You've got to laugh at the hypocrisy of big companies sometimes. It's a well known fact that Apple operates a very closed and controlling walled garden eco system with all of their products, courtesy of the late Steve Jobs. Examples include the iPhone, which can only purchase apps from the official Apple apps store and the iPod, which can also only sync with iTunes, both due to deliberate vendor lock-in using a combination of hardware and software DRM (Digital Restrictions Management). Apple claims that this is to ensure a seamless, consistent and high quality user experience. Savvy users know this to be only half the story, instead it's there to shut out competition and lock you in to Apple for everything in order to charge high prices for allegedly "premium" product. The only way to avoid this, is to jailbreak the devices (break the DRM) which conveniently (for Apple) voids the warranty on these expensive gadgets. Thankfully, this process is no longer underground, due to a recent court ruling that said jailbreaking was legal, much to Apple's displeasure.
Jailbreaking was found to be completely legal, which was a good decision IMO. Hypocrisy is too strong of a word to use in this article, because nothing contained in it proves that Valve is malicious about their DRM.
However, the equally closed Valve, with their Steam gaming platform and it's account-based DRM has accused Apple of being a closed system! They are also "concerned" about it. This happened in an interview between Bellevue-based Valve's Gabe Newell and leading games investor Ed Fries at the WTIA TechNW conference. This has been reported in The Seattle Times in Brier Dudley's blog.
Account based DRM for games that are freely available through other (aside from Valve’s games, which require Steam, as well as a few other select titles) e-tailers and retailers. You are more than welcome to purchase your games through them, if you prefer.
The Steam platform gives the illusion of openness, because it allows such things as game backups to be made and also allows a game to be played on any number of computers (one at a time of course) simply by installing the Steam client, the game and logging in. Like Apple, you can also only purchase from its own store, of course. However, it's certainly one of the "best" DRMs out there as far as DRM goes, given the various features of the Steam client, such as auto updates and social networking. However, the huge "but" in all this though, is that Valve do not let you sell on your used Steam games as a matter of corporate policy (SSA section E,(i)), although the system to transfer game access from one account to another has always been present and correct. This removes an individual's first sale rights as defined in law, but makes games companies ecstatic, because they have complained bitterly about used game sales allegedly eating into their business, as if they have any right to that used game money in the first place. It's exactly like car companies stopping you from selling your used motor, alleging that it hurts the sales of new cars. Utter rubbish. One wonders if this unreasonable restriction would truly stand up in court if someone with money took them on?
The Steam platform gives no illusion of openness. It’s quite simply a retail store for purchasing games. True, it started out as DRM for Valves own games, but its business model has changed over the years. Some of the “unjust” restrictions you gripe about are things that are quite necessary to prevent abuse of Steam. I’m going to break down your points just a little more here…
The Steam platform gives the illusion of openness, because it allows such things as game backups to be made and also allows a game to be played on any number of computers (one at a time of course) simply by installing the Steam client, the game and logging in.
Yup, you’re only allowed to have your Steam account logged into one computer (with internet access to Steams online features) at any time. This prevents abusing ones account. I mean, if that restriction wasn’t there, I’d be able to allow you to log into my account and play any game you wanted to while I did the same thing. That sounds awefully close to, but not quite, piracy.
Like Apple, you can also only purchase from its own store, of course.
LOL, Steam is DRM, Steam is a retail STORE. Why would Valve allow or even be forced to consider allowing Direct2Drive sell a retail game through Steam? That almost what you are arguing! Most every game available over Steam is readily available through other retailers. Even Valve’s games, which require Steam to activate and play, are available for purchase through most brick and mortar shops.
However, it's certainly one of the "best" DRMs out there as far as DRM goes, given the various features of the Steam client, such as auto updates and social networking. However, the huge "but" in all this though, is that Valve do not let you sell on your used Steam games as a matter of corporate policy (SSA section E,(i)), although the system to transfer game access from one account to another has always been present and correct. This removes an individual's first sale rights as defined in law, but makes games companies ecstatic, because they have complained bitterly about used game sales allegedly eating into their business, as if they have any right to that used game money in the first place. It's exactly like car companies stopping you from selling your used motor, alleging that it hurts the sales of new cars. Utter rubbish. One wonders if this unreasonable restriction would truly stand up in court if someone with money took them on?
You’re absolutely right about it being one of the best DRM’s out there. It’s so good that I don’t care about Steam’s DRM. Would you rather have oppressive DRM like Ubisoft’s? SecuROM? Again, the decision to not allow selling of games through Steam’s client is their own business. You have to acknowledge that you have read the Steam Subscriber Agreement before making ANY purchase or any activation through Steam.
