Reddit users bypass valve linux beta invitations.

[thatgui]

Well there are many engines which are cross-platform these days, it's not like it would take very long to compile your game for Linux in certain situations. And these tools are going to be more and more common since there is a marketplace like Steam from now on. I do not think there will be a boom of the Linux game market but it will probably be on the rise because of such movements.

I know, but if you sell software to a plattform you also have to give support for it beyond the source code- meaning testing, taking care of eco-system specifics, providing end user support, etc. which neither the game engines developers nor valve will shoulder completly.


That doesn't mean that there won't be any company that would take the risk. But as previously said, the humble bundle (and others with a related sales model) did more to the awareness of linux as a gaming plattform then valve will ever do.


And I also fear that this will lead to a closed market like on Windows pcs. With smaller developers seeing a possibility in bringing their games to linux without the "masses" having the possibility to make illegal copies very easy - the drm free portion could dry out soon.


Which brings me back to my orginal point: more games for Linux -=> yeaahhh!!, but with valves drm system involved => too bad

 

[TrashyMG]

Ah that whole DRM hangup people have.. Personally It doesn't bug me, Valve uses it in a manner that isn't intrusive, I'm not locked down to installing games on several computers I have some games installed on three different computers without issues or paying extra to do so.. Steam takes care of syncing my game saves, which used to be a pain.. I had this complex method using Dropbox and the Windows Symbolic links, it was a mess to set up on every computer.

With smaller developers seeing a possibility in bringing their games to linux without the "masses" having the possibility to make illegal copies very easy - the drm free portion could dry out soon.

Honestly a company like that would most likely of just skipped Linux in the first place and would most likely chosen another form of DRM to protect there assets. As for the free portion, people that are proponents to free open software will likely to stay at it despite steam being on Linux or not.. Open Source is a life style choice more than anything.

 

[thatgui]

Ah that whole DRM hangup people have.. Personally It doesn't bug me, Valve uses it in a manner that isn't intrusive, I'm not locked down to installing games on several computers I have some games installed on three different computers without issues or paying extra to do so.. Steam takes care of syncing my game saves, which used to be a pain.. I had this complex method using Dropbox and the Windows Symbolic links, it was a mess to set up on every computer.

In the end its always a matter if personal preference - but the problem is that I end up "without" a choice if I want to play games. Thanks to DJWillis I could play almost my whole adventure game collection again with my Pandora using disks that where 10 to 17 years old - who guarantees me that steam will live that long or at least support every game that long (especially over bigger os changes)? But the biggest problem I have with steam is that I'm forced to accept their terms of usage. If steams decides in a few years that I have to accept that they search my computer for special programms that can be used to crack their drm system I'm left with two options: agree and swallow the toad, or disagree and loose the right to use their service thus the right to use any game I bought from them. Sure steam makes it more comfortable, but is it really worth it (and I was quite unimpressed after seeing their client) ?

Honestly a company like that would most likely of just skipped Linux in the first place and would most likely chosen another form of DRM to protect there assets. As for the free portion, people that are proponents to free open software will likely to stay at it despite steam being on Linux or not.. Open Source is a life style choice more than anything.

Hold your horses. Nobody rode the open source train. I have no problem if anyone sells software in a non open form, and thats not what this is about. There is a big difference in just selling a piece of software, the user has more or less freedom of choice what do with it (except making illegal things with it, of course), and selling a piece and software and also confineing my options what to do with it.


I also don't think that "a company like that" (whatever this means) will automatically skip linux - see the humble bundle and alike, there were numerous games in the past that made their linux debut via them.

 

[TrashyMG]

Well first off I don't think Valve would implement such a system, it would be suicide for themselves and would cause users and some developers to just switch to something else.


Sorry I brought Open source into the conversation.. I meant to go somewhere with that, but got off course..


As for what I meant about "a company like that" was many developers want to protect themselves against piracy and they will use some form of DRM whether it's Steam or not.


I personally don't want an argument, opposing DRM is a crusade for some. I respect your view, but I'm just personally excited about the Linux Steam client, It may open up a chance of big studio games to Linux that would other wise may never come.

 

[WizardStan]

Just in case not everyone knows, before this gets too far, Steam's DRM is 100% optional to the developer. The only thing that Steam requires is a login in order to install the game. Once that is done you do not necessarily have to still be online, or even have Steam running, in order to play the games you have installed. If a game does require that Steam be active then that is a choice the developer has made, adding DRM from an available option. This is not something intrinsic in Steam, if Steam did not supply a form of DRM to the developers that wanted it then they would have just selected something else. Complaining about Steam's DRM is (pardon the hyperbole) stupid: you don't even know what you're complaining about. It'd be like a vegetarian complaining that their refrigerator encourages murder because it has a "meat/cheese" drawer: it's an optional feature that wouldn't make a difference (and could potentially make things worse) if removed.


Personally I am glad Steam provides their own DRM system that developers are encouraged to use because I know it to be non-intrusive and rarely breaks, something that can't be said for anything that EA has put out in the last few years. The devil you know that is at least trying to redeem itself is much better than the devil you don't know that has demonstrated it will stab you in the back as much as possible.

 

[thatgui]

Well first off I don't think Valve would implement such a system,

What exactly do you mean by "such a system". Sorry if you made it obvious, as others already had to suffer through, my comprehensive skills are a bit limited

As for what I meant about "a company like that" was many developers want to protect themselves against piracy and they will use some form of DRM whether it's Steam or not.

