Do you own/fly CloD?

[Igo kyu]

There is a poll in the CloD forum about 1946, it seems to me a reciprocal is a good idea.

[Ze-Jamz]

Own both, play both now and then Offline

Cant be bothered with the MP thing right now on either..awaiting CoD patch

[HundertneunGustav]

1946 = used
CLOD = franchise support, waiting for it to ripe and expand in theatres, objects, features and Planes.

[CWMV]

Own both.
Play '46 regularly, CoD is currently uninstalled.

[Gabelschwanz Teufel]

Got both. Haven't touched CloD for a couple of weeks.

[Whacker]

Own 1946 (and other previous cd versions) only.

Don't have CoD, don't want it. Not unless it divorces itself from Steam, which I utterly loathe. And then from what I read it needs a ton of patching, and it's not really modable at all. I love 1946, but without mods it'd be pretty boring.

[Forged]

I own only the new version, and I'm having quite a lot of fun in it. I've had no bugs and the game runs great! I haven't tried multiplayer yet - still getting better at flying around and shooting down computer controlled planes...

But I have to ask - what is everyone's hatred with Steam? It's a great service! I hated when it first came out, but it's much better now.

Using steam has a lot of benefits - never need a CD, don't need an internet connection (you can login in "offline" mode), plus a lot more. I don't get the hatred =-\.

[Whacker]

Originally Posted by Forged

But I have to ask - what is everyone's hatred with Steam? It's a great service! I hated when it first came out, but it's much better now.

Using steam has a lot of benefits - never need a CD, don't need an internet connection (you can login in "offline" mode), plus a lot more. I don't get the hatred =-\.

Combinations of any of the following: asking permission whenever I wish to use what I own. Offline mode doesn't count. Loss of control over patching and which level you want to run a game at. Enabling devs to push out patches almost at will and with zero accountability or disclosure of scope, and the ensuing serious drop off of initial product release quality across the board. Not having a fully functional offline back-up and reinstallation method. The built-in "backup" function of Steam doesn't remotely cut the mustard.

You know what's really sad? Valve had it absolutely right with WON. Given WON itself wasn't exactly the most stable service during it's lifetime, but the implementation and general theory were perfect, required use of a valid product key for online play made it perfect.

In short, I'm not willing to give up my rights and control over MY stuff for the sake of convenience, nor am I willing to be treated like a criminal (limited authentications, a la DCS).

[Forged]

Originally Posted by Whacker

Combinations of any of the following: asking permission whenever I wish to use what I own. Offline mode doesn't count. Loss of control over patching and which level you want to run a game at. Enabling devs to push out patches almost at will and with zero accountability or disclosure of scope, and the ensuing serious drop off of initial product release quality across the board. Not having a fully functional offline back-up and reinstallation method. The built-in "backup" function of Steam doesn't remotely cut the mustard.

You know what's really sad? Valve had it absolutely right with WON. Given WON itself wasn't exactly the most stable service during it's lifetime, but the implementation and general theory were perfect, required use of a valid product key for online play made it perfect.

In short, I'm not willing to give up my rights and control over MY stuff for the sake of convenience, nor am I willing to be treated like a criminal (limited authentications, a la DCS).

I think there might be some misconceptions about Steam here... If you right click a game in Steam, you can go to properties and then to the "Updates" tab. From there you can 1) choose whether or not to automatically update the game, 2) to enable the steam cloud synch or not. I'm not sure if you can somehow get to a specific version of the game (if you hated the final update or something, and were installing for the first time).

Secondly - why does offline mode not count? Compared to some DRM methods (such as LOMAC - where you only have x number of installs, bah!), Steam is very nice. You have Steam installed - you login. Done. If you're offline - you login locally and you can still play your games. Where's the problem? I don't get it... I agree that some DRM methods (x number of installs) is insane. I've never noticed that with a Steam game - but doing a bit of research, it appears that it's still up to the publisher to put more draconian DRM methods on the game. Most Steam games I know of do not limit you to the number of installs/etc - since it's tied to your account. Some do, and that's the fault of the publisher/whatever - not Steam.

