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

[Doom972]

Nobody wants it, but if it comes with a game that many people really want to buy (Diablo 3), people will buy it.

The only game I bought with that sort of DRM is Assassin's Creed II, after reading that they removed it in a patch. Too bad that they kept the cloud-only saves.

If the publisher would close down the servers without releasing a patch that removes the DRM, someone else will develop that patch.

 

[Auron]

I'm already always online when I'm playing so it makes no difference, why would I skip a game I'm interested in again?


8 years ago every single multiplayer title in the market used Gamespy, Gamespy's shutting down several games trying to blackmail devs right now. People found more than one way around to play most of the games if not all. I hate Gamespy much more than steam, EA's or blizzard's drm but would not consider skipping gamespy games altogether, I had considerable fun.

 

[Risingblade]

People don't give a shit and just want to play the game? How is that so hard to understand?

 

[Olikar]

But nobody pirates for that reason. People pirate for the same reasons as everyone else. THey want free stuff, and don't want to pay for it.

DRM is just a convenient justification. It's like when religious people justify homophobia or racism by saying "My imaginary friend told me it was a good idea." They're completely full of shit.

That's bullshit and you know it, people don't simply pirate because it's free there are many other reasons involved, with DRM and ease of access being the biggest .

And even if DRM isn't the reason people pirate, it is still pointless to put it in. If you put DRM on a game people will still pirate it and it wont add ANY real difficultly in pirating it, all you will do is put off legitimate customers. Plus you say DRM is just a convenient justification, but the way I see it is piracy is just a convenient justification for greedy companies to further intrude on your rights as a consumer and to try and squeeze every last penny out of you.

 

[EtherealBeaver]

But nobody pirates for that reason. People pirate for the same reasons as everyone else. THey want free stuff, and don't want to pay for it.

DRM is just a convenient justification. It's like when religious people justify homophobia or racism by saying "My imaginary friend told me it was a good idea." They're completely full of shit.

[citation needed]

I have loads of mates who pirate because they cant be arsed to deal with DRM. I pressure them to also buy the games - at least the ones they like - but they rarely bother installing them because dealing with DRM can be so frustrating

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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.

Where on earth did you get this ridiculous idea from? I want the game, and I'm 100% sure the DRM *will* be an issue. History suggests it will. For at least a week post launch, it will be an annoying and persistent issue. And after that it will be a seldom seen but still hugely annoying issue if and when it crops up.

Like, my copy of Diablo 3 inconvenienced me for about 45 minutes out of the 40 hours or so I played it. Not really a big deal, but still irritating when it happened. I was all "BLARGLE FUCKING ONLINE DRM". And then I went and did something else for a while.

Who knows though. Maybe SimCity will explode and burn down my building, and the corpses of the people inside will rise and ravage the city, bringing about a new era of terror and destruction. That MIGHT justify the level of hand wringing, doomsaying and out and out hysteria propagated in this thread.

 

[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.

Where on earth did you get this ridiculous idea from? I want the game, and I'm 100% sure the DRM *will* be an issue. History suggests it will. For at least a week post launch, it will be an annoying and persistent issue. And after that it will be a seldom seen but still hugely annoying issue if and when it crops up.

When you're relatively new to it. When I started on PC gaming, it was in the decline of SecuRom, which I had a few experiences with, and just prior to the advent of always on for singleplayer. I'd never experienced the hassle of the Half-Life/Steam fiasco, so I thought when purchasing Assassin's Creed 2, that it would work as advertised. I was mistaken. I couldn't play the game for more than an hour or so at a time before my less than stellar net connection would cause me to be dropped from the game. I didn't have to lose internet connection, just fail to connect enough that the system would decide that my connection issue clearly meant something illegitimate. For some people, this sort of thing is the point-if you choose to purchase the game, and it doesn't work, then it's a problem. But most of us assume the products will work, because they're selling them, and their running is pretty basic functionality.

Like, my copy of Diablo 3 inconvenienced me for about 45 minutes out of the 40 hours or so I played it. Not really a big deal, but still irritating when it happened. I was all "BLARGLE FUCKING ONLINE DRM". And then I went and did something else for a while.

Cool. Story. Bro. By the time D3 came around, I'd learnt my lesson. Once Bitten, Twice shy.

