Perhaps I missed something (I didn’t), but Valve’s new DRM technology announcement was just as–if not more–vague than Stardock’s. While both announcements were scant on details, Stardock at least outlines the general requirements and functions of the technology–the particular technical details are most likely obfuscated because the technology does not require constant Internet re-authorization, which makes it necessary to hide the “mojo” that ties the program to your account/computer.

Under Stardock’s plan, the DRM works not only at retail, but through [i]any[/i] distribution channel. This means that gamers [i]never[/i] have to worry about a particular company’s authentication servers going down because they will be able to validate their software on a myriad other distribution platforms. Your contention that developers should move to a single platform is absurd–how would you like it if iTunes was the only place you could buy music? You think those tracks would stay in the 99 cent range? Having multiple distribution channels creates price competition, which is great for gamers. If you prefer a particular platform, you are free to use it exclusively, but I bet you wouldn’t like the results of putting all game distribution in the hands of one company.

Additionally, Stardock does say how the technology protects games–the executables are encrypted. There aren’t any “your mother” insults, you simply can’t execute the program until it’s been authenticated. Essentially, the program is locked down until you have the password. The protection mechanism seems pretty clear.

Finally, you assert that developers will probably prefer Steam’s CEG, but what do you base this on? Developers and publishers [i]want[/i] to release their games in as many streams of commerce as possible. To the best of my knowledge, CEG only works on Steam, which means that if publishers want to sell boxed copies of games or offer direct downloads of their software they have to turn to other forms of DRM. Arranging deals with numerous third party DRM producers and making sure all of the software is interoperable and easily updateable is time consuming and expensive. Sure, you may argue that developers will dislike the ability to resell the software, but this argument fails for several reasons: First, it appears developers will have the [i]option[/i] to allow resale–it is not mandated. Second, it doesn’t seem that anything would prevent developers from charging a nominal “transfer” fee (maybe $1-$5), which would allow developers to at least profit somewhat from resale, which is greatly preferable to losing all income to those who pirate software or use other channels to distribute software on secondary markets. Third, and finally, the right of “first sale” in software has kicked up a lot of legal debate, who knows if future legislation will mandate that publishers supply this right; if so, it sure would be nice to have technology in place that complies.

Thanks for reporting the news, but try reading it a little more carefully next time.

Actually in light of more information, the Stardock method is equally as clear as Valve’s. However the point still remains that they’re not much different. Stardock just includes it’s authentication platform within the game itself as apposed to using Steam. While the ability to transfer your game to someone else is nice, the benefits that Steam offers still out weigh Stardock’s offering. Also, Stardocks method is still very susceptible to savvy hackers since it doesn’t phone home to an account a-la Steam.

I stand corrected.

I’d really like to know what top publishers will actually agree with Goo and its resell offerings. Analysts (as I’m sure publishers as well) have already acknowledged that digital distribution is one method of reducing used game sales. Speculation of a transfer fee doesn’t seem like an answer to the harm that used game sales have done to the industry. I like to support developers directly, so Goo (as it has been currently described from Stardock) has little to offer for a gamer like myself, but the lack of a direct method of reselling games has always been a criticism from people who don’t use Steam, so no doubt they will find that feature helpful.

Impulse in its current state is, to be honest, abysmal in its catalog at the moment, so there’s little to be excited about for Goo when so little games are being offered. Of course, I do understand that Impulse is only a few months old and is the new guy when you compare it to Direct2Drive and even GameStop’s digital distribution. It really goes back to the question of what publishers and developers will actually join onto Goo when they’ve already seen the performances of other digital distribution platforms and have noticed that the urge to resell a digitally purchased PC game hasn’t been THAT demanding.

I appreciate the update, but I still disagree: GOO is, without question, the superior DRM (or “anti-piracy”) format. Aside from game resale, GOO also offers enhanced privacy and broader interoperability. Let’s analyze your arguments in sequence:

(1) “From my perspective, PC gamers re-selling their used games seems like a really small niche market that shouldn’t have time wasted on it. I have yet to meet a fellow PC gamer who has sold or had [sic] thought about selling their used PC games..”

