Support NeoGAF

[brain_stew]

Modern Warfare 2..

Gonna have to back up that claim, because I've never seen anyone else ever claim that and even if this is the case its almost certainly because of some other form of DRM bundled with the game. Steamworks DRM does not require a constant internet connection, but Steamworks games are free to include whatever other DRM they like.

 

[brain_stew]

I didn't know a game had to be released by a big publisher to be successful.

Quit skirting round the question. We've been talking about medium-large publishers for the last two pages. Of course little indie games don't apply.

Edit:

Seen your edit. So you can't come up with a single example. You're not helping your argument here.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

In the last couple years? From big publishers? Like what exactly? Oh, and before you try, no Stardock's games are most assuredly not DRM free, having access to the broken copy of the game on your disc is pretty much worthless, you need to tie a key to an account to get access to utterly crucial patches. That's not DRM free.

Before I suggest these, I know they don't really count as they occurred in the tail-end of the games' sales life, but just to get them out there I'll say that my copies of The Witcher: Extended Edition (after the 1.4 or 1.5 patch that didn't require the entering of the included keys) and Civilization IV Complete were released DRM free at retail.

 

[faceless007]

What does it matter what the reasoning is in anycase? If the DRM argument is settled among publishers, then its settled and there's very little we can do about it other than support the more reasonable DRM schemes (like Steamworks!) instead of the unreasonable ones like UBI's new scheme. Publishers have every right to protect heir games for absolutely any reason at all, they don't have to prove shit, its their IP and they can do with it as they please. They don't need to justify the usage of DRM software to anyone but themselves.

Well, it's nice that you've changed the goalposts again from arguing that Steam has a measurable effect to arguing that it doesn't matter if it does.

Once again, "STFU, no one cares what you think" is not an effective argument. I, personally, prefer not to peaceably and quietly acquiesce to giving up my consumer rights just because corporations tell me to. Will my posts here have any greater effect? Probably not. But if you want me to stop posting my arguments you'll have to convince me it's in my best interests to do so. Not theirs. I don't take the defeatist attitude you do.

And this is getting off to another topic, but no, publishers don't have every right to protect their games in every way. Once I buy a copy, it's mine to do with as I please, unenforceable EULAs be damned. I'll crack, mod, record, reverse engineer, train, edit, manipulate, and do whatever the fuck I want (except copyright infringement of course) with a game I buy whether they like it or not. We don't all embrace the creator-as-benign-licensor paradigm just because we've been told to.

 

[Pimpbaa]

Give it up brain_stew, your martian mind control will never penetrate his tinfoil hat!

 

[Fugu]

Gonna have to back up that claim, because I've never seen anyone else ever claim that and even if this is the case its almost certainly because of some other form of DRM bundled with the game. Steamworks DRM does not require a constant internet connection, but Steamworks games are free to include whatever other DRM they like.

I get booted upon being told I'm unable to connect when I try. Upon googling I've learned that this isn't a universal (just widespread) problem, so I retract that segment of my statement.

Quit skirting round the question. We've been talking about medium-large publishers for the last two pages. Of course little indie games don't apply.

Maybe you have, but I haven't. Almost as a rule medium-large publishers don't release single-player only games, so what can possibly be gained from this line of questioning? We've already established that large publishers employ DRM.

EDIT: If I respond with "none" will you go "AHA THEREBY PROVING THAT DRM IS GOD"?

 

[brain_stew]

Well, it's nice that you've changed the goalposts again from arguing that Steam has a measurable effect to arguing that it doesn't matter if it does.

Just because publishers don't need to justify the usage of DRM, doesn't mean that Steam can't have a recognisable net positive effect on the sales of the game against other DRM schemes. These two things are not in any way mutually exclusive as you seem to apply.

The inclusion of DRM in the first place is an argument that has already been settled at the larger publishers. That's my only point, I'm not saying that's its a smart decision, that I agree with the decision, I'm just saying its a decision that has been made and its not a decision that is going to being reinvestigated anytime soon. Vis-a-vis, selling completely DRM free games is off the table.

From there, all Steam has to demonstrate is that it is more effective in gaining customers than other DRM schemes, and its continued adoption has shown it has done just that.

