Hopefully it's none.

This... A thousand times this.

I realize that it's wishful thinking to imagine things going back to disk checks only, but I really miss that as opposed being forced to use some third party software.

Now there I agree.

nothing

but the cd key

You need a PS3, it won't work without it. DRM, don't trick yourself.

I will admit the PC DRM is worse, but has some other benefits to it.

The argument I thought was that he said it wasn't DRM at all, which is a lie. Because it is. So we're both right in the contexts of the proposed arguments.

In simple terms; I never said how bad/good the DRM on a console is compared to a PC. Just that it has some.

First of all, DRM software does work for two reasons. It's much harder to break the DRM software than it ever was to break a simple disk check. This reduces the amount of people that are capable of creating a pirated version of the software. If you are a software company interested in finding out who is creating the pirated versions, having a drastically reduced number of people that can do it is a big plus.

Secondly, when you do want to sue somebody, courts require the software companies to show that they are doing everything they can to prevent the piracy. The standard for this is fairly high. Doing a simple disk check isn't enough, since there are so many other steps that could be taken. Thus, if a company does a simple disk check, the game gets pirated, and they want to sue somebody, they might well lose the lawsuit because the courts will find that they weren't trying hard enough to prevent the piracy.

Thank lawyers and judges for that one, but it is the way things are.

Furthermore, DRM software isn't nearly as evil as so many people hype it up to be. It's really nothing more serious than the dozens of other 3d party software packages that computers run in order to play games. DirectX is a perfect example. It's a mandatory piece of software that you must install to play modern games, but nobody is afraid of it. Why? It doesn't really make sense, people just seem to accept DirectX because it enhances the playability of their games.

While Steam doesn't do that directly, it does try to create some nice features in order to make up for the necessity of it. Auto-updates, data backed up on the cloud, screenshots and friends lists and other steam services come to mind. While they don't make the graphics better, they do make PC gaming a tiny bit easier.

Also, Steam goes way out of its way to make the software as passive as it can. You really only have to connect to the internet once to register, and then can work offline from that point on. It doesn't require enough system resources to be significant, and you can have it start up to the system tray so that you never even notice it.

All in all, DRM like Steam is necessary in the game industry today, and it's not the evil piece of software that some people make it seem like.

The argument that "they could do it and that is enough" is a lot more hype than anything else. Your neighbor could murder you tomorrow, but they don't. The government could arrest and prosecute you for a crime you never committed, but the probably won't.

Just because someone could do something doesn't mean it's a real threat.

Actually, i believe if you registered the US version, you get the US version, but it could be different depending on how the ratings are going at the time, since some places see a little drop of blood as bad as seeing a mass of heads being cut off, silly i know, but i guess some people have weaker stomachs then others.

I personally like steam and the whole Digital software and stuff like that, i found it is more easier then physical copies, also, they maybe able to stop you from playing a game without warning, but they tend to require a reason for doing so, stopping you from playing the game you bought for no reason at all, can lead to a lawsuit that they would likely lose to.

Just saying.

Yes, and we should just trust the government to do what is in our best interest, too. Oh, wait...

This has more to do with the laws of each region than the whims of Steam Company. If the US version is not allowed in Australia, then Steam is actually obligated by the Australian government to prevent Australians from playing that version of the game.

They don't do this just because they feel like it, but because the laws and regulations of each region actually require them to.

and a PC is needed for PC games, DRM?

PS3 has the DRM hardware and software bundled with it. It's still required, but nobody seems to mind.

Why not?

This puts me into a tailspin to a dimension of pissed off I've never been to before.

If this comes to consoles, I will strongly consider giving up gaming.

yah DRM just hurts sales I for one won't get Skyrim if it has an internet based DRM that I have to use every single time I want to play the game because believe it or not my connection costs lots of money per Mb spent and I can't keep it on 24/7

so I will let the eye patched people fix a nice DRM free copy for me.

so it better be an online check for once or a cd key or both, I don't mind pirate protection as long as it does not make me want to pull my hair out.

my friend got C&C 4 (he is a C&C nut) and it was not pretty and it scared the [censored] out of me, I was like DAMN DRM MUCH EA F......

:P

It's weird to me that not that long ago in the history of the internet, people were broadly, immediately and with good reason opposed to apps that required behind-the-scenes communication with some third party. There was even a time when such things were rightly considered to be barely differentiated from malware. Most anybody who got svcked into an installation of RealPlayer should be familiar with that.

