Valve's Steamworks makes DRM/Crippleware Obsolete

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: wanderer27
According to the model, those games aren't going to get bought, so it's irrelevant.
In all fairness though, this is probably the same the Companies are viewing it.

So if nobody can buy used then nobody is going to play the next hottest game? I'm sorry, bullshit. Gamers have been brought to task time and time again. And when push comes to shove they always buy the latest and greatest even if it costs $100 and requires them to install it via punch cards.

Not only is that theoretically bullshit, Steam has already proved that untrue with several of their major successes.

You are correct. This is unfortunate as the only language that the companies understand involves reduced profits. Whilst we as a community continue to support them, they will continue to enforce draconian DRM.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I felt that I had responded to each of your posts. I am not sure that you have replied to any of my counter arguments. Still, that is by no means a requirement.

Let me crystallize this discussion.

You: we don't need DRM, all we need is a simple CD check.
Me: CD checks, as casual piracy deterrents, failed ages ago.

 

[evident]

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.

can be expensive to some people man. if i paid $50 for a game that i never played and dissatisfied with (Call of duty 4 plz see my FS thread ) i would totally sell it. why would i keep it and let it depreciate more if im never gonna play it again?

 

[WildW]

Originally posted by: skace
At least one person is starting to get it, thank god.

Oh, I think we all get why Steam don't allow reselling. We just don't like it, hence we say so. That's all.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I felt that I had responded to each of your posts. I am not sure that you have replied to any of my counter arguments. Still, that is by no means a requirement.

Let me crystallize this discussion.

You: we don't need DRM, all we need is a simple CD check.
Me: CD checks, as casual piracy deterrents, failed ages ago.

Ok there tarzan, when you get to all forms of drm have failed to stop piracy let me know.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I felt that I had responded to each of your posts. I am not sure that you have replied to any of my counter arguments. Still, that is by no means a requirement.

Let me crystallize this discussion.

You: we don't need DRM, all we need is a simple CD check.
Me: CD checks, as casual piracy deterrents, failed ages ago.

Ok there tarzan, when you get to all forms of drm have failed to stop piracy let me know.

Lupi, you beat me to it.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: WildW

Originally posted by: skace
At least one person is starting to get it, thank god.

Oh, I think we all get why Steam don't allow reselling. We just don't like it, hence we say so. That's all.

Wild, I'm glad you can't read either.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Protection obviously protects; however, where it fails to significantly reduce piracy whilst aggravating paying customers it is overstepping the line and is no longer justified. CD-checks were enough. Securom and Steam are more concerned with abolishing the second-hand market and this is where the companies become legitimate targets for criticism. Any misinformation here?

But it doesn't fail to significantly reduce piracy, that's the point. While there's no doubt there is a small percentage of paying customers that might be aggravated by various DRM schemes, its also obvious that % is smaller than the difference in piracy rate between titles with DRM and without.

The second part of your argument is also provably false with SecuROM limiting resale as the rule rather than exception. There's nothing about SecuROM that would indicate its purpose is to abolish the second hand market, only to limit the number of simultaneous installations and users. It does not tie your CD key to an account. It does not tie your CD key to online play. It does not prevent you from uninstalling a title and selling it or prevent the purchaser from legitimately installing the title.

The only potential problem with some online activation-based titles would be a ridiculously unlikely chain of events where all default installations and revocations were exhausted, at which point you would still have recourse by contacting the publisher.

Originally posted by: skace

Let me crystallize this discussion.

You: we don't need DRM, all we need is a simple CD check.
Me: CD checks, as casual piracy deterrents, failed ages ago.

All of the above and:

Me: the honor system isn't going to work here. LOL.

I think this thread like most others boils down to:

1) DRM isn't going away.
2) No DRM is going to make everyone happy.
3) Pick whatever form of DRM pisses you off the least.

or

4) Whine about DRM preventing you from buying games on internet forums.
5) Steal your games and pretend you're not a douche bag.

 

[Red Irish]

Chizow, one simple question:

What purpose did DRM on Spore, the most pirated game of 2008 according to Wikipedia, serve?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Chizow, one simple question:

What purpose did DRM on Spore, the most pirated game of 2008 according to Wikipedia, serve?

