Just Cause 2 Developer On Why It Won't Utilize DRM: 'It Treats Our Fans Like Criminals'

from the a-refreshing-blast-of-honesty-and-common-sense dept

Well, we’ve certainly heard plenty about DRM and shoehorned-in multiplayer recently, what with EA’s recent Hindenburgish SimCity “launch.” As was detailed all over the web, the only people hurt by these “features” were paying customers, many of whom spent $50-60 for a server Roulette wheel that limited users to one spin every half hour.

Many developers are concerned with piracy and have made the mistake of crippling their software with DRM that punishes paying users disproportionately while affecting pirates hardly at all. At best, these efforts result in a Pyrrhic tie, damaging the developers’ relationships with their customers while having a negligible effect on infringement.

Fortunately, some developers would rather not sacrifice their customers’ happiness in order to briefly irritate a few pirates. Avalanche Studios, the developer behind Just Cause 2, is one of these forward-thinking developers. In an interview with Gaming Bolt, founder Cristofer Sundberg had this to say about DRM.

“DRM solutions which limit the game experience should not exist. That’s my honest opinion…

They make us look greedy, which we are not. It treats our fans like criminals, which they are not. With that said, I think that we deserve getting paid for years of hard work and I think piracy is hurting our ability to make great games.”

However you may feel about his statement on piracy, there’s no arguing with the fact that he’s unwilling to put anti-piracy efforts ahead of providing Avalanche’s customers with a great experience. He also parts ways with EA (among others) on another aspect of piracy prevention, one that’s almost always presented as a “feature,” rather than just another limitation on the end user.

He is also against adding multiplayer component to a game to prevent the game from being traded.

He uses his own game as an example. Just Cause 2 is rarely sighted in used game stores simply because the players who purchased it years ago are still playing it. There’s no (native) multiplayer in Just Cause 2 (excluding an awesome PC-only mod), but that has done nothing to diminish its popularity). As Sundberg sees it, throwing multiplayer options in for their own sake (or as a form of DRM/resale prevention) weakens the original product.

“Nobody wins in the end; the developer can’t make the great experience that they want to, the publisher doesn’t get its money back and the consumer is disappointed. I am convinced that this mentality contributes to the downfall of the industry.”

So, either Sundberg is crazy or he’s actually paying attention to the gaming community. At times, it almost seems as though certain companies think their customers are the last people they should listen to — a very strange position for entities in the business of selling things. Hopefully, more will realize the damage they’re doing far outweighs the nominal gains and DRM will become an exception rather than the rule for AAA developers.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: avalanche 2

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Just Cause 2 Developer On Why It Won't Utilize DRM: 'It Treats Our Fans Like Criminals'”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
64 Comments
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I think it happens more often than we see, it’s just not so clearly voiced. What’s funny about this whole saga is that EA’s decision has not only made them look both stupid and evil, but that competitors and retailers – Amazon, GoG, Steam and now Avalanche – have been able to generate good will (and potentially increased sales) as a result.

This is the best thing about the whole piracy obsession. People who understand the market and treat customers well can get the money that big publishers are literally rejecting because they think they could make more money if only they could achieve the impossible tasks of killing piracy. Hopefully it won’t be too late to realise they’ve killed themselves before the point of no return, but good riddance if they don’t.

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I’d have to disagree with that. “All game manufacturers” do not deserve to succeed. No one inherently deserves to succeed, unless they achieve something worthy of success. I’ve seen plenty of crappy games out there that do not fall into that category.

That’s part of the problem, in fact. Manufacturers (and producers and publishers of all kinds) have this really ugly sense of entitlement that goes like “we spent all this money and effort on this. It deserves to succeed, and we deserve to recoup our investment and turn a profit.” And from that basic attitude stems a lot of the problems we see with copyright abuse.

So the sooner we can uproot that idea, the better off we’ll be.

out_of_the_blue says:

So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

“piracy is hurting our ability to make great games.”

