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

[CivFanMUC]

edit: Btw, I just notices that only some "Deluxe" version of civ5 will be tied to the steam crapware, apparently. If so I may not boycott the game after all - Firaxis is offering a choice, at least.

No, they are not.
"Normal" Version: Can be bought in stores too - but you have to register it with Steam, install Steam, use Steam everytime you want to play.
"Deluxe" Version: Can be purchased exclusively via Steam.
No choice.

 

[innonimatu]

So the retail version is like Valve's Orange Box, which I bought and regretted... so much for Cvi5 for me, then. Thanks for the warning, I missed that piece of information in the middle of all these discussions about steam.

 

[Sargun]

The paranoia from so many users in here is hilarious. Valve has never just decided "hey, you can't play Half-Life 2 anymore" and told users they can't play a certain game. Valve has never gone into a 3rd party game and ripped out mods. <snip>

Moderator Action: Advocating illegal acts is not a part of CFC.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I've played every single computer game that I own through Steam, either through buying from Valve or attaching a game to Steam to find news and chat with my other friends on Steam, and I've never had a problem. Offline mode works fine, the chat/friendslist features are actually well-done, and the UI is astounding. The only problem I've ever had with Steam is that there was one bad bug that was fixed almost instantly and it was years ago. /lifelong steam user

 

[gunnergoz]

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. We are using the system to get you guys to connect together and find content easily, to have updates conveniently, to have a system that doesn't require a DVD... Steam is all of those things.

Thank you for taking the time and effort to write this. I feel I must respond to some of your comments however.
First off, the idea of "limiting you guys."
-- I fail to see how adding a requirement to have Steam software installed on my computer is not limiting purchasers of Civ V who do not wish intrusive third party software to be installed on their computer, ever.
Second, the idea of "get you guys to connect together."
-- I do so when and how I wish using various forums, including this one. I do not need assistance with this, thank you.
Third, the comment about "find content easily."
-- Ditto. I have never had a problem finding "content", be it patches or mods, on the sites that provide them.
Fourth, the issue of "to have updates conveniently."
Previous versions of Civilization simply required one to press a button in a game menu and the updates would be found and installed. If and when I wanted them...because there are times when, because I have a game going that I do not wish to abandon, I will wait to install the latest update. I don't want a third party jamming updates down my throat.
Fifth, your comment that you want "to have a system that doesn't require a DVD."
-- I have already purchased games using firms like D2D and others that do not require a DVD, thank you. And these firms are not installing intrusive third party software onto my computer.
Finally, you comment that "Steam is all of those things."
-- But Steam is also a third party that offers me no benefit as a solo player; at least no benefit that I do not already have via other, less intrusive means which actually give me more freedom and peace of mind.

I must say that I will, for various reasons that others have already expressed so I won't go into here, will boycott any game that uses Steam. I wish to buy Civilization V, period. I don't want any part of a force-fed social computing scheme that has me beholden to third party firms that I know nothing of and want no part of.

Having Steam come with Civilization is, to me, kind of like inviting the mother-in-law along for the honeymoon...and the marriage, 'til death do you part, etc. It's inclusion adds no value for thousands of gamers and actually irritates untold others. In some cases it has failed to work properly and has even cut users off from the product they purchased under conditions that are not negotiable or have a means of appeal.

I see this decision to go to Steam as purely one of dollar economics for the game's producer, nicely spun and sugared up by marketers to make it sound like gamers' best interests are the reason for it. Am I bitter? You bet I am. I am a long-time solo computer gamer, have been for almost 25 years, and despite my deep yearning to play Civilization V, VI, VII, etc etc, I also want nothing to do with a scheme that installs yet one more intrusive piece of irrelevant third party software on my computer. So for this gamer, the Civilization saga ends with Civ IV.

 

[arstal]

D2D I believe does install Securom and has activation limits on everything you DL from there.
I ran into this with Civ IV after trying to reinstall, after the no-DRM patch came out, DRM got me. I had to get the .exe from a friend to play.