Didn't we just go over this? Feels like we're moving backwards here. The purpose (and result) of DRM is obvious, instead of being one of the worst commercial flops in PC gaming history, it ended up being the 2nd best selling game on the PC after WotLK in 2008, with piracy rates very much in-line with other best-selling titles. Not a small feat given comparisons to anything WoW-related is unfair. How many other 2 million+ PC games do you think there have been in the last 3 years? You think that 1.7 million number would've been bigger or smaller without DRM? Just curious.

 

[Red Irish]

Chizow, you have failed to answer the question. No facts, no figures, no attempts to direct the topic towards Spore sales figures, just a simple answer.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Chizow, you have failed to answer the question. No facts, no figures, no attempts to direct the topic towards Spore sales figures, just a simple answer.

To prevent piracy, which it did. Let me guess, because Spore wasn't 100% effective at preventing piracy, you've come to the conclusion DRM is ineffective? LMAO. Yep, looks like you're back to spreading misinformation. So transparent, try harder.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Chizow, you have failed to answer the question. No facts, no figures, no attempts to direct the topic towards Spore sales figures, just a simple answer.

To prevent piracy, which it did. Let me guess, because Spore wasn't 100% effective at preventing piracy, you've come to the conclusion DRM is ineffective? LMAO. Yep, looks like you're back to spreading misinformation. So transparent, try harder.

I see, so instead of being the most pirated game of the year, without DRM it would have been the mostest, mostest ever pirated game of the year. That's great logic.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Chizow, you have failed to answer the question. No facts, no figures, no attempts to direct the topic towards Spore sales figures, just a simple answer.

To prevent piracy, which it did. Let me guess, because Spore wasn't 100% effective at preventing piracy, you've come to the conclusion DRM is ineffective? LMAO. Yep, looks like you're back to spreading misinformation. So transparent, try harder.

Yet you're the one who is spreading misinformation and being transparent. Despite the fact that Spore had the most restrictive and overbearing DRM yet in any PC game, it still produced piracy numbers that were, in your own words, "with piracy rates very much in-line with other best-selling titles."

Thus showing that more restrictive DRM does not help prevent piracy at all.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: 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.

For games, yes. I am talking about the Steam client updates, not games. If you can tell me where to turn those off, I would thank you.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I see, so instead of being the most pirated game of the year, without DRM it would have been the mostest, mostest ever pirated game of the year. That's great logic.

Uh no, my point is that instead of being the most pirated game of the year and the worst selling game of the year, it was the most pirated game of the year and the 2nd best selling game of the year. Given it finished second only behind a title that literally steals your soul in order to play, that's no small feat.

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Yet you're the one who is spreading misinformation and being transparent. Despite the fact that Spore had the most restrictive and overbearing DRM yet in any PC game, it still produced piracy numbers that were, in your own words, "with piracy rates very much in-line with other best-selling titles."

Thus showing that more restrictive DRM does not help prevent piracy at all.

Do you really think it was the most restrictive and overbearing DRM yet in any PC game? I'm not going to bother looking back to find your position on Steam or DRM in general, but I think many in this thread would disagree and acknowledge Steam, MMOs, subscription-based services that require payment and link your games permanently to an individual are far more restrictive and overbearing.

 

[Red Irish]

Chizow, Ryan has called you out. You do not have a convincing answer in relation to the purpose served by DRM on Spore.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Chizow, one simple question:

What purpose did DRM on Spore, the most pirated game of 2008 according to Wikipedia, serve?

Didn't we just go over this? Feels like we're moving backwards here. The purpose (and result) of DRM is obvious, instead of being one of the worst commercial flops in PC gaming history, it ended up being the 2nd best selling game on the PC after WotLK in 2008, with piracy rates very much in-line with other best-selling titles. Not a small feat given comparisons to anything WoW-related is unfair. How many other 2 million+ PC games do you think there have been in the last 3 years? You think that 1.7 million number would've been bigger or smaller without DRM? Just curious.

I can tell you they would have had at least one more sale had they not included DRM.

