Well, the news about CIV5 using Steamworks wasn't on DRM but on features for Multiplayer, meaning that Firaxis could use a strong SDK for multiplayer.  If Steamworks didn't require installing the steam client, I don't think that Brad would have developped Impulse::reactor.

I'd say a Civ 5 boycott would work better then a MW2 boycott.  The target audiences are different, and the Civ 5 audience is made up of grumpy old man who have more impulse control and less bladder control .

Also, most are saying not outright boycott, but wait until it's really cheap.

The idea of a price war- lowering prices- publishers wouldn't allow that due to retail.  What Impulse could do, is the Amazon thing, and offer a credit on the next purchase (Gamersgate does this also)  You lose some profitability, but gain some repeat business.

The important thing will be building market share.

Such a perfect game for such a persistent problem!

I don't mean to sound like a valve fanboy i really don't, if a superior product comes ill use it...  I also respect you stardock fella's resolve in such things.  i however, don't take such a hard line to drm, and consider steamworks to be preferable to ubisofts' and ea games drm implementations.  Since 2k games has had its awful history of drm implementation,  i'm thankful they chose steamworks over the alternatives.  Perhaps i don't care too much about running steam because i run steam 24/7.  I can understand if you have your reasons to not use it, and perhaps will not be wooed to start.

I'm hopeful civ 5 will be a fantastic game that i will lose hundreds of hours in the sunlight while playing.  Perhaps ill see some of you there, you have months to ponder.

I've never bought anything off of Steam at original, full price. It's not going to change with Civ V. I have more games on Steam than I do Impulse, but I've given Impulse more money. Now for Civ IV, I purchased the original game, and each expansion at release week. I won't be doing that with Civ V. You can claim all you want that people on internet forums never do what they say they are going do to. I certainly do. I have yet o buy any game with activation limits (like I said I wouldn't). I didn't purchase EA RPGs at full price because of their release day DLC garbage (actuallypaid less than 20 for each), and there isnt' a single new Ubisoft title in my house, and they're won't be until they reach rental prices since that is what they are doing, renting me games dependent on not only my connection but their servers. So when I say I will not be giving Steam the full price of that game (nor five or ten off the suggested price either), I mean it. I was a fan of the Settlers since Serf City, won't be purchasing Settlers 7. I've been a fan of civ since the first blocky ridiculous hard and fun game, and I won't get V anytime soon after release.

I'll use Steam, but having Steam is not an increase value for me. It decreases the value of the game, so I won't pay as much and since there are dozens of other games on the horizon, I may not pick it up for couple of years if not longer because of steam. but hey if they sell it for $5.64, I might cave. I thought I would just put that out there so you can't claim that this internet forum users didn't do what she said she was going to do.

I guess the relevant point here is that this was likely not a DRM decision. Civ 4 uses Gamespy's multiplay functionality, and to be charitable I'm not much of a fan of that. (my account name is now Tridus-tk-tk2, WTF is that?)

They're replacing the Gamespy stuff with Steamworks. You don't need Steamworks to provide DRM, you use it to provide matchmaking, achievements, and that sort of thing. For the Firaxis guys, it's probably a straightforward decision. Using it gives them an established platform for those functions and lets them spend less time on it (and thus more time on gameplay).

I haven't seen a real successful alternative to what Steamworks offers in those areas. Everybody hates GFWL*, and Impulse Reactor AFAIK is still in development. Once it's done you'll likely see people take a look, but it won't take off until Stardock uses it in a game. Nobody wants to be first on a new platform when Steamworks is already proven. Once Reactor is proven too, it's got some compelling things going for it (namely that it doesn't force installation of a particular platform).

* My only experience with GFWL was in Fallout 3, where it required this weird update go GFWL on Vista to work properly. Wasn't really a smooth experience at all.

Civ IV has direct ip. If you know who you want to play with, you don't have use anyones anything. Once Steam is in the picture, they'll remove that I am sure. You will be forced to use Steam if you want to play Civ V. No one is forcing us to buy Civ V which is why a number of us won't, at least not until it hits the bargain bin.