Maybe I don't understand what you are trying to tell me, but the humble bundle does proof the "middle sized" developers do take the risk to distribute their software DRM free, or did you mean bigger ones, hence "real" studios ?

I personally don't want an argument, opposing DRM is a crusade for some. I respect your view, but I'm just personally excited about the Linux Steam client, It may open up a chance of big studio games to Linux that would other wise may never come.

Don't get me wrong I do see that a lot of people like and profit from the comforts that steam offer, and I can understand bigger companies in their wish to protect their investment. But Copy Protection / DRM seems more than anything else and old habit that won't die, altough it does not work.

Just ...

I know all that, but where does this make my argumentation invalid ? And I'd like to remind you that accepting steam as it is is also gives an impression you have no problem with the "whole package" including steam "customers" who decide to put drm in their games (in whatever form).


And what should I make of your devil analogy ? Why turn to "the devil" if you don't have to ? Because of the slight possibility that a big studio maybe, in the future, under special cirumstances, as long as everything turns out fine, as long as the sun shines very bright and the humidty is right ..... think about releasing one of their games via LinuxSteam ?


Linuxgameing is already making progress towards bigger budget titles, just give it more time.

 

[TrashyMG]

What exactly do you mean by "such a system". Sorry if you made it obvious, as others already had to suffer through, my comprehensive skills are a bit limited

I mean the theoretical system that you used as an example.. the scanning of your hard-drive for DRM cracking tools and such.

Maybe I don't understand what you are trying to tell me, but the humble bundle does proof the "middle sized" developers do take the risk to distribute their software DRM free, or did you mean bigger ones, hence "real" studios ?

Real Studios

But Copy Protection / DRM seems more than anything else and old habit that won't die, altough it does not work.

Sure it works, I know for the fact that I've bought games on steam because it's easier to dish out money on steam than to deal with downloading a cracked version and ensure that it won't infect my computer. I live an hour from any stores that sell computer games and sometimes I just don't want to wait for games to come in the mail. Steam is convenient platform for real studio games.. I have no qualms getting other games via humble bundle, GOG.. etc.

 

[thatgui]

I mean the theoretical system that you used as an example.. the scanning of your hard-drive for DRM cracking tools and such.

But taking into account that some big publisher (EA?) did this some time ago is it that far fetched ?

Real Studios

ok, can't argue against that

Sure it works, I know for the fact that I've bought games on steam because it's easier to dish out money on steam than to deal with downloading a cracked version and ensure that it won't infect my computer. I live an hour from any stores that sell computer games and sometimes I just don't want to wait for games to come in the mail. Steam is convenient platform for real studio games.. I have no qualms getting other games via humble bundle, GOG.. etc.

You mean steam as a distribution system works, but drm does not - or how long does it take from a games release date till a cracked version appears ?

 

[TrashyMG]

You mean steam as a distribution system works, but drm does not - or how long does it take from a games release date till a cracked version appears ?

Well a little of both, Steam was made so it's more convenient than just stealing it...dealing with torrent sites and worrying if the download works and if it's full of viruses, trojans or hidden malware..etc

 

[WizardStan]

I know all that, but where does this make my argumentation invalid ?

DRM is an optional feature of Steam, but you talk about "the whole package" as if Valve is directly culpable. SD cards have built in DRM, I haven't seen you argue against it. Your use of hyperbole ("selling your soul") is especially cumbersome and really has no place in civilized debate: analogy is wonderful, but don't take it to such extremes; it makes huge assumptions about what I do or do not value and forces your belief system upon me. If I understand correctly, you believe that if we all take a vow of solidarity and reject everything remotely tied to DRM then the major publishers will one day just wise up and start producing cross platform, DRM free titles. I don't believe that at all. I believe it necessarily has to be an evolutionary process, and I intend to be a part of that evolution.

or how long does it take from a games release date till a cracked version appears ?

Most games these days are cracked within hours of being released, if not days before they are officially released. DRM is provably worse than useless. Steam's DRM notably was cracked a decade ago and hasn't really changed since then. This has been known for a long, long time, and yet publishers continue to think DRM is "the answer". It is this stubborn belief that they need to protect their assets against all reason that makes me believe that the change needs to be gradual and we need to be first accepting of each step along the way, and second be a guiding force in that evolution. Valve has taken a major step in that evolution, and outright rejecting their advances will simply make us look like we aren't a viable market.


That is my opinion. It differs from yours. Please don't tell me I'm "selling my soul" because I have chosen to help Valve through a process that I believe is necessary if things are to improve.

 

[thatgui]

I hoped that putting "immense exaggeration" in front of it would be suffice. As it seems I was wrong, I'm sorry for that (I like to write in analogies, but it is quite another beast to tackle with if one has only basic knowdledge of the language he is writing in - need to remind myself of that more often)


I knew that SD cards have built in DRM, but is it actually used ? I wouln't buy any SD-Card with "drm-ed" media on it, and it would be no problem as there are usually other legal forms to get the content. But that is the point where youre comparsion lacks, I have no choice if a want to play a game that is exclusively released via steam.


