Maybe, but they are most definitely part of the minority ;)

(Also I would be curious to see how many of those who understand/don't care about the risks would continue to do so if something ever happened to Steam; if it's anything like what happened during GoG publicity stunt it would be something very funny to watch)

If/when that day comes it'll be a massive outcry, no doubt. Then again, if the friendslist goes down for more than a minute it's already a massive outcry half the time. People will cry about everything these days :)

And although I would be sad to see my game collection go if that happens, I'm sure it'll be an interesting thing to follow nonetheless ^^

And the minority thing may be true, but it also goes to show that most of them are fine with the service as it is. And I think, unless something major like the above happens, that might stay true for quite a long time.

I know but personally I don't consider that as a good thing, the "service" could be improved and the risks associated to it could be lowered while keeping it's advantaged... but as mostly nobody will care until it's too late (if it is) nothing will change, at least not for the better.

I think a lot of the industry is moving towards a service model anyway (retailers and games). Can you give some examples of the above though? I wanted to comment but it's too vague :)

I wasn't thinking about anything new or revolutionary, just the usual (that I already mentioned some days ago in a similar thread), that some months (or even one or two years) after release the publisher and Valve could simply remove the "mandatoriness" of Steam, for example by allowing Steam backup to become "real" self-contained backup that could be restored and played without needing Steam nor needing to be online to reactivate the game (making those backup effectively DRM-free installer)

It would be win/win for everybody, publisher would still have the piracy/second hand sale "protection" of DRM during the initial release period, Steam fans would be able to continue using all the Steam features they want, and those who care about DRM-free games would know they have access a version they can backup/install/play whenever they want without it being tied to Steam.

I'm not so sure how feasible that is. I realize this is Gog and that essentially that's what they do, no-DRM installers. However practically every game on Gog is a game that has already passed it's normal sales period and is stuff that would be in a bargain bin in most places.

I doubt even the publishers who have games here on Gog would be willing to allow a no-DRM installer for their newer games within a few months of release. I guess a few years might be up to the individual publisher though, that might be feasible in some way, though you could question whether they would use that option. As long as most people use Steam anyway, the extra work involved may not be worth it. (I remember even for the Witcher 2, by far the most sales were on Steam, and that's like the one example you could use for a 'new' game that went DRM free rather quickly)

I personally think that no-DRM isn't feasible if used platform wide. At the moment, it's a small thing, for games that the bulk of the populace isn't really that interested in, or at the very least in most cases has already outlived it's financial life. But if even the newest games were being released no-DRM free, then it's only a matter of time before people start realizing/get accustomed to the idea that they could just as well get that game from their next door neighbour/friend/at school, whatever, and it wouldn't cost them a cent, or they could share costs.

I think in the long term it would start hurting sales, or force prices to go down to a level where making games isn't feasible for studio's, or at least not on the level we've gotten accustomed to.

Sure, but the core point is still that no one cares about the DRM aspects of games as a service except a small minority.

Which is exactly already the case now, also I am not talking about removing the DRM one week or even one month after release but 8-9 months, a years or even more after release. Do you really think that peoples will wait one/two years for the game to be available DRM-free to pirate it when they can already easily pirate it on release day.

Even publishers themselves admit that DRM helps them to prevent/limit pre-release date piracy and during the initial week of release, after one or two years the "usefulness" of DRM is mostly null and the game financial life, at least full price, is long over.

Heck even Ubisoft who is as paranoiac as it gets when it comes to DRM remove it from Farcry 2 and others games released at the same period.

I don't agree it's exactly the same right now. There's a difference to pirating a game, and getting a no-DRM installer which is *exactly* the same as you'd get if you bought it yourself. There's still a comfort level with piracy that a lot of people don't break. Sure there's countless pirates. But there's also a lot of people who are afraid to, can't find the proper places to do it, worry because it's 'illegal', think they'll catch a trojan/virus at every turn.

With a no-DRM installer however, there's absolutely zero/nada worries. The only difference is that one person has an email receipt in their mailbox, and the other person doesn't. There's nothing to worry about, there's no strings attached, it's exactly the same as if you would've bought it yourself.

When the threshold is that low, eventually people will just start sharing costs, sharing the games as if it the most common thing in the world, in my opinion.

DRM-free in a couple of years, that's something that I could see happening though, and might be nice if it actually happens.

You mean like most people do with books all the time? Or with movies, renting/buying one, watching it together? Like people who grew up sharing music on tapes or recording songs from the radio? Even games, how many of you are gamers today and actually buy games now only because others shared their games with you when you were young, legally or illegally? Heck, from what I hear some people even share their Steam accounts. It's a bit late to get that out of the people if it's possible at all and I'm not even sure it would benefit the industries. Next door neighbours/friends/schoolmates should not be what anti-piracy measures concentrate on, it's undermining the threat of more serious crimes and IP violations. Treat all people like criminals, chances are they'll eventually believe you and act like criminals, and then you have a problem because you won't be able to single out the true criminals anymore.

I don't think it's late to get that out of people since it probably won't go out of them. I do think that's what people these days are growing up with though.

That age that we grew up in, second hand market and sharing among friends was a small consequence, and unavoidable. However over time, with Ebay, Gamestop, and the Internet in general, second hand markets have become too big, or even professional like in the case of Gamestop to the point where it becomes a downside to the developers.

The fact that everything is going digital *does* make a difference here. It's not the same environment anymore.

Also, I've never felt like I was treated like a criminal when buying a game, or even when using their DRM. Sure, I may hate the way some do it, but that doesn't make me feel like I'm treated as a criminal, it just makes me feel like their measures to fight them are getting in the way of me enjoying the game.

Seriously, you really think that peoples will wait one/two years to play a game ? that nobody will buy CoD 12 on release date but instead will patiently wait 12-24 months for it to be DRM-free so that they can buy it with a friend ? game that would probably only cost a fraction of it's cost by that time, not to mention sales, bargain bin, etc..

Maybe some will, like some are ready to wait 5 years to buy the game 2$ during a Steam sale, but those are a tiny minority and definitely not the main market targeted by publishers.

If that many peoples really had that much "will power" then most of the boycott would have been a lot more successful than they were :) .
Well the core point is more that nearly no one cares about anything most of the time except a small minority; It's nothing new and it's not limited to gaming.

Maybe, but change occurs when more and more people care. That's probably never going to happen with entertainment. And perhaps more importantly, people actively PREFER this model, they're not just ambivalent.

Those arguments are about no-DRM on release day, not after a few years. I already said I thought that was more feasible.