86 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Older >
 |
| 66. |
Re: Credit cards |
Apr 25, 2007, 21:02 |
Happyclam |
|
|
Yes that is totally different. What Valve did is disable the functionality of software I had already bought from it and force me to use a new version to regain that functionality. It would be like Microsoft disabling a feature like spell-checking in existing releases of Word and forcing customers to use a new version to get the functionality back. No responsible company would do that, but Valve did it to make money and get control over customers' previous purchases.
Oh...so when we had Office 95 and Office 98 came out and suddenly we couldn't read the new Office files, which most businesses upgraded, btw, then that doesn't force us to upgrade our Office suite as well? Or How about the browser wars that happened a little while back where people were trying to force you to use Internet Explorer. It's the same idea. You're leveraging your technology to force people to upgrade. If you're hating Steam for that, then you might as well hate every company that's out there. And disabling a feature in Word is very different than what we are discussing. I think my analogy fits the situation better. Another situation you might enjoy is the whole Xbox live Microsoft vs. Developer scandal, where developers are trying to release content for free and Microsoft is blocking the move and making them charge for the content they post on Xbox Live. And yet, of course, Microsoft doesn't do anything on the scale Steam does.
Yes that is totally different. What Valve did is disable the functionality of software I had already bought from it and force me to use a new version to regain that functionality. It would be like Microsoft disabling a feature like spell-checking in existing releases of Word and forcing customers to use a new version to get the functionality back. No responsible company would do that, but Valve did it to make money and get control over customers' previous purchases.
Ok, I'll give you this point. You're correct, they did leverage the popularity of Counter-strike and Half-life to launch Steam. And Steam is merely a method of DRM, not the end all and be all. We all know that piracy exists and when it's easy is when it spirals out. You can only simply make it inconvenient for people to do it to discourage the 'honest' people out there. And whether you want to pick your poison or not, you can thank the little script kiddies and such out there who want the free ride for these little gems.
I chose not to play anything with Starforce on it, because I view it as malware, much the same as you view Steam, and I know, from tests I ran myself, about the dangers Starforce represented. Steam, on the other hand, is simply a running application in the background as I play my games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 65. |
Re: Credit cards |
Apr 25, 2007, 15:21 |
Riley Pizt |
|
|
Oh, so this is totally different when you have a software suite like Word that won't read new versions of Word files Yes that is totally different. What Valve did is disable the functionality of software I had already bought from it and force me to use a new version to regain that functionality. It would be like Microsoft disabling a feature like spell-checking in existing releases of Word and forcing customers to use a new version to get the functionality back. No responsible company would do that, but Valve did it to make money and get control over customers' previous purchases.
Valve is trying to carve out a niche, and it gambled on the fact that people don't play a lot of software they own that's old. LOL! Given that Half-Life 1-based Counterstrike is still the most popular online game even today, your supposition is just ludicrous. Valve counted on Counterstrike and Half-Life 2's popularity to force Steam down its customers' throats. It leveraged their popularity to give Steam an immediate, huge userbase. It was no gamble at all because any amount of business Valve lost because of it was trivial and more than offset by the increased profits through its direct sales via Steam.
It's just their way to cut down on piracy Steam doesn't reduce unauthorized use any more than the previous online CD key authentication did especially for products which predate Steam.
Which is worse, perhaps. Steam or Starforce? That is like asking me to pick my poision. It's a moot question as neither is desirable.
This comment was edited on Apr 25, 15:23. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 64. |
Re: Credit cards |
Apr 25, 2007, 14:30 |
Happyclam |
|
|
Steam is NOT merely an application. It is tied into every game Valve has released (including those which predate Steam) so that those games cannot be run without Steam. There is no technical reason for Valve to do this, but it wanted an immediate, large captive audience to which to sell crap via Steam and back when Steam was optional over half of the existing users didn't use it. If Steam were merely an optional application to run Valve's games, it wouldn't be the lightning rod it is.
Oh, so this is totally different when you have a software suite like Word that won't read new versions of Word files, or a lot of Windows software that only works with Windows? While my generalizations are out there, I hope you see the point. Valve is trying to carve out a niche, and it gambled on the fact that people don't play a lot of software they own that's old. And you can still play them, you just need Steam to play, as you've noted. It's just their way to cut down on piracy and cheating on the online portions of the game. Which is worse, perhaps. Steam or Starforce? Both are a means to an end. Steam just has more functions built into it.
