A bad programmer can be equally incompetant in any language.
And you think these guys would have done *better* in C/C++? Surely a bad coder can wreck any project. However, Java or C# allow a *competent* programmer to avoid *by default* many pitfalls that a C/C++ programmer must remain on guard for. C/C++ has its use, but I believe it is selected for projects where it isn't a requirement to have low level access to the OS and memory management.
if (loser) { credits -= bet }
where bet has not been bounds checked for a negative is stupid in *any* language and isn't specific to C/C++.
I'm not convinced that there are more than a handful of applications in the business process realm that have enough performance implications that a VM based language would be an issue. I develop both desktop and web applications for businesses implemented inVM based languages. The larger have tens of thousands of concurrent users. Profiling tells me that my applications spend their time waiting for data from servers and user input... not causing the user to wait for the business logic. We have a five second response time maximum for every operation and most are measured in milliseconds.
In those cases where we do have a performance hot spot, it usually is a computation that can be offloaded to a cache/compute server where appropriate choices can be made (either caches or data mart cubes or a specialized service that *is* written in a faster language). I'm curious what is left in the business process world that can not be solved in such manners...
This is not a good trade-off to make. Experienced programmers working with C and C++ will know of the buffer overflow issues, especially if they've been bitten by it before. A similar one is failure to null out a string before using it, risking problems when the string you want to put in the variable is not null-terminated.
Any explanation as to *why* this isn't actually being done then? Because, as I stated, people keep *saying* this as if repeating it makes it true. Yet the reality in the field is that buffer overflows from C/C++ code is the number one source of security flaws. This claim is like saying that "people would die of fewer heart attacks if they would eat healthy foods". Um, yeah... sadly not many actually eat healthy. Clearly, not many "experienced programmers" are putting your advice to practice either. So I will take code bloat and speed hits for the sake of not being a subscriber to the buffer overflow of the month club.
Stop coding in C/C++ when the product will be exposed to external, uncontrolled inputs. Java,.NET, Parrot... I don't really care what gets used, but it has been clear that despite the constant "C++ using the proper string libraries is as secure as virtual machines and interpreters" cries that those who actually wield the language to make products like browsers are still failing to secure against the most basic and common flaw: the buffer overflow. Browsing web pages is *not* the kind of thing that requires "bare to the metal" coding. Yes, such a browser might be vulnerable to attacks on the virtual machine itself... but a quick look at the browsers security history verses virtual machine security histories makes it clear that is a tradeoff worth making.
People who purchase sporting equipment pay the same amount whether it sits in a closet gathering dust or is used daily. "We are losing revenue on those who actually use our products," said Mr. Acme producer of many sporting good products. "Our new line of products includes small speakers that are powered by the movement of the product. As the product is used, we will be able to hawk other compatible products via the speakers".
In a test of a prototype product, a basketball fitted with the "AdSpeaker" hardware kept yelling "your game would be improved if you used Acme Basketball Pump to ensure proper inflation" every time we missed a shot.
For some reason you have a score of zero and I missed your prior replies in the tree view. Now that I have read them, it appears possible. However, the guy assuming I wanted to play two copies of the same game and the same time remains wrong. Is it true that the requirement for doing this is to keep the machine "offline" during the game session?
I guess the key question is: what is Valve's understanding of an account. If the intent is one account per player, I don't see it as given that the current offline playability will remain as it is. My goal in life is not to deprive developers of income: far from it, I make my living off software and am sensitive to the needs for fair compensation.
On the other hand, I could easily see the method you propose (one account per everybody you trust enough) being highly *unfair* to Valve. In that scenario, I could set up an account and buy one of everything. As long as people with my account don't go online at the same time, they can all play single player? If anything, that seems to be going too far in the other direction.
My personal feelings are that if my son wants to play a game I purchase at a different time than I am using it; that is fair use of a purchased CD/DVD game. If my son wants to play at the same time (say, as we do in multiplayer Dungeon Siege), then we each needs a copy. Again, I don't have a problem with this, although I preferred the old Blizzard "spawned copy" model which allowed a LAN game with a single disk. I have purchased multiple copies of quite a few games for this exact purpose.
Now taking this to the realm of steam: I have no problem with allowing family members access to different games at the same time, or the same game at different times. This does nothing more than replicate what I would do with disks anyway. On the other hand, it sounds like it would be possible to sequentially download the account's "library" of games and everyone could play offline mode all of those games. That's pushing it if I simply kept it to my immediate family, but what exactly is keeping people from doing this for an entire dorm floor?
It would seem that such an excessive abuse would be easy to detect on Valve's side. What do the terms of use say about such a situation? If such an abuse were to happen multiple times, would that affect Valve's allowance of the offline mode?