I won't use D2D ever again. D2D is becoming irrelevant pretty quickly though.

 

[Pastshelfdate]

Wikipedia didn't mention dial-up or modems in its article, but a search for "Steam dial-up" on Google resulted in articles on the first page of listings that basically said I won't even be able to start playing Civ V unless I drive 20 miles to visit my friend Royce, who has a fast satellite connection, and will let me update software there. That's also the only way I can access Windows updates.

I responded to the poll on this site by saying I'll buy Civ V, but only if Steam is not required.

 

[Akka]

Thank you for taking the time and effort to write this. I feel I must respond to some of your comments however.
First off, the idea of "limiting you guys."
-- I fail to see how adding a requirement to have Steam software installed on my computer is not limiting purchasers of Civ V who do not wish intrusive third party software to be installed on their computer, ever.
Second, the idea of "get you guys to connect together."
-- I do so when and how I wish using various forums, including this one. I do not need assistance with this, thank you.
Third, the comment about "find content easily."
-- Ditto. I have never had a problem finding "content", be it patches or mods, on the sites that provide them.
Fourth, the issue of "to have updates conveniently."
Previous versions of Civilization simply required one to press a button in a game menu and the updates would be found and installed. If and when I wanted them...because there are times when, because I have a game going that I do not wish to abandon, I will wait to install the latest update. I don't want a third party jamming updates down my throat.
Fifth, your comment that you want "to have a system that doesn't require a DVD."
-- I have already purchased games using firms like D2D and others that do not require a DVD, thank you. And these firms are not installing intrusive third party software onto my computer.
Finally, you comment that "Steam is all of those things."
-- But Steam is also a third party that offers me no benefit as a solo player; at least no benefit that I do not already have via other, less intrusive means which actually give me more freedom and peace of mind.

Just wanted to second all that. I really loathe the PR-crap speech about how Steam is all for our benefit, when the real reason is simply about copy protection.
It really doesn't help to build trust with 2K to be taken as a marketted fool, you know ?

 

[Lord Alderaan]

Can I play LAN and direct IP with steam in offline mode? Or is all multi-player forced through steam. In that case it's a will-not-buy for me.

 

[arstal]

Just wanted to second all that. I really loathe the PR-crap speech about how Steam is all for our benefit, when the real reason is simply about copy protection.
It really doesn't help to build trust with 2K to be taken as a marketted fool, you know ?

I think that's part of the real reason. The other one being DLC, which may be part of the copy protection. Without a mandated babysitter- there's nothing to keep people from just downloading the DLC and putting it into their own game, or activating the unlock code in the registry.

There are enough good games that don't treat me like this , that I do not have to deal with 2K treating me like this and paying big money for it. $20 is all you guys are going to ever get out of me for a Steam game, that's my max pricepoint for a game with Steam DRM.

Unlike most of the other Steam-haters in this thread, I'm not talking boycott- but what Steam is worth to me, as a negative externality (around $30, so I value Steam's benefits at -$30 for a game).

By the point it's $20, I may not miss it much, and may pass entirely for something else though.

 

[Shurdus]

I think that's part of the real reason. The other one being DLC, which may be part of the copy protection. Without a mandated babysitter- there's nothing to keep people from just downloading the DLC and putting it into their own game, or activating the unlock code in the registry.

There are enough good games that don't treat me like this , that I do not have to deal with 2K treating me like this and paying big money for it. $20 is all you guys are going to ever get out of me for a Steam game, that's my max pricepoint for a game with Steam DRM.

Unlike most of the other Steam-haters in this thread, I'm not talking boycott- but what Steam is worth to me, as a negative externality (around $30, so I value Steam's benefits at -$30 for a game).

By the point it's $20, I may not miss it much, and may pass entirely for something else though.

Ah, so basically you wait for the 2011 christmas sale?

Way to take a stance there. 'Say No 2 Net Validations' by buying with a discount! While I understood the critisism up to a certain point, now you just look like a poser to me.

