Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
I'myourtarget

Steam gets hacked

Recommended Posts

Cyanosis said:

Oh, I get where you're at. I am not so dense I don't understand what you mean. Yes, that's fairly duh obvious what you just mentioned. But I'd also at least hope you get the general idea of what I meant also as well.


The "general idea" tends to be overlooked when you make a complete ass of yourself in the process

Share this post


Link to post
Craigs said:

There have been things similar to DRM that have been around as far back as the 80s in the form of things such as code wheels and dongles. It's not a recent thing.


I have a bunch of code wheels for my SSI Dungeons and Dragons C64 games.

Share this post


Link to post
Mithran Denizen said:

With PC Steam-exclusives, I get a game that I should essentially already be able to run on my machine, but it's encumbered with a bunch of annoyances, DRM, and more middleware (like Steamworks) that I personally have no use for, so the value of the whole thing is just degraded to me. I wouldn't be bothered by the fact that putting a PS3 game into an Xbox doesn't let me play that game, because there is nothing to suggest that I could do so with that machine, and the discs themselves are in different formats, anyway.

I would be bothered, though, if I purchased an Xbox game, which, after inserting the disc into my Xbox, then required me to launch another third-party software platform on top of the usual Xbox OS, and then required me to connect to an external server for authentication before allowing me to play. The XBox 360 is already loaded with enough DRM that this isn't necessary, I suppose, but I still think your above analogy is a little shallow when referring to Steam.


While I see the distinction clearly, the fact of the matter is Steam is part of the system requirements, so there is no reason for you to believe it will work without Steam. For years and years before Steam even existed, nearly all software had license agreements with a clear "I Agree" or "I Disagree" option when you installed it. The only way to install the software legally was to agree to that service agreement. You have no choice unless you obtain it or are able to access it via (probably) shady methods.

The rise of copy protection, CD-keys or the DRM components of Steam were born from people failing to abide by those service agreements. Specifically, the whole "for personal entertainment only" and "you shall not lend, make copies of, distribute, etc." some-such parts. Now people complain because these companies actually attempt to enforce those service agreements? This isn't even including all of the people whom were hacking the software and cheating in the MP components or otherwise ruining the experience for others.

While I understand DRM does not really work and often hurts paying customers, I find the distinction between blatant DRM and Steam to be sufficiently blurred that it doesn't bother me. Steam's DRM is minimal (online authentication and running of software). While Steam's one-time (ever) authentication may be more inconvenient than simply entering a CD-key once per install (but not having to deal with software), the additional features of Steam (for me, anyway) make gaming on the PC far more accessible overall.

Xbox games are effectively encrypted and are designed for a specific DVD-Rom drive. That is Microsoft's "authentication." Modding your Xbox or mucking around with the hardware or software voids your warranty, service agreement and will otherwise put you in a lot of trouble.

While I hate the idea of 'always-on,' SecuRom, limited installs, Starforce and whatever else, Steam does far more as a gaming platform than it does as DRM. Further evidence of this is the fact so many publishers (Ubisoft comes to mind) release their titles on the Steam platform in addition to their own bullshit limited install and 'always-on' shit. I don't support that and I don't purchase games with restrictive DRM.

Share this post


Link to post
Sig-ma said:

While I see the distinction clearly, the fact of the matter is Steam is part of the system requirements, so there is no reason for you to believe it will work without Steam.

My problem isn't that I believe such a game will work without Steam, so much as I see games that could (as in, it wouldn't require the developers to port the whole thing to another architecture), and in my opinion should, be able to work without requiring Steam. I see games that would almost run on my machine, exactly the way I would like them to, but yet they don't.

Sig-ma said:

For years and years before Steam even existed, nearly all software had license agreements with a clear "I Agree" or "I Disagree" option when you installed it. The only way to install the software legally was to agree to that service agreement.

I'd say that the legality and/or enforcability of such EULAs is often questionable to begin with, though. In any case, my perspective is that since the license agreement of the game one buys is generally not reviewable at the actual time of purchase, and since most vendors won't accept returns on software that has been opened, either, the end-user shouldn't really be expected to honor it. It's not like a representative from the company comes to your house and works out a equitable licensing arrangement with you, either; a typical EULA is a list of dictations imposed upon how you can use software that you already paid for; a contract of adhesion. If anyone ever thought that J. Random Gamer is going to reasonably read the license agreement of the software that he just paid for, realize that it's too restrictive, and then hit the "Decline" button instead of the "OK" button, even though this means both not playing game, and flushing the game's $60 purchase price down the toilet, then that person was deluding themselves.