There are a few problems with this argument: First, the reason you probably don’t know anyone who sells–or thinks about selling–their PC games is because, for the most part, it is impossible. The stunning majority of modern PC games employ DRM schemes that forbid you from reselling them. There is a booming secondary console game market, but you don’t think PC gamers would take advantage of secondary markets if they were available? Do PC and console gamers make fundamentally disparate economic decisions? Probably not. Particularly when you consider your argument in this light: I know dozens of people (including myself) that have sold their used Xbox 360 games, but I don’t know of a single person that has or has thought about selling a used Xbox Live Arcade game. Why? Because, like PC games, it’s impossible.

Second, you argue that Stardock shouldn’t have wasted it’s time on this feature and that there’s not a large demand for it, but, again, this argument relies on failed logic. Just because you don’t find a feature significant doesn’t mean it’s not worthwhile. The majority of America was once happy traveling by wagon and didn’t figure they needed anything more, should we have not bothered inventing the car? Just because you don’t find an immediate need for a particular technology doesn’t mean that we should ignore or not foster its development, particularly when that technology serves to re-establish a “first sale” right that is recognized in every branch of intellectual property law and nearly every other consumer transaction.

Distilled to it’s elements, your first argument is (1) you don’t know anyone who has performed an impossible feat and (2) we should ignore developing any technology that people don’t know they immediately need.

You should try Googling “Luddite,” you might like what they have to say.

(2) “Secondly, there is only one major difference between the two DRM methods. Steam and no Steam. To me, the use of Steam trumps anything Stardock throws out there. Why? Because Steam is a damn cool tool all the way around. I’m one of those people who advocate the use of Steam because of the community it offers. I want to play games with other people. Sure, if you’re a solo player than [sic] you could give two craps about Steam and everything it offers. But the reality is, solo players are the minority now. Steam is to PC what LIVE is to Xbox, and why is that such a bad thing?”

Again, several problems with this argument: First, there are substantially more than one difference between CEG and GOO and the one you point out–”Steam and no Steam”–is tragically misstated. There is no “Steam and no Steam” dichotomy, instead we have the difference between “only Steam” and “any imaginable distribution method, including Steam.” The simple fact is that CEG is locked to Steam while GOO can work anywhere, which makes it more portable and uniform across different systems. You laud Valve’s service, but GOO doesn’t deny your use of Steam; however, CEG binds you to it. While you may love Steam, others avoid it for reasons I stated in a previous comment.

Again, distilled, this argument amounts to you saying, “CEG is better because it forces people to use Steam, which I really like. Technology that reduces competition in the market place is superior to that which bolsters competition and innovation.”

You may want to see if Microsoft is hiring.

(3) “Steam is not limited to online distribution. It has been incorporated into boxed copied games, [sic] Dawn of War II and the latest Total War game use Steam as its Anti-Piracy measure. So the argument that developers will have to turn to other forms of DRM is a crutch argument at best.”

The issue is not boxed v. digital distribution; the issue is forcing Steam upon developers v. allowing freedom in the marketplace. Developers will still have to turn to other DRM solutions for non-Steam digital distribution and any boxed sales that they do not wish to tie to Steam. My argument is only a “crutch” if you believe that every game developer that sells at retail wishes to tie its software to Steam. If that’s the case, you’re right–there’s no need for any other DRM.

Again, your argument is tragically anti-competitive: “Developers won’t need to use other DRM solutions if everyone uses Steam!” Or, in other words, “people won’t need to make choices if you don’t give them options!”

Well, bravo, I guess I can’t argue with that logic.

(4) “The doomsday scenarios of Valve servers going down or Valve going out of business and leaving you with data you can’t access is… well[,] give me break. If that happens, well[,] the game industry probably has bigger problems to worry about.”

