|
I suspect the vast majority will disagree, but let me suggest something crazy: No DRM > SecuROM > Steam. Wait, what? SecuROM > Steam?!? Blasphemy!
I’m one of those strange fellows who has never cared too much about SecuROM being installed on my computer (yes, you can stop reading right here you people). I mean, it’s already on there from I don’t even know which of my games anyway, right? (You can facepalm now.)
Ok, seriously though. Let me explain my train of thought here.
I’ve come to be a huge, huge fan of Steam. It’s hard to say no to all those unbelievable (but now actually quite believable, and indeed, habitual, expected, and seemingly inevitable) sales—not to mention what Steam means for indie developers.
But there was a time when I refused to install Steam, and Valve received all that flak about inability to meet the huge demand required for legions of waiting fans to finally get their hands on HL2 (Steam was the most criticized aspect of the HL2 experience on that game’s release, iirc). Valve, though respected, hadn’t yet won all the tremendous amounts of goodwill and trust that it has piled in reserve now.
Consider the early perspective: HL2 was basically the only game on the service (ok, not true). And, it being impossible to foresee how many other publishers would eventually join in, it was hard to justify installing something apparently about as intrusive as a third party search bar on your browser that actually works as a web tracker. It’s on all the time (that is, game time), you can’t play your games without it, and at least occasionally you need to access Valve’s servers so you have permission to play your games.
It’s long, long since passed that I’ve had any qualms (of which there wasn’t much, or any, to begin with) about licensing instead of owning my software (or using Steam for that matter). But basically, if no DRM is something the publishers just won’t pursue, the only way we can actually own our software anymore is something like SecuROM.
(Hear that publishers? It’s time to go no DRM if you want an actual competitive edge against Steam!)
So, due to some overzealous fraud prevention on the part of my bank, a few purchases (amounting to 20 bucks) came into dispute, resulting in me being locked out of all 90+ games (amounting to over a thousand bucks) that I have on there (as opposed to, say, just the three that were disputed).
I have to say, this is the first time I’ve had any trouble at all with my account in the years I have been using Steam. And the trouble I speak of was entirely legitimate and justifiable. Plus, I’m pretty sure that my account will eventually be reinstated (when all that bank stuff finally goes through).
Still, it’s not until your egg basket bursts that you realize how fragile it was. Really, this whole experience just makes me kick myself in both shins and think, “Man, I knew I should have bought Witcher 2 on GoG.” I mean, who knew I’d actually be thankful to EA/BioWare (and even Direct2Drive of all things!) for having their own “social service” (yes, W2, F:NV, Civ 5, Shogun 2, or basically all the games I’d rather be playing, are stuck in Steam) so I can resort to my physically owned Dragon Age 2 as a temporary fix? (Thank god I still buy most games I really care about on disk. Except, you know... that didn’t do much for F:NV, Civ 5, Shogun 2...)
Let me paint a strange picture, then. In the near, near future, in-house services for publishers a la Steam will be ubiquitous enough that customers will become comfortable with the idea of buying from somewhere else other than just Steam. The only real difference between them, then, will be how willing the customer is to trust the publisher enough to fork over their cash. At that point, the thing that will set them apart is how willing the publisher is in return to trust that their customers will pay for their products and use them legitimately.
So, here’s an idea. No DRM is the new F2P. And GoG, with its formidable library of DRM-free classics you can’t get anywhere else already lending it a Criterion Collection-like authority, is way ahead of the game.
|
With the need for gate-keeping established: Who do you want to be a gate keeper? An established powerhouse dev with a consistent track record, or a bunch of individual indie companies (many of whom won't be around in a few years)? I feel the former are much better equipped to play Game Toll Booth Guard.
Steam clearly isn't the *only* model that works (and Valve clearly isn't the only company established enough to play Game Toll Booth Guard), but it's the strongest model for the *particular* type of games that are commonly sold there.
This is a lie and I wish it would die. Magicka was $9 and was piratable since the day it was released and it's already north of 500,000 games sold from being a digital download only.
