Always-on-DRM - why buy games with it?

[TheSteeleStrap]

This is why 100% of my Ubisoft games are on Xbox.

 

[Murrdox]

Diablo 2 came out 13 years ago now, and I am able to play it now as easily as the day I bought it, and chances are good in another 13 years I will still be able to play it just fine. We will just have to see how that shit called Diablo 3 holds up in 13 or 26 years, if it is even able to be played at all.

What your argument boils down to is that Diablo 2 has more value for your money. Guess what? DRM really has nothing to do with that.

You can spend $50 on an MMO like Guild Wars 2 with no subscription model. You can spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours playing it. In the end, your $50 has gone a long way.

You can spend $50 on an RPG like Xenoblades. You get a single player campaign that will probably take you 40-60 hours to complete. You get quite a bit for your money, not as much as the MMO.

You can spend $50 on the latest Metal Gear game. The campaign might take 15-20 hours for you to complete. Now you're getting into territory where you're not getting as much bang for your buck.

So Always On DRM is really just a potential limiting factor on your potential enjoyment of the game. When it comes right down to it though, you need to judge for yourself whether or not that matters to you, the individual. For me, I can tell you it doesn't matter. I paid my $50 for Diablo 3, I played it, I'm pretty much done with it. Doubt I'll ever go back. I got what I expected out of it. Someone else on the other hand who wants to be playing Diablo 3 5 years from now might be heartbroken when his game gets shut down.

However, even if that Diablo 3 fan's game IS shutdown 10 years from now... do you think he still got his $50 worth? Do you think he'd regret buying the game in the first place?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

No, it's not that simple. There's also the underlying reason for why it doesn't put them off. It doesn't put them off because they didn't think it through, and they don't care about the potential long term consequences. What if suddenly EVERYONE starts making games with always-on DRM? What are you gonna do when every new game you buy can be shut down permanently? That's why people need to stop buying games with always-on DRM. Stop thinking about short-term enjoyment of the game and start thinking about what it could do to you in the future. If enough people simply refuse to buy a game with always-on DRM, the company will absolutely have to remove it. The reality that most people don't seem to realize is that we, the consumers, still have that power. Why would we be so stupid to give it to a corporation and thank them for it?

Ah yes, the always popular "sheeple" argument. If anyone deviates from your preferred course of action, it MUST be because of a lack of intelligence or foresight.

There's a flip side to that argument, you know. It involves little chickens, and a misguided belief that the fucking sky is falling.

 

[VanQ]

And sorry... I don't really believe you when you say you wouldn't buy your favorite game just because of Always On DRM. Thousands of people said that about the last Call of Duty game when they weren't going to allow PC Servers. PC Players still bought the game in droves. Maybe you wouldn't buy the game, but 99% of the complainers probably will.

All I can do is give you my word that I haven't bought any games with always on DRM, unless you count WoW. But that's an MMO so it doesn't count. I mean it when I say I really bloody despise always on DRM as you should be able to tell by my first post. I think Assassin's Creed and Diablo 3 are the big two games I can think of that I decided not to buy and it only took a few hours after release day for me to not regret the choice.

I do want to play them. I can play them now if I bought them. I do not want to encourage those kinds of nasty business practices so I choose not to. Simple as you choose to not care, I choose to care. Because I love video games and I don't want to see them become chained to a server so I can't let my kids play the games I loved when I'm an old man, just like my dad shared all his favourite movies with me.

I have a hell of a collection here, with at least a thousand physical copies of games that I have played from around the age of 5, when my parents bought me my first console, the PSX. Which still works by the way, as do all the games I own on it. No online passes or any of that hassle to bog it down.

What we have in front of us in the next few years, assuming we continue to allow Online DRM to exist, will be a lost generation of games. A blank spot in history that we will never be able to look back on because Publisher X shut down the servers. You'll happily tell your kids and grand kids stories of how you defeated the Prime Evil in D3 and when they ask you to show them, you will not be able to. Because it won't exist anymore. We're wiping our history clean before it can be written. And that is the greatest shame in all of this.

 

[Ranorak]

First, let me say that I dislike always Online DRM.

BUT!

I have bought a few games with those DRM's for a few simple reasons.

1)My internet is stable, fast and always on. The few moments that it's off, I'll play something else.

2)The few games I have with Online DRM are those I really wanted to play. AKA Diablo 3 (turns out it was a disappointment, but I didn't know that when I got it) and Anno 2070.

3)If, for some reason, the servers ever shut down. I can get over that.
It's not like I don't have a hundred other games I can play instead. I know that products don't last for ever, games are the same. Yes, I'll be disappointed, but I like to think that this is well away from now, and by the time it does happen (or, they just disable the DRM) I would have gotten my money's worth out of it.

