|
Post by mysterd on Nov 11, 2009 23:13:41 GMT
My problem with Steam is not that it's DRM. It's that it's unreasonable DRM because it requires an online check for offline games. I'm not a fan of SP games requiring online verification/authentication/activation. Disc in the drive is fine for me on that. Valve has said in interviews before if they go bust, they will remove the DRM (Steamworks). But, you know, who's to say some company buys Valve (and Steam) out and the new owner of Steam will REFUSE to remove the DRM? Plus, we've yet to see Valve remove any DRM or any of that - since they're still in business. I don't see Valve removing Steam or its DRM unless they do go under. I think the only two things I don't like about Steam are it's required to activate a Steam game - especially an annoyance for SP games, if you ask me - and you have to run the Steam program to play your game. Since many games are doing the online authentication even w/ Tages and Securom, Steam is probably actually one of weaker/lesser DRM protections out there - as it really doesn't require OS-specific drivers like say Securom and Starforce do. Steam doesn't black-list virtual drives programs or any of that stuff. Steam really cares about your own Steam account and your password - that gets you access to your games. Steam's DRM itself doesn't do goofy install limit schemes, either. If there's install limits on a Steam game, that's usually up to the 3rd party companies if they want to use additional DRM besides only the Steam DRM. But, more and more companies are finding faith in Steam's DRM - especially since it is good at killing Day 0 piracy - and are removing additional DRM (like Tages or Securom Internet version's limits) from their games or just not even thinking about using additional DRM. Double DRM is a waste - the Steam DRM is enough, as is... Steam does have an "offline mode", in which you run the Steam program and it doesn't connect to the Net. This way, say you can run your SP-based games if say Steam's servers are down - as long as you've already activated your game online before-hand, of course... I do of course prefer NO DRM, but in today's world - we'll probably see less and less of that, as piracy is absolutely murderous on the PC - especially for the big major AAA titles that cost tons of money to make and never recoup. And you know, piracy is just starting to get worse and worse on the consoles - which is a shame, as they'll probably be eventually release date checks, online authentication, and all of that annoying DRM-stuff in due time. The biggest problem I've ever had w/ Steam was a few weeks ago, Steam would NOT load any of the games on My Games list - for about 20 minutes - which was the week on that Thursday that Borderlands started allowing pre-loading (for those who ordered it) and Killing Floor had began its Free Weekend - as the servers were slaughtered. A major WTH? The solution to that problem is take your "blob" file in your Steam folder, rename it as "old blob", boot up Steam, and let it recreate your "blob" file from scratch. Problem solved.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 12, 2009 1:07:47 GMT
Steam may well prove to be the 'least worst' option in the end, yeah. But the viability of the system really relies on Steam always being there, which in a very volatile market where some pretty big and seemingly successful companies have vanished without trace is just not guaranteed.
That, to me, is the main stumbling block with SP games and online authentification. The number of old games I have that I still play pretty regularly but that I could never install again if they had required online auth because the company that made them is long gone is astronomical.
I like replaying old games. I don't like the idea that I might buy a game, love it, then be unable to play it in six months because necessary servers no longer exist.
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Nov 12, 2009 1:29:42 GMT
Steam may well prove to be the 'least worst' option in the end, yeah. But the viability of the system really relies on Steam always being there, which in a very volatile market where some pretty big and seemingly successful companies have vanished without trace is just not guaranteed. I hate to really say this, since I'm not Steam's biggest fan at all - but Steam's Steamworks DRM is a better option than Securom Internet Edition DRM, in many instances - b/c SIE has a lot of stupidities and annoyances with it (as I listed in my previous post to you). The only way Securom Internet Edition DRM is any better is if its DRM authentication check and boot-up check are removed or can be bypassed completely. I do prefer Impulse over Steam, since Impulse games do NOT require Impulse to boot. You only NEED Impulse if you want patches, basically - since that's the only way to get your patches from Impulse games. If you want to do SP and never ever boot up Impulse, go ahead. As long as Valve is around and owns Steam, your Steam games will be there. I don't think Valve is going anywhere any time soon - they are the leading digital distributor in the USA - love it, hate it, or somewhere on the fence. Me, I'm on the fence. I'll take GOG over Steam any day, if the option to get the game on GOG is there - since GOG has NO DRM. No DRM = can't get better than that.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 12, 2009 1:37:42 GMT
True... But I can't help wondering if NO DRM is also something of a mistake, in that it allows the kind of casual piracy that even a normal disk check will stop.
