Valve's Steamworks makes DRM/Crippleware Obsolete

[CoinOperatedBoy]

I think this discussion is getting complicated by mixing up what Steam does mostly right (content delivery) with what it mostly does not (DRM via forced Internet authentication, no means of resale). The service itself is pretty sound, but once again the affects of DRM and copy protection get in the way of legitimate users doing what they want with a product they've paid for. It's not just a question of "Is Steam good or bad?"

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: lupi
Seems they are insistent on speeding the end to pc gaming with this crap.

Weird, I never thought the end of PC gaming would be such a flawless content delivery service / achievements / server search / friend tracking program.

Steam isn't all that. It's a big, bloaty program that limits PC gaming. Plain and simple.

"Electronic ownership" is a sham. You never buy the game, it is only a semi-long term rental. Call me old fashioned, but I would rather have the media and be able to do with it what I please (DRM non-withstanding).

 

[nitromullet]

One of the points that no one has made about Steam yet is that not only does Steam give Valve the opportunity to control where you purchase your games from, but they can also disable all of your games previously purchased directly via Steam.

Say, for example, you decide to purchase a game from someone on ebay and the seller delivers the game to you as a Steam gift. You then activate the gift on your Steam account, and Valve finds out that you purchased the game from ebay they will disable your account. No, they won't just disable the game, they will disable your ACCOUNT. This includes all games, even those that were previously purchased directly through Steam.

Now, bear in mind that while not everyone likes ebay, ebay is in fact a legal and legitimate place to purchase goods/services. Is it really right that Valve can disable ALL your games just because you didn't purchase ONE game from an authorized reseller? This is also true if it turns out that you were defrauded by the seller. There is no recourse for you to take. The account is simply disabled, even if you provide all your info from the ebay transaction. They treat you like a thief.

Valve also brags about their increase in number of users over the last year, yet they don't seem to have ramped up any support services: https://support.steampowered.c...php?ref=1223-QROC-4460

Looks to me like they are "supporting" 20 million users with the "leave us a message, and we'll email you back when we get around to it" approach.

I know there are a lot of people who complain about MS, but at least with Windows activation you can call MS toll free 24/7. They also have programs for individuals who mistakenly buy pirated software to report it and obtain legit copies (for a cost of course). Conversely, Valve treats you like a criminal, period. Judge, jury, no trial, and executioner.

Don't believe me...? https://support.steampowered.c...php?ref=5406-WFZC-5519

#
Redeeming Fraudulent Gifts

Never accept a gift from an unknown user. Any accounts tied to a redeemed gift from a fraudulent source will be permanently disabled.

Buying, Selling, or Trading Accounts

Accounts which have been bought, sold or traded will be permanently disabled. This includes any other accounts in your possession at the time of the sale or trade, regardless of whether those accounts were also sold or not.

I have no issues with them trying to combat fraud, but their lack of granularity or willingness to give their customers the benefit of the doubt is appalling.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
One of the points that no one has made about Steam yet is that not only does Steam give Valve the opportunity to control where you purchase your games from, but they can also disable all of your games previously purchased directly via Steam.

Say, for example, you decide to purchase a game from someone on ebay and the seller delivers the game to you as a Steam gift. You then activate the gift on your Steam account, and Valve finds out that you purchased the game from ebay they will disable your account. No, they won't just disable the game, they will disable your ACCOUNT. This includes all games, even those that were previously purchased directly through Steam.

Now, bear in mind that while not everyone likes ebay, ebay is in fact a legal and legitimate place to purchase goods/services. Is it really right that Valve can disable ALL your games just because you didn't purchase ONE game from an authorized reseller? This is also true if it turns out that you were defrauded by the seller. There is no recourse for you to take. The account is simply disabled, even if you provide all your info from the ebay transaction. They treat you like a thief.

Valve also brags about their increase in number of users over the last year, yet they don't seem to have ramped up any support services: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=1223-QROC-4460">https://support.steampowere......ref=1223-QROC-4460</a>

Looks to me like they are "supporting" 20 million users with the "leave us a message, and we'll email you back when we get around to it" approach.

I know there are a lot of people who complain about MS, but at least with Windows activation you can call MS toll free 24/7. They also have programs for individuals who mistakenly buy pirated software to report it and obtain legit copies (for a cost of course). Conversely, Valve treats you like a criminal, period. Judge, jury, no trial, and executioner.

Don't believe me...? <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=5406-WFZC-5519">https://support.steampowere......ref=5406-WFZC-5519</a>

#
Redeeming Fraudulent Gifts

Never accept a gift from an unknown user. Any accounts tied to a redeemed gift from a fraudulent source will be permanently disabled.

Buying, Selling, or Trading Accounts

Accounts which have been bought, sold or traded will be permanently disabled. This includes any other accounts in your possession at the time of the sale or trade, regardless of whether those accounts were also sold or not.

I have no issues with them trying to combat fraud, but their lack of granularity or willingness to give their customers the benefit of the doubt is appalling.

See my comment a couple of posts up.

Also: http://consumerist.com/consume...rnationally-314690.php

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
See my comment a couple of posts up.

Also: http://consumerist.com/consume...rnationally-314690.php

I must have missed that, good link. This is exactly what I'm talking about...

======================================================================================

Customer (xxx xxxxxxxx) 10/20/2007 11:07 AM

Hello my cd-key was invalidated and game removed
i get a steam error
Steam - Game unavailable
Team Fortress 2 is not available in your territory

ok so i contacted retailer to get a refund
and purchased a new copy at a local Circuit City here in Tacoma
but when i enter new cd-key says game is already installed log in to steam
but of course that doesn't work and takes me back to
Steam - Game unavailable
Team Fortress 2 is not available in your territory

so i guess i need the supposedly invalid cd-key removed
so i can enter my new one
thanks

======================================================================================

Response (DougV) 10/22/2007 05:06 PM

Games purchased in Thailand or Russia can only be played from those countries. If you purchased a game from Thailand or Russia and you do not live in one of those countries, you need to contact the seller for a refund.

======================================================================================

Customer (xxx xxxxxxx) 10/22/2007 05:37 PM
yes did you even read what i said?
and do what i asked you to do
guess not

They have a huge customer base that is at the mercy of their on draconian measures and canned-answer service/support. The only reason they can get away with this crap is because they sell games (a non-essential product). If MS or any 'serious' company tried this type of thing, they'd wind up in court. The thing is, they are raking in real money hand over fist, not providing any real service/support, and canceling accounts on rules made up as they go along. Should one really have to become a fraud detective or submit a company's EULA to a lawyer for legal review prior to making a purchase these days?

 

[mindcycle]

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.

Prince of Persia - Released Dec. 9, 2008
Tom Clancy's HAWX - Released March 17, 2009

Neither have any DRM whatsoever if you purchase the retail versions.

 

[videogames101]

Only the angry complain, me and my friends have had nearly 0 issues with steam/valve, and they've always been quick to respond. Also, steam is not bloated in any way, like, have you ever checked your cpu usage? It enhances PC gaming by providing a centralized messaging/friends system.

 

[mindcycle]

My problem with Steam is not it's DRM necessarily, it's the fact that the DRM is forced upon any game using it. If I buy a game like TF2 for example, it makes sense to check the serial before I can play online. You don't play that game offline (maybe for practice), so as long as the server is up it will check your serial and then you'll have access to the server to play. That's fine.

My problem is I don't play MP games very often as I mainly play single player ones. I recently bought FEAR 2. I have no intention of playing FEAR 2 MP, i'll beat the campaign and then shelve it. So in my case it would be nice to be able to sell the game to someone else who may want to utilize the MP portion instead of letting it just sit on my shelf. But guess what.. I can't.

A better solution would be to only install Steam if you are planning on playing the MP portion. Otherwise you're free and clear to play the single player, and you don't have to authenticated every damn time you want to play, and you don't have to use up your serial making your boxed copy unsellable. It would be as easy as requiring steam to be installed when you hit the Multiplayer option in the game menu. Otherwise it doesn't get installed. Obviously that's not perfect, but it's better than how it currently works.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: videogames101
Only the angry complain, me and my friends have had nearly 0 issues with steam/valve, and they've always been quick to respond. Also, steam is not bloated in any way, like, have you ever checked your cpu usage? It enhances PC gaming by providing a centralized messaging/friends system.

I'm not trying to say that Steam doesn't work, just that it also provides Valve with a centralized place to disable ALL of your games purchased through Steam at their sole discretion, which includes selling your games.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: 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.

Really? I think the point of GOG is to offer a niche marketplace for games which no longer are available at retail and couldn't be had otherwise by legal means (not to mention OS incompatibilities). They also don't charge a ridiculous price for these games, offer compatibility with newer OSes, and even give nice bonus items for download with many of their games. I think compatible versions of old games would be a nice target for pirates, but the pricing is reasonable, and there are no DRM hoops to jump through.

On a related note, even though I think their pricing sucks, I'm glad Warner Bros. opened up their vault of previously non-DVD released movies for digital download as well.

 

[Golgatha]

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.

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.

1) Steam = DRM, so lets not perpetuate the anti-consumer rights status-quo please.

2) I never had to think twice about whether or not to buy a game when it was just CD-keys. Also, the shift from CD-keys to more draconian measures has probably increased piracy rather than decrease it. Pirates get around Securom, Steam, etc. just as easily as CD-keys.

3) Steams community features are excellent and add value to games that are bundled with it. Just like something like XBox Live. However, I wish it wasn't bundled with DRM and the limitation of not being able to resell my games.

4) Steam is just as unacceptable on principle as Securom's install limits. It is admittedly less invasive and I don't worry about it wrecking my computer at the system level, so it is better in that regard. The best analogy I can give is Securom is a steaming pile and Steam is a polished turd.

5) Steam servers are almost never busy and their service is pretty good. However, the only way my non-DRM games won't play is if the computer won't turn on. For installing games, last time I checked my slowest HDD runs at 80 MB/sec or so.

6) I support all developers by buying their games if they are good games. I however skipped on purchasing FEAR 2 because of the Steam only option. Monolith lost a sale pure and simple due to DRM. The more draconian it gets, the fewer and fewer purchases I'll be willing to make I'm afraid.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: 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.

With all the games on Steam, I would pay a Netflix type subscription for unlimited access. DRM has it's place in on-demand digital transactions, just not on things I used to actually own (FEAR vs FEAR 2 would be a good example if I purchased FEAR 2). I can and did sell FEAR after I played it through.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

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.

Prince of Persia - Released Dec. 9, 2008
Tom Clancy's HAWX - Released March 17, 2009

Neither have any DRM whatsoever if you purchase the retail versions.

Amazingly both are doing just fine at retail with piracy rates in line with DRMed games. Who'd have thunk it?

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Golgatha
With all the games on Steam, I would pay a Netflix type subscription for unlimited access. DRM has it's place in on-demand digital transactions, just not on things I used to actually own (FEAR vs FEAR 2 would be a good example if I purchased FEAR 2). I can and did sell FEAR after I played it through.

Absolutely, I would as well.

I recently canceled my WoW account, but before I did I checked my billing history... It was over $500 plus I paid $50 for WoW, another $40-50 for BC, and $40 for WotLK, and I don't begrudge Blizzard once cent of that. I knew what I was paying for, and I enjoyed playing the game.

 

[fatpat268]

Look, I don't understand the whole reselling argument here.

If you buy a game off steam, you know what you're getting: a digital copy of a game that cannot be resold. Don't like it? Buy it retail. No one's forcing a gun to your head to purchase a game through steam.

Frankly, I don't know of any digital content provider that allows you to resell digital copies of something. It makes no sense for those digital content providers to even allow it in the first place. Steam is all about convenience. It's nice to be able to pick out a game to buy and get instant gratification (well... you gotta download it still...).

So honestly, I don't understand what everyone is bitching and whining about. Steam's DRM is less invasive then most other DRMs, and is invisible to majority of users.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: fatpat268
If you buy a game off steam, you know what you're getting: a digital copy of a game that cannot be resold. Don't like it? Buy it retail. No one's forcing a gun to your head to purchase a game through steam.

I bought a retail boxed copy of FEAR 2. It contains steam DRM. You have to register it with steam before you can play and it ties the serial number to your account. So yeah, they are forcing that on you.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: fatpat268
Look, I don't understand the whole reselling argument here.

If you buy a game off steam, you know what you're getting: a digital copy of a game that cannot be resold. Don't like it? Buy it retail. No one's forcing a gun to your head to purchase a game through steam.

Frankly, I don't know of any digital content provider that allows you to resell digital copies of something. It makes no sense for those digital content providers to even allow it in the first place. Steam is all about convenience. It's nice to be able to pick out a game to buy and get instant gratification (well... you gotta download it still...).

So honestly, I don't understand what everyone is bitching and whining about. Steam's DRM is less invasive then most other DRMs, and is invisible to majority of users.