You are right that an evolutionary process will be the only one with a positive outcome. But at that point the "whole package" comes into play (at least in my mind) - in the outcome it doesn't really matter if you only use drm free titles or not: By using steam you add to their user base statistic they can advertise with in direct way by using it yourself, and in an indirect fashion by promoting it via theses boards, talking about it with your friends (which in turn will surely try it out if they are into playing), etc. . Humans are creatures of habit, and as that, the chance that they will make the leap* to also buying titles utilizing a drm system is an almost certainty. And the fact that valve integrated their DMR system more or less invisible to the average user helps a lot in that case, as most of them won't even notice that it is there.


So how should there be an evolutinary process if "our specimen" does not have to cope with obstacles it could evolve on?


*TV really damaged my brain, the first thing that was coming to my mind while I was writing the word "leap" was "the penitent man will pass,..."

 

[WizardStan]

I hoped that putting "immense exaggeration" in front of it would be suffice.

When used the way you did it is hyperbole, even with the "immense exaggeration" marker. It didn't contribute to the discussion but was treated as if it would. It's insulting on both a personal and debate level and should generally be avoided.

I knew that SD cards have built in DRM, but is it actually used ?

Sometimes, yes. Not recently, but shortly after it came out it wasn't entirely uncommon. There's a couple of GP2X games that were released on DRM enabled SD cards, in fact, and a few publishers have approached the Pandora market and were told how easy DRM implementation would be using SD cards if they really wanted to go that route: we were very close to having SD locked games on the Pandora. Are you going to reject the Pandora because it has a mechanism for DRM? Why should it matter if it is used or not? You argued against "the whole package" of Steam because it provides a standard (and entirely optional) DRM model, but you are ok with "the whole package" of SD cards despite the fact that they provide the exact same thing? Just because it is not used very often?

I wouln't buy any SD-Card with "drm-ed" media on it, and it would be no problem as there are usually other legal forms to get the content. But that is the point where youre comparsion lacks, I have no choice if a want to play a game that is exclusively released via steam.

If a company releases a game or music or video on SD card using the SD DRM then you have no choice. It is exactly the same thing. The VHS has long since disappeared, DVD (and now BD) are your only options, both of which are loaded with DRM: how many movies have you bought? Assuming "none", how do you feel about companies testing the waters of digital downloads by including one DRM enabled digital copy? Should we embrace this step and maybe buy a couple of movies to indicate that the market exists and that we agree they are moving in the right direction, or should we shun this push because it doesn't go far enough thus making absolutely no impact on the statistics and taking the risk that this will flag the market as non-viable? I firmly believe in the former, that we need to be partially accepting of their motions in what I consider the right direction even if it has a long way to go. It seems to me, based on your opinions of Steam and their Linux experiment, that you believe the latter, that the risk of remaining an ignored market is either extremely low or it is a worthwhile risk to avoid "selling your soul" as it were. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that assumption.


How many things have to be released on a DRM optional medium before "the whole package" becomes "evil"? What if every single publisher spontaneously changed their mind about Steam's DRM and dropped it entirely? Imagine it was still there just that no one ever used it, like we have now with SD cards. What if the publishers currently using Steam's DRM were sold on how useless it is and bought a different package? The DRM in Steam becomes completely unused (so we're again in an SD situation) except now the content is directly protected by other systems: should we continue to reject "the whole package" of Steam because it optionally has DRM which no one uses? What about half? Or three quarters? Or only EA publishes games with DRM and they would do that regardless of the medium because they are dinosaurs? What if valve themselves accepted that their DRM was useless and just removed it from the system entirely, forcing publishers to use other (potentially worse) forms of DRM? Is it then OK to start using Steam because they no longer have the DRM mechanism, even though publishers continue to use their own DRM?


You talk about rejecting "the whole package" of Steam because it provides a mechanism for DRM but are ok with "the whole package" of SD cards (and maybe DVDs) despite the fact that they also provide a mechanism for DRM. The only difference is the active use of that mechanism.


This is what I meant about "the devil you know": Steam is a distribution engine, Valve makes money by having the best system for publishers to sell their games on. They knew that publishers weren't ready for DRM free games so they provided a very simple, non-intrusive (easily defeatable) DRM system because they knew that if they didn't the publishers would choose other sources of DRM anyway, DRM that could be game breaking (because DRM is frequently game breaking). By providing their standard mechanism they are actually acting the good guys here, protecting us from things far worse. Make no mistake, this is also entirely in their best interest: they get money if their system is used and they get better publicity when their DRM doesn't crap all over your system like some other systems, but it is still my belief that it is significantly better that Steam provide a mechanism for DRM than that they don't, even if I am opposed to DRM.

By using steam you add to their user base statistic they can advertise with

GOOD! That's the point! I want to be in their statistics! I want to be a number in their system, something to be tracked, to be analyzed. You know why? Because they will see that my number buys a lot of cross platform and DRM free games and almost no DRM enabled games, even accounting for other variables like cost and similarity of games. My statistics will tell them that for my number DRM-free is more profitable than not, that games I can play natively in Linux are played more than ones that need Windows. That is the very reason that Steam is running this beta: to test the waters and see where they take them. Will I advertise this for them then? HELL YES! I will tell everyone how great the Steam Linux beta is, how well done the Linux port of TF2 was, because I want other numbers in there running beside mine, adding to the statistics that Linux can be profitable, but is even more profitable without DRM. If you don't like Steam, don't use it, your number will not be counted and you will not be seen as a viable market and nothing will change: that is my opinion.


We've tried it your way, DRM has been a rejecting force for a growing number of users for over a decade now, and it hasn't really changed anthing in all that time. Now Valve is taking an initiative, trying to change things their way, and I want to be part of that change. Sit on the sidelines if you want, but I intend to play, get noticed, and promote my ideals my way.

