Is there anything more anoying in gaming than DRM? Hot Seat topic number one some time ago I want to light the fire again under this one.

I recently bought a used PC game off eBay. It was the boxed version of a steam game, and came with the key code. I'm not all that familiar with Steam, and after installing it on my computer and failing to get a Steam validation, contacted the seller who promplty deleted both his install and registration. That didn't free me up to install so he [actually a her, some kid's mom trying to unload unused games], graciously passed along the unused account password info.

Now I'm sure many of you more savy than me realized immediatley that this innocent little transaction is strictly forbidden by Steam's end user agreement. If you read the fine print their DRM is not simply to ensure that a copy of a game is well and truly the property of the buyer, but is intended to limit the use of the game to only one user - ever. Transfering one's account info is probibited. Selling the CD accompanied by transering the info is prohibited.

This is not, strictly speaking, DRM at all, but a refashioning of the way people purchase and re-sell their possessions, memberships and so on. I was pretty amazazed at the ballsiness of this DRM re-imaging. Gone are millenia of settled customs of transference of goods...

Is Steam's enhance policy actually legally enforcable? Basic DRM is, but how about the other dimension of usage they are insisting upon? Anyone out there know. I was pretty shocked. 

Ah, DRM.

I don't know whether Steam's policy is indeed legally enforceable, but it may well be: remember that in general, buying a game these days is, according to the EULA, considered to be the purchase of a licence to use the game, not a sale of the game, and as such transfer of the licence may not be allowed. :/

I suppose that I can see something for their side: it prevents cases in which a person installs the game, sells on the key and keeps playing in offline mode, and it means that they get revenue from all sales.  I'm not sure that I entirely agree with their conclusions, but I do think that I can see some of their perspective on the matter.

In general, I'm no great fan of DRM - at most I don't mind codes taken from the manual or the inputting of a CD-key; much more seems to me to produce no significant benefit and may potentially be a significant impediment to use by legitimate customers. :/

More reason to keep supporting Good Old Games, at least, I suppose.

You may well be right, but in my case the game could never have been played simutaneously since I was blocked by DRM from installing it to my Steam account in the first place. Once a particular game is associated with an Steam account that's it. There are some more relaxed DRM titles with a full-functioning offline mode, though this treatement tends to be reserved for games that have been on the shelf for a while - those "patch version 14.00.3.1.2 removing online verification for every session".

So the seller, who had no deisre to either keep or play the game just game me his account which had been setup only for this title. The DRM was effective in regulating a "1 game" policy and I would have thought was the holy grail of DRM.

Steam says they reserve the right to terminate any account suspected of having been transfered - though mercifully I haven't been apprehended. Doesn't this seem petty and have little to do with the proliferation of pirated software? It's a power play to see how far they can push - not protection of intelectual property.

Ever since Half-Life 2 I've limited my Steam purchased since I found the repetetive verification process and inexplicable and time consuming Steam "updates" [for a 7 year old game?], pointless and aggravating. If gaming is headed to a licenced based model they need to pipe the game in for an hourly/monthly fee, not sell it.

I own copies of several high-end flight sims that also come with a deep layer of 

So it's not DRM as such that is getting me going here but the general assault on the tradition of normal everyday exchange of "stuff". The intelectual rights movement has a dark side that pops ups more and more frequently. Steam may be less morally reprehensible than gene patents or exclusive rights to genetic engineered foods and organisms, but it's all part of andvancing commercial captalism...

Originally Posted By Thaumaturge (19 JUN 2012 10:55am)

Ah, DRM.

 

I don't know whether Steam's policy is indeed legally enforceable, but it may well be: remember that in general, buying a game these days is, according to the EULA, considered to be the purchase of a licence to use the game, not a sale of the game, and as such transfer of the licence may not be allowed. :/

 

I can only speak for how it is in my end of the world, but Steam can basically be seen as a "service", and Steam is entitled to limit who gets access to the service, as long as there is no discrimination involved. This includes forbidding re-sales of accounts.

On the other hand, if you buy a physical disc, you are considered to be the legal owner of that disc. You might not own the code itself, but you may do what you want with the disc (including re-selling it). An EULA is not above the law, and the law is clear enough on this point.

Also, in some countries (Germany at least), an EULA that you don't have the chance to read before you purchase the product/service is worth nothing. The company has to provide you with all the information to what you actually agree on before you put down your money (so a clearly visible EULA on the digital distribution site counts, but an on disc EULA won't unless, they also print the EULA on the box itself, or make it otherwise possible for the consumer to read the EULA in the store).

