Valve Claims New Steamworks Update "Makes DRM Obsolete" 731
Lulfas writes "Steam is implementing a new anti-piracy solution that, according to them, removes all DRM. Called Computer Executable Generation (CEG), this system creates a unique copy of the game when it is purchased through Steam, essentially using a 100% unique keygen system. It will be installable on any system, but only playable by one person at a time (hooked into the correct Steam account, of course). Will this be enough to satisfy anti-DRM players while at the same time giving the publishing companies what they require?"
Given Steam's track record (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Given Steam's track record (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Given Steam's track record (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, it's not DRM... because it's Steam... but without Steam... it won't run. Or without your specific keycode, login, etc PLUS a Steam installation, it won't run.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. DRM by any other name is still just a big STEAMing turd.
Re:Given Steam's track record (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Given Steam's track record (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called the "law".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It actually reminds me of the copy protection system on ZMud. Back in the day (over a decade ago), I used to do two things that I don't anymore: 1) Use windows, and B) Mud. And ZMud was an excellent client. They employed basically the same copy protection system: only one person on per registered copy online at a time. So if you give a copy to a friend, and they give a copy to their friends, and so on, pretty soon your odds of being able to use it are slim to none. They use the "book" analogy to descri
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The marketing sense.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
because it does not restrict what you do with your copy, just how many copies can be played on Steam.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just in case it's not clear: restricting how many copies can be played on Steam is restricting what you can do with your copy.
Now, I agree that it's a reasonable restriction, sure. But please don't pretend that it's not a restriction.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only a restriction if you're a cheapskate thief. In other words, it's not actually a restriction by any sensible definition. You're surrounded by "restrictions" everywhere, but I don't hear you whining about how you're not allowed to kill people and run over schoolchildren and blah blah blah. Just shut up.
Have you ever tried playing one steam game you own on one computer and at the same time play another steam game you own on another computer. You would think that would be possible since you bought both games legally but no, that won't work at all.
So yes, it does restrict you in ways buying non DRMed games in a brick-and-mortar store does.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what I do. I keep my steam in offline mode, and play my timewasters like defense grid and peggle. At the same time aonther computer in the hose is online doing LFD. I am guessing this new thing will do away with being able to do that, and there will no longer be an offline mode.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're kind of an idiot if you think they'd end offline mode, which is hugely popular. Valve is the rare company that actually subscribes to the notion that the best way to make a profit is to put together an exceptional product and make people like them (I've ended up thrashing out bugs with senior Valve developers--sent an annoyed email to Gabe Newell asking what happened to their development quality for TF2, and was on the horn with three different Valve devs the next day to help track down a bug in thei
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
M-rated FPS and MMORPG aren't for minors (Score:3, Interesting)
Aren't they losing out on parents with minors and other LAN or NAT situations with those restrictions?
A lot of PC games tend to be first-person shooters, which tend to be rated M for mature, or pay-to-play massively multiplayer online games, which require a grown-up's credit card. Many of the games designed to be played by minors are either on consoles or on SWF sites (e.g. neopets.com).
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can only play, say, Left 4 Dead with your three friends if they each have a copy of the game (unless you are a cheapskate thief).
Ok. But if I buy left 4 dead and Team Fortress Classic on my steam account, why exactly can't I play Left 4 dead while my son plays Team Fortress?
How does thinking that is complete bullshit make me a cheapskate theif? I have two games. Why should I put up with being prevented from using them both at the same time?
Can you imagine if the moment you picked up a book off your bookshelf, no one else would be allowed to read any of your OTHER books? Its absurd.
Yes I know I have the option of registering each steam game into a new separate steam account. However they actively discourage this, it creates other hassles as well.
And yes I know about offline mode. How does that help online games?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing in the article or press release says you are unable to run two *DIFFERENT* games on two different PC's at the same time.
Except that's exactly how the steam system works. You can't play two different games on two different PCs online at the same time.
This article isn't even "new" its just rebranded marketing rubbish. Instead of those vacuous linked articles. Read the actual brochure:
http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/SteamWorksBrochure2009.pdf [steampowered.com]
Its pure unmitigated rubbish. CEG is DRM despite what they claim. And if CEG is linked to steam authentication, (which it *is*), then you've got to log in to authenticate each time you play.
Worse, now if you and your son both have a steam account, and both own a copy of left for dead, you have to install it on the computer twice, because you can't play his copy, because each copy only works with one account. At least hard disk space is cheap...
