You lost all credibility by (if you hadn't already by posting a 500-word essay full of lies regarding Anno's DRM)Originally Posted by Finicky
1. Assuming I'm american.
2. Glorifying a mass murderer.
Shockingly, you have a good point. Developers (if only they had money and resources in the face of 90% of their goods being stolen) should provide demos.
You're just annoyed that I'm at good at DOTA whereas 12 year olds are flaming the crap out of ya and made you stop playing the game. XD. Much love though. Seriously.
You can still not have DRM and the SinglePlayer enhancements of Anno. What people want is the Option, not to be forced.
Start a game. Online only. Offline only. What is so wrong in having that as Finicky stated?
Much like Diablo 2, open Battle.Net, Battle.Net saved character. (Tho Anno does not quite have the economy and multiplayer environment to warrant using the reasoning of forcing online on everyone to help combat dupes, etc.)
Activations were not as they were as they are now, but there is still a minority that still get blocked from playing their game. Because they changed ram, or reinstalled to a different drive. Just because it does not happen to the majority you can not simply brush off the minority that wish to enjoy games hassle free.
OnLive! and the such are great demo platforms and should be used more.
Mentioned many times before, nobody is naive enough to think that Anno's online-only functionality is not due to DRM (and to limit the pirated good's functionality). Of course it is even easier for the developers to have that functionality in the SP game (barring a few things, like community based powers and events due to voting...gee, I wonder which way the AI is going to vote, Eco or Tech? Lol). The thing is, for a legit user, it is only beneficial, and the only downside is to pirates (so fervently and arduosly exhibited by Finicky). So why would you complain? At that point, only pirates should argue against it.
Regarding activations: You need to seriously read up on it, before you start spewing nonsense,lies and propaganda like that RAM changes results in an activation in Anno.
Last edited by rojimboo; 24-07-2012 at 08:47 PM.
Well PC gaming is growing hugely as a platform so that seems unlikely.
You can get the same thing by just backing up your Steam copy and crack though. And it's hard to object to the 'dangers' of using third party cracks when you're already using third party patches to make them work.
The problem with your argument is that Anno was one of very few case in the past decade where DRM sorta-kinda-worked. The other is Diablo 3. They are anomalies. If every DRM was like those, and actually had an effect (by crippling a pirate game, or rendering it unplayable) you'd have a point.
Problem is in 99.9% of cases the game you get from The Pirate Bay will be equal to, or even better than (because it has ALL the 6 different retailer-exclusive DLCs or doesn't require a constant net connection) then legit copy. I'd love for you to find me a case other than Anno where that's not true. You'll be looking for a good while.
Well that's simply not true. If your connection goes down mid-game, you lose the extra stuff.
As you said earlier:
So basically as an Anno fan, if my net connection dies while I'm playing, I have no choice but to kill myself. You think that's beneficial to the customer?Any Anno fan could not bear to live without the Ark upgrades
You will never be able to compete with a free good, even though its crack might not be quite current, i.e. one version behind or something. You have just demonstrated the difficulty of succeeding in the PC gaming market. It is incredibly easy to steal a free product of it, much more so than in the console market.
I honestly believe, always-online is the way of the future. More people will have better net connection etc. The other alternative is that PC developers will feel the squeeze and probably relent and switch to a console/multiplatform market that is more profitable, all because of PC pirates, thank you so much. I was wondering what my custom water cooled rig was for. 16-colour indie games obviously, or horrid console ports.
Last edited by rojimboo; 24-07-2012 at 09:03 PM.
It is true, if you have no Internet, you should not play Anno.
You should also not be able to post on forums, if you have no Internet.
Ah, this old chestnut. Ubi's servers never go down, no sir, and no honest player ever has a connection disruption.
And no sir, there is also no offline option.
oh wait
I never said Anno itself DRM reactivates on every hardware change, but DRM from ubi and the like HAS done this and has done it worse, even being a rootkit. What you keep telling people who were snubbed in the past is to just believe just by your word that the it is all better? Or to take the effort to go read up on what it does these days? Instead of attacking people why not simply give an nice explanation on how it works.
Its a downside for my game not to be playable when I wish to play it where there is no internet connection? Its only beneficial to me that I can not play my game whenever wherever I want to? Or any piece of software?
Diablo 3 had no effect on me being an online game since that is the only way I would play it (B.Net saved character). But I can see the point others argue and wish they could have come up with a system to still have Open Bnet/Offline.
A game like Anno is something that is easy to load up and kill 30-45 mins between class or while traveling.
I will miss out on benefits of being online, benefits I am sure I would enjoy being part of the gameplay. Does not mean it should be forced on me.
