[MODERATED] EULA, EA, Valve, InsertPublisherHere and you.

[gundato]

How about they just sell the software?

If you want automatic updates and achievements, you can pay for a steam subscription. If you don't (because achievements are pointless and we all managed to update our games before Steam) you don't have to. If you want the "hassle" of updating yourself, you have to go to find the patcher yourself like we did in ye olde days.

Legally, I am not sure how "selling the software" in the sense people seem to want/believe exists would work.

But here is the thing: That would be a LOT more effort to make what will inevitablye result in a group who bitch about being "second class citizens" ("Oh mah gawdz!!! I have no achievements or cloud syncing?!?!? YOU GUYS SCAMMED ME!!!").

Patches will involve making multiple versions (and probably a return to the madness that was incremental patching). They'll need places to store those patches and that will greatly increase the difficulty of tech support ("THis don't work... wait, there was a patch five years ago?").

And sadly, I don't think it would help. Don't get me wrong, a LOT of people would like that. But it isn't a deal-breaker for them. The people who say "I refuse to pay for this because it uses Steam" will, by and large, become "I refuse to pay for this because it uses incremental patching". There are, sadly, always going to be people who just look for an excuse to bitch. No citation for that, but I think it falls under common sense (so ignore it if it doesn't support your argument :p).

So it would be a case that might make a bunch of people slightly happier at the cost of greatly increased support costs and an arguably negligible (long-term) impact on sales.

[Shooop]

I "love" when people use the "it's a privilege" thing. So is your computer. So is living in a house. So is any food that you didn't have to find yourself.

Does that mean anyone should have the ability to take it away from you if ever they feel like it even though you've paid for it? Because they're luxuries.

[gundato]

I "love" when people use the "it's a privilege" thing. So is your computer. So is living in a house. So is any food that you didn't have to find yourself.

Does that mean anyone should have the ability to take it away from you if ever they feel like it even though you've paid for it? Because they're luxuries.

If they have a legal right to do so and your continued use of said luxury places a burden upon them and/or impacts others in a negative fashion, then yes.

In particular, the things that people would be banned for in terms of multiplayer greatly lower the enjoyment of other paying customers who can manage to avoid being asshats for the duration of a game. It sucks that your "singleplayer" games are affected as well, but that is still a burden on the people providing the service. There is no "right" that says Valve and EA should have to continue to serve you even as you lower the quality of the experience they provide for everyone else or abuse them.

[Jesus_Phish]

If they have a legal right to do so and your continued use of said luxury places a burden upon them and/or impacts others in a negative fashion, then yes.

In particular, the things that people would be banned for in terms of multiplayer greatly lower the enjoyment of other paying customers who can manage to avoid being asshats for the duration of a game. It sucks that your "singleplayer" games are affected as well, but that is still a burden on the people providing the service. There is no "right" that says Valve and EA should have to continue to serve you even as you lower the quality of the experience they provide for everyone else or abuse them.

Now, how do you apply this to a single player game? I go back to skyrim again, a game that has no multiplayer at all. Steam provides for that game

Achievements - some people love them, some hate them, we all got along fine without them
Updates - Morrowind had an updater too, built into the launcher.
Workshop - Nothing that wasn't already covered by Nexus.

I can in no way, be a "burden" to anyone in an exclusive single player game. I can be a burden to people in multiplayer and in communities, but in a single player only game, it's impossible for me to a burden to anything by the NPCs.

I'm not condemning Steam and I don't wear a tin foil hat worrying that one day GabeN is going to take his ball and go home, but you must admit that there is no benefit that people have requested from being forced to use their service. And they are being forced to use it if they want to continue in a hobby that they in all likelihood grew up with.

Even to use your example of selling a kidney to play Warhammer Fantasy, something which yes you would have to do in order to pay for their models. You can buy models that are representative of all the major factions of WHFB from another company called Mantic at what works out at about $1 a model and the more you buy the more value for cash you get (eg, 10 dudes = 10 dollars, 20 dudes is 18 dollars so on and on). You can buy the rules for the game from GW. Then you can play the game. Nobody from GW can come to your house and smash up your models. They won't let you play in their store, but that's fine, because you don't have to play in their store.

[Drake Sigar]

There is no "right" that says Valve and EA should have to continue to serve you even as you lower the quality of the experience they provide for everyone else or abuse them.

