As promised in this thread I have restarted it and will check daily to learn the exact number of days offline mode stops working.

On August 13-14, I reattached my wireless adapter and updated lots of things. Several games (7) and a Steam Client update were included, and at 1:46 AM, Aug 14, 2013 EDT I chose the "Switch to Offline" mode (AFTER testing about 15 games while still connected to make sure the specific games didn't have issues), then properly exited Steam, and then unplugged the USB wireless adapter again.

Later on the 14th (that evening) I tested three games (Of Orcs and Men - Civ V - Mount & Blade) all worked.

Yesterday, on the 15th, I tested two (Divine Divinity - Call of Duty BO Zombies) and both worked.

Today, the 16th, I tested three (M&B Warband - Borderlands - Fallout NV) and all worked.

Last time I didn't check every day and as a result couldn't pinpoint the exact number of days when it stopped letting my play my games even though I own them, so this time promised I would do so and will list here the results. Even though a Steam Client update was one of the updates, I still think it's going to stop allowing me to play my games in roughly two weeks. If, however, the Steam update did result in this working longer than two weeks, then I will once again HOPE offline mode works indefinitely, and will then only check once a week or so or when I want to play a Steam game out there in the den. As before, if this experiment makes it longer than a year, then I am happy and will become a supporter of Steam because as I've said not being able to play games one already owns is my ONLY gripe with Steam, but that's a gripe on the level of about as important as it gets.

I purchased novels that are protected by copyright, and can still read them days, weeks, months, years, even decades later. It should be the same with copyrighted games, UNLESS AND UNTIL those selling them make it absolutely crystal clear that you are not purchasing a game and are merely renting it. If one purchases a copyright protected game, s/he should be able to play that game for as long as s/he has equipment capable of running it, just like having eyes capable of reading a copyright protected book s/he purchased decades ago.

As I stated in that thread, I'm going to hope again for a good outcome, because there are some damn fine features to Steam. But though I will hope, I don't expect such an outcome because I and lots and lots of others have apparently seen this experiment fail every time, and always at about the two week mark.

And that's totally unacceptable unless Steam changes their wording from "Buy" games to "Rent as long as you have internet access."

The clarifications that 'buy' in their language only means 'rent' is actually in their EULA. I'm not sure but probably the translation that 'offline' means 'online at least once every two weeks' in their lingo is also hidden somewhere in the small print.

Doesn't matter what the EULA says, if they are "renting" then they need to make that crystal clear at point of purchase, er, point of renting.

They choose not to because they know millions (billions???) of folks won't slap down $49.99 to rent a game. They want the best of both worlds, and it's wrong. If they are, as you suggest, really "renting" then that should be absolutely and unequivocally clear on every game page.

If you're okay with renting, that's great. Go for it. I, and millions of others, are not, but yet are led to believe we're "buying" because it ALWAYS says "buy game" and Never "rent game" on the game page.

And also, too, there's actually other, potential legal reasons, why the EULA suggesting renting is what they're really doing doesn't matter. Almost everything in the EULA is, or should be, unenforceable until they make EULA's that take a reasonable amount of time to read and are understandable by average consumers. I can't see any truly objective court (which I admit may be hard to find today) that would say the EULA's attached to software are in any way whatsoever "reasonable" and easy to understand for the average consumer.

I don't think you can compare Steam's DRM with a copyrighted book, you would need an e-book with DRM like those you can buy on Google Books or Amazon to get on the same level.

Anyway, it's interesting that Steam forces you to update after a certain amount of time but if that's so, isn't it possible to manipulate it? Possibly easier to fool Steam's client by changing date on the computer or something similar in case Steam's files are encrypted to counter manipulation.

It also might be possible to use a memory hack application such as CheatEngine then register the specific address that is changed when something triggers the Steam client to require an update.

