Anti piracy in PC games?

DoPo

"You're not cleared for that."
Jan 30, 2012
8,665
0
0
Mutant1988 said:
DoPo said:
Mister K said:
Was it DRM of Dragon Age: Inquisition that destroyed HDDs?
1. It was SSDs not HDDs
2. It didn't even do it. Believing a lie and perpetuating, is not what this industry needs. Or any industry, really[footnote]Although, I suppose your view point would be the opposite if you're in marketing[/footnote].
Honestly, the only DRM I've ever heard from that destroyed hardware was Starforce. And it did that by changing the speed of your disc drive (IIRC).

Pain in the ass to get rid off as well, since it installs itself without your knowledge and finding it's essential files for removal needs to be done manually. It practically functions like malware.
Yes, but that was a CD drive rather than a storage drive, and even then there were various rumours flying around at that point - I never did track down the validity of them. Mostly because I didn't really care. And I still mostly don't. However, Mister K was most definitely talking about the more recent DA:I "incident".

However, there was that other thing with Sony. And music.

Epic/Sony's release of Celine Dion's A New Day Has Come audio disc this month, which included copy protection technology from Key2Audio, caused a furore after online sites reported that attempts to play the disc on a PC caused computers to crash.

The problem can be even more severe for Mac users.

Not only will the Celine Dion audio disc fail to play on new flat-screen iMacs but it will lock the CD tray and prevent the machine from been rebooted properly. This is not something users can fix themselves and means a trip to a dealer for repairs. An article on Apple's knowledge base explains the issue in more depth.
source [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/14/marker_pens_sticky_tape_crack/] (seems the links there don't work any more)
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,082
3,530
118
Country
United Kingdom
Mutant1988 said:
There's restrictions to the use of the library, in the form of return times and reservations. You cannot indefinitely acquire and use a book, movie or game from a library.

The reason why libraries are exempt is as a matter of media conservation and public education. To deny them the right to give people access to information and entertainment would have a catastrophic effect on society.

I'm not being hyperbolic. If you take away the few joys and means of education there is to those less fortunate, then you will see a marked increase in crime and cultural decay.
Oh, I agree completely. The benefits of libraries are incredibly strong (and generally under-appreciated). Still, on an individual basis, they're undeniably comparable systems in some respects: both provide art for those who wish not to pay retail, but still experience it; both do not provide any royalty to the creator past the initial investment of the buyer. Both are essentially communal sharing.

Mutant1988 said:
Same goes for second hand sales, which are only excused by the practical fact of limited physical copies.
Well, on that I must entirely disagree. What one does with the sole copy of property they legally own should be their own choice (since they legally own it).

Earlier, you argued in favour of the greater accessibility of art for those less financially capable (which I agree with entirely on principle). That principle should also apply here. Publishers are requesting exceedingly high amounts of money for games at this point; second-hand purchases are many peoples' only viable method of getting them.

Mutant1988 said:
The solution to that issue cannot possibly be to deny them that fraction as well. But do tell, do you pirate music and then send money to the paypal of the artist, circumventing the "evil" record industry? I very much doubt that.
I do not pirate. I'm playing Devil's Advocate, because I think legitimate consumers would also benefit from a better understanding of the reasons behind piracy.

[[Edited Out]]

Mutant1988 said:
Again, the solution is not to steal the product. That benefits no one but yourself.
I agree. I just contend that simply not experiencing the art at all isn't benefiting anybody, either.
 

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
DRM doesn't work. Ever.

All DRM will be bypassed eventually, usually sooner rather than later, and it's a silly endeavour anyway since there've been studies indicating that pirates actually spend more money on content than those who don't pirate (counter intuitive I know, but a lot of things in life are).

So not only does trying to stop pirating never stop it and at best will manage to avoid inconveniencing paying players, you're cutting yourself off at the knees if you were to ever actually succeed in stopping pirating because overall revenues drop rather than increasing.
 

