I understand the DRM problem, and agree that something needs to be done -- a craftsperson must be adequately compensated for their work.  That doesn't mean I won't point out problems with some aspects of DRM implementation 

In your example, what if the authentication servers are down?

How about someday in the future when the game is no longer considered worth supporting?  Will the company offer a patch to remove online authorization -- I'd bet SD would, but others?

This isn't just a hypothetical situation -- hasn't it already happened with some game/music services, leaving the customers out-of-luck?

How about an old-fashioned LAN party?  Will LAN MP be assumed to be internet and so require online authentication?

Can't online authentication be hacked as easily as other DRM?

I understand this concern, and I agree in part.  A single player portion of a game should be able to be completed offline, and there is no valid arugment that can be presented against this fact.  Ubisoft's attempt to change an industry wide accepted fact are futile due to the efforts of talented pirates.
Online Authentication for Online Multiplayer is entirely acceptable.  What happens if the authentication servers are down for some reason?  Then you can't play multiplayer until they come back up.  This is the same as if there is a problem with your phone line, or computer.  It's unavoidable, and to think that a 100% full-proof server exists somewhere is entirely unrealistic.  If you're paying to play, such as with the World of Warcraft, then you can expect a higher level of service - such as decreased downtime or backup servers to keep you playing. 


The bandwidth required to authenticate a game's CD-Key is incredibly small, and most servers are third party meaning the company doesn't really have an on-going expense.  Authentication servers are fairly unlikely to be shut down, unless it requires a constant stream of data and thus higher bandwidth.  Assassin's Creed II's servers are certain to be closed down at a point in the future when the cost of the bandwidth exceeds the amount of revenue generated by the game.  If the game is entirely first party hosted and then discontinued entirely, then the game should be unlocked.


What you're talking about isn't the game rendered useless - the first party multiplayer servers for several EA titles were closed down, leaving the entire community with third party servers.  The games still function.
The music service you're talking about was Microsoft's music service, and it does present an issue because the songs that are downloaded are locked to a computer and with the service closed you're unable to 'unlock' or 'migrate' them to another computer, thus requiring the user to keep that computer exactly as it is; no upgrading, no changing components, etc.  The music files were not unlocked.


Unfortunately this seems to be the way of the future.  Starcraft II famousless ditched LAN, prompting fans to collect signatures for a petition.  I believe Blizzard confired that Starcraft II would indeed feature LAN-like features, however they would require a constant internet connection as it's routed through Battle.net.


Sure can, however DRM isn't about stopping piracy, it's about stopping re-selling games.  Piracy is the all-purpose excuse of this generation's businesses.  Game didn't sell enough?  Pirates.  Multiplayer severs messed up?  Pirates did it.  Game shipping with restrictive DRM?  Response to pirates.  Nine sequels to a single game?  The effects of Piracy.  Global Warming?  Pirates downloading too much.  Wife left you?  Pirates caused it by breaking DRM.

Who said anything about the most people doing anything. The point is direct IP is available alongside gamespy. Steamworks, once it is involved, takes over everything, all options, all choice. Comparing Steam DRM and client to Gamespy just isn't the same thing.

@ZehDon  First, thanks for the comprehensive, polite, and well-thought-out reply 

Second...

Actually, DRM is about control of copyright and intellectual property.  So both piracy of software AND reselling games fit into the sphere of DRM.  In that respect DRM is a good method to protect a company's copyrights and intellectual property.

However, the types of DRM implemented have little to desire in most cases.  It's unfortunate that most companies take the "restrict" approach rather than the "value-add" approach to DRM implementation.  If all companies took the "value-add" approach and gave positive incentives to legally obtain the software, then I think we would be on the right path.  

People might be interested in reading Elizabeth's (from 2k games) comments regarding Steam (in a post complied by AVS, post number 278).  Here are some tidbits:

 

You will be able to play Civ offline using Steam. You will be able to install it on multiple computers (and play your saved games on those multiple computers!)

Steam is integral to our game and the hub for the community, which is why it's going to be on all copies (digital and retail.) Even if you play a single player game, you'll still benefit from being tied into the community - this isn't just about multiplayer!

 

Steam is pretty versatile (in my opinion) in how you can install the game on multiple computers and transfer your saves easily - which I think for a single player gamer would be awesome. It also makes getting updates and mods and new content much more streamlined - so even if you just want the best single player experience and don't want to talk to or play with other gamers, you'll have a much more centralized system for keeping your game up to date and for playing on any machine you want.

 

You don't have to use any feature you don't want to, of course. I'm sure you'll still likely want the updates at the very least.

I think the ideal situation is to make a game that has the features as many people as possible want with the easiest platform so that those who don't want to use those features don't have to. You definitely won't have to be part of the community if you don't want to - although you'll be missed.

 

You can definitely play Steam offline, and register it via a dialup connection. I don't know if you can get the updates offline and transfer them via a thumbdrive - let me check in on that one.

Steamworks, for us, is about much more than just piracy. It's a method of delivering the game, keeping the community together, and updating along the way.

 

Here's the link:  http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=363634&page=14

@KickACrip - Thanks for the post. Could be usefulfor some.

