[Fox]

Hank, on 08 February 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

Fox, on 08 February 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

Since Steam is not getting paid, you are stealing from them, meaning you are no different from a robber.

I think I lost you with me bad English.

I was making fun of anti-piracy arguments.

Sangman, on 08 February 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

Well in that example you are indeed denying ('taking') profit ('an actual thing')..

No you are not. Otherwise you are taking profit away the moment you decide not to purchase something.

[Sangman]

Fox, on 08 February 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

No you are not.

This is just gonna turn into a "yes/no" back and forth thing.


Frankly the point is, I'm not saying I've never pirated anything in my life, but please don't bullshit yourselves into thinking you're doing anything other than stealing or whatever you want to call it. (I use the word stealing but yeah if you're going to go with a very specific definition of that term I guess it wouldn't be correct in your eyes anyway)

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Sangman, on 08 February 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

please don't bullshit yourselves into thinking you're doing anything other than stealing

Legally it's not stealing. It's copyright infringement, which at the moment is an active and gray area in U.S. law.
No corporate lawyer worth their weight in salt is going to round up software pirates into civil court and say "these people are guilty of stealing." The case would be dismissed immediately.

[Sangman]

I'm not even talking about courts or legal definitions. I am talking about what's right but it is fairly obvious that you are men without honor hiding behind intricate descriptions.

[Kathy]

I've never said that it's right. That is why I'm asking people about legal ways of fighting Steam dependency or is it too late and the only solution is to boycott Steam altogether.

Saying "I will pirate every game I bought then" is not a viable solution in case of the ban(stealing or not). Viable solution is somehow fighting ban and Steam isn't giving you means to do so. They pretty much do whatever they want with the games you bought. Imagine GameStop banning you from their stores and then taking from you all the games you bought from them.

[Fox]

Sangman, on 08 February 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

Fox, on 08 February 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

No you are not.

This is just gonna turn into a "yes/no" back and forth thing.

If you didn't cut the last part of my quote, maybe that would make sense.

Sangman, on 08 February 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

I'm not even talking about courts or legal definitions. I am talking about what's right but it is fairly obvious that you are men without honor hiding behind intricate descriptions.

You can call it rape or murder, but won't make it so. If you want to talk about honor or morals, first use an honest argument.

[Hank]

Burnett, on 09 February 2013 - 12:27 AM, said:

I've never said that it's right. That is why I'm asking people about legal ways of fighting Steam dependency or is it too late and the only solution is to boycott Steam altogether.

Saying "I will pirate every game I bought then" is not a viable solution in case of the ban(stealing or not). Viable solution is somehow fighting ban and Steam isn't giving you means to do so. They pretty much do whatever they want with the games you bought. Imagine GameStop banning you from their stores and then taking from you all the games you bought from them.

As I insinuated before, this is a logical consequence. People seem to accept the new business model. Steam owns the games in full and you basically pay for lease/rent. Similar to a rental apartment/flat. If the owner wants you out, you are out. If you want out, you are out. All the past rent paid stays with the Landlord.

If you say to me: the games you obtained through us are not for ownership, I'll stop and think this through. I will share a rental flat/apartment with people in need of shelter. I pay the rent and have my new friends keeping me company. If you offer me to rent your games, because of your blatant corporate greed, the stuff you think you own ends up in cyber space. I am actually very generous with the stuff I have to rent.

I insist of owning everything. There are things I can't own. Rihanna played a while ago in town, it was a show, it is not for owning. Her new album is. Going to the movie theatre; the same thing. Watching the show is not for owning. The same movie on DVD is. Video Games - are for owning, in my books. I does not matter to me if it is sold to me on Blueray/DVD, Stick or on the Cloud; they are mine.

[Kathy]

Shouldn't the rent then be much and much cheaper? Because right now it is understood that you're actually buying game and not renting it.

[Fox]

Yes, and there would have a defined time of use. So it would be comparable to buying an apartment, and the owner of the building can't kick you no matter what.

[Hank]

What can I say? Yes, to both Burnett and Fox. I wrote; similar not identical to rentals.
So shall it be named Steam Games == The-You-Thought-You-Bought-But-Are-Not-Fully-Owned-By-You-Games?

I think no matter how it is analyzed, Steam is building a very smart monopoly and any counter action will become illegal, since any given monopoly plays by their own rules. The only true legal solution for me was to opt out; your own solution is up to you.