I do agree that having a "real" full blown back-up would be nice, but I've never had a reason to back-up my games. I save the files for games that don't sync over the "cloud", and just redownload and install as needed. =-\

Anyway - I'm not really trying to change your mind Whacker - but wanted to help clear up some misconceptions in case anyone is interested .

(and no, I don't work in the games industry and do not have any ties or relations to Steam or Valve - ;P ).

-Forged

[Whacker]

Look, I think you've got some misconceptions yourself there mate.

Originally Posted by Forged

I think there might be some misconceptions about Steam here... If you right click a game in Steam, you can go to properties and then to the "Updates" tab. From there you can 1) choose whether or not to automatically update the game, 2) to enable the steam cloud synch or not. I'm not sure if you can somehow get to a specific version of the game (if you hated the final update or something, and were installing for the first time).

This is basically what I said above. You have two choices, patched to current level, or not patched. If you reinstall at a later date, that choice is irrelevant anyway as the game will come patched. With IL-2 1946, I have complete and total control over this. I control what patch level the game is installed at, and up to which levels I choose to patch it. Not all patches are good or stable, so there are quite a few of us who realize this and choose to wait before updating. Steam effectively removes this control from us.

Secondly - why does offline mode not count? Compared to some DRM methods (such as LOMAC - where you only have x number of installs, bah!), Steam is very nice. You have Steam installed - you login. Done. If you're offline - you login locally and you can still play your games.

Bingo. Logging in is what I was referring to. You have to uniquely identify yourself to whomever to prove it's you, so that you can then be granted permission to play what you own. I bought the game, I own it. How and when I choose to install it or use it is up to ME, and I will not subject myself to someone else's scrutiny whenever this is the case. Publishers and devs have every right to be compensated for their hard work. Conversely, we have the right to enjoy what we paid for in the privacy of our own homes without someone spying over our shoulders.

Where's the problem? I don't get it... I agree that some DRM methods (x number of installs) is insane. I've never noticed that with a Steam game - but doing a bit of research, it appears that it's still up to the publisher to put more draconian DRM methods on the game. Most Steam games I know of do not limit you to the number of installs/etc - since it's tied to your account. Some do, and that's the fault of the publisher/whatever - not Steam.

Ubisoft and DCS in my mind represent the two worst publishers/dev houses when it comes to treating their customers like criminals. DCS's limited activations is bad enough, I absolutely refuse to be limited on how much or often I can install what I OWN, much less after I've used them up either 1. be out of luck or 2. have to call up and beg for more, at which point they'll basically force you to register (I never register games, ever. Registration is another way of forcing unique identifiers and preventing my right to sell what I own to someone else later). Lastly, any arguments to the effect of "well x number of activations should be fine for you" is just adding further insult.

Ubisoft's must-be-online-always-so-big-brother-can-watch is the ultimate transgression. Not online? Game won't work.

I do agree that having a "real" full blown back-up would be nice, but I've never had a reason to back-up my games. I save the files for games that don't sync over the "cloud", and just redownload and install as needed. =-\

Awesome, you must be super lucky. Over the dozens of PC's I've owned over the last 16 years of my life, I've had no less than 20 hard drives crash and die on me.

Anyway - I'm not really trying to change your mind Whacker - but wanted to help clear up some misconceptions in case anyone is interested .

Fair enough mate, but I think YOU still have a number of misconceptions about this wonderful service you love so much, see my comments above.

Some people are perfectly fine surrendering all their rights and privacy for the sake of entertainment. I am not one of these people, and I can recognize the forest for the trees.

(and no, I don't work in the games industry and do not have any ties or relations to Steam or Valve - ;P ).

This was going to be my last question. You dropped enough buzzwords above that it started to sound a lot like marketspeak and a sales pitch for Steam. Meh, doesn't matter I guess.

Edit - A potential question would be "Well then what would you prefer?" Good Ol' Games. Quality, cheap software. No DRM. Always available for download. Downloads can be backed up to physical media to be installed later with no restrictions. Epic win.