I won't be surprised when the day comes that you can no longer buy a movie DVD, you'll only be allowed to rent it via streaming.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why do you have to sign up with Steam to play Skyrim?
- Thread starter rasmasyean
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I won't be surprised when the day comes that you can no longer buy a movie DVD, you'll only be allowed to rent it via streaming.
Me either. I was reading just the other day about Blockbuster Video going out of business. I think that only leaves Redbox in the USA for DVD rentals and I wonder how long they can last. It is so easy now via iTunes/Apple TV, Netflix and other services to rent or buy programming without ever getting up off your living room couch.
If you don't mind heading to the nearest McDonalds or Pharmacy, Redbox is a pretty good deal but in the long run, I don't know. And I don't know how most people are, but for about $20, I'm willing to purchase a hard copy of my favorite movies. I believe this market will remain strong for the near future.
TLDR all posts..
Back to the OP,100% agree. To the rest/most of you. You must be younger generation gamers which is why you so openly embrace stuff like Steam.
And for those of you that think its "safe and secure"... Don't ever get a job in IT. Stay in your delusional bubble. lol.
Back in the day, you could by a pc game, load it up and go. Games with single player mode could be done offline. Life was amazing. Games were awesome!
Today, I bought the hard copy of SkyRim for the pc as my family won't get off the ps3 long enough for me to play SkyRim there. My son has a steam account and d/l the game on his pc. I did not want steam. Just the game. So I bought it only to realize that the box says in tiny print, you have to have a steam account and internet to play a SINGLE player game... Guess what. The box is unopened and its going back. I didn't pay $85 to use Steam. I would gladly have paid it to avoid putting yet more crap on my pc.
So I'll just buy another ps3, yes I will pay for another ps3 to play on our other tv just to enjoy the game and not load dn my pc with their crap.
Peace out Gamerz
jesus, your post makes my head hurt You should have read all the other posts instead of TLDR'ing.
Skyrim on PS3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaeU3DvW5-o
Most of all, I love how you spew out all this nonsense like none of us used to play games before the dawn of DD. Maybe one day will wake up and realize that Steam is actually a great service. Overall you sound incredible ignorant of the gaming industry in general.
Same experience with Steam here. I don't know if it matters to the OP, but Steam is amazingly good about not spamming me, including things that I might like to be emailed about (huge Steam sales, when they have games for 60%-75% off)! As it stands, I have to go look for deals within Steam or on the Steam iPhone app, or hope that I catch a thread here on MR about it. I also try to pass on deals that I learn about to other MR readers, because I know how hit or miss that process of catching the sales can be.
I hope that helps put it into context for the OP.
For me, Steam's worth it.
No, but with software you very rarely "own it" you usually are buying a license to run it (sometimes none transferable). Resale depends on the license that came with the software, usually resale is possible but if it is a game that is tied to a system (like all Steam games) then you agree by buying the title that the license you own is single use and none transferable.
No, but if you are renting your car and you try and sell it it would be considered stolen and that is how software licenses work.
Correct but equally if you buy a game that the license states you are buying a single use none transferable copy then you cannot complain if that is what you get.
Jokes aside, this (pretty much) already happens and has done for years, this is what a paid upgrade is called
You could use the same argument for cars...
They have these annoying keys and if I forget them I can't use the car even though it's mine! These evil car companies using keys, all cars should just work with no DRM
If a company cannot make a profit on great software and hence goes out of business due to piracy I would say that is a problem for end-users. It would be great if the world was a utopia and people can be relied on always to the right thing but everything from mall security guards to the locks on your door prove security against theft is a sad fact of human existence as we are not all perfect citizens.I know that a few examples I have used are perhaps not normal use cases but my point is to show that these arguments are not black and white, there are many factors and software is not that different from all other walks of life.
Edwin
No, but with software you very rarely "own it" you usually are buying a license to run it (sometimes none transferable). Resale depends on the license that came with the software, usually resale is possible but if it is a game that is tied to a system (like all Steam games) then you agree by buying the title that the license you own is single use and none transferable.
No, but if you are renting your car and you try and sell it it would be considered stolen and that is how software licenses work.
Correct but equally if you buy a game that the license states you are buying a single use none transferable copy then you cannot complain if that is what you get.
Jokes aside, this (pretty much) already happens and has done for years, this is what a paid upgrade is called
You could use the same argument for cars...
They have these annoying keys and if I forget them I can't use the car even though it's mine! These evil car companies using keys, all cars should just work with no DRM
I know that a few examples I have used are perhaps not normal use cases but my point is to show that these arguments are not black and white, there are many factors and software is not that different from all other walks of life.