The offline option gives you the same functionality as the pirates and thus, as deano points out, means you should kill yourself (according to your logic).
You've trapped yourself pretty good on this one.
I would be to busy playing games that I can not play while my Internet is down and not posting on forums.
IDK why you are complaining, seeing as you mention how much you enjoy the game in offline mode...
I'm seriously struggling to find that quote in this thread. Not sure why.
But in any case, the Ark upgrades are so OP most players play multiplayer without them (inc. me).
I do admit, after months of Anno, I only play it online anyways, the multiplayer is very underrated.
I see the biggest reason for the DRM is not pirating, most people still tend to buy the game after pirating the game. I think the issue is when it comes to used-games. It is a lot harder when ie. you need to sign-up and make an account for a game, which is probably the silliest DRM out there. Especially the need to be online for an offline game.
This is probably the biggest reason for DRMs, used games is a lost sale.
I don't like DRM, it only punish the costumer and it is just an act out of greed from the company. I don't buy EA, Ubisoft games anymore. The only times I do, is for 3.49€, when the game is on sale for 75% at steam after 1 year.
Last edited by John; 24-07-2012 at 09:20 PM.
Ugh.
How many industry big-wigs will it take saying intrusive DRM is bad for people to give this tired old argument a rest? As if people like Bill Gates and Gabe Newell don't know what they are talking about. Why did Apple completely remove the DRM from iTunes?
What about developers like CD Projekt who have shown that DRM did nothing against piracy when they released a DRM copy of the game and a DRM free copy of the game on GOG? The SecuROM copy was the one that was pirated more.
What about Stardock who released a game without any DRM and saw an increase in profits over the previous version with DRM?
There is plenty of anti-DRM information on the internet, I'm pretty sick of these stupid discussions. Gabe Newell said it best, "most DRM strategies are just dumb" because they only decrease the value of a game in the consumer's eyes. Newell suggests combating piracy by "[creating] greater value for customers through service value".
Always online is not service value, it's intrusive.
Not sure how a rampant piracy rate with Witcher 2 justifies no DRM:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_4.html
Also, you should ask how Stardock's CEO enjoys piracy on their DRM free games (same article):Update: A common complaint from gamers is that most PC games these days are ported over from the console versions (which they often are), and hence this fact is used to justify rampant piracy. However a 2011 PC exclusive by the name of The Witcher 2 provides solid evidence that this excuse is just a smokescreen. The Witcher 2 is a detailed role playing game made by independent polish developers CD Projekt solely for PCs in its first year of release. It proved very popular with PC gamers, garnering a Metacritic Score of 88%/83%. Some versions of the game came with DRM, but this was quickly removed in initial patches, and the game also received a lot of free bonus content. Did this prevent or reduce piracy? Not one bit. The Witcher 2 has an estimated 80% piracy rate, once again proving that trying to address the fanciful excuses people make for piracy can be fruitless. CD Projekt is discussed further in the Copy Protection & DRM section of this article.
Regarding all the anti-DRM discussion on the internet: How rationally and robustly is it argued? Is there even circumstantial evidence available? If so, where?Update: As yet another example of removing DRM not leading to any reduction in piracy, the game Demigod has been pirated so heavily in its initial release period that it has caused the game's servers to effectively go down. Out of the 120,000 connections made to the game's servers, over 100,000 were by confirmed pirates, leaving only around 18,000 legitimate purchasers. The game is released by Stardock, a relatively small company which has a lot of public support due to the mistaken perception that Brad Wardell, CEO of Stardock is anti-DRM (see the bottom of the next page for more details of Stardock's actual position). Demigod is widely considered to be a good game, it's available as a digital download priced at under $40, and has no intrusive DRM - yet not only has this not stopped the game from being rampantly pirated, preventing legitimate purchasers from playing the game, but has also resulted in poor reviews, potentially affecting future sales of the game.
...
The issue has been confused somewhat because a few smaller companies such as CD Projekt and Stardock are carving out a niche selling games which have no DRM. These games appear to have specific markets with lower levels of piracy, so while removing DRM is a practical approach for them, the broader games market is not necessarily subject to the same approach. Furthermore, upon closer examination we can see that the Stardock case is not as clear-cut as people want to imagine. Firstly Stardock uses another method to reduce piracy: constantly releasing updates for their software which must be obtained through their Impulse digital distribution channel. In effect this is a lot like Steam, so of course they don't need the same sort of overt DRM measures that major offline-only games require. However more importantly, Stardock recently released a Consumer Report (PDF) which specifically outlines what it believes are legitimate and illegitimate complaints regarding DRM, and in no way does the document do anything other than endorse precisely what we've been discussing above. Some examples from the document demonstrate this clearly:
There is no solution to the issue of protecting intellectual property (IP) that will satisfy all parties. There are customers who will accept nothing less than publishers acquiescing to a quasi-honor system for purchasing software [i.e. removal of all protection]. That doesn’t work.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are publishers who want customers to have an always-on Internet connection to play a single-player game. They have every right to require this if they want, but it will cost them tremendously in terms of goodwill and sales.