If the industry wants to market software to its users as a piece of property for them to own, then sneaking in added control over those users via such licensing is unwarranted. If the industry wants to argue for more of that sort of control, and admits that they're really "licensing" their software to us, not "selling" it, then the license needs to be disclosed and agreed to before purchase, and prices need to change to reflect the lessened value to the purchaser.

Sig-ma said:

The rise of copy protection, CD-keys or the DRM components of Steam were born from people failing to abide by those service agreements. Specifically, the whole "for personal entertainment only" and "you shall not lend, make copies of, distribute, etc." some-such parts.

Those concerns don't even require an EULA though; copyright law already restricts users from copying or distributing software infringingly anyway. More often, I see license clauses that try to circumvent normal copyright limitations that a purchaser would otherwise expect to enjoy.

Sig-ma said:

Now people complain because these companies actually attempt to enforce those service agreements? This isn't even including all of the people whom were hacking the software and cheating in the MP components or otherwise ruining the experience for others.

I've been complaining about the existence of those agreements for a long time, let alone the sometimes questionable attempts to enforce them. Regardless, though, I'm not trying to argue against Steam generally, nor do I have any issue with those people who like the service. I'm just complaining, because for me, Steam is sort of a symbol for a bunch of growing trends that are making me lose interest in gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Sig-ma said:

It's like complaining you need to turn your computer on in the morning and wait for it to load. If it bothers you, leave your computer (or Steam) on.

Or minimize your carbon footprint and setup Power on by Alarm (if available) in BIOS to turn the computer on at a set time of day. Another option is to train a monkey to perform some basic tasks as a helper animal, if more people did that they'd probably be an overall improvement in the quality of forum posts. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Mithran Denizen said:

I've been complaining about the existence of those agreements for a long time, let alone the sometimes questionable attempts to enforce them. Regardless, though, I'm not trying to argue against Steam generally, nor do I have any issue with those people who like the service. I'm just complaining, because for me, Steam is sort of a symbol for a bunch of growing trends that are making me lose interest in gaming.


Fair enough. I absolutely agree with you but have a few points I'd like to add to this discussion then...

Regarding EULA's, I do realize people are often forced into accepting them. Using your example of purchasing a non-refundable product and declining the service agreement, I believe occasionally you are allowed to return the product, but you then need to deal with the publisher. Obviously, the retailer will not accept an opened product in that case and indeed, sometimes the publisher won't either. However, with Steam, you will know what the EULA is prior to opening or purchasing the game. Whatever service agreement Skyrim would have had, for example, was supplanted by Steam's EULA. Due to the fact you're capable of downloading Steam (as free software), reviewing the service agreement and Skyrim's Steam requirement is advertised as a system requirement, this potential issue is (or should be) relatively transparent.

I would further argue that if a PC gamer is not paying attention to system requirements, they obviously should be. While believing you should be able to play Skyrim without Steam, Skyrim was still obviously developed with the Steam platform in mind. The manual, patches, support forums, achievements and various other little features are all there-- so obviously Bethesda dedicated additional time and resources specifically for that reason.

As a general rule, I attempt not to support trends which I find restrictive, harmful or intrusive, which includes a variety of different forms of DRM and even entire services. As I said, my opinion of Steam is such that I don't find it to be any of those things but it is obviously very subjective.

Share this post


Link to post

As much as I hate DRM dealing with it has never been a problem. One thing I will never ever do is own another console. Ever since they got on this Anti-Moding crap I have pretty much stopped caring about consoles. Its not the fact that I'd even mod my console. Its the fact that they can pretty much tell me what I can and can't do with my own property. When I bought my car the dealership or manufacturer did not tell me I have to keep my car stock, they also never made be sign a contract telling me I couldn't put rims on my car. Why should Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have the power to do so?

Share this post


Link to post

They're probably labouring under the delusion that all you've done is purchase a license to use the hardware. So long as you don't connect the console to their network it shouldn't matter what changes you've made to your property.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×