And there's no right for a company that says they get to keep both the money and the merchandise from the customer who paid for it. How can the customer compromise when the service provider holds all the cards, and is slowly ensuring more and more games require it's use to run? Steam even has a legion of gamers actually demanding games use Steamworks. "Give me DRM or give me death!" Wasn't that long ago that it was just optional.

I don't do, nor care for multiplayer, so I won't bother fighting on that rocky ground.

[gundato]

Achievements - some people love them, some hate them, we all got along fine without them
Updates - Morrowind had an updater too, built into the launcher.
Workshop - Nothing that wasn't already covered by Nexus.

And none of the features in Oblivion and Skyrim couldn't be added to Morrowind through mods (and REALLY heavy use of the script extender :p).

Achievements are a part of the game, like it or not, and they take advantage of the steamworks service.
Morrowind had an updater, but that also meant Bethesda/Zenimax had to store the patches somewhere and it made support (what little Bethesda gives :p) more difficult by having to make sure people were using the right versions. I recall more than a few discussions in the tech support forum where someone hadn't used the latest Bloodmoon patch, for example.

Because there is a difference between a "singleplayer" game and an "offline" game. The latter is becoming very very rare.

I can in no way, be a "burden" to anyone in an exclusive single player game. I can be a burden to people in multiplayer and in communities, but in a single player only game, it's impossible for me to a burden to anything by the NPCs.

Correct. Unfortunately, that singleplayer game uses the same online service that the multiplayer games use. So you (hopefully) won't be banned for what you did in Spec Ops, but you sure as hell can be banned for what you do in Chivalry (well, not so much, but you know what I mean :p).

I'm not condemning Steam and I don't wear a tin foil hat worrying that one day GabeN is going to take his ball and go home, but you must admit that there is no benefit that people have requested from being forced to use their service. And they are being forced to use it if they want to continue in a hobby that they in all likelihood grew up with.

Huh? "no benefit that people have requested from being forced to use their service"? I don't quite follow.

And you are right, you ARE forced to use it if you want to keep using that luxury and the services the devs want.

But the thing is, those developers (many who HAVE been working since we were growing up) are of the opinion that people LIKE these online services and what nots. So they are providing them. Nothing is stopping you from refusing to play new releases if you feel that the new features aren't worth the hassle.

Even to use your example of selling a kidney to play Warhammer Fantasy, something which yes you would have to do in order to pay for their models. You can buy models that are representative of all the major factions of WHFB from another company called Mantic at what works out at about $1 a model and the more you buy the more value for cash you get (eg, 10 dudes = 10 dollars, 20 dudes is 18 dollars so on and on). You can buy the rules for the game from GW. Then you can play the game. Nobody from GW can come to your house and smash up your models. They won't let you play in their store, but that's fine, because you don't have to play in their store.

And nobody is stopping you from only playing indie games released via the Humble Bundle.

And there's no right for a company that says they get to keep both the money and the merchandise from the customer who paid for it. How can the customer compromise when the service provider holds all the cards, and is slowly ensuring more and more games require it's use to run? Steam even has a legion of gamers actually demanding games use Steamworks. "Give me DRM or give me death!" Wasn't that long ago that it was just optional.

I don't do, nor care for multiplayer, so I won't bother fighting on that rocky ground.

Like I said, singleplayer game does not necessarily mean offline game these days. And the whole "leasing" crap.

And do you know WHY people say "We want steamworks"? Because they WANT steamworks. They want achievements, they want the steam workshop, they want cloud storage of their games so they don't need to dig out a box from the attic/bookshelf. They want automatic patching and they want in-game server browsing and they want DLC.

I am sorry if that is not what YOU want. But all of those are part of the Steam service, and it is Valve's right to refuse service. No business on the (civilized :p) planet is not allowed to refuse service should they so choose. Obviously WHY they refuse service can become a big issue, but many places just go with a blanket legal "We can refuse for whatever reason" and stick to a periodically updated internal (behind the scenes) list of rules. This way they don't have to deal with "There is no rule that I can't masturbate in here if I keep my hand in my sweatpants" and they can still avoid "We don't serve your kind, whitey".

[Shooop]

What's just been said.

It does ruin the experience for people in multiplayer, but what about single? The punishment extends beyond the scope of the deed. Not unless they've given a refund for a product that is now completely and totally useless.

The service and the game themselves are separate entities. They may be connected, but they are not the same things.

[gundato]

The service and the game themselves are separate entities. They may be connected, but they are not the same things.