Edwin
I know your points are mostly valid but you have to admit there's a big turn towards the situation I described in the last...hm...few years. Everyone is treated as a criminal by default, just because pirates cannot be prevented with any other means (which is not end-user's problem after all). Demanding to be online every "x hours" or "y launches" for something you bought to play offline (just because the license agreement states so) doesn't make it totally valid and acceptable in my opinion.
These days, people tend to confuse the ethical with the legal. Unfortunately, it is not the same thing. Besides that, though, law should prevent such tactics made by some marketing guys with ties "just because they can". For example, even if I sign a paper stating that "I am your slave", this won't be acceptable by law - law will protect me from doing such stupid thing. Given the fact that companies do whatever they feel like lately, similar measures should be applied, in my opinion.
If piracy means companies can't make new software for end users I would argue it is their problem in the end! But that aside I would say in the last few years a lot has been done to try and make copy protection more palatable. It's not all been in one direction even if some cases are not as good as others.
Back in the days of diskette based games you needed the code wheel in your manual to play the game which was far more annoying and easy to lose than how lets say a Feral game or Steam works today. Sure it's not perfect but DRM is hardly a new thing.
Sure, although your example is extremely rare in my experience, I have seen many people use this comment as a scaremongering tactic but very few games actually have any of this draconian systems in place and they tend to sell badly and get shocking PR.
In fact I would say the last few years most companies have started moving towards invisible DRM that is as invisible to the customer as possible. Good DRM decreases piracy, bad DRM makes it more likely someone will try and used a hacked version.
It's in companies interests to make the game hard to copy but easy to play. That's why Steam/AppStore is so popular you get a good experience and lowered piracy which benefits both sides.
Agreed, That was my point
Software licenses are completely legal, ethically you can make arguments however on the whole I don't have a huge issue with any, if I did I would refuse to buy the software.True, but no software licenses step over that line, if they did they would be charged under the law and it would be to large a risk.
I think you might be over reacting slightly, sure sometimes a company might overstep the mark but usually the customers make it clear they dislike their attitude and they change their mind. For example second hand games and the XBOX One.
There is a MASSIVE difference between slavery and a company trying to protect their investment with licensing. When you spend close millions (sometimes 500+ million) on a product you want to make sure you get return on that investment to make the next title.
There are many laws to protect against massive abuse and if a company breaches them then they will get caught out and charged. However things like licenses stating you don't own the software and have a license for one (potentially none transferable) copy of the software is not a new thing. It's been around as a fairly standard thing since the 70s
I think the pressure should always be on large companies to act in the customers interest but equally one needs to understand they will also have some imperatives and protecting their investment against theft. Given the large number of users, who if given the opportunity will pirate a game instead of playing it is the biggest impact on revenue.
It's not a problem with a simple solution but I don't think it is a black and white argument with customers being the good guys and the games publishers the bad guys.
You could equally argue (but I won't as the argument is silly) that customers are the bad guys, if nobody stole software you wouldn't need DRM in the first place. You can use variations of this debate/logic for everything from the locking your home, governments keeping secrets to how communism is the fairest way of running the world.
The reality is some people suck so you need to add things into your products to protect against this, be that DRM on software, locks for homes or a security guard at your local Kmart.Edwin
The problem with DRM is when it becomes onerous. My definition of onerous is when one must agree to an online scan by the parent company every time a game is played, and/or maintain an online connection while playing even when a game can be played solo like Diablo 3.
My impression that there was a time when you purchased a copy of a game and had the ability to sell your copy to someone else. Schemes like Steam prevent this, while platforms like xbox and play station allow it. I believe that most customers if given a choice would prefer the latter to the former. This is why I choose to play Torchlight 2, before I'd play D3, I feel that strongly about it.
My impression that there was a time when you purchased a copy of a game and had the ability to sell your copy to someone else. Schemes like Steam prevent this, while platforms like xbox and play station allow it. I believe that most customers if given a choice would prefer the latter to the former. This is why I choose to play Torchlight 2, before I'd play D3, I feel that strongly about it.
If piracy means companies can't make new software for end users I would argue it is their problem in the end! But that aside I would say in the last few years a lot has been done to try and make copy protection more palatable. It's not all been in one direction even if some cases are not as good as others.
Back in the days of diskette based games you needed the code wheel in your manual to play the game which was far more annoying and easy to lose than how lets say a Feral game or Steam works today. Sure it's not perfect but DRM is hardly a new thing.
Sure, although your example is extremely rare in my experience, I have seen many people use this comment as a scaremongering tactic but very few games actually have any of this draconian systems in place and they tend to sell badly and get shocking PR.
In fact I would say the last few years most companies have started moving towards invisible DRM that is as invisible to the customer as possible. Good DRM decreases piracy, bad DRM makes it more likely someone will try and used a hacked version.
