This article is illustrative of where the entire software and hardware industry is going (not just gaming, but across the board). It appears that *everything^ will soon be cloud-based. Ugh...I even hate using the word--"cloud"--just another recently focus group invented buzzword. "Cloud?" I mean, c'mon, really? Didn't we used to call that the internet? But I digress. In my industry, people are getting upset (I'm one of them) that production/postproduction software (such as Adobe Creative Suite, Photoshop, etc) is about to go completely cloud based and require a monthly *fee* to use it. You'll no longer be able to BUY and OWN the software or (eventually) even store your private postproduction files on your own computer--and once your subscription runs out (because no one but Paramount Pictures or Disney will be able to afford it), you'll no longer be able to ACCESS your work. That cool Photoshop project you were working on? That indie film you were editing for a film festival?--gone. You'll have an error message something to the effect of "Windows cannot find an application compatible with this file." That's why I'm holding onto the CS5 discs/programs that I currently own (that I paid thousands for) for as long as I can--because once I can no longer use them...well, if I'm not already J.J Abrams (currently, he has a few more resources than I do), I and all indie filmmakers may have a problem.

Windows and Mac OS's are, themselves, moving towards a complete cloud based OS. We see Windows 8, for example, laying the groundwork for that to happen--and from what I've read, by "Windows 10" (or whatever they will title it) will supposedly be a COMPLETELY cloud based system--in which your computer will no longer even have its own harddrive. All of your personal files MUST be stored and accessed in the cloud.

These days I feel like I'm one of the few people who still use a traditional computer. Smartphones and tablets are fine if you want to text and play with facebook. But, believe it or not, there are still a *few* of us around that actually use a computer for, you know--*work.* And we use software and hardware that requires more than a touchscreen tablet or cellphone to get that work done.

So, yes, call it DRM or Big Brother or just $%^ing inconvenient to people who, like me, actually use their machines for EARNING A LIVING--then, yes, I'm more than a little concerned about what's down the road. If need be, I can live without gaming. That's a luxury. But I am going to NEED a traditional computer and software system that I can own and operate and create materials for my business--in private--and keep and access those files in private for as long as *I* choose--for some time to come. The computer and software manufactures can split hairs and semantics all they want regarding whether or not are you are buying or just "licensing" their product. (We all know that they own their own product. Duh. Dodge owns the nameplate on my truck, but that doesn't mean they own my truck. I own my truck and it's *fully paid* for. They can't take it away from me. Let them try.). So the software company can claim "ownership" of the software you bought and paid for all they want (fine, fair enough), but that does NOT mean that they have a right to claim ownership of documents and material you, yourself, *created* while using their software/product. And they have no right to FORCE you to store and access your own private files exclusively up in their "cloud," as if they own your *files*, as well. Movie Magic Screenwriter owns the copyright to the word processing software I use to write my screenplays. They do not own the copyright to my screenplay. Microsoft owns the copyright to MS Word which I use to write the novelizations of my screenplays. They do not own the copyrights to my novels. I use Premiere Pro to edit my films. That doesn't mean that Adobe owns my film any more than they own the film's movie poster which I created with Photoshop. Therefore, they should have no legal or moral authority to *dictate* how, where, and when I may access or utilize those files--or for how long (depending on how long their cloud server is in operation).

"Cloud"-based storage can be very convenient and useful in my line of work. I already use such things for transferring and sharing large files between myself and my colleagues whom I work with. But I shutter at the thought that I will soon not even be ALLOWED to work on or access my own private files...offline. Everything we do will soon REQUIRE the internet just to function. The concept of working offline will be unheard of. And sheeple will insult and make fun anyone who dares suggest that we have a right to our own personal files and privacy.

That's chilling.

Hmmm...sounds like a screenplay in the making. Better get on it while I'm still allowed to. ;-)

Oh, I'm sure that's true. I may even browse through some of their catalog. But, prior to now, the games that I *had* been playing where never associated with Steam or any other online vendor. I just simply played the game right out of the box. Life was simple, lol.

And I mean *recent* games--games less than one or two years old. None of them that I've owned and played have been attached to Steam, et al. I've clearly been under a rock in that regard, but it was a pleasant and uncomplicated rock. LOL.

Oh don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to suggest anything - I was just correcting you, because I'm a dick like that.