How is it less invasive and more invisible?
You have to explicitly run a program.
I'd much rather clock in an icon on my desktop and have the game launch than click to open Steam, log in, then click to open my game and have Steam say "validating game" or "preparing to launch game" and then finally launch it.
You tell me which one is more invisible and less invasive? The one that opens a program, makes me log in, tells me it's preparing to launch or w/e, or the one I never see and have no idea is on my system?
Sure SecuROM or something may seem to be invasive in the background, but it's also invisible to most people too (unless it manages to apparently kill your optical disc drive).
Steam manages to kill my internet because I am on a low bandwidth connection and it insists on downloading client updates without asking or allowing me to pause them. Including when I launch a game, meaning I can't play my game until it's finished if it's a multiplayer game, because I just get lots of lag and ping due to Steam updating itself and using all my bandwidth.
I've got Spore and Crysis Warhead installed and they've never done anything. Steam pisses me off at every opportunity it gets, mainly because I don't have the fastest internet in the world and have to make do with what I can get. Even when I used a game I bought in a box.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
I think this discussion is getting complicated by mixing up what Steam does mostly right (content delivery) with what it mostly does not (DRM via forced Internet authentication, no means of resale). The service itself is pretty sound, but once again the affects of DRM and copy protection get in the way of legitimate users doing what they want with a product they've paid for. It's not just a question of "Is Steam good or bad?"

you're absolutely right. if steam didn't permanently tie a cdkey to your account and wasn't required to always have an internet connection to install/play the stuff it would be much more welcomed.

as it is now the more products being published with a steam or steam like tie in the more pc game sales is going to go down.

in late 2004 steam goes live with hl2. shortly thereafter the copycat services start to spring, wonder what type of an effect that could have on pc sales.


2004 1.1 billion
2005 953 mil
2006 970 mil
2007 910 mil
2008 701 mil



so say that these increased DRMs (of which steam is one of the worst) aren't having an effect, but the number are plunging while console numbers continue to go up.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
I think this discussion is getting complicated by mixing up what Steam does mostly right (content delivery) with what it mostly does not (DRM via forced Internet authentication, no means of resale). The service itself is pretty sound, but once again the affects of DRM and copy protection get in the way of legitimate users doing what they want with a product they've paid for. It's not just a question of "Is Steam good or bad?"

you're absolutely right. if steam didn't permanently tie a cdkey to your account and wasn't required to always have an internet connection to install/play the stuff it would be much more welcomed.

as it is now the more products being published with a steam or steam like tie in the more pc game sales is going to go down.

in late 2004 steam goes live with hl2. shortly thereafter the copycat services start to spring, wonder what type of an effect that could have on pc sales.


2004 1.1 billion
2005 953 mil
2006 970 mil
2007 910 mil
2008 701 mil



so say that these increased DRMs (of which steam is one of the worst) aren't having an effect, but the number are plunging while console numbers continue to go up.

Your data may not be correct, especially in regards to this debate:

The NPD Group has revealed to GameDaily BIZ that PC games totaled just $701 million in 2008, which is down 14 percent from 2007.

It's important to keep in mind, however, that this NPD data concerns retail data only and does not include sales of digitally downloaded games, micro-transactions, online subscriptions, etc. The NPD Group recently started paying more attention to online revenue with its quarterly subscription tracker, but this data does not include that. NPD is expected to release more in-depth information on the PC games market next week.

http://www.gamedaily.com/artic...-in-2008/?biz=1&page=1

 

[dguy6789]

Correlation /= Causation

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
I think this discussion is getting complicated by mixing up what Steam does mostly right (content delivery) with what it mostly does not (DRM via forced Internet authentication, no means of resale). The service itself is pretty sound, but once again the affects of DRM and copy protection get in the way of legitimate users doing what they want with a product they've paid for. It's not just a question of "Is Steam good or bad?"

you're absolutely right. if steam didn't permanently tie a cdkey to your account and wasn't required to always have an internet connection to install/play the stuff it would be much more welcomed.

Agreed, I would welcome Steam with open arms if I could simply deactivate my game installation and separate it completely from my account, making it ready for use on another user's account, and thus enabling me to resell my purchase. I really enjoy all of Steam's non-DRM features for the most part. I just hate the permanent association of full retail boxed games with my account. If I'm going to be expected to pay full game console equivalent prices, then I want to be able to resell my game like I'm able to with PS3, Wii, etc.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Correlation /= Causation

Yes, way too many variables. Not the least of which is the XBox 360, Wii, and PS3 either launched or were picking up steam in 2007. These next-gen consoles (speaking of PS3 and XBox 360) give PC graphics a run for its money these days. Heck, there are so many cross-platform ports anymore, I ended up buying a couple of XBox 360 controllers for my PC, even though I don't own a 360 console.

 

[fatpat268]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
I think this discussion is getting complicated by mixing up what Steam does mostly right (content delivery) with what it mostly does not (DRM via forced Internet authentication, no means of resale). The service itself is pretty sound, but once again the affects of DRM and copy protection get in the way of legitimate users doing what they want with a product they've paid for. It's not just a question of "Is Steam good or bad?"

you're absolutely right. if steam didn't permanently tie a cdkey to your account and wasn't required to always have an internet connection to install/play the stuff it would be much more welcomed.

Agreed, I would welcome Steam with open arms if I could simply deactivate my game installation and separate it completely from my account, making it ready for use on another user's account, and thus enabling me to resell my purchase. I really enjoy all of Steam's non-DRM features for the most part. I just hate the permanent association of full retail boxed games with my account. If I'm going to be expected to pay full game console equivalent prices, then I want to be able to resell my game like I'm able to with PS3, Wii, etc.

Once again... how would that benefit steam to be able to resell your digital copy. There's no tangible item containing that digital copy like conventional game discs. They won't make any money off the reselling at all, and they lose a potential sale by allowing someone else to sell their software.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: fatpat268
Look, I don't understand the whole reselling argument here.

If you buy a game off steam, you know what you're getting: a digital copy of a game that cannot be resold. Don't like it? Buy it retail. No one's forcing a gun to your head to purchase a game through steam.

Frankly, I don't know of any digital content provider that allows you to resell digital copies of something. It makes no sense for those digital content providers to even allow it in the first place. Steam is all about convenience. It's nice to be able to pick out a game to buy and get instant gratification (well... you gotta download it still...).

So honestly, I don't understand what everyone is bitching and whining about. Steam's DRM is less invasive then most other DRMs, and is invisible to majority of users.

How is it less invasive and more invisible?
You have to explicitly run a program.
I'd much rather clock in an icon on my desktop and have the game launch than click to open Steam, log in, then click to open my game and have Steam say "validating game" or "preparing to launch game" and then finally launch it.
You tell me which one is more invisible and less invasive? The one that opens a program, makes me log in, tells me it's preparing to launch or w/e, or the one I never see and have no idea is on my system?
Sure SecuROM or something may seem to be invasive in the background, but it's also invisible to most people too (unless it manages to apparently kill your optical disc drive).
Steam manages to kill my internet because I am on a low bandwidth connection and it insists on downloading client updates without asking or allowing me to pause them. Including when I launch a game, meaning I can't play my game until it's finished if it's a multiplayer game, because I just get lots of lag and ping due to Steam updating itself and using all my bandwidth.
I've got Spore and Crysis Warhead installed and they've never done anything. Steam pisses me off at every opportunity it gets, mainly because I don't have the fastest internet in the world and have to make do with what I can get. Even when I used a game I bought in a box.

You can set Steam to not automatically download updates.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: fatpat268
Once again... how would that benefit steam to be able to resell your digital copy. There's no tangible item containing that digital copy like conventional game discs. They won't make any money off the reselling at all, and they lose a potential sale by allowing someone else to sell their software.

A tale of Tom, Dick and Harry

Situation 1
A few years ago, Tom buys a copy of Doom 3. He completes the game and sells it to Dick. Harry pirates the game.

Company profit = 1 game sale

Situation 2
Tom buys a copy of Left for Dead [read any game via Steam or any game that contains Securom with activation limits]. He completes the game but can?t resell it. Dick doesn?t buy the game. Harry pirates the game.

Company profit = 1 game sale

These hypothetical situations draw attention to two things: the companies are concentrating on Dick [pun intended]; DRM does not represent a method of protecting their existing markets, but rather an attempt to open up new markets i.e. the companies want to arrive at a situation wherein Dick is forced to buy the full-price retail game if he wants to play. However, if Dick does not buy the game, this does not represent a lost sale for the company, but rather, a sale they never would have made in the first place. Harry, you will note, is unaffected in either situation. Tom, in the second situation, is obviously not as happy as he was in situation 1 as he has been unable to recover any money via resale.

When I start to hear sentences that begin with ?you can?t expect the companies to??, or statements that express similar sentiments, I am utterly perplexed. By clamping down on the second-hand market, the companies are not protecting their own interests from pirates, but rather limiting our interests and rights as consumers. Should we really be defending this situation?

Whether or not copy protection scheme A is preferable to scheme B is largely irrelevant to me. Neither system is necessary, despite the fact that they are, by and large, unavoidable in the current gaming context. We may prove incapable of redressing a situation wherein the companies are abusing paying clients in order to attempt to increase their profit margin; however, we don?t have to take it lying down and we certainly don?t need to act as apologists for such practices. There is far too much flipper-flapping applause in the face of a few rotten fish.