By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Valve's Gabe Newell shares his thoughts on DRM

Kasz216 on 14 March 2010
loves2splooge said:
Kasz216 said:
loves2splooge said:
Killergran said:
loves2splooge said:

As mentioned on here, Steam itself is a form of DRM. When you buy a game from Steam, you don't really "own" the game. If you can't sell the game, can you really "own" it? No. In principle, I feel that what Valve is doing is evil. It's just less evil than what other Pro-DRM companies are doing. That's why gamers give them a free pass. But they shouldn't get a free pass. Just because Ubisoft, EA, etc. are more evil, doesn't mean that Valve is good. You just get less evil with Valve.

I don't see how Steam is a net benefit for consumers. You can install your games on as many computers as you like? You can do the same with DRM-free games. And you can resell those if you want.

You have achievements? So what? Xbox 360 does and you can sell your retail Xbox 360 games.

You have friends list? Ditto.

You have free multiplayer servers? Battle.net has that too. And so as long as you aren't dealing with a douchebag seller who keeps using the serial key after selling the game, I'm pretty sure you can buy a used copy of Diablo, Starcraft or Warcraft without a hitch. It's risky to buy those games second-hand but at least you can provided that the seller is honest (this is what feedback ratings on ebay are for).

You don't need to put the disc inside the computer while you play? DRM-free games allow that too (disc check is a form of DRM btw and yes there are retail games out there still that don't even require a disc check). And you can resell those.

Steam has some killer sales at times. I'll give it that. But I don't "get" what's so great about Steam overall. Gamers are doing a disservice to themselves for talking up a company that is committed towards destroying true ownership and consumer rights (first-sale doctrine).

You are comparing weird things here. First, it's only natural that any DRM is worse than no DRM. Seriously dude, how can Steam as DRM is bad because it's worse than no DRM?

Resale of intangible goods is difficult, not to say impossible, to get to work as a system. That is the true for  any Digital Distribution platform. It's inherent in the system, and doesn't make Steam as a means of Digital Distribution any worse than it could be.

And PC gaming isn't console gaming, hence the need for DRM in the first place. If you want achievments, Steam is one of two places you can get it on the PC (GFWL being the other), and for most games it's the only place. It is also the only place where you can talk to all your friends and see what they are playing, invite them or join them easilly no matter what game they are playing, on the PC. Yes, it already exists on consoles, isn't it great that we can now do it on the PC as well?

Battle.net doesn't work for that many games either. Blizzard games only, if I remember correctly.

It's a compromise, they're saying that: Yes, it's sometimes inconvenient. Here's a ton of great features you can get nowhere else on the platform to make up for it.

That is the essence of the Steam DRM. Less intrusive DRM, more focused experience, easier to manage games and a community around it are bonuses you get for shopping legally using Digital Distribution. I'd rather take the Steam DRM than any other DRM on the market.

Steam is bad because it takes away one of the main rights of the consumer (first-sale doctrine).You can talk about how it's supposedly the least evil of all DRMs all you want. But that doesn't mean that it isn't evil. I also disagree that it's the least evil of DRM schemes. Games that only have your standard disc check (that is a form of DRM btw) are less evil than Steam. You can at least sell those games. You have actual ownership over them. That kind of DRM doesn't allow you to make backup copies but I can live with that. Just download a NO-CD crack and I'm good if I absolutely must play it off the hard drive completely. But take away our right to sell our games? That I can't agree with. I'm disappointed in gamers for essentially thanking Valve for taking away one of their fundamental consumer rights and talking them up as if they are the good guys.

I disagree.  Disc check games have the problem that discs scratch and wear down, no matter how good care you take of them.

You give up resell HOWEVER you get back the ability of always having the game.

Make a backup image of your game on your hard drive in combination with a No-CD crack. Problem solved. You never have to use the disc again.

No-CD cracks were made illegal in the USA due to the DMCA act.

Your entintled to make a copy, but not to bypass the DRM to do it.

Plus you know... it takes space to backup all that stuff.

Remember this?