It's in companies interests to make the game hard to copy but easy to play. That's why Steam/AppStore is so popular you get a good experience and lowered piracy which benefits both sides.
Agreed, That was my point
True, but no software licenses step over that line, if they did they would be charged under the law and it would be to large a risk.
I think you might be over reacting slightly, sure sometimes a company might overstep the mark but usually the customers make it clear they dislike their attitude and they change their mind. For example second hand games and the XBOX One.
There is a MASSIVE difference between slavery and a company trying to protect their investment with licensing. When you spend close millions (sometimes 500+ million) on a product you want to make sure you get return on that investment to make the next title.
There are many laws to protect against massive abuse and if a company breaches them then they will get caught out and charged. However things like licenses stating you don't own the software and have a license for one (potentially none transferable) copy of the software is not a new thing. It's been around as a fairly standard thing since the 70s
I think the pressure should always be on large companies to act in the customers interest but equally one needs to understand they will also have some imperatives and protecting their investment against theft. Given the large number of users, who if given the opportunity will pirate a game instead of playing it is the biggest impact on revenue.
It's not a problem with a simple solution but I don't think it is a black and white argument with customers being the good guys and the games publishers the bad guys.
You could equally argue (but I won't as the argument is silly) that customers are the bad guys, if nobody stole software you wouldn't need DRM in the first place. You can use variations of this debate/logic for everything from the locking your home, governments keeping secrets to how communism is the fairest way of running the world.
Edwin
This. Plus the very fine example edde brought up concerning the Xbox One. The first announcement of this console was that users will have to log in at least every 24 hours (or was it 48 ? I can't recall for sure) in order to maintain the right to play the games they bought. Plus an extremely complicated (I'd say insane) reselling system, full of caveats.
There was a big disappointment in the forums, so microsoft partially took it back. The point is that if they decided to keep it, they would because they are allowed to. Biggest reason they changed their mind: Sony didn't follow, so it was all about marketing against the big competitor.
Now, going back to the 80s example (as I remember this era too): Yes, the copy protection was inside the game box, either a wheel or a colored picture etc. But this is much more understandable than DRM asking you to submit over and over again that "you are not one of the bad guys". This game box was yours to use, to resell it, to do anything you wanted with it.
There's a very obvious and irritating difference between edde's examples (car or house locking) and modern DRM policies: I don't have to go to the car company or the house selling agency every day to declare that "I am still a good guy, please let me keep using the product I bought". I am free to lock (or not) my car or my home. I don't have to interact with the "DRM police" to get their approval to keep using something that it should be mine since I payed for it (I know that EULA might state differently but that's also part of the problem). That makes users hostages of any company that thinks that this is the way to go.
Last edited:
I keep away from Steam, fell for it for a few games, then got caught out with buying a hard copy of Skyrim, did not read the small print.
Now I just avoid buying from Steam like the plague, I just buy DRM free mainly from GoG for my offline gaming, and gave up with PS3 and 4s and whatever ages ago, my PS3 is just used to play Bluray these days.
Now I just avoid buying from Steam like the plague, I just buy DRM free mainly from GoG for my offline gaming, and gave up with PS3 and 4s and whatever ages ago, my PS3 is just used to play Bluray these days.
I have zero problem with Steam. Here are some benefits over disks / third party sites:
You can re-download a game on a new computer without looking for disks or login for where you bought the game. You can play the game on multiple computers and have saved games sync.
You can re-download a game on a new computer without looking for disks or login for where you bought the game. You can play the game on multiple computers and have saved games sync.
OK I'll bite and play Devils Advocate and debate the opposing view.
My point is not that software is the same as a car lock, my point is due to people not being honest goods and services all have protection built in.
I would say making the assumption "I paid for it so it is mine" is a little disingenuous, when hiring a car or renting a flat this isn't true, paying for something doesn't automatically grant ownership to do with it want you want. If you are renting a car or a home the owner of the property would expect you to use the security features to keep their property safe. This is closer to how software works as you usually have a permanent license to use the software but not a permanent right of ownership.
Now if you bought the company (and owned the software) you could make a version with no DRM as you are the owner. However if you buy a license you are a client of the company and should reasonably agree to their policies if you want to use their services.
Software is interesting as it is part way between goods and services so the licenses are usually part goods and part services in nature. I agree with the sentiment on being restricted by policies isn't a good thing but I think you are perhaps cherry picking your examples. Anything sold on the Mac AppStore has the same rules, as do most other software if you read the fine print.
DRM isn't a great thing taken from a purely theoretical point of view but in the real world it is in many cases a necessary evil. If well designed it can be almost invisible while reducing piracy so you can keep getting great software.
===
As someone who makes software I admit piracy has a big impact on my livelihood but equally it has made me very much a proponent of good DRM v.s badly designed DRM. I was involved in updating a DRM system a few years ago.
