Galactic Civilization 2 uses online activation, it's definitely not a DRM-free game, like Oblivion seems to be. To be really precise, only the retail CD of GalCiv is DRM free, but as soon as you patch it, the DRM is there. They just delayed it a bit. And from what I've understood, the downloadable version always need activation.
You're complaining that Microsoft expects you to use a purchased version of Windows? WTF
No, he's complaining of being constantly suspected to be a thief by Microsoft, as well as, sometimes, being a collateral victim of malfunctionning paranoid DRM.
Yes you can backup stuff, but won't those backups required online activation again when installed on your new machine?
Now if you rely on the cracking community to defend your legitimate consumer rights... Well I don't think that's a very pragmatic, safe or moral solution.
"As long as they know what I own and make it available to me whenever I want"
That's the key problem with every digital distribution service : your rights the use the content you have "purchased" is controlled by a remote server you must periodically contact. So even if the terms of use seems pretty laxist for now, nothing is shielding you from a change of policy or your content provider going bust.
And EULA/Terms of Sevice/whatever legaleses that govern these services are so much in favor of the provider. Did you know that, according to the Steam Subscriber Agreement, Valve has every rights (and the means) to shut down all access to your games at any time, without needing any reason, and that in such a case you should expect no refund or a stand-alone version (see section 13) ?
The only way to be completly safe is to be able to make a complete stand-alone, offline, unDRMed copy. iTunes allow that with audio CDs (at least for now), but not Steam.
In France, they are also lock-in periods or opt-ou fees, but if they want to change the terms of the contract, basically you can walk away with no penalty or they have to keep the previous terms (article L. 121-84 of "code de la consommation").
can't you burn your song to a CD and reimport them?
For now, yes. That's an acceptable, yet inconvenient, escape course.
But for how long? By allowing change of terms after a purchase, this feature can disappear at any time. I hope you have backup your whole collection in a non-DRM format, just in case. And what proportion of less legalese-savy users are aware of this risk?
And regarding the fact that everyone is going against Apple, it's not because they are Apple, but just because they are the biggest, are global and are both the DRM and content vendor. Nobody is against Apple, but against DRM and the surreal legaleses around them.
Yes, it is perfectly reasonnable to alter terms of service. Generally, you pay recurrent fees for a service, so if the terms change and you are not happy with the service, you stop using AND stop paying.
Now look at iTMS/Steam/whatever-digital-buying-thing.
When you buy a track or game, you are paying a one-time fee. You may think you have bought a product, although being digital. Nothing really warn you that, actually, you are not buying a product, not even a classic licence (which is a form of intangible product), but you do pay SERVICE fees, the service being giving you access to some data on some online site and letting you do some things with them. Quietly, we move from a "product" paradigm to a "service" paradigm, but without any vendor telling you clearly and yet taking full advantage of this transition (no second-hand sale, change of terms at any time, added fees, unjustified revocation,...).
Imagine that, in a few years, when you will buy a car, you will pay the full-price but not for the car, just for the ability to use it. And if the saler want to take it back, he will be able and allowed to do it, with no compensation for you and without needing a particular reason. That's how those digital distribution services work according to their legalese, at least until the first big blackout of one of those service and the following class-action lawsuit...
"I'm not sure if you've ever looked at the legalese behind other subscription services, but most of them have that in their agreement."
Indeed, online subscription-based (or free) services always have something like that. But with Steam, we are also talking of "buying" offline games. And what is a natural limitation in one case is really a deal-breaker for me. Their legalese are just too wide opened and give them no obligation.
Now regarding the online mode, this thing is really really shaddy and well, offline mode or not, if you want to re-install, you'll still need activation. Unless Steam get a clear and maintained "Backup a standalone version" feature, it will be without me.
It's not like CSS where Valve can reserve the right to ban you for cheating.
However, in the Steam Subscriber Agreement, Valve precisely reserves the right to cancel any of your subscription (which means access to the game, no matter if they are online or not) for any reason. "Either you or Valve has the right to terminate or cancel your Account or a particular Subscription at any time." This is in no way limited to cases when you breach the rules, like in standard EULA.
