Rome II Complaint Thread

[caratacus]

If the vocal TW fanbase was a little more patient and understanding, then we might have seen large-scale consumer beta testing in the past. One look at the forums shows a sizeable minority who will hate CA regardless and simply want a modding toolkit to build their version of "realism" (chortle), rather than an actual working game that appeals to the gaming community in general. Like any niche gaming group, they simply don't want a game that might attract new members. It's video game snobbery at its very worst.

The fact is CA has apologised for the undoubted mess than is TW:R2 and will do their utmost to fix many of the glaring errors in the coming weeks (months?).

Or years maybe! Completely agree, I have the utmost faith in CA delivering a highly polished game that will receive near universal acclaim for its design and features and receive over 20 gaming awards...zzzzzz!. Just don't let me sleep to long enjoying that eh! Oh wait it can't be a dream, SEGA's website says they do have those 20 awards.

Cruel sarcastic cynicism you say!?. Well My bucket of goodwill towards CA dried up a long time ago. Even with bugs I remember TWC at the time of Medieval II's release containing many threads and comments which regarded CA with fondness and respect, that's hard to believe now I guess.

[MrChris]

I have read the whole thread, as well as the old one mentioned by King Philip II, and I still have not seen a valid excuse for the Steam's existence. The supporters just note a couple of minor services offered by Steam, which doubtlessly can be provided by any other computer program dedicated to ameliorate our experience with video games.

However, as it has already been stated, Steam, by exploiting the apathy of its members, due to propaganda ("Steam is the best! I don't even know how I was playing games before that!") and defeatism, where also lies, in my opinion, an emotion of unwillingness to take responsibility ("Steam is the future. Being powerless, you can't change it, now matter how hard you try.") manages to actually limit the gamers' independence.

Firstly, when you buy a Steam game, you are also obliged to take care of your status of your Steam account. Not only have you to pay for the game, but you also need to obey a number of arbitrary rules, in order to enjoy the product. The video games are actually the only product I can think of, where you must accept several rules (not laws), so we can use them. Even drug dealers, child molesters and serial-killers are able to play E:TW, but not an audacious nerd who dared to download an anauthorized miod. Not to mention that you are screwed, if you accidentaly forget the password of your account. At least, I suppose that this is a good way to enhance our memory skills.

The last part brings us to my second argument, the Steam's role on the decisive restriction of transforming the original, legally bought product. Of cousre, the aforementioned measure intends to protec the companies' interests, which rather usually (despite the obvious disagreement of many fanboys) conflicts with the consumers' rights and interests.

Moreover, as we all know, Steam provides to video game companies (and not only to them, according to reliable and objective sources), all the elements of our experience with the game. Some of you might find it positive, since this wealth of information allows the companies to create their future products, based on their clients preferences. Well, that's not always true, considering it encourages them to cut out features, but, personally, I am always against the uncontrollabe distribution of data concerning my personal life.

To sum up using the OP's words, Steam, with the pretext of some neglectable advantages, forces us to reject our basic rights, in order to enjoy a simple hobby, to satisfy an innocent desire.

P.S. Somebody, in the other thread, I think, used the fact that Steam makes pre-orders pretty easy, as an example of its positive role. Well, even if what he claimed was true (I am afraid that pre-orders would continue, no matter if the Steam ceases to exist), that's actually a negative aspect, considering the disastrous influence the pre-orders have on the game industry.

if you read the prior threads you would have seen that I went through detail on why Steam exists and how it NEEDS to exist

if we did not have such platforms, PC Gaming would not be in the more or less healthy state it is today, you might point to other services like Green man etc but quite simply a lot of publishers are not comfortable in using some of these places and furthermore, it doesn't matter if you buy it from such a place, its still a steamworks title which means more than simply "the game is on steam" (it relies on steam infrastructure for backend services like multiplayer)

and services you note as "minor" are actually pretty large, and valued by the people that use Steam. One of the reasons I dislike Origin to an extent is because it doesn't really offer any extra features to me as a user, whereas Steam offers a lot. Yes at its core Steam is quite simply, a form of DRM, but its a form of DRM millions of us are happy, and thankful to live with (considering the alternatives) http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JoshB...ms_Success.php

and yes other programs can emulate some of these features, and years ago thats what we all did, we used multiple programs to do what Steam does BY ITSELF, but nowadays we don't...and people moan about the minimal memory usage steam takes eh

and propaganda?....hahahaha I used Steam since release, back in the day, simply put, it was crap, I disliked it, it annoyed me and I did not want to use it. As time went on my opinion changed. You may want to stay in the year 2000 where we all bought retail, publishers did not want to develop on PC and I had to put like starforce and Securerom on my harddrive but most of us don't

