http://store.steampowered.com/news/3792/
I wonder if this means Brad Wardell will stop working with Civ V.
I just can't support DRM, that while not TOO bad, helps enforce a near-monopoly. This may be a blow to the other DD providers- as this is the biggest game to do this so far.
Hopefully EWOM is everything I want, because now I'm relying on it.
(Note: I do use Steam, I just won't support being forced to use it on non-Valve products)
Well, the news about CIV5 using Steamworks wasn't on DRM but on features for Multiplayer, meaning that Firaxis could use a strong SDK for multiplayer. If Steamworks didn't require installing the steam client, I don't think that Brad would have developped Impulse::reactor.
I'd say a Civ 5 boycott would work better then a MW2 boycott. The target audiences are different, and the Civ 5 audience is made up of grumpy old man who have more impulse control and less bladder control .
Also, most are saying not outright boycott, but wait until it's really cheap.
The idea of a price war- lowering prices- publishers wouldn't allow that due to retail. What Impulse could do, is the Amazon thing, and offer a credit on the next purchase (Gamersgate does this also) You lose some profitability, but gain some repeat business.
The important thing will be building market share.
Such a perfect game for such a persistent problem!
I don't mean to sound like a valve fanboy i really don't, if a superior product comes ill use it... I also respect you stardock fella's resolve in such things. i however, don't take such a hard line to drm, and consider steamworks to be preferable to ubisofts' and ea games drm implementations. Since 2k games has had its awful history of drm implementation, i'm thankful they chose steamworks over the alternatives. Perhaps i don't care too much about running steam because i run steam 24/7. I can understand if you have your reasons to not use it, and perhaps will not be wooed to start.
I'm hopeful civ 5 will be a fantastic game that i will lose hundreds of hours in the sunlight while playing. Perhaps ill see some of you there, you have months to ponder.
I've never bought anything off of Steam at original, full price. It's not going to change with Civ V. I have more games on Steam than I do Impulse, but I've given Impulse more money. Now for Civ IV, I purchased the original game, and each expansion at release week. I won't be doing that with Civ V. You can claim all you want that people on internet forums never do what they say they are going do to. I certainly do. I have yet o buy any game with activation limits (like I said I wouldn't). I didn't purchase EA RPGs at full price because of their release day DLC garbage (actuallypaid less than 20 for each), and there isnt' a single new Ubisoft title in my house, and they're won't be until they reach rental prices since that is what they are doing, renting me games dependent on not only my connection but their servers. So when I say I will not be giving Steam the full price of that game (nor five or ten off the suggested price either), I mean it. I was a fan of the Settlers since Serf City, won't be purchasing Settlers 7. I've been a fan of civ since the first blocky ridiculous hard and fun game, and I won't get V anytime soon after release.
I'll use Steam, but having Steam is not an increase value for me. It decreases the value of the game, so I won't pay as much and since there are dozens of other games on the horizon, I may not pick it up for couple of years if not longer because of steam. but hey if they sell it for $5.64, I might cave. I thought I would just put that out there so you can't claim that this internet forum users didn't do what she said she was going to do.
I guess the relevant point here is that this was likely not a DRM decision. Civ 4 uses Gamespy's multiplay functionality, and to be charitable I'm not much of a fan of that. (my account name is now Tridus-tk-tk2, WTF is that?)
They're replacing the Gamespy stuff with Steamworks. You don't need Steamworks to provide DRM, you use it to provide matchmaking, achievements, and that sort of thing. For the Firaxis guys, it's probably a straightforward decision. Using it gives them an established platform for those functions and lets them spend less time on it (and thus more time on gameplay).
I haven't seen a real successful alternative to what Steamworks offers in those areas. Everybody hates GFWL*, and Impulse Reactor AFAIK is still in development. Once it's done you'll likely see people take a look, but it won't take off until Stardock uses it in a game. Nobody wants to be first on a new platform when Steamworks is already proven. Once Reactor is proven too, it's got some compelling things going for it (namely that it doesn't force installation of a particular platform).
* My only experience with GFWL was in Fallout 3, where it required this weird update go GFWL on Vista to work properly. Wasn't really a smooth experience at all.
Civ IV has direct ip. If you know who you want to play with, you don't have use anyones anything. Once Steam is in the picture, they'll remove that I am sure. You will be forced to use Steam if you want to play Civ V. No one is forcing us to buy Civ V which is why a number of us won't, at least not until it hits the bargain bin.
I want the old days where I'd start up a game, consult with my friends (voice program, IM, forum, etc.), one hosts and the others connect, and voila! -- we're playing. No third party. And updating being as simple as clicking on 'update' when firing up the game and it checks automatically, or perhaps I visit the game's site or similar repository and DL the patch and apply it myself.