 

[thatgui]

When used the way you did it is hyperbole, even with the "immense exaggeration" marker. It didn't contribute to the discussion but was treated as if it would. It's insulting on both a personal and debate level and should generally be avoided.

My apologies, will think twice before using it in the future.

Sometimes, yes. Not recently, but shortly after it came out it wasn't entirely uncommon. There's a couple of GP2X games that were released on DRM enabled SD cards, in fact, and a few publishers have approached the Pandora market and were told how easy DRM implementation would be using SD cards if they really wanted to go that route: we were very close to having SD locked games on the Pandora.

Didn't know there were locked down SD - Cards in the talks back then - thanks

Are you going to reject the Pandora because it has a mechanism for DRM? Why should it matter if it is used or not? You argued against "the whole package" of Steam because it provides a standard (and entirely optional) DRM model, but you are ok with "the whole package" of SD cards despite the fact that they provide the exact same thing? Just because it is not used very often?


...


how do you feel about companies testing the waters of digital downloads by including one DRM enabled digital copy? ... Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that assumption.

I personally don't feel good about companies testing waters with DRM enabled digital copies (free of charge or not), as that is just another attempt to transfer and old habit into a new environment.


All in all I can't deny that you are right, but the problem here is that Steam pushed the "whole package" a lot further then any other did before. What happens if the SD / DVD / BD /etc. consortiums dedice that they cease doing business or decide that from now on every produced player needs a finger print reader so the user has to identify himself before he can watch a movie (I know I exaggerated a little, but you can come up with any other not so intrusive example, that you would have problems accepting it, if you like)? Will you still be able to play the media you aquired before the change ? Yes you will, but you won't be able to do it if you bought something via Steam.


As said before I do not deny that companies have a valid want to protect their investment, but to put it figurativly : the line has to be drawn somewhere. (But why is there a need for these line to be in a fixed position, as you suggest it ?).

How many things have to be released on a DRM optional medium before "the whole package" becomes "evil"? What if every single publisher spontaneously changed their mind about Steam's DRM and dropped it entirely? Imagine it was still there just that no one ever used it, like we have now with SD cards. What if the publishers currently using Steam's DRM were sold on how useless it is and bought a different package? The DRM in Steam becomes completely unused (so we're again in an SD situation) except now the content is directly protected by other systems: should we continue to reject "the whole package" of Steam because it optionally has DRM which no one uses? What about half? Or three quarters? Or only EA publishes games with DRM and they would do that regardless of the medium because they are dinosaurs? What if valve themselves accepted that their DRM was useless and just removed it from the system entirely, forcing publishers to use other (potentially worse) forms of DRM? Is it then OK to start using Steam because they no longer have the DRM mechanism, even though publishers continue to use their own DRM?


...


GOOD! That's the point! I want to be in their statistics! I want to be a number in their system, something to be tracked, to be analyzed. You know why? Because they will see that my number buys a lot of cross platform and DRM free games and almost no DRM enabled games, even accounting for other variables like cost and similarity of games. My statistics will tell them that for my number DRM-free is more profitable than not, that games I can play natively in Linux are played more than ones that need Windows. That is the very reason that Steam is running this beta: to test the waters and see where they take them. Will I advertise this for them then? HELL YES! I will tell everyone how great the Steam Linux beta is, how well done the Linux port of TF2 was, because I want other numbers in there running beside mine, adding to the statistics that Linux can be profitable, but is even more profitable without DRM. If you don't like Steam, don't use it, your number will not be counted and you will not be seen as a viable market and nothing will change: that is my opinion.

if Valve totally changes their business model (which is highly unlikely) and allow me to more or less do whatever I want with the game after the purchase, I would have no problem buying games from them.


But why should valve see any reason to change their business model in the future, if they see that their service is growing more popular every day ? Because some small fraction in a statistic also integrates games they bought otherwise in their game library ? I also don't see how should it matter to them what plattform you are playing their games on (topic specific, it surely matters, if decissions have to be made wether they port other games or not) afflict their decission to avoid DRM restrictions in their future products ? Thinking about it twice, It could matter as this could take the fear of some companies away to sell their DRM enabled games for linux system, as linux users (at least in "companies minds)" tend to look suspicious on possible restrictions. This is not a given of course, but I see no indication that my prospect on this is more/less valid than yours.

This is what I meant about "the devil you know": Steam is a distribution engine, Valve makes money by having the best system for publishers to sell their games on. They knew that publishers weren't ready for DRM free games so they provided a very simple, non-intrusive (easily defeatable) DRM system because they knew that if they didn't the publishers would choose other sources of DRM anyway, DRM that could be game breaking (because DRM is frequently game breaking). By providing their standard mechanism they are actually acting the good guys here, protecting us from things far worse. Make no mistake, this is also entirely in their best interest: they get money if their system is used and they get better publicity when their DRM doesn't crap all over your system like some other systems, but it is still my belief that it is significantly better that Steam provide a mechanism for DRM than that they don't, even if I am opposed to DRM.

This sounds like if you move to a new place, you would have to choose if you would rather take residency right beside a chemical plant or a nuclear power plant with no other options availabale.


But there are alternatives already there! See the Humble Bundle, xxxx Bundle, gog, dotemu etc. . Sure they don't have the top notch games but the more customers they get the more attractive their sales model will get to bigger companies - this will be a slow process no doubt. But why slow this process down additionally by keeping troth to a system that won't change ?

