Talk:Steam (service)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Text about friends removal

I'm going to undo this edit once again for a number of reasons. First, the forums are not a reliable source. Second, the text is absurd: "Steam Groups and Internet Forums are in an uproar over the incident." totally violates WP:POV. Third, we don't report every little glitch that's ever happened on Steam; in the grand scale of things, it's annoying but relatively small. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, should continue to be removed. It appears to have been related to a Team Fortress 2 update and potentially with a new STEAM Client beta being released as well. I personally saw the issue as it occured, but it deserves no more note than any other maintenance outage or minor service blip. On top of that, although the text says there was a forum post, there's no CITED source, whether or not it is reliable. ferret (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. This was most likely caused by the UI Update anyway. -- Love, Smurfy 18:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Valve regional restriction and pricing

Sorry mates but Valve is using a regional pricing and restrictions system, the article says "While Valve does not have region restrictions on their own games", it is not 100% true. First the censored german/australian versions (L4D1, L4D2, TF2), second the pricing tiers.

About the censored versions in ger and aus, it is impossible to chance it into a "normal" version without downloading mods or modifying some files yourself (for example on TF2 you have to go on fps banana and get the gibs+blood pack or force Steam to download these files by modifying a configuration file).

Some players living in non-censored countries (like US, UK, France) bought games while being in Germany/Australia OR received gift from Aussies/Germans ("ho thanks... L4D2 censored version for only 50 euros ! You shouldn't have... I could get the non-censored version for 35 euros on Amazon.co.uk shipping included") => they couldn't switch the game back to the uncensored version when they were back at home.

---

About the regional pricing, there is 4 different prices :

- an US-World price in US dollars ($),

- an UK price in pounds (£),

- an european "tier 2" price in euro (€) (corresponding to the correct rate "1 US dollar = 0,73 euro")

- an european "tier 1" price in euro (€) (corresponding to the incorrect rate "1 US dollar = 1 euro")

List of "tier 1" and "tier 2" countries are available on Steamunpowered.eu here.

---

Need to verify both the censoring problem (1) and the regional pricing system (2) ?

(1) => go on Steam forums, search "censored" "censored version" in the TF2 subforum, the L4D1 subforum, the L4D2 subforum. (I can't link search queries directly :/)

Kotaku Australia have an article about it too

(2) use the ?cc= command. Let's take TF2 : http://store.steampowered.com/app/440/

http://store.steampowered.com/app/440/?cc=us = $19.99

http://store.steampowered.com/app/440/?cc=uk = £13.99

http://store.steampowered.com/app/440/?cc=ca = $19.99 USD (<= they added the USD to prevent confusion with the canadian dollar)

http://store.steampowered.com/app/440/?cc=de (Germany) or ?cc=fr (France) = 19,99€ (european tier 1)

http://store.steampowered.com/app/440/?cc=it (Italy) or ?cc=es (Spain) = 14,99€ (european tier 2)

=> the Pope (Vatican ?cc=va) can get TF2 for only 15€ ! Lucky one :D

Note : you can use the ?cc= command all you want, you will still pay the price Valve set for your country during the checking process.

Note 2 : Some people from the tier 1 used proxies to pay the UK/US/tier 2 price, some never had a problem, some got their accounts disabled and had to talk with the Valve punishers, be warned people.

Note 3 : If you still don't believe it, go on Steamunpowered and use the search function on the forum, same with Steam official forums, this is not some tinfoil hat crap, thanks. --93.15.255.73 (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Regional pricing is not regional restriction. However, the recent censoring of Valve games in various countries probably has made the original statement (dated and sourced from 2007) partially invalid. Please keep in mind while railing against Valve that isn't really their choice in some cases, as they have to abide by the laws of the country the game is sold in. There's no conspiracy here to hide the fact that Valve uses a range of pricing tiers or abides by national laws to enforce censorship. ferret (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked the original statement so that it uses the Russian copies as an example of restriction, rather than an exception to "Valve doesn't use restrictions, but..." ferret (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism (Again and Again)

I feel the following should be removed:

Privacy: The section doesn't describe any criticism, it simply states part of Valve's privacy policy. The source for this IS the privacy policy, rather than an article or review detailing criticism of Valve's privacy practices. How can the Privacy Policy be used as the source of criticism?

