Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Would You Pay for Steam?

Posted by Cliff on from the in-the-eventualiity-of-a-subscriber-model dept.

dasmurf asks: "Many users have discussed this possibility. Now that Steam has pioneered the biggest online game delivery system to date, is it as simple as that? Read my concerns about the Steam Subscriber Agreement. Has anyone else read this agreement? Should Valve change it? If you love Valve's games but you've never religiously kept an eye on your credit card statement, maybe this will give you more reason. ;)"

11 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. Avoiding company controlled technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is precisly why I don't want anything to do with Steam or any other similar technology. Anyone who falls for this is a complete sucker. They get you to install software they have almost complete control over... what did you think they'd do next?

  2. Re:Mirror in case of Slashdotting... by Wiser87 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Um... how the hell can you slashdot slashdot.org? And if it were slashdotted, you most certainly wouldn't be able to read your comment...

  3. Urgh. by colinramsay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Speculation. I'd pay for Steam - because it will deliver me the games I want to play in a timely fashion. I'm not interested in game packaging. Buying CS:CZ was flawless for me, the whole interface and procedure was excellent. If I do have to subscribe, I'm not bothered. I'll work out the pricing and see whether it works out better for me. Otherwise I won't bother. You may remember that Valve has previously talked about two Steam payment methods - subscription (all Valve products within your sub period) or product by product. This would seem to still make sense.

    Also, you have to bear in mind that I'm not an idiot and I know how to use my online banking service to check what's going out of my account.

    --
    Free iPods - now in the UK!
  4. License agreemtent. by BrookHarty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First a quick rant, I bought HL2 to get CS:Source now, the only bitch is, I already owned CS:CZ, so It feels like I paid for it twice. And CS:Source doesn't have bots, so CS:CZ is the only offline play around.

    They hit every standard aspect, they own everything, you cant do anything but play the game, and you have no rights. Typical EULA.

    My understanding is EULA's can't over ride laws, example put yourself into indentured servitude.
    So, I think creating 3rd party programs to work with STEAM cant be blocked by the EULA as its outside the scope of the software use.

    Maybe we need a consumers rights bill for software. We finally got one for spyware in the US.

    1. Re:License agreemtent. by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They hit every standard aspect, they own everything, you cant do anything but play the game, and you have no rights. Typical EULA.

      I wonder if it a lot of it is just some legal waffle produced by some solicitors; Valve has often openly accepted (and encouraged) behaviour by mod-makers that is explicitly disallowed by the games' EULAs.

      One example - as a mod-maker, I'm allowed to use any content from any Half-Life-engined game in my mod. Even if it's a separate commercial product produced by a different company, like the Opposing Force expansion pack - Valve is more than happy for, say, someone to take the new OpFor models and textures and use them in a mod for the basic Half-Life. It even extends to stuff overseen by Sony - you're allowed to borrow the high-polygon models from the Playstation 2 port, even though it's Utterly Forbidden in the game's EULA.

      Valve's fairly ad-hoc approach is probably a bit risky when you bring credit cards into the equation, though, and they do need to write down some decent rules for people to accept. While they might not be inherently evil, the licence shouldn't allow overly evil behaviour on their part.

      While I'm seriously considering buying HL2 over Steam (game packaging really isn't that impressive these days, and a stack of CDs in a plastic box is basically it), if it was another company with a similar EULA I'd definitely be thinking twice.

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
  5. For... what? by MMaestro · · Score: 4, Insightful
    When you consider what Valve's record is, I'm not seeing any reason to even consider this. Here is Valve's record thus far (for the most part) :

    Half-Life

    Sign up for a subscriber system from a company with a track record of one game? Yeah right. Valve hit the gold mine with Half-Life, but thus far they've proven to be nothing more than a company with producer problems and a sell-out who resorts to buying player-made stuff to support them.

    1. Re:For... what? by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pun aside, this is a point. The only reason people is so interested in Steam is Half-life 2; otherwise, all you can download from Steam is HL and assorted mods. The integrated server browser is nice, but hardly anything we haven't seen before (and even better done).

      So, if the choice is so limited, why even bother? It'd like be going to a supermarket and paying to use a cart than only lets you bring home 10 products. If Steam let me download any game i wanted, make sure it stays patched and assures me i'd be able to play it no matter what (even if i cancelled my subscription), i would consider it. But no thanks.

    2. Re:For... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Steam is still pretty new... did you really expect them to have a large library of games by now? For now, Steam is pretty much a proof-of-concept. Their next step is probably to get other companies to use Steam to distribute their games.

  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Moderation abuse by Arker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is precisly why I don't want anything to do with Steam or any other similar technology. Anyone who falls for this is a complete sucker. They get you to install software they have almost complete control over... what did you think they'd do next?

    This was posted AC (score 0) and within a few minutes modded down to -1 (overrated.)

    Just what's overrated there? Even if it wasn't a particularly good post, at score 0 it was hardly 'overrated.'

    In fact I thought it was a very good post. It's exactly what I'm thinking. When they made it impossible to play CS anymore without selling your soul for Steam, I quit playing it. If I were a rich man who could afford to throw thousands of dollars away on a principle, I would have sued them for it - I paid for a game that they then proceeded to make unplayable unless I signed away my rights on a new deal where they hold all the cards.

    Am I and the 'overrated' AC above really the only people that care about such issues? Is everyone else here really happy to go along with whatever lopsided agreement some company wants out of them, as long as they get the pretty flashing lights to entertain them?

    I guess anyone that fits that description is indeed a 'sucker' and will get what he deserves.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  8. typical unfounded conspiracy fears by humbads · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I activated Half Life 2 for free with a coupon that came with an ATI All-In-Wonder Radeon 9600 Pro video card. At no time have I entered my CC information into Steam. Therefore, it's impossible for Valve to start automatically charging me for a hypothetical Steam subscription.

    Suppose that I had purchased HL2, regardless of what's in the EULA, I find it hard to understand how could they charge me without my authorization. Did you know that a typical credit card charge-back fee paid by merchants is $60.00? If Valve decided to sneak in an automated charge, how many people do you think would issue charge backs. Do you really think Valve could afford this along with the accompanying negative publicity?