Valve's Newell attacks aggressive DRM

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/317439/valves-newell-attacks-aggressive-drm/

Newell last year said that the practice resulted in games that are "worth less" - to a cheering crowd at GDC.

This week, in an interview with Kotaku, he went a step further. "We're a broken record on this," said the exec. "This belief that you increase your monetisation by making your game worth less through aggressive digital rights management is totally backwards."

Newell added that piracy was "not an issue" for Valve as it is "a service issue, not a technology issue".

He cited Russia as an example, which is now Steam's largest European market outside the UK and Germany. Valve had invested in making sure games were properly localised for the region in order to combat piracy.

"When we entered Russia everyone said, 'You can't make money in there. Everyone pirates,'" he said, going on to explain that, at the time, pirates were localising games better than official publishers.

"When people decide where to buy their games they look and they say, 'Jesus, the pirates provide a better service for us,'" he commented.

"The best way to fight piracy is to create a service that people need. I think (publishers with strict DRM) will sell less of their products and create more problems.

"Customers want to know everything is going to be there for them no matter what: Their saved games and configurations will be there. They don't want any uncertainty."

At least there is one developer in this industry that still makes sense and doesn't talk in marketing speak.

Out of all the other digital sites I use frequently (gog, impulse, gamersgate) Steam is the most aggressive DRM wise...what a load of PR crock Mr. Newell. I am not one of those DRM paranoid people either (DRM has never bothered me) and I use and love Steam, but this is ridiculous coming from the owner of Steam. They may make it easy and offer a lot of features, but this statement is nothing but hypocritical pandering.Renevent42

How? For a Steamworks game I have to activate it online exactly once and then I can go off-line and play until my heart's content. As long as the game has been activated I can play Steam games on the go, in the car, on a boat, and anywhere else I might not have an internet connection. Obviously, the system isn't as good as GoG's no DRM policy (what is?) but it's much better than the "always online" garbage that many of the big publishers are now shoving down our throats.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]Out of all the other digital sites I use frequently (gog, impulse, gamersgate) Steam is the most aggressive DRM wise...what a load of PR crock Mr. Newell. I am not one of those DRM paranoid people either (DRM has never bothered me) and I use and love Steam, but this is ridiculous coming from the owner of Steam. They may make it easy and offer a lot of features, but this statement is nothing but hypocritical pandering.-wildflower-

How? For a Steamworks game I have to activate it online exactly once and then I can go off-line and play until my heart's content. As long as the game has been activated I can play Steam games on the go, in the car, on a boat, and anywhere else I might not have an internet connection. Obviously, the system isn't as good as GoG's no DRM policy (what is?) but it's much better than the "always online" garbage that many of the big publishers are now shoving down our throats.

All the ones I listed don't have any of this "offline" nonsense. You can actually download the installers themselves and they require no client to play games so I don't even need to bother with "offline mode".

It's the only DD site that actually makes you use a client to play games sans maybe Green Man Gaming.

Regarding publishers DRM...that's something different and Steam is not immune from that either. For instance, if you buy a Ubisoft game that has the always on requirement that will still be there if you purchase it from steam as well (and other digital sites too). The difference is you now have that publishers requirement in addition to Steam client (even if it has offline mode).

Like I said, I like Steam and frankly DRM doesn't bother me...even the always online variant...but this is PR non-sense from Mr. Newell. Steam practically helped usher in a whole 'nother level of internet based DRM and tying games to accounts. That doesn't make Steam bad or anything...in my opinion the positive effects of Steam (especially to the indie market) FAAAAR outwieght any exceptions I take to DRM and stuff like that.

Digital all the way in my book!

[QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]Out of all the other digital sites I use frequently (gog, impulse, gamersgate) Steam is the most aggressive DRM wise...what a load of PR crock Mr. Newell. I am not one of those DRM paranoid people either (DRM has never bothered me) and I use and love Steam, but this is ridiculous coming from the owner of Steam. They may make it easy and offer a lot of features, but this statement is nothing but hypocritical pandering.Renevent42

How? For a Steamworks game I have to activate it online exactly once and then I can go off-line and play until my heart's content. As long as the game has been activated I can play Steam games on the go, in the car, on a boat, and anywhere else I might not have an internet connection. Obviously, the system isn't as good as GoG's no DRM policy (what is?) but it's much better than the "always online" garbage that many of the big publishers are now shoving down our throats.

