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?
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.
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"
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.
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
"This won't work because, by definition, it fixes the problem they had before." ???
Whale
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
If you have Tux Racer, you don't need any other games.
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)
Except for it does. You can not play in offline mode indefinably. Eventually steam forces you to reconnect up and say hi.
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)
When they're getting laid.
Oh, crap, I see your point.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
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)
"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.
Says a guy named "PornMaster."
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!
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.
It's called the "law".
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
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.
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.
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!