Is the Steam DRM just a one-time verification check? Or is it much more?

[isndl]

The amount of Steam bashing and unadulterated ignorance flying around on these forums sometimes is simply ridiculous.. people are freaking out over Steam? It uses all of 20mb of system RAM to stay open, jees.

You can even disable almost all of it's features and go bare bones down to 15mb of system RAM. You can right click a friend and instantly join their game, this is only a good thing for Civ.

Just where do you disable all of its features? It's not in any settings menu that I'm aware of.

And to the above post, the Steam UI update was the first mandatory Steam update in I believe three years. You can turn off your game updates too, or download them elsewhere away from Steam and install them manually if you REALLY don't want Steam on the internet.

If you know how to disable Steam client updates, I would be most interested in the process of doing so. I know you can disable automatic game updates, but are we still able to play the game without downloading the update in online mode?

My understanding is that to download an update on another computer is basically to copy all the files that were modified. Not exactly an option unless you have a list of all the files changed or you're willing to copy the entire installation, and either way you're in trouble if the executable was updated (Steam would have to reauthenticate as far as I'm aware).

 

[Senethro]

Why do you want to sell Steam to us?

The issues people have with Steam go far beyond just how much memory it uses in the background. For example, many don't appreciate the fact that the license to play civ5 will now simply be a "subscriber agreement" and if you, say, do something against Steam's terms of service in another game on your account, there is potential to ban you from playing civ5.

Not completely true. You're only going to lose Civ5 if you're caught hacking in a game on the same engine, cancel a payment to Steam or try to hack Steam itself. You can aimbot in Team Fortress 2 all you want, no risk.

While I find Steam to be bearable (I use it for a couple of games, mainly TF2 - a game where for obvious reasons it's fair enough to be Steam exclusive), I also find it introduces a bunch of complications that are nothing to worry about at the best of times and damn nuisances at the worst of times. For example, it is difficult to install steam games to different partitions. It is possible using hardlinks I'm told but for many users this is too advanced. Then again, the users for who that is too advanced are probably the same users who don't have more than one partition.

The games go on the games partition. How could it be more complicated than that?

Steam takes time before it launches a game. With civ4 I play PBEM games so I load up the game intermittently sometimes, preferring to use windows explorer to manage my files rather than in game. With civ5 I wouldn't be surprised if ALT-tab now gets broken and to avoid having to restart the game over and over, with steam's delay, we would have to do everything from inside the game. I find civ4 loads very quickly when I launch it by opening a save from windows explorer.

Bunch of pessimism unjustified before release.

You can right click a friend and instantly join their game, this is only a good thing for Civ.
I can appreciate you like this feature about games that use Steam, but I'm not sure it will even be all that important for civ5. We don't even know yet whether it will be possible or recommended to "join" an existing game, whether a friend is in there or not. We can only assume at this time that civ5 is not like TF2 where you can jump right into an existing game and do it often. In civ4 multiplayer, it was usually a nuisance when a player joined an existing game (usually because it would sometimes cause game to hang, at other times because we wanted the original player to rejoin).

Other fully Steam integrated games like MW2, DoW2 allow one click joining.

Also Civ4 != Civ5.

If the bolded part has been confirmed for civ5 please provide a link. IIRC someone asked this question of 2K Greg and I'm expecting a reply when he finishes the FAQ.

I'd like to know this too.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Not completely true. You're only going to lose Civ5 if you're caught hacking in a game on the same engine, cancel a payment to Steam or try to hack Steam itself. You can aimbot in Team Fortress 2 all you want, no risk.

Hmm, aren't you talking about VAC? I think I was wrong - you can only lose the single subscription, but I don't think you can lose civ5 if you're caught hacking another game, right? My understanding was you can only get VAC banned

The games go on the games partition. How could it be more complicated than that?

Lots of possible reasons. If you haven't thought of any, you probably won't care about them though.

e.g.
1. You are selective about which games go on a SSD which are typically much smaller capacity.
2. Your games partition is low on space.
3. You manage your partitions differently (e.g. through customised defrag routines, optimising for intensive games or some such).
4. You don't want games to be on the same partition as steam.

Bunch of pessimism unjustified before release.

It may be pessimistic but why is it so unjustified? It's based on observations I've made so far with other games on Steam. Maybe your optimism is unjustified before release?

Other fully Steam integrated games like MW2, DoW2 allow one click joining.

How is that even relevant to what I wrote about? I talked about why it's probably not a very important feature for a game like Civ where games are long and complex, compared with a shooter where games can be (relatively) short and simple to hop into.