Now, I like to repeat myself that always Online DRM are a big factor in whether or not I buy a game, but to me, it's not a deal breaker.

Now, you might call me idiot for that.
But is it really idiotic to rather enjoy a game now than act like it's the end of gaming.
Yes, it has major downsides, but in the end, it was just a video game. Not life-support.

I mean, It's not like this is the first time a type of media became (semi) useless.
I have loads of old 3.5 floppy disks that are essentially useless to me.
I have old cassette tapes that are essentially useless to me.
And in the future I might have few games that are essentially useless to me.

And yes, I've heard the slippery slope argument that if this continues, ALL games will have this DRM, and that is the main reason am VERY selective with my exceptions.

 

[hooblabla6262]

Because I would rather play the game and have fun than sit around not playing and complaining about it.
You don't want to buy the game, because online-drm means you won't be able to play all the time. Pretty sure not buying the game means you can play it even less.

Yes, I am contributing to a practice which I believe to be wrong. I don't care.
There are far bigger issues in the world to be upset about. Far more important fights that need to be had.

 

[Zhukov]

I usually don't. I consider it a big negative point.

However, if something that I really, really, really wanted had always online DRM, I'd still buy it. Bioshock Infinite or The Last of Us for example.

 

[Murrdox]

All I can do is give you my word that I haven't bought any games with always on DRM, unless you count WoW. But that's an MMO so it doesn't count. I mean it when I say I really bloody despise always on DRM as you should be able to tell by my first post. I think Assassin's Creed and Diablo 3 are the big two games I can think of that I decided not to buy and it only took a few hours after release day for me to not regret the choice.

Cool man, live by your principals. I can't fucking stand Wal-Mart. Hate it with a passion. I haven't gone into one in many years. Even if/when it's the most convenient place to go to get whatever it is I need to get, I'll drive out of my way to go somewhere else.

Of course, I CAN go somewhere else to get tube socks... if you want to play Assassin's Creed 3, you sort of don't have an alternative other than playing the console version, so I feel bad for you.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You just dont have the will power to not buy is what it comes down to, and just because there are bigger issues in the world (I laugh my ass off at the 'special' nature of this argument) doesnt mean you cant only take a stand on one thing, you are perfectly capable of taking a stand on multiple issues at once, if...you know, you have the willpower.

I love the rhetoric we throw around in our gaming threads. "Taking a stand". Precious.

First person to name check Rosa Parks gets a cookie.

 

[VanQ]

Of course, I CAN go somewhere else to get tube socks... if you want to play Assassin's Creed 3, you sort of don't have an alternative other than playing the console version, so I feel bad for you.

I thought the console version also had to be connected to the internet to be played. Am I misinformed on that part? I might be willing to pick up a used copy if that's the case.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You can take a stand for anything, in this case just not buying a product with a particular kind of DRM is taking a stand.

Again, considering you are buying Sim City...Not surprised you are entertained

No, you are making a purchasing decision. I didn't buy some soup the other day because it wasn't on sale. I wasn't taking a stand.

I don't know why people can't just say "I'm not buying X because of reason Y" and leave it at that. No, they always have to portray themselves as civil rights revolutionaries and pretend they're part of an epic struggle for consumers everywhere. I'm honestly not trying to be mean, but the whole thing is deeply ridiculous. There are evidently a lot of people on this forum in sore need of more drama and purpose in their lives.

 

[Murrdox]

You just dont have the will power to not buy is what it comes down to, and just because there are bigger issues in the world (I laugh my ass off at the 'special' nature of this argument) doesnt mean you cant only take a stand on one thing, you are perfectly capable of taking a stand on multiple issues at once, if...you know, you have the willpower.

I love the rhetoric we throw around in our gaming threads. "Taking a stand". Precious.

First person to name check Rosa Parks gets a cookie.

Let's skip Rosa Parks and jump straight to the march on Washington. If we make a big enough impact, Obama might even add something about it to his "State of the Union" speech this year.

"My fellow Americans! Too many of our fine citizens are subjected to draconian DRM practices. They cannot play Assassins Creed without an internet connection! I've fought for the middle class my entire presidency over taxes, job growth, income equality, and now we need to do what's right for our gaming generation so they can play the games they want, when they want, where they want! Also, dammit I want to play Sim City when I'm on Airforce One."

 

[hooblabla6262]

Yes, I am contributing to a practice which I believe to be wrong. I don't care.
There are far bigger issues in the world to be upset about. Far more important fights that need to be had.

bahaha what a cop out.

