8 ms·

DRM is poison. It provides only negative value to the consumer by adding new restrictions and limitations. Valve seems to be one of the few companies to make u

DRM is poison. It provides only negative value to the consumer by adding new restrictions and limitations. Valve seems to be one of the few companies to make use of DRM that understands this. Steam may be heavily encumbered with DRM but Valve has piled on huge loads of sugar to make it palatable, more and more each year. Steam is more than just a DRM system, of course, and it's all of the benefits of the Steam-platform which make up for the poison at its heart (at least for a great many consumers). Additionally, because of the track-record of steep price drops on old games and the occasional steam-sale they blunt many of the down-sides of DRM (such as lack of used-games). Some game companies only see DRM from the narrow perspective of a publisher concerned about "piracy" and feel entitled to dictate usage terms to their customer base due to feelings of ethical superiority. This is mistaken, and by abusing and misusing their customers they're destroying brand loyalty, which is perhaps the most important thing a company can have, especially one predominantly working in IP.

dalore 13y ago
Steam DRM can still be annoying if you're internet connection goes down and you didn't manage to start steam correctly in offline mode and then refuses to play until you do connect.
- anonymousab 13y ago
  Last I checked you could edit a file to trick it. Still, the lack of a proper functional offline mode, after all this time, is ridiculous and a bit troubling.
  - dalore 13y ago
    Yes but when your internet is down, you can't search for this trick :(
glurgh 13y ago
Valve seems to generally treat its customers decently and to describe that as some sort of sugar pill with which they cram a supposedly 'heavily DRM encumbered' Steam client down your throat is a little overwrought. I've been on Steam since the release of Half-Life 2 in late 2004. I own, according to the client, 118 titles. I've never had a Steam-related DRM problem. The client itself has occasionally had quality problems, so have some (mostly non-Valve) games but I've not once felt the 'negative value' of Steam's DRM itself. It's getting close to a decade but I still have essentially unencumbered access to my copy of HL2 - I'd have surely lost the physical media by now. In 2007, I bought Portal which came in a bundle that included HL2 - I got an extra free HL2 license to give away. In 2010 I got a free copy of the HL2 OS X port and, were I the sort of person who enjoys the quixotic challenge of gaming on Linux, I could have grabbed my free Linux port just a few weeks ago. And that's just one game. If that's poison, don't take me to the hospital, please.
- Guvante 13y ago
  None of those are DRM, all of those are unlimited free downloads (which pretty much every digital distributor provides). The DRM is the fact that if you don't have an internet connection you have to hope that Steam successfully launches into offline mode or not have access to your games. Similarly if Valve decides to ban your account, all 118 games become permanently unavailable to you.
  - glurgh 13y ago
    A number of my Steam games are DRM-free. I didn't say these features were DRM but that they are things Steam provides while having DRM so unobtrusive I've not noticed it in 9 years. The OPs contention was Valve's DRM is some heavy burden that they basically bribe you to accept. I'm sure it's gone wrong for some people at some point but I think compared to the rate of just regular old game-crippling bugs, it's negligible. And yes, if Valve decides to ban my account, the DRM'ed games become unavailable. Or I have to waste my time looking for cracks. But again, what is the rate of that? If the dog shreds my big folder of physical game media, it's also all lost.
    - Guvante 13y ago
      > DRM is some heavy burden that they basically bribe you to accept. I'm sure it's gone wrong for some people at some point These two sentences reinforce what the OP is saying, you aren't arguing facts, you are arguing impact. OP is saying we are underestimating the impact DRM should have on our decision, to which you responded "it doesn't bother me". That fact isn't important to this discussion. I also use Steam, enjoy it, think they are a great company, and won't be stopping anytime soon. However it is certainly true that unlike GOG their platform is based around DRM. > If the dog shreds my big folder of physical game media What measures can you take to prevent Valve from banning you? For instance some people have lost their Steam accounts because they used Paypal and there was a disagreement between the two over a charge. I control the physical media, I can't control Valve's authentication system.
      - 13y ago
blub 13y ago
Steam is just another game rental platform. The difference is that with Gog you can't be screwed over later if you break some arbitrary rule or they change the ToS. You truly own the games.
DannoHung 13y ago
One thing worth noting about Steam's DRM setup that I think a lot of people decide to ignore (for whatever reason) is that whether Steam DRM is enabled for a game or not is up to the publisher. There are a bunch of games that you can buy through Steam that don't have any DRM. They update just as all regular Steam games do and you can install them just the same as all other Steam games. A partial list can be found here, for example: http://www.gog.com/forum/general/list_of_drmfree_games_on_steam/page1 http://www.gog.com/forum/general/list_of_drmfree_games_on_st... GOG is unique of course in that it doesn't allow games to be sold with DRM on its storefront. But I do think it's a bit of a misnomer to say that DRM is the heart of Steam. That's just the thing that made publishers comfortable with Steam.