Mutant1988

New member
Sep 9, 2013
672
0
0
Silvanus said:
Well, on that I must entirely disagree. What one does with the sole copy of property they legally own should be their own choice (since they legally own it).
Quite. It's the choice of the end user what to do with their copy. But I meant that as a practical statement in regards to the retail exploitation of the used market to line the pockets of retailers rather than creators.

If the copies weren't limited, there would be no second hand market. Well, aside from the economical factor, given the deprecation of value in used copies. Which seems to happen almost instantly at times, strangely enough (Played 1 day, traded in the next - Suddenly $10 cheaper).

Neither really has any bearing on the topic of piracy. A digital market doesn't need resale though, because there isn't a finite amount of copies nor any real depreciation of value of any given copy.

But signing the right to resale away (Which we already do with digital purchases) assumes that every other term that benefits the consumer from it is also granted (Like lower prices - Retail copies cost a ton of money to produce and ship). Because really, not being able to resell is a massive detriment for end users.

We can't resell a single digital item (Except those specifically made for the micro-economy - That being essentially money for nothing for Valve).

We can sell the account and... Well, that's it really. All or nothing.

My point, if I had one, is that the concept of resale does not apply the same way to digital. And without the physical distribution factor, there shouldn't be any obstacle to make everything available for all, in their own marketplace at adjusted prices.

But there is, because it still needs to compete with retail and it's used market. The digital market is limited by the pricing and terms of the retail market.

Silvanus said:
Earlier, you argued in favour of the greater accessibility of art for those less financially capable (which I agree with entirely on principle). That principle should also apply here. Publishers are requesting exceedingly high amounts of money for games at this point; second-hand purchases are many peoples' only viable method of getting them.
I mostly just argue for the availability at all. Being able to buy everything is to me far more important than being able to own all of it.

Mind, I think that the matter of poverty needs to be addressed at a societal level, to ensure that people shouldn't "need" to pirate their entertainment. That justification should simply not hold any water in a first world country. It's really sad that it does.

I don't like retailers re-selling the same copies over and over again though. It makes perfect sense from a practical point of view, it's perfectly legal, but the creators of the product get nothing past the first copies they shipped. That's just a skewered distribution to me.

Do bear in mind that I rate the experience of the game, rather than the quality of the disc (Which again, not a factor in digital), when determining value. The only deprecation that should apply is that of fading novelty and to get sales from people that would never buy it at a higher price.

The way I go on about the digital market makes it sound like I'm all for it. Not really. But from a practical point of view, it's the solution to the issues of region restriction, convenience, regional price adjustment and reasonable end user prices (You might not buy it when it hits Steam, but pretty much everything sells when it's on sale).

Silvanus said:
I do not pirate. I'm playing Devil's Advocate, because I think legitimate consumers would also benefit from a better understanding of the reasons behind piracy.
Yes, I know. I have a bad habit of phrasing my posts in an accusational manner. I apologize for that, for what that's worth and will try to stop doing so.

Silvanus said:
I agree. I just contend that simply not experiencing the art at all isn't benefiting anybody, either.
I think it's important to consider that you do not have a right to have it, at all times. To ask yourself - Could I really not pay for this?

I'm all for everyone playing as many games as possible, but I'm also against the notion of people getting things for nothing (Which might sound ironic, considering that I have an ideology which leans towards socialism).

I don't want people to make excuses for why they pirate, period.

If you think you have a good reason, keep it to yourself. Because trying to paint piracy as the solution to problems is insanity.
 

FirstNameLastName

Premium Fraud
Nov 6, 2014
1,080
0
0
These types of anti-piracy measures are good for a nice chuckle when the headlines hit, but they are no better than DRM. In fact, I'd argue that they are slightly worse at what they intend to achieve.
While I know plenty of pirates use the excuse that they'll buy it later, the truth is, a certain portion of them actually will follow through with it. If someone plays the game and finds that the first locked door does not have a key, or there are graphical issues, then people will chalk that up to a buggy game, not an anti-piracy measures. Whereas having the DRM pop up and tell you that you can't play since you haven't bought the game, well, that sends an unambiguous message as to why they are unable to play.

