Anti piracy in PC games?

Mutant1988

New member
Sep 9, 2013
672
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.

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.
Last I checked, art galleries usually charge you entering, photography is often forbidden and owning a painting can cost a whole lot of money.

As for live acts - Well, I think that's simply a matter of it being 100% impossible and unprofitable to prohibit buskers from paying whatever they want.

I do feel sorry for the Australians. Their government appears to be absolutely nuts and treat their citizens like children, they live in Australia, distributors hike up their prices and they live in Australia.

But yeah, I do think I should give the developers something in exchange for playing their game. Even if it's an awful game. That just means I will give them far, far less.

Or not play it at all. If the product they make is truly not wanted (Even if just for novelty in how terrible it is), then no one would pirate it.

barbzilla said:
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.
Making excuses is just... Tasteless. That's my point. If someone pirate, for whatever reason, keep it to yourself. The notion that it should be all right to pirate if condition X or Y is just... Stop.

I hate that. I hate the notion that people should have things without working for them. But do understand that I live in a society where everyone already does a lot for those less fortunate (Sweden, for the record - We have a good wellfare system and high taxes to pay for it).

I know how shitty being poor is and I know the solution to poverty won't come from justifying piracy.
 

babinro

New member
Sep 24, 2010
2,518
0
0
Seems to me the only effective means of DRM is online multiplayer.
Look at the success of Blizzard's DRM with all of it's major franchises.

Once you move on to a single player game though there's not much point in DRM. People will point to The Witcher as an example of no DRM being successful and they 'might' be right. The game has been pirated a TON all the same. One article on Nov 30th, 2011 states that over one million copies were sold but the game had been pirated over 4.5 million times by their calculations.

I realize that one instance of piracy does not equate to one lost sale....but 4.5 MILLION times for just 1 million sales. You have to wonder just how much more money they'd have made if they followed traditional business practices and created a barrier to piracy (even though it would only be a temporary one).

No wonder we haven't seen tons of other major companies follow in The Witcher's footsteps. If a company with a GOOD PR background gets hit this hard for promoting gamer convenience...imagine how much worse it would be if a company like EA took the same steps with a major AAA title.
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
albino boo said:
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
I'm sorry, are you trying to insinuate that CD Project somehow managed to force 80% of its player base to purchase their version of the game from Steam? Or are you trying to say that Good Old Games pricing schemes somehow were put in place by CD Project in order to sell more copies on Steam?

Honestly, you can keep your tinfoil hats, I never said that CD Project could do no wrong, in fact Witcher 2 released with DRM. However, a week after launch they reversed the decision, sent out a patch that removed the DRM from the game, issued an apology, and offered refunds to anyone who felt cheated by what happened. So, yes, I can see how you find them to be so horrible. Furthermore VAT is not something that the company decided to charge, that just happens to be their home location, and when you are in a global economy, there are surcharges for moving money and products from one country to another.
 

DoPo

"You're not cleared for that."
Jan 30, 2012
8,665
0
0
Bad Jim said:
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.
Stop. You know what you are describing here? The concept known as "Security through obscurity [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity]". Do you know what anybody who knows what they are talking about in the software business calls it? "Security through obscurity isn't security". It's an oft repeated phrase - it's bound to come up when security through obscurity is identified. Sure, it may be worded slightly differently but it's all variations of the same phrase.

It plain terms, it doesn't work. It can't work. For any system to be secure, it needs to (at least somewhat) obey the Kerckhoffs's principle. In short, the system should still be secure even if the mechanism by which it operates is known. Colloquially it can be summed up as "The enemy knows your system." Sure, there is a caveat - Kerchkhoff was a cryptographer, not a computer scientist, and he was addressing crypto with his principle. Indeed, it's not exactly how it works in computer systems, however software does need to obey it to an extent, or it's not secure. Because in order to not obey it fully, it'd be using security through obscurity.

