PDA

View Full Version : drm



Pages : [1] 2

ikenstein
11th May 2008, 06:20
please can you not stick a pile of that anti piracy rubbish on this game? like restricting to 3 installs and internet activation every 10 days. that suks and i will not buy the game if you put this on.

i didnt buy half life because of drm. i wont be buying spore because of drm. i returned doom3 because of the internet activation when it came out. trust me, if you stick a pile of restrictions on the game i wont buy it.

Larington
11th May 2008, 08:31
Something tells me you are in part referring to the Mass Effect/Spore fiasco, in which case there was such a big reaction to that news that EA/Bioware wisely backed down (Well, for the most part)...
http://masseffect.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=629059&forum=125&sp=0#5774350#

I do wish publishers would realise that Digital Restrictions Management hurts the legitimate buyers and actually encourages more piracy, I still don't know for sure if I believe the "piracy encourages try before you buy - for good games" argument I often see being used to defend it, but I definately still argue that day 0/1 piracy should be stopped, mostly because its entirely unfair that people who didn't buy the game get to play it before me, but if any kind of piracy is going to be damaging to sales, day 0 piracy is the most likely candidate.

Point is, treat your customers like criminals and thats exactly what they'll become. I myself have been forced to use a no CD crack to get legitimate copies of one of the battlefield and black and white games to work before, which is simply unnacceptable.

bsel
11th May 2008, 14:02
[...] i returned doom3 because of the internet activation when it came out.[...]

I am able to play Doom3 without internet connection. The CD-Key can be verified without it. But if you want to play on common online servers you need to be authed by the master server. LAN servers also do not need internet. That's pretty ok for me.

Edit: But I also don't like the other DRM-like restrictions. Also I never will use a plattform like steam.

Tracer Tong
11th May 2008, 14:29
Bioshock was one of the worst of them ever. They had points for uninstalls to avoid lawsuits.

Nowadays most of the money in the game industry is being wasted on graphics and security. What a waste. :mad2:

Gary_Savage
12th May 2008, 01:23
Edit: But I also don't like the other DRM-like restrictions. Also I never will use a plattform like steam.

Wow. I never realized that I would be under DRM, when I got DX1 off of steam, the second time I bought it. Had I known, I would have asked my Dad to mail me my original CD from half way around the world. ...brings back memories of why I had experimented with non-Microsoft platforms (GNU/Linux), in the first place.

I, too, would like Eidos to know that I will be checking out for this kind of thing when I buy DX3, so please do not put any DRM stuff on it.

DXeXodus
12th May 2008, 04:27
Quite simply, I will not buy the game if they put outrageous DRM in the final product. A simple online authorisation is fine as is explained in the Bioware link posted by the topic starter.

Now I will by mass effect simply because of this new decision of theirs. Well done bioware.

Developers have to stop putting these types of security features in their games. If its coded it can be cracked. It's that simple. No amount of protection will be able to stop that. They will sell more games if they stop treating the legitimate buyer like crap.

Unstoppable
12th May 2008, 04:52
Eidos has not done this so no worries. The only thing they have done is securom.

rhalibus
12th May 2008, 05:27
It's sad that DRM and other anti-piracy solutions like SecurROM are causing so many headaches with legitimate buyers (I couldn't install two different games after buying them because the install program didn't recognize the CD--from which it just installed--as valid! :mad2:)

Unfortunately you also hear stories about companies like Crytek, who lost so much revenue through piracy that it decided to never make PC exclusive games again--which basically stifles graphics innovation from developers.

Consoles now create the majority of revenue for console/PC releases.

I would love developers and gamers to get together to determine possible solutions...This is becoming an issue with the very survival of the PC market.

Larington
12th May 2008, 19:25
The thing is, plenty of developers have used piracy on PC as an excuse lately, but I'm wondering how shaky an argument that is. The main reason for the move, realistically, is that generally more units are shifted on console than on PC (If I remember rightly, that applies to simultaeneous release on multiple platforms)... Some people think its piracy, I think its actually because when you buy a game for a console (Or indeed the console itself) you know that theres a very good chance it will run on the console, you won't need to patch it* or install it - throw the disc in and it'll run. Anyone can see the appeal of that.

* This is where irony starts to reveal itself, there are silly people who have decided that DLC systems on the new consoles are an excuse to allow a buggy game to leave the disc burning factories because they can just patch it, people don't take kindly to this and I'm sure its only a matter of time before the backlash begins. If you're a developer/publisher reading this, please just in case, take heed, make sure that the game leaves retail is polished as possible, the improved review ratings = improved sales, its worth the effort as your company stands to gain a reputation for polished games, which creates loyalty to your company/brand/franchise/all-of-the-above.

bsel
16th May 2008, 15:17
Wow. I never realized that I would be under DRM, when I got DX1 off of steam, the second time I bought it. Had I known, I would have asked my Dad to mail me my original CD from half way around the world. ...brings back memories of why I had experimented with non-Microsoft platforms (GNU/Linux), in the first place.

It was not the huge possibility of DRM in steam that made me mention it but the collecting of player data with such a platform. It is a problem concerning my privacy.
As I have to make many compromises with this already today like observation cameras in public places and telefone monitoring. I could not go to the US because I denied giving my fingerprint for getting a passport and my employer was not very amused of that...

VodunLoas
16th May 2008, 16:09
I really don't understand why online activation is ever used. I have a computer for my gaming that uses no internet connection. I wonder how many people don't buy games simply because of the online activation. A simple cd key is enough for me.

Gary_Savage
16th May 2008, 16:24
It was not the huge possibility of DRM in steam that made me mention it but the collecting of player data with such a platform. It is a problem concerning my privacy.
As I have to make many compromises with this already today like observation cameras in public places and telefone monitoring. I could not go to the US because I denied giving my fingerprint for getting a passport and my employer was not very amused of that...

Wow, and here I am: I remember signing a document stating that by applying for a US visa I would be allowing the US government to keep track of me, if I am allowed entry into the United States (yeah, I applied post 11th September, around March, 2002). Having been raised in a part of the Middle East (and no, I am not from there) where you don't talk about against the government, you don't have voting rights, and the government knows who works where, and for whom, I did not see this as being all that different; just, more technologically advanced. About the fingerprinting, I actually harrassed the people at some downtown Manhattan office, to get my fingerprints on the federal database: being a foreign student (and with some of those 19 hijackers apparently having come in as foreign students), I wanted my name crossed off of the list of possible suspects if any more trouble cropped up. I was told that I had come into the country after 11th September, 2001, and hence had been verified as 'not a threat,' and hence did not need to get fingerprinted, but no, I had to keep insisting (eventually, I went home, though, having failed to get my prints on the federal database). The first time that I left from the US, I made sure to check that I would get fingerprinted. By law, they had my prints taken when I got back. Of course, things had changed, by then, and all passengers traveling to, and FROM, the US were made to take off their coats, belts, and shoes off, and to empty their pockets, before being searched with a metal detector (that included old people), all around the world (that airport announcements in Dhaka and Dubai said that this was being done due to request from the US government).

I don't know if I would have been more protective my rights, had I been raised in my country, but coming to the US, I only felt a sense of insecurity, rather than a sense that my freedoms had been taken. I remember the joys of being able to vote, for the first time, in my college's undergraduate student government elections, and in my school's IEEE chapter elections (I was actually running).

As for telephone monitoring, to me, that is something that I have lived with for so long, I actually used to think that it had always been done. On top of that, back where I was raised, there were rumors that the monopoly ISP checked its subscribers' e-mails.

So I guess it will be a little hard for me to understand how outraged you must be about steam monitoring things that you do. I am a little taken aback, myself, as I had assumed that Steam's data came from surveys. Now, I'll just have to shut that program down, when I am not playing DX. Personally, I don't even trust that the pictures that I take with my cell phone camera are all that private (I got a jolt when my service provider was able to tell whether or not I had my phone on silent mode, and that got me thinking: what else might they be capable to knowing?), and I read, some years back, that there are some laws that telephone service providers are obliged to keep recordings of telephone conversations for a certain number of years. Now, these are things that I can't really do anything about, but it should be possible to limit Steam to monitoring what actions I take in the game world, right?

Kneo24
16th May 2008, 21:45
STEAM's DRM measures really aren't that bad. Yes, sometimes offline mode is a little wonky, but being able to play my games anywhere I go without needing an install disc is nice. I've never had any major issues with it. I find their methods to be acceptable. The only data they collect from you is usage data.

Gary_Savage
17th May 2008, 02:56
I should look into that, a little more, then. I, too, like the convenience of being able to move around without an installation CD; it's a bit like having a ready back up CD of the original (considering that I lost my CD to a house fire, this is really pertinent to me). If Steam only collects data like what portion of gamer sneak around, and what portion go in with guns blazing, then that is fine, by me, since it will show the industry that my niche exists, but if it collects data not related to games I bought off of Steam, then that will be a problem. Thanks for the pointer, I will check it out.

Redrake
17th May 2008, 10:00
The paranoia of security checks these days is getting too tedious. The first Deus Ex didn't even had a security check, I think.

Larington
17th May 2008, 17:36
If we want to get onto the issue of privacy, you should look into how much info google stores about your behaviour online (In particular on Internet searches)... In any case, I know in the UK we've got the Data Protection Act and I'm sure many other countries have their equivalent. If the data isn't abused, I honestly don't see why I should be concerned. The only people I feel I need to be wary of are criminal elements that want to steal passwords and the like for financial gain.

hashi
18th May 2008, 01:34
I dont care about DRM. as long as the game is easy to install and there are no hassles after I have installed it, Im fine with the game. But if it has to do some crappy online check every so often, then I might avoid it. Also, as long as the game doesnt have the technical issues of IW, than Im cool. ill preorder it as soon as I can

v.dog
18th May 2008, 10:57
I can see both sides of the DRM issue and there's no easy answer, no glib sentence whereby one can dismiss it one way or the other.

I've had games refuse to play because of Securom and Starforce, I've spent countless minutes re-inserting a CDROM hoping that *this time* it will load, and I've been tempted by the lure free software, even when I knew that I would be depriving the developers of their dues.

The problem with DRM is that in an attempt to stop piracy (a good thing), there's been much knee-jerking and consumers end up with a steaming plate of buggy, stupid, and/or draconian systems that all to often prevents people from doing what they feel they should be able to as a legitimate owner of that product.

So why pay for something limited when you can get it for free and use it however, wherever, whenever?

Piracy is a business model. The consumer has a choice; they can pay for something with limits on its use, or not pay and get it without restriction. Put that way, piracy is the clear winner.

Most companies just don't seem to get it. They think tougher and tougher DRM is the way to get more customers and it's just not working. There hasn't been a DRM system yet that hasn't been compromised in some way- every digital product is available via both models, so customers will be able make the choice to pirate or not, and they're not going to choose more DRM.

Eidos (and you other companies) listen up.

You will fail in the face of piracy unless you adapt to the idea of facing this business model as a competitor, rather than a bogeyman.

Since you can't beat the pirates on price, there's only one other alternative:
Beat them on service.

Reward, don't punish, your customers for spending their hard-earned cash on your products. Give them the things they can't get via illegal P2P networks.

Radiohead allows their fans to download their music for free, but encourages them to support the band by going to the concerts and buying memorabilia there. What they're selling is the experience and the memories. That's something you will never find on the Pirate Bay; the ability to say "I was there, and I've got the t-shirt to prove it."

The question then is, what can you give customers who buy your games?
Physical things are one answer. You could make every copy of the game a mini collectors edition, with one thing in it like a manual full of concept art or designers' notes (I still have mine from Half-Life and System Shock 2), or a poster. You could even make merchandise and sell it separately from the game, giving good discounts to those who buy it and the game at the same time.

Valve are treading a similar path to this (companion cube, anyone?) and have gone another whole step further. They're taken their DRM and wrapped it in so many benefits that you hardly know it's there. Under the sweet honey that comes from auto updating (both patches and new content), strong community tools, a convenient online store (making it just as easy buy games as to pirate them), and matchmaking, it's hard to taste the bitter medicine.

It's not perfect by any means; concerns have been raised over privacy, their returns policy (there isn't one), and localization (countries outside the US being denied the same prices or even the games), but it's a step in the right direction. They want their customers to like them, and will do what they can to ensure their anti-piracy measures minimize harm, if not actually provide benefit.

Larington
18th May 2008, 13:40
What I haven't seen yet, thus far, is a system where as soon as copies of the game start being despatched to warehouses/wholesalers/retailers the publisher immediately puts the game out as a downloadable game and make it clear to customers they can go via this method (Potentially you could even get the retailers in on it via special pre-order agreements) The result, it doesn't matter if some dodgy employee at one of the warehouses hands a copy to the pirates so much because the game can already be downloaded and played legitimately via the publishers online distribution system before the pirates even have a chance to upload a cracked copyto the web... Of course, this system wouldn't work on consoles, but thats their look-out.

Gary_Savage
18th May 2008, 17:12
...But if it has to do some crappy online check every so often, then I might avoid it. Also, as long as the game doesnt have the technical issues of IW, than Im cool...

I guess I should only worry about that, rather than complain about the privacy issues, considering that here in the US we have companies like Intelius, which are willing and able to sell our private information (credit history, past addresses, etc.), unless we pay them. Finding out about this company was when I really felt that I lived in a DX world.

jordan_a
28th Jul 2008, 02:18
Piracy and Crysis

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysis/news.html?sid=6190150

iWait
28th Jul 2008, 04:47
I'm don't mind my telephone conversations being monitored, since it is all done by machines. If you say "Bomb", "Mall", and "Murder" in a conversation they'll just go back and look at the context. It's not like they're trying to get you social security number. :lol:

I am, however, wary of Steam and direct2drive because I am paranoid of keylogger viruses.

v.dog
28th Jul 2008, 05:31
Really, it's no different to buying anything anything else online, if that's what you're using Steam for. Keyloggers are just as bad if you're using Ebay/Amazon/et al.

Most games I buy through retail channels, as I like having a physical disk, but I did buy the Orange Box via Steam as it was so much cheaper (games here are expensive. :() , and my account is still there.

To keep your machine secure:
Don't (http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/) use (http://www.opera.com/) IE (http://www.apple.com/safari/), and if you can, block ads and Java.
Do use a good firewall (http://www.zonealarm.com/store/content/catalog/products/zonealarm_free_firewall.jsp)
Do use a good (http://www.free-av.com/antivirclassic/products.html) Antivirus (http://www.avast.com/eng/download-avast-home.html)
Do run Spybot (http://www.safer-networking.org/)
Don't download software from sites unless you know you can trust it.
Don't visit dodgy sites (e.g. porn, cracks, and warez).
Don't open attachments unless you specifically asked for them, or you can confirm that the sender is legit, and knows that they sent it.
Don't leave your computer alone with anyone you don't trust absolutely
Do apply patches and updates often, especially the MS ones.Most of it's just common sense. Follow this, and viruses needn't be a worry. :)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
28th Jul 2008, 09:36
^
Yeah, that is a sensible list that I try to adhere to. :cool:

bsel
9th Sep 2008, 13:49
An interesting Anti-DRM campaign (http://games.slashdot.org/games/08/09/08/1613250.shtml) is happening.

It may be sad for the developers and designers of the game but which other chances customers have to protest and to be heard by the big distributors?

PS: I want to add something to v.dog's list: Don't work/play/surf as superuser (aka Administrator aka root).

jordan_a
9th Sep 2008, 14:06
Why being against DRM?

Frankly, I bought Bioshock (fine game by the way) and glady accepted DRM.

Some developers spend a lot of time and money to make great games, the least they can do is protect their interests!

bsel
9th Sep 2008, 14:23
I am developer myself.

I want to answer your question in a parable:

There are two bridges which connect two sides of a big dangerous river.

The first bridge was build before the other one. The designer brought this new technology to the country.
A man is standing in front of this bridge. He tells the people wanting to cross the river by using this bridge that they need a brain-implant to get through the security door. It will be in their brains until they die. It also can have side effects like epilepsy.

The second bridge was build because the people wanted to cross the river without any implant in their bodies. It does not look as good as the first bridge but you can cross the river using the second bridge when ever you want.

Which would you use?


Okay, does not fit absolutely to the distribution of games but the main mind is in it.

PS: I am not completely against DRM, I am just against the way DRM is used by the industry (http://www.lafkon.net/tc/).

foxberg
9th Sep 2008, 14:35
To keep your machine secure:
Don't (http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/) use (http://www.opera.com/) IE (http://www.apple.com/safari/), and if you can, block ads and Java.
Do use a good firewall (http://www.zonealarm.com/store/content/catalog/products/zonealarm_free_firewall.jsp)
Do use a good (http://www.free-av.com/antivirclassic/products.html) Antivirus (http://www.avast.com/eng/download-avast-home.html)
Do run Spybot (http://www.safer-networking.org/)
Don't download software from sites unless you know you can trust it.
Don't visit dodgy sites (e.g. porn, cracks, and warez).
Don't open attachments unless you specifically asked for them, or you can confirm that the sender is legit, and knows that they sent it.
Don't leave your computer alone with anyone you don't trust absolutely
Do apply patches and updates often, especially the MS ones.Most of it's just common sense. Follow this, and viruses needn't be a worry. :)

And above all use a Mac behind a firewall with Little Snitch installed.

