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?"
I don't think this will work. Hell they banned my account because they saw 4 different IP's logging in to the account (one from ohio, one from mississippi, one from germany, and one from PA)...of course they didn't take into account that I'm Active duty military...fuck steam
In what sense is this not DRM?
Thank you, Mr. Uninformed Ranter. It has been said, again and again that if Steam's servers are taken offline, access controls will be removed.
I can't believe you don't know what a Hasemalphaginnojinglanaporphomism is.
And if when Steam goes out of business you can still play the game.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
I know, don't feed the trolls, but Steam works well through Wine.
My Babylon
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.
Can I sell it?
If Steam goes down, can I still play?
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
Who has said this? Steam?
Next up: "When CD sales go back up, we promise to quit suing people, RIAA"
if you "buy" a game from Steam, they own your game and not you. You are the one who has to request access to play the game(or to play in offline mode) and a ban can screw up your "purchased" game library.
If you want to have some games, do NOT go to Steam.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
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.
I bought the game, I own the media. I should NOT have to connect to the internet, download a client, download whatever updates it deems are necessary. Maybe there's some cheesy exploit I like in the FPS I'm playing alone? You got my money - leave me alone!
It was really frustrating when I was between broadband watching Steam try to download huge updates so I could play the game I bought specifically so I'd have the media and wouldn't need to download anything. Naive me, assuming you can actually play a game you own the discs to.
PS - how is this not DRM?
- The files are encrypted with a 'unique' key
- Steam acts as the DRM license server
- Any attempt to play the game without access to Steam the new DRM license server will fail
- You access or validate the game by a user/login combo
- If Steam ever goes away, has server/capacity issues (which they have, when new games are released) you are shit out of luck to play the game you PAID for
The _only_ current difference I can see is that you can 'transfer' it between PCs and play it. Guess what - you could do that with DRM as well, albeit laboriously and somewhat error prone. Most services even allow you several "free" additional downloads that give you another license.
It's so similar to DRM that this is just a lame publicity stunt.
...require an active, always-on internet connection? Steam can be run in "offline mode" on a computer that is not connected to the internet. I do that all the time.
Of course, you still need to hook your computer up the internet to download the games in the first place, or when the program randomly decides that it wants to do so (which seems to be about once a month or so for me). I'm not sure what triggers it- a certain time period with no connection, sunspots, gnomes... In any case, I just plug in the ethernet cable, log in, log back out, unplug the cable, and start the game.
So... it removes the need for current DRM schemes like "CD-in-drive", "CD-key", and "X number of installs".
But it fortifies the DRM scheme that Steam already employs, the "one game copy per server account" by allowing Valve to determine exactly which copy belongs to which account. This doesn't give anything new to the user, but makes it really easy for Valve to look at a illegal copy distributed on the internet and say "Oh, this belongs to MrX. Banned."
So it doesn't really obsolete DRM... just other versions that users generally hate. The reason this is news is that it might be a compelling enough reason for bigger developers to use SteamWorks, since it gives them the same power they think they get in other DRM schemes.
But this is pure marketing BS. They are making DRM obsolete by... using DRM! Plus, this is exactly the same scheme of DRM that is already in use: Encrypt a program and then only decrypt it when provided a valid key. Then provide the key, thus completely negating the point of encrypting the program. After all, Steam has to unpack the executable to run it, and at that point all a black hatter has to do is come up with a way to snatch the decrypted version during that.
This is SecureROM 2.0. The only difference is instead of a 'unique, unduplicateable, ID per CD' it's now a 'unique, unduplicateable, ID per account'.
On the other hand, since I am a Steam fanboi, I hope this particular marking BS manages to convince more publishers to go this route rather than the SecureROM/CD route. Being able to redownload a game whenever I want to install it, wherever I want to install it, is far better than "opps, your machine crashed twice so now your CD is worthless because you only had two installs allowed".
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
http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/SteamWorksBrochure2009.pdf
"Instead, CEG works in tandem with Steam authentication, enabling content access based on user accounts"
In other words, it still requires the server to be there.
