Steam should be optional for Total War: Rome 2

[Totalheadache]

What do you mean back it up? I just exemplified the pattern of thought.

God forbid Steam is optional, right? God forbid we have the freedom to choose. I understand the corporate policies behind this decision. I don't understand the popular support behind it. Actually I do. People are dumb and that will never change.

i agree in so much are why are people necessarily dumb for having steam installed? yes i bought games from them but usually on sale....95% of time they run and patch fine..

same goes for origin....(games are way 2 pricey).

i dont see how u think people are dumg for waiting for sales and getting very good deals..i.e dead space/gtaiv+expansions/fallouts...etc...the list can go on.

ofc if its the i dont have internet arguement and needs to be on..and u cant afford internet then u cant afford a pc+games. (dunno harsh perhaps).

[Bobz]

What do you mean back it up? I just exemplified the pattern of thought, the ideological pattern that explains why a consumer backs this type of software.

God forbid Steam is optional, right? God forbid we have the freedom to choose. I understand the corporate policies behind this decision. I don't understand the popular support behind it. Actually I do. People are dumb and that will never change.

You have the freedom to choose not to buy steam games and spend your money on non-steam games.

Why should you have the right to choose whether or not Rome II should have steam?

[Pyyrhus]

OP, Steam is one of my favorite programs ever. I can store numerous games on it where theyll never get lost or broken, I can talk to my friends and easily play games with them, and patches and dlc are a breeze. If the only reason you dont want it on steam is because of crappy internet, then its time to upgrade or fix your internet,my friend. If your internet is as crappy as you say it is, how do you even watch youtube. The amount of games you can play is only going to get more limited from here if you dont fix your crappy internet.

[LordUhtred]

Not sure whether this has been covered but you are an absolute liar.

You said in an earlier post that you were getting a 15kbps download speed, with such a speed it would not take 4 months to download your update.

Right now I am torrenting a file that is 15 GB in size and it is 90% finished meaning that there is 1.5 GB to go. The download rate on that file is 27 kbs yet the ETA for the file is only 1 day 15 hours.

So unless you left your pc on for less than an hour a day how in the christ could it have taken you 4 months to download a 2gb update?

Stop slandering Steam because you have an irrational bias against it like that weird guy with the lion avatar.

I have a family to think of, 6 people in my house and with a 15kbps download speed you can only do one thing at once. Therefore everytime I want to download something I need to make sue NOONE is using the internet or I'll ruin what theyre doing. And with a connection as bad as mine, my internet only works 4 out of 5 days on average.
Stop slandering my posts because of your irrational habit of jumping to conclusions and not knowing what the youre talking about.

[LordUhtred]

OP, Steam is one of my favorite programs ever. I can store numerous games on it where theyll never get lost or broken, I can talk to my friends and easily play games with them, and patches and dlc are a breeze. If the only reason you dont want it on steam is because of crappy internet, then its time to upgrade or fix your internet,my friend. If your internet is as crappy as you say it is, how do you even watch youtube. The amount of games you can play is only going to get more limited from here if you dont fix your crappy internet.

I dont use YouTube. As an example - a 360p video takes 10 times its length to load.

[Totalheadache]

I have a family to think of, 6 people in my house and with a 15kbps download speed you can only do one thing at once. Therefore everytime I want to download something I need to make sue NOONE is using the internet or I'll ruin what theyre doing. And with a connection as bad as mine, my internet only works 4 out of 5 days on average.
Stop slandering my posts because of your irrational habit of jumping to conclusions and not knowing what the youre talking about.

well perhaps sounding harsh uhtred of bebbanburg thats tough titty. get a better internet connection.

and sorry to say steam+origin+online drm are here to stay. end of.

p.s your choice to have the extra mouths to feed no-one elses or i am wrong?

[LordUhtred]

You're quite off the mark. You know what makes you look like an idiot? Having a argument that doesn't make any sense.

He didn't say that he had a 15 kbs connection he actually specifically said that his update download speed was 15 kbs, which implies an average constant speed. Lets say for argument's sake his connection dips down to 5 kbs, it still isn't going to take 4 months to download a 2gb update he's just being silly and hyperbolic and you're defending his lies not out of logic but probably because you didn't like my tone or you're partisan anti-steam. Stop being so emotional.