Dragonlord
10th Sep 2008, 16:24
That list can be reduced to one entry if done right:
1) Use Linux

:P

And about DRM, it's the biggest crap since the dawn of time. I made a lengthy post about this other places but to sum it up: any DRM mechanism can be cracked. So it's futile to punish legit customers driving them into pirating. They better not do it if they value their customers.

minus0ne
11th Sep 2008, 01:49
Why being against DRM?
1. Because I don't feel like being treated as a suspicious gamer/suspected pirate for no reason.

2. Because DRM hurts my computer.
/pets his computer's case
"That's right precious, you don't like DRM low-level drivers, no you don't! No you don't!"

3. Because DRM slows games down.

4. Because DRM is, ironically, completely ineffective at combating piracy. It's like putting a wheelclamp on your car so that people won't steal your cd/mp3 player.

5. Because DRM only allows limited activations (in most cases this is now the accepted method of DRM), which is completely retarded. When I buy a game I want to be able to install it on all the computers I have. I don't want to explain to EA customer service how and why I've gone through my activations and beg them to give me one more even though I've lost the proof of purchase (receipt).

etc.

Frankly, I bought Bioshock (fine game by the way) and glady accepted DRM.
Well, there's your problem. Your judgement's completely impaired.


Some developers spend a lot of time and money to make great games, the least they can do is protect their interests!
Actually it's not the developers who choose DRM but the publishers (more specifically it's a financial decision made by people who are really, really naive about piracy). If you care to google a little company called Stardock you'll see that not every developer is so gung-ho about adopting Starforce or SecuROM. In fact their small-budget game Sins of a Solar Empire, which is breaking sales records, is doing just perfectly fine without any type of DRM.

Fact of the matter is, EVERY game gets pirated. Should the devs care? No, because those people pirating their game aren't their intended target audience anyway. The devs should strive to make a great game with wide appeal (within its scope) that people will buy regardless of the fact that it's floating around p2p networks the day after release.

jordan_a
11th Sep 2008, 10:06
I wasn't aware you weren't able to install the game as many times as you wanted to, that outrageous! :)

And what about the used market, when you sell your game to another guy, what happens generaly?

DXeXodus
11th Sep 2008, 10:41
DRM is basically pulling a finger at the used market. So ten years from now when you are trying to buy one of these games and they are nowhere to be found the only way to get it would be piracy. Bad move IMO.

A review of SPORE by someone on AMAZON basically sums things up:


The DRM for the game utilizes securom which is essentially a virus that installs itself without warning when you install the game. There is no way to completely remove it without reformatting and it is constantly running in the background if not removed. Sucking up computer resources.

It also is overpriced. This is actually a RENTAL, not a bought game because it only lets you install 3 times. If you install over 3 times then you must call EA customer support and beg them to let you play the game you bought. Did I mention the call is not free? If you live outside the U.S. it will be a very expensive call.

DO NOT BUY THIS, and if you do buy it keep in mind that you are renting it. Not buying it. Whats really ironic about this is the DRM hasn't even stopped the pirates as it was pirated a few weeks ago. And the pirated version doesn't have Securom or install limits which makes it a better version. EA shouldn't treat its consumers like trash if they want my money.
http://www.amazon.com/review/product...owViewpoints=1

jordan_a
11th Sep 2008, 11:51
Pretty impressive indeed. :nut:

Larington
11th Sep 2008, 21:04
Theres a conspiracy theory I now subscribe to that basically says "limited install Digital Restrictions Management (Yes I went there) isn't an attempt to combat piracy, its actually a way of screwing over the trade-on/resale market that means a retailer gets money off a single copy of a game potentially 5 times, robbing the publisher (And developer for that matter) of sales that they can brag about at a later date."

Still think its wrong. And probably always will.

jordan_a
11th Sep 2008, 21:08
Is the resale market that significant?

binlargin
11th Sep 2008, 22:06
Why being against DRM?

Frankly, I bought Bioshock (fine game by the way) and glady accepted DRM.

Some developers spend a lot of time and money to make great games, the least they can do is protect their interests!

Would you buy a DVD you could only watch 3 times? Would you buy an album that you could only listen to 3 times? Would it be fair to call these purchases, or would they be rentals?

If Deus Ex was DRM protected then you wouldn't still be able to play it now. By now either the activation servers would be offline, or you would have used up all 3 of your installs and would have to buy it again. If you know that you're renting the game and not buying it then that's fine, but they don't tell you its a rental. Imagine if you bought a new car and after 3 journeys the engine explodes and the dashboard lights up and tells you "sorry, this product has expired. Please buy another one"
I refuse to rent my games, when I buy a box I expect a product not a service.

This is an attack on the second hand games market, not on software piracy. It is to take control away from the user and give it to the publisher, so you'll buy more games in the future. Spore was available on bittorrent without the DRM 3 days before being released in the shops. If we let them get away with it now, they'll use it against us forever. It is beyond foolish to even entertain the piracy argument, you're being taken for a mug.

edit: also, if DX3 comes with DRM then I won't be able to resist pirating it. Sorry, I'd love to support this game but I'm not renting it and I NEED to play it more than I need to be a good person.

jordan_a
11th Sep 2008, 22:40
Can't one just automatically send his key to the producer through the Internet and that's it? They'd just register it and let play it as you want? (DOOM 3? I'm not sure).

jcp28
11th Sep 2008, 23:50
^
Jordan, good point. Customer service might be better at some companies than others. But just thinking about some of these idiots who say "We can not do that sir" makes me want to slam a phone into the monitor.

On resale value, it tends to be surprisingly popular, but I'm not up on that, like so many other things.

This is a personal problem, but I hate having to explain to people just what the problem is. If the person I'm talking to doesn't get it, that means I'm f****

Oh, and I've got to agree witheverybody else.
I've given my opinion on this in another DRM thread that got locked, and I'll just say if that there were a significant amount of games I wanted that were like this(especially if they were published by a massive company like EA) I would have no trouble not paying for it if DRM slowed down my computer even more than it already is with that Securom BS that gets mentioned here(and I lack money right now)

minus0ne
12th Sep 2008, 01:24
Is the resale market that significant?
Well it becomes problematic when the publisher at some point decides to cash in on an already released game. So while it's easy for a publisher to just release a DRM-releasing patch (lifting install restriction, ideally), they could instead just decide to milk the cow some more and re-release the game for digital download (or in some combination pack).

In other words, I won't be surprised if I'll be buying some game over and over again in the coming decade :nut:

In addition, as binlargin said, it's meant to put an end to 2nd hand/resale. If they would have their way, it'd actually be against the law for you to sell a game after you purchased it. Awaiting such fortuitous legislation, they're trying to make it hard to re-sell a videogame (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070507-record-shops-used-cds-ihre-papieren-bitte.html) (or cd or movie).

DXeXodus
12th Sep 2008, 04:22
The re-sale/second hand market is actually very big. You must also take into account that some big game retailers have a rental system where you pay a monthly fee to rent one or two games at a time. I can only imagine how that works out when DRM is thrown into the equation. The point of the matter is that this affects the legitimate buyers negatively to a huge extent whereas the pirates get it easy. They will never be able stop piracy. In fact, by not having any DRM, they will probably get more sales and better critical acclaim.

CarloGervasi
12th Sep 2008, 05:41
The only DRM I've ever had a huge problem with has been Starforce, which broke my PC's DVD drive. If they go with that, I won't purchase the game, no matter what. But if they have it on Steam, or require some kind of online authentication, that's cool with me, so long as they iron out the bugs before release and I'm not left with a $50 game that I can't play because of a bug in the activation process. They just need to be smart about how they implement this stuff.

v.dog
12th Sep 2008, 10:23
The whole Spore debacle was completely stupid. The game was already in the wild before release, so that anyone who didn't want to pay for it probably had it already, while the people who want to give their respect to the devs by giving them money for it, are slapped in the face with a three times only installer.:mad2:

Like CarloGervasi said, they need to be smart about how they implement this stuff. So far, as a whole, they're not. Publishers can't seem to get it through their heads that they need to attract people away from pirate copies, and not beat them over the head with a blunt object. At the moment, when they see people running away, they only beat them harder.

It's like they're trying to make a ball and chain, but end up making a mace instead, when we ask them to make a wedding ring.

Larington
12th Sep 2008, 17:16
I currently recieve a free weekly retail trade magazine called MCV (Has a website as well) and one of the major things thats often brought up is the resale market. Its big money for companies like GAME (UK perspective here), where in some cases the retailer will make far more money from 2nd hand game sales than standard release copies, in fact, I understand that the 2nd hand trade is helping to keep some independant small scale (1-3 stores, usually just the 1 and operate on a superior customer service and knowledge basis) game retailers affloat...

The above is in part because the supermarket chains are often able to bulk buy the price of newly released games SO FAR down that independant stores actually pay more to stock a game per unit from wholesale than the supermarkets sell the game for, resulting in those independants getting stock from supermarkets instead to save money in a desperate attempt to stay competitive (This in turn skews sales figures for games, since a copy therefor appears to have been bought twice (Of course, these figures are already WAY off because sales figures for download services aren't being made public, including steam) but none the less the purchasing of indie store stock from supermarkets happens in a necessary evil sort of way).

El_Bel
13th Sep 2008, 12:26
Many companies have blamed piracy for lack of sales on PC games; it apparently never occurred to them that their games didn't sell because they were half-a$sed ports, too expensive to purchase, or just plain bad.
-Quoted from somewhere

v.dog
14th Sep 2008, 09:41
The same goes for movies, music, and applications as well (*coVistaugh*)

Icky6
29th Nov 2008, 04:09
I believe this topic may have been mentioned before, but I just read something that I'd like to bring up.

Apparently GTA IV is going to use SecuROM for DRM, but it will only require a one-time internet activation, and the user can install and reinstall as many times as he would like. If Rockstar is able to do this, why the dreaded limit that other publishers impose in the first place?

It'd be nice if DX3 didn't have any DRM, but realistically, if it's an implementation like this, it seems harmless while (hopefully) being a way to keep the cashflow going back to the developers who deserve it.

jordan_a
29th Nov 2008, 05:17
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=76932&highlight=drm

:thumbsup:

AaronJ
29th Nov 2008, 05:38
If DX3 has ridiculous DRM like Spore, obviously nobody would pirate it, right?


Right?

kinster45
29th Nov 2008, 06:07
If DX3 has ridiculous DRM like Spore, obviously nobody would pirate it, right?


Right?

I wish I'm a programmer and I have seen how these pirates work. In fact years ago I worked with those people because I was young and stupid:scratch: . They think everything should be free including knowledge and they are a cult like the anarchists:nut: . They like challenges and to show off, so they'll tear the protection like its wet tissue paper. So sadly in the end all Eidos would have accomplished is irritating its loyal customers and wasted more money on DRM software.:(

Tracer Tong
29th Nov 2008, 08:46
The worst thing about DRM in DX3 is that it'll ruin it's classic-ness!

Man, how many times have I installed DX on many different computers (simply because I bought new ones). I would HATE having a Bioshock experience with 'install points' and having to uninstall bioshock to get my points. And to have constant internet connection to play.

It just ruins replayability.
PLEASE DON'T DO IT TO YOURSELVES, EIDOS MONTREAL.
:mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

GmanPro
29th Nov 2008, 08:49
DRM is pointless. It causes more problems than it solves.

If you make a good game, it will sell. Simple as that.

Mezmerizer
29th Nov 2008, 13:49
If you make a good game, it will sell. Simple as that.

Yeah that's true, whatever they do there would be pirated copies for sure.
But if the game is good people WILL want to have a nice authentic copy with a biiig beautiful manual in their collection ;)

Mr. Perfect
29th Nov 2008, 20:21
I've considered posting something similar, but it seems fairly useless. Publishers see DRM as necessary these days, and Securom seems to be the most popular. I would fully anticipate Deus Ex 3 to have Securom, seeing how Tomb Raider: Underworld has it. A list of effected games, both from Eidos and others, can be found here at reclaimyourgame.com (http://reclaimyourgame.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=11).

Personally, I've already skipped Spore, Fallout 3, and Farcry 2 in order to avoid this issue all together. Deus Ex 3 will be much harder to make a decision on though, since Deus Ex is so much more important to myself then other franchises.

There's still at least a year before DX3 is expected to launch though, so maybe there will be enough time for market trends to shift away from these extreme DRMs by then.

GmanPro
29th Nov 2008, 20:25
No Valve games there (they use that steaming pile of crap instead). And I noticed Oblivion also wasn't there, and that game sold a lot.

Spyhopping
30th Nov 2008, 00:27
And to have constant internet connection to play.

It doesn't have a big impact on the game, I just see it as a small annoyance.

However, I don't have internet access when I'm not at uni. I wouldn't be able play it for weeks when I'm home. It's counter productive for sales in my case

GmanPro
30th Nov 2008, 00:51
It upsets me to no end. Steam is so inconsistent, and my internet is no good anyway. I had to download 400+ MB's worth of patches for Storm of Zehir. Took me several hours. But the game is awesome, and you I can't stay mad at Obsidian. :thumbsup:

Icky6
30th Nov 2008, 00:55
I've considered posting something similar, but it seems fairly useless.

As fairly useless as swimming?

Mr. Perfect
30th Nov 2008, 08:06
As fairly useless as swimming?

:lol: That has got to be one month's signature theme.

Tracer Tong
30th Nov 2008, 09:29
It doesn't have a big impact on the game, I just see it as a small annoyance.

However, I don't have internet access when I'm not at uni. I wouldn't be able play it for weeks when I'm home. It's counter productive for sales in my case

That's what I meant. Most of the time my laptop has no internet connection, so I won't be able to play...


As fairly useless as swimming?

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Wow, SecuROM must be millionaires! (all of those titles)

Icky6
30th Nov 2008, 19:43
lol

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Dec 2008, 00:51
Many companies have blamed piracy for lack of sales on PC games; it apparently never occurred to them that their games didn't sell because they were half-a$sed ports, too expensive to purchase, or just plain bad.
-Quoted from somewhere

Love the 'quoted from somewhere'. :D



I believe this topic may have been mentioned before, but I just read something that I'd like to bring up.

Apparently GTA IV is going to use SecuROM for DRM, but it will only require a one-time internet activation, and the user can install and reinstall as many times as he would like. If Rockstar is able to do this, why the dreaded limit that other publishers impose in the first place?

It'd be nice if DX3 didn't have any DRM, but realistically, if it's an implementation like this, it seems harmless while (hopefully) being a way to keep the cashflow going back to the developers who deserve it.

I've merged your new thread into existing one. :)

caitsith01
1st Dec 2008, 03:10
I would like to add my voice to this thread (in fact, I've finally registered for these forums just so I can).

I also WILL NOT buy DX3 if it has invasive or annoying DRM. A CD-check or physically delivered serial number is fine. An on-line check for on-line play only is fine. Anything more than this is not fine.

My PC is my PC. It is not Eidos's PC, or any other company's PC. They do NOT have the right to decide when it connects to third party servers, what extra software is installed on it, etc etc. They also do not have the right to monitor my use of a game I have purchased, or to prevent me from (a) installing it multiple times or (b) selling or gifting it to another person if I no longer want it.

Requiring on-line activation is invasive and unreasonable. Some people do not have an Internet connection. Others, like me, do not want a game publisher to know when they are using a product they have purchased. If I am playing on the official servers for a game, fine. But otherwise (LAN, single player, private server) absolutely not fine. I just returned Company of Heroes Gold Edition for this exact reason - I refuse to be monitored by Relic Online every time I fire up a single player game.

The irony of all of this is as follows: I will consider buying the game if it is good and it has minimal DRM.* I will definitely not buy it if it has DRM. I wonder how many people think like me, but are also prepared to pirate it in the second case? Many, I would think.

A couple of comments about other posts in this thread:

- Crysis tanked because no known computer can run it at full detail, which was a stupid decision made by the developers

- the example about things being more invasive in the Middle East is ridiculous - instinctively fighting against invasive anti-privacy measures is exactly why things are relatively free in the west, and long may we continue to do so

Please please please Eidos, be smart. How many copies of DX1 were sold? And that game could be copied (not even installed) unlimited times simply by editing one text file to tell it to refer to a local directory and not the CD drive.


* Given that this is Deus Ex we're talking about, I'll definitely buy it.

K^2
1st Dec 2008, 05:58
Personally, I don't mind DRM on a video game, as long as it does what it is meant to do without sticking out. Media checks are fine, as long as they don't require any special drivers. Internet registration is fine also, even with some hardware data submitted, as long as there is no limit to number of registrations and as long as off-line alternative is provided.