So what this basically boils down to is that when you have bought a boxed copy of the game, you are allowed to do whatever you want with the disc, including selling it to someone else. You are not allowed to do that with a steam account though, so while you would be allowed to sell your boxed copy of Half Life 2, you can't include your steam account in that deal, thus making a second hand copy of Half Life 2 worthless (and this is probably why companies like to put their games on Steam, to kill the second hand market). Valve is also in their rights to close down Steam accounts for any infringement that they deem bad enough (but generally speaking, they don't want to do that, a closed down steam account is a lost customer).

Steam is also interesting in the regard that it is in fact pretty convenient, and thus people don't mind the DRM all that much. The auto-updating feature for an example is quite nice (and by the way, the reason Half-Life 2 is still getting updated is due to the fact that the game engine itself gets updated, to work with modern hardware and for better mod support). And Valve has built up a fair amount of goodwill over their lifetime, by for an example giving very good mod support to their main games, and supporting smaller studios with their projects (and I think giving away Portal 1 for free also helped). This combined with all the social features, and steam events (I got ~35€ worth of free games from their Christmas sale) makes steam a pretty well liked platform. People don't really mind it as "DRM" when they get all the other things that comes with steam. 

sounds reasonable enough but I'm not yet sold on the idea of "game as a service" or a "game licencse". And I don't like the idea that a game will become unplayable when the company goes out of business and online validation no longer works. I see these maneovers as ways to limit the use and life of a game - maybe an advantage to the producer in the same way "planned obsolecence" is to manufactured goods.

I like a game as much as an object as a gaming experiences. Collecting games is a integrap part of the the whole concept of gaming for me and I don't look forward to the day when games are not part of the culture like looks and even traditional boardgames that can have long usefull lives for many many people.

Originally Posted By tincup2 (19 JUN 2012 9:07pm)

 

You may well be right, but in my case the game could never have been played simutaneously since I was blocked by DRM from installing it to my Steam account in the first place. Once a particular game is associated with an Steam account that's it. There are some more relaxed DRM titles with a full-functioning offline mode, though this treatement tends to be reserved for games that have been on the shelf for a while - those "patch version 14.00.3.1.2 removing online verification for every session".

 

 

 

So the seller, who had no deisre to either keep or play the game just game me his account which had been setup only for this title. The DRM was effective in regulating a "1 game" policy and I would have thought was the holy grail of DRM.

 

 

 

Steam says they reserve the right to terminate any account suspected of having been transfered - though mercifully I haven't been apprehended. Doesn't this seem petty and have little to do with the proliferation of pirated software? It's a power play to see how far they can push - not protection of intelectual property.

I'm not sure that it is just a power play.  If they allowed such transferrence, it would likely become much harder to prevent someone from buying a game, installing it and then passing it on, even if it meant staying in offline mode to prevent their servers from recognising the loss or doing something about it.

I do think that the sheer degree of control that they have over accounts would make such a scheme less viable than in other situations, but I sincerely doubt that they would successfully prevent all such actions.

 So it's not DRM as such that is getting me going here but the general assault on the tradition of normal everyday exchange of "stuff". The intelectual rights movement has a dark side that pops ups more and more frequently. Steam may be less morally reprehensible than gene patents or exclusive rights to genetic engineered foods and organisms, but it's all part of andvancing commercial captalism...

 

 

Hmm...  Here I partially agree with you.  For one thing, I don't think that this is anything new, but for another I am somewhat swayed by the thought that intellectual property might be held a little more tightly than is entirely wise, or to general benefit.  (Whether it is morally poor I do not intend to judge.)

Originally Posted By Fnord (20 JUN 2012 9:51am)

Steam is also interesting in the regard that it is in fact pretty convenient, and thus people don't mind the DRM all that much. The auto-updating feature for an example is quite nice (and by the way, the reason Half-Life 2 is still getting updated is due to the fact that the game engine itself gets updated, to work with modern hardware and for better mod support). And Valve has built up a fair amount of goodwill over their lifetime, by for an example giving very good mod support to their main games, and supporting smaller studios with their projects (and I think giving away Portal 1 for free also helped). This combined with all the social features, and steam events (I got ~35€ worth of free games from their Christmas sale) makes steam a pretty well liked platform. People don't really mind it as "DRM" when they get all the other things that comes with steam. 

