Spore/Mass Effect Requires A Virgin Sacrifice on Western Coast of Easter Island

[Merusk]

The issue of a game company going out of business thus making your game non functional not only exists today, it always has, so I don't see the argument "but I won't be guaranteed to be able to play it a decade from now if the authentication servers are gone" to really be a reasonable argument against this.  Whether you're talking about old games no longer being supported by a still operating company, to not being able to run on current hardware/OS, there is no reasonable expectation that should be able to "buy once play forever", even with console games.  I have a ton of old games on 3.5" floppys for example; assuming i can get a modern OS to run the old stuff, you generally can't buy pc's with those drives anymore.  Just because i own the old Ultima games on floppies doesnt mean I am entitled to a newer version of that game for free.  If they released an "Ultima game pack" tuned for modern tech and I want to play them, I should buy it again.  To me, that's reasonable.  Eventually, standard cd drives and even dvd's will also become a thing of the past at which point most of the "but I own it!" logic falls apart.  Games, like any other technology driven product or service, will become outdated and non functional naturally over time.  Take your pick from Betamax movies, to 8 track tapes, laserdisc, etc, sure if you happen to still have an old machine capable of dealing with those items they might still work, but if they don't the company you bought your betamax movies from has no responsibility to let you exchange them for dvds, not does it make it reasonable that it's ok to grab a pirated version b/c you bought it once.  Hell, i have a ton of old movies on vhs tapes around the house and we dont even have a vhs player anymore.  If people are ok with the idea that you would have to rebuy that movie you "owned" already on a new format, why do they have such a hard time swallowing the idea of limited lifespans for games they buy?

Old OSes can be emulated.  Old hardware can be found, be it Betamax, 8 tracks or old PC games.  Yes, you have to put in a little more work to play the media, but thee's nothing actively denying you from doing so. That is the problem with 'online only' schemes.  

That said, Yes, you're right.  Everything is moving to a subscription service.  EVERYTHING.  You, your company and the government will not own your software, and will be paying a montly/ quarterly/ annual sub fee within the next 5- 10 years.  Not only to stop piracy, but so that the companies have another steady revenue stream. The early work is alread being done with business level programs.

 How many programs are released on an annual basis with more features, upgrades, & bug fixes and offer a 'preferred user' service where you pay an annual fee to get the new version?  (The fee is less, but not always significantly less than repurchasing the software.)   Then within 2-3 years support for the version you are using is dropped and you discover you've GOT to upgrade because of bugs or new hardware incompatability.   I know AutoCAD is like this, as are all AutoDesk products.  I'm farily certain Office has a similar deal.

Soon you'll just see large software companies stop offering sales period. You rent the software from them, and they provide you access as a service.  PC games won't be far behind as they realize that Steam/ Stardock -like applications are much more consumer-relations friendly and don't generate the bad press of DRM while accomplishing the same thing. In 2-3 generations when bandwith and storage are even less of an issue, Consoles will likely do the same.

   The backlash you're seeing is rage against the idea of never owning anything.  Our kids won't have such an issue with it, though.  They'll just happily fork-over the dough monthly like we do for cable, because they simply can't imagine life without it.  

[Sky]

People updated movies from VHS to DVD because DVD is a way better format, both in quality and durability. You'll see less of an immediate upgrade to Bluray, because it's better quality, but most movies don't really benefit from being higher resolution. I have the Blues Brothers on DVD, I don't need an HD version of Elwood hopping around playing harp.

Just because you (X's T) don't play old games doesn't mean other don't. I bought Ultima 7.5 a looong time ago, and I still have the pc to play it on. I have Exult, too, but I prefer playing it on the 486. My game, my decision. Lately the game I've been playing is Simgolf, six years old now. Now, Maxis is still around, so technically I could still activate it, but what about Thief 2? Activation sucks balls, DRM sucks balls. Fortunately most games being produced these days are so crappy (Bioshock) I don't really see myself going back in five years to play them.

