Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by evrett37, Jun 13, 2010.
Moderator Action: If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, please don't post.
No problem with you liking Steam. You have your tastes, you think Steam is great. That's nice - I'm happy that there's something on the market for you.
We have different tastes. I happen to not like Steam. I'd like just a regular version without this thing I do not want. If it was any other game, I'd just ignore it, but I've been a paying customer of the franchise for close to 20 years, so I feel a little put off when people like me are being told we're ridiculous and to shut up and go away (and it doesn't exactly make me too eager to join their community, either). All I want is a version with and a version without. So I have to ask - what is your problem with that?
I personally don't have a problem with that at all. However, what your asking for does promote piracy, and the current set-up is one of the best piracy-proof systems to date. Idealistically, I wish you didn't have to pay a price for their being pirates, I am sure you have always paid for your civ games. In reality, the world is changing and adaptation must be done.
I wish that we didn't have to spend any money on an army or police (and we should spend less, but that's another story), but in reality we do need some of them, or we indirectly promote thievery and anti-social behavior.
Again, your request is 100% reasonable, I just hope you understand why things are being done as they are.
When you purchase ANY software, you are paying for a license, it just so happens that the license cost is a one time fee, it doesn't matter if it's digital or box copy, that's all you've had since the earliest software. If they sold you the program itself, they could not continue selling as you now own it, and it would be pretty ridiculous to sell a multi-million dollar piece of software for $60-$70.
This would be fine if Steam was just a DRM system. In reality, Steam goes well beyond that, as any steam fan will happily tell you no doubt. The best category I can think to lump steam into is adware. Though you can fiddle with settings to prevent the steam store being the default page and the popup ads from loading each time you launch the client, the default behaviour is to be adware, to sell you more games that you may want. Many don't have a problem with this, and understandably if they want the place they buy games and the software they use to buy games to be one and the same.
To put it simply there are many DRM methods that involve nothing quite as in-your-face as Steam. The pitch that Valve puts to devs and publishers when it tries to sell them steamworks is much much more than just the DRM part of it. For example, the easy inclusion of in-game purchasable DLC (which Valve will also profit from) is a big selling point.
While DRM is one of the functions of steam, I think it is not much a part of the decision to ship this game with steamworks. I just find that way too hard to believe, and that is why I disagree with your argument that that is why we are seeing civ5 shipped with steamworks.
I could be wrong, but is there a single anti-piracy mechanism for an offline game that hasn't been hacked? I don't really pirate much anymore, mostly because I don't have enough time to game like I used to, but offline games have been jokes to pirate. In fact, Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age use extra content as an incentive to buy the game, but they basically concede easy piracy and just try to provide some reason to purchase.
Having a basically 100% piracy free game seems like an outrageously huge advantage for a game which is "largely" offline.
If I am totally wrong, I would easily concede the point.
There are plenty of alternative DRM schemes that would be just as, if not more, effective than Steam at reducing piracy. I am arguing that it's unlikely to be the reason we are getting steamworks. It is a complex decision based off of probably many of the features that steamworks provides to the dev/publisher. Even the marketing from 2K Games would seem to suggest this.
I checked the section you referenced and it only actually states that about the Steam software itself - it states that Valve owns the software, in reference to Steam.
However, the "purchasing a license" is the same of any hardcopy - if you read the TOS or the actual stuff on the label of the disc, or in the game's manual it usually states the same thing, that you only own a license, rather than the copy of the game itself.
If Valve for any reason reject your use of Steam then in effect you will also be rejected from any games on that account. Pretty sure it's stated somewhere in the agreement that can happen.
Hard copies that are not directly tied to Steam will not have that SSA limitation on them. The terms of the user agreement may be very similar, but the means the publisher/developer/distributor have to enforce it are very different.
That is true, but most EULAs have clauses that give the owner similar powers to revoke the license.
Moderator Action: We do not tolerate any encouragement of or support for piracy. Please do not bring it into the discussion at all. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
It might not have MP capability, but civ5 is primarily a SP game anyway.
This is another thing that bothers me about steam. In order to play civ5, I will actually have to except a license agreement to a piece of third party software, and if that agreement is somehow voided in the future, it will effectively void my license for civ5.
I have not interest in agreeing to a SSA with Valve, that basically allows them to monitor my behaviour on my computer while their software is running. I value the privacy of my own home and this includes whatever I do offline on my PC. What's next, DRM that force you to play with your webcam on so they can check whether only the licensee is playing the game? (For the humorless among the audience: the last sentence obviously is an exaggerated joke, but it does indicated the level at which Steam violates the user's privacy.
As I've said before, for most of the games I have, the owner has basically no power to remove my ability to play the game. Even if they technically revoke the license, the only way they can stop me from using the game is to pursue legal action against me. That's certainly not common. It would be much less costly and easier if they could just tell Steam to ban my access to the game.
Note I understand some of the games form the past few years might give the owner similar abilities to remove access to the game, but to be fair, only a few of my games are from the past 3 or 4 years. Most of them are from earlier.
Actually most EULA's are not terminable at all. Violation of the EULA may cause it to become void. This is very much unlike the Steam SSA which may terminated both by the User and Valve at any time.
See section 13 of the SSA:
Valve thus has the right to cancel your account at their discretion. The primary reason for this clause is probably to give Valve the option to completely pull the plug on Steam if they ever want to, without any further legal obligations. (Although if they try that, they will probably be facing major lawsuits challenging this clause.) But, its effect is much broader allowing Valve to cancel your account on any whim they choose. (Maybe because you released a "Steam sucks ass, and Valve is Satan" mod to civ5. )
If the guy wants to protest, let him. Most of us live in democratic societies so it's his full right to do what he thinks is best. I'd be pretty honored is someone would take the effort to make a statement outside my working place or home. Even if they disagree with you it just means that you have fans that really care.
The world isn't changing. There has always been piracy, believe it or not. Nothing new about it, and it isn't particularly more commonplace than it was when Civ4 was produced and sold quite profitably.
I understand perfectly well - it is to kill resales, monopolize distribution, and so forth. It has little to do with piracy. If it were about reducing piracy, why is the price going up instead of down?
Perhaps, but I do not think it has ever happened to a consumer (perhaps businesses, I don't know).
Steam is the best thing to happen to PC gaming since... forever. Protesting it is like protesting against the end of poverty and world hunger.
best things for pc gaming, my list:
MoO series (so not counting number 3)
Baldurs Gate series
PC gaming is about games, so genial games ideas are the best thing for pc gaming. Steam seems to be quite a good multiplayer paltform (but one of the oldest great multiplayer platforms is still the battle.net 1.0 - so the price in this categorie would go to blizzard). Perhaps also steam pushed online distribution (but also didn´t invented it). How one of this should be enough to qualify steam as best thing ever for pc gaming, i don´t know.
Senethro, is this comparision worth to entry your list?
I doubt it was as developer decision rather than a publisher decision. It also looks like a waste of time; there are better things to protest. It's a dick move, but not quite horrible as some make it out to be. In a world as troubled as ours, it seems kind of pointless to go out and protest something like this.
You might want to find somewhere else to protest - it's up to the publisher what DRM is used.
Separate names with a comma.