203 réponses à ce sujet

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I always vote with my wallet and I don't pirate games. Where's my cookie?

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 06 avril 2013 - 11:44 .

[crimzontearz]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

I do dislike you saying this, because despite your refutations you are supporting piracy, even if it's as a last resort.

If you don't like the features and the mechanism, the strongest way to show your disapproval is not to not buy it, but to not play it altogether.

When you pirate a game, you're providing another data point that someone somewhere can use to justify DRM. I'm not a fan of DRM, but someone somewhere looks at it, makes a financial case for it, and presumably is able to financially justify its existence (I have no idea who this person is).

Here's some food for thought: If piracy didn't exist, DRM would undeniably be a 100% waste of money. The corporate fat cats that are always in someone's crosshairs couldn't possibly justify it.

However, since its effect is rather nebulous, all I can leave with is this vagueish notion that "it's probably not very helpful." Though I suppose if someone were to come around with some definitive numbers and showed them to me, I might be inclined to think otherwise. Like you and everyone else on this forum, I am left with only a hunch.


As for whether or not one should "be denied from playing an awesome game." I infinitely respect someone that can go "I really want to play this game, but it has aspects of it that I cannot support, so I won't." That voice resonates strongly with me. Circumventing and supporting piracy (and all the negatives that can come with it) because you simply could not go on without playing a video game you think is awesome is not a position I can respect.

I draw a line in the sand for how much a feel a game is worth to me. If a game ever comes across as having aspects of it that I cannot justify ANY price, I will never play that game. I'm not a big fan always online requirements. I personally think SimCity should have probably just marketed itself as being a multiplayer online experience. However, given that the game's always online aspect was something even I (who hardly followed the game during development) knew about, I do find myself surprised.

I don't find always online to be innately evil (nor do I hope those games bomb. Note to forum goes, the people most likely to be affected by the game bombing is someone like me. If the game isn't for you, fine, but if others are okay with it that's their prerogative). The only games I have purchased that have mandatory online components (that I wasn't buying to explicitly use, like Diablo III), are games that I purchase on extreme discounts (or in the case of SimCity, able to get for no cost to myself). This is because I consider always online for a game that has no online component I'm interested in to have a negative value. So I picked up Silent Hunter V for dirt cheap ($5 ultimately waste of money, but alas) and Splinter Cell Conviction for cheap too ($10 but ultimately worth the money for the experience I got, and I did enjoy the Co-op component a lot).

I encourage others to do the same sort of things.


IMO, if something is a deal breaker for you, I think you do the gaming industry a greater service by not playing the game. It prevents anyone from taking the data of pirated games and drawing conclusions that are not correct. No one can look at an always online game that had crap sales and zero pirate downloads and make any excuses that piracy affected it.

soooo when I say the only reason I never bought DA2 was that the dev team chose not to include NG+ (and the same can be said about the witcher) how does that resonate with you?

[grumpymooselion]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Here's some food for thought: If piracy didn't exist, DRM would undeniably be a 100% waste of money. The corporate fat cats that are always in someone's crosshairs couldn't possibly justify it.

And yet . . . the people most hurt by DRM, or always online requirements for games that do not, and should not be, required to be always online . . . are not Pirates. It's the legitimate users that has paid for your game. I run out of fingers and toes long, long . . . long before I run out of my own stories about one way, or another, DRM or an always online requirement has caused anything from a small inconvenience to an outright and complete inability to play a game I HAVE PAID FOR. That includes EA and Bioware titles, yes, but it is not limited to EA or Bioware by even the longest of shots.

DRM and always online requirements punish exactly one group of people - the people that actually support you by paying for your games.

Once cracked, or once a way has been found to circumvent your requirements, by just one or a very small number of people with the know how, ANYONE and EVERYONE with even the slightest knowledge of how to pirate a game has access to it. I could have pirated any number of the EA or Bioware games I have bought - easily - but I chose not to.

