[RD] Games as a Service

[warpus]

It's a perfectly reasonable reaction to celebrate when a product works this well for you

If it doesn't work for you guys, that's cool, don't use it

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's a perfectly reasonable reaction to celebrate when a product works this well for you

If it doesn't work for you guys, that's cool, don't use it

I have one that works better, thanks...and doesn't profit Gabe Newell and his merry band of monopolistic criminals. I'll use that.

I regret that it will harm you, but I hope that Gabe and his company get the attention they deserve and are driven into bankruptcy.

 

[cardgame]

Hey remember when getting refunds on games was literally impossible?

You know, back in the dark days before Steam.

Seems like that's a pretty big win for consumer friendliness. I myself have probably saved near $100 from this.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Hey remember when getting refunds on games was literally impossible?

You know, back in the dark days before Steam.

Seems like that's a pretty big win for consumer friendliness. I myself have probably saved near $100 from this.

I remember when refunds didn't matter because most games were finished and in a working state before being released.

 

[Takhisis]

It's a perfectly reasonable reaction to celebrate when a product works this well for you

If it doesn't work for you guys, that's cool, don't use it

I actually agree in part with you if you take care to read my earlier posts; my double facepalm is about how the poster I quoted was very obviously just baiting the thread.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hey remember when getting refunds on games was literally impossible?

You know, back in the dark days before Steam.

Seems like that's a pretty big win for consumer friendliness. I myself have probably saved near $100 from this.

steam gives refunds?

 

[Lexicus]

steam gives refunds?

Yeah, but I think you have to have under a certain number of hours played and the number isn't that high.

 

[Gorbles]

I disagree with you because you seem to be saying that DRM is inherently anti-consumer. Surely it depends on the implementation and the context.

I'm a consumer and I'm winning right now. I bought my games really cheap, I can easily game wherever and whenever I want, and the convenience has never been better or hassle-free. It not only doesn't inconvenience me, it improves my gaming experience and my experience as a consumer. Given all that, I'm not going to get upset for ideological reasons. I do care, but I'm looking around and I'm seeing wins all around, and my experience as a gamer has never been better

Right, but this is your singular perspective. It doesn't inconvenience you, so it's fine (for you). That's not something I'd even want to argue. But it's not a counterargument to Steam as DRM being anti-consumer. Steam the platform may be benefitting you, and you may not have been inconvenienced by its DRM. That's not the same thing at all, right?

There is no benefit for the consumer for DRM. It is a method of restricting how the user can copy the content under DRM. That's it. The benefit for the developer is to mitigate (because you can never prevent) piracy. There are several notable historical examples where mass piracy has impacted a game (Spore is a good example, from memory). But that has little consequence on the consumer. The consumers in this case were the ones doing the mass pirating (and however many bought it legally)!

Like I said, I can argue - well - the contextual benefits for specific developers especially given tight profit margins. I can argue - like you - that a DRM approach that is invisible to the user is no inconvenience and thus, at best, a neutral offering (not negative). However, none of that is a counterargument to DRM conceptually being anti-consumer because it inherently limits the actions a user can take with software they have purchased (or obtained a license for, as is the more common model). That's not pro-consumer. That's pro-business.

 

[Lexicus]

But it's not a counterargument to Steam as DRM being anti-consumer.

Well of course it is! Admitedly it's a bit odd to see someone who claims market capitalism is an inevitable force of nature take this kind of stance.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Right, but this is your singular perspective. It doesn't inconvenience you, so it's fine (for you). That's not something I'd even want to argue. But it's not a counterargument to Steam as DRM being anti-consumer. Steam the platform may be benefitting you, and you may not have been inconvenienced by its DRM. That's not the same thing at all, right?

There is no benefit for the consumer for DRM. It is a method of restricting how the user can copy the content under DRM. That's it. The benefit for the developer is to mitigate (because you can never prevent) piracy. There are several notable historical examples where mass piracy has impacted a game (Spore is a good example, from memory). But that has little consequence on the consumer. The consumers in this case were the ones doing the mass pirating (and however many bought it legally)!

Like I said, I can argue - well - the contextual benefits for specific developers especially given tight profit margins. I can argue - like you - that a DRM approach that is invisible to the user is no inconvenience and thus, at best, a neutral offering (not negative). However, none of that is a counterargument to DRM conceptually being anti-consumer because it inherently limits the actions a user can take with software they have purchased (or obtained a license for, as is the more common model). That's not pro-consumer. That's pro-business.

To put your memory in perspective, Spore got mass pirated because of the egregious and unprecedented DRM system that the publisher chose to apply. Basically everyone who bought it felt compelled to strip the DRM because it was intolerable. There was a severe impact on sales, but it was due to the backlash against the publisher's choice of DRM, not really due to 'theft by pirates.'

 

[Gorbles]

Well of course it is! Admitedly it's a bit odd to see someone who claims market capitalism is an inevitable force of nature take this kind of stance.

How is it? It's "my personal anecdote is fine ergo the system is fine". Any other type of system, any other type of fault, and you'd normally be arguing alongside me.

Preventing users from doing something is anti-consumer, unless there's a trade-off; an advantage to the consumer at the same time. There isn't.

The only advantage that can be argued is for the continued existence of the developer studio, which in this day and age are uniformly shafted by the publishers that own them. The publishers would be the one absorbing any cost (of a pirated or otherwise lost sale), and publishers uniformly cut developer teams to the bone whenever their shareholders decide it's advantageous. Hence my repeated caveats about indie gaming (which is mostly another topic, and one where Steam doesn't come out looking good either).

