an open message to team17

I have had no success finding any pc worms disc in any store here in America. I was thinking, would you guys be open to the idea of putting your games on Valve's STEAM service? It would bring your games to a bigger audience and make it easier for me and everyone to get your games. I am not liking the idea of buying an old scratched disc from ebay or spending $30 for the N64 version that is off line. I would rather be able to download worms and run it without a CD and be able to re-download it easily in case I had to reinstall the operating system.

Would you guys be open to the idea of digital distribution?

-goodBEan

I'm all for digital distribution (as long as it's compatible with latest updates) but there has to be a better method than Steam. You can still buy sealed copies of Worms Armageddon, so no need to get a scratched version.

Well, it would definetly be nice since a lot of my games run through Steam. :)

But...how would people who already own the game run it through Steam? You need a CD key but the game has none.

https://secure.team17.com/browse.html?area=detail&skuid=79 - just over 25 bucks, and that includes shipping.

I'm all for digital distribution (as long as it's compatible with latest updates) but I don't want to have to install Steam. You can still buy sealed copies of Worms Armageddon, so no need to get a scratched version.
I do know that steam automatically does updates to the games on its system. I already have looked around for worms Armageddon and I can't find a new copy.
https://secure.team17.com/browse.html?area=detail&skuid=79 - just over 25 bucks, and that includes shipping.

Do you guys ship to America?

Do you guys ship to America?
Yes, Team17 do ship to America - as I said in my previous post, the game costs just over US$25 including shipping charges.

I'd love it if Worms Armageddon was put on Steam, it would be available to so many more users, but I couldn't seem to convince anyone in my other thread so I doubt it'll ever happen.

The problem with existing online distributors of WA (there are some) is that they're not kept up to date. If Steam's WA were kept at the same version as the CD releases, I can't see the community having a problem with this.

But I don't know what people who matter think.

The problem with existing online distributors of WA (there are some) is that they're not kept up to date. If Steam's WA were kept at the same version as the CD releases, I can't see the community having a problem with this.

But I don't know what people who matter think.

If you've ever used Steam you'd know that patches can be applied very quickly and easily automatically. Steam checks for new patches that have been uploaded and downloads and installs them in the background every time it starts up so there wouldn't be a problem there.

This is assuming that steam itself is kept up to date. It's not very useful to have the very newest version from steam when that's been outdated for years.

Steam itself is also regularly updated. It has over 13 million users, I doubt it would suddenly stop updating.

Steam itself is also regularly updated. It has over 13 million users, I doubt it would suddenly stop updating.
I think what MEH means is that Steam must actually get hold of the patch in order to then keep the game up to date, and do Steam want to be seen to distribute beta patches/updates to games?

What?

I don't know if you've noticed or not but Steam doesn't just have Valve games on it anymore. Other companies have signed up as well and all their games are updated to the latest patch more or less straight away.

Valve are big supporters of the community and modding so they would most likely allow the newer patches made by DC and CS to be applied to WA automatically.

I think what MEH means is that Steam must actually get hold of the patch in order to then keep the game up to date, and do Steam want to be seen to distribute beta patches/updates to games?

I guess forcing the application of possibly unstable betas could be problematic but Steam does provide a way of distributing beta patches that everyone can choose to apply. And stable updates can't be that hard to arrange.

Team 17 have said they have looked at digital distribution in the past, and they've got their feet well and truly wet (pretty much every Worms game from Worms 2 to Worms 4: Mayhem is available through TryGames as well as a few other PC titles, and Worms Armageddon at the least is available through GameTap in the US). I think it's safe to assume that they've looked at Steam as a possibility. Whether or not it's something they intend to use is another matter, however.

Personally I don't like Steam. But that's just me, obviously.

yes, but trygames suck and are stupid and dont update there games.

As far as I know, Steam is far more popular which just seems to me as an untapped market of 13 million people.

As far as I know, Steam is far more popular which just seems to me as an untapped market of 13 million people.

true, and I am not up for signing up for another service.

BTW, any chance of putting worms armeggedon (N64) on nintendo wii's virutal console? A friend of mine wants to get it downloaded to his wii.

BTW, any chance of putting worms armeggedon (N64) on nintendo wii's virutal console? A friend of mine wants to get it downloaded to his wii.
To be honest, for a N64 game, that isn't likely to happen anytime soon. They haven't even got Super Smash Bros up yet.

THQ who have published some Worms games have just signed up to Steam. So you never know, Worms may make it there some time, in some form.

Currently, they are releasing PC titles such as Brothers In Arms on the PC.

THQ who have published some Worms games have just signed up to Steam. So you never know, Worms may make it there some time, in some form.

Currently, they are releasing PC titles such as Brothers In Arms on the PC.

Thats a foot in the door, now we need a push.

Except THQ have only ever published portable titles in the series. So...

I hate Steam. I refuse to play any Steam infected game. For every person that is OK with WA being Steamed, there are ten that will never touch it.
Wow! That's more than half a billion people! Man, if Team17 knew about that, then they'd do anything to have it on Steam!

If Steam was run by some sort of "World Games Agency" whose soul purpose was to catalogue games for all developers equally at a fair price, without trying to turn in a profit or make deals with various publishers, nobody would have a problem with it.

I currently dislike knowing that Valve takes a cut from all the games downloaded from them through Steam. But I only use it for Valves Games and will never use it for games that dont require Steam to run. Which is only Half Life Games as far as I'm aware and a few "episodic" games which I would never play anyway. Its cheaper to buy games from retail outlets where you get the box and perhaps extras, such as artwork...

If Steam was run by some sort of "World Games Agency" whose soul purpose was to catalogue games for all developers equally at a fair price, without trying to turn in a profit or make deals with various publishers, nobody would have a problem with it.
*bangs head on keyboard*
EVERY publisher does this! ALL OF THEM! It's how they keep their companies running! Valve, THQ, Codemasters, Sega, they all do!

Actually, keeping up with my charity work:
*stupidity alert!*

I currently dislike knowing that Valve takes a cut from all the games downloaded from them through Steam. But I only use it for Valves Games and will never use it for games that dont require Steam to run. Which is only Half Life Games as far as I'm aware and a few "episodic" games which I would never play anyway. Its cheaper to buy games from retail outlets where you get the box and perhaps extras, such as artwork...

I don't like THQ, because they publish games by companies like Relic and Team17 and release them in store, but - gasp! - they take a cut of the overall profits!

Valve are doing exactly what every other publisher in the world does, the only difference is their distribution method. Your logic is very, very flawed.

If Steam was run by some sort of "World Games Agency" whose soul purpose was to catalogue games for all developers equally at a fair price, without trying to turn in a profit or make deals with various publishers, nobody would have a problem with it.