That's a restriction. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me make this very simple for you:
DRM is any digital measure that attempts to stop piracy by restricting what you can do.
Whether or not it's acceptable DRM is a different question. I have Steam, and I consider it an acceptable trade.
But put another way, this is like claiming an iPod sold for $20 is "free", or has "no cost". Bullshit! It cost you $20! You may consider that to be more than fair price, considering what iPods usually go for, but it is in no sense free.
Now, someone else has pointed out that i
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Just as long as you don't have two instances running then your fine so if your computer blows up then you're covered.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The text of the press release makes no such claim... what we have here is a press release that has been retitled by someone in marketing/PR for grabbig people's attention and for SEO.
I bet if you discussed this with some of the actual engineers/designers at Steam, they'd agree it is DRM.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In what sense is this not DRM?
In the sense that it does not appear to apply technological inhibitions against otherwise lawful behavior.
DRM's meaning has become overloaded to the point where it usually refers to technological restrictions which -exceed- the legal restrictions on a copy's use.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the sense that it does not appear to apply technological inhibitions against otherwise lawful behavior.
DRM is about applying technological inhibitions against unlawful behavior. By its very nature, these tend to also inhibit lawful behavior.
DRM proponents often talk about a "perfect DRM" scheme, in which all lawful behavior is allowed. If such a system could be built, I'd be all for it, but I consider it to be impossible by definition.
This sounds more like a desperate attempt to distance themselves from the label "DRM", because consumers have (rightly) started to associate that with something bad.
However, if
how is that not DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
That may be a saner DRM, but it's still DRM.
If you're going to sell a service, then sell a service. Don't sell software and try to control it like a service.
More questions (Score:5, Interesting)
Can I sell it?
If Steam goes down, can I still play?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, Yes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No resell is a EULA alteration of existing fair-use.
I would be fine giving up this right had they also allowed a simple "return it in 24 hours, no questions asked" refund system. There's a few games I was absolutely disappointed in I wish I could have returned.
Re:More questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Try reading this [wikipedia.org] as a primer as to why the above should be scored, "-1, poster successfully brainwashed."
Fact is (Score:4, Insightful)
if you "buy" a game from Steam, they own your game and not you. You are the one who has to request access to play the game(or to play in offline mode) and a ban can screw up your "purchased" game library.
If you want to have some games, do NOT go to Steam.
Why Steam always drove me crazy. (Score:5, Interesting)
I bought the game, I own the media. I should NOT have to connect to the internet, download a client, download whatever updates it deems are necessary. Maybe there's some cheesy exploit I like in the FPS I'm playing alone? You got my money - leave me alone!
It was really frustrating when I was between broadband watching Steam try to download huge updates so I could play the game I bought specifically so I'd have the media and wouldn't need to download anything. Naive me, assuming you can actually play a game you own the discs to.
PS - how is this not DRM?
- The files are encrypted with a 'unique' key
- Steam acts as the DRM license server
- Any attempt to play the game without access to Steam the new DRM license server will fail
- You access or validate the game by a user/login combo
- If Steam ever goes away, has server/capacity issues (which they have, when new games are released) you are shit out of luck to play the game you PAID for
The _only_ current difference I can see is that you can 'transfer' it between PCs and play it. Guess what - you could do that with DRM as well, albeit laboriously and somewhat error prone. Most services even allow you several "free" additional downloads that give you another license.
It's so similar to DRM that this is just a lame publicity stunt.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally hate physical media. I think physical media is a scam on an epic scale. So I'm willing to log in to avoid that hassle. Sure, Steam could go down and kill my game. But my kid could frisbee the disks across the room and kill the game.
I'm willing to believe (at this point) that Steam is a robust enough distribution channel that it's at least slightly more disaster resistant than my house.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm willing to believe (at this point) that Steam is a robust enough distribution channel that it's at least slightly more disaster resistant than my house.
Distribution yes. I learned after I moved and the ISP couldn't get their act together for a month and a half what Steam really is. Any game that tells me "Sorry Dave, I can't let you do that... least not until you report in to the mothership" can go screw itself. I'm back to buying boxed games and using cracks, or downloadables that have a single activation. If I was to consider doing anything differently, it'd be skipping the buying the DRM-laden ones and just donate the money to charity instead. Treat me
Removing DRM, Adding DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
But it fortifies the DRM scheme that Steam already employs, the "one game copy per server account" by allowing Valve to determine exactly which copy belongs to which account. This doesn't give anything new to the user, but makes it really easy for Valve to look at a illegal copy distributed on the internet and say "Oh, this belongs to MrX. Banned."