Who knows though. Maybe SimCity will explode and burn down my building, and the corpses of the people inside will rise and ravage the city, bringing about a new era of terror and destruction.

Thanks. That's a measured, mature response to some genuine issues people have with a system which has been flawed since it's inception. Issues you yourself have experienced.

That MIGHT justify the level of hand wringing, doomsaying and out and out hysteria propagated in this thread.

Where do I go with the hysteria and doomsaying? Where did I say that this is some unstoppable evil?

Now, if there comes a time, where internet access is so ubiquitous to make concerns about connectivity truly trivial (Which may or may not be the case, depending on where you live), and if game companies can promise that either 1) Authentication servers can stay live or 2) That a patch removing the online requirement is ready for release, in case the servers need to be shut down, then I've relatively little problem with the practice. It's still a silly solution, and it still won't solve anything in it's current iteration, but once the problems for the consumer are gone, I have no problem with it. I honestly think that the problems will become less severe as time goes on. Not more. But hey, I'm a doomsayer *facepalm*. You either need to check the vocabulary, or the sarcasm on that one, I'm not sure which.

It's still going to deliver an inferior product. It's still going to be inferior to a copy of the game without the protection, as the protection stands in it's current iteration. If they can remove an important enough component and prevent it from being viewed well enough, I'm sure there'll be problems with that, the big one I see coming up is modding, and how you do it with content you have no access to. Then again, I don't expect most games to be moddable, but it's a nice feature.

But seriously, stop with this ridiculously condescending, confrontational attitude towards people who have the slightest issue with Always on DRM. It's unbecoming, and you're better than it, really.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

But seriously, stop with this ridiculously condescending, confrontational attitude towards people who have the slightest issue with Always on DRM. It's unbecoming, and you're better than it, really.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa. Whoa nelly. Whoa.

I was responding to your soothsaying proclamation that people who choose to purchase always online DRM products do so out of ignorance, and that by the time they realize what's up, it's "too late". Like, our new corporate overlords are erecting a statue of John Ricitiello in the village square and EA's Corporate Enthusiast Officers are coming to the house to drag your family to the gulag or something.

I don't enjoy the rhetoric that PRESUMES those who don't share your concerns are ignorant dupes, any more you than you enjoy my rhetoric that those who are concerned are panicky hysterics. Shall we split the difference and allow each other our respective viewpoints? I'm totally sympathetic to people who have dodgy internet connections RIGHT UP TO THE POINT where they start in with the "sheeple" nonsense that permeates this thread, and every other thread on the subject. Once that shit starts, the gloves are off.

In retrospect your post was fairly tame, though, and I made you pay extra freight for the behavior of others, so for that I apologize.

 

[bojackx]

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?

Umm... I'm afraid it is still as simple as that.

People will buy the games because they want to play the game. The fact that the game may not be accessible in a few years is hardly a cause for concern for the here and the now. Not many people have the restraint necessary to avoid buying a game they really want, just because there's a possibility that the problem will expand.

Personally, there's very few games that have it right now and I don't see it becoming huge any time soon. Even then, there's very few games that I will truly miss after a few years. I don't know about anyone else, but that's what I feel about it all.

 

[Radoh]

Because I'm always online anyways and I see no reason to deny myself games for my preferred platform because of it.

Honestly, I've had all of three times where I had issues with DRM, and that was in Assassins Creed II because my internet was a little shoddy. You know what I did as a result of it kicking me out of the game? I double clicked the icon, waited half a second, and started playing again uninterrupted for the rest of the night.
Hell, I actually got off better in that because with all the butthurt about losing access to the game everyone who had a server outage (something I myself experienced to no real negative impact) and got ALL the DLC for free.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Hmmm.

We're still playing Warcraft 3: Frozen Throne. Ever since Starcraft 2 we are allowed to just log into our Blizzard accounts and get the installation files and install away, and play on whatever hardware (running Windows) we fancy. You know, the thing we used to do was to copy the game installation directory from machine to machine, backup and restore windows registry files and run third-party no-disc patches and fixes. All that luxury comes directly from Blizzard now, after only ten years or so. I like that. By your definition, WC3 uses alway-on DRM, as multiplayer isn't that much fun without (official) servers. I don't mind it, since it makes sense and I believe there's no other crapware or malware or any safedisc shenanigans going on.