I currently dislike knowing that Valve takes a cut from all the games downloaded from them through Steam. But I only use it for Valves Games and will never use it for games that dont require Steam to run. Which is only Half Life Games as far as I'm aware and a few "episodic" games which I would never play anyway. Its cheaper to buy games from retail outlets where you get the box and perhaps extras, such as artwork...So your logic is Valve should go "Hey developers, come here and use our service all you want free of charge without having to worry about how much it costs us to keep on developing Steam, support and update all the games on it, and maintain all the servers that hold them!". That makes perfect sense!

WHat are you guys on? Are THQ and Sega not publishers themselves?

Why should games have to go through two publishers? It only leads to a cost increase...look at those games on Steam, then those in the stores. Oh yeah, Steam is supposed to be a cheaper distribution method. No. It just makes Valve a lot more money.

If there was a entity that perhaps took a very small tax percentage on all released games through its system, that could maintain the network, and provide a fair footing for all developers. Some things are not all about money. Think about the Mozilla Foundation. They work on user contribution and donations mostly. I guess some sort of bittorrent facility could work here to reduce the cost of content distribution. Plus the customer will get a better deal. Imagine if Valve had a disagreement with a publisher, how easy would it be for them to boot them off the network...

I currently dislike knowing that Valve takes a cut from all the games downloaded from them through Steam. But I only use it for Valves Games and will never use it for games that dont require Steam to run. Which is only Half Life Games as far as I'm aware and a few "episodic" games which I would never play anyway. Its cheaper to buy games from retail outlets where you get the box and perhaps extras, such as artwork...

They have a right to take a cut. In the case of third party titles on steam, valve is in the role of publisher.

WHat are you guys on? Are THQ and Sega not publishers themselves?

Yes, and Valve distributing the game trough steam is ALSO a publisher.
So if Sega and THQ are allowed a cut, why not Valve?
And it doesn't go trough both publishers, it either goes trough one or the other. One handles online and the other retail.

And it IS more cost effective to distribute games online than on retail. Also when on retail not only the publisher gets a cut, but the stores get a cut too. OMG WALMART DIE U R STEALING MY MONEYZ! D:

ID just released a bunch of their games on Steam, most of them pretty old(Doom, Quake, Commander Keen) and would've been unlikely to sell in retail anymore but hell I just paid $5 for the Commander Keen collection. Older games woul certainly benefit.

Yes, and Valve distributing the game trough steam is ALSO a publisher.
So if Sega and THQ are allowed a cut, why not Valve?
And it doesn't go trough both publishers, it either goes trough one or the other. One handles online and the other retail.

Exactly. Using TryMedia as a current example, it goes a little something like this:

Codemasters published Worms 4: Mayhem in the UK for retail. This way, Codemasters, Team 17 and the retail outlet all get a cut.

Majesco published Worms 4: Mayhem in the US for retail. This way, Majesco, Team 17 and the retail outlet all get a cut.

TryMedia published Worms 4: Mayhem as an online download. This way, TryMedia and Team 17 get a cut.

"And it doesn't go trough both publishers, it either goes trough one or the other. One handles online and the other retail."

It may work like that with small developers, but Im sure larger developers are tied to a large publisher of some kind that allows them access to markets in countries all over the world. Steam allows publishers to allow their back catalogue of games to be sold on Steam. These same publishers have the right to sell these games in traditional retail outlets too. Rarely have I ever seen a developer give different publishers rights to a game based on where the publisher wants to sell it.

I simply DO NOT like my money going to Valve, for games they haven't themselves produced. Its like they are profiting from the creativity of others. Publishers and stores are just like the middle-man, they simply provide a product from one entity to another. Steam is more like a monopoly. There are few alternatives to compete, and if every publisher tried to make their own "Steam" it would ultimately fail, as who wants a load of these content delivery systems clogging up their computer.

Stores provide competition. Valve taking the role of developer/publisher ultimately has the power to push up prices.

Rarely have I ever seen a developer give different publishers rights to a game based on where the publisher wants to sell it.
And 'lo. For Team17 have done this for many of their games, including making TryMedia one of them, which is another online distribution publisher!

I simply DO NOT like my money going to Valve, for games they haven't themselves produced. Its like they are profiting from the creativity of others. Publishers and stores are just like the middle-man, they simply provide a product from one entity to another. Steam is more like a monopoly. There are few alternatives to compete, and if every publisher tried to make their own "Steam" it would ultimately fail, as who wants a load of these content delivery systems clogging up their computer.

Stores provide competition. Valve taking the role of developer/publisher ultimately has the power to push up prices.
Look, Valve is just like a regular publisher, but without the shops. They're not profiting more than regular publishers should, they're not holding a sort of monopoly, and it won't lower or raise prices more than a normal publisher.
It's obvious that you're an anti-Steam fanboy: you hate Steam a lot, but you can't think of a proper reason why.

I can.

1. They sell games at about the same price regular shops do without actually giving you anything material. The fact that they don't have to pay for transport or rent huge amounts of storage space should reflect in lower pricing. That was their whole advertising point before the greed kicked in. And anyway, I remember times when you'd get fabric maps, rings and amulets with PC games. Extensive booklets full of amazing artwork and an extra soundtrack CD. Hah.

2. The Steam application is bloated, meaning that games running through it won't work as well as they used to without Steam. And I hear it doesn't work on everyone's computer, especially on older ones. And even when it is working, there are servers that can go down at any time and prevent you from updating games and playing them online. That is if you can be persuaded to install it in the first place. I don't like the idea of being forced to install and run applications I could, you know, not install and run.

3. Is Steam free? How long until competition in the form of Games for Windows Live makes them realise enough people are prepared to pay monthly fees for playing games online?

4. Would people using the Steam version of WA be able to play against people using the regular version? It makes sense to me that they would, but what if the two versions turned out to not be compatible for one reason or another? More work for DC and CS in the best case scenario. In the worst case it would further fragment the community.

"And it doesn't go trough both publishers, it either goes trough one or the other. One handles online and the other retail."

It may work like that with small developers, but Im sure larger developers are tied to a large publisher of some kind that allows them access to markets in countries all over the world.

Not necessarily. Large companies like EA and Ubisoft can afford to self-publish, and EA even offers its own rather shoddy download service. But developers of varying size are not necessarily tied to a publisher. They may have agreements, but those agreements are largely for retail and you'll seldom see a publisher say, "Well yes, but you're not allowed to release it online through anyone but us!" - it's not very good business sense for anyone involved, really.

Steam allows publishers to allow their back catalogue of games to be sold on Steam. These same publishers have the right to sell these games in traditional retail outlets too. Rarely have I ever seen a developer give different publishers rights to a game based on where the publisher wants to sell it.
Steam allows developers to sell their back-catalogue of games to be sold on Steam. The retail publishers are seldom involved.