As much as I hate shuffling disks in and out of the drives, it seems to me they are a very acceptable method of regulating use. Of course, this all is supposing that neither disks nor Steam has been cracked, and we all know that both have been. Which brings me to Stardock: they seem to sell a decent number of download units without involving DRM at all. Sometimes I wonder if all this complexity does any good.
Um, my point is that *I* want to play HL2 and my son wants to play Darwinia. Due to the requirements of Steam, that may not be possible. My further point is that if this becomes wildly popular, that situation (my son and I want to play games on the weekend at the same time, but different games) would be downright common. You are saying that because there are two of us in this house that play PC games I must buy two copies of every game? PC Gaming will die right there and then if that becomes the norm.
With CDs it is one player per game. Which is fair and reasonable.
My original post said that you can't transfer Steam games to another user. Apparently I was boneheaded to believe things I read on the Internet (and/. especially). In the case of my son, as long as my son and I never want to play Steam based games at the same time I *could* allow him to play with the same physical CD (which is bound to a Steam account). Of course, that brings up the interesting point that if Steam becomes popular enough that all my games are steam based then the decision point hinges on being able to transfer purchases to another account (as it appears that all Steam based games block all simultaneous use of the account). So Darwinia would block my son from playing Half Life at the same time, assuming that I only have one steam account. If I have two accounts, it would *appear* that I would have to make two purchases. Which seems awful similar to my original complaint, just a different reason for having to purchase a game twice.
I still stand behind the fact that allowing a company to hold your bits hostage behind activation servers is a guaranteed way to come back to a game you were playing a while back and finding yourself locked out. But it has already been discussed in prior discussions that I'm an idiot because I don't play games the week they are released and finish them in the first month of ownership.
The last crack program I dealt with was back on the Amiga and I was a teen. I don't see cracked versions as a solution (despite the fact a few of my games would be usable again with a NOCD crack...). It does bring up the point of "what does the DRM actually accomplish" though.
On the other hand, it is clear I screwed up in the original post and for the first time ever I wish/. had an edit button.
So you are confident that Valve can't take their ball and go home? I purchased games from a now defunct company which took their activation servers with them and I'm incredibly skeptical of any scheme that requires someone on the other end to "agree" to my use of software.
Since you are correcting my understanding: if Valve decides to stop providing activation servers, how do you play the Half Life 2 game you purchased? My understanding is that the bits on the disk are insufficient to actually run the game.
Maybe I bought into the naysayers because of my prior bad experience with Real and the disabling of my games because I had to replace a hard drive. Or maybe because activation servers no longer exist for some of my older "phone home" games. However, I *have* been burned by physical protections as well. My question is: what assurance does the Steam EULA give that you won't have your games access yanked without warning. Since two companies have done so in the past (once because of the reinstall and once because they went out of business) to me, that's where my principal beef lies.
I find it interesting that you simultaneously say: "Sure, there are cracks for it and people who really want it free can get it." and "Companies have to do something if they are going to allow you to download their software off the net or they will not make a profit." Valve *failed* to prevent those who want it for free from getting it for free. Meanwhile, quite a few companies I have purchased from seem to be selling just fine downloadable games *without* DRM.
At the end of the day, those who a weasels and want free, pirated *anything* get it for free, DRM or not. And those who want to support a publisher buy the game. Yes, there is a middle ground of "Joe Consumers" who will be thwarted by simple DRM, but if the idiots I have seen with illegal copies of things can get them, I assure you it is a vanishingly small number. Steam and the DRM that goes with it are *not* the only successful online distribution model. Having purchased quite a bit from Stardock (GalCiv rocks) I can assure you that the non DRM model works.
Yep, copy protection of games is a fact. I have been burned by CDs that refuse to operate in my "oh so high tech" DVD/CD-RW combo drive. I have been burned by downloadable DRM enabled files (RealGames). I have been burned by activation keys and "MIA" activation servers.
I don't have any problem with someone protecting their property. As a developer, I can assure you I strongly oppose piracy. But this is the opposite extreme: the Real people accused me of attempting to pirate games on the phone when I tried to get my account reactivated. That has left a bitter taste in my mouth for a *long* time that I don't see that going away.
The long and short of it is this: Steam is a subscription that can be revoked at Valves whim and I refuse to purchase anything on that model. Steam runs as background process that is unnecessary to the game proper, and I refuse to put "nanny" software on my machines.
At the end of the day, I *am* willing to purchase the XBox version, despite inferior graphics and controls. That is because it avoids the risk of disabiling my main computer's primary purpose (work, which some copy protection schemes hamper because they kill the Microsoft Virutal CD tool... a tool that can't even *read* encrypted ISO data...) and it is a CD that I can slap into a device and it "just works". And when I'm done playing the game, other members of my family aren't banned from enjoying the game as well.
