I've found most companies to be far, far _less_ reasonable.
Really? In the vast, vast majority of cases the most I've ever had to contend with is a CD check, which is easily fixed, and sometimes not even that, and no attempts to prevent me from selling games on.
letting me play my games on different machines
Oh, they let you do they? Lucky you. Imagine getting permission from your overlords to install a game more than once...
That they have reached a point where things which was once taken for granted are now seen as selling points is quite an achievement indeed for Valve.
Offline mode sometimes demands that you go online before working, defeating the purpose. And why should a single player game complain about your Internet connection anyway? They are just adding more hassle.
As for being as reasonable as they can, I find that hard to accept, when people have been more reasonable than this for the last, well, since the dawn of video games.
My purchases are 100% physical. The one game I play that cost me money where I have no disk is EVE, but with EVE you pay for the account, not the client that you download.
For me, the box and manual are part of the product. The best games often come with custom covers or special editions - look at Ico, which came in a cardboard case with art cards. These people actually gave a damn about the product. Now we have people who don't want to do a physical version at all, who see it only as a means to make money, and DD as the most profitable method? They can keep their crap.
Nothing can outweigh a physical box and manual - there is no compensation for part of the product being absent.
You speak as if the destruction of CDs and DVDs is inevitable. It is, but it will take decades, and as you say, it can be mitigated.
On the other hand, losing your DD games is also inevitable, and somehow I don't see Steam matching the 20+ year predicted lifetime of DVDs, and there is no recourse when it happens.
Media degradation has never been an issue in the past, and is not an issue now, and will not even start to become an issue for years to come. Yet people still bring it up in comparison to problems with DD which are very real and are affecting people right now. That kind of says everything that needs to be said about DD.
Single-player games requiring an Internet connection and disappearing along with the Steam servers is correct and reasonable? Being denied your legal rights is correct and reasonable?
DRM on physical disks doesn't require single player games to need an internet connection.
The parent poster's point is valid despite the protection on physical disks anyway - disk-based DRM is about the disk, nobody really cares too much about that. Digital distribution DRM is about online activation, which people (who stop and think for a second) are far less accepting of. So, for DD to be acceptable, it has to be DRM free, whereas physical gets away with minor DRM.
Copies: Trivial, any decent copying software has workarounds built in. Online activation: Another good reason not to buy, which is why I don't buy Steam-only (i.e. Valve) games even on disk. PDF Manuals: It's still nice to have the physical copy, and we have people not buying the physical version to thank for this kind of crap, so joining them is a pretty bad response.
If DD takes over, it will become far more costly to manufacture physical versions at all. So the special stuff might come out, but it wouldn't include the game (ironically), meaning years on you'd have the merchandise but no game to go with it.
1) These days I'm without an Internet connection usually whenever I travel, though not too long ago I lived in a place with no Internet access, so my gaming machine was without Internet access for 6 months. I have a gaming capable laptop, so idiotic requirements aside, I can game while away from home.
2) Offline mode in known to occasionally demand once-off connection to the Internet before activating. Even putting this aside, the requirement to have Internet access, even once off, to play a single player game is ludicrous. Fortunately, cracked versions (you know, those versions this protection is design to prevent) ironically don't have this issue.
3) Since your counterpoint is a mere assumption, I will simply counter with they assumption that at some point they will completely screw it up, as Live has.
As for the unnumbered point about Valve unlocking games if they go under, I happen to agree that Valve probably would do this. However they may end up in a situation where they have no choice or no opportunity, and as digital distribution grows other services will appear which are not so favourable to the end user. And don't say that people would not use a more user-unfriendly service, since half the pro-steam argument is that this kind of DRM is invisible to the average user, they would not know the difference. Steam gets the focus at the moment because it is the biggest one, but it won't be the only one.
If there was any real benefit to these limitations there might be room for debate here, but they achieve nothing but to add extra points of failure, and make the illegal versions they are trying to stamp out seem all the more appealing.
Steam does offer some very nice features, if you're into that kind of thing (I personally prefer real life to SocialGaming with my InternetFriends), but none of these require the DRM that is built in. Yet, people just accept the whole package because of the positives. Anything is ok in the name of more easily accessible entertainment, eh.
And hell, if Valve ever went under I'd have no qualms about downloading a patch (offical or otherwise) to let me keep playing the single player stuff.
So intentionally breaking their games is ok, because the pirates are there to fix it for you? "Hey Joe, that car I just sold you will stop working in 5 years for no particular reason." "That's ok Bob, I know a guy who can fix it for me."
Spectacular. Personally, in that instance, I am tempted to go to the pirates for the game in the first place.
Anyway, you know as well as I do that most 'prospective customers' know nothing about this, won't research it, and will never know unless it bites them in the ass. This doesn't change the fact that Steam adds unnecessary points of failure to games, it just means that the ignorance of the masses is being used in 'spreading the disease' so to speak. That nobody notices does not make it right or acceptable.