This achievement crap (meaningless to me), the 'convenience' of centralized hosting (unnecessary for my friends and I), etc. is just a cover for DRM and for being able to control gamers. I understand the DRM problem, but that doesn't mean I have to like/accept this response to it. I share Frogboy's concerns about 'One Distributor to rule them all, One Distributor to find them, One Distributor to bring them all and in the darkness bind them' -- but think it can be applied to the whole idea of 'third parties' getting between my friends and I, or my SP game and me.
The goalposts have shifted significantly, that being required to have a third party interjected between me and my friends is taken for granted -- and not just in MP but now creeping into SP too.
I'd be pretty shocked if most people playing multiplayer Civ are doing with direct IP. The gamespy stuff gives you a lobby and friends list, although it's pretty rudimentary compared to the more advanced platforms out there now.
Demolition Man - "All restaurants are Taco Bell."
An interesting article from The Escapist about Valve's Gabe Newell's stance on DRM.
I'll keep that in mind next time I want to play Dawn of War II but can't because the Steam servers are down and I just want to play single player.
Not to be triggish about it, but on the occasions I've gotten a reply from Frogboy about whether we will require an internet connection to Stardock in order to play on a local WAN, it has sounded that we will, in fact, need to authenticate against Stardocks's servers to play the upcomming Elemental: War of Magic game online.
So it's not just the big players like EA doing it, even Stardock seems to be considering it for MP.
Mind that this information is not necessarily accurate. It's difficult to ask a straight question and get a straight answer amongst so many thousands of posts.
I believe that is only for the beta, I am pretty sure he has stated categorically that you will be able to host your own MP games with the release version.
Stardock will provide servers for players to play online multiplayer on, and will provide dedicated server software for players to host their own servers with custom content, such as mods or maps. Authenticating your copy to Stardock when playing online multiplayer is acceptable because you're online, and there is really no valid argument against it. If you had to authenticate to Stardock's servers for offline play, which you don't have to do, then there would be a problem.
[quote who="TCores" reply
="237" id="2615624"]Quoting Nick-Danger, reply 232I want the old days where I'd start up a game, consult with my friends (voice program, IM, forum, etc.), one hosts and the others connect, and voila! -- we're playing. No third party. And updating being as simple as clicking on 'update' when firing up the game and it checks automatically, or perhaps I visit the game's site or similar repository and DL the patch and apply it myself.This achievement crap (meaningless to me), the 'convenience' of centralized hosting (unnecessary for my friends and I), etc. is just a cover for DRM and for being able to control gamers. I understand the DRM problem, but that doesn't mean I have to like/accept this response to it. I share Frogboy's concerns about 'One Distributor to rule them all, One Distributor to find them, One Distributor to bring them all and in the darkness bind them' -- but think it can be applied to the whole idea of 'third parties' getting between my friends and I, or my SP game and me.The goalposts have shifted significantly, that being required to have a third party interjected between me and my friends is taken for granted -- and not just in MP but now creeping into SP too. Not to be triggish about it, but on the occasions I've gotten a reply from Frogboy about whether we will require an internet connection to Stardock in order to play on a local WAN, it has sounded that we will, in fact, need to authenticate against Stardocks's servers to play the upcomming Elemental: War of Magic game online.So it's not just the big players like EA doing it, even Stardock seems to be considering it for MP.Mind that this information is not necessarily accurate. It's difficult to ask a straight question and get a straight answer amongst so many thousands of posts.[/quote]
I'm ok with authentication for online MP. You obviously have to be online for online MP after all.
I'm not ok with it for offline games.
I mean, Steam's DRM is fine- for TF2. Civ V is not TF2.
In your example, what if the authentication servers are down?
How about someday in the future when the game is no longer considered worth supporting? Will the company offer a patch to remove online authorization -- I'd bet SD would, but others?
This isn't just a hypothetical situation -- hasn't it already happened with some game/music services, leaving the customers out-of-luck?
How about an old-fashioned LAN party? Will LAN MP be assumed to be internet and so require online authentication?
Can't online authentication be hacked as easily as other DRM?
Who said anything about the most people doing anything. The point is direct IP is available alongside gamespy. Steamworks, once it is involved, takes over everything, all options, all choice. Comparing Steam DRM and client to Gamespy just isn't the same thing.
@ZehDon First, thanks for the comprehensive, polite, and well-thought-out reply
Second...
Actually, DRM is about control of copyright and intellectual property. So both piracy of software AND reselling games fit into the sphere of DRM. In that respect DRM is a good method to protect a company's copyrights and intellectual property.