I chose not to. I believe you make good games. I want to support that fact, but, it does not chance that fact that I have always, consistently, been punished by DRM or always online requirements across many games from many developers and different publishers. Punished for supporting these companies. Punished by all manner of things going wrong with the DRM or the always online requirements. Punished. Never once rewarded, unless you count Steam which, yeah, it is still DRM at its core . . . and I'll admit Steam rewards me regularly for being a legitimate and paying customer with free things, and great deals and access to betas just for being a steam user and all sorts of extras besides. Rewarded there, not punished . . .

The worst story I have for DRM comes from Mirror's Edge, I was really excited about that game back in the day. I'd had bad experiences with EA tech support prior and since, but between the DRM keeping me from playing and the tech support going between unhelpful and wholly hostile . . . I will forever believe EA's negative tech support reputation in the industry is wholly deserved, and its DRM practices being considered draconian . . . just as deserved.

I don't find always online to be innately evil (nor do I hope those games bomb.

I don't think always online is a negative if a game is an always online game, with no single-player portion. If it's obviously a single player experience, or has options for a single-player experience, however, then . . . no. Always online should not be there. An MMO like WoW or SWTOR should be always online. Simcity, the new one, no matter what justifications are put out there . . . is not an MMO, and it should never have had always online requirements.

Note to forum goes, the people most likely to be affected by the game bombing is someone like me.

And, if that were to happen, it would be sad. No one likes being put in a position where their company goes through a rough spot, especially if it means they might lose their job. However, don't believe for a second that DRM and always online requirements are securing you anything, or that they're doing anything other than making your legitimate customers miserable when they make it harder, or, god forbid, impossible, to play your game. I don't want your games to bomb. I want them to be great, some of the best out there - worthy of their price tag, and easy to jump into with no worry that DRM or an always online requirement will prevent the enjoyment of the game's potential audience.

I want great things for Bioware and its games. I want you and your studio to have a long and profitable lifespan, and your audience to be rewarded for their purchases and never punished.

Just so we're clear, I'm not supporting piracy not do I agree with that poster you're responding to. I've just had one to many, of far . . . far too many negative experiences with DRM and always online requirements don't really make anything better.

-

On another note, while I will never support pirating a game, I'm not sure that 'not buying' a game, or, 'voting with your wallet' has any actual effect. When a Publisher sees their sales turn out low, because their potential customers voted with their wallets . . . do they really know why they voted not to buy the product? There are several articles and videos across game related sites that talk about this from different sides. It's a legitimate question, "Does voting with your wallet send your message?" And the answer seems to be, "It does send  - a -  message, but the company in question doesn't necessarily recieve the message you intended."

Which is food for thought . . . especially since a decent portion of those articles/and videos actually brought in or questioned people from actual development/publishing studious.

Modifié par Janan Pacha, 06 avril 2013 - 11:57 .

[Fufunette]

I do not have a constant online connexion. I'm often moving, and using a 3G key to download DLC.. But I play offline... I didn't buy Diablo 3 cause of it. So please BioWare, don't put an always connexion DRM for DA3. I can't connect servers and stay connected to play...
CD PROJEKT said that The Witcher 3 will not have DRM, so I'll buy it, because I know I can play it when I'm moving in train or in hotel. But if DA3 can't work without being connected by internet and EA servers, then I'll not buy it.

I really wonder if lose customers is your goal sometime... =/ After botched DA2, bad ME3 s ending and weak SWTOR, now let's **** up DA3 ? Srlsy ? :/

[Bekkael]

Fufunette wrote...

I do not have a constant online connexion. I'm often moving, and using a 3G key to download DLC.. But I play offline... I didn't buy Diablo 3 cause of it. So please BioWare, don't put an always connexion DRM for DA3. I can't connect servers and stay connected to play...
CD PROJEKT said that The Witcher 3 will not have DRM, so I'll buy it, because I know I can play it when I'm moving in train or in hotel. But if DA3 can't work without being connected by internet and EA servers, then I'll not buy it.

I really wonder if lose customers is your goal sometime... =/ After botched DA2, bad ME3 s ending and weak SWTOR, now let's **** up DA3 ? Srlsy ? :/

I have not seen it explicity stated anywhere that always online will be a requirement for DA3. I think it will be easier for you to judge whether to buy this game or not only after such details are available for consumers to consider.

Patience is key.

[crimzontearz]

Besides...apparently the next Xbox will require constant internet connection....I never thought I'd say that but THAT might make me switch to PS4

[Bekkael]

crimzontearz wrote...

Besides...apparently the next Xbox will require constant internet connection....I never thought I'd say that but THAT might make me switch to PS4

These rumors also make me nervous, as I have owned and enjoyed xbox since the first generation of that console. I'm going to do the prudent thing though, and actually wait for all the pertinent information to come to light. It won't be much longer until the reveal. 

[crimzontearz]

Bekkael wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Besides...apparently the next Xbox will require constant internet connection....I never thought I'd say that but THAT might make me switch to PS4

These rumors also make me nervous, as I have owned and enjoyed xbox since the first generation of that console. I'm going to do the prudent thing though, and actually wait for all the pertinent information to come to light. It won't be much longer until the reveal. 

so have I


 
And I am moving to another state later this year/early next year so what will I do until my ISP is sorted???

[EpicBoot2daFace]

crimzontearz wrote...

Besides...apparently the next Xbox will require constant internet connection....I never thought I'd say that but THAT might make me switch to PS4

Go with what you think will be best for you. If you like Xbox exclusives and are willing to put up with a console that requires a constant connection to the internet, go for it. But if that is a deal breaker for you, check out the PS4. If I were to pick up the next Xbox, I wouldn't do so right away. I would wait and see what kind of reaction it gets from everybody. You don't want to invest in a new console only to have it die a year later. I was a Dreamcast owner.

[crimzontearz]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Besides...apparently the next Xbox will require constant internet connection....I never thought I'd say that but THAT might make me switch to PS4

Go with what you think will be best for you. If you like Xbox exclusives and are willing to put up with a console that requires a constant connection to the internet, go for it. But if that is a deal breaker for you, check out the PS4. If I were to pick up the next Xbox, I wouldn't do so right away. I would wait and see what kind of reaction it gets from everybody. You don't want to invest in a new console only to have it die a year later. I was a Dreamcast owner.

I was too


 
Point is I dislike impositions like that, especially if they are liable to interrupt mynfun because internet connection is less than awesome in Florida for instance especially if Microsoft line of defense is "deal with it" or worse like EA said "we SWEAR  it is not a DRM ploy but we have no explanation we can give for it"

[TheJediSaint]

 @ Alan's well thought out (as always) post.

My issue with a single player game with an online requirement, especially for a major AAA release, is the risk that the game will not be playable at launch because of server issues on the developer's end.  This was my experience with Diablo 3, and what I've seen happen with SimCity (I have not played this game).

While having an online requirement does not automatically mean I won't buy a game that I think will otherwise be superb, it will keep me from pre-ordering the game, as I would not want to risk paying full price for a game that will not playable at launch. 

In the end, I'll probably still buy the game, but only some time after launch.  Both for the developer to get any server issues in order, and for the price to drop.

It's a practical decision. Either I pay more now for a game that may not be functional, or pay less later for a game that will work.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 07 avril 2013 - 12:26 .

[Bekkael]

krul2k wrote...

if the next gen consoles come with having to always be online and not being able to play 2nd hand games i can see a big influx to PC users

And to Sony. I've seen any number of people on these forums stating they have converted and will buy a PS4.

[Allan Schumacher]

Wulfram wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Here's some food for thought: If piracy didn't exist, DRM would undeniably be a 100% waste of money. The corporate fat cats that are always in someone's crosshairs couldn't possibly justify it.

Not if it also stops legitimate reselling.

Point taken and conceded.  I often forget about that perspective since I never resell my games.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

crimzontearz wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Besides...apparently the next Xbox will require constant internet connection....I never thought I'd say that but THAT might make me switch to PS4

Go with what you think will be best for you. If you like Xbox exclusives and are willing to put up with a console that requires a constant connection to the internet, go for it. But if that is a deal breaker for you, check out the PS4. If I were to pick up the next Xbox, I wouldn't do so right away. I would wait and see what kind of reaction it gets from everybody. You don't want to invest in a new console only to have it die a year later. I was a Dreamcast owner.