I really wish you piracy retards would go stick your head in an oven.
Although I have already bought more games than I can ever hope to play!
One of the biggest misconceptions about software is that people think they "buy a copy" of it. That's not true. They're paying a licensing fee for the privilege of using the software. Even when you walk into a store, pick a box off a shelf, walk to the "sales" checkout and "buy" it you haven't ACTUALLY bought the game. Even if it uses SecuROM. *grabs manual for boxed game and points to EULA* "The Software is licensed and not sold to you"
If you think about games from the perspective of buying a product and gaining full ownership over that product, then Steam is a bad thing for limiting your ownership rights. However, those ownership rights are already illusory, so is this a problem with Steam or a problem with your perspective?
"Rights" are a particularly interesting phenomenon in the digital age. People think they have certain rights or entitlements that they don't have, especially when it comes to games. For example, some pirates justify piracy by declaring they have the "right" to play a game DRM-free. Others say they have the "right" to play a game off-line, or the "right" to sell it when they're done playing with it, or the "right" to install it on multiple computers. They may WANT to have these rights, but acting as if they had these rights not grant those rights to an individual.
On the other hand, from the point of view of licensing software, Steam is a pretty good deal. By licensing software through Steam you pay for the privilege of having access to that game through the Steam portal. That includes all the benefits and limitations of Steam. If the limitations are unacceptable or intolerable, then don't accept or tolerate them. Don't play Steam games. Simple.
It amazes me that people are appalled by the "just don't play it" argument. Myself, I've embraced it wholeheartedly. Consider Darkspore. Darkspore really interested me. I played the beta and thought "Yeah! This is the kind of game I enjoy playing!" Then I got disconnected from their online service mid-game and lost all my progress. I thought the online-only nature of the game was a poor design choice and that it should offer an offline mode of play. Maxis didn't agree with me: they stuck with their online-only mode. Ostensibly to offer more varied "MMO-like" gameplay, it's plainly a thinly-veiled cover for a heavy-handed DRM scheme.
What did I do? Simple. I didn't buy it. I didn't play it. And I didn't complain about some sort of fundamental flaw in DRM-based games or proclaim that no game should ever operate in this manner ever again. I didn't pronounce online DRM schemes as a curse that was killing gaming. It killed Darkspore, but only for me. It didn't kill it for all the people who bought it.
I was once an advocate of the "No DRM" movement. I used to think "My Game, May Way." Steam changed me. Steam, and my long history with subscription-based online-only MMORPGs, changed my point of view of how I access games. And really, as Obi-Wan says, it's all about point of view. When I install a game from a physical disk, my point of view is "offline" and I expect to play it offline, so when I have to go online for DRM, I get upset. But Steam is inherently online, so having to stay online to play doesn't phase me in the least.
Granted, there's some stuff I'd like to see Steam do better. I'd like to be able to log in to Steam from two computers at once and "assign" games to one or the other; putting Plants vs Zombies on a laptop and keeping Team Fortress 2 on a PC, for example. I'd like to be able to gift games I've already played, removing them from my account and adding them to a friend's account. I'd like to be able to request custom deals: send a notice to a publisher that I'm willing to buy something for a set price and let them decide whether or not to sell it to me. But while I'd like to see these sorts of things, what I currently get with Steam is worth the cost I currently pay, both in money and time/inconvenience.
Finally, saying "No DRM is the new F2P" couldn't be further from the truth. F2P is inherently based on strictly enforced tiers of restricted access. F2P is based on the premise of "here's a little bit, now pay me money and I'll temporarily grant you access to a little bit more." You can't really get further form any sense of control or ownership than with F2P. If you thought Steam was bad because what you paid for MIGHT go away, you should realize F2P is worse because what you paid for WILL go away. F2P offerings are, by necessity, as short-lived as possible. They are either outright rentals or are designed to evaporate in usefulness or value.