It doesn’t remove anyones first-sale doctrine rights as defined by law. For the uninitiated, first-sale rights are there for movies and music as they are sold. To get around this, software companies “license” their products to get around the first-sale doctrine. The case for first-sale rights hasn’t been brought before court yet, and it should be, because I firmly believe that first-sale rights
will be applied to software if it were. Comparing something that you own to something that you, technically, rent is false. Your argument is false.
In the interview, Fries asked if these were the best of times, or the worst. For the clearest answer to this question, let's quote from Dudley's blog. Newell replied:
"It's a very interesting time."
"Our business is growing very rapidly both on the content side and on the service platform side so in that sense, business has never been better," Newell said. "The challenges we see looking forward are very rapidly evolving model for how value is created for customers."
After broad pursuit massively multiplayer online games, the free-to-play model is emerging as "a really interesting opportunity," he said.
But there are dark clouds forming, Newell continued, raising concerns about the closed-garden approach of platforms such as Apple's iOS.
"On the platform side, it's sort of ominous that the world seems to be moving away from open platforms," he said.
Platform providers that used to use their role to enable developers "instead view themselves as more rent guys who are essentially driving their partner margins to zero," he said.
"They build a shiny sparkling thing that attracts users and then they control people's access to those things," he said.
Newell said that "very large structural investments and structural changes" are coming over the next few years that will threaten people who create value bulding things like the open Internet.
Here’s Gabe calling Apple a closed-garden system. Specifically, iOS. It’s true, Apple has iOS on lockdown, and the iPad is turning out to be one of the next big gaming platforms. Why shouldn’t Steam be available on it? I mean, Steam is available on OSX, am I right?
The conversation then moved onto consoles, but soon returned to discussion of closed
systems. Notice how these closed systems act like the worst kind of monopolies, with the company running it squeezing their partners so hard that they make no money at all. Therefore, their greed ends up killing their golden goose and the business model fails for everyone. This is just the same as expecting people to work an average 9-5 office job without pay. Ridiculous. Dudley continues with:
Newell reiterated his concerns about a closed model being the "wrong philosophical approach" but one that people will emulate because of the success of Apple and Xbox Live.
"I'm worried that the things that traditionally have been the source of a lot of innovation are going - there's going to be an attempt to close those off so somebody will say 'I'm tired of competing with Google, I'm tired of compeitng with Facebook, I'll apply a console model and exclude the competitors I don't like from my world.'"
Fries asked Newell to clarify whether he sees Apple as being a closed platform.
"I consider Apple to be very closed," Newell said. "Let's say you have a book business and you are charging 5 to 7 percent gross margins. You can't exist in an Apple world because they want 30 percent and they don't care that you only have 7 percent to play with."
Doesn't Valve's Steam service also extract a "tax" on game companies that use the platform, Fries asked.
Newell said Steam gets a commission if games are sold through Steam, but developers can use its free tools and services and sell their games elsewhere and "we don't take anything."
If Valve were to make a hardware platform, it would open it up to competing distribution systems because openness is important to the future of the entertainment industry, he said.
Yup, Gabe Newell has been a critic of consoles for a long time. Look at what he said about the PlayStation3. He said it was a disaster in every way, the Valve games that ended up on PS3 weren’t even ported by Valve. What would make Valve change their tune? Sony opening PSN to them and allowing Steamworks features to be implemented over their network. That’s a win-win for Valve fans and PS3 owners. I mean, everyone that bought a copy of Portal 2 for the PS3 also got a free copy of the game for PC and Mac.
My earlier point was that Valve gets a commission for every game purchased through Steam, just like any other retailer.
Reread the last part of that blog entry:
Newell said Steam gets a commission if games are sold through Steam, but developers can use its free tools and services and sell their games elsewhere and "we don't take anything."
If Valve were to make a hardware platform, it would open it up to competing distribution systems because openness is important to the future of the entertainment industry, he said.
What Gabe said was if he were to put out a console, he'd make sure other vendors could sell and distribute games for it, meaning he would allow other vendors to compete on it. Total win in my opinion.
So there you have it. Steam is wonderfully open in the sense that developers can use it flexibly and they don't charge high commissions, but the customer (gamer) is locked in tight, like a straitjacket. How is this an open system?
And every consumer has the ability as everyone else to elect to not use their service or play their games. I don’t but Ubisoft games because I don’t like their DRM.
As the old saying goes, it's the pot calling the kettle black. Enjoy the picture.
Maybe, maybe not. Valve and Steam are worlds apart from Apple and iOS. I maintain that your editorial is intellectually dishonest and doesn’t provide enough factual basis that Steam is anything more than a retail outlet for all publishers while providing a less intrusive DRM.
I don't like to have my intelligence insulted, especially on reading comprehension. I'm no mouth breather.
Keep up the good work bro.
My apologies.
