Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

55. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 19, 2013, 17:59 Jerykk
 
It's true that if Sleeping Dogs didn't require Steam and didn't have any integrated auto-update system, you could play without patching. But again, the only reason you don't want to patch is because the patches are so huge and the only reason they're so huge is because the developers put the DLC into them. The root of the issue is the poor DLC implementation, not automatic updates. It has nothing to do with Steam. Even if Sleeping Dogs had no DRM, the DLC would still be included in the patches and the patches would still be huge. Yes, you'd be able to play the game without patching but then you'd miss out on the numerous fixes and improvements the patches provide.

On a side note, I think the reason you couldn't play Sleeping Dogs was because you had already begun updating it before switching to offline mode. The game was already partially updated so it needed to finish updating, otherwise it would just be broken. If you had immediately switched to offline mode after first installing the game, I think you would have been able to play without downloading any patches.

I would like to see a poll of Steam users to see the actual satisfaction rating. Steam has a lot of points that seem like that's a good idea until... you want to do something that counters it.

If people were unsatisfied with Steam, it wouldn't be the most popular digital distribution platform. When Steam came out, everyone hated it and the only games that required Steam were Valve's games. Over time, more and more publishers started adopting Steamworks because consumers requested it. Steam is successful because people choose to use it, not because they are forced to.

How many free services are great ideas and convenient, everyone uses it then one day the company dedcides to do something it's users don't want like start charging for things... There will be a price to pay later for all this convenience I strongly believe as it happens all the time.

If we were talking about Microsoft, you'd have a fair point. But we're talking about Valve. When has Valve ever charged for something that was previously free? Hell, Valve provides more free content and services than any other company. There's no precedent for them trying to exploit customers so there's no logical reason to expect them to suddenly start doing so.

This comment was edited on May 19, 2013, 18:04.
 
Avatar 20715
 
 
Subject
  
Optional
Message
 
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
 




footer

Blue's News logo