As far as attribution, I figure in the era of google people can type "30000 accounts disabled" fairly easily. Valve claims they were "illegally gain access to Valve games without a valid purchase". Of course, Real probably counts my blown away hard drive and subsequent request for reactivation as the same.
Actually, *I* haven't had this problem. I refused to purchase anything based on Steam from other reports of such problems. I *have* been burned by reinstalls back in the day with RealGames (now RealArcade or whatever) and Steam is just the same DRM in a different dress.
I have no problems with a transferable key. I to have a problem with "binding" to a machine, having been burned in the past by reinstalls on the same hardware causing loss of access to games. Fortunately, stupid and forgettible games that didn't cost much, but being burned makes me dislike the process of binding quite a bit.
I tried Darwinia out and it had some appeal. However, they can forget about me ever becoming a customer via Steam. I'm not sure why DRM on music CD's gets everyone in a tizzy around here and yet Steam is the cat's pajamas, despite the fact it gives Valve remote termination capabilities over the software.
When I purchased Half Life, I was able to play it on my machine and then when I was done my son was able to play it on his. The CD meant I could run only one copy, which I was fine with (in fact, I removed everything but the save files from my machine: I had finished the freaking Zen jumping puzzles and *wasn't* going back.
With Half Life 2, if I put the CD into my machine, it is "bound" to that machine. If my son then tries to put it into his machine and activate it, it will terminate my original account's access to the game and *not* grant the other machine access either. Valve has been bragging up how they have disabled 30,000 steam accounts. That's 30,000 *valid* purchases that were disabled because of potentially the situation described. Wow, sign me up for a reaming up the... well you get the point.
So, while Darwinia may be cool and all, Steam is *not* the way to distribute in a user friendly manner.
If "non-hardcore-gamers" are not buying, then who the heck purchased the millions of playstations, X-Boxes and even Game Cubes? Give me a break: we have so many *more* people playing games than when I was growing up that to claim that "only the hardcare" in regards to *anything* in this market is bunk. Check the top selling games out: sports games, casual platformers and a bunch of *non* hardcore games like the Sims. If anything, my concern would be the opposite: the niche hardcore games will go extinct. I know that my love for complex turn based strategy games has been blunted by the reduction of the market to two developer houses that still turn them out.
I'm going to agree with you on this: the emulation is a technical achievement that I'm impressed by. However, some of my favorite games are not "on the list" nor do I expect them to ever be. Which means I get *another* piece of hardware (a Game Cube, XBox and two PS2s in the house already) or I ignore it. Considering the release lineup and the sham "scarcity = free press" nonsense, I'm going to sit this one out for now. I guess once I finish my existing XBox games I can go for it with less annoyance.
Actually, "Real" property can go to zero, or even negative value. Having worked with Pollution Insurance as a part of our system for some time, I have read quite a few cases about polluted lands which will cost many times the "value" of the land to rehabilitate the land to the point of usability. Quite often, this discovery is a "surprise" to the current land owner, because of either under documented prior use or nearby impacts.
Likewise, many "property" items (vehicles, say) have value only based on ready access to other resources. Remove the conditions that make the property valuable (jack the price of fuel high enough, say) and the property has only value as scrap. (And no, that isn't a prediction for the near future, just an example I could think of off the top of my head.)
Surely virtual property is *by far* more volatile than *any* real world property... but at the core economics there is little difference between virtual property and "investing" in a business that can go bankrupt. Yet people don't seem concerned by stocks (to such a point that some want our nations retirement to be stuff in them) even after repeated exposure to the "you can lose your shirt" world of the stock market. My point is that even "real" property can go under water in some cases.
In the end, it comes down to needing to make a decision of what you want Linux to be. If you want Linux to try and become the next big thing in OSes and start to really make an entrance in the home market, standardization is needed. Standard APIs, standard UIs, inter-version consistencies, etc. In essence, it needs to become more like OS-X. Now if you are ok with Linux being more of a geek/server OS then that's not necessary, but you can't demand the world change around you.
The reality is that the core users of Linux could care less about entrance into the home market or even desktops of *other* people. Many of the key players have said that the adoption of Linux by businesses has been an accidental byproduct of a development model that works and not a goal. More to the point "you can't demand the world change around you" is completely backwards: the vendors of the hardware must decided if they want to support Linux by providing source drivers or if they want to decline the option of that user base. It is the vendors who wish to change Linux, not the other way around. As a user of both Linux and Windows I see little point worrying about changing someone else's practices: Linux goes where appropriate and Windows goes where appropriate. If the vendors want to throw a fit about Linux, that's their option, but don't paint it as if Linux is trying to change the *vendors*. Either they play by Linux kernel rules or they don't participate in that space. Nobody should be crying if they don't participate: Linux has established itself in enough places to be sustained just fine.