Why is the obscurity such a problem? Why doesn't it work? Because you're hedging your bets on nobody finding it out. It requires the developers to be GODDAMN GENIUSES to be able to do something that's impenetrable and unknowable to other people. It requires them to be many times as smart as anybody who would attack the system. But the resources of the developers are limited. And lets's face it - they aren't that smart. If they were, they would be able to code without any bugs. Which is pretty much impossible, especially in the games industry. I'm not bashing them, mind you, it's a simple fact - if somebody is THAT good, they'd get heaps more money working for the military or something. For they need to be masters of way too many branches of software engineering than normal.

Even with the developer side of things aside, the attackers are downright scary. You can safely assume that they'd decompile your code, look through the instruction set and find out how everything operates. That's sort of their job. Well, to an extent. And as much as you can all it "a job". But still, if you start from that assumption, you wouldn't be far off. Sure, that does imply that they are better than the theoretical developers I mentioned above, however...that may be correct. Or not. But remember - they don't work for money. They quite literally do this voluntarily, meaning you could happily have some military software developer also crack DRM in his spare time. Because they find it fun or whatever. Or even if they aren't super-duper-haxxors, they have the advantage in numbers and thus the advantage of Linus's Law which...well, I'll translate it for something more appropriate for this forum: "Programming problems are trivial if you zerg rush them". It basically states that the more people work on a problem, the easier it is. And there is more people working on cracking the DRM than people who have worked on it.
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Jul 16, 2008
4,742
0
41
Country
USA
Mutant1988 said:
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.

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.
Last I checked, art galleries usually charge you entering, photography is often forbidden and owning a painting can cost a whole lot of money.
I'm not talking art galleries, just paintings on display. Besides, art galleries are making you pay for entry to their building, and the upkeep of that building. You aren't paying the artist to view their work. Art galleries are a service where you can view a selection of art all in one convenient location. If you like art, and want to see art, you can pay for it, but it still doesn't remotely guarantee you value for your dollar. It only implies that the work inside will be of a higher quality than a street artist. They can be dead wrong too. I'm sure you've heard of the stories of cleaning crews messing up "art" because they thought it was a mess. If something looked like a mess instead of a piece of work, it probably wasn't worth paying to see. Yet they still have those pieces on display.

That all just drives home how subjective concepts like value are to a group of people, even when that idea is solidly defined to an individual. That's where piracy comes in. A pirate can ascertain the value of a product using their personal metrics, risk free, and then pay for it accordingly. Pretending that someone who does that is an unnecessary evil is shortsighted and hardheaded. I see them for what they are: someone trying to make sure they are putting their dollar where it belongs.

As for live acts - Well, I think that's simply a matter of it being 100% impossible and unprofitable to prohibit buskers from paying whatever they want.
So then why even make a product if there is no way to control it? All producers of content should be paid before a consumer consumes their product, right? That's what you've said here.

Taking it off of the streets, live shows are proof that people don't need to pay before they consume. People don't fill stadium sized venues to see 5 people play some rock music because they all paid before hearing them even once. No, they heard them on the radio or at a friends house with their copy of their album. The music industry is a billion dollar industry, and no one ever pays before hearing the music. People fill those stadiums because they pay for talent, not because someone produced something.
 

DoPo

"You're not cleared for that."
Jan 30, 2012
8,665
0
0
babinro said:
Once you move on to a single player game though there's not much point in DRM. People will point to The Witcher as an example of no DRM being successful and they 'might' be right. The game has been pirated a TON all the same. One article on Nov 30th, 2011 states that over one million copies were sold but the game had been pirated over 4.5 million times by their calculations.
Their calculations were slightly rubbish. They went something like "Well, there were 45 downloads now, if we multiply that by the time that passed since launch, we get 4.5 million". Sure, not exactly that, but I'm too lazy to find the article - it was, however, their method of coming up with the number. I'm not saying "oh, the pirating was minuscule" but rather, "that's a number I would highly doubt is correct".

Also, THE WITCHER HAD DRM. As did the Witcher 2. Why the hell do people still claim the opposite?

The 1.5 patch [http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/1.5_patch] stripped the DRM from the first game. It was released almost two years after the game itself.

