Pirating as a 'demo'. Your opinions?

[boki]

Care to say what game and what dev it was? The word must spread. We must stay informed!

Stardrive. Good game, but released as unfinished, and developer stopped working on it to work on stardrive 2.

[therapist]

I don't consider logging in for updates to be DRM.

I consider it DRM because they are "managing" your "rights" to update your "digital" product. Do you consider being forced to log-in to play multiplayer DRM? I do. The only thing left to be considered DRM is logging in to play single player, the most hated and revered of all the forms of DRM. If the the devs didn't try to manage the ability to update the game, I wouldn't consider it DRM but having to log in to an account to gain access to ANYTHING seems fairly DRMish to me. Alot of games (less often with indie titles nowadays) offer updates or an auto updater WITHOUT logging in, this is the DRM free approach to updates.

Does anybody know how people who purchase the game on steam will receive updates thru steam rather than thru the in-house DRM? If they use steam to get updates, then that would guarantee the updater packages would become pirated very easily and quickly, they pirated release of update packages could even become automated if steam is used to disseminate update packages.

[Khyron]

I consider it DRM because they are "managing" your "rights" to update your "digital" product.

Nonsense. Factorio's updater system is opt-in. DRM means you don't get a choice.

Besides, logging in is just a process to establish your identity. Without a recognised identity you are indistinguishable from a person who has not bought the game. Since people who have not bought the game have no "rights", it's completely fair to require a login process in order to receive any service from the developers.

Doubly so when the developers are under no obligation to release updates.

[starxplor]

Technically, by the definition of the name, logging in to get updates is DRM, it is managing the rights/restrictions of access to a digital system(downloads).

The question that seems to be argued here, is if this is legit restrictions, and tangentially, are any restrictions legit.

Very few people involved in any way with copyright would suggest this is not a legit use of restrictions, even those like me in the FLOSS community. Keep in mind, Factorio is not FLOSS, and I have never seen it claimed to be free/libre. If it was, and then requiered such a login, there would be grounds for heavy complaints.

[therapist]

I consider it DRM because they are "managing" your "rights" to update your "digital" product.

Nonsense. Factorio's updater system is opt-in. DRM means you don't get a choice.

If i said multiplayer is opt-in and enforced by loggin, would that be DRM, if a game's single player is "opt-in" and requires a login to play, do you consider that DRM?

Besides, logging in is just a process to establish your identity. Without a recognised identity you are indistinguishable from a person who has not bought the game.

That is the very definition of DRM

Since people who have not bought the game have no "rights", it's completely fair to require a login process in order to receive any service from the developers.

Oh relax, no one is saying it is a human right or anything, the word "rights" has multiple meanings. Digital "Rights" Management doesn't refer to a person's "rights" under the constitution or inalienable rights of all men like those established in the magna carta, the word "rights" just refers to the ABILITY to use a product the way you want, update that product, the "right" (ability) to play multiplayer etc.

Doubly so when the developers are under no obligation to release updates.

You are acting like we are using the "Rights" like from the USA Constitution or "inalienable human rights", we are not using the word in this way. In this context, the context of DRM and Video Games, Rights are the unhindered ability to do something. If you are hindered (forced to log in) then that is considered DRM.

[muzzy]

I consider it DRM because they are "managing" your "rights" to update your "digital" product.

There's no universal "right to update". You bought a license to the game which came with a promise of access to all the future patches. This isn't an implicit right of any kind, it's something you're entitled to because it was promised to you when you bought a copy of the game. To fulfill their end of the deal, the developers provide patches to all their paying customers but not to anyone else.

An updater that requires a login is not DRM. It doesn't restrict any actions to the works in question, there are no technical limits to what you can do with the content you have. The only issue is with the content you do NOT (yet) have, i.e. the works you have paid for but which have not yet been delivered. This is what the updater is, it's a mechanism for the developers to uphold their promise to provide the patches, not a restriction of any kind. It isn't there to limit or manage your rights, it is there to provide you additional content that you have paid for.

[muzzy]

In this context, the context of DRM and Video Games, Rights are the unhindered ability to do something. If you are hindered (forced to log in) then that is considered DRM.

Oh boy. You just defined all forms of commerce to be DRM. Having to pay for a product before playing it is hindering your ability to play the game too, you know. Is it DRM that you have to pay?