“However you may feel about his statement on piracy, there’s no arguing with the fact that he’s unwilling to put anti-piracy efforts ahead of providing Avalanche’s customers with a great experience.” — That’s a judgment call in the given milieu. Likely if a DRM method weren’t too onerous, he would. — But you’re claiming he adheres to your views when he’s manifestly against your notions of seeing pirates as positive!

Beech says:

Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

“Likely if a DRM method weren’t too onerous, he would.”

“likely if unicorns existed he would ride one”

But there isn’t one. Drm is onerous by definition. And is cracked by pirates overnight. Commenting on what someone MIGHT say/ do/ think IF some magic thing existed is a pointless waste of time.

Robert Doyle (profile) says:

Re: Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

Hold on – that’s a pretty blanket statement. All DRM is onerous? I disagree with that.

A publisher that I purchase a fair amount of product from (Paizo) has DRM in the form of watermarking. They “personalize” the digital products you buy from them with a watermark of your account name on the PDF. You can share it as much as you want, but if it makes its way into general distribution they will revoke your access. This takes about 10 seconds whenever I download a new PDf from them. I don’t even notice it other than I see the watermark at the top or bottom of the pages (not covering any content – and it is very faint text).

I think that is entirely fair and decent DRM. They get paid and I don’t get punished and if I want to send a PDF to a friend so he can read a particular line or look at a particular image they don’t object – it’s the same as someone reading over your shoulder. It certainly doesn’t make me feel like a criminal.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

While what you’re talking about broadly falls into the realm of DRM, it is not what most people mean when they say DRM. They’re talking about copy protection, not watermarking.

Copy protection is not an issue at all when it doesn’t cause any problems to legitimate users. Unfortunately, such a system has yet to be invented. Some, such as Steam, come close enough that most people find the DRM tolerable, but it still makes the user experience worse.

Robert Doyle (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

Yes, that is what I mean – but there are many here who see “copy protection” and think “DRM.” They are not one in the same.

And honestly, I often find Steam too onerous. I have had a hell of a time using it in off-line mode while traveling for work… and that I why I agree that “copy protection” is too onerous, but DRM in some forms is not.

But I see shades of grey where many here see only black.

Chosen Reject (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

And then someone you share it with puts it into wider distribution (either on purpose, or perhaps puts it into the wrong folder and their p2p software of choice does it for them) and now you lose access. I can’t see at all how watermarking is a bad idea at all. Nope, no way it could be used to treat paying customers like the criminal scum they are.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

“they will revoke your access.”

Can you clarify please? I Googled Paizo and all I found was a publisher of tabletop RPGs, so assuming that’s them, you purchase PDFs, right? Let’s say the file gets shared, not by you. Does Paizo lock you out of your PDFs or simply prevent you from purchasing from them in the future (likely through blacklisting your credit card).

I simply can’t imagine how this would work well. Are you emailed a “Stay the fuck away from my website, you sharer!” message? While businesses do reserve the right to refuse service…I still see it as odd to say the least.

Robert Doyle (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

From my understanding they lock your account and would monitor any attempt at future registration.

If your files get shared, and not by you, I believe it would depend on the circumstances – but I don’t personally know that. Have I shared their files with friends? Yes, with a few select friends who I wanted to show something who were not in the same room as me (who I would have just handed the book if they were) but I do this out of trust with the full knowledge that if my friend were to screw me and share what I had showed them we would no longer be friends and I would likely lose access to those documents.

I would be mad at my ex-friend, not the company who said “don’t distribute our documents for us – that’s our job and we would like it done in a certain way.”

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

“All DRM is onerous? “

Yes. All DRM exists solely to restrict what you can do with a product you legally bought. The fact that some are less obtrusive than others doesn’t change that fact.

“It certainly doesn’t make me feel like a criminal.”

Until the day that your laptop is stolen or the friend you sent a copy to leaks it online and you get prosecuted as a criminal as a result because your watermark was on the pirate copy. If that’s the result, you’re supporting a removal of your rights. If not, it’s utterly useless.

Robert Doyle (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

“Yes. All DRM exists solely to restrict what you can do with a product you legally bought. The fact that some are less obtrusive than others doesn’t change that fact.”