You are right. They aren't the same thing.

You pay for the privellage of using the service to play the game. You do not OWN the game (we "never" have, even when we had discs with no DRM other than reading the manual). If you lose access to the service, you lose access to the game. Simple as that.

The service itself being an INCREDIBLY generous leasing deal where you pay a one time fee and have the game until the end of time, you get nailed for committing genocide against the Australians, or the police find all the child porn Gabe has been hiding in the Steam server room. But it is still a service that can be terminated at any time.

Refunds are a bit difficult to do, but at the same time they make sense: You paid for everything up front and already used it, so if they switched you to a monthly fee you would probably owe THEM money.

[Drake Sigar]

Nothing is stopping you from refusing to play new releases if you feel that the new features aren't worth the hassle.

I tried that, for nearly six years. It didn't work out so well.

You pay for the privellage of using the service to play the game. You do not OWN the game (we "never" have, even when we had discs with no DRM other than reading the manual). If you lose access to the service, you lose access to the game. Simple as that.

Woah there. We own a permanent license for the game, which is supposed to be ours forever to keep or resell. At least, that's the view European law seems to be taking, in America it might be a little sketchy.

[gundato]

I tried that, for nearly six years. It didn't work out so well.

Woah there. We own a permanent license for the game, which is supposed to be ours forever to keep or resell. At least, that's the view European law seems to be taking, in America it might be a little sketchy.

Yeah. That is the big issue. There are a lot of times I don't want to support something, but the new stuff just becomes so irresistable.

Take activation-model Securom for example. I was VERY opposed to it (and still am). Then I saw Mass Effect PC and I drove out to Best Buy that day :p. I still try to avoid supporting any DRM model and the like I disapprove of, but I am not above admitting that for the right price and quality, I'll cave. I just need a cheaper price if it has a particularly bad DRM/sales model.

And I am not too familiar with european law, so maybe that is an issue. ANd I will admit I have never actually READ the older EULAs/whatever (I read a bunch of software ones, but that was already late 90s/early 00s), so this is second-hand. But my understanding is it mostly has to do with making it "legally" wrong to make copies and the like. By ensuring that people don't "own" a game, they are only legally allowed to use it, not to redistribute or make their own. And I suspect the clauses about being able to take it away instantly had to do with arcades and the like (so that a recall would have to be enforced).

[Moraven]

I can get banned from online play playing on my console. But nothing prevents me from still playing every other aspect of the game. I am still licensing it, but unless an install option is provided and play from HDD, I need that disc in the console to play it.
PSN restrictions on suspended/banned accounts.

You can still play your games which do not require any online connection. (most I have played its optional for scoreboards and trophies). The one thing you still do lose is the ability to redownload your games you do not have installed. Its some compromise but should not take away what you have paid for. Take away their online access, which is typically where the offense is made, problem solved.

[gundato]

I can get banned from online play playing on my console. But nothing prevents me from still playing every other aspect of the game. I am still licensing it, but unless an install option is provided and play from HDD, I need that disc in the console to play it.
PSN restrictions on suspended/banned accounts.

You can still play your games which do not require any online connection. (most I have played its optional for scoreboards and trophies). The one thing you still do lose is the ability to redownload your games you do not have installed. Its some compromise but should not take away what you have paid for. Take away their online access, which is typically where the offense is made, problem solved.

Yeah, I like the PSN model as well. But that also works largely because digital distribution is an afterthought for consoles, whereas brick and mortar retail is rapidly becoming the same for the PC.

Also, while the current console generation definitely embraced the interwebs (well, not so much the wii, but 360 and PS3 sure did :p) there is still a very heavy emphasis on offline mode. PCs instead, probably as a result of a focus on DD, assume you have a persistent internet connection anyway. And while that obviously has some problems (and lots of benefits, for certain parties), it also means that those singleplayer games aren't necessarily "offline" games anymore.

And considering that going out of their way to provide this "offline" mode for people would be supporting people who don't like the services (which are gateway drugs :p) or have proven themselves to be right assholes (if banned), I don't blame EA and Sega for not going out of their way to support them.

[Shooop]

And what exactly is so incredibly generous about leasing a game? F2P models sound better by comparison than this.

[gundato]

And what exactly is so incredibly generous about leasing a game? F2P models sound better by comparison than this.

Considering it is the model already in use, I don't know?

Speaking of: Let's say you pay some money to unlock a few classes in Tribes Ascend. And then they ban you. Are you arguing that they are then obligated to give your racist homophobic ass a refund?