I was too


 
Point is I dislike impositions like that, especially if they are liable to interrupt mynfun because internet connection is less than awesome in Florida for instance especially if Microsoft line of defense is "deal with it" or worse like EA said "we SWEAR  it is not a DRM ploy but we have no explanation we can give for it"

I live in Florida and my internet is stable for the most part. However, it can go down at any time without warning, and when it does go down, I'm usually playing a game on my 360. But at least I can still keep playing if it's an offline game.

[crimzontearz]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Besides...apparently the next Xbox will require constant internet connection....I never thought I'd say that but THAT might make me switch to PS4

Go with what you think will be best for you. If you like Xbox exclusives and are willing to put up with a console that requires a constant connection to the internet, go for it. But if that is a deal breaker for you, check out the PS4. If I were to pick up the next Xbox, I wouldn't do so right away. I would wait and see what kind of reaction it gets from everybody. You don't want to invest in a new console only to have it die a year later. I was a Dreamcast owner.

I was too


 
Point is I dislike impositions like that, especially if they are liable to interrupt mynfun because internet connection is less than awesome in Florida for instance especially if Microsoft line of defense is "deal with it" or worse like EA said "we SWEAR  it is not a DRM ploy but we have no explanation we can give for it"

I live in Florida and my internet is stable for the most part. However, it can go down at any time without warning, and when it does go down, I'm usually playing a game on my 360. But at least I can still keep playing if it's an offline game.

I was giving you an example because that is where I am moving to

[Allan Schumacher]

soooo when I say the only reason I never bought DA2 was that the dev team chose not to include NG+ (and the same can be said about the witcher) how does that resonate with you?

It tells me that if we add New Game+, you will buy the game

And yet . . . the people most hurt by DRM, or always online requirements
for games that do not, and should not be, required to be always online .
. . are not Pirates. It's the legitimate users that has paid for your
game. I run out of fingers and toes long, long . . . long before I run
out of my own stories about one way, or another, DRM or an always online
requirement has caused anything from a small inconvenience to an
outright and complete inability to play a game I HAVE PAID FOR. That
includes EA and Bioware titles, yes, but it is not limited to EA or
Bioware by even the longest of shots.

DRM and always online
requirements punish exactly one group of people - the people that
actually support you by paying for your games.

This is tangential to my point (notice I actually say that DRM may not really be worth it).  You can hate DRM all you want, but if you hate it so much and think it's so bad, pirating the game will not make that go away.  Not pirating the game has a greater chance (even if that means never playing the game), in my opinion.

I don't think always online is a negative if a game is an always online
game, with no single-player portion. If it's obviously a single player
experience, or has options for a single-player experience, however, then
. . . no. Always online should not be there. An MMO like WoW or SWTOR
should be always online. Simcity, the new one, no matter what
justifications are put out there . . . is not an MMO, and it should
never have had always online requirements.

Even if a game is 100% single player, I don't have any issue if someone requires me to play it online.  It just means it's not a game I'm going to get (at least certainly not at full price).  The only issues I would have with always online is if that tidbit of info is hidden from me so I cannot make an informed purchase.

If I buy a single player game that has an always online connection, I do so with the understanding of what setbacks that may entail.

And, if that were to happen, it would be sad. No one likes being put in a
position where their company goes through a rough spot, especially if
it means they might lose their job. However, don't believe for a second
that DRM and always online requirements are securing you anything

I'm not, and never said anything of the like.  What I am saying is anyone "hoping that a game bombs" because it has a feature you may not like in it is being rather vindictive over a luxury good.  I don't think always online for a single player game is actually a good idea, but I still have zero issues if a developer/publisher wants to add it, as long as I'm still able to make an informed purchase.

Just so we're clear, I'm not supporting piracy not do I agree with that
poster you're responding to. I've just had one to many, of far . . . far
too many negative experiences with DRM and always online requirements
don't really make anything better.

I have never been burned my DRM in my life.  Since starting at BioWare, my stance on DRM has softened significantly because as Tech QA, I've been there dealing with the backlash of people who have issues.  It sucks to pay $60 for a game and have it not work properly.

