By that I meant many games/films/youtube videos sell(or are viewed) by the majority of customers/viewers within like a week or so of release, and then the number of customers/viewers per day/week/etc steps down dramatically after that. I don't know why for certain, but it's not due to something being "bad" or "good"(as i've seen even the best things and worst things show this behavior).....it's just a natural phenomenon with a good chunk of consumable media.

As such, that several days before a game or movie is cracked/dumped online usually helps them make the bulk of their sales and gain more sales from those who want a crack/dump but cannot gain access to one, and to them it's likely worth using drm.

Yes.

Not sure how old you are or what experience you have had with games before the advent of Steam. Steam really, was just the next level, much tougher level of DRM to break.

Before that though, DRM was still as painful in all sorts of ways, depending on which variety you got lumped with. And this was irrespective of any Client interface.

Many games embedded DRM software in your PC, often without notification or permission, and which could be terribly hard to remove. They often impacted your disc drive in some way, wasted processing power with overheads, and usually overworked your disc drive ... especially if a disc wasn't clean or was scratched etc.

Different games did different things of course. Some just needed to check a disc was present every once in a while, some constantly needed to access data on a disc, while probably most offered you a choice.

I hated all that, so when I got a game, the first thing I did was try and find a cracked NO CD executable for a game.

That usually meant creating a virtual drive and having that overhead, but games ran better from your hard drive, much faster and smoother. Less noise pollution too, with no constantly whirring drive. Also safer practice for disks, hard to scratch if safely sitting in a drawer, and also out of reach from your kids or their friends etc.

I would hate to go back to that, or any serial number issues.

DRM-Free is the only acceptable way for me, especially as it means I can stay away from dodgy sites and dodgy executables, and generally just wasted time and mess. Not to mention being made to feel you are some kind of cheat, even though you paid good money for the game.

For me the answer to the question is like a lot of things, "It Depends".

I have a very specific reason and can be narrowed down to this question:

"Will *I* be able to play the game again in the future?"

So for instance, if the software required a CD-Key, I would probably be okay with that.

If it required a CD-Key and online activation, then I would not be okay with that.

If it required no on-line anything and no keys but came on media that I couldn't back up, like some of those old 'uncopyable' CD/DVDs, then I would also not be okay with that - The fact that many modern PCs don't even come with optical drives shows that you cannot rely on physical media as anything other than a transport for the data.
I wouldn't even accept a USB key as there is a very good chance USB ports will go the way of serial, parallel and PS/2 ports eventually. They are already doing that on laptops, some of which only come with USB-C.

I do have to make some concessions - Windows is a particular problem, although with WINE, Proton and hopefully ReactOS progressing I will hopefully be able to fully abandon Microsoft Windows in time, since they seem intent on making it as awful as possible.


I've already had too many bad experiences with relying on third parties' future existence and goodwill to able to use programs I buy in the present to work in the future to trust any kind of DRM - We have already lost access to so many games due to activation servers shutting down, companies folding or being bought out, or even whole platform servers being shut down. It's also why I don't use newer consoles - So many of their games are download-only which means spending hours downloading, and then losing access to it when the console stops being supported.

I think for most users they don't care - They are happy to pay 60-100+ dollarpoundyens for a game, play it for a few months then forget about it, but I still treasure games I've bought in the past - They are works of art to me, and I still play things like Freespace 2, and all my LucasArts games etc., which I might not be able to do with many modern games due to their reliance on third-party on-line DRM.


I'll admit it's unlikely to happen with Steam, as Valve has a defacto monopoly with Steam that is nearly as big as Microsoft does with Windows, but I'm still not willing to take that risk - The GFWL debacle showed how most publishers don't care, given how most GWFL games other than the big ones can now only be played with third party cracks - and a business going under is not the only way access could be cut off as Adobe has shown recently when it cut off an entire country from its services with no chance to retrieve any of their work, or even a refund, due to embargo sanctions.

Given how Brexit is going right now I can imagine our politicians burning off the last of the EU's goodwill, leaving the door open for Trump to leverage an embargo against the UK to try and force an unfavorable trade deal.


For me GOG is like a holy grail - It's like buying stuff from on-line Shareware authors in the past before all the hypocrites who didn't boycott Windows XP told the industry that it was okay to treat us like that.
I give you money, you give me the installer that I can store, and no further interaction is required.

