most of these companies that bitch about piracy are churning out B title games, a big example is EA. i havne't heard blizz complaining about piracy, and i've bought every one of their games. of course, it doesn't make it right, but i'm just sayin.
Originally posted by: skace
Starforce was ugly.
Originally posted by: thilan29
QFT. Starforce was a b!tch. The few games I had (I think Splinter Cell Chaos THeory was one of them) which used Starforce...I hated having the CD in there...it sounded like it was grinding the CD.
Originally posted by: evident
most of these companies that bitch about piracy are churning out B title games, a big example is EA. i havne't heard blizz complaining about piracy, and i've bought every one of their games. of course, it doesn't make it right, but i'm just sayin.
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
What will COD4 on Xbox look like at that time? It will be completely dead. Yes the console version sells a lot of units, but the game is very quickly abandoned because the quality just isn't there.Originally posted by: Zenoth
I agree with almost everything he says, and the very idea behind his article is certainly honorable, to open up people's eyes about the situation and think of it with solid evidence, facts and to not fall into the FUD and misinformation.
Probably because its just another justification for piracy that has no real substance. What about the XBox360 gamer that spends $3000 on a huge LCD compared to the PC gamer that spends only $400 on his PC monitor?Originally posted by: skace
And how come he didn't talk about the price of hardware? Are you telling me someone paying $3000 for a machine versus someone buying a $400 Xbox360 doesn't come into the eventual software budget? I mean if we are going to find reasons for piracy doesn't that matter?
AMD Game! ArticleAlso, what about his ridiculous 200 million game capable machines? Does anyone actually believe that? Just look at the Steam survey for much more realistic data, face it, most of the Geforce products are not game capable - they are borderline deceptive marketing.
Not sure the Dice games are a great example since they were some of the greatest resource hogs of their time. Blizzard either, but their gameplay and online-centric games often overcome their graphical shortcomings. But beyond Crysis, there's plenty of examples of games that looked great and ran great also, COD4 as an example.All of the successful companies walk a fine line between looking presentable and being runnable yet this topic never comes up in his piece, how come? Because it makes more sense than half the shit he discusses?
I'm well aware its all about profit, which is why they're taking their business to the consoles as profits there are clearly better. I'm also well aware that in the short term instituting more stringent DRM would incur a greater cost but in the long run it will reduce piracy. Although there's no guarantee a reduction in pirated copies (the whole free rider argument from the article), the hardware statistics and sales numbers for games like Spore and WoW clearly show a greater potential market than consoles. But going back to costs, setting up the infrastructure is expensive, however, all the major publishers left in the business have an MMO/online presence or are moving in that direction, so expanding the existing infrastructure would ultimately cost much less.Originally posted by: Xavier434
Chizow, the bottom line here is profit. Don't think that your magical solution of more invasive DRM is something that the experts in this business have not considered because they have and probably much more extensively than you have thought about it. There is a reason why they have chosen to limit the amount of DRM they put on games and most of those reasons have already been stated in this thread. Regardless, it is all about the money and these companies have projected smaller profit margins when considering the investment of more invasive methods of DRM. Otherwise, it would have already become standard.
Actually many of them are taking steps toward more intrusive DRM which has rekindled the anti-DRM sentiments to begin with. Online authentication, Day 1 .exe downloads, tracked activations, online-only content, pay to play MMOs, Windows Live or online registration....all of those methods ultimately cost more money to employ than a simple CD-key or disc check. Again, the key for publishers will be to offer some value or additional incentive to play with a legit copy. Steam, Xbox Live, Battle.net, MMOs are all excellent examples of effective DRM that do just that.You can argue till the end of time about all of the other "theories", "reasons", and "entitlement", but what you are failing to understand is that you are focusing on the wrong target audience. Your real target audience are the companies which you are trying to defend and even they disagree with you due to projected profit margins. The way that they see it is that the rest of your arguments mean nothing in comparison. They don't care about any of that other stuff. I'm sorry, but neither side agrees with you.
Originally posted by: chizow
I'm well aware its all about profit, which is why they're taking their business to the consoles as profits there are clearly better. I'm also well aware that in the short term instituting more stringent DRM would incur a greater cost but in the long run it will reduce piracy. Although there's no guarantee a reduction in pirated copies (the whole free rider argument from the article), the hardware statistics and sales numbers for games like Spore and WoW clearly show a greater potential market than consoles. But going back to costs, setting up the infrastructure is expensive, however, all the major publishers left in the business have an MMO/online presence or are moving in that direction, so expanding the existing infrastructure would ultimately cost much less.