Honestly, I've never understood why people think that these other anti-piracy measures are any better at telling legit copies from pirated. If it were possible to know for sure, then the DRM would be 100% effective. And if it's possible to trick DRM and remove it entirely, it is just as possible to trick any other anti-piracy measure.
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
Mutant1988 said:
snip

Every industry has to deal with second hand sales. I dont know what method you have to combat it (besides making it impossible to resell physical games, which would be the most egregious form of DRM of all). And I dont have any sympathy for publishers being "strong armed" by Gamestop into making exclusive content for them. They're extremely well compensated for this and also use it to push day 1 sales, Gamestop doesnt have a gun to their heads and cant make them do anything.

Except they do have a figurative gun to the publisher's heads in the form of being the only major brick in mortar store in most areas, so if the publisher's want to sell physical copies of their games, that is what they have to deal with. And they are not extremely well compensated for Gamestop getting exclusive content and special pre-order status. Gamestop uses their power as being the best venue for a publisher to sell physical copies of the games to get what they want, and it is a nasty practice. Now I'm sure there might be a publisher or two that have special contracts with them, but that is not the industry norm.

As for second hand sales, I never said that the games industry has to ban selling used games (in fact, that is illegal in many countries). What they need to do is create a better environment for the players to sell their used games. If the publishers had a buyback system where they purchased a used game back from the player for, say, 25% of the current new value of the game, and then they sold the games to the public for around 70% of the new value, players would use it. It is leaps and bounds better than gamestop's buyback/trade in system for the player, and infinitely more profitable for the publisher (since they had a zero profitability prior to the system being implemented), and it ensures that the publishers are getting a cut of the use game sales.




Mutant1988 said:
snip

Except that I'm not disputing that the industry has issues. It most certainly does.

What I'm disputing is the notion that it's right or a necessary evil that people pirate games and other products to use, when they have no interest in purchasing them.

That's a paradox. If it wasn't worth anything then you wouldn't waste the bandwidth to download it. If it is worth something, you owe the creator of the work money. How much? That can certainly depend on how good it is, but it's not for you to decide what something is priced. Or rather, it's not right for you to take something just because you disagree with it's current pricing.

Paying for what you use is not about legality or politics. It's doing what's right. We pay for what we use. Or at least, we pay for what we own the right to use, resell or lend to others.

It's that simple and it's not a question about practicality or legality. Taking what you want because someone unrelated (Used product retailers, the record industry, etc) to what you take does something wrong, is just as wrong!

DRM is here to stay because people pirate games. There is a correlation between those two things. It doesn't work, at all. But that's the reason why it exists and screws over everyone that doesn't steal their entertainment.

A big reason why this and that isn't sold here and there is the clusterfuck of loyalty and obligation unique to each market. A scenario that should have been done away with digital distribution, but nope. Got to appease the physical distributors and retailers. That's why we have pre-orders (Which was originally a means to determine appropriate inventory) and retailer exclusive "dlc". To make this shit and brick store more worth using that the other shit and brick store.

Yes, used games is an issue (But undermining the right to resale would be an even bigger issue). But stealing is still wrong. If you want to undermine the used market, if you genuinely care about the industry, you don't steal games. You buy the game when it's an appropriate price.

And I do insist on calling it theft. You take an experience and give nothing to the people that made it.



And yes, piracy will happen. It's practically unavoidable. But I'll be damned if I'm going to accept such flimsy and self serving justifications as those put forth by oh so many pirates. If you pirate, you do it because you want something without paying. There's no greater purpose to it than just that. It doesn't matter how, why, what, when. You're a jerk for not paying the people that made it.

I understand why you want to call it theft, but it isn't technically theft. Theft is taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it, whereas Piracy is using content without the express consent or right to use said content. Now the people who are ripping the games, cracking them, and uploading them for all the world to download are stealing, but the people downloading the games are not (Note: they are still guilty of a crime, and it is still wrong, it just isn't theft; also you are correct, those who do so are jerks for it).

