I tend to agree, however that's not what the companies who actually publish Movies, Music and Games think.  As often discussed, it's a growing trend to see an EULA attached to something you buy.  This allows the Movie, Music or Game in question to be treated as a licenced product rather than a purchased one; you don't buy the thing, you buy a licence to use that thing.

Publishers are allowed to charge you for additional copies of a Game because they treat it like a product, however they then treat that same product as a licence by preventing you from doing with it as you please (such as installing it on multiple computers or not playing it online).  This kind of thinking, which is entirely unethical, will soon become international law with the ACT Agreement, which is being negotiated between Copyright Holders and the Governments of the World and is being kept from public viewing because its considered a matter of National Security.

To sum up the Copyright Holders basic position for the ACTA:
You can buy something, but it is not yours - you've just licenced it from the people you paid.  Because its not yours, you have to use it like you're told to use it and are not allowed to use it in any other way.  If the people you bought it from stop it from working, because its theirs, you can't do something to then make it work, and you're not allowed a refund.  If the product only works some of the time, you can't complain because its not yours, and you're not allowed a refund.  The Government or Utility providers, like an Internet Service Provider, are allowed to look through your house and devices that are needed to use whatever it is you've bought to make sure you're using it the way you're told to use it.  However if this thing becomes broken and needs replacing, well then its actually yours and not theirs and so you need to buy another one, and you're not allowed a refund for the broken one.  Oh, and disagreeing with any of this is illegal.

Well, from the publisher point of view, it is understandable that they are trying to be sure that only paying customers have access to patches. Sadly, everything has a drawback associated with it.

seems the new fallout is going to use steam works as well, realy annoying that these games will need steam to run it DRM isn't going to die is it?

I understand that, but then release it 2-3 years after the initial release so we can access it if some company goes down and takes their patches with them. By then, the pirates have moved on most likely anyways or already got it some other way.

From what I read from Jafo's position, this is exactly what some people think and believe is perfectly okay. They call it a hybrid, all the benefits for the developer/publisher and none for the consumer, and we (the gamers) are just supposed to gobble that up and say thank you. No. No I won't give them a pass on that one-sided thinking.

Unfortunatly they hold all the cards. Well perhaps you can resist having fun for a long time but I can't. I need those good games that get made. And you know what? Every "always on" game Ubi has released so far has been really awesome and enjoyable.

MMOs are a good example of people putting large amounts of time and effort into things that can disapear (and have!) pretty quickly. No good games have closed down yet (not even the horride example of potetial ruined by the idiots at SOE, Planetside).

Games are moving to a transient experince not just because many are focused around film like cinematics that don't work the second time through with gameplay that is shallower than a TV presenter but also because of the fact there is a good chance it wont be avalbile 'soon'.

And that suits publishers just fine. It adds more weight when they release an HD version of the old game to get those nostaliga freaks to doulbe dip while promoting and adding 'value' to a new sequel not to mention more incentive to play new games instead of loading up X-Com for the millionth time.

 

Its annoying but like I said, if a dirty girl with many fetishes says "Here it is, take it or leave it" I think im going to press "take".

That's pretty much it right there. So long as gamers collectively behave like crack addicts always needing another fix, nothing will change. Why would the publishers worry about it? People whining on a forum doesn't mean anything if they all go buy the game anyway.

Theres not really any alternative option though. There isn't a splinter cell "vote no to DRM" version (well, piracy??). Its all or nothing.

Have fun or don't have fun. There isn't any have fun without Ubisoft button. Theres only so many times I can replay the old before I get bored and I find games as a the pretty much sole form of entertainment I enjoy.

Anyway does anyone think that even if everyone who posted on forums about such things didn't buy a game, they would even notice? We are not even 1% of the market (I think).

No, they won't notice.  Mainly because 99.9% of people who will buy the game will have no idea or won't care because they don't know any better.  Most don't hang out on forums like this and actually know what's going on.  Most won't know that Steam is required.

What will be interesting is to see if there is any backlash on the Steamworks requiremnet *after* launch.  Because Civ is very much a single player franchise and there a many, many people that only buy Civ games and very few others they will have no idea of the Steam requirement and will be in for a shock.  Heck, they will have never heard of Steam.  I've already had a couple friends ask me what this Steam thing is because they read about it in a Civ 5 review.

I don't think we'll see any backlash or effect until after the first couple big single player games come out with Steam required such as Civ 5 and Fallout NV.

Then again, most people are sheep and will just follow along...

I've found it fairly easy to avoid Ubisoft myself, and not just on PC either but my console. I also smirked a little when their servers got taken down, repeatedly. I mean really, what did they think would happen if they issued a challenge to some of these pirates. For every developer dreaming up some new unbreakable DRM scheme there are at least, at least a dozen sitting around waitin got break it.