In the past, I have had to find cracks for games I legitimately own, because DRM malfunctioned. And yes, any time a game I own refuses to run, it is a malfunction, regardless of other factors. And if I know in advance that this will be the case, I might as well save myself trouble and find other ways of acquiring the game.

Complete lack of DRM does encourage piracy, but not nearly as much as over-restricted DRM. First, there are people who refuse to buy the game with such DRM, who will likely resort to other ways of obtaining it, and then there is increased effort in cracking the game. In addition to regular crackers, you get a whole bunch of hackers who would have had something better to do, like actually playing the game.

jordan_a
1st Dec 2008, 06:07
Piracy is an extreme means... DRM is just a counter mesure of the same proportion, except that it's legal. And if it helps selling video games, no matter what, I support it.

K^2
1st Dec 2008, 06:13
Piracy is an extreme means... DRM is just a counter mesure of the same proportion, except that it's legal. And if it helps selling video games, no matter what, I support it.
But DRM doesn't always help selling more games. It often harms the sales.

The problem isn't with extreme measures. It is with these measures being ineffective against pirates, and at the same time harmful to legitimate owners of said games. Such DRM hurts every PC user. The only ones that win are the holders of console licenses. Which makes me wonder if it isn't these same people that push for such crazy DRM schemes. Sony placing rootkits on their CDs comes to mind.

jordan_a
1st Dec 2008, 06:15
But DRM doesn't always help selling more games. It often harms the sales.How can you possibly measure that?

K^2
1st Dec 2008, 06:55
I can't measure it. But I can offer qualitative analysis. Even heavy DRM on most titles does not delay the response of the pirates. You can get a crack for pretty much any game on the day of the release. If I want to download a game illegally, whether or not it is DRM-ed is of no concern to me. I simply grab the torrent, download it, and I have my sparkling copy of the game that loads off the HDD without a need to insert a CD. I'm a happy criminal.

Such DRM does not improve sales compared to conservative CD-check DRM.

On the other hand, there are a number of people who buy the game, and it simply doesn't work. Some sell their game on e-bay. Some manage to return it. Some simply recommend others not to buy. Most of these people will end up downloading a cracked game. I can't tell you how many sales are lost that way, but it is some positive number.

Some positive number minus zero is still some positive number. So again, while I can't tell you how many sales are lost due to such DRM, sales are certainly lost.

Some form of DRM should be there, I agree. And it does help. However, any DRM that prevents some number of legitimate users from running the game is automatically bad for sales and should not have made it to the final product.

spm1138
1st Dec 2008, 10:31
I can't measure it. But I can offer qualitative analysis. Even heavy DRM on most titles does not delay the response of the pirates. You can get a crack for pretty much any game on the day of the release. If I want to download a game illegally, whether or not it is DRM-ed is of no concern to me. I simply grab the torrent, download it, and I have my sparkling copy of the game that loads off the HDD without a need to insert a CD. I'm a happy criminal.

Such DRM does not improve sales compared to conservative CD-check DRM.

On the other hand, there are a number of people who buy the game, and it simply doesn't work. Some sell their game on e-bay. Some manage to return it. Some simply recommend others not to buy. Most of these people will end up downloading a cracked game. I can't tell you how many sales are lost that way, but it is some positive number.

Some positive number minus zero is still some positive number. So again, while I can't tell you how many sales are lost due to such DRM, sales are certainly lost.

Some form of DRM should be there, I agree. And it does help. However, any DRM that prevents some number of legitimate users from running the game is automatically bad for sales and should not have made it to the final product.

I tend to buy my games but just out of idle curiosity I have been keeping track of games using SecuROM and limited installs and they have all been available before their shelf release date cracked to remove the SecuROM.

It's a very short line between the review-bombed amazon page and your favourite yarr-themed search engine especially if your preorder didn't ship yet, no?

And as K^2 points out you also harm legit customers.

After a paying customers' first technical issue with a SecuROM/Stardock game you're basically relying on people's good honest nature to ensure that they pay for a game they have also obtained a cracked exe of.

Since people's good honest nature is something that people who favour invasive DRM seem to have a hard time believing in there seems to be a slight logic gap there... ;)

Yeah.

I have no problem with DRM as a concept (I buy a lot of my games on Steam for example)... it's just when publishers kick the arse out of it with no real effect on piracy that I object.

Steam for example a lot of people complain about but I actually don't mind it so much because online activation comes with the beneficial perk of being able to re-download and install my games as often as I like which seems like a logical arrangement. There's not an entirely arbitrary restriction there.

I won't buy DX3 if it has limited installs or otherwise interferes with the proper operation of my PC.

edit

- Crysis tanked because no known computer can run it at full detail, which was a stupid decision made by the developers

This definitely. They should have checked the Steam user survey. The "average" machine would do it justice a full year after it's release.

And it wasn't great. It was somewhere between pretty good and merely OK, but it certainly wasn't great. Memory leaks, bugs, shonky level design, slightly dodgy AI, trademark Crytek shift from "fun open ended combat" to "slightly dull corridor shooter".

Minus the technical wow factor it was a B title.

That it was a AAA title seemed to be the main thrust of that bloke from Crytek's whine.

K^2
1st Dec 2008, 12:06
After a paying customers' first technical issue with a SecuROM/Stardock game you're basically relying on people's good honest nature to ensure that they pay for a game they have also obtained a cracked exe of.

Since people's good honest nature is something that people who favour invasive DRM seem to have a hard time believing in there seems to be a slight logic gap there... ;)
That's why it almost feels like a plot. Several of these DRM stories just make me picture some brain-storming session where they decide that there are too many people out there who still don't know how to obtain the game illegally, and they have a great idea on how to motivate them to learn.

They can't be that stupid, can they? Unless they are trying to tank the PC game sales. On the other hand, maybe I am getting too paranoid.

GmanPro
1st Dec 2008, 20:40
If they wanted to tank PC game sales, they wouldn't have priced PC games lower than console games. It's just dumb to pay extra for a game and then getting less out of it cause its on a stupid console lol.

K^2
2nd Dec 2008, 02:54
When you subtract out the licensing fees, PC titles are actually more expensive, are they not? But yes, most people involved are obviously trying to actually turn a profit in PC games. I'm just trying to logically wrap my head around the DRM situation, and I end up with self-contradictions. It's just a choice of where to put the contradiction. You can make it surface in publishers trust and don't trust gamers at the same time. Or you can put it in they are trying to sell games but also tank them. Neither of these make sense, of course, but I can't figure out what does.

Mr. Perfect
2nd Dec 2008, 02:57
The current conspiracy theory states that DRM is meant to stop second hand/used game sales, not pirates. The theory says that the publisher needs to make sure that every single legit customer pays them for a license. You wouldn't want two or more people playing on only one license!


How can you possibly measure that?

It really is to bad that there is no way to measure lost sales. There are a few games that I did not buy because of this DRM mess, but the publisher will never know. As cruel fate would have it, they can tell about how many people pirated the game by looking at download stats at TPB or some such site. When they look at the reduced sales, the only thing they will ever see is the number of pirates. I just hope their DRM stopped one pirate for every sale it cost them(Yeah right. "DRMZ broke ma bit torrent, yo!" :rolleyes: ). At least that way it would be a wash.

I still think the only way to register a no sale it to pre-order the game, and then cancel it before it ships(Preferably while telling the retailer why you canceled the order). Lost pre-orders get publishers' attention.:whistle:

GmanPro
2nd Dec 2008, 02:58
It might be a condition set by the publishers or something. Who knows...

Mr. Perfect
2nd Dec 2008, 04:48
It is. All games published by Stardock have no DRM. It's part of their philosophy.

jordan_a
2nd Dec 2008, 08:11
If a game is put on a torrent, is there any way for someone who loves that game to "fight" the torrent?

Necros
2nd Dec 2008, 08:49
Eidos (and you other companies) listen up.

You will fail in the face of piracy unless you adapt to the idea of facing this business model as a competitor, rather than a bogeyman.

Since you can't beat the pirates on price, there's only one other alternative:
Beat them on service.

Reward, don't punish, your customers for spending their hard-earned cash on your products. Give them the things they can't get via illegal P2P networks.
:thumbsup:

Piracy and Crysis

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysis/news.html?sid=6190150
Yeah, because piracy was the main reason why that game didn't sell like they wanted it to, sure... :rolleyes: **** Not the average gameplay or the too high system requirements...

DRM is bad for business, simple as that. It won't protect a game at all. If the game isn't cracked on the release day (or before that) then those who want to download it, will wait. This way the publishers are only screwing with the customers. :(
Oblivion was released without copy protection but it sold very well. Why? Because it was a good game. Make a good game, don't mess with the customers and you don't have to worry about piracy. Oh, and smart marketing doesn't hurt either. ;)

edit:

If a game is put on a torrent, is there any way for someone who loves that game to "fight" the torrent?
I've read about something like this. A movie's director (I think) asked people to spam torrent sites with fake torrents to make it very hard to get the actual movie. But that didn't work either. I guess once something is out there nobody can stop it.

Tracer Tong
2nd Dec 2008, 08:53
And a good multiplayer gaming/multiplayer community always causes the casual gamer to buy a game...

Necros
2nd Dec 2008, 09:27
And a good multiplayer gaming/multiplayer community always causes the casual gamer to buy a game...
Exactly. And what you've said about installing DX many times, same thing here. Sometimes I just re-install it and play through a couple of levels, then new games are released, a few months or more later I'm installing DX again.

But like a guy wrote on Spore's Amazon review page (check it out people!), companies are probably using this DRM crap to make gamers spend more money on the same game. :mad:

spm1138
2nd Dec 2008, 12:28
If a game is put on a torrent, is there any way for someone who loves that game to "fight" the torrent?

Torrents are decentralised and the client runs a checksum for every file segment sent.

There are centralised trackers but torrent clients now seem to include a distributed tracking system, "DHT".

There's nothing you can do to an existing torrent.

I suppose you could try and DDOS The Pirate Bay :nut:

Uploading fakes doesn't work because they generally get spotted quick and labeled as such.

Cugros
2nd Dec 2008, 13:28
If a game is put on a torrent, is there any way for someone who loves that game to "fight" the torrent?

Why isn't anyone pointing out the fact, that you can affect people on personal level?

If you happen to have a friend who is going to download it, or worse yet spread it, tell him not to and point out, that if he will download it illegally, he will be an enemy of the DX gaming community and you will have no choise but to beat him up, or at least whine for an eternity.

And if you know a person who ISN'T your friend and is going to steal our precious game, you can squeal him to the officials, so he gets his computer taken away, pays for DX3, and becomes an warning example to the others.

But besides personal level, it is really hard to fight game piracy.

What do you say we all agree to oppose pirating DX3? I will stop my friends from stealing, how about you?

International opposers of DX3 piracy (or something like that) unite!
Together we are strong, and can boost the sales!

spm1138
2nd Dec 2008, 14:30
Or, alternatively, if you want to be the sort of person who still has friends you could just tell your friends what you think of it and if it's good that they should Buy Buy Buy!

K^2
2nd Dec 2008, 18:07
If a game is put on a torrent, is there any way for someone who loves that game to "fight" the torrent?
Yes. But people who know how to, will never tell you. Torrents exist because every other mean of information distribution became controlled. People who spend their time developing the tools to bypass control will never betray their secrets, because they work for the principal of freedom of information. They really don't care about copyrights or piracy. They support neither.

Furthermore, if somebody finds a way to compromise torrenting, there are more complex ways of distributing information that will become dominant. They are slightly slower, but if sacrifices will need to be made, they will be. The system will become as complex as it needs to be for free information exchange.

And this is part of something that publishers need to understand. There are people out there who work to make sure that any two persons can exchange any information they want without any 3rd party getting involved. They don't try to violate copyright. They leave that choice up to people involved in communication. As such, these people are in violation of no laws or moral principals. Their cause is just, and their resources are rather impressive. As long as any form of global network exists, this will not be stopped.

There are also people who break DRM. In the old days, these were mostly crackers, but it is no longer so. DRM restricts the rights of the user, and many people who work to break DRM protection aren't interested in piracy. They want to make sure that legit users can actually use the product. A lot of these people work openly and legally.

Finally, there are the rippers. These are the people who rip the game, package it with cracks, and seed the torrent. Fewer and fewer of the rippers these days are even crackers anymore. These are the people who are specifically working to violate copyright. They almost never have anything to do with the former two groups.

Free information exchange, cannot be stopped. DRM hacking cannot be stopped. For these two reasons, neither can be the rippers. As such, publishers will have to find alternative means to make sure that the users buy their product rather than obtain it illegally.

“Laws control the lesser man... Right conduct controls the greater one.” - Mark Twain.

“Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.” - Albert Einstein.

jordan_a
2nd Dec 2008, 19:41
God I would give anything to bury every downloadable version of DX3 I find.

K^2
2nd Dec 2008, 21:52
God I would give anything to bury every downloadable version of DX3 I find.
Would you give up your rights and your freedom? Because that's what it would take.

jordan_a
3rd Dec 2008, 21:18
Torrents exist because every other mean of information distribution became controlled.But websites can be closed, right now they are operating in broad daylight and even if one can't wipe their system out, one can close their big websites and make their business more difficult, can't they?

SageSavage
3rd Dec 2008, 21:45
I honestly don't think DRM can get much more annoying than what the PC version of GTA IV comes with - let me tell you that... I will never again buy a game that but t fu cks honest cutomers like that. This is not just talking, I mean it! What Rockstar / Microsoft did there was the last straw that broke the camel's back. I hope you watch the current situation closely and learn from it, Eidos.

K^2
3rd Dec 2008, 21:55
But websites can be closed, right now they are operating in broad daylight and even if one can't wipe their system out, one can close their big websites and make their business more difficult, can't they?
1) Biggest websites are operating legally. The most popular yarr-themed tracker, for example, operates out of Sweden, where it is only illegal if the server contains actual copyrighted material. Tracker does not store any data. It merely accepts connections from people who are exchanging data, and gets them in touch with each other. Information exchange happens peer-to-peer. In Sweden, sharing tracking information is not a crime. Sharing copyrighted data is, but only the peers are considered to be involved in that.

2) Lets say you find a way to close such sites. This can be done either by changing laws in a bunch of countries, or by less than honest means. Former isn't likely. Later is possible, in principal, but you are opening a whole different can of worms. But lets forget these things for a moment and pretend that you managed to.

Torrenting would die down significantly. There would still be a bunch of fly-by-night trackers, but that would make it so much easier to set up fake trackers and distribute bad torrents. So there would be ways to shut the whole thing down. But torrents only use servers out of convenience. Yes, a new system will need to be put in place, but it is matter of weeks, not even months. There are successful pure P2P models. They would not rely on any sort of permanent servers. Tracking information could be distributed from peer to peer. It would be slower, yes, but not enough to discourage use.

The only thing you achieve is hiding the problem. Part of the reason why trackers, for the most part, are allowed to be, is because it allows a simple check to see how bad the pirating really is. You can go to your favorite tracker, get a list of all torrents for the game in question, and see how many people have downloaded it. Closing down trackers is not the right way to fight the problem, primarily because trackers aren't the problem. It is the people who want to pirate, and will find means to do so.

U.S. Government has been taking the wrong approach. Close down anything remotely usable to violate copyright. I'm glad there are governments that don't feel that way. But even if that changes, it will not be the end. Even if they all become far stricter than U.S. Gov-t, even if they will start checking IPs and traffic and arresting people in large groups, all it will do is force the above P2P models become more complex. A simple P2P under Onion is already nearly unbreakable. Under such system you'll know what is available on the network to download, and be able to download it, but you'll never know IPs of people you download from or these who download from you.

The only way to stop free data exchange is to close down networks completely. The only place I'm aware of where this has been done successfully is North Korea, and that alone should be a good enough reason not to try.

spm1138
3rd Dec 2008, 22:01
Actually losing TPB would force the development of a distributed search engine which would be a big help.

K^2
3rd Dec 2008, 23:55
Distributed search would eat up a lot of bandwidth, though. That's the main reason so many people chose torrents over some other P2P networks.

Laokin
4th Dec 2008, 06:12
Exactly. And what you've said about installing DX many times, same thing here. Sometimes I just re-install it and play through a couple of levels, then new games are released, a few months or more later I'm installing DX again.

But like a guy wrote on Spore's Amazon review page (check it out people!), companies are probably using this DRM crap to make gamers spend more money on the same game. :mad:


Well in this case DRM doesn't hurt. Atleast, DRM of today.

Farcry 2 releases your install count when you uninstall it.

Spore, call support and they will activate it for you.

Once again, this won't really stop you from reinstalling the game. It does however stop you from activating it on 5 computers at one time. Who has 5 computers anyway?

The real deal about DRM is that it's a scam. The developers know this, whilst the big wigs at the top will only budget a risky project if it seems "secure."

It's also important to note, that DRM is obviously more secure than non drm, but ultimately gets beat.... it's just a matter of time.

Some games take months like Alone in the Dark 5, others take about a week like Far Cry 2. I believe DRM actually hurt Far Cry 2, as it cost them an arm and a leg to lease the rights. This ultimately cut funds from the dev team which resulted in an earlier launch minus a heap of promised features.