 

[brain_stew]

Before I suggest these, I know they don't really count as they occurred in the tail-end of the games' sales life, but just to get them out there I'll say that my copies of The Witcher: Extended Edition (after the 1.4 or 1.5 patch that didn't require the entering of the included keys) and Civilization IV Complete were released DRM free at retail.

They included DRM in their initial releases which is the only time DRM can ever be trully effective (and very strong DRM in the case of The Witcher) and that's all that matters. By the same token I guess you could count some of Ubi's TAGES games as DRM free because it was patched out long after release and I don't have to begin to explain how absurd that is.

 

[Fugu]

They included DRM in their initial releases which is the only time DRM can ever be trully effective (and very strong DRM in the case of The Witcher) and that's all that matters.

What DRM was in the initial release of Civilization 4?

EDIT: That's certainly not all that matters. If there existed a non-Steamworks version of Civilization 5, I'd already own it, even if it was released at a later date.

Also, what's the relevance of the time period restriction?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

They included DRM in their initial releases which is the only time DRM can ever be trully effective (and very strong DRM in the case of The Witcher) and that's all that matters. By the same token I guess you could count some of Ubi's TAGES games as DRM free because it was patched out long after release and I don't have to begin to explain how absurd that is.

Oh, I know. I just think they are noteworthy examples of DRM-free games that are still widely available on store shelves, hence the prefacing of my statement. I know they weren't DRM-free out of the gate, and thus not in any way completely relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[brain_stew]

What DRM was in the initial release of Civilization 4?

I own the Steam copy so I don't know, but I assume a CD check at the very least since something has been patched out according to someone with a grasp on the situation. Its not a game that should be part of this debate anyway, it was released 5 years ago and I'm only talking about recent releases, which narrows it down to Civ 5, which, unsurprisingly uses Steamworks DRM.

Its also a multiplayer game as well anyway, so again, its not part of this debate. We're discussing purely single player games here.

Also, what's the relevance of the time period restriction?

Because the PC gaming market of 2010 is completely different to the PC gaming market of 2005 which was completely different to the PC gaming market of 2000. Getting hold of DRM free games weeks before release is much easier than it has ever been thanks to increased broadband adoption.

 

[Dina]

I never claimed it was. It completely eliminates day zero piracy. That is a fact. Steamworks makes piracy of PC software more difficult. That is a fact. Steamowrks gives publishers access to a bigger target market. That is a fact.

First statement is not a fact, day zero leaks still happen, but not through Steam's fault of course. Leaks at distributors still happen.

Second statement is also not fact, Steamworks DRM has been cracked for years now. It's not more difficult then before Steam, as per copy-pasting cracked .exe's or other files.

Third is obviously true, but I'm not refuting that.

 

[brain_stew]

Maybe you have, but I haven't. Almost as a rule medium-large publishers don't release single-player only games, so what can possibly be gained from this line of questioning? "?

You started this line of questioning with your assertion that's there's plenty of big budget DRM free games that are successful. Also, why do you think the bolded is true. It isn't a coincidence.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Also, what's the relevance of the time period restriction?

Well, I assume it mainly pertains to just the notion that, at a certain point in a game's life, the people who were never going to pay for the game but wanted to play would have already pirated it, and making it "DRM-Free" is just a nice way to attract a new audience of people who haven't yet played by generating some degree of good will. I assume that's one of the big hooks of GOG, and the reason why publishers are willing to get their games up there despite often insisting on DRM in everything. At this point, the idea that the Publisher needs to protect something like Baldur's Gate from pirates is already a lost cause.

 

[brain_stew]

First statement is not a fact, day zero leaks still happen, but not through Steam's fault of course. Leaks at distributors still happen.

Second statement is also not fact, Steamworks DRM has been cracked for years now. It's not more difficult then before Steam, as per copy-pasting cracked .exe's or other files.

Third is obviously true, but I'm not refuting that.

If a game uses Steamworks across all versions of a game, then yes, day zero piracy is completely eliminated. Releasing a copy of a game with a separate DRM scheme completely defeats the point of Steam's day zero piracy protection.

The second statement is undeniably true. Cracking Steam games involves more than simply burning a disc for a friend, and the cracks that do appear usually involve setting up bogus Steam accounts, which isn't as easy as copy and pasting a crack. Its an extra obstacle, and every extra obstacle to obtaining a free copy of a game is likely to put some pirates off. Not all of them mind, far from it, but it doesn't have to, anything that reduces sales lost to piracy is a net positive. Which isn't as easy as copy and pasting a crack.

