Jimquisition: Piracy - Trying To Kill It Makes It Stronger

[AhumbleKnight]

Ok.... when did we get so ridiculously entitled that a company deserves to burn at the stake and have their property stolen from them... because they made us finger in a code that takes all of 45 seconds of your life to punch in. Really? Fucking really?

You call it 'burning at the stake' and 'entitlement', I call it 'customer feedback' and 'angry and frustrated'.
Also, it takes a fuck load longer than 45 seconds to punch in a code. It took me half an hour to get Batman AA working with that DRM + my shitty internet connection. It took over four fucking hours to get the broken assed shitty DRM in Dragon Age to work properly. And I have it far better (and worse) than a lot of people out there. We, the customers, are not happy. My spare time is short. I don't get that much of it and I would like to spend none of that time on DRM bs!

EA may not have won any favors with enforcing Origin for Battlefield 3... but I haven't seen them abusing their playerbase with it either. Newsflash: EA doesn't give a shit what porn you watch. As if Origin even scans for those kind of files...

If that is what you think people are annoyed with then you have completely missed the point. I don't claim to talk for anybody else, but for me; I don't want anybody to scan my computer for any reason that is outside the fair use of their product. Origin has no opt out options for that level of invasion of privacy.

But if you truly must condemn EA for their use of Origin... there's always the console version. No Origin on that, only a registration code. But apparently that's a crime against humanity as well.

So you're saying that if I don't like Origin I should go out and buy a console so I can play a game I am interested in on a platform I would prefer not to use? Don't be stupid.

 

[idodo35]

damn true i stopped playing xbox almost completely and moved to steam because these exact reasons!
thank god for jim...

 

[RDubayoo]

Actually I think that you can fight piracy to a significant degree, and the key to it, I believe, is to shut down torrent sites that facilitate the practice. If that can be done consistently and legally, all the freeloaders out there will have no choice but to purchase the products they want rather than steal them. It's sort of like stopping drug-dealing. Yes, the cops can bust dozens of drug-users, but it's much better to get the suppliers, and move up the chain of command as far as you can, and in so doing cut off their customers. So, the title of the video doesn't make a lot of sense as it only applies to DRM rather than more practical solutions.

Further, the example provided by iTunes doesn't take into account a major difference between music and games. A song downloaded on iTunes can be very cheap to purchase, but a full retail game can go for about 50-60 bucks. That's the real problem with videogame piracy--it's not simply the inconvenience customers don't want to deal with (though said inconvenience, as pointed out by others, is SOLELY the fault of the pirates in the first place) but the PRICE. A game is a much harder investment to swallow. Why pay that much money when you can just torrent it? And I don't wanna hear anybody say that this isn't why people pirate. I know two people who openly admitted to me that they pirate games because they can't afford them, so spare me the excuses.

Thirdly, his position that the publishers themselves are stealing the IP's is ridiculous. Yes, it sucks that the creator of Metal Arms can't produce new games in the franchise, it sucks that Activision is just sitting on it, but without a big publisher to back his game would we have any Metal Arms games at all? Probably not, and that's why we have big publishers. Sorry, but that's how it works. And it's not like the pirates discriminate between games from big publishers and independent groups anyway!

Jim used to have a fairly good position on piracy, but the whole SOPA thing has seemingly derailed his thinking, like he feels a need to take out his anger on a bad decision on an entire industry. SOPA was a bad idea, sure, but seriously, it never would have occurred if not for the greed and complete absence of ethics on the part of the pirates. Sorry, Jim, but you're on the wrong side.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

Watching TV try to adapt to changing technology has got me thinking Jim is pretty spot on this time.

Some networks have looked at the changes in technology and decided it's best to be ahead of the curve instead of behind the curve. Instead of making it hard to find and watch their shows or requiring you to have cable to watch online they have made it simple and easy to find their shows online. You go to the site they get to advertise their other shows and the company makes a bit from ads as well. No need to deal with the hassle of a pirated copy of this week's Big Bang Theory if you can get it hassle free on the CBS website.