And I take full responsibility for what Steam means, I know that essentially Steam is a service, my games, while I have purchased them, are at my use so long as the service continues and I am perfectly able to abide by the rules of said service, which involves me not acting like a - not cheating, not breaking any of the SIMPLE rules. In the years I have used Steam I have never had account problems, as long as you simply use your account like a normal person, you will not face problems with deactivation, banning etc

And I already have to remember passwords for plenty of other functions, how dare my email needs a password to access eh, I wonder why we need to use one of those to get to our emails... (protip: you can always store your password securely in a notepad file? Pen and paper? A tattoo if you really struggle with these simple things)

There is also no such thing as an unauthorised mod, as long as you do not alter game DLLs for titles that utilise VAC protection, you can mod whatever you want in the game, just don't mess with the Steam component and you will NOT GET BANNED OR DEACTIVATED. And even then, you can still mod games with VAC protection, just do not alter core game DLLs (e.g. what cheat programs do).

And yeh child molesters and criminals can play the game, I guess even they can remember an account name and password despite their profession? Although sure if they wanted to download it via piracy the game is going to be of amazing quality (not like you have to go through keygens etc these days, or have your internet throttled by your ISP because you were using a torrent)

Usual "we fought the law" stuff, you'll have to expand further for me to understand what you are on about, people have moaned about the Steam ToS since the ice age (yet they insta click on ones from Apple etc wahey). I accept the fact that my rights as a gamer and use of Steam are dependent on me simply behaving like a responsible human being, and not a complete prat

Now as for Steam metrics (lets see the objective and reliable services please? Because Einstein himself said Steam is the greatest invention of all time). Steam metrics exist through A) the hardware survey and B) in game metrics. Now for A, I don't think there is a sane person on this planet that can argue that the Steam hardware survey is a bad thing, its one of the best features the service offers especially for a developer and you can even opt out of it. In terms of B, publishers seek to further monetise their franchises regardless of Steam, they do it on the consoles, they do it on their own services. Moronic business practices that anger customers exist because of the publisher and customers that are willing to buy this content, not because a developer can understand how people play their game (or can use said metrics to see if community feedback is warranted). Not every game does this and furthermore you can choose to take no part in sending those metrics if you simply choose to play in offline mode. I also fail to see how, a developer knowing that you for example played a Total War campaign for so many hours, and killed so many enemies, fighting so many battles etc is divulging precious information on your private life.

As for pre orders, another issue that exists regardless of Steam, Steam for example, doesn't force the publishers to pull their 20 different pre order versions of games etc

Here's the funny thing, back when you bought a retail game, you also agreed to set of rules, like not pirating, sharing the game etc but years ago publishers simply had no means to enforce these rules (which is why they were reluctant to develop for PC). Creating a service that not only protects a publishers game, helps the developers and actually offers something in return? Steam makes the best of the situation we are in, where publishers want a measure of security, developers like its features, and there is already an established user base of millions.

I do have sympathy for some people that do not want to use Steam, some people have genuine problems with their internet connection etc, other people are conspiracy theorists that would still like to be installing games from a floppy disk and some people are in between. At the end of the day I don't really have the patience anymore, Steam is the reality you face, you can either accept it or not play the game. Simple as. You could ofc go down the scumbag piracy route, but then you are just showing your true worth eh

PS: its just called Steam, not the Steam

[Queen Annes Revenge]

I have read the whole thread, as well as the old one mentioned by King Philip II, and I still have not seen a valid excuse for the Steam's existence.

Because the money lost from a few boycotting customers does not even begin to equal the money lost from having the game cracked and playable to pirates before the game is actually released, which is what would happen if a non-Steam version were made available. I know the "money lost to piracy" statistic, specifically when cited by game companies, is total crap, but the fact remains that piracy before day zero is incredibly costly. And this is before you account for the fact that they gain much higher margins from pushing the sales to digital, which is encouraged by a Steam-only requirement. This is not my opinion, it's the way it is.

Personally I greatly prefer Steam to every other anti-piracy measure.

[ElvenKind]

You should inform yourself, refusal to accept the TOS is not a ban. You are making a conscious decision to deactivate your account by not accepting it. And like you even mentioned yourself, there are laws that the TOS contradicts. In the case of a Government Law contradicting the TOS, the Government Law wins.