I just wish GOG had more acceptance and access to more games - I would love to see things like Jets and Guns, Jets and Guns 2, The Untitled Goose Game, The Outer Worlds, Rage, the new Doom and the newer Doom, Earth Defense Force 5, Forza Horizon 4 etc. but have to accept that I'm unlikely to ever see most of those here.

But that is the irony - By not being here, those are Tangible Lost Sales - Hear that publishers?
You spend millions on trying to make the game impossible to pirate - If you succeed, do you see an uptick in sales? No, because the people that pirate games will just play other games.
But all the time, you are costing yourselves thousands of sales to people like me - That is a loss to your bottom line YOU are causing yourselves. You cannot blame piracy for those losses. That is all on you.

The DRM doesn't even help - The 2 examples that always spring to mind are the Warhammer 40k Dawn of War series and Prince of Persia 2008 - They had no DRM aside from an off-line CD-Key and they were not pirated any more than other games of their time, many of which had much more very expensive DRM (And which was cracked within weeks, sometimes days, of release).

Ubisoft deliberately released PoP2008 to prove a point about piracy - They went very quiet when the reverse of what they were trying to prove was shown.

A couple of things I missed, which Cyker's post brought to mind - Longevity & Security.

When you pay as much as you do for some games, then really some kind of safe secure backup is a must.

Weird hurdles in the future due to today's form of DRM, are just not sensible for your outlay either.

If I am spending good amounts of money on a game, I want access to be available to me 24/7, year after year, without preventative hurdles or limitations.

-------------------------------------

I wonder if games will ever move to the rent model, something like Netflix, etc?
I guess there is a good chance they will.
Be much less money overall to the Devs and Pubs though, I would imagine.
But perhaps a guaranteed income might offset the usual risks.

So of course, in that scenario, you pay a minute sum per game to play the rented version.
That would add a significantly different factor to the DRM model ... at least financially for consumers, though not many other practical benefits I would imagine, other than a broad choice of games to play for very little relative outlay.

This...thankfully I pay very little for most games(not because I am cheap, but because I am more poor than some and need to do so).

Also I can backup even DRMd games as I don't mind cracking out DRM on paid for games(if possible), so thankfully backing up most games is easy for me to do.

Also this(you make many good points, it seems).....it is always desirable to be able to use something someone bought for as long as possible & DRM free helps make that easier.

Sadly, however, even with such one can lose access to their games. Drives(portable/internal in the PC case/etc) and other storage devices can fail, one can forget to backup their installers and the sources can go offline, their OS of choice can stop supporting the game(Win 10 with it's updates), etc.

Some already have....there's Game Pass for MX/Xbox, and similar for PS 3&4. Also in the past there was stuff like gametap(digital rentals) & gamefly(still here and iirc they do physical disc shipments/rentals like netflix of old).

Of course one can BUY said games for a discount and keep them on their systems or buy said games in physical form and continue playing even if the rental expires/is dropped(via game saves on the console), which means one can extend their gameplay as a non-rental in such cases. I seriously hope they don't move to solely renting games, as that would seriously be a cr*p move, imo.

For me it is a godsend as it allows me to try games for cheap without needing to go the "argh matey" route as much to do so, and if I like a game can usually find it on eBay/etc and then I own it, and I can drop the games I dislike even after playing for a good amount of time....so it has some pluses for me(as you said) and others, which is nice.

The Netflix model would at least be more honest than Steam & Co. currently are. You pay a monthly "library free" and have access to everything that library contains. Stop paying that fee and you lose that access. Steam & Co do suggest that you "buy" a product though, when in reality you pay for a service subscriptions ("for the time being...") for a single product.
When you buy a product, you own it, and with that single product you can do as you like. Use it in intended and unintended ways, destroy it, re-sell it, give it away, bury it somewhere and forget about it... But since you in reality you only rent the products on Steam and Co, you can't do all that. It's like you go to a library and want to lend out a book (for admittedly: potentially an indefinite amount of time) - and have to pay the same price for that single book as if you bought it in a store. And what's more, if the book gets a revised edition, for the better or worse, they can force you to exchange it for the old one. And if for some reason you and them have some fallout - they send someone over who will promptly empty your shelves, no matter how much money you spent on those books - they're not yours.
Nobody would agree to such a scheme but: here comes the catch: the books they carry aren't available in normal bookstores anymore. Just in that expensive library. And instead of making it clear you're only lending out those books for a hefty fee, they leave you to the illusion you actually bought them.