This sounds more like a way of tracking, similar (But probably much more secure) to how iTunes embeds your account info into songs you purchase. Basically, if they need to, they can track it down, or tell other servers to not let you play online, but that is a bit different than something that first assumes you are guilty, until you prove your not. A completely different way of looking at the problem, akin to saying "maybe we should capture and jail the burglers, rather than force everyone to hire an armed guard for their house"
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
You should try a console system. All of the games include a game disk, box, and an instruction book.
"When you see a unixer brainwashed beyond saving, kick him out of the door." - Xah Lee
Awesome. You get modded insightful for your, ahem, less than fully educated post.
First off, steam can be run in offline mode. You don't need servers to play your fusking game. You can play offline, LAN, do whatever you want.
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.
Become educated instead of braying along with the masses. Its cool.
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
I think we're about to have a pissed off Linux community if so.
When, exactly, is the linux community NOT pissed off about something?
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
Oxymoron of the day: "unique copy"
No, not the same reputation, but it doesn't mean they're not asshats.
The first thing that springs to mind is the artificial price control - they're happy to sell their games in Russia or Thailand at a heavily discounted rate but they use Steam to block the use of those games in any other market. They're using technical measures to take advantage of the global market with none of the potential costs, at the expense of the consumer. They have also effectively destroyed the second-hand market for their games. You want a copy, you're going to have to pay exactly what they ask, basically taking market forces out of the equation.
If you have Tux Racer, you don't need any other games.
Gabe's pledge is a beautiful thing, until Gabe leaves / is removed from Valve and his pledge exits with him.
ShoutingMan.com
For the 5 billionth time on slashdot alone: (let alone the rest of the 'net) Steam does not require an internet connection in order to play a game. You can play in offline mode and games that don't require an internet connection will work just fine.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
I would like proof that value has secured permission to remove copy protection from all games from all companies they sell games for in the event they are forced to shut down steam. (Or choose to shut down steam).
It's not just values games on steam you know.
You should try a console system. All of the games include a game disk, box, and an instruction book.
What did I do wrong? My copies of Dr. Mario Online Rx and Tetris Party from Wii Shop Channel came with only an electronic manual.
I check games carefully before purchasing them now and avoid all those that require the use of the Steam service. This comes after purchasing a few games that became unusable after a few weeks (or less than a day) with errors about invalid serial numbers. Perhaps region coding incompatible with my Geographically Canadian IP, perhaps the misfortune of matching with one of the warez distributions or key-gens. But all unresolvable without me delivering images of the retail receipt and manual / number card to Steam. As there is no reason to save the receipt for software purchase as opened packages are non-returnable, this was impossible.
Individually cryptographically signed executables is absolutely DRM. It, like every other copy-protection scheme, will only be relevant for online play, or if single player games require a handshake with some server system before use. (Which would limit their lifespan.) The best way to discourage piracy is to lower prices. You may not reduce the number of unlicensed copies around the world, but you will assuredly increase the number of customers you have.
Valve isn't a publicly traded company, so he can't forcefully be removed from office unless they're bought out (unless there's some part of business law I'm terribly missing). Now if EA bought them, I'd have a lot more concern..
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?"
They might as well keep DRM, the new system is pretty much the same thing.
I am still a slave to STEAM.
1) If I don't have STEAM on my other computer I can not play it.
2) If I am not connected to the Internet with my other computer I can not play it.
3) If Valve goes belly up I can no longer play my games
Not going to happen, keep your games and your online validation / DRM shit. I will only purchase games without it or none at all.
Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
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)
Except for it does. You can not play in offline mode indefinably. Eventually steam forces you to reconnect up and say hi.
First off, steam can be run in offline mode.
No, it really can't. Well, not in Windows Vista, anyway. Back when I had Steam, I tried many times to start it without a network connection, and never once did it work. Ever.
In what operating system does Steam run in offline mode?
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
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)
And when you get a new computer next year and Valve is no longer around?
mmm... good luck with that.
When they're getting laid.
Oh, crap, I see your point.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Become educated instead of braying along with the masses. Its cool.
Try it yourself.
