At this point I'll just say that I sincerely hope rojimboo is getting paid for all this. I'd hate to think anyone would sell out their own rights as a consumers for free.
At this point I'll just say that I sincerely hope rojimboo is getting paid for all this. I'd hate to think anyone would sell out their own rights as a consumers for free.
"Waaah. Because only DRM employees (whatever they maybe) do not object to DRM. Waah.".
The whole point of this thread was for people to argue, robustly and rationally and perhaps even with some evidence, the need for no DRM. So fair, fail.
The case for DRM has been show quite succesfully, even if the only thing you read is my OP and its links.
The case against DRM hasn't , which is why I created this thread to begin with.
He's kinda right about Anno 2070 though. I don't like what they've done but it sure is clever. The game without going online is playable, but there's enough stuff missing that you'll notice it. But not enough missing to make it worth the pirates creating a server emulator to restore that stuff.
It plays to gamer and cracker psychology. It's the same psychology that makes people hate day-one DRM, even the game really is complete without it and it's just a bonus, because they feel like they're missing out. Meanwhile crackers get the game mostly working, feel they've won, but the last step to get it fully working requires so much work that it's not worth doing. Not when their pirate punters can play 95% of the game already anyway.
It's frankly damn clever as DRM goes.
No one's debating the efficacy of the thing, but calling it "unintrusive?" I'm reminded of that Ubisoft press release back when they first implemented the always-online system telling us how much it would benefit the customers and how much people wanted it. There's only a certain level of overt dishonesty one can take.
That said, he's probably too insulting to actually be a shill. One can hope, though, as its certainly better than the alternative.
Regarding activation limits - your original post mentioned things like deactivation tools and was full of inaccuracies. The truth is, it is a monumental task to run out of activations completely if you understood what constituted an activation in Anno 2070. And they replenish automatically.
If you want to argue the case DRM as being intrusive and unsuccesful, you have probably picked the worst example you could have, even if the publisher is Ubi. And worst of all, one of my favourite games, one that I constantly play and am very familiar with.
You've already shown how eager you were to misrepresent the facts, and how eager you are to steal from brilliant, small developers making PC exclusive games in the light of rampant 90% piracy. Any moral argument regarding its DRM has thus been forfeited in your case, as it is un-intrusive, recently on sale so quite cheap, and you still seem to want cut the throats of the developers, enjoy the fruits of their labour, and on top of which, spread lies and misinformation about how it was their own fault that you stole their good. Sickening.
The death of PC gaming. Brought to you by: Finicky.
On this pc with win7 I've played: nolf2, bf1942, ut 2003, san andreas , commandos 2 and hl1: blue shift fairly recently.
All of these (well except half life I have it on steam as well as physical copy) are physical copies, not from gog, all 9-10 year old games or older and they still work fine.
The majority of 90's era games do still work , many might need a community patch but the point is they work, and they are mine and I do whatever the heck I want with them for as long as I have hardware that can play them.
I also have enough timeless classics that I replay every 1-3 years that I care about my games being available in the long run.
Even if I didn't, I'd still just be renting them with the drm version and the price needs to go down accordingly to lease/ rental prices.
That is one way to do it. Kickstarter is not perfect, because you need either very good track record or a good-looking and convincing prototype to have any success. As such, it's bad for newcomers.Quote:
Regarding Mozart's research grants: Our current society society rewards research...ok, you can survive in EU, and you can be rich in North America. Sponsorships, research grants,etc all guarantee this, that you will not starve doing beneficial research for the society.
Producing a video game is like writing a book or a scientific research in that there's a lot of work at first, but very little later on. It is also a creative work, it requires conceptual thinking. There's a lot of how's and why's. It's a bunch of people sitting and discussing something, and thinking. What should I do and how. Even before the days of internet copying books was easy, as any university student will tell you.Quote:
But you seem to say, producing a video game, and spending years to do so, should be equated to research. I disagree. Strongly. There are aspects of video-games that warrant research, AI, technological aspects of it e.g. graphics etc. But video game is not a research product, in the same way as a book of fiction is not one. Sure, many might not prove succesful, but this is no exact science, in fact, it is not a science at all. Which is why copyright, in the light of 90% piracy rates, is warranted.
Contrast that to an assembly line job, a clerk at the post office, a shop assistant, a policeman, baker, truck driver, a cook, a doctor, or a teacher. Their job isn't to come up with something. In varying degrees, it's "more of the same", often with a lot of repetition. Programmers fight repetition. If a task is repetitive, any average programmer will write a program or a script that automates it. So they inevitably end up doing new things, things the old sofware can't easily do, not without modification. It's a frontier of sorts. And there are people like Jeff Lait, the creator of POWDER roguelike, who has a rule "Don't add (new) spells that don't require new code."
