Slashdot Mirror
Valve Claims New Steamworks Update "Makes DRM Obsolete"
Lulfas writes "Steam is implementing a new anti-piracy solution that, according to them, removes all DRM. Called Computer Executable Generation (CEG), this system creates a unique copy of the game when it is purchased through Steam, essentially using a 100% unique keygen system. It will be installable on any system, but only playable by one person at a time (hooked into the correct Steam account, of course). Will this be enough to satisfy anti-DRM players while at the same time giving the publishing companies what they require?"
In what sense is this not DRM?
That may be a saner DRM, but it's still DRM.
If you're going to sell a service, then sell a service. Don't sell software and try to control it like a service.
Who has said this? Steam?
Next up: "When CD sales go back up, we promise to quit suing people, RIAA"
And when Steam places an access-control removal patch under 3rd party escrow to be released upon loss of the servers due to whatever reason, or to be released upon a significant change in terms of access (such as going to a pay-per-month for Steam access scheme), then I would believe them.
Until then?
It's simply feel-good words with nothing to back them.
As soon as the rabid "It's still DRM" crowd either
a) Get's over their kneejerk reaction
b) Get's ignored since they don't buy games anyway
c) Get's distracted by the next Sony DRM debacle
people will realize that this is exactly what the industry needs. MMO's don't have (much) of a piracy problem, but game developers that want to just sell software need help. DRM has failed not because the concept is flawed, it's not, but because the implementations have been silly. The idea that you can create a procedure and have it work without change forever is simply a waste of money. I can already think of several methods of lying to this kind of system, but Steam makes things harder just by combining a form of file check along with a log on to a remote server. To "lie" you will have to convince Steam that are a registered user, have permission to run the game you want to pirate, and your file(s) matches the CRC or other check they do. Once someone figures that out, or even _gasp_ before, they can add another check (or set of checks) to make things more difficult.
Many imperfect walls > 1 (supposedly) perfect one
"This won't work because, by definition, it fixes the problem they had before." ???
Whale
On that particular topic, your opinion is just as valid as the opinion of those of us who choose to take them at their word. You have no evidence other than your gut feeling that they would renege, we have no evidence other than our gut feeling that the'll honor the promise.
But, on the other hand, there are a number of people who act as if we are required to take their opinion as if it were the Gospel Truth. Please don't make the mistake that just because it seems so clear to you, it seems anything less than insulting pessimisim to us.
Unless this is stated in a license or terms of service of some sort then you can't really rely on the claim. Valve might not last forever; they might get bought by some negligent company, become negligent, or one day just turn off all the servers without notice because they went bust. How do you get you the install files for your old game? If I've got the boxed copy, it's still mine and I can still play it, sell it or whatever I want.
Valve's solution here is still DRM and it's still unacceptable.
Second, Gabe himself said that if steam were ever to go down, he would remove any and all restrictions from playing your game, without the steam servers.
Pardon me if I don't believe the promises of a man who isn't fully in control of what may happen in the future. He may intend to do that, but that doesn't mean it will, in fact, be done.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
In any case, I just plug in the ethernet cable, log in, log back out, unplug the cable, and start the game.
Which is useless when you're several kilometres/miles away from an ethernet cable that you have the right to use.
Wait, it's not DRM... because it's Steam... but without Steam... it won't run. Or without your specific keycode, login, etc PLUS a Steam installation, it won't run.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. DRM by any other name is still just a big STEAMing turd.
That doesn't take market forces out of the equation. Supply is being controlled by the producer (as it always is), and demand is controlled by the consumer. If the price is too high, don't buy. If people don't buy, they go out of business. Market forces!
If Valve goes out of business, their property will be turned over to creditors, and they might not even be able to make the choice themselves. The cheapest option for the creditors would always be to simply shut off the servers rather than wasting time and bandwidth creating and distributing a mythical "no phone home" patch. That's a realistic view of what happens when a company goes out of business. Even if you believe Valve is totally honest, it will probably not be up to them if it ever comes to that.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Implemtation costs of those tecnhical measures ARE the costs of taking advantage of the global market. What other costs of global markets would you have them assume?
Are you still considering their product to be a good? It's not -- it's a service. Reconsider your opinions in that light, and it will come clear to you.
Hruh? What market forces are they taking out of the equation? This is how economic transactions work -- if you deem the value of what they are selling to be equal or higher to the price they offer, you buy.
If Steam sales suck, then game producers will use a different distribution channel. If Steam sales are good, then obviously the value they provide for the price they are charging is not a problem.
People just need to factor in everything when they make a purchase decision. I prefer not to buy games via Steam, first because I don't play enough to warrant their prices... But also because when I do buy games, it's more important to me that they are unencumbered by an activation protocol. The pain of dealing with an activation protocol (and the risk it involves) decreases the value (to me) of games sold via Steam. So if a game was $10 cheaper on Steam, I'd still rather buy it elsewhere... and if the game isn't offered elsewhere, I'll buy a different game.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
You're backing up the reason for my post... :)
What you're saying that you're willing to take them at thier word and believe that you are thus purchasing a product (albiet one where doctrine of first-sale does not apply...)
You're also saying that my position is equally as valid. That you can choose to distrust the fulfillment of thier promise, and not purchase based upon that distrust.
What the poster that I was replying to was saying is that I and the OP should be willing to buy the product because of an unsubstantiated promise, and that our position is one without merit.
