june gloom on 9/2/2010 at 11:53
I take back what I said about not even you being this dumb. Clearly I was giving you too much credit. The reason I exclude developers and publishers is precisely because their support of Steamworks is a business decision. Anyone with enough common sense (ie. apparently not you) would realize that. They are not the consumers affected by those decisions, we are. Use your head. I admit that "probably the entire internet" was hyperbole- I'm sure there's at least one lunatic out there, perhaps on the Steam forums, arguing that every game ever should be a Steam exclusive- but surely you're not saying that anyone on TTLG ever actually argued for Steamworks as an exclusive release platform. Because nobody has, despite your habit of putting words in peoples' mouths like you put cocks in yours.
You want to know why I get into arguments so regularly? Because dickbags like you would start a fight if I said the sky was blue.
Shadowcat on 9/2/2010 at 13:01
No, you get into arguments because you choose to differentiate between someone who thinks it's okay for Steam to be a requirement, and someone who merely thinks you should "suck it up" if Steam is a requirement, and then react in an excessively hostile manner when that causes confusion.
june gloom on 9/2/2010 at 20:52
Quote Posted by Shadowcat
choose to differentiate between someone who thinks it's okay for Steam to be a requirement, and someone who merely thinks you should "suck it up" if Steam
is a requirement
So basically you're saying that there
is no difference. How nice. Thanks for proving my point,
and showing why there will never be such a thing as excessively hostile when it comes to self-entitled crying the likes of which Steam is a target of.
catbarf on 9/2/2010 at 22:37
Quote Posted by dethtoll
there will never be such a thing as excessively hostile when it comes to self-entitled crying the likes of which Steam is a target of.
Breaking news, suggesting that it's nice to have options instead of slobbering all over Steam's metaphorical cock like Eva is now self-entitled crying.
Phatose on 9/2/2010 at 23:41
Am I missing something here, or are there actually games out there which have multiple multiplayer back ends available?
Sometimes it's steam, sometimes it's GFWL, sometimes it's some hacked together bullshit the developers put together. But I'm seriously hard-pressed to think of a single game where you actually had more then one option to choose from for how multiplayer servers are handled.
Or in short, 'it's nice to have options' is stupid, because you only ever have whatever option the developers chose. In which case, yeah, suggesting that IS self-entitled crying.
june gloom on 9/2/2010 at 23:46
Quote Posted by catbarf
Breaking news, suggesting that it's nice to have options instead of slobbering all over Steam's metaphorical cock like Eva is now self-entitled crying.
Breaking news, catbarf ignores the worst arguments of one side, declares the other side knobslobbering, continues to prove my point.
gunsmoke on 9/2/2010 at 23:51
Quote Posted by Phatose
Am I missing something here, or are there actually games out there which have multiple multiplayer back ends available?
I have a few games from pre-2005 that have in-house browsers and GameSpy in addition. You get to choose. This is something I haven't seen in 5 years and they were fairly obscure FPSs, though.
catbarf on 10/2/2010 at 01:40
Quote Posted by Phatose
Or in short, 'it's nice to have options' is stupid, because you only ever have whatever option the developers chose. In which case, yeah, suggesting that IS self-entitled crying.
I know of plenty of games that I can buy and run through Steam that have no reliance on it, and I can play with people who bought a non-Steam retail copy. That's because they don't rely on Steam as multiplayer infrastructure.
With CoD5 I can play and update the game through Steam but can play with friends who have the retail version, and the game doesn't use the craptacular VAC for cheat protection. I get all the advantages of Steam- namely a friends list and easy updating of games, without it being an essential requirement.
Of course, I have to put up with Punkbuster, but at least I haven't played with any hackers unlike with VAC-secured games.
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Breaking news, catbarf ignores the worst arguments of one side, declares the other side knobslobbering, continues to prove my point.
One would think you'd post less if other people are constantly proving your points for you.
Phatose on 10/2/2010 at 02:55
Quote Posted by catbarf
I know of plenty of games that I can buy and run through Steam that have no reliance on it, and I can play with people who bought a non-Steam retail copy. That's because they don't rely on Steam as multiplayer infrastructure.
Of course, I have to put up with Punkbuster, but at least I haven't played with any hackers unlike with VAC-secured games.
Right. Exactly. You don't *have* to use steam in those cases. Instead, you *have* to use something else.
That isn't having options.
catbarf on 10/2/2010 at 03:30
Quote Posted by Phatose
Right. Exactly. You don't *have* to use steam in those cases. Instead, you *have* to use something else.
That isn't having options.
But that something else is limited strictly to online anti-cheat. Punkbuster installs with the game and runs in the background, it doesn't interfere with or place requirements on the game itself. How you get the game is up to you- you can buy a boxed copy and install from the disk, or use Direct2Drive, or Steam. There are reasons for each and you have the freedom to choose. If, however, the multiplayer component requires Steam, there's no choice.
