It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
timppu: You seem to see the whole issue very black and white. As my vast library of Steam games demonstrates, preferring DRM-free gaming does not mean missing out on newer great games.

Heck, if new games appeared only as a streaming service, I wouldn't be surprised I'd play them there (quite much depending on pricing etc.), _even though_ I much rather play the local downloaded versions that have as few umbilical cords to the publisher as possible (hopefully none).

Oh and just to demonstrate how incoherent your argument is, since you are a PC-only gamer who refuses to play console games, you are missing out lots of great console-only games. How does that make you feel? :) Or, could it actually be that you simply don't care you miss out many great games, as long as you feel you have enough good stuff to play, even when you are making some restricting gaming platform choices?
Because there is obviously nobody here on these forums who is not buying Steam games...


And I am very sad I miss out on console games. There are many games I would love to play, like RDR, which I simply can't. I'm just putting them on hold, like I did with PS 1 and PS 2 games. I also bought a 3DS just to play MGS 3 and Zelda: OOT. I don't have a television, and I really don't need one, which is the biggest reason for not buying a console.

Since you can nowadays connect consoles with screens and beamers, I will very likely buy a Xbox or PS 3 next year simply to catch up on games (emulation is to much of a hassle). I would have already bought a PS3 if they kept their backwards compatibility. The only reason that I never had a console is that money was tight and I needed a PC (also, gaming on a PC was cheaper, as piracy was easier). Nowadays, money is no longer an issue, but I'm moving a lot, which makes a console rather stupid to have. If consoles would offer 100% digital libraries, I would also buy one instantly. But I'm not packing countless discs each time I travel.

But I love consoles, even though I am a pure bred PC gamer. And I'm very sad I missed out on some of the best games, because they are console exclusives. Playing the second best on PC is no substitute.
Post edited October 26, 2012 by SimonG
avatar
SimonG: Because there is obviously nobody here on these forums who is not buying Steam games...
You are wrong.
I am not buying (the correct term is renting thou) games on steam.
avatar
SimonG: Because there is obviously nobody here on these forums who is not buying Steam games...
avatar
mobutu: You are wrong.
I am not buying (the correct term is renting thou) games on steam.
quod erat demonstrandum.
avatar
mobutu: You are wrong.
I am not buying (the correct term is renting thou) games on steam.
avatar
SimonG: quod erat demonstrandum.
Masterful.
This is my backlog. C'mon, what am I missing by not buying games with DRM?
avatar
Starmaker: This is my backlog. C'mon, what am I missing by not buying games with DRM?
A lot.
avatar
SimonG: quod erat demonstrandum.
you don't understand:
I am not using steam at all. I don't even have or ever had a steam account. Nor I will ever have with their present business model.
avatar
mobutu: You are wrong.
I am not buying (the correct term is renting thou) games on steam.
avatar
SimonG: quod erat demonstrandum.
That's the second internet slang i've seen for the first time today.

What does that mean?
Post edited October 26, 2012 by gameon
use googler to find out, it's easier
avatar
Starmaker: http://backloggery.com/Starmaker]what am I missing by not buying games with DRM?
nothing. on the contrary, you're gaining.
Post edited October 26, 2012 by mobutu
avatar
mobutu: use googler to find out, it's easier
avatar
Starmaker: http://backloggery.com/Starmaker]what am I missing by not buying games with DRM?
avatar
mobutu: nothing. on the contrary, you're gaining.
Yes, because judging a game based on a factor that has nothing to do with the quality of the game itself is certainly the best way to determine good games ...
avatar
mobutu: nothing. on the contrary, you're gaining.
Well, actually I am losing money due to the GOG-induced unhealthy completionist mindset that Steam could theoretically cure. But I'm not missing on any precious experience; it's not like, instead of buying a game on Steam, I sit in darkness wishing that it was released DRM-free, but since it wasn't, let this forced isolation be my sacrifice to the noble goal of freedom of information. GOG, bundles, and the occasional standalone indie game are more than enough.
Post edited October 26, 2012 by Starmaker
Well, those current DRM-based games after a few years will become DRM-free games and everyone can get to play them as they were intended in the first place: drm-free, bug free, patched up, with dlc and/or expansions included, cheaper etc and you get to play them on potentially better harware. So a better overall experience.
You're not losing anything if you choose to play them after some years.
I always laugh at those guys that shit in their pants if they are not playing that big AAAAAA with fireworks title on its zero-day release ;)
I have been reading this over the past day or two and had a few ideas on it myself.

