strengths, you are right in that we can have different opinions so fair enough.

For myself, I hated the idea of Steam Civ 5. As the release date gets closer my resolve is weakening. I want Civ 5 but don't want to be forced into using Steam, what a problem! Ultimately it will be the "Fantasy General" style mod that gets released and forces me into buying it. Forgive me

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Nesrie,

reply 500

And yet games that have a 1% population of complainers can still fail. Do you really want me to list the long lines of games that fell off the wagon? I am NOT saying I think Civ V is going this direction, because I don't think it is. I do know that even if the bulk of the buying population doesn't complain, they'll still walk away.

And most game "protests" amount to nothing. The Left4Dead 2 group is my favorite one, people saying they wouldn't by that due to broken promises Valve made about the first game. That made some noise, and really amounted to little else. (Or the Modern Warfare 2 boycotters, most of which you found playing MW2 on day 1.)

The reality of the situation is that there's a vocal group that doesn't like Steam. Outside of those people, it's not much of an issue. More people will get annoyed with it over the drastic changes to the game then will over Steamworks.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Tridus,

reply 502

Quoting Nesrie,
reply 500

And yet games that have a 1% population of complainers can still fail. Do you really want me to list the long lines of games that fell off the wagon? I am NOT saying I think Civ V is going this direction, because I don't think it is. I do know that even if the bulk of the buying population doesn't complain, they'll still walk away.

And most game "protests" amount to nothing. The Left4Dead 2 group is my favorite one, people saying they wouldn't by that due to broken promises Valve made about the first game. That made some noise, and really amounted to little else. (Or the Modern Warfare 2 boycotters, most of which you found playing MW2 on day 1.)

The reality of the situation is that there's a vocal group that doesn't like Steam. Outside of those people, it's not much of an issue. More people will get annoyed with it over the drastic changes to the game then will over Steamworks.

My point is, a lot of the time when a company loses their customer base, when the game fails and some developer shuts its door, there is no fanfaire. There is no great outcry. It's just a failed release. So the fact that there is 1% of a population unhappy about something... well some companies could be so lucky because silent rejection is the real deadly result. Don't believe me, just search for a list of developers that shuttered their doors in the last handful of years. The fact that there are enough people that even care enough about Civ to complain about it IS a sign that there is a healthy population of players involved. You want to dismiss that, go ahead. I can't stop you. there are plenty of games that make large changes and no one even blinks because they don't give a shit, the series was dismissed awhile ago to the point where no one is following it anymore. That's more difficult to recover from than forums filled with customers expressing their concerns about upcoming releases.

One more thing, you mentioned to FPS games, games whose player base is known for a lot of things... not all of them good to begin with. (speaking as someone who plays L4D).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting MichaelCook,

reply 501

No worries, I wasn't trying to have a go at you. If I sounded harsh then I apologize. I loved Civ 4 and the points that you see as weaknesses I see as strengths, you are right in that we can have different opinions so fair enough.

For myself, I hated the idea of Steam Civ 5. As the release date gets closer my resolve is weakening. I want Civ 5 but don't want to be forced into using Steam, what a problem! Ultimately it will be the "Fantasy General" style mod that gets released and forces me into buying it. Forgive me

My response was a bit excessive. I mistook you for a civfanatics fanboy. Apologies here also.

I was waiting for more info on Civ5 before I was going to decide whether I'd purchase it or not. The steam bs made my decision for me. No sale.

Successfully updated karma reason!

[quote who="Tridus" reply="502" id="2657992"]
And most game "protests" amount to nothing. The Left4Dead 2 group is my favorite one, people saying they wouldn't by that due to broken promises Valve made about the first game. That made some noise, and really amounted to little else. (Or the Modern Warfare 2 boycotters, most of which you found playing MW2 on day 1.) [/quote]

Fan feedback does make a difference...

Scaling Back BioShock 2's DRM

January 22, 2010 Elizabeth

Over the past two days, I've fielded a lot of questions and concerns about the DRM for both the retail and digital versions of BioShock 2. Because of this feedback, we are scaling back BioShock 2's DRM.

There will be no SecuROM install limits for either the retail or digital editions of BioShock 2, and SecuROM will be used only to verify the game�s executable and check the date. Beyond that, we are only using standard Games for Windows Live non-SSA guidelines, which, per Microsoft, comes with 15 activations (after that, you can reset them with a call to Microsoft.)