As for making a difference. No, probably not, since even the worst games made get sold to someone. The sad thing that became Spore, including the DRM, sold well too. Most people won't care, but having those servers down often enough, or just when they yank them at leisure might make a few more think twice than there are now.

Or they won't care because Steam works pretty well for them. There's a large group of people pretty happy to buy games on Steam, and even prefer it to retail (sure is a lot more convenient). For them, Steamworks doesn't matter in the slightest.

So long as Steam is working when the game comes out, I don't think there will be much of a backlash at all.

Voting with your wallet is ultimately the only thing that works. If you're going to buy the game anyway, your complaints mean exactly nothing to the publisher and you're just wasting your time.

That said, the idea that nobody's reaction matters is silly. There's no doubt that Spore's sales were hurt by the way it's Amazon ranking was destroyed over DRM. Starforce was pretty well chased out of the industry entirely because users revolted and refused to buy Starforce games.

There's also no doubt that Stardock's mindshare was increased by the "DRM bugs customers so we don't bother" stance they took.

Also and most importantly - most games don't sell 5 million copies. Once you get past the few top tier games (and especially for PC games) numbers like 250,000 are pretty good. Taking a few thousand sales out of that actually is a big deal to publishers, and if the DRM is costing them more money then it's making them, the pressure comes from higher up to explain just why money is being spent on it.

Customers here actually hold all the cards, because we're the ones with the money. If people refuse to use them because they absolutely must play X right now, then you really don't get to complain much about it. We're not talking about essentials like food here.

I don't dislike Steam - but I do not like having a game that requires a call home to some remote server to authenticate if you really own and have the right to use the product.

To me, you do not own this product-  you are simply renting it until the company that runs the servers crash or goes out of business (it could happen - look at the financial market last year - so much for bulletproof companies).

This also kills your ability to sell the game, which is my biggest complaint, period.  At least you can sell a single player game with a keycode (although it's almost a given you probably won't be able to play it online thanks to the registration key being used).

I frankly would prefer disc-based DRM but companies have given up on it.  I can still install and play Baldur's Gate II...somehow I think a lot of the games now will become a major PITA to play some years down the road when their remote authentication servers are gone.

For right now, I know that I will not buy Civ 5 out of the door for $60.  It's a rental in my mind until the requirement for online authentication is gone. Funny because I bought Civ4 SE on day 1 for full price.  Even though I had to struggle with its disc copy protection, at least I could do that.  It didn't rely on some remote server.  I'd likely be SOL on a remote server problem 10 years down the road.

Hell I saw the trailer for Disciples III which is coming out and thought "insta-buy!!"...but the byteshield protection that uses is the same thing - requires an online call home to install something YOU BOUGHT.

If companies said outright they would sunset the DRM in a year or two down the road, I'd be willing to tolerate it for the short term.  But until then...I'm not doing it. 

I'm willing to do Stardock games - at least you can install and play without any online authentication required.  I don't think they have the problem fixed entirely (what if I want to update the game some years from now and Impulse is gone or no longer supports it...?) but it's better than requiring a call home to install.  And they are trying to do the right thing with GOO as far as being able to resell digital content.

 

You're mixing issues.  Buying the game on Steam or being able to download it from Steam is NOT the problem.  Heck, Steam being used as a DRM is NOT the problem.

The problem is: Steamworks being forced on us by being built into the game for a SINGLE PLAYER game.  Nothing really more then that.

Now the blame for this is twofold:  First on 2K/Firaxis for making the decision to do this in the first place.  Second on Valve for not giving a way for people who play single player only a way to simply register the game online once and then forget Steam even exists (like Impulse and you only need to register online if you want patches, you could completely ignore it).  But NOOOOOO, Valve forces their store on you, they force their program to be run all the time and they force Steamworks on you.  Instead of giving me the choice.

It is really that simple.

No, I know what the problem is. And I'm saying that there won't be a large backlash when it comes out, because that isn't really a problem for a lot of people.

I think there will be a significant backlash from Civ communities.  steam with all its updates, is sure to get in the way of people playing thier game.  I've read about these problems on the steam forums.  They are common and constant. And googling has taken me to a variety of different fan forums that rage on these problems... "stuck updates", "offline setting won't stick" and "can't connect to server".   The other problems are sure to crop up as well.  But those three are going to prevent alot of Civers from getting to their game.  I think the backlash will be significant.  

+ The majority of Civers aren't registered at fan sties (judging by site enrollments vs sales).  Many of them won't even know about the steam deal.  How are we to gauge the backlash of those who don't blog the net.  Even if there is an obvious disclaimer on the retail box, there will be many people surprised by the restrictions imposed upon them. 2k and Firaxis will take a serious goodwill hit, from those that belatedly realize that they are not free to play as they have been accustomed to.   This backlash will be felt on future sales (even if the steam scenario changes for Civ6).   I think steam might have cost 2k more than they gain.  But you and I don't for certain either way.  I think it unfortunate that Firaxis will also take the hit. 

