The issue is to define what's good and bad DRM, some years ago a simple online activation was a "bad" DRM, nowadays an online activation,tying you games to an account and recuring checks every X days is considered ad being a "good" DRM.

I don't expect that companies will start releasing DRM-free games, but I disagree on wht constitute a "good" DRM.

Personally what I would call a "good" DRM would be what was done with Alpha Protocol, online activation but with a clear sunset plan announced since day one, or what Telltale does with most of their games with the game being first released online with activation DRM then released as a DRM free DVD once the full season is released.

That's the kind of DRM I would accept without problem (along with Watermarking, which would be my favorite kind of DRM like protection), heck I would even accept UbiDRM if an official sunset date was given.

Concerning Steam I think it's so "accepted" because a lot of peoples have no clues how it works, how many time did I hear the whole "Steam is not a DRM" or "once you are offline you can play forever" or even the always popular "you can backup your games and play them anytime even if Steam is down", no to mention those who knows that Steam is a DRM but think that in case anything bad happen the magic wand called "class action" will give them back their games no matter what.

Personally if I had to choose I would take a limited activation Securom DRM over Steam anyday at least with the former your game isn't tied to an account and you have a tiny hope of having a DRM-removal patch released someday.

I don't consider disc checks and such to be DRM either. Those have been long before the term "Digital Rights Management" was coined to describe something new and contraversial for the time. DRM is a system for giving something away and still being in control of when and how it can be used. It's a coin-on-a-string for stealing from coin-op machines. That's not to say that DRM is always a bad thing, but it's pretty much always always unethical to attach to purchases in my opinion.

You could do some pretty cool things using DRM for movie rentals, all-you-can-eat game subscription services, loaning features and such without stomping over your customer rights, but all publishers seem to think about these days is tethering sales (although Steam does try to present itself as a "subscription service" rather than a seller of games).

I don't think you're understanding me. I don't like DRM, I think it's stupid. I don't like Steam tying all my games to an account they can ban for any reason, I think that's bullshit. I don't like Microsoft shutting down Xbox Live on the original Xbox, removing the ability to reacquire DLC and patches for those games and the fact that they will do the same for the 360 someday. I don't like ANY of it.

The simple fact in the end though is that it will exist in some way going forward. The silliest thing people can do is keep fighting change that is inevitable, that has basically already happened. Of the major releases in the past year I would guess 90% had online activation of some kind. It is not going away, not enough people are boycotting it to matter and people looooove Steam.

So my options are a futile boycott that accomplishes nothing or to basically get over it and accept what I am capable of accepting. I am not capable of accepting streaming services, which remove any semblance of ownership or control. I am not willing to accept DRM on closed systems like the Xbox 360, because circumventing it if/when I get screwed would be very hard or even impossible depending on the content.

Simple activations though? Steam? I can accept that. You know why? Mostly because it's irrelevant. Can you honestly tell me you are worried you might not be able to play a Steamworks game in 20-30 years? Is that honestly a concern for you? It isn't for me, I can promise you that. Not only because the means to remove that DRM already exists today, but also because if one day it is needed to get the game to function at all those means will be all over the net, respectable sites and otherwise.

In short the PC is an open platform, worrying about running a game in 20 years because of DRM is silly.

You say 90% of games this past year had some form of on-line activation, but how about 3 years ago? How many had it then? It's because people accept it that it's come to that point. You're saying it's inevitable, but the way things are 'progressing' with regard to DRM, isn't on-line activation and recurring on-lice checks inevitable? And from there isn't a permanent internet connection inevitable? And from that point isn't streaming services inevitable as well?

I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative, but just curious as to what point you'll say 'enough is enough' and boycott/fight this juggernaught of DRM feature creep?
I just feel that every time people accept just one more little push by these publishers with regards to DRM it means we're one step closer to games as a streaming service. A prime example of that is the proposed DA2 DRM. Did you read the thread on the BioWare boards? It's basically the same DRM as they proposed for ME1 and people were outraged about that and complained bitterly until it was scaled back (they settled for something almost as bad though). But when they rolled this scheme out for DA2, what did many people do? They thanked BioWare for dropping the disc check and going with the same damned scheme people were up in arms about for ME1!