On another note, while I will never support pirating a game, I'm not
sure that 'not buying' a game, or, 'voting with your wallet' has any
actual effect. When a Publisher sees their sales turn out low, because
their potential customers voted with their wallets . . . do they really
know why they voted not to buy the product? There are several articles
and videos across game related sites that talk about this from different
sides. It's a legitimate question, "Does voting with your wallet send
your message?" And the answer seems to be, "It does send  - a - 
message, but the company in question doesn't necessarily recieve the
message you intended."

Absolutely correct.  Fortunately games are not built in isolation.  EA is certainly not concluding "RPGs are in decline" with DA2 having lesser sales than DAO.  What it tells me is that there is some aspect(s) of DA2 that didn't resonate as well as DAO.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 07 avril 2013 - 12:39 .

[crimzontearz]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

soooo when I say the only reason I never bought DA2 was that the dev team chose not to include NG+ (and the same can be said about the witcher) how does that resonate with you?

It tells me that if we add New Game+, you will buy the game

And yet . . . the people most hurt by DRM, or always online requirements
for games that do not, and should not be, required to be always online .
. . are not Pirates. It's the legitimate users that has paid for your
game. I run out of fingers and toes long, long . . . long before I run
out of my own stories about one way, or another, DRM or an always online
requirement has caused anything from a small inconvenience to an
outright and complete inability to play a game I HAVE PAID FOR. That
includes EA and Bioware titles, yes, but it is not limited to EA or
Bioware by even the longest of shots.

DRM and always online
requirements punish exactly one group of people - the people that
actually support you by paying for your games.

This is tangential to my point (notice I actually say that DRM may not really be worth it).  You can hate DRM all you want, but if you hate it so much and think it's so bad, pirating the game will not make that go away.  Not pirating the game has a greater chance (even if that means never playing the game), in my opinion.

I don't think always online is a negative if a game is an always online
game, with no single-player portion. If it's obviously a single player
experience, or has options for a single-player experience, however, then
. . . no. Always online should not be there. An MMO like WoW or SWTOR
should be always online. Simcity, the new one, no matter what
justifications are put out there . . . is not an MMO, and it should
never have had always online requirements.

Even if a game is 100% single player, I don't have any issue if someone requires me to play it online.  It just means it's not a game I'm going to get (at least certainly not at full price).  The only issues I would have with always online is if that tidbit of info is hidden from me so I cannot make an informed purchase.

If I buy a single player game that has an always online connection, I do so with the understanding of what setbacks that may entail.

And, if that were to happen, it would be sad. No one likes being put in a
position where their company goes through a rough spot, especially if
it means they might lose their job. However, don't believe for a second
that DRM and always online requirements are securing you anything

I'm not, and never said anything of the like.  What I am saying is anyone "hoping that a game bombs" because it has a feature you may not like in it is being rather vindictive over a luxury good.  I don't think always online for a single player game is actually a good idea, but I still have zero issues if a developer/publisher wants to add it, as long as I'm still able to make an informed purchase.

Just so we're clear, I'm not supporting piracy not do I agree with that
poster you're responding to. I've just had one to many, of far . . . far
too many negative experiences with DRM and always online requirements
don't really make anything better.

I have never been burned my DRM in my life.  Since starting at BioWare, my stance on DRM has softened significantly because as Tech QA, I've been there dealing with the backlash of people who have issues.  It sucks to pay $60 for a game and have it not work properly.

On another note, while I will never support pirating a game, I'm not
sure that 'not buying' a game, or, 'voting with your wallet' has any
actual effect. When a Publisher sees their sales turn out low, because
their potential customers voted with their wallets . . . do they really
know why they voted not to buy the product? There are several articles
and videos across game related sites that talk about this from different
sides. It's a legitimate question, "Does voting with your wallet send
your message?" And the answer seems to be, "It does send  - a - 
message, but the company in question doesn't necessarily recieve the
message you intended."