So it doesn't really obsolete DRM... just other versions that users generally hate. The reason this is news is that it might be a compelling enough reason for bigger developers to use SteamWorks, since it gives them the same power they think they get in other DRM schemes.
I'm normally a Valve/Steam fanboi... (Score:5, Interesting)
But this is pure marketing BS. They are making DRM obsolete by... using DRM! Plus, this is exactly the same scheme of DRM that is already in use: Encrypt a program and then only decrypt it when provided a valid key. Then provide the key, thus completely negating the point of encrypting the program. After all, Steam has to unpack the executable to run it, and at that point all a black hatter has to do is come up with a way to snatch the decrypted version during that.
This is SecureROM 2.0. The only difference is instead of a 'unique, unduplicateable, ID per CD' it's now a 'unique, unduplicateable, ID per account'.
On the other hand, since I am a Steam fanboi, I hope this particular marking BS manages to convince more publishers to go this route rather than the SecureROM/CD route. Being able to redownload a game whenever I want to install it, wherever I want to install it, is far better than "opps, your machine crashed twice so now your CD is worthless because you only had two installs allowed".
Smart Move (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as the rabid "It's still DRM" crowd either
a) Get's over their kneejerk reaction
b) Get's ignored since they don't buy games anyway
c) Get's distracted by the next Sony DRM debacle
people will realize that this is exactly what the industry needs. MMO's don't have (much) of a piracy problem, but game developers that want to just sell software need help. DRM has failed not because the concept is flawed, it's not, but because the implementations have been silly. The idea that you can create a procedure and have it work without change forever is simply a waste of money. I can already think of several methods of lying to this kind of system, but Steam makes things harder just by combining a form of file check along with a log on to a remote server. To "lie" you will have to convince Steam that are a registered user, have permission to run the game you want to pirate, and your file(s) matches the CRC or other check they do. Once someone figures that out, or even _gasp_ before, they can add another check (or set of checks) to make things more difficult.
Many imperfect walls > 1 (supposedly) perfect one
Re:Smart Move (Score:4, Insightful)
Quit abusing the apostrophe.
Oxymoron of the day (Score:3, Insightful)
Steam leaves me cold. (Score:3, Insightful)
I check games carefully before purchasing them now and avoid all those that require the use of the Steam service. This comes after purchasing a few games that became unusable after a few weeks (or less than a day) with errors about invalid serial numbers. Perhaps region coding incompatible with my Geographically Canadian IP, perhaps the misfortune of matching with one of the warez distributions or key-gens. But all unresolvable without me delivering images of the retail receipt and manual / number card to Steam. As there is no reason to save the receipt for software purchase as opened packages are non-returnable, this was impossible.
Individually cryptographically signed executables is absolutely DRM. It, like every other copy-protection scheme, will only be relevant for online play, or if single player games require a handshake with some server system before use. (Which would limit their lifespan.) The best way to discourage piracy is to lower prices. You may not reduce the number of unlicensed copies around the world, but you will assuredly increase the number of customers you have.
NO! (Score:3, Interesting)
It will be installable on any system, but only playable by one person at a time (hooked into the correct Steam account, of course). Will this be enough to satisfy anti-DRM players while at the same time giving the publishing companies what they require?"
They might as well keep DRM, the new system is pretty much the same thing.
I am still a slave to STEAM.
1) If I don't have STEAM on my other computer I can not play it.
2) If I am not connected to the Internet with my other computer I can not play it.
3) If Valve goes belly up I can no longer play my games
Not going to happen, keep your games and your online validation / DRM shit. I will only purchase games without it or none at all.
Worse than traditional DRM. (Score:4, Insightful)
Traditional DRM meant the disk was protected, but I could still install it and play it on any computer in my house.
I could install it on an unconnected laptop at the cottage and play...
This is one of those totally dependant on the DRM servers, type DRM. It is even worse IMO.
This is game rental, not purchase.
Sign me up! (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's what I really like about Steam:
- I can move computers or reinstall as I wish. I can play a game "delete" it, and later on, reinstall it - just load the main game file and go. No install and reinstall idiocy. If I need to clear up some HD space, I can delete the game main game file in a few seconds and poof - 4 or 5 gigs free.
