I hope the game won't have ridiculous DRM restrictions like the upcoming Assassin's Creed II. That game I think you must sign in to an online server even to play single player and your save file is located not on your PC but on the server. If you get disconnected, the game will instant kick you out. I do enjoy playing some civ on my laptop during those long flights between my offices in the US and in Asia.

aren't it primarily/only Ubisoft that runs the DRM scheme?

The two big DRM obsessed companies are EA and Ubisoft. Hopefully neither is involved in civ5 in the slightest. If EA is involved civ5 will be the first civ I pirate, out of principle. I have not paid for an EA game (with the exception of ME2 because Bioware, unlike EA, is a good company) since that Spore debacle. The harder you push with that sort of invasive software the harder people work to circumvent it.

Assassin's creed sucks anyways, what a shallow game. I bought it for 5 dollars off of steam around Christmas and I think that's the only use of 5 bucks I've ever regretted.

2K is a big supporter of DRM, but Firaxis had enough pull with them to remove even the disc check from Civ 4 so I get the feeling Civ 5 will have a disc check, and a serial number.

Personally I think if it was integrated into Windows Live! that would solve the piracy problem, and a solution to multiplayer

Requiring the internet to play is BS, any way you cut it.

'C&C 4' requires constant internet connection, Ubisoft has gone that route, Blizzard now says (unlike what they said earlier) that you must 'log onto' battle-net to PLAY 'SC2'. It's like everyone has lost their minds.

I think 2k has a great opportunity here to be the 'good company' that doesn't f$%k with their customers and can gain many, many sales because of it. I think gamers will 'vote with their dollars' on this one.

Anything which will require me to establish or even worse, to maintain an internet connection for playing my games will not make it to my harddrive. End of discussion.

DRM or online connection requirement would certainly discourage me from buying the game.

Beacause of DRM and internet conncection I will never play some games. Why should I need to sign in to play something I own?! Take2 take note.

Well, technically, you don't own the game, you just own the licence to play the game, but your point is still valid.

I'm hoping for either CD in drive and CDkey activation, or one-time online activation. I would prefer the later, but the former would be okay since lots of my games require it already.

Anything which will require me to establish or even worse, to maintain an internet connection for playing my games will not make it to my harddrive. End of discussion.
Same here.
Talking about leaving the door wide open!

Well, what are the DRMs on 2k's recent games?

I bet the Civ community features will play a part. I'm all for it. Wasn't happy that the few people I played Civ 4 multi-player most with didn't buy the game. I don't want these people to play with me, they aren't worthy to have discussions on the game and their opinions on what direction the game should go certainly shouldn't matter, either.

The two big DRM obsessed companies are EA and Ubisoft. Hopefully neither is involved in civ5 in the slightest. If EA is involved civ5 will be the first civ I pirate, out of principle. I have not paid for an EA game (with the exception of ME2 because Bioware, unlike EA, is a good company) since that Spore debacle. The harder you push with that sort of invasive software the harder people work to circumvent it.

Assassin's creed sucks anyways, what a shallow game. I bought it for 5 dollars off of steam around Christmas and I think that's the only use of 5 bucks I've ever regretted.

I have two points to make to you.

1. You will pirate CiV not out of principle but out of greed. You fail to realize, by pirating the game you would be justifying the DRM. It doesn't matter what arguments you make against that, it is what you will be doing. Not only will your piracy prevent the developer from getting revenue that is due to them (You would after all be playing the game) but it will tell the execs at X publishing company that "Hey, this game got pirated a lot, so on the next one we need to put even stronger DRM." That is how things work in the games industry. Your piracy generally does nothing to have the game companies remove DRM. In other words, you'd be a dolt if you pirate it. If you want to make sure the company doesn't get your money then don't buy the game. If you want to play the game, then buy it. You can't have both.

2. AC1 had one of the better stories in a video game. I have definitely seen better, but at the same time, for 5$ it was one of the better game deals I've gotten. My only regret is that with the idiotic DRM that Ubisoft plans to implement, I will not be buying AC2.

I'll buy the game and I won't pirate it, but people will pirate it. The stronger the DRM is, the worse the game will be pirated. This is a known fact.

I'll buy the game and I won't pirate it, but people will pirate it. The stronger the DRM is, the worse the game will be pirated. This is a known fact.

I do not dispute that, what I am disputing is the moronic rationalization behind the piracy. If you're a greedy basterd, just say so! Don't be an idiot along with it.

Whether or not people should pirate a game because of DRM is besides the point. The point here is that DRM does not stop piracy, so why bother? It just annoys honest people who pays for the game.

Well, what are the DRMs on 2k's recent games?

I bet the Civ community features will play a part. I'm all for it. Wasn't happy that the few people I played Civ 4 multi-player most with didn't buy the game. I don't want these people to play with me, they aren't worthy to have discussions on the game and their opinions on what direction the game should go certainly shouldn't matter, either.
Judgmental much?

Personally I think if it was integrated into Windows Live! that would solve the piracy problem, and a solution to multiplayer

Personally I think that wouldn't be one bit better than the draconian Ubisoft DRM and would definitely convince me not to buy it.

Personally I think that wouldn't be one bit better than the draconian Ubisoft DRM and would definitely convince me not to buy it.

I've bought all the Civ games since Civ2. But if Civ5 requires internet connection, then [civ4]:bts: will be last game I ever bought (or played) in the series. I hope this will not happen.

I, personally, don't think firaxis/take 2 will have anything more than serial number, copy protection, blah blah, non-invasive anti piracy methods. the Civ series is one of the most community driven franchises around (they release source code, for god's sake), and i doubt they would work so hard to pay attention to fan desires just to completely ignore this concern. let's not get pessimistic here guys.

The fact it appeared on Steam (http://store.steampowered.com/app/50100/) the day it was announced, makes me wonder whether it will be a Steam Works title and use Steam's activation system as DRM (which may or may not be limited to just that).

The fact it appeared on Steam (http://store.steampowered.com/app/50100/) the day it was announced, makes me wonder whether it will be a Steam Works title and use Steam's activation system as DRM (which may or may not be limited to just that).

