106 réponses à ce sujet

[Dzkrmn8edGamer]

So if you weren't already aware, Denuvo, the program used as a type of DRM in DA:I, which is supposed to be "uncrackable" has been cracked: http://siliconangle....s-been-cracked/

Okay, let me preface this by saying, that when you claim that your DRM or other anti-piracy measures as "uncrackable", "unbeatable", or otherwise "impenetrable". All you're doing is just issuing a challenge to people to try and disprove your claim. Here's a Spoiler Alert: they will ALWAYS be successful in that endeavor, thus making all of your efforts to make your game less susceptible to piracy in vain. In the end you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

It's not like you can just release your game without at the very least trying to protect it from piracy. So how do you combat piracy, if trying to prevent it in the first place doesn't work? To answer that we must first address the reason why people pirate games (or any other forms of media for that matter). There are other reasons why they do it, but realistically there's only one reason where something can be done to curb piracy. That reason is that people want to try the game before they buy it, which is, to my knowledge, the biggest reason.

The only way to stop those people from pirating it, is to provide the free version they want to try. You do this by releasing both a paid version & a Free-2-Play version, one that is completely playable from start-to-finish in the same amount of time as the paid version. The only difference between the two being, that all of the unique content (weapons, armor, & accessories) that would normally be gained as quest rewards or loot, are now microtransactions in the Free-2-Play version.

In doing this you invite players to try the full game out for free, and if they like the game, they'll likely go out and buy the full game. At the very least they'll buy some of or all of the unique content that is applicable to their favorite class(es) and in the end won't be a total loss of revenue.

It is my hope that BioWare, or more likely their publisher EA, will at the very least, take my idea into consideration. Possibly even implement it and change the Games Industry, as a whole, for the better.

[StarcloudSWG]

Unfortunately, the bulk of development cost isn't in the 'unique rewards', it's in the game play, the story, the graphics and art, and the sound.

 

To release all that for free and then pray that the buying public will then turn around and pay for it based solely to get the 'unique rewards' is a good way to lose a lot of money fast.

 

A very large group of gamers don't actually finish the games they buy. They play for a while, and then life happens or they get bored or something else catches their attention. Do you think they're going to buy the 'full' game based on some doodads that only appeal to the fraction of gamers that actually complete games?

 

The bulk of piracy does not happen for the reason you suggest. There's tons of 'Let's Play' videos out there where you can see how the game plays before you buy it, if you're willing to wait a few days after release. No.

 

The bulk of piracy happens for two reasons: "Not available in my area" and "I can't afford it." Both are issues that have to be addressed by reworking the system of physical retail distribution agreements and region-appropriate pricing. Which brings in the issue of pricing for different countries leading to global competition from local markets, which again drives profits down and makes game development less profitable, which in turn means fewer games and lower quality if not addressed.

 

There are a few people who buy legitimate copies and then pirate hacked/cracked copies in order to get around region lockouts or DRM schemes that make it impossible for them to play their legitimately bought game.

 

Everyone else who has the capability of legitimately buying the game, and chooses to pirate instead, is just wanting a free ride.

[Darkly Tranquil]

The bulk of piracy does not happen for the reason you suggest. There's tons of 'Let's Play' videos out there where you can see how the game plays before you buy it, if you're willing to wait a few days after release.

Watching a Let's Play is no comparison to getting your hands on the game and actually having a go at it. Watching videos of DAI, I thought the combat would be great; turns out I hate it with a passion. Until I played it I didn't know.

[xhaydenx]

I can't imagine devs wanting to spend resources on creating both a full and free to play version of their games.

 

Demos are the answer. I pirate every single game not called Zelda or Mario before I buy it these days. if the game is a mess or was totally misleading, then I won't buy it afterwards. If its good, I'll buy it no worries.

 

DA:I was different because of the Denuvo protection. If I could've pirated DA:I first, I would have. Instead I bought it and I'm stuck with the music/banter bug and regret my purchase. If they address these issues, my feelings for the game will totally change, but pirating would've avoided this so far mediocre experience.

 

It's not like you can just release your game without at the very least trying to protect it from piracy.

 

 

I think this is interesting and its not something I totally agree with. Whats the point of anti-piracy measures? They're going to get beaten no matter what. I work in the industry myself and when I see the game I work on up on warez and torrent sites I don't really mind. Its free advertising, a lot of people are commenting that they bought it after trying and lets be honest: the people who are just stealing were always going to steal your product anyway. Its not really a lost sale because its not a sale you were going to get to begin with.

