PDA

View Full Version : Net connection required?



Teucer
25th Aug 2011, 05:33
Apologies if this is in the wrong area.

My understanding is that all versions of DX:HR have an absolute requirement of registration with steam/patching via steam etc. My problem is that my gaming rig doesn't (and won't) have a net connection. As it stands, it appears that I won't ever be able to play this game, which makes me a rather sad panda. Is this definitely correct, or is there a version which has different requirements. Hey, I'm begging for a chance to give Eidos some money here.

Since there are undoubtedly going to be people who simply reply 'just connect for a second to register - it's not difficult', I'll simply say that I have chosen to keep my gaming PC connectionless by choice, so that I need not run any resource hogging/conflict causing security apps, and basically keep it running fairly lean. This is my choice and it won't change. I won't enter into any arguments about it. If it means that I miss out on a game or two, so be it.

Quillan
25th Aug 2011, 05:35
You have to have a net connection to activate it. That's how Steam works. However, once you have activated it, you can switch Steam into "offline mode" and no longer need the connection. If you are unwilling or unable to at least temporarily hook your gaming computer up to the internet long enough to activate and patch the game, then you will miss out on any game that uses Steam.

Teucer
25th Aug 2011, 05:44
Yep, I know about steam and that it has an offline mode, but as I said, I'm not willing to even connect it once. Besides lacking a net connection, I'm philosophically opposed to steam or any similar DRM, which is another argument that I don't wish to have with anyone.

Suffice to say that if there is no way to get the game working without any sort of net connection, I'm just going to have to keep my money. I can live without DX:HR.

jaywalker2309
25th Aug 2011, 07:16
Teucer - there is no way, legally, that you will be able to play this game if you are unwilling to run steam etc.. there is the onlive version (which doesnt need a fast machine to run as it streams the game to you not hosted on your machine)

Teucer
25th Aug 2011, 10:45
Hmm - that might be a possibility if this ancient machine (and net connection) can handle it. Is there a link for info about this?

I very much hope that Eidos will consider releasing DX:HR without steam requirement at some point in the future. I imagine there's some contract in place about steam exclusivity (else why the hell make it steam only?) so perhaps when that contract expires.

jaywalker2309
25th Aug 2011, 10:48
Hmm - that might be a possibility if this ancient machine (and net connection) can handle it. Is there a link for info about this?

I very much hope that Eidos will consider releasing DX:HR without steam requirement at some point in the future. I imagine there's some contract in place about steam exclusivity (else why the hell make it steam only?) so perhaps when that contract expires.

Steamworks is an integral part of the game.. as much as many dont like them they are pretty much here to stay. I will be honest i dont actually get WHY they dont like steam (never been given a response which hasnt been down to `dont like them` or something else just as personal as opposed to technical reasons etc)

Onlive is at www.onlive.com (http://www.onlive.com) if you are in the US i BELIEVE you can actually register and be `playing` the game within a few mins as a trial..

Teucer
25th Aug 2011, 11:10
Steamworks is an integral part of the game.. as much as many dont like them they are pretty much here to stay.
That is very unfortunate. I can't see why such a decision has been made, considering that there are many people who don't like steam, for one reason or another.


I will be honest i dont actually get WHY they dont like steam (never been given a response which hasnt been down to `dont like them` or something else just as personal as opposed to technical reasons etc)
For what it's worth, here's my reasoning:

I tend to keep coming back to play games I own, sometimes many, many years into the future. There are several games from the early 1990's that I still play, for instance - e.g. Master of Magic, Xcom, and a few others. Now, with steam games, or any other online activated games, my ability to install and play those games is dependent on the activation server remaining available for as long as I am wanting to play the game. Will Valve still be around in 20 years? Perhaps. Still supporting 20 year old games? Maybe. I'd prefer not to find out the hard way.

Additionally, I find it offensive that my ability to play a game that I bought and own is dependent on a third party allowing me to do so. I don't like being treated like that.

Anyway, as I said, I don't want to argue about my reasons. I believe that they are valid concerns, and that's good enough for me.