If I have to reinstall my OS, I don't have to play CD or DVD shuffling and look for CD keys and other idiocy. I just install the steam client, validate, and hit "stun" and let it d/l all 40-50 gigs of junk overnight. Note - you can also back up your steam apps directory and toss the compressed files back in with a reinstalled OS. It'll check and validate and you're good to go. With DVDs, you're SOL - because it has to do all sorts of tweaking and stuff with the registry. Steam does this for you. Nice.
- None of UbiSoft's or EA or Sony's malware DRM rootkits. I'd rather have one app that checks to see if I'm who I am(perfectly reasonable, IMO). No CD crippling software, no nonsense that mangles my DirectX. In fact, I'll only buy games from those three PITA companies when it comes out on Steam.
- Updating and patches and support is quick - often in hours or days to fix loading bugs and sound issues. Patches the game for you, as well. Always up to date if you wish.
- As easy as Direct2Drive(another company I also like) to order and buy from. Good prices, too. Often better than the local game store, due to nearly daily promotions and specials. No boxes cluttering up my desk, either. Case in point - last night, Assassin's Creed was a paltry $10. Latest director's cut version, all the goodies. Just buy, D/L, and run an hour later.
- Loads of older games that were impossible to run on Vista from the W2K/W98 era. Many are well worth playing, even today.
- Movie trailers and so on are MUCH easier to manage and less spammy than the major websites and places like Apple. HD trailers are a snap as well to d/l and clearly tell you the resolution and quality up front. Having to watch a trailer online in a little box at most sites is a major hassle.
Cons:
- It sits in the background and hogs resources. Impossible to play even HL via Steam versus the original standalone boxed game cleanly unless you have a dual core processor. My old P3 could run HL1 without stuttering. My P4 couldn't. My dual-core now is fine, but really...
- Many AV and Net monitoring/firewall apps just have a fit with it.
- Loads new content and patches and so on sometimes in the background without me ever allowing it.
- Worries about not being able to access my programs. But given the money Valve is making, I suspect it'll be around for at least 10-20 more years.
Re:Steam (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
Who has said this? Steam?
Next up: "When CD sales go back up, we promise to quit suing people, RIAA"
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
"When CD sales go back up, we promise to quit suing people, RIAA"
"When the terrorists are defeated, we promise to give you your civil liberties back" - governments everywhere.
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
It responds to the parent, who responds to the grandparent.
It is drawing an analogy to highlight the flaw in the reasoning that a person can be trusted to return power which is given to them.
It might be a little over dramatic to compare it to the terrorism situation, but the point is that it is utterly naive to assume that when you hand your rights over to someone else for "safekeeping" on their say-so that they will return them to you in due course.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
In which case, Steam gets mad sales like these [vgchartz.com], both Steam and consumer walk away happy. I've been using Steam to purchase games for quite a while now and am a very happy customer. Most of the time I wait until a game hits the 'bargain bin'. For the price I pay, I can't understand what there is to gripe about...
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
That's probably because you are paying in dollars.
I stopped shopping games in steam when they forced us to use Euros - but did the conversion 1:1.
Re:Steam (Score:5, Interesting)
That's because the negative points about Steam haven't affected you yet.
I to was a happy, naive steam user since it's release who would similarly have praised it up until a few weeks ago when they fucked me with their Dawn of War II DRM.
Now I realise how flawed Steam actually is and that at any time they could revoke my ability to re-install the game, the fact I have a boxed copy bought from a shop but because I have to activate by Steam I will never be able to sell on that boxed copy 2nd hand.
I wish I hadn't been so naive now, because it's naivety like yours (and formerly like mine) as to how bad Steam actually is that's allowing it to gain traction and become ever more evil and problematic.
I was buying games in US dollars on there not so long ago with a $2 US to the £ exchange rate and now I'm suddenly seeing games the same as UK shop RRPs like £39.99 so I'm being forced to pay much more than people abroad for the same product, the same as I'd pay for a boxed copy in the UK but without getting it boxed and can't sell it on second hand. The net is already tightening with Steam, they've already upped costs, they're already imposing control over games bought outside of Steam and not developed by Valve if companies wish to also have their game available on Steam as well.
Make no mistake, Valve are the new EA and whilst like you, millions would say "Well I've never had a problem with Spore", they will when they install it a 5th time and don't know where to find the patch to remove that limitation, unfortunately with Valve, there is no patch, well, not official ones anyway.
I liked Valve when they just developed the Half-Life series etc. but as a company that is now leveraging the prominence of their system to gain control over games sold outside their distribution channel such as retail shops, as a company that's artificially increasing prices, as a company that's destroying people's legal right to sell on games second hand and as a company that's imposing artificial restrictions on when people can and can't install their game? I'll pass thanks.