But I will go back and play some Freedom Force, even though I have to go through the hassle of removing Starforce later on. Because it's a good game and I buy good games even if they're a pain in the ass and I don't agree with a few things (though I did boycott BF2142 for ads, so I'm being somewhat hypocritical). I won't hesitate to get Mass Effect and Spore, though I certainly hope they rethink the DRM strategy that ultimately won't do anything but piss off honest customers.

[Ratman_tf]

  The backlash you're seeing is rage against the idea of never owning anything.  Our kids won't have such an issue with it, though.  They'll just happily fork-over the dough monthly like we do for cable, because they simply can't imagine life without it.  

Bleh. Hopefully I'll be too old and decrepit to care anymore when that happens.

[Krakrok]

I have a ton of old games on 3.5" floppys for example; assuming i can get a modern OS to run the old stuff, you generally can't buy pc's with those drives anymore.  Just because i own the old Ultima games on floppies doesnt mean I am entitled to a newer version of that game for free. 

Actually, it should. You bought a license to play the game. The media it's stored on is irrelevant. If the new version was updated or is different than the old version (in the case of music CDs and movie DVDs) then yes a new license is required.

[Morat20]

Bleh. Hopefully I'll be too old and decrepit to care anymore when that happens.

Why? If nothing else, look at what Google is trying to do with Google Docs and Google bookmarks -- what the PC industry as a whole as been trying to do for a decade+ now. 

Store all the software, critical data, and useful information on remote servers and stream them straight to wherever we're sitting. Let professionals -- with the resources of professionals -- handle storing, backing up, patching, and keeping up to date our software. Only keep locally what we choose.

Bandwitdh isn't there yet for it, but it's getting closer.

Just for myself -- I use Steam and Mozy for preciesly that convienence.

[Threash]

If i buy a new computer that cant play my old games then i am the reason i can't play them, i have in the past kept around old computers for the single purpose of playing old games.  Its quite clearly not the same thing as the company shutting down and closing access to games you could still play.  I'm sorry for devs who take this personally, im sure i would too, but i simply can't see anything wrong with fucking over a company thats trying to fuck over its customers.  Comparing it to robbing old ladies only makes me more likely to convince me you aren't worth lisening too.

[Signe]

Thing is, if you don't like the practices of the company, it's perfectly fine to protest by not buying their game and let them know why.  If it doesn't bother you enough to not play, they buy it.  Pirating doesn't make you the better person. 

- UNLESS -

You are pirating to prove your point then you still have to let them know or it's just a justification to yourself. 

- OR -

You are an anarchist and don't recognise intellectual property.  This is the best reason. 

[Ratman_tf]

Bleh. Hopefully I'll be too old and decrepit to care anymore when that happens.

Why? If nothing else, look at what Google is trying to do with Google Docs and Google bookmarks -- what the PC industry as a whole as been trying to do for a decade+ now. 

Store all the software, critical data, and useful information on remote servers and stream them straight to wherever we're sitting. Let professionals -- with the resources of professionals -- handle storing, backing up, patching, and keeping up to date our software. Only keep locally what we choose.

Bandwitdh isn't there yet for it, but it's getting closer.

Just for myself -- I use Steam and Mozy for preciesly that convienence.

Maybe it's just me then, but I hate relying on other people. Other people (Never me...  ) are utter fuckups.
Hell, I have most of my shows and movies on DVD and did without cable/network TV for over a year.

Trusting someone else with my games? Keeping them patched up and running correctly on my system? Fuck that.

[Threash]

Thing is, if you don't like the practices of the company, it's perfectly fine to protest by not buying their game and let them know why.  If it doesn't bother you enough to not play, they buy it.  Pirating doesn't make you the better person. 

- UNLESS -

You are pirating to prove your point then you still have to let them know or it's just a justification to yourself. 

- OR -

You are an anarchist and don't recognise intellectual property.  This is the best reason. 