Nicely worded post, but a few things I noticed that can be avoided if one is morally flexible or are misconceptions/not 100% applicable:

This is only if one isn't morally flexible(or is afraid of being punished or doesn't know how to do so) and cannot/will not crack stuff they paid for to own it outright. Also that doesn't apply(even without cracking) to some older games which one can port to source ports/etc.

As I said above, one can do some of that by cracking their games(after buying of course, not just pirating outright) somewhat easily(usually) for many games and extremely easily(without cracks) for some(older games with portable files like Duke Nukem/Blood/etc).

Also often the price is cheaper(which is a factor for some like me, sadly) as steam does many sales over the year.

As above, if one cracks and back's up paid for games this isn't a problem anymore, even if they empty your shelves(which I also think is a very dikish move).

True(for many games on steam), which is why I am glad I am be flexible when needed.

That's not the point. What matter of self-defense you choose is your own problem. Although you perpetuate the problem when you spend money on Steam & Co.

What I was talking about is the dishonesty - maybe even fraud - of making people believe they buy a product, when in reality they don't. It's not just Steam & Co, this is also Amazon and co. for Video and DRM'd eBooks, they also delude you with their big "Buy now" buttons, when all you do is getting a limited and revocable right to use this product in a few defined ways as long as the "seller" provides this service.

My choice is to simply not use services like that. It's a matter of principle.
I do use Netflix, because they're honest about what they provide and what I pay for (I just wish they were more transparent for how long stuff stays in their library - one short warning a month before it's gone is simply not enough for a long-running show - if you see this warning at all). I might use a Netflix-like service (library-like) for games too if it's cheap enough, although I very much prefer to own my games. I've also bought books I already had read from my local library (or borrowed from a friend) and (rarely) bought movies or shows I've already seen, so that would be my use case for a game library like that - to decide what I want to "permanently own", if possible.

I was trying to point out that there are technically ways to get around said DRM and own one's games, and that not all games there are DRMd when using source ports. I often bring up technical exceptions like that(my nature I guess).

Also perpetuating the problem? That would imply that if I and a few others stopped buying there then many others would likely follow suit/steam would change it's ways/etc.....which is likely not the case unless steam pulled a big dumb move and many left.

People have access to information to prove or disprove claims nowadays......fraud matters less when we have such, but sadly many are too lazy or blind to look into such things.

"Buyer beware...etc" should be something kept at heart when buying from many places, so while I fault such deceptive practices when they occur I also see that it is well known about steam being a rental by now & have to fault the dumb users who get "deceived" anyways by a small bit as well as steam.

Sounds good and I applaud you for sticking to your guns while also being a bit flexible with re: to Netflix/etc.

You just need to be diligent and buy enough drives for multiple backups, and don't store them in the same place ... preferably in another home.

I guess I had forgotten that some is already happening. Both my lads do that on Xbox. Still, not the same as a less controlled PC environment.

We are moving into an age, where ownership of luxury things is not seen the same as it was. Many now have a different take on life, so are quite happy with rental and less clutter. Easier to upsticks and move around, transform yourself etc etc. Too many possessions can hold you back .... says me who has a lot in some things. I am a collector, and they make me feel rich, even though I ain't financially. At best I am lower middle class, though more likely upper lower class. And that's now, because I am older and retired. Most of my life I was less than that, and my collections have been a slow build thing. I can never really be rich, unless I won the lottery ... something I never buy a ticket for.

Anyway, games are currently often being played in the realm of digital products. In theory, we should have access to everything once it becomes digital, but that clearly does not happen. Big business doesn't want to let go of the older model. Sometimes it's not even about money, it is about control or bias.

I can't fault the reasoning of most of that, as I pretty much see it the same.

However, as much as my family use Netflix, I don't. Personally I don't like it, for pretty much some of the reasons you mention in your next post. My approach though, is with the mindset of a collector, and I don't like the idea that I will probably lose access to something I like at some point. That is why I collect after all, to avoid that. So for me, money spent on Netflix is money wasted, that could have been spent on an addition to my collections.

Add to that the fact I am so far behind in my viewing with what I own, that I could never justify paying for rental stuff to watch, when sense says use up what you have already paid for first.

