What 3rd Party do you use?

C

CrazyMike

New Member
Hey,

So i have always used Steam to play my games from. Don't know of any others that are better (i am sure there are lots though). So i was wondering if you could help me out by telling me what you use and what your experiences are.

Main reason for this is that i just realized that Steam doesn't support Crysis 2 (no i don't live under a rock, i just haven't played multiplayer yet. Too busy playing other games) Steam has always pissed me off for stupid stuff like this. Now with Battlefield 3 not being supported by Steam either, i gotta get rid of this stupid thing.

Thanks for your help!
 
BF3 not being on steam is EA's decision not Steam's. Same with Crysis 2. If you want to be sure you get the best deals, I would use a couple different sources. For EA games, just as an example, you can use their new origin thing to download games from them.
 
Troncoso said:
BF3 not being on steam is EA's decision not Steam's. Same with Crysis 2. If you want to be sure you get the best deals, I would use a couple different sources. For EA games, just as an example, you can use their new origin thing to download games from them.
Click to expand...

I really don't care who's decision/fault it is lol. I just want something that i can pile all my games in and use. But it does look like your right, will have to use more than one :( which sucks. right now i just used Orgin to update my Crysis 2, yet still play using Steam.

As for the whole EA pulling Crysis 2 on Steam, i just read an article that quoted EA saying that it was Steam who pulled it because of their policies. Most likely EA put some sort of restriction or money grabbing policy with Steam that didn't clash with them. Just sucks, why can't it be the 60's and we all just get along, man! lol
 
CrazyMike said:
I really don't care who's decision/fault it is lol. I just want something that i can pile all my games in and use. But it does look like your right, will have to use more than one :( which sucks. right now i just used Orgin to update my Crysis 2, yet still play using Steam.

As for the whole EA pulling Crysis 2 on Steam, i just read an article that quoted EA saying that it was Steam who pulled it because of their policies. Most likely EA put some sort of restriction or money grabbing policy with Steam that didn't clash with them. Just sucks, why can't it be the 60's and we all just get along, man! lol
Click to expand...

Yeah I get that. But from the articles I'm reading, the reason steam isn't letting certain games on there is because the companies want to charge for additional content, outside of DLC and expansions. I'm pretty sure that's against Steam's policy.
 
Troncoso said:
Yeah I get that. But from the articles I'm reading, the reason steam isn't letting certain games on there is because the companies want to charge for additional content, outside of DLC and expansions. I'm pretty sure that's against Steam's policy.
Click to expand...

"Companies"? Damn, i thought it was just EA? (EA has always been a money grabber, not saying the rest of them aren't but EA has always been the worst)
 
I don't know of any other companies that do it, but that's usually the reason if they don't let a game through, regardless of the company. It's just their general policy.
 
I don't think that is the reason Troncoso. Steam now have f2p games on there which charge for in game currencies, which doesn't fall under DLC or expansions.

The reason is because EA didn't want Steam to host the DLC or update, they wanted to host them themselves because, they claim "If we’re not allowed to manage this experience directly and establish a relationship with you, it disrupts our ability to provide the support you expect and deserve"

CrazyMike, Steam has such a massive array of games and has so many "big" titles on it that it makes perfect sense to have that as your main one. There are certain games that Steam doesn't have, and it is those which I, personally, get physical copies of.

I have the vast majority of my games through Steam, however have sat on my desk Gears of War (PC), Warcraft 3, BFBC2 and WoW, with a load of other games upstairs. When BF3 comes out, that box will be sat on my desk. When I say the majority, I have ~75 games on Steam, and maybe 15 from retail, and it really isn't a nuisence.

Bare in mind as well, once you install the game you can add it to your Steam library as a non-steam game, so then you are able to have them all there in one, even if that game doesn't download updates on its own, or get controlled by Steam (will still have to do all updates manually, unless the game updates itself)
 
Aastii said:
I don't think that is the reason Troncoso. Steam now have f2p games on there which charge for in game currencies, which doesn't fall under DLC or expansions.

The reason is because EA didn't want Steam to host the DLC or update, they wanted to host them themselves because, they claim "If we’re not allowed to manage this experience directly and establish a relationship with you, it disrupts our ability to provide the support you expect and deserve"

CrazyMike, Steam has such a massive array of games and has so many "big" titles on it that it makes perfect sense to have that as your main one. There are certain games that Steam doesn't have, and it is those which I, personally, get physical copies of.

