Why is the Xbone's DRM any different than Steam?

@commandergermanshepard: My boxed copy of skyrim doesn't require steam at all funny what you can do with a computer

I don't believe you.

@greggd said:

I've been PC gaming mainly since the mid 90's, I remember cd keys, I also remember websites where you would get cd-key cracks, I never pirated games so I guess I know a bit less than you guys on the subject.

If you really think about it; you guys caused this then, good for you!

How many Xbox 360 owners are Steam users? I mean, my guess would be that the majority is not, so these things are probably completely new to the majority of those owners that are looking to go into X1. I think there are probably more PS3 owners that have steam accounts, what with the connection they tried with the PS3 version of Portal 2.

And then, aside from non Steam users, are people who don't want their consoles to be treated like PC's, or their PC's like consoles.

Those are probably factors. That, and how badly Microsoft confused people after the Xbox One reveal.

Because I don't trust Microsoft. Plain and simple. They're about as hostile to consumers as they come. I bought Halo 1 on demand and it didn't work. It gave me an error message whenever I launched it. I had to FIGHT with customer service for THREE HOURS on the phone to get my $20 back FOR A PRODUCT THAT WAS NONFUNCTIONAL. The same issue happened with Terraria on Steam and I had my money back after one email. Steam has, so far, proven to be a very customer-friendly service. Microsoft has never been able to make that claim about Xbox Live. I do not trust Microsoft to at least pretend to have my best interest in mind.

I always gave steam or any other pc platform the benefit of the doubt simply because they needed to do something to try and stop the millions of people illegally downloading games. Even games that were insanely popular were not profitable because everyone was just pirating them.This is not the case for consoles, I know you can mod your system to play pirated games but is it really that large a group? I looked at a few popular xbox 360 Tomb Raider torrents and each one has no more than 1k downloads. These stupid companies have got to stop placing blame and face the fact that they are just making bad games that no one wants to buy or even steal.

All that said where these companies do have a bit of a problem (though not as big as they make it out to be) is with used games. I really liked Patrick's idea that each game would be locked for 30 days or if they really wanted to be dicks 60 days and after that they would just wash their hands with it but it's still crappy that consumers are the one who has to fight with companies when it should be them trying to work something out with the retailers.

@commandergermanshepard: a PC game that does what? comes with a CD key ?

Digitally nothing. Physically fucking everything. Telling me I need to "check in" to play a physical piece of media that I own and is in my hands is fucking lunacy.

Also, being pro-PC is in vogue right now.

Lol trying to shame me for "stealing" a then four-year-old game and its expansions when I was 13. Cry me a river. If you think I'm what's wrong with the gaming industry or caused this, you need to reevaluate things really quickly.

I never pirated PC games. That was his deal, I suppose. But hey, thanks for putting words in my mouth!

Most people don't realize there are a lot of games that are maintained under Steam that actually don't require it. You can launch the software without starting let alone login to Steam. This is the key idea I think that is lost on many. Steam only requires validation of the account against the game it is running where it does not care what happens after.

Valve puts Steamworks DRM into their own games but doesn't require it for anyone else. Other developers can use Steamworks, roll their own, use a third party, and some don't even bother. This allows developers AND US THE BUYERS to have some influence. The market will actively punish developers with draconian or flakey DRM or even champion ones that don't use it. This does not happen on consoles now and will not happen in the next generation.

@greggd: Don't know why not my boxed copy of skyrim doesn't require the disc anymore either . See I didn't wanna deal with steam to play skyrim so I dealt with a crack instead. In fact there is not a game out for the pc that you can't get around the DRM for. If I cared too I could even play those stupid always online games without a internet connection all it takes is a little coding change.

@kp1a268: Because you don't pay $60+ a year for steam. Something is a lot easier to deal with when it isn't something you're actively paying for.

What does that have to do with DRM? you could say that one of the main sticking points as to why XBox was more popular than PS3 was the fact that when it came to multi platform games you'd hear most often "all my friends are on XBox" meaning in most cases those friends you would trade games with are connected thru live in some form. Also, it's more likely most people who actively game on XBox have gold because of how much it gates you on silver.

That said if more people hopped over to pc and Steam then putting up with what little hassle you run into there really wouldn't matter as much. Don't like Steam? You can find another client to play your games on for free. XBone? Don't like it? well spend another 3-5 hundred bucks to play on the competitors machine.

...

There is no difference between the Xbox One and Steam's DRM schemes...except one requires an additional $50 a year to play other people over the internet.

