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

[3 EMS]

frekk wrote:

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.

Or they will let the user experience degrade when they want to push another title to squeeze more money and marketing information from the gullible masses. Maybe to force another EULA on them.

 

[tom2050]

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.

I'm purposely trying to confuse you with hordes and hordes of links!

So the other interviewer is lying? Is he a crazy conspiracy guy?

Can you help the rest of us out by letting us use your reliability meter, so we can also know which statements are reliable and which ones are not?

-----

And yes, Blizzard seems to be not be as forthcoming either in their Starcraft II DRM as some of the articles stated. I suppose gamers are just screwed, all companies are out to destroy their gaming freedom foundations in 1 way or another.

But at least Blizzard DRM isn't Nanny State watch you all day long DRM... or is it?