Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
I am also hoping for a gog release.
I'm just hoping for a gog release so then I can acquire two copies, One for casual, The other for offline play.
I spend £30 on a game, then complete it. I'm not wanting to play it and currently playing a completely different game, and my kid (that lives in the same house as me) want to play it.
In your mind, should I
A) Buy another copy of the game
B) Let them play the game on their computer, but stop playing the game I'm enjoying
C) Let them play the game on their computer, and continue playing the game I'm enjoying
?
Imagine a situation when there is no steam or any online digital distribution service, So in right mind should the developer remove the CD-key- so that is easy to burn on disk and share it with your friends and family? If you were the game developer, how do you feel? Or imaging another situation where your at the fast food restaurant and your complaining that you have paid for it and not receiving a proper table service? Common? Can we have some common sense?
I did not say the game literally to should be release as free in the terms of shareware. What I meant is "free to play model". What am I advocating it? because it brings more players to this so called almost "dead" genre. There is still money to be make for developers in terms skins or other perks and of course advertisement - if this game were to be ported to mobile.
I was gaming for the 20 years before Steam. There was various DRM systems, including CD-Keys. The difference was that the DRM for "Game A" was for "Game A" only. I could install "Game A" on wife's PC and install "Game B" on my machine and they'd both work.
With Steam every game you buy on an Account is bound together.
Valve could have, with it's poorly names "Steam Family Sharing", had a system that allowed people on the same subnet to play different games from 1 account at the same time. The didn't, the reinforced the idea of 1 account = 1 active user.
And if you think they did that to stop abuse, you've were never on the SFS forum. chock a block with people openly (on a Valve moderated Forum) abusing SFS to get Free games from total strangers. For while SFS was shockingly bad for cohabiting families, it was a great when someone lived a couple of time zones away.
BTW. Microsoft will allow the library to be used for up to 10 Machines Concurrently, even the same game. Epic allows different games to be run from the same account on different machines, and even Origin before EA pulled the plug on it would shift to offline mode without exiting the game if the account goes online on another machine.
Fair use is easily possible, its simply more profitable for Valve to restrict it.
GOG has better family sharing system.
GOG has better refund system.
GOG doesn't FORCE updates.
GOG let's you download the install files which allows you to install without an Internet connection, and enables you to play offline indefinitely.
The better question is...why would you not buy from GOG?