Ah, so all restrictions on what I do with something I have legally purchased are inappropriate? Do you honestly feel that if you buy one copy of something and then set up a free site to give that away to everyone that you should be allowed to do that because you purchased one copy?

“Until the day that your laptop is stolen or the friend you sent a copy to leaks it online and you get prosecuted as a criminal as a result because your watermark was on the pirate copy. If that’s the result, you’re supporting a removal of your rights. If not, it’s utterly useless.”

What I am supporting is their right to know how their product is being distributed. Do you honestly not think that you deserve to know what is being done in your name? If my laptop was stolen, I would file a police report. That report would show that through no action of my own their content was released. You assume they are Nazi’s out to get everyone – because you assume that anyone who uses copyright/DRM/etc. is an evil piece of scum and villainy. I choose to assume that they worked hard and they would like to at the very least be paid a fair wage – something they wouldn’t get if their product was always distributed for free. They would have to resort to going back to physical books for everything, and then people would complain that they didn’t have digital…

They work hard to make a good product, they are not draconian in the manner they go about selling it, and I choose to support them. I also don’t believe that what they produce should just be spread willy-nilly all over the internet because someone thinks if something is digital, it should be “free.”

I hear a lot of arguments for removing DRM that prevents the use of a product you purchase – and I 100%, wholeheartedly agree. If I bought it, I had better have access to it. But then I hear the “all DRM is evil” arguments and I just don’t buy it. It’s like saying “all speed limits are bad.” I believe that there is a balance to be struck – where that balance is I do leave open to debate, but taking all DRM off the table is not where I stand. I see both good and bad in it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

“Ah, so all restrictions on what I do with something I have legally purchased are inappropriate?”

Yes. If I buy a book, it doesn’t matter if I read it, give it to a friend, use it as toilet paper or as kindling. I could even photocopy it if I wish. The publisher has no say in the matter after the sale. That my eBook happens to be digital in format shouldn’t change my rights. I can understand why I may not be able to resell it, but don’t try telling me where, when and how I can use it on my own equipment.

“Do you honestly feel that if you buy one copy of something and then set up a free site to give that away to everyone that you should be allowed to do that because you purchased one copy?”

No, and nothing I’ve said should imply that particular strawman argument. Please restrict your criticisms to my actual opinions, not whatever fiction makes it easier for you to handle.

“I choose to assume that they worked hard and they would like to at the very least be paid a fair wage – something they wouldn’t get if their product was always distributed for free.”

Another strawman fiction. Nobody’s suggesting anything of the sort.

“someone thinks if something is digital, it should be “free.””

Another lie, nothing to do with my argument. Do you have any responses to my own position, or does everything you say depend on an all or nothing fallacy that doesn’t reflect what people are reslly saying?

“I hear a lot of arguments for removing DRM that prevents the use of a product you purchase – and I 100%, wholeheartedly agree. If I bought it, I had better have access to it. But then I hear the “all DRM is evil” arguments and I just don’t buy it. “

You agree that restrictions on what you own shouldn’t exist, but then reject criticism of DRM – whose only purpose is exactly that? Try to keep your argument straight.

“I see both good and bad in it.”

OK, then – name the good. Bearing in mind that once DRM is cracked (and it ALWAYS is), it only affects legal paying customers and has no effect on pirates. I can’t see the good in something like that, perhaps you’d explain why I should.

Robert Doyle (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

“Yes. If I buy a book, it doesn’t matter if I read it, give it to a friend, use it as toilet paper or as kindling. I could even photocopy it if I wish. The publisher has no say in the matter after the sale. That my eBook happens to be digital in format shouldn’t change my rights. I can understand why I may not be able to resell it, but don’t try telling me where, when and how I can use it on my own equipment.”

And here you miss my point completely. I’m not saying you shouldn’t be able to use it on your own equipment freely, and I certainly don’t support them limiting that. The example of DRM that I provided does not have that restriction. You are saying the all DRM has this restriction. It does not.