Originally posted by: chizow
Actually many of them are taking steps toward more intrusive DRM which has rekindled the anti-DRM sentiments to begin with. Online authentication, Day 1 .exe downloads, tracked activations, online-only content, pay to play MMOs, Windows Live or online registration....all of those methods ultimately cost more money to employ than a simple CD-key or disc check. Again, the key for publishers will be to offer some value or additional incentive to play with a legit copy. Steam, Xbox Live, Battle.net, MMOs are all excellent examples of effective DRM that do just that.
As for target audience, as this thread has shown you can't reason with the unreasonable...considering many of the piracy/anti-DRM advocates can't even distinguish between right and wrong that isn't my intended audience to begin with. There's plenty of others who actually care about the future of PC gaming that understand piracy is stealing and ultimately killing the PC gaming industry. These people are the ones who need to be more accepting of more invasive DRM so we can eliminate pirates, thieves and free riders. Or at the very least, isolate pirates as they did to convicts in the 19th century by sending them to Australia.
Originally posted by: chizow
There's plenty of others who actually care about the future of PC gaming that understand piracy is stealing and ultimately killing the PC gaming industry. These people are the ones who need to be more accepting of more invasive DRM so we can eliminate pirates, thieves and free riders. Or at the very least, isolate pirates as they did to convicts in the 19th century by sending them to Australia.
Originally posted by: mindcycle
Originally posted by: chizow
There's plenty of others who actually care about the future of PC gaming that understand piracy is stealing and ultimately killing the PC gaming industry. These people are the ones who need to be more accepting of more invasive DRM so we can eliminate pirates, thieves and free riders. Or at the very least, isolate pirates as they did to convicts in the 19th century by sending them to Australia.
Accepting invasive DRM is not the answer. Offering greater incentive to buy games is. Stronger DRM, like activation/install limit based SecuROM obviously doesn't stop games from being pirated at this point. So why are companies like EA still using it? They are still using it to try and hinder the used games market by imposing install limits on retail copies, and by tricking their paying customers into buying new copies when they run into problems. Take a look at this error message: http://www.reclaimyourgame.com...ics/securomonspore.jpg
Initially it may have stopped games like Mass Effect from being pirated on release, but it's easily cracked now so it no longer provides that protection. So the reason they still include it with games should be obvious.
Further proof is the fact that EA still hasn't released a de-installation/revoke tool for their flagship games, even though it was promised months ago. Fifa 09 (an EA published game), has had a revoke tool available for awhile now, yet there still isn't one for Spore, Mass Effect, etc.. http://news.bigdownload.com/20...nload-fifa-09-patch-2/
So yes, people need to purchase games and not pirate them to help support the industry, but the industry also needs to realize that more DRM isn't the answer. It's offering things like a gaming community, content updates, patches, etc.. to subscribers who pay for the games. Maybe offer collector's edition like content for the regular retail boxes so there is a greater reason to buy retail over a digital download. Lowing the price of digital downloads. Things like that. Not more roadblocks.
They haven't implemented stricter DRM because it is cost prohibitive and they are taking a minimalistic approach, that's obvious. There's always going to be cost-benefit analyses done to determine if/when it becomes a good decision to spend on preventative measures. The problem for the PC industry is that there's much more attractive options available now that may allow developers to still make a profit and forego such expenses (consoles).Originally posted by: Xavier434
Indeed, but again it is not like they are unaware of both the short term and long term effects of DRM so why are they not taking it as far as it would be necessary to truly stop piracy? The answer is simple. It is not profitable or else they would have already done it a while ago. Too many consumers do not want to pay for a game which they cannot play offline. Too many consumers do not want to deal with "server issues" and other forms of down time which could eventually become permanent if the company either goes under or decides to stop supporting the game.
No I'm quite sure they're more concerned about piracy rather than people reselling games and I've never once said I thought activation limits were the answer. I've already listed alternatives that would give incentive to purchase and in cases there was no clear incentives, I'd advocate mandatory controls that would force similar DRM regardless as it has proved to be effective. Mass Effect's activation limit aside, they also require registration and a linked CD-key for downloadable content, I'd look to install similar controls throughout the standard campaign.Some companies are taking a few steps towards that sort of thing, but it really has little to do with stopping piracy. It has more to do stopping the reselling of the games. These companies know they cannot stop piracy while also maintaining a profit at the same time through the use of DRM on a PC. The true answer is to give people more incentive not to pirate. Such incentives are best done through the use of online content and features which pirates will not be able to get access to.
