Slashdot Mirror
Future Ubisoft Games To Require Constant Internet Access
Following up on our discussion yesterday of annoying game distribution platforms, Ubisoft has announced the details of their Online Services Platform, which they will use to distribute and administer future PC game releases. The platform will require internet access in order to play installed games, saved games will be stored remotely, and the game you're playing will even pause and try to reconnect if your connection is lost during play. Quoting Rock, Paper, Shotgun:
"This seems like such a bizarre, bewildering backward step. Of course we haven't experienced it yet, but based on Ubi’s own description of the system so many concerns arise. Yes, certainly, most people have the internet all the time on their PCs. But not all people. So already a percentage of the audience is lost. Then comes those who own gaming laptops, who now will not be able to play games on trains, buses, in the park, or anywhere they may not be able to find a WiFi connection (something that’s rarely free in the UK, of course – fancy paying the £10/hour in the airport to play your Ubisoft game?). Then there's the day your internet is down, and the engineers can’t come out to fix it until tomorrow. No game for you. Or any of the dozens of other situations when the internet is not available to a player. But further, there are people who do not wish to let a publisher know their private gaming habits. People who do not wish to report in to a company they’ve no affiliation with, nor accountability to, whenever they play a game they’ve legally bought. People who don’t want their save data stored remotely. This new system renders all customers beholden to Ubisoft in perpetuity whenever they buy their games."
How can this even remotely be considered a good idea? I do understand the burning desire for customer dependency, demographic information and all that, but seriously...I'd be very irritated if I were in a tricky spot, my network dropped briefly, and the game responded in such a fashion. Probably irritated enough to return it, if I hadn't been aware of the issue beforehand.
Geez, I thought Steam had shown the way and we'd got over this idea of needing a permenant internet connection for single player games. Obviously not then...
Pirated games are simply superior.
Pirated games treat me like admin of my own computer.
Legitimate game do not.
I really do not need any other reason to refuse to use anything but pirated games.
It is MY hardware, not ubisoft / Ea / etc
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
It's as though somebody managed to take everything that sucks about cloud computing and combine it with everything that sucks about local client computing.
All of the high system requirements and per-machine installation(and probably a dozen background processes and some kernel-mode driver that breaks your DVD drive) of a local application, combined with all the vendor lock-in, violation of First Sale, and high connectivity requirements and costs of a cloud app. Good work, guys.
I suggest a slogan. "Ubisoft: We make single-player games that require more internet access than Gmail, for fuck's sake."
This is either stupidity or an intentionally over the top "announcement" designed to soften people up so that when they release the actual platform people are relieved that it only phones home every hour instead of continuously.
Very few people are going to accept requiring 24/7 connectivity to play their games; given the number of times a day that I lose connection to Steam for a couple of minutes for whatever reason, if it had a system like this I'd never be able to play any of my games without interruption. And God help you if you're playing a multiplayer game and you lose connection to Ubisoft but not to the server you're playing on; forget blaming lag, you can just blame the fact that your game was paused for 30 seconds while it re-established a connection to Ubi.
Oh and we're sorry we deleted all your save games, but these things happen and the agreement you signed means we don't have any responsibility to protect your data while it's sitting on our servers. Again, Steam has it right here with their cloud settings, you *sync* the information with the local machine, you don't store it all remotely.
And who is "legally bound" to patch the games if Ubisoft ceased to exist?
But this won't stop piracy since only legit customers are going to be subject to this shafting.
I for one would prefer to wait for the cracked version to be made available over P2P. I have never pirated any game before, but if they do this I certainly won't be buying their locked-down version.
This isn't really about piracy though, it is about ownership - you don't own their game, you only rent it and they can kick you off whenerver they want and make you play the newer more expensive game... Well screw them!
I'm not the first to say this, and I certainly won't be the last, but this sort of copy protection nonsense is just another reason I'll be cracking games that I've paid for. Services constantly running on your computer are not acceptable. Punishing people who give you money because not everyone who plays your game gives you money is not acceptable. It's not as though there will ever be a magical, uncrackable copy protection system. Furthermore, this will push some people who would have actually bought the game to download a pirated version instead.
Or, if 80-90% of your potential customers are willing to expend the effort of piracy rather than purchase your product, perhaps your product is overpriced. You may not feel it is. You may feel entitled to greater pay for your work. The market cares not.
To Not Appear In My Home. :(
Screw that. I'm not buying any game that requires a connection for single player.