I never said it made me a better person or it was perfectly ok, all i said on my first post was that i wouldn't feel guilty about it.  Meaning under normal circumstances i would, because its wrong, but since they are assholes i don't feel bad about screwing them.  I'm not running for Pope, im not evil looking enough.

[Riggswolfe]

If i buy a new computer that cant play my old games then i am the reason i can't play them, i have in the past kept around old computers for the single purpose of playing old games.  Its quite clearly not the same thing as the company shutting down and closing access to games you could still play.  I'm sorry for devs who take this personally, im sure i would too, but i simply can't see anything wrong with fucking over a company thats trying to fuck over its customers.  Comparing it to robbing old ladies only makes me more likely to convince me you aren't worth lisening too.

Except they aren't trying to fuck over their customers. An average user installs a game once, maybe twice, and then never touches it again. If it's a game they really like they usually just keep it installed for a long time.

This is going to fuck over resellers more than users. I don't know if that's a hidden intention or not but if I was EB games and similar people I'd be pissed.

[Threash]

If i buy a new computer that cant play my old games then i am the reason i can't play them, i have in the past kept around old computers for the single purpose of playing old games.  Its quite clearly not the same thing as the company shutting down and closing access to games you could still play.  I'm sorry for devs who take this personally, im sure i would too, but i simply can't see anything wrong with fucking over a company thats trying to fuck over its customers.  Comparing it to robbing old ladies only makes me more likely to convince me you aren't worth lisening too.

Except they aren't trying to fuck over their customers. An average user installs a game once, maybe twice, and then never touches it again. If it's a game they really like they usually just keep it installed for a long time.

This is going to fuck over resellers more than users. I don't know if that's a hidden intention or not but if I was EB games and similar people I'd be pissed.

I'm already on my third bioshock install.  I certainly feel fucked over because i am not playing it and i can't delete in case i ever want to play again.

[Signe]

Thing is, if you don't like the practices of the company, it's perfectly fine to protest by not buying their game and let them know why.  If it doesn't bother you enough to not play, they buy it.  Pirating doesn't make you the better person. 

- UNLESS -

You are pirating to prove your point then you still have to let them know or it's just a justification to yourself. 

- OR -

You are an anarchist and don't recognise intellectual property.  This is the best reason. 

I never said it made me a better person or it was perfectly ok, all i said on my first post was that i wouldn't feel guilty about it.  Meaning under normal circumstances i would, because its wrong, but since they are assholes i don't feel bad about screwing them.  I'm not running for Pope, im not evil looking enough.

Well, as long as you don't feel bad, that's all right, then! 

Still, it would be better if you were an anarchist or the pope.

[Tebonas]

Our generation wasn't raised with the idea that stealing software is wrong. Our parents generation gave us hell about things they deemed wrong, and looked blankly at us about that computer stuff. In early computers hardware was expensive and software was an afterthought, not a business model. Ask IBM what they thought about software for their MS-DOS computers. Ask Microsoft (inofficially) about their strategy in the earlier days to finding in sort of ok for private users to copy their product so that these people can demand the same software at work from their bosses. As kids we traded disks with games like pictures out of bubble gum wrappers. Hell, my first illegal copies I got from a prison guard who was friends with my father. I just started buying games when I got my own money because I had money to spend and I wanted to show my appreciation for people making games I like and bringing them to make new ones I would like. Guilt? Not a factor.

There is much education to be done about the wrongness of software piracy. Inconveniencing and punishing people that actually buy that stuff - not the way to go.