This is an interesting point, I do think: sometimes, I suppose, it might be worth suffering an inconvenience if there is sufficient reward to be had through it.

It might be worth noting that another advantage of such a system as Steam is that, if I'm not much mistaken, you can load up the client and log in from a new computer and, some re-downloading aside, play your games almost as though you hadn't changed anything.

On the other hand, I wonder how many people realise all of the restrictions that apply, such as the issue of not transferring games between accounts.

Originally Posted By tincup2 (21 JUN 2012 6:52pm)

sounds reasonable enough but I'm not yet sold on the idea of "game as a service" or a "game licencse". And I don't like the idea that a game will become unplayable when the company goes out of business and online validation no longer works. I see these maneovers as ways to limit the use and life of a game - maybe an advantage to the producer in the same way "planned obsolecence" is to manufactured goods.

 

I like a game as much as an object as a gaming experiences. Collecting games is a integrap part of the the whole concept of gaming for me and I don't look forward to the day when games are not part of the culture like looks and even traditional boardgames that can have long usefull lives for many many people.

I fear that the "game licence" sytem has been around for longer than you might think, depending potentially on what laws might apply where you are (such as invalidity in Germany, as mentioned above); in fact, my impression is that it is fairly standard - and has been for some time - for the EULA (which, again depending potentially on local laws) to indicate that the game is not sold but licenced, whether it's a digital download or came on a disc.  Indeed, I think (although I may well be incorrect in thinking so) that such EULAs predate significant digital distribution.

(This sort of thing is, I suppose, a part of the reason that I read these licences - I want to know what I'm agreeing to, or potentially refuse to agree.)

It's possible that "planned obsolescence" is indeed a part of the motivation, but I have my doubts.  I wonder whether those running the companies in question don't truly believe that DRM is the wisest course for preventing piracy, and full prevention the wisest course over more lenient attitudes, or at least find themselves answering to others (such as shareholders) who do.

All of that said, I am no fan of DRM systems that call for online validation (note my previous reservations about Just Adventure's new system, for example) - or indeed heavy DRM at all - and I say that both as a gamer and as someone who hopes to at some stage produce games of his own.  I doubt that I'd be likely to go for a DRM system stronger than a CD key.

It might be worth mentioning here that there seems to be good reason (including at least one study, I think) to believe that some degree of piracy - interpersonal piracy and "trying before one buys" - may actually help the industry by enabling people to dip into or discover games that they might not have tried otherwise.  Note that despite this I am not suggesting that piracy is right - indeed, I choose to not pirate, even though it means that I might not get to play as widely as I might like.

[edit]

*looks up at the length of the post* My congratulations to those who read all the way through that!  It turned out longer than I had anticipated, I fear. ^^;

hmmmm.... the idea of 'game as licence' is an evolving concept. Early on it seemed to be just an offshoot of the end user aggreements and anti piracy measures, but now trends to how games are sold/delivered and played. Game services, monthly fee-based game platforms etc., will be fully exploited when enough affordable bandwidth/computational power is available - people will subscribe to "gaming" as they do cable TV and other forms of "entertainment".

The shape of things to come does not excite excite me at all. 

I think that I partially agree with you; there does seem to be a movement towards digitial distribution, but I'm not convinced that the central impetus for it isn't just taking advantage of the possibilities offered by a new distribution method.  For myself, I rather like digital distribution because, ideally, at least, it offers the promise of cutting out costs related to the physical element of terrestrial game distribution, such as packaging and shipping.

Indeed, look at Good Old Games for a model of what I think to be a somewhat promising approach to digitial distribution: to the best of my knowledge they have a single price for all users, regardless of region, and impose no DRM, activation limits or download limits.  An account is called for to buy, but the ability to re-download one's games means that this is one case in which I feel it to be a good idea to tie purchases to an account.  To the best of my knowledge they have no problems with backing up, either (I back up the installers for my purchases from them, save of course those that I haven't yet downloaded).

Bear in mind that, I suspect, at least, little has changed from the perspective of the publishers: you were licencing the right to play the game back when you were buying discs just as you are when you buy digital downloads; the change in distribution and the rise of connection-based DRM such as that used by Steam and Origin has simply allowed them a degree of control that they likely lacked previously.