But, of course, if enough people think like me, and sales go down, that'll be blamed on "piracy" as well.
As a long term PC gamer and both purchaser and pirater of said games, I have to say that Steam has pretty much single-handedly ended the pirate side of my gaming experience. While I will still occasionally give in and download pirated copies of games where they're available in advance of the official release, I still end up buying them (and usually pre-ordering them).
Over christmas, during Steam's insanely cheap sale, I must have spent close to £100 on all kind of games that I probably would never have played otherwise - frankly, for £3 or £4 even if you only play the game once you haven't really lost anything. I know Steam has its issues (Most notably the first sale ones), but I also think it's the way forward for games distribution in that it's very relaxed about how, when and where you play your games. I can install Steam anywhere at any time, download any of my games and play them without worrying about having discs or activiation limits (with the exception of a few retarded publishers who still insist on SecuRom or Games For Windows Live on their Steam distributed games) and if you plan ahead, you don't need an internet connection either.
I know others will inevitably try and emulate Steam, but if they do it in stupidly restrictive ways, like Ubi appear to be doing, they're only going to succeed in failing and they'll have nobody to blame but themselves (although they'll obviously try and place all the blame on the pirates).
Let's see...
Legally bought: can only play it at home or wherever I manage to find a free and reliable internet connection that does not suck (which is a minority of them)
Cracked: can play it at home, in the backseat of a car, on the bus, on the train, on the plane, in the park, at the airport, ANYWHERE.
And the best part is that the cracked version is free! Why waste money on an inferior product, then?
The only downside is that the cracked version is only released about a week after the official version.
i doubt this new system will work for me. i do have 24/7 internet access, but my high-speed line is always saturated downloading pirated game from pirate bay. no way are any ubisoft.com bound packets going to get through
I think the article missed one of the possible sources of annoyance, in that the games will not only need an active connection to the interwebs on your side, but also a listening Ubisoft server on the other side. What happens if Ubisoft's servers don't run, or happen to "not find" a savegame, or it gets corrupted or anything? Can we then blame Ubisoft and demand reparation? This strikes as such a bad idea on so many levels that it's hard to believe any company would go down that path. So, no more Ubisoft games for me, I suppose. (Oh, wait, the last PC game I bought must be at least 5 years old, and I much prefer playing table-top games (you know, the ones with social gaming built-in right from the start? ;-) ), or console stuff if it "has" to be electronic, so I guess I shouldn't feel concerned too much :-) )
i am all for the big players moving to the consoles if the pc market is too hard for them. By their attempts to gain total control they will destroy all benefits of pc gaming - mods, user created content, ease of multiplaying on lan, dedicated servers and what not.
music industry behemots had to admit that unrestricted product sells better, it's time for the game industry to do the same. I see paying for digital stuff as an absolutely voluntary act of rewarding creators' efforts in case their product is excellent. Paying in advance is asking to be scammed with the worthless piece of shit. No amount of drm would force me to pay if i didn't like what i saw.
Blizzard was an exception in my case, i bought almost every game up to 1st WoW. I knew they attract players with the quality alone because their copy protection was trivial to circumvent and yet millions were willing to pay - unfortunately they chose the same path of tightening the grip in case of upcoming Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, removing offline lan, requiring internet during install even when there is no multiplayer available without their servers (single player will be hacked in 1 day either way).
1) The figure of 80-90% piracy is generated by the industry, and since it is largely unmeasurable it is an estimate (i.e. made up) I suspect no-one has any real idea how much is pirated
2) This is yet another layer of security, that the pirates will get round, and make easy for any one who wants to to get round
3) The only people this will annoy is the legitimate paying customers..... however many are left
This and similar anti-piracy schemes are why I stopped buying games (and playing them), it took too much effort to get the game working so I gave up, many people gave up and got the pirated version with all this stuff stripped out which meant that it "just worked" ....
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
I think the rampant PC game piracy (almost 80-90%) can be blamed for this somewhat.
Source? The recently released Call of Duty MW2 sold 15 million units. If that figure represents only 10% of the copies in existence, with the other 90% being pirated and not counted as sales, that means there are 150 million people playing the game. I'm convinced that the video game market is expanding, and will have increased social acceptance in the future, but I'm finding 150 million people a bit hard to believe. Furthermore, the same has sold more copies than it's predecessor, which only sold approx 14 million copies. More people are buying games.