Oh no, that's fine. I didn't take it that way. :)

Welcome to 2014 age of capped net access & "assumed" godly speeds

uh oh... someones being overly serious. Is someone having a case of the mondays? Remember your TPS report... did you get the memo? Mmmmkay!

Steam is an account-based "walled garden" DRM & spyware platform for a greedy and despicable empire-building corporation that intends to monopolize all of PC gaming. Thankfully there are those of us who won't let that happen and aren't easily swayed by memes and blind fanboys. To hell with Steam, and death to all account-based DRM, in any form of digital media. MP3's: DRM-free, Movies: DRM-free, Books: DRM-free, and Games: DRM-free.

Well, I'm a staunch capitalist, so you won't hear me shouting down the "evil corporations." We need businesses. We need corporations. No poor man is going to hire you for a job. That said, as a business man myself, I believe in treating my customers fairly and with respect. I do everything in my power to make my customers feel welcomed and appreciated--or else I'll no longer earn their business. They'll go elsewhere. That's the free market.

At the same time, consumers also need to have some compassion for the people (including game designers and retailers) who work very hard and risk their own livelihoods to produce these products for our enjoyment. If we rip them off (i.e. via piracy or not paying your restaurant tab), we're literally taking food out of the mouths of hard-working employees of that firm. If the company goes out of business, they're out of a job and we no longer have access to the product we once enjoyed.

I think what has happened with all of this DRM excess is the result of an overreaction by some companies to what is essence partly our own fault as a society. They've taken these paranoid, Draconian measures against piracy, because--well, there's been a lot of piracy out there for many years--enough to bankrupt some software and gaming companies right out of business. So, to be fair, we *do* need to acknowledge that--

--and as honest gamers, as honest consumers, do everything in our power to fight piracy and *support* honest companies (such as GOG) who admittedly take a risk by offering DRM-free games (which could easily be taken advantage of by dishonest customers). It's an honor system. GOG and companies like it are placing their trust in us not to rip them off and put them out of business. And that is very important to consider--because, what happens when GOG is either forced out business or forced to adopt the very DRM measures we all despise? Well, all we'll have is the Steam model--or worse.

So, let's *use* the free market to try and *reverse* this trend. Let's support honest, trusting companies like GOG over the DRM monstrosities--and not betray that trust. Steer away from DRM companies wherever possible. If the DRM companies begin to see that people are gravitating towards the DRM-free companies--and actually see evidence that those DRM-free companies can actually make a *profit* (and that only happens if we don't rip them off), then the DRM companies might begin to reconsider their paranoia - and want to get in on that DRM-free action again.

But that has to start with *us* as an honest society.

You're barking up the wrong tree. DRM isn't primarily about piracy. It's about control. It's about taking away your control over what you've purchased, and transferring that control over to the intellectual property holder. Companies want to implement DRM nowadays even with free games and demos (where piracy is not relevant). When it comes to retail titles, even if they predicted that an implementation of DRM would reduce sales by 10% (rather than increasing sales), many companies would STILL do it in order to (in their twisted minds) maintain control over their precious property.

It's for this same reason ("control") that companies have largely stopped releasing server executables to the end-user (i.e. the ability to host your own multiplayer servers)... preferring to incur the company overhead/expenses to pay for and maintain servers that would otherwise be voluntarily hosted by the end-users for free... yet companies prefer to lose money in order to maintain control.

They want you dependent on their company. They want to datamine your behaviours and habits (hence the spyware). They want you in their company network whenever you play. When they decide to pull an older game for whatever reason, they want the ability to stop or hinder you from playing it (e.g. they want you to buy their shiny new thing instead). If they patch their product with game-altering changes (changes that you may not like), they don't want you playing the original or older version (instead they want their older product versions to be erased from history). And they'd rather you submit mods for company approval, as opposed to you freely modifying the game to your liking (even if it's a lousy modification, how is it any of their business after the point-of-sale?). DRM allows them to lock down their product and to implement such policies. The Steam "subscriber" agreement states repeatedly that you are paying for a rental service. It's a gross reduction in rights for the end-user.

Well, for the most part, you and I agree: it is about control and it is a gross reduction in our rights as the end-user. This is exactly what I was discussing just a few posts earlier regarding that every function of your computer in the coming years is about to become completely cloud-based to where you effectively no longer even have control and ownership of your own (no longer private) files--let alone the software. That's very chilling and I'm extremely concerned about that.

