Civilization 5 and Steam(works)

[Thyrwyn]

Wikipedia lists 4 attributes of Steam - only one of which is DRM. To say (as Ori did) that "[Steam is] the DRM scheme used for Civilization 5" is misleading and incomplete. I was only providing a reply that covers the other relevant aspects of Steam.

 

[ori]

It may be incomplete - but certainly not misleading - I am quite convinced that the DRM part of it is the main reason its being used. So its is the DRM scheme and then something else, like a community browser - its not just a community browser, nor is ithat the main fucntion it has
While the other parts (like browser, mod installer, multiplayer lobby, other mp functions) are a bonus for a publisher/developer who decided to use it as a DRM scheme, they would have used different ways of implementing the features they wanted/needed had they decided to use a different DRM scheme.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Firaxis could just as easily arrived at their decision the other way: Steam provides the community functionality that they were looking for, and has a a bundled DRM package. We don't know. To say that one trait is inherently the more definitive one is presumptive.

I can certainly see the Steam DRM being attractive to the publisher - it speculatively increases post-launch revenues by reducing piracy and increasing real sales. But it seems that most people here are of the opinion that restrictive DRM schemes actually reduce sales - which would make the DRM scheme a stupid reason for the publisher to choose Steam.

The Steam community functionality, on the other hand, provides tangible, measurable pre- and post-launch savings by a) reducing development/testing costs for developing the same functionality in-house; and b) eliminating hosting/maintenance/connectivity costs after the game hits the shelves.

Which seems to be the more reasonable chain of events:
1) lets use this DRM scheme which might make us more money, and has this community stuff which would reduce our costs, or
2) lets use this community stuff which will cut our costs, and has this DRM which might make us more money.

 

[Commander Bello]

Which seems to be the more reasonable chain of events:
1) lets use this DRM scheme which might make us more money, and has this community stuff which would reduce our costs, or
2) lets use this community stuff which will cut our costs, and has this DRM which might make us more money.

First of all, I think the term "DRM" is just misleading, as it more and more turns to be a "digital rights restriction" functionality. So, "DRR" seems to be more appropriate.

That said, if the binding to Steam would have been caused by the attempt to improve "community stuff", it would not have been necessary to make Steam mandatory.
Since Steam has been made mandatory though, it seems rather unlikely that "'friends' lists and 'other cool stuff'" have been the very reason to go for it.

 

[ori]

you forget the very tangible data collection part which is a rather valuable thing for the publisher, also unlike other DRM schemes its reportedly free of charge.

So the chain would be:
lets use this DRM scheme which might make us more money, will certainly cost less than our previous DRM schemes and will definitely help us with our market research capabilities and also has some community features build in
or
lets use these community features and luckily it also comes with a DRM scheme that offers some additional market research tools and is less expensive.
Frankly, I am of the conviction that the former was the driving force...

Of course there is also the part where Steam offers a convenient distribution channel for paid for downloadable content - but since that hasn't been announced for the game (yet?), except for the preorder map pack, I didn't add that - but if they offer paid for DLC that would also have been a more important consideration than the community stuff.

edit: x-post

 

[arstal]

With 2K, DRM is their #1 priority. Firaxis is probably trying to make the best of a bad situation.

As for Steam, the benefit/drawback analysis is pretty correct, but I do consider Steam DRM quite nasty.

 

[Senethro]

First of all, I think the term "DRM" is just misleading, as it more and more turns to be a "digital rights restriction" functionality. So, "DRR" seems to be more appropriate.

That said, if the binding to Steam would have been caused by the attempt to improve "community stuff", it would not have been necessary to make Steam mandatory.
Since Steam has been made mandatory though, it seems rather unlikely that "'friends' lists and 'other cool stuff'" have been the very reason to go for it.

First of all, I think trying to change commonly used and understood terms such as DRM to things that sound scarier to be just misleading,

 

[MaxCiv]

With 2K, DRM is their #1 priority. Firaxis is probably trying to make the best of a bad situation.

As for Steam, the benefit/drawback analysis is pretty correct, but I do consider Steam DRM quite nasty.

I love how you guys seem to know the reason behind every decision, good or bad, that people at Firaxis and 2K make an then try to sell your opinion as a indisputable fact.

 

[ori]

who is doing that?

 

[12agnar0k]

Actually I don't know what DRM stands for, but I do understand what is meant by it xD
I don't know what it stands for as I never saw the phrase coined or forget people coined it till I started using this forum after wanting to discuss civ 5.

Actually I do know everything (actually between me and my brother we Know everything.... what DRM stands for is something my brother knows.) so when I tell you that 2k and Frixasis used Steam for monetary purposes I know I'm right.