Infinity Ward certainly doesn't seem to be suffering from rampant piracy. Perhaps people aren't buying Ubisoft's games not so they can pirate them, but because their products suck and treat customers like slaves.
The ex-directors of the company can still be sued.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
A while ago I decided that I'll switch to PC only gaming.
This was for one reason: I will always be able to play the games I own.
Consoles break, hardware can become irreplaceable, chips can burn out, backup batteries die, ROMs have questionable copyright.
But PC's will be forever.
I can even play some older games on QEMU right now. In 50 years I will be able to play today's games on an emulated system with an emulated GPU & CPU.
Many (if not most) of today's games have the multi-player component as a critical part of game-play. Playing them on a non-networked computer would be virtually pointless. The benefit of this setup is that I could go to an internet cafe, a friends house or work and start up a game, while being in exactly the same place in the game as at home. But haven't some games had that ability for many years?
Either way, without stand-alone gameplay - I'm not interested. I want to make sure that someday (in the far future) I will be able to play the games I play today with my great-grand-kids, instead of receiving a message like "Sorry, Can't connect to server", "ipv9 not supported", or "Gameplay not available, server offline since 2011".
"If any service is stopped, we will create a patch for the game so that the core game play will not be affected."
If Ubisoft can create an "offline" patch, then so can crackers, and I'll bet they do a better job of it too.
This is *exactly* the line of bullshit that made me buy a console. There is simply less of it there for now: compare GTA IV on PC and Xbox 360. PC is just a stupid situation. So, already bonehead decisions by stupid out-of-touch executives have already stopped me from purchasing PC games. Please don't extend that to the consoles because then I'd have to stop purchasing games altogether. Notice I said purchasing, I'm sure there will be versions available that aren't stupid. Way to go Ubisoft: you just connected yourself with "bullshit" in *my* mind, so *my* money is forever out of your grasp until you become less stupid.
Shh.
Ubisoft can kiss any ideas about tapping into the african market goodbye.. South Africa, which has one of the more "advanced" telecommunication networks in Africa has less than 10% of its population on Internet, and most of those are dial-ups. The rest of Africa is so far in the dark that the countries finally embracing the world of Internet are bypassing fixed lines and going straight for cellphones.. I can hardly see them jumping on this idea soon.. Long story short : Permanent internet requirement == no 3rd World users
So Ubisoft is going mandate ridiculous DRM measures. Ubisoft. This is the company/publisher who, as far as I can tell, has barely produced one game that didn't suck in a long time. And that's just because compared to Assassin's Creed 1, it'd be hard for 2 not to look good. Yeah. So long Ubisoft, I can't say it was fun.
Maybe this is a good thing, though. Someone like Blizzard doing this would have people grumbling and moaning and everyone would still put up with it because they need their WoW or Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2 or whatever. If someone like Ubisoft does it, and it's just one more reason for people not to buy their crap, and they go under, maybe it will make other companies think twice before trying similar stupidity. Maybe.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Great to see that Ubisoft continues the time honoured tradition of screwing over the actual customers. Who ever thought they could make a system even more obnoxious than the code wheel? I'm not going to ask for permission to play my games so blow it out your posterior Ubisoft.
Game review websites and magazines ought to unite on this issue and give games failing scores if they do not allow for offline play when in self-contained single player mode.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Like I noted, this system has some parts of the code (savegames, possible game objects, etc) and requires ubisoft account login to play. It will require complete rewrite of those missing parts into the game and creating local equivalents to them. And no, you don't get to use c++ for this; you do it in assembly.
At first glance that is totally the wrong way to go. Rather than writing new routines for the games in assembly, you write an emulator for evilbigbrother.ubisoft.com in a modern interpreted language and add a line to your hosts file to point to 127.0.0.1. A modern interpreted language is way faster to develop for, and if it runs slow, who cares you've got 100s of ms of "internet" latency to work around. I imagine there'll be a CPAN perl module for this within perhaps a week of the release.
They could try to crypto sign the traffic between evilbigbrother.ubisoft.com and the game. Now, the crypto auth part of the game executable is where you go back to the old skool tradition of binary patching machine language branches into jumps and nops.
Bonus is you can use the evilbigbrother.ubisoft.com emulator for presumably all their games not just one, plus you can trivially integrate in a nice savegame editor, savegame backup system, etc.
This all seems terribly obvious to me, ergo I must be caffeine deficient at this early hour. All I'm really seeing is UBI wasting a lot of money to lose sales without affecting piracy? And they're creating yet another "big content" ecosystem where yet again, the "pirated" product actually provides a better end user experience than the "pay" product, aside from economic costs? Since this will tank UBI, I'm not predicting other marketing conglomerates copying UBIs idea, other than the usual tongue in cheek "I strongly encourage my competitors to also shoot themselves in their feet".
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Yet another example of a company attempting to make life difficult for pirates but managing only to annoy and inconvenience legitimate users. People who actually buy the game are going to be faced with restrictions that will, at some point, hinder their ability to use the copy of the game they legally bought while pirates will find a way to crack the system in less than a week and will then be able to use their ill-gotten goods the way they want.
I understand major media companies consider piracy to be a major problem. I understand we're not likely to ever change that opinion. But. It would be nice if they got everything in perspective and realized that they should not hinder legitimate customers in their war against pirates. All that will do is either drive those legitimate customers away or, worse, turn them in to pirates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubisoft#Controversies
- use of the StarForce copy protection
- ceased to provide his games to a magazine that had negative reviews of their games
- admit to release low quality games that need additional promotion to be sold
Or, if 80-90% of your potential customers are willing to expend the effort of piracy rather than purchase your product
Because the pirated version is BETTER because it doesn't have all the copy protection in the way of the game experience. Gaming is getting pretty weird psychologically, one minute you're having a blast playing something scientifically designed to be fun because you paid money and the game designers love you, next minute you're suffering through copy protection because the game designers hate the folks whom pay them money. Makes you wonder about the average non-pirate gamers sex life (if any)
perhaps your product is overpriced. You may not feel it is. You may feel entitled to greater pay for your work. The market cares not.
The stereotypical $1000 video card gamer doesn't care about the game price. Looking at the economics of it, I don't think price is why pirates pirate. Now cellphone gamers, they have a reasonable economic reason to pirate because cell phones are cheap. I've never pirated a game that doesn't have copy protection / CD checks / printed manual questions / etc.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Blame *greed*.
Linking to an article that that quotes the same made up number without any backing doesn't add anything except more FUD.
I think the rampant PC game piracy (almost 80-90%) can be blamed for this somewhat.
No, the idea that piracy matters is to blame for this. Caring about piracy is bad business. Two things matter when designing a good business plan:
The entire purpose of your sales and marketing strategy is to move people from the second category into the first. Some pirates are in a third category: people who definitely won't buy your product. Any money spent on this market segment is wasted. If they won't buy your product whatever you do, then it doesn't matter if they pirate it or just go without. It's frustrating, but that's an emotional issue and basing corporate decisions on emotions is rarely a good idea.
Some of the pirates are in the category of people who might buy your product. How do you turn them into people who will buy your product? There are several ways, but making your product worse, and making it comparatively worse than the pirated version, are not on the list. And yet, for some reason, they are the two strategies that most people involved in The War on Piracy seem to be choosing. Oddly enough, they are having about as much success as their counterparts in the wars on terror and drugs.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
They're the ones using it.
They did create some very good games, but I'm not buying anything with SecuROM in it, no matter how good the game. Now they want to add 'needs permanent net access'? If I wasn't already blocking them on my shopping list, I'd be doing it now...l
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
Um, no, I don't. I remember when the Amiga died in large part due to mismanagement by Commodore. Did it die more than once? 'Cause I totally missed the piracy death.
Remember when the Apple ][ died in large part due to piracy? No? There was at least as much game piracy on that platform. Maybe piracy isn't a big contributing factor.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
There are other ways to prevent software piracy without requiring constant internet access. Look up "Software Piracy" at the patent application section of the patent office. I have at least one proposal of my own. There are others. For one thing, having to go on line prevents parents with multiple children from enjoying multi-computer games with them. Allowing Big Brother to monitor what parents are doing with their children, or allowing what their children do, cannot be the right way to do this.
The easiest way to do this is to write an app that intercepts connections to the server and just responds to them the same as the server does.
And the funniest part is the UBI guys have to write and build a server farm to scale to "millions of users" and instant response to keep total system latency down and interoperate with multiple versions of multiple games. However, the pirates only have to scale to a whopping one user and since it's local there is no transmission latency so there is plenty of time for slow simple unoptimized code, and only interoperate with the one version of one game that its distributed with... Also the UBI guys are small in number to develop their complicated proprietary server compared to the resources of the whole pirate community sharing a semi-openly developed server emulator.
Epic fail for UBI.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Steam is very nice, and they have great deals etc. I find Steam to be the best compromise we the gamer can possibly put up with.
I hope Steam does not change.
The game sold 15 millions units overall, not just on PC. It probably sold more on 360+PS3 than on PC.
You do appear to be correct on the breakup of sales figures. If you believe Torrentfreak's numbers, you might be right on the piracy stats as well. The piracy figures for the x360 version are also quite interesting, but of course you run the risk of getting banned by MS.
So I do concede that you may in fact be correct on 80-90% figure, although I still argue that Ubisoft isn't helping matters any. I just have a thing about verifiable sources ;) .
I wonder if their Bankruptcy game will be realistic.
Carmel recounted seeing torrents with upwards of "500 seeders and 300 leechers" and receiving emails from some who bought the title after pirating it, but flat-out said that "the piracy rate was about 90" percent. "We're doing ok, though," Carmel said in stride. "We're getting good sales through WiiWare, Steam, and our website. Not going bankrupt just yet."
Seems to be they don't mind too much and openly admit that piracy makes up a portion of the people who eventually bought the game. I still don't see how they can come up with this rate of 90%, it has to be an estimate there is no way to 100% know how many pirated copies are out there or being played. People could be downloading the game to try it and saying Not for me, others go out and but it. I'd bet the way they come up with 90% is by saying "Ok, we should sell 10000 copies of the game", then X time frame later they say we only sold 1000 copies, there must be 9000 pirated copies out there that's a 90% piracy rate.
You are so incredibly delusional. What makes you think pirates would actually buy the game if they couldn't pirate it? People don't have infinite amounts of money. Why do you think piracy is so rampant in China? People don't legitimately have any money to spend. They can't justify spending money on entertainment when they have to feed their families.
Yeah, because paying lawyers to sue a bankrupt corporation because my video game quit working is a totally viable option that fixes the issue at hand.
The plural of anecdote is not data ...
"...500 seeders and 300 leechers..." this means that the majority of people who wanted it already have it (seeders > leechers) and that only accounts for 800 copies ...If this is 9 times the copies sold then the top games list is really really odd ...
How are they deriving the 90% figure, from looking at torrent sites occasionally? ...this is a meaningless snapshot, it does not include many copies and includes copies that may never be played?
It does not mean that these are people who actually want the game (Just hosting)
It does not mean that these are people who would consider buying it
It does not mean that these are people who have not already bought it for one platform and are pirating it for a second one
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
... I can summarize the comments here rather succinctly. Fuck Ubisoft and fuck their games.
So we go from the current situation:
Sales: x units.
Piracy: 4x units.
And instead we have:
Sales: 0.0000000000001x[1] units.
Piracy: 0 units.
The words "Pyrrhic" and "victory" spring to mind.
[1] I'm sure somebody, somewhere, will buy it - if only by mistake.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Well no doubt about, the pirated versions of ubi games will be ridiculously superior to the actually buying the game from ubi
However, i don't really like to download pirated software for security reasons, so I guess I'll just NEVER AGAIN BUY AN UBI SOFT GAME.
Between the choice of paying ubi to screw me and not playing their games, it's a no-brainer decision.
Absolutely the truth!!!!
I bought Far Cry 2 for PS3 because of reviews and ads, but then after 5 minutes I remove the BD from PS3 and put it into its own cover. Since then I lent the game to my friend, and he returned it immediatly.
If only I could have had it pirated, I'd tried it and then not buy!!! Instead my GF spent 35 GBP on it!!!
Arrggghhhhh!!!!
It was covered on Slashdot too. Here's their article about it
first, and most importantly, how we came up with this number: the game allows players to have their high scores reported to our server (it’s an optional checkbox). we record each score and the IP from which it came. we divided the total number of sales we had from all sources by the total number of unique IPs in our database, and came up with about 0.1. that’s how we came up with 90%.
it’s just an estimate though there are factors that we couldn’t account for that would make the actual piracy rate lower than our estimate:
some people install the game on more than one machine
most people have dynamic IP addresses that change from time to time
there are also factors that would make the actual piracy rate higher than our estimate:
more than one installation behind the same router/firewall (would be common in an office environment)
not everyone opts to have their scores submitted
for simplicity’s sake, we just assumed those would balance out. so take take the 90% as a rough estimate.
In the UK, it's happened plenty of times. Don't know about the USA.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
if you want something you can count on, pirate it
This is apparently where they got the figures from.... Although they got 80% piracy?
