But you get all the DRM junk. Better to deal with chmod +x than with DRM restrictions.
Hell, one of the biggest reasons I patronize the Humble Indie Bundles is because I can get the games into my Steam account.
There is a positive side of Valve's interest in Linux though. It'll encourage others to pay more attention to Linux, and eventually more DRM free games will be available too.
I don't think that follows.
Steam takes that to the next level -- because they can add fines of real money (losing your account), and actual permanent bans (of credit cards and real identities) as the cost of cheating, the gaming community embraced it and cheers for it.
So, we are in a situation where the vast majority of the player base considers DRM not just acceptable, or good, but a strictly necessary part of the product. The things that are commonly considered the evils of DRM (ability to take away ability to use product) are instead considered a primary selling point. How's that for food for thought.
And to single player games this issue doesn't apply at all.
GMs do not have the power to that job, unless they have something that's approximately equal to DRM. Catching a subtle cheater is a much, much bigger job than cheating. If someone cheats every day, you'd be lucky to catch him once a month. To actually stop cheating from happening, you need penalties that are high enough to make that once a month count -- so permanent global (so they won't just move on to the next server) bans (and ip bans don't cut it), or failing that, monetary punishment.
Tell me how your third party arbiters achieve that without essentially implementing DRM?
> And to single player games this issue doesn't apply at all.
Except when there is publicly visible scoring/achievements system that you want to keep pure. >90% of new games on the market are either mp or do that.
From the player perspective, I'd choose a multiplayer game based on the community. Sometimes community can identify cheating just by observing something unnatural, and those users will quickly be boycotted. So GMs are needed to intervene when human decision is necessary. They not necessarily have to detect the issue themselves first.
(Correct my if I'm wrong, that's what I remember from reading about it before, but something could have changed recently.)
If they have publicly promised it, and people have taken action upon it (for instance buying games that they wouldn't have bought otherwise), then if they fail carry through on it you have grounds to sue for promissory estoppel. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#Promissory_estoppel for more on that.
Winning said lawsuit is not a sure thing. But the pledge may wind up being more binding than it would appear on the surface.
"Unless there was some situation I don't understand, we would presumably disable authentication before any event that would preclude the authentication servers from being available."
So, that's pretty clearly not a guarantee of anything. And furthermore, as another poster there said, the thing Valve employee doesn't understand is bankruptcy. Unless there is a legally binding agreement, they won't be allowed to just give away such a valuable asset. Bankruptcy doesn't mean they fire everyone, shut down everything, and burn down the buildings. It means they sell off the profitable parts and try to keep them running. And the ability to control tons of DRMed games people have installed is very valuable.
A real, legally binding promise would be something like KDE had with Trolltech. Trolltech explicitly (real contract, real lawyers, etc) guaranteed, even in bankruptcy or change of ownership, that if they stopped making open source releases, then Qt would become available under the BSD license. (This was more important back before Qt was already GPLed, as it is now)
I personally love and trust Valve, but I understand that others may have a different risk tolerance.
Please point out where I said it wasn't.
But if you're going to be snarky and pedantic about it, please point out where I said you said Steam isn't DRM.
For example requiring one to connect to their server prior to playing (implicit requirement of having an Internet connection) is a ridiculous restriction.
What overhead? You mean the 100MB RAM and 0.1% CPU the Steam client takes? Wow, that really is a high price to pay for the ability to re-download any game I own on any PC, and the automatic updates.
requiring one to connected to their server prior to playing is a ridiculous restriction.
Steam offers offline mode. You only need connect to their server when you download the game. Now, some games are more restrictive, but those are not made by Valve- only offered on their platform. That was someone else's choice.
It is a good model, IMO, and similar to what Amazon does when an e-book is priced at $14.99 ("This price was set by the publisher"). Let other companies do what they like, and let the market decide for itself.
Clearly, if you hate DRM for philosophical reasons, you will hate Steam. If you're pragmatic, you may love it.
I do use steam. A lot. Unfortunately, everything sometimes doesn't just work. For example, I've been left without access to my games a number of times due to internet problems (either in general or just with my gaming desktop) and while offline mode could get around that, I need to be connected to the internet to put it into offline mode and its rare, if ever, that I'll know about internet problems in advance.
So not everything just works for me.
Besides that, though, Steam is the first store in which I've ever impulse bought games - and I've done so multiple times now and probably the majority of all games I own are through Steam. They just make it so easy to find games I want, check the forums for criticism, buy the game, download it and then connect to friends. That experience is one they've done very well and why I still use it despite having had problems. Luckily my account has never been locked - thats a horror story I don't want to experience...
In all seriousness though (and this is a question that everyone should ask themselves semi-regularly in a product-consumer situation): why do you matter? If you don't have a compelling answer to this question, it may be that you don't.
The problem with people arguing about DRM is that fundamentally most people don't seem to care. Video games are a billion dollar industry, but non-DRM'd games are not.
You can vote with your wallet, but the data seems to indicate that your wallet is too small to matter.
> Video games are a billion dollar industry, but non-DRM'd games are not.
It only should increase the incentive to avoid buying DRMed games, and specifically support those who aren't scared to release theirs DRM free.
For example look at the latest Humble Indie Bundle. Linux users pay highest average for the set. It shows that they encourage developers to produce Linux games more than users of other OSes (obviously since Linux games scene is lacking). You can argue, that Linux games market is miniscule, and if so, why even bother to send your message in such form? But you still see people showing appreciation, and developers can take note of this.
If we assume every bundle gets a total of a million dollars, shared between 5 games or so, that makes 200 000 per game, minus the donations to charity and the fees to the Humble Bundle organization. Let's say 150 000 dollars per game in the end. 15%-20% is 23 000 to 30 000 dollars, just for the Linux Port. If you are an small team of indie developpers, I'd say that is not negligible at the end of the day.
In my opinion Kickstarter (or grant) model is infinitely better, because it doesn't insist on treating a game like a physical object. The "selling software" model is horribly flawed. Writing software is like research - a big cost and effort once, then very little cost to benefit from it. It is fair to have effort of research/software development proportional to reward the researchers/devs are getting. With "selling software/drugs" it's not proportional.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnyegriffiths/2012/05/18/th...