Does a non 24 hour connection even exist? I used to live in a very remote part of the country, we had internet as soon as it became available and I haven't even heard of not being able to connect whenever you please.

If he isn't lying he took 4 months to download the update to make a point. If he really wanted to play Empire all he would need to do would be to leave his pc on for at minimum a few days not 4 months.

I hate to say it but this whole time, YOURE WRONG! And mr B.W. is absolutely correct. I DO NOT have a 24 hour connection, there are 5 other people in my house I have to share this 15kbps with, (15 kbps is the fastest it goes incase your very apparantly rotted brain cant figure this out), and my internet doesnt work AT ALL 1 in 5 days. Then theres the times when its very hot my connection almost vanishes. And as I say I share this connection with 5 others.
Stop talking now before anymore comes out youre making a complete ing idiot of yourself.

well perhaps sounding harsh uhtred of bebbanburg thats tough titty. get a better internet connection.

and sorry to say steam+origin+online drm are here to stay. end of.

p.s your choice to have the extra mouths to feed no-one elses or i am wrong?

Yes you are wrong, I didn't say I have children, I said I have my family to think of, don't even get me started on my internet, if you care that much read further back I'm not explaining myself AGAIN

[B. W.]

Thanks for repeating yourself but now with additional waffle.

Your reply is a very tedious, multi-paragraphed example of grasping at straws.

The point of my calculation was not to definitively say "this is definitely how long the update would have actually taken to download" it was to serve as a model to call into question the absurd suggestion that it would have taken anywhere near 4 months to download a 2gb update. You can add as many variables to the calculation as you want but you cannot possibly hope to be taken seriously. If he was downloading at 5 kb/s for 10 hours a day it would take no more than 2 weeks to complete the update. You honestly expect me to believe that sort of speed wasn't attainable, especially considering the OP explicitly mentioned he had at least on one occasion a download speed of 15/kbs? You have extremely poor judgement and I can't expect you to go far in your job given your horrendous analytical skills. If someone with a tiger avatar who uses expressions like epic fail was doing predictive data analysis for your company would
you not be very concerned indeed?

The sum total of your 'calculations' is that there were no calulations at all. Only a set of 3 multiplcation equations and the point of your multiplications was to imply that it would have been impossible to take 4 months. It was simplistic and it was erroneous.

As far as my abilities, I was once called in to determine why an electron microscope was getting blurred images. I was able to determine the cause was due to the tabletop recieving frequencies at the same frequency as another piece of equipment. The tabletop isolators provided by the manufacturer werte not capable of isolating those frequencies. They were at a very low amplitude but when combined with the natural frequency (resonate) of the tabletop they magnified enough to blur the image. When confronted with my data the manufacturer admitted they were aware of the problem and instead of charging the user $200,000.00 dollars, provided them for free (that means installed at no cost to someone like yourself). I could go on and list many more such diagnostics, but it would be a pretty long list. In short, I'm not worried about what you thnk of my abilities. The question here is: when was the last time you saved a customer
$200,000.00.

As far as my avatar, I much prefer it to one of a raging lunatic.

Honestly you've got a problem with the most basic of logic. How is a jovial guidebook in any way equal to sensitive personal information? Your argument: Person A smokes marijuana therefore Person A must also smoke crystal meth or Person B stole Person C's matches therefore Person B will soon steal Person D's car. Also the leaking of the guidebook was more than likely the result of one individual. So if one rogue individual associated with a company does something illegal how does that mean illegal activity in general is a policy of the entire company?

If I said that there was a teapot floating halfway between Mars and Jupiter would you need to look through a high powered telescope to strongly suspect I was lying? You don't need conclusive proof to have strong reasonable doubt that something did or did not occur, you can examine a situation and make a reasoned judgement based on the more likely scenario. If we weren't capable of this we wouldn't have a functioning justice system.

As far as logic is concerned, it's something you obviously have never studied and have no conception of. The point made (on evidence you provided) was that if someone in the company, which you bragged has no supervisory oversite, has the potential to leak information (and in fact did) then what else are they capable of. And we're supoosed to feel secure about our personal data storage?

[SleepySteve]

...Yeah that's a totally non-crazy opinion.

Some people are really making a big deal out of a tiny problem. Where's the first world problems meme when you need it.

