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

[Me,myself,and,I]

I can't see why no one here trusts Valve.

 

[evrett37]

I can't see why no one here trusts Valve.

Same reason no one trusts oil companies, car companies and big wall street firms..did they sign some sort of agreement to be honest that I missed ?

 

[mjs0]

But if you do something like that, you should be aware of the issues and how the public sees it and consider it bad design.

There is no design flaw in doing it this way.
What results is, from the programmers perspective, an inconsequential side effect.
Their specification is to produce a way for Steam to run games without being connected, what the infrastructure does in the example I provide is not a connection.
A connection implies far more than a simple, "Hi it's me...are you there?" broadcast.
Huge amounts of communication can go on at the infrastructure level for very good reasons without the application being aware.
In this case the likely progression is that the Steam engine functionality predates the offline functionality, no technical team is going to open up a working black box in order to slightly tweak the order in which initialization happens without a very good reason.

The best analogy I can come up with (and I know the details are different but the underlying reasons for the behaviour are similar) is when you turn on your TV and it automatically starts showing TV even though your desired usage is to plug in your WII and 'play offline'. The TV initializes in a particular way and you, the application, choose whether to use it online or offline...but it always displays the TV first (at least mine does) because it is not worth the effort of providing a second interface (button on the remote) to start in offline mode.

This, as far as we currently know, is correct.

This is not correct.

As Ori has stated, there is traffic going up and down.
The Steam servers are adressed and they respond. This is almost the universal definition of the word "connection" - an action triggers a reaction.

If there wouldn't have been any downloaded packages, then we might say that the program only tries to connect.
Since it gets an answer, it is connected.

I can call up CivFanatics without sending my username and my password, so I am not logged in. Nevertheless, I am connected, since I get a response in form of being able to read the postings here. No login necessary.

Actually, I even have to be connected to be able to deliver my password and my username. Connection is the basis for logging in.

Unfortunately the everyday definition of connection does not match the more nuanced technical usage for networks.

In simple terms, Networks support Connection-oriented and Connectionless communication.

• Connection-oriented communication implies a certain level of handshaking which typically involves more than a single round-trip. Loss of packets is important and will result in the resending of packets
• Connectionless communication (which is the vast majority of the internet at the IP level) does not require sophisticated handshaking and packet loss does not trigger automatic resending of packets.

When you think about the internet and the term TCP/IP, IP is connectionless, it supports simple pings and other transmissions that may look for but do not require a response. TCP is a connection oriented-protocol, which sits on top of IP and provides support for the higher level function of the WWW.

Edit: Again I am not trying to take sides here just inject some wisdom earned over 25+ years of product and application development.
On the point of connections I want to make sure I say there is no evidence based on Ori's post as to whether a connection is or is not present. It could easily be connected, but it could just as easily not be.
Another good analogy to bear in mind here is text messaging, a phone call uses a connection, a text message conversation does not...when you send a message there is no connection to the other phone. The message travels a path to the other phone and at a later date a message may arrive back. You are connected to the phone network but any communication with message recipients is connectionless. Just as you can be connected to 'the internet' but some communications with other nodes on the network will take place connectionless.

 

[bite]

Moderator Action: Ok this is the last warning, there are two posters here that are constantly flaming this thread, if they do not stop I will closse this thread and impose infractions on the both of them

 

[arstal]

Bah, i had a nice long post eaten by the lag gods. I blame Stardock

Long story short, I was on vacation shortly after i got the new games locked. It wasn't an issue, because i didn't have access anyway. Its in their best intrest to protect you anyway, because the
PR is really bad when you let possibly stolen CC's rampage your servers.