I simply DO NOT like my money going to Valve, for games they haven't themselves produced. Its like they are profiting from the creativity of others. Publishers and stores are just like the middle-man, they simply provide a product from one entity to another. Steam is more like a monopoly. There are few alternatives to compete, and if every publisher tried to make their own "Steam" it would ultimately fail, as who wants a load of these content delivery systems clogging up their computer.

Stores provide competition. Valve taking the role of developer/publisher ultimately has the power to push up prices.

Actually it gives developers a chance to make more profit. Case in point: Darwinia. The developers made more money with a month of Steam sales than they did with a year of retail.

I appreciate your opinion, but it's so comically flawed. I choose not to use Steam because I prefer owning physical copies, and it sounds very much like you do too, but you've tried to add additional justification which does not, in any logical Universe, make sense.

Actually Steam is awesome.

id Software just signed on and released a ton of their games on Steam, so has THQ.

Developers make a lot more money then they do through publishers, and instantly have a huge potential buyer list that will get advertised to directly through Steam.

Some great things about Steam:
- Easy to get multiplayer games going with friends (LAN or Internet)
- Automatic updates
- Access your games from any computer, and re-download them if you've lost the game.
- Backup all your games
- Built-in friends list for IM, that let's you instantly join a game a friend is playing
- In-game voice chat built-in

Steam essentially offers nearly everything Xbox Live has (minus acheivements)... it's excellent.

1. They sell games at about the same price regular shops do without actually giving you anything material. They fact that they don't have to pay for transport or rent huge amounts of storage space should reflect in lower pricing. That was their whole advertising point before the greed kicked in.
Point taken, even if it is for just one CD box, one manual, one or two non-reweitable discs, and a bunch of advertising booklets.

Any anyway, I remember times when you'd get fabric maps, rings and amulets with PC games. Extensive booklets full of amazing artwork and an extra soundtrack CD. Hah.
And the fact that they don't do this anymore is somehow Steam's fault because...?

2. The Steam application is bloated, meaning that games running through it won't work as well as they used to without Steam. And I hear it doesn't work on everyone's computer, especially on older ones. And even when it is working, there are servers that can go down at any time and prevent you from updating games and playing them online. That is if you can be persuaded to install it in the first place. I don't like the idea of being forced to install and run applications I could, you know, not install and run.
Point taken.

3. Is Steam free? How long until competition in the form of Games for Windows Live makes them realise enough people are prepared to pay monthly fees for playing games online?
"Yeah, well they could do this..." isn't a reason.

4. Would people using the Steam version of WA be able to play against people using the regular version? It makes sense to me that they would, but what if the two versions turned out to not be compatible for one reason or another? More work for DC and CS in the best case scenario. In the worst case it would further fragment the community.
Again, that's just something that might happen, and not something that's actually happening or likely to happen.

1. I'm not saying it's Steam's fault. I'm just implying that the more people fall in love with digital distribution, the less likely it is such extras will become a trend again. Rather than an overpriced exception with COLLECTOR'S EDITION written on the box.

3. Of course it is a reason. If it ever happened to Steam, it'd take a portion of WormNet with it. I guess it would be that same portion that came because of Steam, but it's not a pleasant thought in either case.

4. I'm glad you think it isn't likely to happen. Has it ever happened before with Steam? I'm no expert.

Oh and for me personally 2. is bad enough to make me rise my voice against Steam. The rest of the... bullets are there only because you said there weren't any.

1. I'm not saying it's Steam's fault. I'm just implying that the more people fall in love with digital distribution, the less likely it is such extras will become a trend again. Rather than an overpriced exception with COLLECTOR'S EDITION written on the box.

3. Of course it is a reason. If it ever happened to Steam, it'd take a portion of WormNet with it. I guess it would be that same portion that came because of Steam, but it's not a pleasant thought in either case.

4. I'm glad you think it isn't likely to happen. Has it ever happened before with Steam? I'm no expert.

Oh and for me personally 2. is bad enough to make me rise my voice against Steam. The rest of the... bullets are there only because you said there weren't any.

Personally I don't mind getting charged the same amount as a retail copy.

- More money goes to the actual developers
- The added convenience balances out the lack of extras (which most people keep stuffed in the box on the shelf anyway, pointless)

Worrying about Steam dying isn't invalid, but also not a huge deal. There would be ways around it, like faked login servers, etc.

Steam is obviously profitable, for Valve and for Developers, which is why you see so much growth in it (such as iD Software signing on, THQ, Activision, etc). More and more people are using digital distribution, if Valve ever died... some other company would come and pick up Steam.

Really, it's not worth worrying about, imo.

Regardless, those aren't good reasons to not put Worms on Steam, it's not like that will be the only place it can be bought. You can but CoD 1 & 2 on Steam, or you could buy them at Wal-Mart. You can still decide, and that won't change if Worms came to Steam :P

And it would actually benefit people like me who can't purchase it otherwise(except for trymedia but that doesn't count). It is not available on any store, and purchasing online is a huge risk. I won a Game Junkie t-shirt from a T17 xmas compo and it never arrived. APJ(webmaster at that time) got another one sent to me and it never arrived either. I also recall winning a Worms Battle Pack from Ploegman, and it never arrived either(or he didn't send it, who knows :p). Other less important stuff has arrived tough...
I just ordered it from the T17 shop and am just crossing my fingers that it will arrive. :p
So making it available trough steam would be awesome, as there'd be no risk of it not arriving, and I wouldn't have to pay huge shipping fees.

3. Of course it is a reason. If it ever happened to Steam, it'd take a portion of WormNet with it. I guess it would be that same portion that came because of Steam, but it's not a pleasant thought in either case.
Sorry, what I meant was that it was very, very, unlikely to happen! Very.

The rest of the... bullets are there only because you said there weren't any.
Oh no no, that isn't what I meant. I've heard quite a few critisisms for Steam myself (check Wikipedia too). But that DarkSpark didn't know any, was the thing that annoyed me.

Oh and for me personally 2. is bad enough to make me rise my voice against Steam.
Huh. Well, to each his own. Myself, I didn't think Steam was that bloated.

You know, come to think of it, WA on Steam would be very inconvenient for me personally. It means one more difficult component that needs to be set up properly before some people can run WA on Wine, and while it allegedly works, it's never worked for me personally. And if I wanted to test the combination myself, I'd have to buy WA again.

But whatever, steam works. We'd figure it out.

Unless one of those disaster scenarios others mentioned occurs (steam stops being free, steam users can't play online games with non-steam users, non-steam users have a newer version available than steam users..), I can't see it hurting anyone much.

Here is what I do

The only downside is that there is no tangible extras like poster and that and instruction booklets are digital.

