Windows analogy is the same in choosing what to support. Your idea is that if developers release something through DRM free distributors and DRMed distributors, then one shouldn't use them. Same would be saying that if developers use DRM free system (Linux) vs them using DRMed system (Windows) in addition. I never voiced such idea, so don't assign it to me. I don't see a problem with using such projects - example Firefox.

Consistency here is retained. You avoid developers who take away the choice from users (by not releasing DRM free versions). Whether to prefer distributors who are strictly DRM free, or provide clear DRM free releases and DRMed releases (like Humble Bundle does) is additional choice you can make. By using HB you don't prevent users from getting the choice of DRM free release. However Steam is worse already, since I don't consider any of their releases to be DRM free. Though this can change for HB too, since HB initially were driven by the DRM free interests more and now it's getting worse. So if that will continue to get worse, I might avoid them in the future as well, since HB can simply become a proxy for Steam.

Shmerl - You're totally missing my point. I'm not debating who should support what and to what level. All I'm saying is - if you have an ethical standpoint then you should stick to it, not pick the bits you like and discard the bits you don't ;)

Quoting: Quote from ShmerlConsistency here is retained. You avoid distributors who take away the choice from users (by not releasing DRM free versions). Whether to prefer developers who are strictly DRM free, or provide clear DRM free releases and DRMed releases (like Humble Bundle does) is additional choice you can make.

It's not an additional choice, it's a fundamental choice married to your ethical stance. So you should avoid them.

I won't be avoiding them and I'm not telling anybody to use them or avoid them as I don't have an ethical stance on DRM! But if you do, then stick to it. I dislike invasive DRM in the main (rootkit etc) but I'm actually warming to the notion of "good" DRM :whistle:

fabertawe: If this makes it easier, you can grade distributors based on how they approach DRM. For example - completely DRM free (GOG) - good (good effect on reversing proliferation and good choice for users). Mixed (HB, Desura) - mediocre (no help for reversing proliferation, but still provides choice for users). DRMed (Steam, Origin, Uplay etc.) - bad (proliferation galore and taking away the choice).

I'd say, avoiding bad is mandatory. Mediocre ones - some gray area, depending on how you estimate the effect on proliferation of DRM.

Quoting: Quote from fabertaweThe point I'm trying to make is that developers that sell both DRM free and DRM versions of their game, irrespective of distribution channel, are still tainted by DRM. So ideally, if you take a zero tolerance approach to DRM, you should not buy DRM free versions from those devs.

The games are not tainted by DRM, which is my main concern, as if they do contain it I feel the games to be unusable for my use. Moving beyond that distinction is pointless; there are many parts of the system we have in place that I disagree with, that I find unethical, and I try my best to support those that give me my best options. That being said, I do not believe the market is the place for such things to be decided, as it is fundamentally unethical institution based on greed, profit, and unhindered growth. Not foundations to be proud of.

Quoting: Quote from ShmerlI'm not debating who should support what and to what level. All I'm saying is - if you have an ethical standpoint then you should stick to it, not pick the bits you like and discard the bits you don't

My ethical and practical stance is that I only buy DRM free releases, and I do just that. It is a limited contract I wish fulfilled, and once it is I consider the matter settled. If you want to append any additional stances you feel I should take on top of my position, fine, but that is not what I prescribed or laid down in the course of this disscusion.

Quoting: Quote from ShmerlIt's not an additional choice, it's a fundamental choice married to your ethical stance. So you should avoid them.

The ethical standpoint is the complaint about a lack of choice. As long as that choice is maintained, that ethical stance is fulfilled.

Quoting: Quote from ShmerlI won't be avoiding them and I'm not telling anybody to use them or avoid them as I don't have an ethical stance on DRM! But if you do, then stick to it.