Onlive is at www.onlive.com (http://www.onlive.com) if you are in the US i BELIEVE you can actually register and be `playing` the game within a few mins as a trial..
I'm an Aussie, so there may be an issue with that. But thanks, I'll take a look.

Edit: having seen it, it's not for me, for reasons similar to the above.

jaywalker2309
25th Aug 2011, 11:19
The `able to play 20 year time` is actually the one issue i'd agree with you on, its an unknown. but then again so is the simple question will the game even WORK on a pc 20 years from now.

We've got back catalogue titles we've had to semi retire for simple fact that modern OS/hardware simply refuse to work or have serious issues which simply didnt exist when released. :)

ahh yes not sure on status for OZ and onlive.. sorry

[FGS]Shadowrunner
25th Aug 2011, 11:34
So to clarify,

If I walk into a shop and buy this in a shop over the counter and go home, I still have to join Steam?

There is no way to play this without learning about steam, getting it, installing it and presumably fixing it?

sajin
25th Aug 2011, 11:42
Shadowrunner;1658549']So to clarify,

If I walk into a shop and buy this in a shop over the counter and go home, I still have to join Steam?

There is no way to play this without learning about steam, getting it, installing it and presumably fixing it?

Yes, and it was also quite the shock for me, too. For deus ex (and only deus ex), i'm willing to endure that for now. I created an extra partition with a fresh windows installation and will install steam + deus ex there. Normally i'd wait for a steam remove fix before installation, but for deus ex i'm willing to go the extra mile to play right after release (europe here)...

Edit: Oh and since jaycw asked for reasons, just read and understand this: http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/ - i really hate having to agree to this travesty :)

Teucer
25th Aug 2011, 11:52
The `able to play 20 year time` is actually the one issue i'd agree with you on, its an unknown. but then again so is the simple question will the game even WORK on a pc 20 years from now.
I'm actually pretty good at getting older games to work on newer hardware (if I do say so myself... :rolleyes:) I've been willing in the past to install older operating systems in a dual boot config if necessary. Even easier these days with virtual machines.

Then there's projects such as Dosbox which emulate older systems - in fact Dosbox is better than any older PC ever was, in that there's no mucking around with autoexec.bat or config.sys, no trying to get enough free memory with all the drivers you need etc - it's all taken care of.

Bottom line, it's actually easier now to play old DOS games than it was when they were released. I've reason to believe it will be similarly easy to simulate current environments in future OS iterations. So I'm confident that current games will be perfectly playable in 20 years... as long as they don't rely on an activation scheme which has disappeared.

However, 20 years is an arbitrary period, and I'd ask you this: Can you guarantee that Valve will still be in business ONE year from now? I'd agree that they appear to be doing well, and they're not likely to go anywhere, but I've seen stranger things happen - and they tend to happen very suddenly. I've read stories about online services suddenly disappearing, and leaving customers screwed. "It won't happen - Valve will unlock all games if they go broke" is a refuting argument I hear, but I've not known any company which is going bankrupt think of customers first.


We've got back catalogue titles we've had to semi retire for simple fact that modern OS/hardware simply refuse to work or have serious issues which simply didnt exist when released. :)
There you go. See above, and I would be willing to bet that I could get all of those titles working on modern hardware.

jtr7
25th Aug 2011, 12:04
Steamworks is an integral part of the game.. as much as many dont like them they are pretty much here to stay. I will be honest i dont actually get WHY they dont like steam (never been given a response which hasnt been down to `dont like them` or something else just as personal as opposed to technical reasons etc)

Onlive is at www.onlive.com (http://www.onlive.com) if you are in the US i BELIEVE you can actually register and be `playing` the game within a few mins as a trial..

Do technical reasons include not having Internet for the gaming machine?
Several of us have gone into detail why required Internet at any point excludes us from most gaming, and means there will be no purchase of software that's rendered useless and valueless with this kind of DRM. I've waited years only to find out I won't be able to purchase any of these anticipated games, only data I can't use as intended, and a license that doesn't apply when there can be no playing to begin with.

