[RD] Games as a Service

[Lexicus]

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.

Er, sorry, I can see how the wording was ambiguous there, but I meant that Steam as DRM is absolutely anti-consumer, and Tim is the one I was referring to, not you.

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.

Well, exactly. DRM is either, depending on one's perspective, a method for wringing the most possible profit out of video games - sucking the life out of them, sometimes making them non-functional for the player, the apotheosis of treating video games as vehicles for profit rather than art and fun: or it's a way of profiting off the delusions of capitalists about "pirates" reducing their profits which, again, can make the game non-functional for the player. Either way, it's what happens when video games are primarily profit vehicles.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

@Lexicus

You may remember me as the one who is constantly harping about how markets contain the seeds of their own destruction due to their inherently containing forces that drive towards monopolization, thus the need for well regulated markets that ruthlessly exterminate any monopolization that begins to form. So you can't really be surprised at my reaction to Steam or my desire to see Valve exterminated.

That said, in a hilarious coincidence of timing I was playing SMAX and got this gem delivered. Of course at the time Firaxis was taking a jab at Microsoft, but still singularly appropriate to the conversation.

As background, in the game Morgan is the leader of a faction of corporatists. Most of his in game quotes come from either his company advertising or his book The Ethics of Greed.

 

[Senethro]

I think its interesting that many of the best selling PC games are the unpirateable ones. The multiplayer and MMOs, WoW +Pubg etc. Sure, reverse engineered private servers exist, but they don't give you access to the player pool the real thing has. Anyone else think thats interesting? Games as a service.

If I was a nervous management type that might influence my decision making in some ways.

 

[warpus]

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.

Say that happens in 10 years time and I lose all my games.

That's 20 years of amazing gaming for a low price. I'd be upset but that's amazing value for my money. I also doubt I am losing my games anytime soon, whether it's 5 years or 10 or 20

 

[Gorbles]

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.

My turn - I'm going to stop you there, sorry. Not meaning to be snide, but this is important. Referring to the bolded part, you are making an assumption. Valve launched Steam primarily for their own titles. It wasn't about getting development studios on-board - the concept for Valve titles on Steam involved DRM as a basic point. Tim's made posts with evidence to this (I wasn't on Steam early enough).

If you want to make that claim, you're going to need to provide evidence. And that's difficult to make considering plenty of games ship with their own DRM (on top of what Steam also does).

 

[warpus]

My turn - I'm going to stop you there, sorry. Not meaning to be snide, but this is important. Referring to the bolded part, you are making an assumption. Valve launched Steam primarily for their own titles. It wasn't about getting development studios on-board - the concept for Valve titles on Steam involved DRM as a basic point. Tim's made posts with evidence to this (I wasn't on Steam early enough).

If you want to make that claim, you're going to need to provide evidence. And that's difficult to make considering plenty of games ship with their own DRM (on top of what Steam also does).

Clearly they were able to get a lot more titles on their platform by instituting a DRM that these publishers were happy enough with. This is one of the reasons I'm on the platform. If it was just Valve titles I wouldn't care all that much about it.

My only claim is that the gaming service is great for a consumer like me, who is a gamer, and who wants to play games, get them cheap, and have a seamless gaming experience no matter where I am. As a consumer I am winning a lot here

 

[Gorbles]

Clearly they were able to get a lot more titles on their platform by instituting a DRM that these publishers were happy enough with. This is one of the reasons I'm on the platform. If it was just Valve titles I wouldn't care all that much about it.

My only claim is that the gaming service is great for a consumer like me, who is a gamer, and who wants to play games, get them cheap, and have a seamless gaming experience no matter where I am. As a consumer I am winning a lot here

What's "clear" about it? What evidence do you have other than a feeling? This is what I don't understand. You're asking me to assume you know exactly why every single (or at least a solid majority) of companies put their products on Steam, and you're saying Steam wouldn't have existed without such an exchange. Steam existed before third parties took up with Steam. Steam existed as a vehicle for Valve's games, and Valve at this point was already popular. Their games already sold!

I understand your claim. I respect that you get use out of Steam - I do as well. Both of our feelings on how much we use Steam as a service doesn't negate Steam being DRM, or DRM being anti-consumer. I've even given evidence as to how their DRM has negatively affected me. If we're trading anecdotal experiences, that's one for, and one against. But we're not trading anecdotal experiences. We're trying to argue whether or not DRM is anti-consumer. Steam having a Friends list, or whatever else you judge Steam as positive value for, does not mean DRM isn't anti-consumer. They're completely separate arguments.

Furthermore, your argument about games being enticed onto Steam mainly because of its DRM could be accurate (I doubt it, though). That still doesn't mean DRM isn't anti-consumer. It just reinforces the point that DRM is pro-business (by being anti-consumer).

