Talk:Steam (service)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 9

Weekend Sales

Are these worth mentioning in the "promotions" section? Would be neat to have a table of all the games that have been part of this promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.55.237 (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's definitely worth adding. I don't know of any except for this week's Stubbs the Zombie. Whitereflection (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

New version

First off, thanks to EagleOne for copying the page over. I'm going to go through and remove all the unsourced claims, since they should not be in there. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Steam

Just make a seperate article called Criticism of Steam, it is taking up half the article right now.--Zorgness (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC) no way, if the Criticism of Steam takes up more space than steam it tells a honest story24.76.40.15 (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Also here are some articles that are not used but criticise Steam;
All good sources.--Zorgness (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of those are specifically regarding HL2's launch. There's already an article on that which should be linked to if we want to add that kind of thing. The Indiecare page does have some new stuff, but how uncommon are those kinds of clauses relating to service availability and so forth? It isn't NPOV to talk about them of themselves if every other service like Steam takes a similar stance. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd also remind everyone of WP:UNDUE with regards to criticism. Wikipedia is not a forum to list all the shortcomings of Steam. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Turns out that the HL2 controversy article has been merged back into the HL2 article itself, and there's no mention of the release day network problems. Before this article was re-written it had a small section on the problems, but that has been removed too...--Tom Edwards (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Some of those sources can be used in the history section, similar to Half_life_2#Steam_content_delivery_system.--Zorgness (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
That's certainly how the article was before. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Please don't just copy text over from the Half-Life 2 page. We worked too long and too hard on this page for its integrity to bec compromised now. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

One criticism that may be worth mentioning is that many recent Steam releases additionally contain separate 3rd-party DRM, negating steam's benefit of being machine-agnostic. (examples) Johnruble (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The so-called criticism against Steam could be applied to just about any online service. For instance, the idea that you can't resell the software should not be a surprise. This is barely a criticism against Steam, because it applies toward any online game service including Impulse or Good Old Games. It's not like you can buy a game off of Impulse and then ask to resell or transfer ownership of your game copy after you bought it. And complaining about phishing scams is a seriously weak complaint. Anything that has an Internet-accessed account will frequently attract phishers to send out fake "administrative" messages or e-mails to trick users in giving up account information. Paypal, for instance, is a frequent target for phishers to randomly send out e-mails asking users to "confirm" their personal information to a fake admin address. 71.145.140.81 (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Extra addition to HL2 section?

Can someone else please chime in on this? Zorgness and I have been going back and forth about adding another paragraph to the HL2 release section. I removed it because it's directly copied from here], and because it's adding undue weight to criticisms. Eagle, Tom - do you guys have any opinion on this? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The following is on the page: "In some cases, the review score was lowered due to these issues." The link is to this review of HL2. First off, the page is non-notable, and there's nothing on the page to suggest otherwise. The review also says nothing explicit about the score of the game being lowered; in fact, the review doesn't even give the game a score. All it says is that "Steam was effectively broken at release and for all I know remains broken to this day." Based on that, I'm removing the review. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I took that statement from the featured article Half_life_2#Steam_content_delivery_system, so feel free to fix that. Also the review is sourcable and the score is at the top right. It may been referring to this review.--Zorgness (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have to go with Annyong on this one. Yes, there were problems with Steam during HL2's launch, but I think the current revision adequately covers the issues. There's no need to duplicate that paragraph here.
The undue weight policy says that coverage of this topic should be proportional to it's importance to the article's subject as a whole. And this section cover's one incident in the history of Steam, the launch of HL2. Granted, the game is an AAA list title, and it's launch really put Steam on the map, so this event deserves it's own subsection. But all this happened 3 years ago, Zorgness. A lot has happened since 2004, and many of the issues have been ironed out. This is relatively unimportant compared to the rest of the article. So please, do not add the content from the HL2 article. — EagleOne\Talk 02:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gabe email

I think that the following should be deleted:

On the issue of system failure, Gabe Newell, the head of Valve, has said:

A forum post by a standard user is not a reliable source, there is nothing stopping me from making up an email and claiming Gabe Newell sent me it. Also forum threads eventually get deleted. link to thread.--Zorgness (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's true enough. In lieu of the forum post, can we find a more reliable source on this subject? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Now deleted from section Steam_(content_delivery)#System_failure. There may be an interview with Gabe which answers a similar question, but that quote isn't ever going to be reliable.--Zorgness (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Portal: The first slice

I just added a mention to Portal: The First Slice under Hardware promotions, since no one had added it yet. It's still not encyclopedic enough so if anyone could please correct it a bit and make it more encyclopedic it would be appreciated. Garci (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a .svg-version of the steam-logo availabel in the german wikipedia: de:Bild:Steam Logo.svg made by de:Benutzer:Norro. --84.141.172.80 (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The proportions aren't quite right. I don't know if it's sensible to use it as it is... --Tom Edwards (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Besides, the article already has an image with the Steam logo. We don't need another one. I understand that the pic is in the SVG format, and can smoothly scale up or down, but I just don't think scalability is a big concern here. The current pic is just the right size, and it's properly tagged and sourced. — EagleOne\Talk 14:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Steam logo.png

Image:Steam logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So...