Hopefully this makes sense and if not, well....Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 63. |
Re: Credit cards |
Apr 24, 2007, 21:19 |
Riley Pizt |
|
|
It's merely an application that performs a useful service. Steam is NOT merely an application. It is tied into every game Valve has released (including those which predate Steam) so that those games cannot be run without Steam. There is no technical reason for Valve to do this, but it wanted an immediate, large captive audience to which to sell crap via Steam and back when Steam was optional over half of the existing users didn't use it. If Steam were merely an optional application to run Valve's games, it wouldn't be the lightning rod it is.
If you don't like it, don't use it. I certainly don't use it, but the consequence is I cannot play any of the Half-Life 1-based games online which I purchased prior to the release of Steam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 62. |
Re: Credit cards |
Apr 24, 2007, 18:27 |
maplebob |
|
|
Fine, they want their little toy. Fine. But why does it have to be running if I just want to play a single player game?
No reason at all. They just like pissing people off so I oblige them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 61. |
Credit cards |
Apr 24, 2007, 13:05 |
Happyclam |
|
|
I read through this subject with some interest, as it pertains to us all in one degree or another.
I see a lot of fear-mongering and paranoia present and let's look at this logically. The only secure way to access the Internet is not to have our computers plugged into the Internet. That being said, it looks like we've all chosen to brave the risks. As Steam is an Internet driven application, it too must stay connected and also have more safeguards up than the average user, perhaps. But, in the end, it doesn't really matter. If someone is determined to get in, regardless of what the consequences are, they will. It's merely a matter of time. There are several factors that will either lengthen or shorten the time, such as alert admins, good security, etc., but it is still only time that matters. If this bothers you, then unplug your computer and don't look back, because it applies to every entity connected to the Internet. None of them are fully secure, as has been proven time and time again.
Next are credit cards. They are hardly secure items. The number is freely available at any business you use it at. The number can be obtained from your trashcan, from your mailbox when your bill is mailed to you. Hell, someone can even apply for a credit card in your name simply using your social security number, which I can guarantee no one watches as closely as they would their CC#. So if you limit yourself from using online vendors simply because you are scared of your CC# being ripped off, you're only limiting the convenience of your shopping experience. And if that's worth it for you, then live in the past. And yes, I have had my CC# stolen and used. Turns out it was a roommate and not some diabolical hacker on the Internet.\
Finally, let's talk about Steam. People act as if Steam were Satan himself. It's merely an application that performs a useful service. If you don't like it, don't use it. But for many, myself included, it's convenient and I haven't run into any problems with it. But Steam as a service, also provides 3rd party developers that may not have the money to distribute files, digitally or physically, over a large geographical area. Steam provides this service globally. It's one spot to have your game advertised and distributed, without having to spend fees in several different areas, such as publishing/advertising/etc. So whether you love it or hate it, it does provide a useful service and isn't going to be going away anytime soon.
This comment was edited on Apr 24, 13:07. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 60. |
Re: No subject |
Apr 21, 2007, 15:56 |
noctroglyph |
|
|
Sponge, if you're gonna use my euphamism, please use the whole thing: it's "OMGWTFBBQ!!1!!!"  
~n~ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man." |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 59. |
Re: Luckily... |
Apr 21, 2007, 04:24 |
Masa |
|
|
The more Riley types, the more it looks like a cow paddock in here.
This comment was edited on Apr 21, 04:26. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 58. |
Re: Luckily... |
Apr 20, 2007, 19:18 |
Riley Pizt |
|
|
The problem with initiating an argument against Riley is that you're automatically arguing against someone who simply thinks he can't be wrong. That is because I have the good sense to know not to post an opinion or information on a public forum unless I know that I am right.
That and he argues from a largely circumstantial bases You apparently don't know when to stop spewing bullshit. The simple fact is that you made an ignorant presumption below based on your inexperience, and I rightfully handed you your head for it. Instead of whining about it, you should learn not to make rash, uninformed statements on a public forum.
for which if he didn't let you know certain facts surrounding the argument, you're obviously the faltering idiot. Yes, you are the idiot because you argued from a position of ignorance simply to oppose me. If you didn't have enough facts to have an informed opinion, then you should have just shut your mouth and held your tongue until you did.