We've tried it your way, DRM has been a rejecting force for a growing number of users for over a decade now, and it hasn't really changed anthing in all that time. Now Valve is taking an initiative, trying to change things their way, and I want to be part of that change. Sit on the sidelines if you want, but I intend to play, get noticed, and promote my ideals my way.

Is that really true ? I don't have any numbers to base this assumption on, but has any big game sales losses that we're significant, that could be traced back to the refusal of a DRM System. I doubt that, as said people are creatures of habit, sure they will complain, but will buy it nevertheless.


Why does Valve take any real initiative that matters on that account if you say for yourself that they saw that the big companies weren't ready for non restricted publishing of their assets ? This sounds like they saw a niche in the market, and occupied it, providing the service their customers (software companies) wan't regardless of what the other side of the table wants. And looking at Steams dissapproval of Microsofts new strategie towards software distribution and their plan to bring steam clients into living rooms their linux port seems more like a small stepstone on the way up.


Edit: I hope you don't mind that I rearranged your arguments a little so I could answer them easier, tried to be carefull not change the meaing of you're argumentation.

 

[WizardStan]

Will you still be able to play the media you aquired before the change ? Yes you will, but you won't be able to do it if you bought something via Steam.

In the case of BD where players occasionally need updates to play new movies and most people have them permanently connected to the internet, the answer is not necessarily yes: Sony can, at any time, release a patch that disables the codes for all the movies you've already purchased, or change their DRM scheme entirely which removes your ability to play older disks. "Well be careful, don't connect to the internet, and just don't update if it will do such harm" and the exact same thing applies to Steam.

As said before I do not deny that companies have a valid want to protect their investment, but to put it figurativly : the line has to be drawn somewhere. (But why is there a need for these line to be in a fixed position, as you suggest it ?).

It doesn't have to be a fixed position. From my perspective, I'm the one looking at shifting goals, playing the game as it goes along and trying to edge them closer and closer to where I want them to be, while it is you who has fixed them in one position and said "you're shooting for here or I'm not playing at all".

if Valve totally changes their business model (which is highly unlikely) and allow me to more or less do whatever I want with the game after the purchase, I would have no problem buying games from them.

There are very many games available on Steam that do not have DRM at all. As I said, it is not something intrinsic in Steam that DRM is required, it is entirely optional to the publisher to do the work to implement it; Steam just provides a key. Most games I own can be played without Steam running at all, and most of those that do require Steam will still function in offline mode. If Valve suddenly changed their DRM mechanism to be far more invasive and damaging then it would impact just a small number of what is available. Further to the point, it would require publishers to do their own updates and it would still be entirely within the power of the publisher to drop Steam's DRM and either go naked or adopt something else. Unlike with DVDs and BD, publishers to Steam are not required to go with the one DRM, there are alternative options available that would work "just as well" (ie, not at all, but we pretend). What Steam has the power to do is just throw the lock wide open regardless of the key, that is the only change that Steam could make, to effectively negate the existing DRM. If Steam had not supplied a DRM mechanism from the start then I have no doubt that the programs that currently use it would have opted for something else entirely: assuming that would only have been a minor change in history, you would end up with the exact same number of games and same ratio of DRM:non games, except that they would all be different, many would use strictly worse DRM, and none would be in Valve's control. Steam would not be responsible for the DRM in any way. Is this what would make Steam acceptable to you, for them to drop their DRM model and tell publishers they all need to switch to a third party system?

This sounds like if you move to a new place, you would have to choose if you would rather take residency right beside a chemical plant or a nuclear power plant with no other options availabale.


But there are alternatives already there! See the Humble Bundle, xxxx Bundle, gog, dotemu etc. . Sure they don't have the top notch games but the more customers they get the more attractive their sales model will get to bigger companies - this will be a slow process no doubt. But why slow this process down additionally by keeping troth to a system that won't change ?

Except I'm not choosing one or the other, I am not slowing the pace of one in favour of the other, I do both to their full ideal potential. I purchase every humble bundle that comes along as well as a few other bundles from other places along the way. I then put those on Steam and Steam helps me remember all these games I've purchased with categorization. Now, thanks to the Linux Beta, it also allows me a simple mechanism for installing the most recent version of those games and keeping them up to date. I've got a hard drive with the original install files for all the games I've purchased through the Humble Bundle but many of them have received patches since then. With Steam, I don't have to worry about making sure I've got the latest patch, it just installs the most up to date version. And then if I am really paranoid, I can close Steam and just run the game from the command line. I'm not that paranoid, but I can if I want to. As an added bonus, I get to see other games that are available on the Steam market. I can then research those games and see how they play in Wine or if there's a native release already available and if the install can be run without Steam. The power is entirely mine to shape my statistics.

Is that really true ? I don't have any numbers to base this assumption on, but has any big game sales losses that we're significant, that could be traced back to the refusal of a DRM System. I doubt that, as said people are creatures of habit, sure they will complain, but will buy it nevertheless.

Spore.

Why does Valve take any real initiative that matters on that account if you say for yourself that they saw that the big companies weren't ready for non restricted publishing of their assets ? This sounds like they saw a niche in the market, and occupied it, providing the service their customers (software companies) wan't regardless of what the other side of the table wants. And looking at Steams dissapproval of Microsofts new strategie towards software distribution and their plan to bring steam clients into living rooms their linux port seems more like a small stepstone on the way up.