Also, as above, I don't mean to have the games industry to ban the sale of used games (which is also illegal). I would rather them create a better venue for the used games to be bought and sold via the publisher (the details are outlined above, so I'm not going to repeat myself, just look above where I quoted you). This is a solution to the issue, rather than creating a new issue all together. Though digital sales is slowly killing the used market off, but I don't think it will ever truly die.

I don't disagree with you about it being morally and legally wrong to pirate games, that was never my point. My point is that the Games industry is wasting more money fighting Piracy than they are actually preventing loss. That means that the failed experiment we know as DRM is actually making game companies waste precious resources, money, and time just to have the illusion of protection (which is the real problem).

I don't know if you are aware of this, but the reason we have DRM is because most Publishers require Developers to put it in the games that the publisher is funding, and that is because most publishers are run by people that don't actually understand the mechanics behind the industry. What they understand is basic numbers, and until we can get some definitive research out there that manages to prove something one way or the other, or more developers start self funding (like CD Project Red), we will be stuck with DRM because the Publishers think it will help their profit margin. They give the Developer a set amount of money to make the game, and it is the developer that has to eat the cost of the DRM license and all of the extra man hours it takes to implement it and fix the bugs it causes. This means less time, money, and resources get put into the game itself, which would actually help the sales numbers.

Add to that the fact that all DRM that has ever been released has been cracked (except for always online, which can technically be cracked through server hacking, which has been done). This means that DRM is ultimately ineffective at preventing piracy, however what it does do, is cause problems for the actual paying customers who didn't do anything wrong and have shown their loyalty and love to the company. After all of that love and loyalty the paying customer is then treated to a big pile of shit on their chest in the form of broken games and data mining malware. Meanwhile the pirates are getting copies of the game that actually work and don't try to steal their data (which is kind of ironic since the pirates are stealing data themselves). Does this give the pirates a right to do what they do? Hell no! But the point remains, why should we stay loyal to a company that poops on our chest? So many people refuse to buy from that developer/publisher (I know I have a couple of publishers I refuse to buy from due to their past choices regarding DRM).

So now the game has lost money from purchasing a license to use a product that not only doesn't work, but also ends up costing the company more money since they have to implement and bug test. Which is then compounded by the loss of paying customers, with no tangible results in preventing piracy. So the question is, why does the Games industry continue to use such measures? Obviously the answer is idiocy (which seems to be prevalent with the games industry higher ups.

This is why I fight the excuse we have DRM because people Pirate games, because it isn't true. We have DRM because idiots in charge don't understand what all is involved with the subject matter, and end up making it a mandatory requirement if the developer who is trying to get funding to make a game wants said money from said publisher.
 

Valkrex

Elder Dragon
Jan 6, 2013
303
0
0
While Steam technically is DRM, I've found it to be the least intrusive form of it, and the most actively HELPFUL platform I've ever used. It keeps my games in one place, I can play them offline forever if I'm ever without a connection, it manages my friends and community needs, and makes buying a game easy and hassle free.

If you want to stop pirates you have to compete with them and provide a better service. Steam does this, and even with its issues its still reliable, easy to use, keeps my games up to date, consumer friendly (for the most part), safer than torrents, and makes me feel valued as a customer.
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Jul 16, 2008
4,742
0
41
Country
USA
Mutant1988 said:
I don't consider piracy as a necessary evil or some matter of convenience. Piracy is wrong, end of.
I think you're being way too strong in your opinion here. I'm not arguing that it's good, but piracy exists for a lot more reasons than just being evil. A lot of it is due to the problems with services the mediums are provided by. Some of it is the pricing structure, others pirate to "stick it to the man" because some people like to act like anarchists.