As for the second one the physical copies shipped with DRM [http://www.newgamenetwork.com/news/2569/witcher-2-to-include-securom-drm/] but that was removed faster than the previous one (I think it was patch 1.1 or 1.2 - one of the first big ones).
 

Mutant1988

New member
Sep 9, 2013
672
0
0
Signa said:
I'm not talking art galleries, just paintings on display. Besides, art galleries are making you pay for entry to their building, and the upkeep of that building. You aren't paying the artist to view their work. Art galleries are a service where you can view a selection of art all in one convenient location. If you like art, and want to see art, you can pay for it, but it still doesn't remotely guarantee you value for your dollar. It only implies that the work inside will be of a higher quality than a street artist. They can be dead wrong too. I'm sure you've heard of the stories of cleaning crews messing up "art" because they thought it was a mess. If something looked like a mess instead of a piece of work, it probably wasn't worth paying to see. Yet they still have those pieces on display.

That all just drives home how subjective concepts like value are to a group of people, even when that idea is solidly defined to an individual. That's where piracy comes in. A pirate can ascertain the value of a product using their personal metrics, risk free, and then pay for it accordingly. Pretending that someone who does that is an unnecessary evil is shortsighted and hardheaded. I see them for what they are: someone trying to make sure they are putting their dollar where it belongs.

As for live acts - Well, I think that's simply a matter of it being 100% impossible and unprofitable to prohibit buskers from paying whatever they want.
So then why even make a product if there is no way to control it? All producers of content should be paid before a consumer consumes their product, right? That's what you've said here.

Taking it off of the streets, live shows are proof that people don't need to pay before they consume. People don't fill stadium sized venues to see 5 people play some rock music because they all paid before hearing them even once. No, they heard them on the radio or at a friends house with their copy of their album. The music industry is a billion dollar industry, and no one ever pays before hearing the music. People fill those stadiums because they pay for talent, not because someone produced something.
Honestly, you keep insisting that I'm saying things I'm not. What is even your point? That I'm in the wrong to consider paying things to be the norm we should aspire to and that I'm wrong in finding justifications for piracy tasteless and self serving?

My point is - The creator of a work should be paid for the work they did. If they are not, it's usually a matter of practicality. That is to say, it's impossible to control how or when their work is used. And that's a good thing - I've never once disputed the right to resell or lend to anyone.

But if you want to use something. Or specifically, one copy of it - You pay for it. Even if it's shit, you pay for it. Pay, for what you use. Not only when you "feel" like it.

What I'm arguing against primarily is the oft repeated justifications for piracy.

I don't buy that people have a right to "demo" the entire game before purchase. If that's supposed to be the norm, what do we even have game critics for?

What is a review for if you can just play anything you want at any time and pay only when you feel like it? I'm sorry, but having things (Indefinitely) before you decide to pay for them is not how anything works. You can test drive a car, but it's very rare that you get to keep it for weeks before deciding whether you want to pay for it or not.

There's merit to the idea of a subscription trial service, but there really isn't one for having the product without any sort of restriction, at any time, for any duration. That just leads to the excuse "I wouldn't have bought it anyway".

No, but you sure did play it.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Nor should there be.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Mutant1988 said:
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.
Yet, this is exactly the argument that you use to justify libraries, just because there are practical limitations on them that still make them rivalous goods.

Piracy, as an act of rulebreaking, is not a solution, but it's not the source of the problem either, the very framing of the rules is the problem. DRM isn't created to combat any particular person's misbehavior, but to reinforce the principle of corporations owning information as if it were a product.

The solution to DRM is not to be good little consumers and go along with the publishers' make-believe and pretend that games are rivalous goods, that's access needs to be restricted. Realistically, you can't control that anyways. But neither is it to randomly break the law for our own benefit, and call it civil disobediance.

The solution is to take a step back, and realize that in a world where information is infinitely accessible, you can't still compare games to rivalous products that you either "steal" or "buy".