I dislike cloud gaming and online DRM since it has led to being excluded from most gaming. I don't get a worthy choice. I get no benefit but saving the money that would've gone to purchasing the game. I'll never waste my time anticipating a game again for years to come.

People who are not on a low budget and aren't hurting for gear really need to stop being dismissive and blind about the real disappointment out here. :(

jaywalker2309
25th Aug 2011, 12:36
I'm actually pretty good at getting older games to work on newer hardware (if I do say so myself... :rolleyes:) I've been willing in the past to install older operating systems in a dual boot config if necessary. Even easier these days with virtual machines.

Then there's projects such as Dosbox which emulate older systems - in fact Dosbox is better than any older PC ever was, in that there's no mucking around with autoexec.bat or config.sys, no trying to get enough free memory with all the drivers you need etc - it's all taken care of.

Bottom line, it's actually easier now to play old DOS games than it was when they were released. I've reason to believe it will be similarly easy to simulate current environments in future OS iterations. So I'm confident that current games will be perfectly playable in 20 years... as long as they don't rely on an activation scheme which has disappeared.

However, 20 years is an arbitrary period, and I'd ask you this: Can you guarantee that Valve will still be in business ONE year from now? I'd agree that they appear to be doing well, and they're not likely to go anywhere, but I've seen stranger things happen - and they tend to happen very suddenly. I've read stories about online services suddenly disappearing, and leaving customers screwed. "It won't happen - Valve will unlock all games if they go broke" is a refuting argument I hear, but I've not known any company which is going bankrupt think of customers first.


There you go. See above, and I would be willing to bet that I could get all of those titles working on modern hardware.

Not everyone knows about dosbox and emulation etc.. they just want to know it works.. steam `simplifies` things in that respect.. can you say WE will even be here next year.. with things as they in this world and every other country having a revolution.. ;)


Do technical reasons include not having Internet for the gaming machine?
Several of us have gone into detail why required Internet at any point excludes us from most gaming, and means there will be no purchase of software that's rendered useless and valueless with this kind of DRM. I've waited years only to find out I won't be able to purchase any of these anticipated games, only data I can't use as intended, and a license that doesn't apply when there can be no playing to begin with.

I dislike cloud gaming and online DRM since it has led to being excluded from most gaming. I don't get a worthy choice. I get no benefit but saving the money that would've gone to purchasing the game. I'll never waste my time anticipating a game again for years to come.

People who are not on a low budget and aren't hurting for gear really need to stop being dismissive and blind about the real disappointment out here. :(

It was announced long ago the game was using steamworks.. as i said your argument against steam is because u simply `dont like it`.. i hate marmite but i dont stop others eating it :)

Teucer
25th Aug 2011, 12:52
Not everyone knows about dosbox and emulation etc.. they just want to know it works.. steam `simplifies` things in that respect..
And that's fine. People who want that are perfectly entitled to it. Their prerogative. But why does it have to be the only way to get the game?


can you say WE will even be here next year.. with things as they in this world and every other country having a revolution.. ;)
It would be a tragedy if Eidos disappeared, but the difference is, you don't have any interaction with purchasers of the game to decide whether or not they can play it - to put it heartlessly, it actually doesn't matter if you go broke, as people will still be able to play the game. :p

jaywalker2309
25th Aug 2011, 13:01
And that's fine. People who want that are perfectly entitled to it. Their prerogative. But why does it have to be the only way to get the game?


It would be a tragedy if Eidos disappeared, but the difference is, you don't have any interaction with purchasers of the game to decide whether or not they can play it - to put it heartlessly, it actually doesn't matter if you go broke, as people will still be able to play the game. :p

i was more meaning an apocalyptic sense, not as a company ;) we're pretty solid now as a company :)

Teucer
25th Aug 2011, 13:14
i was more meaning an apocalyptic sense, not as a company ;) we're pretty solid now as a company :)
In that sense, it's possible that you could be a solid company who suddenly loses their player base. ;)

Anyway, I've explained my posi with respect to steam. I'd hope that Eidos would acknowledge the concerns I have as being reasonable concerns, and might even change their stance on this, but I don't hold much hope.