However, the types of DRM implemented have little to desire in most cases. It's unfortunate that most companies take the "restrict" approach rather than the "value-add" approach to DRM implementation. If all companies took the "value-add" approach and gave positive incentives to legally obtain the software, then I think we would be on the right path.
People might be interested in reading Elizabeth's (from 2k games) comments regarding Steam (in a post complied by AVS, post number 278). Here are some tidbits:
You will be able to play Civ offline using Steam. You will be able to install it on multiple computers (and play your saved games on those multiple computers!)
Steam is integral to our game and the hub for the community, which is why it's going to be on all copies (digital and retail.) Even if you play a single player game, you'll still benefit from being tied into the community - this isn't just about multiplayer!
Steam is pretty versatile (in my opinion) in how you can install the game on multiple computers and transfer your saves easily - which I think for a single player gamer would be awesome. It also makes getting updates and mods and new content much more streamlined - so even if you just want the best single player experience and don't want to talk to or play with other gamers, you'll have a much more centralized system for keeping your game up to date and for playing on any machine you want.
You don't have to use any feature you don't want to, of course. I'm sure you'll still likely want the updates at the very least. I think the ideal situation is to make a game that has the features as many people as possible want with the easiest platform so that those who don't want to use those features don't have to. You definitely won't have to be part of the community if you don't want to - although you'll be missed.
You can definitely play Steam offline, and register it via a dialup connection. I don't know if you can get the updates offline and transfer them via a thumbdrive - let me check in on that one.
Steamworks, for us, is about much more than just piracy. It's a method of delivering the game, keeping the community together, and updating along the way.
Here's the link: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=363634&page=14
@KickACrip - Thanks for the post. Could be usefulfor some.
It doesnt really address the problem that many have with the forced connection between the game and Steam. Why can I not choose if I want to be part of a community when I buy a game? I am single player only and dont care about anything that Steam has to offer. All I need is a patch or two which doesnt really call for a consistent client on my PC.
Copyright holders are not supposed to have control over individual copies, via DRM or otherwise. They're supposed to maintain the right to make those copies, to profit from those copies, to give third parties the rights to do those things. They should not have any decision what happens after a legal copy is "let go" save from keeping that person from trying to do those things already mentioned (making copies, giving rights to third parties). Reselling of games shouldn't be up to the copyright holders at all, and they shouldn't be allowed to do anything to stop it. Used copies should be a part of any healthy media market, hell new books and dvds are still purchased and they have used markets.
Actually, copyright holders do have control over individual copies by law. This is the full purpose of Copyright Laws. If you carefully read the EULA of software, you will also notice that you are only granted a license to use the software, that it is in fact not regarded as a "copy" of the copyrighted material (since mastering produces "originals" not "copies"). You don't actually own the software, just the right to use it. Thus, you do not have the right to transfer that ownership of the license (or First Sale Doctrine under US law).
Second hand sales of software has been tested in US Courts a couple of times, with no clear conclusion as cases have gone both ways. Some cases dictate the a EULA is binding (and thus the terms of use clearly state the user has a license to use the software) and other cases have dictated the EULA was not binding. It's a very grey area of copyright law TBH, and one that causes a LOT of confusion. However you must note a LOT of countries in the World do not have legislation allowing reselling of copyright material without permission (like the US First Sale Doctrine).
Copyright law surrounding software is a very tricky thing to understand. If anything, the waters are muddied a lot by publishers who push the boundaries of the laws because they know if they lose in one Court they can appeal to another Court and possibly win.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright
I'm glad you later make note of the subsequent court cases over this, but I do not believe it is correct to say there are "no clear conclusions." In fact the US has been rather decisive about this:
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/550/550.F2d.1180.76-1141.html
If you are sold a something, and you pay completely for it in a one off transaction, and you own the item in perpetuity (as I have with all my games) then it is a sale of an item. You may resell it.
The dissenting opinions (MAI and Wall Data cases) were in different cases under different issues.
More contentious would be the statement that this kind of "you are only licenced the software" is the "full purpose of the copyright laws." Actually, the judge threw down Autodesk's claim that Veror only "licenced" the software on the grounds that it precisely contradicted the intent of US copyright laws! Moreover, he made a great deal about the utter absurdity of AutoDesk's claims that Vernor had only "licecned" the software. Because Vernor had never even installed the software or clicked "agree" to any licence, he could not possibly be bound to the licence of a product just because he had it in his possession!*
It would take the supreme court to overturn this, or the earliest precedent of United States vs Wise.
*This kind of argument would suggest I could make up my own "licence conditions," put it on my T-shirt, and have it say "By selling me a product today, you implictly agree that I own the product you have sold me, and you will also owe me one beer." And it would be reasonable to expect that everyone who sold stuff to me would be bound by the licence conditions of my t-shirt. No!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