And while I agree that stealing from hard working devs isn't cool, the way you are expressing yourself makes it sound like you think anyone that does work on a piece of medium deserves compensation, period. There's a hundred million games on Steam right now that don't deserve the cost of electricity to get the packets of data to your computer, yet they are charging as much for them as other fantastic games. Rewarding assholes that makes games like that with your hard earned money is just as bad as piracy, because it's rewarding bad behavior. Ultimately, that's what piracy is for the consumer: rewarding bad behavior.

So, adding in the fact that pirates buy more stuff than non-pirates, I think you need to relax a bit on this. "End of" is not the end of the discussion, just your opinion.

OT:
I've never personally had a problem with a DRM system on my computer, but I've also avoided some of the egregious examples of DRM. I'd just as soon as not play a game than put something I know could be bad on my computer. More DRM isn't a good idea though, and I'm not sure if no DRM is a great answer. It's a necessary evil, due to the way consumers and shareholders are at odds with each other.
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
Mutant1988 said:
Yan007 said:
If you live in the US, they are selling you a US-console. Wanna play your Japanese games? That's fine. Go to an online retailer and order a Japanese console like the rest of us who actually respect game devs and pay for both the games and the platforms to play them on. Sure, I'd love my 3ds to be region-lock free, but I like importing games enough that I've bought the Japanese version of the console to play my imported games. So should you.
Here's the thing - In doing so you accept a $200-ish premium to be able to play games from a different region. That is, the price of an entire system.

I don't find that convenient in the slightest. Had there only been the matter of paying for shipping of a game, I would have no issues whatsoever.

Have had no issues whatsoever in fact. That's part of my point when I criticize region restrictions. I don't mind paying for "games". It's the addition of region locks that force me to buy additional hardware that pisses me off.

As for affordability, I can afford just about everything. Finding copies (Which usually means giving money to someone else but the developer, which we have already concluded can be an issue) or making copies run? That's far trickier.

I'm not using that as an excuse anyway. I don't excuse anything whatsoever and in fact, try to avoid doing such self serving selfish things.

I fail to see how I'm a hypocrite when I deride my own behaviour just as much. If anything, I don't criticize the practise as much as I do the justifications for it.

The entire "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" reasoning.

But maybe I'm the only one capable of making a distinction between the two.

You seem to misunderstand a very basic thing in my argument though - I'm also a jerk. I'm not making an exception of myself.
The problem is, you are essentially saying that you are the only person who is able to judge what is a reasonable inconvenience. You readily admit that you could afford anything you wanted, yet you decry those who can barely afford to pay for lunch when they find a $60 price tag too unreasonable.

Please don't misunderstand me though, I do understand your point. You just don't like it when people make excuses for why they did something shitty, and I agree with you, but you are doing the same thing (in a way). Yes, it is absolutely ridiculous what we have to go through to obtain a product with limited availability that isn't even sold in your country, but it is still a judgement call you are making to create an excuse for your actions. You admit that you did a bad thing, which I get as well. What I think you may actually dislike is when people act like (or even believe) that they are justified in their actions when they pirate a game. If that is the case, then you are not being hypocritical, you just selected the wrong words for your argument.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Mutant1988 said:
There's restrictions to the use of the library, in the form of return times and reservations. You cannot indefinitely acquire and use a book, movie or game from a library.

The reason why libraries are exempt is as a matter of media conservation and public education. To deny them the right to give people access to information and entertainment would have a catastrophic effect on society.

I'm not being hyperbolic. If you take away the few joys and means of education there is to those less fortunate, then you will see a marked increase in crime and cultural decay.

As for rentals, they always were and still are a scam. The only purpose they serve is to give money to the people least responsible for the creation of the product.

Same goes for second hand sales, which are only excused by the practical fact of limited physical copies.
But if all these practices are excused by the practical reality of the industry still being sustainable, then what makes them different from piracy as it exists in real life?