In the course of this conversation, I am not even aware of me telling anyone not to use it, just commenting on why I do not and offering up my reasons. The aspect of this that really seems to bother you is this idea that you are being talked down to; but when I criticize Steam, I am critizing Steam. It is up to you to decide whether or not you should feel offended by that.

Hamish: It looks like you were replying to me, but all that was really from fabertawe, not from me :) I agree with your ethical and practical stance, I also avoid any DRMed releases. Supporting DRM free distributors is a way of influencing the situation, but I usually don't criticize developers who want to reach more users by using Steam in addition to DRM free methods. If they use Steam only, then I'd criticize them because of lock-in and DRM.

Quoting: Quote from Hamish

Quoting: Quote from fabertaweThe point I'm trying to make is that developers that sell both DRM free and DRM versions of their game, irrespective of distribution channel, are still tainted by DRM. So ideally, if you take a zero tolerance approach to DRM, you should not buy DRM free versions from those devs.

The games are not tainted by DRM, which is my main concern, as if they do contain it I feel the games to be unusable for my use. Moving beyond that distinction is pointless;

Surely a game released by a dev that condones DRM is tainted by association, if not literally. How can it not be? You are supporting a dev that releases DRM. Fact.

It's the use of "ethics by degrees" that I don't understand. If you find something unethical then boycott it. Simple. If it means you go without then that's your conscience clear. If however, you're making the best of it then you're compromising. At least admit you're compromising that ethic, although such a thing should not be possible, or else it's no longer an ethic.

Quoting: Quote from HamishMoving beyond that distinction is pointless; there are many parts of the system we have in place that I disagree with, that I find unethical, and I try my best to support those that give me my best options. That being said, I do not believe the market is the place for such things to be decided, as it is fundamentally unethical institution based on greed, profit, and unhindered growth. Not foundations to be proud of.

To which system do you refer? I don't want to mis-quote you ;) If you mean generally, in life, then you often have no choice but to compromise to get by. However, you don't have to compromise with DRM unless you want to and it's DRM this thread is about after all.

I agree with the last part, "That being said..."

Quoting: Quote from Hamish

Quoting: Quote from fabertaweI'm not debating who should support what and to what level. All I'm saying is - if you have an ethical standpoint then you should stick to it, not pick the bits you like and discard the bits you don't

My ethical and practical stance is that I only buy DRM free releases, and I do just that. It is a limited contract I wish fulfilled, and once it is I consider the matter settled. If you want to append any additional stances you feel I should take on top of my position, fine, but that is not what I prescribed or laid down in the course of this disscusion.

So your limited contract is partly ethical, or as you put it, an ethical and practical stance. As long as we're clear.
 

Quoting: Quote from Hamish

Quoting: Quote from fabertaweI won't be avoiding them and I'm not telling anybody to use them or avoid them as I don't have an ethical stance on DRM! But if you do, then stick to it.

In the course of this conversation, I am not even aware of me telling anyone not to use it, just commenting on why I do not and offering up my reasons.

I didn't accuse you of "telling anyone not to use it", you weren't referenced and I was actually talking to Shmerl! That was my personal opinion anyway.

Quoting: Quote from HamishThe aspect of this that really seems to bother you is this idea that you are being talked down to; but when I criticize Steam, I am critizing Steam. It is up to you to decide whether or not you should feel offended by that.

I don't know what impression I give you but you're wrong there Hamish :) I don't feel I'm being talked down to at all and I'm certainly not offended. I hope you're not either, that's never been my intention. I think I may be a little too "enthusiastic" at times and get carried away, usually OT ;) My thrust may appear too personal, I'm guessing, but is usually meant in more general terms.