 

[poppabk]

Let me ask you this then- if the games didn't have Steamworks DRM, would D2D be selling it with Steamworks?

I just can't see how they'll compete in the future except on price.

If steamworks didn't install the shop part of the steam client then, yes I think they might.

How else would you want them to compete? How were they competing in the past that has changed now? It seems to me they are mainly competing using the weight of IGN behind them. They provide a worse service than impulse and gamersgate, and yet they are way ahead in terms of content delivery.

Top online stores for (non-casual) DD:

1. Steampowered.com
2. Direct2Drive.com
3. Blizzard.com
4. EA.com
5. WorldofWarcraft.com

 

[Steve Youngblood]

First statement is not a fact, day zero leaks still happen, but not through Steam's fault of course. Leaks at distributors still happen.

Can you cite examples? How does this work? Are you telling me that there was some way that I could have been playing games like Civilization V or Fallout: New Vegas before the Steam unlocks? I'm really not in the know on this stuff.

 

[brain_stew]

Can you cite examples? How does this work? Are you telling me that there was some way that I could have been playing games like Civilization V or Fallout: New Vegas before the Steam unlocks? I'm really not in the know on this stuff.

Sometimes Steamworks titles may have a separate retail release in certain markets that use a separate DRM scheme but no, Steamworks doesn't ever get cracked prior to launch and yes, if a publisher bundles Steamworks with every copy of their game they can completely kill day zero piracy.

The data on the disc of a Steamworks game is completely encrypted and its also incomplete. Once that game has been decrypted and the install completed, then, yes, pirates are able to "crack" it but not before. Why do you think publishers are happy to allow consumers to preload their games, sometimes weeks before release? Its because that data is completely worthless until its decrypted and the final bit of code downloaded.

 

[Gully State]

If it's a steamwork game, the game can't run without dl'ing the encrypted file. That's why you have incidents such as Fallout: New Vegas where East Coast gamers that bought it during the midnight launch couldn't play it b/c the authentication server wasn't switched on until midnight PST. Speaking of which if there's one thing I don't like about Steam, it's the way they deal with midnight launches (or don't deal with it). A lot of games come out hours later b/c of the way Steam updates.

 

[Dina]

If a game uses Steamworks across all versions of a game, then yes, day zero piracy is completely eliminated. Releasing a copy of a game with a separate DRM scheme completely defeats the point of Steam's day zero piracy protection.

The second statement is undeniably true. Cracking Steam games involves more than simply burning a disc for a friend, and the cracks that do appear usually involve setting up bogus Steam accounts. Which isn't as easy as copy and pasting a crack.

Well, yes, but only if it relies 100% on Steamworks, but I knew that already. The last few singleplayer games on the PC that I played, didn't. But for the sake of the argument, do you have any clue how many % of the released games use Steamworks DRM across the board? Genuinely interested.

And the second point ties into the first, since I a lot of games are still easily crackable (copy-paste etc) because they apparently don't support Steamworks a 100%. And I wonder how many gamers across the board won't go through some measures to ensure they don't pay 60 euros. Nor are torrents anymore hardcore then burning a DVD. With internet-speeds increasing every year, burning a DVD seems like it happens less and less. But again, no hard numbers.

In any case, Steam is obviously a strong platform and takes a lot of work out of the hands of the developer, while giving them a huge customer platform in return. Steam is definately one of the primary driving forces that keeps PC gaming afloat. 5, maybe 8 years ago it used to be a clusterfuck of Xfire and GameSpy platforms, plus every developer-specific platform. It's a lot more streamlined, almost like a console.

Can you cite examples? How does this work? Are you telling me that there was some way that I could have been playing games like Civilization V or Fallout: New Vegas before the Steam unlocks? I'm really not in the know on this stuff.

Not every games uses Steam, let's take Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light for example. And even if it was a Steamworks game (like MW2, the last Steamworks game I played), it would still be cracked, but not day 0 of course. But MW2 was cracked very fucking fast afterwards, maybe even day 1. That's not much of an obstacle or a time-delay. As far as effectivity goes, UbiDRM seems the most effective.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

The data on the disc of a Steamworks game is completely encrypted and its also incomplete. Once that game has been decrypted and the install completed, then, yes, pirates are able to "crack" it but not before. Why do you think publishers are happy to allow consumers to preload their games, sometimes weeks before release? Its because that data is completely worthless until its decrypted and the final bit of code downloaded.