After all, even if there is some hypothetical possibility that "if everyone would pirate the industry would collapse", it seems to be about as relevant as saying "If everyone would order pizza on Monday, the deliveries would be jammed" Because it's clear that people don't do that. Experience shows that by and large, the media industry has been preserved, and in fact grown, through the last two decades or so of increasingly available online piracy. So either all those "Piracy actually helps sales" statistics were right all along, or at least the effect in the other direction is as insignificant as from libraries and used sales and personal disc sharing.

You began with a grand statement about how "Using things without paying for them is despicable.", then you proceeded with excusing all forms of using things without paying for them that happen to be traditional?

It seems to me, that you are more concerned with PC games' categorization as a rivalous good, than with the principle of "using things without paying for them".

There are plenty of things that people use without paying for them. What sets games apart from those, is that not so long ago they used to be a rivalous good that could be sold on a market charging for their copies, and when suddenly it became more of a non-rivalous service, there were many parties left for whom it would be most convenient if we could just keep pretending that they are still objects to be bought, stolen, lent or rented, rather than strings of information that literally flow through the air all around us.
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
albino boo said:
sanquin said:
Anti piracy is either too invasive, or doesn't work. On the other hand, I do have a nice example of a company that specifically didn't put anti piracy on their game because they believed in customer loyalty. And it worked, because they made good enough games that they sold well enough for not one, but two sequels. The series I'm talking about is The Witcher.
Same old nonsense, 80% of the witcher sales are on steam which is a drm platform, buy hey why bother with facts.
Steam is also a distribution platform, and CD Project offered plenty of other places to purchase the game from that featured no form of DRM (distribution platform or otherwise). Just 80% of the digital copies sold were sold on Steam, doesn't mean that it has anything to do with the DRM, and it does mean it has everything to do with the fact that Steam is the largest and most profitable digital marketplace for games on the market right now. They would have been idiots not to release it on Steam. Aside from that, there are a growing list of companies that are jumping the DRM ship and joining the DRM free future, for the very reasons I've listed in my previous posts in this thread, but hey, why bother for facts, right?
 

VoidWanderer

New member
Sep 17, 2011
1,551
0
0
Mutant1988 said:
Anti-piracy measures only hurt legal customers. Pirates just disable it, eventually, and get a better game out of doing so.

So no, I don't think any game should use DRM, outside of a simple account functionality to install the games. All it does is harm the ability to keep games playable (Always on DRM or connecting in order to start the game), or them being playable to begin with.

I think what needs to happen is for people to realize that their the attitude "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so I just pirate it" is hurting the industry (Mainly by making extremely intrusive and overbearing DRM more and more common).

If the game isn't good enough to warrant a purchase, you should not play it. Simple as that. If it's good enough to be playable, then buy it at the price you think it is worth.

Do not pirate a game with the justification that you aren't it's audience. Because you ARE if you pirate it. That clearly states that you want to play it, but not pay for it. How people fail to understand this is beyond me.

Their callous uncaring self interest is ruining the industry just as much as any exploitive and profit generating DLC scheme.

Don't screw developers out of their livelihood just because you chose to spend your money on something else at that point in time. Wait and buy the game later instead.

Don't be a dick.
Your entire point could be summed up in one easy sentence. "Don't be Ubisoft."

If developers released demos again, I think we might have a chance. I know that it does cost, but we don't get screwed by games like Watchdogs, Assassin's Creed games, The Order 1886, etc. Let us play the damn game, and don't show us 'in-game' footage that is CLEARLY cutscenes!
 

Mutant1988

New member
Sep 9, 2013
672
0
0
I apologize if I'm taking this out of context but:

Signa said:
And while I agree that stealing from hard working devs isn't cool, the way you are expressing yourself makes it sound like you think anyone that does work on a piece of medium deserves compensation, period.
Yes. I do think that.

But the bad ones far less.

And the prices will drop, if the creators want to make any money at all.

If you pirate, you only provide the industry giants with a convenient excuse for imposing more restrictions on legal customers.

VoidWanderer said:
Your entire point could be summed up in one easy sentence. "Don't be Ubisoft."
Pretty much.