[Shooop]

Is Tribes Ascend a single player game? Does it even have a single-player mode?

I don't think it does. Therefore if you get banned from online play you're banned entirely because there is nothing else now is there?

[Drake Sigar]

Take activation-model Securom for example. I was VERY opposed to it (and still am). Then I saw Mass Effect PC and I drove out to Best Buy that day :p. I still try to avoid supporting any DRM model and the like I disapprove of, but I am not above admitting that for the right price and quality, I'll cave. I just need a cheaper price if it has a particularly bad DRM/sales model.

Managed to resist the allure of those shiny games just fine, but nobody seemed to miss my money. Finally threw in the towel a couple of years ago. Had my fill of reading about what a great time everyone was having without me.

I may have been defeated, but if this games are a service thing is the future, I'm still going to kick and scream the whole way there.

[Shooop]

Managed to resist the allure of those shiny games just fine, but nobody seemed to miss my money. Finally threw in the towel a couple of years ago. Had my fill of reading about what a great time everyone was having without me.

I may have been defeated, but if this games are a service thing is the future, I'm still going to kick and scream the whole way there.

There are such things as torrents. If DRM is such a problem than there's a way around it. And if you like the game you can always just send money to them in the mail or something.

If games end up as services than someone will just have to emulate servers. Because I sure as hell won't rent games for life.

[gundato]

Is Tribes Ascend a single player game? Does it even have a single-player mode?

I don't think it does. Therefore if you get banned from online play you're banned entirely because there is nothing else now is there?

Yes, obviously there are differences, but it definitely is a pretty strong argument for the ability to ban someone from content.

Beyond that: I think the main issue is a refusal to acknowledge that "SP" does not mean "Offline". Lots of SP games have online components these days.

[Shooop]

Yes, obviously there are differences, but it definitely is a pretty strong argument for the ability to ban someone from content.

Beyond that: I think the main issue is a refusal to acknowledge that "SP" does not mean "Offline". Lots of SP games have online components these days.

No it's not because you can't harass anyone else and ruin their experience can you? Not unless you master astral projection and take to harassing yourself.

And they shouldn't. Or they shouldn't in any capacity in that the game is compromised if it's played offline. You want a fancy leaderboard or an IM client built into your games? Fine. But should someone who doesn't be shut out of a game they'd otherwise play?

That's the real problem here. Publishers are stuffing "features" into their games to make up excuses to tie them to their DRM and then pretend everyone wanted them and therefore can't play without them.

[gundato]

No it's not because you can't harass anyone else and ruin their experience can you? Not unless you master astral projection and take to harassing yourself.

And they shouldn't. Or they shouldn't in any capacity in that the game is compromised if it's played offline. You want a fancy leaderboard or an IM client built into your games? Fine. But should someone who doesn't be shut out of a game they'd otherwise play?

That's the real problem here. Publishers are stuffing "features" into their games to make up excuses to tie them to their DRM and then pretend everyone wanted them and therefore can't play without them.

As was mentioned before: People are ASKING for those features. They are asking for steamworks to have cloud storage and achievements and a usable DLC store.

Yes, publishers are encouraging this, but so far most of their tests seem to show that they have what people want: DLC and achivements. And that is what the online aspect of the singleplayer game is.

And again, nobody is being thrown out of a service because of what they do in SP. They are thrown out because of what they do in MP and in the community as a whole. And it is the service's complete right to say "You know what? Rather than deal with you every time you act like an asshole, just stop using our service entirely".


To use another metaphor that will be disregarded because it is slightly different and not exactly the situation at hand (and, more importnatly, isn't directly supporting the argument of the thrower-outer :p):
You whip it out and start jerkin' your gherkin at an R-rated movie. They throw your ass out of the movie.
Now, you have done NOTHING to interfere with the enjoyment of a G-rated movie. Or a PG-13 movie. Maybe you can perfectly behave yourself in a movie with no adult themes. But you've already proven yourself an asshole and the theatre doesn't want to deal with you. So you are banned from the theatre as a whole.

Now, you are right. They COULD go out of their way to make a special state where you can never recoomend a game, use any aspect of the steam community, obtain an achievement, or play ANYTHING that is even remotely multiplayer. But WHY should Steam go out of their way to do that? Why should EA? What benefit is there for them to spend money on something that benefits people they have already decided they don't want to deal with anymore?