• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Wow I can fill the hate for steam from most of this thread, let’s keep it simple if you don't like steam don't use it. I know, I know, Kerberos/paradox is making you buy their games. O Waite, no there not you do have a choice. I hate what EA did with madden, so what do I do to show EA I dislike what they did I don't buy madden simple. And steam is not a monopoly, developer/publisher have a choice and at this point steam is the best option, again simple, and If anyone needs the definition of a monopoly let me know I’ll be happy to help.
 
Wow I can fill the hate for steam from most of this thread, let’s keep it simple if you don't like steam don't use it. I know, I know, Kerberos/paradox is making you buy their games. O Waite, no there not you do have a choice. I hate what EA did with madden, so what do I do to show EA I dislike what they did I don't buy madden simple. And steam is not a monopoly, developer/publisher have a choice and at this point steam is the best option, again simple, and If anyone needs the definition of a monopoly let me know I’ll be happy to help.

I don't post online very often. One of the things I post about it not liking steam. I do this so developers know that there are people who don't want to use it and might not be buying there games if they do. I don't do this just to be a whining baby. I do it so that the awareness is there and hopefully developers make alternatives available so I can play their games and not have to use steam.
 
Almost all of the hatred of it developed in the era when most of the people complaining were complaining because it made it hard to pirate games.

Not for me. But it it is an advantage of online activation - not exclusive to Steam either. I love playing games, therefore I obviously dislike pirating, it screws with the industry.

You would appear to be making sweeping statements with predictable consequences.

Would you rather games cost $30 more

This is an interesting figure, where did you some up with this from then?

I NEVER see anyone complaining about steam who looks like they understand the first thing about business or actually developing publishing and distributing computer games. I really don't.

Sweeping statement. 'nuff said.

Just a bunch of kids who like to complain. Most of the other complaints are just teenagers whining about how the world isn't perfect and the whole gaming industry isn't custom designed to meet their needs. Know what? Neither is any other industry.

Lovelly, thanks for that.

None of that has anything to do with steam. Paradox and Kerberos released the product.

Kerberos released the product. They chose Steam activation so they could cut down on the overheads (see that, I used a business term there) with regard to deployment of the initial release and subsequent patches.

They also (appear to have) messed up their release procedure (if they have one), and released the wrong build to Steam. Niiice. Project review point there.

Kerberos (who I really like) is the one still doing major work on their game mere days before release. The fault lies with them.

I work in software, the only dev they were doing days before release were bug fixes, or they're mad. Regression risk too high.

Even so, Steam being an icon of Professionalism etc. should have some up with a procedure for releases, where it's possible to differenciate between not release candidates and the the actual release, in my opinion.
 
Even so, Steam being an icon of Professionalism etc. should have some up with a procedure for releases, where it's possible to differenciate between not release candidates and the the actual release, in my opinion.
Like a version number? The one up now clearly has a review number for its version, that kinda tips you off it's probably not a release version!

Anyway, I don't have anything against Steam in general, but I feel its unnecessary here. Since the game does not use Steamworks, there is very little reason to make it require Steam; yes, patching is made slightly easier this way, but it's a nightmare for users who don't have Steam already and makes things very complicated if you don't actually purchase on Steam (just try telling an average computer user instructions more complex than "click Install and watch" and see how well they do). I really don't think different versions are much of an issue here, just do what Paradox does, have a launch with an update function and make sure you send the same updated versions to every retailer when you do that.
 
SotS 1 have had patch desync for 8 month (IIRC). True that was Steam's fault, but for a while those who bought it on Steam cannot play with others because Steam did not put out the patch till way way after everyone else has gotten it. That is one of the reason why for SotS 2 they wanted just a single version. It makes it easier that everyone plays together. It is probably not the only reason, but it was factored heavily into the decision. To my understanding when the Kereboros forum had a thread about it.
 
Like a version number?

Or even something more obvious that can be checked automatically (by a script or something - to make it een more bullet proof).

A custom property associated with the MSI/installer whatever. Jesus, this shit is done all the time in business. Even if Kerberos were to blame for this incident, it highlights a weakness in the deployment process for Steam.

