4 ms·
You do understand that if anything happened to the company he'd be legally prohibited from releasing anti-DRM patches, right? It'd destroy the shareholders' val
by wnight 15y ago
You do understand that if anything happened to the company he'd be legally prohibited from releasing anti-DRM patches, right? It'd destroy the shareholders' value.
Unless it's in writing as a condition of your purchase, and the code is in escrow somewhere, it ain't happening.
- sid0 15y agoYou mentioned "shareholders". Think about who owns Valve -- I understand Gabe owns 100% of the company.
- papercrane 15y agoIt's privately held, so the information on who owns it isn't public. Mike Harrington was a co-founder, he may still have some stake in the company.
- wnight 15y agoYeah, I should have said creditors. It's more to the point.
- sid0 15y agoI find it hard to believe Valve has any debt whatsoever.
- wnight 15y agoThe point though is that these vague promises to unDRM products are probably not permitted even if they thought about it and had the patches ready. And this isn't just a Valve thing, id software said something similar when Quake3 first required an online auth check to play on registered servers. But considering how much you'd lose if Steam went away I can see why people are nervous of using them versus buying CDs.