Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Direct Distribution Deals threadFollow

#1377 Jan 21 2013 at 10:45 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,884 posts
Where are you talking to the Amazon reps at?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#1378 Jan 22 2013 at 12:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Cheap *** Gamer (CAG) Forums
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1379 Jan 22 2013 at 12:22 AM Rating: Good
Personally, I think Joph has some behind the scenes sh*t going on with Amazon, GMG, etc. It's like they send him the sales to approve before they release them to the public.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2013 1:23am by IDrownFish
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129
#1380 Jan 22 2013 at 4:46 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,278 posts
The [link=http://www.amazon.com/Ubisoft-Far-Cry-3-Download/dp/************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************ 3 deal that Joph mentioned is up[/link], and I confirmed that the Editor's Choice discount will be applied to it.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#1381 Jan 22 2013 at 4:51 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,884 posts
Looks like it's a Uplay (Ubisoft's thing) activation.
Says STEAM in the DRM, but that it requires a Uplay account? Hmm, I'm not too familiar with it, maybe it's for online play?
Edit: Even Steam's info says it requires a Uplay account.

I have it just for the free ACIII I got from a SSD purchase. But I have to cut back on spending for a while so even at 30 dollars it's too much for me.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2013 5:58am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#1382 Jan 22 2013 at 8:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
All versions of Far Cry 3 require Uplay. The Steam version just has another layer of DRM (Steam) on it. But some people have an unusual fascination with things being on Steam so the option is there. You can pick the non-Steam option as well.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1383 Jan 22 2013 at 8:02 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,278 posts
As long as Uplay doesn't require me to download a different client to play the game I'm all for it.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#1384 Jan 22 2013 at 8:48 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Jophiel wrote:
But some people have an unusual fascination with things being on Steam so the option is there.


Achievements, easy redownloads, steam community stuff (workshop, etc.), single client, big picture mode.

I'm not saying that I'd pay through the nose just to have a game on steam, but I do prefer the option, when available.
#1385 Jan 22 2013 at 8:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eye of the beholder. Don't care about achievements (although Uplay has achievements for FC3) , Uplay allows downloads, no real mods for FC3, going into Uplay breaks "big picture mode" (from what I hear), etc.

Plus these games where you start in Steam and then have to log in through Uplay, GFWL, Rockstar Social Club, Bioware, etc defeat the purpose of "single client" anyway.
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
As long as Uplay doesn't require me to download a different client to play the game I'm all for it.

From what I understand all versions require going through Uplay which is why I said Steam is just adding another layer on top of it. I don't care about Uplay; it works fine and isn't intrusive. ****, as a launch client, it's probably less obnoxious than Steam. But you do have to use it for Far Cry 3.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2013 8:55am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1386 Jan 22 2013 at 9:23 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Eye of the beholder. Don't care about achievements (although Uplay has achievements for FC3) , Uplay allows downloads, no real mods for FC3, going into Uplay breaks "big picture mode" (from what I hear), etc.

Plus these games where you start in Steam and then have to log in through Uplay, GFWL, Rockstar Social Club, Bioware, etc defeat the purpose of "single client" anyway.
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
As long as Uplay doesn't require me to download a different client to play the game I'm all for it.

From what I understand all versions require going through Uplay which is why I said Steam is just adding another layer on top of it. I don't care about Uplay; it works fine and isn't intrusive. ****, as a launch client, it's probably less obnoxious than Steam. But you do have to use it for Far Cry 3.


*shrug*

I'm still catching up with the PC environment - I've yet to use Uplay or Origin or any of their ilk, so I can't comment. I'm just speaking in generalities to the "unusual fascination" with things being on steam.
#1387 Jan 22 2013 at 9:28 AM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
Steam is exactly like those other things, it's just established.
#1388 Jan 22 2013 at 9:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'd say Steam offers more overall features than Origin or Uplay, it's just that most of those features have no bearing on most games. I don't care what format people want to buy their games in, I just find it curious when they're vehemently against one of the platforms ("I'll never buy XYZ because it's Origin!") or pro-Steam ("I'll never buy ABC because it's not on Steam!"). I don't mean anyone specifically here, I see it more on the Steam forums. People there are weird.

I find it weirder when people are so anti-DRM but then demand a Steam version which, 9 times out of 10 is just adding another layer of DRM rather than using Steam in lieu of Securom, Tages, GFWL, etc.

On the other hand, forced clients that really add nothing (GFWL, Rockstar social Club, Bioware's whatever) can all go eat ******
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1389 Jan 22 2013 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,278 posts
People demand Steam versions because they know it's eventually going to have a huge discount applied to it during one of the holiday sales. Also it's easier to keep track of your game purchases over one client than say two or three.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#1390 Jan 22 2013 at 10:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
People demand Steam versions because they know it's eventually going to have a huge discount applied to it during one of the holiday sales.

Like Kingdoms of Amalur! Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1391 Jan 22 2013 at 10:36 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,278 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
People demand Steam versions because they know it's eventually going to have a huge discount applied to it during one of the holiday sales.

