agogfan: My point is that it's costly for me to download games so I have to be very picky - no game is really disposable unless I buy it as a cheap retail copy, e.g. Bioshock. And since I don't like DRM, I won't pay very much for a DRM game. However, from what I've seen on these forums, a lot of Steam games that are available now on DVD tend to ignore what's on the DVD and still require a download. So buying a cheap retail copy is pointless if you have a costly download waiting for you.
I steer away from always online or excessive types of DRM games as a) I don't have a fast or reliable connection, b) I don't have to have antivirus software running on my gaming PC - which means that it thus runs really fast, c) I don't like to be dependent on someone else controlling when I can play my game, or even if I can play my game in the future, d) I tend to reinstall my gaming PC at least once a year as this keeps it running lean and mean - and I don't want to have to have a hassle trying to reactivate my games every time I do so - although it seems a lot of gaming companies are dropping their limited number of activations stance - that's a positive trend at least.
So because I don't like DRM, I don't want to spend money downloading a game with DRM, even if the game is going on sale for $2.99.
But you are right, bandwidth definitely plays a role in my DRM stance. If my bandwidth was really cheap and really reliable, I might go and buy a separate gaming PC for e.g. Steam games, and buy them when they are really cheap. But is that good for the gaming industry? I'd rather pay them what their game is worth rather than shortchanging them because of the DRM they've added to the game.
I can understand not liking DRM and thus not wanting to spend much on it, fair argument there. In relation to Steam games I do believe there's often a way to install most games from the Disk however, at least the base game that was released on the disk. Any extra patches etc, which these days are even commonly present on release would still be downloaded after installation however, although the DRM would only be an issue at this point if you consider that the patches are forcibly installed to play the game, which again, is a fair argument, although I think the main point then is still rather that the DRM is forcing you to digitally use your copy, rather than the DRM in itself being an issue.
@Always online DRM, I have a rocksolid internet line, and I still don't feel like participating in that, for the simple fact that a simple hickup would toss you out of the game just like a blue-screen would. And I would not buy a game that'd bluescreen on me randomly.
@anti-virus. To be honest, I still think that a lot of the risk with virii is down to user control. I have been in the online world since dialup and I think I've barely ever had a virus in that time. I install some scanners every now and then and most they tend to find are those cookies or the occasional false hit on no-CD cracks and the like. In my opinion, as long as a person isn't foolishly opening the wrong emails and browses decent websites, preferably with things like Adblock/Noscript, then chances of catching a virus are minimal, certainly not worth running Anti-Virus programs on your computer at all times.
@reinstalls. I can imagine the re-activation or programs being a hassle though, although in a lot of cases it really is not much different from the normal install. I do agree on limited installs though, that's a pain and I have no interest in keeping up which games are installed that have limited installs and thus need proper uninstalling rather than simply wiping my windows and not caring, so in that sense I agree. I try to limit myself to install limits that refresh/add monthly at the very minimum.
@Shortchanging them. I'm not quite sure what you mean. By buying them on Steam you mean? Steam takes a decent share but in all it tends to be better for the industry than what you seem to imply is a better solution, which I assume you meant was the Brick and Mortar Store.
For one, adding Steamworks does not cost the developer anything, and in fact saves development costs since it's an already done Achievement/matchmaking framework (as showcased by Stardock recently with having opted to use Steamworks for their next Sins of a Solar Empire expansion). And if someone around here is to be believe Steam supposedly takes a smaller cut if the developer decides to opt for using Steamworks (I'm skeptical about this though).
Apart from that, mortar stores don't necessarily rake in more money for the publisher compared to digital retail as highlighted by the publisher 1C who mentions that they get more money per copy from a digital sale, *and* they get that money quicker than the retail copies:
VG's interview shed some light on the difference between selling games via retail and digital outfits from a publisher's perspective. According to Still, if 1C sold a £20 game via retail, the company would make £7 per unit, whereas that figure doubles to £14 when peddled through stores like Steam. What's more, 1C would receive that money three or fourth months faster.
Along with raking in twice as much cash per copy, Still noted that the digital medium has other lucrative advantages over retail stores. For instance, you know those mega-discounts that seduce us every Christmas with $5 AAA titles? Cheap games obviously boost sales throughout the promotion, but they also stimulate full price digital and physical sales after the deal ends.
When the game returns to its normal price, "it does so with an uplift in full price sales both on Steam and at the retail stores…because there is usually a whole new base of consumers playing and enthusing about the game on the forums. This phenomenon contrasts completely with retail, where once a game is discounted, it is heading to the dump bins and then out the door."