That's what I figured. I was just curious if there were examples of elite hackers who had managed to decrypt a specific release based on retail/preload data, because I just assumed it was impossible.

 

[brain_stew]

Well, yes, but only if it relies 100% on Steamworks, but I knew that already. The last few singleplayer games on the PC that I played, didn't. But for the sake of the argument, do you have any clue how many % of the released games use Steamworks DRM across the board? Genuinely interested.

And the second point ties into the first, since I a lot of games are still easily crackable (copy-paste etc) because they apparently don't support Steamworks a 100%. .

You're only citing weaknesses with other DRM solutions, not Steamworks. If a publisher is stupid enough to release a copy of the game with a seperate DRM scheme then its their own stupid fault and of course Steamworks can do nothing to prevent this, nor is Steamworks day zero piracy really worth utilising in this case either.


It still stops some casual piracy though, as anyone with a Steamworks copy of the game is unable to easily distribute their copy among friends. Although, given that easier cracks will be available, then yes, its casual piracy protection isn't as effective either, though again, this is not because of any weakness with Valve's DRM solution.

 

[brain_stew]

That's what I figured. I was just curious if there were examples of elite hackers who had managed to decrypt a specific release based on retail/preload data, because I just assumed it was impossible.

Not that I'm aware of, if a Steamworks game is cracked before launch its almost certainly because a publisher released a version of the game without Steamworks, which completely fucks up the whole point of using Steamworks in the first place. Even if there are examples of Steamworks games being cracked before launch, I think I remember reading that some clever hackers managed to hijack the demo version of Mafia 2 in order to launch the full game but I've no idea if it was buggy and incomplete (it probably was), these things don't happen several weeks or months before release as they invariably do with most other DRM solutions.

Oh, and before anyone asks why I have a decent knowledge about how piracy works on the PC, its simply because its something I find genuinely interesting, its not difficult to do the research yourself without breaking any laws or engaging in the activity directly. By all means I'll link someone to my catalogue of 100s of games on Steam, GFWL, gog.com, Gamersgate and Impulse if they don't believe me. I would take a photo of my collection of ~100 disc games as well but I really can't be arsed and don't feel I should have to.

 

[echoshifting]

So...at this point are we talking about the virtues/evils of Steam for the user, or have we completely abandoned that to talk about its impact (or lack thereof) on piracy? I don't see how that's of any relevance to the experiences of the average user with the service. Explain?

 

[Shambles]

If a game uses Steamworks across all versions of a game, then yes, day zero piracy is completely eliminated. Releasing a copy of a game with a separate DRM scheme completely defeats the point of Steam's day zero piracy protection.

The second statement is undeniably true. Cracking Steam games involves more than simply burning a disc for a friend, and the cracks that do appear usually involve setting up bogus Steam accounts, which isn't as easy as copy and pasting a crack. Its an extra obstacle, and every extra obstacle to obtaining a free copy of a game is likely to put some pirates off. Not all of them mind, far from it, but it doesn't have to, anything that reduces sales lost to piracy is a net positive. Which isn't as easy as copy and pasting a crack.

Since Civ5 was released three days earlier in NA than in Europe it was cracked on day one for the European release.

Steamworks is easy to crack and is not a problem for pirates in the least bit. Also you're confusing with difficulty in cracking with difficulty installing. For the end user installing a cracked copy is the same difficulty as copying a disk without any DRM whatsoever.

I'm just most recently bitter about Civ5. Even despite it's many faults I was looking to own it being a huge fan of the series. Not a chance with steamworks on the retail copies, or at least until it goes on a steam sale for 5-10$. I don't mind going back to BTS since it's a better game but it's nice to play newer things and once Civ5 has a few years under its belt it will be great as well.

 

[arstal]

What DRM was in the initial release of Civilization 4?

EDIT: That's certainly not all that matters. If there existed a non-Steamworks version of Civilization 5, I'd already own it, even if it was released at a later date.

Also, what's the relevance of the time period restriction?

Securom disk check. DRM was only patched out on the last patch, and the D2D version STILL has activation-limit DRM.