That's what I mean when I say it's like research. It's nowhere as rigorous and I think that's what you're objecting to. But the process has many similarities.
As for financing it, Kickstarter is a variation on grant model.
Freemium is another way. The base game is free, you pay either for unlocks (pay2win) or cosmetic fluff. Actually I don't despise this so much, as long as it's honest. Weapon unlocks in Tribes Ascend are quite honest. Hats in another game are okay. But I get mad when I feel fingers reaching for my wallet, or when I find a microtransaction in my soup. Done right, and if looking from a certain perspective, freemium is comparable to demo and better. You can see yourself what you're paying for and how does it play with it. But people like Bobby Kotick don't know where to stop, they would charge you for anything.
Then there's in-game advertising. I know, it sounds horrible, but between DLC, paying for extra ammunition, and pay4everything, it stops looking so bad. Of course there are many games where it just doesn't fit, like medieval fantasy types, futuristic games, etc. But I would tolerate in a game like GTA, or some other urban exploration game. Basically any game which takes a place in a city. As far as I know the problem with this model is that... in-game advertising isn't very profitable. Few people pay for it, and ultimately it's only "young males" audience.
* * *
I could go on about copyright and monopoly, but I'll try to keep this relevant to games. It's not just "building upon" old games. Ubisoft owns Heroes of Might and Magic, and they're doing a terrible job with it. Heroes V was controversial at best and disappointed in many aspects, like cutscenes instead of diaries and a story forced down your throat, visual style, or forgettable music. Heroes VI is even worse, randomness removed without the benefits (because skill balance sucks as before) and they abandoned the idea of expansion packs for DLC.
No one else is allowed to work on a HOMM game.
Atari, or the demon wearing its skin, has the rights to Master of Magic.
No one else can develop Master of Magic 2.
Electronic Arts owns the rights to Syndicate, Dungeon Keeper, Ultima, Magic Carpet, Nox, Command&Conquer and many other games I like. Syndicate the FPS doesn't cut it. Ultima shouldn't be ashamed of itself and copying Diablo. Command and Conquer failed to innovate, and has degenerated over time. It's a label, because the "franchise" no longer has any identity or recognizable mechanics, it's a bottom feeder living on scraps of other games.
No one else can make a Syndicate, Ultima, Nox, C&C.
That's the beauty of copyright. And you want to defend that with DRM ?
Those are cases of badness. What about if some random company (EA) decided to do a sequel to The Witcher, even though CD Projekt are already allocating a few people to The Witcher 3 (regardless of what they might say)? What about if Activision decides to make Half-Life 3 because Valve are taking too long?
Yeah, the companies that "don't know how to handle" an IP are horrid, but that is a small price to pay. There is nothing preventing EA from making their own mature RPG with action elements or Activsion from making their own plot-based sci fi story (at least, until Apple gets involved in video games and patents the concept of an RPG and an FPS...), they just can't use those particular IPs. That's why we have new XCOM-like games coming and Stardock did Elemental (and Paradox did Warlock).
I don't need the moral highground to state facts or to have an interest in consumer rights. This isn't about me.
FYI your poor little developer was cockblocked from selling their game in my country (anno 1404) for unknown reasons a long time ago, maybe you should redirect your hate there, as I 've actually been on the gfwl store to buy it a few years back and went as far as trying to use a proxy to get past the store region lock for that game.
Btw my drm statements were still correct (including the tages ones) and your supposed benifits of drm (sp 'enhancement' are still directed at the wrong source, it's not thanks to tages that your game can give you updates, the system would work just the same if the license was transferable to other people and didn't have limited activations, and the events and ark upgrades gimmick could have been worked into the sp offline and through offline patches.
cs 1.5 didn't have drm, just a cd key usable on any pc by anyone at any time and it still had persistant rpg servers (wc3 with save), thousands of community made maps, many maps and several weapons released officially through patches .
These are the shiny baubles I spoke of earlier, and they seem to be quite effective on you.
Having a company purchase an IP, developing and selling a product base off of that, has very little to do with DRM. You can have all of that, without ever even realising such a thing as DRM exists.
Please, this thread is about DRM, and especially the rational reasons why it should not exist. So far, there has been no evidence whatsoever to counter the peer-reviewed examples of my lit review, or the practical examples in the TweakGuides articles.
Man you are really selective with your reasoning.
The rent vs own or consumer satisfaction vs raw numbers don't count for you?
Then you are really are either a shill or just hopelessly lost and brainwashed.
You've also not pointed out a single lie, not dignified my correction on the de activation tool and failed to respond to your misconceptions about the added functionality being able to exist without the need for tages.
Nor have you dignified the other valid reasons in that post based on one misconception, you are so eager to shrugg off any criticism about tages and drm in general that you are basically sticking your fingers in your ears going lalalala I can't hear you.
I'm done reasoning with you since you are unable to respond to it or compromise or dignify when you are wrong.
I'll go back to NOT playing my pirated copy of anno while some suit at ubisoft (and you) can break their heads over that not missed sale for the company I have no respect for.
And the anno dev slept with the dog, now they can deal with its flees.
The reason? Because of either misinformation and lies regarding the game and its DRM, or the mere fact that the dreaded three-letter acronym is associated with the title.
Which part of this is meant to convince, rationally and robustly, a PC gamer who buys their games?
Can anyone argue the case against DRM, rationally and robustly, preferably with evidence?
At the very least better than Finicky, i.e. because stealing is cheaper. Sad.
Anno fanboy still pissed someone pirated his game so continues to plug his ears to reason, you are the one rationalising boy, you are seeking excuses to dismiss the arguments made in this thread, you latch on to your dislike of me and point fingers so you wouldn't have to respond to briandamage and vinraith's arguments.
Gundato was right, you started this thread all overly polite and positive ("good post bro, but mind if I tell you about jesus christ our lord and savior") and the moment people don't respond well to your agenda you throw a hissy fit.
Only thing worse than a shill is a shill who doesn't get paid.
What are your reasons, in-depth of pirating Anno 2070 due to its DRM?
I am also pretending you actually know what its DRM is.
Edit: You realise vinraith's arguments are: I want to own this game and play this game forever. Refuted by things like, EULA even on Minecraft states you will never own the game, and the fact that there is an offline that works if you rip out the LAN cable.
djbriandmage: Stating the ever so popular that customer satisfaction should come before profits. If DRM is uninstrusive though, and provides you with indirect benefits, what is there left to argue?
Could somebody explain to me what DRM gives me and why I should be in support of it?
But while current prices are set to pay the publishers and investors, I'm ok with a profit-based model for creative content if it's the creators who are profiting the most. I'd love to phase out publishing, but that doesn't mean I should get games for free or that games should be made on a grant system. A profit system, bear in mind, allows a content creator to be their own investor--to work independently of grants and external publishing/investing firms in order to produce content. I don't find anything fundamentally wrong about the idea of being asked to pay a company in order to enjoy their work.
There are specific kinds of work that I make exceptions for--research on genetics, for example. But in general ... I'm willing to pay for access to art and labor. Keep in mind that those musicians you reference worked on commission. They were paid to compose and perform as specific functions. There wasn't really a way their work could be abused and their system could be undercut--the service they provided couldn't really be "pirated." Furthermore, symphony concerts certainly charged admission the same as an opera. As there was no easy way to "steal" Beethoven's symphony unless you had enough money to hire a talented symphonic troupe ... a lot of the issues we're discussing just don't apply to that scenario very well.
In the end, though, I'm with on in this: copyright and other IP laws are being abused. They aren't protecting creators or even ideas--they're protecting monetary interests. And whether or not you believe games are too expensive and DRM measures too sever, that's a problem
Keep deflecting man, I'll humor you. My reasons for pirating are irrelevant to the merit of the arguments brought up by people in the thread. I'm also not a representation of the pirate community as a whole, you can't profile 'the pirate' (ubisoft should profile the player and see what makes them happy ,not the fucking pirate , if they want more buyers)
I pirated anno because the demo was way too short and a hard lesson learned from buying ubi games is to never buy their games on a whim or you will get some serious surprises (hello from dust)
I did not like what I played and lost interest. (it's not just blind hate for drm, I bought dawn of war II for full price + expansions despite being gfwl because it's an awesome game with an elaborate demo that sold me on the game, never touched the mp in dow either so If I were rationalising I could have said MEH gfwl and pirated)
If I wanted to rationalise I could say ubi had and lost a chance to sell the game to me because I could try it risk free, but I really don't give a fuck about ubisoft.
DRM = digital rights managment, as the name suggests the software blocks the game unless you have a license to play it, and drm has become synonymous for an atrocious way to do this.
Even though drm doesn't have to be inherently shit (and isn't in steam's case) it is for ubisoft.
Just like you americans hate communism because of stalin despite lenin being an idealist and good natured man who intended for his whole nation to benifit from a system that would have been far superior to capitalism the way he had it in mind.
Stalin was an ass who didn't give a shit about his people but still sold the ideal that way. cfr; ubisoft.
The publisher/dev/shareholders: A security blanket so that they feel more comfortable selling their product.
Rojy: An erection and an excuse to scream at people? I dunno, I kind of stopped paying attention
Finicky: An excuse for piracy? I dunno, I kind of stopped paying attention after he decided he would rather play with Rojy than me :p
Ignoring the last two, it is about balancing the wants/needs of the producer with the desires of the consumers, and PR goes a long way toward that.