[IainC]

What I typically see if people jumping straight to the end of the chain, i.e. grabbing a pirate copy, and justifying their behavior by talking about the above, or some other rationale that makes them feel OK about it.  And I'm not talking about warez kiddies that pirate everything because they don't see it as wrong, I'm talking about the people we have hear on this board who do spend money on games.  The problem with that is if you never inform the company making the game that there's a problem with the way they do copy protection, let alone that they are losing a sale because of it, why would they change their behavior?  Companies make decisions based on available information and if you can't measure it, it doesn't make an impact.  So how are companies going to measure lose sales due to copy protection in this industry?  Where's the feedback mechanism?  Voting with your wallet ISNT ENOUGH because it doesn't give the WHY.  Did the game sell poorly because it sucked, was overpriced, or because it had DRM?  If I'm the non-gamer empty suit making these idiotic CP decisions, how am I supposed to know when my vision doesn't match reality (gee this sounds like the design discussions in the EQ thread doesn't it? :)  )

Only way i know of to try and enable change is by giving better information.  If customers let them know about it directly, via emailing several contacts at the company, posting on official sites, emaiing retail partners etc, at least there's a chance some worthwhile information will make it back upstream to decision makers.  If all we do is pirate and never say a word other than to ourselves, why would we expect positive change?

Xilren nailed it and put down the concepts I've been trying to put into words for the past few days. I accept that on the scale of an individual user there are circumstances where the content creator does not lose anything from an illegal download. However by doing so - even if you have bought a copy of the game and aren't trying to get something for free - you're still adding to the problem as percieved by the publisher. The download 'market' is pretty closely monitored for size and trends, publishers and industry bodies know to a reasonably accurate degree what is being downloaded and to waht degree. What they don't know, because it's impossible for anyone external to the downloader to know, is why you are doing it. Whether you're doing it to circumvent the DRM on your legal copy, because you feel entitled to free games, because the manager at your local Gamestop is a dick, because the option is there and you are weak or because you feel that you should have the option to test drive the game before deciding to pay for it. All of those different motivations just go into the big pile of 'illegal downloads'. From the publisher's POV the venn diagram is two discrete circles that don't overlap, one is labelled 'customers' the other is labelled 'bad guys'. In reality there is some bleed between the two but it's impossible to see unless publishers can persuade The Pirate Bay to put a survey popup on their torrents....

Someone mentioned iTunes as an example of illegal downloading forcing the hands of publishers for a good result. I think that's partly true but also it's a very rose-tinted view of the situation. People stealing music over the internet weren't valiant warriors in the pursuit of freedom, for the most part they just wanted free music. I'd argue that a lot of iTunes success wasn't due to giving illegal downloaders the legitimate market option they'd been fighting for all along but in giving a convenient and safe option to music fans who wouldn't have thought of downloading music in the first place. It turned customers of traditional channels into downloaders (legitimate ones) rather than suddenly emancipating an oppressed underclass of music pirate who'd been begging for the option to pay 99c a song instead of having to get it for free.

[Samwise]

From the publisher's POV the venn diagram is two discrete circles that don't overlap, one is labelled 'customers' the other is labelled 'bad guys'. In reality there is some bleed between the two but it's impossible to see unless publishers can persuade The Pirate Bay to put a survey popup on their torrents....

Are you suggesting they might be incorrect in their assessment?  Remember, these are businessmen and people with actual business degrees we're talking about.  Surely they know better than us.

[Megrim]

What I typically see if people jumping straight to the end of the chain, i.e. grabbing a pirate copy, and justifying their behavior by talking about the above, or some other rationale that makes them feel OK about it.  And I'm not talking about warez kiddies that pirate everything because they don't see it as wrong, I'm talking about the people we have hear on this board who do spend money on games.  The problem with that is if you never inform the company making the game that there's a problem with the way they do copy protection, let alone that they are losing a sale because of it, why would they change their behavior?  Companies make decisions based on available information and if you can't measure it, it doesn't make an impact.  So how are companies going to measure lose sales due to copy protection in this industry?  Where's the feedback mechanism?  Voting with your wallet ISNT ENOUGH because it doesn't give the WHY.  Did the game sell poorly because it sucked, was overpriced, or because it had DRM?  If I'm the non-gamer empty suit making these idiotic CP decisions, how am I supposed to know when my vision doesn't match reality (gee this sounds like the design discussions in the EQ thread doesn't it? :)  )

Only way i know of to try and enable change is by giving better information.  If customers let them know about it directly, via emailing several contacts at the company, posting on official sites, emaiing retail partners etc, at least there's a chance some worthwhile information will make it back upstream to decision makers.  If all we do is pirate and never say a word other than to ourselves, why would we expect positive change?