“No, and nothing I’ve said should imply that particular strawman argument. Please restrict your criticisms to my actual opinions, not whatever fiction makes it easier for you to handle.”

Fiction? Ok – I can see that you aren’t reading my statements for what is there – just what you want to see.

“You agree that restrictions on what you own shouldn’t exist, but then reject criticism of DRM – whose only purpose is exactly that? Try to keep your argument straight.”

Ok, seriously – I have not rejected EVERY criticism of DRM. I have rejected some of them. I have agreed that the way they enforce “copy protection” is crap and shouldn’t be done. Agreeing to that and then saying that I feel that identifying the purchaser of the product to ensure it is not being freely duplicated and redistributed is not contradictory. One is about capability, the other is about culpability.

“OK, then – name the good. Bearing in mind that once DRM is cracked (and it ALWAYS is), it only affects legal paying customers and has no effect on pirates. I can’t see the good in something like that, perhaps you’d explain why I should.”

ALL DRM IS NOT COPY PROTECTION. Can you at the very least understand that?

All people are mammals. Dogs are mammals.

Here is the question for you – are all people dogs? This is a skill testing question.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

“The example of DRM that I provided”

No, you mentioned watermarks first then started a bunch of new questions that had nothing to do with them. You asked me a direct question – “so all restrictions on what I do with something I have legally purchased are inappropriate?”, and I gave you my honest answer. You then started with some crap about giving everything away for free, which has nothing to do with what I was saying.

If you’re only talking about watermarks then fine, let’s address those and why they’re still ineffective at stopping piracy (one of the stated aims by many publishers), and dangerous if misused. But that wasn’t the question you were asking.

“Fiction? Ok – I can see that you aren’t reading my statements for what is there – just what you want to see. “

Then explain yourself better. If you didn’t mean to imply that my objection to DRM had something to do with giving it away for free then why bring it up? It’s got nothing to do with a damn word I typed, nor any argument I’m making.

“ALL DRM IS NOT COPY PROTECTION. Can you at the very least understand that?”

No, because that’s false. Watermarks are still copy protection (and they can still be cracked). They’re just passive (you can be located and prosecuted or punished after the fact) rather than active (it attempts to blocks you before you can copy or access the content).

Watermarks are better than active DRM, but they’re still not the same as having a freely available copy (as in libre, not gratis). However you want to spin it, watermarks are still DRM – and they still only negatively affect legal purchasers rather than pirates.

“This is a skill testing question.”

No, it’s a silly question and one that misses my points completely.

Why not just accept that my answer to your original question above (“All DRM is onerous?”) is a resounding yes, and that this includes watermarks? We can discuss why I believe this without you trying to move the goalposts or pretend that being against it has anything to do with “giving stuff away for free”. I’ll admit it’s the least onerous of the methods that are being thrust upon legal customers, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have problems with it, or that I believe that other methods are able to achieve the desired aims.

Robert Doyle (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

“No, you mentioned watermarks first then started a bunch of new questions that had nothing to do with them. You asked me a direct question – “so all restrictions on what I do with something I have legally purchased are inappropriate?”, and I gave you my honest answer.”

Fair enough.

“If you’re only talking about watermarks then fine, let’s address those and why they’re still ineffective at stopping piracy (one of the stated aims by many publishers), and dangerous if misused. But that wasn’t the question you were asking.”

I was referring to watermarks as a single form of DRM. I was not speaking to their efficacy at piracy reduction. That was never my point or argument. My question/comment had to do with them not being onerous (as in being burdensome on my part).

“”ALL DRM IS NOT COPY PROTECTION. Can you at the very least understand that?”

No, because that’s false. Watermarks are still copy protection (and they can still be cracked). They’re just passive (you can be located and prosecuted or punished after the fact) rather than active (it attempts to blocks you before you can copy or access the content).”

From Wiki:
Digital rights management (DRM) is a class of controversial access control technologies that are used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders, and individuals with the intent to limit the use of digital content and devices after sale. DRM is any technology that inhibits uses of digital content that are not desired or intended by the content provider.