Valve is considered a major publisher, there's a kind of knit group of them and when one starts being successful at something others want to copy it. It could have been any major publisher taking this first step and I would be right there encouraging them forward, like a baby trying to let go of the table and move to its toy box. Gabe Newell is definitely a smart guy: like you say, he saw a niche that wasn't being fulfilled and is taking the opportunity to fill it. You talk about it like it's a bad thing. We can either say "yeah Gabe, we may be a niche but we're still a market that is worthy of your attention" and play along for a bit, or we can outright reject it and gain nothing.


It is my belief that by playing along I can help guide the system slowly to where I would like it to be. You are free to disagree.

 

[2bit]

OR YOU COULD just store your hacked / iliagal stuff on a external . And unplug it when you are downloading something with DRM .

 

[thatgui]

In the case of BD where players occasionally need updates to play new movies and most people have them permanently connected to the internet, the answer is not necessarily yes: Sony can, at any time, release a patch that disables the codes for all the movies you've already purchased, or change their DRM scheme entirely which removes your ability to play older disks. "Well be careful, don't connect to the internet, and just don't update if it will do such harm" and the exact same thing applies to Steam.

Not exactly, as your scenario would require that every manufacturer would need to do this (including software manufacturers), and as this can't be buyer specific, I doubt that any big company would like to slap their whole customer base in the face. If steam decides to suspend your account (for whatever reasons) your pretty much alone.

It doesn't have to be a fixed position. From my perspective, I'm the one looking at shifting goals, playing the game as it goes along and trying to edge them closer and closer to where I want them to be, while it is you who has fixed them in one position and said "you're shooting for here or I'm not playing at all".

But wasn't it you that asked where to draw the line ("at 2/3", etc) ?

There are very many games available on Steam that do not have DRM at all. ... Is this what would make Steam acceptable to you, for them to drop their DRM model and tell publishers they all need to switch to a third party system?

I get the impression we are talking cross-purposes: I could "live" with companies selling their software with DRM in one or the other form, if steam would provide a service that lets me play the game I bought even if I decide that I do not want to comply to their terms of use at some point in the future. I would still not recommond to use Steam (or use it to buy games), but that would be a good start.

Except I'm not choosing one or the other, I am not slowing the pace of one in favour of the other, I do both to their full ideal potential. I purchase every humble bundle that comes along as well as a few other bundles from other places along the way. I then put those on Steam and Steam helps me remember all these games I've purchased with categorization. ...The power is entirely mine to shape my statistics.

You made it sound like there was no other way ("either sit on the sidewalk or ,,,). You do slow the pace down as the pc games market is somewhat at a stall. So with the market not growing (at least not sigificantly) buying from one company automatically means a "loss" for the contenders - not a direct loss of course.


But again, I never doubted that Steam provides a valuable service to many people. Excluding me as I don't install games very often, and games I buy are often already quite old, so patches don't come that often - but that does not mean I can't see that others are very satisfied with it, in fact I'm currently trying to create game library client of my own, that borrows many ideas from the Steam client.

Spore.

Did it mean the end of DRM in games ? No, it was the prelude (with EA beeing too "bold"), and people buying DRM enabled games neverthelless. Spore did also had much bigger problems than the DRM it was bundled with, no one can tell if it would have sold much better (despite its DRM) if it lived up to the hype that was created around it beforehand.

Valve is considered a major publisher, there's a kind of knit group of them and when one starts being successful at something others want to copy it. It could have been any major publisher taking this first step and I would be right there encouraging them forward, like a baby trying to let go of the table and move to its toy box. Gabe Newell is definitely a smart guy: like you say, he saw a niche that wasn't being fulfilled and is taking the opportunity to fill it. You talk about it like it's a bad thing. We can either say "yeah Gabe, we may be a niche but we're still a market that is worthy of your attention" and play along for a bit, or we can outright reject it and gain nothing.


It is my belief that by playing along I can help guide the system slowly to where I would like it to be. You are free to disagree.

I made it sound a little "harsh" as I got the impression that you made it sound a little bit too "soft" and enigmatic. Valve is a company foremost, so they have bills and salaries to take care of. That doesn't mean that they are all mustache twirling people who like to steal lollies from little kids before breakfast, but they are no idealist, who like to bring peace to all gamers around the world, either.

OR YOU COULD just store your hacked / iliagal stuff on a external . And unplug it when you are downloading something with DRM .

This would achieve what, exactly ?

 

[WizardStan]

Not exactly, as your scenario would require that every manufacturer would need to do this

Which they do as part of the BD standard. Every disk has an encryption "code". As new movies come out, new codes are occasionally required which Sony disseminates through the internet: you can't always watch a brand new movie unless you've updated your player. They also have the ability to revoke codes rendering older movies unwatchable. I haven't heard of it happen, I don't suspect it will ever happen, but it is a possibility and it is entirely in the hands of one company. One of my coworkers specifically went looking for a player which didn't have a network connection (just a USB) so that updates had to be performed manually and he wouldn't be caught by surprises: they don't exist.

But wasn't it you that asked where to draw the line ("at 2/3", etc) ?

Ah, I think I understand. I'm saying "draw a line if you must, but keep that line consistent across all markets" and you're saying "draw a line if you must, but each market deserves a different line". Nothing interesting to discuss here, just different priorities.

