I think this is overly optimistic in terms of piracy prevention, but it would definitely be a welcome step in the right direction.

The concerns that are tough to take seriously are people saying that Steam is going to go belly-up and all their games are lost, and absolutely no one at Steam can or will get them back-it's a pretty common theme in this thread. I don't take that seriously, at all. Even if it did happen, it would still only be a minor inconvenience to me.

It's much more likely that an individual game won't launch because of an error affecting a small number of users' experiences. I'm certain these things happen all the time. But how is that different from GoG? Users have issues with different games, and either customer support or the forums help them out. It happens all the time, but these issues constitute a small percentage of the average GoG user's experience. I dare say, someone who had issues with GoG would have a tough time convincing the rest of the community to quit using them because of his experience.

It's not unreasonable to consider Steam's success and growth and assume that, for the vast majority of users, there are no major issues to speak of, and you indicate that you agree. So, it seems unreasonable to condemn Steam as likely to break everyone's games, in the same way that it would be unreasonable to say that GoG releases incompatible games.

Acually, I don't really care one way or another about the functionality of Steam (I assume you mean the game launcher/store software). I mean, it's not bad or anything, but what matters to me is 1)reliability, 2)no DRM hassle, 3)good prices. Usually, this means I buy from Steam, but plenty of other sites meet the same standards. Friends lists, community groups, achievements, and the like are probably responsible for some of Steam's success, but I don't really care about them. Steam is kind of unique in that it also provides these user experiences in addition to the games themselves, and for some people Steam must seem very awesome, but it's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

So, if Steam did cause me an issue next week-what would I do (btw it's kind of tough to separate Steam's DRM from the client software since they kind of go hand in hand)? Well, I'd do the same thing I'd do if I downloaded a GoG game that didn't work-ask customer service and the forums. If Steam frequently failed on me, I probably would use them as a last resort/if the price were cheap enough.

Is it reasonable to say no to nasty DRM by not supporting it? Yes, absolutely. Ubisoft's system and TAGES can go to hell. Other digital download sites seem to have allowed Ubisoft to install their DRM to their games in addition to the preexisting DRM of the site-that seems unnecessary. GFWL is an example where the actual DRM part could be OK, but the reliability of the client software is substandard.

Is Steam an example of nasty DRM? No. Also, I see no reason why one-time online activation is such a bad thing for digital downloads like D2D. It's important to pick your battles.

In the long term all services get shut down for one reason or another. Why on Earth do you believe that Steam is some special snowflake in this regard? I'm not hearing anyone say it will shut down tomorrow. Eventually it will go down or be shut down, there is no prophesy to this, we have plenty of examples to point at of DRM services being taken offline and crashed servers never being brought back up. That's the point, really. If you are lucky enough to have a copy of Dungeon Keeper, you can still play it even though it's 15 years old or so. In 15 years it's a very real possibility that Steam won't be there anymore. Will you be able to find another, playable copy of your games? Probably for most, for the most popular ones, almost certainly.
I won't ask permission to play the game I bought anymore than I will ask permission to watch a movie or read a book. Nor will I give up my right of resale for a physical purchase. This is actually an important battle even if you don't see it as such.

They go hand and hand because they were wired together deliberately not because there is any technical or idealogical meshing of the two things. It would have been quite possible to create Steam without any DRM policies in place. One could argue that it would not have been a financial success without it but from a purely technical stand point, DRM and the usability of the program are separate things. Baring cases where requirements have been made in order to satisfy the DRM side of things but those things are not really necessary in its absence or needed for improving the user experience.

As for standing against vicious DRM I may not have been clear. I was asking if to rid the world of Tages, people had to take a broad spectrum or generalized stand against DRM (even in mild or near invisible applications) is that not a reasonable thing for people to choose to do? More to the point Just as it isn't worth denying yourself Valve games over something that isn't bothering you, is it reasonable for somebody to boycott Steam simply because they hope it might help fight something like tages?

Steam DRM (and most DRM in general) is to stop resale. None of these companies are dumb enough to think they're stopping piracy except maybe Ubisoft. The reason Steam forces you to tie the game to an account is to stop you from selling the game.