A watermark has no function other that to identify the content in some manner and limit its use. You can replicate it without any difficulty. Therefore, it is not “copy protection” in the actual use of the term (copy protection being something that prevents replication).

“Why not just accept that my answer to your original question above (“All DRM is onerous?”) is a resounding yes, and that this includes watermarks?”

Because I don’t agree that it is “onerous.”

“We can discuss why I believe this without you trying to move the goalposts or pretend that being against it has anything to do with “giving stuff away for free”.”

I didn’t move the goalpost. The goalpost is still “is it onerous.”

“I’ll admit it’s the least onerous of the methods that are being thrust upon legal customers, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have problems with it, or that I believe that other methods are able to achieve the desired aims.”

That’s entirely fair and understandable, but I think this has to do with a threshold of what you consider onerous and what I consider onerous. I think actual copy protection is garbage. It is always onerous (read – it makes me do work to access my content… often repeatedly…). I do not think watermarking is onerous because it requires no effort on my part. I equate onerous with the amount of effort – as does the dictionary, which is where my argument stems from. That I think we got off on a tangent is clear, and you are absolutely entitled to see any form of “restriction” as inappropriate, but I do not think you should equate it with the word “onerous.”

Semantics are my bane.

Robert Doyle (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

I’m not a huge supporter or a huge detractor. I’m one of those people who doesn’t take the American stand on things (you know.. the “your either with us or against, no sitting on the side lines for you!” approach…) and thinks that blanket statements aren’t always the best choice.

Well, I happen to disagree that all of those benefits are available with a non-DRMed copy. They don’t support their files in a non-DRMed format, so it isn’t available. They don’t update non-DRMed versions on a regular basis, nor would they send me an email telling me they have made an update to one of the products that I purchased and advising me to download an updated version.

You are asking for something for free – which means “free to you” and not truly free as in “without cost to anyone.”

As a side-note – they actually offer their core product in a purely text version, for free, and updated by them.

So I support their version of DRM because I don’t find it offensive, obtrusive, onerous or any other o-adjective.

Robert Doyle (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

When you are quoting, you shouldn’t paraphrase. It’s not the same… seriously.

If there is a black car and a white car, and those are your choices, you cannot say the blue car is superior because it doesn’t exist. You can say that it might be superior, but you do not absolutely know that because it does not exist. It’s a hypothesis at best.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

“I’m one of those people who doesn’t take the American stand on things (you know.. the “your either with us or against, no sitting on the side lines for you!” approach…) and thinks that blanket statements aren’t always the best choice.”

Yet, strangely, every argument you’ve made here is exactly that. Everything you’ve asserted is an all-or-nothing fallacy that assumes that “non-DRM” somehow means “free”. Then your arguments stray further from reality as they go on…

“They don’t support their files in a non-DRMed format, so it isn’t available.”

Really? That’s your argument? That because they made the choice to restrict the product, that means that DRM is superior?

That’s a lovely example of circular thinking, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether a non-DRM version would allow the same things to be done with it – they absolutely will do the same things, if not more.

“They don’t update”

Who are “they”? Non-DRMed product is updated constantly, and the ability to apply updates has exactly sod all to do with the presence of DRM. Open source product is often updated more often than proprietary content. I assume you have a specific product in mind, but that seems to have been lost in this conversation, and the argument clearly doesn’t apply to every product even if you’ve found what you consider to be an example of DRM making something possible. It isn’t.

“You are asking for something for free – which means “free to you” and not truly free as in “without cost to anyone.”

You, on the other hand, are lying. Don’t pretend I think things that I absolutely do not. If you have to invent a fantasy to support your argument, then your argument is worthless.

“So I support their version of DRM because I don’t find it offensive, obtrusive, onerous or any other o-adjective.”

Whereas I reject it because I do find it to be all of those things and offer absolutely nothing to me as a consumer while removing the rights I would have without DRM.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!

piracy is hurting our ability to make great games

Bullshit. The fact they are making a second after the first was pirated ad nauseam is evidence enough. Good games are not affected. Good devs with good attitude will attract even more goodwill. I’ve bought games I’ve never played just to support the devs. Filthy pirate I am, shame on me.

