I'd suggest the idea comes from the concept of licensing.

e.g. I rent/licence my sim card from the fone company.


(the idea my not be what eitje was typing about.)

Also note, whenever you purchase a used game from any storefront like GameStop, they pocket ALL of the money.  Used games sales directly impact the bottom line for production & development houses.
And whatever you may feel about DRM, saving $5 on a video game purchase takes away all of the remaining revenue for the original artists.  Which is bunk.

Wait, what?  You've got to be kidding.  It sounds like you're saying that if I sell GTA4 to a friend of mine for 20 bucks then I should mail 10 of that to Rockstar because they made the game.  Once you buy the game, the company has their money, where do you get the idea that they deserve more from a resale?

Listen, fool.  They don't DESERVE the money from the resale, and that's not what I said at all.  Jesus resurrected, I swear that you don't even read what people say sometimes before you go off half-cocked.

I'm saying that, if you're given the option between buying a new game and a used game, if you like the IP from the game and want to see more of it, then you should buy the new version.  When you buy a used game, the company(-ies) that designed, developed, and produced the game don't have visibility into that sale.  In fact, the only one that benefits from that transaction is the middle man.

Now, at the scale of you selling a game to a friend, that's not going to be a blip on the radar for them.  But at the transaction levels where companies like EBgames and GameStop operate, used game sales can cause significant disruption for the studios.

In conclusion:  Game studios are in the business of making money.  Used game sales at national chains impact their ability to make money.  Try to buy a game new, if you're going to buy it from a national chain.

I retract my former post for fear of being called a n0ob.


jk. sorta. ~hides.

If you don't like getting ripped off, then why smile while the companies to do it to you? It hurts consumers and artists. Not the commercially-minded "artists" or the carpe diem consumers, but those of us that care.

fixed.

And while you and I both know that will only last as long as it's profitable for it to last, I'm willing to believe based on historical evidence that they'll continue to provide Steam as a service for many, many years to come.

Historical evidence most certainly does not support the continued ability to play these games in the future.
1983: GameLine content delivery system - Died in the crash of 83. When was the last time you played Save the Whales?
1992: Teleplay Modem content delivery system - When was the last time you played Terran Wars, Battle Storm, or Sea Battle?
1995: Satellaview content delivery system - Played DynamiTracer, Treasure Conflix, Kirby's ToyBox, or Radical Dreamers in the last decade? I don't see Nintendo dying. They just decided that the gamers should no longer be interested in these games. It wasn't profitable for them any more so fuck it.
These games are just a bare handful of titles that no longer exist because the delivery systems have ceased to deliver and the players are now left with nothing but their shattered sense of erstwhile ownership. If you're curious I could supply you with ten times the number of games whose fates are similarly lost to time for exclusive content deliver reasons. So you see history actually shows that dear old Steam is in fact doing nothing more than casting a dark cloak over all games that are released exclusively through it just as the Satellaview and the Teleplay Modem and the GameLine did before it. It is in fact a historical certainty, unless...
Oh...
Oh, I see what you're doing there. You've shifted the goalposts and are using historical evidence of the strength of Valve as a company to support your assertion that it will continue to provide games via Steam for the next "many, many years." Interesting. Perhaps even accurate depending on your definition of "many, many." If you look at sales figures for the content delivery systems I've mentioned above, I think you'll see that the gamers who used them also shared the same notions you have about "many, many years." To make matters worse, that notion only needs to be adopted once during the span of the system for the consumer to sucker himself permanently. What can you as a gamer do when you find out the system is failing? Petition the company to provide hard copies for purchase? Good luck with that.

This relatively new concept of the middleman keeping part of the product for himself as insurance against his elimination is what is so profoundly evil about content delivery systems that don't offer a traditional purchasing option as well as their jazzy rentals. And for all I hate your beloved DRM solutions, I think they are a cool concept to have for idiots who prefer renting to owning. What I object to is that these companies have made the affirmative "compromise" of barring the consumer from owning the product. Furthermore they've fooled the masses into believing that they own the product so the masses haven't even gotten restless. The effect of this is that these companies are beginning to dominate the markets.