Steam can be run in offline mode, yes, but networkable games cannot access the Internet when Steam is in offline mode. That is not "do whatever you want", it is DRM.
Yes, Gabe said that, but when the day comes he'll have no incentive to do so. He might not even have the money to push the patch out.
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?
Well, for one thing, it doesn't make any sense. If I sell the same game in say, Europe for twice as much as in the USA for the same game, that is taking advantage of it without any other costs. Technical measures are simply there so someone in Europe doesn't figure out about this price gouging and change their region to the USA. Now, if you are going to release a game in China, you have to translate it into Chinese, this would raise prices and it would be justified, but similarly, you don't need technical measures because unless someone knows Chinese, they aren't going to want to buy it, even if it is somehow cheaper. Similarly, the ordinary person who speaks Chinese isn't going to get the English version even if it is cheaper.
Region locking when it is the exact same code is equivalent to price gouging. Now, when there are some things that need to be changed (language, technical format of PAL vs NTSC, etc) it isn't, but when the exact same code is electronically delivered to Europe for twice as much and the same code costs less when electronically delivered to North America, it is nothing more than glorified price gouging.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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!
you upgrade from Steam to Electricity??
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Traditional DRM meant the disk was protected, but I could still install it and play it on any computer in my house.
I could install it on an unconnected laptop at the cottage and play...
This is one of those totally dependant on the DRM servers, type DRM. It is even worse IMO.
This is game rental, not purchase.
How does this square with the article summary:
but only playable by one person at a time (hooked into the correct Steam account, of course).
How would they prevent two people from playing at the same time without it requiring an internet connection? Or is this just bad summary writing? The linked press release never actually says that. You can understand why many slashdotters would be a bit confused trying to reconcile such statements, I hope.
Aren't they losing out on parents with minors and other LAN or NAT situations with those restrictions?
A lot of PC games tend to be first-person shooters, which tend to be rated M for mature, or pay-to-play massively multiplayer online games, which require a grown-up's credit card. Many of the games designed to be played by minors are either on consoles or on SWF sites (e.g. neopets.com).
So how does the game know nobody else is playing with that globally unique identifier?
This doesn't sound new or exciting to me...all it sounds like is Valve will handle license key generation/online authentication for third parties selling on Steam.
The Yasashii Syndicate ||
"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.
Even works on a flash drive, if you have a big enough one.
L4D load times dropped a ton when I threw it on an 8GB flash drive.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
If such a way to remove restrictions existed, I am surprised it has not been activated by an (ahem) third party.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
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.
Let me make this very simple for you:
DRM is any digital measure that attempts to stop piracy by restricting what you can do.
Whether or not it's acceptable DRM is a different question. I have Steam, and I consider it an acceptable trade.
But put another way, this is like claiming an iPod sold for $20 is "free", or has "no cost". Bullshit! It cost you $20! You may consider that to be more than fair price, considering what iPods usually go for, but it is in no sense free.
Now, someone else has pointed out that it may instead be a watermark system. Here, we could have a lively debate -- I consider a watermark to not be DRM, because it actually doesn't restrict you from doing anything. Others consider a watermark to be DRM, because it is a potential privacy hazard, and possible to abuse -- for instance, depending on the watermark scheme used, someone may be able to replace their details with someone else's, thus framing someone else for the piracy.
However, nothing in the press release suggests that this is a watermark instead of Steam's built-in DRM. Instead, it says quite clearly:
Headlining the new feature set is the Custom Executable Generation (CEG) technology that compliments the already existing anti-piracy solution offered in Steamworks.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
No...it is quite accurate to say "Steam does not require an internet connection in order to play a game". It should be added that "however, Steam does require an internet connection to install/activate the game". You can still play the game without the internet after you've activated it.
1) Steam requires an internet connection to activate a game.
2) Steam requires activation in order to play a game.
Therfore:
3) Steam requires an internet connection to play a game.
QED
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Says a guy named "PornMaster."
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
A.K.A a liquidation auction or firesale. Microsoft would buy it - at any cost - and link it into GFWL.
The only reason that I buy games on Steam is because I reckon Valve will stick around for at least the next ten years. Chances are any games I buy physically I'll have either lost or destroyed by then anyway so at the very least it's not worse than buying discs.