So is this basically like a game distribution version of iTunes, except not by Apple? 65.40.21.13 (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that valve doesn't distribute their games with drm, or have ridiculous advertising, or cut themselves off from the operational world, or use a nonstandard form of distribution.....then sure, they're alot like apple. Joe3472 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Many people (I'm not one of them) consider the fact that Steam validates your account online every game launch(if you happen to have an internet connection at the time) and absolutely _must_ validate it on first launch, a form of DRM. Personally I don't find an online service requiring an internet connection for a valid install too much of an issue ;) 82.41.11.155 (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you had HL2 on Win98SE, which is perfectly capable of running it, you were unilaterally told your existing installation would stop working for ever. And what if you dig it out in 2020, when (perhaps) Steam is dead, and want to reinstall it? Without Steam, you can't. Ever. Even if you only want to play it offline. That's just silly. 81.159.57.7 (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The 26% Problem

I'm quite surprised to spot that there has been no mention of the problem with steam where steam would update to 26% completion then crash. The problem is quite common in the steam forums. It would also be worthwhile to note that steam have been relatively tightlipped about this; with the only official fix relatively outdated and the resource files offered removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.12 (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

- That is a problem Linux/UNIX systems have when using Wine to install Steam. Steam itself has no Linux client, so it's not worth mentioning an issue on systems unsupported by the program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.156.193 (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

26% if the point at which the bootstrapper gets restarted with an updated version. Problems arise when another program takes over control of the EXE and prevents it from being overwritten - and it's entirely out of Steam's control, since it isn't running at that point. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Overcharging

Though Steam is the distribution platform, it is the developers that determine the price of games to be sold in various regions of the world, not Valve. Since outcries on the forums began regarding the price differences throughout the world Valve has replied several times to these threads explaining that they do not have any say in the price of games being sold. As such it would be unfair to criticize Steam for it. Zeraliten (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We can present the facts at the same time as making the above point clear. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a valid criticism of Steam; nevertheless, Valve _are_ getting criticised over it a lot. So yeah, it should be in here :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.155 (talk • contribs) 04:02, December 1, 2008

Without a valid secondary source, though, it shouldn't be added. Your personal experience can't be cited here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?

The way a lot of the information is stated, this article seems almost like an advertisement for Steam. Case and point: "Steam can validate its downloaded content for errors, a process that gives many of the benefits of reinstalling in a fraction of the time." Everything after the comma is completely unnecessary. I think this whole article needs to be reworked to provide a more neutral tone. User:Ronan5557 17:30, 16 June 2006 —Preceding comment was added at 21:28, June 16, 2008 (UTC)

Why is it not neutral? It's a fact about the reason why the feature under discussion exists. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding comment was added on August 8, 2008 (UTC)

I feel like the article needs a good balance of the advantages of steam content distribution in addition to the criticisms. Steam offers some novel new features that aren't in previous content delivery - carrying user accounts, ease of game installation, and uniform launcher/online manager that are unique and provide a good experience. It has its faults too ;) --Allan Stewart (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.179.73 (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


Yeah, this article really reads like an advertisement. How does someone escalate it to disputing the neutrality icon on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.63.201 (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly by providing specific examples. --Tom Edwards (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Steam Community Privacy Options

I've noticed the article talks about the Steam Community and its lack of privacy options, however, there are now news privacy options available, so the article should be changed. I'd do it myself but I'm not the best to write out things like that. 90.240.82.175 (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Software Infobox

Can anyone work out why removing the "|name=Steam" part of the software infobox removes the version information? --DogGunn (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but I would like to know why we need it in the first place. :-p --Tom Edwards (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Because like most software articles on Wikipedia, the current version is listed. --DogGunn (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think that's a little silly for a piece of software that literally won't run if it doesn't have the latest version? --Tom Edwards (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Not completely true since the auto-updater software was put in place. :) --DogGunn (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Replacement infobox image

Image:STEAM haupt.png is CC BY SA. Unless anyone objects to the fact that it shows the games list and not the store (and is in German), I'm going to replace the current image with it. --Tom Edwards (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

From the publishers point of view

I believe the article miss a section on steam as a content delivery system from the publishers point of view. The article is very much written from a consumer point of view. I think there should be something about how large a distribution fee Valve requires, what requirements there are, and how this compares to other distribution mechanisms. And no, I'm not going to add that stuff, as I don't know any of the answers. Hopefully someone else does.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's all NDAed as far as I know. The consumer perspective is because that's all we (the public) know about. --Tom Edwards (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

DLC

Good news. Any idea where this should be added?. I guess this should be added under "Client functionality".--SkyWalker (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Number of games on Steam

Keep in mind that if you perform a search at Steam Store for all games it returns game packages as well. AciDPL (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki bot to keep the number of games up to date?

Is this possible? I know just about nothing about wiki bots but would it be possible to make one that checks the number of games on Steam every day so we don't have to? Smurfy 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

SSA reference at the System Failure section

I recently removed the reference to the Steam Subscriber Agreement, because it doesn't support the claim that Valve is not under legal obligation to release an update to disable the authentication system. User:Tom Edwards reverted this, because the SSA contains "in no event will Valve be liable for ... delay or inability to use merchandise or any information, even in the event of fault.".

However, in the SSA, merchandise is defined as "items other than software content and services for purchase via Steam (e.g., apparel, books, posters, etc.)". And 'information' is not the same as 'software content'.

Because the statement does not support the claim made in the article, I have removed the reference again. Zr40 (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Information" is exactly the same as "software content", in a legal sense if not also a strict IT sense. When Valve say that "Steam, the Steam software, the merchandise, and any information available in connection therewith are provided on an 'as is' and 'as available' basis", what else would they be talking about? --Tom Edwards (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If it's exactly the same, it would have been worded the same. This is exactly the reason why terms are defined in legal documents. But you are right, 'Steam software' is defined as software/updates/other content required by subscriptions. Zr40 (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
No response for over a day, so I've reverted back. If you still dispute the SSA's meaning, Z430, then by all means discuss it here but please don't revert the page back again. It's polite to leave it in the state it was in prior to the dispute (except for any dispute tags). --Tom Edwards (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Not everyone visits Wikipedia daily. (Also, it's Zr40, not Z430 :)) Zr40 (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Permanent unavailability, unfair contract terms

"According to the Steam Subscriber Agreement, Steam's availability is not guaranteed and Valve is under no legal obligation to release an update disabling the authentication system in the event that Steam becomes permanently unavailable."

Wouldn't laws like "Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977" / corresponding US law make that term null and void? It clearly gives the seller significant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations. Surely US has consumer protection too. --85.156.228.188 (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Valve get around this by calling Steam purchases subscriptions in the agreement, I believe. --Tom Edwards (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

We are being trolled

If a user types their password and attempts to send it, another box appears warning the user of the security risks and asks them to confirm that they want to send the message. This is totally false, it's clearly just a prank by some bored Wikipedia editor. Someone please remove this line and the corresponding image. 76.188.220.163 (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

...So the image is a fake? Seems pretty unlikely. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
If something like this is even slightly likely to be factually incorrect, it has no place in this encyclopedia. I've never seen the box, and I can't find any mentions of it or pictures of it on the web. I've even done original research - setting my Steam password to newpassword and sending that -- and nothing out of the ordinary happened. (The account I used, of course, had no games registered to it). Even the grammar, punctuation, and size of the window seem inconsistent with other Steam pop-ups. For example, the exclamation point inside the triangle isn't used in any other windows. Unless anyone can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this dialog box exists, it should be removed immediately. 76.188.220.163 (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
You did your own original research and couldn't find the box, so we should remove it? No, it doesn't work that way. Original research isn't grounds to do anything on Wikipedia. Just because you couldn't find it doesn't mean someone else can't. And from the look of things, someone else did find it. Perhaps it's from an older version of Steam or something, I don't know. Now having said that, that whole Phishing section is uncited, but I have no intention to blank that part and cause a little battle. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I've found the dialogue's various scripts and localisation strings in Steam's files. It exists. The triangle/exclamation icon also exists and is used in several other situations. --Tom Edwards (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm the one who took the image and wrote the section, it's entirely true though you may have disabled it somehow. Smurfy 18:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I just tested it with two accounts across two PCs (I intended to record it working to prove it to you) but it didn't happen. I tried it both ways and the box did not show. I can only assume that it has indeed been removed for some reason. Better take it out. -- Love, Smurfy 19:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Number of games

In the coming months the number of games on Steam will exceed 1000. At this point I think we should stop updating it every time a new game is released and just do "over 1,000" and "over 1,100". Opinions? Smurfy 18:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Steamcloud section?

I just heard of this new addition that allows you to keep your saves, configurations, sprays, etc., on Steam, to be accessed anywhere. Should this be added to the article?

Got it from here and here: http://www.1fort.com/blog/steam-cloud-to-arrive-with-l4d/ http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55705

The latter, of course, linked from the first one.

Also, an aside: this is my schools public PC, so it's not my real address. I may be back here, though, on my own computer. Signed SAC. 198.30.45.83 (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is now a paragraph on the Wiki page called Steam Cloud. It discusses conceptual advances that may or may not become available in the future for the games that Steam sells. My problem with this paragraph is that, like much of the article, not only do the services mentioned not yet exist for the vast majority of games Steam sells, but we Steam members see no action by Steam on this issue. Any gamer will affirm that this advance ~ namely, storing your game files on Steam, rather than on your own hard drives ~ would represent arguably the biggest advance in PC gaming of recent years. In brief, games can get to be massive on ones' drives and it be super not to have to carry this baggage on ones' own systems. I say that, until Steam is ready to offer such a Steam Cloud that is capable of holding a member's games files of games he or she bought from Steam, the Steam Cloud para should be rephrased to represent that the sort of Steam Cloud I've described doesn't yet exist, and that it is a work in progress at this time. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by WyLd ThYnG (talk • contribs) 00:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not that it doesn't exist, it's that games have to opt to use it and be programmed to use it. To my knowledge there's only a handful of games that take advantage of it at this time, including both Left 4 Dead games and Call of Duty: Modern Warefare 2. It's part of the STEAM Works API and any developer that wants to can use it (To my knowledge). Valve/STEAM can't really force adoption. I expect that MW2's usage of it may lead to many more games (Particularily Activision titles?) to begin using it. ferret (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No Refunds, If Software Does Not Function