Valve and Blizzard (before the merger) are not publishers. STEAM is a publishing tool for Valve, but the point remains. Its in their best intrest to keep customers happy. Both of these companies have no equal in consumer appreciation department. If STEAM was terrible, there would be no CSS servers, no TF2 class updates, no Left 4 Dead, because without the ease of STEAM, these games could not exist on the level they do today. 2k has realized this fact, and outsourced it to steamworks. You should realize it to.

a) Not being an issue because you weren't around is a pretty weak reason. What if you were around?

b) Valve does self-publish online stuff. They outsource to EA for offline. Actiblizzard is one of the biggest publishers out there. As for customer appreciation- many companies do it well also. Usually support is a function of the development side, not the publisher side. The two are not the same thing, and quit trying to confuse the issue. As for 2k, it's blatantly obvious they are doing what they are doing due to benefits from valve+ ability to DLC up the base (which will fail).

Quite simply- this is evidence of the direction Firaxis is being forced in, and I am convinced the series will suffer for this.

One can say Valve the publisher is bad while Valve the developer is good.

Also, no one is saying Steam itself is bad, it's Steam exclusivity that's bad. Steam isn't for everyone. I understand and accept that some people like Steam. Everyone here is ok with that. It's just that Steam is controversial, and there should be alternatives.

 

[tom2050]

It's just that Steam is controversial, and there should be alternatives.

I think I would rather choose to have a Starforce rootkit embedded in my OS, than be forced to use another DRM (Steam) that forces internet (which is not too far from Ubisoft's forced internet methods).

 

[ori]

lets add another twist here:
there is an argument that steam just pings the servers with albeit slightly bigger ping messages before starting up and asking you to go into offline mode.
This argument is easily tested - so lets go there.
Start up Windows Network Manager and record outgoing and incoming packages
Start up Steam - the firewall tells me it asks for internet rights. I ignore it for the moment.
Steam starts up tells me it is in offline mode and whether I wish to go online or start in offline mode.
I click on start in offline mode.
The Steam browser opens tells me it is currently in offline mode.
I now allow it to have internet access.
The previously mentioned burst of a little less than a kb goes out and about half a kb comes in.

Conclusion: This is a feature of the program in offline mode - not of the startup routine.

 

[mjs0]

Nice test, Ori, not liking the sound of that result at first glance.

My only thought is that the infrastructure's comms startup routine is a separate thread that waits for an internet connection and always tests connectivity as soon as it is available.
In fact now I think further about the usage scenarios this is the way the routine would probably have to be programmed because if the Steam client runs at startup there is a good chance it will be ready to test comms before Windows has finished opening the Internet Connection.
It wouldn't surprise me if the following also happened...If after the burst of network activity you disconnect your internet for a few minutes (no way to easily tell how long would be necessary though) and then reconnect it you may well see the burst of activity again.
By using this style of defensive programming (in this case constantly monitoring the state of the internet connection for unexpected problems) any call to a hasConnection() type routine should always return as close as possible to the truth.

Trust me, I know how suspicious this sounds but from my perspective this is at least as likely as any other explanation.

Still...I for one would still like to know the truth of the matter now all of this has been uncovered.

Edit: Actually, now that I think further about this...if I am proved wrong wrt the behaviour being an inadvertent side-effect of the design...one possible reason for them to do this (that could be considered 'bad') would be to prevent simultaneous psuedo-offline use of a Steam account on multiple computers.

Again...not trying to light any fires...just trying to brainstorm possible 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' (level of 'reasonability' likely to vary depending on the reader) causes of the observed behaviour.

 

[Kaelic]

Do people really think the "Average User" will be in this situation?

Average User wants:
- To play in Offline Mode
- To be online despite in Offline Mode (why?)
- To not have Steam perform any network activity while online, but with Steam in Offline Mode (why again?)

The average user just won't care. If you are the above 3 things and think you're an average user, you're sorely mistaken. Steam is designed for the average user, you double click the game, it runs. It auto updates next time you do this. The user doesn't have to worry about installing, uninstalling, patching. It "Just Works".

I have still yet to see a good reason for all this complaining over non-mandatory network activity while in "Offline-Mode".