I get the impression we are talking cross-purposes: I could "live" with companies selling their software with DRM in one or the other form, if steam would provide a service that lets me play the game I bought even if I decide that I do not want to comply to their terms of use at some point in the future.

Still not seeing what the problem is. Why can't you do this now? Use Steam to purchase and install a game, close Steam, run game manually. This works with most of my games and requires only a little bit of research before purchasing, research you'd be doing before buying a physical copy anyway, yeah?

You do slow the pace down as the pc games market is somewhat at a stall.

And this is the crux of where we disagree. You argue that if we intentionally let one part of the market stagnate while putting our efforts into a parallel market that this will drive the parallel market to our goal and that by even acknowledging the other market we are doing disservice to the second market.


My argument goes that if we don't recognize the first market then it will simply ignore us for we are but a tiny fraction of what it is looking for: we would do better to focus efforts on both, and I do. I give 100% to both the bundle distributions and to Steam. If I stopped buying Steam games I wouldn't suddenly start buying more indie bundle games, nor would I start paying more for those indie bundle games: I am buying all the games I am interested in at the prices I like; I do the same with Steam, factoring in whether a game will cause me problems or not, including Wine support and DRM. In this way I guide both markets ultimately to my own ends without sacrificing either to the other.


edit: also GoG, forgot about them. I purchase from GoG if it is available there first, then I go to Steam only if it isn't available elsewhere.

Did it mean the end of DRM in games ?

Nope, and that's the point. There were a lot of problems with Spore that cost it long term but in short term many people were turned away early in the launch by overly oppressive DRM which gave time for the other issues to be blogged about and affirmed those that rejected it at first. Maybe if it had been as good as advertised then sales would have picked up as people started purchasing it again, but it doesn't matter: DRM crippled the sales of Spore and EA didn't learn a thing. Instead they doubled down and started releasing even more invasive games in an attempt to halt piracy. That's why I don't think that completely rejecting everything even remotely tied to DRM is going to make a difference and why I am accepting of Valve's attempts: I don't believe that accepting "the whole package" means accepting everything in that package, their analytics are far too refined for that. If everyone orders a house salad at a restaurant and 50% of the patrons leave the olives on the plate, that should be a cue to the restaurant that there is something wrong with the olives and despite "the whole package" of the salad including them maybe they should change tactics. That's what I'm going with for Valve as well.

I'm currently trying to create game library client of my own, that borrows many ideas from the Steam client.

Does Desura work for you?

 

[thatgui]

Which they do as part of the BD standard. ..

You live in north America right ? Maybe they have another policy regarding that in the EMEA region, but as far as I remember no one I know (but thats maybe just 6 or 7 people) never needed to do a player upgrade to be able to play a new disc. But as said its a completly different thing with steam deciding that you cant use their service anymore and sony deciding the player you bought should not play a certain disc anymore.

Ah, I think I understand. I'm saying "draw a line if you must, but keep that line consistent across all markets" and you're saying "draw a line if you must, but each market deserves a different line". Nothing interesting to discuss here, just different priorities.

missunderstood you in that regard, sorry

Still not seeing what the problem is. Why can't you do this now? Use Steam to purchase and install a game, close Steam, run game manually. This works with most of my games and requires only a little bit of research before purchasing, research you'd be doing before buying a physical copy anyway, yeah?

I guess I'm right with my assumption that we are talking cross-purposes(yeah, at least once I'm right )).


Lets play the scenario through (from my point of view):


I'm having a steam account and I'm willing to buy a cross section through steams market, buying three games, one with no drm at all, one with a "onetime - drm" and one with a "everytime the game starts - drm". Live goes on I'm playing the games I bought, finish them, move along, buy new games, as a "collector by nature" don't bother with not beeing able to sell games I bought, but at some point decide that I do not want to agree to Valves new terms of usage. I deny it, leaving my account suspended, with no possibility to use their service(network) anymore. So whats left ? The game I bought which required a per game start authentication is already lost as the authentication is channeled through Steam. Leaving me with the other two to play as I like, as long as I don't need to reinstall the system. If I need to to this (which is highly likely if you are on a windows system), you don't have the option to play these games anymore. How to proceed from this point ?

...


My argument goes that if we don't recognize the first market then it will simply ignore us for we are but a tiny fraction of what it is looking for

Thats exactly were I'm having a hard time comprehending your argumentation. If it comes to sales you say/write that "we" are but a tiny fraction of the market that is overlooked. But looking at usage statistics these sales generate "we" are a group big enough to get their attention. A group which (no actual knowledge here, just assumptions) did not even originated from within Steams ecosystem but from outside, which marginalizes the possibilty that Valve was corious about what would happen if they let this "tender flower" grow.

...


: we would do better to focus efforts on both, and I do. I give 100% to both the bundle distributions and to Steam. If I stopped buying Steam games I wouldn't suddenly start buying more indie bundle games, nor would I start paying more for those indie bundle games

true, but without buying games anymore from them / not using their service anymore you are one user less they can advertise with, when its about bringing a new software company into the steam "familiy".

Nope, and that's the point. There were a lot of problems with Spore that cost it long term but in short term many people were turned away early in the launch by overly oppressive DRM which gave time for the other issues to be blogged about and affirmed those that rejected it at first. Maybe if it had been as good as advertised then sales would have picked up as people started purchasing it again, but it doesn't matter: DRM crippled the sales of Spore and EA didn't learn a thing. Instead they doubled down and started releasing even more invasive games in an attempt to halt piracy.