Left 4 Dead 2 is created and distributed by Valve. The game continually will quit and kick the user out of the game. They acknowledge that there is a problem with the software. The companies response is that they won't give a refund because it's software, yet they control access to the software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.170.131 (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section, again

We've discussed this before, but I think it's time to bring it up again. The Criticism section is getting pretty long, and I think it's starting to break WP:NPOV. Anyone have any thoughts on it? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I came here to say this, it's just massive and ridiculous. If it's going to continue to be this huge we should consider spinning it off into Criticism of Steam, but IMO it should just be cut down. -- Love, Smurfy 19:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Alright, well, I'm not going to get into an edit war over this edit, but it seems like we need to do something. Aside from me and Smurfy, does anyone else have any thoughts? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
move the details to Criticism of Steam and summarise it all in two paragraphs here.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess the question is, would creating that article violate WP:POVFORK? I would think so... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

no because the amount of negative criticism something gets is out of our control.--Vaypertrail (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this article on and off for over a year, and I've always felt the criticism section was heavy handed. I also feel some of the recent additions such as the mention of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 requiring STEAM don't belong here and should instead (If its even worthy of note) be listed on the article for that game. I also feel the delayed release situation (Also a COD:MW2 situation....) shouldn't be given so much weight as it's not STEAM or Valve's fault but pressure from the retailers and retail publishers (Activision in this case). On that note... I feel several sections could be summarized into a single small paragraph stating something about how release dates and prices are influenced by the retail chains and publishers, outside of Valve's control. I also don't understand why most of the regional pricing is relevant, as the section basically says "Non-US customers are mad that they pay non-US prices instead of US prices". I can see some validity to the complaint that Valve is charging 50 GBP because the game is 50 USD, instead of the correct exchange rate, but most of the rest...

There's also several criticisms listed in the wrong sections, such as the COD:MW2 requiring STEAM and the delay in Borderlands being released. The default minimum requirements section critizes STEAM for dropping an OS no longer supported by it's vendor (why should they support it anymore?), then critizes the change of minimum requirements for Source games, which should be a critize of Source, not STEAM.

I feel like I'm a little too opposed to most of the criticisms (And a little too unsure as a newbie editor!) to attempt to clean it any myself. I shall end my long-winded post here. ferret (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I also really don't understand why Phishing is in the criticism section. Do all the wiki articles for various banks and credit companies have a similar criticism listed? How can you be criticized for being targetted by criminals? A more valid criticism would be a general paragraph on the slowness (Irregardless of the issue) of Steam's customer service. Similarily the phishing and resale sections could probably be combined into a smaller paragraph about rights inherent with "digital ownership". I'm not sure (But I can check) but there may be other wiki articles discussing those issues that could be linked to to help shrink these sections here. ferret (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to make some edits and cut this thing down. -- Love, Smurfy 22:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've cleaned it up a bit. There is still the problem that the section merely looks fairly hefty from the contents list though. -- Love, Smurfy 23:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the section about minimal requirements that deals with Source games, as that doesn't directly have anything to do with STEAM. Great work though, much better summarized. The regional pricing section before was probably the longest section of the entire article. ferret (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I decided against that after rereading how you integrated it into the "auto-patching" section. ferret (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't do it for the fame, maaaan -- Love, Smurfy 21:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I must say, I was surprised to find only negatives on Wikipedia about Steam. I mean even in the community section there is criticism of phishing attacks - common? Really? Phishing can be done by anyone in any chat, I don't think it's fair. Steam right now has become the platform of choice for me and many other users of getting the games downloaded to their PCs with no hassle. I think the wiki reflects some of the attitudes of the past. (Just my 5c & sorry if i am posting in the wrong section) -Andriyko (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

New "number of games" count

I've switched the game number count to Steam Calculator. I believe this is much more reliable than Steam Community games list as it counts only games and not things such as Source SDK. It also excludes packages which the Steam Store search method does not. -- Love, Smurfy 17:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at that source, and.. we're using Robin Walker's account as a way to determine how many games there are? There really isn't a better way to do that? That source doesn't seem all that reliable... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Valve employees automatically receive all games, and Steam Community / Steam Calculator together produce a list with demos, tools, and other non-games automatically filtered out. I can't think of a more reliable solution to the problem. --Tom Edwards (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hm, alright. I didn't realize that they automatically get all the games. It's fine for now, I suppose. And a more reliable solution would be a page on Steam's site that says "We have X number of games available". Just for clarification, let me ask this: if I go to Steam Search and search for only games, it says that there are 1003 games available. That appears to not include demos, mods, and trailers. Why not use that number? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
That includes packages. -- Love, Smurfy 20:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
It also changes depending on your location. The figure is 976 for me, in England. --Tom Edwards (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Purchase vs rent

