To be fair, I did run the CS on a machine from 2000
Granted, it was the Morrowind CS but it was still a CS

Though you do bring up some great points that I hadn't thought about. Also yeah I remember moving from AGP to PCI-e. My final AGP card was a Radeon X800 Pro.

I don't see what the problem with Steam is. I find it very useful.

Alright, here's the summary since you didn't read the thread:

1. People with unreliable/slow Internet don't like being forced to have a connection
2. Middleware which people don't like having to use to play their software
3. Dislike of Valve in general for various reasons
4. Some people view it as using resources that could be better used elsewhere
5. People stuck in the fairytale belief who think games with no DRM will get released
6. People who just like arguing for no reason

I love all of these mental giants who say "switch ISPs" or "get a faster connection" in response to people like me who have 2 options for internet: satellite or 20k dialup. There is no "faster connection" or "more stable ISP". I guess they live in a little fantasy world where everyone resides inside cities or something.

1. You can run Steam in offline mode when you can't get a connection, problem solved.
2. Steam is free so I don't see the problem with requiring it, and for a free software it gives a lot of useful features.
3. Can't help you there I think Valve is an excellent developer.
4. On modern computers Steam makes a minimal resource impact.
5. Yes
6. Yes this summarizes most of the anti-steam crowd.

All good points, I think, but people seem to really care about the loss of 50MB and an infinitesimal drain on their CPUs. The only good argument I've heard, in my view, are from those who have an unreliable Internet connection.

Not at all. You were explaining your point of view, I was explaining mine. Thing is, you proved yourself right and me wrong. It's alway nice to learn something new.

Also even though I don't care for Steam, I don't see it's so bad now either.

Right, but at least if Wine doesn't run Skyrim, I can help fix Wine (which I did once to get Morrowind working, actually, and again to get music working). If Wine doesn't run Steam, then it's due to components I'm not familiar with, and I don't particularly care for Steam to run otherwise.


You can't add terms to the sale after the sale is complete. Just like if I buy a loaf of bread, and after getting home and opening it up, I find a piece of paper that says I can't use the bread unless I agree to certain terms. You can't do that. In fact, that was the whole point behind the First-Sale Doctrine. Book publishers would put notices on the inside of a book saying that you didn't own the book, and couldn't resell it or anything. This was challenged in court, and the courts ruled that those notices are not binding on people who buy the book, and the First-Sale Doctrine was ratified to clarify and enforce that. Software EULAs are the same thing.. putting notices of non-ownership on the "inside" of software.. just with the additional step of preventing access until you click I Agree. You are forced to agree to access what you legally own.. and contracts made under such conditions are not legal.

Nope, it is not. Thanks to the DMCA, it is illegal to bypass copy protection. Even if the copyright holder is long-gone, and there's no other way to play the game, and even if you own it.. you cannot break DRM. Thanks to copyright laws, things remain under copyright for almost a century after the copyright holder is gone.

whats the issue with steam?

its easy to use and is almost impossible to screw up

Oh, that's cool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States EULAs have been enforced in several court systems in the United States. There is currently no broad ruling on the enforceability of EULAs, but they are totally different than buying a book, since the software is sold to you "under license" and users, under EULAs, do not actually own the software - just a license to use that software. Basically it depends on what state you live in whether an EULA has been determined to be enforceable or not. They are neither always legal or always illegal, at this point in time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Harmony_Comps._%26_Elecs.,_Inc. and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg for examples of where courts have ruled in favor of EULAs.

Essentially, you're buying a license to use the product, not buying the product itself.

As that page even says: "No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally". It is still a contentious issue. Plus, there's a difference between licenses you do sign and agree to before the transaction (as with Steam and the like), and one that only appears during installation. EULAs are not all created equal.


No, because I never sign a license agreement before buying the software. I pick it up off the shelf, hand a cashier money, and get a receipt. The sale is done, and unless I agree and sign something before that point, I own it.

I agree that there is a difference. Which means, of course, that the EULAs that come with Steam are totally enforceable, because you see them before you purchase the software (by your reasoning).

Again, the courts disagree on this point - especially after you accept the EULA by clicking "I agree" - according to some courts, your First Sale Doctrine is intact after buying the software, until you further agree to the EULA contained within that software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Computer_software).

Basically your whole point - that EULAs are not legal - is either in legal limbo in certain states, true in some (such as California) or outright wrong in others.

And I can not return the software for a refund if I do not want to agree to the EULA, so they have my money anyway? Win/win for them!

Huh? No. Steam shows you the EULA before you purchase the software. So you can, if you want, choose not to buy the software.

EULA's aren't contracts, and even contracts have to be conscionable. You can't, for example, put in a stipulation requiring the licensee to give up their first born in exchange for running the software - it would be ruled untenable, and thus unenforceable. Worse, EULA's aren't generally signed, and thus, there is no way to prove that it was read. So you have something that is probably partly but not not entirely, enforceable - and no one knows which bits are or aren't until it is litigated.