The nub of all this has been my fascination with people's DRM ethic, not the DRM itself. How serious they are and how far they take it. If they're not 100% committed then they're not in a position to lecture other people. I personally don't care what percentile they actually represent, I'm not making any judgement, just curious. It's patently obvious to all where the DRM lies. I'm no apologist for Steam either, far from it. It's a great service provider for many and I find very useful but I'd have no hesitation in dropping it if it ceased to be useful or became problematic.

fabertawe: 100% committed to what? Buying DRM free releases from developers who release their games DRM-free and thorough DRMed services is better than buying from those who don't release them DRM-free (Metro for example). According to you that's pointless, since it's already tainted with DRM, so one can as well just ignore the issue. I don't see such approach as doing anything useful.

Quoting: Quote from Shmerl... Supporting DRM free distributors is a way of influencing the situation

Absolutely. Believe it or not I'm all for a DRM free world, who wouldn't be. No consumer actually wants DRM. I'm not prepared to be militant about it but I'll support the ideal when appropriate.

I think this is similar to the question of secondary liability. Imagine a situation when someone lives in an oppressive country, governed by some crooked regime. Can one work to support own livelihood? What about the fact that it will indirectly benefit the regime for example, by economic input?

It's somewhat similar to distributing through DRMed distributors at the same time as through DRM free ones.

Quoting: Quote from Shmerlfabertawe: 100% committed to what?

100% committed to anti-DRM.

Quoting: Quote from ShmerlBuying DRM free releases from developers who release their games DRM-free and thorough DRMed services is better than buying from those who don't release them DRM-free (Metro for example). According to you that's pointless, since it's already tainted with DRM, so one can as well just ignore the issue. I don't see such approach as doing anything useful.

Yes it's better, of course! I'm not arguing against that. I'm not saying it's pointless, I'm saying only people who do it are in the moral position to criticise those that don't. That is all, nothing more.

Quoting: Quote from ShmerlI think this is similar to the question of secondary liability. Imagine a situation when someone lives in an oppressive country, governed by some crooked regime. Can one work to support own livelihood? What about the fact that it will indirectly benefit the regime for example, by economic input?

It's somewhat similar to distributing through DRMed distributors at the same time as through DRM free ones.

I see what you're getting at :D but hardly comparable in reality. I'm willing to be lectured by the first kind of "hypocrite" but not the second ;)

I just wanted to add: If a game hasn't DRM, it hasn't DRM on Steam either.

All you need the client for, is downloading the game, the rest is up to the developer.

In fact one could argue that Steam improved the DRM situation by providing a "solution" that's lighter than any other I know of so that those devs who want DRM use that instead of the heavy rootkit crap they would choose otherwise.

For those devs who can't be bothered with DRM, go to the steam game folder and start the game's binary.

fabertawe: The situation is similar. If the scope of DRM free distributors would be bigger, then there would be less of a dilemma. Then there would be no point for developers to use Steam in addition. But often most of their profits come from Steam, so they see it as way to recover their expenses. Otherwise sure, they'd ignore Steam and just use DRM free channels only. So I don't blame such developers for using Steam, however I won't ever buy through it, I'll buy what they release through their DRM free option.

Quoting: Quote from CaldazarI just wanted to add: If a game hasn't DRM, it hasn't DRM on Steam either.

All you need the client for, is downloading the game, the rest is up to the developer.

In fact one could argue that Steam improved the DRM situation by providing a "solution" that's lighter than any other I know of so that those devs who want DRM use that instead of the heavy rootkit crap they would choose otherwise.

For those devs who can't be bothered with DRM, go to the steam game folder and start the game's binary.

And Steam keeps it up to date for the lazy ;)

My avatar is from "Sir, You Are Being Hunted", my favourite game. Which incidentally is DRM free whether you download it from Humble or Steam or both, as in my case. I have the most up to date version in its Steam folder and also, the previous couple which I saved from the Steam folder and run directly (it's an alpha so I like to keep older builds with different playability so I have a choice. By the way it runs perfectly on Linux, especially for an alpha).

Quoting: Quote from ShmerlHamish: It looks like you were replying to me, but all that was really from fabertawe, not from me :)

Yes, indeed. That is the problem with working with multiple quotes. :S:

Quoting: Quote from fabertaweSurely a game released by a dev that condones DRM is tainted by association, if not literally. How can it not be? You are supporting a dev that releases DRM. Fact.