IceStryke (talk · contribs) went through and changed "purchase" to "rent" on the grounds that Valve can revoke access to a game. I undid this since it's a pretty major change and shouldn't be done without considerable discussion. First, it's original research to equate "can revoke access" to "renting", especially without a source. And secondly, "renting" makes Steam seem more like a Gamefly service, which is most certainly is not. Does anyone else have any thoughts? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Renting implies recurring payments. Purchase should stay, with a note about the SSA's legalese (isn't there one already?). --Tom Edwards (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Renting is completely the wrong word and gives off the wrong signals. -- Love, Smurfy 01:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The following is from Steam's purchasing agreement:

"Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Steam Software for your personal use in accordance with this Agreement and the Subscription Terms. The Steam Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Steam Software." The word "buy" means that you own whatever you purchased. As steam confers no ownership, the terms "buy" and "purchase" when they relate to steam games are inaccurate and misleading and must be changed. If the word "rent" is somehow insufficient, then in the very least the word "subscribe" should be used. --DoveNJ —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC).

"Rent" and "subscribe" both imply predetermined time limits on your ownership. Steam gives you indefinite access to the game for a one-off payment, although account deactivation is still possible. There is no word that I know of for this, but "buy" is the closest and least misleading I can think of. -- Love, Smurfy 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines buy as the following: "To obtain (something) in exchange for money or goods".

While the subscriber agreement uses legalese to stress that this is not an software ownership, you have obtained the "right to use" in exchange for money. As part of that exchange, you agree that the right can be terminated, but you have still "obtained (something) in exchange for money or goods". The verb "buy" does not indicate permanent ownership or even necessarily temporary ownership.

Likewise Wiktionary defines "rent" as a payment made on intervals, which does not apply here. ferret (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"subscribe" doesn't imply limits on your ownership, because there IS NO OWNERSHIP. Furthermore, Steam doesn't claim that you buy anything from them when you exchange money, which is why when you hand over money you have to agree to a "subscription agreement", which contains many references to subscribing and no references to buying (for example, the phrase "as a Subscriber you may obtain access to certain services, software and content" is used right away in the agreement). Furthermore, if we're going by definitions, wikipedia defines "subscribe" as "a business model where a customer must pay a subscription price to have access to the product/service.", which is exactly what Steam is offering. As you gain no ownership while the definition of subscription is more accurate as it uses a subscription model, and Steam itself refuses to use anything other than the word subscription, this is obviously the most accurate word to use and should replace any words similar to "buy" immediately. (DoveNJ) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC).
On the contrary, the Store page repeatedly uses the word "Purchase", such as the buttons that are "Purchase for My Account", "Purchase as a Gift". Here's two screen shots from the old store (Not the new checkout wizard) however, that clearly uses the word Purchase in the title: http://leenukes.co.uk/images/site_pics/steamwine/steampurchase.jpg http://lh6.ggpht.com/raydenvm/SO_DfPrqbfI/AAAAAAAACC0/a0X67PmwCkY/image_thumb9.png?imgmax=800
Here's another screen shot from the checkout wizard: http://s.fatwallet.com/static/attachments/21128_picture5.png
So while the legal document says subscribe, the store clearly presents it as a purchase. ferret (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
So because they're being misleading in their advertising, we should just use their terminology? Since when did bait-and-switch become acceptable to wikipedia's standards? subscription is more accurate not only to the legal truth, but it's also more accurate to the actual business model. Should we use something less accurate just because a party with a conflict of interest problem says something in a .jpg? (DoveNJ) —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC).
I'll point you to the wiktionary on "purchase" as well. Regardless of the fact that the legal document uses the legal term "subscription", in common usage both "buy" and "purchase" accurately describe the action being performed. If you would read the EULA's and TOS's of many "retail purchases" you'll find that they use a similar language, for example, it is the RIAA's position that you do not "own" any of your compact discs (Or tapes, or mp3s), they have granted you a right to the media and permission to listen to it, which they CAN revoke. Almost all software and movies (MIAA) are treated the same way. Are you going to argue that a cd purchase in a brick and mortar store is a "subscription"? You're "paying a (subscription) price for access to a the product(/service)". Furthermore, the wiktionary for "subscription" defines it as "the purchase of a series of things", so it's simply a type of purchase. The article already clearly lists the Subscription Agreement and mentions in multiple place that Valve has the rights to deny or revoke access. The replacement of the words "buy" and "purchase" with "subscribe" is not necessary and in many cases may lead readers to falsely believe that STEAM sets a time limit on their purchases, as commonly a "subscription" is renewed or reoccuring on a regular interval (MMO subscriptions, magazine subscriptions, cell phone plan subscriptions, etc, etc). "Buy" and "purchase" are NOT inaccurate, so there's no need to change it. ferret (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Finally had time to sit down and read the agreement myself fully. This should conclude this avenue of thought. Third paragraph, first sentence: "When you complete Steam's registration process, you create a Steam account ("Account"). Your Account may also include billing information you provide to us for the purchase of Subscriptions."
Sections 3.A, 3.C, 4.B, 4.C, 4.D, 4.G, 10.B, 13.C also use the word purchase. I believe a claim was made earlier that the agreement never used the word purchase, but it uses it more than 18 times. Furthermore, the verb "subscribe" is never used in the document, though the nouns "subscriber" and "subscription" are. ferret (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I reuploaded a more faithful logo I recently made for Combine OverWiki. It is now with the correct font, FF DIN. If it's not ok, feel free to revert. Klow (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Couple of things. One, why is the ratio on yours so out of whack? It looks all squished. Two, why is yours 282 KB? The previous one was 4 KB. Sorry to be a pain, but I think I'm going to revert. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If you can optimise it, crop it and maybe turn the logo black and make the background transparent I think it'd be perfect. -- Love, Smurfy 22:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
HelloAnnyong, your revert was totally dumb. Your reasons aren't valid enough. You just revert without trying to improve the new one, that at least use the proper colors and font, and adapting the summary. And if it's "all squished", that's because the new dimensions are different and that your cache just didnt update properly. So next time use your brain. Klow (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded a better cropped version. So HelloAnnyong before starting a childish edit war, you should suggest me how to make a smaller version, which would be much more useful than a blatant and brainless revert. Anyway I don't really see how 97 kb is a huge size and how it could ruin your bandwidth, even compared to 4 kb. Think McFly, think! Klow (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You seriously need to read WP:NPA. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I offended you (I hope you didn't cry), but reverting for no proper reason exposed you to this. Klow (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I've had a fiddle with Inkscape and drastically cut the filesize. -- I need a name (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that's much better. Well done! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Klow you need to chill out, seriously. -- Love, Smurfy 15:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm ok, y'know! But who said the logo was black, Smurfy? I have never seen that anywhere. Klow (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Modern Warfare 2 release