Steamworks Integration: I still feel this, as being specific to Modern Warfare 2, and being covered by that game's Wikipedia articles, doesn't need to be in Steam's article. The criticism is of MW2, not Steam.

Resale Limitation: Every citation in this section is from Valve's website. While the citations support that this is true, they do not present the limitation as a criticism. The one exception is the Inquirer article (The last citation), which instead of saying "You cannot resale games", actually says you can, for $10. I do not know if this claim is still valid, but the Inquirer article contradicts this section and is focused on Half-Life 2, not Steam. While the resale limitation is true, there's nothing here that supports it as a "Criticism", so it should either be removed or integrated into the article elsewhere.

(Yes, I'm working backwards)

Auto-Update Criticism: Again.... Citations are all from Valve with one exception. The one exception appears to be a blog dedicated to Steam, which I find questionable as a source. I think this should be removed or integrated better into the Features section of the article.

For the most part, the Region Pricing/Restriction, Conflict of Interest, and System Failure sections should be fine, though if I check the citations I might find more issues.

I may work on this myself shortly but wanted to get consensus. ferret (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree with your suggestion. Here are my thoughts on the sections mentioned:

Privacy

This section should just be removed. If there are any disagreements with this, it could maybe be mentioned in a sentence somewhere else in the article, but anonymous data collection is not really an issue, as far as I know, with very many people.

Steamworks integration

While personally I think this section isn't very meritorious, it does seem to be a significant issue with some; however, as it is now, it's really just a blurb about Modern Warfare 2, which, if used in the article at all, should just be used as an example. If someone can write up a more relevant summation of this complaint, by all means I think it's worthy of at least a mention, but as it is now, it doesn't really belong in the article.

Resale limitaiton

This is a very big non-issue, at least as far as Steam goes. Steam is an online digital game store, and the inability to sell a physical copy back is just one of the characteristics of that distribution model. The issue mentioned here has to do with digital distribution itself, not Steam.

Default auto-updates

I also find this complaint to be very unmeritorious. Steam is designed for and caters to those with high-speed broadband connections. If a patch that's automatically distributed breaks the game, it is the fault of the developer, not the update model. As far as cutting off support for Windows 98 and ME, that is just an absurd complaint—it's even stated in that section that less than one percent of Steam users were affected by that, and even that is probably an exaggerated number. Discontinuing support for legacy operating systems and software is a routine occurrence in the digital world—even Microsoft doesn't support those operating systems any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anunnakki (talk • contribs) 00:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

-

(my 2 cents about it)

Privacy : it shouldn't be in the "Criticism" section at all, but I don't think it should be removed. Instead, I think it should be moved to the "Client functionality" section like the "Payment" one, it's an important information about the platform, how it deals with its users' privacy.

Steamworks integration : this section is not perfect, but it should be there. There's several digital distributors and making Steamworks obligatory can be a serious problem for competitors (1- it advertises for Steam 2- it makes using only Steam more pratical, as you won't have to use several digital distribution platforms)

Resale limitation : I don't really understand why this part would be a non-issue or taken away, of course the few digital distribution platforms are -right now- not allowing any reselling, but it mays change in a near future (see the Project Ten Dollars). Steam only allows giving extra-copies you may get after purchasing a game pack (official Steam support page) for a fixed list of games (not all). Also, the reselling limitation affect games with Steamwork (<= again, it's an important information !) even if you buy them in retail stores (ex : MW2, FEAR 2, Metro 2033, Just Cause 2, SupCom 2, etc...).

Removing that information could lead people to believe their retail copy can be resold like any other retail copies, which is completely false : once the game is activated on a Steam account (in order to launch the game), it cannot be resold (because you can't revoke the activation, nor activate it on another account nor sell a Steam account).

(ps : I confirm the Informer website is wrong about the ten dollars for HL2)

Default auto-updates : this section need a rewrite sure, but it's a real problem for many games where the latest patch make the game very instable or not working at all (I'm not talking about the 1% Win98/WinME joke, it's about XP/Vista retro-compatibility with old games), it's also a problem for mods working only on older versions and community built patches (<= old games again). You may find it trivial because this is not a problem for recent modern games most of the time, as most patches are stable and mods keep getting updated, however it's a big concern for old games and their mods, that's why I think it needs a rewrite, not a remove.