[dlux]

So if you weren't already aware, Denuvo, the program used as a type of DRM in DA:I, which is supposed to be "uncrackable" has been cracked: http://siliconangle....s-been-cracked/

People keep saying that DA:I has been cracked, although there is no crack. Not a single crack for any Denuvo game exists.

 

It's all bull**** until proof exists that Denuvo has been cracked.

[xhaydenx]

People keep saying that DA:I has been cracked, although there is no crack. Not a single crack for any Denuvo game exists.

 

It's all bull**** until proof exists that Denuvo has been cracked.

 

 

Nah, there's a few youtube vids up showing it.

[PeterBazooka]

Pirates are gonna pirate no matter what. Some may like a game enough to buy it others won't ever pony up a dime. DRM has only ever hurt one group: paying customers.

[stuka1000]

First of all the "Piracy is killing games" argument is absolute rubbish.  Stardock release all their stuff DRM free and they are doing just fine.  There are three types of pirate: Those that cannot afford to buy the games ( these would not buy the game anyway so no loss to the publisher).  Those that want to try before they buy ( and you can hardly blame them with some of the crap that gets released these days ), Release a demo, problem solved.  Third there are those that could afford to buy the game but steal it anyway ( by far the smallest group IMO and the publisher loses revenue from this group but not a great deal ).  The f2p & p2p suggestion of the OP I am having trouble with.  Are you seriously suggesting that we pay a sub to play a single player game?  if that ever happened I would sell my PC.

[xhaydenx]

I seriously think if you are as transparent with your customers as you can feasibly  be and just produce a quality game, even the pirates are just going to go out and buy it. Its worked for several musicians, writers and I think even the Witcher 2 devs were deliberately lax with their DRM on the Witcher 2's expansion/update.

[MassDragonEffect]

They have a demo video：

http://www.3dmgame.c...12/3406040.html

 

It really is pirated kingdom.

I hope in the future EA games are not support Chinese language 

[bartoni33]

First of all the "Piracy is killing games" argument is absolute rubbish.  Stardock release all their stuff DRM free and they are doing just fine.  There are three types of pirate: Those that cannot afford to buy the games ( these would not buy the game anyway so no loss to the publisher).  Those that want to try before they buy ( and you can hardly blame them with some of the crap that gets released these days ), Release a demo, problem solved.  Third there are those that could afford to buy the game but steal it anyway ( by far the smallest group IMO and the publisher loses revenue from this group but not a great deal ).  The f2p & p2p suggestion of the OP I am having trouble with.  Are you seriously suggesting that we pay a sub to play a single player game?  if that ever happened I would sell my PC.

I agree with your first 2 "groups" but kinda disagree with the last.

 

First you can't "steal" a digital product. To steal something means the original owner of said item loses ownership of said item. The great thing about computers and programming in general means that you can copy and share bits and bytes an infinite amount of times without the original item being diminished in any way or lost in the process. The free sharing of information is the cornerstone of the Digital Age.

 

Secondly, if someone Torrents a game that in no way implies that they were going to buy it. Just because someone can "afford" something does not mean they were actually going to buy it. Why buy if if you can get it for free? Seriously think about that. No one is losing money by file sharing. If you are not willing to buy it you were not going to buy it. If File sharing did not exist then yes you would be forced to buy it. But it does so why do so? If you feel that "supporting the devs" or whatever is important then good on you. Others would rather support themselves. Neither is right or wrong. It's your money, spend it or don't as you will. Just don't spout nonsense like "file sharing is theft" because that is plain wrong.

 

Off topic here but I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised that the forum mods aren't closing these types of threads down that speak of file sharing in a positive manner. Very refreshing.

[StarcloudSWG]

Bartoni:

 

You most definitely *can* steal things without taking the original. It's been done for ages, from people hand-copying messages in ancient times to taking pictures of classified documents in modern times to 'tapping' phone lines and recording conversations to photocopying confidential documents etc.

 

Stealing is not the act of 'taking an original without permission'. It is the act of 'taking something of value without permission.'

 

The fact that the original may still be in the possession of a proper owner is irrelevant to the act of theft.

[Vordish]

By that logic anyone can interpret ANYTHING to be theft...which is precisely the point.