I have the vast majority of my games through Steam, however have sat on my desk Gears of War (PC), Warcraft 3, BFBC2 and WoW, with a load of other games upstairs. When BF3 comes out, that box will be sat on my desk. When I say the majority, I have ~75 games on Steam, and maybe 15 from retail, and it really isn't a nuisence.

Bare in mind as well, once you install the game you can add it to your Steam library as a non-steam game, so then you are able to have them all there in one, even if that game doesn't download updates on its own, or get controlled by Steam (will still have to do all updates manually, unless the game updates itself)
Click to expand...

That's what I mean. Steam doesn't want them charging customers outside of steam. I suppose you could use their "reasoning" for it, but I imagine if the content is sold through steam, then steam will get a percentage of that sale.
 
Troncoso said:
That's what I mean. Steam doesn't want them charging customers outside of steam. I suppose you could use their "reasoning" for it, but I imagine if the content is sold through steam, then steam will get a percentage of that sale.
Click to expand...

From how I understand it, it isn't EA charging, it is that the distribution would be from EA directly, so the Steam servers wouldn't be used, which Valve don't allow. I may have misunderstood it, but that is what I have taken from it
 
Aastii said:
I don't think that is the reason Troncoso. Steam now have f2p games on there which charge for in game currencies, which doesn't fall under DLC or expansions.

The reason is because EA didn't want Steam to host the DLC or update, they wanted to host them themselves because, they claim "If we’re not allowed to manage this experience directly and establish a relationship with you, it disrupts our ability to provide the support you expect and deserve"

CrazyMike, Steam has such a massive array of games and has so many "big" titles on it that it makes perfect sense to have that as your main one. There are certain games that Steam doesn't have, and it is those which I, personally, get physical copies of.

I have the vast majority of my games through Steam, however have sat on my desk Gears of War (PC), Warcraft 3, BFBC2 and WoW, with a load of other games upstairs. When BF3 comes out, that box will be sat on my desk. When I say the majority, I have ~75 games on Steam, and maybe 15 from retail, and it really isn't a nuisence.

Bare in mind as well, once you install the game you can add it to your Steam library as a non-steam game, so then you are able to have them all there in one, even if that game doesn't download updates on its own, or get controlled by Steam (will still have to do all updates manually, unless the game updates itself)
Click to expand...

I never buy any games from 3rd party sources such as Steam. I always buy box and disc. And yes i do the same, i add my games to Steam to play BUT when it comes to updating the game (Crysis 2 for instance) i actually had to add Orgin in order to update (could not find a manual update). So i was just wondering if there was one that would do it all, so it seems there isn't. This goes on my list of why i hate 3rd party sources.
 
CrazyMike said:
I never buy any games from 3rd party sources such as Steam. I always buy box and disc. And yes i do the same, i add my games to Steam to play BUT when it comes to updating the game (Crysis 2 for instance) i actually had to add Orgin in order to update (could not find a manual update). So i was just wondering if there was one that would do it all, so it seems there isn't. This goes on my list of why i hate 3rd party sources.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you would hate the likes of Steam or Direct2Drive.

Before them, what were your options? Go and buy a game, if it was bugged, tough. If you wanted an expansion (or DLC as they call it now), you would go out and buy it in disc form, so more clutter, more discs and a much longer install time as you would have to install all expansions separately and, in a lot of cases, sequentially.

So all the internet has done has allowed for bugs (which every piece of software has and will have) to be fixed, even if it means you have to do it manually. At least the likes of Steam fully update everything that is available though them.

As a more recent example of why it is so good, myself a lot of members of my clan play CoH. A few of them have it on disc, whilst some, myself included, have it on Steam.

It takes me about 2 hours to download it, and then it is playable. It takes them about 20 mins to install from the disc, and then the best part of the day to get all of the patches. Bare in mind they paid retail price, where as I paid , if I remember correctly, £6 for the full set on sale. This is the case with a lot of games - All of the CoD games up to and including WaW, ArmA, Battlefield, Crysis, NFS, GTA, Fallout, all of them auto-update through Steam, where as otherwise you will have to take a hell of a lot longer to do it manually.