Xilren nailed it and put down the concepts I've been trying to put into words for the past few days. I accept that on the scale of an individual user there are circumstances where the content creator does not lose anything from an illegal download. However by doing so - even if you have bought a copy of the game and aren't trying to get something for free - you're still adding to the problem as percieved by the publisher. The download 'market' is pretty closely monitored for size and trends, publishers and industry bodies know to a reasonably accurate degree what is being downloaded and to waht degree. What they don't know, because it's impossible for anyone external to the downloader to know, is why you are doing it. Whether you're doing it to circumvent the DRM on your legal copy, because you feel entitled to free games, because the manager at your local Gamestop is a dick, because the option is there and you are weak or because you feel that you should have the option to test drive the game before deciding to pay for it. All of those different motivations just go into the big pile of 'illegal downloads'. From the publisher's POV the venn diagram is two discrete circles that don't overlap, one is labelled 'customers' the other is labelled 'bad guys'. In reality there is some bleed between the two but it's impossible to see unless publishers can persuade The Pirate Bay to put a survey popup on their torrents....

Someone mentioned iTunes as an example of illegal downloading forcing the hands of publishers for a good result. I think that's partly true but also it's a very rose-tinted view of the situation. People stealing music over the internet weren't valiant warriors in the pursuit of freedom, for the most part they just wanted free music. I'd argue that a lot of iTunes success wasn't due to giving illegal downloaders the legitimate market option they'd been fighting for all along but in giving a convenient and safe option to music fans who wouldn't have thought of downloading music in the first place. It turned customers of traditional channels into downloaders (legitimate ones) rather than suddenly emancipating an oppressed underclass of music pirate who'd been begging for the option to pay 99c a song instead of having to get it for free.

Not really. I'm having a really very hard time seeing how (or why, given the ease of piracy) it is the customer's responsibility to provide market research to a company. Margalis mentioned it earlier in the thread; a company does not have the right to stay in business. Want to know why you are losing sales? Go out and research it, instead of shunting the onus onto the customers (and then automagically somehow blaming it on the pirates). I've never had anything to do with business in my education, and even so i can tell you that for the most part, customers will go for what they percieve to be the easiest to access and holds the greatest number of benefits.

[IainC]

From the publisher's POV the venn diagram is two discrete circles that don't overlap, one is labelled 'customers' the other is labelled 'bad guys'. In reality there is some bleed between the two but it's impossible to see unless publishers can persuade The Pirate Bay to put a survey popup on their torrents....

Are you suggesting they might be incorrect in their assessment?  Remember, these are businessmen and people with actual business degrees we're talking about.  Surely they know better than us.

It's a number between none of them and some of them. Care to put a more definite value to it without pulling numbers out of your ass? As I said I'm fairly sure it's not even possible. It's not very surprising that no publisher is coming out to say 'illegally downloading our stuff is ok sometimes'. Even the guys from Stardock didn't say that.

Megrim, it isn't your responsibility to tell companies what you want but if you want it badly enough then you absolutely should. Besides most companies know what customers want, the margin lies in giving people what they'll accept, if you won't accept it, say why, otherwise you're invisible to that process.

[Samwise]

Care to put a more definite value to it without pulling numbers out of your ass?

Of course not, but there are many folks who are quite happy to, with the number usually being 100%.  Which means they're either stupid or lying, and this damages the credibility of anything else they say.

Not that it matters, because we've already established that money isn't the real issue here, which means that the whole "sales lost" issue is just a smokescreen for some other agenda.

[Ookii]

I would just like to add to this conversation that I have and am downloading many games I am too lazy to go and buy, in fact it's pretty rare I actually purchase a game.

