I think some people are extremely nervous about downloading a crack, even if it's 20 years after the game came out and the company died 10 years before. It's kind of silly from my perspective, but people believe what they want to believe.

In any case I agree with you 100%. The idea that Valve can stop me from playing PC games that are on my shelf is quite simply laughable.

I hope The Witcher 2 does well-it might make the industry as a whole more relax their stand on DRM. I don't support piracy in most cases, but if I wanted to pirate a game, I just would, and DRM isn't going to stop me.

DRM probably has at least some impact on piracy-a certain level of competency is required to download torrents and apply a crack after all, and many have at least a few days delay after release. The impatient pirate may just prefer to go buy the game than wait. It's a low threshold, but it will stop some people. So, at best DRM is only mildly effective and does not interfere with consumers. That seems to be the current state of affairs.

A good first step I'd like to see toward DRM removal see would be a time limit on DRM. That is, for the first few months after a titles release, when most sales and most piracy takes place, the DRM is kept on. Later, a patch removes it all, and future copies are sold DRM free.

This way, there's no concerns about losing your ownership of the game in the future, and those wait to buy the game DRM-free will probably be purchasing it on a discount, anyways. Companies still get to feel like they're making a minor dent in piracy, and their customers are more happy. If they get comfortable with this, it's not unreasonable to suppose that they could learn that going DRM-free isn't the end of the world.

There's two aspects there, some don't want to encourage the industry by validating DRM as a profit center.

Then there's the aspect of it still being illegal in the US, it hasn't been litigated to the point where anybody really knows if it'll stand up in court in terms of cracking a copy that one has paid for or what the limits would be on any judgment. IIRC the Librarian of Congress has yet to make a statement about that.

It is indeed a remote chance of being caught and or prosecuted for doing so, but the RIAA has shown no particular ethical integrity in terms of suing people that they have reason to believe are innocent. We don't yet have any reason to believe that publishers won't stoop to that sort of tactic. Sony already has engaged in some criminal activities in protecting its IP.

I know I am not paranoid about battle.net... I know it's always gonna be there. But I hate it.

Knowing Blizzard had taken the douchebag route and stripped LAN functionality out of Starcraft 2, I bought it anyway to do exactly the thing I loved doing in Starcraft. Making custom maps and playing them against the AI.

Rolling all of Starcraft 2's functionality into their propriety online system, even the single player functions makes the one thing I gave a damn about so absurdly annoying to me that it strips the game of its joy.

Now, I love multiplayer gaming, and ironically I don't like Starcraft muliplayer for one simple reason: If I am of average skill in an FPS I can still have a good time. But being average in Starcraft 2 makes you a loser, always.... and I just don't have the same kind of time that the good players have to hone my skills... nor do I have that kind of interest.

In Starcraft 1, I just set up a LAN and played my friends or my son. Sometimes I'd win, sometimes I'd lose, but I'd always have fun. Online, against the Legion of OCD Uberplayers, humiliation is all I ever feel.

I'm with you... and I think maybe it is because we are in the US (or some other wealthy Western nation).

I did, however, have ONE problem. I had an activation key fail out of the package. It was Saint's Row. Damn key just didn't work.

I bought the game on clearance at Target for $7.

I have been buying games on PC since 1990 and never had a single problem except that one. I'm not mad. I don't think the developer of the game screwed me. I don't think the distributor screwed me. I don't think Target screwed me.

Their CD-Key system works more than 99.9% of the time and on that day I just happened to get the elusive and rare winning fail lottery ticket. My life is gonna be long and complex and full of trivial and not so trivial successes and failures. Letting this one game issue be a thing for me wasn't gonna happen.

I bet that if I contacted support they would (after some minor hassle, I'm sure) fix it for me... but frankly I have a stack of games I haven't opened, I spend more than $7 on lunch, and my time is more valuable to me than money, so I pitched it. If I really want to play it, I'll someday find another copy.

Had I paid full price, I'd likely have chased a solution. But it wasn't that big a deal.

---

I know that many people have had issues here and there with keys and other DRM and I'm not suggesting that those folks don't have an issue worth some attention... but in the grand scope of life, it seems like a lot of energy gets burned bitching about it and some of the bitching comes from folks who are mad about theoretical problems that they haven't act7ually had yet.

And there is so much more important stuff, and more enjoyable stuff, to focus on. Like playing the 99.9% of games that do work.

I am.

Not for any legal reasons. I am certain beyond a doubt that I will not "get into trouble" for it.

I'm nervous about malware, viruses, and the like. I don't trust the source, and I'm woefully too ignorant about those sources to go experimenting.

---

ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Make Three Posts In A Row!

My antivirus program does not get along with any kind of online drm :)

Even the tech support guy for the F-Secure gave up after a couple dozen remedy attempts :D

I didn't take the time to read the whole thread, but here's my recent scenario of why I will only buy drm free. I have canceled my internet service for a while to keep some more money in my pocket (what a novel idea! maybe our government could try to practice it). I purchased Desperados from gog from my parent's house, burnt the setup file to a disc, and transfered it to my computer in another location. No internet? No problem.