- shmerl 13y ago
  As discussed below, it still affects the transferability of those games. I.e. you need Steam to install those games anew, since they don't provide you with a standalone installer. Therefore even those games are DRMed.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    You don't necessarily have to install DRM-free software; you can often copy it into a directory of your choosing and run the binary. Steam also provides the ability to generate installable backups (though IIRC you do need to sign into an account that owns the game to restore a backup), and to run in offline mode.
    - shmerl 13y ago
      > You don't necessarily have to install DRM-free software; you can often copy it into a directory of your choosing and run the binary. If game is playable after simple copying with no installation - that can be really considered DRM free (given there are no other forms DRM in the game). But probably not all games from that list are copyable like that. > Steam also provides the ability to generate installable backups (though IIRC you do need to sign into an account that owns the game to restore a backup), and to run in offline mode. If your account is closed, or Steam is closed altogether - the game becomes nontransferable. Therefore since you have no clear option for completely independent backup, the game can't be called DRM free.
DannyBee 13y ago
I think you are projecting quite a bit here in terms of what you think is going on. EA (to pick a random DRM supporting publisher) and others perfectly understand what they are doing, and the tradeoffs involved. It's not ethical superiority, it's business. You can claim they are destroying x, y, and z all you like, but the reality ends up being pretty simple: Until consumers stop buying games due to DRM, or these publishers have actual numbers that show it is actively causing them to lose profit, they'll keep doing it. I'm not talking about random blog posts from indie developers. I'm talking about game after game with DRM failing, and game after game without DRM succeeding. Or, if all their games have DRM, them going out of business, while other non-DRM using publishers succeed. From the publishers perspective, if it was really having all the negative effects you have, they wouldn't keep selling so damn many copies. Honestly, I'm not really arguing one way or the other, i'm just pointing out that publishers aren't concerned with ethical blah blah blah, they are concerned with money and unit sales. If DRM doesn't decrease their sales, and possibly decreases profit loss, it's a win for them. If it does decrease their sales, and the decreased profit loss makes up for that, it's a win for them. If it does decrease their sales, and the decreased profit loss does not make up for that, it's a lose for them. Until it's a lose for them, they'll keep doing it.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  Games are art, not commodities, and this adds a monstrous degree of complexity to economic analysis of the genre, especially around different business practices. You can't compare sales of a game year over year because demand is different, just as you can't always compare sales of games to each other. Certainly games compete with one another, if on no other basis than dollars out of limited household budgets and hours out of limited leisure time. And certainly some games tend more towards sport than game (MOBAs and online military FPSes come to mind) and choosing between games can be a matter of choosing between different mechanical aspects. However, in the main choosing between games to play tends to be closer to choosing between musicians to listen to or books to read. Competing games may have similarities but there is still only one Katamari Damacy, only one Mass Effect, only one Sim City, and so forth. Why is this relevant? Because it means that the factors behind the relative success of a given game are as much due to aesthetic factors as to anything else, including DRM. Hypothetically, if a band releases an album in a way that is heavily DRM encumbered and the album doesn't do well is that due to the album itself or consumers reacting to the DRM? The simple answer is that you don't know because the whole thing is subjective. More so, it means that people tend to be more willing to tolerate onerous burdens (including DRM) because there typically aren't commoditized alternatives. This means that it's almost impossible to determine the impact of the use or absence of DRM on the success or failure of any particular game or even on the game industry as a whole, especially since this current period of widespread sophisticated DRM is only around a decade or so old. We know that in the short term companies can certainly get away with shoving DRM down customers' throats without always incurring hugely negative consequences to their business. However, game publishers are very much in the brand image and brand loyalty business, and persistent long-term trends that are ignorable in the short-term could be quite significant over the course of decades. I can't predict the future, but anecdotally it certainly appears as though major game companies are squandering a lot of customer good-will, and sometimes DRM is the cause of it. And I suspect that in the long-run such effects will have significant impacts on the industry as a whole.