Refusal to accept STEAM ToS CHANGES IS a BAN for your games which are tied to that account which you accepted to deactivate.
Other Game selling Online Companies like GOG.com, Humble Bundle, Desura, Kickstarter etc.. don`t BAN YOUR GAMES if you don`t accept their ToS CHANGES, BUT STEAM DOES THAT.

If you don`t want to lose your STEAM GAMES, then accept STEAM ToS CHANGES - no matter what they put in those ToS CHANGES or how much more of your rights as a Consumer you are giving away.

And honestly, what are you worried about? That Steam is just going to randomly say "LOL DON'T LIKE U NO MORE GAMES!!!!!!" ? They are a business, they want to make money. They won't make money by randomly banning people.

I am not worried about anything, cause I don`t even have Steam at all, so all this potential crap won`t hurt me, but, it can hurt you.

you refuse to differentiate between a ban and an account that you choose to have deactivated because of disagreeing with changes to the TOS so why go on ?

WOW, you are trying to make some silly point cause I used in my first post a word BAN instead of PERMANENTLY DISABLING YOUR GAMES?

Steam is forced if you are not offered another choice. Also, Steam holds you as a hostage with your games, when you log to Steam next time and get a pop up window informing you that there are Steam ToS changes which is REQUIRED of you to accept them. If you don't accept them, they BAN YOUR ACCOUNT AND ALL GAMES, digital and PHYSICAL versions.

Great service!

So , this action taken by STEAM when they PERMANENTLY DISABLE YOUR GAMES if you don`t accept STEAM ToS CHANGES ( While other Gaming Online Companies don`t do that.. ) is not some big deal? It is a standard thing to do with your old customer which decided that Steam service is not good for him anymore?

on a final note, and this is something you also don't seem to understand...you don't own software(be it a game, application or whatever), you only have a license to use it. it doesnt matter if its comes in a pretty box on a dvd or you download it, you dont own it.
you own the media but that, frankly, is worthless you still cant do with it as you please.

Do you have any boxed DVD game which you don`t have to register online to play?
Can the Publisher of that boxed DVD game come to your house and take away without any reason that DVD which IS YOUR PROPERTY ?

yes, you can borrow the media to somebody else but if they dont have a license to use the software on that medium it would be piracy.
ownership would for example imply that you were allowed to decompile it ...

When I borrow my DVD game to my friend, I also borrow him my activation key so he can play the game.

While he plays it, I can`t play it at the same time, cause you also need to have a DVD inserted while playing.

I haven`t made a new copy of the game. I can sale it, cause, I am selling MY ONLY DVD, BUT; I CAN`T MAKE ANOTHER 1000 SAME DVDs and sale them.

Also, there is some fine reading which I found:

Ownership or License: The Difference


Those who rely on copyright like to do a neat little trick at times. When it's convenient, they like to claim that what they're offering is no different than a physical good. In such situations, if you make a copy, they claim that you "stole" it, and that it's "no different" that walking into a store and taking something off the shelf without paying for it. Yet, at other times, if you point out the sorts of restrictions that would lead to -- such as no control over the product post-sale -- suddenly they change their tune. You didn't buy the product, you merely "licensed" it, and thus they could post sale restrictions on things. If you buy a chair, and then build a replica yourself, that's perfectly legal. But copyright holders claim that's not the case when it comes to products covered by copyright -- because they insist that it's "licensed" not "owned."

Luckily, the courts have long pushed back on this attempt by copyright holders to extend copyright's power beyond what happens with physical goods. That's why, for example, we have a right to first sale, allowing you to resell a book. The copyright holder cannot claim that you only "licensed" the book, rather than bought it, so you are, in fact, allowed to resell it. But the law isn't entirely clear on all aspects of this, and software "licensing" is one key area where there are some problems.

A few years back, Blizzard sued the maker of a bot, the Glider bot by MDY, claiming that the software violated its copyright. Now, even many who are against abuses of copyright, emotionally started to side with Blizzard here, due to what the bot allowed: it effectively allowed cheating, by automating many repetitive tasks, to let users "level up" more quickly. But, if you get past that element, the case has important implications for copyright law, and whether or not the software you buy is really purchased... or merely licensed.

