Chair With DRM Collapses After Being Sat On Eight Times

[Lovely Mixture]

On the contrary, designing something to reliably fail takes a fair amount of craftsmanship.

I fail to see what you're trying to say with this. I would disagree otherwise, considering that it's only a matter of removing things (convenience, functions, or something necessary).

 

[Treblaine]

Uhh, is that my stance?

It kind of is. You've even tried to justify bad metaphors to that end.

Quoting the witless and banal Dr Cox doesn't really change the flaws in your argument.

What flaw? You just misrepresented my argument without any explanation.

That's just a diplomatic way of saying "shoddily built".

On the contrary, designing something to reliably fail takes a fair amount of craftsmanship.

But what people label "designed obsolescence" don't "reliably fail". They just cut corners like not bothering with anti-rust measures. That's not craftsmanship and the failure is unreliable as it depends on many uncontrollable factors.

The problem here is that you don't like it, so you're attaching terms and concepts that don't match but carry negative weight in an attempt to drag it down.

You could simply say "I dislike this," or "planned obsolescence is dumb" and be both more honest and more accurate.

How do you know what I like and don't like? Are you psychic?

I am being accurate and honest, are you saying I am knowingly telling falsehoods with intention to deceive?

 

[Madgamer13]

This is quite interesting, but while the logic is clear in attempting to draw a comparison between DRM function in entertainment media and that of a chair, the point of the comparison is lost when you compare the respective areas specifically.

Computer software is programming and computer gaming usually includes systems to facilitate gaming, this means that the more systems that support a game are connected to central servers, the software becomes more and more like a service, than a specific product. Publishers are catching onto this and are trying to take gaming towards being a service, so they can engage in consumer subscription and microtransation impulse. This is a smart business move, since service based practice has a time span defined by the provider, the publisher in this case, the span of the service dependent on the condition and whims of the publisher.

The chair used in this video is what can be considered a product, when you purchase a chair, you buy that model of, or a specific chair for your own use. More advanced purchases simply include more chairs. While agreements can accompany products, these agreements are usually services within themselves and only include support for the product. This ultimately means that time span of a product is defined by the consumer, limited only by the condition of the product.

Gaming publishers really had two choices in the face of online 'piracy' the first being to sabotage their products to ensure that more units would be sold, or to develop a protection system to ensure high quality and continous delivery of the product. Unfortunately, a term of service for a product is not appropriate for a publisher, since they wouldn't be able to properly define the time span of that supporting service for their product, if the product itself was not a service.

In my opinion, they took the safest route, publishers are now encompassing their services around the former product of gaming and attempting to turn gaming into a service itself. With gaming becoming a service, the publisher will be able to define the time span of use for their service and ensure that the condition of their service is dependent on the status and whims of the company. This is safer for the company because having the capacity to determine their service means they do not have to suffer the whims of the consumer.

If gaming was still a product, companies would rise and fall to the chaotic likes and dislikes of the consumer, having to go with the tide in order to simply stay alive in their industry. Having control over the service of gaming does let publishers define the whims of a consumer, making highly profitable franchises such as call of duty or final fantasy that they can just continually extend because people will just keep on buying into this service.

I believe at this point that the existance of DRM already means that this process has been completed by publishers and gaming is now a service. Whether consumers like it or not, they're now buying into something they cannot control. As such, I think that consumers should just get used to the likes of EA bending them over and extracting the sweet, sweet profit margins that sustain this type of process, since the only way any of this can be changed now is by a change in legislation. Eventually, governments around the world will start to want some of that profit publishers have been making and will force them to give them some, maybe then we'll see DRM being used differently.

Until then, be used to having to pay £20 a month for Call of Battlefield 13: Modernly Futuristic Nerf Fights.

 

[Strazdas]

I didnt know limited installed was a thing

thats essentially rendering a product you PAID for useless after a certain amount of time

thats the thing. you dont pay for a product. you pay for a serivice. in this case ability to install and play this game x amount of times. like paying for a bus ride. you dont actually buy a chain in the bus.

 

[Aiberg]

Damn those French hipsters!

