I wouldn't say that the support guy says they don't allow it, I'd say he didn't even read either of your messages properly. Those were pretty obvious copy/paste answers from a FAQ.

What about clause 2.E?

"2.E. Restrictions.

Except as otherwise permitted under Section 2(C) with regard to the SDK, you may not, in whole or in part, copy, photocopy, reproduce, translate, reverse engineer, derive source code, modify, disassemble, decompile, create derivative works based on, or remove any proprietary notices or labels from the Software or any software accessed via Steam without the prior consent, in writing, of Valve."

I'd say that forbids Steam users from copying files from a Steam game installation.

P.S.: It took me many posts, but I finally recognized your avatar. Cool one, :)
"As previously stated, you must have the Steam application installed and a valid internet connection to install and play the game on your computer. "

It may sound copy-pasted, but that answers my question negatively in my opinion.

You are being naive if you expected any other answer to that question from a support request.

A support request answer has to protect the company from any potential fall out either technically or legally to the response.

If they tell you - "Sure, you can play your copied game out with the system" then they would have been leaving themselves wide open on both counts and that just wont happen.

The absolute best you might have got would have been a vague response like "that is not supported by Valve/Steam". You could choose to read that as "... but it might work if you tried it." but they would be covered because its not supported. But I doubt their legal department would even allow that.

And its not about the support staff (or system) being useless - quite the contrary actually - they are doing what they have been trained to do.

If that' was the reason behind the vague answer, wouldn't that prove MichaelPalin's point that it's just a workaround and not officially provided by the system, that "it's kind of like GamersGate DRM, easy to skip, but still officially against the rules" (or let's say: not officially supported)? I thought that was the whole point ...

Off course it's a workaround and officially against the rules, one of the main points of the client is to shove the storefront down your throat and have it one click away from your games collection, they can't very well do that if you are detaching your steam games from the client. Like i said, the client is a mandatory leash, not an optional perk, games sold through steam are meant to run within the confines of the client regardless of whether or not a few of them can be made to run without it. Like i've also said before in other threads there's not a single drm free game on steam and untill gamecards start caryying a label clearly stating "This game doesn't require the steam client" there will never be a drm free game on steam inspite of the fact that a few can be rendered almost DRM free after the fact - and i say almost because you'd still need the client for the original download, not to mention that since you are not getting standalone installers the client will also have to manage re-installs and updates when applicable.

How hard/easy, moral/amoral, fair/no-no, people think it is makes absolutely no difference, it's operating outside the rules for the sake of one's own praticality, just like bypassing a disc check with a fixed exe or whatever.

*skips vast majority of posts in the topic*

Um, Dear Esther uses Valve's Source engine, right? Seems like a pretty good reason for it to be a "Steam Exclusive" to me...

Just another point to throw in there:

One of the greatest problems I have with digital distribution as a whole, but in particular with Steam and Steamworks games, is how it binds your game irrevocably to your account such that it removes one of the key incentives to create a quality product - the threat of used games.

Now personally, I don't sell my games even when I've completed them, especially if they're good. But if I have bought a really bad game in the past, I'll generally try and sell it immediately.

It seems to me that now publishers and developers are aware that people cannot sell their games, that they see this as carte blanche to eject all kinds of shitty games onto the market and people stupid enough to buy them are then lumbered with them.

This problem is something that I've been thinking about for a while but it's really noticeable today given that Cities XL 2012 is prominently on sale on Steam. Now that countless numbers of people have already bought it (the retail version is Steam-only as well), FHI have lost all interest in fixing a number of notorious bugs - including bugs that completely break the game - and FHI's response to people complaining has basically been "fuck off".

This hasn't been an isolated trend either. There have been countless cases - especially with "indie" games - where the developer or publisher has basically taken the money and run.

In cases where this has been taken down legal avenues, Valve has buckled and refunded users their money, but there is absolutely no incentive anymore to produce high-quality, well-tested games.


That has already been addressed. There are several Source-engine games out there (Dark Messiah, Vampire Bloodlines) that do not use Steam.

Really, the DRM free revolution that GoG has started hinges on the release of the humble bundle store and the new store GoG will open this year. It can trigger the devs using the alternative, just as good distribution channels for game releases. Show old and new devs that other just as friendly and useful distributors exist and selling DRM free profitable, they'll come running to your door.


I'd wager GoG using the negotiation experience they have built up from deals to score an excellent series of exclusive indie titles that would net them better-then-steam sales. However, and this is VERY unlikely, the new store fails to generate profitability then I'd expect steam to further solidify it's indie friendly position. Like I said, very unlikely since the guys here have already shown that DRM free IS profitable, IS successful and IS very much viable.


I'd say to the OP and disgruntled indie gamers to wait. Your wishes very well may come true once two heavy (combined) hitters enter the new PC game market.

Yeah!, I'm really hoping for "GoodNewGames" to be a success. However, my impression is that gog is not going to accept submissions as happily as Valve. I base this only on the name of the site and that they are still a small team that just cannot handle all the submissions that they may receive in a fluid way. Besides, gog still has no indie games that I know of, which is kind of strange (it should be relatively easy to negotiate with indies) and suggests me that they are going to start with small and medium size publishers first.

In summary, I think gog will do well and grow to be operatively on par with Steam eventually, but they will probably have a very slow start, especially with indies.

I don't think GOG actually said they would start signing up indies. They'd have to overhaul absolutely everything to do that; the site, the release cycle etc. only work with a small catalogue (and is actually bursting at seams as it is). They just said they'd release a few newer games, which could mean a lot of things, so I wouldn't really get my hopes up about that.

I'm hoping for the Humble Store to take off, myself. Wolfire has the audience, goodwill and business sense to really pull it off.

I'm actually really looking forward to the Humble Store, especially if they distribute in the same way as they have been to date, i.e. DRM-free Windows and Linux versions AND a Steam key. That would be the perfect store for me. I noticed the retail version of Revenge of the Titans did this - the disc had the DRM-free version, but there was a sticker containing the optional Steam key. Shame I already had it from the Humble Bundle.

If only GOG would distribute officially supported Linux versions of their DOSBox and ScummVM games (and Unreal Tournament as well).

It depends on when that Steam key is paid to Valve. If it is paid when redeemed, I don't care, but if it is going to cost them an extra to put the key in there, I prefer to have the option to not get a Steam key which I will never use. And I think the Steam key version of the game should be more expensive to reflect the cut taken by Valve.
If they want to create a catalog of DRM-free new releases I don't think they can do it without regular indie releases. In fact, at this point, some indies are more popular than most games made by middle-size publisher. I cannot imagine a DRM-free store that can survive without the indies.

Then maybe GOG will not survive...

I think I even read a clear statement that they were currently not planning on doing so. Personally I wouldn't mind if they sold indie games like "Legend of Grimrock" that would be a perfect fit for their catalogue despite being new, but to me it sounded more like they were thinking along the lines of releasing games from publishers they deal with that are only 1-3 years old and at a higher price point. That would not be quite as spectacular but on the other hand less complicated and less risky - and as long as they stick to their no-DRM principles, still something welcome.