There are plenty of other things in real life, that don't fit into that dichotomy. For example, like in the other poster's example, street music:

Mutant1988 said:
As for live acts - Well, I think that's simply a matter of it being 100% impossible and unprofitable to prohibit buskers from paying whatever they want.
And isn't the same thing true for digital content? Like it has been repeatedly discussed, DRM doesn't work.

Trying to regulate the Internet's file-sharing ability, is even more doomed than trying to lock down a whole public street to turn it into a concert space. You just can't do it without taking away something fundamental about the way the infrastructure is supposed to work.

IT's like if a corporation put up an expensive fireworks display above a city, and legally oblige everyone to either pay, or don't look up to the sky while it's ongoing. And your solution is to go along with it, and shame those who look up, for "getting something for free", then call it "tasteless" to even discuss how INSANE the whole business model is, and that maybe we should find a better one that doesn't rely on restricting the public so much.

The only difference between that example and games, is that games USED TO BE a rivalous product that you could reasonably regulate, and old habits die hard about still thinking of them like that.

This is not a problem of poverty. Even in a post-scarcity utopia, people would still pirate, for the same reason people would still look up to the sky during a fireworks display.
 

Random Fella

New member
Nov 17, 2010
1,167
0
0
If they are one thing, pirates are persistent.
It doesn't matter what you do in the ways of anti-piracy methods, there's going to be a crack around it by some point.
What these kinds of methods do however, is ruin the legitimate game, such as DRM does.
 

Albino Boo

New member
Jun 14, 2010
4,667
0
0
barbzilla said:
albino boo said:
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
I'm sorry, are you trying to insinuate that CD Project somehow managed to force 80% of its player base to purchase their version of the game from Steam? Or are you trying to say that Good Old Games pricing schemes somehow were put in place by CD Project in order to sell more copies on Steam?

Honestly, you can keep your tinfoil hats, I never said that CD Project could do no wrong, in fact Witcher 2 released with DRM. However, a week after launch they reversed the decision, sent out a patch that removed the DRM from the game, issued an apology, and offered refunds to anyone who felt cheated by what happened. So, yes, I can see how you find them to be so horrible. Furthermore VAT is not something that the company decided to charge, that just happens to be their home location, and when you are in a global economy, there are surcharges for moving money and products from one country to another.
If they cared so much they wouldn't release on steam a platform with in built DRM.
 

Mutant1988

New member
Sep 9, 2013
672
0
0
Entitled said:
And isn't the same thing true for digital content? Like it has been repeatedly discussed, DRM doesn't work.

Trying to regulate the Internet's file-sharing ability, is even more doomed than trying to lock down a whole public street to turn it into a concert space. You just can't do it without taking away something fundamental about the way the infrastructure is supposed to work.

IT's like if a corporation put up an expensive fireworks display above a city, and legally oblige everyone to either pay, or don't look up to the sky while it's ongoing. And your solution is to go along with it, and shame those who look up, for "getting something for free", then call it "tasteless" to even discuss how INSANE the whole business model is, and that maybe we should find a better one that doesn't rely on restricting the public so much.

The only difference between that example and games, is that games USED TO BE a rivalous product that you could reasonably regulate, and old habits die hard about still thinking of them like that.

This is not a problem of poverty. Even in a post-scarcity utopia, people would still pirate, for the same reason people would still look up to the sky during a fireworks display.
Is it that hard to understand that I'm arguing against the attitudes expressed in favour of piracy and not in any way believe that piracy can be stopped?

You pay for the unrestricted use of one copy. That's different from a public display. That's different from seeing someone else's copy.

To have unrestricted use of the work, to the extent to which it is sold, without paying - Is wrong. That's the bit you all seem to ignoring.

Your fireworks analogy is ridiculously off-base. No one is forcing anyone to pirate anything. But they do. And them justifying it by citing "Try before buy", "Wouldn't buy it anyway" or "Sharing is caring" is just making excuses for them simply doing whatever they damn well please.

As for your assertion that DRM doesn't work - No kidding! I said that myself on page 1.

The issue is not the nature of restrictions, but people's attitudes and the inconvenience that companies impose on actual customers.