Vaypertrail (talk · contribs) has added a section about the MW2 release.

I feel that the top paragraph, concerning other digital distributors refusing to sell the game due to Steam activation, can be improved if we can find other cases of them taking the same view and actions, and put them in the article.

The second, about the delayed release, I find unnecessary. The delay had nothing to do with Steam, but rather it was a decision taken by Activision. It is an isolated incident concerning one game, and was quickly forgotten in the aftermath of the game's release. It's not a valid criticism of the platform that one game was released late.

I find it very hard to justify giving an entire section to the botched release of just one game (which, I add, received separate heavy criticism for many other aspects of its PC release) in an article about a platform which sells over 800 games. Although the fact that Steam activation precludes the game from selling on other platforms is notable, it cannot be maintained in this form; a report on the circumstances surrounding the release of a single game. -- Love, Smurfy 19:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What you say has little relevance, so what if the game had other problems? These problems are solely related to Steam. When a competitor calls a program a trojan and a number of other competitors pull out for the only reason Steam comes with a game, that isn't a trivial story, they were big important business decisions that weren't taken lightly.
And the second was to do with Steam as they failed to make it clear that games bought through Steam had to wait an extra 48 hours. So what it has over 800 games? This was the biggest release of the year, which is why it got the attention it did.--Vaypertrail (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Smurfy on this. If nothing else, it's a violation of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Which part?--Vaypertrail (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Um, the whole thing. Why are we spotlighting MW2 over anything else? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Which part of the article is violating which part of the policy? Nothing else is spotlighted because nothing else apart from the bad half-life 2 release which is already spoken about in the history and system failure section has received this much bad press.--Vaypertrail (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Not notifying users of the 48 hour delay would be welcome in an article on Valve's PR department, but it's tangential to Steam itself. But I do feel that the comments from other digital distributors should remain (just not under the current heading). --Tom Edwards (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I feel the section should at best be a bare footnote linking to Controversies surrounding Call_of_Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Ultimately none of this information is a critism of STEAM but of MW2 and Activision's decisions surrounding it's release. We seem to have completely undone the recent cleanup of the criticism section. For the record, the STEAM store page clearly listed the MW2 release date from the moment it was put up, there was no sudden change or last minute delay, it was listed 2 days from retail release as soon as the pre-order was up. ferret (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally a 48 hour delay wouldn't matter, but as this was the biggest release of the year it annoyed A LOT of people.--Vaypertrail (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Annoying people is one thing. Saying they unexpectedly or failed to notify about the delay is something completely different. The date was clearly posted, if you were annoyed at waiting, you could have gone to brick and mortar store for the game. ferret (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean?

Steam is set apart from its peers in terms of functionality primarily by its residency in the system tray, and the desktop tasks that the client software performs to make use of that position.

what does that mean?--Vaypertrail (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Friends, server browser, news updates, automatic game updates. --Tom Edwards (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No, the "set apart from its peers in terms of functionality" and "the desktop tasks that the client software performs to make use of that position." sounds like an advert, and impossible to source.--Vaypertrail (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The desktop tasks that the client software performs are Friends, the server browser, news updates and automatic game updates. They set Steam apart from its peers in terms of functionality. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Client functionality cleanup

I cleaned the "Client functionality" section up, and in the process, removed some information. Here is a list of the content removals and the reasons. The rest of the content from the "In addition" list has been moved to the body of the article.

However, as of 2009 very few games support this feature.

Every Valve release has a retail box, and in fact, they provide a very significant percentage of Valve's sales.

