You mean one of the proof of slippery slopes is supposed to disprove it ?slippery slopes are a weak argument when Steam exists.
And that's the crux : it's only about the "annoyance", completely forgetting the actual consumer rights bypassing. This kind of behaviour means that they can rip you off as much as they want if they do it covertly enough, which is the maddening point.Yes, both systems offer a "self executing" enforcement capability, if you will, but one is better (read: less annoying) than the other.
As I already pointed it, Steam is ALREADY the second-most draconian DRM existing. How exactly is it a glorious achievement not to become worse when you're already there ?As more and more DRM gets more draconian Steam stays the same.
I've absolutely nothing bad to say about GoG, and they're the only light of hope I see in this rotten industry.And then there's gog.com.
No, the slippery slope states that things which were not tolerable previously becomes progressively acceptable as they are added by small bits.it contradicts the slippery slope fallacy. Steam isn't getting worse when a slippery slope explicitly states the entire industry is circling the drain.
You mean one of the proof of slippery slopes is supposed to disprove it ?
Wow.
And that's the crux : it's only about the "annoyance", completely forgetting the actual consumer rights bypassing. This kind of behaviour means that they can rip you off as much as they want if they do it covertly enough, which is the maddening point.
And it's also the way privacy is more and more infringed upon - by doing it under the radar, and by using the apathetic "oh well, I've nothing to hide/I don't care as I'm lost in the numbers/whatever" reasoning of the people.
It should be clear from my previous posts that I'm not anti-DRM, nor am I pro-EA or EA's choice of online-only play in SimCity 5. All I want is some statutory protection for consumers, to prevent companies arbitrarily banning your account without due process or legal recourse. You call them "fringe cases", but there have been far too many "fringe cases", where consumers have been screwed over by companies banning accounts or revoking access arbitrarily. It's not even specific to DRM -- PayPal have done the same, except with real businesses and real people losing lots and lots of real money. There simply needs to be more statutory protection for consumers so that accounts are more like bank accounts, that can only be closed in specific, proscribed circumstances, and with legal recourse for consumers who have had their accounts banned or frozen arbitrarily. This is a big new industry with big money and lots of people on the line. It should be regulated.
Akka said:You're welcome to actually read something before answering to it :
- The games which requires an authentification at each start won't ever work.
- The games which requires an authentification when installed will work... but only as long as you don't change your computer. If you need to change your OS, or your computer, or if you ever want to install the game on another machine... you're screwed.
Because it seems that's exactly what I'm saying, so from where do come your "you don't know how it works" ?
And yes, requring validation from someone else to be able to install and play your own copy of the game is something that I don't see as "non-intrusive".
Seriously, READ THE F-ING THING before answering !You CAN install the same game on multiple computers. You CAN play steam games offline. You do NOT need authentication each time you play a steam game. Yes, if you change your computer or re-install, you will have to authenticate once, after which point you will be able to play offline all you want.
If you don't see the problem of requiring the permission of a third party to allow you to use your own copy, then you're the one out here.If all you are saying is "Having to install my game from a 3rd party client is intrusive" then I'm afraid I'm going to have to put your opinion down as "out there".
Err...I don't think ignoring privacy rights is the crux of this argument, because what are we really talking about here? Video games. Privacy rights are not the crux of anything in this discussion because this is ultimately a frivolous inconsequential luxury.
No you don't. You pay to be able to ask a third party to let you play as long as they feel it. That's one of the main problem.How is Steam ripping me off anyway? I buy the game
The problem is not that it happens sometimes, the problem is that such restrictions should not be acceptable. If you buy something, you should be able to use it whenever and wherever you want, and not be required to be online and beg someone else to let you use it.I see the bill, I pay it. I get what I pay for. A very small number of users have been mistakenly cut off, I understand, but this is not unexpected and I do not think that points to anything nefarious other than routine corporate scew-ups that happen with any large company.
And my question is : how do you think that such a situation, where laws are so companies-friendly and so consumer-unfriendly, came from ?I am aware of the consumer rights I waive (no class actions, no jury trials, significant provider control over access) by using Steam, and the big picture of how those contract terms became legal troubles me very deeply, but keep in mind every single contract an American signs with any large company in the United States for any basic service (telephone, cable, internet, you name it) includes language allowing them to wield similar control over you. Steam, like any large provider, is taking advantage of a system of anti-consumer laws that support this behavior. Not much I can do about that. Importantly, since Steam is so unimportant in the long run (video games?) the fact that Steam says on paper that they can basically do whatever they want and I have no recourse other than filing an expensive arbitration claim does not really bother me too much, to be honest.
First, the entire reasoning "there is something worse, so we shouldn't even bother about this" is flawed. I hope I don't need to explain why.In other words, there is a difference between being naive and knowing the potential problems and making an informed decision. And we are talking about video games here. The Government saying they can kill me with a drone anytime they feel like it? Yeah that might make me a little more concerned. But this?