That and just poverty in general. It sucks to not be able to afford things. Still doesn't mean you should go around and try to paint piracy as something grander than it is.
 

AT God

New member
Dec 24, 2008
564
0
0
I don't pirate games so I don't know if the insane amount of torrents available actually work but it seems that there isn't any popular game that has successfully protected itself from piracy, I am aware of people who almost exclusively pirate video games and they appear to have no trouble playing the latest and greatest games. I am unaware of how piracy affects online play so maybe games like Evolve or Titanfall aren't really feasible to pirate but I didn't purchase either of those games because I don't enjoy multiplayer enough to justify the game's prices.

I have not really had any problems with DRM, but I still oppose the concept because I see how its a negative and while it has never been a problem, I still dislike having to sort out DRM stuff. I never ran in to problems with GFWL or Uplay, but I did resent the extra hurdles that I had to jump through just to play a game I purchased legally through Steam's store.

Given that I've never had a real problem with DRM, I am sort of supportive of the various "troll" type DRM/anti-piracy measures some games employ, but its worth noting I have never had one of these trigger incorrectly and I don't pirate games so they haven't affected me. Things like the Invincible Scorpion in Serious Sam 3 and the very meta and clever Game Dev Tycoon anti-piracy thing are really funny to me and interesting. That said, they ultimately do not solve the problem either because pirates can patch them out, but I do like reading the first posts on places like Steam where people post "HOW DO I BEAT THE PINK SCORPION" only to get mocked for a few days.

I personally really find the opposite of DRM style behavior a lot more interesting. Dennaton (Devs for Hotline Miami) actually posted the patched version of Hotline Miami 1 on The Pirate Bay because the original version of the game uploaded to Pirate bay didn't work. Their explanation was that piracy is inevitable, and much higher for games like Hotline (because it has a very small filesize) and they didn't want pirates to get a negative impression of the game, because if they pirated the game and hated it, they wouldn't buy it but at least some people might pirate it and then decide they want to support the game and actually play it.

Also CDProjekt Red deserves a mention for their dedication to reviving old games without locking them behind any DRM or other foolishness, as well as not putting DRM in their own releases.
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Jul 16, 2008
4,742
0
41
Country
USA
Mutant1988 said:
Signa said:
I'm not talking art galleries, just paintings on display. Besides, art galleries are making you pay for entry to their building, and the upkeep of that building. You aren't paying the artist to view their work. Art galleries are a service where you can view a selection of art all in one convenient location. If you like art, and want to see art, you can pay for it, but it still doesn't remotely guarantee you value for your dollar. It only implies that the work inside will be of a higher quality than a street artist. They can be dead wrong too. I'm sure you've heard of the stories of cleaning crews messing up "art" because they thought it was a mess. If something looked like a mess instead of a piece of work, it probably wasn't worth paying to see. Yet they still have those pieces on display.

That all just drives home how subjective concepts like value are to a group of people, even when that idea is solidly defined to an individual. That's where piracy comes in. A pirate can ascertain the value of a product using their personal metrics, risk free, and then pay for it accordingly. Pretending that someone who does that is an unnecessary evil is shortsighted and hardheaded. I see them for what they are: someone trying to make sure they are putting their dollar where it belongs.

As for live acts - Well, I think that's simply a matter of it being 100% impossible and unprofitable to prohibit buskers from paying whatever they want.
So then why even make a product if there is no way to control it? All producers of content should be paid before a consumer consumes their product, right? That's what you've said here.

Taking it off of the streets, live shows are proof that people don't need to pay before they consume. People don't fill stadium sized venues to see 5 people play some rock music because they all paid before hearing them even once. No, they heard them on the radio or at a friends house with their copy of their album. The music industry is a billion dollar industry, and no one ever pays before hearing the music. People fill those stadiums because they pay for talent, not because someone produced something.
Honestly, you keep insisting that I'm saying things I'm not. What is even your point? That I'm in the wrong to consider paying things to be the norm we should aspire to and that I'm wrong in finding justifications for piracy tasteless and self serving?
Well, of course you didn't say it, because you were talking in incomplete sentences. "Piracy is wrong. End of." You're holding too close to the hard line. That kind of thinking leads to being hardheadded and unreasonable. There are more angles and facets here that you have to be ignoring if that's your final word on it. THAT'S my point.