Thanks --193.51.175.7 (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Anu for the most part. In response to 193.51.175.7: The question isn't really if these sections are irrelevant or should be removed entirely (I used some poor wording), but really asking "Why is this presented as a criticism?" The resale issue is, as Anu pointed out, a simple fact of ALL digital distribution platforms. This fact should be noted in the article on Digital distribution platforms, and not in Steam's unless Steam differs in some fashion from the rest of the industry.

As for the Steamworks/MW2 section, the inclusion of Steamworks is purely at the discretion of the developer/publisher. Valve does not force its usage in anyway, nor does Valve say "If you use Steamworks, you must make your games run only in Steam." Many games have both retail versions and Steam versions, where the Steam version uses Steamworks for cloud support or achievements, but the retail version doesn't require Steam at all. Obviously, all of Valve's games require the use of Steam, just as MW2 does. But the fact that MW2 requires Steam is not Steam's fault or Valve's fault. It's a decision made purely by Infinity Ward and Activision.

As for default auto-updates.... I think your reply actually explains WHY it should be removed, rather than kept. You mention that its rarely an issue with modern games (Which are most likely to be updated) and mostly an issue with older games (Which rarely if ever get patched). Like the support for Win98/ME being dropped, support for older games on Vista/Win7 is limited in places, and those games are very carefully labelled in the Steam store as "Windows XP only", etc. Steam also has the ability to turn off auto-updates (Which is mentioned in the features section), so if you're using a special mod or patch, you should simply turn the updates off.

"

My current plans: Move privacy information up and out of criticism. Remove Steamworks/MW2 section entirely. Remove most of the re-sale section and ensure the article on Digital distribution covers the issue and link to it. Remove the auto-update section, perhaps expanding the "Features" section for auto-update when I do so. ferret (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so rapidly and accurately :)

---

Resale may be "a simple fact of ALL digital distribution platforms", I think it should just be noted (not as a complete subsection in Criticism, ok) that "Steam, like all digital platforms to date, does not allow resale" (games or accounts). Steam being the major digital distribution platform and the fact the "Used Games War" (Gamestop & co) is a very important controversy in the video game industry, next to the piracy one (=> with piracy, it brought the DRM in games), that's why I think it should be "noted", not removed completely from the Steam article.

---

Concerning auto-updates : It explains why it should be removed ?! Woaw, wait a second. First, when I say "old games", I'm talking about "more than 1 year old" games, it includes a lot of games. Second, this doesn't mean at all these games doesn't get patches (official or community made) or mods. Of course you can turn off the "auto-update" feature, the problem here doesn't reside in blocking the update or not, it's about controlling the version Steam installs ! And that version is not always the right one : there's even a dedicated thread on the Steam forum listing all the games with the wrong version called "Unpatched games"

Steam auto-update feature is NOT a problem for retail games with non-steam patches available online, it is a problem for all the games you bought on Steam.

Example : I buy the game X, Steam downloads it. The game version is 1.76. I play the game, but it always crashes on the third mission. After looking on the fans forums, the game crashes only on WinXP/WinVista/WinSeven, other players reports the 1.70 version or the 1.80 version is much more stable. If there isn't a 1.76=>1.70 (backward ?!) patch or a 1.76=>1.80 patch compatible with the Steam version, I can't do anything. I can't reinstall the game from the CD/DVD to have an earlier version (the 1.0 or 1.2 one), I can't ask Steam to download an earlier version. => I spent Y dollars/euros/pounds on Steam for a game that I can't play, and I'm not sure to get a refund ("Steam is not responsible for...). I didn't bought FlatOut 2 (2006) on Steam at the last minute for that.

The same problem occurs when Steam updates your games without warning you, there is no coming back to the previous version : you lost your mods, saved games, the bug-free games you had.

And it's not only about Operating Systems : the graphic card, the sound card can make a game crash or don't run correctly (no sounds or noise signal, artifacts, invisible textures, etc).

In addition, the fact these games are "old" doesn't change the fact people will go on Steam, buy those games, and won't be able to play them because they can NOT patch those games to a particular version. => I mentionned this problem may affect only "old" games (1 year old and more) because I perfectly know that if you just play TF2, MW2 and CS:S on Steam you are not concerned by this at all and you will find that problem very trivial and refuse to keep it on the article. For people playing "old" games and mods on Steam, it is a major concern.

