Hacker News Reader

Comment by shmerl | Hacker News Reader

Let him make it DRM free first.

The publisher can decide if he wants DRM or not. Steam offers both.

They don't discourage it as well and don't give you a way to filter out games which are really DRM free. DRM free has a few different aspects:

1. Being able to save the installer and install it at any time without connecting to their servers.

2. Having no extra components ("clients") running parallel to the game in order to play it.

3. Being able to play without connecting to their servers.

In contrast other publishers (like GOG) have a principal DRM free stance and simply don't accept games with DRM. This should be the position of distributors - to discourage DRM proliferation. So if Gabe Newell talks about improving Steam, let him start with the subject of dropping DRM.

I'm fine with Steam supporting DRM for the developers. I wish they would label it, and label it CLEARLY. When I buy a game, and then go to install it, and only then find out that I have to install some Ubisoft rootkit, I feel betrayed.

(yes, if I wasn't so dopey, I'd remember to never buy anything from Ubisoft, but it's only the worst offender, not the only one)

1) I'm not sure about though I don't think you can call that "Digital Rights Management" (edit: thinking about it, yeah, I guess it actually is DRM)

2) and 3) are both perfectly possible for DRM free Steam games.

Steam itself is a form of DRM.

Though only in so far as to requiring you to install it through steam.

Not true.

I have physical media for some of my games that are "steam" connected. I cannot lend these to another person, nor give them to another even in my own household because they are locked to my account in Steam.

I cannot play some of my Steam, actually I think I only have one that will play, without first connecting to Steam.

So if Gabe wants to sell us on a brave new world perhaps he should free the games Steam holds hostage now.

As I said, that's the publishers/developers choice, NOT Steams.

Outdated list of DRM-free (once installed) Steam games: http://www.gog.com/forum/general/list_of_drmfree_games_on_st...

Every steam game I own requires the steam client to be running while I am playing the game, the games become bricked if I remove steam so this is DRM. I can go into offline mode for most games, but the client must always be there.

Installing the game requires both the steam client and a connection, this is authorizing the install and is DRM.

You already have Desura for that.

The more the better. I don't use Steam because of DRM, and wait for GOG to start selling Linux games (many of their Windows versions work well with Wine, and older ones are DosBox/ScummVM based so they work as well, but having native Linux games in addition would be even better). Desura is good - I use it already.

You can vote for proposal to add Linux games to GOG: http://gog.com/wishlist/site/add_linux_versions_of_games

> The more the better.

Yes, and more in this case means something for all kinds of users.

As both a gamer and a game developer I want Steam in its current form. Your negativity simply looks like fanaticism to me.

DRM is an unethical tool to begin with. As a game developer what benefits does DRM give you, besides the fact that it's insulting for your potential paying customers and degrades their user experience? In practice DRM has no useful application neither to end users nor to game developers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com