Isn't CEG just an other form of DRM. Otherwise, what's the use of creating unique executables if copying and using of said executables isn't limited in any way.

While beneficial (off with SecuROM's head!), there are two fundamental flaws that we PC users have to endure while console owners reap the rewards.

1) This requires an Internet connection. Despite most have access to it, it still begs the question why a physically bought disc cannot be used "off the store shelf" just like a console disc can. It's borderline criminal, the very thing Steam strives to protect against. In a couple decades when the Internet is more opened and neutral and where games no longer are sold on shelves, I won't have an issue with it. Unfortunately it's a free-for-all right now with ISPs, caps and limitations, downtimes, etc... It's just not 6-sigma reliable.

2) Prior to coining the term "DLC", it was simply referred to as "patches". Patches would generally fix a game and in some cases add onto it. If a suitable amount of content was added, it was called "expansion" and was sold in the market. Nowadays, DLC is thrown around to mean both and some further the definition to mean mods and SDKs as well. The problem is where the game industry is heading with this. Game development and engineering has always been premature in comparison to other fields of engineering, but DLC acts as a new scapegoat for companies to take advantage of. I don't mind if the original game delivered meets an acceptable amount of content and quality, but this does pave the way for much exploitation. Games can be rushed (deliberately or otherwise) into the market whereby gamers will be subjugated to additional and hidden costs.

Indeed, I think Michiel is right. CEG (and indeed, even Steam without it) is DRM already. Every time you try to do something (install, play, and even uninstall), it makes you connect to the internet and verify yourself. How is that not DRM?

Initially, I thought that Steam sounded good, but now that they're slipping it onto retail game disks (without even telling you on the box, except hidden in the middle of a small text paragraph), I've grown to dislike it. The fact that a game cannot be resold, is likely to require a 400 mb patch after install before you can play, and makes you install and manage additional software should be openly stated on the box. They don't even have the steamworks logo on retail games that require steam.

Steam has its benefits, but don't claim that you're making DRM obsolete when the method of doing it is DRM.

Cannot be resold? Have you seen what PC game resell for?

I would rather pay pay an extra $10 to never have to carry around disks again...ever...

And, who doesn't have an internet connection to activate the game.

I had the internet go down, and Steam asked me if I wanted to connect in 'offline mode'. Well, yes, I sure did want to connect in offline mode!

Steam is great. I love it. However, I have to ask the same question as a few others: "How is this not DRM?"

I guess it's not the nasty kind of DRM that denies paying customers access to their own products. It's not the kind that guts your OS from the inside and pops out of your chest and attacks Sigourney Weaver. But it still seems like a digital system that manages the rights to copy and use software.

I feel a sense of trust in Valve, since they've been pretty cool all around for as long as they've existed, but if this were a company with a less-favorable image or history (like Apple, MS, Nintendo, or, god forbid, Sony), I would probably think that something sinister is going on with the Newspeak here.

I think people need to realize that in-and-of-itself, DRM isn't a dirty word. Various implementations of it are, certainly.

That said, I'm thinking that the "install on multiple PCs" statement is just a reiteration of what Steam already can do. The whole custom executable thing would still be for each individual machine.

Presumably, the EXE generated is created in such a manner that it will fail if copied to another computer; I also bet it would need to be regenerated if your PC changed configuration. I.e., maybe it's using a sort of hash generated based on your PC spec.

I must admit, as much as I love Valve / Steam this seems no different from what Steam already does as far as the end user is concerned. Also, as others have said, this is still a form of DRM.

To be honest, I'm getting quite tired that the industry hasn't realised the simple truth about DRM: DRM is designed to combat piracy and is basically copy protection. Copy protection has not, does not and will never prevent software piracy. The so-called "DRM solution" is an oxymoron; no solution has ever been found. Can anyone name me one game that was never pirated? All DRM does is punish and restrict legitimate customers that *pay for the game*, when a pirate who pays nothing at all isn't restricted in the slightest. I had a friend who bought the Witcher on PC and could not play the game at all because his sole DVD-RW drive was disliked by the game's copy-protection. Basically, people pay more and get less than pirates when DRM is involved. How is this a way to treat your customers?

I have to say that I can understand why you'd want to develop or utilise DRM: It's natural to want to protect your products (and profits). However, there's simply no point trying with anything other than a system like Onlive that potentially completely takes the game out of the comsumer's hand.