Lord Garon Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 The Interview? Well, there's nothing special or exceptional about that release, so, okay. Point taken. :facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripple Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) I feel some points of clarifications are needed.... 1) It is true that Steam does not have the most invasive form of DRM. Has anyone here had experiences with UPlay? Hyac's point is well taken, but I feel it is a sad commentary on the state of the gaming industry when we have to be thankful that the Steam client does not (yet), for example, require a constant internet connection to continuously authenticate user ownership of the game. But precisely because it does not, there is no good reason for Steam/Valve to impose a spyware on user systems that, at minimum, clutters the list of background processes, if I am not playing multi-player games via Steam (which I never have). One time online authentication is sufficient, and that should not require the installation of an end-user client. We all know the Steam client is not really intended for the purpose of authenticating ownership of games, or even patching (all of which can be done without requiring the end-users to install a client), but to collection information. This is shady business practice. 2) In fairness to Steam/Valve, Newell has stated that Steam's method of combating piracy is not by coming up with increasingly invasive forms of DRM, but to leverage digital distribution. He has stated that (he believes) the primary reason some gamers pirate games is not because they cannot financially afford games, but because it's easier to pirate games than to buy or order physical media (source). If he is to be believed, then widespread digital distribution is intended to make buying games as easy as pirating them, and is part of Steam's "strategy" for combating software piracy. But if this is true, it further undermines the formal purpose of the Steam client, because there are other digital game distributors who actually 'practice what they say', and are willing to distribute (single-player) games DRM-free, such as GOG. 3) Because Steam's business model is digital software distribution, it's neck-deep implicated in the whole "licensed but not owned" debate. Steam/Valve has made its decision regarding which camp of the debate it has pitched its tent in, and that decision has made Steam/Valve one of the "bad guys" for advocates and proponents of user-based rights. Edited December 30, 2014 by ripple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Garon Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I think Gaben will say anything even remotely "positive" to support his "benevolent monopoly", and do anything necessary to sustain it, even if they conflict. I mean, everyone else does. And, he used to work at Microsoft; now there's a culture to look up to. I don't know. Its all symptomatic of something else, a deeper disease infecting the system. Telecom, the Web, DRM; something is wrong. I get fed up and lash out at things, but I'm not sure where its really directed. Lots of "it" pisses me off, frustrates me, and just doesn't make sense. Businesses can't sell their crap products without unbelievable amounts of useless, invasive advertising. Advertisers may as well be the NSA. Good, smart people resort to underhanded practices and outright manipulation. Google does evil. I just don't get it. Something fundamental is broken. I'm not sure what, but it certainly seems to be focused around the NET, or digital communications in general. (That's where I spend much personal and professional time.) It could be a tech thing, maybe an economic one, even something of a social nature impacted by the technology I'm always around. At least, I HOPE there is a central issue somewhere, something we can fix which is generating the increasing amount of "desperate" (for lack of a better word) actions and behaviors exhibited by otherwise rational beings. Okay, ripple, you got me off on a REAL tangent. Sorry. I think I need to take a break from this for a while. Happy Holidays, all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Garon Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) I use to complain about Steam. A lot. Then I was forced to install Origin in order to play the Mass Effect trilogy, and I will never, at any point during the remainder of my natural life, complain about Steam again. Origin is so much worse in every conceivable way - it requires more resources, is harder to shut down and keep from restarting itself, has no functioning update feature and requires you to manually check for new updates every now and then, and has literally zero actual official support to speak of. Steam can be a pain, yes. I hate having to have it installed, and I can count on one hand the number of games I've purchased digitally through it (I also prefer physical discs). But the alternatives are so much worse. Hyac, don't take this personally, but that is precisely how and why Origin, Impulse (whatever its called now), and Steam gain a foothold in the first place. They don't wave a wand and just make it happen. Its not required by law. WE let them do it. WE created Steam. I helped when I registered Skyrim. I helped when I registered every game, software, and OS that's come out in the last 15 years. In a "market based" economy, and I understand not every country has an economy like mine, there are required relationships between merchants and consumers which allow that economy to function as desired. Competition between merchants, resolved by consumers purchasing the best value, creates a two-way street. Merchants react to customer desires (spending habits) in order to sell their product and consumers affect, even dictate, merchant policies. Its the "Will of the majority" applied to economics. That relationship is based upon choice; consumers are free to choose the merchant who offers the best value. When the merchants catering to a market segment, let's randomly pick entertainment media as the example, decide its easier for them to legislate the market than it is to compete in it, laws are passed which protect those merchants and remove choice from the consumer. In the US, media merchants created the DMCA, and other laws, to protect themselves from competition by placing the needs and rights of merchants above individual consumers. The entertainment media market becomes a one-way street. Consumers are limited to an all-or-nothing choice. That is the simple state we are left with in regards to DRM platforms. No one able to (politicians) is likely to help the consumers of "video games". Games are seen as a trivial passtime, probably an outright waste of time. No one cares about gaming. That is, except the multi-billion dollar entertainment industry. The only way to impact this industry is to exercise our all-or-nothing choice and force it to once again compete for our money. Except, those who crafted the DRM legislation KNOW we won't do that. Its a fundamental assumption of the laws they created. We won't simply do without music. We won't quit going to the movies. We won't quit playing games. The lessor-of-two-evils provider seems to be a good one at this point. The only way to get Bethesda to switch away from Steam is to stop buying Bethesda products. The only way to get Steam to show decency and respect towards customers is to quit them. I doubt 75 million subscribers will do that. We are prisoners of our gaming passion and merchants use that against us. Simply because they can. There may be one other choice. Avoid the part of the industry which exploits its customers. Even if you love Steam, hate MMO's, and despise Space Operas, you should check out Star Citizen. Not for the game itself, but for the idea. Star Citizen is a crowd-funded startup. Its gained over $60,000,000 in startup funds from (potential) player pledges and donations. Its run by the creator of other AAA space games (Chris Roberts) who is unwilling to work within the established industry (its not for any DRM reasons). Many AAA games have been created for less than $60,000,000. If successful, Star Citizen might change the way games are created. IF gamers were to crowd-fund the development of, say, a non-DRM, single-player, open-world, moddable RPG (just for example), or, perhaps, help fund a follow-on episode to an existing game (we could call it SomethingVI, just to give it a name), it could apply pressure on companies like Steam to separate their DRM platform from their gaming support services and give gamers more choice. And respect as consumers. DRM is NOT mandatory on any published media. Authors and creators hold copyrights, but a studio or distributor, as a creator or copyright holder, can choose how to enforce and protect those rights. They can choose to do it in a manner respectful of honest consumers, or, like Steam, the RIAA, the MPAA, etc, they can use it to dictate their own policies to consumers and treat everyone like pirates. Edited December 30, 2014 by Lord Garon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanleemojo Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Well I'm not needed here, Lord Garon has this covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts