Steam, Origin, Ubiplay - every DRM solution that performs online checks when only offline play is wanted is an inconvenient and unnecessary hassle in my book.

I was very much opposed to copyprotection systems like Starforce or TAGES. But these seem to be the much better alternative by now.

hmmm... well yours is certainly a weak argument




and self distribution is different to a > insert name here < distribution system?




Usually picked up on through the online activation.



Probably because it concerns the above point, eh...

Which point? You mean not being able to sell used games? Nope. I plan my purchases accordingly and buy games only if I'm sure I want to keep them or they are dirt cheap.

Not being able to play when the drm service is down/malfunctioning or my internet provider has problems. That is my main gripe.

*

Stop spouting the false Publisher party line, Wolf. DRM has nothing or very little to do with pirated software and much more (everything?) with publishers trying to devise new ways of milking customers and artificially inserting themselves into the distribution process. Money - that is the reason for this DRM nonsense. And not the crocodile's tears about piracy.

nice try there Thor.... big bad capitalists eh?

No, just goddarn liars with ties in suits. :-P ;)

Seriously. With the internet and the newly appearing direct-publishing methods the time of big publishers may actually be coming to an end. Not anytime soon but the potential is there. And with all the fluff and pointless hassle these corporations introduced over the years I am not one to be sad to see them going. They, however, can't think that way so they try to devise new ways of making themselves "irreplaceable". DRM, DLC and so-called "online services" (see EA, see Ubi) are their watchword even though I would hope that customers do see through the deception and vote with their wallets. That may be a lot of undeserved faith, but everyone entertains a foolish notion or two, don't we? ;)

yeah.. and the phone companies, and power companies, and supermarkets (groceries) and all, eh?

The time of Publishers isn't over, not even close. Yeah there are a few youngsters who sell indie "jewels" and make profit... but aside from a few exceptions what really happened is this:

A lot of TV and media companies bought gaming studios and started making games etc. This will have a huge impact because of the budget behind that process. A lot of advertising money, experience and the necessary access to media channels is also hidden here. That's what is a game changer and one of the reason why games are being dumbed down so much, so they're literally compatible with women, children and animals.
Also there's a few content platforms but none of them are really important as they only live through games and none of them is remotely strong enough to really influence the gaming market or prevent games from being successful.
That goes for indie AND regular games. For example minecraft and battlefield 3. None of them were on Steam but both largely successful.

I have a ton of games on Steam but I couldn't care less for the platform. There are still a ton of options for DRM, including streaming types of content delivery.

The age of publishers isn't over by far - since publishers are responsible for fostering games (sponsoring, making them happen) while content platforms only sell them.

It's like this:
Developer: chicken in a cage laying eggs.
Publisher: Farmer who owns the chicken, feeds them so they lay eggs.
Content platform: Super Markets who sell the eggs.


Saying that content platforms are going to kill publishers is the same as saying Supermarkets will now also produce the eggs and not just sell them.

Not an argument, but a comment.