Things like Star Wars the Clone Wars is heavily pirated because you can't just go to the Cartoon Network site and watch it without a cable subscription. If you don't want to spend a load on cable and enter codes to watch a cartoon it's more convenient to just pirate the thing.

So I'm going to agree making the legal way the easiest and most hassle free way would be a better deterrent than punishing the people who are attempting to get something the legal way.

 

[FEichinger]

- snip -

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ ... I'm just gonna quote some Industry opinions on publishers and their current standing:

[W]e ended up cutting out the publishers and went to publishing our own games. Of course, now we have published a few other teams' games, I'm not sure what that makes us But most of that comes down to the ability to be able to fund the development int he first place - by hook or by crook. Alan Wilson, Tripwire Interactive

I do think publishers have too much power. Dave Herod, CodeMasters Software Company

Most Publishers aren't about quality, which is a big issue in the gaming industry right now.. Developers don't NEED Publishers, but they can USE them if they choose too.

As long as a Developer doesn't mind the fact that their company/game will take longer to get out there and make them money, they can do it alone. But there are things a Developer needs to make sure they do right... Make a great game - Always consider and respect their consumers, etc. Buying and playing a game is meant to be FUN, not an annoyance.

As a quick example... look at Cliff Harris of Positech Games.. he Develops his own games, he publishes his own games, he does his own tech support, etc... So, it's possible to do it without Publishers, even later once you grow large and prosperous from doing it the right way.

Most Publishers don't have the consumers interests at heart, they push the Developers too hard to get a game out for release with the attitude of "to heck with if it's ready or not", (which is NEVER a good move) because they just want it out there so THEY can make money fast.

Quality and Respect are key factors in truly being successful, but sadly those qualities have been lost over the years.

Well, that's my opinion anyway. Lisa Pham, Reclaim Your Game

[P]ublishers are overrated and antiquated. The days of publishers running the show are numbered. The costs of distribution have reduced the point where that service is of no real value for any digitally distributed title. Now all they provide is marketing, well that can be bought as well, so really they provide nothing except capital. Well finiding capital is part of any business venture so in reality they no longer bring anything to the table.

This is true across most mediums. Publishers are just a relic of the past, but they wont go quietly. Peter Stirling, Fireflight Technologies

Of course, I picked my quotes. But there is this motion, and it is quite apparent. On the other hand, of course, publishers are still needed in one way or the other. But they have way too much impact as it stands.

As for the anti-piracy measures ... Need to be blunt: Plain wrong. Shutting down torrent sites is just as counter-productive as the shutdown of Mega has proven to be. The files still exist and can easily be moved somewhere else. And it caused a massive amount of collateral damage up to this day already, and will do so even more when the servers can't be paid for anymore to keep the data living for the time being.

 

[zefiris]

The simple reason they don't do more stuff like steam is look what happened with origin as soon as it was announced everyone came out and said they hated it and would never use it and just pirate EA games so I can see why publishers would be put off this kind of service.

This is you being pretty silly.

People didn't complain about Origin because it was a paid service.

They complained because Origin is spyware with additional games you sometimes can play. They complained because Origin is downright illegal where I live. Sorry, I'm not going to let a company snoop through all my files. As simple as that. Only fools think that's acceptable.

The only reason.. the *only* reason.. piracy is as prevalent as it is is because of people like you who turn a blind eye to it and let others get away with it without condemning it.

Wrong. Piracy exists regardless if people condemn it or not. Theft is generally heavily frowned upon. Theft still exist. Your argument is a logical fallacy.

The exact opposite is true. Piracy exists because of people like you, who defend terrible business models and consumer punishing. Heck, most people I know that still play "modern" games pirate games they bought. Because the games they bought are unplayable at start, and the pirated versions work.

This fact alone shows how ridiculous the whining from the companies really is: Many pirates AREN'T EVEN THIEVES. They bought the games! They just can't play them properly without pirating a working copy. Things are getting that stupid these days: If a game sells 100000 times, and is pirates 50000 times, a lot of these 50000 are also in the 100000, so pretending the company lost 50000 sales is ludicrous.


