BigBodZod wrote:

SquallStrife wrote:

It's enough to make Richard Stallman's skin crawl, and he has more devoted religious followers than Steve Jobs ever did.

Well he is mentioning Freedom in gaming rather then Free in the cost of games.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. He insists that closed-source software somehow deprives you of some unspecified freedom, when you're perfectly free to not use it! 😉

BigBodZod wrote:

I do not see an issue here with using Steam on Linux as a digital distribution platform.

Nor do I see an issue, nor would most people. But those aren't the Linux "purists"...

That said, the steam drm is EXTREMELY easy to bypass. Its also very un-obtrusive compared to all others. I like steam. I like being able to log into any internet connected machine and have access to an entire library of games. I have no issues with DRM, until it becomes a hindrance to the person who legitimately owns it. Diablo 3 was a prime example.

SquallStrife wrote:

That's exactly what I'm talking about. He insists that closed-source software somehow deprives you of some unspecified freedom, when you're perfectly free to not use it! 😉

I know. Gotta love the irony of freedom of speech Free Software radicals being all anti-freedom of choice.

You also have to use the non-Free driver blobs from nvidia and AMD too because s3tc support is vital for the games. Unfortunately for AMD users, a Radeon HD5xxx card is a minimum for the games.

SquallStrife wrote:

BigBodZod wrote:

SquallStrife wrote:

It's enough to make Richard Stallman's skin crawl, and he has more devoted religious followers than Steve Jobs ever did.

Well he is mentioning Freedom in gaming rather then Free in the cost of games.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. He insists that closed-source software somehow deprives you of some unspecified freedom, when you're perfectly free to not use it! 😉

If he had such a following, a lot of people would be using Linux and wasting a lot of money every time the same machine plus 1 feature minus 2 came out.

Actually, the freedoms that DRM prevents are specified:
-You can't pass the software to your neighbor (legally, at least).
-You can't look at the source code.
-You can't tinker with it.
And has to do with stuff you own, too.

bloodbat wrote:

If he had such a following, a lot of people would be using Linux and wasting a lot of money every time the same machine plus 1 feature minus 2 came out.

Gee whizz. Zero points for originality.

bloodbat wrote:

Actually, the freedoms that DRM prevents are specified: -You can't pass the software to your neighbor (legally, at least). -You […]
Show full quote

Actually, the freedoms that DRM prevents are specified:
-You can't pass the software to your neighbor (legally, at least).
-You can't look at the source code.
-You can't tinker with it.
And has to do with stuff you own, too.

He still doesn't mention that you're free to not use it. 😉

He blathers about freedom, but doesn't think people should be allowed to licence their material as they see fit. Hypocrite.

There are benefits to both closed and open source models. Only a fool of the highest calibre would say otherwise.

Stallman throwing about words like "unethical" just makes me pity him, and the disconnection between his ideas and reality. His idea of "freedom" is that you're "free" to use the GPL, or others that are compatible with it, and don't use the BSD licence, that's "too free"!

I don't really care about copyprotection stuff and such, but I don't like steam for a simple reason; if I make a backup of a steam game (or have the cd bought in a store) I'm completely dependent of Steam to play it, if steam goes bankrupt, tough luck, if I don't have internet connection, tough luck, if steam goes haywire and loses all consumer information, tough luck, etc. etc.
If I make backups of games I downloaded from www.thesearobberslagoon.syn, I can play them even when that site goes down or anything, this makes for me games from them actually more valuable than the shit on steam that I don't actually own.
When I look at my games collection there is a lot of stuff 15 to 20 years old, the companies that made and published them are mostly long gone, but I can still play them if I want and can probably play them 15 to 20 years from now, with steam that all hangs on the fate of one company.

Procyon wrote:

I don't really care about copyprotection stuff and such, but I don't like steam for a simple reason; if I make a backup of a steam game (or have the cd bought in a store) I'm completely dependent of Steam to play it, if steam goes bankrupt, tough luck, if I don't have internet connection, tough luck, if steam goes haywire and loses all consumer information, tough luck, etc. etc.
If I make backups of games I downloaded from www.thesearobberslagoon.syn, I can play them even when that site goes down or anything, this makes for me games from them actually more valuable than the shit on steam that I don't actually own.
When I look at my games collection there is a lot of stuff 15 to 20 years old, the companies that made and published them are mostly long gone, but I can still play them if I want and can probably play them 15 to 20 years from now, with steam that all hangs on the fate of one company.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

bloodbat wrote:

If he had such a following, a lot of people would be using Linux and wasting a lot of money every time the same machine plus 1 f […]
Show full quote

SquallStrife wrote:

BigBodZod wrote:

Well he is mentioning Freedom in gaming rather then Free in the cost of games.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. He insists that closed-source software somehow deprives you of some unspecified freedom, when you're perfectly free to not use it! 😉

If he had such a following, a lot of people would be using Linux and wasting a lot of money every time the same machine plus 1 feature minus 2 came out.