Absolutely correct.  Fortunately games are not built in isolation.  EA is certainly not concluding "RPGs are in decline" with DA2 having lesser sales than DAO.  What it tells me is that there is some aspect(s) of DA2 that didn't resonate as well as DAO.

 
AND I will buy DA2 on top of that...but I am sadly not holding my breath Allan...

[Jeffonl1]

"Ben is an avid player of the game, and one day he shows it to his friend Alyssa, who is a computer science undergraduate student. Out of curiosity, Alyssa writes a program to examine all network traffic generated by the game. To further her knowledge, she extends the program to randomly modify pieces of some of the messages the client sends. Unbeknownst to her, the server contains a bug that accidentally incorporates some of this random data into the persistent world and corrupts its database. About a week later, without warning, the server crashes, and the system administrators are forced to rewind the database to the previous week's state. Outraged, thousands of customers cancel their accounts, and the game dies a violent death. Given the damage that a simply curious programmer could cause, imagine what a hacker bent on revenge might do to exploit the smallest security hole."

[Rawgrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Here's some food for thought: If piracy didn't exist, DRM would undeniably be a 100% waste of money. The corporate fat cats that are always in someone's crosshairs couldn't possibly justify it.

Not if it also stops legitimate reselling.

Point taken and conceded.  I often forget about that perspective since I never resell my games.

DRM would also mess things up for people who bring their consoles with them. Like soldiers, for example. Playing games while they hang around for weeks or months, in areas with no internet connections...

[crimzontearz]

Rawgrim wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Here's some food for thought: If piracy didn't exist, DRM would undeniably be a 100% waste of money. The corporate fat cats that are always in someone's crosshairs couldn't possibly justify it.

Not if it also stops legitimate reselling.

Point taken and conceded.  I often forget about that perspective since I never resell my games.

DRM would also mess things up for people who bring their consoles with them. Like soldiers, for example. Playing games while they hang around for weeks or months, in areas with no internet connections...

my stepson did that....for four months if not more when he was in Afghanistan he said it kept him sane

[Ridwan]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Here's some food for thought: If piracy didn't exist, DRM would undeniably be a 100% waste of money.

Name me one singleplayer game that pirates can't crack.
DRM is punishing legit buyers while the pirates get away with it.

[Ridwan]

Great article about preventing piracy and the folly of DRM.

Modifié par M25105, 07 avril 2013 - 01:44 .

[addiction21]

M25105 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Here's some food for thought: If piracy didn't exist, DRM would undeniably be a 100% waste of money.

Name me one singleplayer game that pirates can't crack.
DRM is punishing legit buyers while the pirates get away with it.

The point, you missed it.

[andy6915]

Merely not buying a game is not sending the message. The company doesn't know why you didn't buy a game. For all they know, you was simply not interested in the game and was thus not part of the marketbase for that game anyway. But by pirating, you are showing the message that you was part of the marketplace and going to be a confirmed sale, but their DRM made them lose that sale. It's showing "I would have bought your game if you hadn't put in DRM". Simply not buying doesn't get that point across. And until that point is finally made, the DRM problems are only going to get worse with time.

It also shows them that DRM makes pirates. DRM has caused more pirates then it has stopped, because people can see that the pirates are the ones getting a better playing experience and don't get screwed like the paying customers. They still believe their anti-piracy methods work at stopping the problem, but that is dead false. Pirating a game with bad DRM shows them that not only does it not work, it makes their pirating problem worse. It's not just useless, it makes the very problem they're trying to prevent an even worse problem then it would have been. The more DRM squeezes, the more pirates are going to happen. This message is currently going over their heads, but they might get the picture eventually when they realize that pirating numbers only go up the harsher the DRM gets. Loyal customers who would have happily paid for the game get pushed into piracy by DRM. The more people send the message that their anti-piracy creates more pirates then it stops, the faster DRM will go away. It's like thinking jumping into shark infested water while covered in blood because you thought the blood would protect you (DRM), when all it does is makes you even more likely to get eaten (increased number of pirates due to the blood/DRM).

Maybe this better explains my stance and gets people to stop bad mouthing me for the last page and a half?... I hope<_<.

Modifié par andy69156915, 07 avril 2013 - 01:56 .