A DRM
- Thread starter Paragon Fury
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There is something very wrong with any DMR service that appears to punish the buyer more than the pirate. This was entirely the reason why I didn't buy Spore when it came out. (and no I didn't pirate it either, it's the principle of the matter)
Registration services really aren't bad either, especially if it helps tie in things like, official CD-less play fixes and updates. Also, adding incentives helps, give us a reason to want to register our game codes.
Registration services really aren't bad either, especially if it helps tie in things like, official CD-less play fixes and updates. Also, adding incentives helps, give us a reason to want to register our game codes.
Right, so, what about preventing a person who honestly purchased the game from being able to play it because their Internet connection out for a moment. Or keeping users from being able to install a game as many times as they would like, maybe do to reformatting or simply because they uninstalled it at some time. Oh and what about the bloated software that impacts the performance of the game and sometimes even your very computer and things like rootkits. To me this says, 'we're glad that you paid money for our game, but we still don't think you have the right to play this game.', as though we're being punished for paying.Paragon Fury said:
I so love when companies scream pirates as soon as the game don't make the money they was counting on , but so far i have not seen any figures of how much they figure pirate's will cost them in lost winnings.Every company i worked for that produce any thing have a figure for lost income just for thief's.Now protection of the game i can live with , (except ubisoft so no more Assassin's creed for me). But i really think they need to check their figures before they start pouring money in to a game.Thief's will always be around(pretty sure its the second oldest profession after hookers 
)
)
You shouldn't have been put on probabation for this because you're justified in the points you make. This method of D.R.M. seems like a better way than most of the current ones in place at the moment.
the figures are generally regarded to be 1 in 1000.Ayay said:I so love when companies scream pirates as soon as the game don't make the money they was counting on , but so far i have not seen any figures of how much they figure pirate's will cost them in lost winnings.Every company i worked for that produce any thing have a figure for lost income just for thief's.Now protection of the game i can live with , (except ubisoft so no more Assassin's creed for me). But i really think they need to check their figures before they start pouring money in to a game.Thief's will always be around(pretty sure its the second oldest profession after hookers
0.01% for every 1% they reduce piracy... they reduce piracy downloads by 1000, they see a return in their investment of 1 unit sold.
Yes, I especially love it when they're crying about a game that's already been out on consoles for at least 6 months and already played to death by most people who had even a passing interest in it. Gee, must be them pirates(yarrr) at work and not, say, totally misjudging their target market.Ayay said:
Trolling much?Paragon Fury said:
Hey how about this, since there are some idiots on Xbox, PSN and every other gaming system, they are logically ALL IGNORANT FUCKWADS.
Using the same logic as you.
Not very nice, now is it?
___________________________________
Best Way to make a DRM system to work, is to make it a service like Steam. Make a way to make it into a service, not something that detracts the customer.
Something along the lines of Project $10 and Steam. Those benefit the users, to an extent. True they both have their downsides, but they are ultimately minor compared to the benefits.
Explain to me how being forced to be connected to a server that can go down easily, and then lose support for the game because the company doesn't want to pay the cost of maintaining the server costs.Paragon Fury said:
That's a pretty big freaken punishment for the customers, as Pirates wouldn't be affected in the slightest bit as they've cracked the .exe to a server that's ON THEIR OWN COMPUTER. The pirate is not hassled at all in the process, and the customer is at fault.
Seems like a punishment from the looks of it.
Except that DRM is almost always broken within 48 hours of release (and oftentimes on big-name titles, it's broken before the official release).Paragon Fury said:
DRM does not work. Period. Claiming otherwise is asinine.
What they need to do is, instead of DRM, give incentives for people to buy the game. EA's Project $10 is actually a nice step in this direction (though with the new DRM for C&C4, I'm not sure if they've figured that out). It's not foolproof, because people can easily (or at least quickly) crack the DLC and pirates then have access to it, but it's a step in the right direction.
Except that with an "average" cable connection (I'm running what Comcast claims is a 15 Mbps line, the middle of the road deal), I can download 400 GB in a 2-3 days, a week tops with bad seeders. Connectivity is such that this idea simply won't work.Hopeless Bastard said:
[commentary comparing publisher-consumer interactions to abusive relationships deleted]dududf said:
This is pretty funny. I personally know more console gamers that pirate games than PC gamers. And yet those machines don't have any real DRM except being connected to the internet, and even then that doesn't always catch them. Console games are just as easy to pirate and the people that will pirate on the PC or the Console would pirate no matter what system they are on, the people that don't pirate on the PC or Console are the ones that won't no matter what.
I'm not saying I pirate, but hypothetically, if I would pirate a game I might have reasons against the publisher or developer say for maybe upping the price on a PC game by 10 dollars just so they can make more money.
I'm not saying I pirate, but hypothetically, if I would pirate a game I might have reasons against the publisher or developer say for maybe upping the price on a PC game by 10 dollars just so they can make more money.
Until I buy the game and their servers go down for hours or even days at a time. Or my spotty internet connection craps out on me. Or any of a hundred other possibilities that end with me not being able to play the game I paid for. It's bullshit when it stops legitimate customers from being able to play the game they paid for, that's all there is to it.Paragon Fury said:
I am fine with DRM, provided it does not hinder me from playing the game I bought. I don't like it, but I can accept it as long as the game bloody well works. When the DRM removes the ability of paying customers to use the software, it crosses the line from "acceptable" to "steaming pile of horseshit".
In addition, there are many examples (most eminently Stardock) of game developers publishing games with no DRM in any way, shape or form and still turning a decent profit. All DRM does is inconvenience the legitimate customer. No more and no less.
*looks at DRM-free copy of Sins of a Solar Empire*Paragon Fury said:
I beg to differ. Stardock has shown that you can get plenty of sales without using any DRM at all.
Your argument basically boils down to "lets spend money on a system that may (possibly) slow pirates down and present an (albeit minor) inconvenience to the paying customer". It actually sounds very like GFWL, games using that are cracked extremely quickly with offline saves and everything...