3rd party DRM on Steam (New Batman and L.A. Noire)

[Mr McC]

I avoided the first Batman title as a result of the Securom and I am aware that others did the same. However the upcoming sequel still includes the Securom even on Steam:

http://www.reclaimyourgame.com/showthread.php/5138-Batman-Arkham-City-BEWARE-Bad-news-for-most!

For its part, L.A. Noire is set to use GameShield on the version released through Steam.

I would more than likely have bought both games on Steam if they had no 3rd-party DRM.

Without any wish to get into another debate about DRM, I fail to understand why there is a need for any further protection on Steam releases. Steam itself is DRM and as a user I have already consented to its use, so why the need to clutter my computer with so much unnecessary crap? Is it simply laziness on the part of the developer or do Sony oblige everyone using Securom to include it on all platforms used to release the title? Surely two and even three different DRM layers is both excessive and potentially problematic?

 

[n-ster]

What exactly do theses DRMs do? Do they do anything negative to the legit buyer?

 

[Mr McC]

What exactly do theses DRMs do? Do they do anything negative to the legit buyer?

Many people would claim that they have no effect on the gaming experience and should simply be ignored; however, numerous problems have been attributed to almost each and every form of DRM, particularly Securom. In addition to technical problems there is also the issue of installation limits, a means of enforcing a lease contract rather than ceding ownership. In any event, what they do not do is accomplish what they were allegedly intended to do, namely, stop piracy.

Check out this site:

http://www.reclaimyourgame.com/

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Steam DRM is ineffective; Rockstar and Warner Brothers know it. The cracking groups can break it in a matter of minutes. This is why they add a second layer of protection effectively meaning the cracking groups might as well get the DVD version and crack that instead because they'll only have to contend with one layer of security instead of two.

Of course it doesn't do any good to add two layers of security when both are relatively easy to break but, it helps them sleep better at night.

 

[Mr McC]

I assume the lost sales cause them no sleepless nights, after all, they can't be measured.

 

[n-ster]

Shareholders are happier = stock is valued higher

 

[qubit]

I avoided the first Batman title as a result of the Securom and I am aware that others did the same. However the upcoming sequel still includes the Securom even on Steam:

http://www.reclaimyourgame.com/showthread.php/5138-Batman-Arkham-City-BEWARE-Bad-news-for-most!

For its part, L.A. Noire is set to use GameShield on the version released through Steam.

I would more than likely have bought both games on Steam if they had no 3rd-party DRM.

Without any wish to get into another debate about DRM, I fail to understand why there is a need for any further protection on Steam releases. Steam itself is DRM and as a user I have already consented to its use, so why the need to clutter my computer with so much unnecessary crap? Is it simply laziness on the part of the developer or do Sony oblige everyone using Securom to include it on all platforms used to release the title? Surely two and even three different DRM layers is both excessive and potentially problematic?

Yeah, I'm so with you on this. I always check for third party DRM before buying anything on Steam. You remember how I got a refund a while back for undisclosed securom crap on Crysis 2 on Steam? I started a thread on it. Crysis 2 is no longer available on Steam, anyway.

 

[Mr McC]

Quibit, I remember the thread well and applaud your stance and the outcome.

Shareholders are happier = stock is valued higher

I only wish there was a method of calculating lost sales resulting from DRM usage, that might cause more than a few shareholders to cough on their claret.

 

[n-ster]

Quibit, I remember the thread well and applaud your stance and the outcome.



I only wish there was a method of calculating lost sales resulting from DRM usage, that might cause more than a few shareholders to cough on their claret.

I doubt standard DRMs lose many sells TBH. A few thousand at most. Remember games re targeted towards the masses, not just the tech community

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

What exactly do theses DRMs do? Do they do anything negative to the legit buyer?

They, by definition, influence the legit buyer. These programs consume system resources (albeit a small amount), force connectivity to the parent company, and have a track record of borking systems should the wind be blowing in the wrong direction.

If you'd like a brief history, search these forums for Punk Buster.

Steam, in my opinion, was the first group to get it right. Minimal intrusion, friendly interface, and convenient structure. Before attaining this, Steam suffered through its early crappy phase.

