What are the pros as consumers for a software like Steam?

[Genocidicbunny]

FYI, Its not paradox, but Stardock which is a privately held company.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I still dont like DRMs that call home. Some you heard my diaster with the game that I couldnt use because the server was taken down months before I bought it. It was still on the store shelf! and the store employees would not take it back, basically implied I was lying.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

I still dont like DRMs that call home. Some you heard my diaster with the game that I couldnt use because the server was taken down months before I bought it. It was still on the store shelf! and the store employees would not take it back, basically implied I was lying.

In this case I would feel fully justified to use a crack. The company cannot uphold its part of the agreement, and therefore, you are under no obligation to stick to what they dictate.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

But we all know how much those are malware. I dont really trust myself not to grab a nasty piece of that by mistake.

 

[Speedo]

Because there is this thing called shareholders who would be up in arms if say Ubi or EA suddenly announced that they will have no DRM at all.

Shareholders wouldn't give a damn as long as profit kept rolling in.

No, the reason they'll never remove it entirely is because of what they call "casual piracy". If Jimbo can buy a game and just pass the disk around to a dozen of his friends they're likely to do it and all install the game without a second thought, the same way people share DVDs, music CDs, books, etc. If a game has DRM, even if it's cracked, and Jimbo passes a cracked copy around, each friend has to make a morality call when they install the crack, and several of them probably won't do it.

The other big reason is that typically a cracked game won't have access to multiplayer, and multiplayer is the big draw for many of the big name games these days.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

But we all know how much those are malware. I dont really trust myself not to grab a nasty piece of that by mistake.

If you're not stupid and dont download just off anywhere, its pretty safe. I havent run into a bad crack in several years now.

 

[innonimatu]

And BAM. Here we are, at the point me and my brother were discussing about the corporate culture yesterday : the dynamics of shareholding. We concluded that the short term vision (a nice, impressive performance graphic for the next semester) is predominant on mid to long term vision. The most recent example being Civ 5.

What dynamics of shareholding? You really think that shareholders care about how corporations are managed? That they pay attention?

Shareholders only care about financial return, and don't even hold on to stock noways. They do not exercise, nor want, any control whatsoever over management. Fund managers, who do care a little may be swayed by whatever propaganda happens to be in fashion in "business" papers, but in the end they'll just look at profits.

Dumb managers are the only reason why DRM is still used beyond a short period after a new release. The business press carries stories about how it's necessary, distribution platforms advertise it as an important feature, it gets used. Once the idea is entrenched and an industry is built around it, it becomes hard to drop.

There may be a business case for using DRM on release, but even that I doubt.

The other big reason is that typically a cracked game won't have access to multiplayer, and multiplayer is the big draw for many of the big name games these days.

This, too. For those games where multilayer is the main feature. Which do not include the civ series.

There's another business reason, of course, which does not get mentioned because it wouldn't be popular with customers: preventing resale or gift of games.

Just now I saw another way in which Steam sucked, in a thread where someone was complaining that he installed a newly bought Civ5 on a computer where his son had a steam account, and it silently got associated with that account. The end result is that when his son uses any other of his steam-bought games in another computer, this person is unable to use Civ5. Nice way to rip off consumers: you can "buy" 1000 games, but are only effectively allowed to play one at any one time, and no one else can play one of the others at the same time!

 

[scyt4l3]

Well, I admit I'm not very versed in finance, but I took for granted that the investors value the reputation of the management. And if the management is reputed for trying risky unorthodox things, investors would be less likey to hold/buy their shares. Thus, the fear of lacking financial support drives the management to act accordingly with the general consensus (that video games absolutely need copy protections, for example)

 

[Maniacal]

I've never really liked stocks.

Just now I saw another way in which Steam sucked, in a thread where someone was complaining that he installed a newly bought Civ5 on a computer where his son had a steam account, and it silently got associated with that account. The end result is that when his son uses any other of his steam-bought games in another computer, this person is unable to use Civ5. Nice way to rip off consumers: you can "buy" 1000 games, but are only effectively allowed to play one at any one time, and no one else can play one of the others at the same time!

While yes that is something VALVe should address, it is logical to assume that the account you have logged in is the account that you want to install the game too. He also has chosen to do nothing about the problem sadly :/

 

[Geek113377]

This is the ONLY pro as far as I can see

Not having to constantly be changing disks. But a virtual disk program like daemontools can be used to fix that problem, so steam really has no use at all.

 

[Maniacal]

Except disc images take up a tonne of room on the hard drive.

 

[mdwh]

The advantage of physical media is for backup. Yes you can write it to a CD/DVD, but writables tend to be less durable, I believe.

If steam goes out of business and no one takes over and continue their services the developers would release a patch that removes the DRM.

Really? You're sure of that?

What if the developers of the game have gone bust?

There have already been cases with online-music-playing I believe where the service has gone down, and people have lost access to what they paid for.

