I'm certain we could come to some of compromise with Skyrim. Steamworks without Steam, perhaps? It's not DRM itself I hate, it's the Steam client. Certainly the Technological Overlords at Valve could figure out a way to enforce DRM without needing the Steam client actually installed. a one-time keyfile? Whatever GTAIV does? Bueller?

yet another login/password to remember for users

My prefernece is a simple disk check, it's pretty straight forward, just install the game, and as long as you have the disk, you can play. No need for online registration or third part programs that should be unnecessary with features I'll never even use, or any of hat nonsense. It's the most convenient, least intrusive form of copy protection available for the player.

Although Steam is still preferable to Ubisoft style DRM or limited installs or whatever, but I'd also rather be punched in the chest than kicked in the groin, I'd still prefer to not have to deal with either one, though apparently Bethesda doesn't care that some players feel that way.



I have a reliable internet connection (hence why I can post here regularly.) but I still don't want to have Steam forced on me.

My 1st choice would be a simple disc check. But that is ineffective aginist pirates, so if we have to live with more stringent DRM then Steam is the lesser evil.

I prefer simple disk checks. I have a reliable internet but I don't really give a.... (Well I won't say that) About any sort of online activation.... Its annoying, inconveniant. And can and WILL keep some people from playing the game. I have several friends who have no internet access what-so-ever. But I will be quiet to avoid a rant.

Mordy, under copyright law it is legal to make a backup copy of media you own, on the condition the copy is destroyed if you cease to own the original. I typically make ISOs of any games I own that do disc checks so that I can keep the discs in mint condition.

What's inconvenient about it?

If you don't have internet access you may as well not be playing PC games, what with all the patches they get. Get with the times, or stay in the past and play your older games; that's how gaming has always been.

Rarely ever need to patch. If there's a constant need for patches, you're doing something horribly wrong.

What? It has nothing to do with the end user, game companies release a lot of patches, which is an undisputed fact. I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Have I stepped into some alternate universe where patching must be mandatory?

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/36794/The-Witcher-Enhanced-Edition-Changes-Detailed
http://store.steampowered.com/news/?feed=steam_updates&appids=8930
http://store.steampowered.com/news/?feed=steam_updates&appids=48700

Have fun with your buggy games with less features, your argument svcks. :rolleyes:

Cecilff2, on 22 February 2011 - 09:01 AM, said:

Rarely ever need to patch. If there's a constant need for patches, you're doing something horribly wrong.

What happens if Valve goes out of business?

Erm, you're just jumping around here...did you forget the original point?

My main point was the one DEFRON just made. Why is it so horrible that there's two versions?

The keyword in the link I gave is *delayed*. They can't protect it indefinitely, not even with Steam, and they know it.

Following the train of a conversation is not jumping around, but nice job dodging my post.

When your original response makes no sense whatsoever, it's a valid point to make.

Try clarifying more, because I have no idea what you're going on about. If you don't need a patch to play a game, how is it necessary? If you want it, get it. If not, don't.