Offline mode ? Sorry, I don't believe in it after seeing numerous report of "my DSL is down and I can't play". Last time, I checked, it was not even recognized as a "feature" and the SSA has no trace of it.
I'm not really sure to understand your reply. I wanted to mean:
- Game "X" V1.0 being unprotected and advertised as such, while Game "X" V1.0.1, which fix the cannot-finish-game-fatal-bug, being protected.
- BR movie "Y" being watchable in HD on non-HDCP TV and being advertised as such, while BR movie "Y 2: The Return", released 6 months later, being watchable only in SD.
- PS3 console being region-free and advertised as such, but, like with the Xbox 1 and 360, the game "Z" will only playable on the Japanese model (because region-free = no mandatory region coding != all games will be region free).
And from your point that piracy (or DRM circumventions) will solve it all, well... That's the sad point actually.
Like with Sony's Blu-Ray DRM, their "region-free" PS3 or GalCiv2 we-have-no-protection online activation, don't jump on conclusions and wait for the full story...
The Steam (or any activation based DRM scheme) definition
You own it as long as we say so.
And the product phones own regularly to make sure we haven't change our minds. And the EULA/TOS/insert-your-favorite-legalese-pseudocontr act says we can change our mind any-time.
PS3 games CAN be region-encoded
on
Region-free PS3
·
· Score: 1
Parent hit the head in the nail.
This move from Sony is just as BS as what they announced on BR : the hardware allows region control, but do not force it. So it's up to the publisher to decide if he want the protection or not.
This is a PR move to appear nice, but without substance. Just expect some more trademarks lawsuits from Sony UK on importers. It was really ugly with the PSP...
Before embracing digital distribution, I strongly suggest that you read the fine prints.
If you read the Steam Subscriber Agreement, you'll see that with your $40 or so, you have never bought a game, not even a license to play the game like all for the other games you might have. What you have paid are subscription fees to access some contents on some online service.
And the differences are significant:
- First, usually you can transfer a game license, but you can't transfer a Steam subscription (section 1).
- Secondly, a licence cannot be changed by the publisher without your consent, while a Steam subscription can be (this include additionnal fees) (section 4.b and 12).
- Lastly, a licence cannot be terminated by the publisher unless you fail to comply with its terms. On the contrary, Valve can terminate your subscription at any time for any reason (section 13 and 13.c.2).
So here you are. You haven't bought HL2, you are just renting it for a flat fee from Valve, and you just don't know how long your renting will last... And worst, contrary to all your previous games, they can technically enforce their legaleses.
I just can't understand why people are defending a company with such a deceptive agreement, especially when this company marketing line is "we are the good-ol' friend of the gaming community".
... because thanks to a german consumer association, if you have bought a retail box of HL2, you no more have to pay Valve the infamous "$10 resell tax". Strangely, this move from Valve has made little publicity.
But if you only have a Steam version of HL2, well you are out of luck. You need to realise you haven't bought any game, but merely pay some subscription fees to access an overhyped content on some buggy and restrictive online service. So technically, you have pretty much nothing to resell. Did you say the advertisement was unclear?
Are you talking about the system which do not let you play an OFFLINE game during a week-end because their servers crash and you have forgot to firewalled Steam before launching it?
Are you talking about the system which, in contradiction to any advertisement, do not sold you any game, but only an "access" to some contents, access which can be terminated by the publisher at any time and for absolutely any reason as specified by their Subscriber Agreement?
A digital renting service may be interesting, but I just can't trust any digital "purchase" system, unless I can make a perfectly autonomous offline working backup (ala iTMS with audio CD). Especially when their legaleses are so wide open for abuse.
Are you really sure about that?
If you take your backup DVD and install it on a computer which has never seen Steam or the Internet, are you sure it will work?
I seriously doubt it, it would be absolutly meaningless from a copy protection perspective.
I bet that if you do that, the system would still want to "activate" online your new install... The backup is useful only if you do not want to re-download some contents, but for nothing more.
You've got to realise that on Steam you do not buy "games", but you merely pay fees to access some contents on an online service. And this access for both technical and legalese reasons is far much more volatile than even a classic EULA.