---

About Steamworks (and I'm not just talking about MW2 !), being "purely at the discretion of the developer/publisher" doesn't change the fact Steam is strongly marketing it (see the dedicated page for Steamworks) to publishers/devs as an anti-piracy and publishing tool, without separating it from the Steam client used for the Steam store.

Besides, we don't have any informations on the % the publisher gets from each sales with and without Steamworks, with or without an obligatory Steam account, we can not know if Steam is "forcing" the publishers or not.

The question is not about "is it Steam fault or not", "should we hang them high or not ?" this is not a Lynch law court here :), it's (imo) more about something along these lines :

"By promoting and selling or offering the Steamworks solution to publishers, does Steam prevent its digital distribution competitors from selling those games on their stores, as their customers will have to install the Steam client - which has by default the Steam store tab (the first one) as the starting tab when launching Steam and by default pop-up windows showing about the latest special deals on the Steam store - in order to fully benefit from their games (achievements, cloud feature, etc) or simply in order to play their games ?"

Needless to say that the digital distribution is a "client" war, the platforms like Steam, Impulse, Direct2Drive, etc are all trying to install their client on every potential customer computers. By bundling its anti-piracy protection (obligatory) and/or achiev/cloud features (wanted by the vast majority of players) with the Steam client, Steam is using a similar method to the one used by Microsoft to promote its internet browser, Internet Explorer.

** WARNING ** => before bursting into laughs about "ha ha Microsoft etc", please read this : I have nothing "against" Microsoft, they achieved an amazing work in many fields (ex : standardization) = I'm not here to brag about "ev1l Mi€ro$ft", please avoid pulling the "troll" card thanks.

So the main concern is about that product bundling, that's why digital distributors legitimately fear Steamworks is "forcing" the Steam client installation, to make it much more pratical (in term of being informed/aware this store exist and having to install only one client) for the potential customer to use the Steam store instead of a different store.

To conclude, I'm not asking to advocate the digital distribution competitors point of view (precisely the Direct2Drive one, who claims it's more a tying than a bundle) here, I simply think it's an important enough concern to be on Wikipedia.

Thanks --193.51.175.100 (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (ps : I'm 193.151.75.7 : I don't have a Wikipedia account yet and I'm on an open wireless so my IP address is changing)

In response to the auto-update issue: I believe my changes related to this section were accurate and should have been done. HOWEVER. I believe you've highlighted the issue in a different light and from a different angle that the old criticism didn't even cover. I would recommend (And support in its addition) a criticism section worded more like "Out-dated Game Versions" or similar, with proper sources detailing how some games are behind in versions compared to retail patches. The original criticism I removed didn't really address the fact that Steam is occasionally out of date or slow to implement new patches, simply that updating to the latest version is required and that this occasionally can cause errors. I feel its more neutral for those details to be included in the functionality section. The fact that Steam is behind on patches is more... "criticismy" to me and valid as such. But it's got to be sourced! The old version wasn't except for the Win98/WinME thing. I'll even another example, I bought Overlord on Steam and towards the end there was a broken level where the enemy disappeared. Steam didn't update to the fixed patch for several months after it was released.

I still don't think the Steamworks integration should be a criticism. I think it may be better suited to find a variety of sources and begin to make a paragraph about the "digital distribution wars" as part of the History of Steam section. Your thoughts? I'm sure we could find a couple of other games (Though not as big or well known as MW2) that are also Steam-locked. Besides Valve's own games, of course. One quick note though showing that Steamworks does not preclude retail or other distributors is Torchlight, which supports Steamworks (Including cloud and achievement support) but is not Steam-locked. The decision to integrate IWNET so tightly into Steam was I'm sure tied into all kinds of agreements between Valve and Activision that we'll never see, but I'd be really surprised Valve had enough leverage to somehow force Activision into it. I wonder if we could find a source on how many users Steam had pre- and post- MW2 launch as well.

Potential rough statement to start a new history section: "On whateverdateitwas, Modern Warfare 2 became the first game developed outside of Valve that required the use of Steam even when purchased at retail..." ferret (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think this would fit in well with the current "Profitability" subsection. I think that subsection needs a new name though, it doesn't quite fit. Should be something indicating Steam's expansion in market share, which seems to be what it really discusses. ferret (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think most of your points are valid. I can agree that the resale limitation could be mentioned similar to something like you suggested—that is, it is significant enough to be mentioned, but it should also point out that it's a problem with digital distribution as a whole, at least at the time being.