Ok, so I think I should provide some qualifiers. When I said no DRM is the new F2P, this is what I meant: it’s not a model that will work for everyone, but it's one that might make you able to compete. If you’re Valve (to Blizzard’s WoW), it’s probably not in your interests. (Imagine the headache of renegotiating all those publisher contracts. Ugh.)
But, if you’re a publisher trying to compete against an established giant that takes the lion’s share, it makes a lot of sense in terms of lowering that psychological barrier to entry enough to expand your user base and hit profitability. And it puts Valve in a far less flexible space (again, those contracts).
Again, as I mentioned in the post, I have absolutely no qualms (and have never really had much of any) about licensing my software. But that doesn't mean I don't still value ownership if I have the option. Does that seem unique or unreasonable?
(For the record, I can't say I'm really part of _any_ movement, DRM or no. This was merely a speculative discussion on what might be trending. Plus, who is going to spend $1.3K on Steam if they are against licensing?)
It’s a tough sell, but I think it’s worth considering why Valve is able to offer such ridiculous sale prices to being with: because the money is being split between far fewer people. Obviously I don’t have hard numbers, nor I am really anyone to be able to say anything definitively, but I think it’s pretty reasonable to say that profit per sale is going to increase significantly if the publisher is able to make the majority of their sales directly to their customers, no? Maybe even enough to offset piracy, in the same way that F2P ended up producing a lot more profit for Turbine’s LOTR and D&D Online games. (<-Speculation!) I mean, that's the whole reasoning behind the drive towards in-house services like Origin, right?
For reference: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-01-10-where-does-my-money-go-article, where it’s estimated that the developer only receives £3 out of £40 (that’s “25 percent of the publisher’s revenue after deductibles”) per sale (probably a slightly different equation for Steam).
Of course, this whole argument only works if no DRM actually does increase your user base and competitiveness...
Well, in a sense, yes, it is unreasonable. Ownership of software is only an option if the company that currently owns the software was willing to transfer ownership to you. In other words, they would sell you the software, the copyright, the source, and everything that went along with it. Most people have never "owned" any software.
I don't dispute that companies could sell directly to customers, and I don't dispute that no-DRM is the way to go. But there's three factors that they would have to overcome:
1) Awareness. I currently have Steam installed and I regularly check the front page for sales. That is the primary way I become aware of games. If the game isn't listed on Steam, how will they make me aware of it?
2) Price / Sales. The vast majority of the games I have bought on Steam have been games on sale. It's a given. A game comes out on Steam that I like, and I ear-mark it for when it goes on sale for 75% off or more. Every game ALWAYS goes on sale for 75% or more on Steam; it's just a matter of waiting for it to happen. Since I check Steam every day for sales, this also wraps into the Awareness part. Even if I become aware of a game, how will I become aware when it goes on sale?
3) Point of Sale / Delivery / Updates. Steam has one-click point of sale, one-click delivery, one-click re-download for any game I previously bought and uninstalled or want to install on a new computer, and automatic no-click updating. How will direct sales handle this? Will I have to enter my details every time? Will I have to create accounts for each one? If I delete what I download, is the game lost and I have to buy it again? Will I have to manually check for updates or go to their webpage and log in with that account I forgot the password for?
Also, I'd point out that Steam doesn't really do anything to stop piracy. I see no shortage of Steam-only games on torrent sites, or NFOs that cheerfully announce "this is the Steam version of the game, cracked for your enjoyment!" The reason people buy games on Steam isn't because they couldn't find a way to pirate them and are grudgingly forced to fork out their money. So any developer or publisher that turns to Steam rather than a no-DRM option to offset piracy is foolish.
Rather, Steam "fights" piracy by offering things that pirates can't get, such as the Steam cloud for saving games. Likewise, independent no-DRM direct-from-the-dev sales would also likely lack features like cloud-saving or community sharing that are offered by Steam. I think it's these sort of value-added services, rather than piracy protection, that make Steam so appealing to both creators and consumers.