You can't get many of these games in hardcopy any more. I've spent many hours trying to track down a copy of a game they only offer on Steam in North America. I've contacted sellers in Russia, and Lithuania to get my hands on the product and I can assure you I'm not planning to quickly pirate it out to all of my buddies. I'm just a normal person who wants to be able to play a game I purchased as I lie on my deathbed in the year 2200 (I'm assuming medical advances will allow me to live this long). Imagine if they did this with land. Let's say giant heartless holding companies held your deed for you. People would have a shit fit.

Every generation has had its suckers, but when the ecstatic choir of the naive overpowers the pleas and warnings of the realistic then we're all fucked. Look to Rome.

Imagine if they did this with land. Let's say giant heartless holding companies held your deed for you.

They do. The giant heartless holding companies are called "governments".

They only hold copies of it in the US. But anyway that was a bad example because you have access to the physical land even if the government fails. It would work better if the land only existed so long as the deed was made available to you. But ok now the analogy is wearing thin.

What can you as a gamer do when you find out the system is failing? Petition the company to provide hard copies for purchase? Good luck with that.

A number of music sites shut down in the last few years (wal-mart, yahoo), all of which had DRM tied to the songs they sold.  Folks began legal proceedings, most cases were settled out of court, and no one was left without a replacement for the property they had purchased.

The difference between 1995 and 2009 is the ubiquitousness of computers.  Our culture is much more geared towards handling a potential shutdown.

And finally, in the specific case of Valve, they've already said that if Steam is ever shut down, Valve will make sure that all Steam-based games are released from Steam.

You can't get many of these games in hardcopy any more. I've spent many hours trying to track down a copy of a game they only offer on Steam in North America. I've contacted sellers in Russia, and Lithuania to get my hands on the product and I can assure you I'm not planning to quickly pirate it out to all of my buddies. I'm just a normal person who wants to be able to play a game I purchased as I lie on my deathbed in the year 2200 (I'm assuming medical advances will allow me to live this long).

With that physical copy, what do you have that's any different from the digital download?  The medium is different, but it's the same series of bits on your CD/DVD that's on my hard drive.

And finally, in the specific case of Valve, they've already said that if Steam is ever shut down, Valve will make sure that all Steam-based games are released from Steam.

OK this is news to me and if it's accurate then I'm somewhat happier about it. I would even be willing to pay for the game twice provided I can ultimately get my hands on the real thing.

With that physical copy, what do you have that's any different from the digital download?  The medium is different, but it's the same series of bits on your CD/DVD that's on my hard drive.

Maybe they've changed things on Steam since I purchased from Valve last, but last time I bought from them I didn't get any installation files. Everything was remotely installed. When my computer crashed I had to go back to Steam to get the files remotely installed again. It got me worrying about what would happen when Steam was no longer around.

They only hold copies of it in the US.

Yeah, but the deeds themselves aren't worth shit. The fact that the government recognises your ownership of the land is what guarantees said ownership. If the government falls, someone else takes over, and decides that they don't recognise the same ownership rights, you're shit outta luck. I realize this is an extreme analogy, but it's not something that's impossible. It's happened countless times with countries around the world over the years.

In the US we also have guns, and we're encouraged to use them in defense of our land.

My analogy to land ownership:...

that was a bad example

They only hold copies of it in the US.

Yeah, but the deeds themselves aren't worth shit. The fact that the government recognises your ownership of the land is what guarantees said ownership. If the government falls, someone else takes over, and decides that they don't recognise the same ownership rights, you're shit outta luck. I realize this is an extreme analogy, but it's not something that's impossible. It's happened countless times with countries around the world over the years.

Forced resumption of land happens all the time (for roads and stuff), sure you might get something close to its ture value back. Doesnt happen very often though.

You don't even have use govs failing to make the point, i see y you did though.


just my .5 of a cent on the off topic Door not trying to hammer it.

Oh no problem. I freely admit that

My analogy to land ownership:...

that was a bad example

As I'm still in the Good Friday mood, what sort of penance would be appropriate? Shall I download Audiosurf from Steam? I am kind of looking for a bad excuse to.

Lick the screen while viewing bagmans rubber cock. (?)

If you don't trust Steam as a distribution model then continue to buy hard copies of games and don't deal with Steam.  This is really not hard.  You can even buy Orange Box as a hard copy I'm pretty sure.