 

[n-ster]

I've never had much of an issue with PB except that it runs even when the game is not even running, so I gotta terminate the services manually

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

I've never had much of an issue with PB except that it runs even when the game is not even running, so I gotta terminate the services manually

That's good for you.

I don't mean this in a condescending way, I mean to say that you are not representative of everyone. I can say that I rarely have problems with DRM, but when I do they are game breakers. To not be able to play a game, because the game makers want to "protect" themselves with DRM, is a joke.

To have two types of balloons, with holes in each (installing DRM on a platform which is DRM), does not hold water better than a single balloon with a hole. The water may be retained for a longer period of time, but it will still escape. In the mean time, the person who paid for the water is angry because they can only get the water they paid for through one orifice.


Edit: Edited for not being on topic.

 

[newtekie1]

In any event, what they do not do is accomplish what they were allegedly intended to do, namely, stop piracy.

That would be correct if the DRM was designed to stop piracy, but they aren't...so...yeah...

I doubt standard DRMs lose many sells TBH. A few thousand at most. Remember games re targeted towards the masses, not just the tech community

People should also remember that DRM is targeted at the masses too.

 

[Jaffakeik]

Absolutely dont care about this crap of DRM or securom, I play game only once dont play it twice,exception was diablo 2 and MMO games.So DRM means for me absolutely nothing.

 

[WhiteNoise]

The only thing I can add to this conversation is I buy every game I want to play. I pay no attention to the DRM's used and to this date I have never had an issue (technically) or not being able to reinstall a game I bought. To my knowledge most games that limit installs can have each install reversed simply by uninstalling the game. But I personally haven't had any problems.

 

[1Kurgan1]

The only thing I can add to this conversation is I buy every game I want to play. I pay no attention to the DRM's used and to this date I have never had an issue (technically) or not being able to reinstall a game I bought. To my knowledge most games that limit installs can have each install reversed simply by uninstalling the game. But I personally haven't had any problems.

Same, I don't get the big fuss. If you don't have an internet connection, then I could see a problem with some of the DRM out there. But then, I doubt you would be posting here.

 

[HossHuge]

Is the DRM the reason I can't sell my games (without giving away my username)? Cause if it is that's the reason it sucks for me.

 

[WhiteNoise]

Considering I never sell PC games thats one thing I don't have to worry about.

I only sell PS3 and 360 games once in awhile.

 

[JC316]

I hate the third party DRM. Drives me up the wall because it's so damned touchy. The later Splinter Cell games is a good example. Half of the game is just trying to get that crap to work. Bioshock 2 and the limited number of activations is another. It's tethered to my steam account, not like I can sell it, so whats the point?

 

[Mr McC]

In any event, what they do not do is accomplish what they were allegedly intended to do, namely, stop piracy.

That would be correct if the DRM was designed to stop piracy, but they aren't...so...yeah...

It is correct, you missed the "allegedly".

 

[1Kurgan1]

Is the DRM the reason I can't sell my games (without giving away my username)? Cause if it is that's the reason it sucks for me.

No, Disc games come with DRM as well. The reason you can't sell your games is thats just how Steam works. But the massive benefit you get is Steam sales, in the end it pays off to have Steam just for those.

 

[erocker]

I don't see what Steam has to do with it. Whether you buy it on steam or elsewhere it's going to have this DRM. Steam is just a retail outlet like any other service of this type. I'll buy it and not give it a second thought.

 

[Mr McC]

I don't see what Steam has to do with it. Whether you buy it on steam or elsewhere it's going to have this DRM. Steam is just a retail outlet like any other service of this type. I'll buy it and not give it a second thought.

DRM primarily exists to prevent second-hand sales and only hinders the most inept from obtaining a pirated copy. Steam is not merely a retail outlet, it is a form of DRM and works to the same extent as other forms of DRM in preventing piracy i.e. not at all where someone is determined not to pay. Given that Steam already "protects" I fail to see the need for any further DRM, particularly when you consider that, in the best possible situation, additional DRM serves no logical purpose other than pointlessly nibbling away at resources.

 

[RejZoR]

If we have Steam, we don't need another shit attached to the games. Valve should be more strict about this. No 3rd party DRM or they can buzz off.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Valve would lose many publishers (virtually all except those that are already lax with DRM) and they simply can't afford to do that.