Agreed (assuming there is a backlash of course).

"Future sales" will also include any non-civ games (errr.... I mean 'titles' or 'properties'  <--- gotta get with the marketing-speak!  ) by the devs and publishers.

Yea! Fight the power!

I think you guys highly overestimate the strength of any backlash.  It will be minuscule.  The whole membership of the three big Civ fan sites is less than 20% of civ4's sales figures.  If only 10% of total fansite membership is active (not spam accounts, dead accounts, DL's etc) and looking to buy Civ5 then you're looking at 1% of Civ4's sales figures.

The ENTIRE hardcore Civ community represents 1% of total Civ4 sales.  Even if the entire hardcore Civ community does not buy the game, do you think it'll be noticed?

'Principle' 

I wonder how much of gaming sales are from repeat customers who liked previous versions of the game or other games by the maker, and how much is from new customers, buying the game because of ads and hype, or a cold search for games of a certain genera at amazon or similar or from the info on the box at a store, or a recommendation from a friend? My impression is that games are one-off deals. Many customers probably buy the game without knowing the company's past games and history on a whim, due to ads or the box catching their interest while in a store. And later, if it didn't suit them, they don't retain the info of who made it (unless something really ticked them off) and may well buy another game from that company for the same reasons they bought the first one.Most people are casual gamers I would imagine, rather than hard core, so they don't put a lot of stock in games and treat them like films. I'll bet these casual gamers are the ones being specifically targeted now, since once the person has bought the game, they've got their money, and if the person doesn't like the game after trying it, who cares, the ads/store displays are bound to bring in other customers. Sometimes these companies may take a hefty hit when the backlash is huge and people condemn the game in large numbers, but most of the time dissatisfied customers simply bin the game and move on to something else and 6 months on down the line, buy something else from the same company, not remembering the company made the turkey they binned 6 months previous.

 

The point of all that I just wrote above is that if people want their dissatisfaction known, and to have any effect, they have to be very vocal about their complaints and back those up with refusals to buy from that company. This encourages the silent majority who probably wouldn't have said anything to then speak up. And it also sends a message to the company they'll be sure to hear about why their sales are down. They may not know otherwise.

Yes the fan site population is minimal compared to how many actually play the game.  Already there is vocal backlash from that minority (polling at CFC consistently shows that 40-60% are unhappy about steam).  Now consider what it means that the majority of Civers do not participate in the forums...  How much of that majority will find any value in steams networking potential if they don't already use the fan sites?  Seems to me that the silent Civ population will have even greater numbers of dissatisfaction.  And how many of them won't even know about the potential that steams forced client updates can interfere, and even prevent, them from playing the game? + more.  That backlash will be mostly silent, but it will be felt in future sales.  I think there is good potential that this move has dangerously weakened the Civ franchise. 

The mod hub which steam will host was a good move.  It promises to strengthen the franchise by introducing more players to the beauty of modding.  But the way in which Valve distributes Steamworks is sure to alienate many players.  Not just the players who find they can't play the game, or who have to 'jump through hoops' to get the client working right.  steam has already alienated fanatic civers.  And the fanatics who frequent fan sites, are the group most likely to positively embrace steamworks networking features.   Only time will tell.  But my money is on steam hurting the Civ franchise more that it helps.

Now, I do wonder at the reason why 2k still hasn't given us the answers they promised.  It harms them to continue to delay these answers that they've committed to giving.  Its been more than a month now that Elizabeth said they were checking into this for us.  Perhaps Firaxis, 2k and steam are in negotiations to change how the steam client works with Civ5?  steam client won't not have to run for SP games? Game patches won't be forced? LAN play won't have to connect to steam? Civ5 not a steam ESD exclusive? etc.  Or maybe 2k drags their feet to collect as many pre-order sales as possible?  Or something else?

I doubt it. The #1 rule for game forums of any size is that the complainers are always louder then everybody else. People who are happy don't go to the forums to say it in anywhere near the number that people go to complain. It's not a good sample at all.

We're talking about at the absolute most, 1% of the customer base (and really it's smaller then that most likely). Of that, the ratio of unhappy people to happy people will be higher then it is in the other 99%.

Unless something like the Demigod launch mess happens, there won't be a backlash of any real size. Even amongst the people complaining, a bunch of them will buy the game anyway (because gamers are like that) and once they start playing they'll be too busy to complain as much.

And yet games that have a 1% population of complainers can still fail. Do you really want me to list the long lines of games that fell off the wagon? I am NOT saying I think Civ V is going this direction, because I don't think it is. I do know that even if the bulk of the buying population doesn't complain, they'll still walk away.