Engaging troll mode.

[therapist]

The question that seems to be argued here, is if this is legit restrictions, and tangentially, are any restrictions legit.

Very few people involved in any way with copyright would suggest this is not a legit use of restrictions, even those like me in the FLOSS community. Keep in mind, Factorio is not FLOSS, and I have never seen it claimed to be free/libre. If it was, and then requiered such a login, there would be grounds for heavy complaints.

I certainly never meant to imply the restrictions are not legitimate, the devs can do whatever they want with their game. Even apply lots of DRM to it.

All I was pointing out, is that DRM and restrictions have been implemented, and we can easily extrapolate the assumption that multiplayer will contain the same, or possibly even more restrictive DRM for online play.

You are wrong about one thing though, you can make your game DRM free, and still charge for it. You can have multiplayer FILLED with login based DRM, and still supply updates for free on your website (better and cheaper to offer updates on third party download mirror sites).

In my mind, adding DRM can be attributed to 1 of 3 possible causes:
1. A big F.U. to the pirates. By that I mean, an effort to slow down or disrupt the easy automation of uploading torrents of the game to the internet, and to hinder a pirate's ability to update his game without downloading the entire game over again.
2. A practice "dry run" for developing a login system for the multiplayer. The same system that authenticates and tracks the updates of users who download updates will likely be the same system that is ultimately developed and adapted to implement DRM for Factorio's Multiplayer.
3. Protecting server bandwidth from reverse DOS and high bandwidth bills. If you do not need to login to get updates, a person COULD write a program to download the update files over and over and over and over again, which would cost the developers precious bandwidth, and maybe even money if they are on a pay-per-gigabyte hosting plan with amazon.

[therapist]

I consider it DRM because they are "managing" your "rights" to update your "digital" product.

There's no universal "right to update". You bought a license to the game which came with a promise of access to all the future patches. This isn't an implicit right of any kind, it's something you're entitled to because it was promised to you when you bought a copy of the game. To fulfill their end of the deal, the developers provide patches to all their paying customers but not to anyone else.

An updater that requires a login is not DRM. It doesn't restrict any actions to the works in question, there are no technical limits to what you can do with the content you have. The only issue is with the content you do NOT (yet) have, i.e. the works you have paid for but which have not yet been delivered. This is what the updater is, it's a mechanism for the developers to uphold their promise to provide the patches, not a restriction of any kind. It isn't there to limit or manage your rights, it is there to provide you additional content that you have paid for.

It restricts the action of updating the game, unless you comply with the login. Do you believe logging into multiplayer or logging in just to play single player to be DRM? If not, what in the heck do you think DRM is?

See my other post about the difference between the word Rights and the word Rights, there are more than 4 meanings of the word rights, and I don't think anyone is trying to make the case for some "inalienable human right to get video game updates" thats just silly.

In this context, the context of DRM and Video Games, Rights are the unhindered ability to do something. If you are hindered (forced to log in) then that is considered DRM.

Oh boy. You just defined all forms of commerce to be DRM. Having to pay for a product before playing it is hindering your ability to play the game too, you know. Is it DRM that you have to pay?

Engaging troll mode.

Um... Are you engaging in troll mode or are you implying I am trolling you? Perhaps my definition you quote was too broad, but you must understand my point:

Many games give updates without login. Many games allow multiplayer without a serial key or login to a central authentication server before you play. Some games actually force you to login to the internet and authenticate JUST TO PLAY SINGLE PLAYER. All of these things are considered DRM, or Digital Rights Management. You are taking a leap in logic I did not intend to make when you say that simply asking people to buy a game or product before they play it is DRM. I never said or meant to imply that, and I think you are attacking and poking fun at something I did not say. You are pointing out flaws and absurdities in an argument I did not make, probably because you think because I'm a pirate I oppose anyone ever paying for anything, this is untrue and unfounded, and a flase assumption on your part about me.

[Khyron]

Besides, logging in is just a process to establish your identity. Without a recognised identity you are indistinguishable from a person who has not bought the game.

That is the very definition of DRM

So just to get this straight, my email account which requires me to log in is DRM enabled, but a region-encoded DVD does not have DRM since there is no login process.

