Regarding Paradox Interactive, DRM's and GoG

[illathid]

You're entirely right.

I still like to fight it in any way possible though, preferring games from sites like GOG or through developers directly "without DRM".

I don't like internet requirements, frequent license checks, etc.

 

I'm also "one of those people" though, my main machine runs Linux, and I'm a heavy supporter of things like the copyleft system. Basically.. I'm an internet hippie.

 

 

Yeah, and I don't mean to say that it's wrong to do that either. I just can't but help shake my head during most discussions about DRM because of how many people fundamentaly don't understand the nature of the software license.

 

 

 

IMO, there's a vast difference between an EULA that states, basically, "This software is only licensed for your use. You don't own it and you're only allowed to do certain things with it" and shackling that software with useless and intrusive protection measures that do nothing (as shown time and time again by groups that take delight in cracking and pirating) but irritate and inconvenience the very people that are paying for the software. One is a set of rules that tells you how you need to behave with the purchase. The other is the heavy hand of the law/big brother constantly making you prove you're not a criminal. IMO.

 

Don't get me wrong, I buy and play games that require Steam and Origin both. But I never pay full release day prices. The DRM severely devalues the software to me, so if they're shackled to some form of client or have limited activations, I only buy them on deep discount.

 

 

You are right that there is a big difference between the two extremes, but they're both still on the DRM spectrum.

[Pipyui]

As far as DRM goes (the code-shackling, not the EULA), I actually think Steam manages to strike a very healthy balance of supporting developers while remaining as unintrusive to the end-user as possible.  Steam is more than just a shackle - it manages your library, it provides community features, it features achievements, and the sales are fantastic.  Now it hosts user reviews, can provide a mod hub, can provide servers (you're much more likely to find online players on a Steam server than elsewhere).

For developers, Steam provides anti-piracy, of course, but also visibility, (and the servers again).  People like to forget that before Steam the indie game market was virtually nonexistent.  That isn't to say that the whole indie market grew directly as a consequence of Steam, but it was absolutely a huge, very big factor.

 

Fact is, Steam does promote the use of the evil of DRM, but it does it in perhaps the best possible manner.  For the restrictions we suffer in usage rights, Steam does very well to provide convenience to both developers and consumers alike.  I think the real trouble is in the misguided message other publishers seem to get from Steam's success (e.g. Origin, Gamestop App, Ubisoft App, Games for Windows, etc.)

 

 

That being said, I still prefer my games DRM free from GOG.

Just because I've determined that Steam and its DRM aren't evil, and actually provide back to the gaming community, doesn't mean I have to prefer it.  I'm a control freak - it's inherent in being a programmer.

[Fluff]

As far as DRM goes (the code-shackling, not the EULA), I actually think Steam manages to strike a very healthy balance of supporting developers while remaining as unintrusive to the end-user as possible.  Steam is more than just a shackle - it manages your library, it provides community features, it features achievements, and the sales are fantastic.  Now it hosts user reviews, can provide a mod hub, can provide servers (you're much more likely to find online players on a Steam server than elsewhere).

For developers, Steam provides anti-piracy, of course, but also visibility, (and the servers again).  People like to forget that before Steam the indie game market was virtually nonexistent.  That isn't to say that the whole indie market grew directly as a consequence of Steam, but it was absolutely a huge, very big factor.

 

Fact is, Steam does promote the use of the evil of DRM, but it does it in perhaps the best possible manner.  For the restrictions we suffer in usage rights, Steam does very well to provide convenience to both developers and consumers alike.  I think the real trouble is in the misguided message other publishers seem to get from Steam's success (e.g. Origin, Gamestop App, Ubisoft App, Games for Windows, etc.)

 

 

That being said, I still prefer my games DRM free from GOG.

Just because I've determined that Steam and its DRM aren't evil, and actually provide back to the gaming community, doesn't mean I have to prefer it.  I'm a control freak - it's inherent in being a programmer.

 

I still can't help but to see it as a shackle, honestly. It might benefit some..but to me at least, I've been managing my own library for years, installing mods wasn't hard anyway, I read reviews elsewhere, etc. I know my opinion obviously isn't the popular one though, otherwise Steam wouldn't be the giant that it is today.

I will admit though, as an indie lover.. Steam did indeed help it there. I'd argue it's no longer the "top dog" for indie games, but it doesn't change that it did give it a huge boost initially.