This is actually pretty astute. I'm sure you're right, at least to some degree. It is a little scary how quickly it's establishing itself as the one good option for dd. I've used Impulse, gamersgate and Greenhouse, and I will never return to any of those services (except Stardock games, of course). They don't even come close. It's a fair point, quite frankly.

What's wrong with Gamersgate that isn't wrong with Impulse? And yes, you are right, it is almost entirely a resentment of Steam being shoved down people's throats (aka the Steam Sunshine Squad). Civ 5 in particular set off a shitstorm, as generally Steamhaters tend to be people who largely play single-player strat games.

Civ 5 definitely moved away from that market, in a fashion similar to SF4. (which is funny because I slam one, and accuse the other of not going far enough)

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Quotes are in all sorts of order, because I had so many tabs open of things I wanted to comment on in this topic.

tl;dr - there's a lot of anti-steam FUD all up in this thread.

As for Steam, its fanboys have proven to me that even if Steam became a hindrance, they would still lap it up, the same way console fanboys do.

People calling you out for your chicken-little style fearmongering regarding Valve doesn't make those same people Steam fanboys.

I would avoid using Steam if it had ever given me any reason to. It hasn't.

As for the example you mentioned, the reason the other services couldn't sell the game, is because if they did, the profits would go to Steam for their cut of it. It's like Pepsi having to give Coke a nickel for shelf space in a store.

Okay, please stop with the analogies because you're not very good at them.

If someone that isnt Valve sells a steamworks enabled game, Valve don't make a single cent off that.

So if you have a superior retail service, what's to be afraid of?

You don't have the right to tell me what is annoying and what isn't.

I don't think I've spoken to annoyance levels for anything other than myself anywhere here - I assume this was addressed to me, as it was quoting me, although not any specific point I had made.

The Gamespy service- no one uses it because it is complete garbage, it's irrelevant.

Tell it to Borderlands players at release.

Or time travel back to pre-GFWL and Steam where GS was literally ubiquitous for multiplayer titles.

online activations that don't require a bloaty third-party client to run every time you play the game.

I guess you have a different tolerance for 'bloat' than I do then.

I do think some people were playing Civ V early via cracks. Many of them were people who had gotten their hands on Civ V early, but Steam wouldn't let them play it. I'd bet many of those people found out about Steam cracks due to that. (denying people the right to play what they bought). It is as effective as stopping zero-day piracy as other DRM's.

Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'm calling this out as bullshit.

To the best of my knowledge (and I am not very versed in the warez scene admittedly) Steam does prevent 0-day piracy due to its encryption.

What makes it work for publishers is Steam effectively price dumps (which is anti-competitive) whereas the other DRM schemes make a profit on their DRM.

...

While I really dislike the DRM providers, they would have a good case for anti-competitive behavior lawsuit against Valve.

Freeware = price dumping now?

Also, go to the Civ IV mod site. Fileplanet does NOT have a monopoly there.

It was headed that way, and pre-torrent days publishers would routinely put their patches up on fileplanet to save themselves bandwidth.

Stardock doesn't really complain

Oh, they really, really, do.

You're right about D2D and GOG, I'll give you that. As for Valve innovating with Mac stuff, Gamersgate was doing it at least one year prior.

I've never used GG. They sell you a game for both PC and Mac in the same purchase?
Then they're being competitive, good for them.

You also know nothing about how monopolies work- they are what is called a market failure, which means it's anticompetitive to keep them around. I don't think an argument can be made that it's in the public interest for there to be a Steam monopoly- except for the Steam Sunshine Squad-GAF, who would be bitching when prices rose and DRM got worse without competition to keep Valve honest.

I do understand how monopolies work, I'm just not entirely sure you do as Steam is nowhere near a monopoly and even if they had 100% of market share there are no barriers to entry to overcome in the DD field that would prevent anyone else waltzing in and taking that marketshare straight from them by doing better business.

I'm all for people doing better business.

That's why everytime I see an article with Brad Wardell whining about how unfair Steam is and how hard it is for Impulse because of it, I think he should STFU and fix his business instead of blaming the guys doing it the right way.

Anyone who doesn't see how combining a store and a DRM solution in one go will cause problems if it gains too much market share- fails at understanding the economics behind market failures.

Or aren't looking at manufacturing industries where large embedded costs create a barrier to entry for non-incumbents that allow monopolies to become exploitative.

Here's a fun fact: Monopolies aren't inherently bad. Anti-competitive behaviour is bad.

