204 réponses à ce sujet

[ydaraishy]

The certainty of the recording industry being thugs doesn't make it right.

[ErichHartmann]

ydaraishy wrote...

It's also sick when the record labels think that squeezing that woman and others out for millions is a justifiable compensation for the handful of songs she downloaded, which can be bought in total for at least under $100 legitimately.

The women was pursued for file sharing the songs she downloaded online.  She would have never been caught otherwise. 

Modifié par ErichHartmann, 17 novembre 2010 - 03:46 .

[ydaraishy]

I'm criticizing the amount the recording industry was awarded in proportion to the crime, not the crime itself.

Modifié par ydaraishy, 17 novembre 2010 - 03:47 .

[Challseus]

ydaraishy wrote...

It's also sick when the record labels think that squeezing that woman and others out for millions is a justifiable compensation for the handful of songs she downloaded, which can be bought in total for at least under $100 legitimately.

I'm pretty sure were talking about the same case, but I'll dig up a link in a minute. But, I want to point out she wasn't sued for downloading, she was sued for uploading. That handful of songs she download, then proceeded to upload could turn into 1000's of downloads for others. It's the same thing with drugs, really. Go after the drug dealer, not the druggie.

[ydaraishy]

Regardless of the specifics of the case, the record industry *are* going after the druggies and extorting large settlements from them. Users caught up in "dragnet" style legal operations and mass subpoenas have specifically stated that they've settled because they can't afford the lawyers to clear their names even if *they haven't actually downloaded or uploaded anything*.



How is this right? How is this legitimate?

[Challseus]

Here's a link to what I think everyone is talking about: http://www.digitaljo.../article/274415

I almost forgot. She refused to settle for a much smaller amount (3k - 5k), as most people do. So she breaks the law, then doesn't have the common sense to pay the fine, then is mad they are suing her? Yeah, no sympathy from me. Maybe she should have been making better decisions in life...

The RIAA is doing what anyone would do if they found out someone was stealing their property. The difference is, most people won't even see things from that point of view, so pirating will continue no matter what. So, tell yourself what you want, but it's wrong, anyway you slice it.

[ydaraishy]

Nothing is being stolen. Piracy is not theft. Theft is where you take something from me and I am deprived of that thing. The copyright holders are not deprived of their intellectual property when a copy is being made.



Again, I am criticizing the behaviour and the propaganda of the record industry here, not the crime.



(This is probably getting a bit OT for the topic, so I'm going to withdraw here)

[Challseus]

ydaraishy wrote...
(This is probably getting a bit OT for the topic, so I'm going to withdraw here)

Fair enough.

[Ziggeh]

kr33g0r wrote...

No DRM. Let's face it, every form of DRM has been cracked and will be cracked so save some money and don't implement any and stop punishing legit buyers with retarded activation limits etc.

You need something simple that stops straightforward game sharing, they're just as easy to get around but it stops people from just assuming it's shareware. But I agree, anything beyond that I consider to be actively detrimental.

[Fraevar]

The one-use DLC approach they used for DA:O combined with a simple disk-check is what works and BioWare should do nothing to alter it.

Need I remind anyone of the massive fallout EA and BioWare had to deal with back in 2008 when they put invasive SecuROM DRM on their games and limited gamers to 3-5 installs *ever* ? Spore was the most pirated game of 2008 because of that.

So no, BioWare should do nothing more with DAII in terms of copy protection than they did with DA:O. Any more and they risk having people pirating the game simply out of spite, and I'd say the game has enough people on the fence when it comes to the PC version already, if this forum is any indication...

[kr33g0r]

That's the thing. Don't make it easier for pirates to play the game than for your customers, people who have actually bought it.

A disk check (while still annoying) is perfectly fine.

Oh and while I am ranting, don't charge points for DLC. I am happy to pay real money for them but won't buy points.

Modifié par kr33g0r, 17 novembre 2010 - 04:22 .

[Anexity]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

The one-use DLC approach they used for DA:O combined with a simple disk-check is what works and BioWare should do nothing to alter it.

The problem with that is it hurts second hand sales, which is often a great way to recoup some of the money you spent on the game when your done.

Need I remind anyone of the massive fallout EA and BioWare had to deal with back in 2008 when they put invasive SecuROM DRM on their games and limited gamers to 3-5 installs *ever* ? Spore was the most pirated game of 2008 because of that.

So no, BioWare should do nothing more with DAII in terms of copy protection than they did with DA:O. Any more and they risk having people pirating the game simply out of spite, and I'd say the game has enough people on the fence when it comes to the PC version already, if this forum is any indication...

In reference to the disk check I agree 100%, as far as the one time use DLC code see above. EA seems to learned that DRM that hurts paying customers backfires. Sadly they also learned that one time use codes can not only surve the same purpose, but deter second hand sales.

Modifié par Anexity, 17 novembre 2010 - 04:23 .

[kr33g0r]

Anexity wrote...

EA seems to learned that DRM that hurts paying customers backfires. Sadly they also learned that one time use codes can not only surve the same purpose, but deter second hand sales.

They want to kill second hand sales because they don't get any money for them.

[Ziggeh]

kr33g0r wrote...

Anexity wrote...