The difference between now and 1983-1995 is that people have different concepts of ownership.  I would say that I care more about some of the files I have in my computer (digital ownership) than I do about actual physical assets in my apartment (real ownership).  This is, short of much description, pretty fucked up; however, people understand the idea of owning files and temporally controlling them much better than they did in the 80s and 90s.  Like Si said, the ubiquitous nature of computers today speaks volumes to that.

Um, dont you need a steam account to play some games ? even if you have a hard copy ? ( I wouldnt have an issue with my 2nd hand HL2 game if i could play it with having to log onto steam to auth. it.)

edit : i know i can play offline once auth.

Yeah you do. I grew up in a very rural area so I had no internet access back when Steam first started becoming mandatory. There are plenty of places that are similarly internet-free areas. I think that contributes a lot to my irritation with this kind of distribution. For the first Steam game I got I had to drive my CPU into town so I could hook up to a friend's internet so I could register with Steam to play a game I purchased from the shelf of a store. That is ridiculous.

Anyway, whatever. Most people either don't care about the situation or are actively embracing it so it's not like anything's going to change. I think it's sad but I think a lot of things are sad.

EDIT: Hom-jo, you should be able to play offline. There is a setting somewhere to play in offline mode. That's what I had to do for mine.
EDIT 2: striking. I misread that...

Having to go online to use something you bought at a store is fucking bullshit. I haven't bothered hooking my PS3 up online yet, and I'm gonna be really pissed off if the impetus to finally get around to doing that is some bullshit thing like a new game won't play unless I download something.

Having to go online to use something you bought at a store is fucking bullshit. I haven't bothered hooking my PS3 up online yet, and I'm gonna be really pissed off if the impetus to finally get around to doing that is some bullshit thing like a new game won't play unless I download something.

Get ready for it.  System updates come out on a regular basis for the PS3.  Hell, you're probably well over a major version behind, at this point.
The PS3 was designed to be launched low and upgraded over time.  You should check out some of the wacky shit your system could do!

OK this is news to me and if it's accurate then I'm somewhat happier about it.

CEG is the latest technology on that front:
http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/publishingservices.php#CEG

Cool. Still difficult for people without internet access, but oh well.

Um, dont you need a steam account to play some games ? even if you have a hard copy ? ( I wouldnt have an issue with my 2nd hand HL2 game if i could play it with having to log onto steam to auth. it.)

edit : i know i can play offline once auth.

You could crack it.

Cool. Still difficult for people without internet access, but oh well.

There's something to it though.  Because here's the thing:  Without internet authentication of a computer game, there's literally no incentive for anyone to purchase it, other than being nice.  Why pay $50 for a game you don't' need to authenticate when you can just download it for free and not authenticate it.

If you don't need to be online at all to legitimize your copy of the PC game, you have no reason to pay for it.  Just download the shit from bittorrent, install it, and never authenticate it at all.

^
This is what they are trying to prevent.

...you have no reason to pay for it.  Just download the shit from bittorrent, install it, and never authenticate it at all.
This is what they are trying to prevent.

But they can't prevent it because by the time the game hits the market there are already a thousand people working on cracking it. Steam sucks ass for sure though.  I bought a commercial box version of Half Life2 with the serial still on the CD case at the thrift store and the fucking thing installed but would not run. Every time I tried to start it it told me I would have to purchase it because the CD key had previously been used. Even if I had bought it new in the store, had it for a while and decided I wanted to install it on a new machine  I would have been out of luck. .torrent saved the day and I will never look back. But I did have to download the entire fucking game. The official hard copy was fucking useless.

In the US we also have guns, and we're encouraged to use them in defense of our land.

Changes are in the works though, they no longer want us being able to protect ourselves. Watch for it,
changes are coming and it has nothing to do with Obama. ...but you will be encouraged to blame him.

Cool. Still difficult for people without internet access, but oh well.

There's something to it though.  Because here's the thing:  Without internet authentication of a computer game, there's literally no incentive for anyone to purchase it, other than being nice.  Why pay $50 for a game you don't' need to authenticate when you can just download it for free and not authenticate it.

If you don't need to be online at all to legitimize your copy of the PC game, you have no reason to pay for it.  Just download the shit from bittorrent, install it, and never authenticate it at all.

^
This is what they are trying to prevent.

Of all the things I said earlier why would you choose that line to quote?