DRM is a concept with out a single, unifying definition. Nobody owns the term. If you want to pretend what you're arguing is a common definition of DRM I can't stop you. I would simply say that it's a very unusual or extreme-case definition. To me this is like someone pointing out that tomato is a fruit. I still buy my tomatoes in the vegetable section at the market. Perhaps you'd like to formally define what you think DRM means and then compare that to what you might find on Wikipedia or the EFF.

If you are hindered (forced to log in) then that is considered DRM.

[citation needed]

[muzzy]

The updater mechanism doesn't imply ANYTHING about how Factorio intends to implement multiplayer. There is simply no connection whatsoever. Updating the game and multiplayer are two completely different things.

It restricts the action of updating the game, unless you comply with the login.

Nope. It does NOT restrict the action of updating the game. It restricts the action of downloading a patch, which is not an action directed to the copyrighted work you have at your disposal (the patch is a separate work, although a derivative one). This mechanism therefore does NOT apply any restrictions to the use of the game in any way at all, and it therefore is not a form of DRM.

The access to updates is a privilege you have bought (and the purchase is being authenticated as you use the updater). By demanding updates without a login, you're basically saying the developers should provide the game to everyone for free without checking if the customer paid or not.

[therapist]

Besides, logging in is just a process to establish your identity. Without a recognised identity you are indistinguishable from a person who has not bought the game.

That is the very definition of DRM

So just to get this straight, my email account which requires me to log in is DRM enabled, but a region-encoded DVD does not have DRM since there is no login process.

Yes, that is DRM, don't you want to manage the right of access to your email account so noone else can have access? I've answered your question so please, answer mine, is logging in just to play multiplayer DRM? Is forcing players to login to authentification servers just to play single player considered DRM to you? Are you not answering the question because the answer is, "Well of course that is DRM" I'm not going to twist your arm into saying that login just to get updates is DRM just because you admit the other two are DRM, i'm just curious how you define DRM if you disagree with my definition thusly.

DRM is a concept with out a single, unifying definition. Nobody owns the term. If you want to pretend what you're arguing is a common definition of DRM I can't stop you. I would simply say that it's a very unusual or extreme-case definition. To me this is like someone pointing out that tomato is a fruit. I still buy my tomatoes in the vegetable section at the market. Perhaps you'd like to formally define what you think DRM means and then compare that to what you might find on Wikipedia or the EFF.

So, because no one owns the term, it has no definition at all? The words DRM mean something. In the world of gaming, DRM means something different than it does for the world of music and the world of Operating System DRM.

In video games, we refer to it as DRM when a game tries to force authentication to gain access to multiplayer, singleplayer, additional content, or, (in my very wide view of DRM) updates. Because other games offer updates without a login, any game that requires a login or similar management and authentication COULD be considered to be DRM.

[citation needed]

You yourself have asserted the term is decentralized and not owned, what authority do you want me to cite in the definiton of DRM if you do not believe any authority could exist. I believe the word has meaning and I could easily cite article that talk about SimCity's DRM requiring you to login to play multiplayer, I could cite articles that expressed outrage when DRM was implemented in StarCraft 2 that required an internet login and authentification just to play singleplayer or LAN games, but you have said you will not respect such sources, because no one owns the term, and no defintion can be made correct, except possibly the definition on wikipedia that has absolutley NOTHING to do with gaming and DOES refer to the DRM of Software Application, Operating Systems and even Music.

[therapist]

The updater mechanism doesn't imply ANYTHING about how Factorio intends to implement multiplayer. There is simply no connection whatsoever. Updating the game and multiplayer are two completely different things..

As i had said, this is an assumption I am making. Perhaps no Login will be required to play multiplayer, but I think you are being intentionally open minded or thick here just to prove your point. The possibility that the devs would lock-out updates without a login, and then require NO LOGIN for multiplayer is an assumption I find MORE absurd than the assumption I have made. One of our assumptions is going to prove incorrect, and if you are a betting man as I am, I have a wager for you. I'd be willing to put money on the idea that multiplayer will require the same or even further login than he updates currently require, and I base that on no other fact than the idea that the devs thought it wise to require login just to use the auto-updater. One of us is correct, and one is mistaken although we do both make assumptions. Quite an exciting game of intellect assumptions can become.