To put your memory in perspective, Spore got mass pirated because of the egregious and unprecedented DRM system that the publisher chose to apply. Basically everyone who bought it felt compelled to strip the DRM because it was intolerable. There was a severe impact on sales, but it was due to the backlash against the publisher's choice of DRM, not really due to 'theft by pirates.'

I'd forgotten about the DRM aspect (was also on a poor example because EA can and did absolutely afford the cost, but that's an aside). There are other, better examples but they're primarily indie or otherwise low-budget titles (also I'd have to look them up).

 

[Yeekim]

This is a fascinating discussion. I had no idea how I got suckered into dependency on Steam & what their ulterior motives were, but... I gotta admit... now... like, now... I'm a Steam supporter. Yay, Steam! That's me. I got Borged. No shame. I Borg.

I was a "Tim" for years. I hoarded my physical CD's across different PC's, for years! Anytime I had to buy a new PC I broke out the CD's & installed my favorite games.

But, here's where I relented.... I started getting multiple devices. I wanted to install Baldur's Gate 2 onto my tablet! I wanted to port all my Skyrim saves onto the new kick-ass computer I just bought. To give a recent anecdote, I was quarantined & felt like accessing my Pathfinder:Kingmaker save games & playing the Beneath the Stolen Lands DLC (great game, btw).

You know what allowed me to do that? The fact that Steam has all my games in a library where I can just click "Download".

I, RobAnybody, abrogate all my rights that Tim think's I shouldn't because Zombie Apocalypse Might Happen, to Steam, in exchange for being able to access my games on all my devices. Worth it!!

Ditto.

 

[warpus]

I regret that it will harm you, but I hope that Gabe and his company get the attention they deserve and are driven into bankruptcy.

So far 0 harm and wins all around. If you are trying to convince me that this will all go south for me, so far I am not convinced in any way. I've got a decade of excellent gaming out of this, and no problems in sight.

Right, but this is your singular perspective. It doesn't inconvenience you, so it's fine (for you). That's not something I'd even want to argue. But it's not a counterargument to Steam as DRM being anti-consumer. Steam the platform may be benefitting you, and you may not have been inconvenienced by its DRM. That's not the same thing at all, right?

There is no benefit for the consumer for DRM.

I'll stop you right here. You start off by saying "So you have all these benefits you enjoy and no downsides". And then right after you say: "So, this thing clearly has no benefits for the consumer"

How do you leap from one statement to the other so quickly when they so clearly contradict each other?

 

[Gorbles]

I'll stop you right here. You start off by saying "So you have all these benefits you enjoy and no downsides". And then right after you say: "So, this thing clearly has no benefits for the consumer"

How do you leap from one statement to the other so quickly when they so clearly contradict each other?

. . . because it's not the DRM you're benefitting from? The Friends list is not DRM. Your Steam Profile is not DRM. The Store view isn't DRM. Your Wishlist isn't DRM.

Steam as a platform is a DRM platform. It has DRM baked-in. I don't understand why you can't see the distinction?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Yeah, but I think you have to have under a certain number of hours played and the number isn't that high.

2 hours iirc. I think its mostly intended for the case of "I can't get this game running no matter what compatibility tweaks I try." It's a deal better than being unable to return it at all because the package was opened.

 

[warpus]

. . . because it's not the DRM you're benefitting from? The Friends list is not DRM. Your Steam Profile is not DRM. The Store view isn't DRM. Your Wishlist isn't DRM.

Steam as a platform is a DRM platform. It has DRM baked-in. I don't understand why you can't see the distinction?

I benefit from the whole system. Without the DRM this would have never gotten off the ground, most of the game development studios would not have been on board. The DRM is a compromise that pulls many more games into the system.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Compromise was necessary, and they pulled it off in a very unobtrusive way for the end user. My gaming experience most days is seamless. It's never been like that before, it's always been clunky and annoying. They made it super easy to do everything, why would I complain? I get all my games super cheap and have an amazing gaming experience. Yet you're trying to tell me that I'm supposed to be against this, because it's.. anti-consumer? Dude, I'm the consumer, and I've never been happier.

 

[Arakhor]

2 hours iirc. I think its mostly intended for the case of "I can't get this game running no matter what compatibility tweaks I try." It's a deal better than being unable to return it at all because the package was opened.

But only slightly better. It only looks good because Valve's competitors typically don't even offer that fig leaf.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I never understood this phrase. Because to eat your cake, you need to have it first. Unless you're eating other people's cakes.

 

[warpus]

I never understood this phrase. Because to eat your cake, you need to have it first. Unless you're eating other people's cakes.

The phrase means you can't buy a cake, eat it, and then expect to still have a cake in your hands. Instead it will be in your stomach being digested.

i.e. you gotta pick this or that, you can't have both

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So far 0 harm and wins all around. If you are trying to convince me that this will all go south for me, so far I am not convinced in any way. I've got a decade of excellent gaming out of this, and no problems in sight.

When I said "sorry it will harm you" it was preface to "but I really want Valve to meet the bad end that they deserve for their criminal behavior." That will in fact be a bad thing for many people, including many that I know, and including you. I do regret that part. But I still hope to see Gabe and his merry band of criminals face justice.