Any 3rd party online game can still use thier own network. Quake 3 multiplayer on steam works the same as the no steamed version. A person who uses steam can go against somebody that does not have steam

For mods and addons the only bigg difference is what directory to put stuff in.
--

If worms are on steam, I would get it and not have to worry about overseas shipping or loosing a cd.

Here's for all you people who want Worms on steam; subscribe to the steam beta update. The new steam beta lets you add non-steam games to your steam games list.
EDIT: And also you can get avatars on your friends list and there's a lot of awesomeness.
EDIT2: And here's a piccy of it.

I can.

1. They sell games at about the same price regular shops do without actually giving you anything material. They fact that they don't have to pay for transport or rent huge amounts of storage space should reflect in lower pricing. That was their whole advertising point before the greed kicked in. And anyway, I remember times when you'd get fabric maps, rings and amulets with PC games. Extensive booklets full of amazing artwork and an extra soundtrack CD. Hah.

2. The Steam application is bloated, meaning that games running through it won't work as well as they used to without Steam. And I hear it doesn't work on everyone's computer, especially on older ones. And even when it is working, there are servers that can go down at any time and prevent you from updating games and playing them online. That is if you can be persuaded to install it in the first place. I don't like the idea of being forced to install and run applications I could, you know, not install and run.

3. Is Steam free? How long until competition in the form of Games for Windows Live makes them realise enough people are prepared to pay monthly fees for playing games online?

4. Would people using the Steam version of WA be able to play against people using the regular version? It makes sense to me that they would, but what if the two versions turned out to not be compatible for one reason or another? More work for DC and CS in the best case scenario. In the worst case it would further fragment the community.

1. Gimmicky, useless crap.
2. Never heard of that happening amongst the 30 odd Steam games I own.
3. Maybe.
4. I can't see why people couldn't play against those with or without Steam.

Here's for all you people who want Worms on steam; subscribe to the steam beta update. The new steam beta lets you add non-steam games to your steam games list.
That's nice, but it's essentially the same as having one folder full of shortcuts to your games. It doesn't have, well, any of the features that regular Steam games have.

That's true, but it's nice to just open your favourite games straight away like this.

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=586807

looks like I am not the only one who wants to see worms on steam.

I registered just to support this thread. Steam is a great service and if you go into the steam suggestion forums you can see that many are requesting all worms games be available for purchase on steam.

1. They sell games at about the same price regular shops do without actually giving you anything material. They fact that they don't have to pay for transport or rent huge amounts of storage space should reflect in lower pricing. That was their whole advertising point before the greed kicked in. And anyway, I remember times when you'd get fabric maps, rings and amulets with PC games. Extensive booklets full of amazing artwork and an extra soundtrack CD. Hah.

I got HL2: Episode One for about £8. It's £15 in the shops.

2. The Steam application is bloated, meaning that games running through it won't work as well as they used to without Steam. And I hear it doesn't work on everyone's computer, especially on older ones. And even when it is working, there are servers that can go down at any time and prevent you from updating games and playing them online. That is if you can be persuaded to install it in the first place. I don't like the idea of being forced to install and run applications I could, you know, not install and run.

There is an offline mode so you can enjoy your games while offline. Steam certainly isn't as bad as it used to be.

3. Is Steam free? How long until competition in the form of Games for Windows Live makes them realise enough people are prepared to pay monthly fees for playing games online?

Games for Windows is a load of crap. I don't like the idea of cross-platform multiplayer. Look at Shadowrun for the PC. They decided to mess the mouse controls up so you don't have an advantage over 360 players.

You have to remember that Gabe (who used to work for Microsoft) is always looking out for the community. He wouldn't do something like that because it would just **** everybody off.

4. Would people using the Steam version of WA be able to play against people using the regular version? It makes sense to me that they would, but what if the two versions turned out to not be compatible for one reason or another? More work for DC and CS in the best case scenario. In the worst case it would further fragment the community.

Why would they be different? Look at Bioshock. There is a non-steam retail version (boxed) and a Steam version. The only difference is that the Steam version is automatically updated and the Steam and Non-Steam versions of WA would still connect to the same server (WormNET) so there would be no problems in that area.

Anyway, I still don't see why people hate Steam so much. I have no problems with it in the past and I have no problems with it now. It would be a great platform to sell WA on and would increase the popularity of the game. (Might be a good thing or a bad thing. :P )

Games for Windows is a load of crap. I don't like the idea of cross-platform multiplayer.
Very few of the Games for Windows games does have cross-platform multiplayer...

Look at Shadowrun for the PC. They decided to mess the mouse controls up so you don't have an advantage over 360 players.
All Wikipedia says about it is that the only scaled-down part in the PC game was "a feature which causes the crosshair to expand during quick movements". And that doesn't sound unreasonable.

Yeah. What about the rest of that line?

In addition, FASA has implemented a feature which causes the crosshair to expand during quick movements, thus lowering the player's accuracy, making it impossible to quickly turn and maintain accuracy, reducing the potential advantage of playing with a mouse.[5][6] PC players, who have a more sensitive control scheme, are able to turn significantly faster than their controller brethren and would have gained an unfair advantage. Many believe this defeats the purpose of having a separate version for the PC platform and that it is forcing PC players to play it like a console game.

BUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRNNN!
Totally expected tho, I mean, we're talking about Plasma here. :rolleyes:

Yeah. What about the rest of that line?
I still don't think that's unreasonable.
Why are we arguing about this anyway?

Totally expected tho, I mean, we're talking about Plasma here. :rolleyes:
*sigh*

I still don't think that's unreasonable.
Why are we arguing about this anyway?


*sigh*
Because you started arguing about it? :p

Also, don't take me too seriously, I'm just joking.
I think I'm allowed to poke fun at someone who dug himself into a pretty deep hole and then pretended to have done it intentionally. :p

I still don't think that's unreasonable.

PC Gamer's like using mouse controls over analogue controls for one reason; Mouses are a lot more accurate. I don't see how the hell Microsoft could of fudged up so badly.

PC Gamer's like using mouse controls over analogue controls for one reason; Mouses are a lot more accurate. I don't see how the hell Microsoft could of fudged up so badly.

This is the same company that released Windows ME and Vista. Why're you surprised?

I still don't think that's unreasonable.
fps is to be played with a mouse. if you want to play your games with a game pad, fps is not for you. it is a genre that requires gaming to be taken seriously, and it is not for casual gamers who just want to do something while sitting in their lazy-boys. that doesn't mean that you are committing some sort of a crime by playing an fps for a console, but you lose all rights of complaining about having your behind handed over to you if you decide to play against pc fps fanatics.