Nope. It does NOT restrict the action of updating the game. It restricts the action of downloading a patch, which is not an action directed to the copyrighted work you have at your disposal (the patch is a separate work, although a derivative one). This mechanism therefore does NOT apply any restrictions to the use of the game in any way at all, and it therefore is not a form of DRM.

"It does NOT restrict the action of updating the game. It restricts the action of downloading a patch"
I think you are splitting hairs here, what is the difference between downloading a patch, and updating the game? Seeing as how we all bought the FINISHED game, and DID NOT just pay for whatever alpha version was availible, i think i AM entitled to updates and I DO NOT consider updates to be some kind of "bonus". After the game is released I will agree with your point, but until we get out of alpha, I AM entitled to updates for free, and that includes every update until version 1.0 comes out.

The access to updates is a privilege you have bought (and the purchase is being authenticated as you use the updater). By demanding updates without a login, you're basically saying the developers should provide the game to everyone for free without checking if the customer paid or not.

Again, you use the word "privilege" as though I am trying to make a case for the "right of gamers to update" or some sillyness like that. Also, I am not demanding anything, I simply point out an extra restriction was recently ADDED to the game's auto updater. Never once have I demanded the login go away, I just remember using an auto updater that did not ask for my password to the factorio site. This raised serious concerns for me that my password could be taken out of the program in the same way passwords are commonly stolen from the WOW login program, the World of Tanks login program, this kind of password theft is commonplace nowadays and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[muzzy]

Seeing as how we all bought the FINISHED game, and DID NOT just pay for whatever alpha version was availible, i think i AM entitled to updates and I DO NOT consider updates to be some kind of "bonus". After the game is released I will agree with your point, but until we get out of alpha, I AM entitled to updates for free, and that includes every update until version 1.0 comes out.

You were promised all future updates, yes. However, downloading a new different alpha build is not an action towards the current copy you have, therefore requiring the login to get a new build is not a form of DRM. The things you can do with your current copy of the game are not limited in any way whatsoever.

I simply point out an extra restriction was recently ADDED to the game's auto updater. Never once have I demanded the login go away, I just remember using an auto updater that did not ask for my password to the factorio site. This raised serious concerns for me that my password could be taken out of the program in the same way passwords are commonly stolen from the WOW login program, the World of Tanks login program, this kind of password theft is commonplace nowadays and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the discussion about DRM.

Meanwhile, when was it added? I think I only wrote my password once when I installed the game and never again, and it's been a while... and it doesn't seem to be stored in plaintext anyway (although I don't know if the saved token is derived from password or if it's something generated by the server)

[Khyron]

I've answered your question so please, answer mine, is logging in just to play multiplayer DRM? Is forcing players to login to authentification servers just to play single player considered DRM to you?

Honestly, I wouldn't care to guess as to the architectural reasons why a hypothetical game might require authentication for a single player or multiplayer session.

They might have done it to ensure people paid for the service (aka DRM). They might have done it to allow access to your personal data (like a server-side savegame, credit balance from microtransactions, etc.) They might have designed their system to be server-side architecture to prevent or manage item duping or other exploits. They might do it for match making (player skill). Most likely it's a combination of factors.

So, because no one owns the term, it has no definition at all? The words DRM mean something. In the world of gaming, DRM means something different than it does for the world of music and the world of Operating System DRM.

[citation needed]

What I mean by [citation needed] is that i believe you are making an unsubstantiated claim. Your choice of words makes it read as if what you are stating is fact, rather than personal opinion. If it's personal opinion you should change your wording to read "... to me, DRM means" or "...my understanding of DRM is...". If you believe it is fact, then give a citation. In this context, a citation is a link to some other person's definition or a quotation. Choose your citations wisely. A link to "some guy's" blog is not a good citation. A good citation would be to an industry recognised body, like the EFF, or a standards body, like the ITU or IEEE. You should choose a citation that is appropriate for the subject matter. For example, you wouldn't choose a sugar farmers union to make a citation about the dietary requirements of children.