Another disadvantage of physical media is if you lose your disk, too bad, you can't play until you find it or get a crack. And if your disk breaks, well then, you're FUBAR'd.

Wait, that sounds suspiciously like what you said for Steam! Hmm...

Not at all. I control my physical media, and look after it. I have no control over an online authentication system.

OOI, how does Steam do authentication - like, how does it recognise that I "own" a particular game?

 

[Maniacal]

It adds the serial keys to your account.

 

[Elephantium]

Another disadvantage of physical media is if you lose your disk, too bad, you can't play until you find it or get a crack. And if your disk breaks, well then, you're FUBAR'd.

Wait, that sounds suspiciously like what you said for Steam! Hmm...

If your disc breaks, you can usually buy a new one for cheap. If they take down the servers, you can't install the game anymore, period.

As you've pointed out, in that situation you'd be ethically (if not legally) justified in using a cracked version, but that carries its own risks.

The issues come down to honesty and control, I think. As a gamer, I want control over my hardware, and I want to OWN the games I purchase -- not have a license to play.

By contrast, the companies want control over the gaming hardware -- partly to prevent piracy, which they believe costs them money, partly to kill the used game market, which again they believe eats into their profits, and partly to maintain a consistent gaming experience (imagine Diablo 2 without all the dupes. Better, right?).

Also, they want us to pay top-dollar "purchase" prices for the limited licenses they grant us. We're more likely to pay up to "buy" a game than we are to "license" a game. One thing that bothers me is the dishonesty and unevenness of it -- the company gets legal control with EULAs (and a level of de facto control with DRM ... not everyone will use the cracks, regardless of how quickly they come out), AND they get the full profit from the "buy" psychology of the game renter.

If they'd be honest and use "rental" language in their marketing, I'd be complaining a bit less

 

[wolfigor]

Because there is this thing called shareholders who would be up in arms if say Ubi or EA suddenly announced that they will have no DRM at all.

Yes, it seems weird but that's almost reason #1 for having strong and rather visible DRM.

For people in the industry, the best you hope from DRM is to keep honest users honest.
DRM makes it difficoult/inconvenient for average users to get a free (pirate) copy of the game.
No DRM will even block for long all those more "tech-savvy" users.

From this point of view Steam is excellent: it package a DRM system into a service for quick delivery and "cloud" backup of games.

Steam also collects users data (their EULA is clear about it, reserving the right to collect any data they wish), and that "helps" with advertisements and promotions.


With online delivery games on stream should be extremely cheaper than their counterpart, but they aren't.
All the saves fatten the company's margins (one can say that the delivery costs have moved directly on the buyer).
Older games are often discounted... but that happens with physical copies too.


The main issue that some people has with Steam (like with any other online service like it) is that you don't own the games you buy.
You actually pay to play the games via stream (similar to a subscription rental).


If for any reason Steam stops the service (going belly up financially, broken servers, or whatever else) you are not entitled to any refund.
Steam has no legal responsibility to their users (read the EULA).
Example of this is that Steam is allowed to cancel any account for any reason they want without notice or refund (this happens sometime).
Effectively if Steam goes bankrupt you'll be cut of from the games you "purchased".
The story of official patches to remove DRM in such situation are simply wishful thinking: steam has no legal obligation to do it, and no financial advantage to do it too.


One thing that irritates me, is the regional prices and their policy of 1$ == 1€: extremely disadvantageous for EU Steam subscribers.

No, read that again. Im referring to installing the games, for which you do need an internet connection to actually download everything. Once thats done, you run the game once to authenticate it, and then you can go into offline mode and play it (as long as it does not have a specific online-only requirement)

To be clear with steam you need internet to:
- download a game (obviously)
- update a game
- register/authenticate (You need to authenticate to start a game)

Once you are authenticated you can shut down the internet connection as you please.

Having backup of the steam games may make it easier to re-download them... but Steam is know to re-download the full game even if there is a backup at hand.
This vary game by game.

 

[Mise]

One thing that irritates me, is the regional prices and their policy of 1$ == 1€: extremely disadvantageous for EU Steam subscribers.

Man, American companies have been doing that for as long as I can remember... It's god damn ridiculous. At least nowadays it's relatively easy to buy things in the US online and have it shipped over here, though even that is annoying due to tax.

 

[wolfigor]

Man, American companies have been doing that for as long as I can remember... It's god damn ridiculous. At least nowadays it's relatively easy to buy things in the US online and have it shipped over here, though even that is annoying due to tax.

I know man, I know... the fact that many do it doesn't make is less odious.

Some online services however check your IP connection and require address in USA and USA credit card, so it's difficoult for the average user to go around it.

 

[civ_king]

Acquire an American fiend who you can trust so you forward them money with a little extra (if you're saving $20-$30, $5-$10 seems reasonable), they buy the game and gift it to you, bam you save money and they make money. What is not to love?

