Most recent example. I purchased a game from an online store that wasn't Steam. Unfortunately said game used Steamworks for it's DRM. Now, despite the fact that the site was selling the game in our region with the permission of the publisher, Valve were adamant that it was not released here and refused to unlock the game. And they continued to do that even when provided with evidence that said game was even available from local distributors.

We had to wait an additional 4 months after the release date before they finally relinquished and gave us access. Only for them to turn around and start it all again with yet another title. And this isn't even the first time it's happened.

There's been at least three cases of them doing it this year alone and several before then.

So yeah, I have a problem with one company denying access to products sold by unrelated companies simply because said product uses their DRM system and they failed to secure distribution themselves for this region (whatever the reason for that).

I also happen to know that a fair number of affected people have contacted RPS in the hopes they'd cover this -- after all they covered (as an anti EA/DRM article) the fact that people couldn't play Darkspore for a few days despite the issue being due to a bug that EA acknowledged and was actively fixing. But they refuse to cover the fact Valve consistently deny access to content, often for months at a time, every single time.

So you tell me, why are they not covering an obvious flaw with the current state of digital distribution/DRM if it's not due to their bias towards the perpetrator? I think we can all safely say that were it EA/Ubisoft doing this with their digital platforms, RPS would be writing about it constantly.

Here in Brazil no one will enforce any agreement or any policy at all, but these days the companies go to great lengths to prevent people from using their games as well they want it. In the good old times, you could lend your game disks to a friend and that would be no problem, it's like lending a DVD or a lawnmower. Now the assholes want to prevent us from sharing games with friends who can share their own games with you so you don't need to buy every single game in the market. And they're calling it piracy if you don't do like they want.

Gaming is the only business where you buy stuff but you don't own the stuff, the companies own the stuff you paid for.

All software is the same way. So is music, films, even sports broadcasts. What you bought is a license to use it according to the terms of the license. Nothing else.

It is not new; it only appears new to naive consumers.

Strictly speaking lending a DVD or music CD is also a breach of T&C and LA. The difference with the gaming industry is it's the only one with the power to enforce their EULA wishes. For now of course, I'm sure future media players will also have internet connections and hardcoded DRM protocols. It's widely expected that the new Xbox will have DRM features similar to what we currently 'enjoy' on the PC.

I see.

That's a reason I'm supportive of businesses with better policies (over 80 games on my GOG shelf, many indie games purchased etc.) and chuckle in disdain when many modern hits are pirated.

*goes back to playing Deus Ex Invisible War*

IIRC, this has already happened years ago. When Spore's DRM started causing troubles to legit users, tons of people complained in the EA forums, and moderators threatened with bans which would forbid the banned from playing their games online.

I guess EA will never learn.

I am aware of your situation about Japan. It is quite iffy place... There is way more in play just valve being dicks to japanese population. Which is supported by what is happening in UK and steam. UK retailers put a ban on steamworks games to be released on steam there (for a period of time). Like Brink.
Knowing Japanese cockiness towards western things in their own country I would guess that valve, even if publisher wants to, cannot release digitally purchasable game in Japan without problems.
Cause I can't simply phantom why Valve is doing that.
But i can understand why local game publishers, shops, arcades (not even PC because they would get cut from steam at least for short period of time) would not want customers to have access to dirt cheap games which can be downloaded in few seconds.

RPS not reporting that is not good of course and good luck with that (steam and rps) in the future. I did say I agree with you. afraid of valve, afraid that they will lose steam. Their fault? or valve's fault?

I blame valve. Cause for RPS to stay in business they have to have 1000 dollars worth of games ever month.
and that bias is towards the platform not towards publishers like it seems every other game magazine/site have.
is it good? nah. is it preferable over what everyone else is doing? Yes.

and that is why I asked:
If not RPS
where can i get my unbiased interesting news about PC gaming?

hold on this, I have a thought ...

Well, looking at comments (on a variety of issues) from developers, etc., I'd say it's mainly Valve at fault. There games restricted on Steam simply because Valve have no interest in offering them worldwide (as stated by the developer for one such title). Further, Valve are pulling some sort of stunt with ratings, refusing to sell some unrated games -- even in countries such as Japan, where a rating is not required for online sales. Again, that is Valve's say so, not the publisher or developer. And so on.