DRM is used to get a green light from the publisher. DRM should stop hurting games from production as the publishers eventually sign deals for x amount of time/games. Although the corporate idiots who actually believe the white lie (boy cried wold style) that piracy axes a considerable amount of revenue don't realize that they are simply wrong and if they persist... are going to kill their own market based on greed.

:mad2:

Wake up Ubi/Ea... it's like a bad dream.

Anybody remember when EA was the ish? Like back when need for speed was a classy game?

spm1138
4th Dec 2008, 14:10
A lot of the revenue lost to piracy is largely theoretical revenue based on the assumption that every pirated copy would have been a sale.

This is obviously not the case.

A supply/demand curve for something with zero price is not the same as something that costs 30-50 quid.

Microsoft's recent change of tack in China shows this as clearly as anything... they dropped their prices to something the pirates would pay.

This is an interesting read also:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy.ars/1

It may not be nice to think about but there are actually lots of very simple and straightforward reasons for the games industry having trouble with money at the moment. A lot of it is down to the way games are made. The cost just keeps going up and up on a geometric curve. Alas, sales aren't really doing the same.

This is why so many publishers are farming out their development to the far east and why widening the audience is such a big deal at the moment.


Once again, this won't really stop you from reinstalling the game.

What if the company goes bust?

What if the call centre they hire to manage this is useless?

What if there's a bug with the software?

Why should I even have to worry about these things with a game I bought?

imported_van_HellSing
4th Dec 2008, 14:20
I got hurt yesterday by Rockstar, Securom and Microsoft.

Don't buy GTA IV. Seriously.

SageSavage
4th Dec 2008, 17:42
I told you...

v.dog
5th Dec 2008, 09:01
As far as DRM goes, most DRM strategies are just dumb. The goal should be to create greater value for customers through service value (http://ih8evilstuff.livejournal.com/16992.html) (make it easy for me to play my games whenever and wherever I want to), not by decreasing the value of a product (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081203-valve-calls-drm-stupid-microsoft-still-doesnt-get-it.html) (maybe I'll be able to play my game and maybe I won't).

We really really discourage other developers and publishes from using the broken DRM offerings, and in general there is a groundswell to abandon those approaches..If only the rest of the publishers would get this. :(

K^2
5th Dec 2008, 23:34
I was looking forward to GTAIV PC release, but now, I don't think I'm going to bother.

Sense/Net
6th Dec 2008, 00:08
Some developers spend a lot of time and money to make great games, the least they can do is protect their interests!


That would be a valid argument if DRM actually did protect their interests. In practice DRM has caused many many issues for people who pay for the game, does nothing to prevent the games from being cracked and essentially rewards piracy since people who torrent don't have to deal with the DRM headaches. Sins of a Solar Empire is a perfect example for developers: if you make a quality game people will buy it!

Tracer Tong
6th Dec 2008, 21:54
You know what would make a great system? The Bioware one (without SecuROM kthx)...

It realizes the legit community idea. You register games you buy securely in their website and in the forums, your login's avatar contains a visible-to-everyone list of your purchased Bioware games.
This way, you won't be talking about a game you don't actually own and if you do it'll be one huge shame and community-ban for you.

Combined with great multiplayer gameplay and a live multiplayer community, this is the perfect DX-ish solution to DRM.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

spm1138
7th Dec 2008, 00:20
Online content of one sort or another is a hugely important tool in getting people to buy the game.

Stuff like DLCs etc. etc.

Tracer Tong
8th Dec 2008, 22:28
About the "calling a hotline" situation: If the company is down/decades have passed (won't stop me from installing DX1 :D), no one will have answered your cry for help, and you would have been better off cracking the DRM.

DRM is one of the core reasons that games (since Bioshock) will never be classics any longer. It is not scalable, time-wise.

I mean, come on, if Fallout1&2, System Shock 2, and DX1 had DRM, would you have reinstalled them now? Don't forget what happened to Interplay. No hotline there, buddy!

SageSavage
8th Dec 2008, 23:32
I mean, come on, if Fallout1&2, System Shock 2, and DX1 had DRM, would you have reinstalled them now? Don't forget what happened to Interplay. No hotline there, buddy!
The companies/publishers argue that they are going to release a DRM-removal patch after a few years or when they close their doors. That's not really convincing but people will simply use an ordinary crack (aka homebrew DRM-removal patch) if they feel like playing Bioshock.

K^2
9th Dec 2008, 01:26
Or they can save themselves trouble of looking for patch later, and just download a neat ISO of a cracked game now. The extra $50+change won't be without use either.

There are only two reasons I buy games. 1) I think of capital spent as investment into future games, and 2) To save myself trouble of downloading, looking for patches, etc.

DRM takes away at least a little from both. If a game is DRMed, I expect to have problems with it. If not now, then in a few years. And when publishers ignore that and force DRM on me, I don't feel like they are going to look after my interest in other areas either. So the investment bit feels very shaky.

As I said, I'm not going to buy GTAIV, because I don't want trouble with DRM now, and I don't feel like the money will go towards making good games in the future. I'm starting to feel that Take Two is losing their touch, and so I'll just wait for R* to find better publishers or be replaced by someone else.

SageSavage
9th Dec 2008, 01:42
There are only two reasons I buy games. 1) I think of capital spent as investment into future games, and 2) To save myself trouble of downloading, looking for patches, etc.
3) I think good work deserves good money.


As I said, I'm not going to buy GTAIV, because I don't want trouble with DRM now, and I don't feel like the money will go towards making good games in the future. I'm starting to feel that Take Two is losing their touch, and so I'll just wait for R* to find better publishers or be replaced by someone else.

I have bought it but I wouldn't do it again. GTA 4 is so over the top that it will change my buying behaviour. And yes, I also feel that Take 2 lost touch.

K^2
9th Dec 2008, 05:14
3) I think good work deserves good money.
That's an altruistic reason. It gives you nothing but moral satisfaction, and that only takes you so far. You might think it to be unfortunate, but the fact is that if the only motivation to do right is that it is right, it won't be enough for majority. (And it isn't necessarily a bad thing. A touch of rational greed is good for everyone.) There needs to be some benefit that is more tangible than that.

Now, I'm all for rewarding good work, but the real consequence of not buying games is that developers lose profit, so fewer games get made. Rational action is for everyone to spend some sum of money on games they like primarily for that reason. Works out nicely for developers that way, because they do get rewarded as a result, and that's good.

Of course, once you reach the cap of how much good games are worth to you, whether or not to pirate becomes purely a moral choice. Knowing that you aren't going to buy another game regardless of whether or not you can have it by other means, is it still wrong to pirate? There are a lot of people on both sides of that line.

SageSavage
9th Dec 2008, 11:47
That's an altruistic reason. It gives you nothing but moral satisfaction, and that only takes you so far. You might think it to be unfortunate, but the fact is that if the only motivation to do right is that it is right, it won't be enough for majority. (And it isn't necessarily a bad thing. A touch of rational greed is good for everyone.) There needs to be some benefit that is more tangible than that.

Now, I'm all for rewarding good work, but the real consequence of not buying games is that developers lose profit, so fewer games get made. Rational action is for everyone to spend some sum of money on games they like primarily for that reason. Works out nicely for developers that way, because they do get rewarded as a result, and that's good.

Of course, once you reach the cap of how much good games are worth to you, whether or not to pirate becomes purely a moral choice. Knowing that you aren't going to buy another game regardless of whether or not you can have it by other means, is it still wrong to pirate? There are a lot of people on both sides of that line.

1) I think of capital spent as investment into future games
and
3) I think good work deserves good money.

are quite similar but 1) Is the result of 3) and because it's obvious that this is the way things work in our society, it's not just altruism it's just playing by the rules that keep things working. And, yes, at least for me it's indeed kind of satisfying to know that I don't help in destroying this system - unless somebody comes up with a better idea. We all know that free games will never be able to substitute commercial games - because devs need money for living too. I am all for for voting with our wallets and boycotting certain developments though.

Personally I don't have a problem with people pirating some additional games as long as they still buy the games, that they would buy if there was no such thing as pirated games. This way nobody actually loses (much) but it also means that the majority of people need to think and act extremely responsible - that's the catch.

Tracer Tong
9th Dec 2008, 16:55
Only on a DX forum the whining stops and becomes a capitalism/morality philosophical argument :thumb: :cool: :cool: :cool: :thumbsup:

And yes, I agree with K^2 that whether or not to pirate a game has recently become a morality issue (whether or not you would like to look back and say that in hindsight you helped your favorite development team/company and done a noble deed by buying that game)
Piracy nowadays has become so public, easy and accessible to all users. (not just computer hackers/freaks as they used to call that group back in the BBS days) It is so public that I have seen cases of people bragging about buying a game, as if it is a rare occasion that should be celebrated. For all the pirates of games without DRMs out there: If you have the money to buy an expensive, say, Core i7 and HD4870x2, why would you decide not to waste a mere $30? (I know it's about $50-$60, and I have to argue about the unreasonable pricing too, but I won't)

Jerion
9th Dec 2008, 17:15
I'm just gonna chip in my two cents:

I have never pirated a game. Ever. The result of that is that my collection is fairly small, but made up of games that I like and enjoy. I pick and choose carefully which games I get, because I know that I don't have a lot of $$$ to shell out for games. I usually buy only 1 or 2 games a year. This year I bought 3 so that people would stop bugging me to get Fallout 3.

So I could care less about DRM. I'm not going to pirate anything; if I think I'm really going to like the game, I pay for it and find out. If I liked it, I feel good about giving money to that game's developer. If I didn't like it very much, then I think twice about buying something from that developer again.

GmanPro
9th Dec 2008, 17:52
I have never pirated a game either. And my collection is enormous. :cool:

SageSavage
9th Dec 2008, 17:53
My point is that in reality buying a game that you really like is not a noble deed, it's acting rational. Sure, superficially speaking you can save a bit of money by pirating it but if you look at it from a larger scale it's simply necessary to keep things working - and that is quite a large benefit and has little to do with morals or noble gestures. Of course I don't want to praise capitalism but unless there is no realistic alternative and the common wish to try something else, you are better off with a working system. Pirating games has nothing to do with hacker ethics or freedom of information, with exceptions, it's pure shortsighted selfishness from those who use it without still spending money for the things they would buy if there were no pirated games available.

PS: Yes, I think the prices are too high for most games, which is why I often wait for budget versions.

K^2
9th Dec 2008, 18:36
Of course I don't want to praise capitalism but unless there is no realistic alternative and the common wish to try something else, you are better off with a working system.
Actually, in this case it works more along the lines of socialistic ideals. A system where you buy the games you like to support the developers you like, while being able to obtain the same games for free, is very similar to how socialist ideologists proposed handling support of artists and writers. Difference, of course, is the legality of obtaining something for free, but I never considered an unenforceable law to be much of a law at all.

So commercial software market is like socialism, and open source is like communism. Pretty much the only place where these ideas actually work.

SageSavage
9th Dec 2008, 19:03
That may be but after all the commercial gaming market is part of a free market economy and pirating dangerously undermines that if done irresponsible.

Jerion
9th Dec 2008, 20:14
It's awesome how in-depth and thought out some of these discussions are. This would only happen in a DX forum. :)

imported_van_HellSing
9th Dec 2008, 20:16
Not really.

Jerion
9th Dec 2008, 20:56
^^ :lol:

spm1138
9th Dec 2008, 21:28
Hohum.

I too like to buy games to provide money to studios I like but it doesn't seem to work very well.

For one thing the games I like are made by developers but I give the money to publishers.

Once I've given my money to a publisher there's no guarantee they're going to pay the dev team I like to make more games.

Increasingly it seems like publishers are all about owning lots of dev teams in house. I used to play this tactical shooter who's name was a lot like er... "Phantom Snooping". The publisher has now got inhouse developers all over the world.
The game originally was the product of a smallish dev teams creative vision. For better or for worse there was a team and a lead designer who had a particular thing in mind. Not any more.

I don't even know where the sequel will be developed or by whom. It could turn out great. It could be a horrible design-by-committee thing. I just don't know. (No disrespect to EM intended :P It looks like Eidos are giving you room to do it the right way.)

There's also no guarantee that they're going to carry on making the kind of games I like just because I buy that kind of game.

Among the genres of game I like are tactical shooters. There's a whopping two decent ones in development and one maybe.

One of the decent ones isn't even from a major publisher.

The guys who are making that used to work on tac shooters for a major publisher but that publisher is now making vaguely tactical action shooters under the same name. We've gone from "Band of Brothers" to a Steven Seagal straight to video :D

Fair enough, there are business reasons for doing this but still.

It seems to me like buying games I like is no guarantee of future development.

I am hoping that online distribution will lead to more money landing in the right pockets but I'm not holding my breathe.

SageSavage
9th Dec 2008, 23:54
It seems to me like buying games I like is no guarantee of future development.

It isn't but it's an important step.

spm1138
10th Dec 2008, 00:09
As I said, it seems like a non-effective step in a lot of cases.

jd10013
10th Dec 2008, 00:33
Hmm, tough discussion here. But a couple things I'd like to add.

What do you guys think of the Bioshock model where you installed the game, then had to download the .EXE. That seemed to me a good way to approach the whole piracy thing. IMO, they're getting way to carried away with the DRM crap.......................But I understand it. I read people here posting about how they have never pirated a game (and I believe you), but I honestly think we're in the minority. I think as a result of a society that pretty much tells you your entitled to whatever you want, and an overall selfish memememe kind of thinking; far more copies of games are probably pirated than bought.

but going back to the whole Bioshock thing, I think it was ken who said they did it that way for one reason, to prevent the game from being cracked before release. Now granted, It was cracked in about 6 days. but Ken's take on that was that games do the bulk of their sales in those first couple days, and thats when stopping the pirates really matters.

Now it seems to me that a game company could do just the first printing that way (no executable), and any additional printings could include it. that way, you get the piracy delay, but don't burden future buyers (who might otherwise pirate) with it. and even if 2k went out of business, the .exe could easily be hosted somewhere else, the same way patches can still be found for games made my defunct companies. same with demos.

but again, I do understand (if not totally agree with) the studios position. It's their game, their product. they have a right to be compensated for it. Personally, I think in the end the PC game market will pretty much go away. As much as I hate to think about it, a business model where anybody can easily, and as many times as they want, steal your product will never work.
there's no way to stop the piracy. somebody will always crack it and then put it out there for free. and there will always be plenty of people who think because they're in school and broke, or the publisher is charging too much, or they want to "try it out" first, or think the studio is "rich enough", or just a matter of mommy and daddy said no; and simply steal it. It's not like music where the musicians can at least make money of tours and merchandise. All the game studios and publishers have are the sales of the games.

oh, and as Winston Churchill said, " capitalism is the wost economic system ................except for all others."

GmanPro
10th Dec 2008, 00:46
I don't think that PC games will ever go away. Games are selling more now than ever before. I think that if hardware companies lowered their prices more people would buy high-end gaming machines. And that would in turn boost PC game sales. Like I've said before, just look at Half Life 2. That game was a PC only release and it sold like crazy and porting it over to Xbox didn't help its sales all that much.

SageSavage
10th Dec 2008, 01:49
Bioshock's DRM was horrible - it began with the demo, that covertly installed SecuROM on your system. And then there were the limited "installation slots". Oh and on release day the activation servers were down for most of the time.

I don't like forced online-activations anyway because as a matter of fact there are still many people without permanent access to the internet.

I don't doubt that the first week is the most important time for a new game but that means also that this is the time when offensive DRM-crap hits most of the honest customers. That is exactly the wrong way to do it, imo. Like Gabe Newell (and lots of less influential people before him) said some days ago: you have to reward honest customers instead! Bioshock and GTA 4 raped people. I think the industry has to go back a few steps, give up their utopy of a pirate-free society (aka calculate them in) and try to give honest buyers benefits that pirates don't get, like good, printed handbooks and maps or access to official MP-servers, better support etc.. They should lower the prices because of the money that would otherwise be invested into DRM-services. Unfortunately, there's no perfect solution but being fair and making the customers as comfortable as possible should be the top priority. I think pirating would become less accepted if people feel they get fair prices instead of a criminal treatment. It's not that the industry doesn't make a lot of money even with the widespread piracy we have now, right? They can only win by creating a win-win situation with the customers.

Jerion
10th Dec 2008, 02:09
Anybody remember the original Prince of Persia platformers form the early-mid 90s? Those games did DRM right. Give you a starter level then put you in a trap where you need a specific character from a manual or whatnot. to continue on. :D

SageSavage
10th Dec 2008, 02:18
Yeah, I remember it. Lucas Arts and Sierra did similar stuff. Dial-A-Pirate was kind of cool.

jordan_a
10th Dec 2008, 02:54
"The most downloaded game was also the most protected"

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/5743/sanstitregz7.jpg

"It shows how not effective those protections are".

