I just picked up Sleeping Dogs for $4.49. Someone has to have fucked up on pricing that...
I just picked up Sleeping Dogs for $4.49. Someone has to have fucked up on pricing that...
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I just added it to my cart at £2.69 but by time went to checkout the price was raised to 66% not 92% off so didn't buy it.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Yeah, they fixed the prices before I could buy the DLC, but at least I got the game
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
If I hadn't been busy checking out the DLC back and forth choosing which to go for I would have too. Oh well.
I'm not certain if I have The Witcher 2 already or not? Its not on my account, but I think I have it on CD but never been installed yet (as I've not completed the original yet). Not certain though. By the time I get back to the UK the sale will be over.
If I buy it and I don't need it can I subsequently gift it or not? Or is there something else I can do?
buy it as a gift, you can always gift it to yourself if you don't have it
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Square Enix is running a Steam sale this week. Today's deal is the Tomb Raider collection (not the reboot or guardian) for $14.99, or $2.50 a pop.
http://store.steampowered.com/sale/s...herweekend2013
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Anyone know much about Omerta - City of gangsters? Just saw its trailer for the first time on Steam, looks good. Not found a decent gangster game in a while and seems to have Xcom's style of strategy.
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/game...e-ownership/?1
Valve sued in Germany over game ownership
Users should be able to resell the games they own, says the Federation of German Consumer Organizations
The Federation of German Consumer Organizations (VZVB) has sued computer game distributor Valve because it prohibits Steam-gamers from reselling their games.
Steam users own the games they purchase and should be able to resell them when they want to, just like owners of traditional card or board games can, said Carola Elbrecht, project manager for consumer rights in the digital world at the VZVB, on Thursday. But while those traditional game owners can resell their games whenever they like, Steam users often cannot, she said.
In theory, a Steam user could download a game, burn it on a CD and resell it, she said. In most cases, though, buyers wouldn't be able to play the game they purchased because the games are linked to a user account and without the key for that specific account, online only games are not playable, she said.
Because Valve forbids its users to sell or transfer their accounts to another person, the exchange of games that can only be played online is impossible, she said. This means that a Steam user only partially owns games, Elbrecht said. "If I pay the full price for a game, then why am I not allowed to do with it what I want," she added.
Valve was warned in September by the VZVB to change this practice, but the company did not comply with the federation's demands. Therefore, the federation sued the company in the District Court of Berlin on Wednesday.
Valve did not respond to a request for comment.
The VZVB sued the game distributor for similar reasons once before, Elbrecht said. That case went all the way to the German Federal Court of Justice, which ruled in 2010 that Valve did not violate German law by prohibiting the transfer of user accounts.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), however, ruled in July that the trading of "used" software licenses is legal and that the author of such software cannot oppose any resale.
While the CJEU's case is not exactly the same as the current litigation against Valve, the VZVB reckons that the ruling gives sufficient basis for a new lawsuit, Elbrecht said. She expected the litigation to go on for years, and it will probably end up at the federal court again, she said.
Nevertheless, a new lawsuit is useful, she said. Besides raising awareness of the issue and possibly changing the minds of the judges, the litigation is also meant as a signal to other game distributors that have the same practices, she said.
While Valve was unwilling to change its practices on this point, it promised to change the way it gets users' consent when it changes its terms and conditions. The last time Valve changed the terms and conditions for Steam, users were unable to play their games if they did not accept the new rules, Elbrecht said. Valve promised to adjust the mandatory consent to let users who don't want to accept the new terms in the future to still be able to play their purchased games.
Good for Germany. I wish more cases like this would pop up more often. This concept of renting licenses that our digital markets are moving towards is bullshit.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Why? If you don't like it don't buy it.
This is akin to complaining that when you purchase a MMORPG you're only renting it for X number of years before they shut the server down. If you don't like it... don't buy it.
Is that true with other products too where the consumer has an automatic right to resell second hand which the original publisher is forbidden from restricting?
Complete and utter fail at making a comparison. A normal single player game is not dependant on an internet connection unless you actually shoehorn that particular requirement onto the game.
Server-Client-Architecture is quite a bit different from desktop applications.
And "if you don't like it don't buy it"? Yeah, right. That's the same as saying: "Don't like it? Well, then stop playing games altogether or find the few games which don't rely on Steam or some other 3rd party DRM".
What's with you? I mean, aren't you the guy who's big on "freedom" and the usual crappy platitudes associated with this moronic brainset? Oh, I forgot: Removing your freedoms is only evil if the government does it. If a whole industry does it, then of course it's not evil because the magical forces from the magical free market fixes that.
Or not.