[Kathy]

How do you buy games then? What about games that require Steam?

[Hank]

Burnett, on 09 February 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

How do you buy games then? What about games that require Steam?

I simply acquiesce to the Steam Authentication process, like a good little peasant accepted the King's rules in good old Europe.

Or, ask me no questions and I will not tell you any lies.

[MusicallyInspired]

The thing is, you never buy games. You've always bought game licenses. Always. Even when you bought retail boxes. Nobody has ever owned games. It just felt as though you did. Now they can just control this better. At least there's GoG which has no DRM control whatsoever.

[Kathy]

Well, yeah. I understand that I never owned a code or any of the actual assets of the game, but I do own a copy of it. It's like I never owned actual design of the car that I bought, but I owned the car and all the functions it provides. The same is with games. They are less physical than a car of course, but I still own a copy, as I should.

Either way, if anyone should decide whether I can play particular game or not, it should be the owner and not some 3rd party that has nothing to do with a game. Yet Steam ban and EULA encompass all games bought through Valve's service.

And GOG is of course FTW. It was the first digital distribution service that I bought a game through. Then came Steam, but eventually I came back to GOG.

[Tetsuo]

GOG would be great if they carried more recent titles in there. Of course some people might want to keep GOG only for the classics and some people only like the classics. But really, I say if you want to have GOG as your one stop shop replacement for any system that has any form of DRM then they need to carry a larger selection of newer games too.

I bought some newer games like Alan Wake from GOG and I'd be down for buying more newer games from them. I hear the ROTT reboot might be on it.

[Hank]

@ MusicallyInspired
There is a difference of Ownership.
The maker of a game, owns the game.
When I buy a game, I (should) own one single copy that is legally defined through a license agreement. Unlike the game producer, I can not distribute the game, but I do insist on to be able to transfer the license I own(paid for).

[Kathy]

Tetsuo, on 09 February 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

I bought some newer games like Alan Wake from GOG and I'd be down for buying more newer games from them. I hear the ROTT reboot might be on it.

To be fair, my current period of "fuck DRM" evolved from the period of "fuck AAA" so I haven't really one day abandoned all the great(and new) titles Steam had just because of DRM. But so far, so good.

[MusicallyInspired]

Hank, on 09 February 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

@ MusicallyInspired
There is a difference of Ownership.
The maker of a game, owns the game.
When I buy a game, I (should) own one single copy that is legally defined through a license agreement. Unlike the game producer, I can not distribute the game, but I do insist on to be able to transfer the license I own(paid for).

Yes, you should. I completely agree. But I don't believe that's what game companies have looked at it as. I doubt that will ever change no matter what method of distribution comes along. Beforehand they had no control of what you did with the game assets. Now they do. It's what they've always wanted.

[Soap DX]

There is one thing which wasn't mentioned; yes you can't sell your games, but you can still sell your account :/ I know it's not great, but it's a possibility.
I myself spread my games on two accounts, because of a few concerns.

Concerns;
- Steam Bankruptcy (for some reason we'd loose everything)
- Getting my account Hacked (and not being able to retrieve, but it's looking safe)
- User Agreement changed and f--- us over.
- Getting banned. (probably hard to happen)
- Steam gets hacked at the source, and damages ensue, or we can't play for a few months.

I think that's about it. But honestly to me gaming is dying... sure it's not dying, but I don't like the way it's changing, and I don't think I'll be following gaming as much anymore, or at least I'll be less of a participant.

I'm used to the old ways, go to the store, buy a game, install it, play it when ever, where ever. Now you buy a game, DNF for instance, and it's a physical copy but it goes on your steam account >_< what's the point in getting this useless case.

I'm trying to buy less games on Steam, just because I'm not crazy about the "rentals" idea, especially at full price, but that's what it's becoming. SONY's new DRM is going to be like steam, you buy a CD/DVD/BlueRay or whatever, and it registers to your account. Mother F*****ers.

I miss the old school basic DRM, at least it wasn't a pain, and in the end, hackers have always prevailed.

My alternative is GoG, not that I feel like buying much from there. Other then that, every time I buy I game on steam I consider it's not mine and I can loose it.