 

[MarsProbe]

Now I want to see an always-online table. Or a way to reconstitute the chair after donating talking to customer service...

I suppose if your table had to permanently connected to your oven in order for you to be able to eat off it even after you having have finished cooking your dinner, that would kind of similar.

Captcha: which service allows you to place a free £25 bet on cheltenham?

Do I actually have to get that one right?

 

[mokes310]

This is quite interesting, but while the logic is clear in attempting to draw a comparison between DRM function in entertainment media and that of a chair, the point of the comparison is lost when you compare the respective areas specifically.

Computer software is programming and computer gaming usually includes systems to facilitate gaming, this means that the more systems that support a game are connected to central servers, the software becomes more and more like a service, than a specific product. Publishers are catching onto this and are trying to take gaming towards being a service, so they can engage in consumer subscription and microtransation impulse. This is a smart business move, since service based practice has a time span defined by the provider, the publisher in this case, the span of the service dependent on the condition and whims of the publisher.

The chair used in this video is what can be considered a product, when you purchase a chair, you buy that model of, or a specific chair for your own use. More advanced purchases simply include more chairs. While agreements can accompany products, these agreements are usually services within themselves and only include support for the product. This ultimately means that time span of a product is defined by the consumer, limited only by the condition of the product.

Gaming publishers really had two choices in the face of online 'piracy' the first being to sabotage their products to ensure that more units would be sold, or to develop a protection system to ensure high quality and continous delivery of the product. Unfortunately, a term of service for a product is not appropriate for a publisher, since they wouldn't be able to properly define the time span of that supporting service for their product, if the product itself was not a service.

In my opinion, they took the safest route, publishers are now encompassing their services around the former product of gaming and attempting to turn gaming into a service itself. With gaming becoming a service, the publisher will be able to define the time span of use for their service and ensure that the condition of their service is dependent on the status and whims of the company. This is safer for the company because having the capacity to determine their service means they do not have to suffer the whims of the consumer.

If gaming was still a product, companies would rise and fall to the chaotic likes and dislikes of the consumer, having to go with the tide in order to simply stay alive in their industry. Having control over the service of gaming does let publishers define the whims of a consumer, making highly profitable franchises such as call of duty or final fantasy that they can just continually extend because people will just keep on buying into this service.

I believe at this point that the existance of DRM already means that this process has been completed by publishers and gaming is now a service. Whether consumers like it or not, they're now buying into something they cannot control. As such, I think that consumers should just get used to the likes of EA bending them over and extracting the sweet, sweet profit margins that sustain this type of process, since the only way any of this can be changed now is by a change in legislation. Eventually, governments around the world will start to want some of that profit publishers have been making and will force them to give them some, maybe then we'll see DRM being used differently.

Until then, be used to having to pay £20 a month for Call of Battlefield 13: Modernly Futuristic Nerf Fights.

Absolutely brilliantly said, and pretty much what I was trying to get across earlier. It is their attempt to redefine the term "own" which should really read "lease." Those who watch the video and take it for a 1:1 relationship are missing the over-arching metaphor. Their was a time when you purchased a product and used it at your own direction, be it legal or not. Now, they want to tell us that we own the product, but cannot use it at our own direction.

Yes, piracy is bad, mmm'kay, but being told when and how I can use a product that I supposedly "purchased/ow" is, as I would argue, far worse.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

You know, I just realized. They should put in a leg rest that only unfolds when you insert quarters into it, that way they can emulate DLC.

 

[nerdwerds]

Only fools and suckers "begrudgingly accept" DRM. The correct course of action is to reject it outright.

That limits you to gog.com and some humble bundles.

Be realistic.

That's a really narrow view of what's available in the video game market, and those aren't the only things available.

I am realistic. I don't NEED to buy a video game like I need to buy food or gas or pay rent. Games are a luxury, and I don't pay for luxuries that I don't own. Always-on DRM is a renting service for a video game with a $50 buy in. That's not my idea of fun.
What happens when the company stops running the server? What happens when your internet service goes down? What happens when the company releases a sequel and stops supporting the previous title? You lose the game, and you lose $50.
I still own my Super Nintendo and all the games for it, but it would just be a pile of junky plastic if I had to login to a service to play those games, because you think Nintendo would still be supporting a SNES system with always-on DRM? No way! They'd only be supporting the Wii and WiiU and the selection of games you can play on there.