Mr. Perfect
10th Dec 2008, 05:12
"The most protected game was also the most protected"

Hehe, that typo changes the entire meaning of that sentence. :D

Article is here in english (http://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-pirated-games-of-2008-081204/) for everyone who isn't in the Province of Quebec. ;) The Securomed games are 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

K^2
10th Dec 2008, 05:15
Interesting. SA has had way more sales than Spore, yet it was downloaded a lot less, despite Spore's DRM being far more strict. These are the kinds of charts they should be showing to the suits in marketing.

@Kieranator. There is a reason why "Enter code from page XXX" method of DRM went out with DOS. It ended up being too easy to bypass, especially with windowing. Even if somebody doesn't find a way to crack it, how hard would it be to write a little look-up program to go along with a pirated game? Need a code? Enter page number into the program, and it spits it right out.

APostLife
10th Dec 2008, 06:45
Having some sort of drm on installation is a good thing in my opinion. It acts as a good security feature just in case. They wouldn't invented drm if it creates more problems. Drm is good ONLY if they make a good drm system. Aka, not EA Securom<<<its so crap - what were they thinking?! Install limits - personal freedom taken away with that one!:mad2:

SageSavage
10th Dec 2008, 10:27
I wouldn't want to check my manual everytime I start up the game. It's the analogue equivalent of CD-checks, one of the most annoying classic copyprotections. Actually this is the exactly the sort of crap that constantly nags honest customers (sometimes several times a day), while users of cracked versions don't have to bother. CD-keys for the installation process should be the maximum, if you ask me. Like the other methods not very secure but when combined with some disadvantages that buyers don't get, it's still the considerable (and psychological) difference to a legal copy. Black-/witelisting of keys isn't totally worthless either when applied to support-services like the download of patches or additional stuff like an SDK, for example. Real pirates won't stop whatever protection they bring up, casual users will see a difference between legal and illegal copies and think twice when legal copies make their gaming easier though. These statistics with Spore as most pirated game only proof that cranking up DRM results in a challenge for crackers and acts of defiance by people who otherwise might have bought it.

Necros
10th Dec 2008, 12:19
I don't doubt that the first week is the most important time for a new game but that means also that this is the time when offensive DRM-crap hits most of the honest customers.
And it's worthless anyway. If people don't want a DRM infested crap or just want to pirate a game, they can wait for a few days, they won't run to the stores if the cracked version isn't out before the retail release day or on the first day.

That is exactly the wrong way to do it, imo. Like Gabe Newell (and lots of less influential people before him) said some days ago: you have to reward honest customers instead! Bioshock and GTA 4 raped people. I think the industry has to go back a few steps, give up their utopy of a pirate-free society (aka calculate them in) and try to give honest buyers benefits that pirates don't get, like good, printed handbooks and maps or access to official MP-servers, better support etc.. They should lower the prices because of the money that would otherwise be invested into DRM-services. Unfortunately, there's no perfect solution but being fair and making the customers as comfortable as possible should be the top priority.
:thumbsup:

I don't think that PC games will ever go away. Games are selling more now than ever before. I think that if hardware companies lowered their prices more people would buy high-end gaming machines. And that would in turn boost PC game sales. Like I've said before, just look at Half Life 2. That game was a PC only release and it sold like crazy and porting it over to Xbox didn't help its sales all that much.
Yes, PC games are still selling very well, don't believe the (negative) hype. And I think it's the dumbest thing to compare all of the console to platform to the single PC platform. Of course the numbers will be a lot smaller that way... :mad2: And there are many factors that these comparisons don't care about (the quality of the PC port, the delay between the two releases, just to mention a few of 'em).
The hardware companies could also do a lot more than just lowering their prices. First of all they should stop spamming the market with new hardware every minute, people can't keep up. One of the reasons why it's difficult to develop for the PC is that there are millions of configurations and that makes optimizing games very hard. Micro$soft and the HW companies should solve this problem. And one other thing. Shops are selling good for nothing PCs too, labeled as gaming PCs. This has to stop, I believe some devs spoke out against this too.

spm1138
10th Dec 2008, 12:43
Most games are out cracked on or before the official release date.

(Not that I'm complaining. It's nice to play pre-orders before they arrive from Amazon.)

Certainly all the games with limited activations up to Spore were.

Digitaldruid
10th Dec 2008, 12:54
here is a interesting article from BBC on Spore and DRM http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7772962.stm

Necros
10th Dec 2008, 13:27
Developers say piracy is driving them away from making PC titles
...
pirates could yet sink the concept of single-player PC gaming below the waterline.
Bull*****. http://forums.eidosgames.com/images/icons/icon13.gif Typical stupid journalist crap. Just blame it on piracy, that's the easiest thing to do... :rolleyes:

imported_van_HellSing
10th Dec 2008, 13:50
Nothing and no one will stop cracks, torrents etc.

However, I think activation-based DRM is a an effective countermeasure against a wholly different type of "casual piracy".

Consider this scenario: a person buys a game, then finishes it and lends it to a number of friends, each person in turn playing from the original disk and then returning the game to the original buyer.

They might have thought about buying the game, but hey, a friend has it, so why bother? And it's "ok", since they don't torrent, don't use cracks etc. Thing is, from the companies point of view this is not any different from downloading the game. It hurts sales. Having limited activations, the buyer will think twice about lending the game.

Naturally, this also ties in with the used game market.

In most cases restrictions are removed over time (this is what happened with Bioshock, RA3 etc.), but the initial sales are helped. And the initial sales, the immediate effects, are what matters most to compaany execs and shareholders.

SageSavage
10th Dec 2008, 14:35
It's not any different from lending movies, music or books. It's possible since the beginning of media and the market still worked so far. Publishers and shareholders simply want to squeeze even more money out of people and it's this unhealthy greed that angers many people and helps the pirates. I think it should be my right to lend my stuff to friends. There are still many people buying their own copies - just because it feels good to possess something, especially if it offers enough to be enjoyed more than one time (like good games should). Restricting that with weird EULAs and DRM mechnisms takes even this benefit away from honest customers. That is wrong.

APostLife
11th Dec 2008, 06:30
Well no point complaining. I don't see the problem, there is always are reason why something is there in the world. So I am not complaining about DRM unless they make a completely stupid DRM system that sucks.

SageSavage
11th Dec 2008, 11:49
And you don't feel that most DRM (like used in GTA4) already sucks?

gamer0004
11th Dec 2008, 13:48
Yeah lol I don't get it :scratch: Was he being sarcastic?

K^2
11th Dec 2008, 22:52
They wouldn't invented drm if it creates more problems.
Such induction might have applied to software back when "Windows" meant fenestrae in your house and nothing else.

Mr. Perfect
12th Dec 2008, 00:40
Interesting note, the new PC version of Prince of Persia has no DRM (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/56328). It will be interesting to see how it fairs.

Personally, I'm tempted to buy it just to support them, but I have no idea what the game is about. Guess I'll have to resort to reading some reviews or something.

GmanPro
12th Dec 2008, 00:48
I really enjoyed the Prince of Persia games. Especially the first and third. The second one felt a little bit off to me.

I really want to get the new one. Other than Tomb Raider, there aren't a whole lot of games like that.

K^2
12th Dec 2008, 01:46
I might do the same, Perfect. Never played any Prince of Persia games since original (I mean original, original.) But the lack of DRM sounds like a good enough reason to give it a try. If even marketing guys did something right with that one, maybe it will be a good game.

SageSavage
12th Dec 2008, 02:12
I really hope this game sells very well but I probably won't get it only to show my support. I am just not interested in PoP - never finished Sands of Time and there's a sealed budget version of The Warrior Within sitting on my shelf for months know, catching dust only. A demo might be useful but I can't find one.

The very least everybody can and should do is NOT pirating this specific game though! Has to suffice in this case, I guess.

Necros
14th Dec 2008, 09:09
Interesting note, the new PC version of Prince of Persia has no DRM (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/56328). It will be interesting to see how it fairs.
If it's good, it will sell well. Only bad marketng or no/little marketing can screw up the sales of a good game. Like Undying or Beyond Good and Evil... :(

I don't really like the PoP games and even though the new art design looks nice, it's not my cup of tea. Maybe I'll try a demo, if they release one and see if that gets me interested.

edit: But if you think about it, they'll just blame piracy even more if the game won't sell as well as they'd expect. And of course the fact that the PC version was released a week after the console versions means nothing at all, that can't be the reason...

GmanPro
14th Dec 2008, 22:42
It probably won't sell well because I saw practically no advertisement or hype leading up to it. I just noticed an ad for it on tv one night about a day before its release.

The same thing happened with Storm of Zehir. I was looking up info on Mysteries of Westgate and stumbled over an ad for SoZ like a week before its release date.

And then there are games like DX3 which get hyped to death for three years. I honestly don't know which case is better.

v.dog
15th Dec 2008, 04:06
Here 's a really well thought out and balanced article on the issues of DRM and piracy:
Drop the DRM hysteria. Work with developers and publishers to provide verified and rational feedback on problems you genuinely believe are related to DRM so that they can rectify the issues, either through patches or workarounds, and of course to prevent these issues in newer versions of the protection systems. If all else fails, don't buy games which have problematic DRM, but don't pirate them either - this sends an unambiguous message (http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html) to the games companies that all demand for their product - both legitimate and illegitimate - is falling.

Jerion
15th Dec 2008, 04:22
I'm a month away from releasing my second Freeware game. I'd like to see people pirate THAT. :D

GmanPro
15th Dec 2008, 04:42
:scratch:

lol, what r u making?

Necros
15th Dec 2008, 05:05
It probably won't sell well because I saw practically no advertisement or hype leading up to it. I just noticed an ad for it on tv one night about a day before its release.
There's a videoclip with the game's theme song or something too. Isn't that on TV? And if EA isn't advertising this, they will practically kill the game. Why are they doing this again? :confused: Smart marketing is very important, they should know that... :hmm:

Jerion
15th Dec 2008, 05:06
:scratch:

lol, what r u making?

vv signature. :p

Mr. Perfect
16th Dec 2008, 03:40
Here 's a really well thought out and balanced article on the issues of DRM and piracy:

That's actually quite discouraging. Reading trough that it looks like the only viable game markets for the publishers are payed account games(WoW), free-to-plays(Like Battlefield Heros), and console games. The episodes might work too, but there was a lot of resistance to booster packs for the Battlefield games, so who knows.

Its also interesting that the article, and most discussions, seem to be a pirates vs publishers affair. What happen to all the legit PC customers who don't want to deal with invasive protection? :nut: To bad they can't just do the old CD key trick, and leave these programs like Securom alone. :(

Jerion
16th Dec 2008, 04:00
There was resistance because installation of the booster packs was botched; for Battlefield 2142 you had to re-install every single incremental update if you got problems and had to re-install the Northern Strike booster pack. :mad2:

Mr. Perfect
16th Dec 2008, 04:10
Oh, I was thinking of previous games. All of the clans I gamed with where done with the Battlefield series sometime in the BF2 era. And it wasn't just the BF2 boosters that didn't sell, but 1942. 1942 had Road to Rome, Secret Weapons, and something else too I think. They had some cool content in them, but no one had them. Everyone had moved on to playing mods like Forgotten Hope, Pirates and Desert Combat, which all rock pretty hard(for free too!).

Maybe they could have promoted expansions and boosters by not releasing mod tools, but those mods kept the game alive for so long it wasn't funny. I know I played far more of the mods then the retail game.


Recently however, SecuROM incorporated an online Product Activation method which is used in offline-only single-player games like BioShock, Mass Effect, Crysis Warhead and GTA IV. As discussed earlier, this is a key tool in combating 'day-zero' piracy. The precise protection method varies by game, but essentially it connects to a special server to verify ownership of the game after installation and during updates. In some cases, it also determines how many concurrent installations of the game are allowed. This addition to SecuROM has caused the greatest controversy of all, because it's seen as pure DRM rather than just copy protection.

I think that last sentence is pretty much the crux of this latest anti-DRM movement. We've all been using content with copy protection for years without real complaint. CD Keys and having disks in the drive have been around forever. I remember these things from old games like Descent 2 back in 96 and Diablo 1 in 97.

SageSavage
16th Dec 2008, 08:41
I think that last sentence is pretty much the crux of this latest anti-DRM movement. We've all been using content with copy protection for years without real complaint. CD Keys and having disks in the drive have been around forever. I remember these things from old games like Descent 2 back in 96 and Diablo 1 in 97.
And why is that the crux? CD keys are acceptable for me because you have to enter them only one time during the installation and it's not too annoying to type in a bunch of numbers/characters. CD checks nag users every time (the term NoCD-crack got so extremely common for a reason) and are a major disadvantage of legal versions. There shouldn't be disadvantages for spending a lot of money on a legal version, that is the crux, IMO.

GoranAgar
16th Dec 2008, 09:44
This will be over soon enough. Once the MMORPG will make a successful switch to the consoles PC-gaming is DEAD.

You can blame drm or bugs or lack of support or complicated pc-technology. You all know people that download the games and share them. It is their fault. Go yell at them.

On a lighter note, once PC-gaming is dead, Windows is going to die. :)

spm1138
16th Dec 2008, 10:22
This will be over soon enough. Once the MMORPG will make a successful switch to the consoles PC-gaming is DEAD.

You can blame drm or bugs or lack of support or complicated pc-technology. You all know people that download the games and share them. It is their fault. Go yell at them.

On a lighter note, once PC-gaming is dead, Windows is going to die. :)

PC gaming has been about to die since before this message board was here.

I suspect it will be about to die long after too :D

jordan_a
16th Dec 2008, 10:25
This will be over soon enough. Once the MMORPG will make a successful switch to the consoles PC-gaming is DEAD.MMOs will spread on the next generation of consoles that's for sure, there's just too much money to be made to neglect this market. And once it happens, PC will suffer.

SageSavage
16th Dec 2008, 10:44
Welcome to another episode of "Platform Wars"!

PC-gaming won't die. Console-MMOs will be successful. I won't care.

K^2
16th Dec 2008, 10:57
Once the MMORPG will make a successful switch to the consoles PC-gaming is DEAD.
Anyone who says things like that does not understand PC gaming or people involved in it.

Piracy will flourish. Even if every single publisher stops making games for PC, it will not be the end of PC gaming. First of all, console piracy will go through the roof. All of the people busy cracking DRM on PC games now will be working on cracking consoles, both hardware and software, to run copies of games. Emulation will also become a bigger thing. If PC gamers will have to put hardware salvaged from consoles into their PCs using custom built PCIe cards to run console games on PC, they will do so.

Furthermore, hardware companies will never allow PC gaming to die in the first place. Upgrade race is their bread. Intel, AMD, and nVidia depend for a large lump of their profits on PC gaming. They have control over what goes into consoles compared to what goes into PCs. If it becomes in their interest to cripple console development and make console capabilities lag years behind PCs, they will do so. Keep in mind that they have technology typically a couple of years ahead of what is on the market. If they'll start losing money, they can release that tech early, causing a leap of PC's processing power, leaving consoles in the dust.

Right now, things are in a nice balance. People who like to have top of the line machines have their niche. People who never buy games have theirs. People who want simple put-disk-in-console gaming ave theirs as well. This order of things has established over the past 3 decades. It has survived transition to 16, 32, and 64 bit architectures, number of format wars, emergence of 3D graphics, and transition of every single genre from PC, where they were conceived, to consoles. If you really think transition of MMO RPG to consoles will kill PC gaming, you aren't paying attention to anything that have been going on with PC gaming over the past decade.

Necros
16th Dec 2008, 12:01
^^ What he said. :thumbsup: :worship:
And also look at the sales, PC games are selling very well, according to reports, and it's not far behind the console market either, if you compare it to one at a time. I just HATE it when the single PC platform is compared to all of the (next-gen) consoles. :mad2:
From early this year:

"The PC games sales landscape is changing to one that is increasingly reliant on digital sources of revenue," NPD analyst Anita Frazier told GameSpot. "Our sales reflect the retail climate but there is a lot of gaming sales activity that is generated from digital downloads and subscriptions. I think the PC market continues to be quite healthy and we're continuing to work on how to get our arms around the spending that occurs outside of retail. A number of our [surveys] ask respondents to indicate which platforms they game on, and the results of those questions make it very clear that the PC remains very prevalent, if not dominant, in the total gaming picture."

GoranAgar
16th Dec 2008, 16:05
Piracy will flourish.
That is your argument? Piracy on the consoles and a somewhat improbable possibility of being able to play Console games on a PC. You call that alive? I wouldn't.

And there is only so much NVidia, AMD and Intel can do to encourage Publishers to release games for the PC. If there is not money to be made, there will not be any products. And even if they can, how are those stupid console to PC ports any challenge to a PC?


I just HATE it when the single PC platform is compared to all of the (next-gen) consoles.
How is my PS3 different than my XBox 360? Except that I need 2 vehicles to do the same thing.

GmanPro
16th Dec 2008, 16:39
I think he meant that people tend to compare PC game sales to total console game sales.