As for the auto-update issue, I think you definitely brought up a valid concern; as you and ferret both have said, the auto-update can cause problems with some games, so I think it does deserve a section in Criticism. But as ferret also said, it should be well cited and written neutrally.

However, I still disagree about Steamworks integration being "forced" in any way. Of course they're marketing it, it's their feature and they would like other developers to incorporate it too (thus the web page you pointed out), but this doesn't mean that it's forced, either directly or indirectly. For example, Assassin's Creed 2, Grand Theft Auto IV, and Dragon Age: Origins are all on Steam, and are/were heavily advertised as such, but the developers/publishers chose not to heavily integrate any Steamworks features. This is why Steam even explicitly states whenever there are third-party DRM schemes bundled with the game on its Store pages. AC2 uses Ubisoft's highly controversial mandatory internet connection scheme; GTA 4 has SecuROM, Rockstar's proprietary "Rockstar Social Club" (which is required for online play), and Microsoft's Games for Windows LIVE; and none of the mentioned games have Steam Achievements or Steam Cloud synchronization (as far as I know). All of those games can be purchased on other competing digital distribution platforms without problems directly related to Steam integration. Publishers/developers make the calculated decision to integrate and/or require Steamworks in their games.

I think the example question you posed is highly speculative, since, as you said, we can't know if Valve is actively attempting to squelch the competition through their promotions of Steamworks integration. While it is certainly possible (they are a business after all), we can't make any assumptions about whether Valve chooses to promote Steamworks purely for silently stamping out competition, or just because they want to improve their platform for their users, or any mixture of those two motives, or any other motives and mixtures thereof.

All of this said, I do think that it deserves a mention somewhere in the article, since it is such a growing concern in the user base and media, but I couldn't imagine anything relevant beyond a sentence or two. –Anunnakki (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a small subsection under features that mentions that some retail boxed games require steam, including Valve's games and MW2. I added it this morning with that thought in mind. I just don't really see a place to put "Steam's competitor's are mad that Steam landed a lucrative deal to provide DRM and other functionality for a triple A game" ferret (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I see it. Yeah, that's really probably all it needs, as far as that issue goes. –Anunnakki (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Steam for Linux

http://www.omgpcgames.com/index.php/interviews/33-computer/45-postal-iii-interview-with-running-with-scissors

A 2008 interview with Vince Desi, the CEO for Running With Scissors, contained the following

OMG! PC Games: Why did you decide on using the Valve engine?

Vince Desi: As a developer the most important element of an engine is stability. The Valve Source engine provides stability, for single player and multiplayer, also they provide excellent support. As POSTAL III is its own unique game, we are doing a lot of custom coding, so it’s better for us to know what we have to work with from the start. And STEAM is a major plus.

OMG! PC Games: What systems will Postal III be released on?

Vince Desi: Xbox 360, PS3, PC, Mac and Linux.

Assuming the website and interview are reliable (and they have been referenced by many sites), this gives us the following information

1) Postal III uses the Source Engine

2) Postal III is for Linux

3) Postal III appears to be for Steam

From that we can assume Source Engine will be ported to Linux (as opposed to using an entirely different engine for the linux port).

If the Source Engine is ported to Linux for them, Valve will very likely be able to use it to compile their other Source games (which they most likely will, as the cost is little once the engine is ported). And if the Source Engine is going to be ported to Linux, we can assume that the Steam Client will be as well, just like OSX.

http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online/News/valve_already_working_on_steam_for_linux

Left 4 Dead demo had linux libraries, including one named "steamclient_linux.so"

Valve was hiring someone to "port windows-based games to the Linux platform."