That's a false argument: my point is the user should be able to select what one does with bandwidth (within the terms of the contact). If the user has accepted "million popus = free X" as a tradeoff, unless the bandwidth exceeds some allowance, why should the ISP care.
On the case of spam, that is different. Even if the bandwidth consumption was zero, it is a negative impact upon others (beyond bandwidth consumption). Likewise if the machine participates in a denial of service attack the abuse is the real issue. Abuse is abuse, regardless of bandwidth consumption.
The original argument from Edward Witacre was that he felt that "Internet Startups" were somehow responsible for paying to access "his" customer's pipes, despite the fact that the customer pays for said pipes and should be able to use them for whatever purposes the customer denies (modulo abusive or criminal purposes of course, since it seems I'm going to have to spell *that* out before this head in that direction).
"No doubt other apps will become 'Robin Hoods' and 'share' an ISP's bandwidth freely."
Um, no. 'Share' the *users* bandwidth freely. (Try to resist the brainwashing.) If the ISP doesn't care for the price they charge for the bandwidth, they are free to charge differently, but such applications are a direct result of the "all you can eat" model ISPs use. Users would quickly abandon such programs if they had bandwidth caps that when exceeded caused extra charges to be incurred.
Of course, if the background usage is a trickle in the torrent of bandwidth available, neither party should be too concerned. Products like Bittorrent reduce total network loads so unless you are a pathetically small ISP such use should be beneficial.
The comment is interesting, but an empty threat. The *customer* is paying for the pipes. The companies that the customer contacts are not using the broadband pipe except on behalf of the customer: any downstream transmitted across that pipe is paid for by the customer. As a specific example, I can pay for various downstream speeds with my cable company and DSL is ordered with a speed for upstream and downstream. That price breakdown makes it clear that the broadband payment I'm making is for both upstream and downstream, otherwise why would my upstream remain constant but my downstream increase if I throw more money at the cable company?
On the other side of the fence the "Internet Upstarts" are paying for *their* pipes as well. Even the pipes "in the middle" are indirectly paid for, although that process can sometimes breakdown (as Level3 and Cogent are proving). It isn't like there is some magic way to get access from point A to point B "for free". The costs are just bundled in your access bills. What ticks off a telecom is that the prices for packets are so darn *cheap*. It makes land line voice look expensive, which is driving the adoption of VOIP.
If they decide that paying for your pipes (both directions) doesn't give you access to the services you want, the only option is to impose filtering. If they decide to filter, block or otherwise prevent the customer from unhindered access to Internet products they will be in violation of the common carrier provisions. Which is fine if they want to then make a stab at blocking *all* bad stuff the Internet contains. However, I suspect that's not where they want to be, as without common carrier status they become liable for anything they *fail* to block.
Frankly, all this comment proves is that they are desperate for revenue and yet know they can't raise rates on telephone services (thanks to regulation) so they are flailing around for anything they can think of. Legal probably sent him a "memo" right after that comment got back to them though, as I'm pretty sure *they* understand the ramification of the implied threat.
You know, I would *love* to leave my work and work and play at home, but since I'm self employed (both consulting and part owner of a software company) the two are one and the same. I already have a Windows 2003 server, Windows XP Pro, Fedora Core 4 machine at my desk (all hail X-Windows and Terminal Services for allowing two of those to run headless). Oh, and an old notebook at my side here (for travel). My wife's desktop and notebook just down the way, and my son has his machine in the library.
All of this equipment is for work purposes (notebook for travel, server for hosting server products I'm developing against, Linux for testing PHP apps, etc) so I guess I could get *another* PC without my tools and an old fashioned CD for compatibility. Or, I can tell the people who's copy protection thinks my work box is too "hackerish" because it uses a debugger, high end DVD writer and virtual CD software that they lost a sale from a person who buys a *lot* of games. (Just picked up 6 games on Tuesday thanks to a buy 2 get 1 free deal making some release titles resonable in price). I just don't buy many *PC* games because the industry has decided that people that don't buy equipment that suits *them* shouldn't be able to boot their games. I'm not arguing that point, just saying that it is an attitude (along with the insane upgrade treadmill) that lost them sales and recommendations in that market.
And although your comment was directed elsewhere, I have had games "mess up my system" more than once. They enjoy disabling Microsoft's Virtual CD software (which is useful for the MSDN Universal license I have: downloadable ISOs are much nicer when you can just mount them) and they enjoy crashing my debugger more. Uninstalling *doesn't* always restore the functionality either, which is just freaking insane.
Of course PC games are "safe"... as I said, FPS and RTS live and die by the PC. MMORPG is a stronghold as well. Mods are a great thing too. My point is why bother when for a fraction of the price and *none* of the hassle I can have a lot more fun. I own a library of PC games, but I fish them out of bargin bins... if the $10 "Medievil Total War Battle Collection" had not booted, I can just dump in on a buddy.