Also within a year all games will treat users like this, this is the way to survive for the studios. Studios just cannot trust gamers in general to be fair anymore, so because some people piated games and spread content around in torrents the industry is now lashing back. The pirating minority ruined it for the majority.

 

[Commander Bello]

Also within a year all games will treat users like this, this is the way to survive for the studios. Studios just cannot trust gamers in general to be fair anymore, so because some people piated games and spread content around in torrents the industry is now lashing back. The pirating minority ruined it for the majority.

This is not entirely correct.

Although piracy is wrong and unlegal (and does have a negative influence on sales figures - no doubt about this), no copy protection or DRM means up to now was able to stop piracy.
What DRM like Steam actually does is preventing any unsatisfied purchaser of the game from reselling it.
Since by this action it is proven that the new purchaser actually was willing to spend money for the game, reselling and buying of resold originals of the game is most probably of much bigger influence to the sales figures than piracy (once again, which in no way shall be used as an excuse for piracy).

So, in case that for whatever reason you would not be satisfied with Civ5, you no longer have the chance to sell it to somebody else to fund you for the purchase of a another game.
This would be a legal thing to do and up to now always has been.

With the introduction of DRM like Steam, the companies are actually restricting you in your rights - though, not to be mistaken, the DRM measures by themselves are legal, too.

Nevertheless, the current custom and practice is getting to be changed by the companies, and a not too big yet vocal group of "customers" are assisting them in this attempt - for reasons about which I could only speculate.

 

[arstal]

Ah, so basically you wait for the 2011 christmas sale?

Way to take a stance there. 'Say No 2 Net Validations' by buying with a discount! While I understood the critisism up to a certain point, now you just look like a poser to me.

Also within a year all games will treat users like this, this is the way to survive for the studios. Studios just cannot trust gamers in general to be fair anymore, so because some people piated games and spread content around in torrents the industry is now lashing back. The pirating minority ruined it for the majority.

Blaming the pirates is marketing spin. Pirates aren't customers. You only lose a sale due to piracy when someone willing to buy your game normally decides to pirate it instead. The #1 cause of this is ironically anti-piracy measures.

The saying no, is saying that I won't buy full price, like I was going to.

I'll pay a reduced price.

Steam isn't malware. It's nasty DRM that takes away your rights, but it isn't malware.
It's not going to brick your computer like Starforce. If it was malware, the game would be a no sale period until it was removed or removable. That said, the DRM aspects of it, are what keeps me from paying a full price. I won't buy any Steam game over $20.

Also, all games will not treat users like this- you just haven't seen companies that treat their customers right. They do exist, and many of them do quite well for themselves. Play something outside of Steam for once.

Those companies will continue to treat users right, as treating users right, combined with providing a good product- has created fans for those companies (A lot of Stardock fans started with GalCiv, due to the no-DRM stance making them more willing to try it out. The fact that the game was good made them buy later products.)

DRM protects your sales from being maximized- at least in this genre. It's possible for games like Modern Warfare 2 that it's a different story, and even Stardock says it likely is- which is one reason they don't make FPS's.

 

[ArcadicGamer]

Those companies will continue to treat users right, as treating users right, combined with providing a good product- has created fans for those companies (A lot of Stardock fans started with GalCiv, due to the no-DRM stance making them more willing to try it out. The fact that the game was good made them buy later products.)

This is where i have to butt in. You want gaming companies to treat the consumer right? Lets look at the best 2 companies that keep their consumers happy, Valve and Blizzard. They both treat their customers horribly, always patching in free, new content. The even give you extra game modes and features not avalible at the release, those commies! They have the nerve to charge me a whole 0$ for all this awesome content i don't want. Thats why there will never be a Portal 2 or Diablo 3, because these companies treat their consumer so horribly.

You may not like Valve's games, but you CANNOT deny they are the leaders in free content for games post-release. Their buisness model is solely based around the consumer playing their games long after release. Thats why they are easily mod-able. Thats why they keep content coming. Thats why they are always doing their best to keep the content flowing. STEAM is their baby, and they know that without it they couldn't offer the level of content they do today.