How can anybody really even guess how the sales numbers would have turned out in other circumstances? This is a goofy game you play with the figures. So more people bought the game than pirated it. How does that prove in any way the effectiveness of SecuROM? The simple fact that 1.7ish million people had no trouble circumventing the DRM should be proof enough that SecuROM utterly failed at preventing this type of copyright infringement. Are you trying to say that the 2 million who actually bought the game around launch time only did so because SecuROM prevented them from pirating it? What a joke. The ratio or "piracy rate" is a pretty meaningless number in this context. There are so many other factors that could have contributed to the success or failure of Spore.

As for the other two games you showed as examples... "Soccer Game Manager"? World of Goo? I'll tell you why they're pirated more often than purchased: nobody's ever heard of them. World of Goo made it on some year-end lists and just had a promotion on Steam, so I have a feeling these numbers have changed, anyway. But who's going to browse through available titles and, on a whim, think "Ooh, Soccer Game Manager. That sounds AWESOME"? I bet these never even made it into many (if any) retail stores, almost completely ensuring that nobody would ever buy them on an impulse, unlike other highly-publicized games like Spore. But sure, they probably appeared in P2P circles, where pirates are probably more likely to download on impulse because it costs them nothing. So again, it's about making a product 1) attractive, 2) available, and 3) affordable. These titles lacked at least one of these attributes, possibly all three at any given time.

For the record, World of Goo is awesome. And I bought it. On Steam.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I see, so instead of being the most pirated game of the year, without DRM it would have been the mostest, mostest ever pirated game of the year. That's great logic.

The developer does not give a shit whether it is "the most pirated game of the year" or "the most pirated game of the century". What it cares about it lost sales. If DRM allowed them to sell 2 million copies instead of 1 million, or 100 instead of 95 then that is an improvement.

If I hire cops and those cops manage to stop 70% of bad guys, I don't get rid of them because 30% beat the system, I figure out how to improve on that 30%.

Bolded because we've gone over this at least 16 times in this thread, and seriously, I'm starting to get the hint that some of you are just trolling for responses.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
How can anybody really even guess how the sales numbers would have turned out in other circumstances? This is a goofy game you play with the figures. So more people bought the game than pirated it. How does that prove in any way the effectiveness of SecuROM? The simple fact that 1.7ish million people had no trouble circumventing the DRM should be proof enough that SecuROM utterly failed at preventing this type of copyright infringement. Are you trying to say that the 2 million who actually bought the game around launch time only did so because SecuROM prevented them from pirating it? What a joke. The ratio or "piracy rate" is a pretty meaningless number in this context. There are so many other factors that could have contributed to the success or failure of Spore.

How does removing DRM prove that more people will purchase it?

Why are we trying to prove the logical while you insinuate the illogical?

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
World of Goo? I'll tell you why they're pirated more often than purchased: nobody's ever heard of them.

So it's known enough to be pirated but not known enough to be bought? Does not compute.

 

[Red Irish]

CoinOperated, that sums it up pretty nicely.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Yet you're the one who is spreading misinformation and being transparent. Despite the fact that Spore had the most restrictive and overbearing DRM yet in any PC game, it still produced piracy numbers that were, in your own words, "with piracy rates very much in-line with other best-selling titles."

Thus showing that more restrictive DRM does not help prevent piracy at all.

The most restrictive DRM ever is server side authentication. Tell me how many people are playing WOW without paying for it?

Of those DRM schemes that came as CD Checkers, even Starforce was more restrictive than SecuROM.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

I am not going to bother arguing with you any more chizow, because it is a waste of time. It is apparent that you are either a troll or a shill for SecuROM/DRM in general. In the case of being a shill, it is baffling that you would be so happy to surrender your consumer rights, unless the company is paying you very well to say what you say.

 

[skace]

Hahahaha, so if you are in the majority that likes Steam you are a shill now. Love it.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: skace
How does removing DRM prove that more people will purchase it?

Why are we trying to prove the logical while you insinuate the illogical?

I can't prove that games would sell better without DRM. I can only tell you that several people in this thread, including myself, would be more likely to buy a game if it did not include restrictive DRM. Those are potential sales that have been lost, and not due to piracy.