BUT, again, if you are in the position of a publisher trying to compete against Steam, no DRM might be a serious option to look at. Once more, "_if_ I have the _option_", I will seriously consider ownership over licensing.
(Oh, also the piracy and profit margin point was in response to Mr. Engle's comment.)
Man, that was a great discussion. Awesome counterpoints Mr. Ludgate! (Sorry about all the editing...)
If a publisher wants my money, they will have to trust me more, OR I will do without any of their product in any way shape or form. I know some that buy it will be persuaded to go grab a pirate version to bypass the "wasted funds on DRM that really only penalizes the purchaser... and those same publishers will be very quick to add that to a lost sale despite what is really going on. (I know not all cases are this, just as not all cases are just to "try before buy")
But what you say is true. You (and I) rely (almost) on one single service and when that service fails everything is gone. But Steam is just so convenient.
I am not sure if the no-DRM really works. Take the Humble Indi Bundle as example. The games are DRM free but many users wanted Steam support. If you look at the number a large portion of people see the convenience in the service. The main point when the service works you get access to your games no matter where you are. Take this example: I bought The Path directly from Tale of Tales (I did this so they would get 100% of the money.) You know what? After upgrading my PC, I don't have a clue where the installer is or how to get a new copy. With steam I just downloaded the games. (I had to copy settings on some games, but I did that only with those that mattered.) Steam is a convince that many people want.
I think perhaps I am making an unfair presumption, then, when I assume that any in-house services taken on by publishers (like Origin) are naturally going to provide similar services as well. But then, part of the appeal of GoG is that there aren't any external clients you have to install besides the downloader.
But again, no achievements, friends, centralized promotions, etc. I think that's where services like Evolve (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/04/22/survival-of-the-smartest-evol ve) are going to find their niche--to augment in-house publisher services. A roundabout way to re-invent Steam (only without DRM)? Maybe.
Achievements don't do anything for me so GoG has been an amazing experience. I'd buy all my games there if I could.
Also, as a response to Mr Ludgate the Obi-Wan principle works both ways. It's entirely possible that the software companies have the wrong viewpoint when it comes to ownership and they are the ones who have fooled themselves into thinking that just because they can craft an EULA that they have stripped the customer of all his inherent ownership rights. When I pay for something it becomes mine and I do whatever is necessary to keep my inherent ownership rights over my property, EULAs be damned.
But that isn't actually true. You may think that it's true, you may want it to be true, but that doesn't actually make it true.
Imagine renting a car. You pay for it. You take possession of it. You drive it around. But it doesn't become your property nor do you have any ownership rights over it. The car still belongs to the rental company, they're just letting you use it for a fee. You can't refuse to return the car and say "hey, I paid for it, it's mine now, your rental contract that I agreed to be damned, my inherent ownership rights trump yours!"
That's how software works. You pay a fee, you get to use it.
It's crucially important to understand why this is. It's not because software companies are inherently greedy or somehow trying to impose an artificial limitation. Rather, it's because of the nature of the thing itself. It's because software is information.
When you own property, you can do certain things with that property, including making profit from that property. If I buy a lump of clay, I OWN that clay, and I can turn that clay in to several pots and then sell those pots. But if I buy software, I don't OWN that software, and I can't simply make copies of the software and sell them, nor could I create derivative works, sequels, etc.
Copyright isn't just about limiting the activities of people who come in contact with information; rather, it's about protecting the OWNERSHIP rights of the property. Copyright is based on the idea that someone owns something and wants to let other people use it for a fee without transferring ownership to them. If you were to buy software, if you were to gain ownership over it, that would mean buying the copyright too. Do you really think Microsoft is selling you all its copyright and patents for Windows when you "buy" a copy of Windows? Do you really think you "own" Windows just because you paid for it?
I'm going to briefly respond though just to make sure we're on the same page. 1st, your car example details a rental agreement and therefore isn't what I was talking about. I always returned my games to Blockbuster, back in the day. But this hits on an important point. Rental agreements are made clear upfront. People understand them easily. Marketing for games never says 'rent' it always says 'buy/purchase' etc. That's an entirely different understanding between vendor and consumer. There's a general societal understanding of what the terms 'rent' and 'buy' mean.
