Valve's Gabe Newell On DRM
Ars Technica is running a story about recent comments by Valve's Gabe Newell in which he bluntly stated, "As far as DRM goes, most DRM strategies are just dumb. The goal should be to create greater value for customers through service value (make it easy for me to play my games whenever and wherever I want to), not by decreasing the value of a product (maybe I'll be able to play my game and maybe I won't)." Ars then points out a response by Microsoft's Games for Windows Community Manager Ryan Miller suggesting Rockstar Games' recent decision not to have install limits for the PC version of GTA IV made the use of SecuROM acceptable. GameSetWatch has a related piece discussing the difficulty in measuring piracy and enforcing infringement laws.
I really like how Steam currently works. Only one computer can be logged into the same account at a time, I can download / install all games on any computer, it works (mostly) in Wine. I also don't have to mess around with disks.
Steam seems to me to be a rather effective method of DRM. I can only be logged into the account from ONE computer at a time, and I can play my games. what's the problem?
DRM can't be about piracy. In the very best case, it's about opening day piracy; any longer and the cracks are already out, and you don't have to be a wizard to go to TPB or GameCopyWorld and download them.
Gabe comes out and says this the day after GTA IV has released on Steam complete with Securom.
Dear Mr Miller: No, it is NOT acceptable, and I will no longer be buying any games that follow what you consider acceptable. So many of the issues people have with running new titles is down to the copy protection.
I really want the PC to die as a mainstream gaming platform to be honest. (And I say that as a hardcore PC gamer for the last 12 years.) Despite all the mounting evidence that shows it's ineffectual and pointless, copy protection is getting worse and worse. Kill the platform entirely, EA and the like can fuck off to the consoles and stay there in their happy little pirate free zone (yeah right), and the PC can go back to serving niche genres for a smaller customer base that are actually treated like customers and not thieves.
No, the goal is to increase revenues by decreasing piracy and preventing sale of used games.
No, the goal (for the DRM peddler) is to PRETEND to offer increased revenues by PRETENDING to decrease piracy and prevent sale of used games. However the only revenue that is actually increased is the "security" company's.
No one wants to buy shitty games. The good games are cracked usually within hours of release with few exceptions. However good games still make money. If Electronic Arts could build a multi-billion dollar company by releasing endless versions of the same steaming piles of shit, there's money to be made despite piracy.
But it's so easy to blame lack of sales on copyright infringement. Piracy and sales are DIRECTLY, not inversely, proportional. If a game sucks NO ONE WILL PIRATE IT. So if your game didn't sell it's because IT SUCKS, not because everyone managed to download it before going to the store.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I didn't have any problem installing The Orange Box on a PC when the wireless network was down. When I finally got it back online, Steam updated the game and that was it. I can continue playing in "offline mode" which is exactly the same as "online mode" except I don't get friends list updates and snazzy things like that.
Note that the account kill switch is a multiple-game license kill switch. If someone at Valve's decides that you are a fucking bastard, he can take away from you a bunch of licenses that are worth hundreds of dollars. This is the worst type of DRM I've ever seen. It combines all your stuff in one package that is all or nothing.
-- dnl