I want the old days where I'd start up a game, consult with my friends (voice program, IM, forum, etc.), one hosts and the others connect, and voila! -- we're playing.  No third party.  And updating being as simple as clicking on 'update' when firing up the game and it checks automatically, or perhaps I visit the game's site or similar repository and DL the patch and apply it myself.

This achievement crap (meaningless to me), the 'convenience' of centralized hosting (unnecessary for my friends and I), etc. is just a cover for DRM and for being able to control gamers.  I understand the DRM problem, but that doesn't mean I have to like/accept this response to it.  I share Frogboy's concerns about 'One Distributor to rule them all, One Distributor to find them, One Distributor to bring them all and in the darkness bind them' -- but think it can be applied to the whole idea of 'third parties' getting between my friends and I, or my SP game and me.

The goalposts have shifted significantly, that being required to have a third party interjected between me and my friends is taken for granted -- and not just in MP but now creeping into SP too.

I'd be pretty shocked if most people playing multiplayer Civ are doing with direct IP. The gamespy stuff gives you a lobby and friends list, although it's pretty rudimentary compared to the more advanced platforms out there now.

Demolition Man - "All restaurants are Taco Bell."

An interesting article from The Escapist about Valve's Gabe Newell's stance on DRM.

I'll keep that in mind next time I want to play Dawn of War II but can't because the Steam servers are down and I just want to play single player.

Not to be triggish about it, but on the occasions I've gotten a reply from Frogboy about whether we will require an internet connection to Stardock in order to play on a local WAN, it has sounded that we will, in fact, need to authenticate against Stardocks's servers to play the upcomming Elemental: War of Magic game online.

So it's not just the big players like EA doing it, even Stardock seems to be considering it for MP.

Mind that this information is not necessarily accurate. It's difficult to ask a straight question and get a straight answer amongst so many thousands of posts.

I believe that is only for the beta, I am pretty sure he has stated categorically that you will be able to host your own MP games with the release version.

Stardock will provide servers for players to play online multiplayer on, and will provide dedicated server software for players to host their own servers with custom content, such as mods or maps.  Authenticating your copy to Stardock when playing online multiplayer is acceptable because you're online, and there is really no valid argument against it.  If you had to authenticate to Stardock's servers for offline play, which you don't have to do, then there would be a problem.

[quote who="TCores" reply

="237" id="2615624"]
Quoting Nick-Danger, reply 232

I want the old days where I'd start up a game, consult with my friends (voice program, IM, forum, etc.), one hosts and the others connect, and voila! -- we're playing.  No third party.  And updating being as simple as clicking on 'update' when firing up the game and it checks automatically, or perhaps I visit the game's site or similar repository and DL the patch and apply it myself.

This achievement crap (meaningless to me), the 'convenience' of centralized hosting (unnecessary for my friends and I), etc. is just a cover for DRM and for being able to control gamers.  I understand the DRM problem, but that doesn't mean I have to like/accept this response to it.  I share Frogboy's concerns about 'One Distributor to rule them all, One Distributor to find them, One Distributor to bring them all and in the darkness bind them' -- but think it can be applied to the whole idea of 'third parties' getting between my friends and I, or my SP game and me.


The goalposts have shifted significantly, that being required to have a third party interjected between me and my friends is taken for granted -- and not just in MP but now creeping into SP too.

 

Not to be triggish about it, but on the occasions I've gotten a reply from Frogboy about whether we will require an internet connection to Stardock in order to play on a local WAN, it has sounded that we will, in fact, need to authenticate against Stardocks's servers to play the upcomming Elemental: War of Magic game online.

So it's not just the big players like EA doing it, even Stardock seems to be considering it for MP.

Mind that this information is not necessarily accurate. It's difficult to ask a straight question and get a straight answer amongst so many thousands of posts.[/quote]

I'm ok with authentication for online MP.  You obviously have to be online for online MP after all.

I'm not ok with it for offline games.

I mean, Steam's DRM is fine- for TF2.  Civ V is not TF2.