Likely if a DRM method weren’t too onerous, he would.

Financially speaking? What about evaluating from the point of view of customer experience? There are light DRM that barely impact the experience indeed. Ie: making the use of the game physical media mandatory. But since I don’t like that either I pirate. So in the end a DRM that won’t be onerous to your paying customers are easily bypassed.. And some paying customers may choose to bypass even that DRM out of convenience.

As i’s been told you, you should take your head out of your arse. Lack of oxygen may be harmful you know?

Shmerl says:

It [DRM] treats our fans like criminals, which they are not

Good point. DRM treats users like criminals since it’s a preemptive policing technology. The more people will realize that it’s not just an annoyance, but it’s an unethical practice altogether, the more they’ll avoid DRM in every kind of media, and won’t help proliferating DRM usage.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

For what its worth, there’s no DRM listed on its Steam store page (it does go out of its way to say no Games for Windows Live account needed, for some odd reason…why mention GfWL specifically?). Obviously, the Steam version would have, well, Steam DRM, but that’s counted as perhaps the most benign form of DRM by the majority of the PC gaming community.
Perhaps the developer means he won’t do DRM any worse than Steam’s.

Shmerl says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

That’s not DRM free. Steam’s aspect of DRM includes requirement to connect to them to install the game, even if some of their games don’t require to be connected to some server or even don’t require to run the Steam client – which most of them do by the way. So no Steam games are DRM free.

If developers are talking about not using DRM let them put something behind their words and start selling their games through DRM free channels.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Just to re-iterate, I never said the Steam version was DRM free. I said it had Steam DRM but that its considered the most benign by the majority of PC gamers. Yes, as DRM there are problems, I too have suffered from them (at one point I had no internet connection for about two weeks, which was something I didn’t know was going to happen, so I didn’t put the client in Offline mode beforehand).

At worst, I will accept Steam as DRM. But that is it. Anything more and I don’t accept it.

Anonymous Coward says:

This is kind of off-topic but Just Cause 2 is really a freaking amazing game and it goes on sale quite often. I pre-ordered it (the first game I’d ever pre-ordered, and I’ve been an avid gamer since the late 80’s) based on a single screenshot of a helicopter dragging a bus through the sky with a cable tether. I tried the demo, used my grappling hook to perch on top of a gas canister, and then shot it with a pistol while still on top. It launched me miles into the sky like a rocket, I bailed out less than a second before it exploded, and glided safely to the ground with my parachute.

JC2 is the kind of game where the first time you play it it’s hard to believe that it actually exists at all, it’s that good.

Malor (profile) says:

I don't mind a tiny bit of DRM....

I don’t mind a little bit of DRM; Steam is pretty acceptable. This is largely because I know Steam is easy to crack. It’s DRM made of cobwebs, just enough so that you know what the limits are.

If Valve ever turns evil, or decides to change the terms of the deal in a way I find intolerable (which they can do, unilaterally, because it IS DRM), I know I’ll be able to get pirate versions of what I’ve already bought, because Steam is so easily stripped out. And it is a nice, convenient service, so I go along with it. I have JC2 on Steam, for instance.

But the really draconian flavors, especially always-on, are just not acceptable to me. Ubisoft stopped me from buying at least seven titles in the first year they went to those insane DRM regimes, and probably nearly as many since. Each year, I buy fewer and fewer big-ticket titles, because the terms are unacceptable.

I really wish more people would pay attention to this stuff, and realize that the short-term gain of the fun game is not worth accepting the long-term loss of the lousy deal to get it. If we, as gamers, keep taking lousy deals, the deals will only get lousier, until we reject them. The big gaming companies see us as something to be exploited, and they will exploit us until we refuse to play along anymore, at which point they might back off just a little.

We should have been up in arms years ago, but naw, we just keep taking shittier and shittier deals, going along with systems to take more and more money from us for less product, and a good chunk of the gaming community heaps scorn on the people pointing out that this is a pile of crap.