The countless flaws with Steam haven't effected you yet, but as the net tightens they will. Their practices are anti-competitive, controlling and hence harmful to the customer.
What makes the whole situation worse is that Valve have built themselves an army of fanboys more rabid than even Steve Jobs has managed that cry about how they hate DRM one minute but give all the support in the world to Valve who are the joint worst DRM offenders in the whole industry with EA right now. Why? Because Gabe Newell tells us he hates DRM so that people bow down whilst he's simultaneously enforcing some of the most limiting DRM in the software world on people?
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
Gabe Newell tells us he hates DRM so that people bow down whilst he's simultaneously enforcing some of the most limiting DRM in the software world on people?
Some would argue that it's actually one of the least limiting forms of DRM in the software world. You can play your games anywhere, on any PC and download them as many times as you want. Configs and savegames (separate from DRM I know) are portable and stored remotely so it's even less hassle for you.
But don't let me stop you ranting...
Re:Steam (Score:4, Insightful)
Well I suppose you could consider it the least limiting if you ignore all the limitations but that doesn't make a lot of sense now does it?
Valve DRM:
- Limits when you can activate the game, if Valve ever goes bust and hence doesn't release a patch you'll never be able to activate your game again. Any problem with their activation servers will too prevent you from activating and hence playing a game you've purchased.
- Need to activate to play online, in the above scenario you could crack it to allow activation but will likely be unable to play online still
- Can't sell your games on second hand
- Prevents you playing games offline
- Forces you to have Steam on your system to be able to play a game that doesn't use Steam's features even if you bought it outside of Steam's distribution channel
- Forces you to accept updates to be able to play (What if you come home, want to play a game you've bought but find you have to download a 100mb+ update and you have to pay for your bandwidth because it's capped like many people in the UK do?)
Effectively whilst most classic DRM can be used to prevent people copying game disks, it does at very least allow continued ownership of the product, the ability to install it at will even after the company has gone bust and still allows you to sell the product on second hand, Steam removes the product from your control entirely even if you have purchased the actual physical media in a shop. Valve also can prevent activation of a product you didn't even buy from them as happened with me with DoW2, I purchased it from GAME but Valve initially prevented me from activating even though according to the box my only transaction with Valve should have been to register (not activate) with them.
Ignoring the limitations imposed by Steam's DRM does not mean that they are not there.
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
Implemtation costs of those tecnhical measures ARE the costs of taking advantage of the global market. What other costs of global markets would you have them assume?
Are you still considering their product to be a good? It's not -- it's a service. Reconsider your opinions in that light, and it will come clear to you.
Hruh? What market forces are they taking out of the equation? This is how economic transactions work -- if you deem the value of what they are selling to be equal or higher to the price they offer, you buy.
If Steam sales suck, then game producers will use a different distribution channel. If Steam sales are good, then obviously the value they provide for the price they are charging is not a problem.
People just need to factor in everything when they make a purchase decision. I prefer not to buy games via Steam, first because I don't play enough to warrant their prices... But also because when I do buy games, it's more important to me that they are unencumbered by an activation protocol. The pain of dealing with an activation protocol (and the risk it involves) decreases the value (to me) of games sold via Steam. So if a game was $10 cheaper on Steam, I'd still rather buy it elsewhere... and if the game isn't offered elsewhere, I'll buy a different game.
Re:Steam (Score:4, Insightful)
Implemtation costs of those tecnhical measures ARE the costs of taking advantage of the global market. What other costs of global markets would you have them assume?
Well, for one thing, it doesn't make any sense. If I sell the same game in say, Europe for twice as much as in the USA for the same game, that is taking advantage of it without any other costs. Technical measures are simply there so someone in Europe doesn't figure out about this price gouging and change their region to the USA. Now, if you are going to release a game in China, you have to translate it into Chinese, this would raise prices and it would be justified, but similarly, you don't need technical measures because unless someone knows Chinese, they aren't going to want to buy it, even if it is somehow cheaper. Similarly, the ordinary person who speaks Chinese isn't going to get the English version even if it is cheaper.
Region locking when it is the exact same code is equivalent to price gouging. Now, when there are some things that need to be changed (language, technical format of PAL vs NTSC, etc) it isn't, but when the exact same code is electronically delivered to Europe for twice as much and the same code costs less when electronically delivered to North America, it is nothing more than glorified price gouging.