The comment from one of the developers is significant
2D BOY’s Ron Carmel : “by the way, just in case it’s not 100% clear, we’re not angry about piracy, we still think that DRM is a waste of time and money, we don’t think that we’re losing sales due to piracy, and we have no intention of trying to fight it.”
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
I was an early adopter of Steam. If you are like me, and have not been a habitual pirate, Steam is awesome. I don't have to have boxes of games and manuals lying around, no more swapping CDs, my computers install all of their games on their own...Steam has made games so cheap I find myself buying some and never playing them. I'm collecting them like baseball cards, or candy.
The point of all of this is I am the customer the gaming industry wants. I'm the one buying their games, and buying games for my wife and kids. They cannot afford to piss people like me off. Here is the part that everyone who works in the gaming industry should read:
IF I HAVE ONE MORE EXPERIENCE LIKE I HAD YESTERDAY WITH MASS EFFECT 2, I'LL TURN PIRATE, AND NEVER LOOK BACK. I paid full price for a game, so I can listen to my buddies who pirated it talk about it for days before I get to play it, and when I finally go to unlock the game already installed on my HD, I can't play it because EA's auth servers can't handle the load THAT ALL OF THE PRE-ORDER SALES FIGURES INFORMED THEM WAS COMING. I personally view this as incompetence or indifference on a criminal scale. As a paying customer, for the first time I felt abused, and I'm not going to put up with that again.
Clean up your act, EA. Come back to reality, Ubisoft. You are killing the golden goose.
Yes it would be possible in theory, but good luck doing that for each and every game that comes out.
It's a bit like saying a 1024 bit private RSA key can be cracked by sheer trying of all possible combinations. Sure, it can be done, but it'll take a lot of time. The comparison is also not fair because RTMP was never meant to be uncrackable, the specification was just not open.
The point is that the dongle-scheme (when done correctly) is simpler and more user-friendly than the "always online" scheme, and also most likely offers better protection against piracy.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
I sincerely cannot imagine this system lasting long. If UbiSoft have even remotely anticipated the number of gamers that will be playing Settlers 7 and Assassin's Creed 2, they'll know that this will place an extreme load on the servers. We're not just talking about one-time activation. We're talking a constant stream of packets. The traffic will be horrendous.
Of course, there are legal considerations as well. Of all the companies that have made use of Digital Restrictions Management, most have 'promised' to release a patch that neutralises the DRM some day but absolutely NONE have enshrined this in their EULA or any binding agreement. That's right. Zilch, zero, nada. Strange, innit?
In any case, I do not buy any games contaminated with DRM. These will be no exception.
In general, I like the concept of Steam. However, since they still control your ability to get to your game in the future, that's a deal breaker for me. If they would allow you to download your game with a cd-key tied to your Steam account (so that it would prevent people from giving away their non-DRM'd offline copies) to use as a backup, then I'd be perfectly fine with using Steam. I refuse to pay money to a company that maintains control over my property, since it means that they can take away my right to use what I paid for at any time and without warning.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
I don't pirate games, I buy maybe 2 or 3 new games and a handful of used ones from eBay over the course of a year - otherwise I'm revisiting old titles from my collection, installing mods, updated engines, etc. I'm currently having a great time replaying Duke Nukem 3D and additional episodes with eduke32, runs nice on Windows & Linux...
However, copy protection isn't just about piracy, piracy just gives the games companies an excuse to foist the protection on everyone.
In reality, this is because a whole heap of very rich people don't like the fact that you or I *own* stuff, they'd much rather we *rent* stuff, set up a nice bank debit to pay them some money each month and threaten to stop the stuff working if we stop paying them.
The games companies are now also starting to hate the PC. The combinations of different hardware and OSes make games more difficult to produce than on a "same the world over" console, plus the fact that the PC is an open platform means you can install all manner of applications to crack their games open.
It's quite obvious that the current strategy is to make life as uncomfortable as possible for PC gamers so that they give up PC gaming, buy consoles and get their games fix on those instead.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Actually, they're cutting off their own nose to spite pirates.
This holy war against pirates needs to end. They think that every downloaded game is a lost sale, and that every single person who can't pirate a game will buy it.
Do they honestly think that if they lock down a game to the point of near-unplayability that it will magically result in millions of dollars in sales?
Piracy = theft.
Agreed. Also, assault and battery = murder
Exceeding the speed limit = rape
Public intoxication = distributing child pornography
Any other minor crimes that we should rename to more serious ones for no good reason?