 

[RobAnybody]

my double facepalm is about how the poster I quoted was very obviously just baiting the thread.

Or... he could have meant exactly what he wrote - that he had no idea of the behind the scenes stuff, used to hate Steam, eventually relented, & now he likes Steam & doesn't really care about the DRM aspect of it.

 

[Ajidica]

As someone who hasn't followed all 20 pages, can the anti-Steam crowd explain what the big issue is?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

My turn - I'm going to stop you there, sorry. Not meaning to be snide, but this is important. Referring to the bolded part, you are making an assumption. Valve launched Steam primarily for their own titles. It wasn't about getting development studios on-board - the concept for Valve titles on Steam involved DRM as a basic point. Tim's made posts with evidence to this (I wasn't on Steam early enough).

If you want to make that claim, you're going to need to provide evidence. And that's difficult to make considering plenty of games ship with their own DRM (on top of what Steam also does).

Warpus is actually right. Valve used Steam DRM to force publishers onto their distribution platform.

Sequence of events:

Valve releases long awaited Half Life 2. This massive seller has <surprise> Valve's new DRM applied. This forces anyone buying the title to become a steam user.

Valve markets their new DRM to publishers as "cutting edge unbreakable." Publishers buy in and effectively become shills for Valve since now anyone buying their game also is forced into being a Steam user. Notably, at this point Valve effectively stopped making games, so the "they made Steam for their own games" claim does collapse here.

Valve adds "look at all the Steam users you can reach" to their marketing and signs up more publishers. At this point brick and mortar distribution is confronted by "why bother buying a disk since all it is is a Steam loader?" Publishers are asking "why do we bother making disks in boxes when our software isn't even in the box...f'ing Valve has us selling their software here...how did this happen?" but basically it's too late. No other distribution platform can really compete against the 'established user base.'

Valve has publishers in a bind, since Valve controls access to gamers, and has gamers in a bind since they control access to games. This state is maintained for years.

PROFIT!!!

On both sides they used monopolization that violates US anti-trust law to gain unfair market advantages, and the false pretenses they used are easily documented pretty much every step of the way, so once the legal machinery gets cranked around and aimed at them Gabe and the boys best be headed out of the country. All it takes is a US based digital distribution platform with some political heft behind them filing the lawsuit.

 

[Gorbles]

Oh, I don't doubt it was a factor. But I doubt it was the reason that therefore makes it a positive for gamers, because the games therefore now exist on Steam. That's where warpus was leading with that logic (well, not really. It was outright stated).

I also very much doubt publishers were forced. They probably waltzed in willingly!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Or... he could have meant exactly what he wrote - that he had no idea of the behind the scenes stuff, used to hate Steam, eventually relented, & now he likes Steam & doesn't really care about the DRM aspect of it.

Which is why in my reply I didn't try to dis you back, I just pointed out that I have all the same advantages, plus more...without the DRM. Every advantage you pointed out is fundamental to digital distribution. The advantages of digital distribution are not in question, although people with limited access to the internet undoubtedly regret that those advantages have pushed all other options underwater. The question confronting your position is why do you associate the advantages of digital distribution as somehow being only available from Valve and justifying the downsides of the intrusive DRM that Valve applies?

 

[Ajidica]

They probably waltzed in willingly!

Very much this. Not needing to make physical copies, no guessing how many units to have ready on launch and production, no stock hanging around on shelves.
It isn't Steam's fault that with a few exceptions competing digital download services are either rubbish or publisher-proprietary. GOG isn't bad, but its a trade off in their game library tends to be older or obscure titles.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh, I don't doubt it was a factor. But I doubt it was the reason that therefore makes it a positive for gamers, because the games therefore now exist on Steam. That's where warpus was leading with that logic (well, not really. It was outright stated).

I also very much doubt publishers were forced. They probably waltzed in willingly!

Valve effectively monopolized the DRM market...hilariously by supporting the anti-DRM voices in the marketplace. Complaints about SecuROM, for example, were valid, but the fact is that a whole lot of the technical aspects of the complaints were pumped into the public consciousness by Valve. The public violently rejecting other DRM forms was part of their marketing play to secure customers for their own DRM...while simultaneously pumping stupid gamers with "Steam isn't DRM."

Publishers were left with "either buy our DRM or don't use any...and PIRATES!!!!!"

 

[Takhisis]

Or... he could have meant exactly what he wrote - that he had no idea of the behind the scenes stuff, used to hate Steam, eventually relented, & now he likes Steam & doesn't really care about the DRM aspect of it.

Well, that is now how it reads.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

On both sides they used monopolization that violates US anti-trust law to gain unfair market advantages, and the false pretenses they used are easily documented pretty much every step of the way, so once the legal machinery gets cranked around and aimed at them Gabe and the boys best be headed out of the country. All it takes is a US based digital distribution platform with some political heft behind them filing the lawsuit.