Where I disagree with you slightly regards their motives. For example, you mention that they'd rather lose money than lose control. Well, no, not exactly. Business Economics 101: No company ever wants to *lose* money. That would be self destructive. What companies do (you use the example of the servers that they could have saved money in building) is that they make investments into what they *hope* will not only pay for itself but earn them more money (a profit) down the road. I do that as a businessman. I make investments in my equipment and my overhead with the hope that I'll see a return on them. Sometimes I've gotten it wrong (I'm human) and it hurt me (that's the risk), but many times it has paid off (that's the return). No one gets up in the morning, thinking, "Gee, how can I screw my customers today? Muah-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!" That's not what's happening. They get up every morning, thinking, "Gee, how can we create a great product people will want to buy that will make us MONEY?--to not lose our shirts, to keep the lights on and keep us employed, and actually allow us to expand?" That's what's they're thinking. They're just people like you and me--trying to survive like you and me. But being human sometimes they get it wrong--and what started out as innocent can turn into something ugly.

DRM (that's Digital *Rights* Management) DID began as a means to stop people from ripping them off (beginning decades ago with the simple act of requiring you to type in a serial number/key). [And please, people, don't start banging on your keybaord, "That's not DRM! DRM is defined as yadda, yadda, yadda..." The point is that *is* how it began. It's always been about the management of digital *rights*--steps taken to reduce theft of their product so that they can stay in business.] And I completely understand that. I believe in being an honest, trustworthy businessman, but I also believe in being an honest, trustworthy consumer. That's why every bit of software running on my computer right now is 100% legit. I *paid* for every program that's on it. I didn't ask a buddy for his copy of Office after he got it from his other buddy. That's steeling--that's fraud, plain and simple. That is violating the *rights* of the people who invested (risked) their capital and livelihoods into producing that product. (Some people don't consider that--they think "ah hell, that's Microsoft, that's Apple, they're enormous corporations--they're not going to be hurt by just me slipping a copy to my sister. Well, yeah, those guys are huge, but you *could* even potentially nickel and dime the Microsofts of the world into bankruptcy if *enough* people were dishonest.

But, more to point, think about some of these gaming companies (particularly the makers of niche market items like the point and click adventure games that I like). These are mostly TINY little companies--with a handful of employees, if even that. There's no job security for the owners, let alone their employees--they all know that. It's just that they're artists. They love gaming as much as we do--and they're willing to take the risk for their art. My God, Revolution actually had to resort to KICKSTARTER just to have the starting funds to produce Broken Sword 5!--with only a fleeting chance that they'll sell enough to stay in business and stay employed, let alone be able to make a sixth. It's actually pretty ballsy that Revolution is distributing through vendors like GOG who are DRM-free. Because they know that at least *some* customers are going to take advantage of them. Sadly, some customers *will* distribute multiple copies of the game to their friends and family, who in turn will distribute more copies to *their* friends and family. They know that. All they can hope for is that there will be *enough* of us out their who will purchase the product honestly, so as to allow them to stay in business and make more games. They're selling DRM-free strictly on principle--and you've got to admire that--and we've got to do everything in our power to support them if we want to continue to play their games (especially if we want to continue to play their games DRM free). We have to do our part as consumers. If we want DRM-free, we can't be hypocrites. We can't bitch about DRM and then turn around and slip an unpaid copy of the DRM-free game to our buddies. Their has to be some fairness on *our* parts as well as the manufactures.

And if the DRM-free model does prove financially successful, more companies *will* take notice of it. That is what the free market is about. Sadly, what has occurred is that the early origins of DRM have ballooned into something very nasty and somewhat chilling. Is *is* the result of an overreaction to piracy (which, face it, that was "our" fault as consumers), but has gradually evolved into a new (somewhat disingenuous) business model for making money. Yes, it is about *control.* It started as a means of controlling the copyrights of their product (which is understandable), but now they want to control every aspect of your computer usage, to know every site you visit, to know every keystroke you make in every email. Why? Because they're inherently evil and they just like being bad?--like those cartoon villains: "I will become the MOST EVIL RULER IN THE UNIVERSE!!! MUAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!" <thunder crashes, cue "evil music"> They don't think about it that way. They don't see themselves as doing anything wrong. They're just human beings like you and beings me--and they see a business model that (let's face it)--it's works! It's makes money. People line up in droves give away their rights and privacy and willingly PAY to do it. Again, that's as much on us as consumers as it is on them as manufactures. It's a COMPLETELY a two-way street.