Actually, the freedoms that DRM prevents are specified:
-You can't pass the software to your neighbor (legally, at least).
-You can't look at the source code.
-You can't tinker with it.
And has to do with stuff you own, too.

The concept of owing software is often misunderstood. You don't own the software, you have merely a license to use it. Most software is closed source and the license does not allow you to tinker with it. At best you own the media the software came on, if any, and the license holder has not done something to restrict your usage rights to one console or computer. If that is contrary to some supposed 100% open-source Linux philosophy, then lots of software would go unused and a great economic engine would not exist.

Procyon wrote:

I don't really care about copyprotection stuff and such, but I don't like steam for a simple reason; if I make a backup of a steam game (or have the cd bought in a store) I'm completely dependent of Steam to play it, if steam goes bankrupt, tough luck, if I don't have internet connection, tough luck, if steam goes haywire and loses all consumer information, tough luck, etc. etc.
If I make backups of games I downloaded from www.thesearobberslagoon.syn, I can play them even when that site goes down or anything, this makes for me games from them actually more valuable than the shit on steam that I don't actually own.
When I look at my games collection there is a lot of stuff 15 to 20 years old, the companies that made and published them are mostly long gone, but I can still play them if I want and can probably play them 15 to 20 years from now, with steam that all hangs on the fate of one company.

I agree with this up to a point. Software registration does have it's place to prevent piracy by tying each license to a particular user, but leaving you dependent on Steam or some other service to play the game, even in single player, after the software has been registered is just ridiculous.

Supposedly Gabe Newel Has dead man's switch patch for steam in case of emergency. I don't remember where to find the article or quote.

If Steam ever dies then people will step in to provide cracks to get everyone's games working again, and since Steam wouldn't be around anymore to care, said cracks would be readily available all over the internet.

This is why I'm not too concerned with Steam's DRM system. I AM concerned with other DRM approaches though, like tying physical discs to user accounts, meaning if you give the disc to someone else, they can't play it. To me, that's going a step too far.

And yeah, The Great Hierophant makes a point the vast majority of people don't understand. When you buy software you're typically also buying a license to use said software in a particular manner, which is where all the restrictions on reverse engineering or copying/sharing tend to be. I ALWAYS speed-read license agreements nowadays due to some of the things companies like to sneak into them, especially regarding third-party software. x_x;

Gemini000 wrote:

If Steam ever dies then people will step in to provide cracks to get everyone's games working again, and since Steam wouldn't be around anymore to care, said cracks would be readily available all over the internet.

What a great reasoning! 😁

Gemini000 wrote:

If Steam ever dies then people will step in to provide cracks to get everyone's games working again, and since Steam wouldn't be around anymore to care, said cracks would be readily available all over the internet.

This is why I'm not too concerned with Steam's DRM system. I AM concerned with other DRM approaches though, like tying physical discs to user accounts, meaning if you give the disc to someone else, they can't play it. To me, that's going a step too far.

And yeah, The Great Hierophant makes a point the vast majority of people don't understand. When you buy software you're typically also buying a license to use said software in a particular manner, which is where all the restrictions on reverse engineering or copying/sharing tend to be. I ALWAYS speed-read license agreements nowadays due to some of the things companies like to sneak into them, especially regarding third-party software. x_x;

Then make a new account for each game 😜 (sarcasm) remeber i had to re set my activation limit for crysis but, they couldn't till the next day due to the servers.

JUST AS I THOUGHT, Condition Zero NOW is getting the same SCREWED UP treatment!

http://steamcommunity.com/games/80/announceme … 903282520226702

Oh freakin' well...

I have to wonder if all of this so-called "update" crap$#it is somehow due to this -> http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/02/13/valve-layof … name=0&ns_fee=0 ?!

rfnagel wrote:

I have to wonder if all of this so-called "update" crap$#it is somehow due to this -> http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/02/13/valve-layof … name=0&ns_fee=0 ?!

The other side of the coin of screwing the customers is screwing the employees. The two inevitably arrive at around the same time.

P.S. Just a heads-up: The first mandatory so-called "update" to Counter-Strike: Condition zero has been "pushed" to public by Valve!

...and I'll bet my left #$% that CS:CZ-DS and DoD is next on their ($)hitlist.

rfnagel wrote:

...and I'll bet my left #$% that CS:CZ-DS and DoD is next on their ($)hitlist.

Day of Defeat is now getting the same FUBAR treatment.

http://steamcommunity.com/gid/103582791433474 … 775594413544490

I just HATE being right all of the time. Oh freakin well...