Not that I don't like having no DRM - of course I do! But realistically I don't see it as an option for new games, even though several companies have tested it lately and don't seem to have done badly with it...
I think in the end the best way of dealing with piracy as things are right now is a light DRM and heavy cultural thrust. The more pirates realise they are hurting real people, the less piracy will happen. I think the biggest problem, really, is the vast number of people who think of it as a victimless crime and/or don't think about what they are doing at all.
Changing attitudes will likely have a far greater dampening effect on piracy than any amount of DRM.
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Nov 12, 2009 2:45:55 GMT
True... But I can't help wondering if NO DRM is also something of a mistake, in that it allows the kind of casual piracy that even a normal disk check will stop. I think that NO DRM is NOT good for new expensive games - games looking to be sold at $40 or above week of release. Especially AAA title. No DRM on those games are just asking for piracy up the wazoo. I love NO DRM, as well. I think that NO DRM works best w/ older titles - as by the time a game has no DRM, it's likely old and is not getting the attention as say new shiny $50-60 game. Nobody really cares about pirating Fallout 1 anymore, as its not a hot commodity anymore to try to pirate anymore b/c it's very old and very cheap - see Good Old Games. Pirates likely want to probably pirate say Modern Warfare 2 - it's new, expensive, and requires Steam. I think treating your game as a service is the best way to control this. With constant updates like crazy - even if its the tiniest of hotfixes - what pirate is going to keep up w/ that? If I go to the torrents and find say Borderlands PC, that's right - it's still version 1.0 regardless. It has NOT been even patched once yet by Gearbox - patch is currently being worked on. Pirates have the best version of Borderlands b/c it has NO DRM around it and it is the most up-to-date version of the game - while the Securom disc protected version (requires activation online and disc in drive to play), D2D version (D2D's DRM is around it), or Steam version (Steamworks DRM) have DRM around them and still are Version 1.0. Me, I like supporting dev's and I ain't got the time to download an 8 GB game - when I could indeed be playing a game. TF2 - yeah, has had 50 or so updates. What pirate is going to crack/hack that and keep up w/ all those updates? Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 12, 2009 3:00:08 GMT
^ Totally agree, D.
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Nov 12, 2009 3:19:16 GMT
On another note, I totally respect companies that use DRM to protect their property upon release - then they remove the check. I'm thinking of Egosoft here, guys. Egosoft's X2 game shipped w/ StarForce. If you look at their most recent patch - DRM check removed. Look at X3: Reunion - also shipped w/ StarForce. Look at X3: Terran Conflict - shipped w/ Tages w/ activation requires and 5 install limit. Guess what? That's right, they removed the DRM check in a patch, at later said date. Companies like Egosoft that use strong DRM upon release to try and stop piracy - but then give the company a year or two and then they go that extra mile remove the DRM check - I respect that. Games that are older and no longer $40-50 on the market just don't need DRM around them - as long as they aren't getting expansions pumped out still for it. If they're still pumping out expansions, that game's still active and needs to be protected still - as the latest expansion/DLC are likely full-price now and those are new. After a company's done w/ DLC and expansions for said game and the game's made its GOTY Edition w/ all of the game's vanilla, expansion, and DLC content - and that version's been around the block for a few years, time to remove the DRM. No point anymore - especially if that edition's $20 or less. Should be a law, if you ask me. By now, Joe Smoe is looking to pirate Left 4 Dead 2 (vanilla), not say Neverwinter Nights - Platinum Edition.
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Nov 12, 2009 6:14:09 GMT
Steam is amazing DRM. It's simple and easy to use, and really not that annoying to customers at all. There really are no real complaints you can have about it EXCEPT if you are a person who does not have the internet. That's the only time it's annoying.
|
|