203 réponses à ce sujet

[esper]

AlanC9 wrote...

Flamingdropbear wrote...


2) The idea KEEPS THE GAME SINGLE PLAYER and doesn't require a an always on internet connection just a small weekly download

What percentage of gamers don't have an always-on connection these days? I haven't seen any real numbers in years.

*Raises hand. I can vouch for one personally and I think I saw another in this thread already.

I do have an internet connection, but it is a slow usb-modem connected to a (the word slips my mind), it can connect machine so I have wireless. It is however slow and if I is on it too much, I use up my montly use and then it becomes really slow.

A game I play as much as dragon age would simply use up my internent faster than I could say Thedas and I don't think I would play it very much.

And then we are not even getting into the fact that I don't like playing online.

[andy6915]

A mod might dislike me saying this, but I am in no way actually supporting piracy when I say this:

As a person who hates pirates of video games and has never EVER pirated anything, if the gaming industry ever decides to make it standard that you must be online to play a SINGLE PLAYER game... I will start pirating. Specifically, any game that I want to play that uses that standard. And I won't feel bad for it, I will be justified in doing so. DRM is the bane of gaming, and I will not accept it. I won't stop being a gamer, but neither will I pay money to get screwed. If I wanted to pay to get screwed, I would hire a prostitute. Seeing as I've never hired one, I will pirate instead (mixing my metaphors in a weird way here). If a game doesn't do that, publishers have nothing to fear because I won't pirate their game if it doesn't do that. If it does... I won't pay a cent for it.

On that notion, I will definitely buy DA3. It doesn't do it as far as I'm aware. Publishers should take note my stance. MANY gamers will do the same thing, as Sim City 3 has proven.

Modifié par andy69156915, 02 avril 2013 - 02:07 .

[andy6915]

Mind you, that last post of mine isn't a threat. It's a warning. What's the difference? What's the difference between a tornado threat and a tornado warning? That's the answer to what the difference is. Force me to always be online and it's a game I want to play=I will play it, but I won't buy it. Simple.

EDIT

Tell you what: I'll send a $60 check to the developers themselves if I pirate, bypassing the publishers. Developers shouldn't be screwed by their publishers actions.

Modifié par andy69156915, 02 avril 2013 - 01:28 .

[esper]

Pirating is always wrong. I you don't want to play the game the way it was made to be play then find some other games.

I will miss dragon age if it becomes always online, but if worst come to worst there are always indie companies making games. I have found a lot of great ones recently, which satisfies my niche needs.

[Ridwan]

esper wrote...

Pirating is always wrong. I you don't want to play the game the way it was made to be play then find some other games.

I will miss dragon age if it becomes always online, but if worst come to worst there are always indie companies making games. I have found a lot of great ones recently, which satisfies my niche needs.

Indie games really are the future, most of my purchases through Steam and GOG have been indie games. And Serious Sam 3 showed that an indie game can look good too.

[TheJediSaint]

esper wrote...

Pirating is always wrong. I you don't want to play the game the way it was made to be play then find some other games.

I will miss dragon age if it becomes always online, but if worst come to worst there are always indie companies making games. I have found a lot of great ones recently, which satisfies my niche needs.

If a game's DRM makes it so that pirates get a better product than a paying customer, I take that as a signal not to buy the game at all rather than an invitation to pirate it.  

[andy6915]

Not always wrong. If strings get attached to their products that are just flat-out unethical and unacceptable, then it is not wrong to find ways to circumvent those strings.

Modifié par andy69156915, 02 avril 2013 - 01:46 .

[TheJediSaint]

andy69156915 wrote...

Not always wrong. If string get attached to their products that are just flat-out unethical and unacceptable, then it is not wrong to find ways to circumvent those strings.

Or just don't buy the game.

[andy6915]

I specifically said I won't buy the game if I'm forced to be online to play a single player game. I also said I will play the game regardless of buying it. I shouldn't be denied an awesome game just because a publisher decided to have their brain and ethics fall out of their ass.

Modifié par andy69156915, 02 avril 2013 - 02:22 .

[TheJediSaint]

andy69156915 wrote...

I specifically said I won't buy the game if I'm forced to be online to play a single player game. I also said I will play the game regardless of buying it. I shouldn't be denied an awesome game just because a publisher decided to have their brain and ethics fall out of their ass.