What does that mean for your gameplay experience? This means that BioShock 2's new DRM is now similar to many popular games you advised had better DRM through both digital and retail channels. Many of you have used Batman: Arkham Asylum as an example to me, which uses the exact same Games for Windows Live guidelines as us as well as SecuROM on retail discs, and now our SecuROM is less restrictive on Steam.

I know that the variables of PC gaming can be frustrating and confusing, and when you say there is a problem, we listen, and use your suggestions to make things better. Feedback like this does not go unheard, and while this might not be the ideal protection for everyone, we will continue to listen and work with you in the future when formulating our DRM plans.

That's from the 2k site for Cult of Rapture. I lose faith in 2k due to the way they are handling the Civ5 fans;but I do know that the uproar at CivFanatics has been noticed by steam, 2k, and Firaxis. We will have to wait and see if anything useful comes of it.

Another recent example of fan uproar initiating change.... A couple weeks back Google added background images to their search page. They didn't provide an opt-out option. Users posted their protest, I was among them. Some users posted in praise of the change. But a significant number were against it. Within 12 hours Google reversed the decision and made the new background an Opt-In feature instead of a forced feature. Everybody was happy. They did this after having only received a couplethousand complaints from their many millions of users. They understood the significance of the protest, even though the vocal crowd was just a tinyfraction of their overall user base. They saw the significance of that small vocal minority. They knew that many of the silent majority would just quietly adopt a competitors service.

And I think they understood that those who would have begrudgingly stayed with Google, would do so at the cost of goodwill. Consumer goodwill is important. Consumers with high goodwill levels are more forgiving of mistakes and service glitches. And they are more apt to praise a company to their friends. On the other hand, customers with low goodwill levels are even more likely to talk negative smack than goodwill costumers are to praise. Word of Mouth Advertising is still a powerful tool. Google turned potential goodwill loss into gain. My respect and trust in Google was elevated a notch.

One negative effect of the steam decision has already manifested... I am not alone in my decision to not pre-order the game. From Civ3 PTW to Civ4 BTS I pre-ordered every game + expansion. Now I personally won't be buying it at all if the steam arrangement doesn't change. But there are others that have decided to wait and have the community test out steam before they buy the game. I waitedwith Civ4: Colonization after being frustrated that the MAF error had not been fixed for BTS... despite 2k marketing it as fixed. So I waited on Colonization to see it patched and fully tested first. But the game fell off my radar and I have no desire to buy it now. Maybe I'll see it in a bargain bin someday and change my mind. Unfortunately by then, Firaxis will not earn much from that sale. Better for Firaxis that players buy the game fresh off the presses, while it's still full price.

From what I gather by gauging the reaction at CFC;there is a significant number of would be pre-orders that will not occur because of steam. I assume that a large portion of pre-order sales come from the fan site population. That alone makes for a noteworthy impact. Other players say they will wait until the game has been reduced in price (saying that games on steam are not worth full price). Still others won't be buying the game at all due to steam. I think the steam decision has already made a significant impact. Then once the masses get the game, any discontent from that population will be felt in future sales. I don't expect that group to come flocking to the fan sites and register just to protest steam. I think there may be some, but mostly I think their discontent will come in the form of decreased sales of the expansion packs and future games.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting WhiteElk,

reply 505

[quote who="Tridus" reply="502" id="2657992"]
That's from the 2k site for Cult of Rapture. I lose faith in 2k due to the way they are handling the Civ5 fans;but I do know that the uproar at CivFanatics has been noticed by steam, 2k, and Firaxis. We will have to wait and see if anything useful comes of it.

Tweaking activation limits in GFWL and *removing* Steamworks are two entirely different things. One is easy. The other would delay the game for weeks, if not months. They'd then need to replace the Steamworks code with something else that provides the same functionality... and given that everybody hates GFWL, where do they go to get that?