Quillan
25th Aug 2011, 14:57
Can I (or anyone) guarantee that Valve will still be in business a year from now, or even 20 years from now? No, nobody can absolutely guarantee that. However, Valve has stated on several occasions that if they were to shut down they'd release an update to the entire Steam catalog removing the need for the connection in the future. From Valve, I believe it, whereas I would call bull**** if that were to come from somebody like EA.

From my personal experience, Steam is awesome. The only real problem I've ever had with it was back in 2004, when Half Life 2 released. The demand was so great on release day that unlocking the game took over an hour, and they have since beefed up those servers drastically. Over my modern-day computer experience (have owned a computer since 1999 after a long dry spell before that) I've experienced several hard disk crashes, one fire, and one burglary where my computer was stolen. I've been able to redownload everything registered through Steam without having to buy it again. A few of the games I lost I have repurchased through Steam since the fire. The only reason I didn't just buy this game through Steam is that I wanted the pre-order bonus from Amazon, which is another story in itself.

cyborg34572
25th Aug 2011, 15:30
Well if Valve goes out of business, they will probably release a major update/patch that enables all their games to be played without steam. Valve is a good company, i dont think we have anything to worry about. I myself have never experienced problems with steam, everything always works out okay, even with my cr@p connection.

Teucer
26th Aug 2011, 00:15
However, Valve has stated on several occasions that if they were to shut down they'd release an update to the entire Steam catalog removing the need for the connection in the future. From Valve, I believe it, whereas I would call bull**** if that were to come from somebody like EA.


Well if Valve goes out of business, they will probably release a major update/patch that enables all their games to be played without steam.
I said what I thought about this above.

I believe that Valve said that they would open their catalog if they went out of business, and I'm even willing to believe that they meant what they said (even though it just sounds like clever marketing to me.) However, a company going bankrupt - any company going bankrupt - has more important concerns than releasing hundreds of game patches to ensure games work without steam, for no extra profit. Sorry, Valve may be the most lovable company in the world, but I'd be willing to bet my house on this. It's business, and that's the way it works.

Remnant
26th Aug 2011, 04:50
Kinda sad that Steam is gettin trash talked like this. Valve isn't going away anytime soon, so there isn't much to worry about in that regard. Steam is about the best digital distribution DRM setup available, there really isn't anything else that compares.

Give it a chance, most of the conveniences Steam offers greatly outweigh the fact that they are ultimately in control of you playing the games legally. I've got some killer deals in the store, like big name games for 10 bucks and DLC packs for 2 bucks. Being able to log in anywhere with a net connection gives you access to your games on the go. Automatic game patching is also a nice bonus. Chat with friends, easily join their games, etc - the list goes on.

You really cant compare Steam to the crap like Starforce which installs system drivers and has no offline mode.

Every self respecting gamer has played Half Life 1 & 2, so Steam should be installed anyways. I've been using it for a few years now, and yeah before I got into it I had all the same suspicions as everyone else. Its just that Steam is more than a DRM scheme, and because of that I've stuck around with it.

Teucer
26th Aug 2011, 06:38
Kinda sad that Steam is gettin trash talked like this.
Eh? I haven't in any way trash talked steam. I've said that I won't use it, and have stated the concerns I have which lead me to that choice. I'm perfectly willing to concede that the concerns I have may not be concerns to someone else. Anyone else who feels that the benefit of steam outweighs any potential drawbacks is welcome to use it with no criticism from me. How exactly have I trash talked steam?


Valve isn't going away anytime soon, so there isn't much to worry about in that regard.
You have a personal legally binding promise from Valve to that effect, do you? Or you're clairvoyant? ;)

I don't believe they're going anywhere soon myself. But I don't like putting my faith in any company.


Steam is about the best digital distribution DRM setup available, there really isn't anything else that compares.
I'm no fan of any type of DRM. So calling steam the best DRM is roughly equivalent to a doctor telling me that I've got the best disease you can get.


Give it a chance, most of the conveniences Steam offers greatly outweigh the fact that they are ultimately in control of you playing the games legally.
But that's the thing - it's not in any way convenient for me. I don't want or need any of the bells and whistles it provides, and for me to be able to use steam would require me to fundamentally change the way I play games.