Its not a black & white thing with regards to DRM.

Essentially the members here who are flat out against DRM purchase their games, they don't pirate them, if they miss out on a new title on say Steam, they won't get it from wherever just to stick it to Steam or the devs. They talk with their wallets on the matter.

There are a few exceptions to this though where certain people openly admit to pirating a game due to the DRM, which is not cool at all as the devs have families to feed and lives to live, this is their wages for the work they have done.

Now Steam, love them or hate them. You need to show at least a little respect for the service they provide, they have helped keep PC gaming alive over the years. Auto patching etc is a very handy thing they do and its great for having friends on there making co op games etc better as you aren't just joining random people.

Not forgetting Steam have helped a lot of Indie developers get their games noticed and also helped them get off the ground in a bigger way. Their titles are getting sold and they are making money, they are a small business essentially.

Next up is what would everyone that is being a bit on the extreme side of things be doing now if GOG never happened in the first place. Do you think they would have the same attitude towards DRM or would quite a few of them just bite the bullet and use whatever digital platform is available for their games?

I did mention in a similar thread to this a good few months back Windows Vista & 7. Every few months the OS contacts Microsoft servers and re validates your installation and key. Does it bother you.......most likely not, its an operating system and is a requirement. Yes you can use Linux and I know a few people on here do for various reasons, but most mainstream users will be on Windows.

I personally use a few different services when it comes to gaming. Steam is definitely the main one I use followed by GOG. I use GOG for all those wonderful classics that can be a chew to get running with Dosbox or whatever they need. Steam is there for all the new titles like Dishonored, Borderlands 2, Skyrim, Sleeping Dogs etc

I am not trying to get into a massive argument or fight with anyone over this, its just the way I am seeing it with so many of these type of threads popping up over the past few months, seems to happen when we get a new influx of forum members.
avatar
Starmaker: But I'm not missing on any precious experience; it's not like, instead of buying a game on Steam, I sit in darkness wishing that it was released DRM-free, but since it wasn't, let this forced isolation be my sacrifice to the noble goal of freedom of information. GOG, bundles, and the occasional standalone indie game are more than enough.
So you judge the quality of games based on personal availability....
avatar
mobutu: Well, those current DRM-based games after a few years will become DRM-free games and everyone can get to play them as they were intended in the first place: drm-free, bug free, patched up, with dlc and/or expansions included, cheaper etc and you get to play them on potentially better harware. So a better overall experience.
You're not losing anything if you choose to play them after some years.
I always laugh at those guys that shit in their pants if they are not playing that big AAAAAA with fireworks title on its zero-day release ;)
You are contradicting yourself. Either you are missing out on stuff. And can only play it in a few years, if at all. Or you don't. I personally am very happy that I could play Fallout New Vegas when it was fresh, knowing that Obsidian is still excellent.

But hey, as I said, your problem, not mine.
Post edited October 26, 2012 by SimonG
I have absolutely no problem, so you are wrong.
In playing a game now or over 5 years from now i loose absolutely nothing. On the contrary, i gain a better overall experience, the reasons are in the pevious post. A game doesnt rot as a apple does, on the contrary it gets better with patches, lower price etc so i get to enjoy it more.
If you feel that you loose by doing that ... well, thats just you. Technically you dont loose anything, you get to play it anyway.
Post edited October 26, 2012 by mobutu