I thought it was a good thing,but I had absolutly no problems with it while a lot of others had problems
Steam was a really good idea that was very badly implemented because it is based on the assumption that everyone has a functioning 24/7 broadband connection with the necessary ports enabled. If I am to accept Steam in the long term, several changes need to be made. Firstly, once games are installed and activated, they should always be available to play offline. Users should never be locked out of their software because of a problem with the software or because an update is available. Steam also needs to use standardised ports for updates and authentication. My ISP just blocked a load of ports in an attempt to stop peer-to-peer file sharing. I couldn't log into Steam for two days, and I still can't update it without using HTTP tunneling. Updates should be downloaded to a local cache and then install when they are downloaded. Meanwhile, as long as you are not connecting to newer server versions, the old version should continue to function. The biggest problem I have is when I'm running a LAN party. If there are version differences between Steam clients, it's a pain to sort them out without high speed internet access. There needs to be a way of easily rolling out updates, either by generating patches from the newest version at the event, or by providing downloadable patches. With these changes, Steam could be a great application. Automatic updates are a great idea, and are very useful for those users who are online on high-speed connections. Admittedly activation would still be a pain, but I can at least tolerate that. The problem is that Steam is frequently a barrier between me and my software when I am offline, and in my oppinion that is unacceptable.
Yes, exactly, MouseAT. Steam was a good concept idea, but was badly put into effect. It was made to create an easy-to-use interface, but was not implemented as it should have been. You've brought up great points.
Unfortunately, for each person who sees Steam this way, there seems to be ten who'll simply scream "Steam sucks - get rid of this ****", and another ten Steam fanboys who will then flame them appropriately. The problem is convincing the staff at Valve to make these changes. Most of these changes would require re-writing parts of the client, which would be a big job, but is essential if Steam is ever going gain widespread acceptance. If the average user can install Half Life 2 from his DVD, unlock it in a few minutes and play it offline straight away, they'll be a lot happier. They can get the patches as and when they need them, such as when they decide to play online. If the game works, why spend hours online on a 56K just because there is an update that fixes a minority's problems?
Soon as I try to figure out what you typed in your first post... Ill maybe comment....but.. WON = bad Steam = Khoul
<_< Steam is ok... except for the fact that it took a day and a half just to get updates/install/register/etc. I've installed some big games before, but none took as long to actually PLAY as HL2 did. Now admittedly, it's worth it now to play Counter-Strike, but it shouldn't have even taken that long...
really like the game hl2 but im affraid that the later steam games will b at low quality at the game experience, bcause they wont have teh same courage after seing that most of the ppl playing their game actually uses a cracked version
Steam is nice at times they both have their goods and bads..but I would go with Steam just because of Auto updates and all that other crap.
half life 2 is good but the steam side as dominished the game play too much lag and too many that hack into it and cheat
Man steam sucks i hate it loads of loading time like 3 hours or something man css took 45 minutes too install @ a friends
Steam was really a nail in Valves Coffin. The HL2 sales were nearly as big as what people were predicting.
