Talk:Steam (service)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hacked

VALVe's security was recently shown for what it really is; no exsistant. A hacker known as MaddoxX recently infiltrated VALVe's web servers, exposing, what should be confidential information, to the public. The hacker managed to gain root access to the server, meaning they could view anything they wanted (Including Customer Credit Card details, and even VALVe's current assets). The hacker then ripped the site and created a "Release" (http://rapidshare.com/files/24958280/CafeHomies-PROViSiON.rar.html) in an attempt to grab VALVe's attention (Who are renouned for poor security). Included in the release are all CAS/CAC files (Including certificates), proving once again that their Cafe program is not as secure as they thought. Valve has yet to fix the exploit the hacker used, and has not yet even replied to him. It has also failed to reveal to it's customers that this event even occured, even though they're private details have been exposed. Please help us to inform the public and VALVe customers of this important news.

Source: http://emp.damage-web.net/viewtopic.php?p=62590

Steam wasn't hacked itself. It was a regular Valve file server. This belongs on Valve Corporation. --Tom Edwards 20:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be worthy to gather information on this and add a section about it. --CCFreak2K 21:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it's notable enough. Since then, the file has been deleted from RapidShare and the forums were closed down temporarily. I'll add this to the article in a hidden comment form. For your info, there's already a section called "Security" in the article; the new info will be there. --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello? This still isn't related to Steam. --Tom Edwards 13:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

http://steamreview.org/posts/cafecardsstolen/ --198.254.16.200 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving the article

I think most people will agree that Steam does plenty more than content delivery nowadays. ;-) I'm thinking of moving the article, but the best name I've come up with, "Steam (online service)", is sort of clunky. Are there any other suggestions? --Tom Edwards 11:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. While Steam does sell games, ultimately the services they provide are in delivering content. The friends system and the servers list are really the only two things Steam has that is not content related. However, i would have to say that the servers list is more of a method of delivering gameplay. the friends list...well, that is the thing least related to content. What does Steam call itself? if Steam says it's a content delivery system, and it's not a complete lie, then why should the wikipedia article disagree? I think that the easiest way to describe Steam in a useful way is with "content delivery". -- Bob52287 20:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It collects statistics (like game stability), lets developers talk directly to each and every one of their customers, manages the files on the client without needing huge reinstalls, allows users to hand out full game trials to their friends, will shortly support matchmaking and persistent gamer profiles, and of course supports purchases. That's off the top of my head! ;-) --Tom Edwards 22:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget VAC either. --Tom Edwards 22:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bob. Ultimately, the purpose of Steam (from Valve's perspective, as well as from gamers' perspectives) is to deliver content - namely, games. I also would like to mention that the criticism of Steam is extensive among people who use it regularly. There is a definite consensus that Steam has destroyed much of the old content of Half-Life (e.g., the many mods that were once freely available now do not work under Steam). Steam also forces gamers to purchase multiple copies of a game if they desire to play local LAN games (this has always been the centerpiece of my criticism). Hang out on any server where dedicated Half-Lifers frequent (i.e., not CS servers - try SvenCoop, or BattleGround), and you'll see that the dislike of Steam is nearly universal, at least amongst those in the know. Fuzzform 04:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that that's still its biggest use, but I do think the list above makes my argument pretty damn strong regardless. --Tom Edwards 08:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Another idea: "Steam (gaming network)". That won't make proper sense until The Steam Community is out, so it might be better to delay the change if that's the name to be used. --Tom Edwards 16:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree on the content delievery name. It's what steam is ultimately used for. Corpx 05:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Feature section structure

Time to do this. Here's an outline I've come up with:

• Functionality
  • Purchases
    • Price points
    • Account access
  • Downloads
    • Content streaming
    • Shared demo/full content
    • Automatic updates
    • Media
  • Game Cache Files
    • No Cache Files
    • Validation
    • Defragmentation
  • Friends
  • Server Browser
  • Valve Anti-Cheat
  • Promotions
    • Guest Passes
    • Free Weekends
  • Update News
  • Statistic gathering
    • System information
  • CD Key activation
  • Backup
  • Mod integration
• Future functionality
  • The Steam Community
    • Matchmaking
    • Clan support
    • Gamer pages
    • Personal statistics
  • Peer to Peer distribution

Some of the bullets could be collapsed into the copy of their parent. --Tom Edwards 09:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

excellent!! - Bob52287 15:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Make sure to note the new achievements which appear in some Orange Box games. Perhaps you're going to fold that into the Gamer Pages section? (It seems like they're already available). --Ecnassianer 00:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias in the revised article