I do buy ebooks from Amazon and sometimes others, but only because the DRM is easy enough to remove or they don't have any. I don't share with others outside my family, not even friends, so I feel no guilt at all at being able to backup what I have and make device types flexible. I'm not the borrowing or lending type either, so I pay to own.

So I guess you could say, that my view is DRM should mean a rental price, not a buying price. And that should be a huge difference, far cheaper for a DRM product you will never own.

P.S. All that said, there is quite a bit of disparity out there. Take books for instance. Most people read them once, so whether an ebook or a physical book, you are mostly having the same experience, so perhaps the cost should reflect that? However, on the other side of the coin, you can lend or sell a physical book, and ebooks are far far cheaper to provide. So when you think about watching something on Netflix, as opposed to what you pay if you buy the same video, and factor in how many times you are likely to watch, especially as there is just more to watch than you can keep up with now, you can see that Netflix devalues videos a lot. Also compare that to the cost of the Cinema experience.

You get a similar thing with Spotify and others. We are going through a real change right now, not the least of which, is the value of things.

In that case I can totally understand it. I use Netflix because I don't feel that desire to own movies or TV shows, except for a few rare cases. Stuff I view multiple times are certainly less than 5% of what I totally watch - and I don't watch that much. What I want to own are games (obviously), music (I still buy CDs) and often books (although I use the local library too).
I used to buy some movies and TV shows before there was Netflix, because it was the only way to watch them with the original voice-over. Now streaming offers me that out of the box and this reason is gone.

I agree in principle. Although of course if everything works out ok a game will stay with all your life on Steam too. It's not like you rent a Video for a night for a buck. People are free to choose what this rental service is worth to them. It just irks me that they are deluded that they are "buying" stuff.

I'm curious what will come out of his:
https://www.techspot.com/news/81984-french-court-verdict-makes-legal-european-consumers-resell.html
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-09-19-french-court-rules-steam-users-have-right-to-resell-their-games
https://www.polygon.com/2019/9/19/20874384/french-court-steam-valve-used-games-eu-law

If this stands, Steam either would have to completely change their business practices, or the wording of their service (by not calling it "buying" but "subscribing" or something like that). In the latter case this would have tremendous repercussions for all games previously "sold", the former case would probably create trouble with the publishers (depending on the contracts they have with Steam), while technically they should have the means to transfer DRM'd games from one account to another.

Sorry, I did some edits in my last post .... found I had more to say, but disruptive to start a new post.

--------------------------------------------------------

I still buy CDs too. Don't buy music any other way, except I have gravitated more to music concert blu-rays these days, going for the visual plus audio. That said, I already have a large CD collection, so I don't want for much music.

---------------------------------------------------------

The Steam model is a value based one. Sure you can purchase a game from Steam, and it may still be there in 20 years or more. However, how often will you play that game? Especially as you collect more and more games. There is only so much time in a life and an increasing number of things to do and interests and entertainment to keep up with. So in a way, it is like a rental in many cases, but you aren't paying the rental price.

You could equate it to Netflix, still showing the same NCIS series in 20 years. Some shows may remain available forever and a day.

It is certainly interesting to speculate on the outcome.

It could well be, that Steam will need to make games much cheaper, more like a rental or subscription, and not mention any kind of ownership sense at all, so that the resell scenario is no longer a valid complaint etc.

True. Concerning prices though, it's "the market" which takes care of that. As long as people are prepared to pay the same price for a subscription as for a formerly "real" product from a brick and mortar store - and if it's only for lack of alternatives - this will not change. There's also a (small) market for completely function-less "I am rich" mobile apps which cost hundreds of dollars and that do - nothing.

What the French trial showed was that Steam tells the customer they would buy a product, while being held to that retreat to "it's just a subscription". IMO this cannot stand. If the customers are willing to pay the same price for "just a subscription" remains to be seen - I'm afraid they are, since many of the "more enlightened" users here are also Steam users and are perfectly aware of its nature. As you yourself wrote, most people aren't really interested in preservation, they just want to play their new game here and now, and are willing to pay the asked price, subscription and DRM instead of ownership or not. Which is fair, and their own choice.
Steam (and in the same vein the other stores including Amazon) just shouldn't get away with lying either to their customers or the law with their "buy now" buttons.