I don't see how the hell Microsoft could of fudged up so badly.
Huh? Microsoft didn't do anything. Your Wikipedia quote clearly states that FASA is the one that did it.

fps is to be played with a mouse. if you want to play your games with a game pad, fps is not for you. it is a genre that requires gaming to be taken seriously, and it is not for casual gamers who just want to do something while sitting in their lazy-boys. that doesn't mean that you are committing some sort of a crime by playing an fps for a console, but you lose all rights of complaining about having your behind handed over to you if you decide to play against pc fps fanatics.
If console FPS games were only played by casual gamers to pass the time, then the Xbox would be as dead as a doornail.

long live mixed metaphors.

doesn't matter how much time they spend playing the game. if they are not playing with a mouse, they are armatures at best; lamers more realistically. it's like writing games on basic. no matter how good you are at it, you are still just wasting time. not that you cannot have fun while doing it.

So, is WA coming to steam?

So, is WA coming to steam?
Nope .

Nope .

Why? i can't find WA's retail version anywhere and trymedia sucks ass! :mad:

Why? i can't find WA's retail version anywhere and trymedia sucks ass! :mad:
https://secure.team17.com - they ship pretty much anywhere in the world, usually for less than the Trymedia version costs.

Specifically: https://secure.team17.com/browse.html?area=detail&skuid=79

Why? i can't find WA's retail version anywhere and trymedia sucks ass! :mad:
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO! :mad::mad::mad:

No seriously, who knows.

worms complete pack on steam will be the sex! (just like id's complete pack)

Edit:

There are 238 games on steam right now. why not worms?:(

I can't see why T17 wouldn't want any of their games on Steam, it's such a great and popular service.

It's more a point of "Are the publishers of the games willing to put them on Steam"

I think this would be a good idea. I have seen so many dumb French players who keep complaining about WA not working on XP or Vista because they still have version 3.0.0.0 and don't know what the word "update" means.

I think this would be a good idea. I have seen so many dumb French players who keep complaining about WA not working on XP or Vista because they still have version 3.0.0.0 and don't know what the word "update" means.

if i was french i probably wouldn't know what "update" meant either

Steam currently has over 15 million active users! Cmon people! Worms on steam please.

There are 238 games on steam right now. why not worms?:(

Steam currently has over 15 million active users! Cmon people! Worms on steam please.

What convincing arguments!

The WormNet server would probably explode if 50 new people started playing the game online, let alone millions. I really don't see this happening until WA 4.0 is ready and someone comes up with the funds for a new server active developers have access to.

Since making my comments back in July, I caved and installed Steam purely so I could snag Bioshock and The Orange Box, and I have to say my opinion of Steam has totally changed. It's a lot better now than it was when I first used it. Though it wouldn't benefit me (I already have WA, obviously) I would have no objections to seeing WA on Steam.

The only potential problem is whether or not Beta updates would be viable. You wouldn't be able to update it in the same way you would update the CD release, for the same reason you can't currently update the TryMedia version, and while Steam automatically checks for and downloads updates for games when you play them it'd be a point as to whether or not Team17/Valve would be able to let Deadcode and CyberShadow upload the updates to... well, wherever updates to Steam games go.

What convincing arguments!

The WormNet server would probably explode if 50 new people started playing the game online, let alone millions. I really don't see this happening until WA 4.0 is ready and someone comes up with the funds for a new server active developers have access to.
I think if T17 are really getting enough people playing WA to make the server completely crash, they can afford a better one.

Having Worms on Steam is a fantastic idea, for both consumers and for business.

Steam is growing and is huge. It can distribute games from anyone, and has a large and fast growing library of titles across almost every genre.

It's a great way for a publisher/developer to squeeze extra profit out of their games, especially older games.

Personally I think it's a no-brainer, and more and more publishers are realizing that.

When Steam was launched with Half-Life 2 it had its problems and breed a lot of hatred/contempt, but it's a great platform now, every PC gamer should try it.

I seem to recall hearing a story that Darwinia made more money in the first day of sale on Steam than it ever made with its retail release. That, to me, is fantastic.

True.
Even brain-less Popcap flash games like "Insaniquarium" that I played for free many years ago are now selling on Steam with ease.

It would be a great idea to have Worms games on Steam (with the possibility for patches/updates) instead of overpriced Trygames.

Anyone that knows the game Audiosurf will know that it was just released on Steam as an indie game. It was made very recently and, with Steam's support, it's making a hell of an impact.

Anyone knows that if WA was released on steam it would not be regularly updated. Even if they release it with v3.6.28, future versions of WA will be released, and steam will lag behind like Gametap (now thankfully discontinued) and trymedia. It's OK for any other Worms game. It's not OK for WA.

Anyone knows that if WA was released on steam it would not be regularly updated. Even if they release it with v3.6.28, future versions of WA will be released, and steam will lag behind like Gametap (now thankfully discontinued) and trymedia. It's OK for any other Worms game. It's not OK for WA.
That's not necessarily true tho, it could be kept up to date. And I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be kept up to date.

And there is a feature on Steam which allows people to beta-test applications, if I remember correctly. So the beta updates can still be released, without forcing people to download them anyway.

This is great for updating etc etc. And you don't have to pay VALVe a penny! http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/

Anyone that knows the game Audiosurf will know that it was just released on Steam as an indie game. It was made very recently and, with Steam's support, it's making a hell of an impact.
Ooh, AudioSurf! I remember downloading the Beta a good while ago for that. I then proceeded to forget about it before installing it.

Edit: Oh, I still have it actually. Sweet!

Anyone knows that if WA was released on steam it would not be regularly updated. Even if they release it with v3.6.28, future versions of WA will be released, and steam will lag behind like Gametap (now thankfully discontinued) and trymedia. It's OK for any other Worms game. It's not OK for WA.

You've clearly never used Steam then. They don't just mindlessly upload the game and forget about it, they keep games up to date and supported. And yes there is an optional beta-patching feature. It was used by Garry's Mod extensively.

Last time I checked, Commander Keen was still being sold with an old version of DOSBOX that crashes if you have a joystick plugged. They don't keep all of the games they sell up to date. Of course, I would expect WA to be treated better.

I have the Commander Keen pack and all the games run perfectly.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I seem to recall hearing a story that Darwinia made more money in the first day of sale on Steam than it ever made with its retail release. That, to me, is fantastic.I got it from MSN Games, so there. :p

Steam is obviously a big advantage for indie developers because it's a publisher, distributor and marketer all rolled into one. Retail releases are only worth it if the game is highly marketed and advertised so people know it's there, and even online distributing from their site won't do much without any awareness. Steam pretty much informs it's thousands of users everytime something new pops in and lets them buy it online and have it on their computer instantly.

I had no idea what Audiosurf was, saw it, got it, loved it.

Steam pretty much informs it's thousands of users everytime something new pops in and lets them buy it online and have it on their computer instantly.


Thousands? steam has over 15 million active users!

Thousands? steam has over 15 million active users!
Thousands are still contained within Millions, so it's still ok to say thousands.

