>- A few hours ago, I wanted to play a game, but guess what... Steam had a network problem [1] and didn't even let me enter the offline mode.

I think Steam is a really good (not shitty) DRM enforcer. A very occasional lapse in service is acceptable for entertainment platforms. I use steam because it is actually easier to use their DRM systems than it is to, for example, buy CDs or download individual game installers.

> A very occasional lapse in service is acceptable for entertainment platforms.

I would generally agree that this is acceptable, but it's still a step backwards from Itch and GOG, where my library literally never has a lapse in service. Steam is arguably one of the best DRM solutions out there, but even the best solution on the market still has worse uptime and reliability than a store that just provides users with a bunch of DRM free downloads that they can launch offline whenever they want.

Of course, platforms like Itch don't have cloud saves. But Steam's DRM isn't essential for cloud saves, or for the community workshop, or for the storefront, or for the library management tools. The DRM part of it doesn't add any value to the consumer. So while Steam is an excellent product, Steam without DRM would still be a better product than it is right now.

That's what people mean when they complain about DRM. You can take a great product and add DRM in a way that doesn't completely break it, but it's still pretty much always a strict downgrade in user experience. People look at services like Steam and think, "yeah, this is acceptable. But it could so easily be really great."

> "Of course, platforms like Itch don't have cloud saves. But Steam's DRM isn't essential for cloud saves,"

To this point, GOG supports cloud saves.

>I think Steam is a really good (not shitty) DRM enforcer.

It may be a good DRM enforcer, but as a UI it's terrible and intrusive. There's no way to turn off all those popup messages and game related alerts.

I had to give up on steam once they started doing that.

Well, actually, there is in the steam settings.

And to be fair, not every game on Steam comes with DRM attached to it. I have many games I can play without launching Steam itself.

I'm surprised to hear that there are non-DRMed games on Steam. Do you have an example? I thought it was standard that every game released on Steam that doesn't have some awful third-party DRM like Uplay has the Steam launcher code patched into the executable. Valve has some tooling for doing this even to existing legacy exes that can't be rebuilt from source.

Valve has their DRM solution ([1], "CEG"), but the DRM is fully optional, as it needs to be applied by the game developer to their executable before they upload their game.

I don't have good examples in mind right now, and I would need to double check, but I am pretty sure I was able to launch Supreme Commander 2 trough wine directly with the game executable, without launching Steam some time ago. I also recall "Tyranny" doing a free week-end, after which I could still launch the game trough the executable (although steam refused to launch it). That was a Linux game, though, and could be slightly different.

I would roughly estimate that more than 20% of my Steam library does not have DRM attached to it. There are a couple lists out there that help find DRM-free games on Steam [2][3][4], etc.

Some game developers advertise this as a feature of their game on Steam. For others, it could be an oversight. I find it pretty convenient in any case (example: copy FTL on a USB stick for playing on the go, even without internet connection on an underpowered computer). It also helps with wine.

[1]: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/drm

[2]: https://steam.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games

[3]: https://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/The_Big_List_of_DRM-Free_Games...

[4]: https://store.steampowered.com/curator/7540156-DRM-Free-Game...

Kerbal Space Program on Steam is not DRM-ed. I can launch it without Steam running, and it doesn't automatically launch Steam client or anything, the game just starts up.

The Netflix issue isn't really DRM, it's just a way to minimize bandwidth[1]; they found HQ 720 encodes to be sufficient quality for most consumers. I personally find it lacking.

[1]: https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/per-title-encode-optimiz...

I pay for 4k netflix but can't watch it on my computer because of drm. On Chrome it only streams up to 720p, and I have to use Edge for 1080p. To stream 4k you need to use their microsoft store app, a specific high-end processor or graphics card, and on top of that you also need a monitor that supports hdcp 2.2. I have all of the above (1080ti and hdcp 2.2 compliant monitor) but still can't stream 4k because my second monitor is not hdcp 2.2 compliant. The monitor states that it is but I couldn't get it to work even after extensive research. All of my setup is pretty modern and high-end and I still can't stream 4k netflix because drm hardware keeps evolving. If this is supposed to make me pirate less, it's not very effective.

I have a 1080ti too, 2x HDCP2.2 (over DP) compatible monitors and a 1 gbps connection and yet I can’t even stream 1080p content on Linux, much less 4K.

I guess it’s still me to blame because I pay for it for friends and family who use my account.

Anyway check your cable if your monitor states that it’s compatible.

Ah this actually explains something I have been wondering about. My new computer with firefox sometimes hitches and blacks out all the screens when I start/stop watching certain netflix content. I just realized this must be a DRM thing.

Nah, it's a DRM thing. You get 4k if you open it in edge with their PlayReady DRM.

There are (or at least were) some titles which even Edge didn't show in HD, but the Windows Store application does (did). But even then, certain drivers like virtual audio devices might restrict all available methods to lousy SD quality that requires a full reinstall of Windows to reset.

The blog post you link explicitly mentions that they have 1080p streams (and since then they have added 4k). That post makes no claims about 720p being sufficient for consumers.

And if you have the right combination of browser, os, Intel CPU, GPU and monitor to have intact DRM of the required level, Netflix will stream you the 1080p or 4k stream

It states it depends on bandwidth, sometimes 720 is served. I certainly receive 720p in aus.

I think this is the most important point.

Consumers are not going to put up with all sorts of shenanigans regarding browsers, monitor support etc. etc. - it's an ugly mess.

If it 'just works' - then I think most people will accept 'paying for content' as a premise.

But when the pieces don't fit together because industry players don't see the 'big picture' ... it will just be bad for everyone and ironically encourage piracy.

Looking at Netflix's numbers, they are.

Bluntly I expect Netflix could stop supporting PCs and browsers entirely and feel very few negative effects.

Actually I think it would be painful. They could get away with it, but not without remorse.

There are just tons of people who watch netflix on their laptops and mobile, it's part of the promise I think.

It'd be bad.

Makes one wonder why you're still bothering to pay money for something you're not getting...

Nobody cares about pirating, it's when the masses are able to do the pirating easily and get the content easily that is when things break down.

That is what DRM is about preventing.

If some knowledgeable people can copy it and put it low-fi on some competitor of Youtube and Google doesn't show in in search results. That isn't that bad. That means the general public won't easily find it.