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

[BloatedGuppy]

If you dont buy a bit of soup because its not on sale thats a purchasing decision, I make thsoe every day as I look over my steam list.

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

And who is portraying themselves as a revolutionary? I was merely mocking someone who is too weak willed to not buy something they disagree with. It is like a vegan who cant stop eating bacon, they are there to be laughed at.

And really, considering I am in a profession where I carry a gun every day, I dont think I need more drama in my life, and I have plenty of purpose in my life thank you. I would add a few choice names and words, but you know, nazi-mods and all that.

Again, no. You are refusing to buy things for your own personal reasons and values. Hectoring and mocking other people for failing to ascribe to your reasons and values is not normally the hallmark of an open mind.

If you want to use self-aggrandizing language such as "taking a stand" to describe your brave struggle against the tyranny of gaming corporations because you had to enter a login code or because they tried to sell you a $1 hat, you can do that. I just wouldn't expect everyone to take you entirely seriously.

Now can we STOP HAVING THESE FUCKING THREADS?!

That never works. =(

Now where's my cookie guppy?

Oh, you're going to get a cookie alright.

The catch: It's OATMEAL RAISIN. And it's STALE.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

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.

Same here. The only game purchase I can think of that had always online DRM was Diablo 3. I 'justified' that by the fact I never played Diablo 2 offline, and would never play Diablo 3 offline even if I had the choice. And that at the time, it was one of my most anticipated game releases that I could remember.

On the day I made my Diablo 3 purchase, I came to terms with the fact that I was part of the problem, feeding the ravenous beast with my money, contributing to the moral decay of the videogaming medium, and fueling the great incoming videogame apocalypse.

Spoiler

[/spoiler]

The game itself was disappointing and I haven't played it in months. In the unlikely event it were to be shut down any time soon, I wouldn't miss it.

In many other cases, always on DRM is a major negative point against a game. Even if I've been connected to the internet every day since 1998. It doesn't automatically mean a dealbreaker, but it's not something I can easily ignore.

 

[4RM3D]

You're absolutely wrong on that regard. If Blizzard decided tomorrow that it was no longer profitable to run their Diablo 3 servers then you will never be able to play it again. A game you paid full price for, probably bought the collector's edition too but it doesn't matter. Once those servers are gone so is your game. You have an expensive paperweight if you bought the physical edition, that's all.

However you're clearly content to be at the mercy of your publisher overlords. Power to you in that regard, but I'm still happy that I never bought a game with always online DRM. And I plan to continue not buying hoping that the rest of the gamers out there realise what it is they're supporting and stop buying the games.

Even if I have to never play my favourite game's sequel, ever. I will no cave to that bullshit.

While that is true, I think the always-on for Diablo 3 is justified understandable. HOLD ON...I will immediately mention that I hate DRM and I loathe always-on DRM. The thing is: Diablo 3 has been made for co-op and has a lot of online features. Even if Blizzard made a special offline mode. Those characters would never be able to go online to prevent exploits. And that is a heavy price to pay. I understand that some people are willing pay this price, but I think that is the minority.

Now, lets jump to Ubisoft and, for example, Assassin's Creed. There is NO REASON whatsoever for that game to be always-on. It's a singleplayer game and you shouldn't have to be always online.

 

[EeviStev]

And who is portraying themselves as a revolutionary? I was merely mocking someone who is too weak willed to not buy something they disagree with. It is like a vegan who cant stop eating bacon, they are there to be laughed at.

All vegans are laughed at. It's because they act all high and mighty about how they're taking a stand because meat is murder and so everyone else are murderers etc, when everyone else is saying "guys, we're just doing what makes us happy and seriously, why don't you go after someone slightly higher up on that particular ladder?"

Just like everyone is laughing at you. Paralleled.

 

[Therumancer]

It's largely because gamers tolerate this stuff rather than going without, especially when it comes to large "peer pressure" titles like Call Of Duty and the like, nobody wants to risk being the one who isn't playing when all their friends are.

Truthfully I think we are approaching the point where companies are going to push consumers too far, I tend to look at EA's losses, and some of the reactions to the plans for microtransactions in "Dead Space 3". Enough big crashes and I think the industry will either relent, or we'll see a video game industry crash, and the new industries that rise from the ashes will have learned a lesson, at least for a while.