It feels a lot like being told that I just don’t understand, that payday loan places are the way forward, and that my insistence on using a bank is old-fashioned and stupid.

Malor (profile) says:

Oh, and as a corollary… when good deals come along, like this one, you should buy them!

People who are trying to make genuinely good games, rather than aiming at extracting the maximum revenue from you they possibly can, are getting rarer and rarer. Buy their games. It’s important. Just like avoiding the bad guys matters, so does buying stuff from the good developers.

Most people don’t really pay attention to games, it seems, so if you’re one that does, what you do matters more.

Malor (profile) says:

No, but you can tell it to run offline and never have the requirement to connect to Steam again

I don’t think that’s true — I’m nearly sure that Steam requires a login about once a month.

There was a really long period where the Mac client could stay disconnected; I had my Mac laptop in offline mode for, man, six months or more. But from comments I’ve seen since, that was a bug, and it has been fixed. You have to go online about once a month.

I have not, however, actually seen this myself; this is from sources that I trust, but it is not observed fact. I almost never run Steam on my Mac.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
20:09 Even More Patent Reform Bills Being Floated In Congress (19)
15:05 CBS Tells Court: No One Could Possibly Read Our Statements 'We Will Sue Aereo' To Mean We Will Sue Aereo (71)
15:32 TV Broadcasters Sue Alki David's TV Streaming Service Once Again, To Establish More Bad Precedents (27)
11:35 The Aftermath Of Napster: Letting Incumbents Veto Innovation Slows Down Innovation Drastically (45)
06:00 When Startups Need More Lawyers Than Employees, The Patent System Isn't Working (55)
09:21 Patents As Weapons: How 1-800-CONTACTS Is Using The Patent System To Kill An Innovative Startup (54)
14:51 Winning But Losing: Lessons From An Internet StartUp (51)
17:00 DailyDirt: Take The Red Pill, Young People (9)
03:52 Startups Realizing That Patent Trolls Are An Existential Threat (30)
19:39 This Is Not The Cloud Computing We Should Have (72)
13:03 Taxi, Limo Trade Group Hates Innovative Upstarts, Labels Them 'Rogue Applications' (25)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Life Never Sounded So Good... On The Go (6)
20:13 Flattr Makes It Easier Than Ever To Support Content Creators Just By Favoriting Tweets (61)
19:39 No, The Death Of Google Reader Doesn't Mean 'Free' Doesn't Work (77)
11:01 Kickstarter Projects That Don't Meet Their Goal Are Not 'Failures'; They Help People Avoid Failures (41)
17:44 The Killing Of Google Reader Highlights The Risk Of Relying On A Single Provider (141)
15:04 Innovative Open Textbook Company Fights Back Against Publishers' Copyright Infringement Lawsuit (29)
20:21 Startups And Innovators Speak Out In Favor Of Fixing CFAA (11)
16:03 Case Study: Band Embraces Grooveshark And Catapults Its Career (21)
09:50 Innovators Break Stuff, Including The Rules: How Gates, Jobs & Zuckerberg Could Have Been Targeted Like Aaron Swartz (48)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Rethinking The Mouse (Finally!) (58)
18:30 Is The 'Innovator's Dilemma' About To Get Disrupted By 'Big Bang Disruption'? (17)
08:18 Just Cause 2 Developer On Why It Won't Utilize DRM: 'It Treats Our Fans Like Criminals' (64)
13:08 Global Free Internet Act Introduced In Congress (43)
09:00 Crowdfunding Picks: Throw Trucks With Your Mind & Other Cool Control Interfaces (24)
19:39 Amanda Palmer On The True Nature Of Connecting With Fans: It's About Trust (131)
20:00 SHIELD Act Targeting Patent Trolls Re-Introduced; It's A Step In The Right Direction, But Just A Small One (18)
11:44 Hipmunk Raises Money... And Is Immediately Threatened By Patent Troll (52)
05:16 A Floating Island Of Nerds... Or Just Evidence Of A Broken Immigration System? (130)
18:05 New Evidence Shows That Patents Matter Less And Less For Startups (25)
More arrow