[Xilren's Twin]

Not really. I'm having a really very hard time seeing how (or why, given the ease of piracy) it is the customer's responsibility to provide market research to a company. Margalis mentioned it earlier in the thread; a company does not have the right to stay in business. Want to know why you are losing sales? Go out and research it, instead of shunting the onus onto the customers (and then automagically somehow blaming it on the pirates). I've never had anything to do with business in my education, and even so i can tell you that for the most part, customers will go for what they percieve to be the easiest to access and holds the greatest number of benefits.

You are correct in that it is not your responsibility.  But, i was also assuming that you actually would prefer game companies both a) stay in business making the kind of games you want, and b) remove the idiot copy protection schemes you don't.  If you dont buy the product/service and give no information to anyone that could do something useful with it, as far as market research is concerned, you don't exist.  How exactly does that help improve the situation?  No, you don't have to make any effort to change this, you can just totally rely on the same empty suits that are in charge today to make it better.  God knows they're doing a bang up job now.  You want a better product or service, how about asking for it?

C'mon, it's just not that hard to drop a quick 3 sentence email to 3 people who might can do something constructive with it.

[Megrim]

From the publisher's POV the venn diagram is two discrete circles that don't overlap, one is labelled 'customers' the other is labelled 'bad guys'. In reality there is some bleed between the two but it's impossible to see unless publishers can persuade The Pirate Bay to put a survey popup on their torrents....

Are you suggesting they might be incorrect in their assessment?  Remember, these are businessmen and people with actual business degrees we're talking about.  Surely they know better than us.

It's a number between none of them and some of them. Care to put a more definite value to it without pulling numbers out of your ass? As I said I'm fairly sure it's not even possible. It's not very surprising that no publisher is coming out to say 'illegally downloading our stuff is ok sometimes'. Even the guys from Stardock didn't say that.

Megrim, it isn't your responsibility to tell companies what you want but if you want it badly enough then you absolutely should. Besides most companies know what customers want, the margin lies in giving people what they'll accept, if you won't accept it, say why, otherwise you're invisible to that process.

No it isn't. If i want something badly enough, i will go out and take it from the nearest accessible source (i'm using 'i' and 'you' here as substitutes for 'consumers' and 'game makers' respectively). To elaborate in answering your second and third points;

It would appear, just from the discussion we are having on this board, that game-making companies do not in fact know what customers want. That is probably too harsh a statement, but i think it needed to be said. What i really mean by this however, is as follows. Consumers will go out and take what they desire from the field of options available to them. This includes pirating games. It would appear (once more, just from the discussion here on f13) that game makers do not want to acknowledge this reality, let alone take reasonable (bolded because i do not think DRM is reasonable) steps to minimise or disperse the damage that piracy can do to their business practices. Once more to reiterate - there can be no expectation that i will provide any feedback to the product i aquire. Yes, some consumers will provide some feedback some of the time, but i do not think that basing the entirety of an argument on the premise which states; "game makers expect to recieve good feedback from their customers in order to make good games -> if the games are poor it it therefore the fault of bad customer feedback" - is fallacious (by 'games' i mean the entirety of the packaged product, services and support included).

As far as acceptability is concerned, there is something to be said here as well; we are no longer in a time when games are a 'niche' market. Sure, most people here on f13 are happy to support small-scale and indy developers. We give them money, we might spread the word. Those companies might even be lucky enough to develop a fanbase strong enough to support them on a sustainable scale. However, as far as the mass market is concerned - there is a plethora of options available to the average consumer. No-one is going to shed a tear if a company which produces generic fps #1 goes under. No-one is going to bother with actually devoting themselves to giving good feedback to the company which makes the game. Why? Because they will simply move onto generic fps #2 and #3 and #4. There is no shortage of substitutes, and people will, quite parasitically, move on. As such, expecting what effectively amounts to charity in getting good feedback and then by extension arguing that companies are unable to provide good service because of the consumer's lack of participation, is in my opinion, incorrect.