So what are the issues people have with DRM?
[Some examples below of customer complaints against DRM that Stardock considers 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate':]
Legitimate complaint: They don’t want the copy protection to interfere with their enjoyment or use of the software or game.
Illegitimate complaint: DRM is just wrong in principle, you buy something, you own it and should be able to do whatever you want. This is a view held by some but the person who makes the thing has the right to distribute it how they want. If I spend $5 million making a game, someone paying $50 doesn’t “own” it. There has to be some middle ground on serving customers and protecting IP holders. Users who disagree and want to stick with this principle have my respect but we believe a balance needs to be made that is satisfactory to most users and most publishers.
Like it or not, in the face of rampant piracy, some form of effective protection or DRM is an inevitability for many types of PC games, especially offline-only single-player games, and is here to stay. Steam is one solution, but I've warned that it isn't necessarily the cure-all that some people would like to believe, and still has notable drawbacks. The various DRM methods must evolve to the point where they are both more effective at reducing day-zero piracy, and also less intrusive and problematic for legitimate users. Gamers can assist in this process by making sure that only verified and truthful information regarding these systems is discussed. Hysterical misinformation is not the appropriate approach and will only lead to either more intrusive DRM or worse - as we see in the next section as the article draws to a conclusion.
I would believe CEO's statements like Gabes', (an entire DRM platform hugely succesful), or Paradox's CEO (goes on to implement ninja DRM like DEGRADE in ARMA2), or CDR red project (sells most copies on console) if they had some figures to back them up, or weren't blatantly contradictory.
This completely ignores the academic literature, which was a precursor for abandoning music industry DRM, yet points the opposite way for PC gaming DRM.
Hyper: Mostly because a lot of those industry big-wigs are lying through their teeth :p
I was not aware Bill Gates came out against it, but Gabe Newell of Valve is a pretty good example of the PR side of things: Steam is the most prevalent and popular DRM model out there. So yes, it combats piracy by creating greater value through services, but it is still an activation model DRM that ties it to a user.
Apple is also a REALLY bad example to use: They only got rid of DRM on music after people basically got fed up with it, and they still make it hard to really use anything but itunes with an ipod. And, last I checked, ibooks is a DRM model that means you can't really use any e-readers (one of the reasons the US DoJ is on them for the collusion and e-book price fixing). But either way, Apple is going for something different that is basically the same problem: They want to tie you to a product line. In fact, their approach is similar to Steam in that regard (just a lot more excessive). That being said, we might get lucky and they'll decide to patent DRM and then sue every company that ever tries to use it again because Steve Jobs brought it down from the mountain top all those years ago (and they just happened to remember to file a patent last week...).
Stardock might also be a bad example. They are great at making the games they make, but they target niche genres. So, as mentioned, DRM decreases the value of a game in a consumer's eye (to a degree), and a drm-free copy of GalCiv2 might make someone want to try it more. Whereas a more popular genre/game might go the other way (if they see an easily pirated version, they'll get it). Stardock mostly has older people with jobs as their target demographic, whereas the big publishers target teens and college kids. Also, Stardock never actually DID DRM-Free (you had to register for patches and the like), but that is another aspect of Wardell's PR :p. Stardock were (and still are) fans of the "You can get the game DRM free. But if you want any support whatsoever, you have to opt in to our totally optional DRM model" angle.
CD Projekt are the real question marks here. And even they are a bit disengenuous. GoG has DRM (a very light form, but still DRM). And most of what they did that started them on the path was actually to combat piracy in the form of bootleg copies, NOT cracks online. Basically, people were buying bootleg copies for cheaper, and CD Projekt offered a better product for a bit more money. The difference being: The default state of the consumer was still "I want to buy this" not "I want to steal this". As for these days: I love CD Projekt, they are my favorite publisher/dev/whatever they count as. But the "No DRM" thing is pure PR with them, and is really just a way to build up hype. This is most evident in when they tried to sue the pants off the pirates and then backed down when they got bad PR.
I don't think anyone (except the crazy bastards at Ubi) will disagree that "intrusive" DRM is detrimental to sales. The question is: How much DRM can we use before enough people care? Because they still want to stop the casual pirates (your aunt playing The Sims, not your teenage son playing Quake).
Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.
Posting Permissions