You state "It's not because software companies are...somehow trying to impose an artificial limitation". This isn't accurate since the whole concept of IP is artificial. If I buy a car, the laws of physics put certain limitations on what I can and can't do with it, i.e. I cannot give it away and still have it. Whereas if I buy a disc and put the information on my computer there is nothing physically preventing me from doing any number of things with that information. So realistically, any sort of limitations on my behavior after that point are artificial.
That being said, am I arguing that once I buy a copy of some software I should be allowed to copy and sell it myself? No, thats not my business, it's the developer's. And if I want to take it apart, copy it to other machines I own, or make backups? Well, that's MY business and not the developers. And that's what DRM free sales models understand and expect. They rely on an implied agreement between consumer and developer inasmuch as I trust them not to attempt to hamper my use of the product once I've made my purchase and they trust me not to rip them off after I have their product. I'm fine with abiding by that type of agreement. And that's why such models will always get my business when I can help it.
If for some reason I am hindered in executing the right to use the software as specified in the license, I am entitled to compensation for damages. To a certain degree Kim can demand access to the games he paid for. (Then again Steam is probably only trying to prevent account abuse and has nothing to do with denying access to the properly licensed games.)
Hope it works out with Steam.
Both patents and copyright laws have clauses that relate to how a legal sale terminates a number of IP rights: for instance, the patent/copyright holder cannot prevent a legitimate buyer of a patented/copyrighted product to resell it (think about used games sales). For copyright, this is usually known in the US as "first sale doctrine", but similar provisions exist virtually everywhere. Of course, you cannot REPRODUCE AND SELL COPIES of a patented/copyrighted product even if it was acquired legally, but any legal use of the product that WAS bought (e.g. playing the game, reselling it) is allowed, without needing authorization: in that sense, the product you bought IS your property even if you don't buy the patent and/or the copyright.
Here I need to say something important: this happens not because it is "just", "fair" or even "logical", but simply because the law says so (the whole concepts of "intellectual property" and even "property" as a whole do not NEED to exist, they are simply concepts created by humans throughout history and regulated more or less arbitrarily).
So, it's not because "software is information" that some companies claim that their customers do not own their products, but rather because they say they sell a service, which does not have to obey to such legal provisions, and not a product.
But is that true, can *any* software be construed as a service, just because the developer claims it is so? In the almost all the cases where a lawsuit was involved, no judge trusted the definition of the EULA at face value, but tried to assess in an objective way whether the company was trying to misrepresent a product for a service in order to circumvent the first sale doctrine, and ended up facing the problem that the boundaries between the two are in some cases quite blurry and legal precedents are difficult to interpret.
I am aware of at least three cases in the US whose outcome hinged on this distinction (Universal Music Group v. Augusto, Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., and MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc.): as the decisions taken were somewhat divergent, I expect the issue to be brought to the Supreme Court sooner or later to establish some legal standard (if it hasn't been done already, US copyright law is not my primary field of interest, so I get updates only occasionally). On the other hand, in the EU, for instance, the laws are equally vague and most legal systems are not based on common law, so as far as I know pretty much any time the issue popped up the situation was solved on a case by case basis.
Coming to the Steam (finally!) for sure it offers some services, but are the games that you can buy there (which could be obtained also in a shop, or from another DRM-free digital distributor) integral part of this service or simply products that you buy using Steam as a broker? Let's go further, is a single-player game that can be played on-line a service as a whole, or should the single-player campaign be considered a product on its own? Since as owner of a product your position is generally stronger, software companies like to see their customers as subscribers to a service, but as I said above, there is no "necessity" for things to be one way or another: consumers can (and should) push to have the law drafted according to the interpretation they like the most.
It replaced the WON system back then. You had no choice of having Steam to play Counter-Strike 1.6. It is later that it began to be a store.
I always trusted Steam, it never gave me bad service.