Personally, I don't pirate, but I barely participate in the "normal" gaming market, because these games are a hassle and if I want to play in the limited time I have, I want to play right away.
I tend to buy indygames (bought from several japanese sites), because these games are actually fun, and let me play when I want to, not when the company wants to allow me to.

(Plus, female characters playable, which many companies think is too modern, apparently)

 

[getoffmycloud]

The simple reason they don't do more stuff like steam is look what happened with origin as soon as it was announced everyone came out and said they hated it and would never use it and just pirate EA games so I can see why publishers would be put off this kind of service.

This is you being pretty silly.

People didn't complain about Origin because it was a paid service.

They complained because Origin is spyware with additional games you sometimes can play. They complained because Origin is downright illegal where I live. Sorry, I'm not going to let a company snoop through all my files. As simple as that. Only fools think that's acceptable.

The only reason.. the *only* reason.. piracy is as prevalent as it is is because of people like you who turn a blind eye to it and let others get away with it without condemning it.

Wrong. Piracy exists regardless if people condemn it or not. Theft is generally heavily frowned upon. Theft still exist. Your argument is a logical fallacy.

The exact opposite is true. Piracy exists because of people like you, who defend terrible business models and consumer punishing. Heck, most people I know that still play "modern" games pirate games they bought. Because the games they bought are unplayable at start, and the pirated versions work.

This fact alone shows how ridiculous the whining from the companies really is: Many pirates AREN'T EVEN THIEVES. They bought the games! They just can't play them properly without pirating a working copy. Things are getting that stupid these days: If a game sells 100000 times, and is pirates 50000 times, a lot of these 50000 are also in the 100000, so pretending the company lost 50000 sales is ludicrous.


Personally, I don't pirate, but I barely participate in the "normal" gaming market, because these games are a hassle and if I want to play in the limited time I have, I want to play right away.
I tend to buy indygames (bought from several japanese sites), because these games are actually fun, and let me play when I want to, not when the company wants to allow me to.

(Plus, female characters playable, which many companies think is too modern, apparently)

Please read my comment again I never mentioned the spyware thing I was talking about the moment it was announced before all that happened people were criticising it before it even existed despite the fact at the time it was a way EA could have started putting DRM behind them and taking the PC market more seriously which lots of people always complain about publishers never do. But all that happened was everyone bitched and moaned as always about everything without looking at the bigger picture and any other publisher watching that probably would have gone fuck it they complain about everything so we shall just stick with normal DRM

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

I wonder what would happen if a game were to be released, and you had the choice of paying extra for a DRM free version. Say, a $10 convenience fee. No codes no nothing, just the game ready to play. Sure it'd be easier to pirate, but it's already easy. I'd love for them to just remove the DRM, everyone hates it anyway, and for good reason. But we all know that won't happen, so why not this idea?

Making a DRM free copy would mean that those who upload games in the first place would have a lot easier job doing so while all the honest customers would have to pay for it, either in cash or frustration.

But the people that upload do it within days of release(your own words), I doubt it's much of a hassle anyway. And the honest consumers wouldn't have to pay a cent more for the same product they buy now, they just have the option to pay to skip DRM. I'm sure plenty of people would do it, and if they do maybe publishers will rethink DRM.

I wont go back on my word that most DRM is cracked within days of release, Modern Warfare 3 was uploaded before its release. However what you fail to see with this point is that DRM is just a false security in these days of piracy. If they were to release a copy without DRM and one with they actually show us all that they know DRM wont stop piracy, yet they punish honest customers who aren't willing to shell out for the DRM free version. This shows us and the pirates that they know they are fighting a losing battle in this and that they actually give up on the battle and try to squeeze us for more money. DRM on the budget version punishes a honest customer. A higher cost DRM free awards the wealthy and makes piracy a lot easier than it already was.