First, I’ve already addressed this comment above: Wal-Mart and Microsoft have both shutdown authentication servers that were no longer economically beneficial to run. It is not unreasonable to think that one day it will become economically inefficient for Valve to keep running authentication servers for older software. Perhaps you don’t care about playing older games, but many of us do. All modern media protected by current DRM technology is essentially disposable.

My mother still listens to records she bought more than thirty years ago. I’ve read books that belonged to my grandfather as a child. If you think you’re going to be enjoying any media with current DRM restrictions even 10 years into the future, you’re kidding yourself.

God forbid Valve ever goes under, but it’s not unreasonable. A year ago no one would have thought that the largest financial and insurance institutions in the US would fail, but they did. Regardless, Valve doesn’t have to fail for the authentication servers to go down, they simply have to choose to disable the economically inefficient ones. Hopefully Valve would provide a DRM work around, but why place that much faith into a single company when technology–like GOO–makes it a moot issue?

Essentially, your argument is: Who cares about preparing for tragic events that are statistically unlikely?

I bet you don’t live in New Orleans or have any money invested in the New York Stock Exchange.

(5) “Yes[,] I agree that there should be more than one channel to purchase games, but there doesn’t have to be 4000 of them and Stardock is starting its own digital distribution method thus adding to the already long list of places I can buy games. All with varying methods of copy protection. It’s not such a travesty to suggest that things, especially DRM, should be more centralized and standard.”

This argument just doesn’t make sense. You say (1) that you think there should be more than one distribution channel and (2) that you think DRM should be more centralized and standard. Well, CEG can ONLY be used with Steam, which precludes you from having standardized DRM and multiple distribution channels. GOO works with Steam and any other platform, which fulfills your dream of giving consumers choice while standardizing DRM technology.

I can’t really sum up this argument because it doesn’t make sense.

(6) “And for the record, Valve’s plan is much more clear as far as I can see. http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/publishingservices.php#CEG

Stardock has the bullet points, but fails to tell how it achieves those points.”

You’ve already rescinded this argument.

CONCLUSION:

Essentially, I asserted that GOO is the superior anti-piracy technology. And it is. I have nothing against Steam–I use Steam, but I refuse to be so enamored with the service that I deny the superiority of another anti-piracy technology.

Your update to the post states: “The only major difference is CEG uses Steam, but the benefits that come with that like the achievment [sic] system and DLC incentives outweigh Stardock’s offering, but only by a little.”

Well, I would like to offer that the MAJOR differences between the two technologies are as follows:
(1) GOO provides gamers and developers with the option to enable used game sales;
(2) GOO does not require authentication past the initial install, which means that DRM-associated privacy concerns are substantially lessened; and
(3) GOO works on any piece of software, regardless of distribution method.

So, your update is wrong for two reasons: (1) there are substantially more than one major difference and (2) the one difference you pointed out is wrong–GOO will work with Steam, which means that users who elect to use the Steam service are still entitled to achievements and DLC incentives (whatever those may be).

By the way, I really love the site. The only reason I’ve taken the time to write anything is because I want to see the site continue to grow, which I think can only be done with accurate and insightful reporting.

We can continue to split hairs on the subject all night, but when you really look at the two DRM methods their strikingly similar and both greatly beneficial to everyone. There is difference sure, but the core philosophy of both are indistinguishable. Bottom line is, Valve has more cookies at the table.

Your opinion is that Goo is superior and that’s fine. It depends on what you care about. Neither are inherently better than the other, both have different benefits. I care about community, DLC and achievements. I could care less about giving away or selling my PC game. Different stroke for different folks. If you think that Goo protected games are also going to get the perks of Steam, you’re mistaken. Unfortunately thats the bigger problem, developers won’t work together on a central standard and instead are out to sell their own product.

From this side of the fence, Steam offers me more. With Steam’s method developers get protected, and I get DLC and achievements. More content is more important to me than being able to sell my game.

The best DRM is No DRM.

Wow, I just learned a hell of a lot.