You yourself have asserted the term is decentralized and not owned, what authority do you want me to cite in the definiton of DRM if you do not believe any authority could exist. I believe the word has meaning and I could easily cite article that talk about SimCity's DRM requiring you to login to play multiplayer, I could cite articles that expressed outrage when DRM was implemented in StarCraft 2 that required an internet login and authentification just to play singleplayer or LAN games, but you have said you will not respect such sources, because no one owns the term, and no defintion can be made correct, except possibly the definition on wikipedia that has absolutley NOTHING to do with gaming and DOES refer to the DRM of Software Application, Operating Systems and even Music.

No, you misunderstand. I do acknowledge Blizzard and EA chose to implement an "always-online" DRM for Starcraft and SimCity (although I think that's no longer the case with SimCity?). Where I think you're somewhat confused is that just because there's an authentication mechanism doesn't necessarily mean it was created for DRM purposes. In general, I think DRM is annoying because it is usually implemented in a ham-fisted way.

Finally, I'll point out that you have rather arbitrarily chosen that the login method hampers your ability to update the game. What about the fact that you require internet access to download the updates? Shouldn't the developers be obliged to send you disks in the post? But that would require you to go to your mail box to collect the disks. So shouldn't they come to your house and install the updates for you? But that would require you to answer the door and let them in. My point is that, once again, it is at the discretion of the developers to decide what method their company is able to distribute updates. If you don't like it, you can seek a refund. But I'm sure that's also at their discretion.

[therapist]

You were promised all future updates, yes. However, downloading a new different alpha build is not an action towards the current copy you have, therefore requiring the login to get a new build is not a form of DRM. The things you can do with your current copy of the game are not limited in any way whatsoever.

So if I understand you correctly, you do not consider it DRM because my current version of the game I have installed is not hindered in any way from running and does not require a login or other forms of DRM to operate?

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the discussion about DRM.

Meanwhile, when was it added? I think I only wrote my password once when I installed the game and never again, and it's been a while... and it doesn't seem to be stored in plaintext anyway (although I don't know if the saved token is derived from password or if it's something generated by the server)

WOW and WOT and all other saved passwords are not stored or sent in plain text, although they are stolen by malware programs none the less. I found this relevant to DRM, because you can't steal my password if it isn't required for something as basic and routine as checking for, and obtaining updates. Tokens are a fine work around, but still leave the opportunity for a malware program to delete the local token, and wait for the user to reenter his login info, and alter the location that data is sent to, or alter the way in which that data is transferred. Again, having no DRM of this kind would certainly mean that pirates could update very quickly without authentifcation, but factorio has a pirate community already who seems to have a grudge against the devs and because of this updates are always released the same day as they are to the factorio website. This makes me feel like I'm being opened to risk, and forced to put my very secret personal password into a program that is not as secure and hardened to vulnerability as my browser is. The devs simply cannot offer the same focus on password security inside of their program as a large browser development team, and I really don;t think they should expose me to the risk if the pirates get to have free updates anyway. I don't see who wins in this scenario, its a sort of lose-lose scenario.

I believe the DRM (or whatever you want to call it) was added in 0.9.0 but it could have been 0.8.0. All I know is, before the liquids update, there was no login required for updates.

Actually now that I think about it, the updates on the pirate bay uploaded by trusted uploaders dont require the login and password, I could bypass the whole mess by using the pirates for updates instead of risking my password running through the factorio executable. (Piracy is actually legal if you own the digital rights to a product, it isnt illegal to access a product you already own even if it is from a pirate source) It's an unsavory trade-off to make, but putting your password into a video game is a really bad idea for alot of reason, even if I got a virus from a malware embedded torrent, that wouldn't cause my passwords to become at risk. Besides which, trusted uploaders on pirate sites gain trust by uploading torrents malware-free over several years and are banned or discredited for letting malware slip into their torrents, so the risk of malware is kind of over-hyped by the adversaries of pirates here on the forums. I'll have to think about this more.

[Khyron]

...but putting your password into a video game is a really bad idea for alot of reason..., even if I got a virus from a malware embedded torrent, that wouldn't cause my passwords to become at risk.

That's your concern? There's no risk if you use a unique password for each account. This is basic password security stuff.

[therapist]

Honestly, I wouldn't care to guess as to the architectural reasons why a hypothetical game might require authentication for a single player or multiplayer session.

Is the reason you don't care to guess because you don't want to admit that developers do things like this as a way to implement DRM? I'm not talking about "some hypothetical game here" I made examples of SimCity, Starcraft 2, and Factorio.