The client works similarly to a [[feed reader]]:

It's a very loose comparison, and ultimately is unnecessary for the paragraph.

*The Steam Cloud allows games to upload save-game files to the Steam servers.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://store.steampowered.com/news/1968/|title=Steam cloud}}</ref> This gives players access to their saved single-player games and key configurations from any computer.

This is already covered in its own section below.

Currently, mods for Valve's [[GoldSrc]] games, Valve's [[Source engine|Source]] games, [[Killing Floor (2009 video game)|Killing Floor]] and [[Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45|Red Orchestra]] can be integrated.

A list is not really necessary, and ultimately just creates unnecessary difficulty in the article's maintenance.

Anunnakki (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Good job, it was well overdue for a clean-up. -- Love, Smurfy 21:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor Neutrality Dispute

Exacerbating the situation is Steam's very poor customer support.

Billing and account questions are equally difficult to find.

These seem more like opinions than facts. Could I get this checked into a bit more? Blumin (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom removed them. For the record though I looked Valve up on the BBB's site, they have a A rating on a A+ to F scale. Reading through the complaints, it appears that most have been closed positive reasons, such as "Valve addressed, and customer accepted", "Valve addressed, customer never responded", or in a few cases administrative closures like "BBB determined Valve made a reasonable offer/response but customer rejected". They have 12 unresolved complaints noted. There's nothing listed about any sort of BBB investigation or review ferret (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Helping develop a list of all steam game deals - separated by weekend deals and midweek deals

List of Steam Sales

On most weeks, Steam offers midweek and weekend sales on their games.

Weekend Deals

Sale End Date Game Name/ Package Name Discount in terms of US dollars Discount in terms of Percent
2010-01-29 Freedom Force Pack $5.50 73.3%
2010-01-29 X-Com Complete Pack $13 86.7%
2010-01-29 Tropico 3 $26.4 66%

Sources that contain data: http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1066531.html\ http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=720271

I would say that this would just come across as advertising to include it in the article ferret (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. There is no reason this should be included. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, this does not need to be in the article at all. Anunnakki (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
In addition, sales are listed on the front page of Steam's website, under the "Specials" tab. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not at all doing this for advertising purposes. Perhaps this should be a different article in the related section.
I would also like to see sales for direct2drive as well.
Wikipedia is an information source. More information, the better. What is the usefulness of this information you ask. Well, if one were to look at digital distribution on a timeline, one could figure out a number of pricing metrics between time periods and that's the true value of pricing information. These metrics can be compared across companies and different media formats. This is the type of information that should be available to the public.
The "In addition, sales are listed on the front page of Steam's website, under the "Specials" tab" comment is obviously only worthwhile for the short period of time it is available on the homepage.... which is only for advertising purposes!!!!! I want a retroactive listing that doesn't advertise steam products, but rather provides a chronology of pricing in digital distribution. Since steam is the biggest why not. Knowing about a sale after the fact isn't really advertising. Just make List of Steam Sales a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.132.90 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The text you want to add definitely does not warrant its own article. And there's no reason to show a chronology of pricing. To take a bunch of different sources and draw a conclusion based on them would be a violation of WP:SYN, if nothing else. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, whoever-you-are, not a historical database of numbers. Perhaps you should talk to the guy behind steamgamesales.com. --Tom Edwards (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but an encyclopedia is information and facts. Numbers are the hardest facts of all. Numbers tell as objective of a story as possible (assuming the person interpreting them knows what they mean and how to use them).Wikipedia's mission is to be the one-stop location for all the world's information. How does this not align. Pricing my not be of interest to you, but it incredibly important from a business perspective. Just because you aren't interested or don't understand the value of numbers doesn't make it irrelevant or give you the right to be a gatekeeper to withhold information(hard facts) from the public.

The pricing mechanisms used in digital distribution such that of Steam, Direct2Drive, Impluse, GamersGate, and others are very unique and extremely valuable to those in business, especially those in finance across all industries. Since these companies are private, it is hard to determine exactly where and how much the influence of pricing effects sales and the value offering each of these businesses can offer to its end users.

To say that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... not a historical database of numbers" is right. It should be the analysis of those numbers using a variety of different of objective metrics that tell an accurate picture of the company and at the same time offer value to customers to a timeline of sales which will make them informed about each business's offerings. The raw data should be accessible so that the analysis is verifiable.

I feel that those naysayers are being subjective because of there own limitation of understanding or a barrier in perspective. Either case, knock it out. You do not have the right to be a gatekeeper and withhold factual information of value from the public just because of you personally have conflicting beliefs. Facts are facts and should not censored in any form. I appreciate your concern for the advertising bit of our conversation, because that is a cause of concern, but I could care less to promote any digital distribution company or any company for that matter.