Exactly thats my point too. They made a "bold" step and somewhat failed, so they made another step (which seems logical as one experiment rarely leeds to a safe conclusion) and did not fail. So they set foot on a slippery stone and almost fell, but put the next on a dry stone, and the next and the next and the next - why on earth should they decide that this is not the right way to cross the river with dry feet ? How should they even begin with considering about taking the other route with the stones that seem smaller and farer away from each other, if their current way seems so less exhausting ?

Does Desura work for you?

Honestly, I don' really know what desura is about. On one or two occasions I bought a "bundle" where desura keys were included. I took a really quick look at their main page and then decided that I am good with my http downloads.

 

[WizardStan]

You live in north America right ? Maybe they have another policy regarding that in the EMEA region, but as far as I remember no one I know (but thats maybe just 6 or 7 people) never needed to do a player upgrade to be able to play a new disc.

Perhaps it is different in that it hasn't happened. That doesn't mean that it can't. All this is besides the point though, it was part of the "line drawing" confusion.

If I need to to this (which is highly likely if you are on a windows system), you don't have the option to play these games anymore. How to proceed from this point ?

I still don't understand why this is Steam's fault. There are games on Steam which don't use Valve's DRM, instead using their own or even a different 3rd party system. There is nothing about Steam that dictates any sort of DRM, either for or against or whose. Is it your honest belief that if Valve dropped their DRM (or never had it to begin with) the companies that are currently using it would NOT be using something else? I'm pretty sure Steam doesn't have a "one time confirm" DRM: that would be a third party system and nothing that Steam has control of. Steam has an "are you running through Steam and have you logged in to the server" DRM. You don't even have to be online, you just have to have logged into Steam once. Anything beyond that is additional DRM added by the publisher.


"How to proceed" has several possibilities. The first is that, as said, the gate is Steam: if Valve is going down, they may care enough to simply release a version of Steam which responds "true" to every DRM request, or even an official DRM removal program. This would be a trivial technical update for them. The lawyers might have to get involved to make sure they can do that legally but that's what lawyers are for. The producers of each game wouldn't have to do anything, your games would just start working without a problem.


The second possibility is that you simply crack it. Steam's DRM was solved years ago, it is pretty easy to questionably bypass it.


The third possibility is that they don't care or can't legally release a patch to remove the DRMs and you don't feel comfortable bypassing the DRM. In that case you're screwed. This is true whether it's Steam's DRM and Valve is going down or some third party DRM and the game publisher is going down. Personally I have more faith in Valve to do "the right thing" if they ever find themselves going out of business than any random publisher updating every single one of the games they've made in the last 20 years to remove the assorted different types of DRM they've used over the years: ie, I believe we have a better chance of being able to play our Steam DRMed games in the future is Valve goes out of business than we do if it were a publisher using almost any other form of DRM.


In any case you wouldn't be able to install the games again with Steam down, but this is true of every distribution channel: unless you keep the installs hanging around for your bundle games (which personally I don't anymore. I used to, I have Humble Bundle 1, 2, and 3 still, but haven't bothered keeping the rest around) in which case what would keep you from keeping backups of the installed Steam directories? You can always format your hard drive, reinstall windows, and restore your steam directory and suddenly have all your games back: that's one of the features that I like about Steam.

A group which (no actual knowledge here, just assumptions) did not even originated from within Steams ecosystem but from outside, which marginalizes the possibilty that Valve was corious about what would happen if they let this "tender flower" grow.

Exactly. Steam saw a market that they hadn't tapped. They saw what the indie bundles were doing with cross platform gaming and they wanted a piece of it. They stretched out some feelers to find out what that market would like and the Steam Linux Beta was the result. If we ignore their effort entirely, there is a risk that they will simply deem this market unreasonable and not bother any further. It is my belief that that the risk is high; you disagree. It is also my belief that the benefit of having Valve on our side is high; I'm not sure if you agree with that or not but I think you do based on your repeated assertion that things would be "okay" if Valve didn't supply any sort of DRM. My balance of risk-vs-reward is significantly balanced on the reward side which is why I am encouraging of Valve and Steam.

true, but without buying games anymore from them / not using their service anymore you are one user less they can advertise with, when its about bringing a new software company into the steam "familiy".

And if my one user is in their "gamers who spend more money on DRM free Linux games" category, along side many others, then maybe the new company they're trying to bring in will take that into consideration and release a DRM free Linux version.

Honestly, I don' really know what desura is about. On one or two occasions I bought a "bundle" where desura keys were included. I took a really quick look at their main page and then decided that I am good with my http downloads.

It's basically the Steam, or at least it tries to be. It's a DRM free, cross platform distribution system. They seem to have stagnated, unfortunately. If they had continued to grow their library, bringing in the rest of the Humble Bundles, done some major advertising, etc... then it might be worthy competition to Steam, but as it is all the indie devs seem to have abandoned it and are releasing to Steam now, further encouraged by Steam's Linux client.


Anywho, I hope I've answered all your questions and sufficiently explained why I believe what I do and why I think it is the way forward. It's unfortunate that we can't quantum split the timeline and unanimously "force" everyone to work one way or the other, but we can't, so we'll just have to play it as it comes and hope for the best.

 

[klapse]

@wizardstan and thatgui: this is one of the best debates I have read online in recent memory, in terms of respectful tome, argument and counter-argument etc. />