I wonder if this myth that's been discussed on the last few pages is actually believed by those that spread it. I'm sure some do, that's a given, but what about the rest? I wonder if some have tricked themselves into believing that as a means to let themselves off the hook, so to speak, because they've invested heavily in games through Steam and it helps them rationalize it.

Perhaps it allows them to pay release day prices and build a huge library with the illusion that they're buying these games just as they would somewhere else, like at GOG, instead of viewing them as expensive rentals that they've possibly flushed money down the toilet on. Just a thought...

Then I'm pretty sure we would already have various such third-party Steam clients already now, which would let you transfer/re-install and play your whole Steam library without any authentication at any time. Such DRM system, which could be universally defeated for _all_ games at the same time on the client side would be of quite poor design (unless that was their purpose, to make the whole DRM system easily defeated by crackers, with one universal Steam crack that works for all thousands of Steam games at the same time).

If it really was that simple (and poorly designed), then crackers would have most probably already come up with such a cracked Steam client, just giving fake positives whenever _any_ Steam game tries to validate itself with the servers.

GFWL kinda suggests how things would most probably go.

under the spreading chestnut tree, i sold you and you sold me

here lie they and there lie we, under the spreading chestnut tree.

That matters only if there is copy-protection in that media (which I kinda consider a for of DRM as well, just not online DRM). If there is no copy protection, then the media doesn't matter. For instance, I don't think my original Wing Commander 1-2 floppy disks work anymore, but that doesn't matter because I don't recall them having any copy protection, and you didn't need the floppy disks after the initial installation. I still have my original Wing Commander installations from the 90s, where I've just transferred the installed game from old computers to newer ones, now running them under DOSBox.

True, but beside the point. On top of all those issues you've listed (having a system and OS, or an emulator, to run the game successfully), having DRM or copy protection makes things even worse. It is an extra hurdle. In fact, in many cases it is mainly the copy protection (e.g. old TAGES or Starforce) that prevents you from running an old game on a new system or OS.

The argument that "DRM doesn't matter because you might be unable to play the game anyway even without it" is flawed in a same way like saying that a safety belt is useless because you might still die if the car suddenly blows up, or it doesn't make sense to take a travel insurance for your luggage because it won't help you if someone kills you on your travels.

It is a red herring argument.

/facepalm
Yeah, the added layer of incompatibility is like saying that you don't need planes to carry nukes, you can just throw them in the general direction of an enemy. They're gonna blow anyway, right?
Or like wheels on an airplane, it's gonna land regardless, no matter how many people die, right?
... Shame I can't think of anything with Hitler :-P

Whenenver timppu makes comparisons, at the very least a single human life needs to be compared to digital rights management, otherwise it's not ridiculous enough :D Just stop making comparisons man, you're terrible at it.

I'm fairly sure they have. Not client per se, no need for that, just a cracked .dll.

It's not a universal dll though, I don't think. If it is then we need to find it ASAP.

*frantically scours Google* This could be the biggest thing to happen to PC gaming this generation! :D

This keeps coming up but nobody has been able to show proof of that, it seems. The last status I heard was that it's just been made up by some user somewhere on the interwebz. And even if it had been an actual statement by Gabe Newell or something - this claim appeared ages ago when Steam did no provide nearly as many features as it does now and there weren't nearly as many games by as many parties on Steam as there are now. There is *no* chance Valve could make sure that every single Steam game would remain available to everyone who bought it, be it for technical, legal or organizational reasons. As far as I know Valve has actually already denied some people access to the games they bought, sometimes based on false claims (like mistaking a generous gifter for an unlicensed merchant or a modder for a cheater). If even while Steam is doing well Valve is willing to deny people access to the games they paid for it's ridiculous to assume that Valve has a perfect backup plan that will make sure that all purchases made on Steam are permanent.