My personal mission on Wikipedia is to bring hard data to the table so that viewers of articles can use that information to make their own hypothesis versus an article just stating someone else's perspective and people being mindless drones and accepting things that have no backing. Let's provide the information to the end user and let them make there own decision instead of being a gatekeeper telling people what they can and cannot has access to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.226.193 (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern of multiple sources being incorporated. The ones I listed were only there as a means to start this discussion and facilitate the begins of an article to be created. I don't think that will be a problem. I am positive we will be able to locate a single credible source for this data. Very basic information is needed to create these pricing metrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.226.193 (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You should really brush up on Wikipedia policies. We don't just add information for the sake of adding info and let the end users make a decision. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Articles don't just get filled with crap text; there are judgment calls as to what can and cannot be added. If nothing else, text that's added has to be verifiable by reliable sources, and the two sources you gave above - both forum posts - do not count as reliable. So even if any of us did think the text should be included, it's not currently verified... and is therefore unusable.
Four users have now stated that this information should not be included in the article, so it's probably time to let it go. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Really, guy, this information has no reason to be compiled—other than perhaps some abstract specialty economist studying the trends of online video game sales, or to the business hosting the sales itself, or its competitor(s). If your reasoning that this information is useful for end users so they can come to their own conclusions based on the "hard numbers," or if you're talking about coming to some conclusion yourself and including it in the article, then you're missing the point. An encyclopedia, by nature, is supposed to be a secondary source of information—that is, it compiles existing accumulated knowledge. This is why Wikipedia enforces the No Original Research rule, and the Verifiability rule. A compilation of historical Steam sales is generally unpractical and has little use, and as Annyong has already said, Wikipedia is not the one-stop-shop for any and all miscellaneous information. Nobody is censoring you; we're just making a judgment call about the significance of your proposed section/article, and the judgment is a resounding no. Anunnakki (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Stayed out of this conversation so far but yeah, this has no place in the article. -- Love, Smurfy 17:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I see this is going nowhere. I hope you realize that your judgement call is short-sided. To you seriously think that encyclopedias don't have hard data. Do you seriously think that in the not-to-distant future numbers will be included in everything, because they are the most objective facts of all. It is inevitable that this type of data will be included. I find it funny that you think a judgement call isn't subjective. I hope you realize that your perspectives are all of the same mindset, obeying the Wikipedia code mindlessly as without practicality. Ask yourself why for a change. It is obvious from these conversations that you are all completely business/financially incompetent. "abstract specialty economist" are you joking. It's called basic four function math. Do none of you have any business sense what so ever. Wikipedia is a source of objective information that can be used for a practical purpose and research.

Issue from secondary sources: told you it was just to get started. Hence it's in the discussion. NOT the source that would be used on the article. Pay attention.

In regards to the ass clown who questions that I in some way would makeup my own data or fabricate some information. Pay attention. NEVER SAID THAT.

What the hell are you guys talking about with practicality. There is a list of Steam Games that has release dates and other data that most people don't care about. What is the value of that then. Geez. Can't you see they are in the same format. Both are in tables. The only real difference is that there is more text than numbers. Don't you get it. You are in fact gatekeepers. You have no business sense whatsoever. So, if you don't understand something, stay out of it. Now of you clearly have the where with all to speak about this in an intelligent manner. I understand the concern with sources and the ass clown making stuff up saying i'm going to fabricate some analysis of the numbers. Do you not understand that all of the pricing metrics are standardized. Financial ratios are clearly defined and can be linked to articles explaining what those financial ratios are.

The most disappointing part of this discussion is your complete lack of understanding. Let me state this again... just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean its worthless. THIS IS REALLLLLLY PRACTICAL if you are actually have business competence. All of the perceived problems with Wikipedia policy can be overcome. The real problem here is that the question of the practicality of the subject. Quit hiding and address the real issue. Test me. Because not a single argument is viable. Isn't there a single person in this discussion that know about finance/business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.226.193 (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Jesus fucking Christ, calm your nerd rage, Mr. Business. Do you understand the purpose of a question mark? (See right there, I'm indicating a question, and thus used the punctuation mark the English language and many others use to identify a question, which is cleverly titled "Question Mark".) When I said "abstract specialty economist", it was fucking tongue-in-cheek. I take it you don't hear jokes very often in the confines of your mom's basement.
Since you seem to have such a hard time understanding such a simple fucking thing, I'll be as frank as possible: The one, singular reason this table of data does not belong in the article is because nobody will fucking use it for anything, ever. People will not look up Steam's Wikipedia article to check out the god damn sales it had 4 months and 1 week ago. Nobody will crunch these numbers to come up with any statistics of any kind, much less useful statistics. Sales that have already ended is useless information to 99.9999% of everybody who will ever lay eyes on the article because the sale has fucking ended and you can't buy it cheaper any more; and sales that are still ongoing would just be advertising, whether or not advertising is your intent, it is still fucking advertising.
To sum it up: nobody fucking cares but you. And yeah, I definitely agree that the list of Steam games doesn't belong on Wikipedia (it's an encyclopedia, by the way; you might do well to look that word up in a dictionary, or *gasp* even here on Wikipedia!), but at least it has some use to the readers of Wikipedia. Your idea is useless and nobody cares about your feelings or your petty arguments about Internet Injustice. Go fucking cry in your mom's bosom, you sperglord piece of shit. –Anunnakki (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Both of you, stop. You've both thrown WP:CIVIL out the window, and it has to end - and now. This issue and over and closed, and further inflammatory comments will be removed. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steam_(service)/Archive_4&oldid=918376944"