 

 

Also, I don't know if you can still do it.. but I know at one point Steam had a HUGE flaw of being able to literally just copy someone's Steam files over to your computer and as long as you stayed offline you could play their entire library pseudo-drm free. So it had that going for it..

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'll disagree with Nonek on DA1 and DA2, and agree with a caveat on ME2. Taken solely as a continuation of ME, ME2 is complete without DLC. However, there are some gaps when going into ME3 if one does not play the ShadowBroker or Arrival DLCs.

 

The DAs are complete without DLC, but DA2 is pretty bland overall and DA1 was lacking without the construct.

[rjshae]

I remember VERY clearly how wrong it felt when (back in DA:O) I encountered that cut content teasing NPC in the camp. From that point onward I knew I'm missing something and couldn't shake off the feeling of playing an "incomplete" game. Luckily it was my friend not me, who bought it on release. I decided to wait and soon learned that EA is planning an "ultimate edition" which I ended up importing from UK few months later.

Likewise, I didn't even touch F:NV until it was released as complete edition and still don't have ME2 game.

 

I'll echo this statement, to say that if a game has DLC introduced then I don't even bother purchasing it until they come out with their combined, deluxe edition. In that sense the publisher has lost money since I didn't buy the game until the time when the price had dropped significantly. The DLC is just milking money from players who want the game right away.

[Ink Blot]

You are right that there is a big difference between the two extremes, but they're both still on the DRM spectrum.

 

Actually, no, not IMO. The EULA states your (and their) rights and obligations. It has no mechanism to actually manage them, which is the 'M' in DRM.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

On the original topic on DRM. If Obisidan and paradox make the game tied to steam keys, I don't see myself grumbling to much. 

I personally just think people grumble about Steam DRM due to inertia.

 

 

There's a lot of us though who won't buy a game that has DRM period though.

Which is why I end up not owning many modern PC games that aren't indie.

 

If I can't feel like I genuinely own what I purchase I don't want it, and I can't feel that way with DRM.

If they sell the game through Steam with DRM, I don't care.. but if that was the only way to get it? I'd request my money back.

 

 

I used to think we could own software too and was concerned about DRM, and then I went to law school...

 

Seriously though, the whole DRM v. no-DRM fight was lost decades ago when it was decided that the best way to sell software was through licensing. The software liscense you agree to when installing pretty much any program is at its core managing your "digital" rights. There are more restictive ones and less restrictive ones, but all of them limit your rights in the way you use the software.

 

 

Dunno what nation you live in, or what law school you went to, but if it's in the U.S. you were misinformed if you think it's that black and white on the side of the you never own your software licensing folks. Different nations have different laws but in the U.S. the first sale doctrine still applies, and Sony v Universal is still precedent, though there are multiple lawsuits going through the pipes to try and circumvent it as well as to try and protect it, largely due to the DMCA (an abomination of a law and horribly misinformed on a number of levels, not just this issue). The 9th circuit has been fairly anti first sale doctrine and pro silicon valley/Seattle on this (no wonder really) but not entirely, while the other circuits are more mixed.

 

Regardless, there are some folks who buy into it the idea you don't own the software you buy, and some folks who absolutely won't.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Fluff]

 

 

 

 

On the original topic on DRM. If Obisidan and paradox make the game tied to steam keys, I don't see myself grumbling to much. 

I personally just think people grumble about Steam DRM due to inertia.

 

 

There's a lot of us though who won't buy a game that has DRM period though.

Which is why I end up not owning many modern PC games that aren't indie.

 

If I can't feel like I genuinely own what I purchase I don't want it, and I can't feel that way with DRM.

If they sell the game through Steam with DRM, I don't care.. but if that was the only way to get it? I'd request my money back.

 

 

I used to think we could own software too and was concerned about DRM, and then I went to law school...

 

Seriously though, the whole DRM v. no-DRM fight was lost decades ago when it was decided that the best way to sell software was through licensing. The software liscense you agree to when installing pretty much any program is at its core managing your "digital" rights. There are more restictive ones and less restrictive ones, but all of them limit your rights in the way you use the software.

 

 

Dunno what nation you live in, or what law school you went to, but if it's in the U.S. you were misinformed if you think it's that black and white on the side of the you never own your software licensing folks. Different nations have different laws but in the U.S. the first sale doctrine still applies, and Sony v Universal is still precedent, though there are multiple lawsuits going through the pipes to try and circumvent it as well as to try and protect it, largely due to the DMCA (an abomination of a law and horribly misinformed on a number of levels, not just this issue). The 9th circuit has been fairly anti first sale doctrine and pro silicon valley/Seattle on this (no wonder really) but not entirely, while the other circuits are more mixed.