As for not being not being forced to buy Steam games, what if it happens that games are Steam-only? Sure I'm still not forced to buy them, as in put-a-gun-to-my-head forced to, but what if we (shock horror) attribute some actual cultural worth to games as we do to literature and cinema? In that context, I think the folly of enforcing degradation on them for the sake of productisation is obvious. Of course, this argument holds little merit these days, as most games are still mindless entertainment, and the ones that aren't are mostly on consoles anyway. Nonetheless, the only games I tend to spend time on are those that aim to do more than serve the short attention spans of mindless consumers, that have some lasting worth, so I am more militant again this kind of DRM than most.
Download first, buy later if it works. Solves many problems.
Live is survivable due to offline profiles (though I hope you don't miss the ability to backup/transfer your save games). Anything store purchased which requires steam, avoid.
Features like the game disappearing along with the steam servers? Features like needing an Internet connection to run a single-player game you've already installed? Features like a server problem at their end wiping out the save games of you and numerous other gamers?
Sign me up.
Seriously though, the download anywhere is nice. It's not like I can take my DVDs of my games to another PC and install them again. Oh, wait...
Unless, as they are going down, another company takes them over. Would, say, EA be so generous I wonder? As you say, who knows. Well, I know that my store-purchased DVDs will work until they physically degrade. Enjoy your uncertainty.
The game's content will also suffer. Look at console FPSes. Crap on consoles due to the gamepad, pretty bad on PC due to being limited to work to some limited degree on a gamepad. All games designed for all platforms? I'd go back to non-interactive media.
To knock off 4 and 5, stop making multiple-platform games. Just put them on the platform that sports the largest share of your target demographic. Sell FPSes to PC gamers. Sell JRPGs to PS3 gamers. Balance will be restored to the world etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I've found most companies to be far, far _less_ reasonable.
Really? In the vast, vast majority of cases the most I've ever had to contend with is a CD check, which is easily fixed, and sometimes not even that, and no attempts to prevent me from selling games on.
letting me play my games on different machines
Oh, they let you do they? Lucky you. Imagine getting permission from your overlords to install a game more than once...
That they have reached a point where things which was once taken for granted are now seen as selling points is quite an achievement indeed for Valve.
Shame, Valve games are some of the best around.
True, unfortunately.
But then again you're more interested in your principles than having fun, so whatever
But they are far from being the only fun games around.
Offline mode sometimes demands that you go online before working, defeating the purpose. And why should a single player game complain about your Internet connection anyway? They are just adding more hassle.
As for being as reasonable as they can, I find that hard to accept, when people have been more reasonable than this for the last, well, since the dawn of video games.
My purchases are 100% physical. The one game I play that cost me money where I have no disk is EVE, but with EVE you pay for the account, not the client that you download.
For me, the box and manual are part of the product. The best games often come with custom covers or special editions - look at Ico, which came in a cardboard case with art cards. These people actually gave a damn about the product.
Now we have people who don't want to do a physical version at all, who see it only as a means to make money, and DD as the most profitable method? They can keep their crap.
Nothing can outweigh a physical box and manual - there is no compensation for part of the product being absent.
You speak as if the destruction of CDs and DVDs is inevitable. It is, but it will take decades, and as you say, it can be mitigated.
On the other hand, losing your DD games is also inevitable, and somehow I don't see Steam matching the 20+ year predicted lifetime of DVDs, and there is no recourse when it happens.
Media degradation has never been an issue in the past, and is not an issue now, and will not even start to become an issue for years to come. Yet people still bring it up in comparison to problems with DD which are very real and are affecting people right now.
That kind of says everything that needs to be said about DD.
Single-player games requiring an Internet connection and disappearing along with the Steam servers is correct and reasonable? Being denied your legal rights is correct and reasonable?
Gah, I just got trolled, didn't I?
Buy an MP3:
Digital MP3 -> Digital Transfer -> Your Digital Copy
The distribution (highlighted) is digital.
Buy a disk:
Digital Master -> Physical Disk -> Physically sent/given to you -> Your Digital Copy
The distribution (highlighted) is physical.
DRM on physical disks doesn't require single player games to need an internet connection.
The parent poster's point is valid despite the protection on physical disks anyway - disk-based DRM is about the disk, nobody really cares too much about that. Digital distribution DRM is about online activation, which people (who stop and think for a second) are far less accepting of. So, for DD to be acceptable, it has to be DRM free, whereas physical gets away with minor DRM.
Copies: Trivial, any decent copying software has workarounds built in.
Online activation: Another good reason not to buy, which is why I don't buy Steam-only (i.e. Valve) games even on disk.
PDF Manuals: It's still nice to have the physical copy, and we have people not buying the physical version to thank for this kind of crap, so joining them is a pretty bad response.
If DD takes over, it will become far more costly to manufacture physical versions at all. So the special stuff might come out, but it wouldn't include the game (ironically), meaning years on you'd have the merchandise but no game to go with it.