It doesnt really address the problem that many have with the forced connection between the game and Steam. Why can I not choose if I want to be part of a community when I buy a game? I am single player only and dont care about anything that Steam has to offer. All I need is a patch or two which doesnt really call for a consistent client on my PC.

Copyright holders are not supposed to have control over individual copies, via DRM or otherwise. They're supposed to maintain the right to make those copies, to profit from those copies, to give third parties the rights to do those things. They should not have any decision what happens after a legal copy is "let go" save from keeping that person from trying to do those things already mentioned (making copies, giving rights to third parties). Reselling of games shouldn't be up to the copyright holders at all, and they shouldn't be allowed to do anything to stop it. Used copies should be a part of any healthy media market, hell new books and dvds are still purchased and they have used markets.

Actually, copyright holders do have control over individual copies by law.  This is the full purpose of Copyright Laws.  If you carefully read the EULA of software, you will also notice that you are only granted a license to use the software, that it is in fact not regarded as a "copy" of the copyrighted material (since mastering produces "originals" not "copies").  You don't actually own the software, just the right to use it.  Thus, you do not have the right to transfer that ownership of the license (or First Sale Doctrine under US law).

Second hand sales of software has been tested in US Courts a couple of times, with no clear conclusion as cases have gone both ways.  Some cases dictate the a EULA is binding (and thus the terms of use clearly state the user has a license to use the software) and other cases have dictated the EULA was not binding.  It's a very grey area of copyright law TBH, and one that causes a LOT of confusion.  However you must note a LOT of countries in the World do not have legislation allowing reselling of copyright material without permission (like the US First Sale Doctrine).

Copyright law surrounding software is a very tricky thing to understand.  If anything, the waters are muddied a lot by publishers who push the boundaries of the laws because they know if they lose in one Court they can appeal to another Court and possibly win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright

 

I'm glad you later make note of the subsequent court cases over this, but I do not believe it is correct to say there are "no clear conclusions." In fact the US has been rather decisive about this:

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/550/550.F2d.1180.76-1141.html

If you are sold a something, and you pay completely for it in a one off transaction, and you own the item in perpetuity (as I have with all my games) then it is a sale of an item. You may resell it.

The dissenting opinions (MAI and Wall Data cases) were in different cases under different issues.

 

More contentious would be the statement that this kind of "you are only licenced the software" is the "full purpose of the copyright laws." Actually, the judge threw down Autodesk's claim that Veror only "licenced" the software on the grounds that it precisely contradicted the intent of US copyright laws! Moreover, he made a great deal about the utter absurdity of AutoDesk's claims that Vernor had only "licecned" the software. Because Vernor had never even installed the software or clicked "agree" to any licence, he could not possibly be bound to the licence of a product just because he had it in his possession!*

It would take the supreme court to overturn this, or the earliest precedent of United States vs Wise.

 

*This kind of argument would suggest I could make up my own "licence conditions," put it on my T-shirt, and have it say "By selling me a product today, you implictly agree that I own the product you have sold me, and you will also owe me one beer." And it would be reasonable to expect that everyone who sold stuff to me would be bound by the licence conditions of my t-shirt. No!

I am not a lawyer and have no interest in law. But if I am going to make claims about the legality of a thing, or the realities of the law, I should actually research what I'm saying before I saw it. It's a good principle.

That 2K response just as easily applies to any number of options. If game updating and mod handling was their primary concern, there were plenty of other options that wouldn't have required bundling a third party store with the game.

 

Agreed, if it just bundled Steamworks, which in turn didn't require an install of Steam, I doubt many of us would have a problem. It is most definitely the tying together of Steamworks and Steam (the store) that I have a problem. That is as blatantly copying the original issues the government had with Microsoft as you can get.

 

It wouldn't be nearly so bad if they just asked, "Hey, do you want to install Steam also?" I don't particularly care for that either, but it is at least palatable.

 

 

Lol ... this feels like a massive game of Fall From Heaven 2. Either you all dogpile on the leader, or there will be a winner very soon (ie closed platform).

What makes you think we haven't? You know all this whining about copies and not wanting consumers to be able to resell what they purchase isn't the first time we've heard it. The publishers of books weren't exactly happy with the idea of libraries or garages sales either, but that didn't mean they got to stomp all over consumers and get what they want if they yelled loud enough. It's clear with copyright law that copyright holders are not meant to have control over the individual copies of their work. What's not clear is the crap they keep throwing on top of it, DMCA, and all the other lobbyist wet dreams they keep coming up with.

DVDs, CDs, physical media none of them get to dink with these once it is gone, off the line and out the door. Software DVD-ROMS, CDS, hell all of them, every single one of them, want to sell you half finished products that require patches and updates or some online component so they can yank it at will, disable what they sold. And don't tell me they don't face piracy, hell Avatar is having one of the weirdest release to home setups I've seen in a bit and that movie is selling millions of copies even as its pirated to hell. I have a copy sitting in my DVD player right now, and it's not mine, it's my sisters. You know what trouble I had in getting it to play by using a used copy someone else owns. Zero problems. There is no online account that says sorry already claimed. There is no Impulse or Steamworks client that tells me i can't get a needed update because its used. Nothing that stops me from handing this to my mother and letting her see it before it returns to the original owner.

The real problem is, as I have said before, is that the industry wants to sell software as a product and a license without the protection, for the consumer, of either.