 

[Maniacal]

Nice bump on a dead thread and quoting someone who is no longer active ha ha

The issues come down to honesty and control, I think. As a gamer, I want control over my hardware, and I want to OWN the games I purchase -- not have a license to play.

By contrast, the companies want control over the gaming hardware -- partly to prevent piracy, which they believe costs them money, partly to kill the used game market, which again they believe eats into their profits, and partly to maintain a consistent gaming experience (imagine Diablo 2 without all the dupes. Better, right?).

What the bloody hell are you talking about? None of this involves controlling your hardware, I have no idea where you got that notion from, because it wasn't from reality. On the consoles yes, those are controlled hardware in a way, but this for the PC.

As for the rest of your post, there isn't anything you can do about games being licensed unless you convince the courts it should be otherwise. If you try that then best of luck to you

Yes, it seems weird but that's almost reason #1 for having strong and rather visible DRM.

For people in the industry, the best you hope from DRM is to keep honest users honest.
DRM makes it difficoult/inconvenient for average users to get a free (pirate) copy of the game.
No DRM will even block for long all those more "tech-savvy" users.
From this point of view Steam is excellent: it package a DRM system into a service for quick delivery and "cloud" backup of games.

It doesn't stop anything. The pirates/crackers swiftly crack and prepare the pirated version for the non-tech savvy masses allowing them to get the pirated version. DRM all too often does little but to inconvenience honest customers. Of course the publishers (who are more often than not the ones insisting upon strong DRM schemes) don't realize this and now I think that might be who's perspective you're referring too.

Steam also collects users data (their EULA is clear about it, reserving the right to collect any data they wish), and that "helps" with advertisements and promotions.

And the information they collect is entirely about the games, and the completely optional voluntary hardware survey which is used to help Valve know what kind of hardware their users have so they can develop their games with that in mind. Lots on non-steam games already send back ingame information to the developers. A good example is Bungie.net.

With online delivery games on stream should be extremely cheaper than their counterpart, but they aren't.
All the saves fatten the company's margins (one can say that the delivery costs have moved directly on the buyer).
Older games are often discounted... but that happens with physical copies too.

Because if they priced them lower than the retail stores the stores would (and probably rightfully so) consider it unfair competition and no one wants to deal with angry retailers. There are, however, many sales that get ridiculously cheap and most games aren't really worth full price anyway.

The main issue that some people has with Steam (like with any other online service like it) is that you don't own the games you buy.
You actually pay to play the games via stream (similar to a subscription rental).

You pay for the exact same license you would be paying for if you bought it retail. The only difference is if the digital service goes down you can't redownload it again. Although by the time that happens there will be many other options for getting the game quite cheaply.

If for any reason Steam stops the service (going belly up financially, broken servers, or whatever else) you are not entitled to any refund.
Steam has no legal responsibility to their users (read the EULA).
Example of this is that Steam is allowed to cancel any account for any reason they want without notice or refund (this happens sometime).
Effectively if Steam goes bankrupt you'll be cut of from the games you "purchased".
The story of official patches to remove DRM in such situation are simply wishful thinking: steam has no legal obligation to do it, and no financial advantage to do it too.

And all of these are exactly the same as every other digital distribution service. Except in a way GoG because they don't have DRM there so you can burn as many copies to disc as you want.

One thing that irritates me, is the regional prices and their policy of 1$ == 1€: extremely disadvantageous for EU Steam subscribers.

This is almost always because of the publishers and distributors. And yeah everyone has known its stupid for years.

Some online services however check your IP connection and require address in USA and USA credit card, so it's difficoult for the average user to go around it.

You can get around that on Steam by getting a trusted North American friend to gift you the game in exchange for the money or something. Good Old Games recently provided an excellent loophole (after already giving Australian and other users who had to pay more for The Witcher 2 in-store credit t make up the difference) by removing the IP check so all you have to do is set your country to Canada or the USA and you can get the US prices.

 

[deanej]

I've never seen credit card verification for physical sales, so if you don't mind a CD/DVD instead of a digital copy, you could just order internationally via Amazon or something. I've never seen a digital download cross international borders (the publishers are dinosaurs, but I for one am still hoping the digital asteroid will kill them off, allowing for open source mammals (developers/users) to replace them).

It doesn't stop anything. The pirates/crackers swiftly crack and prepare the pirated version for the non-tech savvy masses allowing them to get the pirated version. DRM all too often does little but to inconvenience honest customers. Of course the publishers (who are more often than not the ones insisting upon strong DRM schemes) don't realize this and now I think that might be who's perspective you're referring too.

I'm more cynical than you are. As far as I'm concerned, the publishers fully understand that DRM does nothing to stop piracy and merely use piracy as an excuse to exert more control over their products (because consumers would revolt if they took this control openly).