Re:Steam (Score:5, Interesting)
But there are also very good reasons for not allowing enforcement of pricing policies with technology that prohibits legitimate use and further trade. Let's say I own 400 DVD (which I do) and then I move to Australia (which I might) -- none of my DVDs will play on the devices available there. Even if I take a player with me I'll never be able to replace it without having one shipped in from the US (which I'm sure the MPAA would also like to outlaw). The content producer doesn't even have a legitimate interest in a pricing differential at this point, because I've already bought their content at the prices they set in the segmented market; at this point it's either a scam to make me re-buy the same content or an insidious infringement on my legitimate use of content I have license to view.
And that's not even to point out the limitation of secondary-market sales and other legitimate uses that, if executed, may not reduce the primary-market sales one iota but which are prevented by region-locking. Or the fact that as a primary-market customer I should be free to make my own choice as to whether I want to preserve the regional pricing differential or mitigate it through my secondary-market sales -- that isn't a decision we should allow content producers to make for us.
Re:Steam (Score:5, Informative)
Just so you know, region locked DVD players were deemed illegal by the high court of Australia so all players sold here are able to play DVDs from any region. For once the Australian legal system got something right.
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you still considering their product to be a good? It's not -- it's a service. Reconsider your opinions in that light, and it will come clear to you.
That is exactly the problem. I buy games. I don't rent them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
$40-60 would be somewhat excessive for an old game, and so long as Steam continues to exist you wouldn't have to re-buy, so it's not a rental in that sense.
Sure. Really, I was replying to the guy that implied rentals were acceptable because games often don't get replayed.
What Steam amounts to is an indefinite rental. Right now, if I don't specifically go offline (and apparently clear it with Steam's servers), then the game would still be unplayable if they turned the servers off tomorrow. I've got no real expectation that they'll let me know ahead of time that they're turning things off. And keeping a copy of the installed files is a bit different from keep
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, yeah, kinda... they've been known to disable accounts and access to games that people paid for arbitrarily.
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
And when Steam places an access-control removal patch under 3rd party escrow to be released upon loss of the servers due to whatever reason, or to be released upon a significant change in terms of access (such as going to a pay-per-month for Steam access scheme), then I would believe them.
Until then?
It's simply feel-good words with nothing to back them.
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
On that particular topic, your opinion is just as valid as the opinion of those of us who choose to take them at their word. You have no evidence other than your gut feeling that they would renege, we have no evidence other than our gut feeling that the'll honor the promise.
But, on the other hand, there are a number of people who act as if we are required to take their opinion as if it were the Gospel Truth. Please don't make the mistake that just because it seems so clear to you, it seems anything less than insulting pessimisim to us.
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
If Valve goes out of business, their property will be turned over to creditors, and they might not even be able to make the choice themselves. The cheapest option for the creditors would always be to simply shut off the servers rather than wasting time and bandwidth creating and distributing a mythical "no phone home" patch. That's a realistic view of what happens when a company goes out of business. Even if you believe Valve is totally honest, it will probably not be up to them if it ever comes to that.
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's just as illegal as pirating them in the first place...
and I won't feel bad about it at all... Unlike if I had never paid for it in the first place.
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
If Valve goes into receivership, then one of the things that would happen would be their assets would come under the control of a trust established to do it's best to get the most value out of the assets. While the cheapest option in the short term might be turn it all off, it would not be the likely option taken as that would immediately destroy the intrinsic value of the Steam network Valve has built. In addition, unless something drastically changed between now and this mythical doomsday (and part of the reason why some of us aren't as worried as you is that we don't accept the premise that this day will ever come, just like some of us aren't stocking up for 2012), the ability to sell this network to another company would have enough weight with the trustee that any attempt to turn off the network would be met with some fairly stiff resistance.
The other option, Valve being sold without going bankrupt, still has the issue that a number of people have in fact purchased games on Steam. Whomever purchased the company might think they could swing simply turning off the servers (if they were idiots, given Steam is currently one of the largest assets Valve has) but an attempt to do so would likely be met with a class action lawsuit meant to determine once and for all if the games were just 'rented' or actually purchased.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
their assets would come under the control of a trust established to do it's best to get the most value out of the assets
A.K.A a liquidation auction or firesale. Microsoft would buy it - at any cost - and link it into GFWL.
The only reason that I buy games on Steam is because I reckon Valve will stick around for at least the next ten years. Chances are any games I buy physically I'll have either lost or destroyed by then anyway so at the very least it's not worse than buying discs.