If they don't lose their heads and carry on as they are then they should be able to carry on indefinitely, making this a moot point. I don't think that should stop us from being honest about the fact that we don't control our games on Steam though; there is a loss of freedom compared to physical disks.
Still, it's not like cracking games from Steam is harder than cracking SecuROM games so in the even of a Steam doomsday, I feel pretty secure.
Nick
In my reply to another commenter, I've described what I would see happening if it were ever come to bankruptcy or Valve out and out being sold.
But at the end of it all, we both seem to agree with the basic premise that the people who've made the promise intend to keep it. Where we disagree is their ability to do so.
At that point, I concede that they may some day be in a position that they wouldn't be able to. On the other hand, as a rebuttal to that, I would say that I don't see that day coming at any point in time where this discussion would still be relevant.
By the time Steam becomes defunct, if it were to, I would posit we'd be to the point where these games would require a VM to run anyway. The majority of them will be defunct purely by the virtue that they are solely multiplayer and have no servers/players left and the rest will be playable indefinitely via the currently available offline mode.
And in reality, Valve isn't a startup anymore. Half-Life was released a decade ago. The whole "will they or won't they" question concerning Valve's viability as a corporation seems fairly well decided in the "will they" category. If they were to fall, it would likely be a fairly well foreshadowed fall, with plenty of time for all involved to make their own arrangements.
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.
Um, yeah, kinda... they've been known to disable accounts and access to games that people paid for arbitrarily.
Bullshit. Steamworks doesn't do this kind of "hardware" lock.
If any game sold on Steam exhibits this kind of behavior, it is because the game uses an additional form of DRM. Use of additional DRM is a decision made by the publishers of the game, not Valve, and Valve doesn't use any additional DRM on ANY of the games in their own catalog.
In fact, the ENTIRE point of the article was Valve trying to convince other companies that they don't NEED additional DRM on Steam.
By "personalizing" each copy of the game for each gamer, it allows Valve to potentially make their games work COMPLETELY free of Steam. Copy the game folder onto a system without Steam, and the game will run fine, without the need for cracks. If a copy gets leaked, then they can determine who original purchased that copy.
My sig can beat up your sig.
$40-60 would be somewhat excessive for an old game, and so long as Steam continues to exist you wouldn't have to re-buy, so it's not a rental in that sense.
Sure. Really, I was replying to the guy that implied rentals were acceptable because games often don't get replayed.
What Steam amounts to is an indefinite rental. Right now, if I don't specifically go offline (and apparently clear it with Steam's servers), then the game would still be unplayable if they turned the servers off tomorrow. I've got no real expectation that they'll let me know ahead of time that they're turning things off. And keeping a copy of the installed files is a bit different from keeping original installation media. Does the game run without correct registry entries? What all do I have to back up to get it to run again? The computer is a fairly volatile and hostile environment--it's much more likely that it will crash and take a backup with it than that it will crash and destroy a CD/DVD.
I've never been one to pirate games, and only on a few rare occasions have I installed a no-CD crack on a game I've purchased (and never for games I haven't purchased.) So I vote with my wallet, even though there are games I'd really enjoy owning. I choose not to rent them at the full retail price (even though it's really likely that I'll have them for a long time), so I don't play them.
I can foresee the network being bought by someone with short-term revenue farming in mind... who decides that Steam accounts shouldn't be free and starts charging a monthly fee using access to your games as leverage.
Yeah, there'd be a class action, but given an appropriate corporate structure (and bonuses/options to the leadership), I'd imagine that the ones driving the decision would come out far ahead even if thier "restructured company" came out far behind due to the resolution of the lawsuit.
My point is that while yes, there are scenarios where things stay good for the consumer, there are scenarios where things go bad for reasons outside of the consumers control.
With my old games, it's up to me if they still work or not. If I still have the installation media (and maybe the manual), I'm good. If I lost them, I'm hosed.
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.
if Steam's servers are taken offline, access controls will be removed.
Very interesting. Has any other game company announced ahead of time that they would agree they are abandonware if they go belly-up..?