So be realistic. Support game companies who treat the consumer right and this bullshit will eventually go away. Keep throwing money at companies that rent their games to you instead of selling them to you and this bullshit will just get worse.

 

[lacktheknack]

Only fools and suckers "begrudgingly accept" DRM. The correct course of action is to reject it outright.

That limits you to gog.com and some humble bundles.

Be realistic.

That's a really narrow view of what's available in the video game market, and those aren't the only things available.

I am realistic. I don't NEED to buy a video game like I need to buy food or gas or pay rent. Games are a luxury, and I don't pay for luxuries that I don't own. Always-on DRM is a renting service for a video game with a $50 buy in. That's not my idea of fun.
What happens when the company stops running the server? What happens when your internet service goes down? What happens when the company releases a sequel and stops supporting the previous title? You lose the game, and you lose $50.
I still own my Super Nintendo and all the games for it, but it would just be a pile of junky plastic if I had to login to a service to play those games, because you think Nintendo would still be supporting a SNES system with always-on DRM? No way! They'd only be supporting the Wii and WiiU and the selection of games you can play on there.

So be realistic. Support game companies who treat the consumer right and this bullshit will eventually go away. Keep throwing money at companies that rent their games to you instead of selling them to you and this bullshit will just get worse.

I AM realistic. I don't buy anything with always-on, but do buy stuff with more reasonable DRM (say, Steam).

In your first post, you said:

Only fools and suckers "begrudgingly accept" DRM. The correct course of action is to reject it outright.

You know, ALL DRM.

And if you're a PC gamer, like myself, then rejecting ALL DRM leads to buying only, as I said, gog.com swag and some humble bundles.

Unless you were only talking about Always-On, in which case you should probably type a bit more carefully.

 

[nerdwerds]

In your first post, you said:

Only fools and suckers "begrudgingly accept" DRM. The correct course of action is to reject it outright.

You know, ALL DRM.

...

Unless you were only talking about Always-On, in which case you should probably type a bit more carefully.

I don't know of anybody who complains about ALL DRM in all of it's iterations. As far as I know there's no planned obsolescence in most DRM, so when you buy a digital thing you own it forever. If DRM requires a connection, or only allows you to install the game a certain number of times, that's bad, and then you're only renting the game, you don't actuall own a copy of it.

A simple inference was needed to understand my one-line statement, but I only followed up on my comment to clarify what I meant. Perhaps you shouldn't react to pithy comments with literal and histrionic interpretations?

 

[lacktheknack]

In your first post, you said:

Only fools and suckers "begrudgingly accept" DRM. The correct course of action is to reject it outright.

You know, ALL DRM.

...

Unless you were only talking about Always-On, in which case you should probably type a bit more carefully.

I don't know of anybody who complains about ALL DRM in all of it's iterations. As far as I know there's no planned obsolescence in most DRM, so when you buy a digital thing you own it forever. If DRM requires a connection, or only allows you to install the game a certain number of times, that's bad, and then you're only renting the game, you don't actuall own a copy of it.

A simple inference was needed to understand my one-line statement, but I only followed up on my comment to clarify what I meant. Perhaps you shouldn't react to pithy comments with literal and histrionic interpretations?

I don't think histrionic means what you think it means.

Also, this is the internet. Poe's Law reigns, don't miss words or use hyperbole unless you're prepared to be misunderstood. Also, a "simple inference" would have let you know there was a communication error in my first reply.

 

[nerdwerds]

Also, this is the internet. Poe's Law reigns, don't miss words or use hyperbole unless you're prepared to be misunderstood. Also, a "simple inference" would have let you know there was a communication error in my first reply.

I don't think "Poe's Law" means what you think it means.
And confirm, error, in talking, make more words necessary. You know the stuff!