For example when using Feral's copy protection system can be installed in the following ways:
1. Using the product key and the DVD as the token (no online ever needed)
2. Activate online using the product key
Limit of 5 Mac's registered at any one time and you can update the list as you get new Macs. Game does not require any "offline mode" and doesn't phone home after activation of DRM purposes.
I have found most people tend to go for convenience even if this is perhaps more restricting in what you can do regarding resale etc.
===
I hope added a bit of useful information to the discussion.
Edwin
My point is not that software is the same as a car lock, my point is due to people not being honest goods and services all have protection built in.
I would say making the assumption "I paid for it so it is mine" is a little disingenuous, when hiring a car or renting a flat this isn't true, paying for something doesn't automatically grant ownership to do with it want you want. If you are renting a car or a home the owner of the property would expect you to use the security features to keep their property safe. This is closer to how software works as you usually have a permanent license to use the software but not a permanent right of ownership.
Now if you bought the company (and owned the software) you could make a version with no DRM as you are the owner. However if you buy a license you are a client of the company and should reasonably agree to their policies if you want to use their services.
Software is interesting as it is part way between goods and services so the licenses are usually part goods and part services in nature. I agree with the sentiment on being restricted by policies isn't a good thing but I think you are perhaps cherry picking your examples. Anything sold on the Mac AppStore has the same rules, as do most other software if you read the fine print.
DRM isn't a great thing taken from a purely theoretical point of view but in the real world it is in many cases a necessary evil. If well designed it can be almost invisible while reducing piracy so you can keep getting great software.
===
As someone who makes software I admit piracy has a big impact on my livelihood but equally it has made me very much a proponent of good DRM v.s badly designed DRM. I was involved in updating a DRM system a few years ago.
For example when using Feral's copy protection system can be installed in the following ways:
1. Using the product key and the DVD as the token (no online ever needed)
2. Activate online using the product key
Limit of 5 Mac's registered at any one time and you can update the list as you get new Macs. Game does not require any "offline mode" and doesn't phone home after activation of DRM purposes.
I have found most people tend to go for convenience even if this is perhaps more restricting in what you can do regarding resale etc.
===
I hope added a bit of useful information to the discussion.
Edwin
Why is DRM-free that important for you that you'd avoid the two most popular and commonly-available options for Mac games? (I have to conclude that you avoid the MAS too, for the same reasons as Steam?)
I'll start with your last line: your comments are always useful as far as I know.
Now, for the main topic, maybe this is the difference between an annoyed end-user and a "not-so-annoyed" one. The good and the bad DRM. I can understand copy protection. I can understand registration or anything like that. S/W houses do need to protect their intellectual property, none else will do it for them. I am also ok with apple's DRM policy.
It is the policy type that they choose that makes it acceptable or not, though. As I said earlier, legal is not equal to ethical. And the interesting part is that legal is more elastic than ethical, usually. What I mean is that if tomorrow a law forbids companies from enforcing such dictatorship-like DRM policies, this discussion will be on a totally different basis.
Car and home examples can not apply 100% on this. My whole objection (and point) is that companies are more free than they should, to restrict end-user's rights in any way they want, always in the name of the holy crusade against piracy.
Yup, I also avoid that also, why should I have a company checking what games I have on my machine and seeing when I log in, online games I can live with because it is an ONLINE game.
Solo played games in the home do NOT need this Phone home garbage etc etc.
Razor do it with their mouse software, you want to try removing that garbage from your machine.
I do not agree with DRM so try very very hard to never knowingly support it.
Last edited:
AppStore has no "phone home" tech in it past installation same with most Steam games. I know the Feral games don't phone home for example. But I agree on the monitoring stuff.
Enforced phone home I agree is not needed but I can't think of a game that requires it (that I own). I would avoid ones that do (for example Sim City).
Interesting fact I learnt, they also install audio drivers with the mouse drivers which inject themselves into running applications these can in turn insert NAN values into the applications memory causing CRAZY side effects. Not that we just spent the last 3 days tracking down an issue that turned out to be Razer drivers
I have a slightly less hardline but I think similar view. DRM should be invisible to me as much as possible, not do anything that is not strictly needed for it to work and it should be designed with the user in mind first and the other things like security can follow.
Edwin
I assume then that you don't buy any iPhone/iPad apps, movies/tv shows off iTunes, rent movies from iTunes/Apple TV, buy electronic books, use any version of windows or MS Office that requires activation, buy/rent DVD or Bluray movies, etc...
Bluray is riddled with DRM. Why the exception?
Last edited:
Because I did state, that I try very very hard to never knowingly support it, there are bound to be some I fall for, such as when I installed Windows in Bootcamp and watch the odd Bluray DVD in my PS3.
The rest above I do not do.