 * Edit: i _think_ this post address both Xilren's and IainC's replies.

[Xilren's Twin]

However, as far as the mass market is concerned - there is a plethora of options available to the average consumer. No-one is going to shed a tear if a company which produces generic fps #1 goes under. No-one is going to bother with actually devoting themselves to giving good feedback to the company which makes the game. Why? Because they will simply move onto generic fps #2 and #3 and #4. There is no shortage of substitutes, and people will, quite parasitically, move on. As such, expecting what effectively amounts to charity in getting good feedback and then by extension arguing that companies are unable to provide good service because of the consumer's lack of participation, is in my opinion, incorrect.

I dont think anyone is arguing that b/c consumers dont give free feedback game companies can't figure out how to provide good service (at least im not).  I'm simply suggesting if you want to help try to accelerate the process of market change, providing useful feedback is an easy step you can do.  People here are generally willing to go the extra mile for an indy game shop in the name of supporting better gaming, but cant be bothered for a AAA title?  I'm just curious as to why.

Besides, i think this very thread demonstrates the opposite of "people will simply move on to generic fps #2, or #3" because that's not what's happening.  People are talking about individual games like Spore and Bioshock and are stating they will pirate the game in the face of copy protection just to get that specific one.  If people really did just say "hmm, Bioshock has DRM, no thanks" and moved on to purchase another game we wouldnt be having this discussion at all.

[Megrim]

Oh absolutely. We should give feedback, and i agree that it makes for better games, but that's not what is generally going to happen though. And, wasn't there someone earlier in the thread saying that they won't be pirating OR playing Bioshock because of the DRM?

[ajax34i]

"hmm, Bioshock has DRM, no thanks" and moved on to purchase another game

I SAID THAT.  I will do that.

People don't care about "supporting better gaming."   We'll buy from what's out there, not our job to "better" the gaming industry.  That's your job (red names).  We'll also hand a $20 bill to a stranger we don't know and don't really care much about, for the cause of "reducing poverty" and to feel good about ourselves, but once we know you and it looks like you want to fuck us over, well, screw helping.

Anyway, yeah, it sucks that the majority of the replies on this site are "we'll pirate shit".  Speaks volumes.  I won't pirate, I will simply not buy, like I said.  I'll tell my friends and that's about all I'll do.  What I got from this thread is "Mass Effect, Bioshock, Spore have rootkits; don't buy, spread the word."  Good luck with your respective companies, whatever.

[KallDrexx]

However by doing so - even if you have bought a copy of the game and aren't trying to get something for free - you're still adding to the problem as percieved by the publisher.

I'll be sure to think about this and cry when I have to download The Witcher to play it again since my DVD was shipped to me broken with no way to return it.  I'm such an asshole for wanting to play the game I purchased without having to pay extra for an additional DVD.

[Velorath]

However by doing so - even if you have bought a copy of the game and aren't trying to get something for free - you're still adding to the problem as percieved by the publisher.

I'll be sure to think about this and cry when I have to download The Witcher to play it again since my DVD was shipped to me broken with no way to return it.  I'm such an asshole for wanting to play the game I purchased without having to pay extra for an additional DVD.

No, but depending on the circumstances you might be an idiot for buy a game from a place that you can't return it to even though it was broken.

[Azazel]

(though I did boycott BF2142 for ads, so I'm being somewhat hypocritical).

Get yourself an Australian copy  -no adware.

[KallDrexx]

No, but depending on the circumstances you might be an idiot for buy a game from a place that you can't return it to even though it was broken.

Sorry I don't want to spend my own money to send the game back, deal with the hassle of arguing with the company to send me a new copy of the game (you do realize that many companies don't make it easy to return or exchanged pc games due to cd-keys right?), and then have to wait to use the product I originally paid for.  Especially when I can go online and in a few hours use the product I paid for.

But you're right, I'm an idiot for ordering stuff from reputable companies on this outdated piece of technology known as the internet.