My point is - The creator of a work should be paid for the work they did. If they are not, it's usually a matter of practicality. That is to say, it's impossible to control how or when their work is used. And that's a good thing - I've never once disputed the right to resell or lend to anyone.

But if you want to use something. Or specifically, one copy of it - You pay for it. Even if it's shit, you pay for it. Pay, for what you use. Not only when you "feel" like it.
That's a fine ideal to hold, and I agree with the ideal, but it's not that simple, and you sound like you're ready to judge and condemn anyone that doesn't strictly hold that ideal as well.

What I'm arguing against primarily is the oft repeated justifications for piracy.

I don't buy that people have a right to "demo" the entire game before purchase. If that's supposed to be the norm, what do we even have game critics for?

What is a review for if you can just play anything you want at any time and pay only when you feel like it? I'm sorry, but having things (Indefinitely) before you decide to pay for them is not how anything works. You can test drive a car, but it's very rare that you get to keep it for weeks before deciding whether you want to pay for it or not.

There's merit to the idea of a subscription trial service, but there really isn't one for having the product without any sort of restriction, at any time, for any duration. That just leads to the excuse "I wouldn't have bought it anyway".

No, but you sure did play it.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Nor should there be.
I can't take much issue with the rest of this, because you're not being quite so hardlined about it (and where you are, I don't care enough to quibble your point). Just be more open minded dude. Not everyone is you, and their reasons are their own. The industry is thriving despite pirates, so getting as mad as you sound about it is just wasted energy.
 

Mutant1988

New member
Sep 9, 2013
672
0
0
Signa said:
I can't take much issue with the rest of this, because you're not being quite so hardlined about it (and where you are, I don't care enough to quibble your point). Just be more open minded dude. Not everyone is you, and their reasons are their own. The industry is thriving despite pirates, so getting as mad as you sound about it is just wasted energy.
Any opinion presented in a public environment can, will and often should be challenged. That's how progress is made.

Or at least that is how forums operate.

I am a bit peeved that piracy has essentially killed LAN. And I don't say that without reason. The increasing reliance on remote server authentication, servers or data storage is most definitely motivated by wanting pirates to buy multiplayer games and not pirate them - Because making the multiplayer work with those restrictions is next to impossible.

So yeah, no LAN? No way to sustain that feature of the game past the developers willingness to provide remote server authentication, game management or data storage. Servers gone? Never playing that again.

This also has the fun side effect of making singleplayer games less economically viable. Or riddled with mandatory online access restrictions (Uplay Rewards anyone?) and post-release purchases.

That's my personal investment AGAINST piracy. Piracy itself does not make these things happen, but it sure is a convenient excuse.

Believe me, I'm firmly on the side of the end user in this debate. But I cannot stand people justifying something like piracy. Pirate if you want, I can't stop you. But trying to paint it as morally right or necessary is just tasteless in the extreme. I will condemn anyone that publicly defend piracy. Because I don't consider it, in itself, to be worth defending.

I'd rather people just NOT play games they think are awful. That to me sends a better statement. And really, there is a wealth of information available to determine if you will like a game or not, before making a purchase (At any point in time).
 

sanquin

New member
Jun 8, 2011
1,837
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.
I believe the physical copies are. Or at least mine were when I bought them. I have both of them right here, DRM free.
 

sanquin

New member
Jun 8, 2011
1,837
0
0
DoPo said:
sanquin said:
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.
Not a good enough example The Witcher and The Witcher 2 both had DRM. It was later stripped, yes, but it was put there in the first place.

I think DRM has become some sort of myths and legends instead of, you know, actual thing.
No, the original witcher did not have any DRM. The witcher 2 did have, at first, but they listened and removed it. And that wasn't the point. The point is, with games that are DRM free, they still got enough sales to make another sequel.
 