 

Regardless, there are some folks who buy into it the idea you don't own the software you buy, and some folks who absolutely won't.

 

 

Unless it's open source you will never truly own your software the way you own most of your physical goods. Trying to claim anything else is just ignorant, but it's effective because most people never question it or don't care.

 

If I buy a chair, I can paint it, modify it, smash it into little pieces, give it to/sell it to someone else if I feel like it, attempt to recreate it.. whatever I want. Because I bought it.

If I buy software, I can do exactly what they tell me I can do with it and absolutely nothing else (legally) and usually many steps are taken to help make sure you can't do anything they don't want you doing, or at least make it difficult.. I don't really call that owning something, it's closer to renting.

 

So I'd have to disagree with you, and say it is that black and white.

[Lephys]

*shrug*... I mean, what is us not-owning something, and what is the simple regulation of our behavior with things? We own a car, but we aren't "allowed" to run people over with it, or turn it into a bomb.

 

I know it often oversteps its bounds, either intentionally or unintentionally, but I don't quite understand the whole "DRM is just-plain evil" thing.

 

Here's what gets me, though. If you buy a game, it shouldn't matter WHO'S using it. Only that it's only being used by one person. The logic of that, I understand. What I mean is, I have the ability, with a game and a CD key, to play a game 24-hours a day. I can install it on 73 different computers if I so choose, so long as I'm only playing it on one at a time. Thus, if I play a game for 12 hours, then give it to my friend to install on HIS computer, and HE plays it for 12 hours, I'm still only using ONE game, to the same extent that I, myself, could've used it.

 

According to some of the EULA's and such, it's technically illegal for your friend to sit down at YOUR computer and play a game while you sit out. How ridiculous is that? Like anyone would ever enforce that.

 

It's a bit silly. Sure, you shouldn't make 27 copies of a game and pass them around to all your friends, but, if you all want to share one thing, one at a time, who cares? It's like when restaurants say "Oh, you bought that plate of food, but TWO people are going to consume it, instead of one? That'll be $10 extra, u_u...". WTF?! Really?! Because... you're out WHAT, exactly, when two people eat the same quantity of food, instead of just one eating all of it? One person comes in, orders a whole plate of food, eats none of it, then leaves, and that's fine. But, heaven forbid an extra person wants to partake of your food. I mean, I guess they could be charging for the seat/table space, but then... why not just charge a cover? "That'll be $5 per person to be seated." There. That'd be less annoying than "we're not going to charge you at all until you start trying to eat your friend's food."

[Ink Blot]

*shrug*... I mean, what is us not-owning something, and what is the simple regulation of our behavior with things? We own a car, but we aren't "allowed" to run people over with it, or turn it into a bomb.

Difference being there are no mechanisms in place in the car to prevent you from doing that. It's taken as a given when you buy the car that you'll obey the law and not use your car in ways that you shouldn't. It's not assumed that you're a raving lunatic that's going to go out and play Death Race 2000 and start driving on the sidewalk. There are no devices in the car that will shut it down permanently if you decide to drive on the sidewalk, speed up, and run people over.

[Pipyui]

^ To elaborate on what Ink Blot said, the controversy isn't that the car prevents you from doing anything particularly illegal, it just all too often prevents you from using it legally.

 

"Alright!  A new life at my new apartment!  Let's take the old car out for a spin."

Error!  Unregistered geolocation detected.  Locking down vehicle.  The proper authorities have been notified.

 

"Alright!  Time to drive to work!"

Error!  Could not connect to manufacturer's server.  Locking down vehicle.  The proper authorities will be notified when we can connect with them.

 

"It's unfortunate that my car's manufacturer went out of business.  I'll have to be careful not to lose it."

Error!  Could not connect to manufacturer's server.  Locking down vehicle.  The proper authorities have been notified.

 

"Hey honey?  Could you get us some milk?  Take my car."

Error!  User not licensed to operate this vehicle.  Locking down vehicle.  The proper authorities have been notified.

 

 

I still can't help but to see it as a shackle, honestly. It might benefit some..but to me at least, I've been managing my own library for years, installing mods wasn't hard anyway, I read reviews elsewhere, etc.

