Do you own/fly CloD?

[lastchance]

I have IL2 1946 with Dark Blue World added and play it.

COD well wished I had never purchased it and I hate Steam, COD has more bugs in it than a tramps vest.

Uninstalled it and Steam and not missing ether and will never ever purchase a Steam game again.

Roll on OFF P4.

[K_Freddie]

So there you have it... GIRLS !!

As foretold in the up-running of CLOD, to stay clear of steam.. but the yobbos wouldn't listen...
As foretold in the up-running of CLOD, only release it when it's 'ready'... obviously UBI won't listen, but all you 'clients' denied the warning signs...

Eat it bad!!

Look I hope that CLOD works someday, but Oleg has left the building... end of story.
Long Live Team-D and IL2.... viva!!

[deskpilot]

I own both but uninstalled clod when it chugged bad on my core i5 and radeon 6950 and 8 gig ram systm. If it won't run on that I'm damned if I'm upgrading. The ideal world would be an amalgam of Daidalos' great work with some of the best mods like Zuti's moving dogfight server mod and the nice sound and graphics mods, and WHY does unmodded il2 not have any Britain/ English channel maps??? anyroad that's my 2 penn'orth.

[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.

[Forged]

Originally Posted by Whacker

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



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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I agree with most of your points. Some of the points you had in the post i originally replied to made it seem like you may have tried steam when it first came out and hated it (I hated it at that point as well). I remember you literally could not turn off automatic updates and it was an extreme resource hog and such. I gave it a chance years later and liked it. Now you can at least turn off auto-updates, but you're right - you can't pick and choose what version to update the game to. But anyways...

I would absolutely prefer games with no DRM and I believe it's wrong on many levels to limit us to a certain number of activations! I also prefer to own a physical cd for my games, but I hate having to put the CD into the cd tray .

The way I look at it is that, as far as DRM goes, there's going to have be a little give and take... a little compromise. The reason is that game developers/publishers are not going to stop using DRM because pirating has cost them a ton of money. This is sad - and hurting legitimate players. Now games are coming out that require an internet connection to play at all, and no longer allow lan play (Starcraft II for instance) or even single player (diablo III - internet connection absolutely required to play. Bah!).

Out of the available options (at least those we have now), I see steam (and a few other similar services) as a decent compromise - if the publisher hasn't added other DRM such as activation limits to the game. If it's tied to your account, that should be enough to ensure they are getting their money, and you have your game - able to use it as often as you want and activate as often as you want. And despite having to login, at least you can play offline. The problem is that some publishers are adding more DRM on top of steam, which is bogus ;(.

I think the simple fact is that the DRM isn't going away. So we're either stuck with older games or the occasional DRM-free game, or going with the best, most user friendly and reasonable DRM out there.

As a side note - through this conversation I did some research and found out that DCS: A-10c Warthog uses a separate DRM service, even if sold on Steam. Apparently steam's DRM can't be used on 64 bit applications (like A-10c warthog). This game allows you to activate 10 times, after which you get a new activation every 30 days. If I knew this - I'd probably not have bought it. At least you don't have to contact the company for a new activation - but it's still too restrictive in my opinion.

-Forged

[Whacker]

Originally Posted by Forged

I would absolutely prefer games with no DRM and I believe it's wrong on many levels to limit us to a certain number of activations! I also prefer to own a physical cd for my games, but I hate having to put the CD into the cd tray .

The physical copy thing for me is a deal breaker when it comes to new games. It's a bit ironic that I loathe the "advances" made in gaming when it comes to delivery means. To me, the whole convenience thing (online delivery, etc) has just made that much more of an impact to me and my rights as a consumer.

The way I look at it is that, as far as DRM goes, there's going to have be a little give and take... a little compromise. The reason is that game developers/publishers are not going to stop using DRM because pirating has cost them a ton of money. This is sad - and hurting legitimate players. Now games are coming out that require an internet connection to play at all, and no longer allow lan play (Starcraft II for instance) or even single player (diablo III - internet connection absolutely required to play. Bah!).

All very good points and examples, except in one area I disagree...

Out of the available options (at least those we have now), I see steam (and a few other similar services) as a decent compromise - if the publisher hasn't added other DRM such as activation limits to the game. If it's tied to your account, that should be enough to ensure they are getting their money, and you have your game - able to use it as often as you want and activate as often as you want. And despite having to login, at least you can play offline. The problem is that some publishers are adding more DRM on top of steam, which is bogus ;(.

... which is that Steam is an acceptable alternative, for the reasons I stated above.

I think the simple fact is that the DRM isn't going away. So we're either stuck with older games or the occasional DRM-free game, or going with the best, most user friendly and reasonable DRM out there.

This is where I disagree, to an extent. DRM doesn't stand for Digital Rights Management, it stands for Digital Rights Restrictions, in that it restricts what we can do with what we own.

The main method that I've happily accepted over the years is the one that's largely been abandoned, which is use of unique key strings for online use. Look at the Quake series, original Half-life and WON, or games like those. Half of them later on didn't require the CDs in the drive to use, and the only time the key was checked was when one went to play online, and it was a simple check against a master server. Nobody looking over your shoulder, no crappy or nasty drivers installed, and that was that.

I don't know how far we can discuss this topic but I have a few comments about piracy. The first is the simple fact is that piracy will never stop. Ever. It's not hard to go out and find widely known places to get things. Second, it actually has some benefits, in terms of generating exposure and game sales. There's one well known instance where a game was made available on accident for some time inadvertently, and it was downloaded hand over fist during that period. Sales skyrocketed during that time as well. Here's another question, would you ever buy a car without test driving it first? Buy a house without doing a walk-through and inspection? I am the same way with games, I will not buy them unless I play AND enjoy them first. I'll just leave it at that.

Finally, here are the deal-breaker questions:

1. Does it require me to log in to anything, or make some kind of account that the game is permanently tied to?

2. Does it require me to constantly be online for the game to function?

3. Does it require activation, or have a limited number of activations?

4. Does it remove my control over patching and patch levels?

5. Do I have a physical copy of the game? If no, am I prevented from making a stand-alone backup that I can install any time and without some kind of online authorization?

As a side note - through this conversation I did some research and found out that DCS: A-10c Warthog uses a separate DRM service, even if sold on Steam. Apparently steam's DRM can't be used on 64 bit applications (like A-10c warthog). This game allows you to activate 10 times, after which you get a new activation every 30 days. If I knew this - I'd probably not have bought it. At least you don't have to contact the company for a new activation - but it's still too restrictive in my opinion.

I also learned this lesson the hard way when it came to Flaming Cliffs and Starforce. It ended up mulching a very nice (and not cheap) DVD burner of mine.

[K_Freddie]

Well let's take it one step further..

We are the people with the money
We are the people who will buy..
We are the people who will not take this shit..
We are the people who say - shove it where it fits best


Gee.. I look at this and think - What a mean SOB?
I'm not like this, but maybe I'm like this when the BS get's to much.. you know!!