Atari Founder: PC Piracy About to be Eradicated

[The Rogue Wolf]

THE IDEA IS TO PREVENT NORMAL PEOPLE WHO AREN'T NORMALLY PIRATES FROM PIRATING THE GAME. IF YOU MAKE IT SLIGHTLY MORE DIFFICULT FOR PIRATING, THEN YOU DO ELIMINATE SOME PIRATING BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE WON'T FIND IT WORTH THEIR TIME TO PIRATE.

But herein lies a question. If this anti-piracy DRM makes it impossible for me to play the game I have legitimately purchased, what recourse do I have? It's highly unlikely I'll be able to return it, due to most retail outlets' strict PC-games return policies; am I simply supposed to just eat the cost, and be stuck with a $60 coaster? With almost any other product there would be an uproar about this sort of thing, but gamers are expected to accept it as an "unavoidable issue".

Sorry, but if I paid for a game and found it didn't work, I would have absolutely no qualms about downloading a cracked copy.

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

And who are all these people unable to run legit games because of the copy protection? I buy tons of games from all manor of developers and I have never had any copy protection get in the way of my gaming.

Ah, yes. You've never been arrested for a crime you didn't commit, therefore there's no such thing as a corrupt cop, judge or law. Only the guilty need to fear!

Enjoy your digital police state. Sucker.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

A whole lot of words to illustrate a point

...That is the best first post I have seen since joining this site. I salute you and whole-heartedly agree with everything you said.

 

[Blayze]

Heh. Take a look at a game manual, guys. From the inside front cover of my manual for Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance (PS2):

"Unauthorised copying, adaptation, rental, lending, distribution, extraction, re-sale, arcade use, charging for use, broadcast, public performance and internet, cable or any telecommunications transmission, access or use of this product or any trademark or copyright work that forms part of this product are prohibited."

Since I remember thinking to myself "They're gonna arrest me for lending my games out?" after reading the small print in manuals as a kid, I'll assume that's a global warning. Take a closer look at it.

"...lending..." we've already covered, but what about "...broadcast, public performance and internet..."? Well, that's YouTube gone for a start. "...adaptation..."? There goes the entire fanfiction-writing crowd. "...broadcast..."? Now we can't play it multiplayer, or at least not with somebody who hasn't bought a copy of the game.

Anyway, back to the business at hand. This supposed wonder-chip will no nothing at all. If the hardware's uncrackable - which I doubt - then the software will be the target of choice. If not that, then there'll be a bypass available.

I pay for games, but this DRM issue is a pain in the arse. If I've got a choice between jumping through a bunch of hoops to appease the corporations so that I'm allowed to play a game or jumping through the same bunch of hoops just to be able to give them the finger and play the same game anyway, I'd take the latter.

 

[Samirat]

OK, Cheeze, I've never watched Lazy Sunday, whatever the hell that is. I have, however, pirated software, so I'm guilty too. And my "be quiet" to you was referring entirely to your black hole thing, which, needless to say, sounded fairly stupid.

holier-than-thou

"Holier-than-thou" is a great expression.

 

[Dejawesp]

And the number of sheep (Dejawesp) that are just fine with companies controlling their actions is just sickening. Seriously, if you feel that's fine, why not give up your civil liberties? It's not like us good people who are paying for our software have anything to fear right? The system is clearly infallible.

You're delusional. I buy a game. I install it and I play it. That formula has'nt changed since my first computer. Where do violations against civil liberty come in or mind control for that matter?

What else are you paranoid about? 9/11 government conspiracy? Bush family devil cult? Brainwashing chemicals in cereal?

 

[Dejawesp]

But herein lies a question. If this anti-piracy DRM makes it impossible for me to play the game I have legitimately purchased, what recourse do I have? It's highly unlikely I'll be able to return it, due to most retail outlets' strict PC-games return policies; am I simply supposed to just eat the cost, and be stuck with a $60 coaster? With almost any other product there would be an uproar about this sort of thing, but gamers are expected to accept it as an "unavoidable issue".

Sorry, but if I paid for a game and found it didn't work, I would have absolutely no qualms about downloading a cracked copy.

What copy protection makes a game unplayable for a legitimate user?

People keep using this excuse but I have never ran into a game I could'nt play due to any copy protection.

 

[Dejawesp]

And who are all these people unable to run legit games because of the copy protection? I buy tons of games from all manor of developers and I have never had any copy protection get in the way of my gaming.

Ah, yes. You've never been arrested for a crime you didn't commit, therefore there's no such thing as a corrupt cop, judge or law. Only the guilty need to fear!

Enjoy your digital police state. Sucker.

See that't not how the world works. First you need illustrate that a game is indeed unplayable due to it's copy protection and then we can debate it. It's not a given per default just because you are too lazy to make a point.

 

[Dejawesp]

This thread needs to be locked before the stupidity gets so dense a black hole forms in the region of the The Escapist's servers and sucks us all in.

What?? Just be quiet.

So you've never watched copyrighted material on YouTube?

Seriously--anyone going on and on about the rights of the companies to not have you enjoy their products for free, that means one of two things:

1) You've never watched any material on YouTube that was copyrighted

OR (basically everyone, right?)

2) It raises the question: how do you reconcile ignoring one copyright and getting something for free when it comes to a site like YouTube, but not when it comes to cracked games? Especially when a company like YouTube got all its early traffic and therefore whatever value it had as a business from blatant copyright infringement.

Let he who has never watched "Lazy Sunday" make the first argument about software piracy.

It's not copyright infringement to watch those things. It's copyright infringement if you actualy copy them. Which puts the responsibility on the shoulders of the people who host the youtube servers.

