Civilization 5 and Steam(works)

[Drakarska]

The fact that a high-ranking executive of an extremely profitable company would answer questions about what are essentially bankruptcy contingency plans (most of Valve's value is derived from Steam, if they ever take the servers down either they are going out of business or PC gaming has been outlawed throughout the world) is pretty remarkable, to tell you the truth- I don't think most businesses would answer questions about what they would do if they suddenly decided to cancel their most profitable product.

Valve has stated that they already have the "disable all online authentication" patch coded into the system, and considering their stellar customer service and past history of providing for their fans I don't doubt that they would implement it in the worst-case scenario. If you don't want to trust a company to protect your right to play a $50 game against a relatively far-fetched scenario, then don't buy it- but you're going to be playing the games you currently own forever, because the future of PC gaming needs DRM in it survive, and CD checks don't cut it anymore.

Um, stellar customer service? Past history of providing for their fans? Well, that may be your viewpoint, but not mine. Everyone has his/her own opinion of what is "acceptable" from a companay.

Just out of curiosity, are you saying that physical copies no longer serve a purpose anymore? That we should all rely on some third party vendor to just keep all of our data safe until such time as when we wish to use it?

Interesting theory if so. Seems rather trusting to keep all of your eggs in 1 basket, so to speak. No offense Donkeyman, But I rather keep all my "discs" and/or "jumpdrives" in a organised stored area. Granted, it may be out of date in todays world, but at least I don't have to worry about 3rd party problems.

Also, because I am actually interested in your theory, why do you feel that the future of PC gaming "needs" DRM to survive? especially since open source gaming is actually beginning to catch up with the Big Boys. And just for good measure, I'm not actually opposed to company's making a profit off a good PC game, it's when corps decide to bend you over the table and ( insert appropriate comment here) without bothering to kiss you 1st that I take umbrage with.

 

[ancestral]

I thought it was very interesting that they released Civ IV on Steam for both Mac and Windows, working on both, and even more so given Aspyr did the conversion (I guess TakeTwo had some publishing rights that allowed them to do it). Being primarily a Mac user first and a PC user second, it's still very attractive having the ability to play on either.

Given that Firaxis feels confident there will be a Civ V for the Mac, whether they do it in house as a native port (unlikely), through Cider (possibly, like EA has done), or hire outside again (likely Aspyr again, since they have a good history), in any of these scenarios it looks optimistic that a Steam version would carry support for both platforms. That is a huge dealmaker for me.

 

[arstal]

As for Mac support, you don't need Steam to have Mac support. While Impulse is Windows only, Gamersgate has been doing Mac support for about 2-3 years now, without the Steam DRM.

 

[The_Coyote]

Despite this, Gabe Newell, CEO of Valve, said in a post on the Steam User Forums that "Unless there was some situation I don't understand, we would presumably disable authentication before any event that would preclude the authentication servers from being available." He added, "We've tested disabling authentication and it works."

In addition to Gabe Newell's comments, Steam's Support Staff have confirmed that "in the unlikely event of the discontinuation of the Steam network, measures are in place to ensure that all users will have access to their Steam games."

you must have missed the part in the SSA which makes such statements non binding (not even worth the bits which are needed to store them). Like in most similar contracts, all things said outside but not written in the contract are "nothing".

I hereby agree to be bound by the Agreement. I also acknowledge and agree that this Agreement (including the Subscription Terms, Steam Online Conduct rules and other Rules of Use, and Privacy Policy) is the complete and exclusive statement of the agreement between Valve and me, and that the Agreement supersedes any prior or contemporaneous agreement, or other communications, whether oral or written, between Valve and myself.

But even assuming the sentence has still some worth - someone could ask why nobody can still found the original post any longer. One can assume that if the firm still sticks* to the statement you could also expect to find the sentence in a official place. (I´m aware that there was an answer claiming that there exits measures from steam support this year in this case)

_____________________
@ Commander Bello

Perhaps this time it would be good to explain what you wanted to say. I only know this kind of comparision if someone promises things and already knows he will break this promise. (simply because it´s one of the legendary examples of a lie). But this doesn´t seem to fit.

Did you means that someones words are only worth a little because your doings can tell another story? (something like words can always make you to look good) And atm the base for judgement in this case for everybody are only some words, no doings (perhaps someone could already see the SSA as "doings"). And only looking at his words also Ulbrecht can look like a nice guy?