 

I'm with ya there; my point wasn't that DRM is good for everybody - just that some instances of it (really just Steam) are good for a majority of users, plus developers, and thus it doesn't have to be a purely, irredeemably evil thing (pointing at crusaders, not you, mind).  It just happens to be abused all too often.

[Bryy]

You do know that of all the examples you listed, this is the only one that actually was cut content?

however the Stone Prisoner was acceptable in terms of value and content. 

[Lephys]

^ Well, yeah, but I addressed that. I mean, the "Honey, could you get some milk?" example is exactly what I was talking about above. The only thing I meant by the "managing illegal behavior" example was that, I don't think the sheer existence of DRM is somehow bad. The sheer management of digital rights is totally fine. It's a matter of extents. CD key? Awesome. It's like a car key. If you hand that key to a friend, now your FRIEND can drive your car, but you can't. Still, only one person's using the car. You didn't somehow replicate the car and allow two people to have a whole, free, functional car, and get 48-hours of usage out of that "one car" (that's now two) in a 24-hour period.

 

That can be done with digital stuff, while it can't with physical stuff, like a car. That's all I'm getting at. I guess put simply, it's not as if they have absolutely no basis, whatsoever, to "tell you what you can and can't do" with digital content. It's your individual instance of their product, but it's still their product.

 

Granted, they go overboard almost every single time, even if only by a little. But that's a whole 'nother story.

[Pipyui]

Oh no, I wasn't talking about you Lephys.  We're actually on the same page, methinks.  I just thought I'd help clarify Ink Blot's thoughts before they got misrepresented by someone (I'm being presumptuous, I know ).

Edited April 9, 2014 by Pipyui

[Lephys]

Oh no, I wasn't talking about you Lephys.  We're actually on the same page, methinks.  I just thought I'd help clarify Ink Blot's thoughts before they got misrepresented by someone (I'm being presumptuous, I know ).

Ahh. Sorry. Wasn't sure. Replied just in case.

 

Either way, I also just wanted to clarify that my little mini-rant up there was basically "the line gets drawn in the wrong spot oftentimes, but that doesn't mean there isn't a right spot." In case I seemed to be getting at something else.

[Ink Blot]

Oh no, I wasn't talking about you Lephys.  We're actually on the same page, methinks.  I just thought I'd help clarify Ink Blot's thoughts before they got misrepresented by someone (I'm being presumptuous, I know ).

Yeah, you're spot on, actually. And FWIW, I think we're all three pretty much on the same page.

[illathid]

 

Actually, no, not IMO. The EULA states your (and their) rights and obligations. It has no mechanism to actually manage them, which is the 'M' in DRM.

 

 

 

 

See, I would argue that EULA is in itself a mechanism to manage your rights. It is a binding agreement between the parties who have agreed to it.

 

 

Dunno what nation you live in, or what law school you went to, but if it's in the U.S. you were misinformed if you think it's that black and white on the side of the you never own your software licensing folks. Different nations have different laws but in the U.S. the first sale doctrine still applies, and Sony v Universal is still precedent, though there are multiple lawsuits going through the pipes to try and circumvent it as well as to try and protect it, largely due to the DMCA (an abomination of a law and horribly misinformed on a number of levels, not just this issue). The 9th circuit has been fairly anti first sale doctrine and pro silicon valley/Seattle on this (no wonder really) but not entirely, while the other circuits are more mixed.

 

Regardless, there are some folks who buy into it the idea you don't own the software you buy, and some folks who absolutely won't.

 

 

First sale doctrine is about distribution rights and the Sony v. Universal was a matter of copywrite law. Niether is that relevant to the fact you are only licensed to use software you've purchased, you are not the owner. You seem to be conflating the "right to sell" a posession as "full ownership," which is not the case.

Edited April 9, 2014 by illathid

[nipsen]

In other words, you are generally speaking in favour of some sort of limitation on your product, whatever it may be. Because you believe it will stop unsolicited sales and theft. You have no real concern for the actual implementation of the limitation, or whether or not it's actually legal. It simply must be done because of brutes and proles who cannot be trusted to not steal the chair from under your bum.

 

Or, to put it simply, you want to have drm in the release as a badge of honor for paying, real, customers. "It's an inconvenience, but I nevertheless feel superior about it!".

 

The ones who do not are "internet hippies".

 

...

 

Say - remind me again why I haven't moved to a cabin in the mountains with no electricity or contact with the outside world.