Even licensing (DRM) and piracy protection is up for debate - because the DMCA has specific exceptions that *may* override a EULA under very specific circumstances. Reverse engineering, for the purposes of interoperability, is almost always outlawed by the EULA, but is actually protected by both the DMCA as well as previous copyright law. If you are sitting in front of a PC, you have benefited from legal reverse engineering. Note that I specifically mentioned "for the purposes of interoperability", though. There is a lot of wiggle room, but you still have to be able to prove that the purpose for the work was to allow you to use a product with your own stuff.

Further, there is established precedents that specifically allow breaking protection mechanisms when it becomes necessary to use the product as originally licensed. For example, it is legal to bypass a software dongle if it becomes necessary for the software to be accessible. This means that if you have an ancient copy of AutoCAD, for example, and you want to run it on a machine that has no parallel ports, it is legal to break the dongle protection in order to use the software. You still have to have a proper license, but you are granted an exemption on the licensing mechanism. That hasn't stopped AutoDesk from suing people for doing it, though.

It could be that if Steam goes away, it *MAY* become legal to break the protection on Steam games in order to continue using the licensed content. However, someone is going to have to try it, and get sued, to find out. (or, proactively sue the game developers/publishers to establish the legality of it) Either way, it's going to be costly, fraught with peril, and the odds of winning aren't too hot.

The key here is "litigated". Someone has to sue successfully before specific terms are known for sure to be valid or invalid - and no one really wants to be the first to find out. We actually have a situation right now that is going to hinge around this - GeoHot (George Hotz) PS3 work is currently being litigated, and this is going to be the central issue in all likelihood. If he can prove that was his intent, it may override the CFAA. Either way, he will be sweating bullets before it's all over with.

Which is why I'd rather NOT deal with this sort of DRM to begin with. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong if you can't afford to play.

How does Steam show me the EULA before I pick up the game a retail store?

Its in tiny print on the back of the case.

It doesn't. I was talking about buying games through the Steam service itself.

I'd rather have no DRM / EULAs on my games either. The gaming industry, however, sees otherwise.

The existence of either DRM or EULAs is not going to keep me from enjoying my games, unlike some people here who seem to be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

All of the current titles I own say "Acceptance of the EULA is required to play" on the back, but I have to open it to read the EULA and at that point most retailers will not let me return the software for a refund.

Well, that svcks for you?

And most retailers (that I know of) will allow you to return it, minus a possible restocking fee and store credit instead of cash.

I would buy a console to play games.... but if I were to buy the console versions of all of my games I would end up spending more on the additional licensing fees tacked onto the game prices than I spent on my computer...

Precisely, which is why I don't buy games through Steam.


Pretty much. So until SCOTUS rules with absolute authority, I can only take the path of logical reasoning.. that by not agreeing to any license before purchase, it is not licensed. And the license that comes up during installation is not valid because I'm forced to agree to it if I want to use the software I own.


I think he means store-bought software, where you don't get to see the license until you get home and start installing it. Most stores have a no-return policy on software, so even if you don't agree to the EULA, you can't return it. The store keeps your money, and you get a $60+ coaster. That's why such EULAs can't be valid.

Eh. I consider it a lesser evil - I likewise tend to have the viewpoint that EULAs are not quite legal (stemming from the fact that almost no one reads them). I don't mean to sound like I'm defending EULAs or software-as-license - I simply recognize it as corporations trying, vainly, to have some way of suing someone if they violate some mythical EULA, which generally means that some poor sap is being slowly killed by lawyer's fees while the corporation simply sends in their team of well-fed lawyers.

Regardless, I still think that Steam, in all of this, is either simply caught up in the lawyer game (everyone has an EULA on their software, so Steam has to as well) or instead is taking the advice of its lawyers so that it doesn't get sued by all the publishers. And we, as consumers, generally have to sit back and take it (or get rich and fight the system with lawyers).

In one sense, you are correct. The vast majority of gamers have shown that they don't care how bad the DRM gets, they will buy anyway. However, if ever gamers would reach a breaking point where they wouldn't buy, the developers would back off. We saw it with Starforce, and other absurd copy protection systems that often caused more problems to end users.

Ultimately, the gaming industry depends on gamers, and vice versa. However, as a group, gamers have shown themselves to be too undisciplined or organized to adequately protest the more egregious forms of DRM.

The worst part is the knowledge that all of this crap has almost NOTHING to do with "piracy" - that's just a red herring to keep the Congressmen happy. That's not to say that pirates aren't considered when it comes to DRM, only that pirates aren't the primary target. Most of these schemes are designed to protect a title for the first few critical weeks when sales are the highest. If it can keep the pirates at bay for a month, it's probably considered a huge success.

So, why don't publishers remove the DRM when its broken? Because the DRM is really intended to destroy resale value more than stop pirates. They want every legit player to pay *them*, not you, not GameStop, etc. Most game publishers, except possibly Ubisoft, knows that the pirates will rather quickly break the protection and enjoy the game without paying - but I firmly believe that they also know that those players are a lost cause. Those guys aren't going to buy no matter what - so they really aren't "lost customers" The real lost money comes from players selling their used, but otherwise legit, copies - which is why I only see this getting worse.

Steam is a perfect example of this. You can play all you want, and buy cheaply, but you can't sell anything. You can't even sell your account. Gone are the days when you could subsidize your next game by selling your current game.