Just a theoretical that crossed my mind while reading this thread:

How would you feel about a law that absolutely forbids any form of DRM and any alteration of rights via EULAs as violations of consumer rights but explicitly grants publishers the legal right to demand an immediate shutdown (in the case of web servers within the same jurisdiction) or blacklisting (at the ISP level, in the case of web servers located outside of jurisdiction) of any web site hosting illegal copies of a game, movie, music, etc?

It's a draconian concept, yes, bringing the hammer of law down hard on both sides, but... might it be fair? Haven't formed an opinion of it yet, still rolling it over. Curious what you think about the idea.

Companies are, I suspect, pushing for the second half of this theoretical law already. They'd likely gag on their own tongues if someone in power suggested granting it on the condition of granting the first half as well.

The DMCA has already shown just how horribly abused such a system would be. What I'd personally like to see is DRM and copyright be an either/or proposition- if you want copyright protection then you can't use DRM.

I think I previously addressed what I consider to be the differences, they are different to me and a lot of others. If you don't see a difference that's fine, just know that some people do.

That's an often reported story. I'm not sure what interview it was, it could even be urban legend that Valve doesn't disclaim because it's not negative. Regardless, again, Valve is not some special snowflake, all DRM services to date have not unlocked crap all for anyone when shut down. There is no reason to believe Valve shutting down, whenever it might happen, will be any different, and plenty of reasons to believe the opposite. What's more if that is considered a Valve asset (and it will be) and there is another entity with an interest in it, anyone providing an unlock could be looking at prison time.

I don't care if you think Gabe is good people or not, it's really naive to think any shutdown will go differently than every single other DRM or game company shutdown in the last decade or more.

People very much undervalue this. Would society be the poorer without public libraries? It's this same right that allows you to resell your goods that allows libraries to lend books. We must own what we purchase, end of story.

Used PC games? Yeah, that was dead, low shelf space, they didn't hold their value, and DRM made them risky to pick up. Console game resales work fine, you wouldn't see Amazon.com and Toys 'R Us grabbing a slice of that pie if it wasn't still good. The problem with killing resale is it kills swapping with buddies and loaning to close friends/family too. That really does blow.
I do object to it, it is so bad, and it's activation, not a CD key. Just because it's an alpha-numeric string doesn't mean it's the same thing. I've never bought a D2D game and I doubt I ever will.

A very interesting idea, DarkPhoenix. The robots running Activation would self-destruct at such a proposition-their circuits just couldn't handle it.

I wouldn't mind ddmuse's hypothetical law, but it brings with it enormous potential for abuse, as well as way too many certainties over interpretation. Perhaps if some sort of third party oversaw dealing with alleged abuses and provided an impartial appeal process I could get behind it more.

Valve can say they will provide a way if they go under, or are sold or whatever, all they want. But there are a lot of legalities involved in such things and sorting what can and cant be done could easily be a nightmare that never gets sorted out. It could easily be that some games get solutions where as some to not. If their is not magic button to press to free up every game in their catalog that means each one will have to be individually addressed both technically and legally. Why on Earth should we expect out of work people to work for free to create a solution when it would be easier to just keep walking? Or do we really think they built in legal and technical buttions?

They clearly did not, Valve has had big leaks before and I have a hard time believing any smart coder wouldn't have recognized any hooks or plumbing for such an unlock by now. I'm going to go with a Fermi Paradox argument on this one: there is no universal unlock or we would have seen evidence of a universal unlock by now.

That's the thing, without access to the contracts, we have no way of knowing if Valve even has the authority to do so. Not to mention that if they shut down due to bankruptcy, there's unlikely to be anything that the courts can do about it.

I remember my parents first computer had an extended warranty which ended up being useless when the computer store entered into bankruptcy. At that point because of the way it was being handled, bankruptcy court had control over it and those types of debts were canceled out leaving people without any recourse as they couldn't sue the owners and the business itself didn't have any assets to seize.

Well at least you have a handle on bankruptcy law, that makes two of us on this site:)

Lol, you just don't get it. When you download a game, you're able to enter the CD key then and there. And that's it. The game is yours. Forever.

But, having to be online for one time to activate a game that you purchased and downloaded online is somehow this terrible thing? Really? Now who's being naive?

Does Steam not have an offline mode? Is that supposed to magically break now, too? If so, would you really have a big hangup about cracking the games you bought-most of which are quite old by then.