Lack of foresight... People settle for so much nowaday's, they always say "oh well x is still better than y, you should see y". The whole while x is slowly going downhill. The next thing ya know x sucks, you hate it and it basically has complete control since no one stopped to ask questions and merrily conformed to x's will convinced that everything was fine and the world was just peachy. This example applies to steam, and everything about our times, people have a heck of a rude awackening coming to them.

[B. W.]

Which is why I said in my first post "reasonable security based on what's being protected."

This isn't new information, and it doesn't require an IT background or an IT department behind it. It's fundamental, basic security 101. Every security system, whether it's for a computer or the physical means by which you lock up gold bullion, is forever balancing utility with function.

Yes, the only 100% foolproof security on a computer system is a system that never connects to anything, ever...no Internet, no disks, no uploads or installs of any kind....it only runs whatever you program directly on it. That's as secure as you can possibly get, but that's not a horribly useful computer...in that extreme case, you'd have literally secured a system completely out of any usefulness.

You determine what level of security (and restriction) is appropriate based on the value of what you have to lose, the risk that you're actually going to lose it, and the utility you need from the system it's on.

If you have something truly unique and valuable...say, the formula for a pandemic cure for cancer, or plans for a Perpetually Self-Powered Wonderflonium Dispenser, yes, you'd want to keep that on a system that interacted with the outside world as little as possible.

For a less extreme example, say you're a credit card issuer. You maintain a known repository of account information (everybody knows you're a card issuer) of extremely high value. In other words, you're a really juicy target, with a really high payload. Those systems have rather extreme security need, and are often isolated as much as possible.

For the staggering majority of home users, though, disconnecting a broadband connection every time you're not physically sitting at your computer is overkill and counterproductive....your normal home user wouldn't notice a security intrusion even if they were sitting there. Standard security measures (home security software, strong passwords, etc) are perfectly reasonable and effective, especially so since the staggering majority of home users don't have enough of a "payload" available on their systems to make the kind of effort required to defeat those measures worthwhile. Cybercriminals aren't magicians, and contrary to the media image, standard, reasonable home security measures are not easy to defeat so long as they're correctly configured and updated...they take time and effort, and a criminal is going to spend that kind of time and effort going after the big payday, not your bank account.

I hate to say it, but your IT department is making unreasonable, unnecessary recommendations to you as a home user. Disconnecting your system unless you're sitting there doesn't make you appreciably less vulnerable...the few bits of data that represent the credit card information you might have on your home system only take a second to transmit somewhere, and a virus that's grabbed it will simply transmit it out once you DO connect...and you sitting there observing won't stop it from happening.

Circling this all back around to the topic, the original contention (that a large Steam update could potentially take hours, hours where you're sitting helpless at your computer, unable to live your life) really doesn't hold a lot of water, and isn't a realistic concern for the overwhelming majority of users.

With only a couple of minor exceptions, I have no problem with anything you've said here. Would you kindly explain this to every 13 year old in the western hemisphere?

[LordUhtred]

I posted an answer to the question about Steam in the Exclusive Content and Dec chat for TWC thread.

Thanks to this I just cancelled my Rome 2 pre-order. CA can go themselves if they think theyre getting anymore of my money now.

[atheniandp]

i agree in so much are why are people necessarily dumb for having steam installed? yes i bought games from them but usually on sale....95% of time they run and patch fine..

same goes for origin....(games are way 2 pricey).

i dont see how u think people are dumg for waiting for sales and getting very good deals..i.e dead space/gtaiv+expansions/fallouts...etc...the list can go on.

ofc if its the i dont have internet arguement and needs to be on..and u cant afford internet then u cant afford a pc+games. (dunno harsh perhaps).

.....

.....

Just about every post I make in this forum I justify and even then people completely miscomprehend what I said.

Where did I say people are stupid for having steam? I said people are stupid for wanting steam to be enforced on everyone. There are people here supporting the decision to make steam mandatory rather than optional. That is stupidity from the populous (not corporate stupidity).

I have great internet btw, this has nothing to do with my connection.

You have the freedom to choose not to buy steam games and spend your money on non-steam games.

Why should you have the right to choose whether or not Rome II should have steam?