Another recent example of fan uproar initiating change.... A couple weeks back Google added background images to their search page. They didn't provide an opt-out option. Users posted their protest, I was among them. Some users posted in praise of the change. But a significant number were against it. Within 12 hours Google reversed the decision and made the new background an Opt-In feature instead of a forced feature. Everybody was happy. They did this after having only received a couplethousand complaints from their many millions of users. They understood the significance of the protest, even though the vocal crowd was just a tinyfraction of their overall user base. They saw the significance of that small vocal minority. They knew that many of the silent majority would just quietly adopt a competitors service.

"Remove Google Background" was the #7 search on Google the day the backgrounds were turned on (or #5, depending on which site you believe). That's not a couple thousand complaints, thats millions of users. Besides, that was only going to be forced on for 24 hours anyway, so all they did was end it early when they realized that you couldn't turn the stupid thing off.

That said, once they realized how unpopular it was, they did the right think by yanking it. But it's also a lot easier to yank that then to rip Steamworks out of a game.

From what I gather by gauging the reaction at CFC;there is a significant number of would be pre-orders that will not occur because of steam. I assume that a large portion of pre-order sales come from the fan site population. That alone makes for a noteworthy impact. Other players say they will wait until the game has been reduced in price (saying that games on steam are not worth full price). Still others won't be buying the game at all due to steam. I think the steam decision has already made a significant impact. Then once the masses get the game, any discontent from that population will be felt in future sales. I don't expect that group to come flocking to the fan sites and register just to protest steam. I think there may be some, but mostly I think their discontent will come in the form of decreased sales of the expansion packs and future games.

There's no question it's cost them some sales. The issue now was if there will be some huge public backlash once the unsuspecting customer buys it and discovers Steam. But I don't think that's very likely.

(Of note, I've seen people in other communities who ONLY buy games on Steam. Not sure what's up with that.)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Tridus,

reply 506

(Of note, I've seen people in other communities who ONLY buy games on Steam. Not sure what's up with that.)

(Pls note my post isn't directed at you personally, just to this very good post).

Steam as a digital store is great. Similar to Impulse or Gamersgate it gets a lot of love from people who want to buy their game digitally. The problem though which many don't see is that Steam doesn't end there and controls your games. You can give me posts all day long about "offline mode" all you want, but Steam is still there, in the way. A digital store like Impulse I can buy and download the game and uninstall Impulse never to be seen again if I want. And I own the game and can install it 10 yrs from now without Impulse. Can't do that with Steam.

Steam is very much liked by those that play shooters. It's very much a multiplayer platform and the common thing that people post about how much they like Steam is because "they get notified when friends want to play a game" or "they can chat with friends while they play" or whatnot. Basically Xbox for the PC. So if you're a kiddie (no offense, but let's be realistic here with what the audience really is) FPS gamer Steam is great. Steam is awesome. If I was big into multiplayer games I'd probably like Steam too.

The PROBLEM is when you start forcing Steamworks and Steam down the throats of primarily *single player* games, which the Civ franchise is (and Fallout NV which is single player *only* for crying out loud). Steamworks offers *NOTHING* of value to a single player gamer. Achievements? Please. All it does is get in the way and has many downsides which have been listed many times. But the Steam lovers say "but it allows me to know when my friends are on so I can play COD with them". Great, that's awesome. But what does that do for the Civ gamer, the vast majority of which play single player and never go online. Nothing. And *that's* the point.

My dislike for Steam isn't hate for Valve. I blame 2K and Firaxis for this decision to build it into Civ 5. They are the ones to blame.

Successfully updated karma reason!

the common thing that people post about how much they like Steam is because "they get notified when friends want to play a game" or "they can chat with friends while they play" or whatnot.

I never, ever use Steam for chat since I have Xfire, which works just as well and it automatically detects all my games, so no need to tell Steam I have a non-Steam game installed.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Oh, let's just be honest here.

Don't forget to put the crackers into the discussion. Yes, I know, it is illegal. But they exist. And this type of decision is only sweet juice for them. They will have a party with this.

The problem is, many people that disagree with this decision will go after the cracked solution, and the crackers will probably have one of the biggest bot-trojan-whatever distributions in history, all thanks to a stupid decision like this.

Let's talk reality here. And reality without the crackers, even if sad to say, is not reality at all.