You just dont have the will power to not buy is what it comes down to, and just because there are bigger issues in the world (I laugh my ass off at the 'special' nature of this argument) doesnt mean you cant only take a stand on one thing, you are perfectly capable of taking a stand on multiple issues at once, if...you know, you have the willpower.

Why attack me to prove a point? I never said I have one issue which occupies my time. I never said I needed this game.
All you're doing is looking like a jerk.

I haven't played a SimCity game since I was a little kid, and I thought to myself "Hey, wouldn't it be fun to get the new SimCity game coming out. See where the series has gone in all those years". Apparently, that makes me worthy of personal attack by ovezealous video gamers. My bad.

So please, enlighten me as to why you won't be buying the game. Then I can tell you how your issues are petty and are in no way applicable to me. Also, I'm going to have so much fun playing SimCity while I think of how you aren't.

(not so fun when people act like jerks, is it?)

 

[Neonsilver]

People buy because they want to play the game more than the always on puts them off simple.

This and a boycott of a game doesn't really work,
a) because the companies will probably blame the low sales to something else than the DRM method and
b) prisoner's dilemma, it would be in the best interest if all gamers work together to get rid of always on DRM, but since you can't be sure that everyone is actualy helping, each individual has a better chance of a positive (at least being able to play a good game) outcome if he thinks only about himself.

 

[TheCommanders]

I don't like always on DRM, but I sometimes buy games that have it for a few reasons. Firstly, I've never noticed that a significant enough number of people are willing to boycott this sort of thing to make a difference, so unless there is some sort of organized movement (and evidence that it would make a difference) I'm not going to not buy a game on principle. Secondly, if I'm interested in getting a game and it turns out that it has that kind of DRM, I can't magically turn off my interest in the game. Since I'm not willing to pirate it, that leaves me with the options of living with it, or not having the game I wanted.

If people feel like making a statement and not buying a game on principle, more power to you, I guess, but that sort of action has shown to be consistently irrelevant in the big picture.

 

[The White Hunter]

You just dont have the will power to not buy is what it comes down to, and just because there are bigger issues in the world (I laugh my ass off at the 'special' nature of this argument) doesnt mean you cant only take a stand on one thing, you are perfectly capable of taking a stand on multiple issues at once, if...you know, you have the willpower.

I love the rhetoric we throw around in our gaming threads. "Taking a stand". Precious.

First person to name check Rosa Parks gets a cookie.

Gamers not buying always online-DRM games are kinda like Rosa Parks, taking a stand against a society that forces them to sit at the back of buses and give up their seats to the gamers that buy games that have online DRM [sub]Oh wait...[/sub].

Now where's my cookie guppy?

On topic, I don't buy games with always online DRM because it kinda sucks if my net dies, but I don't really care that much. Steam is a better form of DRM, and if a game has shitty online DRM I have consoles I can play on now where it isn't a problem. Whatever comes in the future will come and as a gamer I'd rather play games than not, even if it means getting involved with shitty practices.

It's also sadly on the instances where refusing to buy isn't the best solution, because the company doesn't care, if you're a legitimate user and a fan and have your complaints and a number of other legitimate users have the same complaint, the company may take note and alter it's practices to better satisfy it's customers and save itself some cash.

Companies like Ubisoft are fucking retards about it though.

 

[The White Hunter]

b) prisoner's dilemma, it would be in the best interest if all gamers work together to get rid of always on DRM, but since you can't be sure that everyone is actualy helping, each individual has a better chance of a positive (at least being able to play a good game) outcome if he thinks only about himself.

Game theory. I like it, hre's a diagram to support your argument:

 

[Smertnik]

I just don't care. If I want to play a game I buy it, simple as that. Sure, I still prefer DRM-free games but since DRM has never inconvenienced me in any way and I have a steady internet connection I really don't mind it, even the always-online type.

 

[BoneDaddy_SK]

You can take a stand for anything, in this case just not buying a product with a particular kind of DRM is taking a stand.

Again, considering you are buying Sim City...Not surprised you are entertained

No, it's just doing what is endemic to a capitalist market: you're not buying products that you don't want or don't like. It's really not all that remarkable. When I choose to get a salad instead of pizza, I'm not taking a stand against fast food, I'm just being conscious of my weight.

Refusing to buy any product that includes something is another animal entirely even if you are incapable of seeing it.

So you're really going to claim that the only reason people don't agree with you is because they're not smart enough to see it or something like that? That was fast. Usually someone has to bring up feminism before those arguments get trotted out.

 

[Blunderboy]

People buy because they want to play the game more than the always on puts them off simple.

That's it. It's a simple answer. People have looked at a situation and reached a conclusion.

Now can we STOP HAVING THESE FUCKING THREADS?!