The thing is, people will always be divided between those who, like the OP and myself, "overreact to the convenience of Steam", and those who don't care all that much about their rights as consumers and citizens, and decide not to vote with their wallets just because they want game x or y, especially cheaper than on other services. We'll always end up arguing with each other and each party will go their way thinking the same way they did when the whole thing started. "You" will still think "we" are backwards and unwilling to accept the future ways, and "we" will keep thinking "you" don't care about your own rights, just as long as you get the games. That's the gist of it.

All I can do is say that, while I never tried convincing anyone not to use Steam, I don't encourage it, as well, because I avoid it and don't use it, myself. I believe people have the right to choose, and if Steam serves one's needs best, then, by all means, use it. I know I won't be able to convince the vast majority of gamers that buying a game on GOG may be a bit expensive, but you're actually paying a "premium" for a DRM-free experience, and helping the gaming digital distribution move forward, becoming more buyer-friendly, instead of only catering to the needs of huge video game studios -- the ones that dictate how things are, right now.

I won't lie, there are personal reasons why I don't like Steam, I installed the client once, to redeem a game I had won in a twitch giveaway, and my experience with it was far from stellar. It all felt way out of my control, I didn't like having a client on my machine that, albeit not doing it, has the possibility to become an orwellian device monitoring my every move. Yeah. Paranoid. The same way it doesn't make any sense to "us" how people give up their rights so easily, just for a few video games. Different perspectives, I guess.

I know Steam is the standard, and that there's not much "we" can do to change that. But I'll keep doing it all the same. There is no video game in the world good enough to make me "embrace the future" and give consumer-disrespectful companies my money. I don't care how great the Bethesda games are, I'm not giving a single one of my euro cents to those guys. Steam is good for indies, sure, but in a perfect world indies wouldn't even need Steam. In my book, Steam doesn't equal PC gaming, and it never will. It's just a platform that's convenient for lazy people, who don't care about having the right to their games and prefer to come up with excuses like "you never own-own your games, anyway", and stuff like that. If that's true, then why not work together so we can reach that goal? And this means actually boycotting companies, showing them that we are the ones who dictate how the market works, and not them. I don't care how utopic this sounds, it's achievable if we put our minds to it. We're just too resigned and acceptant of things "the way they are".

Then again, I don't know much about economics and "practical things", so my opinion isn't particularly relevant. But even if I'm going at it alone, I'll keep supporting GOG and boycotting Steam.

Very well said, sums up my thoughts perfectly

This thread is like asking creationists about evolution. :P

You don't have to pay to get games on Steam, though if you can drop $0.12-$0.16 Paypal during a sale it becomes much easier. If you get good enough at it, you can even get some GOG games from that. But if you're just going the money route at full price then you might as well stick here. That's not what Steam is about.

I wouldn't believe everything that Valve says. For one thing, they still claim to this day that they've never blocked access to a game in Japan. Despite my having experienced just that on numerous occasions. They also claim there is no bug with the Steam store that causes unavailable games to be displayed in the new release section and search results (and this reports an incorrect number of available games). Again, despite being given extensive proof that such a bug has existed for over 6 months. So feel free to link to such a post, but take it at gospel.

Unless you can test every single game that has ever been available on Steam to ensure that they all work indefinitely offline, you cannot say outright that no game requires online authentication after 2 weeks (or any other limit that may be specified).

If I wasn't so busy with impending deadlines, I'd take the time to hunt out the support articles, etc., that reference the need to authenticate periodically. But as I am exceptionally busy right now, you can either choose to wait at least a week or two or go hunting yourself.

You're preaching to the choir telling me that. Fortunately there's plenty of gamers that pre-order and pay release day prices. They understand the value of selfless teamwork. I commend them, because these devs need to make a profit. ^5 lol

Bless their hearts, souls, and wallets. :>

And this is relevant how? I gave an example of the two week thing not being true right there in the link before that statement. Oh. But ... no one was saying that. I said that Offline mode wasn't intended to work that way, nor that it does so by design. Clearly it doesn't as it's proven already that it does work past two weeks. MIGHT there be certain games that don't work for longer than that? Perhaps. Although from your lack of examples I'm assuming that's no more than a hypothetical, and even if that was the case, there's a good chance it's because of some bug, rather than something intended.