With other games, copy protection doesn't come as natural. I played Diablo 3 during the beta, and I was quite fed up with it before things got public. I did not buy or play the final release, as it clearly did not tingle my tastebuds. Even if I had liked the game, always-on DRM would not have made any proper sense to me.

Same goes for the decidedly one-player rides of Assassin's Creed, had I actually liked those games. Only letting me play my single player experience when connected to the mothership is not something I like - or accept, for that matter.

I love my Big Daddy figurine and I like my collector's edition CD that looks like an old vinyl, but I am pissed off at the fact that 1) none of the classic old music is on the CD and 2) the game came with an online activation that made no sense whatsoever. So I have it in a prominent place and finger the Big Daddy every now and then, but I never installed it from the original media, as I like my computers and all the computers I touch to be without malware, ransomware, SecuROM, you name it - shit won't fly around here.

 

[TheRaider]

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?

For a lot of people games are short term enjoyment, so they don't think long term.

As a developer I appreciate the need to try and protect your product. Always-on DRM can be a real pain to some consumers but I am sure they do some sort of cost/benefits analysis and deciede the benefits outweigh the cost to the company.

I agree with the general sentiments that things like boycotts don't work since the titles most likely to use it tend to be the biggest titles released. The failure of these titles doesn't hinge on always-on DRM, although of course it would be interesting if you could compare sales with and without however this doesn't seem something that is possible to quanitify because of the large number of factors.

 

[Cry Wolf]

Simple answer? It doesn't bother a lot of people. I have never bought a game with always online DRM, and I now actively check games for stuf like hiding content behind online registration, on-disc DLC and the like. It's note worth the hassle, I've got plenty of other stuff to spend my money on.

But nobody pirates for that reason. People pirate for the same reasons as everyone else. THey want free stuff, and don't want to pay for it.

DRM is just a convenient justification. It's like when religious people justify homophobia or racism by saying "My imaginary friend told me it was a good idea." They're completely full of shit.

Look, I don't usually like just dropping a link instead of making a case myself but I get the distinct feeling that all I'm going to get for my effort is a lot of contradiction.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem

 

[Aeshi]

For the same reason you buy games that require Dual-core processors or 4GB of RAM. Because you..

A) Want to buy the game
and
B) Either meet the system requirements or were too stupid to read them.

 

[Zakarath]

I'll buy them if I want to play them. Simple as that. Pirating is not something I do, and boycotting screws over the decent people who made the game just as much as the publisher who pushed the DRM.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

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.

Nope. You can play the console versions offline. I know, I did it. That goes for AC2/2.5/2.75 as well. I can't say I've ever seen a console game with always-on DRM.

That's the beauty of console gaming. PC gamers may have superior graphical capabilities, but at least we don't have to deal with the nonsense publishers attempt to saddle us with.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Yeah I only bought Diablo 3 3 to cop op with my mate since we never co op however he never held his end of the bargain (depsite being a hardcode Diablo fan, it seen he lack self control to gaming as he always busy with his work).

Anyway I suppose the reason why people buy a DRM game is that it doesn't effect them too much. Sever overloaded? Just wait a while until it died down, need the internet 24/7 to play it? Sure they got no problem/ limits with their network provider.

 

[Tyelcapilu]

I have faith in Steam, and I find it to be extremely convenient, which means it's actually more convenient to purchase the games on there than to manually get store-bought/steam-free versions.

 

[snowbear]

Errrm well I think we need to make it clear the always on drm isn't always such the massive issue that people make it out to be. If the game is a single player only game then Always on DRM is a big no no imo and I will not buy.

However if its a multiplayer game that has the drm then I see no issue as I have to be online anyway, and if the drm server is shut down the the multiplayer servers will be shut down too so its makes little to no difference.

I will say what im more against is charging for online services. Hence I will never buy a multiplayer game on xbox live. Why the hell should I pay Microsoft to play my games online. Xbox live is essentially the same as always on DRM anyway. so to the guys saying this is why they only buy games on consoles.... Have fun when the xbox live / psn services get terminated

 

[Nazulu]

Because people value their short-term fun over the long-term preservation of their medium

Yep. That's all it is. Gotta get their fix or they'll kill over.

It's the sad truth that always is going to stir up a shit storm.