Dear Santa

[Something Amyss]

I don't care how much Santa may ignore me. I will still keep asking him to make DRM go away. It does nothing but harm customers and PC gaming in general.

I don't make it a habit of being cruel, but DRM should go die in a ditch somewhere.

Shamus' wish is certainly reasonable, though. Transparency towards DRM. Ideally, I'd like to see the whole shebang die in a fire, but since it won't, I'd like to see them stop BSing us. DRM makes me unlikely to buy PC games. My desktop is already getting old, and it's bad enough being unsure of whether or not a game will run with my specs. It's worse when I have to wonder whether the DRM will cripple it, or if I can still run the game when the internet is out, or if I need to rebuy the game if the data gets corrupted and I need to reinstall.

Steam won't even let me run in offline mode, FFS.

 

[x434343]

Ah, you want Steam to be kicked down a notch, and Stardock up a notch. A fine gesture, but there's just one thing I've got to say.

Currently, the Digital Distribution Market is an Oligopoly with one major contender and many minor contenders (Stardock, GFWL Marketplace, and D2D, I'm looking at you). People seem to flock to Steam because VALVe has pumped so much into the quality. I'm not saying a reduction of its share is bad, but just remember: Sometimes if it isn't broke, it shouldn't be fixed. If it works, it works, and people go for longtime quality.

 

[PurpleSkull]

How about "little Shamus" continues his stolen Pixel series already? That would be way more appreciated then columns.

And naughty boys don't get anything for Christmas too.

 

[CplDustov]

A great point made by Shamus. Impluse often has games that they only release in Canada and the US. Yet I can get the same thing from Steam so I'm a little disappointed that I can't benefit from the deals and "impulse buys".

 

[Dracosage]

I don't see the point in wanting a contender against Steam. Why would I ever want to have to make an entirely new account for an entirely different service because they offer a game for the same platform that I can't get on Steam due to it having a decent market similar to Valve's service? If anything, I pray that Steam remains dominant and destroys other digital distributors not only because the service is outright superior to every other one out there but because it is extremely simple and easy to just have one place to go to and once place to set up an account with one big integrated community led by a company that I know isn't going away any time soon.

 

[AJMcSpiffy]

The only part I had a small issue with was the "Bring up a contender to Steam" part. I understand that competition is healthy and constructive, but it's certainly not like steam isn't doing a good job with their client.

 

[Gunner 51]

I really enjoyed your article Shamus. I found your wishlist to be quite reasonable, and I'll admit I've found myself wanting it on the behlaf of others, mostly because I don't find DRM fair in concept or it's application. (Not to mention because it causes much misery and irritation for many people.)

I also share your sense of irritation about fad controllers, too. Just give me a joypad and I'm happy as pig in.. well - I'm sure you know the rest. But if people want to play their Guitar Hero games with guitar mock-ups, then I say leave 'em to it. It brings the publishers and sevelopers money to work on bigger and better things. (Or so the theory goes...)

I should end this post because I'm starting to ramble. But before I go, have a happy new year.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Experienced Points: Dear Santa

What does little Shamus want for Christmas?

Read Full Article

Great article Shamus, one of your better. I really agree about Steam needing a competitor. As much as I love the service Steam provides, it is worrying that they are seeming the only dog on the street. That metaphor made no sense, and neither does having a single online distributor without competition!

 

[digital warrior]

Having done the DC Universe Online Beta, I can't wait for Lil Shamus to get his lump of coal when he discoveres what a turd in his stocking this game is. I hope he does a Shamus plays for DCUO. The game is the worst MMO since the orriginal design for Star Wars Galaxies and its going to be hilarious.

Were we playing the same beta? I found it a bit glitchy but a lot of potential. Oh well to each his own and i do hope the problems i had with the beta will be cleared up by launch. But come on the worst? Even compared to ff14?

 

[JerrytheBullfrog]

I was wondering where all the uproar was about sc2s drm, it seemed pretty damn restrictive but everyone was too busy wetting them selfs over a mediocre game to notice I guess

In what bizarre world is SC2 mediocre?