But in only a few short years, such things have become so commonplace and so accepted that people now not only willingly sign up for them, but try to convince others to do so as well.

It's frankly astonishing to me. It wasn't that long ago that people would've scoffed at the very notion of something as invasive as Steam and would've told anybody trying to pawn it off of them to get bent, but now they're eagerly lining up to sign over the right to access things that they purchased to some third party AND allowing that third party to install what's little more than malware on their systems. And praising it.

It's just thoroughly bizarre.

that's because it's transparent to the end user,

@gpstr, yeah we live in interesting times now

I hate steam btw

got rid of it after I finished some games that "needed" it and good riddance

Sad as it is, this is the way software has always been designed to work. You don't actually buy any rights to the software itself, you simply purchase a license to use it.
You aren't supposed to be able to resell your software, and you never were. Big companies have always been held to this because they can't avoid it.

For example, if a university like Berkley buys 100,000 licenses to use Windows 7, they are not permitted to resell any of those. If they did, they would be subject to a mega lawsuit.

The same is true for you, except that you can get away with it. Now you can't. I don't really fault game companies for this.

As far as I know, Steam's plans are to unlock everyone's games in the event of catastrophic failure. I'd cite a source if I could remember where I read that, but iIt was in an interview with one of their execs some time ago.

My only complaint with Steam is their download time. It could just be my (censored) DSL speed, but I've never popped above 300kbs when downloading from them.

Agreed on the sales, though. I've picked up several games from my "want to play it eventually" list for around $5 or $10. Ought to keep me occupied for a while. Not sure if I like being reminded about how many hours I spend playing the games I bought, though.

On the whole, the client is not terribly intrusive. Some may have privacy concerns, though. I remember one of the execs at Bioware talking about how they were able to assess ME2's reception by looking at how players approached the game. She had figures on how many players had started from scratch vs how many imported their ME1 Shepard and how many chose a male vs female Shepard. That wasn't Steam's thing, but Bioware was able to do it because of the capabilities of Steam's client.

I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, if it helps devs build better games, then I'm all for it. On the other hand, businesses use information in ways that benefit them, but not necessarily anyone else. (and on the gripping hand, they could have just asked - couldn't resist, but most probably haven't read it) For now, I'm cautiously optimistic as to its utility.

Maybe a stupid question,

does steam operate similar to the verification code needed to confirm your windows 7 software is genuine and not fake. That requires internet access, it receives updates etc

I don't understand alot about how this type of thing works. Sorry if I'm being thick

So then if Steam had no interface and was transparent, simply bundled with the game, there would be no problems?

I somehow doubt that, but perhaps it is true.

It is very similar, yes. People were complaining to Microsoft when they started to do that, as well. Curiously, that rebellion has since died off. I suspect it's because people started to realize how harmless the verification actually was, and that Microsoft really didn't have much choice.

Steam is in very much the same place right now, except the riot is still alive.

Direct X enhances gameplay as you say but doesnt require me to be online to play a single player game that I bought a physical copy of, I can easily get DX from another machine or disk without an internet connection that forces me to be tied to my IP. You need an internet connection for Steam everytime you load a fresh copy on your drive or you cant play, simple as that, not true with DX. Simple disk check if fine by me.

Personally, I think that the internet requirement is a false fear. For one thing, I can't think of anyone that doesn't have some nature of "always-on" broadband internet. If you do have that, then there's really no way that the internet requirement affects you.

If you don't, and I respect and acknowledge that some don't, then you are still covered. You only need to get online to activate, and then you are done. From then on, you can play your game anytime you want without any access to the internet, for as long as you like.

It's very hard to imagine any gamer that would be interested in Skyrim and has a computer that can run it that also doesn't have any access to the internet at all.

well, I wouldn't be so opposed to it so much it if....

1. I was allowed to decide where the game installs via the installer (like a non-Steamed game)
2, I wasn't forced to do the 0 day patch to play the game
3. I was was allowed to decide which patch to update to (I'm the type that likes having a folder of patches for my game)

Sadly, Niven and Pournelle made the classic mistake of trying to explore the aliens' motives, thus instantly transforming them into humans.

But I digress


Am I wrong in thinking that you can't disable auto-updating until you've registered a game on Steam, and so it (effectively) forces at least one patch download, even if you bought a game retail? Some of those day 0 patches are huge, and if your internet isn't good then you have a problem.

And are other popular DRM systems any different?