I've stopped buying any Ubisoft game. Nor will I pirate any Ubisoft game. I will not touch any of their games as a matter of principle, because the company is crap and incompetent.
 

Bad Jim

New member
Nov 1, 2010
1,763
0
0
FirstNameLastName said:
Honestly, I've never understood why people think that these other anti-piracy measures are any better at telling legit copies from pirated.
In house DRM can be a bit sneakier than third party DRM, since it can be hidden anywhere in the program and crackers are unlikely to find it unless they are looking for it. For example, if the game does a DRM check when the player is halfway through the game, the day one crackers will not find it because they won't play that far and will release a broken version. And if that version comes from a well known cracking group, it will be all over the torrent sites before anyone realises it's broken and it will never disappear.
 

Mutant1988

New member
Sep 9, 2013
672
0
0
Entitled said:
You began with a grand statement about how "Using things without paying for them is despicable.", then you proceeded with excusing all forms of using things without paying for them that happen to be traditional?

It seems to me, that you are more concerned with PC games' categorization as a rivalous good, than with the principle of "using things without paying for them".
No. I have a concern with people that publically defend piracy as something necessary or excusable. The last thing I want is for a behaviour that promotes not paying for what you use to be normalized.

My point is that people being poor is an issue to be addressed elsewhere. Developer should not have to accept their products being used without payment just because society is unfair.

The solution in that scenario is to make society less unfair, to make people's lives less shit and thus make them more capable and willing to pay for their entertainment.

barbzilla said:
The problem is, you are essentially saying that you are the only person who is able to judge what is a reasonable inconvenience.
Not even remotely. I'm saying that my justifications are as shallow as everyone else's and that rather than try to justify them I think it better that I try to pirate less.

I have grievances with the industry. Piracy isn't the solution to those grievances. Never once have I said it were. Me pirating games won't make region restrictions go away. It's a way for me to sate myself, but it does fuck all for the people that deserve payment for the work they have done.

That's my point.

I want the industry to buy a clue, get these products on my market and take my money - That's beneficial to all of us.
 

aozgolo

New member
Mar 15, 2011
1,033
0
0
The best way to combat piracy is to give consumers a better hassle-free product. Anti-piracy measures, especially DRM actually increases the amount of piracy. There's really no game outside of Multiplayer-only Games that hasn't been pirated already despite any kind of DRM.

It's because of crappy DRM like Origin, U-Play, and the like that people would rather go through less hassle and just pirate the game. I think sites like GOG have the right idea, give us the game at a fair and decent price, have zero DRM, and have frequent sales. Yes your game will still be pirated but the impact will be FAR less significant.
 

Albino Boo

New member
Jun 14, 2010
4,667
0
0
barbzilla said:
albino boo said:
sanquin said:
Anti piracy is either too invasive, or doesn't work. On the other hand, I do have a nice example of a company that specifically didn't put anti piracy on their game because they believed in customer loyalty. And it worked, because they made good enough games that they sold well enough for not one, but two sequels. The series I'm talking about is The Witcher.
Same old nonsense, 80% of the witcher sales are on steam which is a drm platform, buy hey why bother with facts.
Steam is also a distribution platform, and CD Project offered plenty of other places to purchase the game from that featured no form of DRM (distribution platform or otherwise). Just 80% of the digital copies sold were sold on Steam, doesn't mean that it has anything to do with the DRM, and it does mean it has everything to do with the fact that Steam is the largest and most profitable digital marketplace for games on the market right now. They would have been idiots not to release it on Steam. Aside from that, there are a growing list of companies that are jumping the DRM ship and joining the DRM free future, for the very reasons I've listed in my previous posts in this thread, but hey, why bother for facts, right?
80% of cd projects sales are with DRM, like many things with CD project what they actually do a does not stack up with reality. They make a big deal about GOG's pricing policy. What they fail to mention is that GOG as UK registered company is base price is in pounds sterling and therefore includes UK vats of 20%, which they use to make additional revenue about non vat eligible countries.Thye play to a gallery of those who unquestionably accept anyone who appears to be against the man
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Jul 16, 2008
4,742
0
41
Country
USA
Mutant1988 said:
I apologize if I'm taking this out of context but:

Signa said:
And while I agree that stealing from hard working devs isn't cool, the way you are expressing yourself makes it sound like you think anyone that does work on a piece of medium deserves compensation, period.
Yes. I do think that.