I can, I believe, see the appeal of having boxes and discs to look at - indeed, I have my on little collection.  But, for myself, at least, I don't mind at all giving that up if it means that I get to play games that I might otherwise not have done.  I doubt, for example, that Good Old Games would likely have gotten as far as they have in the time that they've been active had they tried to press their games to DVD, especially since that would likely result in their asking at least for shipping costs on top the base charge (which might be especially high for some parts of the world).  Similarly, it's an important opportunity for small indies: it provides a means of distributing to people around the world without going through publishers and distributers, and without incurring additional costs for pressing DVDs or shipping to other countries.

Strange ! ! !

Had I seen it I would most certainly have replied since I hate DRM.

Strangely enough  some veteran gamer sent me an email 3 weeks ago asking my opinion about DRM

I replied my very negative reply!

IRC my reply was a bit repetitive, repeating the same thing in different words - but I think it was comprehensible.

I'll sort out my reply and post it ASAP here !

Originally Posted By tincup2 (21 JUN 2012 6:52pm)

 And I don't like the idea that a game will become unplayable when the company goes out of business and online validation no longer works. I see these maneovers as ways to limit the use and life of a game - maybe an advantage to the producer in the same way "planned obsolecence" is to manufactured goods.

That is a major concern, and it is going to be a huge issue for those who want to preserve the history of video games. When Valve finally goes under, at some point in a distant future (considering how much money they are sitting on right now, it is at least not an immediate concern), many games will just disappear, games that might be of great historical importance. We are about to see our first true mass invalidation of games with the switch to the next console generation, when Nintendo, Sony & Microsoft will remove all the support for their old consoles, and thus make it impossible to access the games that you have bought as downloads for them. In a way, the piracy scene is the only thing that will keep many of these games playable...

Due to this, I make a point out of buying boxed copies of games that I suspect that I'll want to keep on playing for years to come, even if they are a bit more expensive (this is not true for steam activated games, of course).

Originally Posted By Thaumaturge (22 JUN 2012 11:36am)

It might be worth noting that another advantage of such a system as Steam is that, if I'm not much mistaken, you can load up the client and log in from a new computer and, some re-downloading aside, play your games almost as though you hadn't changed anything.

 

On the other hand, I wonder how many people realise all of the restrictions that apply, such as the issue of not transferring games between accounts.

Only for games that have cloud saving enabled (though more and more do).

Not being able to transfer games between accounts is not a huge issue according to me, at least as long as the particular games are being sold. The games are at least not lost, never to be played again.

Originally Posted By Fnord (24 JUN 2012 7:07pm)

 In a way, the piracy scene is the only thing that will keep many of these games playable...course).

... and it's especially discouraging to read "true believer" rants even against the retro movement. Lumping erstwhile enthusiasts painstakingly cataloging, assembling and sharing the remnants of the first digital gaming age, in the same group as quasi professional new-game crackers is depressing as it is bewildering.

This is never what the original spirit of the Constitution's copyright provision was ever intended for. Believe it or not the Constitution orginally granted 7 years of exclusive rights to writers/inventors etc. - a revoltionary concept at the time for sure, but now Congress debates how many *generations* a product should remain the sole province of the creator's descendants. There is something very undemocratic about this, something verging on monarchical.

And the digital intelectual rights movement has shown that it has long arms in the courts and law enforcement so it may be harder and harder for good and usefull popular ideas to disceminate thorugh the populace. Imaging what it would be like if there had been similar laws when the door hinge, or the wheel, or the spoon was invented.

The last comments have little to do with game DRM but in a way we are the canary on the coal mine on the whole issue of digital products. As we go, the rest goes.

And on the subject of enforcing the laws surrounding these things, we have had a pretty worrying development here in Sweden, one that, to be honest, scares me quite a bit.

Basically as the police does not have the resources to go after small-scale piracy and there are legal hindrances for them that makes it hard for a police officer to actually approach any of the piracy groups (a police officer may not incite a criminal acte), private interest groups (financed by the major movie & record companies) have stepped in and started to track pirates, and as they are not bound by the very same restrictions as the police is, they are able to operate in more of a legal greyzone.

I watched an interview on TV a few weeks ago where they talked to a police officer who was leading the anti-piracy part, and he said that they basically have no reason to doubt any of the information that these private interest groups gives them, and thus takes them all at face value. 

