Yeah, that is what I am referring to. And it's not my issue, it's issues I know other people have run into. The activation part is a a problem and it shouldn't be part of a retail, physical disc purchase. Disc checks, serial codes, whatever... I just don't think single-player and LAN parts of games should require the internet to play, at the very least, not the singleplayer. I 100% understand that pirates could work around that fairly easily but so what, pirates work around everything. I would love to see digital distribution continue to expand and maybe address the whole activation part better (as in no activation server no game, you know when a company goes down or just decides to just stop supporting older games... EA). I know GOO is supposedly going to address the issue, but I don't put much stock in what could be until I actually see it at work.I would like the DRM, copyright, whatever you call it for retail and digital copies to be handled differently. There is a reason someone purchases a retail product over a digital one and those lines shouldn't be blurred. Valve shouldn't even require steam for a game that wasn't downloaded throught he service unless, until they choose to use it for multiplayer, at which case it could be a safe assumption to make that they have internet (not crippled like at the bases) to use it.

Yeah, I know about Steams offline mode.

I actually typed the wrong thing(kinda) and wasn't able to edit my comment. I really wanted to, but couldn't, and I came off as a bit of a douchebag. Sorry. I didn't want to comment three posts in a row! (again...)

Anyways, I understand you there, but from what I know pirating isn't much of an issue with Steam games, if one at all. If you can't do an online activation, too bad for you. That's just how it works. I bought Half-Life 2 used on E-Bay and wasn't able to activate it. That sucked, but I was still completely alright with that. (yay for the Orange Box). Again, that's just how it works. If that'll combat piracy, then it's automatically great.

Compared to how disagrement normally plays on a Stardock forum, at least the ones I am familiar with, you didnt' seem too terrible to me.

I understand that is how it works now, my argument is that it shouldn't be that way. A retail purchase should not be treated the same as a digital download, not require the instant activation just to install it. The way Steam/Valve has it now, the only reason to buy a disc version of the game is to have a faster install (aka data on the disc) or because the price in store is a lot lower (which happens fairly frequently), and they completely ignore the market that has limited or no internet access. They're free to do that of course, but I don't think it's right, and it's not a trend I want the industry to follow. If I understand how Impulse works (and please do feel free to correct me), you need access for additional content and maybe patches. I only have one game with Stardock and it's been awhile since I played so not 100% sure.  I mean think of it this way. It's already bad enough that if you if have no internet access at all, your initial gaming experience is probably going to be pretty bad because of release day patches, which sadly, is already an accepted norm (you know shipping games before they are ready). 

I realize the digital distribution is going to grow, but I don't see why the gaming industry refuses to listen and learn from the music industry's mistakes. It's not as if they are forcing digital distribution on consumers and bypassing CDs all together. There is just so much that is beneficial to digital downloading for that industry. The gaming industry, it feels more forced and less about benefits and more about how much control and leverage a company can get over it's customers. And while I will certainly acknowledge the music industry has enough issues about pirates of its own, it's not as if the gaming industry can get much worse with piracy itself.

I personally have only one issue with digital distribution, and it's not a technical one at all, and that's a lack of trust of the companies doing the distribution which stems from experience to the worst the gaming industry has to offer over the years. Granted, there is enough benefits that I continue to play on the PC in addition to the consoles I own.

Although the military issue is not my own hurdle, I think it's worth looking at. And until I convert to primarily downloading my games (as of right now I primarily go after hard to find games or indie games via digital distribution), I think its reasonable to ask that the retail games not ship with abirtruary requirements of various download clients and online acivations.

Concerning Steam offline mode. Somehow, I think the problem isn't that Steam has an offline mode but more the fact that you must run Steam to play your games and by default, it requires an online connexion.

It is like Impulse which allows you to choose where your game can be downloaded and installed. But unless you look at the options behind the top left icon, you would wondering why Impulse keeps downloading and installing game on a small partition when there is a bigger available.

I understand with you 100%, but I have decent internet almost all the time, and if it went out I'd still be able to play my games via offline mode, so it doesn't really bother me. I'd rather own a Steam game than a retail game, partially because it's easy for me to deal with and I feel superior ownership of the game. I've had so many issues with disks and cartridges all my life that I'm absolutely great with this setup. I don't need to deal with disks, and I own the game forever. Impulse does the same thing for me, but I'm not too interested in many games available, and at the moment I'm broke. -.-

I'm also not bothered with the Steam browser being up all the time. I like it. I've had no technical issues with it, and I feel a positive connection to Steam.

By the way, I'm probably getting Sins, Demigod, and Aveyond. I'm up to three games now, plus the Sins expansion. As I said before, I really do hope Impulse is successful in the future, and I am a potential customer.