Now THAT is a problem.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting bonscott,

reply 507

Steam is very much liked by those that play shooters. It's very much a multiplayer platform and the common thing that people post about how much they like Steam is because "they get notified when friends want to play a game" or "they can chat with friends while they play" or whatnot. Basically Xbox for the PC. So if you're a kiddie (no offense, but let's be realistic here with what the audience really is) FPS gamer Steam is great. Steam is awesome. If I was big into multiplayer games I'd probably like Steam too.
.

All FPS gamers are kiddies. Nice. I guess the legions of gamers who played Doom as a teen never grew up.

Of course you'll probably change your tune when Impulse Reactor comes out, because it aims to do the exact same things Steam does. Unfortunately, it won't be as successful, because Steam is always on, making it a much better community engine. Impulse has always been too hands off, and Reactor seems to only launch when you're playing a Reactor game.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting rebelito,

reply 509

Oh, let's just be honest here.

Don't forget to put the crackers into the discussion. Yes, I know, it is illegal. But they exist. And this type of decision is only sweet juice for them. They will have a party with this.

The problem is, many people that disagree with this decision will go after the cracked solution, and the crackers will probably have one of the biggest bot-trojan-whatever distributions in history, all thanks to a stupid decision like this.

Let's talk reality here. And reality without the crackers, even if sad to say, is not reality at all.

Now THAT is a problem.

The people who actually crack the games don't distribute them with bots and trojans and other crap. Believe it or not, the pirate groups are very reputation-based, so pulling a stunt like that is only going to hurt them. It's the individual seeders of P2P networks that load them up with trojans and junk.

I also don't see how this has any relevance. Crackers will crack anything, and Steamworks isn't new. The only recent sweet juice for them was cracking Ubi's new DRM. It took a while, but now Splinter Cell, Assassin's Creed 2, Settlers 7 have all been cracked and distributed. Doesn't matter what Civ 5 went with, it would still get cracked and distributed on the first or second day or release (or earlier from a leak).

It's pretty obvious they went with Steamworks because it makes a bunch of things easier for them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting DeCypher00,

reply 510

All FPS gamers are kiddies. Nice. I guess the legions of gamers who played Doom as a teen never grew up.

I knew my statement would rile some people up. And that's not what I'm saying. But the facts are that the majority of people that play the shooters are under the age of 30, easy and live via the "online community". Not to say there aren't a good bit older folks, heck I cut my teeth on Doom and Quake myself however I no longer play online FPS because I don't have 10 hours a day to play to be any good, thus they are no fun at all to me. BUT that is the audience that Steam appeals to, the XBox generation that has to have their online friends "always on" and there chatting them up and inviting them to games. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it (even though I'll never understand it) but that is what Steam caters to. And they don't understand why anyone wouldn't like Steam or how anyone could game without people bothering them every 5 minutes to play some random game, which was my response to in agreement to the previous poster.

These are all things that a TBS single player gamer typically does *not* need or want.

Of course you'll probably change your tune when Impulse Reactor comes out, because it aims to do the exact same things Steam does. Unfortunately, it won't be as successful, because Steam is always on, making it a much better community engine. Impulse has always been too hands off, and Reactor seems to only launch when you're playing a Reactor game.

You made the point here of the BIG difference. Impulse Reactor has nothing to actually do with Impulse. It is simply there and can be ignored just like games of yor that had their own built in multiplayer engine or Gamespy or something. You can't do this with Steam, it's always there. My "tune" won't change, I and most single player gamers don't need any type of "community" or chatting up no matter where it comes from. Impulse, Gamespy, home grown and even GFWL allows me to totally ignore the fact they are there and even uninstall them in most cases. But with Steamworks actually built into the game and Steam required to even launch the game (offline or not), I can't easily do that.

All Civ 5 really needs to do is offer upon Install the option to *NOT* install or integrate Steam/Steamworks for those that don't want it. Force a one time online authentication if they must, but don't install and run all that Steam crap I don't need or want. Like in the old days...nope, don't need Gamespy thank you very much, don't install it. But if someone does want it then by all means install it. Or if I happen to want to do multiplayer later then it needs to install it and I would totally understand what that entails *and I would have no problem with that*. That's all that needs to happen to Civ 5 and others like Fallout NV which doesn't have any multiplayer to put them back on my must buy list. Of course this will never happen because Valve has bribed 2K and others to force Steam upon anyone buying the game. Good business for them. Bad for us, the consumer.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting bonscott,