Originally Posted By Fnord (27 JUN 2012 6:40pm)

And on the subject of enforcing the laws surrounding these things, we have had a pretty worrying development here in Sweden, one that, to be honest, scares me quite a bit.

Scares you in a general sense or personally?

This is the sort of problem that we must be alert to...

Originally Posted By CB (27 JUN 2012 7:34pm)

Originally Posted By Fnord (27 JUN 2012 6:40pm)

And on the subject of enforcing the laws surrounding these things, we have had a pretty worrying development here in Sweden, one that, to be honest, scares me quite a bit.

Scares you in a general sense or personally?

What worries me is if they are a bit too indiscriminate about who they catch. They have demanded to get information about who uses torrents from our local IPs, and if they just go after torrent users, I'm potentially in trouble. I just downloaded all the Company of Heroes patches...

Basically, police work should be done by the police, not by private interest groups, who are less discriminate about who they try to catch. And 3 years ago it was discovered that they had in fact broken a few Swedish laws, but nothing was ever done about it. Source. 

Well, you knew I had to ask. Specifically though I would be more curious as to the specific nature of these copywrited materials. For me I would normally attribute the major offenders who dabble in the areas of music and movies to be the ones under scrutiny. Since I'm not familiar with the Company of Heroes patches, it would not be possible for me to state with any degree of certainty as to whether or not you have committed a crime. I've watched you on this forum for years and my gut feeling is that you probably haven't unless of course your possession of the game in itself could be considered questionable. Everything is relative imo. I can't say that I have never watched or listened to copywrited material for example on you tube. Of course it's not supposed to be there in the first place but that's beside the point. What is true and to the point is that I am sure that there is someone out there in the nether-nether who can or has tracked my IP to the alleged transgression. In any case, as long as we have the internet the state of security for copywrited materials will never be cut-and-dry, but still I couldn't imagine that it would matter all that much to anyone either for legal or financial concerns, to give you a spot on the watchlist or even second glance. 

I don't agree with DRM - as has been said many times before it only penalises the honest gameplayer that buys a legitmate version of a game.

I can remember a few years ago buying disc versions of games where there was a lot of controversy about copy protection files being installed on your PC without your knowledge namely Starforce. I'm aware that Tages is another that was/is used.  I can't blame developers/publishers for doing this to try & protect their work but the issue for me was that it was not either advertised or if so any explanation given at the point of purchase as to what additonal files you were downloading. But, at least the games could be sold/given away to be enjoyed by someone else on a different system.

It's just got a whole lot nastier now - I've recently bought a couple of disc versions of games, one of them with the requirement to set up a Steam account to activate - there was absolutely nothing in the Ad for the game or on the box to indicate this which is in my mind completely dishonest! The fact is that this game is completely useless after I don't want it anymore! The other game I bought did have a small sentence on the back (if you cared to study the cover before you bought) that it needed to be activated on-line.

Firstly I think game developers/publishers need to be upfront about about their restrictions regarding disc versions otherwise they're falsely selling, & secondly with their restrictions they need to realise they are fuelling the piracy market rather than curbing it because honest gamers are fed up!!! 

GOG has the right idea - buy a DRM free game legitimately - why would you want to buy it anywhere else!!!

Covering old ground I'll just say that the root of the problem as I see it is most games are too expensive. Though I can't prove it I'd bet dollars for donuts that priacy is inversely proportional to price, as is sales volume. If prices were to come down sufficently, increased volume and reduced piracy would offset lower unit cost. Even if the overall take were the same at least complanies would not feel as cheated by pirates. In reality I'd also bet profits would increase, not stay the same.

Non-mainstream producers [wargames/simulators etc] with smaller fan bases have less latitude - their prices probably already reflect the optimum sales/price ratio. But for the vast majoirty of games I think a significant price drop would work to everyone's benfit.

As distibution of games by direct download becomes more and more the norm this model may appear more apealing and less risky a marketing strategy.

I couldn't resist weighing in here. Personally, (not JA wise or in any way affiliated), I think that the market will move toward the kind of model that Blizzard implemented with World of War Craft, where you rent the game, play it then loose access to it. That's a problem here in adventure gaming, where you buy it and want to keep it and play it again. I know personally I don't really like to replay or re-read books, movies, games etc. There are a few exceptions to that though and so I'd like to know that I don't have to pay a rental fee for something I already payed for. The problem is the rental fees will make things more expensive in the long run especially for someone like me that may take weeks or months to ge through a book or game because of time constraints. And it's not just gaming that's going to this model music is Spotify and also movies and console games with Netflix, Redbox and other websites renting you X-many games for X-money per month. I do like spotify, and am a subscriber, but as long as it's there and I have access to it then in that respect I don't have a problem with it. If devs did the same for X-Money per month you can play all their games then that might be worth considering, but the technology probably isn't around for that one yet, and neither is the mindset of the devs. What do you guys think?

