Is that sarcasm? 'Cos while Steam restricts you in a few ways (e.g. no giving free copies to friends) the experience is so superior I continually choose to buy games on Steam over any other method.
Hell, one of the biggest reasons I patronize the Humble Indie Bundles is because I can get the games into my Steam account.
I liked Humble Indie Bundles precisely for their DRM free Linux releases. Other good DRM free source is GOG (though requiring Wine). Steam is of no interest to me because of DRM promotion. It's a choice the company has to make. You can see DRM free releases being successful, so those who stick with DRM need to be discouraged.
There is a positive side of Valve's interest in Linux though. It'll encourage others to pay more attention to Linux, and eventually more DRM free games will be available too.
DRM needs to be discouraged by its definition IMO. I was saying above, that if that raises an objection that making a financially successful game without DRM isn't possible, then such objection is not true. Or if you want to phrase it in a positive way - those who don't use DRM need to be encouraged.
The thing is, for some games (competitive internet multiplayer), some forms of DRM are a net positive, and arguably strictly necessary. After easily used cheats started to be widely distributed for CS, the game experience for the typical player went trough the floor, and the community voluntarily and without any kind of financial incentive created and enforced a type of DRM.
Steam takes that to the next level -- because they can add fines of real money (losing your account), and actual permanent bans (of credit cards and real identities) as the cost of cheating, the gaming community embraced it and cheers for it.
So, we are in a situation where the vast majority of the player base considers DRM not just acceptable, or good, but a strictly necessary part of the product. The things that are commonly considered the evils of DRM (ability to take away ability to use product) are instead considered a primary selling point. How's that for food for thought.
I think your argument can be rephrased in a way, that multilayer games require third party arbiters (server admins, GMs and so on), who should be able to ban violators of game rules, reconcile conflicts and so on. I fully agree, but I don't see why it should be equated with using DRM for the actual software.
And to single player games this issue doesn't apply at all.
> I think your argument can be rephrased in a way, that multilayer games require third party arbiters (server admins, GMs and so on), who should be able to ban violators of game rules, reconcile conflicts and so on. I fully agree, but I don't see why it should be equated with using DRM for the actual software.
GMs do not have the power to that job, unless they have something that's approximately equal to DRM. Catching a subtle cheater is a much, much bigger job than cheating. If someone cheats every day, you'd be lucky to catch him once a month. To actually stop cheating from happening, you need penalties that are high enough to make that once a month count -- so permanent global (so they won't just move on to the next server) bans (and ip bans don't cut it), or failing that, monetary punishment.
Tell me how your third party arbiters achieve that without essentially implementing DRM?
> And to single player games this issue doesn't apply at all.
Except when there is publicly visible scoring/achievements system that you want to keep pure. >90% of new games on the market are either mp or do that.
I still think using any kind of DRM is an unethical overkill for controlling the MMO..G and the like. Firstly, the game can be designed better avoid (some) exploits. Secondly automated mechanisms can be built on the server side to prevent cheating (monitoring unnatural stats boosting, unrealistic mods and so on). I agree, that it's not easy to do it manually. So, write server side protection code for that. It's not DRM, and not some kind of client targeted kill switch. If the user is caught - ban will follow. Let them register again, and get another ban if they want to waste their time. And if that cheating is so hidden that it's not even unnatural IG - who cares (i.e. it's still not fair, but at least such user doesn't have big impact).
From the player perspective, I'd choose a multiplayer game based on the community. Sometimes community can identify cheating just by observing something unnatural, and those users will quickly be boycotted. So GMs are needed to intervene when human decision is necessary. They not necessarily have to detect the issue themselves first.
Is that sarcasm? Steam is DRM. If Valve decides they don't like you, they can delete all your games. If Valve goes bankrupt, they can delete all your games. If Valve gets bought by another company, they can delete all your games. If you like paying full price for a game rental with a variable return date, then Steam is great.
If they have publicly promised it, and people have taken action upon it (for instance buying games that they wouldn't have bought otherwise), then if they fail carry through on it you have grounds to sue for promissory estoppel. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#Promissory_estoppel for more on that.
Winning said lawsuit is not a sure thing. But the pledge may wind up being more binding than it would appear on the surface.
"Unless there was some situation I don't understand, we would presumably disable authentication before any event that would preclude the authentication servers from being available."
So, that's pretty clearly not a guarantee of anything. And furthermore, as another poster there said, the thing Valve employee doesn't understand is bankruptcy. Unless there is a legally binding agreement, they won't be allowed to just give away such a valuable asset. Bankruptcy doesn't mean they fire everyone, shut down everything, and burn down the buildings. It means they sell off the profitable parts and try to keep them running. And the ability to control tons of DRMed games people have installed is very valuable.
A real, legally binding promise would be something like KDE had with Trolltech. Trolltech explicitly (real contract, real lawyers, etc) guaranteed, even in bankruptcy or change of ownership, that if they stopped making open source releases, then Qt would become available under the BSD license. (This was more important back before Qt was already GPLed, as it is now)
I know a lot of people are against DRM in any and all forms, but the Steam implementation is pretty much the definitive case study in how to do this stuff the right way.
If you mean there is some convenience - why do you need the overhead? Just install the game without any extra client which restricts you. It's a case study for DRMed approach, which isn't the way to go.
For example requiring one to connect to their server prior to playing (implicit requirement of having an Internet connection) is a ridiculous restriction.
It's not just the convenience in installation. It's the whole experience from purchase to download to re-download. Everything just works. Buying CDs and punching in codes feels so quaint.
