Ubisoft Breaks Steam's TOS With From Dust DRM; Valve Offers Refunds

[Baggins]

I'm talking about where other companies include their own versions of DRM, before including the game into the steam store.

Valve's store page sometimes warns when these other DRM's exist before you buy the game (but not always).

Many games actually have hidden Securom installed with the games as well. BioShock 1 was like that IIRC.

Here is a website that's tried to keep track of the games that include 3rd party DRMs.

http://steamdrm.flibitijibibo.com/

[MusicallyInspired]

Yes, I know now what you meant, but your initial post was misleading when you stated "Valve" had these games with multiple DRM instead of "Steam". Valve's games only have Steam. Games by third-party developers on "Steam", however, is a different story. I was just noting an important distinction. "Steam" and "Valve" are not interchangeable terms. Steam, the digital download platform, and Valve the company and developer that owns Steam and whose games developed by them don't have hidden or extra DRM.

[Fierce Deity]

Right, but Valve manages the games that are on Steam. So if a third-party developer requires their own personal DRM on their game. Valve would have to be the one to notify buyers that a game is multi-tiered with DRM. The way Baggins made his statement, I agree was misleading, but there are times when I refer to Steam as a people, when really it is just a digital distributing client and does not possess a soul. 

But while Valve is a video game developer and a publisher for their own Steam network, they also undertake Steam as their own "piece of work", so to speak. So the terms "Valve" and "Steam" are not interchangeable unnecessarily, but are definitely interrelated accordingly. I would argue that it is a valid statement when referring to the "controllers" of Steam as "Valve". Decisions that are made for Steam, are made by Valve.

[MusicallyInspired]

Decisions for third-party DRM are not Valve's, though. As I understand Steam's ToS, the developer is in pretty much complete control about how their game on Steam is processed and what it is distributed with.

[Fierce Deity]

Decisions for third-party DRM are not Valve's, though. As I understand Steam's ToS, the developer is in pretty much complete control about how their game on Steam is processed and what it is distributed with.

The way Baggins made his statement, I agree was misleading

I wasn't really entering the debate about Valve's handling with third-party DRM. I'm aware that it's not their decision. It would be the third-party developers' and/or publishers' decision. I was just debating over the use of "Valve" as a proper noun for "those who manage Steam and its applications". The games themselves are owned by the teams that created them, and therefore the teams are entitled to make decisions for the games, but the games are still managed by Steam's people (Valve). For instance, when the game Terraria went on sale during the summer deals, it went on sale for a cheaper price than what the makers' had agreed upon. This was because of poor management on Valve's part. I wouldn't argue about DRM though. That stuff is set in stone from the get go. I don't think Valve would even be able to get rid of the third-party's DRM, even if they really wanted to.

I would argue though, that Games for Windows Live is not really DRM. Or at least, it's not used for that reason. It was supposed to "consolize" PC gaming. Whether it is actually used for DRM, I wouldn't honestly know, because people have created a crack to get rid of the overlay and all of its ticks and clicks. You can pretty much play through any GFWL game (even Bioshock 2) without having GFWL intervene in anyway shape or form. I've yet to find a way to play a Steam game, without the Steam part. That's real DRM.

[MusicallyInspired]

Batman Arkham Asylum won't let you play it at all unless you're logged into GFWL online. And that's a single-player only game. From what I understand, not all GFWL games are like this, but most of them are. Including a lot of single player only games.

[Baggins]

In response to the topic title, and other things said in this discussion;

If its not Valve's decision (as MusicallyInspired claims), then then how can a third party, break the Steam "TOS" if the third party decides to put in additional DRM?

Where in the TOS does it say that one cannot have 3rd Party DRM. IF there is such a clause in the TOS, why are there so many games that include third party DRM?

The premise of this thread seems to claim that one can break Valve's Steam TOS, by including a third party DRM. Which seems to imply that Valve tries to maintain some control of what goes on in Steam.

[MusicallyInspired]

If its not Valve's decision, then then how can a third party, break the Steam "TOS" if the third party decides to put in additional DRM?

Because they backed out on what they had said previously. And it also seems to be a gray area of whether or not Steam was offering refunds or not to begin with. Who knows, maybe it was in the contract they had with Steam. Maybe they didn't break the ToS at all. That was just what that article said, I didn't say that.

Where in the TOS does it say that one cannot have 3rd Party DRM. IF there is such a clause in the TOS, why are there so many games that include third party DRM?

I'm not saying they're not allowed. The whole problem was that they said they weren't going to do it...and then they did without telling anybody which screwed over a lot of people who pre-ordered it under the guise that there would be no third-party DRM. They've since redacted the third-party DRM.

[Baggins]

Seems to me telling everyone one, one plan, and then changing the plan, has little to do with the Steam "TOS"? Is there something in the TOS which Valve doesn't allow third party companies to change plans?

This may be a good example why blogs shouldn't be taken seriously! I know I wouldn't use them as a reliable source for research! Kinda like Wikipedia!

[MusicallyInspired]

Dude. I DON'T KNOW. All I did was post a link to an article.

[Fierce Deity]

What I'm curious about is why Valve took Dragon Age II and Crysis 2 off of Steam. I heard that it had something to do with the DLC, but they never really announced a reason. I imagine they also broke the developer's TOS for Steam, but I wonder if EA did it as a stunt to promote their own service, Origin. Seems convenient enough. 

[Baggins]

I understand some of the games were an Origin stunt. They wanted people to get the game on Origin.

The DLC is from an in-game store as far as I know.

BioShock II also has an in-game store through Microsoft Marketplace, for its DLC content. I doubt that breaks the TOS.

Also as a word of note, if you bought the game, you can still dload it from Steam (its still in usersa game library). It's just not offered in the store. Which would seem imply that it was EA that wanted it removed, not Valve.j

I'm pretty sure if it was completely removed, someone would have to offer a refund.

[Fierce Deity]

Very true. I still have Dragon Age II on Steam, but I never bought Crysis 2 (which is fine since I played it at a friend's house). But in case Valve did decide to remove the game completely, and offer refunds, I used the same CD key on Steam and registered Dragon Age II on Origin. So I have it there in case anything happens. But if it truly was based on EA wanting their games to be exclusive to Origin, why can you still buy both Mass Effects and everything that pertains to the first Dragon Age on Steam? I'm just thinking of what the reason could be for them to take off only those two games. It's just a little unusual. It did happen around the time Legacy came out, so I am leaning towards it being related to the DLC. Otherwise, EA would have had plenty of time to take Dragon Age II off Steam, and they didn't until they released the new DLC.

[Baggins]

Because the interest is more in making the 'newest' and the greatest 'exclusives' to their service. Steam apparently is a much bigger competition to their service than Direct2Drive apparently (they still offer the game there)?

I understand they did actually cut a few other games for a short time, offered them on Origin for exclusive period, and then allowed it back on Steam, after the interest wained.

[MusicallyInspired]

Star Trek Online was removed from the Steam store as well, it only recently re-appeared again...something to do with Atari selling it off to another company maybe?