You make a good point and I'm not sure how to counter it. As I said, it was only a thought experiment.
But answer me this, what happens if you want to play a Ubisoft game or Diablo 3 and don't have a stable internet connection? Why should your only option be to pirate, why can't the publishers give you another option, but for a small convenience charge? I understand why my version doesn't really work, but can't we figure one out?

well you also have the option to play other games, especially in the case of D3 where T2 is a really high quality contender without the drm nonsense (and cheaper)

Simply not buying it is always an option, but isn't that worse for everyone (except the competition)? The gamer doesn't get the game they want and the publisher loses a sale. That's not exactly a solution.

You make a good point and I'm not sure how to counter it. As I said, it was only a thought experiment.
But answer me this, what happens if you want to play a Ubisoft game or Diablo 3 and don't have a stable internet connection? Why should your only option be to pirate, why can't the publishers give you another option, but for a small convenience charge? I understand why my version doesn't really work, but can't we figure one out?

I know I would be willing to pay a convenience charge for my games. I use Steam even though I can get it cheaper from retail most of the time even with Steam sales because I like having my games collected in one place. Honestly I like the idea of a one time online activation made simple. It's easy for pirates to bypass it, but it's just slightly inconvenient for the honest customer. The sad thing is that those who are behind cracking games are quite smart even though I know several pirates who aren't. I think that fighting piracy is a lost cause and that we should fight it in a way that doesn't alienate those who actually are honest.

I agree. It's just sad how publishers never listen to the costumers. And people pirating humble bundles and the Witcher 2 isn't exactly helping our case either.

Yeah, pirating games where the money goes to charity or games that don't offer us any problems makes it hard to side against DRM. I actually think I would be OK with a game that had a crappy DRM if it actually did prevent pirates from playing it.

Too bad the GOOD DRM doesn't even stop the pirates from getting the games. Tats the whole bloody point of the argument! DRM doesn't work, and yet companies STILL insist on using them even though the only people it stops from playing the game are the freaking customers! I haven't been able to play Spore because the DRM it had only allows so many installations, and it won't install on anything anymore! I BOUGHT THAT FREAKING GAME LEGITIMATELY AND IF I HAD PIRATED IT I'D STILL BE ABLE TO PLAY!

 

[Yopaz]

I wonder what would happen if a game were to be released, and you had the choice of paying extra for a DRM free version. Say, a $10 convenience fee. No codes no nothing, just the game ready to play. Sure it'd be easier to pirate, but it's already easy. I'd love for them to just remove the DRM, everyone hates it anyway, and for good reason. But we all know that won't happen, so why not this idea?

Making a DRM free copy would mean that those who upload games in the first place would have a lot easier job doing so while all the honest customers would have to pay for it, either in cash or frustration.

But the people that upload do it within days of release(your own words), I doubt it's much of a hassle anyway. And the honest consumers wouldn't have to pay a cent more for the same product they buy now, they just have the option to pay to skip DRM. I'm sure plenty of people would do it, and if they do maybe publishers will rethink DRM.

I wont go back on my word that most DRM is cracked within days of release, Modern Warfare 3 was uploaded before its release. However what you fail to see with this point is that DRM is just a false security in these days of piracy. If they were to release a copy without DRM and one with they actually show us all that they know DRM wont stop piracy, yet they punish honest customers who aren't willing to shell out for the DRM free version. This shows us and the pirates that they know they are fighting a losing battle in this and that they actually give up on the battle and try to squeeze us for more money. DRM on the budget version punishes a honest customer. A higher cost DRM free awards the wealthy and makes piracy a lot easier than it already was.

You make a good point and I'm not sure how to counter it. As I said, it was only a thought experiment.
But answer me this, what happens if you want to play a Ubisoft game or Diablo 3 and don't have a stable internet connection? Why should your only option be to pirate, why can't the publishers give you another option, but for a small convenience charge? I understand why my version doesn't really work, but can't we figure one out?

well you also have the option to play other games, especially in the case of D3 where T2 is a really high quality contender without the drm nonsense (and cheaper)

Simply not buying it is always an option, but isn't that worse for everyone (except the competition)? The gamer doesn't get the game they want and the publisher loses a sale. That's not exactly a solution.