You really cant compare Steam to the crap like Starforce which installs system drivers and has no offline mode.
As I said, I don't like any type of DRM. If I've paid for a game, why should there be any restrictions on how I use it, as long as I don't distribute it (which is illegal) - trust that the majority of people are generally law abiding, as long as the law is reasonable.

You buy a book, there is no DRM in place to stop you copying it and giving it to all your friends. Good God - how have any of the book publishers survived? Surely, they should have a lock on each page, that you need to enter your personal combination to turn... Ridiculous? Seems to be where we are with games. I think many people who pirate games do so because of the DRM rather than in spite of it. You're always going to have some element who refuse to pay any price for a book, or a game, or a CD. I don't think that DRM is any deterrent whatsoever, and may actually be encouragement, rather than hindrance.

Music, movies, games. These are the only consumables where the vendors have actively tried to make people abide by the law, rather than letting the law take care of itself. Ever buy a hammer which would only let you use it if you were going to hammer a nail (Or God forbid - perhaps only the hammer-maker's brand of nail?) Don't they have any concern that someone may use a hammer to kill someone? Why not? What makes those media so special that we must be actively forced to obey the law?

Anyway, my philosophy on DRM is getting way beyond the point of this thread, and I said I wasn't going to enter into the argument anyway... so much for that, but this is the last I will post about it.


Every self respecting gamer has played Half Life 1 & 2, so Steam should be installed anyways.
I've seen and played HL1 (on a friends PC) but I haven't even seen HL2, let alone played it. Self respecting gamer? Well, I've been gaming for 30 years, and I'm not ashamed of myself, so I guess I am. Whether anyone else respects me, I'll leave to them. ;)

Edit: just adding some arguments.

jaywalker2309
26th Aug 2011, 07:38
@Remnant - tis a bit disrespectful to claim to speak for `every self respecting gamer` when you cannot possibly ;) Everyone it totally entitled to their opinion on things.. and we have to respect that.. The fact that they are on here debating it and not just going `blah blah crap hate it sod it evil` etc and giving their reasons and explaining that means they are not trash talking..

As a publisher of course Square is going to want to protect its investment. Comparing books to games is a little different since books dont cost millions to make or have staff of 100's, they are usually only written by 1 person, makes royalty side easy thats for sure.

Its a complicated industry ensuring everyone involved gets their due on it.. Its a fine balancing act between protecting and almost being so over protective you make it impossible for some to use.. Steam, whilst not popular with some, DOES give, i think, a fair balance on this.. Offline ability so dont have to be online always etc (never a fan of that if not needed in the game itself). As people have seen the patching ability of Steam has meant we've been able to already supply 2 patches to everyone. The backend on steam supplies us crashdumps from all the issues being reported by their system, this is invaluable in helping us try and understand what is causing issues not seen during development.. Remember the moment the game is live there will have been more people play it in the first few hours/days then the entire development cycle (talking man hours here), and the infinite combination of hardware/software setups in the consumer world makes the task of it `always working` a huge task.

Remnant
26th Aug 2011, 08:07
Theres no real argument here, the game is released and "unplugging" it from steam via a later patch isn't likely. Adapt.

You don't have to be clairvoyant to see that Valve is here to stay: they are privately owned and make damn good games. Just recognizing a trend...

Hyperboles in this DRM 'debate' just show how far you have to take things out of perspective in order to support either either side. The artists want some reasonable protection on their work, and Steam is quite reasonable compared to other solutions they could have gone with.

Its easier than ever to rip games these days and being hooked into steam isn't going to matter, it will get cracked anyways. So by that logic should they not protect their work at all? No, in a well designed DRM it should be easier to run the game legally than not. There are a few examples of games being easier to crack than run legitimately, but Steam games don't really qualify. If you don't want all the fancy crap, then set it up in offline mode with game shortcuts on your desktop. If you're in the minority without some kind of internet connection for initial activation, I'd say you have other problems to worry about.