Two wrongs don't make a right.  You can't expect to convince someone to behave ethically by being unethical yourself.    Also, the Bioware staff take a very dim view of folks advocating piracy on their boards.   

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 02 avril 2013 - 01:53 .

[andy6915]

I specifically said I'm NOT advocating it. I'm against pirates and pirating. Publishers and developers deserve money for their hard work. They provide something you want, you pay money to get it. That's basic economics. Problem is, that gets thrown out the window when they force you to stay online 24/7 just to play YOUR PAID FOR PROPERTY. If you buy it, it's supposed to be YOURS. End of discussion, period, done. Your paid for product should not turn into a $60 paperweight simply because I forgot to pay a cable bill. You know what that is? Stealing... From the CUSTOMER. They took your money, and all you get is a piece of crap that doesn't work because your internet is off.

[esper]

andy69156915 wrote...

I specifically said I'm NOT advocating it. I'm against pirates and pirating. Publishers and developers deserve money for their hard work. They provide something you want, you pay money to get it. That's basic economics. Problem is, that gets thrown out the window when they force you to stay online 24/7 just to play YOUR PAID FOR PROPERTY. If you buy it, it's supposed to be YOURS. End of discussion, period, done. Your paid for product should not turn into a $60 paperweight simply because I forgot to pay a cable bill. You know what that is? Stealing... From the CUSTOMER. They took your money, and all you get is a piece of crap that doesn't work because your internet is off.

Always online games state that they are always online before buying them. Thus you are buying an always online game, which means that you are stealing from the company.

If you don't want or can't (as in my case) play an always online game, then don't buy it.

Edit. And I am pretty sure that philosoffers every where would disagree that wherever the game is online or not have anything to do with ethics.

And always online game is an always online game. If you buy it, you buy a product meant to be always online and can in fact only complain if it somehow does not work online.

Modifié par esper, 02 avril 2013 - 02:13 .

[andy6915]

And if I buy that game and my internet gets shut off, that means the game publishers are officially stealing from ME. Their choice to do that makes certain that pure luck will decide whether I can play my legally bought and owned property. That is NOT ethical.

[TheJediSaint]

andy69156915 wrote...

And if I buy that game and my internet gets shut off, that means the game publishers are officially stealing from ME. Their choice to do that makes certain that pure luck will decide whether I can play my legally bought and owned property. That is NOT ethical.

Even if they are being unethical, that does not justfy you being unethical in return. 

[andy6915]

By the way, I wouldn't even do it to make some kind of "statement". I make that statement by not buying it. No, the reason I would is because the illegal copies would have the restriction removed. My current living area means that I can't have internet on my computer if I connect it to a console. It takes several minutes to get my internet switched back, and I like to frequently get on the computer with a game playing (I'm doing it right now). Being forced to stay online with my console will make me effectively unable to play the game. Like I said, I won't be screwed out of a game I want to play because of a crappy DRM that doesn't even stop the pirates it was designed to stop.

[esper]

andy69156915 wrote...

And if I buy that game and my internet gets shut off, that means the game publishers are officially stealing from ME. Their choice to do that makes certain that pure luck will decide whether I can play my legally bought and owned property. That is NOT ethical.

No, it means that you bought an product you did not have the means to use.

It is like me buying a dvd and then accuse the dvd producent of stealing from me when my playstation 3 (which is my dvd player) breaks.

If you do not think you have a stable internent connection, you of course do not play a game that requires online connection. If you buy an always online game, you make sure you have an online connection.

I have bought games that I couldn't play for one reason or another, the fault is of course mine for not researching the requirment for buying the game first.

[Fast Jimmy]

andy69156915 wrote...

By the way, I wouldn't even do it to make some kind of "statement". I make that statement by not buying it. No, the reason I would is because the illegal copies would have the restriction removed. My current living area means that I can't have internet on my computer if I connect it to a console. It takes several minutes to get my internet switched back, and I like to frequently get on the computer with a game playing (I'm doing it right now). Being forced to stay online with my console will make me effectively unable to play the game. Like I said, I won't be screwed out of a game I want to play because of a crappy DRM that doesn't even stop the pirates it was designed to stop.

While I don't support piracy (after all, piracy supports itself), the fact that many gamers are in situations similar is why I cannot comprehend gaming companies putting in online requirements that are tied more and more tightly with their games.