@kp1a268: Because on Steam when i buy something from them i can buy/build a new PC and the content carries over. If i decide to buy an Xbox One nothing i have bought carries over, not a single thing. Also, if i move house i can still play my steam games offline until the internet gets connected, if i buy Xbox one i get 24 hours and i dont know any provider that will come out in that time scale, especially if you are still moving into a new place.

Wow, I didn't realize boxed AAA PC games still exist.

I guess that makes sense though they would offer their DRM to physical media.

And the fact you can last I don't know, A month in Steam's offline mode.

If I wasn't forced into using steam by certain games and they didn't have amazing sales I would never use steam. Same goes for Origin and all those other DRM PC services. They're all gross in terms of DRM.

Also Steam isn't a monthly paid service. Goddamn.

Yes, because EA has never given anyone a reason to not trust them or dislike their policies.

@superkenon said:

@kp1a268: ^This^ is the answer to your question, It's all about balancing the wishes of the company with those of the consumer. Microsoft is essentially saying: "well we want things to change and we know you aren't going to like it, but that's okay because it's not that bad." Where as they should be saying: "well we want things to change and we know you aren't going to like it, so here are the benefits that we've built to make this a better experience for everybody."

I exclusively used Steam's offline mode when it first came out, I felt like it was making my experience worse, I had a shitty internet connection and couldn't afford to download a patch everytime I wanted to check out mods and shoot some bots in Counter Strike: Source. I didn't want to use it, until Valve rolled out a store that offered me a place to digitally buy games that was far superior to Direct2Drive all while being able to manage my PC games through one interface, installing and uninstalling at the press of a button, with the option to backup my library at any time. This was an improvement over the previous experience, both with Steam and PC games in general. PC gamers have been dealing with product keys for almost 30 years, the first time I installed a modern game without using a CD Key was using Steam. I never looked back.

Little while ago I bought 15 steam games, including Walking Dead season 1 and Alan Wake games for the total price around 6 dollars. Need I say more?

So, there are definitely problems with the Xbox One's DRM compared to Steam:

• 24 hours is ridiculous. If they don't want to let people go offline for a month, at least a week would be reasonable. Pretty sure this won't be changing though.
• Valve has earned people's trust. Steam was hated when it was new, and it took work from Valve to make it as well liked as it is now. So far, Microsoft hasn't (haven't?) done much to gain their customers' trust.
• Backwards compatibility. I never really expected Xbox 360 downloadable games to be playable on the next console (there's a pretty big difference in the architecture, either devs would have to port their games for free, or we would have the same crappy emulation we have for Xbox games on the 360). However, it is a good point that if all Xbox One games are tied to accounts, these games won't be playable in the future in the same way that you can play an old console game now if you have the hardware.
• While Steam gives consumers fewer rights over their games, they also offer frequent sales on games, sometimes even 75% off. Microsoft has kept the prices of its downloadable games more or less constant.
• The next console generation does seem to be making Steam users rethink the rights they are giving up when they use Steam.

Because its a console, not a PC. A lot people play on a console so they don't have to deal with that stuff. I can see why they'd be upset about it.

I had this conversation with a friend recently when I asked him why XBONE is any worse than Steam's method of ownership validation. He said pretty much the same thing as @dfl017 did here.

I explained to him that my personal experience is that this isn't always the case. There have probably been a dozen times where I lost internet access or was somewhere without it and Steam would not let me play a single player game or let met go into offline mode. After trial and error I determined I would have to go into offline mode before disconnecting from the net in order to play my games. This happened to me a handful of times on pretty much every gaming pc or laptop I've used steam on so it wasn't just one install going funky.

I haven't really used Steam in the last year or so but before that offline mode was just a cruel shitty joke from my point of view. Every time I needed offline mode to work, it never did. For the cases not involving traveling with a laptop I basically would have to into offline mode every day just to make sure it would work if I lose my connection. Not only is that annoying but I'm sure even if I got into the habit of doing it I'd forget the one day that road runner took a dump on me.

I'm not the only person who experiences this nonsense either . Google search "steam offline mode doesn't work" and you'll see plenty of people having this problem. I didn't bother to click beyond page one of the 73,000+ search results. I am sure many of them are irrelevant but imagine how many people aren't posting about this problem because the answers are already covered! My point here is that steam offline mode is not perfect and frequently you're stuck without it when you least expect to need it.