So why bother focusing on forms of unpopular DRM that prove to be ineffective? Once again, DRM is not the problem, piracy is. Even if certain methods of DRM are not effective in stopping piracy, it is certainly better than nothing. Can certain forms of DRM be a major problem for a small minority of the population? Sure. Can it be nuisance to change CDs, uninstall games you plan to sell, or hold onto CD-keys? Sure. Is it annoying to have to login to an account, enter your CC number or link your games to you forever? Sure. But if thats what it takes to cut down on piracy and ensure the continued development of games on the PC, its worth it. And when its not, we'll be playing consoles because developers simply will not make games for an unprofitable platform.In the end, I really do not have issues with stopping piracy. I have issues with stopping piracy using methods which hurt my experience as a legitimate customer. I am basically paying more for a worse experience with less features. Some of which even go as far as to stop me, the legitimate customer, from playing a game I buy because the DRM cries wolf WAY too much. This is not acceptable.
I'm not just advocating invasive DRM, I'm advocating more effective DRM. How is linking to a bunch of ineffective DRM tied to highly pirated games disproving any of this?Originally posted by: mindcycle
Accepting invasive DRM is not the answer. Offering greater incentive to buy games is. Stronger DRM, like activation/install limit based SecuROM obviously doesn't stop games from being pirated at this point.
No see I think the problem here is not everyone fully understands what DRM is. Yes you can make it look better. Yes you can make it look like it benefits you. I've never said any different and I've said from the start I wanted more effective and invasive forms of DRM.Originally posted by: Xavier434
I agree 100%. This is the real way to make more money in the PC gaming industry. Those that follow that sort of business plan in an efficient and attractive manner will be very successful. This is the sort of thing that will also convince me to buy more titles on my PC even though console versions are available.
Chizow, all feelings and arguments aside about DRM and piracy, I highly recommend you consider mindcycle's post. The bottom line regardless of piracy and DRM is that these companies need money and a large amount of their consumer base wants exactly what mindcycle speaks about, but without their systems being damaged by DRM. That does not mean that these companies should get rid of DRM completely, but it does mean that they need to really buff up on the quality of that DRM so it is less intrusive and is far more transparent to the legit user. Those legit users shouldn't even notice that the DRM exists ideally although something just a little less than ideal should be fine too. From there, it is all about these extra features and incentives. That will bring in the money. That will save the PC gaming industry.
Originally posted by: chizow
I'm not just advocating invasive DRM, I'm advocating more effective DRM. How is linking to a bunch of ineffective DRM tied to highly pirated games disproving any of this?Originally posted by: mindcycle
Accepting invasive DRM is not the answer. Offering greater incentive to buy games is. Stronger DRM, like activation/install limit based SecuROM obviously doesn't stop games from being pirated at this point.
I can basically ignore the rest of your focus on EA's activation-limit DRM schemes as I've never once endorsed them or claimed they were effective. Instead I've pointed to other forms of DRM that are effective and do add value. In cases where they do not add value to a specific title, they're still effective as they're inclusive and linked to your specific account. The value attached to your online games transfers to the offline games as well with the risk of punishment for piracy outweighing the gain.
Originally posted by: chizow
These people are the ones who need to be more accepting of more invasive DRM so we can eliminate pirates, thieves and free riders.
I said MORE invasive, and as I outlined above, that also means more effective. More invasive DRM that was equally inefficient wouldn't make much sense, now would it? So yes instead of crying about DRM and thinking removal of it will improve the situation, I want more invasive and improved DRM that actually works. Even if people are bothered by current DRM schemes they should understand it is a necessity. I don't like speed limits, having to go through air port security, having to carry keys, having to go through metal detectors or watching the alarm go off mistakenly when I leave a store etc but I understand they are necessary because there are people that make it so.Originally posted by: mindcycle
You shouldn't ignore it because you said this.
Originally posted by: chizow
These people are the ones who need to be more accepting of more invasive DRM so we can eliminate pirates, thieves and free riders.
You're not endorsing invasive DRM, but you're claiming that we need to accept it? How is that not contradictory? How is accepting invasive DRM going to eliminate pirates?
Yes....see this is the problem. People see DRM and they automatically associate it with negativity. Without getting into it too much discussion about it, to me its clear who's pushing that agenda. So yes, to me having to register a game, link it to my account, or enter a credit card number for every game is more invasive. And it would also be more effective.BTW, I agree that there are other forms of DRM that are effective. So are you suggesting we move towards those forms, or we accept more invasive DRM like you say above?