If they don't lose their heads and carry on as they are then they should be able to carry on indefinitely, making this a moot point. I don't think t
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
You're backing up the reason for my post... :)
What you're saying that you're willing to take them at thier word and believe that you are thus purchasing a product (albiet one where doctrine of first-sale does not apply...)
You're also saying that my position is equally as valid. That you can choose to distrust the fulfillment of thier promise, and not purchase based upon that distrust.
What the poster that I was replying to was saying is that I and the OP should be willing to buy the product because of an unsubstantiated promise, and that our position is one without merit.
You're saying something quite different :)
And to elaborate on my position, I feel that the people who made the promise have every intention of keeping it. However, what if the company is sold? What if it goes to bankruptcy and the creditors (and judge) rule that developing and/or releasing such a patch is a misuse of funds and not allowable? There's a lot of situations where such a patch is never released regardless of intentions. I'd like a guarantee. (such as a patch that's maintained in escrow)
Re:Steam (Score:4, Insightful)
In my reply to another commenter, I've described what I would see happening if it were ever come to bankruptcy or Valve out and out being sold.
But at the end of it all, we both seem to agree with the basic premise that the people who've made the promise intend to keep it. Where we disagree is their ability to do so.
At that point, I concede that they may some day be in a position that they wouldn't be able to. On the other hand, as a rebuttal to that, I would say that I don't see that day coming at any point in time where this discussion would still be relevant.
By the time Steam becomes defunct, if it were to, I would posit we'd be to the point where these games would require a VM to run anyway. The majority of them will be defunct purely by the virtue that they are solely multiplayer and have no servers/players left and the rest will be playable indefinitely via the currently available offline mode.
And in reality, Valve isn't a startup anymore. Half-Life was released a decade ago. The whole "will they or won't they" question concerning Valve's viability as a corporation seems fairly well decided in the "will they" category. If they were to fall, it would likely be a fairly well foreshadowed fall, with plenty of time for all involved to make their own arrangements.
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
So yes, from the objective facts we have available, probability is strongly on the side of Valve NOT being able to meet your hopes. But this is a free country (assuming you live in the US); you're free to put your faith anywhere you like.
Re:Steam (Score:4, Insightful)
And when you get a new computer next year and Valve is no longer around?
mmm... good luck with that.
Re:Steam (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even works on a flash drive, if you have a big enough one.
L4D load times dropped a ton when I threw it on an 8GB flash drive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If any game sold on Steam exhibits this kind of behavior, it is because the game uses an additional form of DRM. Use of additional DRM is a decision made by the publishers of the game, not Valve, and Valve doesn't use any additional DRM on ANY of the games in their own catalog.
In fact, the ENTIRE point of the article was Valve trying to convince other companies that they don't NEED additional DRM on Steam.
By "personalizing" each copy of
Re:Steam (Score:5, Insightful)
Valve's solution here is still DRM and it's still unacceptable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like proof that value has secured permission to remove copy protection from all games from all companies they sell games for in the event they are forced to shut down steam. (Or choose to shut down steam).
It's not just values games on steam you know.
Re:Steam (Score:4, Interesting)
if Steam's servers are taken offline, access controls will be removed.
Very interesting. Has any other game company announced ahead of time that they would agree they are abandonware if they go belly-up..?
Re:Steam (Score:4, Informative)
I know, don't feed the trolls, but Steam works well through Wine.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/SteamWorksBrochure2009.pdf [steampowered.com]
"Instead, CEG works in tandem with Steam authentication, enabling content access based on user accounts"
In other words, it still requires the server to be there.
Re:Steam (Score:5, Funny)
If you have Tux Racer, you don't need any other games.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
So how does the game know nobody else is playing with that globally unique identifier?
This doesn't sound new or exciting to me...all it sounds like is Valve will handle license key generation/online authentication for third parties selling on Steam.
Re:Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Saying that this isn't DRM is disingenuous.
What they're really getting at is that this makes things like SecuRom obsolete. Requiring that a person log in to play their offline game is about as good as you can get in the DRM world. You no longer have to deal with bugs related to copy protection that tries to disable functional software on the computer. No more registration limit nightmares. All you do is sell the game and tell the user to log in to the service.
It's convenient for users, too, but it's still DRM, no matter how you look at it.