The point is, Valve have far more power over what goes on in terms of Steam than their fan boys will give them credit for. So yeah, if RPS were to say something highly critical of them, I wouldn't put it past them to retaliate in some manner. Of course, this also implies that RPS have no courage to actually take a stand. Which simply put, doesn't make them of any use as source of unbiased news.

As for what Japanese publishers are doing. I don't think that always plays a part. Especially when a lot of these problems are with games made available locally. Such as the problem with Homefront. It was delayed more than it should have been here because Valve screwed something up and at one point, released the wrong version. Even the local publisher ended up having to post an apology about it as it affected their release too.

It's possible that might even explain why the local release of FEAR 3 doesn't appear to use Steamworks. Needless to say, Valve have to do a lot to improve their image here. They claim to have a Japanese community sommat or other position, but for all we can tell, they do fuck all for the Japanese community.

Anyway, back to your question.... where can you go for unbiased PC news? Right now, probably nowhere unfortunately.

An interesting note:

EA is politically neutral. Its high-level and senior executives donate money to either the Democrat or Republican party. EA as a company seems to have a balanced mixture of both conservative and liberal personnel. However, BioWare, EA's flagship studio, leans towards liberal politics; although they do not have a strong (political) presence inside the US.

Activision and Blizzard, on the other hand, are diehard Republicans, conservatives and libertarians. Activision-Blizzard is the quintessential big American corporation. Activision CEO Bobby Kotick is a diehard libertarian and Ron Paul supporter. Activison-Blizzard execs have a long history of making exclusive donations to Republican, conservative, Ron Paul, and most recently Tea Party politicians. In 2008, I could not find any Activision/Blizzard execs who had donated any money to the Democratic party, Obama or any liberal cause.

That seemed very odd in a big company and would almost seem discriminatory. After all, isn't a company supposed to have diversity (in political affiliations)? It seemed that if you were a liberal and work for Activision-Blizzard, you would not get far in the company. You would not fit into the "company mold", and you would not get promoted nor have a long-term future in that company. But hey, I still love Blizzard games. I just would not recommend working there if you are a liberal.

BioWare and Blizzard make an interesting contrast. Both are considered as the top in their fields. Both are the "flagship" studios in their corporations. Politically, one is liberal and the other is conservative. With BioWare soon to release the high-profile Star Wars: The Old Republic, the two companies will be in stiff direct competition with others. BioWare's specialty is making RPGs. BioWare has always made better RPGs than Blizzard, whose competitive advantage is making online game. BioWare's new MMO-"RPG" genuinely has a very strong chance of seriously challenging World of WarCraft. It will be interesting to see how the competition will play out.

One last note: Ubisoft does not have a strong presence in the US. However, I looked into Ubisoft's donation history and political connections just out of curiously. Ubisoft leaned heavily towards the left and liberalism.

P.S. During the last presidential election in 2008, I dug into game companies' political donations, affiliations and connections out of curiously. What does any of this conservative/liberal shit have to do with this discussion? Absolutely nothing.

and all that is funny because Vivendi is french.

but really, all you gotta do is compare each company's big gun titles (BF & COD) to see how they lean.

COD is all anti terrorist and what not, BF is made by Sweeds and constantly deals with WWII or reinventing a fictitious WWIII.

Ah I see you are unfamiliar with how big companies pull this trick. You see, if you get into "management" (which means you get a management paygrade and probably some sort of stock options as part of your compensation) the company begins to hound you to join their PAC (not all companies have PACs, but if you have one, they have the company's best interests at heart while using all those "voluntary" employee donations to lobby government). Obviously any PAC will do not only what is best for the company but closely toe whatever ideological line the top leadership has.

So basically by not joining the PAC you will be blacklisted from promotions and probably on the short list for layoffs in middle management. It is quite simply easier to leave a company and draw a pay raise for jumping ship than it fight this bullshit. Many big companies don't have PACs and you can go ahead and quietly believe whatever you want (if you're vocal and make the company look bad they will find a way to terminate you and invalidate any options you have).

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/17/eas-unwieldy-banhammer-ea-responds/

more news. not good ones at all... no denial from EA so RPS was right.

Shame really. I hoped Origin will be good alternative for steam as I have been saying for a long time that steam is too big and more competition would only help...

with this news I won't buy any origin products, with ME3 being an exception when price drops below 15 bucks.

That was very interesting, thanks! But couldn't this just be whitewashing done by EA to avoid alienating a specific consumer group. They can still use those "issue groups" to found "super pacs" and remain anonymus.

And what about good old Gabe?