For those unfortunate souls that buy their games from Steam, most likely.

For those of us that don't like the notion of someone erasing their whole game collection at the click of a button because they may, for example, think you bought a game from the wrong country, it won't be a problem. There are reasons enough not to let Steam infest your computer.

Steam accounts don't get disabled for purchasing games from other regions. Some physical copies of games won't activate on a Steam account outside the designated region though, but they clearly state that on the box. You may think that in itself is harsh, but it's a result of different regions being offered different prices. Setting one fixed rate globally isn't a workable idea. If the prices are set at the rate you'd find in wealthy countries, nobody in the poorer parts of the world will buy them and probably just pirate them. Set them at the rate they're sold for in the poorer parts of the world and a big bite is taken out of the developer's profit. Profit is somewhat useful for a developer.

For those unfortunate souls that buy their games from Steam, most likely.

For those of us that don't like the notion of someone erasing their whole game collection at the click of a button because they may, for example, think you bought a game from the wrong country, it won't be a problem. There are reasons enough not to let Steam infest your computer.

Valve wont disable your account without some significant justification. Enabling a game from a different region is not one of those things. In fact, most of the time you wont even be able to do that. (Which is one of my few gripes with Steam)

Valve also has enough pull with its platform, Steam, that it can change what kind of DRM is used in a game. Believe me, Steam's DRM is much less intrusive than a vast majority of the DRM out there.

Valve wont disable your account without some significant justification. Enabling a game from a different region is not one of those things. In fact, most of the time you wont even be able to do that. (Which is one of my few gripes with Steam)

I said nothing about disabling accounts, just removing games. And that's been known to happen without any valid reason supplied whatsoever. I'm not saying it's common. I'm saying it can happen, occasionally it will happen, and that I personally will not be a part of any system where that can be done.

Valve also has enough pull with its platform, Steam, that it can change what kind of DRM is used in a game. Believe me, Steam's DRM is much less intrusive than a vast majority of the DRM out there.

Think for a moment what you're saying. Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to have just said that you think it possible that Civ 5 might be in effect Steam-only. Games sold through Steam will obviously have Valve's DRM, but there's no way all copies of Civ 5 would include it, thus requiring Steam.

Steam DRM may be less intrusive than some, but Steam as a whole is a huge no-no for a certain breed of old fashioned players who will not tolerate anything trying to take the control of their own computer away from them.

But I've made my point and am beginning to astray. After all, this thread is for discussion about possible DRM in Civ 5, not my personal reasons for boycotting Steam :)

Steam Works games do require Steam, even if they're bought through a retailer.

I do hope that the fine folks of Firaxis and Take Two realize that with the PC Civilization crowd they are dealing with a fairly intelligent (and principled) customer base and that anything beyond a disc check and cd-key would be going too far... so much so as to sabotage the profitability of the game itself and potentially destory interest in future offerings. I for one do not touch EA products anymore without exception, largely due to this issue.

edit: changed inaccurate publisher name.

I, personally, don't think firaxis/take 2 will have anything more than serial number, copy protection, blah blah, non-invasive anti piracy methods. the Civ series is one of the most community driven franchises around (they release source code, for god's sake), and i doubt they would work so hard to pay attention to fan desires just to completely ignore this concern. let's not get pessimistic here guys.

I agree completely. People who pirate games will find a way no matter what method of DRM is used. Why punish loyal fans with rediculous DRM schemes that require anything more than having the origional disc. Requiring a steam account or a constant internet connection would piss me off! I havnt purchased a steam game since halflife2 because I didn't enjoy the requirement to install their drm management crapware

Think for a moment what you're saying. Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to have just said that you think it possible that Civ 5 might be in effect Steam-only. Games sold through Steam will obviously have Valve's DRM, but there's no way all copies of Civ 5 would include it, thus requiring Steam.

Steam DRM may be less intrusive than some, but Steam as a whole is a huge no-no for a certain breed of old fashioned players who will not tolerate anything trying to take the control of their own computer away from them.

But I've made my point and am beginning to astray. After all, this thread is for discussion about possible DRM in Civ 5, not my personal reasons for boycotting Steam :)

You are indeed mistaken. I meant that if Civ 5 is sold on Steam, its possible it would only include Valve's DRM. It has been known to happen: Valve forces the publisher to remove all but Valve's own DRM as part of their agreement.

Unfortunately, you wont be playing Civ 5 though. I dont think Windows 95 will support it. After all, you don't want to lose control of your computer to Windows 98 and higher, do you?

You are indeed mistaken. I meant that if Civ 5 is sold on Steam, its possible it would only include Valve's DRM. It has been known to happen: Valve forces the publisher to remove all but Valve's own DRM as part of their agreement.

Unfortunately, you wont be playing Civ 5 though. I dont think Windows 95 will support it. After all, you don't want to lose control of your computer to Windows 98 and higher, do you?

I hope you're right, since I really like Steam. I doubt it, however, considering that GTA4 (another Take Two game) when sold on Steam still forces users to install Windows Live and this social network thing before it will work. We can all theorize that "oh the developers know we're a smart community etc." but in the end it's the publishers who make the decision to slap DRM on a product, and publishers only care about their bottom-line.

As a game gets older and its value drops the publishers stop caring as much about piracy, though. So if the DRM is really bad I will probably wait it out a while until it's removed like they did with Civ4.

Yep just like Total War all the idiots who have no idea how Steam works will come on out crying about how its somehow destroying how games are played. Leave Stream alone its great system, you just need to read the manual.

Yep just like Total War all the idiots who have no idea how Steam works will come on out crying about how its somehow destroying how games are played. Leave Stream alone its great system, you just need to read the manual.

Steam doesn't destroy how games are played, but requiring somebody to create a completely unnessesary account and install additional software that has nothing to do with the actual game is, IMO, rediculous.

Steam doesn't destroy how games are played, but requiring somebody to create a completely unnessesary account and install additional software that has nothing to do with the actual game is, IMO, rediculous.

Then I guess you quit playing computer games once DirectX started being required?