I mean, you didn't probably even acknowledge the last part:
How's that in light of your argument? You saw the terms, you liked them, you bought ... err, "licensed" the game. And then, one week later, they changed the license terms. Which you now don't like. But you're shit out of luck since you now can either agree to the new terms or forget playing the game.While Valve was unwilling to change its practices on this point, it promised to change the way it gets users' consent when it changes its terms and conditions. The last time Valve changed the terms and conditions for Steam, users were unable to play their games if they did not accept the new rules, Elbrecht said. Valve promised to adjust the mandatory consent to let users who don't want to accept the new terms in the future to still be able to play their purchased games.
In spite of the fact that said game binaries reside on a DVD ROM in a box in your house, shouldn't in any way be dependant on some server on the internet and only don't function because some asshat demanded that they do in fact require a server on the internet. Even if 100% of the data and binaries are installed on your PC and the downstream is at ~0 B/s during gameplay.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Khen - only government has the power to restrict freedom. You are completely free to NOT play the game.
Government making laws that prevent companies from doing something is ALWAYS as restriction of freedom. If company A wants to sell me product with X conditions and I'm OK with the purchase of this product with X restrictions - the government preventing this causes a loss liberty. If I want to make something and apply restrictions on its use - and the other party agrees to those terms then the government should not be able to intervene.
You don't get to tell a business how to sell their products. If they require DRM then that's their decision - find another product to purchase. If consumers despise DRM so much then another company who offers games without DRM will get more sales. Of course while the internet may rage at DRM it very rarely deters a purchase, which means in reality its not that important.
To bring in another thread - I was quite pissed when the latest wheel of time book isn't being put in an e-book format until months later. Did I complain about it? Yes. Am I asking the government to violate the publishers liberty in order for me to be happy? Hell no.
You're forgetting that our court ruled that you have the right to sell used "licenses". We also have a law (which IIRC also exists in the US) that contract law (which EULA and the like fall under) may not sign away rights granted by the government. And please don't try to tell me that you're actually reading each and every EULA for every little program you install.
Which in turn just means that Valve and the like are non-compliant with existant rulings and the underlying laws.
It's abolutely astounding that you try to turn this into something like an attack on "freedom". But then again, you're not the brightest light around here, you simply don't think, you just parrot every nonsense your "war on a noun" and "government is teh evil" buddies spout. It's pretty sad that you can't think for yourself instead of just repeating the party line.
And of course we can tell a business how to sell their products. We do that every day! For example, if there's an description that this package contains 100 grams of grain, then I shouldn't be forced to weigh said package to make sure that it actually contains 100 grams of grain instead of merely 99 grams. We also make sure that it doesn't contain poisonous substances. We also make sure that if I buy a tomatoe that I'm allowed to sell said tomatoe or simply give it away.
Please don't invoke "caveat emptor" - that would just make you look like an even bigger idiot who believes that there are enough hours in the day to "research" every product he buys.
What the industry is doing here is placing artificial restrictions on a product where it doesn't make any sense at all. The product here can be multiplied infinitely. It can be traded across borders within milliseconds. It has no physical restrictions.
And yet we have a whole industry which is trying to make it look like it's a scarce product which may not be traded and has absurd restrictions which are even more restrictive than those for a physical product.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Contract enforcement is something the government should do. So if you buy something that has X of something in it and it doesn't then yes the government could step in. But that's not what you are talking about.
You're talking about forcing game developers to stop doing something they find important to protect their protect. I present you the MMORPG product again. One day those servers will go away - are MMORPGs in violation of this? Is the entire Diablo 3 game in violation?
If I want to create a game that requires any level of DRM, any level of constant internet access then that's my right. You don't have to purchase it. You don't have to play it. That's your right.
Diablo3 is not a MMORPG.
Secondly, you're basically arguing that the First-sale Doctrine should not exist. It's the same moronic argument which enables Apple to patent basic things just because they're "on a computer". That magically makes it completely different.
Putting something in a shopping cart "on a computer"? Patented. Unlocking something by using a slider "on a computer"? Patented.
And the list goes on. I don't quite see how you think that this curtailing of your rights is a good thing. But you're a bloody moron and I'm done with you.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Is Valve really the right target for the lawsuit though? Isn't it mostly just distribution and/or licensing its cloud architecture/management to other game developers and publishers? Those guys are the first parties opposing resale and pushing the licensing and copyright models for software which I think most of us on here dislike.
*And yes, I realize that Valve is also a developer itself. But if the games in question are ones which Valve is merely retailing and not asserting its own claim to. . .
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
AFAIK Steam is exactly the right company to sue as they're the ones selling it and preventing resale through their own system.