On-topic: I think the reason gamers were more okay with SC2 than, say Ubisoft's scheme is that Battle.net makes it seem more like an integrated service for multiplayer than DRM. You expect to log on a game to play multiplayer, and there are some nice additions you get from being logged on for singleplayer, too. It's very much like the early days of Steam with better integration but less flexibility. I can only imagine it'll improve, too.

 

[John Funk]

Having done the DC Universe Online Beta, I can't wait for Lil Shamus to get his lump of coal when he discoveres what a turd in his stocking this game is. I hope he does a Shamus plays for DCUO. The game is the worst MMO since the orriginal design for Star Wars Galaxies and its going to be hilarious.

I actually thought it was brilliant. Just need to replace my damn PS3. I must be the only person in the world who's had no problem with my 360 but got the YLOD on my PS3.

Considering you think a game is brilliant when Batman would have to go punch a bunch of guys before he could use stealth, you're probably using your PS3 wrong, or else you are an Escapist staff member in your "I'm in disguise to praise a game that has paid for good press" account.

It's really cute how you think we get paid to shill for games.

 

[Worgen]

I was wondering where all the uproar was about sc2s drm, it seemed pretty damn restrictive but everyone was too busy wetting them selfs over a mediocre game to notice I guess

In what bizarre world is SC2 mediocre?

On-topic: I think the reason gamers were more okay with SC2 than, say Ubisoft's scheme is that Battle.net makes it seem more like an integrated service for multiplayer than DRM. You expect to log on a game to play multiplayer, and there are some nice additions you get from being logged on for singleplayer, too. It's very much like the early days of Steam with better integration but less flexibility. I can only imagine it'll improve, too.

I played a little of it on my friends comp, it wasnt good, just pretty.

on topic: I still think its because for some reason people will give blizz a huge pass on things, from what I could tell it was almost exactly like the ubisoft plan, altho with achievements... so I suppose more like a working version of games for windows live that is a bit more intrusive

 

[JerrytheBullfrog]

I was wondering where all the uproar was about sc2s drm, it seemed pretty damn restrictive but everyone was too busy wetting them selfs over a mediocre game to notice I guess

In what bizarre world is SC2 mediocre?

On-topic: I think the reason gamers were more okay with SC2 than, say Ubisoft's scheme is that Battle.net makes it seem more like an integrated service for multiplayer than DRM. You expect to log on a game to play multiplayer, and there are some nice additions you get from being logged on for singleplayer, too. It's very much like the early days of Steam with better integration but less flexibility. I can only imagine it'll improve, too.

I played a little of it on my friends comp, it wasnt good, just pretty.

on topic: I still think its because for some reason people will give blizz a huge pass on things, from what I could tell it was almost exactly like the ubisoft plan, altho with achievements... so I suppose more like a working version of games for windows live that is a bit more intrusive

well sorry, but you're wrong. It's easily the best RTS I've played in... a very long time, and I play a lot of RTSes.

On topic: It's more like a PC-ified Xbox Live more than anything. Yes, you need to log on, but you get value and services for doing so. That's why people give it a pass; it isn't "you need to log on to play the game," it's "you log on to play the game and you get the social features/achievements/portrait rewards."

They're still making improvements and it certainly has a ways to go, but the seeds ARE there for a good value-added service, rather than just plain boring DRM.

 

[Worgen]

I was wondering where all the uproar was about sc2s drm, it seemed pretty damn restrictive but everyone was too busy wetting them selfs over a mediocre game to notice I guess

In what bizarre world is SC2 mediocre?

On-topic: I think the reason gamers were more okay with SC2 than, say Ubisoft's scheme is that Battle.net makes it seem more like an integrated service for multiplayer than DRM. You expect to log on a game to play multiplayer, and there are some nice additions you get from being logged on for singleplayer, too. It's very much like the early days of Steam with better integration but less flexibility. I can only imagine it'll improve, too.

I played a little of it on my friends comp, it wasnt good, just pretty.

on topic: I still think its because for some reason people will give blizz a huge pass on things, from what I could tell it was almost exactly like the ubisoft plan, altho with achievements... so I suppose more like a working version of games for windows live that is a bit more intrusive

well sorry, but you're wrong. It's easily the best RTS I've played in... a very long time, and I play a lot of RTSes.

