Extra expenses. And if another shop could provide free DRM service, it would definitely seem more appealing.

I don't think any store would appeal just on the basis of DRM. I'm sure it's a rather small part of the expenses of a AAA game, and Steam has many other benefits (which is why most developers want on Steam, even if they don't use the DRM component). It's also really rather theoretical, I don't think Valve would ever drop the DRM component of Steam as long as there's demand. I mean, sure, in theory if Steam dropped DRM, and another store offered it, alongside equivalents of the rest of Steamworks, and the same visibility and desirability to costumers, well, publishers might pick that other store. Not going to happen.

There is no doubt that big publishers do want some measure of copy protection (otherwise they wouldn't force Steam on retail discs). CEG is very attractive to them because it's free. Remove it and there would be expenses that publishers would most definitely not like. Those publishers wouldn't necessarily abandon Steam, but if another vendor provided DRM services for free, you could kiss the Steam exclusivity goodbye.

That's a great differentiation.

I think a lot of people don't care about passive much. It's the active stuff that gets people really twisted in a knot. I personally don't like any of them.

I agree about Steam exclusivity, but I think that the number of Steam exclusive games from big publishers isn't that big. EA would certainly prefer to have all people buy at Origin. Ubisoft has its Uplay store. Activision also has its store, which far as I know is a direct download store, not Steam reseller.

So basically the big publishers already use their own DRM, they just sell on Steam because it's the biggest store.

For example: See any modern Valve game. Heck they used Half Life 2 (and later the Orange box) to force people to use Steam in the first place. Mind you, Steam didn't start out as a game shop, it was originally just for updates and anti-cheat stuff.

"updates, anti-cheat and DRM". There's absolutely no doubt that Steam was from the get-go intended to be a DRM scheme.

There's no need to strip Steamworks. A game can use Steamworks in the presence of Steam and not use it when Steam isn't running. It would be interesting to check if that's the way developers do it. I have No Time To Explain on GamersGate, and that come in the form of both a download and a Steam code. It would be interesting to see if the download version connects to Steam if it's running.

Funnily enough, DRM was retroactively removed from Valve's Source engine games. After download, you may copy HL2 and other orange box titles freely between as many computers as you want.

As far as I'm concerned, DRM is a catch all term for any artificial or contrived layer of technology someone put there to enforce the creators interests. The major hallmark being an intentional point, or points of failure.

I don't make any significant distinction between implementations, or get tied up in what the acronym stands for. The intent is always the same where the IP holder gives themselves entitlement, and takes action to enact some measure of control over how something can be used after the sale.

In some respects it's a manifestation of the heart, of intent - being a deliberate, methodical shaping of someone else's allowed behaviors.

There should be a distinction made on exclusivity. Few Steamworks games are sold exclusively on Steam. But to play a Steamworks game (with rare exceptions I think), the only option you have to play it is to use Steam.

And I think a lot of members here as well as GOG staff share that sentiment. Like I said in this thread earlier, there's DRM and the definition of it, and then there's other methods used where control is taken away from the gamer, or hinders you in some way.

Instead of categorizing each one, include it all under DRM. My inclusion may differ from yours, but we both have a pretty good idea of what it basically entails when we call it DRM. Some form of control is being taken away or you're having to deal with extra steps, jumping through hoops in some way, or unnecessary dependencies to play the game.

We can call it BS instead of DRM if that works better for everyone here. :D

Works for me.

I remember getting into a debate a couple of years ago over what was DRM and what was CP. In the end I was kind of like, just give me something generic to call all of it. I need an umbrella term to hold all of it, and if DRM isn't it, then somebody needs give me one, so I can start being against that thing instead of just one part of a whole.

I don't like being assassinated in a game of MOO because I don't remember where my book is ATM. I don't like digging out a cd just to prove I own it every time I feel like gaming. I don't like Max Payne taking 15 seconds to boot because some software layer is making sure my disc is legit. I don't like buying Two Worlds to find out it thinks the disc I paid money for is a copy but isn't. I don't like watching the company I bought Sword of the Stars from place limited activations on it and then get bought out. I don't like having a game I have installed at home tell me I can't play because something weird is going in some other part of the country. I don't like hearing that two year old games I recently bought may not work correctly sometime this summer, and that the makers don't have any plans to fix the situation.

It's all just consumer unfriendly hoop jumping.

I agree. I wish more gamers would vote with their wallets and refuse to buy games packed with unnecessary DRM.