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=steam_confirmation&num=2

More about linux libraries in L4D demo

http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=651699

Mentions more parts of L4D demo that point to a linux steam client

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27459/GDC_Epic_Valve_Offering_Free_Steamworks_Integration_To_UE3_Licensees.php

Unreal engine 3 licensees get free Steamworks integration. Unreal Engine 3 is Linux/mac compatible. Valve is trying to get more support for Mac, but could also be trying to get more support for Linux.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODAzMA

Sounds like a big update to Linux ATI drivers is coming

http://www.japje.nl/steam-linux-guides/linux-counter-strike-16-server/

Steam had a command line client (with downloading) for Linux in 2003

Plus, OSX to Linux is a lot easier than Windows to OSX, and if they've had a person on it two years they should be close. 98.127.168.159 (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you trying to say, that we should list Steam as getting a Linux client soon because Running With Scissors says in a 2-year-old interview that they're making a native Linux version of their heavily "custom coded" Source driven game? Everything you just listed ranges from wildly speculative to totally irrelevant. –Anunnakki (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Valve has always had various Linux binaries as part of their support for Linux dedicated servers. There's been a command-line interface Steam client used by the Linux dedicated servers in order to download, install and update the servers since Day 1, and Linux support for Dedicated Servers pre-dates Steam. The idea that "If Running With Scissors ports it for them, they'll use it!" is extremely unlikely. The fact that Unreal 3 games are using Steamworks is irrelevant: Steamworks is part of the Steam distribution agreement, their use of it is no indication of Valve's plans to extend to Linux. And even more irrelevant is "ATI is updating their Linux support, so this must mean Valve is releasing Linux games/Steam!" .... how do you even get to that conclusion?

That said, OS X support basically makes porting to Linux a non-issue. They both use OpenGL and OS X is in reality a Nix kernel anyways. Coupled with the existing Dedicated server support, it's not farfetched... but until Valve SAYS it's going to happen, it ain't. ferret (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Added in a section talking about Linux releases. Valve already has a portion of Steam released publicly on Linux (HLDS) also the speculation that a Linux version is imminent is rising with the announcement of the Mac OS version. I feel it is justified to cover the mounting Linux speculation seeing as there are more indications that it is going to happen (along with Valve's job posting for a senior software engineer whose responsibilities include porting Windows games to Linux) . --Brother Kaif (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Speculation is rarely acceptable on Wikipedia, and this is not an exception. Nothing has changed with regard to Linux: the job advert has been around for years and could easily apply to Valve's line of dedicated servers. --Tom Edwards (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed speculation isn't accepted on Wikipedia, but perhaps now is time for a brief note. Since this talk page discussion, there has been more solid evidence [1][2], which has gained reporting on a number of news sites. In summary, the new evidence that has been reported on is: not-yet-functional linux binaries of steam, which can be downloaded from the official servers, include ports of the UI libraries, are being actively updated, and have not been hidden or removed since. There's no official word from Valve yet, but it seems to me that the recent evidence that has been reported on may be worthy of a brief note. --174.114.150.108 (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, although I’ll leave it to a third editor. —Wulf (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to agree as well. Even if Valve hasn't said anything official yet, at this point, it's beyond reasonable doubt. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Not until a source is cited that doesn't link back to Phoronix. Phoronix remains the sole source of this information. "Gained reporting on a number of news sites" still means "We read Phoronix today and they say..." as far as I can tell ferret (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Linux support for Steam being added in the future is mentioned both here and here. Hopefully Valve will mention something when they officially release the Mac version today. -- I need a name (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still wary of the lack of real confirmation on this, all we really have is a single sentence from Telegraph UK with no date or information on how the confirmation came about. What is Telegraph's source? How come they know it's coming but few other sites seem to have direct information? Even Phoronix is using Telegraph as their only hard source. I'm not going to revert the addition of Linux to the platform right now, but I don't feel we have an adequate source yet. I personally believe that a Linux client WILL be coming out, it's just that Wikipedia isn't built on what I believe will happen. ferret (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed a reference to Linux being one of Steam's platforms.

• There is no press release, quote or comment from Valve regarding it. Phoronix and the Telegraph claim that it is official without any citation or link whatsoever.
• Even if it was official that Valve is developing a Steam client - it still won't be a Steam platform until the client is actually released, which it isn't. Given that it isn't even confirmed yet it's quite a bit off still.