Clearly, if you hate DRM for philosophical reasons, you will hate Steam. If you're pragmatic, you may love it.
I do use steam. A lot. Unfortunately, everything sometimes doesn't just work. For example, I've been left without access to my games a number of times due to internet problems (either in general or just with my gaming desktop) and while offline mode could get around that, I need to be connected to the internet to put it into offline mode and its rare, if ever, that I'll know about internet problems in advance.
So not everything just works for me.
Besides that, though, Steam is the first store in which I've ever impulse bought games - and I've done so multiple times now and probably the majority of all games I own are through Steam. They just make it so easy to find games I want, check the forums for criticism, buy the game, download it and then connect to friends. That experience is one they've done very well and why I still use it despite having had problems. Luckily my account has never been locked - thats a horror story I don't want to experience...
If you mean there is some convenience - why do you need the overhead?
What overhead? You mean the 100MB RAM and 0.1% CPU the Steam client takes? Wow, that really is a high price to pay for the ability to re-download any game I own on any PC, and the automatic updates.
requiring one to connected to their server prior to playing is a ridiculous restriction.
Steam offers offline mode. You only need connect to their server when you download the game. Now, some games are more restrictive, but those are not made by Valve- only offered on their platform. That was someone else's choice.
Yes, it's their (game creators') choice but offered as an option by the distributor (Valve). I'm simply not interested in encouraging such kind of behavior. Those who have a stronger stance on DRM free releases deserve more attention.
Offered as an option? Hardly. Such games typically are distributed via Steam, and later phone home to their publishers- not Valve. Valve is not providing a ultra-DRM service, they just don't prevent it.
It is a good model, IMO, and similar to what Amazon does when an e-book is priced at $14.99 ("This price was set by the publisher"). Let other companies do what they like, and let the market decide for itself.
Contrary to popular belief, not using DRM really shows respect by game creators for their users. I simply won't buy any DRMed game. Luckily some publishers like GOG emerged, who promote DRM free games, and have such major contributors like CD Projekt Red who aren't scared to show respect for their users by selling DRM free games. They (CD Projekt Red) managed not only to pay salaries and improve their products, but also attracted a lot of potential customers for their future titles. GOG is behind in providing Linux versions yet, but I'd rather get DRM free game to run under Wine, than DRMed native one.
Hold the phone everybody -- shmerl won't pay for DRM'd games. Better pack it up folks, we're done here.
In all seriousness though (and this is a question that everyone should ask themselves semi-regularly in a product-consumer situation): why do you matter? If you don't have a compelling answer to this question, it may be that you don't.
Your choice matters. In this case I'd call it "vote with your wallet". Preferring non DRMed games shows support for their developers, as simple as that.
No. For Valve many peoples' choice matters. My individual choice to purchase or not purchase TF2 is of negligible concern. Now, if my individual choice is indicative of a wider trend of people purchasing TF2, then maybe my choice would matter.
The problem with people arguing about DRM is that fundamentally most people don't seem to care. Video games are a billion dollar industry, but non-DRM'd games are not.
You can vote with your wallet, but the data seems to indicate that your wallet is too small to matter.
The argument "since most don't care - you shouldn't either" is flawed. If you are sure something is right - it doesn't matter how many care to do what's right.
> Video games are a billion dollar industry, but non-DRM'd games are not.
It only should increase the incentive to avoid buying DRMed games, and specifically support those who aren't scared to release theirs DRM free.
For example look at the latest Humble Indie Bundle. Linux users pay highest average for the set. It shows that they encourage developers to produce Linux games more than users of other OSes (obviously since Linux games scene is lacking). You can argue, that Linux games market is miniscule, and if so, why even bother to send your message in such form? But you still see people showing appreciation, and developers can take note of this.
Usually for every Humble Bundle, the Linux share of the total is not so minuscule, something like 15-20% if I remember correctly.
If we assume every bundle gets a total of a million dollars, shared between 5 games or so, that makes 200 000 per game, minus the donations to charity and the fees to the Humble Bundle organization. Let's say 150 000 dollars per game in the end. 15%-20% is 23 000 to 30 000 dollars, just for the Linux Port. If you are an small team of indie developpers, I'd say that is not negligible at the end of the day.
By "major contributors like CD Projekt Red" I assume you mean "owners". Good Old Games was created and is owned by CD Projekt so it's not exactly fair to simply call them "major contributors". :)
Thanks for the information, I didn't know they are the owners. That's even better, it shows how a serious and successful games production company can promote DRM free approach. They used to rely on DRM before, but I guess they reconsidered at some point, and turned it completely around.
You're setting up a false dichotomy. DRM isn't required for game developers to get paid. It's not "DRM or developers don't get paid". Games sell even without any kind of copy prevention mechanism. If you are worried, you can still use Kickstarter (or grant) model. In that model, it's irrelevant if the game is copied out of control after release. Devs have already been paid.
In my opinion Kickstarter (or grant) model is infinitely better, because it doesn't insist on treating a game like a physical object. The "selling software" model is horribly flawed. Writing software is like research - a big cost and effort once, then very little cost to benefit from it. It is fair to have effort of research/software development proportional to reward the researchers/devs are getting. With "selling software/drugs" it's not proportional.
Steam doesn't necessarily mean DRM-laden. Some games use Steamworks DRM, true, but many simply use Steam as a delivery mechanism. ARMA2, for example, can be run directly from its directly in the Steamapps folder.
