Losing Your Digitally Distributed Games - This Week: Steam

[louisg]

Wow. That is really crappy.

So how does banning work with offline mode? Is it just that you can't ever re-download the games?

[Domino]

Annnnd this is why GOG is they only ddl service I trust. Even if they turn evil, it doesn't affect me since I have the gog installers for all the games I own and gog are drm free..

Agreed. I downloaded Descent 1-3 years ago from GOG and I still have access to it DRM free!

[Ruldra]

I don't know how it works in the US, but in my country a lot of those clauses are considered abusive and they have no legal effect, even if you agreed to the term. Shit like agreeing to ignore your local laws and forcing arbitration would never work in court.

[FIL]

I don't think it would fly in the EU either but it's another layer of red tape to cut through before you can take action against them.

[MadScientist]

It's not that common, but there are some games you can purchase on Steam that don't have any Steam-DRM on them (i.e., you can launch them from the executable in the game's folder and it won't require Steam to be open at the same time). Some of these include Defcon, Amanita Design's games (Machinarium, Botanicula), The Binding of Isaac, VVVVVV, Super Meat Boy, Jamestown and most Paradox developed games like Europa Universalis III and Crusaders Kings II. In the event of your Steam account getting axed, I'm guessing you'd still be able to play the aforementioned games and others like them.

[Shatterhand]

I don't know how it works in the US, but in my country a lot of those clauses are considered abusive and they have no legal effect, even if you agreed to the term. Shit like agreeing to ignore your local laws and forcing arbitration would never work in court.

Pretty much, I doubt that would fly here in Brazil. But how easy would be to sue Steam from here? I have no idea.

I never used Steam and now I really don't plan to use it ever. This stuff is completely outrageous.

[shmuppyLove]

ITT: (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡ɯɐǝʇs

[Mischief Maker]

Meanwhile cloud gaming is looming ever closer...

[Specineff]

Suddenly, Good Old Games is starting to look more attractive.

[gabe]

Meanwhile cloud gaming is looming ever closer...

Yep. I really don't understand the appeal. At all.

Interesting that some of the people expressing annoyance in this thread are some of the most vocal supporters in the OUYA thread. OUYA has stated that they will allow publishers to use DRM, and they control the entire distribution network. I don't see why this couldn't or wouldn't happen there as well.

Am I missing something, or are folks choosing to define "hacker friendly" as "not evil"?

[Friendly]

I for one won't buy a single game on OUYA that features some sort of bullshit DRM like "always online", or online activation. Deny me the right to create backups and you won't get any of my money. Anyway, I don't really think that DRM is going to be a big problem on an Android-based system that can be rooted right out of the box (or that can even be bought pre-rooted).

[ZellSF]

Why not? Because it'll be easy to bypass? That applies to Steam too.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think Friendly's point here is that buying an OUYA is not explicitly buying into DRM. If you have just one Steam game, you're buying into DRM. Any system that doesn't allow for local backups (Steam sort of has local backups, but if your 'net connection goes or Steam explodes you're probably SOL unless somebody hacks the files / Steam installer) is going to be DRM. OUYA looks to be just another type of platform.

[Friendly]

I think this belongs here:

http://steamunpowered.eu/valve-taking-a ... nd-russia/

[Ed Oscuro]

I think this is the real crux of the problem, nicely stated by the German fellow:

I think it’s hypocritical of Valve to use the advantages of globalization, while prohibiting it’s users from doing the same.

It may be hypocritical, but there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut case of something unequivocally bannable from a human rights standpoint (although the European regulations look to challenge that).

Steam's viewpoint is transparently the same hypothetical lost money scenario we've all grown to love from traditional boxed PC game publishers.

However, I wonder if the pricing - even if we could assume it was always fully up to Valve (first-party games with no unusual license fees to be paid to third parties) - really works out so that the gamers in these territories could get the same game for the same equivalent in money. Of course, payments to Steam from a certain country will be "normal" and might result in a higher or lower amount for Valve and its partners, dependent on how much that country's exchange rate is. A payment of, say, 15 EUR might feel normal but actually represents substantially more than $15 USD, or less than 15 GBP. Local market realities might mean that, aside from the expenses of stocking physical products on shelves, the buyer not using dollars would not get it for the equivalent of $15 USD. In this sense, Valve could be said to keeping a fairly constant "nominal price," and it is the users who are expecting Valve to foot most of the costs of exchanging currencies, and the users expecting Steam to be a currency exchange. Of course, in the case that the local currency is weak, the same users will be vocal about not wanting to pay more in their local currency.

You would think that a universal currency exchange service would help some of these issues, but existing currency exchange services can be somewhat expensive. Perhaps not as expensive as the cost of a 15 EUR game versus a $15 USD one (again, hypothetically) but I see it as another potential point of failure in the banking system, and a big risk for any company to take on. Valve is implicitly taking risks by providing service to many users in Europe, if the currency ever falls flat (as has been feared for years might happen) and any sharp changes in relative rates can play havoc with their bottom line. Valve is mostly interested in those nominally valuable dollars - holdings in other currencies are apt to go up or down in comparison, but it is mainly the fear of a sharp decline that makes it risky.

I don't find that clear-cut in favor of the users, in other words, because the infrastructure of moving between currencies is not exactly straightforward or cheap, or even reliable.

Ninja slash edit: Valve has no leg to stand on calling this "fraud" though. This isn't fraud. It might be bad for them but it's not fraud.