203 réponses à ce sujet

[Ridwan]

addiction21 wrote...

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.

Oh and how so?
Even games couldn't be pirated they'd still work their ass off to make DRM just to prevent people from sharing their games or reselling it.

[crimzontearz]

double post

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

[crimzontearz]

andy69156915 wrote...

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<_<.

don't forget also that when you come online to tell the company why you did not buy the game or why you are not recommending it you are labelled a minority and thus ignorable

Modifié par crimzontearz, 07 avril 2013 - 02:03 .

[addiction21]

andy69156915 wrote...

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.

No it does not show that at all. It in no way ever shows your intentions to purchase the game nor shows why you decided against it and stole it.
By pirating all you show is that you have pirated a game. You could be doing it because you dislike the DRM, this, that, or the other thing. You could just be a pirate that never pays for anything or have no interest at all in said game but will bootleg (sell copies you make yourself) to others.
That's not even getting into all the websites, server, and personal PC's behind the pirate network. CDPR and fans love to gloat about how awesome and how much The WItcher 2 was pirated but hate to hear about how most were just transfers between PCs. Going to this one to then be sent to that one to sit and seed from the 5th computer.


So no you are wrong.

[grumpymooselion]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Yeah, I'd never suggest one should pirate the game. Not even to send a message.

Hating DRM is pointless, but that makes it no less a negative. If anything it's more a viewpoint where I feel the people that implement DRM do so in, far too often, ways that negatively effect the player . . . that's more notable as being misguided than worthy of hate. I don't hate these companies . . . I never want to have a negative experience or feeling toward any company. As a customer I just want the product I've bought, and want it to work as advertised. I never was to be the guy that's frustrated because implementation of "insert DRM or always online here" prevented it for working practically for me, or others, even if it works fine for me.

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.

Not purchasing it is fine, but being okay with it? Especially if it becomes a larger trend in the gaming industry? I'm not sure I can ever get behind that. From a customer standpoint this is nothing but a negative because it actively locks off products you may want to buy (if your response to always online/DRM is to not buy a product), and if you do buy them will inevitably inflict any number of the problems that we've actively seen these services have (especially during their launch period). Diablo 3 and Simcity both actively showed what some of these issues can be, and let's face it . . . Life is what happens while you're making other plans.

Beyond that launch period servers can go down/have problems, your internet can go out specifically, your ISP can have fits, heck I remember once my internet was on and off for an entire summer because of construction in my area. Life is what happens while you're making other plans. My response was to just not play my online games at the time, and concentrate on singleplayer games, when I had free time to explore my hobby. Now imagine all those singleplayer games had required an always online feature to play that summer.

This is my issue. Yes, I could go and do something else, and, had that been the case, I would have gone to do something else but it could never be something I'd be okay with, hence why I'm just not sure I can get behind being okay with it even if I were to accept that not purchasing games with such requirements is enough.

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.

True, but it still has an effect even if you choose not to purchase it. Let's say all future Bioware games were always online, and I'm not saying that will happen. Let's just say it were to happen. All the series I've loved from Bioware over the years would, presumably, continue. And I could never experience that.

I have a problem with that. I may be critical of the games sometimes, true, but I still rather like them - I'm never being critical just to be annoying or mean. So, yeah, I'd have a problem with not being able to expore these future iterations of series I enjoy. Heck, I used to play the Simcity games, and other Sim games (I loved Sim Ant) . . . I already know for sure how not purchasing Simcity has made me feel. And not purchasing it has done absolutely no good, at all . . . all it's done it ensure I won't be able to experience the game, and done nothing to change their mind about the always online requirement.

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.

True, sorry for misreading that. I'm not sure it's as much vindictive as noting that a complete bombing of such titles is more likely to send a resonating message. And I'm sorry, I do have issues, especially if it's a game I'm interested in otherwise. Especially if it happens to a series I've enjoyed every entry to in the past, before such implementations of DRM or always online. No, I'm not going to agree with the people that want games to bomb. I don't want that. I'm just not sure that they're being vindictive when hoping such things.

Needless to say, I don't want you guys to go out of work.

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.

