Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Valve's Day of Defeat Released For Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
    I mean, there is nothing in Steam that requires DRM. It let's you play in offline mode, if the game allows it.

    So it's basically like every other system.

    1. You have to log in to purchase the game - which has to be secure, by necessity.
    2. If the game allows it, you can play in offline mode with no DRM.
    3. If the game requires DRM, they can use Steam's lightweight version.
    4. If the game require heavier DRM, they can implement their own 3rd party version.

    Nothing in this is actually different from anywhere else you get games.

    It's all up to the game developer - or more accurately, the investors who put up the money used to create the game, who dictate what kind of DRM they require.
    You also have to download their client and accept its terms of service, install it, launch it, and have it running every time you want to launch an application, and remember to go to offline mode as soon as you buy a game. So no, this is far from no DRM.

    What you failed to note, and which is actually relevant, is that developers can opt out of Steam's DRM altogether, in which case you don't need to have it running in order to launch the game. Which still leaves the burden of downloading, accepting and installing Steam, but at least it's much better than when they don't opt out of it. However, there are very few games like that, and the fact that they don't use Steam's DRM is usually not advertised anywhere, so there is no way to tell if it does use it or not.

    As for investors, there is a clear case for no DRM, the developers just have to present it right. The facts are out there. And if they still don't agree, they are obviously poor investors to begin with.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
      Please refrain from bashing the existence of such games. Having plenty of games of one ilk does not stop other game titles from appearing.
      Well, it does actually. I doubt the developers of these deathmatch FPSes work on other games projects. If they hadn't made deathmatch FPSes they might have made other sorts of games.

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
        You also have to download their client and accept its terms of service, install it, launch it, and have it running every time you want to launch an application
        And how is that different from your average game? Most of them used to have launcher apps that you used anyway, that "had to be running" every time you launched the game. And the games all have terms of service as well.

        Anyway, you can rail on and on that DRM is evil, and i kind of agree. But the truth is that it would be suicide for Valve not to support it. If they didn't, Valve and Steam simply wouldn't exist. In fact, the whole PC gaming market probably wouldn't exist, and you'd only be able to play games on consoles now. If someone else would have come along with a replacement for Steam, it too would have either allowed for DRM or it would have failed, because none of the gaming publishers would have used it.

        Things like the Humble Indie Bundles have done a lot to help convince people that DRM free gaming can work. It still hasn't been embraced by a single major company. It's just the indie folks so far who are desperate for small market share gains and attention that have accepted it. I hope in time, it becomes more popular, and Valve agrees. They've flat out said they don't like DRM either. It's just the cost of doing business today.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by 3rdalbum View Post
          Well, it does actually. I doubt the developers of these deathmatch FPSes work on other games projects. If they hadn't made deathmatch FPSes they might have made other sorts of games.
          You understand that Valve is just paying these guys to port their entire library, right? If they weren't working on this deathmatch FPS game, they might not even be working on linux at all.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
            And how is that different from your average game? Most of them used to have launcher apps that you used anyway, that "had to be running" every time you launched the game. And the games all have terms of service as well.
            Launchers are always either optional or an integral part of the game itself. That's different from Steam. The EULAs of games are also much different from the Steam EULA - they do not ask you to accept that you can lose all of the games you own whenever they decide to, because they are separate games.

            Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
            Anyway, you can rail on and on that DRM is evil, and i kind of agree. But the truth is that it would be suicide for Valve not to support it. If they didn't, Valve and Steam simply wouldn't exist. In fact, the whole PC gaming market probably wouldn't exist, and you'd only be able to play games on consoles now. If someone else would have come along with a replacement for Steam, it too would have either allowed for DRM or it would have failed, because none of the gaming publishers would have used it.

            Things like the Humble Indie Bundles have done a lot to help convince people that DRM free gaming can work. It still hasn't been embraced by a single major company. It's just the indie folks so far who are desperate for small market share gains and attention that have accepted it. I hope in time, it becomes more popular, and Valve agrees. They've flat out said they don't like DRM either. It's just the cost of doing business today.
            If Valve tried to be more vocal about the whole non-DRM games on Steam deal, tried supporting such decisions, then I would understand. As it is, they have been dead quiet about it. It feels like they want as many people using their DRM as they can, because it makes them locked into their own platform.