EA seems to learned that DRM that hurts paying customers backfires. Sadly they also learned that one time use codes can not only surve the same purpose, but deter second hand sales.

They want to kill second hand sales because they don't get any money for them.

Indeed, and I see that as fair, but I do think some concession needs to be made to those who switch or reformat their computer on a regular basis. I'm not sure I've seen one that addresses that issue.

[Aggie Punbot]

Maverick827 wrote...
So you always take your PC offline when you play Dragon Age?

Yes. If I want to upload character data, I log in just long enough for that data to be sent and then I log out.

You post on these forums on a different computer too, right?  You signed up for your BioWare account with a dummy email address? 

Unless I missed a very, very important part of the TOS for this site, the Bioware Social Network does not ask permission to access my computer itself and transmit personal data to heaven only knows where.

You paid for your copy of Dragon Age in cash, right?

Yup. Point being?

Modifié par TS2Aggie, 17 novembre 2010 - 04:43 .

[ydaraishy]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

kr33g0r wrote...

Anexity wrote...

EA seems to learned that DRM that hurts paying customers backfires. Sadly they also learned that one time use codes can not only surve the same purpose, but deter second hand sales.

They want to kill second hand sales because they don't get any money for them.

Indeed, and I see that as fair, but I do think some concession needs to be made to those who switch or reformat their computer on a regular basis. I'm not sure I've seen one that addresses that issue.

Well, it'll work like how it does already -- if your code lets you get items, the items stay with your account, and if you reformat, you just have to download the items again with your account.

[Slayer299]

Helena Tylena wrote...

Slayer299 wrote...

Itkovian wrote...

That said, I think using something like the Cerberus Network might also be useful. It probably won't cut down on piracy, but it will at least help them against used games sales.
Itkovian

Can you explain that please? How are used game sales wrong somehow? I used to buy used games all the time because they're cheaper (paying $30 is a lot better than $60). 

When you buy a used game, the developers see exactly 0 cents of whatever currency you bought it in.

Look at it this way: person one buys a game at retail for 60$. The developer gets (random number. Don't shoot me if it's inaccurate) 20$ for selling the game to the retailer.
A few months later, person one has finished the game and sells it back to the retailer, who then sells it through to person two, who pays 30$. The retailer puts all of that money in their back-pocket and the developer gets 0$ from this exchanche, leaving them with 40$ where they should have 20$.
Now, multiply 20$ times the amount of times a used game is sold, and you get a rough estimate of how much money the developer should have had -and could have used on their next game- but didn't.

A used copy is essentially a pirated copy in that it gives the people who made the game nothing. Buying games used is technically the same as downloading it illegally, except the user has to pay for it.

I understand what you're saying, about the publishers not getting their cut for each new used title purchased, but I just can't buy it. If I went out and purchased a used game than you're telling me I'm no better than someone who downloads a pirated copy of the game? That's crap. Not everyone can afford to buy a brand new title for $60 bucks all the time.

edit - wrong word

Modifié par Slayer299, 17 novembre 2010 - 04:44 .

[JigPig]

I'm waiting for someone to play the whole "but I buy it if I like it" card.



"After successfully playing this game through 4 times on 4 different character builds I can say without a doubt that I would never buy it"

[kr33g0r]

JigPig wrote...

I'm waiting for someone to play the whole "but I buy it if I like it" card.

"After successfully playing this game through 4 times on 4 different character builds I can say without a doubt that I would never buy it"

Haha! I sell it if I don't like it.

[Ziggeh]

ydaraishy wrote...

Well, it'll work like how it does already -- if your code lets you get items, the items stay with your account, and if you reformat, you just have to download the items again with your account.

I meant DRM that restricts you to a limited number of installs, but that right there is a very good point, they already have a system thatm while not stopping, actively discourages second hand sales: day one DLC. I'd never thought of that. Cunning.

[Aggie Punbot]

Actually, I know people that *do* buy games that they like and, consequently, will refuse to purchase games that are so broken that they can't play them on their computers. As I recall, you can't return a game for a full refund due to bugginess.

[ydaraishy]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

ydaraishy wrote...

Well, it'll work like how it does already -- if your code lets you get items, the items stay with your account, and if you reformat, you just have to download the items again with your account.

I meant DRM that restricts you to a limited number of installs, but that right there is a very good point, they already have a system thatm while not stopping, actively discourages second hand sales: day one DLC. I'd never thought of that. Cunning.

Yeah: it incentivises new sales while not punishing used sales. This is perfectly fine by me.

[Ziggeh]

TS2Aggie wrote...

Actually, I know people that *do* buy games that they like and, consequently, will refuse to purchase games that are so broken that they can't play them on their computers. As I recall, you can't return a game for a full refund due to bugginess.

I can see that. I really don't buy many games these days, but I used to only buy them if I'd played and enjoyed the demo. As that's a dying practice these days I can understand the appeal of "try before I buy", but for the most part it is just another flimsy justification.

[Elite Midget]

I understand everyone views on Piracy and DRM but everyones forgetting the other part of this topic.



What type of DRM would you be okay with and would be a deterent for Pirateing. At least the the Launch Window for the game.

[Ziggeh]

ydaraishy wrote...

Yeah: it incentivises new sales while not punishing used sales. This is perfectly fine by me.

Yep, seems like a strong, positive system to me.