Unfortunately, it seems that a good many people simply don't care. (See how Spore has sold well regardless of the DRM.)
My Dearest Blizzard Entertainment: Fuck You.
- Thread starter Timby
- Start date
I think the difference is that you know what you're signing up for with iTunes and Steam, you buy a disc and you expect that as long as you can install it, you can play it. Stream you know it's only there as long as the servers, and iTunes you can back it up, rip it, make as many copies as you like to make sure you keep it, but SecuRomed games, who knows how long the servers will be there, especially if it's a flop of a game.
I don't see how this is any different. Valve has said that if the Steam servers are ever shut down, they'll put out a patch unlocking all their games. Similar statements have been made on non-Steam games by other companies and I'm not aware of any SecuRom game that has been rendered useless by a server shutting down.
I'm not saying it isn't an issue, just that Steam shouldn't get a pass. And neither should Apple... because you essentially have to bypass the DRM scheme to do that and it isn't something that's going to occur to the casual user.
Asides from still being operational ten years after launch, yeah.
I don't consider "up and running" to be a "premium" feature.
I mean, I'm glad they keep it up and all that... but they do sell banner ads and whatnot and there are still people in Korea buying their games, so even if we leave out the WoW money they should have an incentive to support the service as is.
This won't be like Xbox Live where they can sell your "gamerpics" and "wallpapers"... the service as it stands now is just too simple for that.
What I was saying is that you know that when you buy the games, but SecuRom isn't advertised, and you aren't told about it when you install, and it isn't even (easily) removable if you no long have the games installed.
I'm not saying there is any difference in practice, but the reality is that SecuRom sneaks up on you, unless you're the sort of person who obcessively reads up on games.
Also, Steam allows you to install as many times as you like, on as many different computers as you like, so long as you're signed in to your account. SecuRom on the other hand limits your choices in that regard.
And I don't think things like Steam or iTunes are any different in that regard to the average user. The average person doesn't even know what DRM is, let alone the specific limitations that both Steam or iTunes carry.
I suppose you're right, but I'm a fairly computer literate guy and I didn't know about this DRM in advance, I'd heard rumblings but nothing concrete.
I not defending DRM on Steam or iTunes at all, I really hate DRM but I prefer to know in advance so that I can make an informed choice.
I love Steam. I'm scared to know how much money I've spent on Steam in the last year.
So far. But a) SecuRom-disabled games aren't advertising on their boxes that this might be a problem (unlike Steam games, which say quite clearly on the stickers you have to remove to open it that they require an Internet connection and that they're governed by the terms of the Steam Subscriber Agreement, and even give you the URL to that).
Rii
Rear Admiral
What servers? Counter-Strike's integration with Steam is entirely artificial in nature. It's how Valve got their platform off the ground, they forced a migration to Steam by switching off the WON authentication servers for Counter-Strike. It's ISP's and other third-parties who host the game servers and whose resources are taxed by the continued existence and popularity of Counter-Strike. At most Steam provides a seamless update service, of course the only substantive update to the game in the last three years has been those advertisements. Valve's support of Counter-Strike would be commendable if it weren't still the most popular game on Steam and a currently active retail product. As things stand, it's merely expected.
Integrating advertisements which blend not at all with the game environment on top of that is little more than a demonstration of contempt for their users. If the burden of their most popular game is becoming too much to bear they could cut it out of Steam entirely and leave it in the hands of the ISPs instead of redefining their financial model after players have, one way or another, already paid for the game.
Last edited:
Yup, I got my non-gamer friend to pick up Spore and she's got no idea what DRM is, and will likely never find out what restrictions are placed on her use of the game as she's unlikely to ever reformat her Mac.
Ideally there would be no DRM on any software, but we don't live an an ideal world.
There's good DRM and bad DRM. Steam is good DRM, which is one of the reasons why gamers (myself included) love it.
There's only two real differences between Steam and EA's DRM. The first is the number of installs. And the second is that people like Valve better then EA.
Steam is not "good" DRM. It's just DRM. It restricts the user in annoying ways. They make up for it by doing things like giving people automatic patches and easy ways of buying games, but that doesn't remove the restrictions... namely: no reselling, internet connection always required and the host server being maintained.
Being able to download your Steam games (including your retail Valve games) as many times you want on as many computers you want as long as your have your account is a good trade off for having DRM to me. Would having no DRM be better? Sure, it's always better, but like I said in my first post it just isn't feasible.
Limiting your number of installs and conflicting with things like virtual drives is bad DRM.
I've never felt restricted by Steam, even when I've been at LAN parties without Internet access I've had no problems playing TF2 with other people at the LAN Party.
And making the software depend on an external server is also bad DRM. I'm not trying to say that what EA's done is good (and I completely agree that install limits are bad), just that things like Steam are nearly as bad. Steam games will work offline under certain conditions... and won't work offline most of the time if you don't know in advance that you're going to be offline.
And to that end, I've never felt restricted by Steam in any way but the theoretical (except the last time I moved to a new apartment and couldn't play HL2 due to no connection) and I haven't felt restricted by the DRM in Mass Effect or Spore or Bioshock (which I installed through Steam but it still used Securom for some reason) either, beyond the theoretical.
M
Meat Tenderizer
Guest
I don't like steam, but it was the cheapest way to complete my Heretic/Hexen collection. I did not need the original executable to run those games after I obtained the necessary data files. Now I run them through source ports.
Depends what you mean by "feasible". Is it likely to happen? Perhaps not. Could it work? I have absolutely no doubt that it could.