Steam doesn't destroy how games are played, but requiring somebody to create a completely unnessesary account and install additional software that has nothing to do with the actual game is, IMO, rediculous.

I absolutely hated Steam when it came out, it was just another layer of bs to wade through to play my games. But now it actually adds value so that it's worth more than a pirated version of the game.

Through Steam I can upload save-games so i always have them, I can see what my friends are playing and (if it's supported) auto-join their server... Most importantly to install a game I just click a few times and walk away for a few hours while it downloads - no physical media to store/find, patches are automatically installed.

Usually when you pirate a game you get the same exact quality as if you'd bought it (often it's even less hassle), but Steam is successful because it adds value.

For older Steam games its a good way to keep your games together. Newer games may in fact be designed with Steamworks which adds a ton of goodies. The biggest one is access to the Steam cloud for saves which means your game saves are available between multiple machines.

Steam also has game sales quite often, so you can get great games for cheap. When was the last time you could spend 100$ and get close to 60 games, games like Batman Arkham Asylum, Tropico 1/2, Bioshock or STALKER? I submit that Steam is pretty much the only place for these kinds of massive deals.

I bet you're one of those tho tried it back in the HL2 days, didnt like it and never bothered to even look if something changed.

Steam Works games do require Steam, even if they're bought through a retailer.

Indeed they do. Did someone try to claim otherwise, since if they did, I failed to notice.

You are indeed mistaken. I meant that if Civ 5 is sold on Steam, its possible it would only include Valve's DRM. It has been known to happen: Valve forces the publisher to remove all but Valve's own DRM as part of their agreement.

So you are indeed trying to claim that you think Civ 5 will be Valve-exclusive? Considering it's published by 2K and not Valve, I find it simply impossible. Yes, Valve will sell it through Steam, no doubt. Yes, the copies sold through Steam will most likely only have Valve's DRM. No, there is absolutely no way Valve's DRM would replace conventional DRM for all copies of Civ 5. Did I make myself clear enough this time?

Unfortunately, you wont be playing Civ 5 though. I dont think Windows 95 will support it. After all, you don't want to lose control of your computer to Windows 98 and higher, do you?

Now you're just being childish. And here I was thinking I wasn't dealing with children.

I understand Steam may be a nice system for the masses that never really learned to use their computer properly or don't want to know how stuff works. Sure, simple is fine for some. For privacy-oriented people and those that want to buy games instead of renting them, however, Steam isn't much of a choice. If we're talking digital distribution, Impulse for example is much better from such consumers' point of view.

So you are indeed trying to claim that you think Civ 5 will be Valve-exclusive? Considering it's published by 2K and not Valve, I find it simply impossible. Yes, Valve will sell it through Steam, no doubt. Yes, the copies sold through Steam will most likely only have Valve's DRM. No, there is absolutely no way Valve's DRM would replace conventional DRM for all copies of Civ 5. Did I make myself clear enough this time?

Your reading comprehension sucks.


if Civ 5 is sold on Steam

I never implied exclusivity to Steam.


Now you're just being childish. And here I was thinking I wasn't dealing with children.

I understand Steam may be a nice system for the masses that never really learned to use their computer properly or don't want to know how stuff works. Sure, simple is fine for some. For privacy-oriented people and those that want to buy games instead of renting them, however, Steam isn't much of a choice. If we're talking digital distribution, Impulse for example is much better from such consumers' point of view.

Then from one child to another, you long ago gave up control of your computer. Ever read a license agreement in the last...20 years? You dont have a right to the software, you have a right to use it as the company wants you to. Loss of control. I submit that any game from a major publisher in the last 5 years has carried a license that gives you the right to use the software, but it never gives you the software itself. In most cases, the license states that the publisher can rescind the license at pretty much any time. Also, please don't talk about 'consumers' point of view' since you seemingly have no idea what it means. You yourself said Steam is fine for the masses, therefore the consumers.

I ask you this, what OS do you run? If the answer is Windows anything, please leave this thread now. If the answer is Apple anything, please leave this thread now. If the answer is any precompiled Linux distro, please leave this thread now. You claim yourself to be security-minded, so lets see it in your OS choice.

Your reading comprehension sucks.

I never implied exclusivity to Steam.

Well then. And these two things you said?


Valve also has enough pull with its platform, Steam, that it can change what kind of DRM is used in a game.

I meant that if Civ 5 is sold on Steam, its possible it would only include Valve's DRM. It has been known to happen: Valve forces the publisher to remove all but Valve's own DRM as part of their agreement.

Since obviously you haven't been able to grasp my meaning with two detailed posts, I'll put it as simply as possible: Do you or do you not believe that all copies of Civ 5 will use Valve DRM, or just those sold in Steam? Your messages imply that you believe the first case to be true, while I've explained that I believe the latter. This is the simple question I've been trying to get an answer from you. To further clarify, I considered a game with Valve DRM that requires Steam to run to be Steam exclusive (yes, there are better terms for it, but since that's the phrase used here I'll stick to it for simplicity's sake), regardless of where else it may or may not be sold.

Then from one child to another, you long ago gave up control of your computer. Ever read a license agreement in the last...20 years? You dont have a right to the software, you have a right to use it as the company wants you to. Loss of control. I submit that any game from a major publisher in the last 5 years has carried a license that gives you the right to use the software, but it never gives you the software itself. In most cases, the license states that the publisher can rescind the license at pretty much any time. Also, please don't talk about 'consumers' point of view' since you seemingly have no idea what it means. You yourself said Steam is fine for the masses, therefore the consumers.

Ever considered the fact that practically all software EULA's have legal status only in the United States, if even in there, and are in breach of local laws just about everywhere else? Also, explicitly said "such consumers", deliberately setting apart a certain group to which concerns such as mine apply. It seems it's not just me with a problem with reading comprehension in this thread. In all my posts I've made it very clear that all my opinions are personal and shared by a relatively small group of users.

I ask you this, what OS do you run? If the answer is Windows anything, please leave this thread now. If the answer is Apple anything, please leave this thread now. If the answer is any precompiled Linux distro, please leave this thread now. You claim yourself to be security-minded, so lets see it in your OS choice.