I think the recent restructuring of the article eliminated pretty much any bias or NPOV. I see the outline as giving weight to what Steam is, while also mentioning valid criticisms of it. I move that we take the NPOV tag off the page. - Bob52287 15:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Removed the tag based on the lack of discussion here. Corpx 05:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes to minimum specifications

Is it just me or does this section:

Changes to minimum specifications

On 26 February 2007 an update to Steam was released that warned users running Windows 98 that past 30 June 2007 their systems would no longer be able to run the program, and which also warned users without SSE processors that unspecified games would no longer function "within the next few months" if they did not upgrade their systems (believed to be Source engine games, given the upcoming multiprocessor update).[28]

Although both of these new criteria affected only a very small number of Steam users,[28] they are examples of how the task of ensuring all users have the most recent software can backfire on those with systems that are no longer supported.

seems not to belong in the criticism section? Specifically on the comment "examples of how the task of ensuring all users have the most recent software can backfire on those with systems that are no longer supported." Is it necessary to add that statement in? The main idea was the fact that "very small number of Steam users" will no longer be supported, and that one comment seems to try and extend that criticism by the writer's own original research. By original research, I mean claiming that the sheer majority having recent software(s) was responsible for this event.

As for the validity of the section itself, if it only affects "very small number" of users, is it notable or significant to be added into the article? --BirdKr 04:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We can look at the Steam survey results to see exactly how many people use what software. It's not OR at all. To answer your second question, the reality of this particular change isn't that noteworthy, but the fact that it can happen is. --Tom Edwards 09:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the survey system that Steam has. However, it gives absolute no indication that the updated majority is responsible for squeezing out the obsolete minority. As for your second response, I'm not understanding what you're saying. You're saying the reality of this change isn't noteworthy, yet the fact that it can happen is? How is the fact that it can happen noteworthy than the fact that it already has happened (reality)?--BirdKr 13:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't tell us about the updated majority's responsibility, but neither does the article.

The fact that min specs can be updated is important because in the future it could affect more people - and because it's a criticism people use in the wild. --Tom Edwards 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Free Weekend

Free Weekends are criticised, and we don't need a citation for data collection because the next paragraph details an example with refs of its own

When I first read that statement, the fact that it is criticized and the manner in which it was written (newbies and "cheaters reign free"), it seemed to violate NPOV from a veteran user against the newcomers in these Steam games. As for the data collection, I have to agree that the placement of ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  was placed wrong.--BirdKr 13:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not POV on Wikipedia's part. That's what needs to be avoided. --Tom Edwards 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Advertisements in Previously Purchased Software

This section is only a criticism of Steam insofar as its automatic updates, which are already covered in another subheading. The decision to include adverts affects a game, not Steam itself, and should be either on Valve's page or Counter-Strike's. Perhaps when the advert system is available to all Steam devs - and if it's then used by them in their existing games - it'll be worth a section, but right now that isn't the case.

The advertisements are one of Steam's largest complaints. Reverting your premature removal.Dimension31 01:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I explained in the first comment why the adverts aren't a Steam issue. You've yet to offer any argument countering that. --Tom Edwards 13:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

They are a Steam issue because Steam is the only method Valve makes available to play with these games. Your argument is flawed; it's like saying a brain tumor is a problem with your brain and saying it is not a problem with your health. HrvrdCrmsn2011 02:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your brain is an object; your health is a concept. Steam and CS on the other hand are two objects (at least in a software sense). A better and more suitable analogy would be blaming Windows for the ads: isn't it the only OS you can play the game on?

Your analogy is horribly flawed. The developers of Windows have nothing to do with either Steam or Counter-Strike development. Valve develops both Steam and Counter-Strike and the ads are integrally tied to both Steam and Counter-Strike. HrvrdCrmsn2011 02:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct: the link is Valve. Which is why this section belongs on Valve's page, or CS's, and not here. --Tom Edwards 08:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, forced updates are already discussed elsewhere. --Tom Edwards 09:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were claiming that the ads have nothing to do with Steam? You can't have it both ways, chief. HrvrdCrmsn2011 02:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the first comment in this thread. --Tom Edwards 08:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the in game ads section should stay, because current players have no choice but to update to the latest version of the game through steam. This way, they're forced to get the ad content, unlike how patching was done pre-1.6 days Corpx 05:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, you put it better than I did. HrvrdCrmsn2011 02:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Trust