reply 512

Quoting DeCypher00, reply 510

All FPS gamers are kiddies. Nice. I guess the legions of gamers who played Doom as a teen never grew up.
I knew my statement would rile some people up. And that's not what I'm saying. But the facts are that the majority of people that play the shooters are under the age of 30, easy and live via the "online community". Not to say there aren't a good bit older folks, heck I cut my teeth on Doom and Quake myself however I no longer play online FPS because I don't have 10 hours a day to play to be any good, thus they are no fun at all to me. BUT that is the audience that Steam appeals to, the XBox generation that has to have their online friends "always on" and there chatting them up and inviting them to games. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it (even though I'll never understand it) but that is what Steam caters to. And they don't understand why anyone wouldn't like Steam or how anyone could game without people bothering them every 5 minutes to play some random game, which was my response to in agreement to the previous poster.

These are all things that a TBS single player gamer typically does *not* need or want.

Of course you'll probably change your tune when Impulse Reactor comes out, because it aims to do the exact same things Steam does. Unfortunately, it won't be as successful, because Steam is always on, making it a much better community engine. Impulse has always been too hands off, and Reactor seems to only launch when you're playing a Reactor game.

You made the point here of the BIG difference. Impulse Reactor has nothing to actually do with Impulse. It is simply there and can be ignored just like games of yor that had their own built in multiplayer engine or Gamespy or something. You can't do this with Steam, it's always there. My "tune" won't change, I and most single player gamers don't need any type of "community" or chatting up no matter where it comes from. Impulse, Gamespy, home grown and even GFWL allows me to totally ignore the fact they are there and even uninstall them in most cases. But with Steamworks actually built into the game and Steam required to even launch the game (offline or not), I can't easily do that.

All Civ 5 really needs to do is offer upon Install the option to *NOT* install or integrate Steam/Steamworks for those that don't want it. Force a one time online authentication if they must, but don't install and run all that Steam crap I don't need or want. Like in the old days...nope, don't need Gamespy thank you very much, don't install it. But if someone does want it then by all means install it. Or if I happen to want to do multiplayer later then it needs to install it and I would totally understand what that entails *and I would have no problem with that*. That's all that needs to happen to Civ 5 and others like Fallout NV which doesn't have any multiplayer to put them back on my must buy list. Of course this will never happen because Valve has bribed 2K and others to force Steam upon anyone buying the game. Good business for them. Bad for us, the consumer.

I'm sure you already know this, but your opinions, and people who share your opinions, are in the small minority of gamers. The money lost from people who are "OMG I hate online stuff" is more than compensated from the "Hey, Civ is on Steam and has multiplayer. I'm going to get it now!" camp. You might not understand online gaming, or facebook, or twitter, but that doesn't stop them from being multi-million dollar industries.

If anything, Civ 5 can be the MOST revolutionary civ yet because of the multiplayer. You can hate on Steam's always on feature all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's one the best online PC gaming communities, even now surpassing Xfire. All the things you hate about Steam are the reasons why it's so successful.

Good business for them, good business for consumers like me who are excited at the multiplayer prospects, good business for consumers who never had Steam, but with give it a shot to play Civ5. Bad for the minority of people who grew up on Civ, but refuse to change. The bottom line is this though: they will make far more money with Steamworks, than they would have without it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting DeCypher00,

reply 513

Good business for them, good business for consumers like me who are excited at the multiplayer prospects, good business for consumers who never had Steam, but with give it a shot to play Civ5. Bad for the minority of people who grew up on Civ, but refuse to change. The bottom line is this though: they will make far more money with Steamworks, than they would have without it.

This is an ignorant and arrogant statement. I have Steam. I use Steam pretty frequently. It's not about refusing to change. That you can't see that, well obviously you have spent zero second trying to understand what people are saying in this discussion and are now resorting to just talking over them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Nesrie,

reply 514

Quoting DeCypher00, reply 513

Good business for them, good business for consumers like me who are excited at the multiplayer prospects, good business for consumers who never had Steam, but with give it a shot to play Civ5. Bad for the minority of people who grew up on Civ, but refuse to change. The bottom line is this though: they will make far more money with Steamworks, than they would have without it.