I know many, MANY people that would shell out the $$ for Worms on Steam.

It would be huge, and everyone knows it.

I think the problem we have here is that it's not as simple as just slapping the game up on Steam for download. There are a number of technical aspects we don't know about which likely make a huge difference.

I know very well there are provisions in coding to be made.
I was just voicing that it may be profitable to do so!

It's not like they'd have to recode the entire game just to get it hosted on a steam server...

Well no, but there are several key changes that'd need to be made, for a start. They'd have to plug it in to Steam's validation protocols, and they'd have to tweak it to allow Steam's in-game interface to work (currently Xfire's does not, and is not likely to in the future - this means that the STeam one probably wouldn't work either).

The game would also have to be made to work with modern graphics cards that have, by all appearances, dropped features it relies on from their Vista drivers. Otherwise these forums will collapse under the weight of Counter Strike teenagers demanding their enth amendment rights to be respected, dammit. Possibly in capital letters. As if the same happening to WormNet at the same time won't be enough of a hit, heh.

I think if T17 are really getting enough people playing WA to make the server completely crash, they can afford a better one.

They'd have to make the investment first, then make the game easily available to millions. I really don't see that happening. Do you?

Even epic games released its games on steam! what's team 17 doing??

Epic Gamers is, I think, an ever-so-slightly bigger company than Epic is.

Epic Gamers is, I think, an ever-so-slightly bigger company than Epic is.

What? i'm sorry but i don't get it...

I think he meant that Epic Games is a bigger company than Team17, which is true to my knowledge.

I also think he's gone senile.

Ubisoft is gonna release 40 games on steam over time. Why should team17 always lag behind?

Again, UbiSoft is a large company who can afford to spend time, effort and money tying their games into the Steam framework. Team 17 are not.

Well Ubisoft are doing it for 40 games. We're only asking for 1.

That's definitely worth the time and money investment then. Y'know, picking apart decade-old code and trying to plug it in to the Steam framework. Should be a doddle.

Wait, no, hang on... this just in... ah yes, my Supervisors have told me to stop being sarcastic for the duration of the thread as they fear you may not have the higher brain functions capable of processing it.

That's definitely worth the time and money investment then. Y'know, picking apart decade-old codeWell if Deadcode can do it. :p

And I really doubt that it's a lot of trouble since every other publisher had no trouble throwing most of their games into it (yes, even decade (http://www.steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=game&AppId=6800)-old (http://www.steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=game&AppId=2290) games (http://www.steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=game&AppId=13250)), you just have to hook it up so it'll launch through Steam and Valve takes care of the rest.

Worms on Steam would definitely be the better alternative to Trygames or Gametap.
Heck, you could even sell the multi-packs easily there, since Valve have a knack for releasing bundles.

they could port w:xbla with much less effort than something like w:a. xbla code already utilizes directx code, which pretty much takes care of modern graphics card off the bat. it was also ported from psp, so there would be very little platform-specific code. certainly, almost none in the engine itself.

question is, would there be enough of a market for a wow clone ported to Steam?

You have a knack for saying incredibly moronic things, Quakerworm. Surely it'd be much less effort to port the game that's already in Windows? Y'know, the one they wouldn't have to port at all?

wait, weren't you the one who kept saying that it would be too much work digging through 10 year old code to add steam support, and to make it work with all the new graphics?

w:xbla runs on 360, which has a windows-like environment. no, the api is not the same, but it is developed by microsoft specifically to make it an easy transition from windows programming. it uses virtually the same directx, which takes care of your graphics issues right there, which is usually the biggest nail when porting things.

and the biggest benefit, all, or at least most, of the people who worked on w:xbla are still with t17. have you ever had to fix someone else's code? no? i didn't think so. it's a pain. it is a lot easier to work with code that you wrote yourself.

w:xbla would be significantly easier to port to Steam than w:a.

wait, weren't you the one who kept saying that it would be too much work digging through 10 year old code to add steam support, and to make it work with all the new graphics?
Yes, but I've since been proven wrong. The existence of utterly ancient games already on Steam proves this.

w:xbla runs on 360, which has a windows-like environment. no, the api is not the same, but it is developed by microsoft specifically to make it an easy transition from windows programming. it uses virtually the same directx, which takes care of your graphics issues right there, which is usually the biggest nail when porting things.
Or they could just add WA.

and the biggest benefit, all, or at least most, of the people who worked on w:xbla are still with t17. have you ever had to fix someone else's code? no? i didn't think so. it's a pain. it is a lot easier to work with code that you wrote yourself.

w:xbla would be significantly easier to port to Steam than w:a.
You're still wrong, but kudos for trying.

why are you even arguing on this? have you done any programming? have you ever worked with graphical libraries? how about directx specifically? have you ever tried porting directx code?

i've done all of the above. i don't work in the industry, but i spend more time writing code than i do working on my ph.d. and even that is mostly writing code.

w:a has issues even with simply running on vista. it is full of ancient code that shouldn't be there in a new game. w:xbla is practically vista-ready.

you don't believe me? fine. ask somebody who worked on w:xbla. i'm sure you have the contacts. shoot an e-mail. ask if they'd rather be told to port w:xbla to PC or prepare w:a to run on Steam on modern machines. go ahead. they'll tell you the same things i am telling you now.

why are you even arguing on this? have you done any programming? have you ever worked with graphical libraries? how about directx specifically? have you ever tried porting directx code?
No, but this is largely irrelevant. You don't have to be a builder to know it's easier to put a shed together than it is to build a condo.

i've done all of the above. i don't work in the industry, but i spend more time writing code than i do working on my ph.d. and even that is mostly writing code.
Well done you.

w:a has issues even with simply running on vista. it is full of ancient code that shouldn't be there in a new game. w:xbla is practically vista-ready.
Thank heavens, then, there's someone working on updates, tweaks and patches as we speak.

you don't believe me? fine. ask somebody who worked on w:xbla. i'm sure you have the contacts. shoot an e-mail. ask if they'd rather be told to port w:xbla to PC or prepare w:a to run on Steam on modern machines. go ahead. they'll tell you the same things i am telling you now.
Oh, I don't doubt that it'd be easy to port the game, sure. What I'm saying is that it's pretty golly gosh darn pointless when there's already perfectly serviceable Windows code sitting right there. On that disc. The one I'm looking at to my immediate left. If Team17 don't want to go through the hassle of plugging it into Steam then there are companies that sort of thing can be outsourced to. Hell, I reckon they could probably contract it out to Deadcode/Cybershadow, and pay them for it.

I don't think that, given the tenacity of the PC users in the Worms community, that releasing a game inferior to WA would do them any favours.