_________________________
@ ancestral

the Windows / Mac thing can be certainly a big plus factor for some - but it would also be possible if the game would be sold on steam (iirc the same applies to the civ4 version sold on steam). Means even to have this plus factor there is no need to require a steam account from everybody to play the game

 

[Rebel44]

But even assuming the sentence has still some worth - someone could ask why nobody can still found the original post any longer. One can assume that if the firm still sticks* to the statement you could also expect to find the sentence in a official place. (I´m aware that there was an answer claiming that there exits measures from steam support this year in this case)

All Forum threads are archived only for some time (2-3 years IIRC).

That post can still be found via google cache search and its screnshots are also easy to be found.

 

[12agnar0k]

you must have missed the part in the SSA which makes such statements non binding (not even worth the bits which are needed to store them). Like in most similar contracts, all things said outside but not written in the contract are "nothing".

No I did not miss this point. I mentioned it in my last part of the post

Basically what thier saying is "We are not legally obliged to allow you to continue playing your games if verification servers fail, i.e if you try to force them to fix the problem you will fail in court, but they do actually have these contingencies in place and can't forsee a situation where they wouldnt be able to implement these contingencies before the downfall of Civilization."

So while they aren't legally abliged to do this, I'm not legally abliged to give you £100, but I'm sure you would want me to, I'm not going to give up my right to not give you £100 though I do have contingencies "Your bank account number and my bank transfer ability" to give you £100 if I want too. This is what they are saying, they do not have to do anything for you regarding providing a fix to authentication if they can no longer authenticate for you, but they have stated they can and will and don't forsee a situation where they couldn't remove authentication if the need arised. If this answer is not satisfactory for you well you won't be getting a better one unless you convince the government to force them to change thier policy by changing the LAW its based on.

 

[Commander Bello]

_____________________
@ Commander Bello

Perhaps this time it would be good to explain what you wanted to say. I only know this kind of comparision if someone promises things and already knows he will break this promise. (simply because it´s one of the legendary examples of a lie). But this doesn´t seem to fit.

Did you means that someones words are only worth a little because your doings can tell another story? (something like words can always make you to look good) And atm the base for judgement in this case for everybody are only some words, no doings (perhaps someone could already see the SSA as "doings"). And only looking at his words also Ulbrecht can look like a nice guy?

Well, for me as being German this quote obviously is a well-known example of somebody saying "A" at a given point of time and then doing (or allowing to happen) "B" some months later.

In other words: whatever a company promises to do or already having done in preparation for a time when it will not longer be existing or when the responsible persons won't be in charge anymore (since the company might be in liquidation) is just moot.

Fact is, nobody of us can look into the future and cannot know what is going to happen in such an event.

In case of Steam ever going out of business (for whatever reason), it is quite likely that the debris of that company would be bought by somebody else. Yet, it is not guaranteed that the service will be continued in exactly the same way as it is provided today.
Especially under the assumption that such "going out of business" would be in any way due to economic reasons, it seems likely that a new owner might charge a fee to continue the service.

And what is going to happen to the guys who then want to refuse such fees? Will there be any chance for them to still have access to their games?
How will Steam provide a solution for these guys to access their games, while others are continuing their "membership" based on a fee?

A lot of unanswered questions.

If we look at the Steam SSA, we find at section 9.C.:

C. NO GUARANTEES.

VALVE DOES NOT GUARANTEE CONTINUOUS, ERROR-FREE, VIRUS-FREE OR SECURE OPERATION AND ACCESS TO STEAM, THE STEAM SOFTWARE, YOUR ACCOUNT AND/OR YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS(S).

(Capital letters by Steam)

(Here one could argue that "not guaranteeing" refers to "continous, error-free, virus-free or secure", but I am pretty sure that it could also been read without these phrases)

But there is another section.
Section 13.C.1 of said SSA reads:

2. In the case of a one-time purchase of a product license (e.g., purchase of a single game) from Valve, Valve may choose to terminate or cancel your Subscription in its entirety or may terminate or cancel only a portion of the Subscription (e.g., access to the software via Steam) and Valve may, but is not obligated to, provide access (for a limited period of time) to the download of a stand-alone version of the software and content associated with such one-time purchase.

(Emphasis mine)

In fact, I cannot find any legally binding phrase in the SSA pointing out that Steam actually would make access to the games being bound to a Steam account possible after they may have got out of service (= are in economic disorder, having been put under supervision of the liquidator, or whatever).
Therefore, quoting any statement of G. Newell about this seems to be moot and just a marketing statement, since the wording of the SSA are contradicting it.