The publishers aren't doing anything to prevent resales: All game shops here at least sell 2nd hand console games (not PC but its company policies due to easier piracy I think) while eBay sells plenty of 2nd hand PC games. I've bought 2nd hand games from eBay before.
eBay UK has over 10k PC games on sale right now. Steam has 0. It's not the publishers preventing resale it's the distributer.
And it's not as if it would be a major hurdle for Steam to enable 2nd hand distribution. The system for monetary transfer is already in place and moving a game from one account to another is a simple SQL 2-liner.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Right D3 is not a MMORPG but it also requires constant interaction with the game server. This is another example.
And however you want to call it... if I want to lease or rent you a video game in perpetuity then its still a rent or a lease and not a transfer of ownership. The government should not get to make value judgement on what is good or bad, government should not the be the arbiter on what is good or bad for society. It needs to enforce contracts and keep people safe from internal and external violence.
I understand you see this from a different perspective - you've been raised in a country that pisses on freedom of speech so liberty isn't exactly a respected value.
On a more general note...
Do you guys like Steam? Do you think (in general) that Steam has been good for gaming overall?
Yes. Its shown that digital prices can compete with physical copies in the sale market. Something that PSN and Xbox Live have failed to understand. An extremely concerning point considering that the next generation of consoles (reportly) plan to axe the used games market and make the transition to digital delivery.
Its also been a boon to indie gamers, even before greenlight.
Its been a while since I've had a problem with its offline mode, so I think its finally hit a sweetspot between allowing multiple platform and location play without guilty first DRM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I can't answer as to whether it's been good for gaming overall but no, I don't like Steam. I've never liked having to download software from or go through a third-party to play a game, particularly since most games I get only interest me as single-player games. I was incensed when I realized the *new* copy of Civ5 I bought from the local game-store required Steam to install and play (in fact, the only thing on the DvD in the box is an executable to download the Steam client). Close examination of the box finally revealed a warning about this requirement buried in the fine print at the rear-bottom of the box but by then it was too late, I couldn't return it except as a used-game trade since it had been opened and wasn't defective.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I used to say No and be a big opponent of Steam but since a few Total War games (Steam=compulsory) got me into it I must say Yes now.
My primary advantage of it being the lack of discs for playing. It's irritating having sometimes to find the disc or even worse it getting a scratch and locking you out.
The sales are somewhat fun too. I recently rebought Civ IV:Colonization which I've totally lost the disc for which was on sale for less than a pint of beer or a coffee.
Also the downloads seem to be as fast as your own speeds can handle so when I got my new Laptop recently I set a few games (inc a 20GB one) to download overnight and they were all ready to play in the morning.
However having said all that I still completely dislike the fact that the Total War games required Steam.
I like the Sales and the fact I don't need to go out and buy a physical copy anymore. Like music this is the wave of the future and in my mind its a very good thing. Don't get me wrong before I had a barely decent internet connection I hated it but it cuts costs which allow for more money to be spent on making the game itself.
Maybe cause I learned young to read packages thanks to shit like star force and tages, but I wouldn't say the steam warning is buried. It's actually shown above the fine print, in bold, don't even think its a smaller font than the text used to caption the pictures on the back of the box.
It's way easier to see than origin, now that warning is buried in the dead center of the small print on the back of the box.
These were taken with a potato, but it gives a good idea of what I mean.
steam
origin
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 02-10-2013 at 02:15 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Valve officially launched its Steam for linux yesterday, so a bunch of games that run on linux are on sale. As far as I know they all work on Windows too.
Also, if you launch TF2 in linux, you get a free game item, Tux. Took me maybe half an hour to install Ubuntu on a spare drive. Couldn't get the shit to work right, but it worked good enough to get me the item.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Is there a setting to be able to launch Steam in Offline Mode by default?
This one took me by surprise. Steam is taking preorders for Age of Empires II HD. yeah, that Age of Empires.
http://store.steampowered.com//app/221380
$18. Not to terribly bad considering you can still pick up the original AoE2 for $10 in most stores.
http://gaming.stackexchange.com/ques...gging-in-first
I can confirm that creating/editing steam.cfg (in the same directory as the Steam executable) with the following lines works, as long as you've set Steam to remember your password (thanks DarkAnime):
BootStrapperInhibitAll=enable
ForceOfflineMode=enable
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Thanks.
Neat graphics though I'm not generally into new releases of the same games (but better graphics) its better when they do it like that and say HD than when they do that and call it AOE IV (or whatever they'd be upto now). I loved Age of Empires, its a shame its not made anymore. Age of Mythology was my fave.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote