Valve's Steamworks makes DRM/Crippleware Obsolete

[lupi]

Originally posted by: 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.

And yet reselling/renting is one of the major foundations to the console market that is seeing $$$ increases.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

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.

I don't understand your point. It's the same whether or not there's a tangible item. If you buy a retail boxed copy of a game and resell it, the publisher/distributor/whoever isn't seeing a dime of that.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: mindcycle
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?

Yea and can EITHER of you even take a guess why? Seriously?

900 games have DRM, 2 don't. Those 2 games get exploited the same amount of times as the DRMed games, why? Well, we can assume those that are used to warezing and cracking games, warezed these 2 as well and were happy they didn't have to crack anything. And the people who normally buy games, bought these 2 and were happy they didn't have to install DRM. So how come there wasn't any overlap? Well it's simple, the pool of games is too small.

If you had 900 games without DRM and 2 with DRM you'd have a different scenario. Because while somebody new might not steal the first game to come out without protection, over the course of an entire year or 2 the casual buyer would eventually realize "hey, all I need to do is copy this over here and it work's for them". When that becomes expected is when it becomes dangerous. Right now, the expectation is that DRM is on every game, I doubt the average buyer goes and checks which games have what DRM scheme, all they know is that in general they cannot copy there game to 100 friends and have them all play.

I'm sorry if I sound angry but you guys are jumping from 1 argument to the next as fast as you possibly can. And not once have you even put in the slightest thought as to why what you are recommending or suggesting is flawed.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: mindcycle
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?

Yea and can EITHER of you even take a guess why? Seriously?

900 games have DRM, 2 don't. Those 2 games get exploited the same amount of times as the DRMed games, why? Well, we can assume those that are used to warezing and cracking games, warezed these 2 as well and were happy they didn't have to crack anything. And the people who normally buy games, bought these 2 and were happy they didn't have to install DRM. So how come there wasn't any overlap? Well it's simple, the pool of games is too small.

If you had 900 games without DRM and 2 with DRM you'd have a different scenario. Because while somebody new might not steal the first game to come out without protection, over the course of an entire year or 2 the casual buyer would eventually realize "hey, all I need to do is copy this over here and it work's for them". When that becomes expected is when it becomes dangerous. Right now, the expectation is that DRM is on every game, I doubt the average buyer goes and checks which games have what DRM scheme, all they know is that in general they cannot copy there game to 100 friends and have them all play.

I'm sorry if I sound angry but you guys are jumping from 1 argument to the next as fast as you possibly can. And not once have you even put in the slightest thought as to why what you are recommending or suggesting is flawed.

Your argument has no logic whatsoever. Anyone who wants to obtain a pirated copy of any game is only a few mouse clicks away from obtaining it. Currently, it is not difficult to pirate games, despite the increased levels of DRM. Less security does not imply increased piracy. Spore, the most pirated game of 2008, contained the most draconian form of DRM (Securom) to date. You are perpetuating a lie. DRM has nothing to do with reducing piracy.

Sorry if I sound angry, but your post, demonstrating a lack of reasoned thought, represents an attempt to support practices that vulnerate my rights as a consumer. In addition, you have accused everyone of being a pirate at heart. There are lots of pencils in offices and I could easily stick one in your eye. Should we remove all pencils to prevent a series of mass murders?

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
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.

Situation 1: (Past)
Tom buys Game at $50
Tom sells Game to EB for $15
Dick buys Game from EB used for $44
Harry warezes

Pub/Dev make $40
EbGames makes $39
Tom loses $35
Dick loses $44

Situation 2: (Currently)
Tom buys Game at $50
Dick buys Game at $50
Harry warezes

Valve makes ... let's say $10
Pub/Dev makes $90
Tom loses $50
Dick loses $50

Situation 3: (Possible Future)
Tom buys Game at $35
Dick buys Game at $35
Harry buys Game at $35
Valve makes $10
Dev makes $95
Tom/Dick/Harry lose $35

Situation 3 is obviously the best scenario. Every buyer gets the same deal so the guy buying used isn't getting fucked over, the warezer isn't getting a free ride, and the guy who normally beats games very quickly for resale value gets his deal without having to worry about it.

However, the buyers side isn't even the biggest jump. If you look, I said the dev made $95, in this case I cut out the publisher, which is entirely possible in this scenario. This means the ROI for the dev is HUGE. He can fund a lot more projects, won't go out of business, won't have to release the next game without QA and 9000 bugs, and can take more risks. These types of things benefit the consumer as well because they all funnel down to quality of product. And, he doesn't have to answer to a Publisher that ends up making a poor decision. How many times has that happened? I bet you everyone in this thread has a game where they blame the Publisher for forcing the Developer to release before it was ready.

Will we ever get to Situation 3? Who knows, I'd sure like to be there and I think the only people that wouldn't want to be there are warezers. And granted, the odds are very good that some of the people in this thread right now actively warez. Which means there is going to be people in this thread who won't like Situation 3 because they actively want to continue stealing games. I'd have to be naive to believe otherwise because, hell, I used to warez myself.

And yes, the current Situation 2 means people are getting fucked over on prices more. However, I didn't take a number of things into account on Situation 2, I didn't include any of Steams special deals. This means their weekend deals that can usually result in massive savings or their pre-order deals where they usually shave a decent chunk off the price. And the person in Situation 2 is only getting fucked over worse in comparison to the 3 people in the scenario 1/2/3, of which there is 0 reputation for "avg buyer" who simply walks into the store right now, buys new, and never resells. This guy is getting screwed regardless of Situation 1 or 2 because what he doesn't know is he is footing the bill for all the resellers and all the warezers across the globe.

And if you don't think Devs/Pubs aren't looking for ways to get more money out of their work. Just look at Collector's Editions. Do you honestly think they made those out of their own love for their customer? $90 CE's are their way to get money out of people and keep their games profitable. As is Xbox Marketplace, the Nintendo old-game service, and all the other shit thats cropped up over the current generation. If you think Steam is doing something on their own you need to open your goddamn eyes because the big picture couldn't be kicking you in the face any harder if it tried.

 

[lupi]

And don't forget situation 4 where pink elephants fly out of the sky dropping golden flowers for everyone.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Your argument has no logic whatsoever. Anyone who wants to obtain a pirated copy of any game is only a few mouse clicks away from obtaining it. Currently, it is not difficult to pirate games, despite the increased levels of DRM. Less security does not imply increased piracy. Spore, the most pirated game of 2008, contained the most draconian form of DRM (Securom) to date. You are perpetuating a lie. DRM has nothing to do with reducing piracy.

Sorry if I sound angry, but your post, demonstrating a lack of reasoned thought, represents an attempt to support practices that vulnerate my rights as a consumer. In addition, you have accused everyone of being a pirate at heart. There are lots of pencils in offices and I could easily stick one in your eye. Should we remove all pencils to prevent a series of mass murders?

Jesus christ Red Irish, did you even read what I wrote because you certainly didn't respond to it.

DRM has everything to do with casual piracy.
DRM has everything to do with casual piracy.
DRM has everything to do with casual piracy.
DRM has everything to do with casual piracy.

Read that until it makes sense. Casual piracy is not the same as the warez/cracking scene however it is just as important. It is the casual person who copies a music CD to give to a friend or let's every friend they know borrow their game. It's the most dangerous aspect of piracy because it can occur on a much more massive scale than nitch hardcore cracking piracy.

Now. Do you or do you not understand why it would be bad to remove DRM from every game and wait and see how long it takes for people to realize they no longer need to buy a game if their friend owns it?

Do you guys realize that a profit needs to be made or nobody will want to make games professionally? Does that concept click at all?

Also. Piracy isn't akin to murder because it's very well known that piracy on the internet is much more common than even petty thievery because of the risk involved.

Also, Also. I have no idea what kind of word Vulnerate is supposed to be.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Your argument has no logic whatsoever. Anyone who wants to obtain a pirated copy of any game is only a few mouse clicks away from obtaining it. Currently, it is not difficult to pirate games, despite the increased levels of DRM. Less security does not imply increased piracy. Spore, the most pirated game of 2008, contained the most draconian form of DRM (Securom) to date. You are perpetuating a lie. DRM has nothing to do with reducing piracy.

Sorry if I sound angry, but your post, demonstrating a lack of reasoned thought, represents an attempt to support practices that vulnerate my rights as a consumer. In addition, you have accused everyone of being a pirate at heart. There are lots of pencils in offices and I could easily stick one in your eye. Should we remove all pencils to prevent a series of mass murders?