This is an ignorant and arrogant statement. I have Steam. I use Steam pretty frequently. It's not about refusing to change. That you can't see that, well obviously you have spent zero second trying to understand what people are saying in this discussion and are now resorting to just talking over them.

"I and most single player gamers don't need any type of "community" or chatting up no matter where it comes from."

Civ is no longer going to be purely about single player. That is change. Bonscott over there doesn't like that change.

I know it will have an amazing single player, because that's what it has always had. Now, I'm excited at the prospect of multiplayer, and how easy Steam makes getting games put together (Steam has to be launched for every game, so I can even message my friends in other games to come play Civ 5 with me).

I fully understand what you are saying. I just think it's silly, and in the end, the only person who is deprived of anything is people refusing to install Steam for silly reasons, because you won't get to play Civ 5.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting bonscott,

reply 507

(Pls note my post isn't directed at you personally, just to this very good post).

It's cool.

Steam as a digital store is great. Similar to Impulse or Gamersgate it gets a lot of love from people who want to buy their game digitally. The problem though which many don't see is that Steam doesn't end there and controls your games. You can give me posts all day long about "offline mode" all you want, but Steam is still there, in the way. A digital store like Impulse I can buy and download the game and uninstall Impulse never to be seen again if I want. And I own the game and can install it 10 yrs from now without Impulse. Can't do that with Steam.

For the record, I'm not a huge Steam fan. I buy games on Impulse over Steam if given the option, pretty well entirely because Impulse games behave like retail games and don't require Impulse running to work (and don't require me to take a cab to the store, since I'm a 30 year old who owns a house but not a car).

But I don't get very worked up over Steamworks. Maybe it's because I'm a developer. I reuse frameworks and APIs whenever I can in my job, because they save me time, expense, and maintenance later. I don't do games, but the premise is the same. Developers look at all the functionality Steamworks offers them *without them having to build it* and see good things. They've got their multiplayer matchmaking, friends, communities, achievements (a selling point for some), and the other stuff Steamworks provides. Looking around, there's nothing else that offers a comparable featureset except GFWL, and everybody hates GFWL.

Given the option of using Steamworks or having the expense of building and maintaining all that myself? It's an absolute no brainer. Even more so considering the cost of building games keeps going up. Reducing costs by using a proven platform is just good business over trying to do all that stuff in-house.

Steam is very much liked by those that play shooters. It's very much a multiplayer platform and the common thing that people post about how much they like Steam is because "they get notified when friends want to play a game" or "they can chat with friends while they play" or whatnot. Basically Xbox for the PC. So if you're a kiddie (no offense, but let's be realistic here with what the audience really is) FPS gamer Steam is great. Steam is awesome. If I was big into multiplayer games I'd probably like Steam too.

The PROBLEM is when you start forcing Steamworks and Steam down the throats of primarily *single player* games, which the Civ franchise is (and Fallout NV which is single player *only* for crying out loud). Steamworks offers *NOTHING* of value to a single player gamer. Achievements? Please. All it does is get in the way and has many downsides which have been listed many times. But the Steam lovers say "but it allows me to know when my friends are on so I can play COD with them". Great, that's awesome. But what does that do for the Civ gamer, the vast majority of which play single player and never go online. Nothing. And *that's* the point.

I've got friends who primarily play single player RPGs on the 360, with over ten thousand achievement points. They're a selling point for a surprising number of people. My wife actually spent time grinding gold in Fable 2 to get some, at least until she started making endless money from houses or something.

My dislike for Steam isn't hate for Valve. I blame 2K and Firaxis for this decision to build it into Civ 5. They are the ones to blame.

I blame Microsoft. Fallout 3 used GFWL for achievements and such. Installing it, I had weird issues with needing to update GFWL with some odd patch that confused Vista, then getting it to sign in, and so on. They wouldn't have switched from that to Steamworks without a reason (and they're not alone, GFWL has almost no developer support anymore).

GFWL should have been the solution for all this, but Microsoft totally screwed it up. Valve came in and offered something better. At the moment, nobody else has a comparable option (Reactor isn't out yet).

Just look at it if you're Firaxis. You want to offer MP, matchmaking, a mod hub, and achievements. You need to keep costs down where you can, because 2k said so, and so much of the game is changing that your developers are already busy. Valve says "we have this platform that does it all, has been proven in dozens of games already, and isn't terribly expensive."