GoranAgar
16th Dec 2008, 19:32
Even if you compare the PC numbers to just the XBox numbers you get a ratio of roughly 1:4. PC vs PS3: 1:5 (taking TR as a example)

But I ask again XBox and PS3. Where is the difference?

Jerion
16th Dec 2008, 19:37
One's uglier than the other.

Digitaldruid
16th Dec 2008, 20:11
IMO DRM is really a non issue. if you really like the DX franchise and want to give a shot at DX3 with a unbiased outlook, then forget about the drm and just enjoy what Eidos Montreal has to offer. quite often sequels fail not because they don't match up to their predecessor rather its a combination of undue expectation and a whole lot of negativity.

SageSavage
16th Dec 2008, 20:27
Yes, false expectations are a major factor but actually DRM became a standalone issue for me lately. It has influence on my overall experience and I really don't want to support such companies anymore because I feel offended by those who decided to force their customers into annoying stuff.

About the difference between PS3 and XBox: could be the RROD.

K^2
16th Dec 2008, 22:24
That is your argument? Piracy on the consoles and a somewhat improbable possibility of being able to play Console games on a PC. You call that alive? I wouldn't.
Piracy on consoles will make PC and console markets equally profitable. There will be no advantage to publishing on consoles.

And emulation is only necessary to keep PC gaming alive if all publishers will drop PC. That won't happen.

Any doubt you might have about possibility of emulating every single platform on a PC, you can drop. I've written emulators for a couple of systems. I know pitfalls involved. I also know that the only reason we don't have PS3 and 360 emulators floating about is the impossibility to emulate their CPUs in real time with modern hardware. This problem is trivially resolved by salvaging parts off an actual console. This doesn't happen now because most users want to emulate without buying a console. If it will become the only way to run games on PC that's what will be done.


And there is only so much NVidia, AMD and Intel can do to encourage Publishers to release games for the PC. If there is not money to be made, there will not be any products. And even if they can, how are those stupid console to PC ports any challenge to a PC?
nVidia and AMD don't have to encourage anything. All they have to do is dump next-gen to the market a year early, and console gaming will take a deep nose dive until next generation of consoles, which will take 2-3 years to catch up. Remember how pre-PS consoles struggled against PCs? That's what you'll have.

And you are entirely missing the point about this being absolutely worst case scenario. Over 30 years of PC vs Console say that this won't get even close.

Mr. Perfect
17th Dec 2008, 02:58
And why is that the crux?

This new wave of anti-DRM sentiment came along with Spore and these online-activation and limited install trends. Which is why, as far as I can tell, it is the crux of the matter. Sure, CD checks are annoying, but anyone who refused to buy games because of them probably stopped buying around twelve years ago. If CD-checks are a disadvantage, wait until you have to call some tech support guy in a foreign country because you want to install your game on a new computer. :mad2: Now that seems to have angered the masses! :eek:

Oh, and just as an aside, directed at no one in particular, have you ever noticed how PC gamers don't like media checks, but it's the only thing a console gamer has ever done since '77 with the Atari 2600 and it's game cartridges? It's even funnier when one publisher said that PC gamers will all be liberated from CD-checks by online-activation, and that we'd grow to love the convenience. :lol:

K^2
17th Dec 2008, 03:17
Reason that CD checks were accepted is that they started around the time when people had 2GB on their HDD, and games would be 300MB+. However, a typical installation would only be about 20MB, because most data would come off CD. It was a necessary evil that had little to do with copy protection. Many games even let you change some configs to run off HDD complete, but most people chose to have CD in the drive. As such, real CD checks crept in rather quietly.

GoranAgar
17th Dec 2008, 07:12
nVidia and AMD don't have to encourage anything. All they have to do is dump next-gen to the market a year early, and console gaming will take a deep nose dive until next generation of consoles, which will take 2-3 years to catch up. Remember how pre-PS consoles struggled against PCs? That's what you'll have.
You believe that alone would turn developers back to making PC exclusives again? Not going go happen. If there won't be anymore PC exclusive game developments all we PC gamers get are console ports. And I do not need to buy a PC to play those, do I? And then PC gaming is dead in my eyes.

And stop throwing those years around like you are talking to some 20 year old kid. :rasp:

K^2
17th Dec 2008, 08:02
Games have been ported between PC and consoles since Pong. In fact, most of the early games were Arcade ports.

And I don't care if you are 12 or 60. You are obviously not familiar with the history of gaming if you think that something has changed over the past few years. What you said has been said by people every time a new generation of consoles arrives and PC gaming is still around.

GoranAgar
17th Dec 2008, 08:44
Games have been ported between PC and consoles since Pong. In fact, most of the early games were Arcade ports.

And I don't care if you are 12 or 60. You are obviously not familiar with the history of gaming if you think that something has changed over the past few years. What you said has been said by people every time a new generation of consoles arrives and PC gaming is still around.
It did not matter then, but it does matter now. I will not pay 2000 bucks for a gaming rig when I do not get a better quality game than a crappy 200 dollar XBox does.

If you do, that is fine with me. If you think it does not influence your gaming experience, also fine with me. For me, it does matter. I have a high end PC because of games like Crysis, not Far Cry 2 (which does NOT use the CryENGINE 2).

K^2
17th Dec 2008, 10:50
Hardware for a PC that can run 360 games ported to PC at same quality costs the same as hardware for the 360. The 360 is sold to you at a loss, because they make that money back on a markup on games. You pay exactly the same amount at the end of the day.

If you think you can game on 360 for less, you are even less aware of what's going on with games than I anticipated.

The main difference between PC and console gaming is the option. You can pay the same amount to play the same games, or you can pay more money for better hardware and run these games at higher quality setting or run the few exclusives that require more serious hardware than can be put into a console.

Oh, and on the final note, if you payed $2000 for a PC, you got robbed.

GoranAgar
17th Dec 2008, 11:18
You are slowly getting where I left with my arguments a while ago. I do not want equal. If it is equal, why put up a gaming rig at all. Get a notebook to do PC stuff, get a console to game. Saves time, energy, space, nerves.

If I spend money for a PC, I want games made for PC. If they are not made for PC, they are not made for PC gamers/me.

If you are fine with equal, then I was clearly not talking to you.

SageSavage
17th Dec 2008, 11:21
It did not matter then, but it does matter now. I will not pay 2000 bucks for a gaming rig when I do not get a better quality game than a crappy 200 dollar XBox does.

If you do, that is fine with me. If you think it does not influence your gaming experience, also fine with me. For me, it does matter. I have a high end PC because of games like Crysis, not Far Cry 2 (which does NOT use the CryENGINE 2).

I have a highend PC because of games and plenty of other reasons! I don't have a console because that would require me to spend some extra money for it - in fact PS3 and XBox still cost around 50% of what I need to build me a decent new PC while the use of a console is mostly limited to playing (more expensive) games. With my PC I do incredibly much more and some of the things I do with my PC, require (almost) as much performance as gaming (eg video editing).

I realize this is not very common but actually I don't even possess a TV since the last one stopped working two years ago and the quality of our television program is a joke, so now my PC became the media center in my flat: I watch DVDs with it, every CD I possess can be found as MP3s on my HDD, I get news and radio from the internet, I work with it, I play with it - and so on...

A console would cost me around 400$ (?) plus a significant amount of money for a new TV and also a singnificant amount of money for the games themselves - and quite a bit of extra space in my flat. Why should I want that? I'd much rather save that money for upgrades or a new PC, because I use it for so much more then just gaming! Also I find that most people exaggerate when they talk about how often you have to upgrade a PC in order to keep track with the newest games. My last rig was capable to run everything for 5 years and during that time I upgraded the RAM (cheap) and the video card (traded the old one for half the price of the new one). Although I don't use it for games anymore, my old PC is in no way useless, because you still can use it for much more than gaming.

For the occasional 2-player session I have two gamepads and for most games I prefer mouse/keyboard anyway. For the simulations I sometimes "play", I use hardware that isn't even available for consoles.

Sure, sometimes I'd like to play a round of Tekken or another console exclusive game but that doesn't justify the extra costs in any way for me - that's for sure.

Edit: I type too slow.

GoranAgar
17th Dec 2008, 15:11
Edit: I type too slow.
Don't worry, I can read it just fine. ;)

K^2
17th Dec 2008, 19:20
You are slowly getting where I left with my arguments a while ago. I do not want equal. If it is equal, why put up a gaming rig at all. Get a notebook to do PC stuff, get a console to game. Saves time, energy, space, nerves.

If I spend money for a PC, I want games made for PC. If they are not made for PC, they are not made for PC gamers/me.

If you are fine with equal, then I was clearly not talking to you.
But that's the whole point. "Equal" keeps the market alive. Ability to crank up the settings keeps people buying better hardware. People with better hardware create the market for different, better games. It's not as big of a market as the console market, clearly, but it really isn't getting smaller. Console market is simply getting bigger. PC gaming isn't dying, it just stopped growing. Everyone who would have gotten into PC gaming have gotten into it some years ago. But the market for casual gaming can always expand, and so it does. It might feel because of it like the PC Gaming is shrinking, but it's just a side effect of having a torrent of cheap console games being created and ported. Good PC games come out about as often now as they did a few years ago, which isn't very often.

GmanPro
17th Dec 2008, 22:32
Man, I spent 560 bucks on my Xbox 360 elite. Probably the biggest waste of money ever. I don't even use it that much. I played Halo 3, Ninja Gaiden 2, and Fable 2. Only because they were console exclusive. Actually I also played Mass Effect on my 360 because I couldn't wait any longer for it. :D

PS: My pc cost me about 1600. I could have gone as high as 2000 or higher but I wanted to buy an awesome monitor too, because I wanted to play my 360 games on it too. My monitor was about 680. And I did not get ripped off when buying my parts. Newegg FTW!

K^2
18th Dec 2008, 02:49
Just because you got "bargain" prices it doesn't mean you didn't get ripped off. Keep in mind that NewEgg can't sell to you cheaper than manufacturers want for the hardware. (On average, anyways.) And very often, they want a lot of extra for just slightly better hardware. Often you can save a lot of money by just building around these issues. For example, top-of-the-line graphics card can cost 3 to 4 times as much as the next best thing, easily. Yet, if you simply SLI/XFire two of the next-best-thing cards together, you'll get better performance.

Very similar thing can be said about CPU, HDD, and motherboard. The only component where you have to get the best you can is RAM. But it only becomes super important on the most optimized systems. Access time bottlenecks only happen if everything else works like a clock.

That said, $1600 tag could be warranted, depending on what you need it for. A pure gaming PC should not cost over $1000-$1200. But if you also do some graphics/video editing type stuff, I can see you needing something extra in a few places.

GmanPro
18th Dec 2008, 03:04
Ok so if you buy from a middleman you're always going to pay more than if you purchase straight from the manufacturer sure, everyone knows that. Do they even let you do that though? They might if you show up and ask for a shipment of like five hundred.


Yet, if you simply SLI/XFire two of the next-best-thing cards together, you'll get better performance.

That's what I did. I've got two evga GeForce 8800 GTS 320 Mb Superclocked cards in SLi mode. It cost me about $100 more than a straight up 8800 GTX 768 would have, but after comparing the two set ups on Tom's hardware, I figured the two in SLi was a smarter move.

K^2
18th Dec 2008, 03:14
Ok so if you buy from a middleman you're always going to pay more than if you purchase straight from the manufacturer sure, everyone knows that. Do they even let you do that though? They might if you show up and ask for a shipment of like five hundred.
I mean that hardware manufacturers themselves set unreasonable prices for their hardware. The 8800 GT vs GTX is the same example I was thinking of. I ended up going with just one GT, and figured that if it ever ends up falling flat, I can buy a second one. Haven't really had a reason to do so yet. Ok, so maybe I'd be able to run Crysis in 1080p with 4xAA instead of 2xAA, but come on.

GmanPro
18th Dec 2008, 03:39
I tend to turn up the antistrophic filtering before I start to turn on AA personally. Although you're right, usually just having 2x AA is plenty. You can hardly notice the difference anyway, not unless you really stare at it.

Jerion
18th Dec 2008, 07:08
Turning up Filtering is always better than AA, IMO. Though above 8x AF you don't tend to notice much difference, and above 4x AA There might as well be no difference.

K^2
18th Dec 2008, 11:43
4xAA is plenty to make picture smooth, but you can still get aliasing at 4xAA, and, well, that's what AA is really meant to resolve. Then again, if devs use a texture or pattern of objects that can still alias at 4xAA, maybe you are allowed to strangle them.

Blade_hunter
9th Feb 2009, 14:22
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/8542/deusexpochetteii0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
sorry for the french but it's my own Deus Ex cd box I used my scanner to post it, if you havent a scanner use your cell phone, a numeric camera or your webcam

jordan_a
24th Mar 2009, 00:58
http://www.developmag.com/news/31534/DRM-is-a-waste-of-time-says-World-of-Goo-creator

HouseOfPain
24th Mar 2009, 01:04
http://www.developmag.com/news/31534/DRM-is-a-waste-of-time-says-World-of-Goo-creator

Waste of Time indeed. I'd rather they be working on fixing the Health system :rolleyes:

WhatsHisFace
24th Mar 2009, 02:07
World of Goo was a thoroughly FANTASTIC game.

jordan_a
27th Mar 2009, 11:17
EA pulls DRM from The Sims 3 (http://www.edge-online.com/news/103/ea-pulls-drm-the-sims-3)

Ashpolt
27th Mar 2009, 12:10
EA pulls DRM from The Sims 3 (http://www.edge-online.com/news/103/ea-pulls-drm-the-sims-3)

Congrats EA! I know that most people hate them, but I think they've come on leaps and bounds in the past couple of years and I commend them for that.

GmanPro
27th Mar 2009, 20:18
Smart move EA. Now you just need to start making good games and I may actually like you again.

WhatsHisFace
27th Mar 2009, 20:47
Smart move EA. Now you just need to start making good games and I may actually like you again.

I agree, EA's attempts at new IPs have fallen flat. I did not like Army of Two in the least. Dead Space was a lousy clone of RE4. Mirror's Edge just didn't deliver enough on it's premise (and didn't do it half as well as Breakdown on the original Xbox) and their upcoming Dante's Inferno is the stupidest looking thing I've seen from them yet.

They are working with StarBreeze, which is nice. I'm hoping that game is SystemShock 3, but it could be a new Syndicate which would also be great. But they don't have anything internally developed that really grabs me. I guess that's fallout from the years they spent re-releasing Madden annually and making lousy movie games.

Blade_hunter
27th Mar 2009, 22:29
I hope system shock 3 wouldn't be like bioshock ...

GmanPro
27th Mar 2009, 23:50
It will be, and I don't think it matters anymore who develops it. It will be BioShock: cyberpunk edition, with even less RPG elements and more FPS elements ... and a third person cover system.

FrankCSIS
27th Mar 2009, 23:56
but it could be a new Syndicate

Although I fear what a new Syndicate would look like today, the thought of it is still quite delicious.

WhatsHisFace
28th Mar 2009, 01:09
It will be, and I don't think it matters anymore who develops it. It will be BioShock: cyberpunk edition, with even less RPG elements and more FPS elements ... and a third person cover system.

If StarBreeze made System Shock 3, you could be sure they'd make it awesome. Their work on Rid**** and The Darkness was phenominal.

Of course, EA would probably have "Eurocom" (all those horrible EA James Bond games) make it, and that would probably be the worst affront to humanity in centuries.

steelle
28th Mar 2009, 02:55
Dead Space was a lousy clone of RE4.

I just can't agree with this. It was a great game. And while it has gameplay elements similar to those in RE4, it was done far better in Dead Space, imho.

Larington
28th Mar 2009, 09:27
I think EA screwed up their release schedules a bit (Seems they've realised this themselves), releasing new IP at the same time as Call of Duty 5, Fallout 3, etc. etc. Meant you were trying to get people to buy 'unknown quanities' at the same time as a lot of games were being released that were gauraunteed to sell and therefor dilute the pool of potential buyers.

Which reminds me, perhaps I ought to go and get me copies of Mirrors Edge and Dead Space. No, I'd better leave it 'til after Uni wraps up in the summer.

Blade_hunter
28th Mar 2009, 12:03
It will be, and I don't think it matters anymore who develops it. It will be BioShock: cyberpunk edition, with even less RPG elements and more FPS elements ... and a third person cover system.

Eh more FPS elements wouldn't mean a crap Deus Ex got a great localized damage system and that isn't a proper RPG element, some FPS games got something similar, Sin and SOF for example except they got an unified health.
If we look at DX 2 even the FPS part was dumbed down.

We can add what ever the FPS elements we want that enrich the RPG part and form a formidable combination, the ammo, the weapon customization some things like that are from both genres.

But the removal of RPG elements isn't a good sign, but more FPS wouldn't mean a crap it depends what are the elements we got as an FPS, if the inventory is something like bioshock, ok it's a crap, but if the aiming system is FPS I don't see what's the problem with.