You make a good point and I'm not sure how to counter it. As I said, it was only a thought experiment.
But answer me this, what happens if you want to play a Ubisoft game or Diablo 3 and don't have a stable internet connection? Why should your only option be to pirate, why can't the publishers give you another option, but for a small convenience charge? I understand why my version doesn't really work, but can't we figure one out?

I know I would be willing to pay a convenience charge for my games. I use Steam even though I can get it cheaper from retail most of the time even with Steam sales because I like having my games collected in one place. Honestly I like the idea of a one time online activation made simple. It's easy for pirates to bypass it, but it's just slightly inconvenient for the honest customer. The sad thing is that those who are behind cracking games are quite smart even though I know several pirates who aren't. I think that fighting piracy is a lost cause and that we should fight it in a way that doesn't alienate those who actually are honest.

I agree. It's just sad how publishers never listen to the costumers. And people pirating humble bundles and the Witcher 2 isn't exactly helping our case either.

Yeah, pirating games where the money goes to charity or games that don't offer us any problems makes it hard to side against DRM. I actually think I would be OK with a game that had a crappy DRM if it actually did prevent pirates from playing it.

Too bad the GOOD DRM doesn't even stop the pirates from getting the games. Tats the whole bloody point of the argument! DRM doesn't work, and yet companies STILL insist on using them even though the only people it stops from playing the game are the freaking customers! I haven't been able to play Spore because the DRM it had only allows so many installations, and it won't install on anything anymore! I BOUGHT THAT FREAKING GAME LEGITIMATELY AND IF I HAD PIRATED IT I'D STILL BE ABLE TO PLAY!

Thanks for informing me of what I have said in every post I have posted as a comment on this video except this one. I really didn't know that DRM that prevents customers from playing games or deletes save data while not preventing pirates in any way was a bad thing.
Read my post, does it say that I accept DRM because it prevents pirates or does it say I WOULD accept it if it did? Please refrain from snapping at me simply because you are unable to read my post properly. I am against DRM for the same reasons you are, but I would be willing to experience some inconvenience if there actually was a point to it. DRM punishes those who buy it and no-one else. So I repeat it, don't blow up when you see someone discussing what DRM should be rather than what it is.

 

[Sonicron]

Your exasperation at the idiocy of recalcitrate dinosaurs amuses me, Mr Sterling. It is also very much justified. Moar pl0x.

 

[Kanatatsu]

That's why I get really annoyed whenever somebody gets up on their righteous horse and says, "It's the companies' fault!"

NO. IT. ISN'T.

Yes. It. Is.

See, the pirate doesn't have any obligation to the customer, because he's not providing a service. The company is providing a service, and it isn't my problem if other people pirate games.

No, it isn't. It's the pirates fault. It's the companies fault if people don't buy. However that is an entirely separate issue from if people pirate.

People not buying is directly related to how many people pirate.

People pirating is directly related to how palatable the companies make buying over pirating.

See how this is connected?

Sorry, when people pirate the humble bundles, your argument is crap. People pirating is directly related to how palatable WE make piracy.

I'm pretty sure peer pressure isn't going to get people to stop pirating, lol.

 

[HalfTangible]

In Soviet Russia, Thank Jim for God.

...

OW! Stop THROWING SHIT AT ME!!

 

[Painmaker]

I won't pay 140 dollars for Halo 3. I just... won't.

 

[Kanatatsu]

That's why I get really annoyed whenever somebody gets up on their righteous horse and says, "It's the companies' fault!"

NO. IT. ISN'T.

Yes. It. Is.

See, the pirate doesn't have any obligation to the customer, because he's not providing a service. The company is providing a service, and it isn't my problem if other people pirate games.

No, it isn't. It's the pirates fault. It's the companies fault if people don't buy. However that is an entirely separate issue from if people pirate.

People not buying is directly related to how many people pirate.