 

[KeyMaster45]

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?

We tried that with From Dust. Ubisoft eventually caved and removed the always on DRM, but then they went back on that and stuck it right back in when no one was looking. That was after it had gotten a boost in sales from the DRM being removed mind you.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Enough big crashes and I think the industry will either relent, or we'll see a video game industry crash, and the new industries that rise from the ashes will have learned a lesson, at least for a while.

You're never going to see another crash like the one in the early 80's. The industry has changed. There are way too many players now.

The "video game crash" was more or less the Atari crash.

 

[MiriaJiyuu]

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.

Sorry, I'm kinda confused here, your implying that Assassin's Creed 3 for the PC has always-online DRM. It doesn't, in fact, in a uncharacteristic move by Ubisoft, they scrapped this type of DRM altogether. The last three AC games, as well as most of their games released in the last two years have just bound the CD key of your purchase to your Uplay account, i.e. you have to launch it from your account, or in my case my steam account and be logged into Uplay as me.

OT: I don't really care about always-online DRM, I won't be playing any game forever, limited use serial keys are the more annoying form of DRM in my opinion, (you can only install it X times, yeah screw you publisher).

 

[Vegosiux]

Honestly, this crap about always online DRM has got to be one of the more stupid tirades. In about 10 or 15 years, everything will be always online. There will be no offline.

Time to start making arrangements then, get my will written and all. Just in case. But that's just me. "Can" I be online 24/7? Yes. Yes, I can. Do I "want" to be online 24/7? No. No, I do not. The moment I cannot spend my time on my own terms is the moment I am no longer willing to spend it at all.

 

[BoneDaddy_SK]

Oh, and we wouldn't have this problem if pirates weren't so fucking persistent and we didn't rush to defend them. We reap what we sew.

That logic is tenuous at best. DRM does little more than inconvenience pirates once. Once a torrent appears with the DRM stripped out, that's it. The publisher already lost. A quick glance at the Pirate Bay shows that DRM is doing nothing to curb piracy. If anyting, it's exacerbating it. This isn't a statement in defense of piracy, before you attempt to characterize it as such. It's a simple observation of cause and effect.

People have an almost universal habit of thinking, "If this thing I'm doing isn't working, then I must not be doing it hard enough." Unfortunately, that's seldom the correct solution. And that's the reason we still have crap DRM that's not accomplishing its stated purpose.

 

[TheProfessor234]

As Jim Sterling has said, as long as a pirate can provide things with less effort on the user, there will always be people who use their services. Though obviously pricy isn't that high rampart or we wouldn't have DRM conversations because no one would be dealing with it. Honestly, I would like to see a AAA game/title go out without DRM or any other crap contract or whatever and just see how well it sells. Take out all the money squeezing bull and just see what happens.

Of course it'll never happen.



As for myself, if there is something I want to play, I'll go through DRM. I won't let something like that stop me from enjoying my favorite hobby/pastime/life passion. Sure, it's possible that me doing this "hurts" the gaming industry but until there is a movement, I'm just a single gamer with no power.

 

[latiasracer]

Because, You know, Maybe i want to play that game?


It's a pain in the ass all the various DRM softwares ect that need to be installed and stuff, but it's hardly anything that effects me majorly. If they claim to have rights to my internal organs once i install their software, then i'll say "Hang on a second..." but otherwise, 9/10 it's worth it for the game.

For example, it took me a good 5 hours wrestling with GFWL to let me play DiRT 2 and actually save my progress, but i managed it, and i got atleast 30+ Playtime out of it.

Not to mention : "

Because I look at the back of the box and it says "Internet connection is required to play this game". I then think "Do I have an internet connection? Yes I do. I'm gonna buy this game."

Exactly this.

 

[EtherealBeaver]

I dont care if all go always on. I have spend more time with the power out than I have with my internet out. That doesn't mean I should only enjoy games I can play without the power on. It isn't something that inconveniences me so I wont let it rule my enjoyment.

If I can make an argument the same pattern as yours, but to show how ridicules it is.

Do your entire argument with high system requirements.

I dont know if you ever played diablo 2 but I know a lot of people have. If it had had Always On DRM, chances are pretty great that the servers would be down long ago because its not a good business for companies to keep said servers running.