Sitting here listening to my DRM free MP3's I had to smile . . . =)

Streaming.

I mean if an online activation is past your comfort zone then please, ignore me. I just wonder why that is since it's easily gotten rid of should you ever need to. Streaming though, or DRM on closed systems... not so easily gotten rid of, so my line is drawn there.

Fair enough, but it seems to me it makes more sense to try to stop things before they get to that point. Once we're at the point of streaming games, it's too late to protest. The inevitable will have already happened.

I realize on-line activation can be gotten rid of easily enough. My worry is what I've outlined above. Tacitly supporting it by buying games that use it is only going to lead to more and more DRM 'features'. I'd rather try to stop it now than wait until I'm looking down the barrel of streaming games being the only choice.

Well I have protested online activation before... I didn't buy Mass Effect at first, I didn't buy Spore... I was actually most vehemently against Half Life 2, but that was like 8 years ago now or something.

Anyway, I lost. That's how I look at it... we lost. Steam has shown to every publisher everywhere, PC and console, that the vast majority of the market will accept DRM as long as it is convenient and maybe even comes with some benefits. There is no turning back now, Steam is a juggernaut and has set the tone.

Unfortunately, you're probably right.

Probably a result of my age, but I'm curmudgeonly and set in my ways, so I'll continue to piss into the wind and just hope it doesn't turn into a hurricane. ;)

Instead of burning DVDs the cheapest solution would be to buy internal HDDs (1TB usually for the price of less than 100$) and make backups there. But Steam anyway will never let you do this because they want to have the control not you, and if they let you do it, then you anyway need a new online check after next install and this means it's completely useless to backup Steam games.

I would say, that Disc checks are DRM or at least old school copy protection, but a comparingly mild form of DRM, and the only one that preserves re-sellability. Big plus. Even better than GOG. However, becoming extinct nowadays.

Yes, that might be true for mainstream, but I guess there might be some room too for alternatives. Who says, the whole world has to act in the same way all the time? Can't there be many different marketing models? That's what I put my hopes on. That enough "mild DRM" alternatives emerge. Otherwise I am quite fine with not being mainstream.

And I am stubborn (sometimes I like this about me) to not loose hope even in a lost cause. I don't see any personal benefit from buying DRM that I don't like, just because everybody else does it - meaning that I will have to abstain even more often. It's not nice but doable.

Only if there are no alternatives at all - I will be forced to do it, but then I will definitely not paying full price... oh, they have me at their merci, I am doomed. :(

I don't understand the analogy about the hurricane. Nobody will harm you, because you didn't buy enough Steam, etc. games. On the contrary, I would hope that actually all the piss in the wind in the end will somehow turn into a hurricane and finally (probably not before next generation ) will show that DRM was actually not a good idea.

There's no point trying to demonstrate that there's no market for Steam because there are plenty of people who're perfectly OK with it, but we can demonstrate that there a good market for the alternative by supporting GOG, DotEmu, 2DBoy, Wolfire and others who actually give you what you pay for.

I prefer Steam to Securom since I don't want some program I don't really know what does to make problems on my computer. I have bought all the games from Steam really cheap and in the knowledge that they might be gone someday. I wouldn't buy any of my big important strategy games like Civilization III, Age of Wonders or Europa Universalis from Steam.

I would prefer if you could actually own the games but I don't have any problems with my conscience for supporting Steam. I think it is more important to buy the more environmental friendly products than the less so than to stand up against DRM. (I'm digressing here since I'm not talking about computer games anymore.) I don't have much faith in the power to vote through your wallet though.

What do you call the Steam client? Isn't that a program you don't know what it does on your machine? I mean you know it makes your games work, so does SecuROM. I'm against both myself, but if that's your reason to dislike SecuROM there's no reason to give Steam a pass. Alternatively if you think Steam is okay, what's the problem with SecuROM?

Indeed, a DRM-free title in general always appeals to me a bit more than otherwise. That said I am sure most buyers of a DRM-free game like World of Goo would have bought it either way.