In the end, they cant make everyone happy. Steam is a good compromise for protecting the initial launch of the game. Its simple business, and if you don't like it no one is forcing you to buy the game.

Teucer
26th Aug 2011, 08:17
As a publisher of course Square is going to want to protect its investment. Comparing books to games is a little different since books dont cost millions to make or have staff of 100's, they are usually only written by 1 person, makes royalty side easy thats for sure.
They probably don't make as much in revenue, either - which simply means that the scale is smaller. I agree that it's not a perfect comparison, but I believe it illustrates some of the problem I see with the way the games industry tries to self-police it's own customers. No one likes to feel like they're being treated like a criminal before the fact, and I do think we are beginning to see a backlash from consumers towards this sort of behaviour. Certainly DRM has become much more of a hot topic on gaming boards.

I do have every sympathy for game developers and game publishers (some more than others...) and I think it's definitely in gamers interests that devs and publishers are fairly compensated for the work of bringing a title to market, but I think the way the industry is approaching the issue of piracy is very short sighted. The music industry has all but killed itself because it could only see that people were pirating songs by downloading them, and trying to stop that without understanding the reasons why, or respecting their customers. I'd hate for the gaming industry to make a similar mistake.


Steam, whilst not popular with some, DOES give, i think, a fair balance on this.. Offline ability so dont have to be online always etc (never a fan of that if not needed in the game itself). As people have seen the patching ability of Steam has meant we've been able to already supply 2 patches to everyone. The backend on steam supplies us crashdumps from all the issues being reported by their system, this is invaluable in helping us try and understand what is causing issues not seen during development.. Remember the moment the game is live there will have been more people play it in the first few hours/days then the entire development cycle (talking man hours here), and the infinite combination of hardware/software setups in the consumer world makes the task of it `always working` a huge task.
Sure, I can see the benefits for you. On the crashdumps, I hope that people are consenting to send that information, and that it's not simply steam sending it because it can... privacy implications and all that... I'm sure that's useful to you, but it would be preferable that people send you the info willingly.

But yes, having been an IT fixit professional myself, I understand the issues behind widely varying hardware/OS/software setups. It's both a blessing and a curse, but mostly curse, I'm sure, for devs.

Nice to have an intelligent debate about some of this, I must say - too often this stuff degenerates into flames.

Edit:


Theres no real argument here, the game is released and "unplugging" it from steam via a later patch isn't likely. Adapt.
I hate when people say things like 'adapt' or even better 'get over it'. It's simply dismissing the arguments that someone else has made.


[You don't have to be clairvoyant to see that Valve is here to stay: they are privately owned and make damn good games. Just recognizing a trend...
My point was that you cannot say with any certainty that they will be around. Perhaps there will be an earthquake directly under the Valve HQ which swallows their entire operation. Perhaps some employee will embezzle all their funds and leave them broke. Perhaps there will be some scandal that erupts causing them to close down a la the UKs News of the World. Perhaps EA will buy them out and close them down. You simply can't say with any certainty that they definitely will be there at any point. I did say that I agree that they aren't likely to go anywhere though.


Hyperboles in this DRM 'debate' just show how far you have to take things out of perspective in order to support either either side. The artists want some reasonable protection on their work, and Steam is quite reasonable compared to other solutions they could have gone with.
'Reasonable' depends on who you ask. :)


Its easier than ever to rip games these days and being hooked into steam isn't going to matter, it will get cracked anyways. So by that logic should they not protect their work at all? No, in a well designed DRM it should be easier to run the game legally than not.
Virtually by definition, any DRM will make a game more difficult to run. Steam is no exception, I'm afraid. You may be confusing the bells and whistles aspect of steam with the DRM aspect of steam though - there's no reason that games couldn't have a steam-like client for keeping them up-to-date without the DRM requirement of needing the steam client to be installed in order for the game to run.


In the end, they cant make everyone happy. Steam is a good compromise for protecting the initial launch of the game. Its simple business, and if you don't like it no one is forcing you to buy the game.
I'm of the opinion it's misguided business, but that's for the industry to figure out. Meanwhile, I'm not the only person who will give such a game a miss. so there are lost sales involved. How many lost sales are acceptable, where those people would have bought the game if it were available without steam?