Why would it (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, you still need to hook your computer up the internet to download the games in the first place, or when the program randomly decides that it wants to do so (which seems to be about once a month or so for me). I'm not sure what triggers it- a certain time period with no connection, sunspots, gnomes... In any case, I just plug in the ethernet cable, log in, log back out, unplug the cable, and start the game.
Re:Why would it (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, I just plug in the ethernet cable, log in, log back out, unplug the cable, and start the game.
Which is useless when you're several kilometres/miles away from an ethernet cable that you have the right to use.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Offline mode lasts a month or more, and IIRC you can see how long it has left before it needs a reauthorization (I could be wrong on that, it may just give you a one-week-left warning). That's reasonable enough for me; if I can't get to a network within a week I'm probably not going to be keeping enough battery life in my machine to be playing those games.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:My only problem... (Score:5, Informative)
Except for it does. You can not play in offline mode indefinably. Eventually steam forces you to reconnect up and say hi.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How does this square with the article summary:
but only playable by one person at a time (hooked into the correct Steam account, of course).
How would they prevent two people from playing at the same time without it requiring an internet connection? Or is this just bad summary writing? The linked press release never actually says that. You can understand why many slashdotters would be a bit confused trying to reconcile such statements, I hope.
Re:My only problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) A car requires dozens of people to assemble.
2) A car must be assembled before it can be used.
Therefore:
3) A car requires dozens of people to use.
QED?
It's pretty clear here that people are referring to whether or not you need an internet connection at the time the game is being played, not over the entire life of the game.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This sounds more like a way of tracking, similar (But probably much more secure) to how iTunes embeds your account info into songs you purchase. Basically, if they need to, they can track it down, or tell other servers to not let you play online, but that is a bit different than something that first assumes you are guilty, until you prove your not. A completely different way of looking at the problem, akin to saying "maybe we should capture and jail the burglers, rather than force everyone to hire an arme
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Awesome. You get modded insightful for your, ahem, less than fully educated post.
First off, steam can be run in offline mode. You don't need servers to play your fusking game. You can play offline, LAN, do whatever you want.
Second, Gabe himself said that if steam were ever to go down, he would remove any and all restrictions from playing your game, without the steam servers.
Become educated instead of braying along with the masses. Its cool.
Re:What happens when Steam fails? (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, Gabe himself said that if steam were ever to go down, he would remove any and all restrictions from playing your game, without the steam servers.
Pardon me if I don't believe the promises of a man who isn't fully in control of what may happen in the future. He may intend to do that, but that doesn't mean it will, in fact, be done.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Gabe's pledge is a beautiful thing, until Gabe leaves / is removed from Valve and his pledge exits with him.
Re:What happens when Steam fails? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try it yourself.
Steam can be run in offline mode, yes, but networkable games cannot access the Internet when Steam is in offline mode. That is not "do whatever you want", it is DRM.
Yes, Gabe said that, but when the day comes he'll have no incentive to do so. He might not even have the money to push the patch out.
Re:What happens when Steam fails? (Score:5, Insightful)
If your only remaining fear of Steam is bricking, I would probably just get over it and come to the dark side. I have been playing video games since Zork. Do you know how many video games I have lost or destroyed along that path? I sure as hell don't have my original Doom CD sitting around somewhere. I weep over my loss of my Master of Orion 2 CD. I don't even have my original Half Life CD.
The difference of course is that I can still play Half Life because it is on Steam... I can't play Master of Orion 2.
Sure, Steam might one day die. Valve promised to unlock the games if they should ever die. Is that an ironclad agreement? Nah, but in truth, even if they brick my Steam account when they die and no one buys it up to continue offering the service, I'll still have called it a fair trade. Solid media is too easy to lose or break, and cracking DRM to making multiple backups is frankly a waste of time.
I personally call Steam a fare deal. If one day it dies, those games might possibly be bricked. What I get in return is painless instillation of games when I move computers, an easy way to get new games, and none of the hassle of physical media in terms of storage space or breakage. I personally like a world with Steam much better than loading my computer up with crippleware from physical media.
Re:Uh oh. (Score:5, Funny)
I think we're about to have a pissed off Linux community if so.
When, exactly, is the linux community NOT pissed off about something?
Re:Uh oh. (Score:5, Funny)
When they're getting laid.
Oh, crap, I see your point.
Re:Uh oh. (Score:5, Funny)
Consoles have app stores now (Score:3, Funny)
You should try a console system. All of the games include a game disk, box, and an instruction book.
What did I do wrong? My copies of Dr. Mario Online Rx and Tetris Party from Wii Shop Channel came with only an electronic manual.