If the anti-competitive behaviour in question is by the compeition by refusing to sell their core products, frankly, fuck them and their protectionism, let the market sort it out.

The problem is Valve can tell people what they can charge for a game, or change the design of games. (In Din's Curse game, they rejected the game due to Soldak wanting to charge $25.)

This makes Valve / Steam special... how?

Stardock has said Steamworks games would be sold- if the Steam sales client wasn't part of the deal. That's their objection- the free advertising to their competition. They also said they would be willling to listen if Steam wanted to sell Sins, GalCivII and Elemental.

So they're scared of competition.

Sucks for them.

Maybe they should improve their business instead of whining about it.

Doing sales that ONLY HAPPEN if you're using their shitty IM client isn't the way to do that.

I'm also pretty sure Steam would have no qualms whatsoever about selling GalCiv, Sins or anything else.

GFWL doesn't include advertising for a rival store in the package. SFIV didn't have that.

PROTIP:
Press the home key ingame.

This is why I say D2D is in trouble, compared to the other services. I just can't see how they'll compete in the future except on price, and that isn't a long-term solution.

Features, Price, Customer Service, using their Newscorp backers for additional benefits (eg exclusive preorder bonuses, IGN guides attached to games, whatever).

Shit, I don't know.

Why shouldn't businesses have to justify themselves by being competitive? That's pretty much the entire point of 'monpolies are bad' after all.

lol Battle.net > Steam at least for me

Oh and blizz>valve

Battle.net is more intrusive to the consumer than Steam is for people who don't want to connect online and verify a purchase.

Which is the biggest sticking point to the anti-steam brigade here.

What DRM was in the initial release of Civilization 4?

Safedisk.

My CD refused to boot from my CD drive because of it, and I had to resort to using a crack and downloading an ISO to play it.

Which as a consumer is bullshit, and for someone elss tech savvy is the very definition of a broken game. It also installed unwanted software on my computer, but unlike the steam client it was hidden a process that I could not uninstall.

Oh right, sorry, that's much better than Steam.

If this is about day 0 piracy (and I'm not saying it is), why can't a non-Steam version have an abridged release date (say, a week later)?

It IS pretty easy to remove large parts of core code (ie Steamworks in it's entirety) from a project, I don't think that would be an unreasonable request to make of developers.

They usually don't have much to do immediately prior and post a game launch. they probably wouldn't even need paying to do it.

For the record, I think CD keys combined with master servers provide entirely effective DRM that does not intrude at all on my gaming experience.

Conversely, I had to buy Half Life multiple times because my CD Keys kept getting stolen by key gens. I have to argue that that does intrude on my gaming experience, especially whne I attempted to play Natural Selection to get 'your CD Key is already in use' errors.

Weren't you arguing AGAINST a one time online activation check like that which Steam offers though...?

Blizzard games all pre-WoW use only a CD key check when going online and the vast majority of the players of all of them are on there legit because it's very difficult to circumvent a CD-key check when it's forcibly instituted.

Yet there are far more players of DOTA than the total number of copies of WC3 ever sold.

I can't see why Blizzard would move to an online authentication system, personally.

A much worse one than Steam by the way.

In the last couple years? From big publishers? Like what exactly? Oh, and before you try, no Stardock's games are most assuredly not DRM free, having access to the broken copy of the game on your disc is pretty much worthless, you need to tie a key to an account to get access to utterly crucial patches. That's not DRM free.

If only Gabe had released a GAMERS BILL OF RIGHTS!

He probably could have released deliberately shitty broken products, and still have people on board. Because patches required to make a game operable but only to people using a specific client are of course entirely different to DRM.

Maybe forcibly banning people from using Steam for criticising them on the forums too, maybe releasing vanity published fan-fic novels as cash ins on the store too.

Since Civ5 was released three days earlier in NA than in Europe it was cracked on day one for the European release.

That's an argument aginst the retardation of territory restricted staggered releases dates when digital distribution allows for global simultaneous launches more than anything tbh.




Long ass post people likely won't read. :/

 

[brain_stew]

Since Civ5 was released three days earlier in NA than in Europe it was cracked on day one for the European release.

Steamworks is easy to crack and is not a problem for pirates in the least bit. Also you're confusing with difficulty in cracking with difficulty installing. For the end user installing a cracked copy is the same difficulty as copying a disk without any DRM whatsoever.
.