But anyway the thing is: I know I'm in the minority here. But the reason is not because I don't understand the situation. It's because I have a fundamentally different idea about the rights associated with the transfer of property than the rest of you people. I think that if I buy something I should be able to have total possession of it. You guys don't care if it's still partially held by the seller. That's fine. We disagree at a fundamental level. I've given up on trying to talk what I would consider sense into you guys because I'm pretty confident that you understand my point and that your opinions aren't the result of living haphazardly but that you've actually considered it and prefer things this way. I will say that I think the majority of those who support DRM schemes really haven't considered the issue at all, and I'm not so sure that of those people who have considered the DRM issue that you pro-DRM people really are in the majority but of course that's just my slant on the issue and I have nothing to back it up except personal optimism that the average person holds individual ownership rights in higher regard than the majority do here.

The land analogy isnt that far off, depending on where the land is...

In the ACT, you can own the house, but the land is leased to you by the government.

same with Thailand but YOU ALL KNEW THAT

I think of entertainment as me paying for something to do with my time. Who owns it doesn't matter to me. That's why I buy books (no English libraries here) and rent DVD's, not because I wouldn't mind owning some DVD's but a book is maybe 25-50 cents per hour of entertainment while a movie is normally $10 per hour. If it's a DVD I'll watch 10 times then I'll buy the movie but not otherwise.

I bought a commercial box version of Half Life2 with the serial still on the CD case at the thrift store and the fucking thing installed but would not run. Every time I tried to start it it told me I would have to purchase it because the CD key had previously been used. Even if I had bought it new in the store, had it for a while and decided I wanted to install it on a new machine  I would have been out of luck. .torrent saved the day and I will never look back. But I did have to download the entire fucking game. The official hard copy was fucking useless.

That's because any game that has an online multi-player component (which HL2 had and still has) requires each user be unique, it allows people to be banned for cheating on servers, it allows for stat-tracking systems to rank users, it is basically required to ensure that the multi player component isn't complete anarchy full of people with pirated copies wall hacking each other like Counterstrike used to be with HL1 back in the day.  It wasn't always like this, this system arose because:

1) Widespread piracy of PC Games allows for rampant illegitimate copies of the game.
2) Easy access to illegitimate copies of the game allows people to constantly cheat on game servers ruining the experience of everyone else with no consequences because of #1.
and
3) The companies retaining DRM ownership prevents this kind of tom-fuckery which ruins the in-game experience of their legitimate customers.

Here are the HL2 box requirements:
Official Half-Life 2 Box minimum specs:
    * Processor: 1.2 GHz Processor
    * OS: Windows, 2000/XP/Me/98
    * Graphic card: DirectX 7 level graphics card
    * Hard Drive: 4.5 GB
    * Memory: 256 MB RAM
    * Other: Internet Connection, DVD-ROM Drive

You bought a 2nd-hand copy at a thrift store, which means someone already had used the copy, probably got the CD-Key banned or something, and sold it to the thrift store and bought another copy.  This is why I absolutely never buy second hand PC games.  When you buy it you own it sure, but when you buy someone else's copy you are additionally purchasing whatever they did in the game in the online system.  If they registered the game to their Steam account you can't use it.  If they got banned on the multiplayer, you can't play multiplayer.

The scenarios you guys are describing make it sound like PC games are out-of-the-box single player stand alone games, that don't have things like online updates, registration, authentication, multiplayer servers, etc.  It hasn't been like this for years.  Blizzard made you authenticate Starcraft to play it online and your account was unique -- that was over 10 years ago.  I doubt they were the first.

Were we to revert back to the system as you guys seem to want it to be, then playing games online would go back to being a complete clusterfuck of cheating cocksuckers.  I'd rather pay per month (like MMOs) or have a forced authentication system (like Valve's Steam or Blizzard's Battle.net) which creates an environment of online play where rules are enforced and competitive play is fair.  This is just not possible in the way you guys want it to be.  I realize the compromise I make in my own ownership rights in this model, but I much prefer those compromises to gameplay compromises.

Yeah like I said we're disagreeing at a very fundamental level. No big deal though. Luckily for you your preferred method is in favor currently. I complain but only because that's all I have left.
Well... that and crying about it.  :'(

Anyway I'm certainly not going to stop playing games because of this. It's just pushing me more into console gaming.