And now you're just trolling. My choice of OS is hardly relevant to my views on a software distribution system.

Also this discussion seems to have quite some time ago crossed the line of civil conversation. I suggest to either put an end to it or at the very least refraining from further insults, veiled and open. We obviously have differing views of Steam, and I have no problem with that. I'm glad if it works for many people, but there are reasons, some mentioned above, for which I personally choose not to use it.

Ever considered the fact that practically all software EULA's have legal status only in the United States,
Sorry but EULA apply to software sold anywhere at anytime, there contract.

if even in there, and are in breach of local laws just about everywhere else?
Again contract and still agruing over what says in the EULA is the dumbest move in the book because odds are you already broken local laws well before you've even hit the EULA.

Also, explicitly said "such consumers", deliberately setting apart a certain group to which concerns such as mine apply. It seems it's not just me with a problem with reading comprehension in this thread. In all my posts I've made it very clear that all my opinions are personal and shared by a relatively small group of users.

But your opinion is made by the lack of understanding of the merits of a piece of software (hint, Impulse uses Stream's playbook)


And now you're just trolling. My choice of OS is hardly relevant to my views on a software distribution system.
You say your privacy minded consumer and he just listed ever form privacy minded consumer would never use. Hes just trying to prove your full of it and have no clue what your talking about.

Also this discussion seems to have quite some time ago crossed the line of civil conversation. I suggest to either put an end to it or at the very least refraining from further insults, veiled and open. We obviously have differing views of Steam, and I have no problem with that. I'm glad if it works for many people, but there are reasons, some mentioned above, for which I personally choose not to use it.

And so far all your reasons listed above are nothing more then pure FUD.

let's not start fights here guys. you should turn all that anger towards DRM

let's not start fights here guys. you should turn all that anger towards DRM

Some of us realized at long time ago DRM is here to stay but theres a right and wrong way to do it. Steam is step in the right direction.

While Impulse is good, Steam still wins based on having a bigger selection of games.

Actually I force all my non-steam games into steam, because it de-clutters my desktop. I don't mind having to be online to activate, as long as it lets me play single player without a connection (for example, my laptop when its out of wi-fi range)

Sorry but EULA apply to software sold anywhere at anytime, there contract.

Nope, anything written in an EULA that goes against local rights of consumers, such as much of this license-nonsense isn't worth a dime. Also, at least around here EULA is instantly made invalid if you only get to read it after the purchase, which is often the case.

You say your privacy minded consumer and he just listed ever form privacy minded consumer would never use. Hes just trying to prove your full of it and have no clue what your talking about.

And so far all your reasons listed above are nothing more then pure FUD.

Trying to contribute to a conversation usually involves at least trying to give something to back up your claims. You didn't seem to have any intent other than trolling and mudslinging with your post.

Meh, I'm done feeding the trolls here.

Actually, you cannot make the EULA binding on a customer if it is not available to view when you buy the game, rather than install it. Isn't contract law wonderful?

Nope, anything written in an EULA that goes against local rights of consumers, such as much of this license-nonsense isn't worth a dime. Also, at least around here EULA is instantly made invalid if you only get to read it after the purchase, which is often the case.

Again say that in court you find you end up losing mainly out of the fact that EULA is usually there as a warning that if you break the law with the product they will drop the hammer on you. Plus the WIPO Copyright Treaty has made it valid in all countries.

Trying to contribute to a conversation usually involves at least trying to give something to back up your claims. You didn't seem to have any intent other than trolling and mudslinging with your post.


If you read what I posted you noticed that I did however you just like keeping your head in the sand chanting "They change is evil". Because frankly all you've done so for is tried to spread FUD of Steam across these boards.

Actually, you cannot make the EULA binding on a customer if it is not available to view when you buy the game, rather than install it. Isn't contract law wonderful?

Actually the law on this is they have to have it visible at a public place. This includes websites almost all developers have the EULA on their sites thusly. I would think this is common knowledge by now as the practice and laws have been in effect for over 10 years. :eek:

Well, in the UK at least, they have started posting companies' EULAs in stores, as the agreement still needs to be available at the point of sale.

Then I guess you quit playing computer games once DirectX started being required?

When did directX start requiring me to create an account before I can start using it?

I absolutely hated Steam when it came out, it was just another layer of bs to wade through to play my games. But now it actually adds value so that it's worth more than a pirated version of the game.

Through Steam I can upload save-games so i always have them, I can see what my friends are playing and (if it's supported) auto-join their server... Most importantly to install a game I just click a few times and walk away for a few hours while it downloads - no physical media to store/find, patches are automatically installed.

Usually when you pirate a game you get the same exact quality as if you'd bought it (often it's even less hassle), but Steam is successful because it adds value.

Reading your post makes me want to give Steam another chance as I havn't used it since HL2...which was 3 computer builds ago. How does Steam work if you have different computers that you want different games installed on? Could I put HL2 on my desktop and at a later point put HL2 on my laptop?

I hope they still have my account info...actually, I hope that I can find my account info!?

Steam works just fine. You cannot be logged into your account from multiple places at once, but you can have it and all your games installed in as many places as you want.

Reading your post makes me want to give Steam another chance as I havn't used it since HL2...which was 3 computer builds ago. How does Steam work if you have different computers that you want different games installed on? Could I put HL2 on my desktop and at a later point put HL2 on my laptop?

I hope they still have my account info...actually, I hope that I can find my account info!?



You can do this.

I have my steam account on both of my desktops with all my games installed on both. You can only be online on one computer at a time, but steam also has an OFFLINE mode, which some games support. (GTA4 for example being the exception, which requires you to be online)

Heck, I can even play some of my steam games over LAN with my wife, or we can even play the game separately at the same time with one account in offline mode. :)

Well then. And these two things you said?