Jesus christ Red Irish, did you even read what I wrote because you certainly didn't respond to it.

DRM has everything to do with casual piracy.
DRM has everything to do with casual piracy.
DRM has everything to do with casual piracy.
DRM has everything to do with casual piracy.

Read that until it makes sense. Casual piracy is not the same as the warez/cracking scene however it is just as important. It is the casual person who copies a music CD to give to a friend or let's every friend they know borrow their game. It's the most dangerous aspect of piracy because it can occur on a much more massive scale than nitch hardcore cracking piracy.

Now. Do you or do you not understand why it would be bad to remove DRM from every game and wait and see how long it takes for people to realize they no longer need to buy a game if their friend owns it?

Do you guys realize that a profit needs to be made or nobody will want to make games professionally? Does that concept click at all?

Also. Piracy isn't akin to murder because it's very well known that piracy on the internet is much more common than even petty thievery because of the risk involved.

Also, Also. I have no idea what kind of word Vulnerate is supposed to be.

I do not advocate the removal of all DRM. A simple CD-key is enough to prevent casual piracy and ensure the protection of the companies' interests.

I am not against companies making profits. I am against companies using piracy as a pretext to abuse their customers.

I was not comparing piracy to mass murder. I was simply using an analogy to illustrate that the potential to commit a crime does not equate to increased incidence of said crime, a fact that you have chosen to ignore when presented with the case of two recently released DRM-free games.

Vulnerate, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means "to wound". However, despite the fact that I have increased your vocabulary, I was probably thinking of the Spanish verb "vulnerar", which in addition to the aforementioned meaning can also be translated as "to violate".

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: skace
Casual piracy is not the same as the warez/cracking scene however it is just as important. It is the casual person who copies a music CD to give to a friend or let's every friend they know borrow their game. It's the most dangerous aspect of piracy because it can occur on a much more massive scale than nitch hardcore cracking piracy.

I assume you have some numbers to back this up. "The most dangerous aspect"? Really? Giving copies of a CD to friends is "massive" in scale? No, I think not. The warez scene seems to be much more pervasive and leads to the almost universal availability of new releases to the P2P crowd.

Your example of the music CD is curious. For the most part, there is no DRM on music CDs. Ripping tracks is absolutely trivial, literally one click. And yet people are still buying CDs and digital copies.

Also, if we're going to nitpick: nitch?

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
I assume you have some numbers to back this up. "The most dangerous aspect"? Really? Giving copies of a CD to friends is "massive" in scale? No, I think not. The warez scene seems to be much more pervasive and leads to the almost universal availability of new releases to the P2P crowd.

Your example of the music CD is curious. For the most part, there is no DRM on music CDs. Ripping tracks is absolutely trivial, literally one click. And yet people are still buying CDs and digital copies.

Casual Piracy is much more massive not because they expect 1 person casually pirating 1 million times, but that everyone who buys the game could casually pirate once and the end result would be much, much larger (and it would be a direct 50% loss in sales).

Let's put it this way.
30% of your audience cracks (a huge number in it's own right)
Out of this 30%, only 3% really have the knowledge to go to great lengths to crack. The other 27% just know enough to get files from a newsgroup, or run BT and run an installer.

However, casual piracy has the ability to impact 100% of your audience. And all they have to do is something extremely innocent like give the game to a friend. Every friend gives 1 game to a friend and it's a 50% loss and it scales up from there.

So to understand this fully, there are 2 reasons casual piracy is your main target:
1. It's prevention isn't an insurmountable object
2. It affects a larger % of your market

If you need numbers to understand that concept then you don't fully understand it. However I'm sure the RIAA has numbers based on their casual piracy battle (which, by the way, they've failed tremendously at combating).

Now, I'm going to add this as a caveat. I personally thought Napster was the best thing that happened to the music industry. I'm a big fan of musicians who give their music away for free but still hope people pay. I'd also be a big fan over game developers doing the same. However, I understand why they don't. And I also understand that it would not only be poor judgment but irresponsible of Valve to give away other developers hard work without the least bit of security. "Hey sorry EA, we really thought nobody would steal it". I've said it in the past, I'll say it again. Valve wants Steam to succeed not flounder and die with the best intentions.

 

[Red Irish]

Sorry Skace, but giving or lending a game, a book, or a music CD to a friend is not my definition of piracy, casual or otherwise.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I do not advocate the removal of all DRM. A simple CD-key is enough to prevent casual piracy and ensure the protection of the companies' interests.

I am not against companies making profits. I am against companies using piracy as a pretext to abuse their customers.

I was not comparing piracy to mass murder. I was simply using an analogy to illustrate that the potential to commit a crime does not equate to increased incidence of said crime, a fact that you have chosen to ignore when presented with the case of two recently released DRM-free games.

Vulnerate, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means "to wound". However, despite the fact that I have increased your vocabulary, I was probably thinking of the Spanish verb "vulnerar", which in addition to the aforementioned meaning can also be translated as "to violate".

A potential to commit a crime is all that needs to be taken under account when discussing casual piracy. Because guess what, had it never occurred in the first place, DRM never would have existed. Think about it for longer than 3 seconds. Why do you think early devs had to put messages at the start of their game like "please buy this and support us!". They were asking you because people were ripping them the fuck off. This goes all the way back to the Sierra days, to the days of games on 3 floppy disks.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: skace
I've said it in the past, I'll say it again. Valve wants Steam to succeed not flounder and die with the best intentions.

Then perhaps they should start listening to us, rather than trying to force unwanted security systems, which do little or nothing to prevent piracy or improve our gaming experience, down our throats. Any advantages afforded by Steam would not be affected if they were optional rather than obligatory.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Sorry Skace, but giving or lending a game, a book, or a music CD to a friend is not my definition of piracy, casual or otherwise.

Sigh, right, because you are assuming that the person uses it and gives it back. As opposed to photocopying the book, or installing the game and not needing the cd, or making a cd copy.

The rise of casual piracy came about from the ease at which something could be duplicated. Are you trying to force me to give you the entire history of piracy? Is this a joke? Are you guys trolling me or what. I'm not even sure anymore.

 

[wanderer27]

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually you need to adjust your Economic model a little..

In situation #1 Tom would actually be able to buy another game once he sold three or four used ones (trust me, I have kids that do this).

Situation #2 leaves no resale, so the extra game doesn't get bought = less Company profit.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: skace
Casual Piracy is much more massive not because they expect 1 person casually pirating 1 million times, but that everyone who buys the game could casually pirate once and the end result would be much, much larger (and it would be a direct 50% loss in sales).

Let's put it this way.
30% of your audience cracks (a huge number in it's own right)
Out of this 30%, only 3% really have the knowledge to go to great lengths to crack. The other 27% just know enough to get files from a newsgroup, or run BT and run an installer.

However, casual piracy has the ability to impact 100% of your audience. And all they have to do is something extremely innocent like give the game to a friend. Every friend gives 1 game to a friend and it's a 50% loss and it scales up from there.

LOL. Sorry, you're just pulling numbers out of your ass. I could just as easily say that only one person needs to buy a game if they're a knowledgeable cracker. Then everybody who has access to the copy wouldn't need to buy the game, and the developer would go out of business, and the industry would crash, and the world would go up in flames. But that doesn't happen, and not just because people don't know how to find warez.

Red Irish already addressed this. Your scenario is ridiculous. Attach a key to the game, require the disc to be in the drive. Done. Casual piracy averted.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I do not advocate the removal of all DRM. A simple CD-key is enough to prevent casual piracy and ensure the protection of the companies' interests.

I am not against companies making profits. I am against companies using piracy as a pretext to abuse their customers.

I was not comparing piracy to mass murder. I was simply using an analogy to illustrate that the potential to commit a crime does not equate to increased incidence of said crime, a fact that you have chosen to ignore when presented with the case of two recently released DRM-free games.

Vulnerate, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means "to wound". However, despite the fact that I have increased your vocabulary, I was probably thinking of the Spanish verb "vulnerar", which in addition to the aforementioned meaning can also be translated as "to violate".

A potential to commit a crime is all that needs to be taken under account when discussing casual piracy. Because guess what, had it never occurred in the first place, DRM never would have existed. Think about it for longer than 3 seconds. Why do you think early devs had to put messages at the start of their game like "please buy this and support us!". They were asking you because people were ripping them the fuck off. This goes all the way back to the Sierra days, to the days of games on 3 floppy disks.

I dislike repeating myself, but a simple CD-key is enough to accomplish these ends.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Then perhaps they should start listening to us, rather than trying to force unwanted security systems, which do little or nothing to prevent piracy or improve our gaming experience, down our throats. Any advantages afforded by Steam would not be affected if they were optional rather than obligatory.

There are millions of "you", and not all of them agree with you. However there is only one EA. And if Valve wants EA on Steam they need to prove their system is secure enough to meet their expectations. The same for every other big name publisher and developer. And guess what, without all the backing Steam would not be able to get off the ground.

Perhaps down the line Steam may be able to convince all of the publishers of new methods, however it has to be able to get them first.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
LOL. Sorry, you're just pulling numbers out of your ass. I could just as easily say that only one person needs to buy a game if they're a knowledgeable cracker. Then everybody who has access to the copy wouldn't need to buy the game, and the developer would go out of business, and the industry would crash, and the world would go up in flames. But that doesn't happen, and not just because people don't know how to find warez.

Red Irish already addressed this. Your scenario is ridiculous. Attach a key to the game, require the disc to be in the drive. Done. Casual piracy averted.

I have an answer to this, but let me ask you this, why do I buy games if I have access to warez? If you can answer that, you can answer your own post.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: wanderer27
In situation #1 Tom would actually be able to buy another game once he sold three or four used ones (trust me, I have kids that do this).

Situation #2 leaves no resale, so the extra game doesn't get bought = less Company profit.

Lost sales in your situation 1: 4+
Lost sales in your situation 2: 1

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
LOL. Sorry, you're just pulling numbers out of your ass. I could just as easily say that only one person needs to buy a game if they're a knowledgeable cracker. Then everybody who has access to the copy wouldn't need to buy the game, and the developer would go out of business, and the industry would crash, and the world would go up in flames. But that doesn't happen, and not just because people don't know how to find warez.

Red Irish already addressed this. Your scenario is ridiculous. Attach a key to the game, require the disc to be in the drive. Done. Casual piracy averted.

I have an answer to this, but let me ask you this, why do I buy games if I have access to warez? If you can answer that, you can answer your own post.

Um, exactly. Not everybody is a pirate. Just as not everybody who buys a game would give it to a friend. You've made my point, thank you.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Sorry Skace, but giving or lending a game, a book, or a music CD to a friend is not my definition of piracy, casual or otherwise.

Sigh, right, because you are assuming that the person uses it and gives it back. As opposed to photocopying the book, or installing the game and not needing the cd, or making a cd copy.

The rise of casual piracy came about from the ease at which something could be duplicated. Are you trying to force me to give you the entire history of piracy? Is this a joke? Are you guys trolling me or what. I'm not even sure anymore.

I am assuming nothing, I am stating that once purchased, it is the property of the individual in question and he or she can do whatever he or she sees fit with said game i.e. resell, lend or give it way. You repeatedly mention piracy, why? Piracy can be combatted without the need for online activation. Once again I draw your attention to Spore. Did draconian DRM prevent piracy in this case? No, quite the opposite. Your stance encourages piracy rather than preventing it. I am not advocating piracy and I will not allow piracy to be used to excuse Securom/Steam, the figures speak for themselves.

For the third, and I swear the last time, CD-keys are enough to protect games against casual piracy, without hurting legitimate customers.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I dislike repeating myself, but a simple CD-key is enough to accomplish these ends.

Not a cd key, however a cd check. However, only if that cd check breaks when the cd is copied. Aaaaaaaannnnnnnnnndddddddd now we are back to SecuROM, congrats.

If only a cdkey was required, then I can share my key with you just as easily as I can share the cd. Just like we used to do back in the Sierra days, just like I just damn mentioned.

And you can say "well you still can't get online", oh ok so we are just fucking over the single player devs here, I get it. Then we get back to the argument that the only games developers should bother making are multiplayer because that's where the money is ala MMO#38858574443.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: wanderer27

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually you need to adjust your Economic model a little..

In situation #1 Tom would actually be able to buy another game once he sold three or four used ones (trust me, I have kids that do this).

Situation #2 leaves no resale, so the extra game doesn't get bought = less Company profit.

I stand corrected.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
Um, exactly. Not everybody is a pirate. Just as not everybody who buys a game would give it to a friend. You've made my point, thank you.

Jesus christ.

Ok. A TECHNICAL reason why I would buy a game over warez. Not a feel good Disney reason.