Daily reminder Gabe is expat Microsoft so the parallel is starting to make way too much sense.

 

[warpus]

What's "clear" about it? What evidence do you have other than a feeling? This is what I don't understand.

What's so hard to understand? You think Valve put in DRM for craps and giggles? You're saying it's not really needed, but they're doing it for some nefarious reason that's a mystery to us? That makes zero sense dude.

Isn't it obvious that many of these companies would want some sort of a guarantee that their product won't be easily copied? That is one of the main reasons why DRM exists. You're saying that if Steam had no DRM they would all happily jump on board and make their software available? Well, I have a bridge or two to sell you.. if you just follow me behind this corner...

It's super clear to me that the Steam platform is a compromise between user friendliness, user needs, and the needs of the companies who would be tempted to sell their games there. Valve figured out a way to make this work for all parties involved, from gaming studios to gamers like me. You don't like the platform, and that's fine, you don't have to use it.

Both of our feelings on how much we use Steam as a service doesn't negate Steam being DRM, or DRM being anti-consumer.

You're essentially saying: "DRM is anti-consumer becase it's DRM and drm is anti-consumer and .."

You keep saying this is anti-consumer, completely ignoring that I'm a super happy consumer. If this is anti-consumer then what would pro-consumer be? Free games? Free hugs by Sid Meier?

 

[Gorbles]

What's so hard to understand? You think Valve put in DRM for craps and giggles? You're saying it's not really needed, but they're doing it for some nefarious reason that's a mystery to us? That makes zero sense dude.

Isn't it obvious that many of these companies would want some sort of a guarantee that their product won't be easily copied? That is one of the main reasons why DRM exists. You're saying that if Steam had no DRM they would all happily jump on board and make their software available? Well, I have a bridge or two to sell you.. if you just follow me behind this corner...

It's super clear to me that the Steam platform is a compromise between user friendliness, user needs, and the needs of the companies who would be tempted to sell their games there. Valve figured out a way to make this work for all parties involved, from gaming studios to gamers like me. You don't like the platform, and that's fine, you don't have to use it.

You're essentially saying: "DRM is anti-consumer becase it's DRM and drm is anti-consumer and .."

You keep saying this is anti-consumer, completely ignoring that I'm a super happy consumer. If this is anti-consumer then what would pro-consumer be? Free games? Free hugs by Sid Meier?

So I'm having to explain why DRM is anti-consumer, despite several examples already given? Why? What's the point in repetition. You're a classic example of being unable to separate criticism from Steam as DRM, with Steam as a software library. You ignore any reasoning I put forwards as to why DRM is bad for consumers, and default to non-DRM reasons as to why Steam is worthy of attention. I'm not arguing the benefits of Steam the software library. I'm arguing the necessity of DRM as it exists in the product.

You obviously didn't read Tim's earlier posts when he pointed out how it was used to safeguard Half-Life 2. Steam was realised as DRM before any of the claims you've made ever happened. It existed as an anti-tamper, anti-copy, software-as-a-license model from its inception. Before there were third-party titles!

I've got to give a shout-out to the best argument you've made, which is "Valve figured out how to get amoral publishers to put their developer-made products on Valve's storefront" like any of that is pro-consumer, considering these titles are available (or were at least originally) outside of Steam.

Pro-consumer would be allowing people to do whatever they want with the software they bought, so long as they're not stupid to try anything actually illegal. Any restrictions upon that use are anti-consumer by default. You could argue there are benefits to offset this, but you'd actually have to accept the core premise first in order to do that.

Maybe you should tell me why DRM is pro-consumer, perhaps. Why the inability to freely mod video games is pro-consumer. Why a constant Internet connection is pro-consumer. I'm not asking for your personal evaluation of the video games you own on Steam. I'm not asking for how convenient you find the storefront, library view, or any other UI present in the Steam program is. I'm asking you to define why DRM is pro-consumer. Give it a go.

 

[Arakhor]

Isn't it obvious that many of these companies would want some sort of a guarantee that their product won't be easily copied? That is one of the main reasons why DRM exists. You're saying that if Steam had no DRM they would all happily jump on board and make their software available? Well, I have a bridge or two to sell you.. if you just follow me behind this corner...

You do know that GOG exists, right? It has thousands of games on it, some of them even quite recent, and their big selling point is that they have no DRM at all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You don't like the platform, and that's fine, you don't have to use it.

This actually is the crux of the problem. There was a span of several years where this wasn't true, and only very very hard work made it not a permanent state of affairs. Valve created the environment "if you want to play games, you have no choice but Steam," and if they had their way that would still be the case now and into the future.