By the way, fool, Wonkman is quoting Dagok's imbecilic post and responding and referring to him not me. He is not agreeing with Dagok.
This comment was edited on Apr 20, 19:35. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 57. |
Re: Luckily... |
Apr 20, 2007, 15:56 |
Masa |
|
|
The problem with initiating an argument against Riley is that you're automatically arguing against someone who simply thinks he can't be wrong. That and he argues from a largely circumstantial bases, for which if he didn't let you know certain facts surrounding the argument, you're obviously the faltering idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 56. |
Re: Luckily... |
Apr 20, 2007, 14:33 |
wonkman |
|
|
Trashcan, either you need to learn to read or you are being sarcastic....which is it?
Riley is wrong...and was proven wrong again with the new information from Valve stating that a) Steam was not hacked, it was a 3rd party system, and b) it was ONLY the cyber-cafe group as I stated, but Riley states "that is pure speculation and poor speculation at that."
I've been reading some of your post and as it turns out, you're the biggest Valve ass-smoocher around and just an ass in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 55. |
Re: Luckily... |
Apr 20, 2007, 13:58 |
Krovven |
|
|
The problem for you apparently is that I don't have to look or try very hard to do it.
You are right, you don't. You can't get enough of it so you go to non Valve/Steam threads to do it too.
----------------------------------------------------
Currently playing Day of Defeat Source. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 54. |
Re: Luckily... |
Apr 20, 2007, 12:20 |
Riley Pizt |
|
|
You are the one hanging on every word waiting to rip it apart at any seam you might find. I certainly don't hang on Valve's word let alone its every word. I don't even pay attention to Valve except in news articles I see on this website. And, even then I only rip into Valve when I come across one where it deserves it as it does here. The problem for you apparently is that I don't have to look or try very hard to do it. If you don't like the frequency with which I criticize Valve, tell it to stop making itself such a deserving target.
their multiplayer gameplay in Source is top notch. LOL! It's the same old crap from the pre-source games in moderately prettier dressing. Being now able to throw a toilet in deathmatch or look at realistic water doesn't fundamentally change the same tired old gameplay.
blasting Valve for something that didn't even happen to them, but to a 3rd party company. The breach did happen to Valve because it is its customers who are affected. Whether or not Valve owned the actual servers which were breached is a moot point as far as the end result is concerned. In addition, it is much too early at the point to definitively declare that Valve's public assessment of the extent of the breach is accurate.
So again...who has the life here? Sure the hell isn't you. Oh yes it is. I will take my life over yours of suckling at the teat of game companies like Valve any day. The pleasure I derive from skewering and showing up shills and idiots including you most certainly makes my life worth living.
This comment was edited on Apr 20, 12:25. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 53. |
Re: Luckily... |
Apr 20, 2007, 10:46 |
Krovven |
|
|
I have a life. However, unlike your life mine doesn't revolve around me kissing Valve's ass or hanging on its every word to give it purpose.
You are the one hanging on every word waiting to rip it apart at any seam you might find. I however read a gaming news site when I have time between real life stuff and that's it. I have stated in the past when I think Valve is wrong, and will continue to do so when appropriate, but I also like their products better than most other PC games coming out these days and their multiplayer gameplay in Source is top notch.
I do not revolve my life trying to sway people into liking Valve/Steam, but you on the other hand seem to have dedicated your life to trying to prove to everyone you are right about how evil Valve/Steam are even resorting to EULA arguments and blasting Valve for something that didn't even happen to them, but to a 3rd party company.
So again...who has the life here? Sure the hell isn't you.
----------------------------------------------------
Currently playing Day of Defeat Source. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 52. |
Re: ? |
Apr 20, 2007, 09:19 |
Riley Pizt |
|
|
The *1449 district court held not, for two reasons: first, they are not contracts because the licenses are inside the box rather than printed on the outside; second, federal law forbids enforcement even if the licenses are contracts. You are citing the appellate ruling in the ProCD, Inc. v. ZEIDENBERG case. However you need to keep reading it because that district court ruling was reversed. The Court of Appeals found that the EULA at question in the case was a valid contract and ruled for the plaintiff, ProCD.
Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable) In the Blizzard v. BnetD case the district judge found that the EULA in question was conscionable essentially because the defendants were experienced computer users. I disagree with his ruling, but it was affirmed upon appeal. Valve's Steam subscriber agreement would most likely pass the same test given that it is presented preceding the installation of the Steam software.
Furthermore, indemnity is different than contracting out of negligence No, it isn't necessarily. A party in a contract can be indemnified even against negligence if the terms are expressly and properly written. As I mentioned below the state of Texas even has express guidelines for that purpose. Valve's Steam subscriber agreement attempts to do just that via "EVEN IN THE EVENT OF FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY,..". Would it hold up in court? As always that would be the question for the judge, but Valve could certainly make a strong argument for its enforcement given its express inclusion in the agreement. Your blanket presumption that such a provision would definitely be invalidated by a court is wrong.
This comment was edited on Apr 22, 10:45. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 51. |
Re: ? |
Apr 20, 2007, 02:24 |
Beamer |
|
|
Riley:
Computer user could not be compelled to arbitrate his claims against software developer and internet marketing company for damages caused when software known as “spyware” was downloaded onto his personal computer, even though computer users were presented with opportunity through hyperlink to read end user license agreement (EULA) containing arbitration clause prior to downloading software from software developer's website, where user claimed that he downloaded software bundled with spyware from third-party distributor and never visited developer's website, and uninstalling spyware was significantly confusing and vexing process.
Must buyers of computer software obey the terms of shrinkwrap licenses? The *1449 district court held not, for two reasons: first, they are not contracts because the licenses are inside the box rather than printed on the outside; second, federal law forbids enforcement even if the licenses are contracts... Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable).
Furthermore, indemnity is different than contracting out of negligence. If this was true every single contract would contain the stipulation. You'd never be able to sue someone whom you'd entered into a contract with. Doctor removed the wrong testicle? Oh well, you agreed to accept all blame, not him!
-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 50. |
Re: ? |
Apr 20, 2007, 00:17 |
Masa |
|
|
I have a life. However, unlike your life mine doesn't revolve around me kissing Valve's ass or hanging on its every word to give it purpose.
Curious statement since you seem to have such a vendetta against Steam and Valve at large. Me? I just play the games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 49. |
Re: Luckily... |
Apr 19, 2007, 23:59 |
Riley Pizt |
|
|
Even when you are blatantly proven wrong First, I have not been blatantly proven wrong here. I did not report that Steam was hacked. I simply read the news sites linked in this article and the hacker's own postings on his site in which he claimed he had hacked Steam and had retrieved customer information. Whether or not the servers which Valve owns were the ones hacked or whether those which Valve contractually uses to support Steam is immaterial. The fact is that at least some of Valve's customers had their credit card information retrieved without authorization. Valve is simply playing semantic games here to deflect blame and quell a potential firestorm.
Second, the vast majority of my posts in this thread including even the initial one are not solely or even primarily about whether or not Steam was hacked in this instance. As I wrote in my initial post, regardless of hackers, Valve doesn't properly respect its customers or their privacy with its privacy policy and Steam subscriber agreement, and it certainly doesn't deserve their business.
Get a life, seriously. I have a life. However, unlike your life mine doesn't revolve around me kissing Valve's ass or hanging on its every word to give it purpose.
This comment was edited on Apr 20, 00:34. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 48. |
Re: Luckily... |
Apr 19, 2007, 23:48 |
Krovven |
|
|
Even when you are blatantly proven wrong you just dont give up do you Riley? Get a life, seriously.
----------------------------------------------------
Currently playing Day of Defeat Source. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 47. |
Re: Luckily... |
Apr 19, 2007, 22:57 |
Riley Pizt |
|
|
Steam gets hacked and that isn't Valve's fault? I find that to be a curious statement. It's not curious. It's just sycophantically deluded. However coming from Dagok it's not a surprise.
So that's the third party's fault then. Even if only this supposed third-party's system was compromised, Valve is still at fault for relying upon that party to safeguard its customers' information.
This comment was edited on Apr 20, 00:37. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
86 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