Since obviously you haven't been able to grasp my meaning with two detailed posts, I'll put it as simply as possible: Do you or do you not believe that all copies of Civ 5 will use Valve DRM, or just those sold in Steam? Your messages imply that you believe the first case to be true, while I've explained that I believe the latter. This is the simple question I've been trying to get an answer from you. To further clarify, I considered a game with Valve DRM that requires Steam to run to be Steam exclusive (yes, there are better terms for it, but since that's the phrase used here I'll stick to it for simplicity's sake), regardless of where else it may or may not be sold.


And I will once again say this: your reading comprehension sucks. Let me make it clear then.

For copies sold on Steam, and only copies sold on Steam, I believe Civ 5 will use Valve DRM. I say NOTHING about retail and physical copies. You obviously seem to not grasp the fact that a game can be sold through multiple channels.


Ever considered the fact that practically all software EULA's have legal status only in the United States, if even in there, and are in breach of local laws just about everywhere else? Also, explicitly said "such consumers", deliberately setting apart a certain group to which concerns such as mine apply. It seems it's not just me with a problem with reading comprehension in this thread. In all my posts I've made it very clear that all my opinions are personal and shared by a relatively small group of users.

Im pretty sure that EULA's for different regions are different. I do agree that they will likely not hold up in court, but to get to that point you have to go to court. You got several million USD to take a large company to court?


And now you're just trolling. My choice of OS is hardly relevant to my views on a software distribution system.

Indeed its irrelevant to your views on software distribution. It is relevant to your 'security mindedness' and your so called knowledge of how things work.


Also this discussion seems to have quite some time ago crossed the line of civil conversation. I suggest to either put an end to it or at the very least refraining from further insults, veiled and open. We obviously have differing views of Steam, and I have no problem with that. I'm glad if it works for many people, but there are reasons, some mentioned above, for which I personally choose not to use it.

And while I am content that you have a different view, you seem to lack a sensical reason for said views. That's my problem here, not the fact that you have a different view.

Actually, you cannot make the EULA binding on a customer if it is not available to view when you buy the game, rather than install it. Isn't contract law wonderful?
Some games I have seen have a url on the box that leads to the EULA.

The rest of your beef should be towards retailers. I think pretty much any EULA states that if you do not agree, return immediately for refund.

Additionally, once you do click "I agree" its a manifestation of assent, and therefore still binding.

The point is that computer stores don't generally take games back that have been opened. I agree that once you click, it's pretty much irrelevant, but if you chose not to click for some reason, it is unlikely that the game store would refund your money, as stores are not legally required to refund a change in mind, which is what this would amount to.

As for not having the money to take someone to court, an EULA is basically institutionalised thuggery. It's "we know this is a corrupt, legally indefensible system that you have no option but to accept, but do you have the money to prove it?"

I agree with you there.

This is one of the reasons I like steam. They have their own EULA you agree to when you install it, long before you pay for anything. Once you agree to that, most games are under that EULA. Those that are not have a warning on the game's store page stating so and I believe you have the ability to read it before purchase. Not 100% certain on this, and I don't want to go buy a game to confirm but I am pretty sure thats how it works.

The point is that computer stores don't generally take games back that have been opened. I agree that once you click, it's pretty much irrelevant, but if you chose not to click for some reason, it is unlikely that the game store would refund your money, as stores are not legally required to refund a change in mind, which is what this would amount to.
What stores are you going to? Around where I live every store has 1 week policy for store refund. Little tip the guy behind the counter usually has no power and just does what hes told, find a manger watch how fast things can change.

As for not having the money to take someone to court, an EULA is basically institutionalised thuggery. It's "we know this is a corrupt, legally indefensible system that you have no option but to accept, but do you have the money to prove it?"

Usually to break an EULA you would have to break the law in some form or another, so most cases end up with the law broken being used instead of the EULA. However the WoW glider case (MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc.) did show that a EULA and TOU can be used successfully in court.

And I will once again say this: your reading comprehension sucks. Let me make it clear then.

For copies sold on Steam, and only copies sold on Steam, I believe Civ 5 will use Valve DRM. I say NOTHING about retail and physical copies. You obviously seem to not grasp the fact that a game can be sold through multiple channels.

Well, thank you. Finally. It only took three detailed posts to finally get you to clarify your view on a very simple question. For all it's worth, both of your messages I quoted in my last poast about this imply without extra clarification, which you did not supply, that all copies would have that DRM (ask any English teacher, or anyone who understands how logic works). That was the sole meaning for my posts, and I'm glad I finally managed to get an explicit reply out of you. It seems there's not been any disagreement here at all, but somehow you managed to turn it into a mudslinging spamfest. Congratulations, I'm sure you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Let this be a lesson in why when one makes a statement, especially in the internet where the possibility of miscommunication is huge, one should also take some time to make sure you're actually saying what you meant to say.

I won't bother to say anything about the rest of your post, as all that is just the consequences of poor trolling.

Well, thank you. Finally. It only took three detailed posts to finally get you to clarify your view on a very simple question. For all it's worth, both of your messages I quoted in my last poast about this imply without extra clarification, which you did not supply, that all copies would have that DRM (ask any English teacher, or anyone who understands how logic works). That was the sole meaning for my posts, and I'm glad I finally managed to get an explicit reply out of you. It seems there's not been any disagreement here at all, but somehow you managed to turn it into a mudslinging spamfest. Congratulations, I'm sure you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Let this be a lesson in why when one makes a statement, especially in the internet where the possibility of miscommunication is huge, one should also take some time to make sure you're actually saying what you meant to say.

I won't bother to say anything about the rest of your post, as all that is just the consequences of poor trolling.

I know this won't be read by you but by the off chance it is, please review the posts you made in this thread. But you made claims of Steam deleting someone's whole game library which where never backed up. Misunderstood the comment of Valve having enough clout to make other developers change there DRM. Portrayed Steam as malware. Mistaken hypothetical as fact. Basically I suggest you go back to school and learn how English and logic work because by this thread you failed those subjects.