I really enjoyed playing through XIII and never understand why the critics were so harsh with it. Okay, it was definetely not the best FPS of its generation, but it has a very unique art-style (cel-shaded), some original and well-blended gameplay elements (stealth with on screen "tap-tap" showing people walking, possibility to take someone hostage) and a good story well-delivered (first-person view, playable dreamy flashback, multi-angle thumbnails ala 24). And it has some fast-paced shooting moments too!
Steam EULA - All your terminations belong to us
on
End User License Gems
·
· Score: 1
Either you or Valve has the right to terminate or cancel your Account or a particular Subscription at any time.[...]
In the case of a one-time purchase of a product license (e.g., purchase of a single game) from Valve, Valve may choose to terminate or cancel your Subscription in its entirety or may terminate or cancel only a portion of the Subscription (e.g., access to the software via Steam) and Valve may, but is not obligated to, provide access (for a limited period of time) to the download of a stand-alone version of the software and content associated with such one-time purchase.
And no, this is not like a standard game EULA where the company can terminate the license only if you violate the agreement (cheating, copying, cc fraud, etc.).
And there is also this "we can change the agreement and billing anytime without notification" crap.
You're right, it will not *directly* restrict free speech.
But for retailers, it will be pretty hard to implement this measure: you've got to properly train and monitor your employees, and if you let one M game slipped in the hands of a children,... In both way, it hurts your bottom line. Some there is some chances that some big retailers just stop carrying M titles, and without those retailers, publishers would stop or severly limit release of new M games.
Thus, it is in some way a form on indirect censorship. Moreover, similar laws have alread been ruled anti-constutional (but IANAL and I don't know the reasons why).
Moreover, the Californian law is not based on the ESRB ratings, but on its own rating. So who will rates the games? Also the 18+ label they should put on the box is ridiculously large.
And as most retailers will say, kids who still want the game will just piss off their parents until they buy it, without realizing what really the game is (as usual). Also playing a *edgy* game will become way much more thrilling for them.
DRM and other subscription service are not necessarily bad and can be interesting alternatives. But that's not these services or products in themselves that are the problems.
The fact is that when you talk subscription service or DRM, potential buyers fly away... So all those digital retailers consciously "hide" these features.
Just look their ads/website, they use keywords like "buy" or "own" instead of "rent", "subscribe" or "license". They are creating a new business model, but they are doing everything they can to make people believe things still work the same way. You need to pay a lot of attention and efforts to read all the fine prints and EULAs and so on, in order to really get a chance to understand what you are putting your money.
The problem is not if DRM is good or evil but:
- How many iTunes & Co customers thinks they have "bought" a song instead of "renting" it on a service whose terms can change at pretty much any time?
- How many Steam customers thinks they have "bought" a game instead of "renting" it on a service whose terms can change at pretty much any time? And what about those who actually bought the physical box in store?
- How many media center PC buyers thinks they have bought a DVD-VCR on steroids, and not a completly closed when your recorded programs might be played only on this very particular unit (and in some cases for a limited time only)?
- How future HD-DVD and Blu-Ray hardware buyers will think their players will read every disc to be released, that they won't, BY DESIGN, stop accepting some new releases because the model would have been "compromised?"
What's disgusting is not the DRM, it's the blatantly misleading advertising which deliberatly hides some key facts of the products/services sold.
The scenes depicted in the "hot coffee" modification are not playable in the retail version of the game unless the user downloads and/or installs unauthorized software that alters the content of the original retail version of the title, representing a violation of Take-Two and Rockstar's end user license agreement (EULA) and intellectual property rights. "We are deeply concerned that the publicity surrounding these unauthorized modifications has caused the game to be misrepresented to the public and has detracted from the creative merits of this award winning product," said Mr. Eibeler. Take-Two is exploring its legal options as it relates to companies that profited from creating and distributing tools for altering the content of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
So not only those Take Two suit guys screwed and lied from the beginning, not only did they encourage modding (or at least silently blessing it) since their previous games as a way to increase their popularity (their generic EULA even encourages user-made contents), but now they are threatening all mod makers and even mod users of legal action!!!
I am completly disgust by this company.
The mod, in its most basic version, only alter the SAVE FILES, not the source, scripts or assets at all.
It alters the game scripts only to unlock the nude models (which are already in the game data), the 3 cities and the 6 girlfriends from the beginning.