You've been very lucky then, if you've not been burned, I'm glad job has allowed you to see people that were though . . .

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.

On that note, I rather like both games - neither are perfect, and I could talk endlessly about either games ups and downs, but I still like them both despite any criticism I may fire their way.

Anyways, I've babbled enough. Have a fine day.

[andy6915]

And by merely not buying, I've shown NOTHING except that I didn't like the game for any number of reasons. Pirating shows you WANTED to play it, but didn't buy it for reasons besides the game itself or the marketing. Not buying just shows you didn't want to play it in the first place.

Modifié par andy69156915, 07 avril 2013 - 02:15 .

[addiction21]

M25105 wrote...

Oh and how so?
Even games couldn't be pirated they'd still work their ass off to make DRM just to prevent people from sharing their games or reselling it.

Given the 20 something years of gaming that preceded the internet and the nonexistent piracy prevention you would be wrong.

[Ridwan]

addiction21 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Oh and how so?
Even games couldn't be pirated they'd still work their ass off to make DRM just to prevent people from sharing their games or reselling it.

Given the 20 something years of gaming that preceded the internet and the nonexistent piracy prevention you would be wrong.

Because the technology to add DRM in games was around at that time right? Hell the only form of anti piracy that existed that I can think of back then was those weird paper code thingies. They didn't add it, cause they couldn't, the tech wasn't available.

[Rawgrim]

M25105 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Oh and how so?
Even games couldn't be pirated they'd still work their ass off to make DRM just to prevent people from sharing their games or reselling it.

Given the 20 something years of gaming that preceded the internet and the nonexistent piracy prevention you would be wrong.

Because the technology to add DRM in games was around at that time right? Hell the only form of anti piracy that existed that I can think of back then was those weird paper code thingies. They didn't add it, cause they couldn't, the tech wasn't available.

The game manuals (sometimes over 100 pages thick) served as copy protction too. You got questions in-game. Write down word 3 on line 16 on page 87 etc.

[Allan Schumacher]

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...

Err, I'm not sure how this relates to the clarification that Wulfram made that DRM can restrict legitimate resale (I am making the assumption that Wulfram was talking about any/all DRM, which I was doing in that specific example).

I know that any sort of online DRM is a problem for people that bring their consoles with them with no internet connections.

I'm getting the feeling that you are thinking I support always online DRM, which isn't the case.

[Rawgrim]

andy69156915 wrote...

And by merely not buying, I've shown NOTHING except that I didn't like the game for any number of reasons. Pirating shows you WANTED to play it, but didn't buy it for reasons besides the game itself or the marketing. Not buying just shows you didn't want to play it in the first place.

Could just pirate a game and give it to alot of people who wants to play it, I suppose. Just for spite.

[Rawgrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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...

Err, I'm not sure how this relates to the clarification that Wulfram made that DRM can restrict legitimate resale (I am making the assumption that Wulfram was talking about any/all DRM, which I was doing in that specific example).

I know that any sort of online DRM is a problem for people that bring their consoles with them with no internet connections.

I'm getting the feeling that you are thinking I support always online DRM, which isn't the case.

My bad. I see i wasn`t clear in my post. I just took the point abit further. Restricting resales that way also brings up other problems etc. And I don`t think you support allways online DRM or anything. Just me being unclear

[andy6915]

^
Okay, THAT'S going too far. This isn't about spite, it's about playing a game DRM has made me unable to play because I DIDN'T pirate and about showing them DRM has the opposite-of-intended effect. I am very against that idea.

Modifié par andy69156915, 07 avril 2013 - 02:22 .

[addiction21]

andy69156915 wrote...

And by merely not buying, I've shown NOTHING except that I didn't like the game for any number of reasons. Pirating shows you WANTED to play it, but didn't buy it. Not buying just shows you didn't want to play it in the first place.

Pirating a game in no way shows in no way that YOU WANTED to play the game.

It shows that you pirated the game and that's it. Unless you now need to fill out some form to be mailed to the companies you pirate from describing in painstaking detail why you pirated their game.

The difference (I think what allan was trying to point out) that when you do not buy a game its just a lose sale. No knowledge of why you might not have bought it but you did not.

