Valve's Steamworks makes DRM/Crippleware Obsolete

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: skace
My point is that since my Steam is stable, it's pointless for me to consider a non-existent a negative.

Pointless because you've yet to be locked out of your own games? That's shortsighted and narrow-minded at best. Best of luck to you.

Originally posted by: skace
For instance, I could sit here and say "Unreal 3 is the worst game ever because the server down the street from me is always down". Well really, that's a crappy way of judging Unreal 3 because obviously I'm not going to see that issue you are seeing.

That's not analogous at all, and it makes assumptions about the actual cause of the problem. You're still arguing over a point of contention that no one else is talking about. Yeah, it sucks when Steam goes down - regardless of the cause - but that's not the point... that's not the topic of conversation. I don't know how to be any more clearer than that. So when you say "you don't know, don't care, etc.", you need to realize that you're essentially having a discussion with yourself. What you're saying isn't relevant.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: skace

As for Online Activation, remove it from Steam and all you've got is a NewsGroup dump with a pretty front end. The warez groups .nfo files would just say "See: Steam".

Then, we could simply do way with it, problem solved.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Skace, I disagree with this stance. The onus should not be on the customer to troubleshoot. When copy protection gives rise to issues or conflict with users' hardware/software, it is overstepping the line. Where, in addition, such protection fails to prevent piracy, then we can begin to ask questions about its true purpose. Avoidable incoveniences should be avoided, rather than justified.

Whether it should or shouldn't be, if you own a PC and you have problems, the onus is always on you to troubleshoot. Developers cannot dictate what you install on your PC and how you configure it. Don't like that precedent? Buy an Xbox 360. Having said that, I'm not saying Steam Support won't help you troubleshoot your problem.

Steam follows a very simple basis: Modern DRM is intrusive, impossible to manage, and get's cracked faster than the games get released. MMO style DRM has always been far more manageable and fool proof. In the year 2009, it makes more sense to adopt an MMO style DRM scheme and allow users to play without a DVD or a rootkit than it was the other way around. It's also far more successful in getting thieves to purchase the actual software.

Obviously, if network is an issue for you, Steam's entire basis falls apart.

Maybe at some point Steam could add RSA cards or an automated phone service to act as a backup. However, I also think that's asking a lot from them. I also think it's asking a lot from them to say "Hey my network sucks, so you guys should just remove any protection on your media".

This reminds me of the Starcraft. You have a scenario where 2 people are playing a game and then one person disconnects. Now, you can create the scenario where a draw is announced when a player disconnects. However, humans being as sleezy as they are, the average player quickly learns that if he is losing he just has to disconnect. Now the player on the other side gets really angry because this begins happening more and more, the better the player the more fucked over he gets. When he brings it up in argument, he gets the obvious counterpoint from others "but there are legit disconnects! you can't punish us for the malicious acts".

How does this apply to Steam? Well, the disconnects are, in the case, the ones who want to play offline. The other player, in this case, is the actual developers. See, because if you remove online authentication people will realize quickly that all they have to do is purchase said game on Steam, install it, log out, call their friend up, have their friend logon as them, install game, logout, logon as themselves, play game in offline mode. User 1 can keep doing this for everyone. Now the loser in this case is really the developer who, once again, gets fucked over on all their profits. But they will then go and punish Steam by saying "Hey sorry, your DRM sucks, my product is being stolen, our next game isn't being released on here". So Steam chooses the best approach, and once again, the legit disconnecters take the necessary downfall.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
That's not analogous at all, and it makes assumptions about the actual cause of the problem. You're still arguing over a point of contention that no one else is talking about. Yeah, it sucks when Steam goes down - regardless of the cause - but that's not the point... that's not the topic of conversation. I don't know how to be any more clearer than that. So when you say "you don't know, don't care, etc.", you need to realize that you're essentially having a discussion with yourself. What you're saying isn't relevant.

I realize my responses have been skirting around it and that your point is that "Network connectivity to Steam can go down for many reasons, some of which are no fault of your own" correct?

Although I didn't directly respond to that, I understood the point in my response but I will add this: If Steam ever reaches the point where it's own network instability is consistently affecting my ability to enjoy my games when my network is completely stable then yes I'd say the service has run into a serious issue. I'd also expect that if that day ever comes, A LOT of people will be demanding answers. However, I have no proof that anyone in this thread is suffering from that issue.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Then, we could simply do way with it, problem solved.

If you are hoping developers will go back to the day when they just give you a game on a disk with absolutely no protection. Good luck. Stardock may convince people that it's the best solution, however they'd have a lot of trouble convincing CryTek.

I would be happy if we ever go to that, I just don't see it happening and I believe we have the best alternative.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Skace, I disagree with this stance. The onus should not be on the customer to troubleshoot. When copy protection gives rise to issues or conflict with users' hardware/software, it is overstepping the line. Where, in addition, such protection fails to prevent piracy, then we can begin to ask questions about its true purpose. Avoidable incoveniences should be avoided, rather than justified.

Whether it should or shouldn't be, if you own a PC and you have problems, the onus is always on you to troubleshoot. Developers cannot dictate what you install on your PC and how you configure it. Don't like that precedent? Buy an Xbox 360. Having said that, I'm not saying Steam Support won't help you troubleshoot your problem.

I lot of people I know have followed this route, but I can't help feeling that the companies are trying to herd us all towards consoles. Any protection system will be circumvented, it is simply unavoidable. Personally, I prefer being forced to keep the DVD in my machine, that doesn`t seem like such a big incovenience when the alternatives are considered.

Giving away something you own does not give rise to stealing. But wait, that's right, you don't own games you purchase on Steam. This is a new market for companies, it does not represent lost profit as people have always passed on games to their friends, therefore I find this level of control to be unjustified and an infringement of our consumer rights.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Then, we could simply do way with it, problem solved.

If you are hoping developers will go back to the day when they just give you a game on a disk with absolutely no protection. Good luck. Stardock may convince people that it's the best solution, however they'd have a lot of trouble convincing CryTek.

I would be happy if we ever go to that, I just don't see it happening and I believe we have the best alternative.

Unfortunately, given the current shape of things, you are probably right.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: coloumb
Isnt' it still DRM if you can't resell the game?

I've never really understood this one, honestly. I know some people like to do it, but i've just never understood why.

Reselling to cover costs of a new game is the only reason I could think of, but it's not like games are expensive, unlike hardware - sell a $200 videocard to buy a $300 one, for example.

You must not value $50 like I do?

The whole point of digital DRM is to make the 2nd hand market for digital content intrinsically illegal by making the tools to circumvent the digital DRM explicitly illegal, lock consumers into consuming content the way the corporations want to spoon feed it to us, and maximize profits. "Protecting" digital content from piracy is the public reason corporations use to justify digital DRM.

Historical copyright law provides a balanced approach to consuming copyrighted materials. It allows the copyright holders to make a profit on their IP, it allows for fair use of copyrighted works by consumers (and not the type of "fair use" as defined by the DMCA, I'm talking real fair use here), and provides punishments to those who would criminally violate a copyright holder's rights. How historical copyright law could be deemed deficient is beyond me.

Push your customers to their limits, treat them like criminals without justification, attempt to nickel and dime them to death, and make it harder for them to consume your content than those who you're really fighting against; WTF else do you expect except a backlash and an army of folks ready and willing to break your new shiny locks?!

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

The worst parts of Steam are that it's tied so tightly to online authentication and there is no easy or authorized way to resell purchased titles.

Until this changes I will avoid Steam like the plague. If Valve didn't make such damn fine games, Steam would've went the way of the dodo years ago.

 

[Red Irish]

Welcome on board Golgatha, eloquent as ever.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: chizow
That Steam survey doesn't populate itself based on nothing, you know.

Last I checked there are options in the Steam client for whether you want to opt in on surveys. But don't let that stop the misinformation that runs rampant in just about every Steam thread.

Really, where? There are no options to prevent them from tracking data about your machine as its an integral part of how Steam updates your games and clients. Its also going to be the cornerstone of some future features they've announced, like automatic hardware driver updates or recommended configuration settings. Anyways, the Steam client tracks system data persistently but only sends the data if/when you choose to participate, so again, Steam is more akin to spyware than anything SecuROM related. But like anything, its acceptable because Steam is the "benevolent DRM."

I am not a Steam supporter, but the surveys are actually surveys that you fill out. It isn't Steam checking you computer to see what you have. If you don't want to be part of the survey, then don't fill it out when it pops up. I have had it come up a whole twice.

I prefer Impulse for digital distribution due to not needing to "phone home" every time you use it. (You can set up steam to run in offline mode, but for some reason you can only do this from the online mode; so when your connection goes down you are SOL.)

Steam has a lot of nice features, like organizing your games, along with storing them so that you can download them whenever you feel like it. Nice for going on vacation and using someones laptop to play a game when the weather outside sucks. Or nice for when you format, or replace your HDD.

Steam Store has never worked right for me, but that was a good thing as it kept me from spending money on it for years. It seems to work around 50% of the time now though. (for me at least)

I like Good Old Games Services. You pay for the game, they provide a download link, and I can download and do whatever I like with the files (within the bounds of copyright law of course).