On another DRM related note, does anyone know what kind of DRM is tied to games purchased through Direct2Drive?

[Azazel]

I have a ton of old games on 3.5" floppys for example; assuming i can get a modern OS to run the old stuff, you generally can't buy pc's with those drives anymore.  Just because i own the old Ultima games on floppies doesnt mean I am entitled to a newer version of that game for free. 

Actually, it should. You bought a license to play the game. The media it's stored on is irrelevant. If the new version was updated or is different than the old version (in the case of music CDs and movie DVDs) then yes a new license is required.

Yep, I'll reply in more depth to Xil's Twins' post later, when I get home from work, but Krakrok has an excellent point. We're either buying the physical game, with media, right of first sale, and the right to do whateverthefuck we want with it. OR we're buying a licence to use that software, and owning or retaining the physical media should not matter.

A floppy drive costs like $10, and anyone with half a brain can ask that their new PC have one. "Generally can't" implies that they're generally unavailable, which is bullshit.

back to work. more later.

[Brolan]

Cliff notes version of the thread so far -

When you sell computer games there are three groups of people:

1) People who buy your games
2) People who pirate your games
3) People who have nothing to do with your games

When you put restrictive DRM on your games more people move from group #1 to groups #2 and #3



P. S. There was also a bunch of arguing about morals, rights, and ethics but it was all irrelevant because it doesn't alter the truth of the statements above.

[KallDrexx]

Oh yeah speaking of the Witcher, I'm going to add this to the discussion.

Another reason why DRM sucks and screws over legitimate customers.  One of my friends bought the Witcher (the real DVD from a real store).  Guess what.  The DRM made the game completely unusable and would not run because of some compatability between his cd-rom and the crappy DRM that came with the game.  So while pirates were downloading the game and enjoying it, he couldn't play the game for 3+ weeks until the (well known I might add) DRM company came out with a patch to make it work.

This wasn't an isolated issue either.  Many, many people were yelling on the forums because they couldn't play the game they legitimately bought.  Quite a few people laughed on the forums about how they returned their copy to the stores and just downloaded the pirated version and viola, they could play the game.

Between the complicated cd verification processes and software incompatabilies that are built into DRM, it's not just an issue of "well my software could be shut down if hte company goes under" but an issue of there is no way QA will find every incompatability (whether designed in (i.e. not working when daemon tools is installed) or not) and thus legitimate customers will get screwed over. 

[Krakrok]

It's not very surprising that no publisher is coming out to say 'illegally downloading our stuff is ok sometimes'.

Blizzard said way back when during Diablo/Diablo2 that they know piracy helps them out. Game companies need to be less incestuous and hire more internet people. Game marketing is a joke. The flash gamers are eating your lunch.

[Ratman_tf]

C'mon, it's just not that hard to drop a quick 3 sentence email to 3 people who might can do something constructive with it.

Because if it's not the answers they want to hear, it's going to get roundfiled.

People don't want feedback, they want their pet theories validated.

[Ratman_tf]

Blizzard said way back when during Diablo/Diablo2 that they know piracy helps them out. Game companies need to be less incestuous and hire more internet people. Game marketing is a joke. The flash gamers are eating your lunch.

Let's play the imagination game and think about what kind of copy protection Starcraft 2 is going to have.

I bet there's a CD Key to validate the install and make a battle.net account... and that's it. No Starforce, no SecurROM, nothing that has a chance of dinking with hardware compatibility, or lurk in your Windows registry mucking around.

I bet there's not going to be internet validation or limited installs. You'll be able to install and play Starcraft 2 with your internet "turned off" just fine.

And I bet Starcraft 2 is going to be a goddamn smash hit and sell a bajillion copies.

So why is Starforce and SecuROM necessary again?

[Kail]

C'mon, it's just not that hard to drop a quick 3 sentence email to 3 people who might can do something constructive with it.

Where can I find such people?  Every e-mail address I know is either connected to someone who can't do anything about it or won't read what I write.