Same goes for pirating except you know have provided a point of data. Something some suit somewhere is going to use to justify the use of DRM.

Maybe I can try a different example. A recent conversation with a co-worker was about how bad IGN was. That's the general sentiment I get around the web is how bad it is, how wrong they are in everything, and how no one listens. And yet these same people continue to travel to that site and link it all over the web.
They do not care about your intentions just that you are providing the traffic (that data point) that gets them the advertising dollars to stay in business. Pirating provides that data to support DRM not buying the game is just a lost sale.

[crimzontearz]

addiction21 wrote...

andy69156915 wrote...

And by merely not buying, I've shown NOTHING except that I didn't like the game for any number of reasons. Pirating shows you WANTED to play it, but didn't buy it. Not buying just shows you didn't want to play it in the first place.

Pirating a game in no way shows in no way that YOU WANTED to play the game.

It shows that you pirated the game and that's it. Unless you now need to fill out some form to be mailed to the companies you pirate from describing in painstaking detail why you pirated their game.

The difference (I think what allan was trying to point out) that when you do not buy a game its just a lose sale. No knowledge of why you might not have bought it but you did not.

Same goes for pirating except you know have provided a point of data. Something some suit somewhere is going to use to justify the use of DRM.

Maybe I can try a different example. A recent conversation with a co-worker was about how bad IGN was. That's the general sentiment I get around the web is how bad it is, how wrong they are in everything, and how no one listens. And yet these same people continue to travel to that site and link it all over the web.
They do not care about your intentions just that you are providing the traffic (that data point) that gets them the advertising dollars to stay in business. Pirating provides that data to support DRM not buying the game is just a lost sale.

if you were uninterested you would not have pirated it

[Rawgrim]

andy69156915 wrote...

^
Okay, THAT'S going too far. This isn't about spite, it's about playing a game DRM has made me unable to play because I DIDN'T pirate and about showing them DRM has the opposite-of-intended effect. I am very against that idea.

Ohh I wouldn`t do it. I wouldn`t want anyone to do it either. Just meant it could be done. I don`t support piracy. i buy my games. Way too many games, to be honest.

[andy6915]

addiction21 wrote...

Pirating a game in no way shows in no way that YOU WANTED to play the game.

Uh... Yeah it does. You wouldn't pirate it if you didn't want to play it.

addiction21 wrote...
It shows that you pirated the game and that's it. Unless you now need to fill out some form to be mailed to the companies you pirate from describing in painstaking detail why you pirated their game.

Maybe I will do just that. I'll even send it with my check to the dev team that I will send. Though I still think it will show a pattern that the only games that get pirated the most are the ones with the strictest DRM.

addiction21 wrote...
The difference (I think what allan was trying to point out) that when you do not buy a game its just a lose sale. No knowledge of why you might not have bought it but you did not.

And pirating will absolutely narrow the possible reasons of why I wanted to play it but didn't buy it. It will make my reasons much easier to figure out.

addiction21 wrote...
Same goes for pirating except you know have provided a point of data. Something some suit somewhere is going to use to justify the use of DRM.

And that suit will see the game get way more pirated then another game in the same genre that didn't have their DRM. Again, the pattern is already there, and will only get more obvious with time.

addiction21 wrote...
Maybe I can try a different example. A recent conversation with a co-worker was about how bad IGN was. That's the general sentiment I get around the web is how bad it is, how wrong they are in everything, and how no one listens. And yet these same people continue to travel to that site and link it all over the web.
They do not care about your intentions just that you are providing the traffic (that data point) that gets them the advertising dollars to stay in business. Pirating provides that data to support DRM not buying the game is just a lost sale.

I know. The way people combat that is to copy and paste the content of the article elsewhere to deny them a page hit.

Modifié par andy69156915, 07 avril 2013 - 02:30 .

[Rawgrim]

Actually. the people who crack games and whatsnot, doesn`t seem to do it for themselves. If they did that they would crack the game and play it. But they don`t. They share it on torrents and whatsnot, so millions can download the cracked version. I never really understood what they gain from doing that, personally.

[Ridwan]

Rawgrim wrote...