Only thing I find bad with steam is that they really screwed the pooch when it comes to local prices

The reason GOG does this is because these games are all off the store shelves and are old enough where it's basically milking profits. They aren't supported officially and haven't been for a long, long, long time. There's a reason it's called Good Old Games Don't get me wrong, it's a good site and I have some games from them (mainly Freespace pack and Fallout pack), but their model won't work for modern games.

As for D2D, it's really not that bad. There's no download limit like one post said above, but there is a D2D-specific activation limit on the games so you have to talk to their support if you need more. It's annoying to be sure, but still D2D is a pretty easy and convenient client-free digital distribution.

I basically have games from all of them. I have lots from Steam, D2D, Impulse, a few from GOG and one from Gamersgate (King's Bounty). My first boot-up on the weekend leads to checking all of them for the weekend deals. Just this weekend I picked up Mount & Blade for $7.50 from D2D, and the tower defense game from Steam for $5.

I have suggested this several times over the past two years. Additionally I would like to see the merged entity absorb GOG for a trifecta of goodness!

There are a few loud complaints about Steam, but I think that overall they must be satisfying somewhere in the neighborhood of 95% of their customers, which is pretty decent.  Just a quick dial-up connection is all you need to get going and it's really no trouble at all.  I don't see what all the fuss is about.

If the goal of a company is to maintain their customer base and that's it, then there isn't an issue. If they actually want to expand and convert those of us who rarely or do not use digital distribution, work needs to be done.

Steam is expanding at a ridiculous rate. They might not get the people who seem against DD, but they are getting everyone else. Also, their profits are ridiculous. You might be surprised at how much is saved through DD. I have no doubt that, if you wanna keep playing the biggest games, you're gonna need to start using DD. That's the future of the industry(or the now; whatev').

There is a difference between being "against" digital distribution and having concerns about a new media distribution methodology. There is also a difference between expanding "ridiculously" and longevity. Just look at the .com bust.  Many of those companies were making obscene amounts of money and look around, only a handful actually made it.  And just because you want it to be the future, doesn't mean it is. I don't see the biggest publishes, like EA, going to digital download only anytime soon. And I am not seeing a bunch of parents buying their children (younger and older) new games via digital download anytime soon. I understand the excitement of a new anything, but excitement and personal belief does not equal automatic success nor does it support the idea that a new media is going to be forced on people. Hell, just look around, they are only now stopping the production of blank VHS Cassettes when DVD has been the main media for movies for several years. These things don't haapen over night, and the earliest players in the new arena are not always the winners.

Every single big, modern PC game developer I know of(with the exception of Blizzard; their games have created an invisible Blizzard platform from what I can see, but that's something I'm not going into now). EA has their own download service, and they've also flocked to Steam.

When did I ever say it would be an overnight thing? It hasn't been. It's been gradually growing for the past 5 or so years. I'm absolutely certain that digital distribution is the future, I've had no doubt about that for a while. Almost all games with boxes, disks and cartridges aren't profitable, and almost every game sold through DD is. You don't see big developers flocking to DD, but I do. Maybe you should look into it, it's actually really interesting.

The 'handful of companies' that make it are probably gonna be Stardock, Valve, and GOG(I'm not completely certain about GOG, though). They've made a huge mark on the industry so far, and I really don't see how they could go out.

So what is the plan when the ISPs begin to charge by usage? You think it will still be as popular when downloading that second game means you have no usage left for the month to actually play it? Keeping in mind, games are not the only products being downloaded. I think there are issues to be worked out is all. I am not "against" digital downloading. I've done it. If there is a benefit to me to download versus retail AND I think the service provider is on the up and up, I still might. If there is a three dollar difference between retail and digital download, screw it, I am getting the retail version. If the retail version is cheaper, screw it, going for the retail. I buy music from Amazon all the time, but I don't have the concerns with music downloads as I do with games. I am not "against" digital downloads by any stretch of the imagination. I am simply not sold by what I am hearing from the gaming industry and die-hard fans of the current services.

I am playing a game over ten years old right... I play the game with my friends all the time. We like it. The way things are setup, I am jut not convinced that the games I buy now will still be allowed to have that longevity even if the gameplay might warrant it. This "well its the wave of the future so get onboard or move over" isn't going to convince me. There is nothing convincing about that argument at all.

Also, I never said I 'want'ed it to be the future. In fact, I treat my game boxes and cartridges/disks very preciously, and DD threatens to take those out of the equation. Don't try to turn what I'm saying into something anything personal, that's incorrect. I like how DD is turning out, but my special wall of game boxes won't be any bigger if the future is the way I expect it to be.