I don't think that, given the tenacity of the PC users in the Worms community, that releasing a game inferior to WA would do them any favours.
neither would releasing w:a as it is. as many people as there are that would complain about the lack of weapons, different rope mechanics, etc, there are as many who will complain about old graphics, old weapons, and old everything else with w:a.

and for the majority, the outcome will be the same. they'll keep playing w:a as if nothing happened. why would they pay again to get it on Steam if it runs well enough on their machines now?

neither would releasing w:a as it is. as many people as there are that would complain about the lack of weapons, different rope mechanics, etc, there are as many who will complain about old graphics, old weapons, and old everything else with w:a.
So you're saying "Release the newer game, even though it's inferior in terms of weaponry, customization and engine physics, because some people don't like being able to see pixels"?

and for the majority, the outcome will be the same. they'll keep playing w:a as if nothing happened. why would they pay again to get it on Steam if it runs well enough on their machines now?
I know a ton of people here in the States who can't get WA locally, and don't want to have it shipped from the UK. A Steam release would benefit these people more than anything else. When I went back to visit family in the UK I actually had a couple of people email me before I came back to the US asking if I could pick them up a copy of WA.

So you're saying "Release the newer game, even though it's inferior in terms of weaponry, customization and engine physics, because some people don't like being able to see pixels"?
i'm saying that majority of the people won't care either way, and neither will do much good to improve t17's image. so they might as well just go with the one that will be easier to get up-to-date on compatibility.


I know a ton of people here in the States who can't get WA locally, and don't want to have it shipped from the UK. A Steam release would benefit these people more than anything else. When I went back to visit family in the UK I actually had a couple of people email me before I came back to the US asking if I could pick them up a copy of WA.
these people want the game because there is a big community already playing w:a. if w:a is also released on Steam, odds are, it will not be compatible with the older copies. community will stay where it is. so what would be the point of getting it on Steam, then, if there will be almost nobody to play against?

i'm not saying that nobody will purchase the game. you just won't get nearly as many people as there are already playing w:a.

on the other hand, if t17 wanted to make a brand new worms game, releasing it on Steam might work well.

They could make some easy money by just removing the CD check from WA and throwing it up on steam with a Vista/Intel compatibility warning. It would still be compatible with the CD version. Some other old games have been released pretty much as is just with a link to the exe in steam.

It would be of little interest to people who already own WA but some might buy it because they love steam or don't want to use virtual cd programs to play without the disc.

I don't see any reason for WOW1 on PC but WOW2 has weapons and features that WA doesn't have. The ultimate would be adding all the features of WOW2 to the WA engine or porting the DS version to PC but I think that is unlikely. I suspect any PC version will be based on the code used by WOW2 PSP for some of the reasons quakerworm has mentioned.

If they got Two Tribes to work on it they could probably work out a way of using the WWP/WOW2DS engine.

One small point to throw in here - surely you'd have to totally re-write W:XBLA to work on x86 processors (as used on EVERY Windows computers), as the XBox 360s use a variant of IBM's PowerPC 970 chip, which is more commonly known as the G5 chip that Apple used a few years back.

Now, remember when Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel chips in their computers? ALL of the Mac software AND operating system had to be re-written to work on the new chips - this angered a lot of companies, particularly Adobe, as Photoshop required a heck of a lot of work. So surely the reverse would have to be done with W:XBLA to get it to work on a Windows machine. In fact, I seem to remember Microsoft bought a load of G5's to act as XBox 360 testbeds during the early development process.


Obviously... please corrrect me if I'm wrong.

The processor type doesn't matter (as long as it's fast enough), the compiler will take care of that (it's unlikely there would be any ASM code). The different video, sound, input and network hardware is what would require the most work since the API used by the SDKs could be totally different or it could be nearly identical if the game used directx or SDL. I've ported homebrew SDL games from PC to DS and PSP and sometimes all I had to do was compile it and the game would function (of course it required tweaking to make it playable).

I thought the PS3 used ppc as well (being a PSUbuntu user I should know)

One small point to throw in here - surely you'd have to totally re-write W:XBLA to work on x86 processors (as used on EVERY Windows computers), as the XBox 360s use a variant of IBM's PowerPC 970 chip, which is more commonly known as the G5 chip that Apple used a few years back.

Now, remember when Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel chips in their computers? ALL of the Mac software AND operating system had to be re-written to work on the new chips - this angered a lot of companies, particularly Adobe, as Photoshop required a heck of a lot of work. So surely the reverse would have to be done with W:XBLA to get it to work on a Windows machine. In fact, I seem to remember Microsoft bought a load of G5's to act as XBox 360 testbeds during the early development process.


Obviously... please corrrect me if I'm wrong.
os code contains a lot of asm code. so porting os from one architecture to another takes quite a bit of work.

on the other hand, within the same os environment, except for occasional asm code, porting is trivial. you simply re-compile for a different architecture.

the 360 and pc environments aren't identical, but they are similar. and since w:xbla has been ported from psp successfully, odds are, it doesn't have any asm code in it. the core engine will port straight over by a simple re-compile. graphics engine should be vista ready, but might need some tinkering to make it dx9 compliant to run on xp. init code would have to be re-written, but it tends to be a very minor portion of the code. biggest problem would have to be re-writing the net code, but you'd have to do that either way to make the game run through steam.

Muzzer, yes indeed, ps3 runs on a dual core ppc processor. the main difference from conventional ppc architecture is the spu co-processors, but you don't have to use them.

but i'm not sure what ps3 has anything to do with this? w:xbla was ported from wow, which is a psp game. and psp runs on a mips cpu, similar to that of ps2. mips is more similar to ppc than x86, but they are still very different architectures.

ask somebody who worked on w:xbla. i'm sure you have the contacts. shoot an e-mail. ask if they'd rather be told to port w:xbla to PC or prepare w:a to run on Steam on modern machines. go ahead. they'll tell you the same things i am telling you now.
No. They wouldn't.

Y'see, Quakerworm, that's where Arrogance and Presumption gets you. Tch.

Now, remember when Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel chips in their computers? ...
This is one area where quakerworn is right. The painful difference between PowerPC and Intel chips is the endian nature: Intel is little endian, Power PC big endian*

However, because we're writing code for various platforms, everything we write is, or rather should be, endian neutral. There are always a few bugs when things change round but it's no big worry.

*The Power PC can switch its endian nature but, as the OSs we work with for the Power PC are compiled for big endian operation, it is, de facto, big endian for us.

No. They wouldn't.
you don't count. you seem to disagree with everything that i have learned as good coding practice.

Have you ever considered the possibility, Quakes, that you might just possibly be wrong? You seem unwilling or unable to accept that possibility.

i accept everything as a possibility. the question is only in the odds.

i accept everything as a possibility. the question is only in the odds.
I...
You..
...........
Ugh! You're even worse than Yakuza!