Rockstar has lied since day one, and now they threaten the mod maker for "unauthorized reverse engineering"... After encouraging modding to increase their game popularity, they now want to kill one modder just because THEY screw up ! I'm completly disgust by this company.
submitted to Slashdot by the author
Making money through RSS made simple:
just post your ad on an blog and voila, free RSS ads (only works on poorly administered blogs, though).
Slashdot Mirror
Galactic Civilization 2 uses online activation, it's definitely not a DRM-free game, like Oblivion seems to be. To be really precise, only the retail CD of GalCiv is DRM free, but as soon as you patch it, the DRM is there. They just delayed it a bit. And from what I've understood, the downloadable version always need activation.
You're complaining that Microsoft expects you to use a purchased version of Windows? WTF
No, he's complaining of being constantly suspected to be a thief by Microsoft, as well as, sometimes, being a collateral victim of malfunctionning paranoid DRM.
Yes you can backup stuff, but won't those backups required online activation again when installed on your new machine?
Now if you rely on the cracking community to defend your legitimate consumer rights... Well I don't think that's a very pragmatic, safe or moral solution.
"As long as they know what I own and make it available to me whenever I want"
That's the key problem with every digital distribution service : your rights the use the content you have "purchased" is controlled by a remote server you must periodically contact. So even if the terms of use seems pretty laxist for now, nothing is shielding you from a change of policy or your content provider going bust.
And EULA/Terms of Sevice/whatever legaleses that govern these services are so much in favor of the provider. Did you know that, according to the Steam Subscriber Agreement, Valve has every rights (and the means) to shut down all access to your games at any time, without needing any reason, and that in such a case you should expect no refund or a stand-alone version (see section 13) ?
The only way to be completly safe is to be able to make a complete stand-alone, offline, unDRMed copy. iTunes allow that with audio CDs (at least for now), but not Steam.
In France, they are also lock-in periods or opt-ou fees, but if they want to change the terms of the contract, basically you can walk away with no penalty or they have to keep the previous terms (article L. 121-84 of "code de la consommation").
can't you burn your song to a CD and reimport them? For now, yes. That's an acceptable, yet inconvenient, escape course.
But for how long? By allowing change of terms after a purchase, this feature can disappear at any time. I hope you have backup your whole collection in a non-DRM format, just in case. And what proportion of less legalese-savy users are aware of this risk?
And regarding the fact that everyone is going against Apple, it's not because they are Apple, but just because they are the biggest, are global and are both the DRM and content vendor. Nobody is against Apple, but against DRM and the surreal legaleses around them.
Yes, it is perfectly reasonnable to alter terms of service. Generally, you pay recurrent fees for a service, so if the terms change and you are not happy with the service, you stop using AND stop paying. ...).
Now look at iTMS/Steam/whatever-digital-buying-thing.
When you buy a track or game, you are paying a one-time fee. You may think you have bought a product, although being digital. Nothing really warn you that, actually, you are not buying a product, not even a classic licence (which is a form of intangible product), but you do pay SERVICE fees, the service being giving you access to some data on some online site and letting you do some things with them. Quietly, we move from a "product" paradigm to a "service" paradigm, but without any vendor telling you clearly and yet taking full advantage of this transition (no second-hand sale, change of terms at any time, added fees, unjustified revocation,
Imagine that, in a few years, when you will buy a car, you will pay the full-price but not for the car, just for the ability to use it. And if the saler want to take it back, he will be able and allowed to do it, with no compensation for you and without needing a particular reason. That's how those digital distribution services work according to their legalese, at least until the first big blackout of one of those service and the following class-action lawsuit...
"I'm not sure if you've ever looked at the legalese behind other subscription services, but most of them have that in their agreement."
Indeed, online subscription-based (or free) services always have something like that. But with Steam, we are also talking of "buying" offline games. And what is a natural limitation in one case is really a deal-breaker for me. Their legalese are just too wide opened and give them no obligation.
Now regarding the online mode, this thing is really really shaddy and well, offline mode or not, if you want to re-install, you'll still need activation. Unless Steam get a clear and maintained "Backup a standalone version" feature, it will be without me.
It's not like CSS where Valve can reserve the right to ban you for cheating.