Stepping back a bit I feel like this underscores how little the DRM complaints matter. I see so many people answer "steam offline mode" when asked why DRM is bad on XBONE but OK on valve's platform. The thing is I really question how many of them had tried to use it in non-ideal circumstances. My friend that I mentioned earlier took up my challenge to unplug his cat5 and try to play a single player game when steam was closed. Didn't work for him either and he insisted steam offline mode "always worked". He was also convinced that he could just run every game by using the exe file instead of the steam UI and he was wrong about that too.

With all of that said, I'm probably going to just keep playing my 360 well into the future because my stack of unfinished games is like a dozen strong.

For me, the trust issue goes beyond my consumer experience with steam. The rhetoric of Microsoft as they've unveiled their new system has been one of control, attempting to turn the box into more of a service than a product (which I recognize they've been moving towards for a while now). And also their message has been confusing and clearly written by lawyers and marketing execs. It sounds confused, unsure, and untrustworthy. That definitely could change as things go forward, but as it stands right now that's their message. Everything that I've encountered with steam in my experience has been pretty straight-forward, though that's just my experience. I think that difference is why everyone is already wary of Xbox One, and I think for good reason.

I disabled my internet and tried to launch Steam. It said I have no account information stored (or something like that) and offline mode was unavailable to me, and then it closed. So I got 0 seconds offline. :)

I have heard alot about people having major issues with steams offline mode. and some even stating you need to be online then enable off line mode for it to work.

It just seems people are mad that something different is going to be used.

It's no different, people just have tinted lenses and are blind to facts.

That's true. This marketing strategy of Microsoft coming to people's houses and sticking a gun to their heads until they buy an Xbox One seems a tad unreasonable, but hey.

I just want to say a few things:

1. Yes, these limitations that we're starting to see are a bit lame, but reliable and fast internet is becoming more and more ubiquitous every day to the point that most of us already have it. It's really not that big of an issue.
2. Sony shouldn't be treated any differently just because they haven't announced anything yet. I mean, for people who care about this stuff, you'd think saying nothing would be worse. But what do I know?
3. Most importantly: Nothing matters until the consoles ship. We aren't owed explanations of things that we can't even buy yet. People need to chill out for a while.

Even if it were the same as steam, there are different expectations from MS, because it's a fucking console. It's been this way for years, and they're going to have to earn trust before stepping or half stepping into an all digital download service. Ownership should go to whoever possesses the disk, period. The fact that you have to go through partnered retailers to exchange ownership is utterly ridiculous. And, do they really have to account for all the offline xboxs? You're cut off from so many features anyway at that point, why even bother. They won't even budge on the simplest things, why should we trust them. I can't even play Halo 2 online anymore, why should I rely on them for ownership of all my games.

I buy a blockbuster game on Steam for $5 or $10, doesn't really make any feasible sense for me to sell it. I rarely buy games new, but when I do, the PC version is usually $10 less than the Console version!! :| From an economic sense, the PC wins every time.

My problem is that eventually the sun will expand into a red giant and vaporize the Earth. What's M$ gonna do then when I want to play a little Halo and smoke some crack? Huh?

@jjweatherman said:

1. Just because I can get on the internet 24/7, doesn't mean relinquishing the control of my ability to play those games I purchased to someone other than myself is an acceptable proposition.

2. Sony is treated by what they have said (or not said) so far. Microsoft is being dragged through the mud because of what they actually have said. We can't drag Sony through the mud based off of guilt by association or vague assumptions. I don't understand why people come out and make those comparisons, Microsoft is getting critiqued (and shit on) for tangible sentences they formed and communicated. Just because Sony might do something isn't really reason enough to assume they will. You don't need to assume much from Microsoft right now, because this last info dump was pretty straight forward with a lot of the issues.

3. It does matter when it comes to perception and expectation. No, we are not owed anything, but it's certainly in Microsoft's best interest to be as clear as possible and not rub everyone the wrong way. And as I've said before, the vitriol people start swinging around is a sign of people actually giving a shit. That's on some level a good thing, even if it's a bit ugly at times.

@max_cherry: Noones forcing XBONE on you either, irrelivent

Microsoft could have easily said "no used games, no resale, no lending, no renting, end of discussion" and it would have been a heck of a lot less confusing. That's exactly how it is on Steam. Yet they're trying to keep everyone happy, yet failing to do so, but most of that is because there's not enough straightforward information out there, and probably won't be until the console launches.