 

[ori]

been there, done that, may I suggest moving the discussion about whether or not Steam would free their games from their control to the thread that covered it at length?

 

[MaxCiv]

Also, because I am actually interested in your theory, why do you feel that the future of PC gaming "needs" DRM to survive? especially since open source gaming is actually beginning to catch up with the Big Boys. And just for good measure, I'm not actually opposed to company's making a profit off a good PC game, it's when corps decide to bend you over the table and ( insert appropriate comment here) without bothering to kiss you 1st that I take umbrage with.

First of all, can you name any open source game that can be comparable to any AAA title of the same genre? Saying open source gaming is catching up is like saying "this is the year of Linux on the desktop" which has become a known joke even within the linux community.

In the perfect world there would be no need for any DRM, but unfortunately we live in a world far from perfect where many people feel entitle to any software they like just because software is not a material thing.

Without DRM, triple A titles on PC would have no economic reason to exist. I'm sure the guys at Firaxis have bills to pay and families to feed like anybody else.

The old CD checks don't cut it anymore thanks to people I mentioned above. The new industry trend is to offer online services tied in with the games to give legitimate customers an added value you cannot get with the cracked version. That's why Steam is so successful and it is slowly becoming THE gaming platform on PC.

 

[jacortina]

MaxCiv, can you please supply any actual data to support the idea that DRM equates to more sales? After all, in order for the guys at Firaxis to pay bills and support families, they need to actually sell copies/licenses/subscriptions of their titles.

I have myself never been shown evidence of any connection between the existence or strength of DRM and an INCREASE in sales of a title.

As without this, your argument lacks any backing whatsoever, I'm sure you can provide it.

 

[The_Coyote]

That post can still be found via google cache search and its screnshots are also easy to be found.

Google cache as official place? Btw perhaps you missed but the newest quote (an answer from the steam support) is only 4 days old.

@ 12agnar0k

Nope, my quoted part simply says every sentence made outside will not be part of the contract* - even an official promise. Making all other statements outside the listed "official papers" more or less worthless. While i agree that they perhaps can do it** - the truth is like you said they have no real self obligation to do this. And the nonexistence of such an self obligation can be seen (and is seen by some) as problematic because you already fulfied your part of the contract - you paid the money for the game (atm if you buy a game you don´t pay 50 bucks for a time limited license in general). And thats also the difference between if you or Valve gift me something (the £100), the continuous functionality of the games if the buyer has done his part (transfered the money) shouldn´t depend on a "gift" from Valve.

* "I also acknowledge and agree that this Agreement (including the Subscription Terms, Steam Online Conduct rules and other Rules of Use, and Privacy Policy) is the complete and exclusive statement of the agreement between Valve and me"

** i still question this for non Valve games - but without knowing the contract made between the publisher and Steam, we can only make assumption. In case of financial trouble - i would question it in general - but like ori said, this was already discussed

If this answer is not satisfactory for you well you won't be getting a better one unless you convince the government to force them to change thier policy by changing the LAW its based on.

Convince the government? Really? Sometimes a judge is enough - there are rumors that not every part of an EULA must conform with local laws. The only minor problem is, that the SSA is enforceable, so the customer has to take actions if he thinks a part of the SSA is not legal but steam generated a accomplished fact (account ban, limited account access). It´s quite a change from a retail version you can install without online registration. While the publisher could revoke a license before (at least it was part of some EULAs before) in order to carry this revoke into effect he had to take actions.

@ ori
sorry

 

[edpovi]

...
I have myself never been shown evidence of any connection between the existence or strength of DRM and an INCREASE in sales of a title.
...

Only the companies involved will have the data to support this claim. They have years of sales data and market research to guide their marketing plans.

Over the years, most major publishers have moved to some sort of DRM for their products. In recent years, many major publishers have used an online service for DRM; Steam is the market leader in this service.

Since this trend is increasing, with more major titles released in Steam format, this data most likely supports this business model.

 

[Shurdus]

Only the companies involved will have the data to support this claim. They have years of sales data and market research to guide their marketing plans.

Over the years, most major publishers have moved to some sort of DRM for their products. In recent years, many major publishers have used an online service for DRM; Steam is the market leader in this service.

Since this trend is increasing, with more major titles released in Steam format, this data most likely supports this business model.

It does. Even world of goo, a game that is really drm friendly, is heavy pirated. So saying that adding DRM will make you less likely to buy a title is silly, or at least it makes next to no impression on developers. Even if the developers do everything right they face pirates.