I don't care whether it takes 1 click or 10 to join a game with a friend. If I were to care about the number of clicks, I'd probably be even more concerned about the loading time of the game.

Also Civ4 != Civ5.

Thank you for enlightening me.
I think it is safe to assume civ5 is not radically shifting genres. Multiplayer is still going to be turn based or simultaneous turns, and unless Firaxis are planning on shocking us with a version even more streamlined (some might call it 'dumbed down') than civrev, then we can expect games to typically last at least on the order of hours.

My point is that it's hardly something to be raving about in terms of selling Steam to civ5 potential buyers unless we are told there is some radical change in gameplay that makes it more relevant. Playing a game of civ4 with a friend is a fairly organised thing. I don't think you'd find many people log on to steam and say, "hey Joe is in a civ4 game, I'll join right away - it only takes 1 click."

It's possible Firaxis are trying to design the game so that MP does allow such simple joining of existing games, but really that would be speculating even further than my "pessimism" in my other post.

 

[Buccaneer]

This is, indeed, true. Steam will be used with Civ V and you will have to run it when you play the game, but it won't prevent you from playing mods - we're not interested in limiting you guys.

Have to? No thank you.

We are using the system to get you guys to connect together and find content easily

Not interested in this at all.

to have updates conveniently

That's ok, I would rather choose which version I play with

to have a system that doesn't require a DVD

I am very comfortable playing a game with a DVD

... Steam is all of those things.

Do not see the benefits of using Steam.

 

[tom2050]

Not completely true. You're only going to lose Civ5 if you're caught hacking in a game on the same engine, cancel a payment to Steam or try to hack Steam itself. You can aimbot in Team Fortress 2 all you want, no risk.

There are hordes of ways to lose Civ 5. Will they happen? Not necessarily, but they are possible according to Valve.

Another example is from their Online Conduct. A part of it states: "You will not: Use any material or information, including images or photographs, via Steam in any manner that infringes any copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, or other proprietary right of any party." That is directly linked to the incident I described earlier I believe. If I understand it correctly, this part means that not only you re not allowed to distribute anything (and as it says, anything at all - games, images, music, text files... And even if they are of no concern to Valve at all) that goes against copyright, but you can't even have it for personal use, as long as it's connected to Steam in any way; adding a link to it in Steam client seems to be sufficient, too. But that doesn't make much sense, either. If you were, for example, to create an artistic version of the Steam logo and add a link to it on Steam's client, they would have sufficient data to suspend your account as well. Not fair, and I think it might actually go against some local laws.

 

[Senethro]

Complete speculation on the behalf of his friend. We don't know why the friend lost his Steam access. It may have been for a different reason than a dodgy exe hooked up to Steam and that may have been fair or unfair.

 

[tom2050]

You could try it Senethro, to verify or show the results are wrong. I will be more than happy to see the results of the experiment!

For a true test though, you would have to run a pirated game through Steam. I wouldn't recommend it, but it would (as a test) determine if there is truly a 'Hidden Layer of EXE-checking DRM' involved or if it is all an elaborate hoax!

 

[Model Citizen]

Some people need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age. A lot of people are acting like their computers are bastions of privacy and Steam is going to come in and take over their computers, delete all their games and laugh at them. Most of you are probably running Windows with automatic updates, browsing websites that are constantly storing data in cookies and file caches, probably have an anti-virus program that is continually scanning all of your files.

You know when you install any version of Civilization its a Third Party application that is required to play the game right? Just because Steam is an interface to access your games doesn't make it any more or less evil than other programs you run on your computer. In fact its a lot less evil than most other companies draconian DRM schemes (Ubisoft? StarForce??). It's the 21st century, computer applications are being developed with internet access as a core feature. The number of people who can't access the internet from their computer is so small that it's not even worth designing applications for them anymore.

 

[tom2050]

Modern Age has nothing to do with Corporate attempt at muddling local laws to control user purchased goods and how they use them.

You are right, draconian DRM such as StarForce and SecuRom (which 2K has big part in making past draconian 'Customized' SecuRom; do you think they have changed their minds? No) were unsuccessful because of outcry.

So, in Valves' current attempts at transparent DRM, they provide a nice overlay of features. These are good, and this is what you, Steam-lovers, and Steam-haters like. You either do not care, or do not understand that Valve DRM is nothing at all 'modern' or 'new', but in essence says:

"You don't own anything, we own what you just purchased... We allow you to play what you purchased, and we will disallow you to play what you purchased when we decide to".

This is called Corporate over-reaching of power, that probably even breaks local laws. The fact that you are for this type of scheme shows that a good PR scheme and 'chat with friends' features will make many follow the red carpet they lay out for you.