You're saying something quite different :)
And to elaborate on my position, I feel that the people who made the promise have every intention of keeping it. However, what if the company is sold? What if it goes to bankruptcy and the creditors (and judge) rule that developing and/or releasing such a patch is a misuse of funds and not allowable? There's a lot of situations where such a patch is never released regardless of intentions. I'd like a guarantee. (such as a patch that's maintained in escrow)
Actually, he has the legal system to support his claim. Your entire position is based on the assumption that Valve CAN remove the DRM if they need to shut off their servers. This is incorrect. Many of the games on Steam are not owned by Valve, thus they would not have the legal power to remove DRM from third-party games without the publishers' consent (the very same publishers that fought tooth and nail to use DRM to begin with). Of course, this is assuming they can afford to remove the DRM before something like going bankrupt, to begin with (and good luck downloading games after their servers go down).
So yes, from the objective facts we have available, probability is strongly on the side of Valve NOT being able to meet your hopes. But this is a free country (assuming you live in the US); you're free to put your faith anywhere you like.
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
Are you still considering their product to be a good? It's not -- it's a service. Reconsider your opinions in that light, and it will come clear to you.
That is exactly the problem. I buy games. I don't rent them.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"When CD sales go back up, we promise to quit suing people, RIAA"
"When the terrorists are defeated, we promise to give you your civil liberties back" - governments everywhere.
Read Pynchon.
And that's exactly when I'll crack my games. Until then, Steam works great.
If Valve goes into receivership, then one of the things that would happen would be their assets would come under the control of a trust established to do it's best to get the most value out of the assets. While the cheapest option in the short term might be turn it all off, it would not be the likely option taken as that would immediately destroy the intrinsic value of the Steam network Valve has built. In addition, unless something drastically changed between now and this mythical doomsday (and part of the reason why some of us aren't as worried as you is that we don't accept the premise that this day will ever come, just like some of us aren't stocking up for 2012), the ability to sell this network to another company would have enough weight with the trustee that any attempt to turn off the network would be met with some fairly stiff resistance.
The other option, Valve being sold without going bankrupt, still has the issue that a number of people have in fact purchased games on Steam. Whomever purchased the company might think they could swing simply turning off the servers (if they were idiots, given Steam is currently one of the largest assets Valve has) but an attempt to do so would likely be met with a class action lawsuit meant to determine once and for all if the games were just 'rented' or actually purchased.
In which case, Steam gets mad sales like these, both Steam and consumer walk away happy. I've been using Steam to purchase games for quite a while now and am a very happy customer. Most of the time I wait until a game hits the 'bargain bin'. For the price I pay, I can't understand what there is to gripe about...
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
Exactly. Saying that this isn't DRM is disingenuous.
What they're really getting at is that this makes things like SecuRom obsolete. Requiring that a person log in to play their offline game is about as good as you can get in the DRM world. You no longer have to deal with bugs related to copy protection that tries to disable functional software on the computer. No more registration limit nightmares. All you do is sell the game and tell the user to log in to the service.
It's convenient for users, too, but it's still DRM, no matter how you look at it.
If your only remaining fear of Steam is bricking, I would probably just get over it and come to the dark side. I have been playing video games since Zork. Do you know how many video games I have lost or destroyed along that path? I sure as hell don't have my original Doom CD sitting around somewhere. I weep over my loss of my Master of Orion 2 CD. I don't even have my original Half Life CD.
The difference of course is that I can still play Half Life because it is on Steam... I can't play Master of Orion 2.
Sure, Steam might one day die. Valve promised to unlock the games if they should ever die. Is that an ironclad agreement? Nah, but in truth, even if they brick my Steam account when they die and no one buys it up to continue offering the service, I'll still have called it a fair trade. Solid media is too easy to lose or break, and cracking DRM to making multiple backups is frankly a waste of time.
I personally call Steam a fare deal. If one day it dies, those games might possibly be bricked. What I get in return is painless instillation of games when I move computers, an easy way to get new games, and none of the hassle of physical media in terms of storage space or breakage. I personally like a world with Steam much better than loading my computer up with crippleware from physical media.
And that's just as illegal as pirating them in the first place...
and I won't feel bad about it at all... Unlike if I had never paid for it in the first place.
It responds to the parent, who responds to the grandparent.
It is drawing an analogy to highlight the flaw in the reasoning that a person can be trusted to return power which is given to them.
It might be a little over dramatic to compare it to the terrorism situation, but the point is that it is utterly naive to assume that when you hand your rights over to someone else for "safekeeping" on their say-so that they will return them to you in due course.
Read Pynchon.
1) A car requires dozens of people to assemble.
2) A car must be assembled before it can be used.
Therefore:
3) A car requires dozens of people to use.
QED?
It's pretty clear here that people are referring to whether or not you need an internet connection at the time the game is being played, not over the entire life of the game.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Try reading this as a primer as to why the above should be scored, "-1, poster successfully brainwashed."
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
It's called the "law".
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
That's probably because you are paying in dollars.
I stopped shopping games in steam when they forced us to use Euros - but did the conversion 1:1.
Gabe Newell tells us he hates DRM so that people bow down whilst he's simultaneously enforcing some of the most limiting DRM in the software world on people?
Some would argue that it's actually one of the least limiting forms of DRM in the software world. You can play your games anywhere, on any PC and download them as many times as you want. Configs and savegames (separate from DRM I know) are portable and stored remotely so it's even less hassle for you.
But don't let me stop you ranting...
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!