 

[jacortina]

Since this trend is increasing, with more major titles released in Steam format, this data most likely supports this business model.

Sorry, but 'such data MUST exist' is evidence of nothing.

 

[jacortina]

It does. Even world of goo, a game that is really drm friendly, is heavy pirated. So saying that adding DRM will make you less likely to buy a title is silly, or at least it makes next to no impression on developers. Even if the developers do everything right they face pirates.

That's not the question.

Sales and profitability is the question.

You can have zero piracy and still make little to no money.

Still, you fail to give any actual data to connect DRM with increases in sales and higher profits.

 

[azzaman333]

If we look at the Steam SSA, we find at section 9.C.:

(Capital letters by Steam)

(Here one could argue that "not guaranteeing" refers to "continous, error-free, virus-free or secure", but I am pretty sure that it could also been read without these phrases)

But there is another section.
Section 13.C.1 of said SSA reads:

(Emphasis mine)

In fact, I cannot find any legally binding phrase in the SSA pointing out that Steam actually would make access to the games being bound to a Steam account possible after they may have got out of service (= are in economic disorder, having been put under supervision of the liquidator, or whatever).
Therefore, quoting any statement of G. Newell about this seems to be moot and just a marketing statement, since the wording of the SSA are contradicting it.

The Steam Subscriber Agreement is deliberately written to avoid Valve being sued.
So, how exactly is any of this surprising?

 

[The_Coyote]

I must have missed the introducing sentence exactly claiming this, i can only see:

This Steam Subscriber Agreement ("Agreement") is a legal document that explains your rights and obligations as a Subscriber. Please read it carefully.

And why should a customer start to accept or defend such a "deliberately written" contract, if he is the target of such a contract?* Which persons shall have no ability to sue Valve? There are two sides: Valve and the customers/subscribers of Steam.

* protecting Valve from paying some absurd high penalties is perhaps acceptable, but from being sued in general? And even if the protection against absurd high payments is the only target of the SSA, it´s no "global problem" - so they could offer two SSA´s. So they could be protective and still customer friendly.

 

[azzaman333]

I must have missed the introducing sentence exactly claiming this, i can only see:


And why should a customer start to accept or defend such a "deliberately written" contract, if he is the target of such a contract?* Which persons shall have no ability to sue Valve? There are two sides: Valve and the customers/subscribers of Steam.

* protecting Valve from paying some absurd high penalties is perhaps acceptable, but from being sued in general? And even if the protection against absurd high payments is the only target of the SSA, it´s no "global problem" - so they could offer two SSA´s. So they could be protective and still customer friendly.

It's no different to your standard EULA.

 

[edpovi]

Sorry, but 'such data MUST exist' is evidence of nothing.

Just because hard data is not shared by companies that want to protect their business plans does not mean this data does not exist; it's just not publicly available. One smaller game company has reported "Sales up 70%" after implementing a DRM measure to one of their games, but has also noted that preventing 1000 illegal copies only lead to a few legal sales. They have also noted a "90% piracy rate", which means 90% of active gamers were from pirated copies of that game. This article is from a couple of years ago.

There have been some DRM free games that have sold well, but that does not mean they were also free of piracy. Piracy is the main reason PC game development has been changing. More development dollars for PC are spent towards online only or online focused games. Some "top" titles still come out for the PC, but the retail shelf space for PC games has dropped dramatically over the past decade.

Developers of "standard" PC games are competing against the profitability in the MMO market and console game market. A game like Civilization is very rare in the gaming world; it will be released on the PC only, with Mac to follow "shortly" after. If it wasn't for the large community supporting this game, it wouldn't be possible to employ 52 people for over 2 years to develop this game.

 

[The_Coyote]

It's no different to your standard EULA.

... there are rumors that not every part of an EULA must conform with local laws. The only minor problem is, that the SSA is enforceable, so the customer has to take actions if he thinks a part of the SSA is not legal but steam generated a accomplished fact (account ban, limited account access). It´s quite a change from a retail version you can install without online registration. While the publisher could revoke a license before (at least it was part of some EULAs before) in order to carry this revoke into effect he had to take actions.

and i wasn´t aware that games that can be installed without online registration / authentication depend on a guarentee or non - guarantee to access to subscriptions

btw - steam has already the civ5 Eula online - but it seems to be the old 2K standard Eula. Funnily - transfering the games is still allowed there