 

[PieceOfMind]

For me, requiring internet to install video games is a bit like requiring electricity to play a board game. Sure, most people have it and 99% of the time it would not be a hassle, but that's not the point. Sometimes it will be a nuisance.

By the way, I quite happily live in the 21st century and I definitely have not had an internet connection available for 100% of the time, especially for the games computer. While requiring internet access at install and running extra applications in the background is supposedly to prevent pirating, it also prevents resale (in most cases) and is probably nuisance enough that it is driving many people away from PC games altogether. I have sympathy for people who like to keep life simple rather than complicated, and these days I'm not surprised at all that console games are becoming more popular. In general they make it easy to start playing a game - not more difficult.

 

[tom2050]

Valve (the Gabe guy) has stated that DRM actually Increases Piracy from what they have seen. So they know that Steam is increasing Piracy (unless they don't consider Steam to be DRM?).

Regardless, for an official answer to the OP question:
Is the Steam DRM just a one-time verification check? Or is it much more?

It has been concluded that it is much, much more... with much much more on the way!

 

[Senethro]

Valve (the Gabe guy) has stated that DRM actually Increases Piracy from what they have seen. So they know that Steam is increasing Piracy (unless they don't consider Steam to be DRM?).

No, Gabe said there were anecdotes that this was the case.

Anecdotal evidence abounds in your posts!

Regardless, for an official answer to the OP question:
Is the Steam DRM just a one-time verification check? Or is it much more?

It has been concluded that it is much, much more... with much much more on the way!

Why is there reason to believe it'll become more restrictive in the future?

 

[tom2050]

No, Gabe said there were anecdotes that this was the case.

Anecdotal evidence abounds in your posts!

If you say so....

From there, he noted that the reason "piracy" is doing so well is that the "pirates are ahead not just on price, but on service." In fact, he noted that since DRM decreases the service value for customers, it also tends to increase piracy, rather than decrease it.

Why is there reason to believe it'll become more restrictive in the future?

Gabe says digital content is best viewed as a service, not a product.

Newell is the founder and managing director of Valve, and he provided plenty of reasons that show that "piracy" is not the issue at all: service, value and pricing can easily trump piracy.

Treating Information As A Service Not A Product This page is linked to by the other quoted webpage.

By Steam heading towards treating 'information' as a service, and not as a product... this means that you don't own it. A service like internet is something you pay for to keep. A game is a good, it's all yours except for the intellectual rights of the game. A purchased game is not a 'service' which they can 'shut your service off' if they feel like it.

Again, muddling the legal waters. This is not 'The future', it is Steam going into a bad direction for consumers and gamers. They control your game, what you do with it, when you play, if you can play it, how you play, and maybe even why you play it. If you are a bad little boy or girl, they shut off your 'Service' and your purchased good (cough.. I mean service) is gone forever (stolen back from you), and theres nothing you can do about.

Sticking up for this is sticking up for Corporate Power. You should be praising the idea Blizzard is taking up, Internet activation only, then DRM disappears forever.

BTW, which do you like better? Steam or Blizzard's Approach?

 

[frekk]

Sticking up for this is sticking up for Corporate Power.

It's also an attack on private property rights as regards movable property.

Ownership of property, in the private property system, is literally defined by the ability to sell a product, among many other things.

I've often seen people compare this to copyright control of books. However, a book is owned. You can sell it, lend it to your friends, abuse it in whatever manner you see fit. You could even use it to make some sort of obscene papier mache object and put that on public display in an art gallery. Or you could buy one single copy and lend it out for free to the entire public (we call that a "public library"). The only thing you can't do is print a duplicate.

Obviously, Steam is totally different. You can't sell it, can't lend it, can't in fact do anything with it that breaks Steam's arbitrary rules.

Sooner or later, someone's going to try to sell serious software this way, and then it will only be a matter of time before a court challenge. One can fairly expect that when that happens, instead of releasing patches so that the games can be installed and played without Steam, they'll try to drum up support by whipping up fears about everyone losing access to their "property" (though I doubt they'll use that term!). They'll possibly claim that patches are non-viable, so they can hold everyone hostage to a favourable verdict.

I would.

In fact, under the Steam service agreement, you explicitly sign off on ownership of your software copies: All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Steam Software and any and all copies thereof are owned by Valve and/or its licensors

http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/

I expect something similar will be included in the EULA for the game.