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/14843.cfm



Around the Network
loves2splooge on 14 March 2010
Kasz216 said:
loves2splooge said:
Kasz216 said:
loves2splooge said:
Killergran said:
loves2splooge said:

As mentioned on here, Steam itself is a form of DRM. When you buy a game from Steam, you don't really "own" the game. If you can't sell the game, can you really "own" it? No. In principle, I feel that what Valve is doing is evil. It's just less evil than what other Pro-DRM companies are doing. That's why gamers give them a free pass. But they shouldn't get a free pass. Just because Ubisoft, EA, etc. are more evil, doesn't mean that Valve is good. You just get less evil with Valve.

I don't see how Steam is a net benefit for consumers. You can install your games on as many computers as you like? You can do the same with DRM-free games. And you can resell those if you want.

You have achievements? So what? Xbox 360 does and you can sell your retail Xbox 360 games.

You have friends list? Ditto.

You have free multiplayer servers? Battle.net has that too. And so as long as you aren't dealing with a douchebag seller who keeps using the serial key after selling the game, I'm pretty sure you can buy a used copy of Diablo, Starcraft or Warcraft without a hitch. It's risky to buy those games second-hand but at least you can provided that the seller is honest (this is what feedback ratings on ebay are for).

You don't need to put the disc inside the computer while you play? DRM-free games allow that too (disc check is a form of DRM btw and yes there are retail games out there still that don't even require a disc check). And you can resell those.

Steam has some killer sales at times. I'll give it that. But I don't "get" what's so great about Steam overall. Gamers are doing a disservice to themselves for talking up a company that is committed towards destroying true ownership and consumer rights (first-sale doctrine).

You are comparing weird things here. First, it's only natural that any DRM is worse than no DRM. Seriously dude, how can Steam as DRM is bad because it's worse than no DRM?

Resale of intangible goods is difficult, not to say impossible, to get to work as a system. That is the true for  any Digital Distribution platform. It's inherent in the system, and doesn't make Steam as a means of Digital Distribution any worse than it could be.

And PC gaming isn't console gaming, hence the need for DRM in the first place. If you want achievments, Steam is one of two places you can get it on the PC (GFWL being the other), and for most games it's the only place. It is also the only place where you can talk to all your friends and see what they are playing, invite them or join them easilly no matter what game they are playing, on the PC. Yes, it already exists on consoles, isn't it great that we can now do it on the PC as well?

Battle.net doesn't work for that many games either. Blizzard games only, if I remember correctly.

It's a compromise, they're saying that: Yes, it's sometimes inconvenient. Here's a ton of great features you can get nowhere else on the platform to make up for it.

That is the essence of the Steam DRM. Less intrusive DRM, more focused experience, easier to manage games and a community around it are bonuses you get for shopping legally using Digital Distribution. I'd rather take the Steam DRM than any other DRM on the market.

Steam is bad because it takes away one of the main rights of the consumer (first-sale doctrine).You can talk about how it's supposedly the least evil of all DRMs all you want. But that doesn't mean that it isn't evil. I also disagree that it's the least evil of DRM schemes. Games that only have your standard disc check (that is a form of DRM btw) are less evil than Steam. You can at least sell those games. You have actual ownership over them. That kind of DRM doesn't allow you to make backup copies but I can live with that. Just download a NO-CD crack and I'm good if I absolutely must play it off the hard drive completely. But take away our right to sell our games? That I can't agree with. I'm disappointed in gamers for essentially thanking Valve for taking away one of their fundamental consumer rights and talking them up as if they are the good guys.

I disagree.  Disc check games have the problem that discs scratch and wear down, no matter how good care you take of them.

You give up resell HOWEVER you get back the ability of always having the game.

Make a backup image of your game on your hard drive in combination with a No-CD crack. Problem solved. You never have to use the disc again.

No-CD cracks were made illegal in the USA due to the DMCA act.

So? Who cares? Are the cops going to go knocking on your door because you downloaded a crack? No.

And so what if it takes up extra space to backup the data? If this was such a problem, how come you don't see pirates complaining? "Oh man, all of these downloaded PC ISOs are taking up so much space on my hard drive man! Yeah, I think I'm going to start buying games from Steam from now on to bypass that issue!" lol.



