(11-20-2012, 05:57 PM)Googolplex Wrote: (11-19-2012, 11:24 PM)Damascus Rose Wrote: wtf. why
Because I did not want to buy a game for what I need a third-party-software to run it.
And I did not want to buy a game for what I have to activate to an online account for lifetime.
And i did not want to buy a game for what I need internet connection.
And I did not want to buy a game for what I have to accept someones "terms" to play it.
And I did not want to buy a game for what I have no guarantee if the server/account exist in future.
When I buy a game, the playability should not be connected to the hands of third party people.
When I pay money, it should be mine and not leased.
DRM protection also doesn't protect your game, it will just plague the honest buyer. And there is no difference to piracy!
I think, I've said all.
-Isn't a video game console third party software/hardware? Do you not play console games?
-ok
-I agree
-You already have to accept the terms of the developer/distributor of the actual game
-Makes sense
-also makes sense, but a lot of games these days are requiring you to have an account on their website and an internet connection just to play even single player (Diablo III, league of legends, etc.)
"When I pay money, it should be mine and not leased."
The content you are paying for is never really yours, you are technically paying for a lease anyway, regardless of whether it is on steam or not.
But my biggest question is, is steam really so bad that you wouldn't buy a great new frictional game and support indie developers of games you love, even if you disapprove of steam?
Ps. I realize this game will not only be available on steam