 

[The_J]

Edit: We're talking here about an application which many people do not want, which has to be installed on our computers and has to communicate with the world.
That my computer communicates to the outside without any reason can be a security problem.
That's what we're thinking about, that's enough to complain about.

What significant application / platform doesn't have communication with it's servers? None.

Offline applications maybe?

There is no design flaw in doing it this way.

Technically you're sure right, but not from a point of view from a non computer guy. And that's what we're mainly talking about, because most customers are not computer guys.

one possible reason for them to do this (that could be considered 'bad') would be to prevent simultaneous psuedo-offline use of a Steam account on multiple computers.

Can't be, because from what i've heard here this is possible.

 

[Commander Bello]

Do people really think the "Average User" will be in this situation?

Yes.

Average User wants:
- To play in Offline Mode
- To be online despite in Offline Mode (why?)
- To not have Steam perform any network activity while online, but with Steam in Offline Mode (why again?)

Because there is a difference between being online with my browser (which I start up intentionally) and unvolunteeringly being online via a "game engine".
Because the common sense tells Joe Average that "offline" means offline.

Especialls when talking about the average user, the common underständing of a certain phrase becomes important.
Whenever such an average user has chosen the so-called "offline mode", he will rely on being offline. There is no need for him to have to explain, why he wants to be in a valid offline mode, it is his very right to make such a decision based on his own preferences.

The logical conclusion from your questions above (why, why?) is to make the Steam software in a way to work if no physical internet connection is available and in each other case to be in online mode. "Why should anyone hesitate to accept this?" is what your questions imply.

The average user just won't care. If you are the above 3 things and think you're an average user, you're sorely mistaken. Steam is designed for the average user, you double click the game, it runs. It auto updates next time you do this. The user doesn't have to worry about installing, uninstalling, patching. It "Just Works".

Once again, with Civ5 we are likely to add another "average user" (in this case, unvolunteeringly) to the number of Steam users.

If we take the experiences of Civ4 as basis, there a quite some valid reasons not to want to be auto-updated. Examples for this have been given over and over.

Any mod-user may be harmed by an auto-update which may abolish his technical ability to play a certain mod (I intentionally said "may", but experience from Civ4 tells us, that patches did cause mods to stop working until the mods were updated).

I have still yet to see a good reason for all this complaining over non-mandatory network activity while in "Offline-Mode".

I think I have answered this already:
If it would not be mandatory, then there is no need to have such activity at all.
If there is no such need, then it simply shall not be done.
If it is done, then it is either a mistake within the software or there is a certain intention behind it.

 

[frekk]

Steam is freaking me out, I'm not too technically oriented and it sounds complicated, so I'm not buying civ5 til they release a non-steam version.

Not going to get upset about it; they can make whatever thingy they want. That's their business. They're just not getting mine, is all.

 

[mjs0]

Technically you're sure right, but not from a point of view from a non computer guy. And that's what we're mainly talking about, because most customers are not computer guys.

You are absolutely right...there is a level of comfort (some would say overconfidence) that comes from thinking you know what is going on, whereas lack of detailed knowledge often (and quite naturally) leads one to assume the worst.

That said, I would contend that most (not all) of those customers don't think twice about letting MS Windows, Adobe Acrobat, their AV solution (look how well that turned out for McAfee users recently), their printer drivers, etc etc dial home frequently, checking for updates. So the vast majority of them won't think twice about doing the same with Steam.

Can't be, because from what i've heard here this is possible.

Yeah, I saw that...but
a) I wasn't sure if that was for true offline or psuedo-offline (internet online, Steam offline)
b) The 'feature' just hasn't been enabled (yet).

 

[tom2050]

Windows has a purpose, the Operating System.
Anti-Virus has a purpose, to keep Virus' out.
Civ 5 has a purpose, to play for enjoyment.
Steam has a purpose, to provide DRM to games and make money while doing it, and give additional functionality to online games in a combined package easy for dev's to integrate.
Steam has no purpose for me, to play offline; it's forced to be there to auto-update, which I prefer to update myself.