On topic: It's more like a PC-ified Xbox Live more than anything. Yes, you need to log on, but you get value and services for doing so. That's why people give it a pass; it isn't "you need to log on to play the game," it's "you log on to play the game and you get the social features/achievements/portrait rewards."

They're still making improvements and it certainly has a ways to go, but the seeds ARE there for a good value-added service, rather than just plain boring DRM.

your more wrong, sc2 plays just like the original and the original played like a bad mod for warcraft 2 which didnt play good either

does it have any kind of install limit?

 

[JerrytheBullfrog]

I was wondering where all the uproar was about sc2s drm, it seemed pretty damn restrictive but everyone was too busy wetting them selfs over a mediocre game to notice I guess

In what bizarre world is SC2 mediocre?

On-topic: I think the reason gamers were more okay with SC2 than, say Ubisoft's scheme is that Battle.net makes it seem more like an integrated service for multiplayer than DRM. You expect to log on a game to play multiplayer, and there are some nice additions you get from being logged on for singleplayer, too. It's very much like the early days of Steam with better integration but less flexibility. I can only imagine it'll improve, too.

I played a little of it on my friends comp, it wasnt good, just pretty.

on topic: I still think its because for some reason people will give blizz a huge pass on things, from what I could tell it was almost exactly like the ubisoft plan, altho with achievements... so I suppose more like a working version of games for windows live that is a bit more intrusive

well sorry, but you're wrong. It's easily the best RTS I've played in... a very long time, and I play a lot of RTSes.

On topic: It's more like a PC-ified Xbox Live more than anything. Yes, you need to log on, but you get value and services for doing so. That's why people give it a pass; it isn't "you need to log on to play the game," it's "you log on to play the game and you get the social features/achievements/portrait rewards."

They're still making improvements and it certainly has a ways to go, but the seeds ARE there for a good value-added service, rather than just plain boring DRM.

your more wrong, sc2 plays just like the original and the original played like a bad mod for warcraft 2 which didnt play good either

does it have any kind of install limit?

Haha you're joking, right? Do you actually play RTSes?

No, it does not. You can download it and install on as many computers as you like.

 

[Worgen]

I was wondering where all the uproar was about sc2s drm, it seemed pretty damn restrictive but everyone was too busy wetting them selfs over a mediocre game to notice I guess

In what bizarre world is SC2 mediocre?

On-topic: I think the reason gamers were more okay with SC2 than, say Ubisoft's scheme is that Battle.net makes it seem more like an integrated service for multiplayer than DRM. You expect to log on a game to play multiplayer, and there are some nice additions you get from being logged on for singleplayer, too. It's very much like the early days of Steam with better integration but less flexibility. I can only imagine it'll improve, too.

I played a little of it on my friends comp, it wasnt good, just pretty.

on topic: I still think its because for some reason people will give blizz a huge pass on things, from what I could tell it was almost exactly like the ubisoft plan, altho with achievements... so I suppose more like a working version of games for windows live that is a bit more intrusive

well sorry, but you're wrong. It's easily the best RTS I've played in... a very long time, and I play a lot of RTSes.

On topic: It's more like a PC-ified Xbox Live more than anything. Yes, you need to log on, but you get value and services for doing so. That's why people give it a pass; it isn't "you need to log on to play the game," it's "you log on to play the game and you get the social features/achievements/portrait rewards."

They're still making improvements and it certainly has a ways to go, but the seeds ARE there for a good value-added service, rather than just plain boring DRM.

your more wrong, sc2 plays just like the original and the original played like a bad mod for warcraft 2 which didnt play good either

does it have any kind of install limit?

Haha you're joking, right? Do you actually play RTSes?

No, it does not. You can download it and install on as many computers as you like.

rts games are my favorite genre but starcraft is one of those massively overrated games that people wet them selfs over since blizzard likes to polish turds to a mirror shine

ok in that case its not quite as bad as some other drm stuff but its still annoying and Im still surprised more people didnt at least ***** about it