 

[Acronym2]

Isn't that closer to describing what steamworks is, Thyrwyn?

Steam is many things, and difficult to pin down with a concise description IMO. I'm sure wikipedia does a reasonable job though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(content_delivery)

Yes, that does propery define what Steam is in a nutshell......"A content delivery software system" and is a lot shorter than:"Steam is a digital distribution, digital rights management, multiplayer and communications platform developed by Valve Corporation."

Glad you posted that wiki, it was interesting reading!

 

[Davor]

Well it's a 2K thing and I believe it's out of the hands of Firaxis. Fallout New Vegas is doing the same thing. I am guessing TES V will be the same. So any other 2K games doing the same thing now as well? I don't pay attention to games, if they belong to 2K or not.

As a side note. If Firaxis was doing so good, how the hell they got bought out by 2K? I guess Civ is not a product that can keep a company afloat. I thought Civ would be able to keep Firaxis private, so how come 2K came to aquire Firaxis in the first place? Didn't the makers leave Micro Prose to make thier own games so nobody would be above thier shoulders?

 

[12agnar0k]

@Davor, thier are reasons other than "doing badly" why companies get brought out by other companies. Perhaps 51% of Frixasis Shareholders got a really good offer from 2k Games for thier shares (because they were doing so well ) so they accepted and bing 2k owns Frixasis.
For the actual reason you would need to ask the parties involved.

@Acroynm, Yes that wiki yas an interesting read, and it gave me an answer to a question someone asked in a thread but I don't remeber which Steam thread it was but I can answer it here now.

"What happens if Steam dies, will our ability to play our games be affected? (I gave an example of what if the internet was banned by the government or something , trying to say that the event of this happening is unlikely, well heres an answer)

According to the Steam Subscriber Agreement, Steam's availability is not guaranteed and Valve is under no legal obligation to release an update disabling the authentication system in the event that Steam becomes permanently unavailable.
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."

So thier's an answer about "what if X happens, what happens to my Games"

We don't have to legally do anything to help you, but we have put in place a safegaurd to do so anyway, is basically what they are saying, yet another way Steam is the good guy.

 

[Commander Bello]

So thier's an answer about "what if X happens, what happens to my Games"

We don't have to legally do anything to help you, but we have put in place a safegaurd to do so anyway, is basically what they are saying, yet another way Steam is the good guy.

From Wikipedia:

On 13 August 1961, work began on what was to become the Berlin Wall, only two months after Ulbricht had emphatically denied that there were such plans ("Nobody has the intention of building a wall")

Ulbricht was a "good guy", too, hm?

 

[Donkeyman]

From Wikipedia:

Ulbricht was a "good guy", too, hm?

I can't believe you have the gall to compare a video game developer's contingency plans for bankruptcy with the construction of a heinous structure like the Berlin Wall. I mean, really? What is this analogy even supposed to mean?

 

[bjbrains]

From Wikipedia:

Ulbricht was a "good guy", too, hm?

I'm pretty sure you just crossed the line from 'criticism' to 'pointless attacks'. I mean, WTH. How is that comparison relevant, justifiable, and *not* an obvious, baseless attack on Valve?

 

[12agnar0k]

He's not particularily changed his views, he always thought that way and has been attacking Steam as far as I've seen.

To the raised point however, which is basically "Sometimes promises aren't kept or plans change" that is basically the only meaning of relevance I had to decipher on my own.
Yes this is a fact of life, but the fact is they don't gaurentee anything as they are not legally abliged to, if you wish to raise fault with this then it is not with Valve who is sticking to the letter of the law, it is with the law makers. Go pester them with pointless Berlin Wall references instead of asking a question remotely relative to the topic. Personally I think the Berlin Wall was a great concept if I could build a similar virtual wall on the Internet to keep me from reading posts from Creationistlike people I would build it in a heart beat.

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: Stop the trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[PieceOfMind]

If I may re-word Bello's point:

Just because someone is a "good guy" doesn't mean they'll necessarily do what you want. The same is true of both business and politics. Bello's example is a bit of a stretch from the topic but it still illustrates his point.

There have been many informed posters questioning the likelihood of Steam disabling its authentication should its service for some reason be discontinued. Several others have also questioned the likehihood of such a scenario even occurring (and hence asking why it's worth worrying about).

A single statement by Newell on the matter is hardly convincing, especially when you consider the conflict of interest - he is after all essentially the face of Valve and so must refrain from making comments publicly that would drive people away from Steam.

 

[Donkeyman]

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.