Completely untrue and you know it. It also comes with the serious risk of infecting your computer with all kinds of crap, simply getting your friend to burn you a copy of a DRM free game doesn't include that risk and it certainly doesn't require spoofing Steam accounts.

Look, I'm not saying a determined pirate can't and won't pirate a Steamworks game, far from it. I'm saying it reduces piracy by putting extra barriers in the way of pirates and by giving the genuine version several exclusive features which most consumers have showed they care about.

 

[arstal]

In the last couple years? From big publishers? Like what exactly? Oh, and before you try, no Stardock's games are most assuredly not DRM free, having access to the broken copy of the game on your disc is pretty much worthless, you need to tie a key to an account to get access to utterly crucial patches. That's not DRM free.

As for Stardock, they do DRM their updates. So does Valve. I'm fine with that. (unless most of the anti-Steamers, I'm not a 100% anti-DRM zealot)

Stardock does not DRM you when you run the updated game though. Valve does, and that DRM can sometimes take a good bit of time, or fail if you're online. Plus there's the whole reserve the right to deactivate what you paid for, which is exclusive to Steam. Other services may ban you from online, but they don't from offline.


Oh, Gamersgate was doing Mac stuff at least one year before Steam, and they started the simultaneous purchases about the same time as well.

Oh, little misinformation correction.

Brad didn't ban people from using Impulse for criticism. He banned them from Stardock forums. To be honest, some of the bans were iffy, but it's his playground- I've criticized Brad's stuff plenty and he doesn't ban me, and I can be a troll if I feel its warranted. You can get banned from Steam forums also for being a troll if someone actually spots it.

He did ban two GCII players from Impulse- but that was due to threats to/ serious abuse of support staff, and in each case, the full price was refunded. That's fine- it's the equivalent of kicking an abusive customer out of a store and not taking their business. I was on their IRC channel at the time, and that was warranted- easily.

If Valve, in the case of chargebacks, at least gave the option of compensation for what was paid for legally (at current price, not what you paid for it if the current price is lower) , I'd have little problem with Valve's policy.

 

[Fugu]

I own the Steam copy so I don't know, but I assume a CD check at the very least since something has been patched out according to someone with a grasp on the situation. Its not a game that should be part of this debate anyway, it was released 5 years ago and I'm only talking about recent releases, which narrows it down to Civ 5, which, unsurprisingly uses Steamworks DRM.

Its also a multiplayer game as well anyway, so again, its not part of this debate. We're discussing purely single player games here.

For the record, I have a launch copy of Civ 4 and the only DRM on it is a CD check. Also, Civ 4 was a singleplayer-only game until multiplayer was added in the first expansion.

Because the PC gaming market of 2010 is completely different to the PC gaming market of 2005 which was completely different to the PC gaming market of 2000. Getting hold of DRM free games weeks before release is much easier than it has ever been thanks to increased broadband adoption.

You keep saying this but I don't see what significant event has mandated the sudden, universal adoption of DRM. The internet is getting faster but games are getting bigger, too.

You started this line of questioning with your assertion that's there's plenty of big budget DRM free games that are successful. Also, why do you think the bolded is true. It isn't a coincidence.

I never said this.

 

[brain_stew]

You act is if there was ever a time when PC games didn't use some form of DRM. They've always had DRM, its just become more sophisticated as time went on. While you may have a different preference, I'll take Steamworks DRM over bloody Safedisc and Securom any day of the week, the latter only ever gets in my way, the former gives me some useful features in return.

You may prefer the DRM schemes of old but that's nothing more than a personal preference, to many, a one time online authentification is much more preferable. The constant is that DRM was always here and will continue to be here, you just prefer prior systems, I don't but DRM has suddenly appeared from no where and its not going anyway.

Oh, and if you think piracy on the PC isn't a bigger issue than ever, then get real. Its never been easier and as accessible, so it makes sense to adapt the DRM schemes of old to something that reduces that ease of piracy and offers genuine consumers a better product in return.

 

[Stallion Free]

Haha at least Steam has active forums for pretty much every game. Impulse forums are a wasteland when I last looked at them a month ago and the only active area was the Stardock section.

What irritates me about Stardock is it's all about Brad all the time. Brad this Brad that. If I didn't know any better I might think he is the only one at the company.