However, in the Steam Subscriber Agreement, Valve precisely reserves the right to cancel any of your subscription (which means access to the game, no matter if they are online or not) for any reason. "Either you or Valve has the right to terminate or cancel your Account or a particular Subscription at any time." This is in no way limited to cases when you breach the rules, like in standard EULA.
Offline mode ? Sorry, I don't believe in it after seeing numerous report of "my DSL is down and I can't play". Last time, I checked, it was not even recognized as a "feature" and the SSA has no trace of it.
I'm not really sure to understand your reply. I wanted to mean:
- Game "X" V1.0 being unprotected and advertised as such, while Game "X" V1.0.1, which fix the cannot-finish-game-fatal-bug, being protected.
- BR movie "Y" being watchable in HD on non-HDCP TV and being advertised as such, while BR movie "Y 2: The Return", released 6 months later, being watchable only in SD.
- PS3 console being region-free and advertised as such, but, like with the Xbox 1 and 360, the game "Z" will only playable on the Japanese model (because region-free = no mandatory region coding != all games will be region free).
And from your point that piracy (or DRM circumventions) will solve it all, well... That's the sad point actually.
... online activation.
Like with Sony's Blu-Ray DRM, their "region-free" PS3 or GalCiv2 we-have-no-protection online activation, don't jump on conclusions and wait for the full story...
The Steam (or any activation based DRM scheme) definition
r act says we can change our mind any-time.
You own it as long as we say so.
And the product phones own regularly to make sure we haven't change our minds. And the EULA/TOS/insert-your-favorite-legalese-pseudocont
Parent hit the head in the nail.
This move from Sony is just as BS as what they announced on BR : the hardware allows region control, but do not force it. So it's up to the publisher to decide if he want the protection or not.
Just look at the already "region-free" xbox360 games. There are not that many...
This is a PR move to appear nice, but without substance. Just expect some more trademarks lawsuits from Sony UK on importers. It was really ugly with the PSP...
Before embracing digital distribution, I strongly suggest that you read the fine prints.
If you read the Steam Subscriber Agreement, you'll see that with your $40 or so, you have never bought a game, not even a license to play the game like all for the other games you might have. What you have paid are subscription fees to access some contents on some online service.
And the differences are significant:
- First, usually you can transfer a game license, but you can't transfer a Steam subscription (section 1).
- Secondly, a licence cannot be changed by the publisher without your consent, while a Steam subscription can be (this include additionnal fees) (section 4.b and 12).
- Lastly, a licence cannot be terminated by the publisher unless you fail to comply with its terms. On the contrary, Valve can terminate your subscription at any time for any reason (section 13 and 13.c.2).
So here you are. You haven't bought HL2, you are just renting it for a flat fee from Valve, and you just don't know how long your renting will last... And worst, contrary to all your previous games, they can technically enforce their legaleses.
I just can't understand why people are defending a company with such a deceptive agreement, especially when this company marketing line is "we are the good-ol' friend of the gaming community".
... because thanks to a german consumer association, if you have bought a retail box of HL2, you no more have to pay Valve the infamous "$10 resell tax". Strangely, this move from Valve has made little publicity.
But if you only have a Steam version of HL2, well you are out of luck. You need to realise you haven't bought any game, but merely pay some subscription fees to access an overhyped content on some buggy and restrictive online service. So technically, you have pretty much nothing to resell. Did you say the advertisement was unclear?
Steam a good system ?
Are you talking about the system which do not let you play an OFFLINE game during a week-end because their servers crash and you have forgot to firewalled Steam before launching it?
Are you talking about the system which, in contradiction to any advertisement, do not sold you any game, but only an "access" to some contents, access which can be terminated by the publisher at any time and for absolutely any reason as specified by their Subscriber Agreement?
A digital renting service may be interesting, but I just can't trust any digital "purchase" system, unless I can make a perfectly autonomous offline working backup (ala iTMS with audio CD). Especially when their legaleses are so wide open for abuse.
Are you really sure about that?
If you take your backup DVD and install it on a computer which has never seen Steam or the Internet, are you sure it will work?
I seriously doubt it, it would be absolutly meaningless from a copy protection perspective.
