For crying out loud, when you buy a video game, you buy a LICENCE TO PLAY.

Extract :

"What parts of the video game are copyrightable?

Generally speaking, the underlying code is protected as a literary work, and the artwork and sound are protected as an audiovisual work. While you don’t need to have the work (ie your video game) registered to covered by copyright law, there are advantages to registration (see our guide to copyright law), and you can seek registration at.."

Source : First google result searching "video game property law".

http://www.newmediarights.org/guide/legal/Video_Games_law_Copyright_Trademark_Intellectual_Property

"DRM-Free" or not, such are copyright laws since the very start of the video games industry, no shady terms of use anywhere to be found about their ownership by the customer.. Point is, the whole thing is copyrighted. Hell, yesterday I was taking a dump with a Wii game manual on my lap, it was stating I don't even own the box, paper and DVD material for Christ's sake, so much for its content..

This is beyond me, for one to feel and get entitled to other people's work and IP, and as if they care about who you are but your wallet, it's BUSINESS. All you can do is to like or not this one or that one work / communications policy and decide to become a regular customer / supporter of their business and fanbase, or not.

Truely, to be so concerned about trivial things like non-intrusive DRM over entertainment one doesn't even OWN as I am proving here, to the extent of it constituting a haunting, living obsession, some of you must REALLY have too much time on your hands, or fell for this business strategy and fallacy.. Most mature (adult) folks have others, REAL issues to handle, like surviving in this harsh world where individualism reigns supreme.. Low rep my post for taking offense, truth stands, all crude and nude.

I think that's a good point, koima57 and that's exactly one of the issues here. These people run a business to survive. And that's why you can't trust them, because they might be forced to change their policy any time for a few Dollars. They just minimize their own risks and bring it down on us.

That sounds like a sales pitch of how it works in theory. :)

I've had recently had to redownload all my installed Steam games a few times (mainly due to fjucking Win8 "fast restart" corrupting my separate Win7 partition twice), and for some reason the experience hasn't been quite as peachy to me as you describe it. I don't know if I'm missing some "download all/selected games" in the Steam client, but this is how it has gone for me on the new PC or Windows installation:

From the Steam client, I click on individual games, one by one, and select the install option. I get some EULA and confirmation pages which I have to click through (with each game).

After that I enter some download/install preparation page. Normally this page goes smoothly, but if I have already performed the same steps for several earlier games, for some reason I many times seem to be stuck in this page for ages, like 1-2 minutes _per game_ (a few times even longer, the heck is it doing???). I presume the Steam games that are already downloading in the background somehow slow down the preparation work.

And I can't queue those either, I have to wait until the preparation is completed before I can proceed to select yet another game, and click its install button (and click through a few EULA etc. pages). In the end, I've used quite a sweet time with the preparation before I have e.g. a dozen or more Steam games being downloaded by the client.

After all this is done and the games downloaded, the game installations are usually not quite complete yet. Whenever I start an individual game from the list for the first time, only then it completes all the stuff, like re-installing DirectX etc. So it is not like the games really are fully ready to go after the download + "installation" is completed by the client.

Frankly, I don't find the download & installation process in Steam really that less of a hassle than when e.g. downloading a bunch of GOG games with the downloader client, and installing them by clicking on the installer exes afterwards. In both I use about as many mouse clicks overall, and at least the GOG downloader client doesn't seem to start to stutter when I add yet more games to the download queue, like the Steam client does for me.

Then there's also the thing that the GOG downloader works also at my workplace (corporate network behind a proxy), while the Steam client doesn't. Meaning, if I have 100-200GB of games to redownload, with GOG games I can use my workplace's super-speedy 100Mbit/s internet line (I've done that many times already), while with Steam I am restricted to using the much slower home ADSL line. This would be even more of a concern if my home ADSL line had a monthly download cap, which it fortunately doesn't have.

However, ONCE the games are downloaded and installed, I agree Steam is less of a hassle. The games are tidily in one list inside the client and they can update themselves automatically if you want (for me this matters mostly just with multiplayer games which I want to keep up to date all the time, not much of a concern for single-player games for me, unless I am having some problems with the game. As long as GOG keeps offering separate patches too for already installed games...).

Cloud saving is also a nice option, but for some reason quite many modern games don't seem to support it in Steam, or then I am doing something wrong. All I know is that after I had redownloaded e.g. Crysis 2, all my earlier savegames were gone and nowhere to be found. I think the same happened also with e.g. GTA3, and bunch of other games. But with e.g. Portal (a Valve game, mind you), I seem to get at least most of my save games if I redownload the game (sometimes I think I noticed some ad hoc saves missing, but as long as most are there...). So in the end, I probably want to archive the save games I care about manually anyway, just to be on the safe side.

As for the achievements, meh...