dalore 13y ago

Steam DRM can still be annoying if you're internet connection goes down and you didn't manage to start steam correctly in offline mode and then refuses to play until you do connect.

anonymousab 13y ago
Last I checked you could edit a file to trick it. Still, the lack of a proper functional offline mode, after all this time, is ridiculous and a bit troubling.
- dalore 13y ago
  Yes but when your internet is down, you can't search for this trick :(

glurgh 13y ago

Valve seems to generally treat its customers decently and to describe that as some sort of sugar pill with which they cram a supposedly 'heavily DRM encumbered' Steam client down your throat is a little overwrought. I've been on Steam since the release of Half-Life 2 in late 2004. I own, according to the client, 118 titles. I've never had a Steam-related DRM problem. The client itself has occasionally had quality problems, so have some (mostly non-Valve) games but I've not once felt the 'negative value' of Steam's DRM itself. It's getting close to a decade but I still have essentially unencumbered access to my copy of HL2 - I'd have surely lost the physical media by now. In 2007, I bought Portal which came in a bundle that included HL2 - I got an extra free HL2 license to give away. In 2010 I got a free copy of the HL2 OS X port and, were I the sort of person who enjoys the quixotic challenge of gaming on Linux, I could have grabbed my free Linux port just a few weeks ago. And that's just one game. If that's poison, don't take me to the hospital, please.

Guvante 13y ago
None of those are DRM, all of those are unlimited free downloads (which pretty much every digital distributor provides). The DRM is the fact that if you don't have an internet connection you have to hope that Steam successfully launches into offline mode or not have access to your games. Similarly if Valve decides to ban your account, all 118 games become permanently unavailable to you.
- glurgh 13y ago
  A number of my Steam games are DRM-free. I didn't say these features were DRM but that they are things Steam provides while having DRM so unobtrusive I've not noticed it in 9 years. The OPs contention was Valve's DRM is some heavy burden that they basically bribe you to accept. I'm sure it's gone wrong for some people at some point but I think compared to the rate of just regular old game-crippling bugs, it's negligible. And yes, if Valve decides to ban my account, the DRM'ed games become unavailable. Or I have to waste my time looking for cracks. But again, what is the rate of that? If the dog shreds my big folder of physical game media, it's also all lost.
  - Guvante 13y ago
    > DRM is some heavy burden that they basically bribe you to accept. I'm sure it's gone wrong for some people at some point These two sentences reinforce what the OP is saying, you aren't arguing facts, you are arguing impact. OP is saying we are underestimating the impact DRM should have on our decision, to which you responded "it doesn't bother me". That fact isn't important to this discussion. I also use Steam, enjoy it, think they are a great company, and won't be stopping anytime soon. However it is certainly true that unlike GOG their platform is based around DRM. > If the dog shreds my big folder of physical game media What measures can you take to prevent Valve from banning you? For instance some people have lost their Steam accounts because they used Paypal and there was a disagreement between the two over a charge. I control the physical media, I can't control Valve's authentication system.
    - 13y ago

blub 13y ago

Steam is just another game rental platform. The difference is that with Gog you can't be screwed over later if you break some arbitrary rule or they change the ToS. You truly own the games.