[AlanC9]

We shouldn't get hung up on the definitions here. Whether violating copyrights is "stealing" doesn't really matter one way or the other; putting those acts in the box marked "stealing" doesn't change how we'd decide if those acts are wrong, or illegal.
 
It's just a rhetorical move.  bartoni33 wants to say that violating game copyrights is OK, and if violating copyrights is "theft" then he also has to argue that some "stealing" is OK. That doesn't sound very nice, so he'd rather define "theft" in a way that excludes stuff he thinks is OK

[bartoni33]

Bartoni:

 

You most definitely *can* steal things without taking the original. It's been done for ages, from people hand-copying messages in ancient times to taking pictures of classified documents in modern times to 'tapping' phone lines and recording conversations to photocopying confidential documents etc.

 

Stealing is not the act of 'taking an original without permission'. It is the act of 'taking something of value without permission.'

 

The fact that the original may still be in the possession of a proper owner is irrelevant to the act of theft.

Wiretapping and espionage are not technically theft but I see where you are coming from, however wrong you are. In those 2 instances plus the photocopying one the owner does not want that info out, hence the hiding of it, or in the case of phone tapping their is a reasonable expectation of privacy involved. When you put something out on the Internet freely you have no right of expectations of privacy at all. Facebook, Twitter, etc are all public domain cases unless you put it behind a wall like Personal or friends only. If you create something digitally that can be copied then don't be surprised when it is. And don't punish those that don't copy it with draconian DRM that only punishes those that paid. EULA and TOS aren't worth the time it takes to make them up out of thin air.

 

Plus the "value" of something is dependent on the consumer. Some games I "value" enough to pay for, though I never pay full price, too many key sites to buy from for that. Other ones I give a zero value to.

[bartoni33]

We shouldn't get hung up on the definitions here. Whether violating copyrights is "stealing" doesn't really matter one way or the other; putting those acts in the box marked "stealing" doesn't change how we'd decide if those acts are wrong, or illegal.
 
It's just a rhetorical move.  bartoni33 wants to say that violating game copyrights is OK, and if violating copyrights is "theft" then he also has to argue that some "stealing" is OK. That doesn't sound very nice, so he'd rather define "theft" in a way that excludes stuff he thinks is OK

I agree 100%

 

Copyright theft is Ok because no theft is involved. The medium in which we are talking about supports the sharing of information without loss. Simple as that. No theft, just sharing. Companies lose no revenue because nothing is lost. "Potential" loss is no loss. Millions of people die every day, think about the "potential" losses there! The horror! Millions of people don't have the equipment to play games, BIG potential losses right? When will companies start worrying about those potential losses?

 

And yes some "stealing" is OK obviously if you want to go that route. But I won't.

[Dzkrmn8edGamer]

The f2p & p2p suggestion of the OP I am having trouble with. Are you seriously suggesting that we pay a sub to play a single player game? if that ever happened I would sell my PC.

I'm sorry I thought my post was clear about what I was getting at.

If a sub means a subscription, then no, that's not what I'm saying, not at all. What I'm saying is, take all the *unique weapons, armor, and accessories that you would normally get as quest reward or loot in the paid version, and put those behind a microtransaction paywall, allowing players to pay for just what they want, or sell them in item packs based on class, but no subscription would be required at all. In the words of Alistair subscriptions, like swooping is bad, very very bad.

*I define unique as anything with a unique name such as the Blade of Mercy in DA2 vs a regular Greatsword in DA2. Or The Armor of The Sentinal in Awakening vs Heavy Plate Armor in Awakening.

[StarcloudSWG]

I agree 100%

 

Copyright theft is Ok because no theft is involved. The medium in which we are talking about supports the sharing of information without loss. Simple as that. No theft, just sharing. Companies lose no revenue because nothing is lost. "Potential" loss is no loss. Millions of people die every day, think about the "potential" losses there! The horror! Millions of people don't have the equipment to play games, BIG potential losses right? When will companies start worrying about those potential losses?

 

And yes some "stealing" is OK obviously if you want to go that route. But I won't.

 

It is theft. Ultimately, it is taking from someone else the money earned based on the labor they have done. That you can't see that tells me that you're too selfish and self-centered to understand the greater principles and problems with your approach. That you think intellectual work is worth nothing in comparison to physical labor and that you don't understand that work done should equal money paid.