Anyone who actually readds Linux to the list of platforms before it is even released just because Phoronix posts an article about Steam on Linux daily in order to whip up ad revenues shouldn't be surprised if it is re-deleted. --Joffeloff (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, the claims of it being "official" by Telegraph UK and Phoronix are not considered credible by the readers of Phoronix even, from what I gather in it's IRC channel. To me it seems at the mention as of the current revision now (after the edits by Joffeloff and 112.203.100.68) currently is good as far as what linux-related evidence has sufficient credibility. --174.114.150.108 (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Steam problems

On Windows 7 64-bit, Steam has problems. You have to start the client twice; the first time, it has no history, no favourites, etc. It also never remembers that you've selected 'small mode' and so always comes up with the large advert window. Also Steam can at times be impossible to quit - selecting quit tells you Steam is 'syncing to the cloud' and you can click on 'exit now' or 'wait' - but before you can move the pointer to click on 'exit now', the window goes away - but Steam hasn't quit! Toby Douglass (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact that none of that is a common problem (I, for instance, use Win 7 x64 and Steam daily, and have no idea what you're talking about), this article isn't where a user would go to seek troubleshooting tips. Nor is this talk page a place for you to come and complain about bugs. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Mac Client

By now, it's pretty clear there is a Mac client coming, what with all the icons people have found, and the Mac style ads Valve has released recently. But I'm not so sure it should be listed as having a Mac client until there is some kind of official release, whether that be a beta or final version—something "tangible", so to speak. What are your guys' thoughts? –Anunnakki (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. WP:CRYSTAL is iffy on this point. I don't think that it belongs in the infobox (and I just removed it) because it's not out yet. I'm sure we're going to have some text about this, probably in the History section, so I'd say it belongs there for now. Once an actual product is out - and I mean actually out, not just beta - then we can include it in the box. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say add it to the UI Update beta section. It is not in the stable release yet, all of the new icons and such are being found in the beta. ferret (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've renamed the "Major overhaul" section to "UI Update 2010" (The official name). I've added a paragraph about the Mac speculation with two sources for now. Please feel free to expand it or tag a better source if you had one, this one appeared to summarize most of what's been found without heavy detail. I didn't want to use Kotaku as I believe they are still considered unreliable? ferret (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Steam has already been fully confirmed for Mac OS X, along with all of Valve's source engine first party catalog (L4D 2, Team Fortress 2, Counterstrike, Portal, HL series) http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/08/valve-confirms-mac-support-for-steam-and-source-engine/ This is straight from Valve's Jason Holtman, so this is in no way a rumor anymore, it is official, so remove the windows-only tag from the article and make the necessary additions already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.100.158 (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, bottom line: It's not released yet, neither as stable or beta. Thanks for the source though, I'll reword the section about future Mac support in a little while if someone doesn't beat me. If you don't know about "Valve Time", I suggest Googling. ferret (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The two sections need to be merged at some point. The UI update and Mac support are interwoven. --Tom Edwards (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think in the interest of the article as a whole, the picture of Todd Hollenshead should be removed; as it is now, it's creating a really awkward funnel of the text. Also, I'm not so sure that it should be labeled as "cross-platform"; that term implies a broad range of platform compatibility, and as of now, it only has support for two platforms. I think if a Linux client ever gets released, "cross-platform" would be a more appropriate term, but I think with just the two platforms, they should be listed separately. Thoughts on these changes? –Anunnakki (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cross-platform is ok. Otherwise it should be changed back to PC, which covers both Mac OS X and Linux as well as Windows. The Operating Systems field covers the rest. I think the change to Cross-platform was an effort to short circuit those who refuse to view Apple products as being PCs simply because Apple tries to market them alternatives to generic Windows PCs. Both the Macintosh article and the PC article though support the term "PC" being applied to machines running OS X. Alternatively: Remove the Operating Systems field entirely and move "Windows" and "OS X" to "Platform". ferret (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I put cross-platform after I saw it used in the Microsoft Office article. -- Love, Smurfy 22:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I didn't see the Operating System section; in that case, the "cross-platform" thing is fine, if not a little redundant. What are your guys thoughts on the picture of Todd Hollenshead? –Anunnakki (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a little odd having both an OS and a platform field. Unless 'platform' is taken to mean IBM vs. PowerPC (or similar), it's effectively the same thing as OS. --Tom Edwards (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would view platform as "PC, XBOX, PS3, etc", with OS being a PC-specific category "Windows XP, Windows Vista, OS X, Linux Xyz, etc". As for the Todd picture... I'm neutral. On a purely cosmetic opinion, I like it on the basis that its not a screen shot of Steam itself like every other image is. ferret (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel like we might get into an edit war about "Cross-Platform", "PC", "IBM PC", "BUT OS X ISN'T PC! THE APPLE COMERCIALS SAY SO", etc. For clarity and hopefully to keep everyone happy, I've moved Windows and OS X to "Platform" and taken out the Operating System line. I see several other software and game articles that take this route (Including the article on the Source engine), so I think its the best solution. ferret (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