Like Kingdoms of Amalur! Smiley: grin


Screenshot
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#1392 Jan 22 2013 at 10:41 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Jophiel wrote:
But some people have an unusual fascination with things being on Steam so the option is there.
I'm not big on achievements and whatnot, but there are plenty of people who are. Achievements can be a way to compare your progress to that of your friends, and Steam provides a service that tracks progress in most games. It's not so unusual; it's just more common on consoles. Many Steam users treat Steam as just that: their console for their PC game collection.
____________________________
Banh
#1393 Jan 22 2013 at 11:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
***
2,265 posts
I just find Steam easier to keep track of what I have. I really don't like the idea of having 3-4 "launchers" and having my games split across them. I have a few DRM Free games and Older games still on CDs (CoD4:MW) that arent steam activated and I forget I have them. I was looking through my Amazon digital games and noticed I have a few non-steam games in there and completely forgot I have them, so next time I get bored I'll have to try and remember when Im looking through my Steam list for a game to play i'll have to remember they are there.

As for Origin I really dislike EA, not so much as a publisher but as a business. They want to monetize everything with micro transactions and bleed every dollar they can from their customers and they are so big that many companies are emulating them. Activision and Capcom are getting just as bad (sometimes worse).

MW2 map packs were a turning point. I understand charging for them on consoles to offset what Microsoft/Sony charge the developers for data/storage on their systems. But on PC the Mappacks for Cod4:MW were free, like all the Fps before them. But because it was so popular suddenly they needed to charge, now we have this model where game companies are developing stuff for games and leaving it out to be sold later. EA seems to be near the forefront of this push with leaving content out to be sold later, and they are the first company to push this Online pass BS .

I will say I know Origin and Steam are similar but Steam has a good track record they have shown through the years with Holiday Sales and just overall experience with their system that they at least understand where gamers are coming from, and for now I have trust in their company.

Ea Origin on the other hand I don't trust, I don't like their idea that a forum Mod can ban you from all your games if you don't "Play nice". I mean I usually lurk on most forums but every once in a while Ill see something I want to chime in on and with their service I would fear if my comment comes off the wrong way or I use the wrong words to convey my meaning (Look at this thread to see what I mean My one post where I got snide about Origin I got defaulted because I chose to try doing it in a silly way instead of a long written out post like this.) I mean here Karma means nothing, but lets say on EA forums I wrote that, what's to stop a mod from banning my account or suspending it and locking me out of my games. I just don't want a company to have that much leverage over my words, to be able to censor my thoughts out of fear of retribution.

GFWL while being its own thing doesnt bother me. When I played Batman AA and AC it was just an ingame popup and I could choose Offline mode nothing big. I havent gotten around to Dark Souls yet but I think I can just log in using my MSN Messenger stuff for any online connectivity bs if need be (I think).

Sorry for the super long post. I just wanted to make my thoughts a bit more clear on why I really don't like /want origin games. The Farcry 3 Uplay I would think is probably like GFWL just a bit extra infrastructure/DRM to make the company feel more safe. I hear they are doing some interesting things with the system like being able to use your "achievement points" to unlock little side stuff from the games. (Wallpapers, skins, silly extra stuff) which I find interesting and since the points work across all Uplay games. I understand the idea that they seem to be going for.

____________________________
What I Play
Recently Played
#1394 Jan 22 2013 at 11:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I just put all my games in a simple spreadsheet and browse that when looking for something new to play. That way I'm not restricting myself to the Steam library or forgetting about some DRM free title I bought elsewhere. I suppose that's not a solution everyone is willing to do though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1395 Jan 22 2013 at 1:05 PM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
You know you guys can add non-steam games to your steam list right?
#1396 Jan 22 2013 at 1:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
KTurner wrote:
You know you guys can add non-steam games to your steam list right?

Sure, but I don't necessarily install everything upon purchase. So it's a little difficult to add a title that currently only exists as a link on my GamersGate account.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1397 Jan 22 2013 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
jeez, get a bigger hard drive...
#1398 Jan 22 2013 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
2,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:
KTurner wrote:
You know you guys can add non-steam games to your steam list right?

Sure, but I don't necessarily install everything upon purchase. So it's a little difficult to add a title that currently only exists as a link on my GamersGate account.


What Joph said also you cant add a game to your library if its not installed and it doesnt save the game to your Steam library indefinitely if you reinstall Steam it just defaults all the Steam games from Steam not the ones saved on your list. Which is bad for people with multiple drives (Main is an SSD 128 gig, 2nd is a 500 gig 7400 rpm and 3rd is an 320 gig external with other data.)

I reformat my system about 1 time a year ish depending so linking a game into Steam doesnt help remembering all the games I have. Which I have a LOT on disks. With Steam its nice having them on demand on the cloud (and now with cloud saves!), so I can cure the itch to play old games anytime, since sans apocalypse I will always have internet since in todays day and age it's almost required.*


* Speaking of which and not to derail but I think it's high time congress relooks at internets classification and classify it as a utility and not as a luxury. When I worked at Charter Cable I found out why they are allowed to have a "monopoly" where phone companies aren't. In the past Bell(AT&T) owned most of the phone lines which they refused to let other companies use, and congress had to step in and pretty much stop that. The way it works now if companies can pay a fee to At&T use "bandwidth" in those lines then offer it to their consumers for a cheaper price if they wish. Cable companies on the otherhand weren't part of this as cable at the time was still rather new and considered a luxury(and still is), but they arent forced to share their lines with other companies. So a competitor would have to put in full new lines which because of a company already having a stable base would be almost futile to try getting a base. This is why most areas (Mega cities not included) have limited options for cable (and since the best internet is usually cable, internet) provider, and it seems to be a monopoly.