All the ones I listed don't have any of this "offline" nonsense. You can actually download the installers themselves and they require no client to play games so I don't even need to bother with "offline mode".

It's the only DD site that actually makes you use a client to play games sans maybe Green Man Gaming.

Regarding publishers DRM...that's something different and Steam is not immune from that either. For instance, if you buy a Ubisoft game that has the always on requirement that will still be there if you purchase it from steam as well (and other digital sites too). The difference is you now have that publishers requirement in addition to Steam client (even if it has offline mode).

Like I said, I like Steam and frankly DRM doesn't bother me...even the always online variant...but this is PR non-sense from Mr. Newell. Steam practically helped usher in a whole 'nother level of internet based DRM and tying games to accounts.

I couldn't agree more. In fact it amazes me how people don't even think of Steam as DRM because it has a friends list and community features and other random stuff that make the app slightly useful. So if Steam isn't aggressive DRM according to some people, how come I can't sell any of my games? Oh wait, it's tied to my account for life. It's really just purchasing a license to play the game, with restrictions attached.

Also back in '04, or whenever it was that CS:Source was released and came bundled with a free copy of HL2, that was the first time I recall ever having to install a piece of software to play a game. And I had to make an account for it as well. I'd say Valve set a precedent and made it "ok" for games to be permanently tied to a user account.

Um... I don't mind Steam as a platform but it IS aggressive DRM. Everything being locked to the client without doing questionable things sound much worse then the 'DRM' at Gamersgate or no DRM at all with GOG.

Newell and his legion of incredibly intelligent developers-- will anyone ever be able to compete with them? They do so much right that it amazes me that other developers completely ignore their business models, instead favoring ignorant methods of squeezing capital out of the consumer that ultimately fail them.JKnaperek

No doubt Valve remains as one of the most respected game companies around. But as pc gamers I am sure that we idolize them a bit more than strict console gamers. Mainly because we appreciate how Valve has not (completely) sold us out to the consoles. . . yet.

[QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]Out of all the other digital sites I use frequently (gog, impulse, gamersgate) Steam is the most aggressive DRM wise...what a load of PR crock Mr. Newell. I am not one of those DRM paranoid people either (DRM has never bothered me) and I use and love Steam, but this is ridiculous coming from the owner of Steam. They may make it easy and offer a lot of features, but this statement is nothing but hypocritical pandering.Renevent42

How? For a Steamworks game I have to activate it online exactly once and then I can go off-line and play until my heart's content. As long as the game has been activated I can play Steam games on the go, in the car, on a boat, and anywhere else I might not have an internet connection. Obviously, the system isn't as good as GoG's no DRM policy (what is?) but it's much better than the "always online" garbage that many of the big publishers are now shoving down our throats.

All the ones I listed don't have any of this "offline" nonsense. You can actually download the installers themselves and they require no client to play games so I don't even need to bother with "offline mode".

It's the only DD site that actually makes you use a client to play games sans maybe Green Man Gaming.

Regarding publishers DRM...that's something different and Steam is not immune from that either. For instance, if you buy a Ubisoft game that has the always on requirement that will still be there if you purchase it from steam as well (and other digital sites too). The difference is you now have that publishers requirement in addition to Steam client (even if it has offline mode).

Like I said, I like Steam and frankly DRM doesn't bother me...even the always online variant...but this is PR non-sense from Mr. Newell. Steam practically helped usher in a whole 'nother level of internet based DRM and tying games to accounts. That doesn't make Steam bad or anything...in my opinion the positive effects of Steam (especially to the indie market) FAAAAR outwieght any exceptions I take to DRM and stuff like that.

Digital all the way in my book!

[QUOTE="JKnaperek"]Newell and his legion of incredibly intelligent developers-- will anyone ever be able to compete with them? They do so much right that it amazes me that other developers completely ignore their business models, instead favoring ignorant methods of squeezing capital out of the consumer that ultimately fail them.Qixote

No doubt Valve remains as one of the most respected game companies around. But as pc gamers I am sure that we idolize them a bit more than strict console gamers. Mainly because we appreciate how Valve has not (completely) sold us out to the consoles. . . yet.