Kasz216 on 14 March 2010
loves2splooge said:
Kasz216 said:
loves2splooge said:
Kasz216 said:
loves2splooge said:
Killergran said:
loves2splooge said:

As mentioned on here, Steam itself is a form of DRM. When you buy a game from Steam, you don't really "own" the game. If you can't sell the game, can you really "own" it? No. In principle, I feel that what Valve is doing is evil. It's just less evil than what other Pro-DRM companies are doing. That's why gamers give them a free pass. But they shouldn't get a free pass. Just because Ubisoft, EA, etc. are more evil, doesn't mean that Valve is good. You just get less evil with Valve.

I don't see how Steam is a net benefit for consumers. You can install your games on as many computers as you like? You can do the same with DRM-free games. And you can resell those if you want.

You have achievements? So what? Xbox 360 does and you can sell your retail Xbox 360 games.

You have friends list? Ditto.

You have free multiplayer servers? Battle.net has that too. And so as long as you aren't dealing with a douchebag seller who keeps using the serial key after selling the game, I'm pretty sure you can buy a used copy of Diablo, Starcraft or Warcraft without a hitch. It's risky to buy those games second-hand but at least you can provided that the seller is honest (this is what feedback ratings on ebay are for).

You don't need to put the disc inside the computer while you play? DRM-free games allow that too (disc check is a form of DRM btw and yes there are retail games out there still that don't even require a disc check). And you can resell those.

Steam has some killer sales at times. I'll give it that. But I don't "get" what's so great about Steam overall. Gamers are doing a disservice to themselves for talking up a company that is committed towards destroying true ownership and consumer rights (first-sale doctrine).

You are comparing weird things here. First, it's only natural that any DRM is worse than no DRM. Seriously dude, how can Steam as DRM is bad because it's worse than no DRM?

Resale of intangible goods is difficult, not to say impossible, to get to work as a system. That is the true for  any Digital Distribution platform. It's inherent in the system, and doesn't make Steam as a means of Digital Distribution any worse than it could be.

And PC gaming isn't console gaming, hence the need for DRM in the first place. If you want achievments, Steam is one of two places you can get it on the PC (GFWL being the other), and for most games it's the only place. It is also the only place where you can talk to all your friends and see what they are playing, invite them or join them easilly no matter what game they are playing, on the PC. Yes, it already exists on consoles, isn't it great that we can now do it on the PC as well?

Battle.net doesn't work for that many games either. Blizzard games only, if I remember correctly.

It's a compromise, they're saying that: Yes, it's sometimes inconvenient. Here's a ton of great features you can get nowhere else on the platform to make up for it.

That is the essence of the Steam DRM. Less intrusive DRM, more focused experience, easier to manage games and a community around it are bonuses you get for shopping legally using Digital Distribution. I'd rather take the Steam DRM than any other DRM on the market.

Steam is bad because it takes away one of the main rights of the consumer (first-sale doctrine).You can talk about how it's supposedly the least evil of all DRMs all you want. But that doesn't mean that it isn't evil. I also disagree that it's the least evil of DRM schemes. Games that only have your standard disc check (that is a form of DRM btw) are less evil than Steam. You can at least sell those games. You have actual ownership over them. That kind of DRM doesn't allow you to make backup copies but I can live with that. Just download a NO-CD crack and I'm good if I absolutely must play it off the hard drive completely. But take away our right to sell our games? That I can't agree with. I'm disappointed in gamers for essentially thanking Valve for taking away one of their fundamental consumer rights and talking them up as if they are the good guys.

I disagree.  Disc check games have the problem that discs scratch and wear down, no matter how good care you take of them.

You give up resell HOWEVER you get back the ability of always having the game.

Make a backup image of your game on your hard drive in combination with a No-CD crack. Problem solved. You never have to use the disc again.

No-CD cracks were made illegal in the USA due to the DMCA act.

So? Who cares? Are the cops going to go knocking on your door because you downloaded a crack? No.

So in otherwords... you concede the arguement.