This forums loves talking about how people need to "check their privliege." Well, I think developers need to check THEIR privilege. Not everyone lives in places where internet flows are free as water down from the mountain. To make it  a requirement penalizes MANY gamers in a very exclusive way.

[esper]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

andy69156915 wrote...

By the way, I wouldn't even do it to make some kind of "statement". I make that statement by not buying it. No, the reason I would is because the illegal copies would have the restriction removed. My current living area means that I can't have internet on my computer if I connect it to a console. It takes several minutes to get my internet switched back, and I like to frequently get on the computer with a game playing (I'm doing it right now). Being forced to stay online with my console will make me effectively unable to play the game. Like I said, I won't be screwed out of a game I want to play because of a crappy DRM that doesn't even stop the pirates it was designed to stop.

While I don't support piracy (after all, piracy supports itself), the fact that many gamers are in situations similar is why I cannot comprehend gaming companies putting in online requirements that are tied more and more tightly with their games.

This forums loves talking about how people need to "check their privliege." Well, I think developers need to check THEIR privilege. Not everyone lives in places where internet flows are free as water down from the mountain. To make it  a requirement penalizes MANY gamers in a very exclusive way.

That is indeed true. If all AAA games becomes online only, I will be forced into the only buying indie games and I doubt that I am the only one.

The sad true is that I am 'screwed out on' to quote Andy a lot of pc-only games I would like to play, but can't because I cannot afford a proper gaming pc, but that doesn't mean I go around stealing to play them.

Many gamers would be not capable of playing always online and I do wonder how well those games actually does, but if they become the norm, then I guess my time in AAA games are over.

[andy6915]

@esper

So my choices are don't play a good game at all, or be forced to buy a game that I can't play that will only support the practice and make it more commonplace which will screw me even more? Some terrible options right there. A third option seems best in that case.

[andy6915]

Besides, I won't be truly stealing. After all, I did say that I'll send a check with the amount I would have paid for the game to the developers themselves. If they then send it to the publisher, that's their choice. If they decide to throw a big developer pizza party with it, that's their choice too. I'll be paying money for it... But it won't be directly to the publisher. I hates pirates and I hate the idea of pirating, so sending a check to the devs will take some of the bad taste out of it.

Modifié par andy69156915, 02 avril 2013 - 02:39 .

[esper]

andy69156915 wrote...

@esper

So my choices are don't play a good game at all, or be forced to buy a game that I can't play that will only support the practice and make it more commonplace which will screw me even more? Some terrible options right there. A third option seems best in that case.

That is your only options if you for some strange reason insist on buy a game you can't play, yes.

It is sad to not be able to play a game, but that is how it is. And you will only be supporting the practize if you for some reason insist buying the game.

No game company is under any obligation to make single player, off line games. As long as they tell that their game is online-only, then they have done what they need to do.

Modifié par esper, 02 avril 2013 - 02:55 .

[esper]

andy69156915 wrote...

Besides, I won't be truly stealing. After all, I did say that I'll send a check with the amount I would have paid for the game to the developers themselves. If they then send it to the publisher, that's their choice. If they decide to throw a big developer pizza party with it, that's their choice too. I'll be paying money for it... But it won't be directly to the publisher. I hates pirates and I hate the idea of pirating, so sending a check to the devs will take some of the bad taste out of it.

That doesn't count, the publisher have their right to their portion of the pay to, and you are still not buying the game legally.

[andy6915]

I would say they DO have an obligation. Sim City has shown that. Do they HAVE to stick to that obligation? No. Is it an EXTREMELY bad idea not to stick to it? Yes. Otherwise, your game bombs horribly.

EDIT TO SECOND POST

If the publisher ruins a good game with their cruddy DRM, and the develper's game that took hard work doesn't reach people it should have because of the publishers doing that... Then no, I would argue they do NOT deserve their share of the profit. If the devs disagree with me, they can send the check to them (or split it 50/50, whatever).

Modifié par andy69156915, 02 avril 2013 - 03:00 .

[esper]

Jayne126 wrote...

If a game - no matter who made it - has always online DRM, I hope it'll bomb.

SimCity did hopefully gave 'em a good shake.

Indeed, I do by no means support always online.

I would just show my non.satisfaction by not-buying the game and properly also complain about it here on BSN so bioware at least knew why (not that they would care). Not much more to do. It would suck to lose out on a game I want to play, but that is life.