@kp1a268: The answer is, there is no difference. like it or not, it has been determined for a long time now that purchasing a disc at the store does not give you "ownership" of that product, it gives you the license to use it. This has been the case in PC gaming for a long time, and not until a universal DRM platform made by a company that for some reason PC gamers regard as the holy grail of digital humanitarianism stepped in and made it a little easier by creating a single DRM platform that all companies (that valve thinks will make them money) can use. Microsoft ( and I would put TONS of money betting Sony as well) is doing exactly the same thing. They are taking the crazy mash of DRM insanity from the past few years (online passes, uverse, etc.) and making a single, streamlined way of doing it. The ONLY difference, as stated by the first commenter, is this (IMO) false perception that Steam is a humanitarian effort while Live is the devil. Neither are either. They are both simply capitalistic companies trying to make as many bucks as they can. I love Valve, they make fantastic games and Gabe Newell is a blast to make fun of, but that doesn't make them infallible. If steam were more like a GOG effort, then they would deserve my praise, but all they really are is a DRM middleman that has good sales every now and then. Lets give credit where credit is due, and blame when its deserved. As far as I checked, time-travel technology hasn't quite made it to the point where any of those posting here, lambasting XBONEs still-theoretical services, have been able to jump forward a year and see just how bad it all turned out. Everything here is speculation and people are getting their panties in a twist over extremely vague, lacking information. Caution is one thing, but y'all are bordering paranoia. I'm sure there will be plenty of "XBOT FANBOY LOLOLOLOCTOPUS" posts following this, but to be honest I don't care. I have no intent on getting an XBONE not because of DRM, because everyone will be doing that come Christmas, but because I so far like Sony's focus on single player and indie experiences more.

In vogue like little black dresses and ray bans.

Steam is software. The Xbox One is not software. Stop comparing the two.

It is a piece of hardware. Further, it is a piece of hardware that you can only ever rent from Microsoft. You can not own it. Should the price of the Xbox One reflect this, then I could understand the idea of not truly owning it. I highly doubt that will be the case.

Comparing XBone to Steam is not quite correct. Steam necessarily comes along with the entire PC platform, which is so much more than just Steam. XBone is a locked down, single channel platform. PC is Steam plus GOG, Amazon, Mods, indie games, browser games, and oooooh so much more. Hell, you can get free compilers, disassemblers, GPU memory dumpers - every thing you need to mod, rip, and/or learn from the guts of the games you buy.

The draw of the consoles was always turn box on, put disk/cart in, play game. That is gone. No one really makes a gaming console anymore. They are a complete publisher-to-screen "trusted computer", with a locked up and encrypted data stream from end to end. This is a bad thing for consumers. This shift in definition of what a gaming console is will be used to fuck you. Make no mistake about it. Maybe you are fine with what they are saying now. It won't stop there.

I think one of the main arguments being overlooked here is that just because steam uses various forms of DRM doesn't give Microsoft a pass to put many of the same practices in place. Let's even forget for a minute the differences between the two services. To punish the people who went out and supported these game developers by buying their products, just because some people found a loophole to play games for free, is unacceptable on any platform. I do a fair amount of my gaming on a pc and I have done so without pirating or giving steam, origin, or any other service a dime. I have that option. If consoles take the stance of treating us all like potential criminals they won't be getting my business. Microsoft and many of these third party developers are taking the stance that they are doing me a favor by providing a video game and I should just accept all the caveats they have created for doing so. Meanwhile in reality, my disposable income should be viewed as a luxury to them, not the other way around.

Is it a crazy thing to expect something like a steam sale on xbox live?

Before Steam I'll admit I was a PC pirate. Living in Australia games would (and still do) often cost far too much and be hard to find. In my city we had a handful of stores with a decent stock of PC games. Because they were mostly imported from America there'd be a hefty import cost on top of that. Another option was to mail a money order off to a store and wait anywhere between 2 weeks and a few months to get your game. The easiest option by far was to dial in to a BBS and download a game overnight, or swap disks with your friends.

Then internet came along and being stuck in my ways I continued to pirate things. The internet made it so much easier! Anyway fast forward to around the release of HL2 and Steam. Pirating HL2 proved a bit tricky/buggy/crappy so I figured "hey I've waited forever to play this so I might as well buy it" - and I did. After that I can't recall pirating any PC games. Steam makes it too easy to buy things. Plus they listen. They give a shit. It's always getting updates and despite some publishers jamming their shitty DRM into their games on Steam (uPlay/GFWL) I really don't feel like it's "DRM". It's pretty unobtrusive. Especially when not long before it shit like Safedisc/Securom were fucking with OS CDROM drivers or other games were installing rootkits.