Necros
28th Mar 2009, 20:01
Dead Space was a lousy clone of RE4. Mirror's Edge just didn't deliver enough on it's premise (and didn't do it half as well as Breakdown on the original Xbox)
I liked Dead Space a lot more than any of the RE games, I loved Mirror's Edge and I hope the sequel will be even better.

They are working with StarBreeze, which is nice. I'm hoping that game is SystemShock 3
I hope not... I'd like to see Doug Church making a new Sytem Shock game instead.


And it's good to know EA is learning from Spore's lesson. :)

GmanPro
30th Mar 2009, 18:41
I'd like to see a new System Shock type game, but it doesn't have to bear the same name. Merge Dead Space with BioShock and ramp up the rpg elements a bit, and people will be happy. The casual console players will eat it up and the hardcore players will have nothing to complain about because it isn't System Shock, its a new ip.

lumpi
30th Mar 2009, 21:07
EA pulls DRM from The Sims 3 (http://www.edge-online.com/news/103/ea-pulls-drm-the-sims-3)

Yea, great news. I almost given up on them (haven't got an EA game in years because of their attitude towards PC gamers). Btw: Irony alert! (http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/77628/bioshock-director-ea-didnt-give-a-sh-t/): "EA just didn't give a ***** about that game." Levine also said that if EA did agree to do the game, it would have turned out to be "just a regular first-person shooter with a boss monster at the end." Oh my. Are there any good publishers left out there? :(

I hope 2K Games will learn the lesson as well, eventually.


And... isn't Levine working on a new X-Com title? Sounds scary ("we got rid of all the nerdy stuff and focused on the action aspects of X-Com"). Most of the damage is already done for this franchise, so there is little to loose. I guess all my favorite games got their crappy sequels now...

jordan_a
2nd Apr 2009, 10:18
EA rebels against its own DRM (http://www.edge-online.com/news/103/ea-rebels-against-its-own-drm)

It seems things are changing thanks to EA, I hope EM notices.

Blade_hunter
2nd Apr 2009, 10:46
Since they doesn't use Securom, Starforce or something like that, I'm happy ...

minus0ne
11th Aug 2009, 02:29
Relax, it'd take someone from Microsoft getting someone high up at EM *really* drunk to make anything like that happen. It looks like MS will take years to get GFWL even close to something like Steam (and even that doesn't always work satisfactory), and in the meantime devs and publishers should steer well clear of it.

Irate_Iguana
11th Aug 2009, 07:02
Relax, it'd take someone from Microsoft getting someone high up at EM *really* drunk to make anything like that happen.

And you find this to be unlikely? MS has been pushing the whole GFWL thing pretty hard lately. If history has shown us anything it is that if MS wants in on a market they'll muscle in on that market. I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to get GFWL in DX3.

SageSavage
11th Aug 2009, 08:48
No, wouldn't be surprised either but it remains to be seen and you'd think the "pros" and cons of DRM have been discussed to death already.

Alex Jacobson
11th Aug 2009, 12:54
Any corporate entity worth its salt would realize DRM = less revenue.
Then the developers probably make less in proportion because of how much they had to spend on the DRM software.

Jerion
11th Aug 2009, 14:14
Any corporate entity worth its salt would realize DRM = less revenue.
Then the developers probably make less in proportion because of how much they had to spend on the DRM software.

I agree, DRM is a wasted effort. People who don't know or don't care about the moral problem of theft are going to keep pirating software, because they want something for nothing. People who pay for their goods are going to pay for their software, regardless of whether or not it has drm. I pay for all my software. If that means going without something that's too expensive, I go without it. However, when I do pay for something, I expect it to work and be worth the money. DRM is nothing but a headache. I can understand CD Keys, I can understand disc checks- those have been around for years and really aren't bothersome. But when measures go even further than that it becomes a frustration. Once I pay for the software, I should not be limited in using it. Really, DRM is a waste- its trying to solve the wrong problem. The problem is that in our culture, a strong set of morality, let alone ethics, is lacking. Solve that problem, bring back a system of honest values, and suddenly DRM will seem silly to everybody involved, not just the consumer.

Spyhopping
11th Aug 2009, 14:42
The problem is that in our culture, a strong set of morality, let alone ethics, is lacking. Solve that problem, bring back a system of honest values, and suddenly DRM will seem silly to everybody involved, not just the consumer.


I know very moral, decent and honest people who pirate software because they don't apply their usual set of morals to gigantic companies... and who can blame them? It's a weird system. And does it really matter if you pirate something that you could never afford to give them the money for anyway? It's not like they would be loosing any resources or any customers. I often ask myself that question when I look at the ridiculous amounts of money charged for art software that I so often long for.

BUT, I won't use pirate software due to the conviction that I somehow should apply morals to any situation where people have worked hard to create something. At the end of the day, a lot of things wouldn't be possible without huge companies and their obscene amounts of money to spend on projects. And we have to support them if we want this kind of stuff.

René
11th Aug 2009, 14:43
My question is, should we also expect GFWL in Deus Ex 3?

I do not know. We'll know for certain as the game nears release but at this point I have no idea.

Jerion
11th Aug 2009, 14:55
I do not know. We'll know for certain as the game nears release but at this point I have no idea.

Perhaps a mass letter-writing campaign would discourage using it...

InGroove2
11th Aug 2009, 15:15
Perhaps a mass letter-writing campaign would discourage using it...

i'd be down for that. i had this music notation software, sibelius, that back in the day hd this ridiculous system, DRM-like... and i had a crappy computer that kept crashing and failing (poor musician, right?). so i had to keep calling them to get software keys and stuff, and after 3 times, they said, they couldn't give me anymore, and that, effectively, the software was useless because my computer wasn't good.... WHAAA?!

Ashpolt
11th Aug 2009, 16:04
I'd be absolutely happy to join in a letter writing campaign. Though I make no promises to not tag on a paragraph about health regen! :rasp:

Totally agree that DRM is a waste of time too. I am absolutely against piracy - I've only ever pirated one game, and that was simply because I could not find anywhere to buy it legally, and it was the middle game in a trilogy so I wanted it to "complete the set" - but I still see DRM as doing more harm than good, because it doesn't stop piracy anyway - is there a single DRM system out there that hasn't been cracked in less than a month?

Alex Jacobson
11th Aug 2009, 19:59
If the DRM is too much of a frustration with a legitimate purchase of the product, I would be lenient to those that pirate it just for consumer convenience. This punishes the companies that produce DRM software and the ones that use it by driving down profits. It would also reward developers that understood that gamers want to play the game for entertainment and not for a bunch of antipathic regulation that makes their experience less worthwhile unless they break the law.

spm1138
13th Aug 2009, 15:21
I still haven't bought mass effect because I don't like the DRM. I do want to play it. I'll probably pirate it. Just saying.

K^2
22nd Dec 2009, 18:34
This is just one of many, many examples of poor DRM forcing people to search for cracks. I've been there myself a number of times. Please don't go that way, EM.

Senka
23rd Dec 2009, 10:58
I still haven't bought mass effect because I don't like the DRM. I do want to play it. I'll probably pirate it. Just saying.

www.steampowered.com

gamer0004
23rd Dec 2009, 15:10
This is just one of many, many examples of poor DRM forcing people to search for cracks. I've been there myself a number of times. Please don't go that way, EM.

Same here. Recently bought Far Cry 2, but my new PC is not yet connected to teh interwebz and now I cannot play it. Again, people who actually buy games are screwed.

Irate_Iguana
23rd Dec 2009, 15:19
Same here. Recently bought Far Cry 2, but my new PC is not yet connected to teh interwebz and now I cannot play it. Again, people who actually buy games are screwed.

The same with those annoying splash screens when you buy a movie. The pirated version doesn't annoy you with those things.

Laokin
19th Jan 2010, 21:05
Wow. I never realized that I would be under DRM, when I got DX1 off of steam, the second time I bought it. Had I known, I would have asked my Dad to mail me my original CD from half way around the world. ...brings back memories of why I had experimented with non-Microsoft platforms (GNU/Linux), in the first place.

I, too, would like Eidos to know that I will be checking out for this kind of thing when I buy DX3, so please do not put any DRM stuff on it.

I'm so sick of hearing people who don't use steam talk about steam. What is so wrong about steam? You purchase the game ONLINE, so it only makes sense to do an auth check on the key when you purchase it.

Other than that, all the games can be played offline by putting steam into offline mode. Really, you don't need internet to play games using steam, as long as they were activated previously.

There is nothing wrong with this at all..... Who doesn't have internet anymore? If you don't have internet, then you don't use steam.... Steam is an internet store... F.Y.I.

Y'all make no sense. I hate DRM like Securom and Tages, but Steam is nothing more than a keycheck..... and that's it. No need for the cd in the drive, no cd swapping..... I don't see how it gets the hate it gets... really it's a fantastic platform.

Furthermore, it enables you to purchase CDkeys from Key vendors and play the game for 1/5 the price... Legally. So... wtf.

Laokin
19th Jan 2010, 21:41
I agree, DRM is a wasted effort. People who don't know or don't care about the moral problem of theft are going to keep pirating software, because they want something for nothing. People who pay for their goods are going to pay for their software, regardless of whether or not it has drm. I pay for all my software. If that means going without something that's too expensive, I go without it. However, when I do pay for something, I expect it to work and be worth the money. DRM is nothing but a headache. I can understand CD Keys, I can understand disc checks- those have been around for years and really aren't bothersome. But when measures go even further than that it becomes a frustration. Once I pay for the software, I should not be limited in using it. Really, DRM is a waste- its trying to solve the wrong problem. The problem is that in our culture, a strong set of morality, let alone ethics, is lacking. Solve that problem, bring back a system of honest values, and suddenly DRM will seem silly to everybody involved, not just the consumer.

Or is the problem corporate greed. Pirates don't purchase software, hence not part of the target market. COD MW2 most pirated game of 2009, yet the most profitable piece of entertainment of all time.

Did pirates hurt Infinity Ward? Absolutely not. And even if MW2 wasn't pirate-able...... then the pirates just wouldn't have played it. It wouldn't have somehow made the game even more profitable.

What is the definition of Theft?

"the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny."

You can't steal something that is just a copy. It's not theft, because you are not removing a product from anybody else. You having it, deprives nobody of anything in the case of a pirated copy. PS3 games are not pirate-able.... is their system more successful than Microsoft? Not yet. And it's not a lack of price point or AAA games either. Xbox 360 was marketed correctly, moves more units and has roughly a million pirated copies of any triple a game yet has been on top for a long time. Or what about wii? Wii doesn't even need a mod chip, they have soft mods that play burned games. Does it stop them from being the industry leader... even though they have pretty much zero AAA games? No.

The analysts looking at piracy are just greedy people who see a pirate copy as a loss of a sale -- which they classify as potential profit. This is not reality, if games could not be cracked.... they still wouldn't make anymore money. If nobody is losing, then how do you justify greed?

Greed is a sin -- we live in a christian society (USA), yet.... it's okay for these people to ask for an even bigger profit margin. They spend 10 - 20 million on a game and make 1 - 2 billion back. That is well over 10,000% profit. Yet somehow the "pirates" are killing the industry. Wrong, it's the greedy CEO's that want to spend less money and make more profit that are killing the PC industry. It's bad decision making.... shoddy games that aren't fun.... consolization....... that is killing the industry.

So much so EA has removed all Anti Piracy from their games except the standard Disc Check and CD Key. They understand -- No loss, why hurt legal consumers..... because then you are CREATING loss.

P.S.

I buy software. I may download a copy before the street date.... but only games I pre-ordered and I always purchase them when they release. I just have a huge problem with the Cliffyb's of the industry.

P.S.S.
If you think MW2 is some kind of exception then please see Indie game AudioSurf. One man made a tiny game in three months... sold it on steam for 9.99 and became a millionaire. It's been pirated more then it's been purchased and he still became a millionaire.

Or, Spore. Most pirated game of 2008. And so on. The only games that aren't profitable are games that suck. And even games that suck usually post profit, I mean... Divinity II sucks, but I'm sure they didn't lose money on it.

Oh and one more thing. I'm not religious, call me a non-believer if you wish.... but it's painful to see that people who claim to be "christian" or live in a "christian nation" succumb to greed so hard. They would all be going to hell if it was real.

Spyhopping
20th Jan 2010, 00:08
A close friend of mine pirates pretty much everything that he can't afford. He morally justifies it (like mentioned in above post) in that he wouldn't have purchased it anyway. There's been no labor in producing his particular copy, so nobody is losing any money or resources, the only person it impacts is him. He of course opposes that **** of capitalism that a well off person is entitled to a better quality of living and entertainment.

He's moral and rational, but so am I, and I pay for software I can afford and miss what I can't. I feel like I'm grasping for straws here, but it's something to do with a sense of ownership and property, and that I don't need digital entertainment at all, it's a luxury. Regardless of it being a "copy" and intangible, you are still gaining something quite substantial that others have acquired with hard earned cash, absolutely free. On a small scale it's mild, and there is little or no real loss, but it's still nicking something, really.

As big and evil as they seem, corporate motivations fuel the employment of these wonderfully creative people to create things we enjoy. When everyone begins pirating, we won't have an entertainment industry.

Senka
20th Jan 2010, 00:12
Who was it that said "You wouldn't steal a car..." ""Well if by steal you mean take a perfect copy of it and leave the original exactly where it was, yes I would""?

HOWEVER, I do think games piracy can be a problem. True some people wouldn't have bought the game anyway, so technically the developer looses nothing financially but the person gets entertainment they have not paid for (similar to sneaking into a movie)

If you like the game, you should buy it and support the developers so they can afford to pay their employees and make more games.

Spyhopping
20th Jan 2010, 00:35
If you like the game, you should buy it and support the developers so they can afford to pay their employees and make more games.

Totally, and that's why piracy is a problem- but this is really not why I pay for my games. I pay for the same reason that I don't walk out of a shop when I notice I've been given too much change.

Even JC thinks honesty is a forgotten virtue... !

Ashpolt
20th Jan 2010, 00:38
Laokin: I broadly agree with what you're saying on both of your points above (especially Steam, I love it) but just a couple of things....


There is nothing wrong with this at all..... Who doesn't have internet anymore? If you don't have internet, then you don't use steam.... Steam is an internet store... F.Y.I.


This isn't strictly true: a fair few boxed copy games now have mandatory Steam activations, e.e. MW2, Empire: Total War, or any of Valve's products (there's probably more, they're just the ones I know about.) As such, for the tiny minority of people who don't have a decent internet connection at home, Steam can completely stop them from playing games.


What is the definition of Theft?

"the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny."

You can't steal something that is just a copy. It's not theft, because you are not removing a product from anybody else. You having it, deprives nobody of anything in the case of a pirated copy.

This is purely semantics. If you're not happy with calling it theft, call it copyright infringement, which it most definitely is: either way, it's illegal. As a side note, I believe copyright infringement actually carries harsher penalties.


The analysts looking at piracy are just greedy people who see a pirate copy as a loss of a sale -- which they classify as potential profit. This is not reality, if games could not be cracked.... they still wouldn't make anymore money.

This is pure speculation, and I would speculate you are wrong here. I'm not saying all software pirates would buy the software if it was unpiratable, but I think it's safe to say a significant amount would. For every person like yourself who downloads games as a quality check, and will buy them if they're worth it or delete them otherwise, there's another 2 or 3 who just don't want to pay for anything.


If you think MW2 is some kind of exception then please see Indie game AudioSurf. One man made a tiny game in three months... sold it on steam for 9.99 and became a millionaire. It's been pirated more then it's been purchased and he still became a millionaire.

And how much more would he have made if everyone who had played and enjoyed his game had paid for it? Sure, he's done well, no one could deny that - but if his product has made so many people happy, surely he deserves to reap the full benefits of that, not just a fraction?

However you look at it, piracy is harming the industry, and it is leading to a vicious cycle: if a game gets pirated, and the developers receive less money than they might have otherwise (I'm not saying they get nothing, but less than the sum could be) then they're going to have less money to spend on creating the next game in the series, which could well lead to a lesser game, which will lead people to internally justify piracy, and so on. I'm not saying this is the sole reason for lower quality releases (how could I, given the forum we're on?) but it's going to be a contributing factor.

Other than that, though, I totally agree with you. Steam is great, and DRM is not the way to combat piracy, because it only harms legitimate consumers. Has there yet been a DRM system that hasn't been cracked within a week? Most are cracked before the game is even legally released. Treat your customers with respect, and in turn they'll respect you back. It won't eradicate piracy - as above, there will always be those people who think they deserve everything for free - but it'll cut it down.

BlazeL
20th Jan 2010, 01:00
So much so EA has removed all Anti Piracy from their games except the standard Disc Check and CD Key. They understand -- No loss, why hurt legal consumers..... because then you are CREATING loss.

EA has got completely back my faith in them (after those long years of being 'the bastard publisher'), when after installing my newly bought copy of Mirror's Edge, it didn't required its disc in the drive no more. Not that i like their games more, but i consider to buy them again if i'm interseted.

Anyway, yeah screw all DRMs!