 

[Thyrwyn]

That's because we are beginning to treat creative works, not as movable property - but as intellectual (or creative) property. In this model the creator retains rights to the essence of the created work, if not the specific instance of that work. With regards to software, the CD has absolutely nothing to do with the creative work (the software itself) - it is only a vehicle for transmitting the software. The data on the CD is meaningless until it is properly installed on a compatible computer - and that is what the software's creator is selling. The idea that you own the creative product because you possess the vehicle in which it is transmitted is exactly what is being challenged.

Yes, music, art, and literature have been treated that way in the past, and proponents of creator's rights are trying to change it. Even today you do not fully own the contents of a book or music CD - you cannot sell copies of it or derivative works thereof. You do not own the ideas those objects contain. As the means of copying and storing media becomes easier and more readily available, creator's are finding new ways to guarantee their rights to their creative efforts. Our antiquated legal systems just haven't caught up yet but they are and will.

 

[tom2050]

You cannot sell additional copies, but you can sell your personal purchased copy of a CD. You can sell your books, not copies of your book. You cannot sell your personal purchased copy of a Steamed Game. This is obvious infringement on your rights to re-sell a purchased good. Digital Downloads on the other hand, are a somewhat different area I would think due to the means of delivery. I feel you should be able to sell your digital game as well should a person wish.

 

[Senethro]

If you say so....

You posted 5 different links to articles covering the same speech by Gabe. One of them had a direct quote from him where he used the very word anecdotally. I can't find which one of your many links it was but you're picking and choosing again.

By Steam heading towards treating 'information' as a service, and not as a product... this means that you don't own it. A service like internet is something you pay for to keep. A game is a good, it's all yours except for the intellectual rights of the game. A purchased game is not a 'service' which they can 'shut your service off' if they feel like it.

Again, muddling the legal waters. This is not 'The future', it is Steam going into a bad direction for consumers and gamers. They control your game, what you do with it, when you play, if you can play it, how you play, and maybe even why you play it. If you are a bad little boy or girl, they shut off your 'Service' and your purchased good (cough.. I mean service) is gone forever (stolen back from you), and theres nothing you can do about.

Sticking up for this is sticking up for Corporate Power. You should be praising the idea Blizzard is taking up, Internet activation only, then DRM disappears forever.

BTW, which do you like better? Steam or Blizzard's Approach?

They're practically the same thing. Internet activation DRM just means the game is yours until your next hard disk failure after they've turned the authentication servers off. This will be a certainty as they have no other value. Steam is likely to last longer as its in perpetual use, continues to generate revenue and has a strong market behind it.

Steam looks to be more reliable in the long term to me.

 

[frekk]

That's because we are beginning to treat creative works, not as movable property - but as intellectual (or creative) property.

We have always treated creative works as both movable property, and intellectual property. The intellectual property is the copyright - the movable property is the copy. This isn't new. What's new is trying to control the copies and remove ownership of the copy from the consumer. The consumer has never owned the copyright. There's no revolution going on here to establish copyright as a concept. They're trying to paint this scam as such, but of course it's ludicrous. Copyright has long been established.

It's a good thing they founded public libraries in the 1700s, because the idea would never get off the ground in the current climate. Believe it or not, copyright was already old back then; and public libraries never owned the intellectual property. They only owned the copy, not a right to reproduce the copy.

When you buy a Steam game, you're can't sell it. You do not own the copy. It's like buying a book but not owning it - you only get a conditional right to use it, which they can remove at their discretion and will restrict as they see fit, including arbitrarily forbidding certain uses (such as lending or selling your copy). You simply do not have ownership of any good, you have a service or rental.

Would you pay regular cover price to merely rent a book?

The idea that you own the creative product because you possess the vehicle in which it is transmitted is exactly what is being challenged.

How can something that isn't and has never been, be challenged? If this is what they were doing, the whole effort would be entirely quixotic.

But it isn't what they are doing - they are challenging the right of the consumer to own the copy that he buys. They don't need to fight to own the intellectual property rights. Copyright isn't exactly a new concept. It's centuries old.

 

[3 EMS]

@tom2050
Thanks for your reply to my question in the other thread. For some reason I can't reply to you in pm. Some of this sites features won't work for me. I was thinking that might be the case. Plus that needs to be said. It can't be said enough.

 

[frekk]

Digital Downloads on the other hand, are a somewhat different area I would think due to the means of delivery. I feel you should be able to sell your digital game as well should a person wish.

I actually do not have a problem if they want to call it a service agreement or rental. But they're marketing it as sale of a good, and charging increasingly greater prices for something less than ownership.

If they substantially lowered prices to reflect the fact you're not buying a good but a transient and conditional service (not to mention that previous costs were supposed to reflect widespread piracy, which cannot be justified with Steam titles), I wouldn't have a problem. $20? Sure.