Quaker: Do yoou seriously belive that you know more about how easy it is to port a specific game than a person who actually helped make the game?

Plasma is right. You used to be cool.

Plasma is right. You used to be cool.
What do you mean he used to (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?p=568430&highlight=quakerworm#post568430)?

you don't count. you seem to disagree with everything that i have learned as good coding practice.
You and I have never discussed good coding practice.

You and I have never discussed good coding practice.
you seem to have a very short memory. we have discussed use of abstraction both in context of importing new code on the fly, specifically for weapons in the game, as well as in the context of actually porting the code between systems. not to mention the discussions on network and security give me a very good idea of the things you seem to think of as proper when things are being coded.

granted, my views are skewed towards efficiency, reliability, and expandability of code, rather than knocking something together in a short amount of time, but i can't see it accounting for all the differences. after all, in most cases, doing things right saves a lot of time in the debug process.

You seem to be an incredibly arrogant coder, Quakester. Kudos.

Which would rather hamper working in a team, which surely most employed programmers must?

Right, so, how 'bout that Steam thing?

Good for cheap distribution and copy protection, isn't it?

Right, so, how 'bout that Steam thing?

Good for cheap distribution and copy protection, isn't it?

steamworks...;)
http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/index.php

codemasters released grid on steam. is there any chance of seeing worms series on steam any time soon?

Codemasters do not have the rights to the entire Worms franchise, nor do they own Team 17. Codemasters are (were) the distributor for Worms 4: Mayhem in Europe. They likely do not have the legal right to put the game on Steam (precedent: Capcom got mighty (spizzed - Ed.) when Virgin Interactive let Sold-Out Software re-release Resident Evil 2 on the PC), especially as the devteam would have to be involved to plug the game into Steam.

*Drops by*

I'm sure you've heard of the upcoming Steamcloud as well, now. Sounds quite nice, doesn't it? ;) Reinstalling a game and having to reunlock everything again from the start, all a thing of the past. Please, T17, do join Steam! :D

I'm a big fan of Valve and the Half-Life series, and I put lots of my games on my Steam list (though primarily just for the overlay).

Steam is a very good way for T17 to make a bit more money off of their older games - id Software did that with Doom and Quake, etc.

However, some things worth noting...
1) The Worms multiplayer code revolves around T17 servers. Even if the games were put on Steam, nothing would be different. The only way to integrate its MP with Steam servers would be through some epic hax.
2) The port would have to be flawless. Quite often Steam versions of non-Valve games end up having to go on different update patches compared to other games, sometimes the ports are even shoddy and rushed (Steam's version of DOOM runs off DOSBox, when zDoom is far superior).
3) I doubt Team 17 cares about W:A enough to do this - CyberShadow and Deadcode do not have the rights to distribute it either.
4) Steamworks, achievements, etc are very time consuming and I believe you have to license all that (considering Valve was making it a big deal when they announced certain games/mods getting permission to utilize it).

The Worms multiplayer code revolves around T17 servers.
No it doesn't. The lobby is an IRC server plus a bit of HTML I think, and ingame the clients connect to each other. Getting W:A to connect to a different server is a simple matter of changing a HTML file.
Quite often Steam versions of non-Valve games end up having to go on different update patches compared to other games, sometimes the ports are even shoddy and rushed
As long as steam doesn't do what you said and put it on their servers (which would be pure fail, as they couldn't play against normal people without editing back the HTML file), everyone would be happy as long as we can use the latest beta updates.I doubt Team 17 cares about W:A enough to do this - CyberShadow and Deadcode do not have the rights to distribute it either.
That is true.Steamworks, achievements, etc are very time consuming and I believe you have to license all that (considering Valve was making it a big deal when they announced certain games/mods getting permission to utilize it).
And so is that.

Okay, let's put it like this: there's a handy button in Steam that says "add a non-steam game to my games list". Press it, and add W:A.

Sure, it doesn't get auto-updates, but the updates aren't that frequent either. And nothing really changes except you can use the steam chat interface inside W:A.

I'm a big fan of Valve and the Half-Life series, and I put lots of my games on my Steam list (though primarily just for the overlay).

Steam is a very good way for T17 to make a bit more money off of their older games - id Software did that with Doom and Quake, etc.

However, some things worth noting...
1) The Worms multiplayer code revolves around T17 servers. Even if the games were put on Steam, nothing would be different. The only way to integrate its MP with Steam servers would be through some epic hax.
2) The port would have to be flawless. Quite often Steam versions of non-Valve games end up having to go on different update patches compared to other games, sometimes the ports are even shoddy and rushed (Steam's version of DOOM runs off DOSBox, when zDoom is far superior).
3) I doubt Team 17 cares about W:A enough to do this - CyberShadow and Deadcode do not have the rights to distribute it either.
4) Steamworks, achievements, etc are very time consuming and I believe you have to license all that (considering Valve was making it a big deal when they announced certain games/mods getting permission to utilize it).I really don't get why people keep going "oh if it'd be on Steam they'd have to change this or that". No. They don't.

There's no line in the Steam contract that demands that developers have to use the Source engine, achievements, Steamworks, Steamcloud or whatever. The multiplayer doesn't have to be hosted on their own servers (in fact they only do that for their own games). Really, it can be just a direct copy that is simply distributed by Steam like most games already are. There's no need for patches or whatever unless the game actually needs them, and the game already runs on most Windows systems on its own. (all systems if you include the beta patch) All Steam does is distribute it, like TryMedia or SoldOut or any other. Although I question the online playability since it'd have to be a download version with no disc.

As for DOOM, there's tons of free open-source remakes out there, the point of buying DOOM is you're buying *DOOM*, the original, not yet another enhanced 3D engine that id doesn't even have anything to do with. (plus Doomsday (http://www.doomsdayhq.com/) is far superior :p)

Another thing: Steamcloud and Steamworks are both completely free, you just have to contact Valve, let them make sure you're a developer that will actually use the tools, and there you go. (Except Steamcloud isn't released yet)

Okay, let's put it like this: there's a handy button in Steam that says "add a non-steam game to my games list". Press it, and add W:A.

Sure, it doesn't get auto-updates, but the updates aren't that frequent either. And nothing really changes except you can use the steam chat interface inside W:A.
Yeah but I think the overlay looks funky because it uses a color palette.

Okay, let's put it like this: there's a handy button in Steam that says "add a non-steam game to my games list". Press it, and add W:A.

Sure, it doesn't get auto-updates, but the updates aren't that frequent either. And nothing really changes except you can use the steam chat interface inside W:A.

We don't want a shortcut to the game on a list, that's almost completely useless. I want to see it available to buy on Steam so more people can either discover it's awesomeness or go: "Hey, I remember that game, good times. People still play it and it's dirt cheap?! Awesome!"

Shameless bump! bring worms series to steam please!