Well, thank you. Finally. It only took three detailed posts to finally get you to clarify your view on a very simple question. For all it's worth, both of your messages I quoted in my last poast about this imply without extra clarification, which you did not supply, that all copies would have that DRM (ask any English teacher, or anyone who understands how logic works). That was the sole meaning for my posts, and I'm glad I finally managed to get an explicit reply out of you. It seems there's not been any disagreement here at all, but somehow you managed to turn it into a mudslinging spamfest. Congratulations, I'm sure you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Let this be a lesson in why when one makes a statement, especially in the internet where the possibility of miscommunication is huge, one should also take some time to make sure you're actually saying what you meant to say.

I won't bother to say anything about the rest of your post, as all that is just the consequences of poor trolling.

And still you hang onto it. My statement never implied exclusivity to the Steam platform. By using some of that logic you refer to, that would mean the game would be in multiple-channel distribution. Therefore, my statement kinda only applies to the copies distributed on Steam.

I am sorry though, I should have realized I need to explain it as to a 1st grader from the get-go.

And still you hang onto it. My statement never implied exclusivity to the Steam platform. By using some of that logic you refer to, that would mean the game would be in multiple-channel distribution. Therefore, my statement kinda only applies to the copies distributed on Steam.

I am sorry though, I should have realized I need to explain it as to a 1st grader from the get-go.

I will then explain it as to a 1st grader for you, then


Valve also has enough pull with its platform, Steam, that it can change what kind of DRM is used in a game.

"In a game". Not "in copies sold through Steam", which is a given and never under doubt. A simple clarification, or in fact stopping to consider what you were writing, would have saved both of us as well as the guy trolling my posts, a world of trouble.

I meant that if Civ 5 is sold on Steam, its possible it would only include Valve's DRM. It has been known to happen: Valve forces the publisher to remove all but Valve's own DRM as part of their agreement.

"If Civ 5 is sold on Steam, it's possible it (Civ 5) would only include Valve's DRM". By the famous logic, right here you said, thanks to not bothering to make sure you were writing what you meant to write, that you think if Civ 5 is available through Steam, it would only have Valve DRM.

I rest my case. There's no point in trying to argue even a valid point on the internet with people without the capacity to understand what's being said to them.

"In a game". Not "in copies sold through Steam", which is a given and never under doubt. A simple clarification, or in fact stopping to consider what you were writing, would have saved both of us as well as the guy trolling my posts, a world of trouble.


Right, in a game.
Lets take a look at that whole post:
Valve wont disable your account without some significant justification. Enabling a game from a different region is not one of those things. In fact, most of the time you wont even be able to do that. (Which is one of my few gripes with Steam)

Valve also has enough pull with its platform, Steam, that it can change what kind of DRM is used in a game. Believe me, Steam's DRM is much less intrusive than a vast majority of the DRM out there.


Oops, I think I need my glasses. I do believe I did not mention Civ 5 anywhere there though. Can someone else confirm that there is in fact not a single mention of Civ 5 in that post?


"If Civ 5 is sold on Steam, it's possible it (Civ 5) would only include Valve's DRM". By the famous logic, right here you said, thanks to not bothering to make sure you were writing what you meant to write, that you think if Civ 5 is available through Steam, it would only have Valve DRM.

I believe you missed that 'if', or if you didn't, it doesnt mean what you think it does. It doesn't mean that Civ 5 will only be available on Steam, it means that for those copies that are.


I rest my case. There's no point in trying to argue even a valid point on the internet with people without the capacity to understand what's being said to them.

At least we agree on something.

"If Civ 5 is sold on Steam, it's possible it (Civ 5) would only include Valve's DRM". By the famous logic, right here you said, thanks to not bothering to make sure you were writing what you meant to write, that you think if Civ 5 is available through Steam, it would only have Valve DRM.

Why not put the whole quote up? Becuase what hes refering to are the times when Valve has stepped in personally to make deal where Steam is the DRM for a game (see Total War: Empire).

Wow, long argument about Steam. Personally, I tolerate Steam, but I don't really like it that much. I have bought a few discount games on it, but mostly I would prefer to play the games the old fashioned way without having to launch some client first. Still, Steam DRM is much less draconian that some arrangements out there.

Now DRM for Civ5. I think the Epic model would be sufficient. CD key and disc check at first and when the game is a year or two old, release a patch that removes the disk check. Usually some time after the last expansion pack is released.

2K is a big supporter of DRM, but Firaxis had enough pull with them to remove even the disc check from Civ 4 so I get the feeling Civ 5 will have a disc check, and a serial number.

Personally I think if it was integrated into Windows Live! that would solve the piracy problem, and a solution to multiplayer

Good point about Civ4. Can't say much about Windows Live! as I've never used it, except the messenger for a short time.

The two DRM components I have a major problem with are required Internet connections (unless it's multiplayer only - even then a non-Internet LAN mode would be nice), and machine install limits. The former because it's stupid to require an Internet connection for a single-player game, and when I like to play single-player games doesn't correlate with when I have Internet. The latter because I don't like the idea of not being able to play a game because of such an arbitrary restriction. If it's a really good game, I might want to still be playing it 6 years later (like, say Civ3), and I may well have installed it "too many" times. Either of these requirements are very likely to prevent me from buying a game.

More traditional means such as a CD check are okay. I'd rather the CD not be required, and have been known to bypass such requirements on my most-played games as a matter of convenience, but it's not going to prevent me from buying the game.

Internet registration is similar. If it's required to install, it's more of a problem than a CD check, as it means no more installs once the install-validation servers are closed. If it's only required to access multiplayer, for instance, it's probably not as bad as a CD check.

Steam requirements, I'm not sure if I trust or not. I buy games on Steam (and Impulse), but it's mostly because of the price advantage. I don't know if I like it being required for boxed games, though.

It's too bad some developers are turning to more drastic measure, though. AC2 looked like a fairly good game, but I know if I buy it, there will be times I'll want to play it without Internet. So rather than buy it and deal with those frustrations, it's better to not play it at all.

My thought on DRM is that I am tired of having to deal with DRM software installed on my computer and having to have discs in the drive to play a game I paid for. Honestly, anyone who wants to pirate the game will do so - the honest customer is treated like a criminal and inconvenienced while the crooks enjoy a DRM free game. I tend to not play games that have disc checks as often as others. For example, after Civ 4 took out the disc check I have been playing it more often now as I don't have to switch a disck in (I know, I am lazy).