Normally it isn't worth the hassle when I can plunk down in my comfortable chair and enjoy a console game.
But enough about me... remember, Valium is only available by prescription.
Slashdot Mirror
And you think these guys would have done *better* in C/C++? Surely a bad coder can wreck any project. However, Java or C# allow a *competent* programmer to avoid *by default* many pitfalls that a C/C++ programmer must remain on guard for. C/C++ has its use, but I believe it is selected for projects where it isn't a requirement to have low level access to the OS and memory management.where bet has not been bounds checked for a negative is stupid in *any* language and isn't specific to C/C++.
I'm not convinced that there are more than a handful of applications in the business process realm that have enough performance implications that a VM based language would be an issue. I develop both desktop and web applications for businesses implemented inVM based languages. The larger have tens of thousands of concurrent users. Profiling tells me that my applications spend their time waiting for data from servers and user input... not causing the user to wait for the business logic. We have a five second response time maximum for every operation and most are measured in milliseconds.
In those cases where we do have a performance hot spot, it usually is a computation that can be offloaded to a cache/compute server where appropriate choices can be made (either caches or data mart cubes or a specialized service that *is* written in a faster language). I'm curious what is left in the business process world that can not be solved in such manners...
Any explanation as to *why* this isn't actually being done then? Because, as I stated, people keep *saying* this as if repeating it makes it true. Yet the reality in the field is that buffer overflows from C/C++ code is the number one source of security flaws. This claim is like saying that "people would die of fewer heart attacks if they would eat healthy foods". Um, yeah... sadly not many actually eat healthy. Clearly, not many "experienced programmers" are putting your advice to practice either. So I will take code bloat and speed hits for the sake of not being a subscriber to the buffer overflow of the month club.
Stop coding in C/C++ when the product will be exposed to external, uncontrolled inputs. Java, .NET, Parrot... I don't really care what gets used, but it has been clear that despite the constant "C++ using the proper string libraries is as secure as virtual machines and interpreters" cries that those who actually wield the language to make products like browsers are still failing to secure against the most basic and common flaw: the buffer overflow. Browsing web pages is *not* the kind of thing that requires "bare to the metal" coding. Yes, such a browser might be vulnerable to attacks on the virtual machine itself... but a quick look at the browsers security history verses virtual machine security histories makes it clear that is a tradeoff worth making.
People who purchase sporting equipment pay the same amount whether it sits in a closet gathering dust or is used daily. "We are losing revenue on those who actually use our products," said Mr. Acme producer of many sporting good products. "Our new line of products includes small speakers that are powered by the movement of the product. As the product is used, we will be able to hawk other compatible products via the speakers".
In a test of a prototype product, a basketball fitted with the "AdSpeaker" hardware kept yelling "your game would be improved if you used Acme Basketball Pump to ensure proper inflation" every time we missed a shot.
For some reason you have a score of zero and I missed your prior replies in the tree view. Now that I have read them, it appears possible. However, the guy assuming I wanted to play two copies of the same game and the same time remains wrong. Is it true that the requirement for doing this is to keep the machine "offline" during the game session?
I guess the key question is: what is Valve's understanding of an account. If the intent is one account per player, I don't see it as given that the current offline playability will remain as it is. My goal in life is not to deprive developers of income: far from it, I make my living off software and am sensitive to the needs for fair compensation.
On the other hand, I could easily see the method you propose (one account per everybody you trust enough) being highly *unfair* to Valve. In that scenario, I could set up an account and buy one of everything. As long as people with my account don't go online at the same time, they can all play single player? If anything, that seems to be going too far in the other direction.
My personal feelings are that if my son wants to play a game I purchase at a different time than I am using it; that is fair use of a purchased CD/DVD game. If my son wants to play at the same time (say, as we do in multiplayer Dungeon Siege), then we each needs a copy. Again, I don't have a problem with this, although I preferred the old Blizzard "spawned copy" model which allowed a LAN game with a single disk. I have purchased multiple copies of quite a few games for this exact purpose.
Now taking this to the realm of steam: I have no problem with allowing family members access to different games at the same time, or the same game at different times. This does nothing more than replicate what I would do with disks anyway. On the other hand, it sounds like it would be possible to sequentially download the account's "library" of games and everyone could play offline mode all of those games. That's pushing it if I simply kept it to my immediate family, but what exactly is keeping people from doing this for an entire dorm floor?
It would seem that such an excessive abuse would be easy to detect on Valve's side. What do the terms of use say about such a situation? If such an abuse were to happen multiple times, would that affect Valve's allowance of the offline mode?
