Developers adding DRM post launch

[Rock1m1]

I believe this should be banned. You are essentially getting a inferior broken game after paying for it and all manner of headache with compatibility issues. I hope Steam enforces the rule to disallow publishers from implementing said DRM post-launch, after money exchanged hands. Otherwise I believe we all should be entitled for a refund no matter how long it has passed.

[Ben Lubar]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Crazy Tiger:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Ben Lubar:

Considering that none of Valve's games use the Steam DRM Wrapper and all of them use the principles outlined in the 2011 article, I'd say they still agree with Gabe Newell.

Sure, that's why they're advising developers to use DRM. :cozybethesda:

The quote you're misreading is telling developers who are already dead-set on using DRM to look elsewhere.

[Crazy Tiger]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Ben Lubar:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Crazy Tiger:

Sure, that's why they're advising developers to use DRM.

The quote you're misreading is telling developers who are already dead-set on using DRM to look elsewhere.

Well, I think you're the one misreading it.

[RiO]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Crazy Tiger:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Ben Lubar:

Considering that none of Valve's games use the Steam DRM Wrapper and all of them use the principles outlined in the 2011 article, I'd say they still agree with Gabe Newell.

Sure, that's why they're advising developers to use DRM.

No. Valve writes that Steam's built-in DRM is incredibly token and barebones because their philosophy is it's better to combat pirated use through ways other than strong DRM, such as value added services that only function on legit copies.

They are warning that if you as a developer/publisher choose to ignore their take and advice on things; and choose to go with DRM as the main method of enforcement instead - you had better go all-in with a dedicated solution that is up to par, because Steam on principle won't supply one.

The reason they have to state this is legal CYOA.
It prevents them being liable to developers/publishers for loss of potential sales in the event they would've relied solely on the non-DRM that authenticates Steam purchases, and it would be mass-bypassed by pirates.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Ben Lubar:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Crazy Tiger:

Sure, that's why they're advising developers to use DRM.

The quote you're misreading is telling developers who are already dead-set on using DRM to look elsewhere.

If you cannot launch a game without Steam opening, it uses the DRM wrapper.

You can test this by taking the install folder, moving it to your desktop, completely close Steam, and run the game.

Does it open Steam? It uses the wrapper. Does Steam stay closed? It doesn't use the wrapper.

[Ben Lubar]

Ursprungligen skrivet av SlowMango:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Ben Lubar:

The quote you're misreading is telling developers who are already dead-set on using DRM to look elsewhere.

If you cannot launch a game without Steam opening, it uses the DRM wrapper.

You can test this by taking the install folder, moving it to your desktop, completely close Steam, and run the game.

Does it open Steam? It uses the wrapper. Does Steam stay closed? It doesn't use the wrapper.

Or it uses the Steam API and checks whether Steam is running and requests that it start if it's not.

I can tell you for a fact that no Source Engine game uses the DRM wrapper but somehow they all act like you describe.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Ben Lubar:

Ursprungligen skrivet av SlowMango:

If you cannot launch a game without Steam opening, it uses the DRM wrapper.

You can test this by taking the install folder, moving it to your desktop, completely close Steam, and run the game.

Does it open Steam? It uses the wrapper. Does Steam stay closed? It doesn't use the wrapper.

Or it uses the Steam API and checks whether Steam is running and requests that it start if it's not.

I can tell you for a fact that no Source Engine game uses the DRM wrapper but somehow they all act like you describe.

That is the DRM wrapper.

[Ben Lubar]

Ursprungligen skrivet av SlowMango:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Ben Lubar:

Or it uses the Steam API and checks whether Steam is running and requests that it start if it's not.

I can tell you for a fact that no Source Engine game uses the DRM wrapper but somehow they all act like you describe.

That is the DRM wrapper.

No, it is not. It is a function in the Steam API. https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/sdk/api#SteamAPI_RestartAppIfNecessary

And as a "DRM" measure it can be defeated by creating a text file with a number in it, as documented by the link I just posted.

[William Shakesman]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Oz Gaming:

The game Belongs and is Owned by the Devs. They can Add anything they want to the game. You have No say in it. You also will Not be getting any refunds.

If this is true then it is impossible to say piracy is theft.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Ursprungligen skrivet av William Shakesman:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Oz Gaming:

The game Belongs and is Owned by the Devs. They can Add anything they want to the game. You have No say in it. You also will Not be getting any refunds.

If this is true then it is impossible to say piracy is theft.

That is the definition of piracy.

[William Shakesman]

Ursprungligen skrivet av cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

Ursprungligen skrivet av William Shakesman:

If this is true then it is impossible to say piracy is theft.

That is the definition of piracy.

:winterbunny2023:

But not the definition of theft. If buying something means you don't own it, piracy cannot be theft.

[Thermal Lance]

Ursprungligen skrivet av William Shakesman:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Oz Gaming:

The game Belongs and is Owned by the Devs. They can Add anything they want to the game. You have No say in it. You also will Not be getting any refunds.

If this is true then it is impossible to say piracy is theft.

Except it is.

Abandonware sites I do support for the sake of preserving old titles no longer maintained or sold by the developers/publishers. Can hardly call it stealing if they ain't letting me buy it in the first place.

But, people looking for excuses to pirate games that are sold just disgust me.

[William Shakesman]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Rock1m1:

I believe this should be banned. You are essentially getting a inferior broken game after paying for it and all manner of headache with compatibility issues. I hope Steam enforces the rule to disallow publishers from implementing said DRM post-launch, after money exchanged hands. Otherwise I believe we all should be entitled for a refund no matter how long it has passed.

Practically speaking, the crime of DRM is that it reduces performance and functionality of the game. Nobody minds the Arxan or documented intrusive EAC modules in Armored Core 6 as that game performs quite well despite it. DRM defenders are also proven to typically lie about such performance issues to begin with, so the waters are muddy on the issue, but I think the simplest answer is Valve is not a consumer defense organization. Valve does not care about the customer or provide any sort of protection to the customer in general, and specifically on issues where developers degrade their own games. If they were to adopt that principle they would have to police quite a few more edge cases in terms of bad game development, and that is far beyond the skills or scope of the sort of company that cannot figure out a back button for six months. Attempting to get Valve to fix this is just out of scope for the problem you are looking at.

[William Shakesman]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Thermal Pineapple:

Ursprungligen skrivet av William Shakesman:

If this is true then it is impossible to say piracy is theft.

Except it is.

Abandonware sites I do support for the sake of preserving old titles no longer maintained or sold by the developers/publishers. Can hardly call it stealing if they ain't letting me buy it in the first place.

But, people looking for excuses to pirate games that are sold just disgust me.

It's not an excuse, it is a simple fact about the moral questions of theft and ownership. You should not be disgusted about things you do not understand. Piracy is a crime, but you cannot call it theft.

I always find it weird how keen people are to recite this pseudo-religious stuff "You don't OWN your games" to shut up people they want to argue with online but they never seem to actually think about what that means. It is a very bad habit. Ideas like that always have second order effects but so few people seem to want to even consider them.

[RiO]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Thermal Pineapple:

Ursprungligen skrivet av William Shakesman:

If this is true then it is impossible to say piracy is theft.

Except it is.

Legally speaking, software piracy is usually not classified as theft but as loss of earning capacity. Which is also why it is usually a civil offence and not a criminal one.

[Thermal Lance]

Ursprungligen skrivet av RiO:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Thermal Pineapple:

Except it is.

Legally speaking, software piracy is usually not classified as theft but as loss of earning capacity. Which is also why it is usually a civil offence and not a criminal one.

It is theft. Dosen't matter how the legal mumbo-jumbo spins it.