I do not buy the "tainted" argument. I buy a DRM free game from a developer that sells DRM free titles. Fact. My money is paid in exchange for that DRM free title. Fact. Anything else is not really relevant to the exchange. This is another reason why I do not believe voting with your wallet really is that effective, as most financial exchanges are inherently limited and the scope of them is small. It is not a great way to send a message, and I really do not feel that I am sending much of one with my spending habits anyway.

Quoting: Quote from fabertaweIt's the use of "ethics by degrees" that I don't understand. If you find something unethical then boycott it. Simple. If it means you go without then that's your conscience clear. If however, you're making the best of it then you're compromising. At least admit you're compromising that ethic, although such a thing should not be possible, or else it's no longer an ethic.

I find Steam to employ practices I find unethical, so I do not use it. Neither Humble or Desura provide a DRM mechanism with their service, so they do not employ practises themselves I find unethical. Some of the developers on them do, but the services themselves do not, which is the distinction as far as I am concerned.
 

Quoting: Quote from fabertaweI didn't accuse you of "telling anyone not to use it", you weren't referenced and I was actually talking to Shmerl! That was my personal opinion anyway.

If the comment was not directed at me, fair enough. But then you do later go on to say you are not "willing to be lectured"...

Anyone, can you answer a question for me? Wouldn't it be stupid for game developers to ignore the large influence and following Steam has? Potentially reaching 65 million customers isn't what I'd call stupid. It's just good business. And as others above have said with steam including all of these features, doesn't it make sense for game developers to benefit from them rather than attempting to implement them another way spending more money in the process? Now what if the game the developers made was DRM free in its entirety. Wouldn't it still make sense to publish on steam, even though it might "taint" the ethical stance of their game?

Granted they could publish through multiple mediums, that doesn't seem to happen very often these days. 

Steam makes sense. It's up to the developers if they wish to publish to other platforms, but economically speaking there isn't as big of a market as exists with steam.

If you ever made anything, and had to live off selling it, would you try to bring your product to as many people as possible, or would you limit your audience to those with the same beliefs as you.

Quoting: Quote from HamishIf the comment was not directed at me, fair enough. But then you do later go on to say you are not "willing to be lectured"...

I hope you're not getting as paranoid as me ;)

n30p1r4t3 - Spot on. Ultimately, if you sell games then you're running a business. Capitalism is certainly not ideal but it's the system we have to deal with.

I've had a good rant and learnt a few things in the process of this debate and I do respect others' points of view, even if I (over)play devil's advocate at times :P We all have an opinion and have to live within our own means and everyone has their own unique perspective on life. Live and let live.

An interview with Marcin Iwinski of CD Projekt Red about the issues of DRM:
http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/cd-projekt-red-waves-goodbye-to-drm/1100-4783/

He avoids mentioning the unethical aspect of DRM, so his views can be classified as simply pragmatical. He gives his theory why many publishers aren't even pragmatical about it.

Great read Shmerl. That guy talks a lot of (common) sense and we'll probably see more going in this direction.

I hate to be that shameless plug guy, but I recently wrote about Steam and DRM on my site: http://www.thelinuxrain.com/articles/opinion-steam-and-drm

If that link is a problem, feel free to delete it, I have no idea what the policy is here.

Anyhow long story short I say in the article/ramble that I personally generally despise DRM but accept Steam, for the most part. Which probably makes me look like a hypocrite of the highest order, but I generally see Steam as more of a vehicle for others to provide DRM rather than being responsible for it themselves, but a developer is free (AFAIK) to not provide any DRM at all when they distribute through Steam, so I think we need to be looking at the devs more than Steam I guess.

So yeah, I generally like to avoid DRM. Steam is my one guilty pleasure otherwise.