What do you do?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yep, Tridus basically nailed it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting bonscott,

reply 512

I knew my statement would rile some people up. And that's not what I'm saying. But the facts are that the majority of people that play the shooters are under the age of 30, easy and live via the "online community".

Every FPS player I know bar 1, is between the ages of 35 and 70 (oldest being 69). Pretty arrogant and naive comment there mate.

As for Steamworks in Civ5, it's already been said and I agree with (as a code monkey myself): if you want to add features to a program, don't reinvent, use API's and Frameworks that already exist and work. Spent the time you save on core functionality instead.

I'm going to enjoy my Civ5 on Steamworks.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I and another friend have been Civ addicts since the very first Civ. We both talked, we won't be getting Civ 5. Change happens, yes, some bad, some good. This change is way too "big brotherish" for us. We are going to vote with our dollars and just pass on it. And it also makes Stardock games like Elemental all the more desirable to us too.

Ya, and, the "announcememnt" sounds like it was written by an ex politian who's now a used car salesman. You'll just "enjoy the benefits" of our permanent umbilical cord into your computer just for buying our product. . .

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Tridus,

reply 516

...Developers look at all the functionality Steamworks offers them *without them having to build it* and see good things. They've got their multiplayer matchmaking, friends, communities, achievements (a selling point for some), and the other stuff Steamworks provides. Looking around, there's nothing else that offers a comparable featureset except GFWL, and everybody hates GFWL.

Given the option of using Steamworks or having the expense of building and maintaining all that myself? It's an absolute no brainer. Even more so considering the cost of building games keeps going up. Reducing costs by using a proven platform is just good business over trying to do all that stuff in-house...

Just look at it if you're Firaxis. You want to offer MP, matchmaking, a mod hub, and achievements. You need to keep costs down where you can, because 2k said so, and so much of the game is changing that your developers are already busy. Valve says "we have this platform that does it all, has been proven in dozens of games already, and isn't terribly expensive."

What do you do?

I agree.

But look at who's interest is being best served here -- Take2 and 2k's primarily, and Firaxis' somewhat (I say somewhat because they made decent $ doing it the 'old fashioned way' before steam).

Where do the player's best interests fit in?

Some players will benefit, some won't care, some will be hurt -- but what drives this decision is what's best for 2k/etc.

2k is hoping/expecting that they'll gain more than they lose with forced steam, or at least break even. 2k's/Take 2's responsibility is to themselves first (as Take2 is publicly owned and fiduciary responsibilities...).

Anyone who's been around the block a few times understands this stuff. Instead of being honest with us, 2k is blowing smoke up our keisters with claims that their forcing steam on us for single-player offline games is to benefit players. That is what motivates me in this -- they're doing it for their benefit first and foremost, and their disengenuous PR-speak is disrespectful.

Something I'm wondering about -- is the cost saving from Steam being gobbled up by 2k/Take 2? Considering how the net is changing the model for game publishing/distribution/etc., I wonder if Firaxis could go it alone without the likes of 2k. Would the cut 2k/Take 2 and Valve take be enough to fund Firaxis to offer what it wants without Steam?

Is it possible that the drive towards services like steam and publishers stepping in and dictating this stuff to game companies might be undone by the net allowing game companies to go it alone and keep all the profits?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well, that's two programmers who've chimed in with the logical reasons for using it. From the QA perspective, there are good reasons too. Speaking as a professional game tester (and one who specializes in certification, where multiplayer requirements can be a nightmare), the amount of testing added to a product by going from singleplayer to multiplayer is absolutely colossal. The time, coordination, resources, and technical savvy needed to do the work on a multiplayer title--even a simple one--are vastly more than single player, and that's when you ARE using someone else's framework. When you're not? I don't even want to think about the nightmares I'd have trying to adequately test a triple A title on a framework that is, itself, an untested framework.

It's one thing when games are as simple as "enter host IP address." Those days are pretty well gone. If you're going to have lobbies, matchmaking, or any of the other features players have come to expect, doing it yourself is inviting massive headaches, and major issues that aren't going to be found in test. Just look at Demigod. Stardock did their level best, I'm sure, and the multiplayer was still a complete fiasco weeks after launch.