Some people beleive it or not, don't like to break the law even if they won't ever be caught.

Heck, the cops wouldn't come knocking on my door if I pirated all my PC games either.  I'm still not going to do it.



loves2splooge on 14 March 2010

So you are ok with a company taking away a valuable consumer right (first-sale doctrine. so it's ok for game companies to screw over gamers) but it's not ok for consumers to reclaim their consumer rights? (ie. the right to make copies of their software).



Kasz216 on 14 March 2010
loves2splooge said:

So you are ok with a company taking away a valuable consumer right (so it's ok for game companies to screw over gamers) but it's not ok for consumers to reclaim their consumer rights? (the right to make copies of their software).

Consumers aren't making copies of their software when they use a No-CD crack.  They are infact engineering the game.

You still have the right and ability to copy the game... it's just not going to do you much good.

If you have a problem with that, the way to deal with it is legally.  Through either boycotts, campaigns etc.

Don't fool yourself in thinking your doing someting noble, by committing an illegal act in anonymity that has little to no risk to you and holds no benefit to anyone but yourself. 

You're actually doing quite the opposite by being selfish and breaking the law instead of actually standing up and trying to reclaim consumer rights.  So yeah, I have a problem with people who would rather break the law then take up a principled stance against the companies to get rid of such measures... since your nothing more then an accomplice to the comsumers rights being defato eliminated.

That right has long sailed... primarly due to people like YOU who perfer the easy way out.



Around the Network
jefforange89 on 14 March 2010
loves2splooge said:

So you are ok with a company taking away a valuable consumer right (first-sale doctrine. so it's ok for game companies to screw over gamers) but it's not ok for consumers to reclaim their consumer rights? (ie. the right to make copies of their software).

I never sell my games anyhow.

Besides, the (generally) cheaper prices on Steam, the ability to purchase games without needing to go anywhere, and what have you totally outweigh that to me.



Wii/PC/DS Lite/PSP-2000 owner, shameless Nintendo and AMD fanboy.

My comp, as shown to the right (click for fullsize pic)
CPU: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T @ 3.2 GHz
Video Card: XFX 1 GB Radeon HD 5870
Memory: 8 GB A-Data DDR3-1600
Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD Pro/USB3
Primary Storage: OCZ Vertex 120 GB
Case: Cooler Master HAF-932
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64		 Extra Storage: WD Caviar Black 640 GB,
WD Caviar Black 750 GB, WD Caviar Black 1 TB
Display: Triple ASUS 25.5" 1920x1200 monitors
Sound: HT Omega Striker 7.1 sound card,
Logitech X-540 5.1 speakers
Input: Logitech G5 mouse,
Microsoft Comfort Curve 2000 keyboard
Wii Friend Code: 2772 8804 2626 5138 Steam: jefforange89
loves2splooge on 14 March 2010
Kasz216 said:
loves2splooge said:

So you are ok with a company taking away a valuable consumer right (so it's ok for game companies to screw over gamers) but it's not ok for consumers to reclaim their consumer rights? (the right to make copies of their software).

Consumers aren't making copies of their software when they use a No-CD crack.  They are infact engineering the game.

You still have the right and ability to copy the game... it's just not going to do you much good.

If you have a problem with that, the way to deal with it is legally.  Through either boycotts, campaigns etc.

Don't fool yourself in thinking your doing someting noble, by committing an illegal act in anonymity that has little to no risk to you and holds no benefit to anyone but yourself. 

You're actually doing quite the opposite by being selfish and breaking the law instead of actually standing up and trying to reclaim consumer rights.  So yeah, I have a problem with people who would rather break the law then take up a principled stance against the companies to get rid of such measures... since your nothing more then an accomplice to the comsumers rights being defato eliminated.

That right has long sailed... primarly due to people like YOU who perfer the easy way out.

It's people like YOU who drink the Steam koolaid that have destroyed the concept of ownership in the PC gaming realm. If people like YOU do the same to console gaming and we're not able to buy second-hand or rent anymore, it'll be a sad day for console gaming.