Yes, they can take away your rights to play your game. Have you read any reasons why they do this? I had a few games frozen for about a week once because in that week i spent somewhere near 500 on STEAM games. They thought my account and CC were hacked, and once i verified i am me, they unlocked my account. They primarly lock accounts for 2 reasons.
1. Your CC was reported Stolen
2 The account was reported Stolen and proven stolen.
What's my point? STEAM isn't going to randomly decide to prevent you from playing your games. Its in their best intrest to keep you playing. Not to mention the horrible PR that would be assoctiated with 1000's of banned accounts. Xbox Live has a similar EULA for its downloadable games and cheating. They can ban your xbox and brick dlc and games for similar reasons as above, long with cheating.

TLR You have nothing to fear if your a upstanding citizen and are not stealing games/CC's. You can be paranoid about it, but Valve's reputation should speak volumes about their integrity vs. other game developers.

 

[arstal]

I'm talking about Valve and ActiBlizzard the publishers. You're talking about Valve and Blizzard the developers.

Valve and Blizzard the developers are awesome. That has nothing to do with their publishing sides.


What I am "paranoid" about- is what if a mistake happens. The way Steam is set up, if I assert my rights via chargeback or lawsuit, I would lose ALL my games on that service. Steam could fatfinger a 0 on my charge. Mistakes do happen. I shouldn't have to pay for them.

I would love it if Valve games were on Impulse or Gamersgate, and not using Steam DRM.

The fact you were OK with your games being locked for a week- you really are whipped. I'd be furious- it's not up to Valve to babysit my credit card. If I want to spend $500 in a week on games, it's my prerogative, and it shouldn't cause my account to be locked.

(I don't spend $500 in a year on games)

 

[Commander Bello]

I had a few games frozen for about a week once because in that week i spent somewhere near 500 on STEAM games. They thought my account and CC were hacked, and once i verified i am me, they unlocked my account.

Which in turn means that for them it seems quite possible that such things may happen.

Thanks, but if I were ever so .... let's say "strange" to buy around 10 different games in just one week, then I still would like to have the chance of playing such games.
This means that I would gladly pick them up in a store, take them back home and then would play them one after the other. I would like to be the one to decide when I will be allowed to do so.

I don't need any company to decide that now I have done something which - according to their ideas - is "unusual" and then to block me from my rights. If at all, then it would be something my bank should do for me, and for sure not Steam.

Thanks again, but you just delivered another reason not to go with Steam.

 

[RockingKraut]

Which in turn means that for them it seems quite possible that such things may happen.

Thanks, but if I were ever so .... let's say "strange" to buy around 10 different games in just one week, then I still would like to have the chance of playing such games.
This means that I would gladly pick them up in a store, take them back home and then would play them one after the other. I would like to be the one to decide when I will be allowed to do so.

I don't need any company to decide that now I have done something which - according to their ideas - is "unusual" and then to block me from my rights. If at all, then it would be something my bank should do for me, and for sure not Steam.

Thanks again, but you just delivered another reason not to go with Steam.

Has anyone mentioned that you can have steam actually start Nonsteam programs and games using it? My mother had problems with Spore not playing when she used EA's spiteful DRM service so I installed steam and added Spore to the Nonsteam program list and it worked perfectly fine. 500 dollars in one week would look suspicious to anyone who's just looking out for their damn users. So by saying that because the company actually double checked to make sure that he wasn't hacked was a reason is like saying Cops suck because they just caught you speeding after catching an other guy speeding too.

 

[tom2050]

To be locked out of games for a week you just spent $500 on (supporting Valve and Software Companies) should piss anyone off. If the bank finds something odd going on, then they will contact you.

Anyone who is fine with such a concept of a police state of DRM big brother all over your a** every second is not seeing it for what it really is.

If someone spends $500 on games using someone else's credit card, Steam locking your game account won't stop that person from continuing to spend money on that person's credit card. The bank can do that.

These pro-Steam arguments are making Steam look worse than even I thought it was.