All you piracy witch hunters, don't worry, my parents wouldn't even know how to install it. I deleted the setup file already anyway.

The real issue is the more peoples accept and the more easily they accept it, the faster more abusive and intrusive DRM will be introduced. When phone home DRM where introduced they caused an uproar, now they are common and 99% of new games uses them. Ubi DRM always one caused quite a fuss... they were probably a little too early for peoples to accept it so they just pull back a little and now most peoples don't care about it. But I am pretty sure that in one or two yeard always on DRM will probably be the norm or at least be a lot more common that they are now.

And it's not just about games DRM but more about the whole relation between media companies and their "customers", the more abuses peoples are ready to accept, then the more abusive EULA, DRM, etc... will become.

And I don't even blame companies for that they do what they should to increase their profit, but if customer don't fight for their rights or at least complain when they don't like something then nobody will.

Ultimately the problem with a standard CD-key is that it's not secure. All it takes is one person putting one valid key on the internet, and your entire protection scheme is invalidated.

For me, DRM is a big deal. I really like being able to actually OWN my own software, not just rent it. CD-checks don't really bother me because they're usually extremely easy to bypass, CD-keys don't really bother me because even if you lose yours there's always another valid one on the internet, but other things are generally a no-buy for me.

I didn't buy DoW 2 even though I greatly enjoyed all of the various incarnations of DoW 1, because it required Steam AND GFWL AND Xfire, in addition to other minor stuff. I eventually played a copy of it at a friend's house, and I'm quite glad that their DRM schemes saved me money. They basically removed all the stuff that made the first game a fun RTS, and turned it into some sort of RPG/Action game half-breed. And not in the good sense.

The only game I've actually regretted not buying is New Vegas. Though I suppose it's possible they'll release some bundle-pack with all the DLCs later, I doubt it'll be non-steam based. The fact that I'd have to have a working internet connection and Steam validation just so I could play my SINGLE PLAYER ONLY game is just absurd. I'd be fine with it if I could just uninstall Steam after the game had installed and validated, but apparently you can't do that.

Well people will accept what people will accept, you can't change that. Stand firm in what you think is actually unacceptable and that's the best you can do. I don't think a single activation which can easily be bypassed is unacceptable... if I did I would not support it. I do think some DRM is unacceptable though, like on a closed system, and I refuse to accept that.

All you can do is follow your own rules, you can't expect others to follow your rules too. The vast majority obviously accept Steam-like activation, it's not going anywhere.

That's the thing, the DMCA was passed, the only options are to boycott, take what they give or lobby for change of the law.

It's up to everybody to decide what it means to them, personally, I'm not willing to encourage that sort of bad behavior. Even if it means waiting until some of those games are here sans DRM.

Hell, it's quite a bit cheaper to play games when they hit the bargain bin. My main concern is all the folks buying things from Steam or other direct download are preventing things from getting to the bargain bin.
I hate that you're correct in your reasoning here.

For me, it's about control. I want to play the games I have purchased, and install them whenever I like, no matter if the company exists or not. I've seen too many games companies disappear to encourage me to agree to online activations.

This is why I'm happy with cd-keys. They will always work. Steam is unlikely to go under in the next 10 years or so, so I'll buy occasional games that need it (e.g. Empire Total War), but ideally I'd rather wait and go for GOG. Online activations are a big no-no for me, I refused to buy Bioshock and Spore because of it.

And you make it seem like your positive experience is proof that problems don't really exist or, as you put it earlier, are hard to take seriously. I'm not entirely sure projecting your experience as the standard for what people should think is fair, but to be fair, I think Steam probably provides a decent level of service and reliability that is fitting for a large quantity of people. If you are happy with what you have currently recieved with what you have currently paid then there is not much more to say about things than that. you're happy.

But I feel like the Steam issue may be getting blurred up a bit. There are two aspects to it, the on-line store / game launcher which is handy, and the DRM which ideally, is invisible, but is also a separate thing. Now my feeling is that you love the functionality of Steam and are willing to deal with whatever DRM exist because it has never personally caused you an issue, but let me ask you this - If it did cause you issue next week how would you feel? OR what if you could have the exact same user experience only that nothing was DRM'ed in any way to where you could save any installer to any device and reinstall it at your convenience without any need for on-line activation? Would that be more or less attractive to you? And if to get rid of the nastier forms of DRM one had to convince the industry that it was a bad concept all together, would it then be reasonable for someone to say no to Steam or similar simply because it supported an idea regardless of its transparency or lack of issues? I actually kinda like this solution. I have to think the window of time that DRM stops cracked copies can be counted in hours. Now those may be the very most profitable hours so to protect a game then makes financal sense even if I don't personally like it. However, continuing to lock up a game that is been realeased into the wild is fairly pointless, especially if it makes life difficult, if even for a small few.