Deevian
20th Jan 2010, 01:31
This is pure speculation, and I would speculate you are wrong here. I'm not saying all software pirates would buy the software if it was unpiratable, but I think it's safe to say a significant amount would. For every person like yourself who downloads games as a quality check, and will buy them if they're worth it or delete them otherwise, there's another 2 or 3 who just don't want to pay for anything.

Uh, I'm not an expert or anything, but I smell a contradiction. But going with your first position, you're being quite naive if you think that most people who pirate games would buy them if they weren't cracked. It all revolves about money, or, in particular, the lack of it.
To prove my point, in my country (Portugal), the average game costs about 1-2/10 of the minimum wage (50-70 euros per game, 450 euros as the minimum wage), and we have around half the population being paid exactly that amount. You think they would able to play most of the things they do if they didn't obtain those games illegally? Now I ain't saying there aren't pirates with plenty of money to go around, but to think they're the majority... eeeeh, it's a wrong point of view.

Ashpolt
20th Jan 2010, 01:51
Uh, I'm not an expert or anything, but I smell a contradiction. But going with your first position, you're being quite naive if you think that most people who pirate games would buy them if they weren't cracked. It all revolves about money, or, in particular, the lack of it.
To prove my point, in my country (Portugal), the average game costs about 1-2/10 of the minimum wage (50-70 euros per game, 450 euros as the minimum wage), and we have around half the population being paid exactly that amount. You think they would able to play most of the things they do if they didn't obtain those games illegally? Now I ain't saying there aren't pirates with plenty of money to go around, but to think they're the majority... eeeeh, it's a wrong point of view.

I....didn't say majority. I said "significant amount." I'm also not saying that if piracy wasn't possible, people would buy every game they would otherwise pirate. I'm just saying game sales would go up by a noticeable degree. Yes, I understand that economic pressures can cause a lot of people to not be able to afford games, but a) in America, that's not going to be so much of a problem, and that's a huge market, also with huge piracy rates, and b) if people can't afford games, most of them are probably not going to be able to afford the consoles or PCs to play them on anyway, so I doubt those people are contributing a particularly significant amount to piracy rates. I'm happy to be proved wrong, however, if you have some source showing otherwise.

BlazeL
20th Jan 2010, 02:56
I....didn't say majority. I said "significant amount." I'm also not saying that if piracy wasn't possible, people would buy every game they would otherwise pirate. I'm just saying game sales would go up by a noticeable degree. Yes, I understand that economic pressures can cause a lot of people to not be able to afford games, but a) in America, that's not going to be so much of a problem, and that's a huge market, also with huge piracy rates, and b) if people can't afford games, most of them are probably not going to be able to afford the consoles or PCs to play them on anyway, so I doubt those people are contributing a particularly significant amount to piracy rates. I'm happy to be proved wrong, however, if you have some source showing otherwise.

Well, in Europe, particularly its eastern part, the price of games are way too high IMO (unfortunately its not just Steam that converts USD/EUR=1/1), so its more of a problem here. You can get an average pc (that's more than enough for most of the new games) for ~375 EUR (the same price as a console) here in Hungary, meanwhile you can get around 8 new games for that price (~40-60 EUR each), while average wages are around 400 EUR. So its quite a motivation for piracy (in my opinion).

On the other hand, you can wait half a year, and game prices starts to fall, and a year after release, you can get them for a reasonable price (usually 1/10 of the original price if its not an EA product).

Since i would like to become a developer myself, i don't pirate games (or software) anymore (i did, years ago, before i got this 'vocation', and possibility to earn my own money...) but usually i don't buy games more expensive than 8 EUR. And still, i play nearly every game that interests me a year after its release.

[That's why i'm really keen to see a DX3 demo; i bought 2 games right after their release in my life, i followed their development for years, but both of them turned out to be very big disappointments, so i felt like i threw the money out of the window... I will never buy a full priced game again without a try, i rather wait a year then.]

IOOI
20th Jan 2010, 03:03
BlazeL pratically wrote all I was thinking about (You were to fast for me :o). So lets resume it :D :

c) if you're a casual gamer/occasional gamer/budget gamer you'll wait until there's a price drop on that game that caught your attention or you'll get it from magazines (€5) or you'll get it from a second hand store or you do it like in the "old times", borrow it from a friend. But if you have a few favorite game series why not spend €50 in that new game - after seeing the reviews, following the development and playing the Demo, of course.

Cmd_lupin
20th Jan 2010, 21:44
I believe we ALL have to live with the fact that DRM is here to stay. In Fact, it has been around us for quite some time now. IIRC, there was already some DRM form on the, now, ancient Commodore 64 ( although I can't say for sure).
And yes, we should already be out of this SecuRom/ Starforce (this piece of **** doesn't run on Win7).
For those of you who are already asking for a solution:Although it's only an alternative (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/6519-Building-a-Better-Kind-of-DRM), more could appear (AND SHOULD!)

On the Steam subject: It's one of the best DRM alternatives around, BUT (and this is pure speculation) couldn't devs find a way to incorporate Impulse/[other digital distribution service] - there are people who just don't buy certain games because they don't wan't to have multiple accounts. Not to mention it would give Publishers and Devs a huge €/sales benefit.

As for the "games are too expensive nowadays": Where are the publishers budget catalogs? When I was younger I used to all get my games through that! And for that matter I still do, to a lesser extent.



On the other hand, you can wait half a year, and game prices starts to fall, and a year after release, you can get them for a reasonable price (usually 1/10 of the original price if its not an EA product).

Unfortunatly, due to the lack of Budget games (publishers used to have in the '90s) it's up to each invidual store to name their prices for a certain game. EX: I've recently seen Call of Duty 4 at full price.


PS: for your amusement (http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/52531/BioShock-2-DRM-System-Requirements-Revealed) - please notice how the DRM is been handled.

Red Guy
20th Jan 2010, 21:53
Steam itself is not bad. Is bad when you are forced to install Steam and have a Steam account to play a game. For example FEAR 2, you buy the DVD but still need Steam to play it. I don't like that. I understand why some people like Steam but I prefer to buy my games on disk, no online activation thank you. All I want is a choice, not to get stuck with some online service.

Yes, I have a Steam account and Steam on my computer but only for Half-Life 2 + episodes and Portal (great games BTW). I don't buy any other games that force me to use Steam.
Besides, some games remove even the basic disk check in later patches (DOOM 3, QUAKE 4, Pray, The Witcher) but as far as I know you can't unlock a game from Steam.

I agree that the impact of pirated games is much exaggerated. Things are not that black & white anyway. Long time ago I used to play pirated games (Deus Ex was one of them) because at the time in my country there was no law to protect intellectual property, pirated games, music and movies were sold openly on the streets so there was no interest in legal distribution channels. But this is how I got a taste for PC games and now I own almost 100 titles, Deus Ex 2 Invisible War included (which is more like a console game compared to Deus Ex). Not to mention that in the mean time I have also spent a lot of money on hardware, just to keep up with latest games. And hardware manufacturers are big sponsors of the gaming industry.

For me it is very simple, if a game needs online activation I don't buy it (FEAR 2 example). If it is to much like a console game, worst symptom being lack of saves, I buy it when it gets below $10 (now I am waiting for Wolfenstein).
On the opposite side, I own both The Witcher and The Witcher Enhanced Edition although it was available as free download for registered users of the original version. Now, how many developers release an enhanced edition for free?
BTW, The Withcer sold +1.2mil. I hope Deus Ex 3 (PC) will be a great game that will sell many mil copies but without online activation please. :p

Ashpolt
20th Jan 2010, 22:10
PS: for your amusement (http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/52531/BioShock-2-DRM-System-Requirements-Revealed) - please notice how the DRM is been handled.

Eww, GFWL? Thanks for that link, there's another reason not to buy Bioshock 2.

Senka
20th Jan 2010, 23:17
Just read about that on another site. Having to log into GFWL to save the game? LOL gtfo. Good thing I wasn't looking forward to it anyway.

Irate_Iguana
21st Jan 2010, 08:48
EX: I've recently seen Call of Duty 4 at full price.

Nowadays it takes ages for games to drop in price. CoD MW still costs about €30 for the PC version. The game is from 2007 and its successor is already here. That used to mean that the game would be priced to about €10. The original KotOR still costs €20.

It seems that games that have a console version take much much longer to drop even a bit in price compared to games that are PC only. Understandable as they want people to buy the console version and not the cheaper PC version.

BlazeL
21st Jan 2010, 18:32
Just read about that on another site. Having to log into GFWL to save the game? LOL gtfo. Good thing I wasn't looking forward to it anyway.

That's what i hate about GFWL most, ability to save the game, you have to have an internet connection...
...second being that you need around a day just to get GFWL games to work.

It's a complete fail from Microsoft.

St. Mellow
21st Jan 2010, 20:00
It's a complete fail from Microsoft.

Redundancy much? :p

Sturmrabe
18th Feb 2010, 14:39
Well, in Europe, particularly its eastern part, the price of games are way too high IMO (unfortunately its not just Steam that converts USD/EUR=1/1), so its more of a problem here. You can get an average pc (that's more than enough for most of the new games) for ~375 EUR (the same price as a console) here in Hungary, meanwhile you can get around 8 new games for that price (~40-60 EUR each), while average wages are around 400 EUR. So its quite a motivation for piracy (in my opinion)..

Wow... that is the worst justification for piracy ever... you do realize the Euro is worth MORE than the dollar so they are losing money by doing that right?

http://www.google.com/search?q=euro+to+dollar&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GUEA_en

Also, you cannot get a decent PC for 400 bucks in America... you can't even BUILD a decent PC (for gaming) for 400... you are gonna drop half that on the gfx card alone if you want to play new ***** at any kind of decent settings... sounds like Eastern Europe isn't doing so bad... its even were some of the best porn comes from!

Anyway... I've only ever torrented something I've already bought (and cannot find in all my crap between all my moving) or to demo, I TRIED (unsuccessfully) to d/l Fallout3 just to demo it till I got paid, and there is no way I could not have bought the gaem (GIMME LUNCH BOCHS!), but 9-out-of-10 times if I try to get a game its because I'm iffy about it and if I like it I'm going to buy if because, as other said, I like having physical media.

If anything I think the best way to go would be a key, then an OPTION to register online so that if I lost it I could redownload it for like a dollar or something...

Cmd_lupin
18th Feb 2010, 19:27
Wow... that is the worst justification for piracy ever... you do realize the Euro is worth MORE than the dollar so they are losing money by doing that right?
No, it's because 1€ ~= 1.64$. Every American Publisher is actually making a huge profit on Europe ONLY.


If anything I think the best way to go would be a key, then an OPTION to register online so that if I lost it I could redownload it for like a dollar or something...
There have already been some, at least reasonable, DRM solutions. The main problem with them it's that those give players too much freedom about THEIR games, and Publishers don't like that - "Ze Fachist Pigs".

Sturmrabe
18th Feb 2010, 20:10
No, it's because 1€ ~= 1.64$. Every American Publisher is actually making a huge profit on Europe ONLY.
".
Oops you are right, got that backwards

Though I would say ONLY, just a bumper crop

Ashpolt
19th Feb 2010, 11:17
Ubisoft's DRM: Their side of the story. (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=235596&site=pcg)

PC Gamer UK contacted Ubisoft about their new DRM, and got them to explain it a bit. Not a single thing in there makes me think any better of the system. There were a couple of interesting points though:

1) They note that the way saving progress during disconnections is handled varies by game: AC2 will knock you back to the last checkpoint, Settlers will let you pick up exactly where you left off. Why can't all games handle it the Settlers way? This is incredibly sloppy, and points to very poor internal standards and consistency.

2) They say that they understand that the way to combat piracy is by offering a better product, then later in the interview that they understand this measure is pissing customers off. Great job.

3) From a psychological perspective, I find it very interesting that the Ubi guy says "from now until the day that we [Ubisoft] all die" rather than just "from now onwards." It's like he's actually expecting the company to fold.

All in all, reading between the lines in this interview, it sounds to me like Ubisoft is struggling at the moment, possibly hit harder by the economy than they let on, and this is almost the last gasp of a dying company. I'm not saying that screwing over the PC market alone will make them go bankrupt, but I reckon they're possibly already on the way there, and this is a desperate attempt to gain what little extra they can, and it's going to backfire horribly. And in all honesty, if Ubisoft goes down, as far as I'm concerned very little of value will be lost.

Irate_Iguana
19th Feb 2010, 11:40
And in all honesty, if Ubisoft goes down, as far as I'm concerned very little of value will be lost.

Indeed. I really liked the SC series but after Chaos Theory I didn't like the direction they took. And I never played CT because of the wonderful DRM. AC was nice to play with a few frustrating points, but I have desire to play AC II now.

spm1138
19th Feb 2010, 11:42
If Ubisoft are struggling it's BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN RELEASING TERRIBLE GAMES.

I think they basically said as much in their last quarterly report.

I like how they think terrible games with ******* horrific DRM is the way forwards.

Pinky_Powers
19th Feb 2010, 11:42
As long as some other company picks up their better products like Splinter Cell (think that's Ubisoft) then I could care less if they all die. Their post-release game support is sadistically despicable.

Ashpolt
19th Feb 2010, 12:10
If Ubisoft are struggling it's BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN RELEASING TERRIBLE GAMES.

I think they basically said as much in their last quarterly report.

I like how they think terrible games with ******* horrific DRM is the way forwards.

Agreed. Maybe if they stopped mining the Tom Clancy name far beyond reasonable limits.....That said, I stick by Assassin's Creed 2 being a really good game. Not worth putting up with this DRM for (I'm ashamed to admit that I'm an idort, and have the 360 version) but a good game nonetheless.


Their post-release game support is sadistically despicable.

Tell me about it. Silent Hunter 4 had a bug on release where if you pressed the A key, the game would crash. It took them 2 patches to fix that one. Also, changing the resolution only affected the HUD: all 3D aspects remained in 1024 x 768, which looked hideous. That took 3 patches for them to fix. And they weren't quick, either.

Pinky_Powers
19th Feb 2010, 12:15
I haven't check in some time, but I remember Splinter Cell - Double Agent was quite broken for the PC, and even a year and a half after release, there was no fix. My hate for them began there.

SageSavage
19th Feb 2010, 12:53
Ubisoft's DRM: Their side of the story. (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=235596&site=pcg)
All in all, reading between the lines in this interview, it sounds to me like Ubisoft is struggling at the moment, possibly hit harder by the economy than they let on, and this is almost the last gasp of a dying company. I'm not saying that screwing over the PC market alone will make them go bankrupt, but I reckon they're possibly already on the way there, and this is a desperate attempt to gain what little extra they can, and it's going to backfire horribly. And in all honesty, if Ubisoft goes down, as far as I'm concerned very little of value will be lost.

If they go down, I suspect that the rest of the industry would use them as a reminder whenever they want to blame something on piracy since Ubisoft would sure as hell blame that for their demise.

Pinky_Powers
19th Feb 2010, 13:57
It's probably the disaster in Haiti that's to blame, honestly.

Irate_Iguana
19th Feb 2010, 14:09
I haven't check in some time, but I remember Splinter Cell - Double Agent was quite broken for the PC, and even a year and a half after release, there was no fix. My hate for them began there.

It still is. You install the game and hope for the best. No patches or fixes.

FrankCSIS
19th Feb 2010, 17:26
In the end it all comes back to one single truth: piracy is a big, huge, hairy problem. It's a market that suffered a lot because of piracy, and we're all just trying to figure out what we think is the best way to deal with it.

Yes yes, it has not suffered, at all, because of bad management, half-assed developements, suspicious port intents and a blatant will to ignore PC gamers by developing games tailored for all audiences.

It's all piracy I tells ya!

Ashpolt
19th Feb 2010, 18:04
^^ Yeah, poor guys can barely even afford to eat, just look at Gabe Newell...

Cmd_lupin
19th Feb 2010, 18:33
1) They note that the way saving progress during disconnections is handled varies by game: AC2 will knock you back to the last checkpoint, Settlers will let you pick up exactly where you left off. Why can't all games handle it the Settlers way? This is incredibly sloppy, and points to very poor internal standards and consistency.

2) They say that they understand that the way to combat piracy is by offering a better product, then later in the interview that they understand this measure is pissing customers off. Great job.



My view on this particular subject, with some free sarcasm:

1) Ashpolt, Dearest of all my friends, it's because some game are meant to be played by checkpoints. Having an autosave feature on this games would completely destroy the feel they are traying to convey. - That's the meaning of a bad port; publishers only want to lose their time on things that are essencial to being able to play the same game on different systems; I actually prefer the Remedy's way of doing things, just make the damn thing an exclusive rather than doing stunts like this one.

2) OK, you got to give them one little thing: They are ALL ver clever, they all understand everything, but you can't ask them to actually DO things, ok? - PR talk will ALWAYS be PR talk. I hate most of those guys.


^^ Yeah, poor guys can barely even afford to eat, just look at Gabe Newell...
God! That made me laugh.