At the end of the day you have to look out for number one (and if that means committing illegal acts, so be it. Many great people in history have committed illegal acts to take a stand. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean that it isn't the right thing to do). Not look out for game publishers that tell gamers to bend over and take it.

You'd rather kiss up to Valve (oh please Gabe, take away my consumer rights!) instead of fight for your consumer rights. Who is the real accomplice to consumer rights being eliminated?



Kirameo on 14 March 2010
loves2splooge said:
Kasz216 said:
loves2splooge said:
Kasz216 said:
loves2splooge said:
Killergran said:
loves2splooge said:

As mentioned on here, Steam itself is a form of DRM. When you buy a game from Steam, you don't really "own" the game. If you can't sell the game, can you really "own" it? No. In principle, I feel that what Valve is doing is evil. It's just less evil than what other Pro-DRM companies are doing. That's why gamers give them a free pass. But they shouldn't get a free pass. Just because Ubisoft, EA, etc. are more evil, doesn't mean that Valve is good. You just get less evil with Valve.

I don't see how Steam is a net benefit for consumers. You can install your games on as many computers as you like? You can do the same with DRM-free games. And you can resell those if you want.

You have achievements? So what? Xbox 360 does and you can sell your retail Xbox 360 games.

You have friends list? Ditto.

You have free multiplayer servers? Battle.net has that too. And so as long as you aren't dealing with a douchebag seller who keeps using the serial key after selling the game, I'm pretty sure you can buy a used copy of Diablo, Starcraft or Warcraft without a hitch. It's risky to buy those games second-hand but at least you can provided that the seller is honest (this is what feedback ratings on ebay are for).

You don't need to put the disc inside the computer while you play? DRM-free games allow that too (disc check is a form of DRM btw and yes there are retail games out there still that don't even require a disc check). And you can resell those.

Steam has some killer sales at times. I'll give it that. But I don't "get" what's so great about Steam overall. Gamers are doing a disservice to themselves for talking up a company that is committed towards destroying true ownership and consumer rights (first-sale doctrine).

You are comparing weird things here. First, it's only natural that any DRM is worse than no DRM. Seriously dude, how can Steam as DRM is bad because it's worse than no DRM?

Resale of intangible goods is difficult, not to say impossible, to get to work as a system. That is the true for  any Digital Distribution platform. It's inherent in the system, and doesn't make Steam as a means of Digital Distribution any worse than it could be.

And PC gaming isn't console gaming, hence the need for DRM in the first place. If you want achievments, Steam is one of two places you can get it on the PC (GFWL being the other), and for most games it's the only place. It is also the only place where you can talk to all your friends and see what they are playing, invite them or join them easilly no matter what game they are playing, on the PC. Yes, it already exists on consoles, isn't it great that we can now do it on the PC as well?

Battle.net doesn't work for that many games either. Blizzard games only, if I remember correctly.

It's a compromise, they're saying that: Yes, it's sometimes inconvenient. Here's a ton of great features you can get nowhere else on the platform to make up for it.

That is the essence of the Steam DRM. Less intrusive DRM, more focused experience, easier to manage games and a community around it are bonuses you get for shopping legally using Digital Distribution. I'd rather take the Steam DRM than any other DRM on the market.

Steam is bad because it takes away one of the main rights of the consumer (first-sale doctrine).You can talk about how it's supposedly the least evil of all DRMs all you want. But that doesn't mean that it isn't evil. I also disagree that it's the least evil of DRM schemes. Games that only have your standard disc check (that is a form of DRM btw) are less evil than Steam. You can at least sell those games. You have actual ownership over them. That kind of DRM doesn't allow you to make backup copies but I can live with that. Just download a NO-CD crack and I'm good if I absolutely must play it off the hard drive completely. But take away our right to sell our games? That I can't agree with. I'm disappointed in gamers for essentially thanking Valve for taking away one of their fundamental consumer rights and talking them up as if they are the good guys.

I disagree.  Disc check games have the problem that discs scratch and wear down, no matter how good care you take of them.

You give up resell HOWEVER you get back the ability of always having the game.

Make a backup image of your game on your hard drive in combination with a No-CD crack. Problem solved. You never have to use the disc again.