While we're here, I had a look at the antitrust rules and I don't see Steam breaking any of them. Even if it did, it's not like Valve would have any choice given their ephemeral products. --Tom Edwards 08:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The link being used to justify antitrust claims is totally irrelevant. Clipboard mixup? :-p --Tom Edwards 20:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this link, it also outlines some of Steam's problems well. I'll add that reference when I revert the section. Dimension31 01:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you added beyond your initial version, but you seem to be happy with it and beside some mixed up sentences I'm about to fix so am I. --Tom Edwards 13:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've found this article, which talks about companies restricting the sale of their software after it has been sold. It doesn't talk about antitrust at all. The entire thing seems to be a legal grey area. --Tom Edwards 20:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment answer
I don't think anyone should accuse the company of antitrust unless there is a judgement against them. At most, there may be a statement (WITH A CITATION) saying that they have been sued for antitrust issues, if this has already happened. Plumbing 03:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

I'd like to talk to you about some Wikipedia etiquette too, Dimension. It boils down to assume good faith: Look at some of your edits notes and you'll see how unhelpful you're being in this regard right now. My second point is in the first box on that page: that when there is a disagreement like this, the offending edits are kept off the article page until matters are resolved.

You certainly don't insult someone when they undo a provocative edit and start a discussion over it, then immediately add your ideas back without "wait[ing] for others' input on the talk page" -- your own words, you might remember. It doesn't help me sympathise with your point of view in the slightest, and to say that that's a sanitised version of what's on my mind is an understatement. It also isn't a good idea to term edits you don't agree with "vandalism", even if they are from anonymous users! --Tom Edwards 14:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That guy erased User:Itype's addition for no discernible reason. What else could he have done to make it vandalism, pasted in a big Goatse picture? :) Dimension31 03:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for forgetting to log in first and not giving explanation for reverting that user's edit, as I thought it was unneeded since I assumed it was unnecessary as Outerlight is not mentioned as an affiliate publisher via Steam's website (I left Capcom; however, since I'd have waited to see what more Capcom would bring). Scriptdaemon 04:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because Outerlight isn't explicitly mentioned on Steam's affiliate publisher website doesn't mean their content isn't published via Steam. Check out The Ship (computer game). Dimension31 07:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that, I just figured if there were more to be added to that list, maybe put ones that have more than one game available? Scriptdaemon 08:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. They aren't notable enough. --Tom Edwards 09:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You also reverted two other edits, however, which would have required discussion. Please take care to check how many revisions you're undoing in future. --Tom Edwards 09:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as we both seem relatively happy with what's on the page at the moment I'll leave it. But if you want to make another change, discuss it here and wait for second opinions first. --Tom Edwards 14:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your latest change to that section has typos and isn't very clear. I'm going to revert, and then I think it would be best to wait for a third party to merge in your additions. Dimension31 03:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If any reverting is going to take place, it will be to the version that existed before you came along. Offending edits stay off the page, remember?

Could you please explain exactly what is unclear about this:

“ Games bought through Steam cannot legally be resold due to the unsuitability of current Proof of Purchase laws. The only valid proof in an entirely digital transaction is the credit card used during the process; as credit cards ownership cannot be transferred, neither can that of Steam-bought games. Valve term Steam purchases "subscriptions", attempting to avoid any legal paradoxes this situation might create - such as anti-trust violations from the dampening secondary market of their and their clients' products.

Valve does not explicitly prohibit account transfers, but claims that, as a source of fraud within their systems, they are ill-advised.

When a buyer purchases a boxed game he/she must authenticate it with the registration of a CD Key. In the event that the CD Key that they have registered is already in Steam's database (as will happen when a game is resold) the user is required to submit an image of the physical purchased CD Key for verification purposes.

”

When compared to this:

“ Steam activation makes it more difficult to sell a legally acquired game to a third party, due to the unsuitability of current Proof of Purchase laws. Steam accounts, being ephemeral, do not constitute legal proof of purchases and cannot currently be transferred. When a buyer purchases a boxed game he/she must authenticate it with the registration of a CD Key. In the event that the CD Key that they have registered is already in Steam's database the user is required to submit an image of the physical purchased CD Key for verification purposes. Games bought through Steam itself are completely non-transferable. This is an anti-trust advantage to the game producer, as it dampens the secondary market of their titles.

Valve does not explicitly prohibit account transfers, but claims they are ill advised because they are a source of fraud within their systems.