[Fluff]

In other words, you are generally speaking in favour of some sort of limitation on your product, whatever it may be. Because you believe it will stop unsolicited sales and theft. You have no real concern for the actual implementation of the limitation, or whether or not it's actually legal. It simply must be done because of brutes and proles who cannot be trusted to not steal the chair from under your bum.

 

Or, to put it simply, you want to have drm in the release as a badge of honor for paying, real, customers. "It's an inconvenience, but I nevertheless feel superior about it!".

 

The ones who do not are "internet hippies".

 

...

 

Say - remind me again why I haven't moved to a cabin in the mountains with no electricity or contact with the outside world.

 

My internet hippie remark was just a joke really. It wouldn't be a wrong label, but I don't go around touting that I'm an internet hippie.. in part because it'd probably sound really ridiculous.

 

But yes, the general defense for DRM by most people as is simple as you put it. "What I'm doing might technically be illegal, but you probably wont get caught.. so who cares?" or in some cases, basically a badge of honor. I can't argue with the first one on a theoretical level.. because it is pretty much true.. you probably wont. However, I personally like to not break laws if possible even if I don't like them.

[Karkarov]

I don't know personally I think DRM is getting to be out of hand in many ways, these days games that shouldn't even have DRM do.  I logged into Elder Scrolls Online yesterday and it told me I couldn't play yet because it didn't recognize my computer and sent a code I had to enter to my email.  Thing is.... this is the only computer I have ever played it on.  More than likely my ISP just shuffled me onto a new IP addy for whatever reason.  However it is stupid that this is even being checked for, who gives a rats ass where I log into my account from?  If my password is so weak some dude can crack it then that's my problem not some corporations issue.

[Lephys]

If my password is so weak some dude can crack it then that's my problem not some corporations issue.

True that. Though, I will say that it's kinda nice when they simply notify you when a "strange" IP tries to connect to your account. Then, if that's weird to you, you can contact customer service or something, and voluntarily initiate a problem resolution. Again... heavy-handed the way they do it now, but based on something with room for a reasonable approach.

 

Not that it should happen or anything, but, part of the reason that it does get handled the way it does is because of this swelling general "nothing is ever anyone's fault except the corporation's" mentality. You see it with everything. Someone'll never have any maintenance performed on a car, ever, and the brakes fail or lock up or something, and someone wants to blame it on the manufacturer. "They didn't prevent me from neglecting my vehicle! This should never have happened, regardless of any level of effort on my part!"

 

So, yeah, I think that's part of it. They're honestly worried about being held legally accountable for the results of someone hacking into your account and running amock in their game world. Then, you coming in and going "WHAT THE HELL?! YOU SHOULD'VE KNOWN THAT WASN'T ME FROM THE IP ADDRESS!"

 

*shrug*. People are just afraid to tell lawyers to shove it, so they give in to stupid stuff like that. As if the first peoples with simple laws were like "well, this guy burned down a whole village, but technically we didn't write anything about intentionally starting fires that THEN kill a whole village worth of people. We just wrote 'Intentionally killing a bunch of people is punishable by death.' Soooo, I guess we'll just let this guy go? I mean, we'll change the law, so, no worries..."

Edited April 9, 2014 by Lephys

[Karkarov]

 

If my password is so weak some dude can crack it then that's my problem not some corporations issue.

So, yeah, I think that's part of it. They're honestly worried about being held legally accountable for the results of someone hacking into your account and running amock in their game world. Then, you coming in and going "WHAT THE HELL?! YOU SHOULD'VE KNOWN THAT WASN'T ME FROM THE IP ADDRESS!"

Fair enough however IP Addresses are very specific and the numbers aren't random.  Once you know how to read them you can tell where a person is located within a small region based off the IP alone.  So an IP that is assigned to a guy who lives down the street from me won't be hugely different, but some dude tries to log in to your account in China it is obvious it isn't likely to be you.  I have no problem with them doing this but they need to apply it in a way that makes more sense.

[rustypup]

 IP Addresses are very specific and the numbers aren't random. 

In ZA our IP changes based on ISP and termination point is that of the ISP. This is not unique to ZA. Managing via IP is not a solution and never will be. 

 

Simple 2-factor authentication is the better solution. 

[nipsen]

Simple 2-factor authentication is the better solution. 

 

 

Oh, yeah. The entirely new authentification system that Apple invented in 2009. Indeed, we computer science people do know it so well.

[rustypup]

The entirely new authentification system that Apple invented in 2009.

What you're smoking. We want it.