They might have done it to ensure people paid for the service (aka DRM). They might have done it to allow access to your personal data (like a server-side savegame, credit balance from microtransactions, etc.) They might have designed their system to be server-side architecture to prevent or manage item duping or other exploits. They might do it for match making (player skill). Most likely it's a combination of factors.

Right, for games like Diablo 2, alot of what you said is true about duping. For a game like world of tanks, the microtransaction part is true. Which of the reasons on that list do you think applies to factorio's requirement for a login to get updates? The only one that I think makes sense is the DRM.

What I mean by [citation needed] is that i believe you are making an unsubstantiated claim. Your choice of words makes it read as if what you are stating is fact, rather than personal opinion. If it's personal opinion you should change your wording to read "... to me, DRM means" or "...my understanding of DRM is...". If you believe it is fact, then give a citation. In this context, a citation is a link to some other person's definition or a quotation. Choose your citations wisely. A link to "some guy's" blog is not a good citation. A good citation would be to an industry recognised body, like the EFF, or a standards body, like the ITU or IEEE. You should choose a citation that is appropriate for the subject matter. For example, you wouldn't choose a sugar farmers union to make a citation about the dietary requirements of children.

Do you really think I base my definition of DRM on one single instance of "some guy's blog" or can you admit that the largest and most common game review and blog sites ALL refer to video game DRM as the forced login to allow the play of multiplayer or singleplayer? Were you not reading the video game news when Starcraft 2 came out? It wasn't on someguy's blog, it was on EVERY video game news and review site the outrage over single player requiring an internet connection and the inability to play over a LAN. Were you in amish country when the controversy came out about SimCity's DRM? I didn't make these issues up, and I didn't find some isolated incident of outrage off of some single crackpot's blog. These are the common and agreed upon definitions of DRM in the world of gaming whether you care to google around for citation or not.

I don't know if you are being intentionally difficult just for the sake of your argument, or if you actually don't spend alot of time reading about gaming news and issues. I think I may be too trusting to assume you are simply ignorant of the long history of DRM controversy in the gaming sphere. A part of me thinks you know exactly what I'm talking about, but maybe thats not a fair assumption.

No, you misunderstand. I do acknowledge Blizzard and EA chose to implement an "always-online" DRM for Starcraft and SimCity (although I think that's no longer the case with SimCity?). Where I think you're somewhat confused is that just because there's an authentication mechanism doesn't necessarily mean it was created for DRM purposes. In general, I think DRM is annoying because it is usually implemented in a ham-fisted way.

Well, I really don't think that the majority of news and review blogs, PC gamer magazine, and all other forms of media that ASSUME this DRM was ONLY for the purposes of DRM are some sort of conspiracy theorists. You make the very weird and wild assumption that these implementations are NOT for DRM purposes, and I think you make this assumption only for the sake of argument, but I suppose you could just be burying your head in the sand and giving the developers of video games more benefit of the doubt that any other person in the world ever has. Possible, but quite unlikely.

Finally, I'll point out that you have rather arbitrarily chosen that the login method hampers your ability to update the game. What about the fact that you require internet access to download the updates? Shouldn't the developers be obliged to send you disks in the post? But that would require you to go to your mail box to collect the disks. So shouldn't they come to your house and install the updates for you? But that would require you to answer the door and let them in.

Well now you are just being ridiculous, there is something called being reasonable. You are not being reasonable to demand home delivery and all that other sillyness, you are attacking and pointing fun at an argument that for one, I did not ever even attempt to make, and two is completely absurd. All of this malformed logic is quickly SHUT DOWN by the fact that they deliver updates online already, and in the past did not require a login.

My point is that, once again, it is at the discretion of the developers to decide what method their company is able to distribute updates. If you don't like it, you can seek a refund. But I'm sure that's also at their discretion.

Ah, that old texas adage, "If you dont like it, well you can just just GET OUT"

Another option would be to fight for; and advocate for change and improvement, but your technique of demanding a refund every time you are dissatisfied is equally as valid, but you will not dissuade me from playing factorio, or standing against unnecessary and unhelpful DRM.

I don't ever intend to tell the devs what to do with their product or company, but I will point out I feel as though I'm being subjected to extra security measures that don't actually prevent the pirates from doing anything. And I don't find it unreasonable to level this complaint without demanding a refund like a petulant child.