No-CD cracks were made illegal in the USA due to the DMCA act.

So? Who cares? Are the cops going to go knocking on your door because you downloaded a crack? No.

And so what if it takes up extra space to backup the data? If this was such a problem, how come you don't see pirates complaining? "Oh man, all of these downloaded PC ISOs are taking up so much space on my hard drive man! Yeah, I think I'm going to start buying games from Steam from now on to bypass that issue!" lol.

Ironically that is the mentality that generated DRM, lol.



 

nofingershaha on 15 March 2010

The problem about DRM is that it doesn't benefit anyone other than the one who puts the product out onto the market. Steam benefits both Valve and the consumer by both curbing piracy and creating an online PC gaming community.

DRM is one-sided

Steam is a satisfying compromise



Kasz216 on 15 March 2010
loves2splooge said:
Kasz216 said:
loves2splooge said:

So you are ok with a company taking away a valuable consumer right (so it's ok for game companies to screw over gamers) but it's not ok for consumers to reclaim their consumer rights? (the right to make copies of their software).

Consumers aren't making copies of their software when they use a No-CD crack.  They are infact engineering the game.

You still have the right and ability to copy the game... it's just not going to do you much good.

If you have a problem with that, the way to deal with it is legally.  Through either boycotts, campaigns etc.

Don't fool yourself in thinking your doing someting noble, by committing an illegal act in anonymity that has little to no risk to you and holds no benefit to anyone but yourself. 

You're actually doing quite the opposite by being selfish and breaking the law instead of actually standing up and trying to reclaim consumer rights.  So yeah, I have a problem with people who would rather break the law then take up a principled stance against the companies to get rid of such measures... since your nothing more then an accomplice to the comsumers rights being defato eliminated.

That right has long sailed... primarly due to people like YOU who perfer the easy way out.

It's people like YOU who drink the Steam koolaid that have destroyed the concept of ownership in the PC gaming realm. If people like YOU do the same to console gaming and we're not able to buy second-hand or rent anymore, it'll be a sad day for console gaming.

At the end of the day you have to look out for number one (and if that means committing illegal acts, so be it. Many great people in history have committed illegal acts to take a stand. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean that it isn't the right thing to do). Not look out for game publishers that tell gamers to bend over and take it.

You'd rather kiss up to Valve (oh please Gabe, take away my consumer rights!) instead of fight for your consumer rights. Who is the real accomplice to consumer rights being eliminated?

Not at all.  Steam has a lot of options that benefit me.

I respect people who pirate because of DRM more then I respect people like you.

The fact that you compare yourself to someone who disobeys the law for noble reason makes you lookl delusional.  You aren't Rosa Parks.  Hell you ain't even a software pirate.

YOU ARE bending over for companies... you just don't realize it.  Look at you vs a pirate vs me.

You comit an illegal act, while PAYING MONEY to the company that's screwing you and are the reason you have to take that act.  You don't make a stand... hell they don't even really care about you... you're giving them their money and doing NOTHING that helps them.  You aren't looking out for number 1.  Your showing software companies that they can continue to screw you... and you'll keep paying for it, taking your own time and effort to work around the problems their DRM provides.

Pirates comit an illegal act and no money goes to the hands of those they think "wronged" them.

Then you've got me.  I don't buy retail PC game.  EVER.  Why there is no advantage because of all the different DRM schemes as such.  I only buy steam games because it's much less of a hassle being able to download and delete the games all I want off of a main server.  If there is a bad DRM and it's on Steam too... you know what I do.  I don't buy the game.  Or even play it.  Even playing the game illegally gives the game added value.

 

You arent' fighting for consumer rights.  Fighting for consumer rights isn't anonymously committing illegal acts and praying to god nobdoy finds out and serves a warrant on you.  Fighting for consumer rights would be to either

A) Not buy the game.

B) Buy the game and send a youtube link with name, adress and phonenumber to the publisher showing them you circumventing their DRM.


You, are the one who is the accomplice... because you DON'T fight in the ONLY way that matters.  Your wallet.