 

[skace]

You know, the 2nd hand market never would have been an issue if EBGames hadn't raped developers and customers alike using it. Buying games back at $15 and reselling them to others at almost full price. EBGames has been making massive profits off of their used game environment. So much so that nearly all of their business practices these days revolve around getting the end user to buy a used game.

And if you think console publishers aren't looking towards alternatives also you are fooling yourself. Why do you think these micropayment marketplaces are so common place in the current gen? They want you using that online market place, they'd eventually prefer you buy your games through that as well. Hell, Steam is a lot better than how ugly Xbox Live games are when your Xbox fails.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Giving away something you own does not give rise to stealing. But wait, that's right, you don't own games you purchase on Steam. This is a new market for companies, it does not represent lost profit as people have always passed on games to their friends, therefore I find this level of control to be unjustified and an infringement of our consumer rights.

You misunderstood the example. If you don't have online authentication and you can install the game wherever you logon. You can install the game on 1000 machines and then 1000 people can play it offline. For a game like Empire Total War, that would be a pretty crappy scenario to put the developer in.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Headlining the new feature set is the Custom Executable Generation (CEG) technology that compliments the already existing anti-piracy solution offered in Steamworks. A customer friendly approach to anti-piracy, CEG makes unique copies of games for each user allowing them to access the application on multiple machines without install limits and without having to install root kits on their PC.

Wow, woopty do.. Unique copies that we can use on multiple machines.. and that's going to stop piracy how? How about a unique copy without activation based DRM that we can actually sell? I bought FEAR 2 for $30 or whatever it was when it was on sale at gogamer, but there's no way i'd pay full price for any game using steamworks. Even at $30, i'm still renting it for $30 and it seems like a ripoff in a way. What's the going rate to rent a 360 game at blockbuster? $6 or so..

On that note, I will admit Steam would be the ideal PC game rental platform. Sucks for retail purchases, but would be awesome for PC game rentals.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: skace
If Steam ever reaches the point where it's own network instability is consistently affecting my ability to enjoy my games when my network is completely stable then yes I'd say the service has run into a serious issue. I'd also expect that if that day ever comes, A LOT of people will be demanding answers. However, I have no proof that anyone in this thread is suffering from that issue.

A lot of people have never had any problems with traditional DRM solutions, either. SecuROM et al have never caused me a single problem or headache, and, like you, I'll assume I'm in the majority. You can find anecdotal evidence on the Web of other users encountering issues with it, just like you can go to Steam's own forums (as well as AT, apparently) and find evidence that Steam has a spotted record, as well.

But despite my trouble-free experience with traditional DRM, I still don't support it on principle. My problems with Steam have been quite rare (1 problem yesterday with unknown cause, and 2 problems that were later confirmed as network-wide Steam outages), but because of the potential to run into severe problems (and the restrictions that result), I object to it just like I object to traditional DRM.

We need to acknowledge that there's no tangible difference - from a DRM standpoint - between Steam, SecuROM, etc.

Steam's intentions might be purer, but the experience isn't.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: skace
You know, the 2nd hand market never would have been an issue if EBGames hadn't raped developers and customers alike using it. Buying games back at $15 and reselling them to others at almost full price. EBGames has been making massive profits off of their used game environment. So much so that nearly all of their business practices these days revolve around getting the end user to buy a used game.

And if you think console publishers aren't looking towards alternatives also you are fooling yourself. Why do you think these micropayment marketplaces are so common place in the current gen? They want you using that online market place, they'd eventually prefer you buy your games through that as well. Hell, Steam is a lot better than how ugly Xbox Live games are when your Xbox fails.

I am not fooling myself, that is precisely why I feel that, as consumers, it is time to make a stand. As far as I'm concerned, DRM has got way out of hand and its on the increase, in all sectors. "No rootkit", better, but I'm still not buying.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Golgatha
I like Good Old Games Services. You pay for the game, they provide a download link, and I can download and do whatever I like with the files (within the bounds of copyright law of course).

That style makes complete sense for GOG because it's a site dealing in games that really don't have a market anymore, so ANY purchases are a success. The expectation is that since the games are older and not "hot titles" the likelihood for mass piracy is less likely. The only costs they need to re-coop is the development work they put into getting the game to work in Vista.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Giving away something you own does not give rise to stealing. But wait, that's right, you don't own games you purchase on Steam. This is a new market for companies, it does not represent lost profit as people have always passed on games to their friends, therefore I find this level of control to be unjustified and an infringement of our consumer rights.

You misunderstood the example. If you don't have online authentication and you can install the game wherever you logon. You can install the game on 1000 machines and then 1000 people can play it offline. For a game like Empire Total War, that would be a pretty crappy scenario to put the developer in.

Agreed. This is the reason that I'm willing to put up with being forced to have the DVD in my machine.

@Golgatha: yes, Steam could be configured as the perfect rental system.

I find it amusing that many users continue to state that they "purchase" games through Steam. If it can't be resold, you don't own it.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
We need to acknowledge that there's no tangible difference - from a DRM standpoint - between Steam, SecuROM, etc.

Steam's intentions might be purer, but the experience isn't.

I won't acknowledge that. Because even when SecuROM wasn't giving me problems, it never gave me any benefits to make up for itself and Steam does. I cannot sit here and compare Steam to SecuROM like it compares in any way, shape or form to the list I put up above of the reasons I like Steam.

If Steam was ONLY a DRM Scheme in the vein of SecuROM without any benefits to me at all, yes your comparison would be valid. And when comparing them both, I'd still pick Steam simply because it would be the DRM scheme that I mesh with better.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Wow, woopty do.. Unique copies that we can use on multiple machines.. and that's going to stop piracy how? How about a unique copy without activation based DRM that we can actually sell? I bought FEAR 2 for $30 or whatever it was when it was on sale at gogamer, but there's no way i'd pay full price for any game using steamworks. Even at $30, i'm still renting it for $30 and it seems like a ripoff in a way. What's the going rate to rent a 360 game at blockbuster? $6 or so..

I share your complaints against Steam, but I don't know if the rental comparison is really in your favor.

Suppose you do call your FEAR 2 purchase a rental, assuming that if Steam goes down, you can't play the game ever again. Your cost per day depends on how long Steam holds up. If you bought it today and Steam goes down within 24 hours, that was a pretty expensive rental at $30 per day. If everything's good for a year, FEAR 2 cost you about 8 cents a day. 5 years? A little less than 2 cents.

How long do you get to keep a Blockbuster rental? Three days? Even if you get it for a week, that still costs you about 85 cents a day.

I get your point -- when it comes to a physical purchase with no DRM, you put down $30 and get to keep the game essentially forever; with Steam, you are tied to the life of platform. But your comparison to Blockbuster is actually a point in favor of Steam's value...

I think the point is he could rent the game and beat it within a week-long rental period, while only spending $10 or less for the privledge. Unless you plan on replaying the game (I don't often replay SP games personally), then the value proposition is highly in favor of Blockbuster.

Now games with MP as the focus aren't as much of an issue, but they're still an issue with me. Here's a good personal example. I bought it and played Battlefield 2 (BF2) for a long time, got a widescreen monitor (BF2 doesn't have WS resolution support and I had moved onto other games at this point), and sold BF2 to recoup some cash. Everyone wins here. I got part of my purchase price back, EA got their $50 when it first came out, and someone got to play BF2 for substantially less than a new copy. If BF2 was a Steam exclusive, EA gets their money and I'm stuck with a game I'm not playing anymore. Only Steam and EA win here, hence my statement a couple of posts back about the real reason IP owners keep trying to make better digital DRM, and by better I mean turn the balance of power in their favor.

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: coloumb
Isnt' it still DRM if you can't resell the game?

I've never really understood this one, honestly. I know some people like to do it, but i've just never understood why.

Reselling to cover costs of a new game is the only reason I could think of, but it's not like games are expensive, unlike hardware - sell a $200 videocard to buy a $300 one, for example.

I don't think of it like that - I think of it as being finished with the game and no longer having the desire to replay it again - the game itself hasn't been used up [like a $50 Steak Dinner, or a $30.00 date at the movie theater] - I own a physical copy of a product therefore I should be able to turn around and give/sell/donate it to whoever I want. I can resell my console games - why shouldn't I be able to resell my PC games?

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: lupi
lol, yeah steam is so great; so great that if it was implemented for all consoles tomorrow the console market would crash.

You're damn right. Average Joe would wonder why Gamestop won't take Madden 2010 in to trade for credit towards Madden 2011 like they always have for the past 5+ years. If Steam was the defacto standard for PC and next-gen consoles within say the next 5-10 years, I would swear off console gaming completely. I would probably still game on the PC, but it would be MP titles and 2-3 year old cheap-as-heck SP games.

 

[dguy6789]

The Steam hate is misdirected. People should hate DRM, not Steam. Some form of copy protection beyond just CD keys is going to be a fact of life for pretty much all pc games from now on, so get used to it.

Steam is by far and away the best DRM method there is. I would rather every single game I own be on Steam than not.