Overall, I have not many issues with Steam; in fact overall it is a brilliant design and very successful (partially due to being forced on people).

 

[Chalks]

Steam is freaking me out, I'm not too technically oriented and it sounds complicated, so I'm not buying civ5 til they release a non-steam version.

Not going to get upset about it; they can make whatever thingy they want. That's their business. They're just not getting mine, is all.

I understand that it can be pretty confusing with all these people ranting, but there's really nothing scary about steam. You register the game against your account and you play it. You'll get a shortcut on your desktop that you'll double click on, the game will load as if steam isn't even there.

There is no reason for it to freak you out and you shouldn't avoid getting the game because of this. It isn't going to actually affect anyone.

 

[tom2050]

The only time you should be worried is about things like this, which are just a bare few:

There are no alternate methods of activation such as via telephone or fax, which causes the system to deny access to those without Internet connections.

After downloading, it is necessary to validate every Steam game online the first time it is played

According to the Steam Subscriber Agreement, Steam's availability is not guaranteed and Valve is under no legal obligation to release an update disabling the authentication system in the event that Steam becomes permanently unavailable.

Temporary system failures may occur preventing users from activating their games.

Randy Pitchford, CEO of Gearbox Software, has claimed that Valve holds a conflict of interest with Steam, since it gives them the responsibility of distributing their rivals' products. He claimed that Valve took "a larger share than it should for the service it's providing" and that they were "exploiting a lot of small guys."

Steam allows developers and publishers to change prices and restrict game availability depending on the user's location, causing some games to cost more than those bought from retail stores, despite digital distribution removing the costs of disc replication, packaging, design time, logistics and dealing with retail fronts.

Both regional restrictions and pricing are unpopular with Steam users, and a Steam Community group lobbying against this practice, "Rest of World", has over 12,000 members.

 

[The_J]

That said, I would contend that most (not all) of those customers don't think twice about letting MS Windows, Adobe Acrobat, their AV solution (look how well that turned out for McAfee users recently), their printer drivers, etc etc dial home frequently, checking for updates. So the vast majority of them won't think twice about doing the same with Steam.

Would be nice if we could make them aware of it .
And there's no real reason for encouraging people to install more home phoning software on their systems.

Yeah, I saw that...but
a) I wasn't sure if that was for true offline or psuedo-offline (internet online, Steam offline)
b) The 'feature' just hasn't been enabled (yet).

Might be both .

I understand that it can be pretty confusing with all these people ranting, but there's really nothing scary about steam.

This is sure true, all the people raging here are just paranoid and have no real reasons to waste their time here .

 

[Senethro]

If you think Steam can't be trusted to the extent that the kilobyte is a major concern, then surely you'd be an idiot to install it on your computer just to play a video game?

 

[Commander Bello]

If you think Steam can't be trusted to the extent that the kilobyte is a major concern, then surely you'd be an idiot to install it on your computer just to play a video game?

Let's try to avoid phrases like "idiot", "paranoid", "slave to Steam" and whatnotever.

I would like to raise a quite simple question:
Do you agree with the idea of personal freedom in terms of anybody having the right to make his own, undisputed decision about which software he wants to allow to access the internet or not?

To me, this seems to be a simple yes or no question.

 

[Chalks]

Let's try to avoid phrases like "idiot", "paranoid", "slave to Steam" and whatnotever.

I would like to raise a quite simple question:
Do you agree with the idea of personal freedom in terms of anybody having the right to make his own, undisputed decision about which software he wants to allow to access the internet or not?

Yes.

You can choose to allow Civ 5 and all it's required components, or not.

You have a choice here. Picking on one particular aspect of a system and deciding that you don't want it to have access to the internet at any point is arbitrary and pointless. But its still your choice to make.