SteamPlay - What exactly is it? It's not referred to on this page at all. I think it would be good to put up some info on just what it is. Flib (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's there, look for "Steam Play" --MASEM (t) 22:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would it be good to list it under the functionality section? Flib (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I was arguing about this with a friend last night. It's not really a client feature but a marketing tool. As a "feature" of the service, rather than the platform or client, Valve allows games that run on multiple platforms to be purchased only once for all platforms, rather than once per platform. I don't really like wording it as a "feature" because I think many people (myself included) would be led to believe that it's some sort of technological feature of the client, when it's not. The best alternative I've been able to think up would be something like "SteamPlay refers to the ability to play any purchased game on all supported platforms without making a second purchase.".

I don't know. I just don't like the word "feature", but I'm probably in the minority. I view it kind of like if my phone company said "You now have PhonePlay! Our service will work on both corded and cordless phones at no additional cost!" ferret (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you guys. I think that even if it is just a marketing tool that it should be described in the article as exactly what it is though. Flib (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Forthcoming games that will be Mac compatible

Let's keep this to what we know and can prove to a reasonable degree, rather than rumour, speculation and wishful inferences. Unless someone can cite a reliable source (no pun intended) Valve have not committed to porting any of their back catalogue of Windows titles to the Mac beyond Portal, which was given away free with the release of Steam for OS X. M0thr4 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added the sources - they've actually said this (the source was probably one of the existing ones that got separated with reordering), but I've added a specific source that says they are coming. Mind you, I've noted this as a future happening, as it wasn't with the launch of the service. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Steam Cloud/Play

What exactly is the difference between the two? They both provide the same service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.228.163 (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Steam Cloud means saved games and appropriate settings are stored to the network so you can have the same saved game state on different networked computers. Steam Play means the game is available both as a PC and Mac title, and that as long as you purchased one version, you also can use the other version. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for the clarification. By the way, the Orange Box is now for sale for Mac users, with Team Fortress labeled as 'Mac coming soon'. 62.163.228.163 (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Download Clarification?

The artical says "Content can be downloaded from Steam servers an unlimited number of times to any number of Internet-connected computers that have the Steam client installed.", whilst this is strictly true, the ability to play the game may be restricted by individual game DRM. Several games have a 5 install limit regardless of steam is being used or not, would it be useful to have this mentioned? 91.143.78.38 (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a point, but I think that those external DRM schemes are largely issues with the publishers, not Steam or Valve. One of the things that Valve pushes in its advertising to publishers is its self-contained DRM scheme, but it's apparently not enough for a few publishers. Steam notifies users on the Store pages if it comes with a 3rd party DRM scheme, and if a user does exceed an install limit, they can still call the publisher to request an additional activation (which is not relevant to this article). This issue might deserve a mention, but I think, for the most part, it's not ubiquitous enough to warrant a significant amount of coverage. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

References?

There's something screwy with the references starting at [84] which is a link to 83. In the end, one of the references is not listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottt online (talk • contribs) 19:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the links start numbering at 0. If you hover over reference [1], you'll see that the link is for '0'. So each reference has a link with a number - 1. 84's link has 83, 83's link has 82, etc, etc. ferret (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

.. fax activation?

Just a quick question I had after reading the article - I didn't want to edit it before asking in here. I was a bit surprised by the following sentence under the critizism section:
"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." Very few people today have fax machines, so I think that's a bit unnecessary (is that the right word?) to mention fax. Sure, some people still have, but some people still have pidgeon post, and you're not able to activate it with that either. Unless it has been heavily criticised that the "fax activation" feature is missing, I think we should just stick with telephone activation, which is a lot more common. Do I get the OK for an edit, or do you disagree? T-Roland (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely, I just removed that part. To my knowledge, no video game has ever required activation by any means other than online, so that sentence is kind of ridiculous. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning fax was a little odd, but there are lots of software with phone activation. The most obvious example is Windows provides phone activation if an internet connection is unavailable. ferret (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Phone activation isn't all that common anymore and windows is a notable exception because it's the operating system and you might have to operate it before your system is fully set up and running and connected to the internet.--Crossmr (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)