Originally posted by: chizow
I said MORE invasive, and as I outlined above, that also means more effective. More invasive DRM that was equally inefficient wouldn't make much sense, now would it? So yes instead of crying about DRM and thinking removal of it will improve the situation, I want more invasive and improved DRM that actually works. Even if people are bothered by current DRM schemes they should understand it is a necessity.
Originally posted by: chizow
I don't like speed limits, having to go through air port security, having to carry keys, having to go through metal detectors or watching the alarm go off mistakenly when I leave a store etc but I understand they are necessary because there are people that make it so.
Because when people are so adverse to current forms of DRM whether justified or not, the chances they will accept more invasive DRM are even less likely. Like many in this thread they will project negativity with the thought of DRM and instinctively reject it whether its effective or not. And so far it hasn't been the exact opposite. There are forms of DRM that work and there are ones that do not.Originally posted by: mindcycle
Great, so answer my other question now. How is accepting invasive DRM going to eliminate pirates? and on that note.. how is more invasive DRM going to be more effective? So far it's been the exact opposite.
DRM does benefit the paying customer when it works by ensuring the continued viability of PC games. Its certainly protects our interests more than than piracy rates estimated anywhere from 50-90% heh. Just as someone pointed out earlier, the devs that can "hack it" will survive and continue to make games for the PC, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're the ones that are making the best games. They may just be the ones with the most effective and invasive DRM (Steam, Blizzard, MMOs etc).Things like speed limits and keys benefit us by protecting us and our interests as individuals. DRM doesn't do that, it protects only the publishers, so the comparison is flawed.
Originally posted by: chizow
Because when people are so adverse to current forms of DRM whether justified or not, the chances they will accept more invasive DRM are even less likely. Like many in this thread they will project negativity with the thought of DRM and instinctively reject it whether its effective or not. And so far it hasn't been the exact opposite. There are forms of DRM that work and there are ones that do not.
Originally posted by: chizow
DRM does benefit the paying customer when it works by ensuring the continued viability of PC games. Its certainly protects our interests more than than piracy rates estimated anywhere from 50-90% heh. Just as someone pointed out earlier, the devs that can "hack it" will survive and continue to make games for the PC, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're the ones that are making the best games. They may just be the ones with the most effective and invasive DRM (Steam, Blizzard, MMOs etc).
Originally posted by: chizow
Because when people are so adverse to current forms of DRM whether justified or not, the chances they will accept more invasive DRM are even less likely. Like many in this thread they will project negativity with the thought of DRM and instinctively reject it whether its effective or not. And so far it hasn't been the exact opposite. There are forms of DRM that work and there are ones that do not.Originally posted by: mindcycle
Great, so answer my other question now. How is accepting invasive DRM going to eliminate pirates? and on that note.. how is more invasive DRM going to be more effective? So far it's been the exact opposite.
DRM does benefit the paying customer when it works by ensuring the continued viability of PC games. Its certainly protects our interests more than than piracy rates estimated anywhere from 50-90% heh. Just as someone pointed out earlier, the devs that can "hack it" will survive and continue to make games for the PC, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're the ones that are making the best games. They may just be the ones with the most effective and invasive DRM (Steam, Blizzard, MMOs etc).Things like speed limits and keys benefit us by protecting us and our interests as individuals. DRM doesn't do that, it protects only the publishers, so the comparison is flawed.
Originally posted by: chizow
Because when people are so adverse to current forms of DRM whether justified or not, the chances they will accept more invasive DRM are even less likely. Like many in this thread they will project negativity with the thought of DRM and instinctively reject it whether its effective or not. And so far it hasn't been the exact opposite. There are forms of DRM that work and there are ones that do not.Originally posted by: mindcycle
Great, so answer my other question now. How is accepting invasive DRM going to eliminate pirates? and on that note.. how is more invasive DRM going to be more effective? So far it's been the exact opposite.
DRM does benefit the paying customer when it works by ensuring the continued viability of PC games. Its certainly protects our interests more than than piracy rates estimated anywhere from 50-90% heh. Just as someone pointed out earlier, the devs that can "hack it" will survive and continue to make games for the PC, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're the ones that are making the best games. They may just be the ones with the most effective and invasive DRM (Steam, Blizzard, MMOs etc).Things like speed limits and keys benefit us by protecting us and our interests as individuals. DRM doesn't do that, it protects only the publishers, so the comparison is flawed.