Akki said:No you don't. You pay to be able to ask a third party to let you play as long as they feel it. That's one of the main problem.
I don't see how it counters my point. They still can cut you off your OWN copies whenever they want.Your concerns really do read like someone with a tinfoil hat on. I've been playing games on steam for over 2 years now and it's not "whenever they feel like it". I play my games whenever I feel like it and have had no issues.
DRM is in itself a necessary evil - that is, it has no justification by itself, only justification because of piracy. As such, nothing more than the bare minimum should be acceptable and legal.What level of DRM would be acceptable for you, then? Maybe we should re-start this discussion with that.
Akka, what has Steam done in their history to lead you to have the sort of wild-eyed suspicions you currently have? Because nothing I have seen has given me any reason to doubt that I am going to continue to receive the service I pay for without any real issue. Steam has not engaged in any flagrant corporate abuses or blatantly consumer fraud as far as I can see. If you know of any, I would love to know about them.
It is one thing to blindly accept it when you are getting screwed or manipulated, it is also another to imagine bogeymen where they do not exist.
I don't see how it counters my point. They still can cut you off your OWN copies whenever they want.
It's not because someone doesn't USE a power given on him, that it makes it more acceptable to surrender it to him. Again, it's a problem of principle and of rights, which is hidden by people not caring for things they don't see.
DRM is in itself a necessary evil - that is, it has no justification by itself, only justification because of piracy. As such, nothing more than the bare minimum should be acceptable and legal.
There ARE publishers and studios who have a zero-DRM policy, and still manage to not be bankrupt (GoG, Stardock and Paradox for example). DRM aren't even absolutely necessary.
I understand your outrage from a purely academic perspective. From a functional one, it seems very unnecessary and yeah, of the "but it could happen!!" variety. It could, but Microsoft could easily disable your windows with a random windows update.
To the executives at EA, from one of your employees
I am deeply embarrassed by the troubled launch of Sim City and I hope you are too. When I walk around our campus and look at the kind of talent weve collected, the amenities we have access to and the opportunities working at such a big company affords us, I cant imagine how for release after release, EA continues to make the same embarrassing, anti-consumer mistakes. We should be better than this. You should not be failing us so badly.
Another thing I see when I walk around our campus are massive banners that display what are said to be our company values. They are on posters on every floor, included in company-wide emails and hanging above the cafeteria in bright colors. You even print them on our coffee mugs so we see them every day. But somehow when planning the launch of Sim City, you threw them all out the window.
Most important of the values you are ignoring is Think Consumers First. What part of the Sim City DRM scheme, which has rendered the game unplayable for hundreds of thousands of fans across the globe, demonstrates that you are thinking about consumers before you are thinking about yourselves? Does first mean something different in boardrooms than it does to the rest of us? Does the meaning of that word change when you get the word executive in front of your title?
You cant even pretend that you didnt know consumers would be angry about this. Common sense aside, consumers complained about this during your public betas. In fact, when one of them posted his criticisms on the forums, he was banned! You tried to silence your critics. The same thing is happening now as users write in to demand refunds. What part of this behavior aligns with our company value to Be Accountable?
What youve demonstrated with this launch is that our corporate management does not believe in our core values. They are for the unwashed masses, not for the important people who forced this anti-consumer DRM onto the Sim City team. This DRM scheme is not about the consumers or even about piracy. Its about covering your own asses. It allows you to hand-wave weak sales or bad reviews and blame outside factors like pirates or server failures in the event the game struggles. You are protecting your own jobs at the expense of consumers. I think this violates the Act With Integrity value Im looking at on my own coffee mug right now.
On behalf of your other employees, Id like to ask you to fix this. Allow the Sim City team to patch the game to run offline. If Create Quality and Innovation is still a core value that you believe in, then this shouldnt be a hard decision. Games that gamers cant play because of server overload or ISP issues are NOT quality. Be Bold by giving the consumers what they want and take accountability for the mistake.
Finally Id like to ask you to follow the last company value on the list in the future: Learn and Grow. When you made this mistake with Spore, the company and all your employees suffered for it. You didnt learn from that mistake and you are making it again with Sim City.
So please, learn from this debacle. Dont do this again. Grow into better leaders and actually apply our company values when you make decisions. Dont just use them as tools to motivate your staff. With the money, talent and intellectual property available to EA, we should be leading the industry into a golden age of consumer-focused game publishing. Instead were the most reviled game publisher in the world. Thats your fault. Things can only change if you actually start following the company values and apply them to every title we launch.
Sincerely,
A Disappointed But Hopeful Artist at EARS
EDIT: with regards to proof, I am an employee, so I do not want to jeopardize my standing, but today, all regular EA employees got an e-mail with a note from Gabrielle Toledano in celebration of International Women's Day. Another EA employee would have to confirm, but its the most proof I'm willing to risk providing.
"Hello I.T. Department, can you send me a list of all the employees who were using reddit at about 2pm EST?"
No, I can just choose not to install the update.