Now, that said, I have bought some Stardock software through Impulse and do not mind that model at all. In fact I kind of like that I can log on any time and reinstall purchased software without looking for discs and install keys.

Disclaimer for those places that require one. I am not a lawyer, nor am I presenting myself as one.

EULAs are practically unenforceable. First they have to prove the license agreement was broken. After that they have to prove the person that broke the license terms actually clicked the agree button. If you didn't click "I Agree" then you are in no way bound by that license agreement. Personally, I like to ask a random stranger on the street come in and do the entire installation of my games while I go do some laundry or something else in another room. ;)

In the end, it all comes do to copyright and the infringement of it. If you go read the US copyright laws, they are easy to find with google, it states that copyright infringement has not occurred if the total value of the infringed item(s) isn't $1,000+. That is why you don't ever hear of companies going after the individuals that pirate a copy of their game, the value doesn't reach the requirement to actually infringe the copyright. Instead they go after the distributors since those that offer the pirated products can be charged with distribution of many copies that total a value high enough to make it a crime.

Don't let the hype fool you, you own the cd and the game the same as you own the car, house, or cloths you bought. They can't come take the shirt off your back once you payed for it, and they can't stop you from using the game you bought. They only have the legal right to stop you from distributing copies of the product for a profit.

--------------------------------------------------------

On topic, the Gaming Industry is not special. Would you buy a toaster that would only work if connected to the internet? Would you buy a book you could only read 3 times? The more we let the industry get away with, the more they will want to take. Copyright law is meant to keep others from making money off the holders product, not to control how consumers use that product.

My answer is no, no I wouldn't. As an example, I bought every C&C game, but I will not buy the new one because there is no reason to require an internet connection for single player games. They may hype these things as efforts to stop pirates or offer new "features", but the bottom line is that they do it to limit that life time of the game. After they take down those servers, guess what, no more playing that game.

I have bought every Civ game and expansion since the first one, and not from the bargin bin either, I pay them the full price on release day because Civ has always been my favorite game. But, if they put anything more then standard cd check (easily fixed with a no-cd crack) and/or normal serial keys (which I will have because I would pay for it on release day), then I will add Civ5 to the list of games I won't spend my money on.

I would just like to say that I have much respect for Civ and Fraxis, but as was stated earlier in this thread, its the publishers, not the game makers, that decide what DRM is used, and I hope they can get the hint that excessive restrictions would hurt their profit margins. :)

Disclaimer for those places that require one. I am not a lawyer, nor am I presenting myself as one.

EULAs are practically unenforceable. First they have to prove the license agreement was broken. After that they have to prove the person that broke the license terms actually clicked the agree button. If you didn't click "I Agree" then you are in no way bound by that license agreement. Personally, I like to ask a random stranger on the street come in and do the entire installation of my games while I go do some laundry or something else in another room. ;)

I agree with you, but you as well would have little proof that it was in fact not you that agreed. Additionally, if you did not read and agree to the EULA, you have no right to use the product.


In the end, it all comes do to copyright and the infringement of it. If you go read the US copyright laws, they are easy to find with google, it states that copyright infringement has not occurred if the total value of the infringed item(s) isn't $1,000+. That is why you don't ever hear of companies going after the individuals that pirate a copy of their game, the value doesn't reach the requirement to actually infringe the copyright. Instead they go after the distributors since those that offer the pirated products can be charged with distribution of many copies that total a value high enough to make it a crime.

Not quite true. From Chapter 5, § 506 of US copyright law:

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.


It means that even if you did not distribute a copyrighted work worth more than 1000$, if you knew that it was meant for commercial distribution, as a game is, then you are still guilty of criminal infringement.

That's only for criminal infringement too.

If you violate any of the following rights granted to the copyright holder, you are also guilty of copyright infringement, although it may be a civil and not a criminal violation.

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.


I've bolded the part that I think applies the most. When you pirate a copy of some work, you effectively deprive the copyright holder of the bolded right.

The reason that people who pirate one or two things are not sued is mainly to do with the economics of a lawsuit. Unless a company wants to specifically protect it's copyrighted work against each and every single infringement (and lose money in doing so) they will most of the time only go to court when they know they can turn a profit.
Even if you have some crazy high sum like 30,000$ (which I believe is the maximum) per work, when a person has only pirated a single work, the lawyer costs if the person does not settle will quite likely exceed that value greatly.

As you can see, most companies don't do it simply because it would cost them money. It's more economical to let the infringement slide than go after it.


Don't let the hype fool you, you own the cd and the game the same as you own the car, house, or cloths you bought. They can't come take the shirt off your back once you payed for it, and they can't stop you from using the game you bought. They only have the legal right to stop you from distributing copies of the product for a profit.

This is one of the big grey areas in copyright law. Do you specifically own the software or only a license to use the binary copy provided to you? I can't give you a concrete answer here so Ill just leave it at this: You might be right, you might be wrong. You'd need to ask a US Copyright lawyer though.


--------------------------------------------------------

On topic, the Gaming Industry is not special. Would you buy a toaster that would only work if connected to the internet? Would you buy a book you could only read 3 times? The more we let the industry get away with, the more they will want to take. Copyright law is meant to keep others from making money off the holders product, not to control how consumers use that product.

My answer is no, no I wouldn't. As an example, I bought every C&C game, but I will not buy the new one because there is no reason to require an internet connection for single player games. They may hype these things as efforts to stop pirates or offer new "features", but the bottom line is that they do it to limit that life time of the game. After they take down those servers, guess what, no more playing that game.

I have bought every Civ game and expansion since the first one, and not from the bargin bin either, I pay them the full price on release day because Civ has always been my favorite game. But, if they put anything more then standard cd check (easily fixed with a no-cd crack) and/or normal serial keys (which I will have because I would pay for it on release day), then I will add Civ5 to the list of games I won't spend my money on.

All excellent points. Its abhorrent how pretty much all industries are abusing the consumer. The worst part is that many people care so little that they allow it to continue.