As much as I hate shuffling disks in and out of the drives, it seems to me they are a very acceptable method of regulating use. Of course, this all is supposing that neither disks nor Steam has been cracked, and we all know that both have been. Which brings me to Stardock: they seem to sell a decent number of download units without involving DRM at all. Sometimes I wonder if all this complexity does any good.
Um, my point is that *I* want to play HL2 and my son wants to play Darwinia. Due to the requirements of Steam, that may not be possible. My further point is that if this becomes wildly popular, that situation (my son and I want to play games on the weekend at the same time, but different games) would be downright common. You are saying that because there are two of us in this house that play PC games I must buy two copies of every game? PC Gaming will die right there and then if that becomes the norm.
With CDs it is one player per game. Which is fair and reasonable.
My original post said that you can't transfer Steam games to another user. Apparently I was boneheaded to believe things I read on the Internet (and /. especially). In the case of my son, as long as my son and I never want to play Steam based games at the same time I *could* allow him to play with the same physical CD (which is bound to a Steam account). Of course, that brings up the interesting point that if Steam becomes popular enough that all my games are steam based then the decision point hinges on being able to transfer purchases to another account (as it appears that all Steam based games block all simultaneous use of the account). So Darwinia would block my son from playing Half Life at the same time, assuming that I only have one steam account. If I have two accounts, it would *appear* that I would have to make two purchases. Which seems awful similar to my original complaint, just a different reason for having to purchase a game twice.
I still stand behind the fact that allowing a company to hold your bits hostage behind activation servers is a guaranteed way to come back to a game you were playing a while back and finding yourself locked out. But it has already been discussed in prior discussions that I'm an idiot because I don't play games the week they are released and finish them in the first month of ownership.
The last crack program I dealt with was back on the Amiga and I was a teen. I don't see cracked versions as a solution (despite the fact a few of my games would be usable again with a NOCD crack...). It does bring up the point of "what does the DRM actually accomplish" though.
/. had an edit button.
On the other hand, it is clear I screwed up in the original post and for the first time ever I wish
So you are confident that Valve can't take their ball and go home? I purchased games from a now defunct company which took their activation servers with them and I'm incredibly skeptical of any scheme that requires someone on the other end to "agree" to my use of software.
Since you are correcting my understanding: if Valve decides to stop providing activation servers, how do you play the Half Life 2 game you purchased? My understanding is that the bits on the disk are insufficient to actually run the game.
Maybe I bought into the naysayers because of my prior bad experience with Real and the disabling of my games because I had to replace a hard drive. Or maybe because activation servers no longer exist for some of my older "phone home" games. However, I *have* been burned by physical protections as well. My question is: what assurance does the Steam EULA give that you won't have your games access yanked without warning. Since two companies have done so in the past (once because of the reinstall and once because they went out of business) to me, that's where my principal beef lies.
I find it interesting that you simultaneously say: "Sure, there are cracks for it and people who really want it free can get it." and "Companies have to do something if they are going to allow you to download their software off the net or they will not make a profit." Valve *failed* to prevent those who want it for free from getting it for free. Meanwhile, quite a few companies I have purchased from seem to be selling just fine downloadable games *without* DRM.
At the end of the day, those who a weasels and want free, pirated *anything* get it for free, DRM or not. And those who want to support a publisher buy the game. Yes, there is a middle ground of "Joe Consumers" who will be thwarted by simple DRM, but if the idiots I have seen with illegal copies of things can get them, I assure you it is a vanishingly small number. Steam and the DRM that goes with it are *not* the only successful online distribution model. Having purchased quite a bit from Stardock (GalCiv rocks) I can assure you that the non DRM model works.
Yep, copy protection of games is a fact. I have been burned by CDs that refuse to operate in my "oh so high tech" DVD/CD-RW combo drive. I have been burned by downloadable DRM enabled files (RealGames). I have been burned by activation keys and "MIA" activation servers.
I don't have any problem with someone protecting their property. As a developer, I can assure you I strongly oppose piracy. But this is the opposite extreme: the Real people accused me of attempting to pirate games on the phone when I tried to get my account reactivated. That has left a bitter taste in my mouth for a *long* time that I don't see that going away.
The long and short of it is this: Steam is a subscription that can be revoked at Valves whim and I refuse to purchase anything on that model. Steam runs as background process that is unnecessary to the game proper, and I refuse to put "nanny" software on my machines.
At the end of the day, I *am* willing to purchase the XBox version, despite inferior graphics and controls. That is because it avoids the risk of disabiling my main computer's primary purpose (work, which some copy protection schemes hamper because they kill the Microsoft Virutal CD tool... a tool that can't even *read* encrypted ISO data...) and it is a CD that I can slap into a device and it "just works". And when I'm done playing the game, other members of my family aren't banned from enjoying the game as well.