 

[Atmos Duality]

Comparable or not, that's a brilliant visual metaphor.

 

[Lieju]

why do you think appliances from the 70's still work, but that washing machine you bought five years ago already needs to be replaced or repaired? It's not like we've gotten worse at engineering in the meantime

A lot of the newer machinery is more complex, though, so there are more things that can go wrong. And they also overheat more.

Not saying that doesn't happen, but there are other reasons for why new gadgets don't last as long.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

A lot of the newer machinery is more complex, though, so there are more things that can go wrong. And they also overheat more.

Not saying that doesn't happen, but there are other reasons for why new gadgets don't last as long.

Like cheaper components to drive sales up by causing failure more often.

 

[Lieju]

A lot of the newer machinery is more complex, though, so there are more things that can go wrong. And they also overheat more.

Not saying that doesn't happen, but there are other reasons for why new gadgets don't last as long.

Like cheaper components to drive sales up by causing failure more often.

And using specialised parts that make it more difficult to fix them.

My computer broke a while ago, and the part they'd require to fix it would cost more than what the machine cost when it was new.

 

[AbstractJuggler]

The only way this would be remotely like DRM is if a game rendered itself unplayable after you PLAYED it eight times. The chair isn't being "installed", it's being "played". It would make sense if it broke itself after you moved house 7 times, or it was sold on 7 more times to different people, one after another, but it just seems they tried to make an analogy and then managed to mess it up.

Plus can't you just be like "Hey I uninstalled this can I have another install?" and then they're all like "Yeah sure go ahead" and everything turned out okay? A minor inconvenience, sure, but it's not as invasive as that one game that won't play itself if you have a certain program installed on your PC, or as annoying as always-online DRM (especially with my janky internet connection).

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

why do you think appliances from the 70's still work, but that washing machine you bought five years ago already needs to be replaced or repaired? It's not like we've gotten worse at engineering in the meantime

A lot of the newer machinery is more complex, though, so there are more things that can go wrong. And they also overheat more.

Not saying that doesn't happen, but there are other reasons for why new gadgets don't last as long.

This is mostly true, but have you ever taken one apart? I had to get intimate with the guts of a modern washing machine recently. They're still basically mechanical deals, only the timers are computerized, and those don't fail often. The mechanical parts, on the other hand, are crap. Or at least the one I had to deal with was.

 

[Lieju]

why do you think appliances from the 70's still work, but that washing machine you bought five years ago already needs to be replaced or repaired? It's not like we've gotten worse at engineering in the meantime

A lot of the newer machinery is more complex, though, so there are more things that can go wrong. And they also overheat more.

Not saying that doesn't happen, but there are other reasons for why new gadgets don't last as long.

This is mostly true, but have you ever taken one apart? I had to get intimate with the guts of a modern washing machine recently. They're still basically mechanical deals, only the timers are computerized, and those don't fail often. The mechanical parts, on the other hand, are crap. Or at least the one I had to deal with was.

I don't really have experience with newer washing machines, but the old 70's one we have have pretty much nothing inside of it, just the bare-bones machinery.

It also did break during the 90's, and my mom had trouble deciding if getting it fixed was worth it, because it was pretty expensive. But it was worth it.

If buying a new one would have been much cheaper than fixing one, she would have gotten a new one, and we wouldn't have our old 70's washing machine still in use.

I think that's a problem in modern culture; buying new one instead of getting the old one fixed. And can you blame the consumers in many cases? Like with my computer, where getting it fixed would have cost more than the computer cost when it was new, and just getting a new one was so much cheaper for me?

Instead of reusing and buying the consumers are encouraged or forced to buy new. That's not sustainable.

This ties to the DRM-issue as well; buying used copies is made harder, so you'd pay for a new one instead.
I don't have as much of an issue with this if we're talking about digital distribution, but if you're manufacturing a physical copy, it's a waste of material and work if it's limited how many times it can be sold.

In general I don't have that much of an issue with the gaming-companies going more towards selling a service than a product, but the service needs to be reliable, and the price needs to reflect the fact that I might not be able to play the game years from now.