However, is it not the right of the consumers to use their own property? I know tons of people who still enjoy playing diablo 2 today and Im sure that there will be other games that people will love to be able to play 12 years in the future. Why would anyone ever want to ruin that? It makes videogames history almost impossible to showcase for future generations and makes it impossible to enjoy a game from your childhood in 10 years time because chances are that the servers will be down.

That doesnt really seem like fair business to me and personally I will have no part of it.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

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

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?

I thought it through.

And slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy. How dare you eat beef! That will become cannibalism. You dont think of the long term consequences. Doesn't roll that way. Long term consequences are pure "what if" scenarios by now.

Here is the thing.

I dont care if all go always on. I have spend more time with the power out than I have with my internet out. That doesn't mean I should only enjoy games I can play without the power on. It isn't something that inconveniences me so I wont let it rule my enjoyment.

If I can make an argument the same pattern as yours, but to show how ridicules it is.

Do your entire argument with high system requirements.

You do realize that we live in a capitalist world, right? It's more than a "what if" scenario. Corporations strive to control as much as they can get away with. That includes their customers. With everything going on these days you have to be a blind fool to think otherwise. And for the record, social issues are too varied and dependent on a large number of factors to simply switch always-on DRM with beef or high system requirements in order to prove a point. It's not even apples and oranges. It's more like apples and horseshoes. So I don't have to apply my entire argument with beef or high system requirements because that would be a completely different issue.

 

[DoPo]

they dont. aulways on DRMs get cracked within a day. longest one was a week and that was for GTA4. Granted, Diablo 3 took a bit, but thats because its built like a MMO, not as a normal game.

Yes, "took a bit", that's one way of putting it. The beta server files were leaked (not all but still) but even with those, as far as I know, there still isn't a fully working pirate version.

 

[gigastar]

The Modern Warfare 2 boycott was proof enough.

Was it?

Also the PC version of MW2 didnt lead to as much boycotting as it did mass hacking and piracy.

 

[Twilight_guy]

People put time and energy into MMOs. MMOs have to have a server running to work. Why don't we ask why anyone would ever play an MMO? (You could make an argument for single player games not needing this but the reasoning for your arguments are going to be the same as an MMO since you asked question that can be applied to MMOs).

You don't own software. Like, at all. You license software. That has been true for over 30 years. I don't care if you have never read the fine print, it's a fundamental part of software distribution. People don't give a shit about it and do what they want, but it's how things work.

Steam. Every game you own on Steam is directly connected to if their servers are running. Single player, multiplayer, whatever. Nobody calls them out for having the power to end your entire library with the push of a button (or rather pull of the plug on their server room). They have an offline mode but it still requires validation and imposes restrictions. Why does anyone use Steam?

Personally I, shock shock, don't have a problem with it. I think it sucks, like a lot, but I see a bright future when the internet is ubiquitous and DRM is far better designed and useful. I think this could lead to some good ideas to try and stem piracy and I think too many people are strangling the infant in its crib because of how stupid DRM is now without considering what it could be. Then again maybe I just want to be able to make money off of programming like a horrible horrible bastard.

 

[DoPo]

The Modern Warfare 2 boycott was proof enough.

Was it?

Erm...dude, you're directly confirming what the other dude said. He said that the MW2 boycott was a proof enough that gamers...well, actually, let me quote the exact same sentence you overlooked

And because, honestly, gamers can be pretty spineless when it comes to resisting.

Yeah, it's just a sentence before your cherry picked quote. I'd suggest you read the whole thing before criticising people next time. You know, unless you want to look like you do now.

 

[Olikar]

Oh, and we wouldn't have this problem if pirates weren't so fucking persistent and we didn't rush to defend them. We reap what we sew.

No, we wouldn't have this problem if most devs didn't got about 'dealing with' piracy like retards.
DRM does not prevent piracy, it causes it. If your game has intrusive DRM then your just making your position worse as a cracked version wont have DRM, you're making pirating even advantageous.

 

[Loonyyy]

Because you want the game, and assume that the DRM won't be an issue. Surely they wouldn't put something in the game that would make it more of a hassle than a pirated copy. Surely they wouldn't hurt legitimate consumers for having the decency to pay for their goods.

Of course, you find out you're mistaken when things go wrong, and by then, it's too late.