Then again, if ease of use was the primary concern for me, I guess I could become an OnLive customer. No game downloading or HW/driver problems at all! ;^P

lol, yes, maybe. But it is my experience so far, though, I have not experienced the problems you are describing, I did literally just let it stay and work while I was away, and it was all good... though I must say, it can get a bit annoying having to do the DirectX check and install, as well as other components, for each single install. I can understand why it is there, but it would be good to skip it somehow... I also tend to stay away from steam titles using 3'd party DRM, I think the only ones I have so far is Borderlands DLC's and Arkham Asylum.

And it is polarity which makes any discussion useless and will make people not change their minds. A complete either or mentality is just.... anyway, silly comment is silly - do you know what draconian means?

Do you like diamonds? then you support draconian child labour.
Do you like hamburgers? then you support draconian draconian de-forestation of rain forests.
Do you like wearing clothes? then you support draconian Chinese sweat shops.

It is this this polarisation which do make the extremists - you are either a rabid fan-boi or a rabid anti-whatever. It makes all conversation pointless and void.

In my view, stream is very much DRM-light and non-intrusive (I do not notice it), heck you can have DRM free games on steam. Client is not optional, yes, but as DRM goes, there are several games which can run without it when you first have downloaded the games. You are right that Skyrim is Bethesda's choice, not Steam or Valve, there is not point raging against steam for steam exclusive titles. It is up to developer/publisher how much and how severe DRM they want to slap on their titles. If stream changes and introduces more draconian DRM measures then there is today, then I will most likely re-evaluate my stand point, but as it stays now, I have no problems with it at all. I have in the past both refused to, and protested against, for example UBIsofts DRM experiments. No those where draconian.

Leading to:

You have a perfectly valid choice, you can choose not to play the game. No one is forcing you to do so, and there are more games out there released outside of steam to last you several lifetimes.

Thing is, several developers and publishers like steam as a release platforms. They do streamline a lot of the process and can be very cost efficient. Integration with various components can also help reduce costs and it helps to have existing frameworks to build on. However, this is the developers choice. It is part of the game they want to make and how they want to publish it. Protest as much as you want, but it is not Steams fault. How restrictive, and how many components the developers want to make use to is up to them. I think they are perfectly aware what they are doing when they make this choice, steam just provides a platform and a outlet.

It is up to you whether you want to participate or not, if you do not like it, just don't play it, and they will loose that sale. Neither are you entitled to play every title being released, nor will you ever have the time to do so, so complaining there is no choice is rather silly. It is like me complaining I can not play Skyrim on my Amiga, the choice is taken away from me, I have to play it on PC or Mac (Linux?)....

... come to think of it, there is many choices taken away from me by various manufacturers and distributors. The world should adapt to me - god darn it.

Tell me, do you consider the options, to eat, or to starve, as having a choice? What about to live or to die, would you consider that as a choice?

Have you ever heard of Hobson's choice? It is a concept, where a choice with only one viable option is offered. A basic "take it or leave it, no negotiations" scheme.

What you see as a choice, I don't. But anyway, let's leave it say, the primary objective and bottom result is that we get to play the Skyrim game on our PC. What then, are our options? "Don't play this game" does not count as an option here. The options we have, are either to be forced to use Steam, or pirate the whole thing altogether.

What these developers did, especially Bethesda, is certainly not above criticism. Rather than allow a channel or an avenue that would satisfy both Steam and non-Steam users, they choose to take away that option, they force us into a "take it or leave it" situation.

Of course it's not against the law etc. But that doesn't mean that they can't be criticized for it. They have the right to do such things, then we have the right to criticize them of it.

I stopped at "to eat or to starve", and did not bother with the rest.

The question you would like to ask is "To starve, or only eat cake", ignoring carrots, bread, ham, egg, fish, chocolate, cookies etc....

to make this clear, again as you seem to not get it the first time, caps this time, because I am getting a little annoyed of saying the exactly same thing twice:

STEAM IS NOT YOUR ONLY OPTION. THERE ARE MANY GAMES NOT ON STEAM. YOU WILL NEVER IN YOUR LIFETIME BE ABLE TO PLAY THROUGH ALL GAMES NOT ON STEAM, THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH HOURS IN THE DAY TO DO SO.

in other words, you do not have to choice between "eat or starve", you have to option between "chocolate cake or strawberry cheese cake". It is a luxury option and completely your own choice. You are not entitled to play Skyrim. If you do not like the delivery system, do not play it and play something else instead.

It is as simple as this - developers do as they like, and if you do not like it, then just do not play their game.

edit: God - I should start complaining about Xbox or PS3 exclusive games and demand they are released on all platforms, as the option is taken away from me.... I can not play Halo Reach on my PS3 and therefore I must starve. To clarify - I do not have an Xbox, so instead of complaining about Halo Reach I say "bugger it" and play Kingdom of Amalure instead... Life is much more enjoyable like this.