As far as attribution, I figure in the era of google people can type "30000 accounts disabled" fairly easily. Valve claims they were "illegally gain access to Valve games without a valid purchase". Of course, Real probably counts my blown away hard drive and subsequent request for reactivation as the same.
Actually, *I* haven't had this problem. I refused to purchase anything based on Steam from other reports of such problems. I *have* been burned by reinstalls back in the day with RealGames (now RealArcade or whatever) and Steam is just the same DRM in a different dress.
I have no problems with a transferable key. I to have a problem with "binding" to a machine, having been burned in the past by reinstalls on the same hardware causing loss of access to games. Fortunately, stupid and forgettible games that didn't cost much, but being burned makes me dislike the process of binding quite a bit.
I tried Darwinia out and it had some appeal. However, they can forget about me ever becoming a customer via Steam. I'm not sure why DRM on music CD's gets everyone in a tizzy around here and yet Steam is the cat's pajamas, despite the fact it gives Valve remote termination capabilities over the software.
... well you get the point.
When I purchased Half Life, I was able to play it on my machine and then when I was done my son was able to play it on his. The CD meant I could run only one copy, which I was fine with (in fact, I removed everything but the save files from my machine: I had finished the freaking Zen jumping puzzles and *wasn't* going back.
With Half Life 2, if I put the CD into my machine, it is "bound" to that machine. If my son then tries to put it into his machine and activate it, it will terminate my original account's access to the game and *not* grant the other machine access either. Valve has been bragging up how they have disabled 30,000 steam accounts. That's 30,000 *valid* purchases that were disabled because of potentially the situation described. Wow, sign me up for a reaming up the
So, while Darwinia may be cool and all, Steam is *not* the way to distribute in a user friendly manner.
If "non-hardcore-gamers" are not buying, then who the heck purchased the millions of playstations, X-Boxes and even Game Cubes? Give me a break: we have so many *more* people playing games than when I was growing up that to claim that "only the hardcare" in regards to *anything* in this market is bunk. Check the top selling games out: sports games, casual platformers and a bunch of *non* hardcore games like the Sims. If anything, my concern would be the opposite: the niche hardcore games will go extinct. I know that my love for complex turn based strategy games has been blunted by the reduction of the market to two developer houses that still turn them out.
I'm going to agree with you on this: the emulation is a technical achievement that I'm impressed by. However, some of my favorite games are not "on the list" nor do I expect them to ever be. Which means I get *another* piece of hardware (a Game Cube, XBox and two PS2s in the house already) or I ignore it. Considering the release lineup and the sham "scarcity = free press" nonsense, I'm going to sit this one out for now. I guess once I finish my existing XBox games I can go for it with less annoyance.
Actually, "Real" property can go to zero, or even negative value. Having worked with Pollution Insurance as a part of our system for some time, I have read quite a few cases about polluted lands which will cost many times the "value" of the land to rehabilitate the land to the point of usability. Quite often, this discovery is a "surprise" to the current land owner, because of either under documented prior use or nearby impacts.
Likewise, many "property" items (vehicles, say) have value only based on ready access to other resources. Remove the conditions that make the property valuable (jack the price of fuel high enough, say) and the property has only value as scrap. (And no, that isn't a prediction for the near future, just an example I could think of off the top of my head.)
Surely virtual property is *by far* more volatile than *any* real world property... but at the core economics there is little difference between virtual property and "investing" in a business that can go bankrupt. Yet people don't seem concerned by stocks (to such a point that some want our nations retirement to be stuff in them) even after repeated exposure to the "you can lose your shirt" world of the stock market. My point is that even "real" property can go under water in some cases.
The reality is that the core users of Linux could care less about entrance into the home market or even desktops of *other* people. Many of the key players have said that the adoption of Linux by businesses has been an accidental byproduct of a development model that works and not a goal. More to the point "you can't demand the world change around you" is completely backwards: the vendors of the hardware must decided if they want to support Linux by providing source drivers or if they want to decline the option of that user base. It is the vendors who wish to change Linux, not the other way around. As a user of both Linux and Windows I see little point worrying about changing someone else's practices: Linux goes where appropriate and Windows goes where appropriate. If the vendors want to throw a fit about Linux, that's their option, but don't paint it as if Linux is trying to change the *vendors*. Either they play by Linux kernel rules or they don't participate in that space. Nobody should be crying if they don't participate: Linux has established itself in enough places to be sustained just fine.
That's a false argument: my point is the user should be able to select what one does with bandwidth (within the terms of the contact). If the user has accepted "million popus = free X" as a tradeoff, unless the bandwidth exceeds some allowance, why should the ISP care.