They probably handle it contractually, by saying "the responsibility for x lies with Y" (i.e. not our problem sucker). But if I was them I'd look at the release procedure and try to improve it. Obviously, Kerb have to review their deployment procedures after this foul up.
 
I don't post online very often. One of the things I post about it not liking steam. I do this so developers know that there are people who don't want to use it and might not be buying there games if they do. I don't do this just to be a whining baby. I do it so that the awareness is there and hopefully developers make alternatives available so I can play their games and not have to use steam.


Exactly....it is a way to prevent a monopoly
 
I baught Magicka on gamersgate, but when I installed it, it infected my computer with unwanted Steam advertizing. I could not get the game to work without steam so I deleted the game without playing it. I guess I wont buy this game either.
 
Exactly....it is a way to prevent a monopoly

Oddly enough Steam will NEVER have a monopoly. They are not producers, and digitial distribution is in such a way that competition is fierce. If, on the improbable chance, they ever became the only game in town that would only because everyone else sucks and not because they pushed everyone out of business. It is like Google and Bing and Yahoo. Sure Google has a HUGE lead in search domination - but only because google does it job remarkably well. I doubt Google will ever achieve monopoly in search due to the nature of the business.
 
I baught Magicka on gamersgate, but when I installed it, it infected my computer with unwanted Steam advertizing. I could not get the game to work without steam so I deleted the game without playing it. I guess I wont buy this game either.
Magicka actually does use Steamworks, so it makes sense it can only run with Steam. You couldn't play multiplayer without Steam. This is not the case for SotS 2 though, as has been established.

Oddly enough Steam will NEVER have a monopoly.
They could get a monopoly in digital distribution... if they offer an attractive enough deal and game developers feel the need to sell on Steam and comply to whatever standards they have, and especially if they feel it would be an advantage to make their game Steam-required, then other distributors may well be pushed back. And getting a monopoly on distribution means Steam could get away with whatever ads or contract terms they want... though I do agree it's unlikely this will ever happen in reality.
 
Steam rules lve the service never had a problem and I own over 200 games not just paradox ones I also use comrade and origin. My PC is very high end and i'm not really that stupid (my wife differs) so mayby those factors contribute to my thousands of hours of wonderfull game time on steam. BF 3 and origin right now .....that is a whole different story. :/
 
They could get a monopoly in digital distribution... if they offer an attractive enough deal and game developers feel the need to sell on Steam and comply to whatever standards they have, and especially if they feel it would be an advantage to make their game Steam-required, then other distributors may well be pushed back. And getting a monopoly on distribution means Steam could get away with whatever ads or contract terms they want... though I do agree it's unlikely this will ever happen in reality.
Which is only possible if every other distributor screws up big time. What steam does is not some unique technology/method that no one else can achieve. There is no technological wonder at work. They succeed on ease of use and avaliability of titles. Both of which is not something uniquely only they can do. The market as it is will never be Steam only. If the pie gets big enough, every publisher will want their own bite - like EA is doing with Origins. Sony is doing with On-play (whatever their streaming game service is). Or Stardock with Impulse. etc. etc.
 
Which is only possible if every other distributor screws up big time. What steam does is not some unique technology/method that no one else can achieve. There is no technological wonder at work. They succeed on ease of use and avaliability of titles. Both of which is not something uniquely only they can do. The market as it is will never be Steam only. If the pie gets big enough, every publisher will want their own bite - like EA is doing with Origins. Sony is doing with On-play (whatever their streaming game service is). Or Stardock with Impulse. etc. etc.

It is not steam specifically that I dislike but the business model. Games as a service. I like gamersgate because they do not follow this business model.
 
It was a choice made by Kerberos, the game's developer, in order to streamline and speed up game patching using a single source instead of preparing patches for multiple download sites and putting up with the possible incompatibilities and delays as a result.

The irony is palpable. Steam was always the last to update SotS1, and it doesn't seem to be doing any better job getting the release version of SotS2 to players. Maybe they should reconsider their choice of DRM, under the circumstances.
 
There is 4 or 5 threads at the forums dealing with this, I wonder if it could be an issue??