But the bad ones far less.

And the prices will drop, if the creators want to make any money at all.

If you pirate, you only provide the industry giants with a convenient excuse for imposing more restrictions on legal customers.
Taking that to its logical extreme, that means painters should keep their paintings covered unless someone forks over the cash to look at it, and musicians shouldn't play on the streets or have their songs on the radio. That's not a practical outlook on the situation dude. As a consumer, you pay for the experience, and you pay the talent you appreciate. You pay because you want to see that talent be rewarded, so you can see more of that talent. You don't just give people money because they made something. That rewards low effort and will have a negative effect on any artistic industry.

Also, the industry doesn't need a convenient excuse, because they are in control, and will do whatever they please. Australia and their $100+ games is proof of that. Besides, if piracy is an excuse, then that's all it is, an excuse.
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
Mutant1988 said:
snip

Not even remotely. I'm saying that my justifications are as shallow as everyone else's and that rather than try to justify them I think it better that I try to pirate less.

I have grievances with the industry. Piracy isn't the solution to those grievances. Never once have I said it were. Me pirating games won't make region restrictions go away. It's a way for me to sate myself, but it does fuck all for the people that deserve payment for the work they have done.

That's my point.

I want the industry to buy a clue, get these products on my market and take my money - That's beneficial to all of us.
In that case, my bad. I misinterpreted your meaning then. To me it seemed like you had basically said that making excuses for piracy was as horrible as the act itself (my interpretation of your feelings on the subject when I was reading your posts, not something you actually said), and then went on to make justifications as to why you thought your reasoning made you less of an a-hole for pirating. Which to me sounded like you were the only one who knew where the goal line was.

Anyway, sorry for the misunderstanding then.
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
Signa said:
Taking that to its logical extreme, that means painters should keep their paintings covered unless someone forks over the cash to look at it, and musicians shouldn't play on the streets or have their songs on the radio. That's not a practical outlook on the situation dude. As a consumer, you pay for the experience, and you pay the talent you appreciate. You pay because you want to see that talent be rewarded, so you can see more of that talent. You don't just give people money because they made something. That rewards low effort and will have a negative effect on any artistic industry.
It has already had an effect on the industry, why do you think that game quality has been slipping. The games industry has little to no oversight right now. You don't get to experience the game before you plop anywhere from 2-20 hours of wages (depending on your income level) on said game. Your only source of information about a game for the longest time was nothing but word of mouth, and reviewers that were often given special treatment (note: I'm not saying they got paid off, only that big name reviewers would often get special treatment in the form of invitations to extravagant parties, free stuff relating to the game/developer/publisher, and exclusive embargo rights). We now have Youtube, but that only really makes a difference to the small percentage of us that actually follow what is going on in the industry right now. Most of the people out there buying games don't research the games at all, a fair portion of them don't even pay with their own money (parents of children), and generally don't vote with their wallets (I.E. they won't stop buying from a publisher no matter how many times they've been burned). Add to all of that the fact that most places have a no return policy on video games, and now the majority of consumers don't even have any recourse when they've been outright lied to.

The industry already has the minimal effort for maximum profit mentality, and it is only getting worse. Unless we find someway for the consumers to have some form of recourse when they are taken advantage of and find some form of oversight to prevent exploitative behavior in the publishers/developers, the industry is going to quickly finish devolving into what we see on cellphones right now. If it wasn't for Indy developers, and the rare AAA gem, the industry would actually be in as much trouble as the big publishers always try to make it seem like they are.