*game is not available right now*

[Kathy]

Soap DX, on 10 February 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

I don't like the way it's changing, and I don't think I'll be following gaming as much anymore, or at least I'll be less of a participant.

Are you basing it just on AAA titles? Because yeah, these are getting more and more generalised, as they should given the money and resources involved.

[Soap DX]

In Part, to me it's not only content, it's also the way we are getting it. Saints Row 3 has Tones and tones of DLC, which is basically skin swap and stats changing. In essence lots of it are mods. Not crazy about DLC, not crazy about recent DRM.

And I miss games that some would love others would hate, lots of movies and games try to cater to everyone, so you get ... blah...

And I couldn't care less about graphics, everyone seems to think it matters. If your game is great and fun people will play it, and revisit it.

I do find game lack a little creativity, and it seems no one takes risks, but I know why, the industry isn't what it used to be. I guess that's why indy games are getting more popular, because it's more like our gaming roots in some ways.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Best thing to happen to indie gaming was Kickstarter.

[MusicallyInspired]

Soap DX, on 10 February 2013 - 06:45 AM, said:

In Part, to me it's not only content, it's also the way we are getting it. Saints Row 3 has Tones and tones of DLC,...

Fascinating. I never realized DLC generated acoustic sound.

Kidding aside, you're absolutely right and I agree with everything. Gaming isn't what it used to be. And I much prefer indie gaming for the simple reason alone that it resembles how gaming used to be. I also do not care about graphics. Especially when there are so many games that put it to the forefront all the time.

[Kathy]

Achenar, on 10 February 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

Best thing to happen to indie gaming was Kickstarter.

...and then big developers got involved.

Soap DX, on 10 February 2013 - 06:45 AM, said:

And I couldn't care less about graphics, everyone seems to think it matters. If your game is great and fun people will play it, and revisit it.

Graphics per se might not matter, but technical side of games is important. Too bad it hasn't evolved as much as it could have in comparison with graphics evolution.

[MusicallyInspired]

Cathy, on 10 February 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

...and then big developers got involved.

What do big developers have anything to do with indie devs on Kickstarter? How does that affect them at all?

[Hendricks266]

Graphic Design >>>>>>>>>>>> Graphics

For example, I'm not a fan of the graphic style of early 3D games like Mario 64. Low-poly, low-resolution 3D assets (with bilinear filtering everywhere to boot!) look premature to me. I much prefer pixel art to 3D in its infancy.

On topic, I have only ever bought Steam games on steep discount during sales. Part of me says that advantage outweighs these potential risks.

[Kathy]

MusicallyInspired, on 10 February 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

What do big developers have anything to do with indie devs on Kickstarter? How does that affect them at all?

I'm probably talking completely out of my perfectly formed ass, but I suspect that while big devs brought more spotlight to the Kickstarter, they also overshadowed indies and fatigued the service. And I don't have any numbers to prove that.

Hendricks266, on 10 February 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

On topic, I have only ever bought Steam games on steep discount during sales. Part of me says that advantage outweighs these potential risks.

That's another way of countering at this problem. You're aware that you're buying a subscription thus you're paying cheap. From an investment point of view you probably won't lose much in case of the ban, but you would still lose your game's collection.

[Radar]

Hendricks266, on 10 February 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

For example, I'm not a fan of the graphic style of early 3D games like Mario 64. Low-poly, low-resolution 3D assets (with bilinear filtering everywhere to boot!) look premature to me. I much prefer pixel art to 3D in its infancy.

QFT. I can't stand early 3D games like Half Life 1 and Quake 1, but I love looking at games like Duke Nukem 3D when 8-bit graphics had become as good as they could get. I personally enjoy those graphics more than modern 3D games.

[MusicallyInspired]

I never liked Quake or Quake 2's art direction or graphic design/implementation, but I appreciated Half-Life's. It was a lot more colourful than either, for one. But a lot of people prefer even antiquated pixelated 2D graphics to any 3D period. Sometimes I wonder if 3D came first instead of 2D (regardless of much that does not make sense) if people would prefer that to 2D.

[Hank]

^ good point. Perhaps it's more what has got you into gaming that will stick to you as the preferred 'way' ?!?

To stay within the topic, My first game I bought was ChessMaster, Steam sells a very fancy version of Check&Made , but you can play a less graphic version free online, 24/7, so, I'll stick with the free version.