Continuing my point from right above...

I'm a screenwriter, filmmaker. The best kind of villain is NOT the guy or gal who KNOWS he's bad and wants to be MOST EVIL RULER IN THE UNIVERSE!!! MUAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! That's lame. Well, not always--sometimes there *are* people who are truly *evil* for evil's sake--and that *can* used dramatically. But in most cases, that's an overused cliché. The best kind of villains are *human beings* with human motivations that are relatable, even sympathetic. You want the viewer to think, "you know, I could actually be that guy." Often the "villain" feels that they've been wronged in some way and lash out at innocent people in a way that's even more destructive--or they become an "addict" of sorts. Someone wronged them (stole from them? i.e piracy? or maybe just kicked their puppy) and to make up for that or avenge it or simply make sure that wrong never happens to them again, they begin taking hardline steps which lead to further steps which lead to even further steps to the point that they've become a monster. They want to control everything and everyone to protect themselves and what they've built. But they don't see themselves as a monster. They even think they're doing the right and just thing (rationalization)--and it's working--they're succeeding at creating an empire that they see as a just empire--and will do everything that they can to protect that empire. They see the *hero* as evil--or they might actually have sympathy/respect for the hero--they might actually feel some guilt for what they are doing, but they justify it as necessary.

Magnito was a survivor of one of history's most heinous mass murders. He saw his people slaughtered by the millions only to foresee the same thing happening to his fellow mutants. So, he takes steps to avenge/prevent it from happening again to the point that he himself becomes a monster--but he doesn't see himself as a monster. He even feels a kinship-friendship for his enemy, Professor Xavier--but he feels his methods are necessary. If you google the trailer to my film, "Megami: Search for the Gods" (forgive any shameless plug; I just mean it as an example), there's a clip where the heroine, Major Hinoki, faces off with the "villain," Dr. Hanson. Hinoki says, "I won't let you harm the people on that planet." (in reference to a lost Japanese tribe which mysteriously inhabits an alien world). Dr. Hanson then orders her men to kill her and they go to shooting at each other. But the line that's left out of the *trailer* (it's in the movie) is that Dr, Hanson first emotionally replies, "Do you *honestly* think that's my intension?" Because it's not. All Dr. Hanson cares about is saving the life of her twin sister (who disappeared on that planet seven years ago and may already be dead)--and Hinoki is getting in her way. And so you have a case of two equally good people who become rivals over conflicting, but equally understandable and relatable motivations.

So, in a way, that's what has happened to create this DRM monster we're finding ourselves being crushed by--and the only way to combat it is to (not just be vocal about it) but to support noble DRM-free companies like GOG and others--and to *practice* noble consumerism. Don't buy a DRM-free game only to turn around and betray the trust of those who sold it to us. Use the free market to *prove* to the DRM companies that they *can* make a profit the honest, old fashioned way. Otherwise, we're just pissing in the wind--and things are going to get really bad. 1984 will pail in comparison to what's down the road.

Thank you for this post +1 to ya.

I had a "Razer DeathAdder 3500 PC Gaming Mouse - Left Hand Edition" in my Amazon Wishlist so I decided to double-check the reviews & apparently it's saddled with Synapse 2.0 so now I will look elsewhere for a decent lefty gaming mouse.

Yes, that does seem odd, doesn't it? At first glance, you gotta say, "what the hell?" What could possibly be their motive for DRMing a free game other than just be jerk for the sake of being a jerk? But if you think about it, the answer is pretty simple:

Why give away free samples of anything? Free games or free pizza bites in the grocery store? The answer is obvious. If the customer likes the sample, they might be inclined to buy items from you that are *not* free. Well, okay, but why DRM a free game? Who cares if people pirate it? Well, to a degree that's true. You can put a free game out there and let people multiply it out all they want--and from that, you'll hopefully get some name recognition and people will seek you out for paid products.

Well, we know from my OP post that I unknowingly got slammed onto Steam via this Star Trek DVD-ROM. I was pissed, but I'm over it now--and I've had some time to think about the reasons and motivations behind this: For instance, what if I had been given the Star Trek game for free (actually I think someone above mentioned that Star Trek Online invites you in for free--okay, so lets go with that). I install my free Star Trek game and what happens? In order to play it, I am forced to create a Steam account. And when I do, what's the first thing I see? Well tons of ads for other games in their catalog temping me to buy more. And if they had just given me a (free) DRM-free game with no link/requirement to join their site, I *might* seek them out by name recognition alone, but a free DRM game *guarantees* that I'm going be playing the game within their realm of influence.