Albino Boo

New member
Jun 14, 2010
4,667
0
0
sanquin 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.
I believe the physical copies are. Or at least mine were when I bought them. I have both of them right here, DRM free.
Thats right because you bought them that way everybody else did. Hmm lets looks at steam and finds both witcher 1 and 2 in my library.
 

DoPo

"You're not cleared for that."
Jan 30, 2012
8,665
0
0
sanquin said:
DoPo said:
sanquin said:
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.
Not a good enough example The Witcher and The Witcher 2 both had DRM. It was later stripped, yes, but it was put there in the first place.

I think DRM has become some sort of myths and legends instead of, you know, actual thing.
No, the original witcher did not have any DRM. The witcher 2 did have, at first, but they listened and removed it. And that wasn't the point. The point is, with games that are DRM free, they still got enough sales to make another sequel.
Incorrect. Or maybe I do not know how the world works. Can you clarify something - let's say you have an apple and remove it - you're left with no apples, yes? However, how would you remove an apple from nothing...how does that work? Because the DRM was removed from the Witcher 1 [http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/1.5_patch]. If there was no DRM before, how would that be possible?

And further, if there wasn't any DRM, why do the DEVELOPERS of all people, claim there was

Giant Bomb: Can you talk about why CD Projekt RED chose to use DRM in the past? Ideally, what did you hope to achieve?

Marcin Iwinski: With The Witcher 1 it was not our choice, as it was a development deal and we had Atari as a publisher. That said, I should admit that at that time we just followed the ?industry standard? and did not consider DRM-free to be a cause worth dying for. We already had our opinion about it, but contractually we did not have a say. When the game was released we even held some hope that the DRM would help sales and wouldn?t be cracked for some time, but events proved us wrong: as with every DRMed game, it was cracked in no time.
source [http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/cd-projekt-red-waves-goodbye-to-drm/1100-4783/]
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Mutant1988 said:
Is it that hard to understand that I'm arguing against the attitudes expressed in favour of piracy and not in any way believe that piracy can be stopped?

You pay for the unrestricted use of one copy. That's different from a public display. That's different from seeing someone else's copy.
Because piracy CAN be stopped. The very expectations that you have about organizing the gaming industry in a way that "you pay for the unrestricted use of one copy", feed into the justification to keep regulating file-sharing through DRM.

No one pirates Wikipedia. No one pirates radio shows. No one pirates street musicians. No one pirates fireworks displays. No one pirates web serial novels. Therefore, they don't have DRM either.

We are surrounded by myriads of examples of people's work being freely accessible for everyone as a matter of fact, while still being economically viable. You can make a justification for each of them.

That games have picked another model, one that their nature makes them particularly unfit for, is the problem that causes piracy and DRM and much bigger problems along with them.

Mutant1988 said:
Your fireworks analogy is ridiculously off-base. No one is forcing anyone to pirate anything.
I don't get it. Did I say that anyone forces people in the analogy to look up to the sky? They are allowed look downwards, or stay indoors, if they don't want to pay. We can only assume that many would pick a third option and watch anyways for free.

The point of comarison was supposed to be that both are unlikely to be successfully regulated, and in that case, people WILL end up "doing whatever they damn well please". Therefore, we shape our business models around that knowledge.

Mutant1988 said:
The issue is not the nature of restrictions, but people's attitudes and the inconvenience that companies impose on actual customers.

That and just poverty in general. It sucks to not be able to afford things. Still doesn't mean you should go around and try to paint piracy as something grander than it is.
But piracy *is* something grander than it is.

And by that, I mean that when you condemn the specific act of illegal software piracy, you use language and rationalization that also ends up condemning the general principle of information freedom.

All right, people shouldn't break the law. But your talk of "no such thing as a free lunch", and how "getting something for free is tasteless", entirely ignores that NOT every concept is working around that principle, only rivalous goods specifically. When you bring poverty into the matter, you talk as if games were a scarce resource that there isn't enough of for everyone, and we are sadly forced to restrict them to paying customers or there would be less for those who can pay.