Steam is the best thing to happen to PC gaming in a long time, and just because the likes of EA don't want to work with them doesn't make Steam bad at all
 
Last edited:
It's all a matter of opinion. It doesn't bother me that you or other gamers love Steam. I am just saying I love having disc in hand, box on shelf. As expandable content, a person (myself included) can easily download any content, patches, upgrades straight from developers website. From my experience, i have never had to pay for any of these. I think for COD though, you have to pay for the map packs (i could be wrong). As for paying less for the same game (ie, you said that you paid less for a full set of COD), i could care less on how much i pay for a game. I am a strong believer of paying for quality. From what i have seen in the past, prices of games are going down (such as you said) and my personal opinion so is the game quality. Sure there are some new technologies out there improving game graphics and such, but i can't remember the last time i have seen the "next level" of gaming. Customer pays less, what do you expect.

Like i said, all this is MY opinion. I have no beef of what others do. Do i wish i could see 3rd parties crash and fail? Yeah i do. BUT with that in mind, just cause YOU like them, doesn't mean i hate you. LOL So in otherwords, don't hate cause my opinions are different :) I sure don't hate that yours are different :)

EDIT: i forgot to mention, you say that it takes a hell of a lot longer to update games that aren't from Steam, i beg to differ. It takes me no longer to go to dev website to download, then it does for Steam to download. At most, maybe a minute or two longer.
 
What you have just said about paying for everything is, put simply, wrong. Using your example of CoD, Activision took the money grabbing attitude of a console developer and began charging when CoD started going downhill, ie. MW2 and BLOPs. All map packs and updates were 100% free for WaW and all CoD games before that point. The same holds true for most other PC games that aren't published by Activision or EA. You rerally think they would make one rule for those that bought the game physically, and those that bought it online?

Games are also getting more and more expensive. Gone are the days of ~£25 for a PC game, you are now looking at some costing as much as £40, and the average being around £35. For consoles, you are talking £50 for a game now, not £25-30.

I agree that the quality of games is decreasing, apart from Portal and Minecraft I can't think of a recent game that has made me go wow. Indie games have made me more excited and given me more enjoyment than the bigger titles have.

As for update times, mine goes something like this:

Click on game in Steam library, wait for game to download (never more than 1 hour because of my net speed). For you:

Install game from disc, ~20-30 mins
Find updates ~ 5 mins

for games which need sequential updates (the majority)

download all updates ~ at least an hour to download them all

apply them all ~15-20 mins

By the time you have finished, I'm already 40 minutes into the game, and that doesn't take extreme cases like CoH that I mentioned where I could have finished one of the campaigns before you have even launched the game.

what I am saying isn't just plucked from the air, I know countless people who are like you and prefer physical copies, I know countless who almost exclusively use Steam, and the same for people like me who will go for whichever gives the best price. There is a reason a lot of people I know have bought their games again through Steam, and it is for what I mentioned above - convenience and time. Having to spend a few days to install all games after a format as opposed to a few hours is worth it. To quote WoW goblins - time is money friend.

I am not bashing your opinion, I am simply adding balance by saying how you are making out online services like Steam to be the work of a devil, when in fact there are a lot more pros than cons to such services.

The main gripe people have is they don't feel like they own the game because it isn't in their, however you own it as much as you do if you have a physical copy. You have the liscence to use the software, the only difference is the installation media is the internet rather than a disc. You still get all manuals, all updates, all everything the same as you would with a physical copy, on the last point is all automated, so a lot quicker and easier
 
Im somewhat on the same level as crazy mike here, although my reasoning is completely different as it were.

I much prefer hard, physical copies but that comes down to me enjoying having somehting in my possession and stems back from my mountain of games for every console i ever owned. Not to mention i find it difficult to contemplate a world where everything is on my computer :P

I have nothing against steam, i love its features, i would just not use it exclusively or for the majority of my titles.

(that being said i couldnt say no to abes odessey on the sale)

For me the essence of gaming has always come down to, hey "insert friends name" want to come and play a game, freind: what games do you have, me: one sec let me grab my 12 suitcases, as opposed to have a look at my pages of lists on the net.