Ill add the same disclaimer as you: I am not a lawyer and I do not present myself as one. Anything in this post should not be taken as legal advice.

I agree with you, but you as well would have little proof that it was in fact not you that agreed. Additionally, if you did not read and agree to the EULA, you have no right to use the product.

True, but speaking purely from the criminal aspect, the burden would be on them to prove that you had pressed the button. As for having no right to play without reading and agreeing to the EULA, this would mean that a person would have no right to play any game they did not personally install. I would hope that no such decision would hold up to appeal. More on point though, I would point to the (1) of the copyright law you posted, "(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under...", the key part being 'willfully infringes'. Again, it would be on the prosecution to prove that your infringement was "willful".


Not quite true. From Chapter 5, § 506 of US copyright law:

It means that even if you did not distribute a copyrighted work worth more than 1000$, if you knew that it was meant for commercial distribution, as a game is, then you are still guilty of criminal infringement.


My reading of clause C implies that it is referring to works that have not yet been released, but are intended to be and would not apply to works that have already been released, those falling instead under clause B. I would guess that clause C is aimed at insider dvds of movies that are released before the movie hits theaters, though the same would apply to games that are finished but not yet released.


That's only for criminal infringement too.

If you violate any of the following rights granted to the copyright holder, you are also guilty of copyright infringement, although it may be a civil and not a criminal violation.

I've bolded the part that I think applies the most. When you pirate a copy of some work, you effectively deprive the copyright holder of the bolded right.


First, on a side note, I just have to say that no matter how many times I've read these laws, I always get a chuckle out of the fact that they insist on still including "phonorecords" in all this stuff. Really, is phonorecord pirating a problem in this day and age... :p

Anyway, back on point, you make a good point though I would say "(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;" is a much stronger position.

The (3) contains the ambiguous words "distribute" and "to the public" which could be interpreted in the same vein as the warning at the beginning of dvds that says it isn't allowed to be shown for "public" viewing, it just means you can't compete with the holder by releasing the work in the holder's own venue. Your bolded line also contains the troubling words "sale", "transfer of ownership", "rental", "lease", and "lending", which would seem to indite the entire used cd industry as copyright infringers as they facilitate the "transfer of ownership" of copyrighted works and also anyone that ever "lent" a cd, dvd, or video game to a friend.


This is one of the big grey areas in copyright law. Do you specifically own the software or only a license to use the binary copy provided to you? I can't give you a concrete answer here so Ill just leave it at this: You might be right, you might be wrong. You'd need to ask a US Copyright lawyer though.


I agree, if any of this has a true impact on someones life, then they should consult a lawyer, or at the least do there own research and not trust some anonymous posters on a forum. ;)


All excellent points. Its abhorrent how pretty much all industries are abusing the consumer. The worst part is that many people care so little that they allow it to continue.


I agree, but isn't that how it always is. They made my brother's game require online connection for SP games, and I said nothing. They made my friends game only installable 3 times, and I said nothing. Then they made my cousin's game verify with a server every time it was saved or loaded, and I said.. nothing. Then they made my game check my retinal print every time it started.. and there was no one left to say anything.

But seriously, from a gamer's perspective, I hate DRM, but from the perspective of an independent game developer, I think it's great. The more the industry squeezes the gamers, the more they push their gamers away and right into our arms. :)

My reading of clause C implies that it is referring to works that have not yet been released, but are intended to be and would not apply to works that have already been released, those falling instead under clause B. I would guess that clause C is aimed at insider dvds of movies that are released before the movie hits theaters, though the same would apply to games that are finished but not yet released.

It would be up to interpretation, and it's not a far stretch to apply it to works that are being released commercially



Anyway, back on point, you make a good point though I would say "(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;" is a much stronger position.

The (3) contains the ambiguous words "distribute" and "to the public" which could be interpreted in the same vein as the warning at the beginning of dvds that says it isn't allowed to be shown for "public" viewing, it just means you can't compete with the holder by releasing the work in the holder's own venue. Your bolded line also contains the troubling words "sale", "transfer of ownership", "rental", "lease", and "lending", which would seem to indite the entire used cd industry as copyright infringers as they facilitate the "transfer of ownership" of copyrighted works and also anyone that ever "lent" a cd, dvd, or video game to a friend.

Ambiguous is good for them. They again have the chance for interpretation in their favor.
Either 1 or 3 make sense for piracy.


I agree, but isn't that how it always is. They made my brother's game require online connection for SP games, and I said nothing. They made my friends game only installable 3 times, and I said nothing. Then they made my cousin's game verify with a server every time it was saved or loaded, and I said.. nothing. Then they made my game check my retinal print every time it started.. and there was no one left to say anything.

But seriously, from a gamer's perspective, I hate DRM, but from the perspective of an independent game developer, I think it's great. The more the industry squeezes the gamers, the more they push their gamers away and right into our arms. :)

I see DRM as an unfortunately necessary evil. I hate it, and as an aspiring game developer, I hope to gods I never have to implement it. At the same time, I can see that sometimes it just makes sense. The problem is, publishers often take this and run with it, using draconian schemes. Most of us are willing to deal with a serial key and cd check. Those barriers alone keep away the casual pirates, the ones who wont bother to try to bypass any drm. For anyone else, any drm doesnt do squat. There are multitudes of examples where the more draconian the drm, the more the legitimate users have issues with it, while the pirates chuckle and continue to play their pirated copies.

I see your point with thinking its great, but even then, it may have some unfortunate consequences. As consumers get more accustomed to having to activate their games online, having limits and the like, they will come to associate these things with the big studios and AAA games. The independent developers like you who provide games free of all that fuss may be seen as perhaps not of the same quality or caliber as those studios that do use DRM. I hope it never happens, but I have already read some disturbing things that point in that direction. When people complain about a lack of DRM, its a sad world.

Firaxis should do what Paradox does, that is no DRM.:D They just have you type in your CD code at their website. Doing that gives you access to the patches, tech support and Modding fourms.

The way I see it, nowadays, drm is just a way for companies to get you to be their game twice because you installed it too many times or something along those lines.:)