After having the firmware on two of my previous DVD drives destroyed by that malware masquerading as software known as SecuROM, I vowed that when I finally upgraded my gaming PC, I would never let any game that had SecuROM anywhere near it.

Anyway, I now have a new PC which is SecuROm free and I intend to keep it that way.

So, today I'm looking on Steam and I see Dragon Knight Saga on there. I read some reviews and thought that this would be just my kind of game, then looking closer, I see that the Steam version comes with SecuROM embedded as well. WHAT THE HELL! Steam is already a form of DRM, why did you need to put another layer of DRM on top of it, especially one as malicious as SecuROM?

I am more than happy to have Steam on my system, as it has never given my PC any problems but would it really have hurt to have just used Steam on it's own? Due to this ludicrous decision, you have now lost a sale from me...I guess I'll keep playing the Steam version of Fallout: New Vegas a little longer.

Pirates crack any SecuROM game within days anyway and they don't get their DVD drives rendered useless...unlike paying customers!

Feel free to google all about the massive problems many thousands of users all around the world are having with SecuROM.

If you search around you can find ways around the securom nightmare and still enjoy the game. I doubt I would be permitted to go into further detail but there are ways to enjoy games without ruining your system.

Um, its the publisher's decision and they use it to determine sales.

Let me guess what really happened. You were trying to update your firmware to your drives so they can accept Securerom, you probably did something wrong or the company who made the drives and the firmware screwed up.

If Securerom actually messed up your firmware, that is pretty rare, to happen to you 2 times means that something else is wrong and it is not securerom.

How can Suckurom mess up firmware? I thought it just looked for the DVD/CD -- which makes no sense for a download though. What does it do for a download? Check that my internet cable is plugged in?

It disturbs me, because someone else mentioned that suckurom also causes game bugs if it thinks something is wrong -- how do I know if I've encounter a game bug or if it's a suckurom feature? At this point, I don't know enough about the game to know how it is supposed to behave -- like I went to kira's flying fortress -- and on about 70% of them, the enemies were invisible -- ok that's fine. But when I hit them, they just stood there like statues. Even enemies that were visible just stood there like statues!!!

I didn't know if this was some securom 'feature', or it was a game bug, or if that's how it was supposed to be. On some of the platforms, the characters attacked normally, and on 2 other flying platform type areas, nobody was frozen -- so I can only guess that this was intentional, but it felt like slaughtering sheep. I felt I should do it, though, in case I came out from some room and everyone started jumping me -- better to clear them on the way in, I thought, than be surprised on the way out.

But I still don't know -- so much of that level was just killing frozen/dummie 'monsters' (enemies, whatever)....

Someone is telling me that SecurRom may be at fault in my download version in corrupting the game play as well...

That's just peachy!

How can I get a version that has this Securom bug fixed? I don't
need a version that corrupt game play randomly -- makes for a crappy experience -- considering that it's impossible for me to put a CD in my drive with a download version!

Yes, it could do that. There was a lot of threads (in Div2 ED section) about securom triggers working on legal version.

But you can't do anything about that xcept using crack/nodvd.

And someone told me, that then it went and ate my neighbours dog and proceeded to dig up all my dead relatives.
Look. Div2 is not the first nor the last game on Steam to use other means of DRM than Steam itself. From Larian's track record i can also tell you that the DRM will almost certainly be removed with a future patch.
No sane person likes DRM. In many cases i have been forced to use cracks for my legally obtained older games, because the type of DRM used is incompatible with todays OS-es. There is no reason for such an obnoxious witch hunt though. Securom is certainly not the worst kind of DRM around these days. Have you played any Ubisoft games recently? Even Steam has its problems as a DRM, the offline mode is not the most bug free thing since sliced bread.

Yeah, I know I could use various cracks and whatnot, but I prefer not to get involved in all that malarkey.

I know it is not Larian's fault, but surely they deserve to know that their publisher's decisions have an effect on their potential customers. Then they can try to convince the publisher to try something different.

You would not believe what SecuROM can do to your system, given half a chance. It does far more than just check for a CD/DVD. Google "reclaim your game" for a website that details the DRM related woes of lots of people.

If they get around to removing SecuROM in a future patch, then I will certainly purchase the game, until then I can happily live without it, after all upcoming games like "The Witcher 2" won't have any of that crap, so I won't exactly be short of games to play.

As for my so-called witch hunt, in what way have I been obnoxious? I am only expressing my concerns to the developers of the game, if they feel my concerns are justified, they can pass on those concerns to their publishers, if not, they won't. I don't have a problem with publishers using DRM if they must, even if it's use has a negigible effect on piracy, my main issue was the complete overkill of having 2 forms of DRM in one game- both Steam and SecuROM. I'm glad you don't find SecuROM too bad, compared to some other forms of DRM, but everyone's PC is different, with different specs, configurations and components, therefore reacting differently to the same software. I know what SecuROM did to my old computer, so I refuse to take the risk with my new top spec one.

I can tell you from personal experience securom can and does mess your system up as it has happened to me several times, my first issue was after installing the Bioshock demo. After installing Bioshock and securom, it proceeded to screw up my DVD drives and render them unusable. Essentially after the install, Windows could no longer see them, regardless of what I did updating drivers, uninstalling the demo/securom, reinstalling Windows, they were simply invisible and unusable. Soon as I formatted my system as in zeroing the damn thing out, like magic they reappeared, reinstall securom and poof gone like David Blaine all over again.

This has happened to me on several occasions, with different games having securom on it. Sometimes it doesn't happen and other times it does, but it only happens after installing a game that has securom in it. As soon as my system is wiped the drives work flawless until I take the risk in installing securom again. securom is not much better than Malware, there are much MUCH better solutions if the publisher/developers feel they really need copyright protection.

This!

How is that relevant? I'm talking about Securom causing game bugs in playability. These are real problems, not the bull you are coming up with. It would be one thing if securom said it found a problem, and to tell me I needed to correct it -- at least then I would know there was a problem, but this business with it altering game play is just ridiculous, since you don't know if it is a game bug, or what the problem is.


I haven't because they haven't produced anything worth playing enough to tolerate their DRM. Seriously! If they didn't have the DRM, I would have tried a few titles, but given the bad rep of the DRM and the so-so nature of the reviews, it wasn't worth it. On any game title, I figure in the DRM as a negative -- like the recent versions of Assassin's Creed -- I tried the first version, and wasn't horribly impressed (the DRM wasn't too bad -- just an activation thing), but I REALLY wanted to try AC-II, it looked so much better, but it's DRM requirements were a complete show stopper for me. Plain and simple. They lost a sale for something I wanted to buy. Similar problem for Bioshock 2 -- I found a cheap copy of Bioshock I in the bargain bin for $10. Decided to give it a try -- I couldn't get it to activate -- kept saying it couldn't contact the authorization servers -- so again, Bioshock II was a non-starter.

These stupid publishers that put in Crap DRM -- ARE losing sales -- because their DRM stops the games from working on more and more people's systems.

So don't tell me I should put up with DRM that alters my game play to make it unplayable because others are worse -- I don't even buy those -- and I would because they look very cool, but the DRM puts me off every time. I *buy* my games, only time I used a hack was on a game (Oblivion) that I purchased (and purchased all the extensions), only because I didn't want to keep inserting the CD (I only had 1 drive at the time and needed it for other things). When I play a game I want to be able to pause the game and switch in and out -- to go do other things like work -- I use the games as break (or is it that I use the work as a break from the games? )....but the games need to play fair with my system -- at least the more recent versions of securom no longer lock me out when I'm running process Explorer -- there was no reason for that -- and ProcExp, I have that in my auto-start, it's something I always have running. One version of Suck-U-Rom, was so bad, that if you had run ProcEXp, any time since boot, it would detect that fact and refuse to run -- it required you to reboot!! You had to NOT run procexp before you ran that game, and anytime you did work after that -- if it required procexp, you were screwed -- since you couldn't re-enter the game w/o another reboot. Stupidly lame. Thank god they fixed that bit of stupidity...

Believe me, the amount of loses (customers) is very small, compare to successful "hits". Nobody cares about such minority.

@Astara: The bug you encountered is solved in the next patch. It should be released in the next couple of days (hopefully tomorrow). We're making the installers now and when we finished testing those, we'll put it online. The same bug was responsible for the overpowered dudes, the invisible npcs and some other artefacts. It didn't show up during testing because the QA guys usually approach the game in a different way than typical players do, and this particular bug requires a set of specific circumstances to be in place. Given that DKS is gaining in popularity, we're obviously seeing more reports of it, and support has been quite busy with it. If your savegame was affected by it, send it to us and we'll fix it. When you continue playing on a fixed savegame, chances are low that it'll occur again as it's an accumulation of a lot of things, but if you have the patch, it definitely won't occur anymore.

Re: Securom: Speaking as a player, DRM drives me nuts too. For two games I bought this year I had to go look for a crack myself as I couldn't get them to work (though they were use something different than Securom). It understandably pissed me off, even if I can understand the reasons for including it. I know this argument has been done many times before, but I'm actually quite interested in a viable alternative. Afaik, experiments done show that no copy protection is worse than having copy protection. Or am I wrong ?

Since you have replied in this thread Swen, was it secuROM fail? Asking just to clarify some things.

Is that an alternative to DRMs that cause trouble or DRMs in general? For the former, Impulse Reactor is worth looking into. It does not install anything on the user's computer.

I suppose my own opinion is that people are basically honest except for those who aren't. Which isn't such a clever-arse comment as it might sound: the point is that the sort of people who make copies are highly unlikely to buy a legit copy anyway so it's not a lost sale; the sort of people who are likely to buy a copy anyway are unlikely to settle for an illicit version because that's what they do.

You will get a few waverers who might settle for an illicit copy if they think that they can get away with it but I suspect that education is a more effective means than force, whereas people who've "done the right thing" and been penalised may be more inclined to take an alternative route in future.

I'm not sure it's possible to even estimate the percentages in question since the argument has been dragged this way and that by various interested groups so I can only go on my personal opinions and experiences of those I know: which is that the above pretty much applies. In short, intrusive DRM does more harm than good since those who won't pay will continue to not pay but those who paid willingly will become less willing if they have a bad experience. And those bad experiences are the antithesis of user education since it gives doing the wrong thing a sort of legitimacy.

I can say that what will incite me to buy are nice odds and sods in collector's edition type packages that you won't get by simply pirating the game, such as maps, art-books and assorted other odds and ends. I think it's important for these things to be some sort of tangible goods rather than a digital add-on as there's always the temptation to pull an EA and make the "added extras" content that were actually cut from the game, which tends to be a bit of a PR gaffe when discovered.

Anyway, just my personal thoughts (and rather rambling ones at that!) on the subject.

Thank you for taking the time to reply to the topic of this thread in person.

My personal suggestion for an alternative to SecuROM would be for all retail DVD copies of the game to be tied to Steam, pretty much like recent releases such as CoD:Black Ops and Fallout:New Vegas. Steam itself is a form of DRM and you are already selling digital copies of "Dragon Knight Saga" through Steam, but with SecuROM embedded as well.

If you did this, I would buy your game, as I have had nowhere near the number of problems with Steam DRM, as I have had with that destructive malware crap SecuROM!

Precisely!

Reward paying customers with a nice book of lore that they can read, a cloth map or a little figurine. Don't punish them by putting malware in your game that destroys their computer! It's not exactly rocket science is it?

Ugh, no. I think that would ruffle quite a few feathers as there's no benefit for Larian to do so. They've not added DLC (Beyond armour packs on Xbox Live, I believe), there's no multiplayer and they'd not be taking advantage of Steam.

Impulse, sure, I'll go with that as content management, but Steam? I don't really see the point.

To be honest, as long as it's not SecuCRAP, I'm not bothered what DRM solution they use, as long as it works (-I mean works in terms of calming the suits, as we all know that DRM is no deterrent to determined hackers-) and doesn't shaft my PC.

SecuROM isn't bad, though. It's one of the "better" forms out there, and I'll honestly say the only time I remember it giving me hassle was with DarkStar One when it decided that the disc wasn't in the drive even though I'd literally just finished installing it.

You'll find horror stories with all forms of DRM - Steam, Impulse, SecuROM, TAGES, Starforce, UbiSuck's lovely system and so forth. There's no "good" DRM, and thankfully most "bad" DRM doesn't exist any more.

Edit: That said, I don't see why publishers attach DRM to digital versions that require clients, such as Steam. Seems a bit pointless, truth be told.

It's bad enough: it's annoying being forced to reboot your computer if you've used Process Explorer or various other forms of innocuous software (which also makes me wonder what they're trying to hide, but that's another matter) and it has caused problems with me accessing my DVD drive in the past. The limited activations present in some implementations is also something that concerns me.

Even if these things aren't immediate problems, they're still potential risks, and as something that really serves no useful purpose, it shouldn't be there. Obviously I can only speak for myself and if others don't have a problem with it then that's their business, but it does discourage me from buying games encumbered with it. Almost put me off buying FoV and it has successfully put me off buying other titles.

I disagree. There are far worse alternatives and implementations of DRM out there. At least with Securom and Div2 you will get an activation back if you uninstall. I just bought Risen, that has Tages DRM. Guess what? You get three activations and that's it. If you use them up, you must go and beg for more activations from the publisher.

FEATHERS RUFFLED

NO TO STEAM

Thankyou very much, as highly as I rate Larian, if they made their games to require Steam then they loose a customer.

And I wouldn't be the only one.

Steams customer service is that diabolical that if they were based in the UK I would have payed them a visit and kicked their damned doors down, they still owe me money though I know I can kiss it goodbye.

Use Steam by all means, but not only, leave gamers to make their own choice as to which DRM they prefer.

Bethesda dropped the ball when they made Fallout NV Steam only, they lost customers and created a whole bunch of brand new pirates out of the some of the people who wont or cant use Steam.

I havent been able to play F NV as while I wont have Steam, I'm not a pirate and never have been.

I think it stinks for game companies to FORCE people into having to use an interfering, spying, limiting, take over your pc peice of 3rd party software like Steam.

If you like Steam, good for you, but dont force it on me.

Have we used the same version of Steam? Yours sounds completely different to mine.

Perhaps he uses some other Steam services? Underground one may be? :P

You are wrong. All forms of DRM only hurt legitimate purchasers of your game - this thread should be evidence enough.

People that want to purchase your game will do so regardless, although many will either skip it or pirate it, if it has a particularly obnoxious form of DRM.

Conversley, the people that were going to pirate your game, also will do so regardless. All forms of DRM are cracked withing days of game release.

Therefor, the only thing you've achieved is forcing some people, that initially were prepared to purchase your game, to prirate it instead, due to obnoxious DRM.

You are biting the hand that feeds you.

Some developers/publishers, like CDPro Red, Stardock etc. are beginning to realise this and are acting accordingly by releaseing their games DRM free. They will however be value adding in some way and/or making it necessary to be a registerd user to download patches/updates/DLC etc... a much better way to go.

Well, DRM has one plus: if you want patches and support - you will buy the game, coz you can't use te patches with juarez-version of the game. Release groups don't do patches. Well, they do, but only for a rare set of the games. Mostly VERY popular ones.

I was going to say something similar during my arguments, but as I had already been accused of conducting an obnoxious witch-hunt after my first post, I didn't think anyone on here was ready to hear this. Regardless, you are entirely right! So, yeah, reward your customers Larian, don't punish them!

I would be more than happy having to download updates, patches etc, as a registered user than I would be having dodgy DRM clogging up my OS.

Ok, Lar_q, I have a solution, it might be awkward to implement due to ending up with different skus, but how about keeping the current system with SecuROM on all the different versions of DKS...EXCEPT for the Steam version. With the Steam version, just use Steam itself as the DRM. Don't worry about the 3 activations limit because Steam only allows 3 copies of the game to be installed on any one user's account.

If I'm being entirely honest however, I would go with the user who recommended Impulse Reactor, particularly if it doesn't install any crap on my system, but I'm assuming you wanted the 3 install limit left intact, which is why I suggested the idea above.

I think everyone knows that DRM does not work except to make money for the company's that produce DRM.

There are two types of pirate.
One downloads a game and plays it to its conclusion having no intention of purchase.
The other downloads a game, plays it for a hour or so, if they like it they buy it, if they don't like it then they delete it from their computer.

One is a thief and the other is just being careful with their money.

Thanks for all the input folks, after posting in another thread asking about the differences between the 360 and PC versions, I've been persuaded to go with the 360 version.

It may not be quite as good as the PC version, but at least my PC won't get shafted!

I guess all there is left to say is: Screw you SecuROM!

You're wrong. Steam allows you to install the game as much as you can.

Sorry, I should have been more clear, you are allowed to install and uninstall as much as you want, but you can only have your account (plus games) installed on 3 computers at any one time.

Listen it doesn't matter, SecuROM is being removed... it was even posted on these forums several times that Larian was going to remove secuROM like they do on all their games.

Please bear in mind that the fact that you have had no problems with Steam doesn't mean thats the case for everybody.

For all you guys that use Steam and have had no problems with it, I'm happy for you and long may your problem free use of Steam continue, and I really mean that.

Because when things do go wrong you'll find out just how useless and uncaring Steam support actually is.

Steam could be a great platform for gamers, and to some extents already is, but what really lets it down is the fact that in more and more cases its being forced on gamers that don't want it.

ALL GAME COMPANIES SHOULD ALLOW THEIR CUSTOMERS TO CHOOSE.

We are the ones handing over the money and when I pay for something it either does exactly what I want the way I want or I dont buy it, thats my right (and yours) as a consumer.

So far, the guys at Larian have proved to be absolutely outstanding with their support and backup and even just the fact that they're on the forums and being involved with their customers should set the standard that other game companies should try to achieve.

They have released DKS for sale from their own online shop, through Steam etc, and a retail version for high street shoppers will/is also available and that gives people the choice. Why on earth would anyone want future releases to be Steam only?


As for any form of DRM, games companies are wasting time, effort and money, it won't stop pirates, EVER.

All the way through from distant history to the present day, code breakers have always outsmarted code makers and any form of DRM is a code.

The only use DRM on games has is for counting the activations of said game, thats it, nothing else, zip. Its a data collection tool.

Don't blame the game devs, its the publishers that insist on it, but once again that means its the legitimate customers that have to put up with the shite these things cause, I often think DRM creates pirates as folks dont want this crap on their PC's.

Its time for the gaming industry to give its head a shake and listen to the people who are handing the money over, US, ME, YOU.

You have a choice; Buy a game with Steamworks DRM or don't. That's your choice, and even then games with compulsory Steam(works) DRM forms a minor number of releases.

If a game has to come with DRM, Steam or Impulse would be my first choices. Why? Because I support both systems of delivery and management, and I think they're the way forward for gaming. The only games that are Steam-only tend to be indie releases. You can still buy New Vegas from Direct2Drive or a retail version of it. There's one exception for the PC that I'm aware of, which is F1 2010, but that's all I can think of at the moment.

Meh. I've got Dawn of War 2 which uses Steam and Games for Windows Live. DRM just doesn't bother me these days, and it's not worth getting in a fuss about for the most part. Yes, it can cause issues, but so can your audio drivers or your anti-virus. Publishers are waking up a little, though, because it's becoming more common for DRM to be either removed or neutralised by later patches.

Maybe I've just been lucky with regards to DRM, but the number of people who (Usually!) have issues with DRM are dwarfed by the number of people who don't.

If that's the case, I'll get the 360 version now, then the PC version, when SecuROM has been removed and there is a sale on for it.

No, you are wrong again.

The Steam copy protection (GEG or just plain ownership check) allows you to install the game on infinite amount of PCs (L4D2, Serious Sam HD remake for ie).

In DKS case it's secuROM and it's 5 activations, not 3. This protection scheme hasn othingto do with Steam.


Have you read that post carefully? The protection will be removed after 3-4 years.

Btw, personally, for offline games I prefer secuROM over Steam. Because with secuROM u can just activate the game and play it offline, without starting steam or without Internet connection, but Steam one requires persistent connection to Steam servers.

Oh, and if you think that Steam protection has less disadvantages then you are wrong: sometimes, steam authentication servers does not respond, sometimes, the game just hangs at steam's startup screen and nothing can help; sometimes, it says "the game currently unavailable." Such things happens even for a free games, like ASW!

Just corrected that for you.

I don't know how to break this to you, but you can run Steam in offline mode as well you know...or am I wrong about that as well?

How can you run Steam in REAL offline mode without internet connection? I can't, it says "No internet connection available".

Also, regarding to your fix: I just activated the game here, everything is still ok.

It depends upon the game; I hear that it is more common for games without multiplayer to not require an internet connection.

Ah, but don't forget Steam does have some security with it. Valve have said there is a working patch which, if the Steam service ever goes down, will be deployed and I believe it removes the need to connect online.

It's not the best solution, of course, but it's better than nothing.

You might want to look into what Stardock does with their games like Gal Civ 2. I know it is hard, especially publishers to accept, but maybe consider no DRM and require the game to be registered to get updates or some DLC later on. Stardock did this and while I can't find a sales number article at 2am, I remember reading on IGN years back their Gal Civ 2 sold over a million copies blowing their expectations away. http://forums.galciv2.com/106741 <- in their own words

I do NOT support pirating games but I am realistic about it, the people that want to buy the game are going to buy it, like me. Those who don't or can't afford to buy the game though and pirate it are more than likely not going to buy it, even if they can't get a pirated copy. I think publishers/developers sometimes get caught up in the mentality that every game pirated is a lost sale when, in reality the vast majority of them are probably not. Don't get me wrong, it sucks that you guys/gals don't get 100% of what your hard work deserves, but I really think the one misbehaving means the other 99 must suffer rule is kind of silly.

I think if developers/publishers would start trusting their fans a bit more they might be surprised by the results. Of course that is just my opinion

Kind of a shitty choice, dont you think?

I'll tell you what it boils down to, its my money and my computer, I spent the dosh and I built it, I'll say what goes on it, not some ott intrusive datadigger like Steam, what I play or how often or for how long is my bussines and so called achievements mean jack, I dont like what Steam offers, I dont want what Steam offers, I play for me, nobody else. If Steam had played fair with me when things went wrong I probably wouldn't feel so strongly, but I still wouldn't have liked being forced to use it. After the way they acted I now know I can trust them about as far as I could dropkick a Range Rover, I'll have nothing more to do with them.

As for offline mode, dont make me laugh, do you really believe that?

Check your net traffic while your in so called offline mode, use your heads, how on earth does it know theres patches available when its supposed to be offline?

And said patches are forced upon you whether you want them or not.

As for Fallout NV, you can buy it where ever you like but you still need Steam installed to play it, so where you buy it from also means jack.

As for Valve releasing a patch that will make all games none Steam dependant if Steam goes tits up, bovine cack! are you seriously telling me that you think they would relinquish all that control? Thats even more bullshit. They would sell that control to the highest bidder and that winning bidder would squeeze you for every last penny they could get. And the Steam SSA you agreed to would mean they could do it quite legally too. Theres coffee on the stove, time you woke up and smelled it.

You Steam fans make me laugh, if anyone was forcing you to do something in any other area of your lives, you'd all be screaming blue murder.

I'll leave you with this thought.

A monopoly is never a good thing no matter how well intentioned.

Steams intentions are making money and having total control, so keep feeding the monster if you wish, but it will all end in tears.

I have a laptop that is very rarely ever connected to the internet, and I play all of my single player games on Steam with no internet connection. You just need to play the game at least once when connected to the internet, and from there on out you can play Steam games in single player not connected to the internet. Make sure you log in offline mode.

Believe it? I no for a fact that it works in offline mode. The only way my laptop is connected to the internet is either I plug in an Ethernet cord from a router or I plug in my wireless adapter. Guess what, I play my single player games all the time in offline mode when not connected to the internet.



Only speculation on your part. I could say the same exact opposite and it would only be speculation on my part. In other words what you just said there is meaningless, you have no proof or even an example of it happening in the industry.

What people forget is this is a consumer driven market. Valve and other game distributors depend on us not the other way around. If you don't like Securom, then don't buy it, thats it, you have cast your vote. I myself don't care and most don't. If your so mad, go over to piratebay and yell at the pirates who have caused all the DRM craze in the first place.

I myself really enjoy steam, some parts of it annoy me like it having to connect to steam every time I play a game. I would much prefer that it just does a single check and than just makes the game run without future checks. But Steam has great sales as in game prices, it is convenient and often my local game stores don't get new copies of PC games for weeks after release if ever at all. Hell I wouldn't be playing Divinity 2 right now if it were not not being sold on Steam.

Much like Securom though there are ways around Steam and one could play the game without ever connecting to Steam.

The problem is no one knows what the pirated numbers even are, are companies losing 1,000,000 game sales or 100. Is it still an issue or has this just become so ingrained that logic no longer matters. I don't think as I have stated above that most of the pirated downloads would translate into sales if all the pirated copies were unavailable.

All I know is several of my friends started to actually buy games for the first time in years during the hay day of Starforce. So many of the popular games protected with Starforce remained uncracked for up to a year that my friends got impatient and started to buy these games.

It's the choice. Steam or no Steam with some games, and it's no different to, say, Sins of a Solar Empire requiring Impulse past a certain update level nor a game requiring SecuROM to run. Steam is just one thing publishers can use, but like Impulse, Valve have made Steam more attractive to both the publisher and the user by making it useful


No. It has an option to disallow updates.



Steam is in no danger of becoming a monopolistic entity.

Knight Flyer, just so you know, there was a Digital Distribution company that was going out of buisness, and Steam bought them up. Guess what Steam did with all of that companies customer accounts and their games? All their accounts got transferred to Steam for free. No company that buys out another company for their accounts is going to charge those customers again for their games, that would be beyond stupid and a huge PR foobar.

Also, patches are not forced, there is an option to turn off automatic updates, has been like that since release day of Steam, same with Offline Mode when not connected to the internet.

Have you even ever used Steam?

Than you might want to reconsider your choice of friends. =) Being serious, that is great to hear that it worked for them, but I can toss out a couple of friends that have stopped buying games due to DRM. I myself stopped buying anything with securom in it for a while until I found a way to get around it.

it likes steal to use temporary but still you are a thief.
think you want to buy an xbox360 from a shop since you careful with your money more you steal that for a testing purpose like how games work on xbox360 and what are drawbacks? but it doesn't matter u careful with your money you have stolen the xbxo360./! then you become a thief at first place.
cause people can't read your mind so they don't believe your story.
now who are the master of thieves??

It already is a monopolistic entity



You like Steam, so we will never agree, but time will tell.

Yes its speculation, but my speculation is much more likely than yours and that equals a meaningful speculation.

lol, Your speculation is more then likely? Based on what? Like I have already said, other Digital Distributions have gone out of business only to be gobbled up by another Digital Distribution service, and nothing bad happened to the customers from the old service. Your speculation has no merit what so ever, especially when reality has shown different.

Also, I have been using Steam since it has released, and I have never had a time where I couldn't play my single player games on my laptop in offline mode. Not one time have I ever not been able to play my games because Steam wanted me to connect to the internet first.

Also, I have several games that I have set not to do automatic updates, and guess what, they never get updated unless I tell it to.

Here is one fact, you have never used Steam, period. The things you say are so far from reality it is not even funny. Ok, at best you probably used a beta version of Steam before it released.

How is it?

Let's look at this piece of news. Retail was still ahead by 2m units, and right behind Steam is Direct2Drive. That was earlier this year, and I doubt it's changed by much.

With Impulse, Direct2Drive, GamersGate, Metaboli etc selling digital copies of games, Steam can not be a monopolistic entity. It has competitors, and those competitors often carry games that Steam doesn't (And, in return, Steam carries games they don't). The vast majority of PC games do not require Steam (Nor utilise Steamworks as DRM), either.

Only Steam forces you to install their full software package and takes over your game installs in order to activate a game that you have already PAID FOR in a high street shop.

Only Steam makes you dependant on having their software installed and continually running to continue playing the games that YOU have already paid for.

Only Steam makes you agree to a EULA that is illegal in most EU countries in order to play the games that you have PAID FOR.

Only Steam States that if they go tits up they can ply a patch that will make all your "Steam powered" games none Steam dependant, a patch that can do that? Really? If that was so, the pirates and hackers would have already sussed it and done it.


So Steam's not a monopoly?

Yeah right.


Stop letting the fact that you like Steam blind you to the facts about it.

I never said it would stop your games being Steam dependent, I said it would neutralise the need to connect to the internet.

As for your second point; Uh, what about Games for Windows Live? What about Rockstar's Social Club?

And the first point? Impulse. Games for Windows Live.

Valve do not have a monopoly on digital sales, game management nor the PC market. They cannot be a monopoly because the competitors are out there and are succeeding. I think you've got your definition of monopoly wrong, Knight Flyer.

Oh, and P.S. I'm not really a big Steam fan. I'm more... Impassive towards it.

We're not going to agree on this as I'm not going to change my mind and my definition of monopoly is accurate.

You may think Valve/Steam isn't a monopoly but give it time.

To me, Steam is a growing monopoly and I believe its going to keep growing, which could be good news for people who have a lot of money invested through buying all their games through it. Then again, some not very nice surprises may be not to far ahead.

The big shock that may come is if/when Valve start charging a monthly subscription for using their software/service, something every Steam user agreed to accept if it was ever implemented as it is provisioned for in the SSA / Steam Subscriber Agreement. Don't scoff at that and say it will never happen, they made provision for it for a reason.

If it did happen it would be stinker as it would mean cough up or you don't get to play your games, hope it never happens for you guys but its one to bear in mind if you've bought a lot of games through Steam.

As I said, we're not going to agree so we may as well put this one to bed, lets see what another year brings.

Regards, KF

I'm surprised no one blamed Obama yet

Just so you know, Cyber Cafe owners are also subject to that SSA, and they do get charged a recurring fee. So yes, it is there for a reason, just not the reason your paranoid self thinks it is. Also, it would be considered to be bait and switch for them to start charging us to play our games that we have already bought, download them as many times as we want, and download patches. IF Valve ever did that they would be in a world of hurt with legal issues and more then likely put themselves out of business.

If they ever wanted to start charging a monthly fee to access the games one has bought, download them, and download patches, they would have to do it for future games where those terms are spelled out before buying those games. We have a better chance of winning the lottery while getting hit with lighting 2 times before Valve would do a boneheaded thing like that.

It's obviously Obama's fault, that's why we even didn't mention him.

My paranoid self is starting to think that you are rather naive.

This is business as far as Valve are concerned, they're not doing what they do purely for your entertainment or to not make money.

What you have missed is that by using Steam, you have agreed to the SSA, in the SSA there is a paragraph that states that by agreeing to the SSA, you have agreed to the fact that they may in future charge a subscription fee and that you agree to pay that fee in order to continue to use Steam.

So, if they start charging a subscription fee, you have already agreed to pay them or stop using Steam.

If you stop using Steam you will loose access to your games, the games you have already paid for.

There would be no legal issues as you have already agreed to pay them.

So before you call someone paranoid I suggest that you take a look at all the facts, ie: read the SSA.

I think I know what section you are talking about, but I am understanding it in a different way then you are.

But lets say you are right. Do you seriously believe that Valve would do such a boneheaded thing like that? Seriously, who in their right mind would pay a monthly subscription to play their fully bought games that is not an MMO, especially when there are other avenues to get the game that does not require a monthly subscription, like buying from other Digital Distributors or even buying the physical copies. The only way Valve could have any hope of making that work and not go out of business, is if the whole industry did it as well, meaning that you would even have to pay Gamestop a monthly fee to play any of your physical copies of the game you bought from them, or Go Gamer, or even Wal-Mart.

"Can they" and "Would they" are completely different things.

It would be a bloody awful thing to do in my opinion, but:

"Can they" equals - they can.

"Would they" equals - if they thought they could get away with it.

Theres no sympathy in business and to them, gaming is business.

Huh. The only thing I've gotten from this thread so far is that someone in the UK has no idea what a monopoly is. No, your definition of a monopoly is so far from "accurate" that it's ridiculous. A monopoly prevents competition. Valve hasn't. What exactly do you think that they have monopolized? Requiring you to run a software program means monopolization? No. That's called DRM. A company protecting their software from being pirated has next to nothing in common with a company crossing the boundaries on preventing competition.

Valve is not the only seller of ANY product other than their own games.

Your speculations are a complete joke. You are fear mongering over something that would be horrible horrible HORRIBLE bad business on part of Valve. They are doing great in revenue as a result of their distribution system and are making money hand over fist on sales that publishers and developers are incredibly happy to take advantage of. Never before has their been an easy to find marketplace for video games that include all the big names in PC, right alongside indie developers. And more often than not, indie developers will have a spotlight right on the homepage providing a sale for those games.

Did you sleep through economics? Using your econ book as a pillow apparently gave you your definition of "monopoly" as well as your thoughts about where Valve is going to go in the future.

Why would it be boneheaded?

Do the figures - Valve claim to have over 30 million active accounts. Imposing a $5/month "maintenance fee" would bring in an extra $1.4 billion per year, assuming an 80% acceptance rate, with virtually no extra work needed on their part.

The only downside would be the loss of new customers but that could be countered by buying in more "Steam exclusives" - half of the $1.4 billion should cover a fair few, leaving the rest for other things (Bugatti Veyrons, lap dancers, champagne, etc).
Any subscriber with more than, say, $100, linked to their Steam account who would face considerable expense trying to obtain (legitimate) non-Steam versions.

With Steam, Valve have a life-or-death power over all your purchases which they have been perfectly willing to exercise.

Given this and the increasing incentive for Valve to force a subscription fee onto purchases, I would consider Steam the most dangerous form of DRM available. No other system has the same ability to hold you to ransom (other digital distribution systems like GamersGate or Impulse could pull a similar stunt, but you would only lose the ability to reinstall if you refused). GOG is the only safe digital distributor being totally DRM-free.

And for those extolling Steam's offline mode, there are plenty of reports of it not working. If Valve do intend to bring in a subscription fee, then it would clearly be in their interest to keep it from working properly - anyone care to suggest another reason for it not being fixed after so long?

Try finding a copy of Napoleon: Total War, Civilization V or Half Life 2 that doesn't require you to use (or create) a Steam account. That should refresh the memory of what a monopoly is.

You know this same claim was brought up by Activision against Valve, who in turn said 'What the hell are you talking about?"

Valve does not have a monopoly, a monopoly would be Valve making all the profits and desginers being FORCED to work with Steam, no one forces a developer to do so, and though I am not sure (maybe Larian can confirm or deny) but Steam allows you to use a distributor and get a much larger profit back as Steam wouldn't charge as much as say EA would per copy to distribute your product.

LOL. That's not a monopoly. You still do not get it, do you? Valve does not own the rights to the game (except for HL2), the publisher does. If the publisher chooses to use Steam as their only outlet for gameplay, that's their choice.

The ONLY way that would ever be considered a monopoly by any court, regardless of country, is if those software titles were required to run on something like 50% or more of the world's computers. This is why Microsoft got into trouble with Internet Explorer. Are you required to run those games? Uh... no. There's no argument you can possibly come up with where anyone is going to reasonably agree with you that you have to be able to run those games to function. That is not a Valve problem (again, other than HL2), so take those problems up with the publishers. You might as well say that game stores that have exclusive DLCs have a monopoly on those DLCs. "Exclusive deals" are not the same as a monopoly.

And on the topic of Civilization V, you don't have to buy it through Steam. Yes, you have to run Steam to play the game, but once more, you don't have to buy it through Steam. Monopolies are ONLY monopolies (by definition!) if you can only BUY from one entity.

Stop confusing what you think should be considered a monopoly and what is, by definition, a monopoly.

Exactly. Setch is dead on. Any claim of Valve to have any monopoly, in any form, is laughable at best.

Well said Stargazer

Its nice to see that someone else can also take a clinical view of Valves actions and see the possible future outcomes of millions of gamers blindly agreeing to an SSA that they can't be bothered to read or simply don't understand.


To others:

I know full well what a monopoly is, it seems that some of you do not, some of you seem to argue rather too fiercely, its almost as if you think that by arguing as you do, that you will make what you want to happen, happen.

There's a large flightless bird that does what you're doing.

You can argue all you like, and you can chuck all the insults you like too, as it won't change my opinion, Steam is a monopoly and its growing.

I never hurled any insults, I am stating from my point of view that it is not a monopoly, and can never be one. Should Valve decide to try and turn it into one, well the US government steps in and forces them to break it up. Its an old law that still comes into affect alot, there was (though for the life of me I can't remember) a case recently where a company had a perceived monopoly here in the States and so the government forced them to split into 3 companies or shut down operations.

As long as Valve is within the US they can't go for, or try to become a monopoly as it would end up cutting them apart in the process, and then there would be all the angered customers who having bought products from Steam would be at the new companies throats in order to get money back or a hard copy product shipped to them at no charge.

Now, the reason I say it is not a monopoly is that no one forces anyone to buy from Steam, it is a choice. There is no developer that is told by Valve, you must have Steam for this game, it is a choice made by each studio. Valve does not own the rights to all distribution (Which in itself disqualifies it as a monopoly anyways) with competitors like impulse, D2D, etc Valve can never have a monopoly unless they buy out every single one of their distribution competitors which won't happen.

A true monopoly is a 100% control of a select good with no competition to worry about, which as stated Valve has competitors. You must also have 100% control of the ingredients needed to make the product you have complete control over, which Valve being one game studio compared to all the game studios that make a choice to put their games on Steam, as well as/or in other distribution means disqualifies this. For Valve to gain a monopoly they need to shut down all other online distributors, then they need to close out all the stores that sell games without the use of Steam, and then they would need to get control of every game studio to force Steam to be the only choice.

TL,DR

It will never happen, Valve is not, nor will it ever be a monopoly as they don't have the necessary control to be one.

Heh, the only thing I've argued thus far is that nothing will happen. As in, they are not a monopoly, do not have the control needed to form one, nor the leverage to convince publishers to allow them to become one. On top of that, customers in the US are some of the most litigious people in the damn world and are always shouting "monopoly", yet no one here seems to be pointing their barrel towards Valve. You say they're a monopoly but of what exactly? I can't even begin to see things your way when thus far the only argument I've seen for them being a monopoly is "I know what a monopoly is" and "they are a monopoly" with no reasons suggested. How, economically, are they a monopoly? Does the UK have a different definition of monopoly than the US?

At least in the US, Bait and Switch litigation would happen, and the plaintiffs would win. EULAs/Service agreements like those are legal gray area, and have been thrown out of court as being invalid agreements.

After you saying this, not sure why I am responding to you, cause you don't know what you are talking about obviously.

So Securom, Starforce, Tages, Games for Windows Live, all must be monopolies.

You don't know what a monopoly is.

For an informal, but detailed, description of a monopoly, please review Wikipedia: Monopoly and take particular note of the following sentence:

...a monopoly...exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

Valve/Steam has exclusive control of access to any Steamworks game (you cannot use it without creating a Steam account and agreeing to the Steam Subscriber Agreement) so this should be a no-brainer.

In legal terms, definitions may vary - under UK law a monopoly is defined under section 6 of the Fair Trade Act 1973, to quote:

(1) For the purposes of this Act a monopoly situation shall be taken to exist in relation to the supply of goods of any description in the following cases, that is to say, if—

(a) at least one-quarter of all the goods of that description which are supplied in the United Kingdom are supplied by one and the same person, or are supplied to one and the same person, or

(b) at least one-quarter of all the goods of that description which are supplied in the United Kingdom are supplied by members of one and the same group of interconnected bodies corporate, or are supplied to members of one and the same group of interconnected bodies corporate, or

(c) at least one-quarter of all the goods of that description which are supplied in the United Kingdom are supplied by members of one and the same group consisting of two or more such persons as are mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, or are supplied to members of one and the same group consisting of two or more such persons, or

(d) one or more agreements are in operation, the result or collective result of which is that goods of that description are not supplied in the United Kingdom at all.

Since Steam was estimated to have 70% of the digital distribution market share in November 2009, this should constitute a clear monopoly of the digital distribution market under UK law. If you include retail (which was estimated as only slightly ahead of digital in July 2010) then that still gives Steam a 30-35% market share, again qualifying for monopoly status.
None of these are distribution channels (with the possible exception of GFWL) so your argument has no merit.
"Bait-and-switch" involves false advertising - in contrast Valve have been upfront on a subscription fee since the EULA you agreed to (the Steam Subscriber Agreement) includes the following in section 4B:

Valve reserves the right to change our fees or billing methods at any time and Valve will provide notice of any such change at least thirty (30) days advance...Your non-cancellation of your Account or an affected Subscription thirty (30) days after posting of the changes on Steam means that you accept such changes.

So if Valve bring in a regular fee, you can opt-out by closing your account. Bit of a pity that it entails losing access to your entire Steam collection though.
EULA provisions have been ruled enforceable by the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. in September 2010 (specifically overruling the First Sale Doctrine). With this, any breach of an EULA could result in the customer being sued for copyright infringement (see the EFF's analysis).
I'm in full agreement with you there Knight Flyer.

The vast majority of users do ignore EULAs due to their length and complexity which is understandable - especially since with "normal" software there is little real possibility of the software publisher being able to enforce every aspect of them.

However DRM systems like Steam change the rules - enforcement (by blocking access) is trivial and can (and has, in Valve's case) been done arbitrarily and in ways that damage consumer rights.

It seems highly likely that Valve's past and possible future actions could be judged illegal under UK or European law, but since Valve has no UK/EU presence, legal sanctions cannot be enforced (the EU Competition Commission acknowledge this in their response (PDF) to a complaint about Valve's European pricing). Redress would have to be sought via the US legal system which, as noted above, now has a strong precedent supporting EULA terms and conditions.

It is still not a monopoly they don't control enough of the market in order to be considered as such, they need 100% control as I stated before, of their goods, which in this cause is video games, which means they need Impulse, D2D, Fileplanet (In some cases), and almost every storefront selling non-steam games to close up shop or be bought out to do so, they then need to make sure that every game studio that makes a game is set to a contract of forced use of Steam. Should they gain even one of those, the US government will step in with the old 'trust buster' law and take the company apart to prevent a monopoly from ever happening again. Should this be a service outside the US (Which Steam is controlled by Valve and thus a US interest) the law would not apply. Steam is not nor will it ever be a monopoly because there are too many competitors out there, what Steam is, is a brilliant distribution platform, that while having flaws, ensures a high level of feedback and profit for developers whoever they may be.

The legislation which I linked and quoted above shows they only need 25% of the market as far as the UK is concerned.

If you are going to post a response, at least show the courtesy of reading and checking links that others supply.

Wrong. Monopolies are not illegal - it is abuse of monopoly power that is. The US government does not break up every monopoly and there are several examples of legal monopolies still running today. Odds are that your computer is running an OS produced by one of them...
Any digital distribution system can offer better profits for developers. The issue here is about the conditions imposed on users. If you choose to ignore the risks posed by DRM such as Steam's, you'll only have yourself to blame should the worst come to pass.

Very well worded and very informative posting on your last few posts Stargazer.

The facts have been displayed in this very thread (thanks mainly to your posts) and people still refuse to take them onboard, as it seems they don't want them to be true, or is it that they don't want to be wrong ?

The human psyche never ceases to amaze me.

I've been told that I don't know what I'm talking about, that my definition of "monopoly" is flawed and that I must have slept through economics, strange when you take into account the fact that my business sense made me succesfull enough to retire very comfortably two years ago at the age of 41


To others:

The lesson to be learned here is that whilst you may not agree with what someone is telling you, and that you may doubt the authenticity of the statements that you are being presented with, you owe it to yourself and others to have a full understanding of the situation that you are about to argue about.

To argue the case for something purely because "thats the way you want things to be" or "thats what should happen anyway" will not make it so.

The information required to make learned decisions about nearly every topic under the sun has never been more readily at your fingertips and only takes seconds to aquire, its a mouseclick away.

Agreed. While I have seen some inaccurate complaints written about Valve and Steam, on the other hand I think that some people are a bit too quick to trust them. Having been on the wrong end of unhelpful attitudes to customers more times than I can count, I'm not really prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt if there's a risk that something could go awry; and as such, I use Steam because I have to, not because I want to. Which is rather the point, really.

Bingo, and very astutely put.

This is unfortunately the case for many "Steam" users and in this day and age should not be so.

As I think I stated earlier somewhere in this thread, if people were being forced to do or use something in other areas of their lives, they'd scream blue murder.

Why should Valve get away with it ?

I never said it had anything to do with the UK though, legal definition being 25% in the UK, well it is different in the US, it requires alot more control of the markets. The Reason I did not look at the links you provided is I am arguing against considering Steam as a monopoly as it doesn't fall under such a category in the US, not against the service fees should they decide to begin charging them. More towards the point of service fees, though Valve has stated they could impose fees the likely fallout of doing so would do more damage to the company then it would do good. Who knows things may change but it seems like alot of 'woes me' drama put onto Steam that doesn't make sense to me, though I would also wonder what the legal terms would apply to each individual game and if a client could request hard copies shipped to them at no cost as the steam version is legally their's (the person buying) and ths their property not Valves.

You are speaking UK to US, I am telling you there is too much in the US going on with the games industry for Steam to be a monopoly here, maybe they are considered elsewhere but not by US legal standards.

Though I am suprised you did not bring to light that Electric companies are allowed and encouraged by the government to maintain monopolies within their respective counties, such as CELP here in my town.

We're not talking country to country, we're talking globaly.

As already posted by Stargazer:


For an informal, but detailed, description of a monopoly, please review Wikipedia: Monopoly and take particular note of the following sentence:

...a monopoly...exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

Valve/Steam has exclusive control of access to any Steamworks game (you cannot use it without creating a Steam account and agreeing to the Steam Subscriber Agreement) so this should be a no-brainer.

Stargazer made mention of the UK being his basis, as for the games we shall have to see if Valve were to charge a fee, I doubt they would but you never know as has been stated stranger things have happened before, like Blizzard selling to Activision.

Also don't ever use wikipedia, it can be edited by anyone and is not a credible source, its a great place to get you started looking but should not be the end of it.

You can't use any game that has Securom without activating it online. The game is then activated to your hardware, instead of being activated to an account, but really just 2 sides of the same coin. You cannot reinstall a game after 3-5 times without first making a phone call and begging for a reactivation, if you did not first uninstall the game if the game happens to have a revoke with it.

Steamworks, Securom, Tages, Impulse Goo, ect are all DRM who do the DRM protection differently, and according to what you guys are saying are all monopolies.

Then why are you bringing up games that use Steam as a DRM and claiming it to be a monopoly for that reason, then disregard all the other games that use a different DRM system that really is on the same coin as Steam just the other side. There are more games that use Securom then there are that use Steamworks. Securom games are tied to your hardware and to activation servers, change your hardware you lose access to you game, servers go away never be able to install your game ever again. Steamwork games are tied to your account, also tied to a server, lose either one lose your games as well. So Securom must be a monopoly, right?

So, what do you want to talk about, Steam as a monopoly as a distribution or steam as a monopoly as a DRM? If you want to talk about Steam as a DRM, then you need to realize that there are far more games that use Securom as a DRM then that use Steam as a DRM. Steamworks isn't used nearly as the only DRM for a game then Securom and Tages are.

As for Steam as a monopoly for Distribution. No one is forced to buy games through Steam, consumers have many many other options to buy their games both physically and through digital distribution. Just how many games are on Steam that you can only buy through Steam? Would it be 25% of the games in the market? no where near that. Now you can't say, well look at this (game), you have to create an account on steam to play the game, cause then you are going back to Steam being used as a DRM, and at that point you have to take into consideration the other forms of DRM and realize they are much bigger then Steam is and are monopoly as well according to your definition.

Just so you know, Steam has 70% of the digital distribution market not because Consumers have no choice, it is because they choose to use Steam as their preference to buy their games. There is nothing that Valve does that forces people to buy their games from Steam. So what is Valve supposed to do? Turn away customers stating they have to many customers?

How are you being forced to use Steam to buy your games?

Or are you talking about Steam being used as the DRM for a game? If you are, therefore you should also be complaining about Securom, Tages, and other forms of DRM as well.

Because I don't "do" piracy. Unless you mean the choice of game I want to play isn't important, but personally I wouldn't want to replace Half Life 2 with Halo or New Vegas with Big Rigs. Call me picky if you like.


As I do frequently. But that's not what was being discussed here.

'Tis a sad fact of online forum debates - no-one can see or prejudge other posters (in the flesh, I guess you'd have enough grey hairs to give you clear seniority! ) and the (false) presumption of anonymity removes the need for some (including myself at times) to moderate themselves. It's easy to misread the intentions behind a post (such as mistaking an intent to educate and inform for arrogance or bossiness) and hard to 'fess up to a goof in public.
A company with 25% share can exert considerable influence over the rest of the market, if the circumstances are right. I've not quoted US law since (a) I'm less familiar with it and (b) you have multiple state legislatures as well as the Federal law to consider. Doubtless someone else more informed in this area can provide better info.
Really? There'd be PR fallout to be sure but that would hardly amount to much compared to a possible $1.4 billion/year extra income. And should Steam continue to grow, the amount they could rake in via a maintenance fee would increase geometrically since they could charge more per account (due to those accounts having more purchases locked in).
YOU DO NOT LEGALLY OWN THE GAMES YOU PURCHASE ON STEAM.

Sorry to have to stress this point but the Steam Agreement makes this clear near the beginning at section 2A:

The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software.

At the very least, take time to read the agreement you're bound by - the licensing clause is far from the most problematic in consumer rights terms. And it is this specific clause that was upheld by the Ninth Court in Vernor vs Autodesk that I linked to above.
The federal law covering monopolies, USC Title 15 Chapter 1 Section 2 (aka the Sherman Antitrust Act), does not include a definition of monopoly, which would leave it to a court to decide on a case-by-case basis. A 70% market share however would seem to qualify given that a previous successful anti-trust action (the DRAM price fixing scandal of 2001-2) involved companies with a combined marketshare of 81.2% in 2002 (according to EE Times: DRAM bulletin).
Public utilities tend to be natural monopolies - as long as they are effectively regulated to prevent them abusing their power, this position can benefit consumers by providing economy of scale in supplying services (i.e. one big water company can supply customers at a lower cost than several could with multiple pipeline networks to maintain).
If SecuROM Online (to distinguish it from their disc checks) were a distribution channel then I would agree with you. However end users cannot buy anything from them so the situation is different. Also since different game activations are not, as far as I know, tied to a single personal account they do not have the leverage to impose extra fees that Steam, Gamersgate or Impulse do ("Hey look, SecuROM wants to charge me five bucks for this twenty buck game - well I'll tell them to shove off" as opposed to "Hey look, Steam want to charge me five bucks for this account with, uh, $300 worth of games on it - oh sh*t.").This activation requirement, while obnoxious, is not on Steam's level (activation every time you start a game) and doesn't pose the same risks to privacy or have the same leverage to extort future fees.

However I find it unacceptable, and if anyone from Larian is reading this thread, I will point out that I am boycotting FOV for this reason alone. I've purchased all your previous games (including Divine Divinity twice by picking up a DRM-free copy from GOG). You clearly have had feedback from customers showing extreme dissatisfaction with this DRM so why not show the courage that CD-Project has and release DKS/FOV on GOG?

Well I posted earlier, Larian has stated several times they are removing SecuROM though it was back on... page 3 I think, there are a few topics on the steam forums themselves about SecuROM in DKS, lets see if I can grab the links quickly.

http://www.larian.com/forums/ubbthr...79&Main=25668&topic=0#Post424679

http://www.larian.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=424332#Post424332

Edit - Bloody links >.<

Thanks for the links - I'll follow up on those later.