The XBone, on the other hand, already makes it feel like we're being reamed by DRM. I still don't fully understand it despite watching a 40 minute video of the team explaining it. 40 minutes and even they sounded like they were still confused. It shouldn't be like that. You shouldn't have to worry about things like that before you buy a game. I get that MS are trying to catch up to services like Steam but they come across as arrogant. "Sorry, if you don't have a stable internet connection you can just eat shit". That's the biggest issue for me. Like, I spend hundreds of dollars on a thing and I can't play games on it when I want. Too bad if you've just moved or a storm blows through your area and knocks out the internet for a few days. Too bad if the MS servers go down. Your bone is suddenly a useless box. It almost makes me want to go back to piracy.

I know I don't technically OWN anything I've purchased on Steam and that one day it will cease to exist but I'm fine with that. As long as the internet exists the files for those games will be floating around out there and no doubt there'll be a way to play them without Steam, if that day ever comes. The same reason I'm fine with the thousands of dollars I've spent on 360 games. I realise XBL on 360 will probably be dead (shutdown by MS) in a few years from now but that doesn't make much difference. Once the bone is unsheathed publishers will start shutting down servers for their 360 games as the communities there die anyway. Still, I'll be able to pick up a game off the shelf, slap it in a 360 and play whenever I want. Internet or no.

What happens when the bone servers get shut down? If the current tone is anything to go by you'll have a useless box full of games you cannot play unless you mod it. Circumventing the law to play games you paid for. A new type of piracy?

Steam earned it. It's like the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship.

I like numbering; let's keep that going.

1. I agree that the way we appear to be losing our used game market kinda sucks. It would be nice if we had the choice to buy used games, or generally do what we'd like with what we buy. But why are we entitled to that? Things change. I can understand why these changes are being made, and I'll decide down the line if these policies will affect my decision to buy one of these consoles or not. I'm sorry if, in your perspective, this isn't an acceptable course of action; it probably isn't for a good handful of people. But if that overpowers your desire to want to play console games, then so be it, right? If this is truly a terrible thing, then the majority will opt not to buy a console and these companies will fail, forcing change. I don't see all of this complaining on the internet changing anything. Just wait and see, then vote with your wallet.
2. Fair enough that Sony shouldn't be criticized for what they haven't said. That said, there are still some issues that aren't crystal clear with Microsoft's console despite the public statements, so let's wait, right? We're going to know this stuff eventually, even if it takes game journalists finally getting their hands on the console for all of the details to come out.
3. Does it matter when it comes to perception and expectation? Who does it matter to? Microsoft, not any of us. You're right that it's in Microsoft's best interest to be clear, but for the layman, they don't care, and for us, we'll figure it out. On a level I understand that it's frustrating that Microsoft can't just get their shit together, gather a few of their team, and do a proper Q&A to explain everything. But these consoles and services are real, and they're coming soon. We'll know soon.

I have a philosophy that always seems to hold true, and that is that things often seem a whole lot worse than they end up actually being. People should relax a little is all I'm sayin'.

Probably the most sensible post I've ever seen on this subject in regards to everything that's been happening since "always online" rumours started back in like early 2013. Kudos to you.

@jjweatherman:

1. To be honest, the used games thing is not really my fight. For two reasons; first being that I like to contribute to the industry directly. Secondly, I actually want my things new. I don't buy used clothes, movies or music either. A car, sure, because those are expensive pieces of unreliable crap. But for the most part, I like new things. However, the internet connection thing is simply inconvenient in a way that I find principally going against what I believe to be warranted use of power over their consumers. And I feel that even though I have a completely reliable internet connection. And you're probably right, all the whining we may and may not do might not actually do anything other than to frustrate Microsoft PR department, but at the same time isn't it better to be vocal about your dislike of a direction than to simply be silent and not engage? Voting with your wallet will be the best thing at the end, but why not use all your available options of trying to move a boulder that stands in the way of your way of enjoying things?
2. I agree that there are things about it that is best left alone until we know the real substantial truth. And sitting around assuming the worst isn't going to get anyone anywhere. There we both certainly agree.
3. I think the layman care, but they're also less inclined to buy things out the gate. I think we care more because a lot of us are impatient children (even if we're turning 30) that want to know everything way before release so we can decide far in advance what to do. But yeah, you're certainly right, it'll all be cleared by the time it's released.

Your philosophy is a decent one to live by. I tend to expect the worst, whether I want to or not.

Remember when Steam was this just this crap client that you had to download for no reason just to play CS 1.6? Valve got shitted on too. This is no different.

@andorski: Except Steam didn't cost >$300 to get