”

I don't see any spelling errors in the top version (in fact large chunks of the copy are the same as in the bottom version!), nor do I see how alternating sentence-by-sentence between the two purchasing paths is superior to having them in separate paragraphs. --Tom Edwards 09:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please remove the anti-trust part. Unless the allegation is coming from a source that is expert on the matter, I dont think that part should stay. Corpx 03:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this in that I feel it's unnecessary. Scriptdaemon 04:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll investigate references on the matter. Dimension31 07:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Besides, if that allegation held water in court, I'm sure there would've been cases against Valve Corpx 03:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that there aren't any cases being developed? Dimension31 07:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think the burden of proof is on you, since you're the one making the allegation. Corpx 09:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Price Points

I am the one who added the 8.95 price point initially, but as Tom decided to revert the 3.95 price for a single game, maybe I could remove the 8.95 price point since I clarified in the prior sentence that not all game prices were listed? Scriptdaemon 04:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I actually think that whole section should be removed since its not documented else where and its borderline WP:Original Research Corpx 04:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That was my first thought actually, but after consideration I don't think keeping a general price point guideline would hurt anything. Scriptdaemon 04:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Reformatting a list is a very, very low level of OR...:-p --Tom Edwards 09:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Offline mode-related criticism

As of the latest update, I believe all offline mode-related criticism is no longer necessary and can be removed. Just wanted to make sure if anyone still had any objection related to this. Scriptdaemon 02:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• What did they change about the offline mode with the update? Corpx 03:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It lets you go in offline/online mode at any time apparently, but I have not tested whether it will start initially in offline mode if you aren't connected to the Internet at all. It also does state that games not fully updated will not be able to be played, so after consideration I think it'd be better to test this feature more on a user's end before actually doing any editing in the article, which is why I left this in the discussion page. Scriptdaemon 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I dont see the big deal in this. Usually you can just unplug the network cable/Disable the connection through windows/Block steam's internet access through a firewall and it would cause it go into offline mode (provided that the last login was valid) Corpx 05:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You can now use -offline, so we can remove some of the crits. --Tom Edwards 08:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this part even needed anymore? Since the only ways to put a game onto Steam is buy via Steam itself, which requires an Internet connection anyway, or retail. In the latter case, it's necessary to authenticate first so people don't add one retail version of a game to many accounts on Steam.

“ The matter of privacy has been raised, as it is necessary to validate every Steam game online before it can be launched (an "offline mode" can subsequently be used). There are no alternate methods of activation such as via telephone or fax, which causes the system to deny access to those without internet connections. ”

Scriptdaemon 01:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

People concerns were with single-player games needing authentication, as without Steam there would be no need to submit any information. That's still going on with the HL2 episodes, so the section ought to stay. It could be reworded though. --Tom Edwards 19:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, somehow that didn't occur to me. I had in my mind that if someone wanted to play a single player game, then just not add it through Steam. Wasn't thinking thoroughly. Scriptdaemon 04:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Arent those games avaliable in offline mode if the last login was valid? Corpx 05:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you still need to make that last login. :-) --Tom Edwards 09:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New steam chat.png

Image:New steam chat.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cross-platform support section

Is there a particular reason why the addition of Gabe Newell's interview quote concerning their experiences with Apple was removed from the cross-platform support section? Personally I thought it was relevant and well applied. I'm not going to get all pissy because my edit was removed, but was there a reason, an alternative? Any suggestions? - Hectate 63.239.183.126 20:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It was about their games, not Steam. It's now in the Mac gaming article. --Tom Edwards 12:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

GCF

According to this, GCF stands for Grid Cache File, not Game Cache File. Should the expansion of GCF just not be mentioned? --Firba1 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been changed since. --Tom Edwards 21:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"try the talk page"

So, Negotiator, are you going to explain why your edits are encyclopaedic? --Tom Edwards 09:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Stolen accounts is a major problem, they are not a major problem with games which are not on steam. So it is legitimate criticism. did valve pay you to improve all their articles?--The Negotiator 12:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Then write it in that way. Stating that an account-based service is susceptible to phishing is about as useful on Wikipedia as stating that a game may cause epileptic seizures. Regarding your most recent edit, 1000 is indeed a small number when taken from a sample of over six million (nevermind that, I see your replacement now). --Tom Edwards 14:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You'll also need to add it to a different section. Mixing users' security with Valve's security isn't a great way about things. --Tom Edwards 15:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not Valve's security, it is a vulnerability to the digital distribution software. This isn't a problem for games not on Steam, and it is a major problem which is why there's a lot of info about it on their support pages and their forums always being filled with scammers/lost account etc.--The Negotiator 15:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

When I said Valve's security I was talking about the existing contents of the Security subheading, which covers the various cracks and fake cracks for their games. This is distinct from phishing susceptibility, which is a user security issue. You are right to say that it isn't a problem for games not on Steam; I am asking that you point this out in the article text, as your original paragraph talked about Steam in isolation. --Tom Edwards 17:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll let you write about it a little and I'll continue.--The Negotiator 19:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what I'd write. As you saw, I'm too used to these systems to have even realised that it might be an issue. :p --Tom Edwards 20:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if you don't know how to start, can you not just revert my additions all the time?--The Negotiator 15:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow. --Tom Edwards 18:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5