Edit 2: To put it in another light - your choice where never taken away from you, you made this choice long time ago. The choice was - to use or not to use steam (Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the light or the slings and arrows of DRM , Or to take arms against a sea of troubles), and you said - not at all. There is many other options here, which other people have taken, for example 'only for games only on steam', 'only for the DRM free games', 'only for games under $5.00', and so on and so forth. Your choice was a total abstinence.

The CONSEQUENCES of this choice, then , is among others that you do not get to play Skyrim (unless Bethesda decides to do a non-steamworks version...). This was a moral choice you took, and this is the consequence. All choices you make in life do have consequences, and we just have to deal with it, especially on luxury choices, as this most definitely is (this is not a life or death choice, it is not a high impact choice at all). I, for example, have made a choice of never buying Tommy Hilfiger cloths, and yesterday there was a sale on Hilfiger jeans in a cloths shop (Next I think?). I did not storm into the shop and demanded that they put other brands on sale, instead I did not buy any pants. It was a moral choice I made a long time ago, which I am still sticking to. Consequence is that I did not get cheap jeans yesterday. I was not taken away the choice by Next, by my own morals had I opted myself out from it, just as you are opting out of anything from Steam - which is the choice you made.

That quote about starving is the epitome of hyperbole.

They're a company, they don't have to answer to any of their fans. If their stakeholders are happy, they are happy. They might "force" you into that choice, but the other option (being "not playing it") is perfectly viable. Like someone said before me: you're not entitled to anything.

First world problems huzzah.

True. And, for years, this was a basically unenforceable distinction. Now it is not so unenforceable (piracy notwithstanding). And so long as game merchants of any stripe continue to use terms such as "buy now!", or "sale now on!", people will still be under the false impression that they own something.

Indeed, you are right that in the grand old scheme of things, DRM is nothing, a triviality compared with survival. As are many, many other things that people have a passion and concern for, such as movies, and music, and literature. And I sincerely doubt that the people you refer to spend every waking moment worrying about DRM, to the detriment of their own survival.

On the other hand, despite having real issues like surviving in this fucked up world, you still posted this. As you say, this is trivial crap, and surely not worth your attention. How does it affect your ability to survive if other wish to waste their time arguing about such trivial crap?

Haha, I have my fair share of obsessions as well, don't worry!

I was not pointing fingers to blame customers but to raise their awareness, recalling the software you purchase is a licence to play. With the habit of "owning" our common stuff (clothes, food, car, etc..) and marketing / advertising pushing that way ALSO for entertainment products, it is important to know they are but a smokescreen, a lie..

Therefore, to worry so much about DRM is just misleading and wasted time, IMHO and according to FACTS.. With all purchased games being licences to play, Steam games are not any different from GOG games, unless a client to manage your library is such an unacceptable intruder.. I am just caring for others with this post and denouncing a business (GOG..) trick, providing my fellow customers a heartful reminder to avoid an inflated ego from a misplaced "pride" in buying / supporting here.. :)

well... You "buy" a license... there is a "sale" on licenses....

You actually draw a comparison between you being FORCED to decide whether or not to get aq game based on DRM and someone else having to choose whether to eat? Seriously? And then you wonder why nobody takes you seriously. Yep, same thing as deciding whether to live or die! Good grief.

Maybe if you grew up and dropped the laughably over dramatic nonsense, maybe then people would actually have a discussion with you instead of simply mocking your nonsense.

@crassmaster

For crying out loud, that was just an analogy. The point is, the primary objective is to play Skyrim, and then look at your options from there.If you want to argue that "take it or leave it" is a valid choice, do it with someone else.

If you don't want to take me seriously, that's perfectly fine. But seeing how you chose to respond anyway, despite said claims, you are obviously not the mature person you think yourself as. Seriously, leave the personal attacks at the door. Or maybe that's just not possible for you.

@amok

I'm not talking about playing every single game. I'm about that single one. Skyrim.

And yeah, good point on the licenses. Maybe next time, the game shops should advertise: "We are selling licenses to play games for cheap!", instead of "We are selling games for cheap!"

Yep. All companies should make it clear that they are selling us licenses. They should tell us, "Buy the license to play the game now!", instead of "Buy the game now!"

I want to play Brutal Legend. My options are "Get a console" and "Don't play Brutal Legend".
You want to play Skyrim. Your options are "Get Steam" and "Don't play Skyrim".

You have as many options as I have about playing the game. I don't claim consoles suck. The option of "Skip it" is an option, no matter what you think. So the question really becomes, "How much do you wish to play Skyrim?"

I love steam. 6 months before, all my pc games was pirated. But than I bought CS:S, and few bundles. That changed everything. Now I buy pc games. Having the ability to nicely have everything in one place and save files in cloud is really beneficial.
I understand that there are people who want to choose on which platform to have their games, usually you can. But steam isn't just platform, it's servers too. Just like there was gamespy, which you needed to play online. Or windows live.