Remnant
26th Aug 2011, 08:55
How many lost sales are acceptable, where those people would have bought the game if it were available without steam?

This really is the bottom line. But flip it around: If no DRM, how many sales would they lose to those who would impulse download instead of impulse buy? I think you have more faith in peoples' ethics than they deserve.

And I highly doubt you have rejected all forms of DRM. Even a basic disk check is DRM. EULAs are a legal form of DRM. You don't buy software from any of these companies, you buy a license to run it. Following that line of logic you should only play free and open source games if you object to all DRM.


You simply can't say with any certainty that they definitely will be there at any point.

You simply can't say with any certainty that *insert anything* definitely will be there at any point. Earthquake hits Valve? Ok: My house burns down/gets flooded/hit by tornado with all my possessions in it. Steam games can be redownloaded :)

Teucer
26th Aug 2011, 12:44
This really is the bottom line. But flip it around: If no DRM, how many sales would they lose to those who would impulse download instead of impulse buy? I think you have more faith in peoples' ethics than they deserve.
Perhaps. I think games companies have less faith in people than they deserve. I do have some evidence for this: Do you recall an event called the Humble Indie Bundle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humble_Indie_Bundle)? It was a freely downloadable collection of indie games where they simply asked people to pay what they felt they would be willing to pay, prior to downloading them. It was a resounding success.

The audience which it reached was larger than it would have (and had) where they were simply charging a set amount per download as in a normal model, because people who wouldn't have paid that set amount on a virtual unknown were willing to pay less to give it a try. Average amount paid per bundle was ~$10. It may not sound like a lot for a bundle of (I think) 4 games, but with the numbers involved, it was incredibly successful - so much so that there have been further similar 'humble indie bundle' sales.

Now people could have paid virtually nothing - and certainly a percentage did. But they were offset by those who were willing to pay reasonable amounts, and even some who paid more than the bundle would normally have sold for individually. Enough of them to make it successful beyond the organisers' wildest dreams in overall revenue. Those who paid virtually nothing - would they be counted as a lost sale, if this was an ordinary sale? No, because clearly, they were never going to pay full price for these games. You have to ask the same question of people who pirate games - how many of them would be willing to pay full price for the game if DRM really did work? I think the answer would be, not many. And yet, the games industry does count them as lost sales, and points to this supposed lost revenue to support DRM measures.


And I highly doubt you have rejected all forms of DRM. Even a basic disk check is DRM. EULAs are a legal form of DRM. You don't buy software from any of these companies, you buy a license to run it. Following that line of logic you should only play free and open source games if you object to all DRM.
I'm not saying I've totally rejected all forms of DRM, just that I dislike all forms. I'm more tolerant to some DRM than others. DRM where I'm at least in some control of my purchase is preferable.


You simply can't say with any certainty that *insert anything* definitely will be there at any point. Earthquake hits Valve? Ok: My house burns down/gets flooded/hit by tornado with all my possessions in it. Steam games can be redownloaded :)
I prefer to be in control of my purchase. If I've bought a game, I have a copy of it physically in my possession. Then, if I lose it through carelessness or misfortune, I only have myself to blame. I can't say the same if my purchase is not physically in my possession, as it isn't with a steam purchase.

Jenfrofer
26th Jul 2012, 05:42
You want some sort of world wide web link with switch on the idea. That may be just how Heavy steam works. Nonetheless, upon having activated the idea, you'll be able to move Heavy steam in to "offline mode (http://www.smallbusinessmarketingspecialists.com/branding/)" and no extended need the call. If you're resistant or maybe struggle to at the least briefly catch ones game playing computer approximately the world wide web prolonged enough in order to switch on along with plot the action, then you will certainly will lose out on any video game in which works by using Heavy steam.Carry out technical factors contain without having Web with the gambling device?
A number of us all possess gone straight into detail the reason why needed Web from any level excludes us all through almost all gambling, in addition to signifies you will see not any obtain regarding software program that is certainly taken pointless in addition to valueless having this type of DRM.