I bet that if you do that, the system would still want to "activate" online your new install... The backup is useful only if you do not want to re-download some contents, but for nothing more.
You've got to realise that on Steam you do not buy "games", but you merely pay fees to access some contents on an online service. And this access for both technical and legalese reasons is far much more volatile than even a classic EULA.
I really enjoyed playing through XIII and never understand why the critics were so harsh with it.
Okay, it was definetely not the best FPS of its generation, but it has a very unique art-style (cel-shaded), some original and well-blended gameplay elements (stealth with on screen "tap-tap" showing people walking, possibility to take someone hostage) and a good story well-delivered (first-person view, playable dreamy flashback, multi-angle thumbnails ala 24). And it has some fast-paced shooting moments too!
Either you or Valve has the right to terminate or cancel your Account or a particular Subscription at any time.[...]
In the case of a one-time purchase of a product license (e.g., purchase of a single game) from Valve, Valve may choose to terminate or cancel your Subscription in its entirety or may terminate or cancel only a portion of the Subscription (e.g., access to the software via Steam) and Valve may, but is not obligated to, provide access (for a limited period of time) to the download of a stand-alone version of the software and content associated with such one-time purchase.
And no, this is not like a standard game EULA where the company can terminate the license only if you violate the agreement (cheating, copying, cc fraud, etc.).
And there is also this "we can change the agreement and billing anytime without notification" crap.
Why not put a new notice on every single game and splash screens.
"ESRB Notice: Game Experience May Change When Using Third-Party Patches and/or Cheat Devices".
This problem was already solved!
But for retailers, it will be pretty hard to implement this measure: you've got to properly train and monitor your employees, and if you let one M game slipped in the hands of a children,
Thus, it is in some way a form on indirect censorship. Moreover, similar laws have alread been ruled anti-constutional (but IANAL and I don't know the reasons why).
Moreover, the Californian law is not based on the ESRB ratings, but on its own rating. So who will rates the games? Also the 18+ label they should put on the box is ridiculously large.
And as most retailers will say, kids who still want the game will just piss off their parents until they buy it, without realizing what really the game is (as usual). Also playing a *edgy* game will become way much more thrilling for them.
The fact is that when you talk subscription service or DRM, potential buyers fly away... So all those digital retailers consciously "hide" these features. Just look their ads/website, they use keywords like "buy" or "own" instead of "rent", "subscribe" or "license". They are creating a new business model, but they are doing everything they can to make people believe things still work the same way. You need to pay a lot of attention and efforts to read all the fine prints and EULAs and so on, in order to really get a chance to understand what you are putting your money.
The problem is not if DRM is good or evil but:
- How many iTunes & Co customers thinks they have "bought" a song instead of "renting" it on a service whose terms can change at pretty much any time?
- How many Steam customers thinks they have "bought" a game instead of "renting" it on a service whose terms can change at pretty much any time? And what about those who actually bought the physical box in store?
- How many media center PC buyers thinks they have bought a DVD-VCR on steroids, and not a completly closed when your recorded programs might be played only on this very particular unit (and in some cases for a limited time only)?
- How future HD-DVD and Blu-Ray hardware buyers will think their players will read every disc to be released, that they won't, BY DESIGN, stop accepting some new releases because the model would have been "compromised?"
What's disgusting is not the DRM, it's the blatantly misleading advertising which deliberatly hides some key facts of the products/services sold.
So not only those Take Two suit guys screwed and lied from the beginning, not only did they encourage modding (or at least silently blessing it) since their previous games as a way to increase their popularity (their generic EULA even encourages user-made contents), but now they are threatening all mod makers and even mod users of legal action!!!
I am completly disgust by this company.
Wrong.
The mod, in its most basic version, only alter the SAVE FILES, not the source, scripts or assets at all.
It alters the game scripts only to unlock the nude models (which are already in the game data), the 3 cities and the 6 girlfriends from the beginning.
Rockstar has lied since day one, and now they threaten the mod maker for "unauthorized reverse engineering"... After encouraging modding to increase their game popularity, they now want to kill one modder just because THEY screw up ! I'm completly disgust by this company.
submitted to Slashdot by the author Making money through RSS made simple: just post your ad on an blog and voila, free RSS ads (only works on poorly administered blogs, though).