Unless you know for a fact your product is going to support enough simultaneous players to justify building a network platform as ITS OWN PRODUCT, not using an existing network platform is just asking for it, because that's what a modern gaming network platform is--a product unto itself. Civ 5 will be popular, and it will be profitable. It will not be Modern Warfare 2, Halo 3, or World of Warcraft. Devoting the testing for what amounts to an entire separate product, for one release, just isn't worth it in this day and age.

I get some of the objections, honest. I don't like Steam, generally speaking. But more and more as time progresses, games will use Steamworks, or XBLA, or PSN, or whatever is appropriate to power their multiplayer. It's been happening for a while--Civ 4 used GameSpy so they could avoid developing some of the network functionality. It's more pronounced today, it's going to keep getting more pronounced, because the more expensive it gets to make games, the more developers need affordable middleware to save them time and money.

Love it or hate it, this is the future, gentlemen. Welcome to it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting DeCypher00,

reply 515

Quoting Nesrie,
reply 514

Quoting DeCypher00, reply 513

Good business for them, good business for consumers like me who are excited at the multiplayer prospects, good business for consumers who never had Steam, but with give it a shot to play Civ5. Bad for the minority of people who grew up on Civ, but refuse to change. The bottom line is this though: they will make far more money with Steamworks, than they would have without it.

This is an ignorant and arrogant statement. I have Steam. I use Steam pretty frequently. It's not about refusing to change. That you can't see that, well obviously you have spent zero second trying to understand what people are saying in this discussion and are now resorting to just talking over them.

"I and most single player gamers don't need any type of "community" or chatting up no matter where it comes from."

Civ is no longer going to be purely about single player. That is change. Bonscott over there doesn't like that change.

I know it will have an amazing single player, because that's what it has always had. Now, I'm excited at the prospect of multiplayer, and how easy Steam makes getting games put together (Steam has to be launched for every game, so I can even message my friends in other games to come play Civ 5 with me).

I fully understand what you are saying. I just think it's silly, and in the end, the only person who is deprived of anything is people refusing to install Steam for silly reasons, because you won't get to play Civ 5.

99% of the games I played on Civ IV were multiplayer. You keep talking like you can just lump everyone into some neat pile to brush under the rug here to dismiss. The sooner you stop doing that, the better.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Nesrie,

reply 522

99% of the games I played on Civ IV were multiplayer. You keep talking like you can just lump everyone into some neat pile to brush under the rug here to dismiss. The sooner you stop doing that, the better.

That may be but overall the % of Civ 4 players that used Multiplayer was small. The lead developer (Soren?) remarked in the press once how surprised he was how few actually used multiplayer despite all the time and effort they put into it. That doesn't mean that people don't play Civ games mutliplayer (heck, it was there all the way back in Civ 2), but at least in the past, it was a minority of players.

To address a few general comments. I totally agree that from a developer standpoint Steamworks is a great thing. They can just tie into the API and be done with it. The problem is not giving people the choice of weather to install it or not. At least with GFWL (which sucks, yes) I can totally ignore it and never use it. I certainly didn't with Fallout 3. That's all the community wants, a choice. If I don't want to use it or find no value then don't force it on me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Dale_,

reply 518

Every FPS player I know bar 1, is between the ages of 35 and 70 (oldest being 69). Pretty arrogant and naive comment there mate.

Totally different perspective from me. Just about everyone I know that still plays FPS are well under 30 (and I'm on the other side of 40 myself). I quit playing multiplayer shooters (and anything multiplayer really) due to all the crap in them, all the 14 yr olds going "th!s is suxors!!!1111!" and spouting obscenities all day long. What a difference from even the Quake 3 days. So seeing that all the time what else are people going to think? FPS have nothing but brats running around with nothing better to do but belittle people is what people think. And verified from people I know in my "real" life. At least in the States anyway.

Heck, I could be totally wrong, but I think I'm more right on this one.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Anyway, I've gotten myself riled up over the issue and offended people which I didn't want to do. I shall stay quiet on the issue to avoid offending anyone else. I've said my peace and nothing will change anyway so it's just wasted breath on my part. Everyone have fun with the game, just a shame I won't be buying a Civ game for the first time in 20 yrs...

Successfully updated karma reason!