[therapist]

That's your concern? There's no risk if you use a unique password for each account. This is basic password security stuff.

My concern is that you don't add a point of security failure if it doesnt even prevent the pirates from obtaining the updates in the first place. If the login was actually stopping the pirate from obtaining the new updates, well okay then I see the usefulness and concede, but it hasn't done that at all, AND I am exposed to a new possible point of failure in security.

Thats Risk Management 101

Edit: Oh I get it, you think I use the same password for everything. That would be stupid lol. I don't use the same password for everything, but then again I don't use a different one for every single account I have either. I have probably 100 accounts across the internet, and having that many unique passwords would require me to start writing them down, or using a password manager to keep track of them, both of these techniques would be TERRIBLE ideas and completely blow my security.

I personally use a tiered password system. Important things get a long unique password. Email, bank accounts, tax stuff, ebay, paypal, etc. all get a unique variation of a master secure password that I use. Below that tier is the "Meh" stuff; Youtube, Facebook, My Steam account, anything that is tied to my "internet reputation", but not tied to my actual name in real life (never use your real name of websites like facebook). The lowest tier is stuff I DO NOT trust giving any of the good password to. Internet forums, Video game logins, gentlemen's websites etc. These passwords are usually stupid phrases like KittyCat$69, SipscoDirtFactory, ihavecrabs6969 and things like that. Some of those are actually passwords I use, but I use them for sites so non-critical, I don't mind sharing them with other people or even posting a list of them. Getting into the accounts that use those password literally means nothing to me.

I still stand by the point of failure risk management thing, video games that ask for a password inside the exe are notorious for being targeted by malware, it even happened to someone on the international space station working for NASA, his video game passwords were stolen IN SPACE.

[Khyron]

Which of the reasons on that list do you think applies to factorio's requirement for a login to get updates? The only one that I think makes sense is the DRM.

Quite possibly. But there are a multitude of other reasons why they might have done it. It could be that all the people who pirated factorio who were using the update service were causing too much cost on their server bandwidth/quota. It could be that they were looking to build statistics to see which users update the game how often. It could be a preliminary step towards multiplayer features like a lobby. It could be for a combination of reasons.

Do you really think I base my definition of DRM on one single instance of "some guy's blog" or can you admit that the largest and most common game review and blog sites ALL refer to video game DRM as the forced login to allow the play of multiplayer or singleplayer? Were you not reading the video game news when Starcraft 2 came out? It wasn't on someguy's blog, it was on EVERY video game news and review site the outrage over single player requiring an internet connection and the inability to play over a LAN. Were you in amish country when the controversy came out about SimCity's DRM? I didn't make these issues up, and I didn't find some isolated incident of outrage off of some single crackpot's blog. These are the common and agreed upon definitions of DRM in the world of gaming whether you care to google around for citation or not.

Ok, now it's starting to make sense where you are coming from. I'll say again: Just because there is a login doesn't mean it's because of or is equal to DRM. I'll point once again to the example of email (which has nothing to do with DRM) and DVD region locking (which is a very plain example of DRM). I understand you want to talk about DRM in the software scope so I'll give you some other examples of DRM in the software scope which do not involve logins: CD keys, date/time expiry for licenses, requiring an original CD in the drive, hardware dongle key, challenge/response where you had to look up a word in the manual on a certain page. The ubiquity of the internet makes username/password the prevailing method to implement software DRM these days, but having an account with a provider is often for many features other than just pure DRM.

Well now you are just being ridiculous, there is something called being reasonable. You are not being reasonable to demand home delivery and all that other sillyness, you are attacking and pointing fun at an argument that for one, I did not ever even attempt to make, and two is completely absurd. All of this malformed logic is quickly SHUT DOWN by the fact that they deliver updates online already, and in the past did not require a login.

Ok, we've moved forward. Initially it seemed your argument was just authenticaion = DRM, which confused me. Eventually you've revealed that you were thinking authentication = DRM = bad. Now we can see that authenticaion != DRM, but the question is: DRM = bad?

So let me ask you plainly, is there such a thing as good DRM? Should software/game developers be permitted to make any efforts to prevent their game from being pirated?