Actually. the people who crack games and whatsnot, doesn`t seem to do it for themselves. If they did that they would crack the game and play it. But they don`t. They share it on torrents and whatsnot, so millions can download the cracked version. I never really understood what they gain from doing that, personally.

e-fame from what I understand. They actually compete who's able to crack a game first.

[Rawgrim]

Ahh ok.

[billy the squid]

@addiction21 wrote...

First DRM will never prevent piracy, there will always be a certain percentage of the market who will steal it, because they can, that's as simple as it gets. 

Yet, what's your explaination for Spore? The most pirated game in history? It was a well recieved game, but the DRM was crucified and the vast number of downloads were out of sheer spite. I doubt there was a spike in seeding for spore and not other games. There was a point being made.

The same with the Sony Rootkit. Assassin's Creeds 2 DRM, the cracked version was on the net in a week of release, From Dust. Actually any of the Ubisoft games, they said 90% people pirated their games. I don't think all PC game sales only account for 10% of the player base do you? Or Skyrim, the most downloaded game on Steam, ever. Only accounted for 10% of the total PC market did it? No.

Ubisoft took a hammering because they decided to lock themselves into a bunker mentality and dig their heels in, on a point about always online DRM that they were never, ever going to beat the internet gaming community on. They lost, badly, and were forced to back down.

Now Diablo 3 is a cynical attempt at the same, but via use of cloud and the fact that many of their processes are done server side, they did infact win on that one. Sim city tried to do the same. All the fluff saying important processes were taking place serverside, when it turns out they weren't and players found a way to switch the online requirement off. That's when things start to get pirated en mass, because it was never a necessity to have the always online connection, and it feels like a provebial middle finger to everyone who did buy it or was going to buy it. So what do people do, they give one back the only way they can, pirate it. 

I do sympathise with Allan Schumacher's position and the idea people shouldn't buy it if they can't support it, but the developers are caught between a rock and a hard place. Publishers on one side and the gaming community on the other. But, I disagree with the vote with your wallet method. If you want to make a point, make sure it's heard, and the most spiteful way tends to get a publisher's attention. 

Modifié par billy the squid, 07 avril 2013 - 02:36 .

[andy6915]

Rawgrim wrote...

Actually. the people who crack games and whatsnot, doesn`t seem to do it for themselves. If they did that they would crack the game and play it. But they don`t. They share it on torrents and whatsnot, so millions can download the cracked version. I never really understood what they gain from doing that, personally.

It's because it's nice to share... Even if it's illegal content they're sharing. Hell that's how most child porn gets traded around, for free and for the purpose of sharing. They see it as being nice. You might not see it that way, but the people who do these things see it that way.

...

I just equated the type of pirates you talked about to child porn traders. Talk about a mean comparison:o.

Modifié par andy69156915, 07 avril 2013 - 02:35 .

[Rawgrim]

andy69156915 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Actually. the people who crack games and whatsnot, doesn`t seem to do it for themselves. If they did that they would crack the game and play it. But they don`t. They share it on torrents and whatsnot, so millions can download the cracked version. I never really understood what they gain from doing that, personally.

It's because it's nice to share... Even if it's illegal content they're sharing. Hell that's how most child porn gets traded around, for free and for the purpose of sharing. They see it as being nice. You might not see it that way, but the people who do these things see it that way.

...

I just equated the type of pirates you talked about to child porn traders. Talk about a mean comparison:o.

Yeah. Talk about a childish comparison.

[andy6915]

Should I have used illegal drugs as my comparison (though it would be a more inaccurate comparison then the one I used)? Look, the example doesn't matter. All that matters is the reason, and that is that they see it as a friendly thing to do for other gamers by giving out free stuff. Some people have a jacked up notion of being nice and giving.

[Rawgrim]

andy69156915 wrote...

Should I have used illegal drugs as my comparison (though it would be a more inaccurate comparison then the one I used)? Look, the example doesn't matter. All that matters is the reason, and that is that they see it as a friendly thing to do for other gamers by giving out free stuff. Some people have a jacked up notion of being nice and giving.

It was meant as a pun You use child porn in your example, I say that it was CHILDish.