"Both the disc and Steam version require Steam to be installed and active for play.[65]"
Fail.
Digital Vs. Physical not Digital Vs. Analog
ffs
- I don't have (and can't get) an Internet connection with decent transfer/month
- All the games I've ever owned (which goes back to the early 90's) still work. No exceptions.
- I crack and/or make images of all the games, to gain the benefits of digital distribution with none of the downsides.
Anecdotal evidence, useful, no?
Yes, all of those that are permanent items rather than ongoing services (which is zero i.e. 0) count as counter-examples.
Well done.
Wikipedia informs me that Dragon Quest only had two main-series non-remakes in the last 3 generations.
All Marios are basically the same game, just updated for the capabilities of the console they are/were on.
Ico?
As for Nintendo, enjoy Mario 17.
Which is precisely why I haven't bought any Valve games ;D
I was referring to non-Valve games on Steam.
1) These days I'm without an Internet connection usually whenever I travel, though not too long ago I lived in a place with no Internet access, so my gaming machine was without Internet access for 6 months. I have a gaming capable laptop, so idiotic requirements aside, I can game while away from home.
2) Offline mode in known to occasionally demand once-off connection to the Internet before activating. Even putting this aside, the requirement to have Internet access, even once off, to play a single player game is ludicrous. Fortunately, cracked versions (you know, those versions this protection is design to prevent) ironically don't have this issue.
3) Since your counterpoint is a mere assumption, I will simply counter with they assumption that at some point they will completely screw it up, as Live has.
As for the unnumbered point about Valve unlocking games if they go under, I happen to agree that Valve probably would do this. However they may end up in a situation where they have no choice or no opportunity, and as digital distribution grows other services will appear which are not so favourable to the end user. And don't say that people would not use a more user-unfriendly service, since half the pro-steam argument is that this kind of DRM is invisible to the average user, they would not know the difference. Steam gets the focus at the moment because it is the biggest one, but it won't be the only one.
If there was any real benefit to these limitations there might be room for debate here, but they achieve nothing but to add extra points of failure, and make the illegal versions they are trying to stamp out seem all the more appealing.
Steam does offer some very nice features, if you're into that kind of thing (I personally prefer real life to SocialGaming with my InternetFriends), but none of these require the DRM that is built in. Yet, people just accept the whole package because of the positives. Anything is ok in the name of more easily accessible entertainment, eh.
And hell, if Valve ever went under I'd have no qualms about downloading a patch (offical or otherwise) to let me keep playing the single player stuff.
So intentionally breaking their games is ok, because the pirates are there to fix it for you?
"Hey Joe, that car I just sold you will stop working in 5 years for no particular reason."
"That's ok Bob, I know a guy who can fix it for me."
Spectacular. Personally, in that instance, I am tempted to go to the pirates for the game in the first place.
Anyway, you know as well as I do that most 'prospective customers' know nothing about this, won't research it, and will never know unless it bites them in the ass. This doesn't change the fact that Steam adds unnecessary points of failure to games, it just means that the ignorance of the masses is being used in 'spreading the disease' so to speak. That nobody notices does not make it right or acceptable.
As for not being not being forced to buy Steam games, what if it happens that games are Steam-only? Sure I'm still not forced to buy them, as in put-a-gun-to-my-head forced to, but what if we (shock horror) attribute some actual cultural worth to games as we do to literature and cinema? In that context, I think the folly of enforcing degradation on them for the sake of productisation is obvious. Of course, this argument holds little merit these days, as most games are still mindless entertainment, and the ones that aren't are mostly on consoles anyway. Nonetheless, the only games I tend to spend time on are those that aim to do more than serve the short attention spans of mindless consumers, that have some lasting worth, so I am more militant again this kind of DRM than most.
Games that get turned off remotely are no issue however.
Download first, buy later if it works. Solves many problems.
Live is survivable due to offline profiles (though I hope you don't miss the ability to backup/transfer your save games). Anything store purchased which requires steam, avoid.
Features like the game disappearing along with the steam servers? Features like needing an Internet connection to run a single-player game you've already installed? Features like a server problem at their end wiping out the save games of you and numerous other gamers?
Sign me up.
Seriously though, the download anywhere is nice. It's not like I can take my DVDs of my games to another PC and install them again. Oh, wait...
Unless, as they are going down, another company takes them over. Would, say, EA be so generous I wonder? As you say, who knows. Well, I know that my store-purchased DVDs will work until they physically degrade. Enjoy your uncertainty.
You prefer to rent your games at purchase price, and get less for your money to boot?
The game's content will also suffer. Look at console FPSes. Crap on consoles due to the gamepad, pretty bad on PC due to being limited to work to some limited degree on a gamepad. All games designed for all platforms? I'd go back to non-interactive media.
To knock off 4 and 5, stop making multiple-platform games. Just put them on the platform that sports the largest share of your target demographic. Sell FPSes to PC gamers. Sell JRPGs to PS3 gamers. Balance will be restored to the world etc.