Congress should step in and make basic internet (even 256kb of 512kb) classified as utility and allow smaller companies to lease bandwidth. This would help net infrastructure in the US a lot. High speed DSL (consumer) caps a lot lower and usually more expensive for slower speeds. Uverse has a max atm Speed of 30Mbs(?), Charter here offers(well used to, now its a 2 tier system) 10,15,25,50,100Mbs packages, now they offer 30mbs or 100Mbs(I have the latter since it cost me a whole 5 dollars a month since the wife works at Charter still my job got downsized during the big recession start 2 years ago.) I'm really looking forward to Google and their net since it looks like great speeds and affordable prices (first day people in the test area were getting 700Mbs download and Upload on home connections and that was only 80 bucks a month I think) but they offered great plans and even a permanent* plan that was something like "pay for us to install the lines to your house and you would always get like a 5mb internet connection, or could pay per month for a higher speed" Least it was one package they were looking at.




Edited, Jan 22nd 2013 2:05pm by BeanX
____________________________
What I Play
Recently Played
#1399 Jan 22 2013 at 2:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,278 posts
BeanX wrote:
* Speaking of which and not to derail but I think it's high time congress relooks at internets classification and classify it as a utility and not as a luxury. When I worked at Charter Cable I found out why they are allowed to have a "monopoly" where phone companies aren't. In the past Bell(AT&T) owned most of the phone lines which they refused to let other companies use, and congress had to step in and pretty much stop that. The way it works now if companies can pay a fee to At&T use "bandwidth" in those lines then offer it to their consumers for a cheaper price if they wish. Cable companies on the otherhand weren't part of this as cable at the time was still rather new and considered a luxury(and still is), but they arent forced to share their lines with other companies. So a competitor would have to put in full new lines which because of a company already having a stable base would be almost futile to try getting a base. This is why most areas (Mega cities not included) have limited options for cable (and since the best internet is usually cable, internet) provider, and it seems to be a monopoly.

Congress should step in and make basic internet (even 256kb of 512kb) classified as utility and allow smaller companies to lease bandwidth. This would help net infrastructure in the US a lot. High speed DSL (consumer) caps a lot lower and usually more expensive for slower speeds. Uverse has a max atm Speed of 30Mbs(?), Charter here offers(well used to, now its a 2 tier system) 10,15,25,50,100Mbs packages, now they offer 30mbs or 100Mbs(I have the latter since it cost me a whole 5 dollars a month since the wife works at Charter still my job got downsized during the big recession start 2 years ago.) I'm really looking forward to Google and their net since it looks like great speeds and affordable prices (first day people in the test area were getting 700Mbs download and Upload on home connections and that was only 80 bucks a month I think) but they offered great plans and even a permanent* plan that was something like "pay for us to install the lines to your house and you would always get like a 5mb internet connection, or could pay per month for a higher speed" Least it was one package they were looking at.


https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/

I would sign it.



Edited, Jan 22nd 2013 3:18pm by Shaowstrike
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#1400 Jan 22 2013 at 2:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
BeanX wrote:
* Speaking of which and not to derail but I think it's high time congress relooks at internets classification and classify it as a utility and not as a luxury.

Heh, I was making the same argument in 2009. Things sure ain't changing quickly, huh?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1401 Jan 22 2013 at 3:09 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
2,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Heh, I was making the same argument in 2009. Things sure ain't changing quickly, huh?


Funny story was brought to mind while I was reading that thread, the charge as a utility discussion. Me and My wife pay for her moms phone, we have Sprint. Well things happened and my wife wanted to switch to another provider. After checking our data usage, minute usage and otherthings to compare packages from other companies we found out we can't switch.

Me and the Wife live in WI and her mom lives in Seattle, but anyway. Data usage for 10 days into the billing cycle. Me and the Wife about 512MB to about 1 gig maybe. Her mom was at 6.5GB of data already. AT&T, Verison, and Tmobile reps almost LAUGHED at us when we asked about unlimited Data, most of them only had 10gig maxes on their phones and that was a $100 upcharge. We can't figure out what she's doing with her phone, were guessing shes not using a PC/Laptop at all and just doing everything from her phone. But dear lord if we hadn't had unlimited data with our package I fear what our monthly bill would look like.

After our contract is up were thinking of just using prepaid. Right now for 1500 Mins (which we use maybe 250 of) with Free Mobile to Mobile, Nights and weekends, Unlimited Text/Data on 3 phones we pay something around $220 a month, which even with all my complaining they say they can't lower that even when I told them that I could get the prepaid ones with Unlimited everything for 45 bucks a month.
____________________________
What I Play
Recently Played
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 73 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (73)