Think about it, even GOG requires that you create an account in order to make a purchase from them--and with that they offer other deals and incentives hoping you'll buy more for them. But I don't have a problem with that, as they are operating with integrity. As a customer, we join GOG by choice and are free to leave GOG at any time--and the games we paid for will presumably still be playable, assuming that you actually downloaded it. That's perfectly fine. I have no problem with that.

I was, however, annoyed by the means the Trek game (sort of deliberately) tricked me into joining Steam. Had that been a free game (well, I wouldn't have been nearly as pissed, because I wouldn't have lost any money by not accepting their terms--but in my case I actually PAID to be forced onto their site if I wanted to play the game)--but anyway, had the game been offered for free, to play the game they would have me on as a potential consumer of their non-free games. And with their DRM features attached to even the free game, in order to play it, I will, presumably, be required to maintain my account with Steam. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my assumption is that the game will no longer function if I uninstall Steam from my computer. Am I correct in that? Assuming that to be the case, THAT would be the logical motivation to offer a free game that's DRM-restricted.

[Does anyone know the answer to that for sure? If I uninstall Steam will the Trek game no longer function, even offline? If it does function, then the DRM issue really isn't as catastrophic as it seemed when it took me by surprise. But, regardless, slamming me onto Steam does offer them some level of influence over me. And offering a gratis DRM game would have the same effect.]

This is an interesting area to me. I'm a lefty, but I have always gamed with a right hand mouse. I'm not even sure I'd like to swap now, though I am quite happy to use a generic symmetrical mouse and swap the buttons to use on the left for work occasionally.

Anyway, I too have run away from Razer because of their software, and straight into the waiting embrace of Logitech.

Now, I have Logitech's gaming software installed, and the Software License Agreement with them says:
"13. You agree that Logitech and its subsidiaries and agents may collect, maintain, process and use diagnostic, technical and related information, including but not limited to information about your Logitech product, computer, system and application software, peripherals and other related devices, that is gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, product support and other services to you (if any) related to the Logitech software, and to verify compliance with the terms of this agreement. Logitech may use this information, as long as it is in a form that does not personally identify you, to improve our products or to provide services to you."

Obviously everyone these days wants to access our info, but in the case of Logitech, they have stopped at simply gathering relatively basic information. It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make, especially because I don't have to log into their software and their servers to access my new keyboard, and likely my new mouse when I upgrade.

On the flip side, Synapse 2.0's Privacy Policy, says this:
"We ask for and/or Receive Personally Identifiable Information. <Pretentious bastards aren't they?> At times, we ask you for personally identifiable information – information about you that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Information”) – which includes, but is not limited to, your name, photo, phone number, email address, website URL, instant message contact information, and postal address. We ask for Personal Information in a number of situations, including when you register a product, register for a Service, sign up for a Promotion, opt in to receive email notifications or contact us via the Services, or other situations. You do not have to provide your Personal Information, but then certain features, offerings or Services may not be available to you, or you may not be able to complete a transaction. We use your Personal Information mainly to provide the Services, complete your transactions, and verify your identity to administer or respond to your inquiries or prevent fraud, or similar."

This is followed up with:
"Product or Service Registrations and Updates. To use some of our Services or offerings, you must register to create an account, and during registration we will collect your email address and possibly other Personal Information. For example, Synapse 2.0 is our proprietary cloud based storage application (“Synapse 2.0”) that allows you to store your custom settings and Razer add-ons online in the Razer cloud. This Privacy Policy will at all times apply to any information collected from you as a result of your use of Synapse 2.0 or other Services or offerings that you sign up for. For more information regarding Synapse 2.0, please visit http://www.razerzone.com/synapse2."

This, to me, is a step too far - forcing customers to hand over personally identifying material just to have the benefit of using a device the way it was intended. I write this, not to convince you, because you appear to have already convinced yourself to look elsewhere, but to give one option that is not as bad in a relative sense. I prefer the Logitech agreement to that of Razer, and it has cost Razer my money.

Also, I don't know about left handed mice at Logitech, but they do have a few ambidextrous mice that may suit. Good luck on your search!