DannoHung 13y ago

One thing worth noting about Steam's DRM setup that I think a lot of people decide to ignore (for whatever reason) is that whether Steam DRM is enabled for a game or not is up to the publisher. There are a bunch of games that you can buy through Steam that don't have any DRM. They update just as all regular Steam games do and you can install them just the same as all other Steam games. A partial list can be found here, for example: http://www.gog.com/forum/general/list_of_drmfree_games_on_steam/page1 http://www.gog.com/forum/general/list_of_drmfree_games_on_st... GOG is unique of course in that it doesn't allow games to be sold with DRM on its storefront. But I do think it's a bit of a misnomer to say that DRM is the heart of Steam. That's just the thing that made publishers comfortable with Steam.

shmerl 13y ago
As discussed below, it still affects the transferability of those games. I.e. you need Steam to install those games anew, since they don't provide you with a standalone installer. Therefore even those games are DRMed.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  You don't necessarily have to install DRM-free software; you can often copy it into a directory of your choosing and run the binary. Steam also provides the ability to generate installable backups (though IIRC you do need to sign into an account that owns the game to restore a backup), and to run in offline mode.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    > You don't necessarily have to install DRM-free software; you can often copy it into a directory of your choosing and run the binary. If game is playable after simple copying with no installation - that can be really considered DRM free (given there are no other forms DRM in the game). But probably not all games from that list are copyable like that. > Steam also provides the ability to generate installable backups (though IIRC you do need to sign into an account that owns the game to restore a backup), and to run in offline mode. If your account is closed, or Steam is closed altogether - the game becomes nontransferable. Therefore since you have no clear option for completely independent backup, the game can't be called DRM free.

DannyBee 13y ago

I think you are projecting quite a bit here in terms of what you think is going on. EA (to pick a random DRM supporting publisher) and others perfectly understand what they are doing, and the tradeoffs involved. It's not ethical superiority, it's business. You can claim they are destroying x, y, and z all you like, but the reality ends up being pretty simple: Until consumers stop buying games due to DRM, or these publishers have actual numbers that show it is actively causing them to lose profit, they'll keep doing it. I'm not talking about random blog posts from indie developers. I'm talking about game after game with DRM failing, and game after game without DRM succeeding. Or, if all their games have DRM, them going out of business, while other non-DRM using publishers succeed. From the publishers perspective, if it was really having all the negative effects you have, they wouldn't keep selling so damn many copies. Honestly, I'm not really arguing one way or the other, i'm just pointing out that publishers aren't concerned with ethical blah blah blah, they are concerned with money and unit sales. If DRM doesn't decrease their sales, and possibly decreases profit loss, it's a win for them. If it does decrease their sales, and the decreased profit loss makes up for that, it's a win for them. If it does decrease their sales, and the decreased profit loss does not make up for that, it's a lose for them. Until it's a lose for them, they'll keep doing it.

InclinedPlane 13y ago
Games are art, not commodities, and this adds a monstrous degree of complexity to economic analysis of the genre, especially around different business practices. You can't compare sales of a game year over year because demand is different, just as you can't always compare sales of games to each other. Certainly games compete with one another, if on no other basis than dollars out of limited household budgets and hours out of limited leisure time. And certainly some games tend more towards sport than game (MOBAs and online military FPSes come to mind) and choosing between games can be a matter of choosing between different mechanical aspects. However, in the main choosing between games to play tends to be closer to choosing between musicians to listen to or books to read. Competing games may have similarities but there is still only one Katamari Damacy, only one Mass Effect, only one Sim City, and so forth. Why is this relevant? Because it means that the factors behind the relative success of a given game are as much due to aesthetic factors as to anything else, including DRM. Hypothetically, if a band releases an album in a way that is heavily DRM encumbered and the album doesn't do well is that due to the album itself or consumers reacting to the DRM? The simple answer is that you don't know because the whole thing is subjective. More so, it means that people tend to be more willing to tolerate onerous burdens (including DRM) because there typically aren't commoditized alternatives. This means that it's almost impossible to determine the impact of the use or absence of DRM on the success or failure of any particular game or even on the game industry as a whole, especially since this current period of widespread sophisticated DRM is only around a decade or so old. We know that in the short term companies can certainly get away with shoving DRM down customers' throats without always incurring hugely negative consequences to their business. However, game publishers are very much in the brand image and brand loyalty business, and persistent long-term trends that are ignorable in the short-term could be quite significant over the course of decades. I can't predict the future, but anecdotally it certainly appears as though major game companies are squandering a lot of customer good-will, and sometimes DRM is the cause of it. And I suspect that in the long-run such effects will have significant impacts on the industry as a whole.