 

[Commander Bello]

Btw, such an action only makes sense, if the credit card would not have been charged.

But whether is was charged or not, in any way Steam has taken it's chance to block the account of somebody whom apparently they thought to be innocent (since it was mentioned that they assumed a cracked account).

This means, they are blocking the (in their eyes) legal owner of the account from accessing his rightfully purchased games.
They seem not to have recharged the credit card, which in turn would have meant a one-week credit.
And the rightful owner had a week of hassle to prove his ownership.

I mean, c'mon! Do I really need this?
Somebody in the headquartes of Steam decides that a certain behaviour of mine is "suspicious", blocks me from my legal rights to play and then it is my obligation to prove, who I am?

This imposed over-control is exactly one of the reasons, why the Steam-critics are very cautious about this move of 2K.

 

[Shurdus]

Blaming the pirates is marketing spin. Pirates aren't customers. You only lose a sale due to piracy when someone willing to buy your game normally decides to pirate it instead. The #1 cause of this is ironically anti-piracy measures.

And how do you know what the number one cause is? I think you are making this up on the spot. Did you know that 83% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Play something outside of Steam for once.

Those companies will continue to treat users right, as treating users right, combined with providing a good product- has created fans for those companies (A lot of Stardock fans started with GalCiv, due to the no-DRM stance making them more willing to try it out. The fact that the game was good made them buy later products.)

DRM protects your sales from being maximized- at least in this genre. It's possible for games like Modern Warfare 2 that it's a different story, and even Stardock says it likely is- which is one reason they don't make FPS's.

The first comment makes no sense. You don't know what I play.

The rest of th post is a cute little story and you behave like a nice lapdog to SD, but so what? Your feeling and experiences are not data. If you did some research then quote that, if not then admit that you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[arstal]

What I said about losing sales to piracy is sheer economics. Everything I say can be backed up by economic theory, which has been applied by the companies I've been mentioning positively.
Valve understands this theory also, as you can see by some of their quotes.

A lot of pirates are in places where the games aren't sold (SE Asia, China), a lot are poor college students who don't have the money. Those people, if you eliminated piracy, aren't going to become customers. They'll just do something else.

The pirates that DO hurt you, are the ones that are WILLING to pay the money for the game, yet pirate- either because they can, or because they're angered due to DRM. The first group are the people who deserve the letters from lawyers, if you can identify them. The second group is your own fault. Civ V is going to make some of that second group. (That's not necessarily saying that 2K made an unprofitable decision in the short term.)

Companies shouldn't waste too much effort going after pirates other then distributors and that first group I mentioned- there's no profit in it, and you gain ill will from doing so.

This is my other concern about Steam. I have monopoly concerns. This is not because Valve is evil, but because Valve is smart. Smart in the same way Microsoft is.

Whenever any digital medium does something stupid, and it's boom ends (See CD's in the first half of last decade and anime in the last half )- they always start to blame piracy, when it's often due to an unwillingness to adapt to market conditions, combined with goods people are less willing to buy. See the Titan quest folks

Also,on the Stardock forums, around the Starforce vs Stardock fiasco (where Starforce linked to torrents of GalCiv II threatening Stardock to use Starforce or we will bury you)- some people came on their forums and said that they bought the game due to that/Stardock's stance. Several pirates also claimed that they were more willing to buy due to that. (those are the damaging pirates). The endgame of that feud was that Starforce has been in decline ever since, as the reaction was so negative that Ubi and some others dropped Starforce. Maybe this isn't symbolic of the genre at large, but it's also possible that the people on those boards are the ones ahead of their time, as Valve was when they made Steam (I may not like Steam's model, but I will say that it was the 2nd best PC business decision of last decade- right behind WoW)

Gal Civ II- sold around 1 mil+ copies. 8 digit profits
Titan Quest- sold about the same. Company goes bankrupt.

I'd say, to me, that proves that Stardock had more business sense then the Titan Quest folks.
A lot of developers in the gaming, and some publishers, aren't very good on the business side of things.