They make so much money on the pc specifically pc gaming Its impossible they will sell out to consoles like say Microsoft did.DJ_Headshot

[QUOTE="DJ_Headshot"]They make so much money on the pc specifically pc gaming Its impossible they will sell out to consoles like say Microsoft did.Qixote

Portal 2 did better on PC than it did on consoles - all Valve games do better on PC except Left 4 Dead. Newell recently said that Valve is more profitable per employee than Apple and Google. So yeah.

I agree with everything, that's the first impression I had when I read this, hypocrisy. Valve always offers great service (games, support is not included in the "great" category), but that's it, when it's about DRM, Gabe and everyone at Valve/Steam have no place to act like they're above all that "useless" thing.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="Qixote"][QUOTE="DJ_Headshot"]They make so much money on the pc specifically pc gaming Its impossible they will sell out to consoles like say Microsoft did.Renevent42

Portal 2 did better on PC than it did on consoles - all Valve games do better on PC except Left 4 Dead. Newell recently said that Valve is more profitable per employee than Apple and Google. So yeah.

L4D 2 because it was a cheap move and no matter how many sheep Valve has, it's still a cheap move and Valve also has fraction of Google's and Apple's employees.

I'm not sure how anyone can classify Steam as being "aggressive" DRM. So you need to have a client running, big deal. It's not like it's a huge client and it's not like going into Offline mode changes anything other than removing the networking properties of the client itself. I've used GoG and D2D a few times before and while I can see the appeal for people who are far too stubborn for no apparent reason, it's just so nice and easy having everything available on Steam no matter where I go. Just a few clicks and I'm downloading, not to mention the sales, the offers, and pre-release betas that are happening. Yea, Steam is definitely DRM, aggressive though? Hardly.theafiguy

The fact that you even need the client makes it aggressive. Not to mention getting a DRM-free backup is more of a pain (yup I'm one of those guys who makes sure every game I buy from a DD service is backed up DRM free so I will always have it).

Impulse has you install the game using the client and then can uninstall the client without uninstalling all the games (unless it changed since the buyout) which makes the DRM passive.

Gamersgate has 'drm' where you buy the game, download it, and immediately following the decryption progress you can actually back up the decrypted files by simply moving the folder. Basically no DRM if you do this and they even acknowledge the loophole. So again you download it once from the browser and then it is passive because nothing is needed.

GOG has no DRM.

Direct 2 Drive doesn't need a client so that is passive. The only real problem this service has is when I bought form them a year or so ago they didn't list DRM unless it requires Steam. So I'm never sure what comes bundled with the game unless I do some digging.

Out of 5 clients Steam is the only one that needs a client all the time. 3, or technically 4 depending on the title in question, of them can be backed up with no fiddling around with the DRM (assuming the title is DRM-free itself) Does that say something?

Uhuh, yeah. That's why I still can't access my Steam account after about two weeks. See, I forgot the password to my gmail account, and I can't seem to recover the account, so I contacted Steam support to get them to change my verification email to something else. I provided all the necessary info that it's my account, including credit card info and images of serial keys from a couple steam works titles that I own. In their first reply to my support ticket, they asked me to provide information to prove that it's my account, which tells me one thing. They didn't even read my support ticket. I've been bugging them this whole week, and they still haven't replied. Steam has the worst customer support I've ever experienced. I've decided I'm never going to buy a game on Steam again. To me, Steam is aggressive and pointless DRM. Diophage

[QUOTE="Diophage"]Uhuh, yeah. That's why I still can't access my Steam account after about two weeks. See, I forgot the password to my gmail account, and I can't seem to recover the account, so I contacted Steam support to get them to change my verification email to something else. I provided all the necessary info that it's my account, including credit card info and images of serial keys from a couple steam works titles that I own. In their first reply to my support ticket, they asked me to provide information to prove that it's my account, which tells me one thing. They didn't even read my support ticket. I've been bugging them this whole week, and they still haven't replied. Steam has the worst customer support I've ever experienced. I've decided I'm never going to buy a game on Steam again. To me, Steam is aggressive and pointless DRM. kris9031998

That's pretty funny coming from Valve. I mean if steam has to update and you lose access to the internet, you can't play any of your games. That's pretty ridiculous. Add on top of that they're basically the most intrusive store out there, it really makes you wonder where they get off saying that.

go gabe

He is the glowing doughnut in the sky of blackest greed.judahstarguy

good choice of words

I need to put on some weight. Who said fat people can't be awsome?