On the case of spam, that is different. Even if the bandwidth consumption was zero, it is a negative impact upon others (beyond bandwidth consumption). Likewise if the machine participates in a denial of service attack the abuse is the real issue. Abuse is abuse, regardless of bandwidth consumption.
The original argument from Edward Witacre was that he felt that "Internet Startups" were somehow responsible for paying to access "his" customer's pipes, despite the fact that the customer pays for said pipes and should be able to use them for whatever purposes the customer denies (modulo abusive or criminal purposes of course, since it seems I'm going to have to spell *that* out before this head in that direction).
"No doubt other apps will become 'Robin Hoods' and 'share' an ISP's bandwidth freely."
Um, no. 'Share' the *users* bandwidth freely. (Try to resist the brainwashing.) If the ISP doesn't care for the price they charge for the bandwidth, they are free to charge differently, but such applications are a direct result of the "all you can eat" model ISPs use. Users would quickly abandon such programs if they had bandwidth caps that when exceeded caused extra charges to be incurred.
Of course, if the background usage is a trickle in the torrent of bandwidth available, neither party should be too concerned. Products like Bittorrent reduce total network loads so unless you are a pathetically small ISP such use should be beneficial.
The comment is interesting, but an empty threat. The *customer* is paying for the pipes. The companies that the customer contacts are not using the broadband pipe except on behalf of the customer: any downstream transmitted across that pipe is paid for by the customer. As a specific example, I can pay for various downstream speeds with my cable company and DSL is ordered with a speed for upstream and downstream. That price breakdown makes it clear that the broadband payment I'm making is for both upstream and downstream, otherwise why would my upstream remain constant but my downstream increase if I throw more money at the cable company?
On the other side of the fence the "Internet Upstarts" are paying for *their* pipes as well. Even the pipes "in the middle" are indirectly paid for, although that process can sometimes breakdown (as Level3 and Cogent are proving). It isn't like there is some magic way to get access from point A to point B "for free". The costs are just bundled in your access bills. What ticks off a telecom is that the prices for packets are so darn *cheap*. It makes land line voice look expensive, which is driving the adoption of VOIP.
If they decide that paying for your pipes (both directions) doesn't give you access to the services you want, the only option is to impose filtering. If they decide to filter, block or otherwise prevent the customer from unhindered access to Internet products they will be in violation of the common carrier provisions. Which is fine if they want to then make a stab at blocking *all* bad stuff the Internet contains. However, I suspect that's not where they want to be, as without common carrier status they become liable for anything they *fail* to block.
Frankly, all this comment proves is that they are desperate for revenue and yet know they can't raise rates on telephone services (thanks to regulation) so they are flailing around for anything they can think of. Legal probably sent him a "memo" right after that comment got back to them though, as I'm pretty sure *they* understand the ramification of the implied threat.
You know, I would *love* to leave my work and work and play at home, but since I'm self employed (both consulting and part owner of a software company) the two are one and the same. I already have a Windows 2003 server, Windows XP Pro, Fedora Core 4 machine at my desk (all hail X-Windows and Terminal Services for allowing two of those to run headless). Oh, and an old notebook at my side here (for travel). My wife's desktop and notebook just down the way, and my son has his machine in the library.
All of this equipment is for work purposes (notebook for travel, server for hosting server products I'm developing against, Linux for testing PHP apps, etc) so I guess I could get *another* PC without my tools and an old fashioned CD for compatibility. Or, I can tell the people who's copy protection thinks my work box is too "hackerish" because it uses a debugger, high end DVD writer and virtual CD software that they lost a sale from a person who buys a *lot* of games. (Just picked up 6 games on Tuesday thanks to a buy 2 get 1 free deal making some release titles resonable in price). I just don't buy many *PC* games because the industry has decided that people that don't buy equipment that suits *them* shouldn't be able to boot their games. I'm not arguing that point, just saying that it is an attitude (along with the insane upgrade treadmill) that lost them sales and recommendations in that market.
And although your comment was directed elsewhere, I have had games "mess up my system" more than once. They enjoy disabling Microsoft's Virtual CD software (which is useful for the MSDN Universal license I have: downloadable ISOs are much nicer when you can just mount them) and they enjoy crashing my debugger more. Uninstalling *doesn't* always restore the functionality either, which is just freaking insane.
Dude... Valium may be in your future.
Of course PC games are "safe"... as I said, FPS and RTS live and die by the PC. MMORPG is a stronghold as well. Mods are a great thing too. My point is why bother when for a fraction of the price and *none* of the hassle I can have a lot more fun. I own a library of PC games, but I fish them out of bargin bins... if the $10 "Medievil Total War Battle Collection" had not booted, I can just dump in on a buddy.
Normally it isn't worth the hassle when I can plunk down in my comfortable chair and enjoy a console game.
But enough about me... remember, Valium is only available by prescription.