Yes, I do have that freedom as a political individual. But if I decide to associate myself with gaming, then my freedom of choice is taken away as Steam is quickly becoming a definitive feature. It wasn't like this before so why should it be like that now?

Don't answer that question, it's rhetorical. There's no logical argument you can make besides from a corporate perspective; one you shouldn't be thinking about anyway as a consumer.

[King Of Toast]

The cons of steam outweigh the pro's.

I would say the pros of steam outweigh the cons by far.

[Bobz]

Yes, I do have that freedom as a political individual. But if I decide to associate myself with gaming, then my freedom of choice is taken away as Steam is quickly becoming a definitive feature. It wasn't like this before so why should it be like that now?

Don't answer that question, it's rhetorical. There's no logical argument you can make besides from a corporate perspective; one you shouldn't be thinking about anyway as a consumer.

And why should you have the freedom of choice over whether or not a game requires steam? You have never had the freedom to choose any other DRM method, nor have you the choice to decide upon system requirements, whether it can run on a mac, or even getting a copy with mandatory pink hats. And what do you mean it wasn't like this before? Are these the days when CA used Securom - which you had no choice over either, and in fact you weren't even informed about?

Nothing has changed since Total War games started requiring Steam. Indeed the whole process is arguably more transparent now. At least you know what you are installing, and you don't get a rootkit stuck on your computer even when you've removed the game.

[Asgaroth]

Thanks to this I just cancelled my Rome 2 pre-order. CA can go themselves if they think theyre getting anymore of my money now.

I agree.

I did the same.

[Resef]

I don't know if anyone else knows this but it actually costs you a load of money if you download (even with supposedly unlimited internet) over 40gigs within a month.

Steam should be optional.

And why should you have the freedom of choice over whether or not a game requires steam?

And why shouldn't you have the freedom of choice? Face it, steam is not a necessity.

freedom to choose any other DRM method, nor have you the choice to decide upon system requirements, whether it can run on a mac, or even getting a copy with mandatory pink hats.

Please tell me why you feel the importance of steam is equal to system requirments. Unless you weren't insinuating that?

[Orlorin]

I have a family to think of, 6 people in my house and with a 15kbps download speed you can only do one thing at once. Therefore everytime I want to download something I need to make sue NOONE is using the internet or I'll ruin what theyre doing. And with a connection as bad as mine, my internet only works 4 out of 5 days on average.
Stop slandering my posts because of your irrational habit of jumping to conclusions and not knowing what the youre talking about.

The point is not that a few people have bad connections, a few people couldn't use CD's, or DVD's. Your connection is the past, the vast majority of CA's customers have a sufficient connection, and the number who don't are shrinking rapidly. You can't expect a large company to waste resources on their own copy right protections, online clients, and distribution network while at the same time paying for Steam. The past is rapidly dissolving, within a decade your connection speed will be unheard of.

[atheniandp]

And why should you have the freedom of choice over whether or not a game requires steam? You have never had the freedom to choose any other DRM method, nor have you the choice to decide upon system requirements, whether it can run on a mac, or even getting a copy with mandatory pink hats. And what do you mean it wasn't like this before? Are these the days when CA used Securom - which you had no choice over either, and in fact you weren't even informed about?

Nothing has changed since Total War games started requiring Steam. Indeed the whole process is arguably more transparent now. At least you know what you are installing, and you don't get a rootkit stuck on your computer even when you've removed the game.

You're asking the wrong question. Freedom of choice applies to the individual making choices for themselves, not freedom to choose for other entities.

So you wanted to ask why should we be able to decide whether or not a game requires steam? Well, for starters we shouldn't. We're consumers, not executives. We don't make CA's decisions for them. However, business is a lot like popular sovereignty and it is based on consumer cash. So fundamentally we have leverage over business and we can use it through methods such as boycotts if we are displeased. It is in our free will to act as we like.

But why are we getting into this legal and philosophical discussion? Optional Steam makes both parties happy. The truth is people think in absolutes so they cannot come to a compromise. It would be too easy just to allow us to choose whether or not to use the software.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

The cons of steam outweigh the pro's.

That is subjective.

[Feldspar]

That is subjective.

and I would argue that the pro's far outweigh the cons.

as the only cons I can personally think of is having a broadband connection and all the extra space I have not having cases for all my games...