That which does not kill us makes us... st
There is a way to install the games offline, you just need to use the backup utility after downloading the first time. This creates a nice bundled installer you can save away somewhere for that rainy day where it's needed.
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.
No. Actually the DMCA does allow fair use exceptions for exactly this sort of thing, and the copyright office is permitted to make explicit exceptions.
Here's what I really like about Steam:
- I can move computers or reinstall as I wish. I can play a game "delete" it, and later on, reinstall it - just load the main game file and go. No install and reinstall idiocy. If I need to clear up some HD space, I can delete the game main game file in a few seconds and poof - 4 or 5 gigs free.
If I have to reinstall my OS, I don't have to play CD or DVD shuffling and look for CD keys and other idiocy. I just install the steam client, validate, and hit "stun" and let it d/l all 40-50 gigs of junk overnight. Note - you can also back up your steam apps directory and toss the compressed files back in with a reinstalled OS. It'll check and validate and you're good to go. With DVDs, you're SOL - because it has to do all sorts of tweaking and stuff with the registry. Steam does this for you. Nice.
- None of UbiSoft's or EA or Sony's malware DRM rootkits. I'd rather have one app that checks to see if I'm who I am(perfectly reasonable, IMO). No CD crippling software, no nonsense that mangles my DirectX. In fact, I'll only buy games from those three PITA companies when it comes out on Steam.
- Updating and patches and support is quick - often in hours or days to fix loading bugs and sound issues. Patches the game for you, as well. Always up to date if you wish.
- As easy as Direct2Drive(another company I also like) to order and buy from. Good prices, too. Often better than the local game store, due to nearly daily promotions and specials. No boxes cluttering up my desk, either. Case in point - last night, Assassin's Creed was a paltry $10. Latest director's cut version, all the goodies. Just buy, D/L, and run an hour later.
- Loads of older games that were impossible to run on Vista from the W2K/W98 era. Many are well worth playing, even today.
- Movie trailers and so on are MUCH easier to manage and less spammy than the major websites and places like Apple. HD trailers are a snap as well to d/l and clearly tell you the resolution and quality up front. Having to watch a trailer online in a little box at most sites is a major hassle.
Cons:
- It sits in the background and hogs resources. Impossible to play even HL via Steam versus the original standalone boxed game cleanly unless you have a dual core processor. My old P3 could run HL1 without stuttering. My P4 couldn't. My dual-core now is fine, but really...
- Many AV and Net monitoring/firewall apps just have a fit with it.
- Loads new content and patches and so on sometimes in the background without me ever allowing it.
- Worries about not being able to access my programs. But given the money Valve is making, I suspect it'll be around for at least 10-20 more years.
Except about once a month Steam will force you to go online otherwise you are locked out of your games. If Steam let you stay offline forever, that wouldn't be a problem, but with mandatory internet checks, it isn't perfect by any means.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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!
There ARE good reasons for regional pricing, at least from the perspective of the producer -- segmenting the market means you can maximize profits with differing strategies.
But there are also very good reasons for not allowing enforcement of pricing policies with technology that prohibits legitimate use and further trade. Let's say I own 400 DVD (which I do) and then I move to Australia (which I might) -- none of my DVDs will play on the devices available there. Even if I take a player with me I'll never be able to replace it without having one shipped in from the US (which I'm sure the MPAA would also like to outlaw). The content producer doesn't even have a legitimate interest in a pricing differential at this point, because I've already bought their content at the prices they set in the segmented market; at this point it's either a scam to make me re-buy the same content or an insidious infringement on my legitimate use of content I have license to view.
And that's not even to point out the limitation of secondary-market sales and other legitimate uses that, if executed, may not reduce the primary-market sales one iota but which are prevented by region-locking. Or the fact that as a primary-market customer I should be free to make my own choice as to whether I want to preserve the regional pricing differential or mitigate it through my secondary-market sales -- that isn't a decision we should allow content producers to make for us.
Cool, let me try.
When the economy is fixed, we promise to stop strapping our grandchildren with debt they will have no hope of paying off.