Because if there isn't, you would have to face the issue that no matter how tastless the idea of "getting something for free" feels, often it's the most effective arrangement.
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
Mutant1988 said:
Signa said:
I can't take much issue with the rest of this, because you're not being quite so hardlined about it (and where you are, I don't care enough to quibble your point). Just be more open minded dude. Not everyone is you, and their reasons are their own. The industry is thriving despite pirates, so getting as mad as you sound about it is just wasted energy.
Any opinion presented in a public environment can, will and often should be challenged. That's how progress is made.

Or at least that is how forums operate.

I am a bit peeved that piracy has essentially killed LAN. And I don't say that without reason. The increasing reliance on remote server authentication, servers or data storage is most definitely motivated by wanting pirates to buy multiplayer games and not pirate them - Because making the multiplayer work with those restrictions is next to impossible.

So yeah, no LAN? No way to sustain that feature of the game past the developers willingness to provide remote server authentication, game management or data storage. Servers gone? Never playing that again.

This also has the fun side effect of making singleplayer games less economically viable. Or riddled with mandatory online access restrictions (Uplay Rewards anyone?) and post-release purchases.

That's my personal investment AGAINST piracy. Piracy itself does not make these things happen, but it sure is a convenient excuse.

Believe me, I'm firmly on the side of the end user in this debate. But I cannot stand people justifying something like piracy. Pirate if you want, I can't stop you. But trying to paint it as morally right or necessary is just tasteless in the extreme. I will condemn anyone that publicly defend piracy. Because I don't consider it, in itself, to be worth defending.

I'd rather people just NOT play games they think are awful. That to me sends a better statement. And really, there is a wealth of information available to determine if you will like a game or not, before making a purchase (At any point in time).
Just like with DRM, locking the multiplayer behind remote servers hasn't stopped the pirates. The pirates have their own... I don't know what you would call them, pirate servers I guess, where they play the online multiplayer. And guess what; It actually works over Lan that way, so this is yet again another instance of developers pushing out worse versions of the game than the pirates who have cracked their "protection". I understand that the developers want to say that pirates are the reason for all of this, but they aren't that stupid. They know that it isn't stopping them, so ask yourself the real reason why they are still doing things like making the multiplayer remote server or lobby system only.

You can blame the Pirates all you wish, but this is something that has existed for ages, long before they even came up with the concept of a CD key. Hell, even before there was such a thing as CDs (back in the cartridge days, there were still pirates, though it was admittedly harder). The fact is, the devs use piracy as an excuse to implement features that serve the developer's purpose and not the customer, and the publishers demand DRM because they don't fully understand how the mechanics fully play out.

If there were no pirates, there would still be shitty business practices like Always Online and Company owned servers. Why? Because it prevents Modding, and modding lowers the sales numbers for DLC. Why buy a map pack, when there are a thousand maps out there for free that are just as good if not better. Why buy this new adventure module that costs $14 and lasts 2 hours, when I can download an entirely new campaign for free?

I don't even know for sure that DRM would go away if pirates disappeared entirely. With the attitude that game companies have had lately, they would likely decide that since the DRM scared the pirates away, they need to keep it in the games to prevent their return (this is a bit of hyperbole, but not that far from how I think companies like Ubisoft, EA, and Activision would react).

As I said before. If you want to see fewer pirates, fewer day one bugs, and less shitty practices like the aforementioned region lock and pricing issues, then we need to find a way for customers in the gaming industry to have some form of recourse when they get served up a shit game. Legal action needs to be taken when a company uses underhanded tactics that literally amount to lying to hype a game and boost day 1 sales since they know follow up sales will suck. There also needs to be some form of oversight that watches the business practices for the exploitative and vile practices that are in place today. In return there needs to be harsher punishment for the people that crack a game and then share it with the entire internet. There should be some form of protection in place for both ends, but since the companies have all the power right now, they are already protected. Thus the oft heard vote with your wallets. Stop buying from companies that utilize shitty DRM that eats SSDs, causes crashes, and/or otherwise prevents you from being able to play the game you paid their asking price for.