The district court ruling was incredibly problematic. Nothing the guy actually did with the bot software appears to violate copyright law. Basically, the court just decided that it didn't like what the guy did, and thus it used copyright law to shut him down, though it used rather tortured reasoning. This sets an incredibly bad precedent and seems entirely at odds with the purpose of copyright law itself.

The case is now being appealed, and Public Knowledge has filed an amicus brief while the EFF explains what's at stake:

Ownership matters, because otherwise Blizzard and other software vendors can wipe away important consumer rights with legalese contained in license agreements. For example, in Section 117 of the Copyright Act, Congress gave owners of computer software the right to use their legitimately purchased software without having to rely on permissions in license agreements. Blizzard and other software vendors are arguing that customers are not owners, but mere licensees, in an effort to eliminate our rights under Section 117.

This "owner-versus-licensee" trick is not just an end-run on Section 117, it's inconsistent with the law in other areas--the courts and Congress have long rejected efforts by copyright and patent owners to impose all kinds of post-sale use restrictions on books, patented machines, and compact discs. Why should software be different? Just as with those other copyrighted works, if you bought the disc that the software comes on outright (as opposed to leasing it, for example), you should get the privileges of an owner (i.e., the right to resell and the right to make copies and adaptations as necessary to use software).

In short, Blizzard's legal arguments here are all about using copyright law to take away consumers' rights in the software they purchased.

Hopefully, the Appeals Court recognizes this. Copyright owners shouldn't be able to play a quantum game of calling something "owned" when it suits them or "licensed" at other times when it suits them.

I have chosen my side when it comes to Companies and their licenses, what side will you pick?

[Omnipotent-Q]

I've argued the case for why Steam is necessary to death on these forums. Without Steam, PC gaming would be dead. Without Steam, the number of games and game companies developing for PC would be small or non-existent. It's either Steam or nothing, and it's not that obtrusive. I actually prefer and much like it when games are on Steam. Valve are a company I respect and they have a good moral compass. I remember years ago before Steam conversing with GabeN on forums (when he must have had a bit more time on his hands). Stand up fella. They don't do it to make a load of cash, but they certainly have done. Steam was created off the back of greedy publishers wanting to take a big a cut off Valve for creating the likes of Half-Life 2. So they created a platform, released HL2 over it, and took a bigger cut of their game earnings. Now all they do is let others use their platform, but not for the outlandish percentage cuts retail publishers were asking off PC game developers in the early 00s.

Developers make a lot of money being tied into Steam, and most of the Steam criticisms are weak. My guess is developers prefer to keep getting paid so they can keep creating games people enjoy. Previously before Steam, it was release a game, watch it get pirated by a large percentage of players. Steam has helped develop a bigger audience for PC gaming, helped make multiplayer better and players connect with each other. I remember the time when it was a real pain to find a download for a patch. I remember when patches were released once in a blue moon. Now a patch gets created in the morning, it can be out afternoon.

A number of you say there's no choice. But there is. These game developers can sell their games where they want. It's like complaining about having to buy a video game retail in a shop that's got a funny smell or is too cold. You don't have to buy the game. They set the conditions to sell the game. Either you buy the game under those conditions or don't. That's your choice, you still have control of that choice. Nothing is forced upon you. I've used Steam since pretty much Day 0. You should have seen it back in the day when friends didn't work, it was in that dodgy green colour and only Valve games were on there. It has come a long way, and PC gaming is a million times better for it. Why? Because big PC games are still being created. Years ago, that didn't look like that was going to continue at the same pace. It looked like big budget PC titles were going to be a thing of the past, and it would be all console.



Also this permanently disabling your games thing. What's the source on that? Throw us a link!

[ElvenKind]

Also this permanently disabling your games thing. What's the source on that? Throw us a link!

http://wegotthiscovered.com/gaming/v...sable-account/

[Humble Warrior]

Nice one, Elvenkind.

[chris10]

Steam may be important as a platform to sell games but as well it pursues the skulking disenfranchisement of customers rights by severely restricting the general usage of the product or even disabling the customers usufruct to the purchased merchandise if they do not accept future changes in the Tos which have not been part of the contract when the merchanidse was bought so its an unilateral and an illegal retrospective change of the purchase-contract. Forcing customers to comply with certain requirements (whatever their nature) to be able to make proper usage of a product, after paying for it, is beyond ridicolous. Same holds true for the industrys (not only Steam) attempt to avoid that people can sell their games second hand, not duplicating them for economic gain but simply selling them to somebody else, by refusing to issue reactivation keys for online activation and similar things in order to force poeple to buy new. Could somebody imagine these kind of things with second hand cars, motorbikes, t-shirts, toasters or whatever other stuff comes to your mind ? The answer is obvious