This is fun.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
You don't need two computers to play a game on steam so your requirement of having steam on your other computer doesn't make sense.
Based on your comment history I seriously doubt that'll be a problem for you.
Yes you will because people play pirated steam games today, right now.
Just so you know, region locked DVD players were deemed illegal by the high court of Australia so all players sold here are able to play DVDs from any region. For once the Australian legal system got something right.
Market forces don't apply to monopolies. And copyright is a government granted monopoly.
Considering that my housemate copied GTA4 out of my Steam directory and we could successfully lan it up I would humbly suggest that you are an uninformed dickwad.
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Everyone else did. They all loved it, it was a great game. They made two more of them. Guess you missed out.
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.
There's an explicit exemption for obsolete computer software.
That's because the negative points about Steam haven't affected you yet.
I to was a happy, naive steam user since it's release who would similarly have praised it up until a few weeks ago when they fucked me with their Dawn of War II DRM.
Now I realise how flawed Steam actually is and that at any time they could revoke my ability to re-install the game, the fact I have a boxed copy bought from a shop but because I have to activate by Steam I will never be able to sell on that boxed copy 2nd hand.
I wish I hadn't been so naive now, because it's naivety like yours (and formerly like mine) as to how bad Steam actually is that's allowing it to gain traction and become ever more evil and problematic.
I was buying games in US dollars on there not so long ago with a $2 US to the £ exchange rate and now I'm suddenly seeing games the same as UK shop RRPs like £39.99 so I'm being forced to pay much more than people abroad for the same product, the same as I'd pay for a boxed copy in the UK but without getting it boxed and can't sell it on second hand. The net is already tightening with Steam, they've already upped costs, they're already imposing control over games bought outside of Steam and not developed by Valve if companies wish to also have their game available on Steam as well.
Make no mistake, Valve are the new EA and whilst like you, millions would say "Well I've never had a problem with Spore", they will when they install it a 5th time and don't know where to find the patch to remove that limitation, unfortunately with Valve, there is no patch, well, not official ones anyway.
I liked Valve when they just developed the Half-Life series etc. but as a company that is now leveraging the prominence of their system to gain control over games sold outside their distribution channel such as retail shops, as a company that's artificially increasing prices, as a company that's destroying people's legal right to sell on games second hand and as a company that's imposing artificial restrictions on when people can and can't install their game? I'll pass thanks.
The countless flaws with Steam haven't effected you yet, but as the net tightens they will. Their practices are anti-competitive, controlling and hence harmful to the customer.
What makes the whole situation worse is that Valve have built themselves an army of fanboys more rabid than even Steve Jobs has managed that cry about how they hate DRM one minute but give all the support in the world to Valve who are the joint worst DRM offenders in the whole industry with EA right now. Why? Because 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?
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!
Well I suppose you could consider it the least limiting if you ignore all the limitations but that doesn't make a lot of sense now does it?
Valve DRM:
- Limits when you can activate the game, if Valve ever goes bust and hence doesn't release a patch you'll never be able to activate your game again. Any problem with their activation servers will too prevent you from activating and hence playing a game you've purchased.
- Need to activate to play online, in the above scenario you could crack it to allow activation but will likely be unable to play online still
- Can't sell your games on second hand
- Prevents you playing games offline
- Forces you to have Steam on your system to be able to play a game that doesn't use Steam's features even if you bought it outside of Steam's distribution channel
- Forces you to accept updates to be able to play (What if you come home, want to play a game you've bought but find you have to download a 100mb+ update and you have to pay for your bandwidth because it's capped like many people in the UK do?)
Effectively whilst most classic DRM can be used to prevent people copying game disks, it does at very least allow continued ownership of the product, the ability to install it at will even after the company has gone bust and still allows you to sell the product on second hand, Steam removes the product from your control entirely even if you have purchased the actual physical media in a shop. Valve also can prevent activation of a product you didn't even buy from them as happened with me with DoW2, I purchased it from GAME but Valve initially prevented me from activating even though according to the box my only transaction with Valve should have been to register (not activate) with them.
Ignoring the limitations imposed by Steam's DRM does not mean that they are not there.