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
              Launchers are always either optional or an integral part of the game itself. That's different from Steam. The EULAs of games are also much different from the Steam EULA - they do not ask you to accept that you can lose all of the games you own whenever they decide to, because they are separate games.



              If Valve tried to be more vocal about the whole non-DRM games on Steam deal, tried supporting such decisions, then I would understand. As it is, they have been dead quiet about it. It feels like they want as many people using their DRM as they can, because it makes them locked into their own platform.
              Valves scheme being transparent and working hard to make it so is a good thing. DRM shouldnt be in your face. It shouldnt be something that gets in the way of using the games that you purchased the right to play.

              As far as I'm concerned the fact that vavle makes their DRM scheme so transparent is a good thing. I don't want something that I is going to bug me and make using my games more difficult or even impossible.

              EDIT: I'm not saying that DRM is in itself a good thing... Obviously it doesnt do jack shit to prevent games from being stolen and in the end all it really does is hurt legitimate users. But lets face the facts here.... DRM is required by publishers... And Valves mechanism for DRM is by far the most transparent for legitimate end user experience. For those cases where DRM -must- exist because the publisher wants it that way, then steam DRM is the very best.
              Last edited by duby229; 03-17-2013, 02:58 PM.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by curaga View Post
                You have the source, just build Doom3 with that check removed.
                Well, of course that is the best option. Having the source out is the best way to keep a game lasting forever, DRM or no DRM. Especially when they are easily available from the AUR.

                Also, when an id Tech 4 game can't connect to the key server it just times out and continues with the game. So all you need to do is disconnect your computer from the network or block the thing with your firewall if it is giving you that much trouble. Still more work than should be placed on someone who bought the game legitimately, but at least the source code is available now (at least for Doom 3).

                Originally posted by 3rdalbum View Post
                Well, it does actually. I doubt the developers of these deathmatch FPSes work on other games projects. If they hadn't made deathmatch FPSes they might have made other sorts of games.
                Ah, this tired old argument. Ever consider that the people making these deathmatch FPS games started working on them because they wanted to make deathmatch games, and not anything else? This is almost tantamount to saying that they do not have the right to work on what they want because you want something different.

                Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                Anyway, you can rail on and on that DRM is evil, and i kind of agree. But the truth is that it would be suicide for Valve not to support it. If they didn't, Valve and Steam simply wouldn't exist. In fact, the whole PC gaming market probably wouldn't exist, and you'd only be able to play games on consoles now.
                Maybe from large commercial publishers, but they still treat the PC as second fiddle anyway, so we have only gained a smidgen of attention. The kind of games I end up playing, mostly independent titles by developers who build the games with the PC in mind, would still be around and those are the kind of games I would love to see get more attention anyway. So I do not see that many personal benefits to this trade off.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by dee. View Post
                  DRM is DRM, and it's never a good idea. What about people who can't afford to pay for a game but still want to try it? Why go against illegal downloaders? They're the customers of tomorrow.
                  Hey it's pay to play.... I mean thats just how it is... If you want to play then fork up the cash...

                  A lot of games do have demos that can be installed. In addition sometimes steam will let a game install for a trial period... But in the end you'll just have to pay the money needed to play the game.. It isnt steams job to make up your mind whether you want to buy it or not. But it is its job to facilitate buying it if you choose to do so.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                    EDIT: I'm not saying that DRM is in itself a good thing... Obviously it doesnt do jack shit to prevent games from being stolen and in the end all it really does is hurt legitimate users. But lets face the facts here.... DRM is required by publishers... And Valves mechanism for DRM is by far the most transparent for legitimate end user experience. For those cases where DRM -must- exist because the publisher wants it that way, then steam DRM is the very best.
                    Just like I said - if they made DRM opt-in instead of opt-out, the situation would be much better. But they don't.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X