I would have to agree with Aastii that steam is quite revolutionary (as are all download to play thingies) in terms of what it is achieveing, but simply i dont want to change my ways, i play agmes to take me back to that first fix on the snes, i want to keep the joy of looking at my pile and thinking "S**t mike, get a life" :P


rant/
 
Aastii said:
What you have just said about paying for everything is, put simply, wrong. Using your example of CoD, Activision took the money grabbing attitude of a console developer and began charging when CoD started going downhill, ie. MW2 and BLOPs. All map packs and updates were 100% free for WaW and all CoD games before that point. The same holds true for most other PC games that aren't published by Activision or EA. You rerally think they would make one rule for those that bought the game physically, and those that bought it online?

Games are also getting more and more expensive. Gone are the days of ~£25 for a PC game, you are now looking at some costing as much as £40, and the average being around £35. For consoles, you are talking £50 for a game now, not £25-30.

I agree that the quality of games is decreasing, apart from Portal and Minecraft I can't think of a recent game that has made me go wow. Indie games have made me more excited and given me more enjoyment than the bigger titles have.

As for update times, mine goes something like this:

Click on game in Steam library, wait for game to download (never more than 1 hour because of my net speed). For you:

Install game from disc, ~20-30 mins
Find updates ~ 5 mins

for games which need sequential updates (the majority)

download all updates ~ at least an hour to download them all

apply them all ~15-20 mins

By the time you have finished, I'm already 40 minutes into the game, and that doesn't take extreme cases like CoH that I mentioned where I could have finished one of the campaigns before you have even launched the game.

what I am saying isn't just plucked from the air, I know countless people who are like you and prefer physical copies, I know countless who almost exclusively use Steam, and the same for people like me who will go for whichever gives the best price. There is a reason a lot of people I know have bought their games again through Steam, and it is for what I mentioned above - convenience and time. Having to spend a few days to install all games after a format as opposed to a few hours is worth it. To quote WoW goblins - time is money friend.

I am not bashing your opinion, I am simply adding balance by saying how you are making out online services like Steam to be the work of a devil, when in fact there are a lot more pros than cons to such services.

The main gripe people have is they don't feel like they own the game because it isn't in their, however you own it as much as you do if you have a physical copy. You have the liscence to use the software, the only difference is the installation media is the internet rather than a disc. You still get all manuals, all updates, all everything the same as you would with a physical copy, on the last point is all automated, so a lot quicker and easier
Click to expand...

Good thing it's slow at work here, gives me time to respond :)

Ok, for the first. I remember when all updates/ map packs were free too. I loved it. I am not sure why they started charging (i assume someone wasn't happy that they weren't cashing in on it). I don't really blame Steam for it, not what i was intending. And no i don't think that they would make a rules specific to one party.

Games ARE more expensive these days. If you take a game built in early 2000, it did cost $25 (sorry i am canadian and not too sure about british pounds and what the costs were over there). It would wrong to think that cost of games would go down or stay at the same rate: Inflation is a big key. So when a game price increases (such as now is approx $40) to me is expected. The amount of technology and resources needed to build the high demanding games, and the inflation. I have no problem with that and expect to pay more for a game. Look at housing, cars, food etc. They all have gone up, why shouldn't technology (ie TV's).

To me, the quality of game goes hand in hand with the cost of the game. Back in the day you had a team of maybe 10 people producing games on maybe $100,000.oo equipment in which took a few months to a year to build. Now you have hundreds of employees on multiple of hundreds of thousands of dollar equipment, who not only have to produce a high quality innovative game, but in less time. Consumers choke down a developer if the game is a)"just like any other game" : Innovation b) Low quality c) takes forever to come out. To top it all off they have a hard time with the price tag. To me quality and cost of the product deffinately factor each other. Now i too love the convience that would come with getting products faster, easier and cheaper. But as well, in my mind, it comes at a cost.

(i hope this doesn't offend anyone, i don't direct "blame" nor support one side or the other)

As for the description on the comparison of a downloaded game vs packaged one, i am unsure about those times you have mentioned. I have never downloaded a game, so i cannot comment on that amount of time. As for disc though, i can unpackage a game and play (with all updates) in 30 min or less. This is how long it took me to install Crysis 2 for instance (with the DX11 patch and various additions). So again, i am unsure what you mean.

Like i said, i am not here to argue about any of this. It's more opinions and facts moving back and forth. I know i am lost and don't know much about Steam and other downloading parties. My opinion about Steam could be my old version of "can't teach old dogs new tricks". I'm only here on a friendly matter and don't mean to offend or anger anyone :) .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top