Originally Posted By tincup2 (29 JUN 2012 7:56pm)

Covering old ground I'll just say that the root of the problem as I see it is most games are too expensive. Though I can't prove it I'd bet dollars for donuts that priacy is inversely proportional to price, as is sales volume. If prices were to come down sufficently, increased volume and reduced piracy would offset lower unit cost. Even if the overall take were the same at least complanies would not feel as cheated by pirates. In reality I'd also bet profits would increase, not stay the same.

 

Non-mainstream producers [wargames/simulators etc] with smaller fan bases have less latitude - their prices probably already reflect the optimum sales/price ratio. But for the vast majoirty of games I think a significant price drop would work to everyone's benfit.

 

As distibution of games by direct download becomes more and more the norm this model may appear more apealing and less risky a marketing strategy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted By CB (29 JUN 2012 3:48pm)

Well, you knew I had to ask. Specifically though I would be more curious as to the specific nature of these copywrited materials. For me I would normally attribute the major offenders who dabble in the areas of music and movies to be the ones under scrutiny. Since I'm not familiar with the Company of Heroes patches, it would not be possible for me to state with any degree of certainty as to whether or not you have committed a crime.

The download was entirely legal (heck, THQ were the ones who created the torrent trackers in the first place), but torrenting leaves a pretty obvious signs (something that my university uses to prevent piracy through the school network, if anyone uses torrents to download something, that person's account will be closed automatically, and then they need to prove that they did in fact not commit a crime in order to get it re-activated), and depending on exactly how discriminate they are, they might try to force my ISP to close down my connection, on the merit that I used a torrent. It is after all the very same companies that tried to make it illegal to use peer to peer clients in the first place who are doing this

Originally Posted By Elliot (30 JUN 2012 9:32pm)

I couldn't resist weighing in here. Personally, (not JA wise or in any way affiliated), I think that the market will move toward the kind of model that Blizzard implemented with World of War Craft, where you rent the game, play it then loose access to it. That's a problem here in adventure gaming, where you buy it and want to keep it and play it again. I know personally I don't really like to replay or re-read books, movies, games etc. There are a few exceptions to that though and so I'd like to know that I don't have to pay a rental fee for something I already payed for. The problem is the rental fees will make things more expensive in the long run especially for someone like me that may take weeks or months to ge through a book or game because of time constraints. And it's not just gaming that's going to this model music is Spotify and also movies and console games with Netflix, Redbox and other websites renting you X-many games for X-money per month. I do like spotify, and am a subscriber, but as long as it's there and I have access to it then in that respect I don't have a problem with it. If devs did the same for X-Money per month you can play all their games then that might be worth considering, but the technology probably isn't around for that one yet, and neither is the mindset of the devs. What do you guys think?

OnLive is currently trying to do this, and as soon as they have ironed out all the kinks, they might well be a force that will be able to compete with steam, and as everything is handled server-side, there will be no real way for pirates to get the games from them. I like the idea, in theory, but it is also a bit worrying, because it is going to make preserving these things night impossible. As I (usually) go through games at a pretty rapid pace, it would make sense economically for me to subscribe to such a service, as long as they price it well (though looking at just how cheap (PC) games have become, they would have to put it at a pretty low price point to really be attractive, unless they offer (near) unlimited access to the latest big releases for subscribers).

Originally Posted By loobiloo (29 JUN 2012 4:24pm)

It's just got a whole lot nastier now - I've recently bought a couple of disc versions of games, one of them with the requirement to set up a Steam account to activate - there was absolutely nothing in the Ad for the game or on the box to indicate this which is in my mind completely dishonest! The fact is that this game is completely useless after I don't want it anymore! The other game I bought did have a small sentence on the back (if you cared to study the cover before you bought) that it needed to be activated on-line.

EU just passed a law that will make it illegal for companies to prevent you from reselling your games. What it probably will mean is that account selling won't be prohibited, I doubt they will be able to get Steam, Origin, GOG and so on to allow re-sale of individual games. 