I agree with you, but discussions like this - wherein one posits "If the people only knew..." then they would refuse to purchase the license - always bring me back to that classic screenshot of a COD boycott:
[url=
http://kotaku.com/5403286/what-modern-warfare-2-boycotters-are-playing]
http://kotaku.com/5403286/what-modern-warfare-2-boycotters-are-playing[/url]

To wit: they don't really care so long as they get to play, and since most regular customers these days don't have major connectivity issues then they don't see it as a problem regardless of how they independently feel about "renting" versus "buying". So long as your connection is good then "rent" and "buy" have the same practical meaning; this is the case for most purchasers. Since the target market is "most purchasers"...

You see where this is going.

I don't doubt for a second that millions (billions???) of consumers would still be active consumers if Steam made it perfectly crystal clear that they are renting. In fact, for all I know, a majority of consumers may fall into the category of not caring as long as they can play the game they want. But, it also wouldn't surprise me if a majority of consumers DID care, and would be less likely to be Steam customers. I simply don't know how it breaks down (if anyone has any data suggesting how it does that would be interesting).

But that's not the point. The point is that there is a pool of consumers willing to rent or buy, and there is a pool that is willing only to buy, and therefore by selling games they will always have a bigger potential customer base to draw from because they can draw from both pools. What Steam is doing is they're trying to have it both ways, trying to maintain those folks like me who aren't interested in renting while keeping those that are okay with it too. They don't want to face the consequences of "renting" games instead of selling them yet want to maintain the benefits of selling them. It doesn't take any sentient being much effort to realize that's wrong, even if not technically illegal.

If their EULA really does read as though they're renting it (and I have no idea whatsoever as I've never read it and never will unless and until they make a reasonable one) as the poster above suggests, then this proves they're trying to have it both ways because they CHOOSE to continue to use the term "BUY" at point of every "sale" and are only willing to hide their true intentions in the EULA that they know a huge majority of people never read.

This again, brings up my point about 'fanboys" because it's simply obvious to anyone that's fair and unbiased that what Steam is doing, IF IN FACT THEY ARE IN EFFECT RENTING (as some defenders of Steam have argued) yet not making that crystal clear at point of purchase is at a minimum unethical, and most likely unlawful in several places.

But a fanboy's first, second, and last reaction to this would be to still defend Steam and blame me/us consumers for this obviously unethical behavior. And it's tiring, as well as stupid.

If Steam wouldn't lose a boatload of potential customers by changing the way they market their games to make it obvious that they are renting these games and that internet service is required at all times to play, then they'd do that. The fact they don't shows they fear the loss of so many potential customers. And the fact they don't means they shouldn't get away with having it both ways.

You misunderstood me completely. I am not OK with renting. That's why I'm not a Steam customer. I am just pointing out that they have covered their scam legally from all angles. And they will do everything but 'own up and be honest about the renting thing'. Treating their customers honestly would go against everything Steam stands for. So no chance. Steam has been created around the idea that customers can't be trusted. That's what DRM is about. So it's only logical that they will not give up their control completely. Sure, if the label 'offline mode' sells more games, they will sell that label. But they won't relinquish their control over their customers completely. That's why the offline mode really is a sneaky 'sometimes online' mode. Or in other words: you get what you sign up for. Steam, Origin and Uplay are known not to care about their customers rights. If you don't like that, stop using Steam. A decrease in income is the only language that will actually reach big publishers. Complaining and even big Shitstorms have been shown again and again not to have any impact on sales numbers and so they have no effect. Unfortunately a big majority keeps buying and thereby blindly accepting all questionable practices of the big publishers.

Assuming there's an online requirement to be online every 2 weeks or so, this statement still only makes as much a sense as saying "Buy" games to "rent as long as you have a working computer". You've got access to the stuff you 'bought' just fine, but you do need the required equipment to have access to it. In this case a working computer *and* internet. So then all it'd require is an adjustment in the requirements (Internet required). I doubt that suddenly makes it 'rent', especially considering rent is a short term term and usually involves regular payment.

I agree being as clear as possible about everything should be the case though, although that should change across the industry probably.