[camper-futter]

This discussion is outdated

"European Courts Rule In Favor Of Consumers Reselling Downloaded Games"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregvoakes/2012/07/03/european-courts-rule-in-favor-of-consumers-reselling-downloaded-games/



Humble Warrior wins

[RZZZA]

Lol at people still about steam. Go play a console

[pizzapizza]

love steam
http://store.steampowered.com/sharing

and if you got banned on steam it means you CHEAT

[Achilleslastand]

http://wegotthiscovered.com/gaming/v...sable-account/

Sickening..... Being an old school pc gamer I despise the very thought of steam. As a digital game retailer I have no problems with steam whatsoever. But there archaic DRM really defies all logic and it makes me ill that they even get away with it w/o gamers being in a uproar. Sheeple are feed something told it tastes great and is good for them and swallow it down without so much as a peep. I also had no problems before steam in finding and installing my own patches etc online all w/o Gabe Newells help. I suspect to this day Gabe is still pissed about the HL2 source code being stolen under his nose and has taken it out on gamers in the worst way possible.

[Ferdiad]

ITT people who've been VAC banned and taking it out on CA.

[Omnipotent-Q]

http://wegotthiscovered.com/gaming/v...sable-account/

You're always paying for a license to play games or use software - it's nothing new. What do you plan on suing them over anyway out of curiosity? What circumstances do you see this happening?

I'd sue them regardless if there was any major beef - such clauses aren't enforceable in every jurisdiction. For example and direct from the Steam user agreement:

SECTION 12 CONTAINS A BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER. IT AFFECTS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. PLEASE READ IT. IF YOU LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, SOME OR ALL OF SECTION 12 MIGHT NOT APPLY TO YOU. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU LIVE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION, SECTION 12 DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU.

So there's a lot of ranting and raiving about this section of the subscriber agreement from people it specifically doesn't apply too. It's in capitals and bold letters it doesn't apply to you gents so what's your complaint about that?

There's a lot of over the top paranoia about these things. Consumer law in in the EU is fairly water tight. You and Humble make it sound like this affects you, and everyone, when in reality it doesn't and all it does is prevent you suing them in America over a game. Considering the suing culture in the States you can't blame them!

[Greve Af Göteborg]

It's fine if you don't feel like using their services. But don't expect CA to commit such a large change for the minority. Paradox did cave in to the demands, and it was not worth it. Less than 5% of users bought the non-steam version.

[Cross_]

Actually it`s not how it works with GOG.com, Humble Bundle, Desura, Kickstarter etc.. They don`t ban your digital items when something happens to your account ( ban, losing your password etc.. )

Do your research before posting such nonsense.

I never even knew what Desura was until your posted it and I to look it up. Seeing as i know next to nothing about them I can't say anything good or bad about them unless I spend time using there program and odds are I will never use them so I will just take your word for it. Humble Bundle whenever I have used them it was for games that was on Steam/Origin and you don't even need an account there to buy stuff, so far I have never had to make one anyway. I'm not even going to get into kickstarter because I have never taken part in it. As for gog.com I'm not really shocked about this because of how easy it is to get the games anyway with out being am member. Tho i did try and look up info on it and I all found was stuff about NWNs Mp key giving a banned msg.

[Sharpe]

[CTD_or_Bust]

I think you are overreacting Humble Warrior. Your posts are deliberately constructed to misrepresent the truth and exacerbate issues until they no longer resemble reality. I respect that you have adamant in your opinions and will continue to beseech twc readers to join your protest against Steam. However I feel I must reply instead of letting this thread slide on by with all the other vitriolic threads that accompany a Total War release.

Your fears about Steam were grounded 6 years ago. But it's 2013. I've had.. carry the two.. divide by 3.14.. I've had a Steam account since 2005. One steam account. Never banned, never suspended, no problems, no issues. I wish you luck on your crusade because you will need it.

[ElvenKind]

[FONT=georgia] ..... best of luck on your crusade

Since CA started using Steam and introduced the Warscape engine, their games are worse than those previous to 2004.

Rome II seems like a great game now in 2013, does it?

[Greve Af Göteborg]

Since CA started using Steam and introduced the Warscape engine, their games are worse than those previous to 2004.

Rome II seems like a great game now in 2013, does it?

That's all Warscape's fault, not steam's.