For one thing, I can never lose my games now. They are tied to my account. I don't have to worry about CD keys, scratched disks, or anything. I can install or uninstall them as many times as I want on any computer I want. All I have to do is log in to Steam and my entire game collection is there for me to play. To those who say "what if Steam dies out?" First of all, Steam is an incredibly huge success, it has about as much chance to die out as EA does, if not less. It's constantly growing and very quickly becoming the standard for PC gaming. Second, I very seriously doubt Valve would just turn Steam off without letting users unlock their games completely. There's nothing to worry about.

Steam's community and friends systems are great. There is no platform on the pc that is even close to as robust as Steam in this regard. You can talk to any Steam friend you have from within any Steam game. You can do solo IM sessions, chat rooms, or voice chat. You can see what game all of your friends are playing and for a lot of games you can click on their name and join the game and server they are playing on right then and there. I would completely get rid of AIM and MSN if all of my friends had Steam.

In a nutshell, Steam is to the PC what Xbox Live is to the 360, but Steam is free. It is orders of magnitude more acceptable than stuff EA or other companies do like limiting how many installs you have or locking a game to the first pc it is installed on or installing stuff on to your computer without your permission.

Steam servers are almost NEVER busy to the point where you can't play a game, but it really is no different from any other game or service coming offline for brief periods of time to do maintenance.(If for some reason this happens, you can play any game you want offline) It's exceedingly rare when that happens and is increasing in rarity as they add more servers and improve everything. I would say that any random game someone might play has its servers offline more often than Steam stops you from playing a game. Majority of the time, I can download stuff at 2MB/sec from Steam, so it's hardly slow.

I have had Steam since Half Life 2 came out. It has never once asked me to re-do my password or any of that stuff.

I support Valve. They are one of the few PC game developers left that consistently make AAA quality games and support them for a long time after release.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: Golgatha
On that note, I will admit Steam would be the ideal PC game rental platform. Sucks for retail purchases, but would be awesome for PC game rentals.

You may see this sooner than you think. There's never been a good PC game rental solution, but Steam seems to be testing the waters with their "free weekend" promotions prior to a big release or update. I think that's a great idea.

I think the point is he could rent the game and beat it within a week-long rental period, while only spending $10 or less for the privledge. Unless you plan on replaying the game (I don't often replay SP games personally), then the value proposition is highly in favor of Blockbuster.

Obviously. The value is entirely dependent on how much time you sink into a game before you no longer want to play it. My point was that you don't have to return a Steam-purchased game after your week is up, so your potential play time (and the value of the game) depends only on your own interest and Steam's availability. So it's not quite the same thing. If you're going to compare Steam to renting, I would use a service like Netflix, where you can keep a DVD as long as you're a subscriber; the difference clearly being that Steam has fixed product pricing instead of subscription fees. It's a trivial argument though -- I understand how one could feel like they own nothing when they purchase from Steam; I just don't think there's a perfect analogue in traditional rentals.

Anyway, I've always associated short gaming experiences to consoles, where I do have the option to rent. I don't think I've ever bought a PC game that I finish in a week and never want to play again, so I haven't had a burning desire to resell anything. Either I'm not interested in those games, or I have found them on another platform. I guess I've just gotten used to this approach, which is why it hasn't gotten me worked up wrt Steam.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
The Steam hate is misdirected. People should hate DRM, not Steam. Some form of copy protection beyond just CD keys is going to be a fact of life for pretty much all pc games from now on, so get used to it.

Steam is by far and away the best DRM method there is. I would rather every single game I own be on Steam than not.

For one thing, I can never lose my games now. They are tied to my account. I don't have to worry about CD keys, scratched disks, or anything. I can install or uninstall them as many times as I want on any computer I want. All I have to do is log in to Steam and my entire game collection is there for me to play. To those who say "what if Steam dies out?" First of all, Steam is an incredibly huge success, it has about as much chance to die out as EA does, if not less. It's constantly growing and very quickly becoming the standard for PC gaming. Second, I very seriously doubt Valve would just turn Steam off without letting users unlock their games completely. There's nothing to worry about.

Uh. You just contradicted yourself.
You said you can never lose your games, when in fact you could lose them all.
Your account could get banned or stolen, and then you lose access. To all your games. Or it could just be a subset of your games/servers (e.g. all the games which use VAC become unable to join most servers).
You can lose your games fairly easily compared to having them all isolated from each other (not all tied to one account). It's kind of an all your eggs in one basket situation, where there are various things which potentially could go wrong and remove your access to all your games either permanently or temporarily, which is really not the ideal situation.

Sure, your house could get robbed as well and you end up losing all your physical games, but you could lose your PC on which to play games anyway.