The Downside of Steam
Chris Canfield's article "In support of Steam" over at Joystick 101 argues that Steam has potential to thoroughly re-write the distribution system for games (what's Steam?). He suggests that for Steam to really work, Valve should pursue a more aggressive marketing plan (like putting a game and Steam on computers to be sold in stores).
But Canfield ignores the issues (covered nicely over at kuro5hin) about the extremely scary DRM embedded in Steam. While Steam does allow for quick download and easy, instant updates, it also holds the games you've purchased under lock and key, and only allows you to play them when you're online. But this isn't really any different than the licenses we already buy when we play games, is it? Steam merely plays out a path we've been following for some time: allowing publishers to enforce tighter and tighter restrictions on their texts.
The "scary" elements of Steam bring to the fore the realities of our current understanding of intellectual property: that you rent it instead of buying it. When you bought a book twenty-five years ago, it was certainly illegal to copy it and sell it. It was also illegal to cut it up and mix its text with another book and sell those. Nonetheless, you could do some of those things. You could cut up the book and use its pages for other things. Primarily, you could do so because you bought a copy of the book. It was yours. Perhaps the legal technicalities didn't agree, but traditions of use did.
With DRM and recent innovations in connectivity, the technology allows publishers to enforce the draconian rules that were previously unenforceable. To whit, we've always only had the right to license books, but the medium prevented careful monitoring of those licenses. With Steam, publishers can enforce whatever rules they like, with little recourse for the public. Thus, while the technology opens potential spaces for exciting activity, the reality is that mainstream innovations are tightening, not loosening, of our ability to use texts rather than just receive them.
The big question is whether consumers care about these concerns. We've already seen some backlash from folks who suddenly find themselves cut off from Steam (and thus all the games they've purchased through it) and from IP advocates who feel the potential for abuse is far too hight. But I'm not sure the average consumer is willing to forego the coolest new thing just because its technology abuses them. I wonder what it would take to raise serious hackles? Conversely, what models could a brave publisher use to test more permissive Steam-like systems?
But Canfield ignores the issues (covered nicely over at kuro5hin) about the extremely scary DRM embedded in Steam. While Steam does allow for quick download and easy, instant updates, it also holds the games you've purchased under lock and key, and only allows you to play them when you're online. But this isn't really any different than the licenses we already buy when we play games, is it? Steam merely plays out a path we've been following for some time: allowing publishers to enforce tighter and tighter restrictions on their texts.
The "scary" elements of Steam bring to the fore the realities of our current understanding of intellectual property: that you rent it instead of buying it. When you bought a book twenty-five years ago, it was certainly illegal to copy it and sell it. It was also illegal to cut it up and mix its text with another book and sell those. Nonetheless, you could do some of those things. You could cut up the book and use its pages for other things. Primarily, you could do so because you bought a copy of the book. It was yours. Perhaps the legal technicalities didn't agree, but traditions of use did.
With DRM and recent innovations in connectivity, the technology allows publishers to enforce the draconian rules that were previously unenforceable. To whit, we've always only had the right to license books, but the medium prevented careful monitoring of those licenses. With Steam, publishers can enforce whatever rules they like, with little recourse for the public. Thus, while the technology opens potential spaces for exciting activity, the reality is that mainstream innovations are tightening, not loosening, of our ability to use texts rather than just receive them.
The big question is whether consumers care about these concerns. We've already seen some backlash from folks who suddenly find themselves cut off from Steam (and thus all the games they've purchased through it) and from IP advocates who feel the potential for abuse is far too hight. But I'm not sure the average consumer is willing to forego the coolest new thing just because its technology abuses them. I wonder what it would take to raise serious hackles? Conversely, what models could a brave publisher use to test more permissive Steam-like systems?