 

"The laborer is worth the hire" holds no matter what the medium of labor is. 

 

Copyright theft is NOT okay. It is theft. It is money that is not earned based on the labor that was done. That is why copyright law exists in the first place, to provide safeguards so that the person who did the work has the opportunity to earn money from that work.

 

"It's not really theft because nothing physical is being physically taken" is a smokescreen, a justification that thieves use to say "I'm not really doing harm, really." Yes, yes you are doing harm. You are doing harm by demonstrating with your actions, these two things: "Your work is not worth money" and "You should stop doing this work because I'm not going to pay for it."

 

These are NOT academic issues. Before copyright was formally codified, printers would quite deliberately copy entire books, print them, and sell them without a single penny ever going to the author who wrote it. "After all, it's just copying, nothing's being stolen." they'd say as the author dies penniless and they've made quite a bundle of money.

 

Look into the full history of copyright before you spout that garbage "It's not theft, it's just sharing."

[scrutinizer]

You shouldn't ask how to combat, but why combat at all?

Anti-piracy measures made sense when most games were sold as physical goods, because the company has a limited stock of physical copies, and the production cost on a large scale is substantial.

Today, everything is distributed digitally. A digital good is reproducible at almost zero cost and you have an infinite stock (make a random file. Copy-paste it. It doesn't cost a dime, and you can easily multiply it). So in fact, there is no loss for the company when someone pirate their game (they still have an infinite stock). Moreover, there is no way to tell whether the person who pirated your game would buy it if piracy was not existent. The ratio is not 1:1 - there is no such thing as 'you either pirate or buy'. No.

Now the real question is, why combat it at all. Those who want to pirate it, will do so. Those who want to buy it, will do so. Unfortunately, the vein attempts of combating piracy end up hurting the honest customer, jeopardizing the trust of customers. Which is far worse than piracy.

 

Peace.

[Z.Z]

People who claim that they just want to try it first then consider purchase are usually lying. They won't buy the game. No matter how much they like or hate it, they will only keep playing/rage quit their pirated copy.

I know friends that are financially secure using pirated version and claim "it's just that the game is too expensive. I can't afford it". And how many pirated game users you know actually buy the game after "trying out"?

Face it, it's just a thing that people do. Bad habit is all. They'll do it as long as there is a way.

[Mustang678203]

DRM's are generally accepted to be crackable. Denuvo's main boast was how long it would take before it got cracked, and I think it managed to make good on that promise, having kept a AAA game secure for a couple of weeks upon release. I think that the primary goal was to delay it as much as possible, which made a lot of potential just buy the game instead of waiting longer

 

Piracy IMO is peaking because of many consumers having been burned on pre orders or purchasing games before playing them, and they want to play the game before shelling out the cash for it. It's exacerbated by the fact that companies don't release demos of their games anymore; just prerendered trailers and gameplay from sources that have signed a contract behind the scenes. Not having a demo raises suspicion in a lot of consumers and leaves them unable to try the game before comitting, and so they will turn to piracy. Once pirated, why bother paying for it later? That's all up to the individual but I think most people would pirate when it's new and actually buy it several years later and a huge discount.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

Yes, yes you are doing

 

Yes, yes you are doing harm.

 

A lie. That's actually not true. Interesting argument, but entirely based on lies.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...study-1.1894729

[Realyn]

I almost burst out laughing when I read the first line. I am so glad you typed the first paragraph about 'uncrackable DRM'. Uncrackable... 

 

That being said, the one thing I believe can at least alleviate piracy issues, is to make it more transparent as to what the company's profits are being used for. I wholly support buying games in order to promote further quality games. But with huge corporations backing the developers nowadays, it's often very difficult to discern if you're buying quality or a mass produced piece of incomplete crap that are only finished when you buy 15 pieces of DLC.

 

If a company were to somehow display that at least part of the money they make goes to quality production of games, it would make me buy games a lot more often. Granted, I don't pirate games myself, but I also very rarely buy games outside of a bargain bin simply because I've been disappointed way too often. Especially when they pump gallons of molten gold into their propaganda machines that is advertising and buying biased reviews instead of delivering quality products.

 

In my immediate social circle at least, games are more often bought due to word of mouth rather then spactacular looking advetisements.

 

It's also why I love indie games and/or crowd funded games. You know why you're paying and what you're paying for.