@Fnord I wasn't aware of the onlive expiriment. I'll have to check that out. I kinda think it might become the way of the future with all intelectual property. As for the EU passing that law I guess that Steam could repeal, IDK the way things work here in the US it seems to take forever for anything to get done, IDK how it runs in the EU, but admittedly they seemingly have a much smoother beauraracy than we do. 

Originally Posted By Fnord (3 JUL 2012 10:38am)

EU just passed a law that will make it illegal for companies to prevent you from reselling your games.

From what i read the EU is more sensible/populist about the internet than in the States. Here, our laws and regulations always seem to be written by by big business...

Originally Posted By Elliot (3 JUL 2012 11:35am)

@Fnord I wasn't aware of the onlive expiriment. I'll have to check that out. I kinda think it might become the way of the future with all intelectual property. As for the EU passing that law I guess that Steam could repeal, IDK the way things work here in the US it seems to take forever for anything to get done, IDK how it runs in the EU, but admittedly they seemingly have a much smoother beauraracy than we do. 

Chances are that OnLive is a bit too early. You really need a high-speed internet connection to use it, and while I'm spoiled with one, because Sweden's government made a large push towards making sure that Sweden would stay ahead of the curve when it comes to building out the infrastructure for those kinds of things about 10 years ago, and have been able to lay the groundwork that many companies have been able to build upon, many other countries lack this luxury. Germany, for an example, lacks high-speed internet outside of their most densely populated areas (from what I've heard at least).

And the EU is interesting. It is marred by a lot of issues, some based on the fact that many nations have historically not got along very well, and an internal power struggle between the nations. And from time to time it also makes some pretty stupid decisions, that don't feel properly researched, but they do at least seem to have some partial protection from corporate lobbying (it is still a part of the EU, of course, but it does not seem to be as big as it is for the individual nations)

I don't mind DRM at all, as long as it doesn't block me from playing a game on both my two computers; one online and one offline.

I actually agree with a ban on second-hand sale of games; it doesn't benefit the publisher or devs of the game in any way.  I think the sale of used games in the first 3 years after release should simply be made illegal, but we should at least be able to play games that we bought first hand and new without having to have internet!

It shouldn't ruffle anyone's feathers too much if you start seeling your older games off after 3 or 4 years, they should create a time period after which a game goes into the public domain - like the 70 years on books as intellectual property - they could for instance make that 10 years on games.

Trav - I agree with you on DRM [and if dev's can concoct a perfect DRM that limits a prodct to one owner without killing their business kudos to them ], but not on re-sale. I still don't understand how software products are that much different than cars, books or candles and all the other products of our lives that we have been buying, selling, trading and giving away forever.

If you want to rent software like you rent an apartment, or a car etc., fine, but that's not where we are with software yet. When you walk out of the store with a game, you have bought it, not rented it. They are free to print whatever prohibitions they want in the EULA, but the underlying concept of the EULA itself is straining against the age-old traditions of commercial exchange.

It's not unethical people depriving dev's their due - they make their money on the sale like any other vendor. The reverse is the case - ordinary people doing what ordinary people do are cast as villans. Criminal ex nilo. We're beginning to see other similar instances in other facets of life; prohibiting people from drilling water wells because some complany has bought 'exclusive' water rights in a country, or agribusiness prohibiting farmers from retaining some of their harvest to plant next year's crops [a tradition dating back thousands of years] simply becasue they bought their seeds - these are cousins of the EULA restrictions and the legal basis for their legitimacy is hardly fixed and is in constant flux and challenge in the courts.

Where leasing software makes sense is business; the dev's full tech support, updates, assistance, backing etc., is a tangible value to the business customer. And cable/TV  is a good example of rented entertainment that doesn't raise particularly vexing questions that challange traditional customs. Similarly e-readers offer a very 'rentable' form of reading, and are not too troublesome - except for the large scale issues of written-word ownership [ie Google bookbase vs public/national libraries etc] 

An example of the point I'm trying to make, imagine if book publishers started adding EULAs limiting the reading of the book to one person, who could be prosecuted for lending, selling, trading or gifting it after purchase. If you were a normal upstanding person you would say "fat chance" which would be both the correct, ethical and democratci thing to say, and fully in keeping with millenia-old tradition. If entertainment software is so different it's not yet obvious to me how, why and in what way...

Yikes sorry for all the "wind"!