One of the system requirements for Steam, as far as I know, is a permanent internet connection. As far as renting versus buying, they have to have legalise in place in case you hack, cheat, or rob from them.

If you actually "own" the product, they cannot take it away from you if you misbehave. Other than one person here on GOG a year or two ago, I have never heard of Steam revoking game access from a legitimate consumer. Every single time there was hacking or cheating involved, or the person got a dubious "gift" from ebay or used a stolen credit card.

I'm not entirely ok with "renting" my games, but some games are Steam only, and I'm willing to "rent" them to play them, since the alternative is morally ambiguous. Anything that's not a Steam exclusive I get elsewhere, like GOG, dotEMU, or on GG or indiegala. And before anyone mentions it, I do not have a console, so playing the console version is not an option.

I wish you luck with your experiment :) I just had to add in my perspective to the conversation because while I dislike Steam immensely, it's the price I pay to play games like BioShock Infinite and Tomb Raider.

One thing to remember about about these screenshots is that Steam did make an offer in compromise to those who vowed to boycott. The players were worried that the Steam servers would be overloaded with the release of the new title and demanded dedicated servers so that their multiplayer experience would not suffer. Many stated that they would boycott the game unless these demands were met. Steam countered by saying they would not dedicate any existing servers to a single game but would significantly expand the total number of servers in anticipation of the increased activity. This solution, while not following the specifics of the demand, did bring about the same result. Players could rest assured that they could play COD, as well as any other multiplayer game, without fear of a server overload. By the time the game was released, those who called for the boycott no longer had a grievance. Now whether or not these players would have broken the boycott anyway is unknown. I don't disagree with your premise per se, I just don't feel these images are a fair representation.


As to OldFatGuy's assertion that people wouldn't patronize Steam "if only they knew," I feel there is some validity there. Based on my own observations from years of looking at forums, blogs and unscientific polls about Steam I have come up with a theory: While most gamers do use Steam, only a small segment of the gaming community actually likes using Steam. If every game in Steams catalog were also available from every other digital distributor you would see their market share decrease quite significantly.

I propose that PC gamers fall into five categories. First there are the Anti-DRM Zealots who won't own a Steam game under any circumstances. It is hard to measure just how big this group actually is. If you were to poll the GOG forums I'm sure you would find a larger percentage than on the EA, Paradox or Bethsoft forums. Next you have those who tolerate Steam only under certain conditions, typically this means the game is on sale at a fairly deep discount. Sometimes a player my outright say "I will never spend more than $5-$10 on a Steam game." The idea is that the use of Steam devalues the perceived worth of the game, sometimes a player may actually be happier paying more money to get the game DRM-Free if that choice is available. Then there are the DRM Agnostics, the players who tell you that "life is too short to get worked up over a stupid game." This group just wants to play the game and couldn't care less if it uses Steam, Origin, always on-line or facial recognition via the webcam on their laptop. Any arguments, either for or against a DRM scheme or service, are completely lost on them. The last two groups I'm going to lump together under the title of Steam Fans because they are very similar. These people buy their games from Steam without question. There may be some who have tried other services, Origin let's say, but didn't like it and came back to Steam. Of course this is also where you find the "No-Steam, No-Buy" crowd as well. While some Steam Fans genuinely like Steam for what it is, I posit that quite a few don't.

When I first came to GOG I was skeptical. I looked at the terms, I read opinions from other sites and really put some thought into whether or not to create an account. Even when I did sign up I only tried a few of the free games just to test how DRM-Free this place really was. It was several months between the time I first created an account and the first purchase I made here, even then I bought a game on sale that I already had on disc in case something went wrong. I am a GOG user because I really wanted to be one. There was a similar process before I signed up for Desura, DotEmu and the Humble Bundle. In all the people I have talked to who use and love Steam I have never heard a single one who fully researched the service before ever making a purchase. It has almost always been the case that there was a game they really wanted so they bought it at the store, got it home, opened the box, put the disc in and something called Steam popped up. Sometimes they had heard of Steam but never really bothered with it. Either way they were stuck with an otherwise useless disc that they didn't think they could take back so they just signed up because they had to. For the most part they say they resented the idea of Steam at first but once they started using it they found they really liked it and are now life long Steam Fans. When I ask players what, specifically, they like so much about Steam I get the same answers over and over:

-They never have to worry about whether the game they want is in stock at the store
-Never have to go to the store to pre-order a title
-No boxes taking up space
-Never have to worry about scratching or losing discs
-Never have to worry about having a disc in the tray to play the game
-If they get a new computer they can re-download their games
-They can redownload and install the game as many times as they like on whatever computer they want

Now I ask you, does this sound like a person who really likes Steam, or someone who just really likes digital distribution? It is entirely possible that this person would have switched to digital distribution anyways, they may have even picked Steam as their distributor of choice, but that decision wasn't left to them. They were given Steam as the only option. It's similar to why so many people had AOL accounts in the 90's, the company put discs into the hand of as many people as they could and it took users a while to discover that there were other options available. The difference is that if someone switched to a different ISP hay can still access the same websites, but if someone wanted to stop using Steam it would mean losing access to a majority of AAA games made today. This is 2013, many gamers have high speed internet and are fully aware of what Steam really is. But to take a firm stance against distribution models such as Steam or Origin means giving up the chance to play the next Bioshock, Elder Scrolls, Civilization, GTA and many more. Even the most ardent of Steam opponents have a game or series that they may not be able to resist.

Seeing this topic this morning reminded me that I never tested Origin to see how it would react to long term offline modes. Well I did and the results were about the exact opposite of Steam.

I didn't do any of the babying like Steam where I made sure to pick offline mode first, I just told Origin to exit, made sure it was closed in the task manager, and disabled my network connection.

I moved my date forward a year and loaded Origin. I was greeted with the login screen and thought that was it. However I decided to try logging in and the client went right into offline mode. No network adapter enabled and as far as the program knew, a year since it was last run. The games list had question boxes over the game box pictures, but when I moused over the installed ones it showed the game names and gave the option to play.

I exited Origin, moved the date back a year, and it let me log in again. For whatever reason it showed the game box pictures this time. After going back into online mode I had to re-enter my username and password before it would log me back in.

So unlike Steam, offline mode worked without any preparation, and for at least one year. I did have to enter my password every time to log in for offline mode, so it isn't perfect, but it is functional.

EA may be the worst company in the country/world/universe or whatever the internet votes them that week, but they are at least competent enough to make a functional offline mode.... for the most part.

Edit: Nevermind, brainfart.

Alice: Madness Returns will not phone home at all once you enter the product key, though it is in the minority as far as Origin titles that let you completely cut the umbilical cord. other games have other restrictions, most do require the start up handshake and some actually require a constant internet connection to play, but not all Origin games operate the same.

it is a confusing mess, but it was set up with the mindset that the EA partners program would become a major deal and that Origin would be deeply involved with it. so when Origin was built they had a bunch of different levels of implementation to it so they could support different conditions requested by the 3rd party developers.

Indie minded developers that EA was doing little more than printing boxes for would probably only want a code check and that is it.

bigger budget developers would probably want a Steam like dial in every time the game launched.

Achevo / Social media whole developers would want a constant connection so they could track & micro manage player data.

and MMO / online shooter developers would want some kind of file scanning system in place to dig through game files for hacks.

So EA built Origin to support all that as they were thinking they would be selling Origin to 3rd parties as product instead of the Partners program being dead and Origin being use in house only. No, it is not consumer oriented, but EA never is; that said, a lot of the malicious appearance and confusion about the service is simply an issue of shit looking warped when viewed from the wrong side of mirror it was intended for.

Could you please point me to the place on Steam's website where this is made crystal clear??
Thanks.

Aug 17, attempted two games (The Last Remnant - Mars War Logs) and both worked.