Since I remember thinking to myself "They're gonna arrest me for lending my games out?" after reading the small print in manuals as a kid, I'll assume that's a global warning. Take a closer look at it.

They can write whatever they want in the manual. Does'nt make it legaly binding. Just like when a clothing store says you can't return items bought on sale but in reality you can.

"Sins of a Solar Empire apparently sold around 200,000 copies in its first month of release, generating about $8,000,000 of (retail) revenue - and it is now the highest rated PC game of 2008.

And it did all this without having any CD copy protection."

Actualy "Sins of a Solar Empire" does have copy protection. Just look through the cd or even the cover and you will find

© 2003-2008 Ironclad Games Corporation Vancouver, BC. All rights reserved.
© 2006-2008 Stardock Entertainment"

Also known as "copyright" and perhaps the most effective part of copy protection because it allows them to take action against any server that hosts their game for download.

 

[runtheplacered]

The reason that prices are so high IS the piracy.

False.

And since I have to have this argument every time any forum mentions the word piracy, (because inevitably some guy like you says that, for whatever reason) I'm not really going to say much more then that right now. I'm just burnt out on the topic.

 

[runtheplacered]

"Sins of a Solar Empire apparently sold around 200,000 copies in its first month of release, generating about $8,000,000 of (retail) revenue - and it is now the highest rated PC game of 2008.

And it did all this without having any CD copy protection."

Actualy "Sins of a Solar Empire" does have copy protection. Just look through the cd or even the cover and you will find

© 2003-2008 Ironclad Games Corporation Vancouver, BC. All rights reserved.
© 2006-2008 Stardock Entertainment"

Also known as "copyright" and perhaps the most effective part of copy protection because it allows them to take action against any server that hosts their game for download.

So you're backing up his point? Your stance is confusing to me.

Copyright isn't copy protection anymore then a helmet law is head protection.

 

[Nugoo]

What copy protection makes a game unplayable for a legitimate user?

People keep using this excuse but I have never ran into a game I could'nt play due to any copy protection.

Civilization III's v1.29f patch introduces new copy protection to the game in the form of some sort of information request from the CD. Since this patch was released after the game, the CD doesn't have the requested information, so you cannot play Civ III after patching due to copy protection. Note that this problem will probably never be fixed, since that's the last patch for the game. I bought the game legitimately and had to download a noCD crack to play it.

Also, various implementations of SecuROM, including that on Neverwinter Nights 2, which I also bought legitimately, prevent the game from being run if a program called Process Explorer has been run since the last time the computer booted. Process Explorer is nothing more than an improved version of Windows XP's task manager, and is not a copyright circumvention tool in any way.

Actualy "Sins of a Solar Empire" does have copy protection. Just look through the cd or even the cover and you will find

© 2003-2008 Ironclad Games Corporation Vancouver, BC. All rights reserved.
© 2006-2008 Stardock Entertainment"

Also known as "copyright" and perhaps the most effective part of copy protection because it allows them to take action against any server that hosts their game for download.

Copy prevention is a way of preventing illegal copying of a product, so copyrighting is pretty much the opposite of that, since the ultimate prevention of illegal copying is to make all copying legal. Please note that I am not advocating the abolishment of copyrights. I also find it ironic that you make this point immediately after saying that the contents of the manual aren't legally binding.

It's not copyright infringement to watch those things. It's copyright infringement if you actualy copy them. Which puts the responsibility on the shoulders of the people who host the youtube servers.

How is this different from saying that infringement with respect to games is committed by the person who cracks it, and the people who download it are not responsible?

 

[Undeed]

To anyone defending the corporations with the argument that they are losing significant amounts of money: That's garbage. I will admit that money is lost when a game is pirated, but the profit margins in the gaming industry are ridiculous. And profit means after everyone got their checks and the electric bill's been paid. You don't make billions of dollars when you're as stricken as they claim to be. Also, I've noticed emulators brought up a couple of times, and not met with the same blinding criticisms. Is downloading a copy of a game no longer sold different from one that is? Why? You're still getting a free product.

Pirates claiming it does no damage to the industry: This is false logic. It may do no immediate fiscal damage, but most companies decide how and what they produce based on what's being bought. That's why there's a flood of crap games for the Wii: It's popular, and people buy it. The only input consumer x has on products sold is that which his dollar gives him. If you're not willing to pay for a game because you can get it for free, and neither is anyone else, what's seen is a drop-off of interest in a genre or system. Short term benefit, long term harm.

I've only heard one remotely reasonable compromise: Find out why piracy exists, and take steps to solve those problems. Anything else is just making things more complicated than they need to be, and forces consumers into a bad spot. Gaming companies need to start working with people who pirate, and vice-versa, to find a better way. Otherwise we'll end up with what we have here- A mountain of rhetoric on either side with no one moving towards a solution.

 

[Girlysprite]

We do seem to have two problems here; the companies putting ridiculous copy protections on their softwares, and pirates. Now, two wrongs don't make a right though. One can still be anti-piracy and also take a stand against the stupid copy protections.

Cheeze, I think that technically, people never really 'owned' the software. After all, reverse engineering is prohibited and I think it always has been. If one truly owned the software, that would not be the problem.

However, the possibilities to actually change the terms of use are now there, while they weren't around in the past (no internet).

The answer to all of this is not piracy though. It's fighting for better consumer rights. People should be able to use their software as they bought it, indefinitely.

As for piracy, I think the current stance of the industry does no-one any good. Trying to shout 'THIEVES!' at pirates pushes them in a position where they try to defend themselves, as seen in this thread, instead of making them think about what they do, and why. Companies should spend more thought on rewarding honest buyers, and maybe education of the consumers in general.