People pirating is directly related to how palatable the companies make buying over pirating.

See how this is connected?

Sorry, when people pirate the humble bundles, your argument is crap. People pirating is directly related to how palatable WE make piracy.

I'm pretty sure peer pressure isn't going to get people to stop pirating, lol.

Just like it didn't get people to stop smoking? Or stop drinking and driving? Oh wait.. for large numbers of people.. it did.

No I'm pretty sure the consequences of those actions did that. You're making an idiotic point. We're not stopping piracy by "tsk tsking" people.

 

[Aeonknight]

Ok.... when did we get so ridiculously entitled that a company deserves to burn at the stake and have their property stolen from them... because they made us finger in a code that takes all of 45 seconds of your life to punch in. Really? Fucking really?

You call it 'burning at the stake' and 'entitlement', I call it 'customer feedback' and 'angry and frustrated'.
Also, it takes a fuck load longer than 45 seconds to punch in a code. It took me half an hour to get Batman AA working with that DRM + my shitty internet connection. It took over four fucking hours to get the broken assed shitty DRM in Dragon Age to work properly. And I have it far better (and worse) than a lot of people out there. We, the customers, are not happy. My spare time is short. I don't get that much of it and I would like to spend none of that time on DRM bs!

EA may not have won any favors with enforcing Origin for Battlefield 3... but I haven't seen them abusing their playerbase with it either. Newsflash: EA doesn't give a shit what porn you watch. As if Origin even scans for those kind of files...

If that is what you think people are annoyed with then you have completely missed the point. I don't claim to talk for anybody else, but for me; I don't want anybody to scan my computer for any reason that is outside the fair use of their product. Origin has no opt out options for that level of invasion of privacy.

But if you truly must condemn EA for their use of Origin... there's always the console version. No Origin on that, only a registration code. But apparently that's a crime against humanity as well.

So you're saying that if I don't like Origin I should go out and buy a console so I can play a game I am interested in on a platform I would prefer not to use? Don't be stupid.

And to reply to your points:

1st point: if it takes you 4 hours to get a game to work, I can only wonder how much of that is "user error"... But perhaps that's a natural downfall to PC gaming as a whole. One of the few negative aspects it has. A console normally never has the issue you encounter.

2nd point: You're making a mountain out of a molehill. You and everyone else. You argue against it on principle, while giving a free pass to just about everything else. Ever had those banner ads that say "Find a car in today!"? Guess what, the fucking banner ad just violated your "privacy". The fact you think privacy exists on the internet at all is a joke in itself. If you want your privacy back, unplug your modem and never look back.

3rd point: I'm not telling you to do anything. I'm just listing a perfectly viable alternative to dealing with Origin. A PS3 or 360 is not some uncommon item to find in a household, and it doesn't have to deal with Origin. Perfectly viable solution that haters seem to conveniently forget or scoff at in the name of lolPCelitism so that their incessant whining is justified. If you refuse to own a console, then you get to deal with the shortcomings of your intentionally narrow field of gaming.

 

[daxterx2005]

companies waste more money trying to stop piracy then if they just left it be. For every wall they put up, a pirate will find away around it. For ever lock they make a hacker will hack it...
I don't see whats so hard to understand about that.

 

[knightofmars]

and you forget that these buisinesses STILL make alot of money despite pirates.

Kindly tell me, what does the net worth of a company or person have to be to make it legit to stop paying them for their services?

I'd really like to know, because my house could use a new deck, and I'm sure I can find a construction company out there that's big enough I'm completely justified in not paying them, but I don't want to do it if they're too small, you know?

So since you obviously have some value in mind, what is it?

Intangible 1s and 0s ≠ Tangible Wood/Concrete/etc.

Then again you could do what Dwight Schrute does and hire a bunch of illegals to do work then call Immigration...

 

[RDubayoo]

Of course, I picked my quotes. But there is this motion, and it is quite apparent. On the other hand, of course, publishers are still needed in one way or the other. But they have way too much impact as it stands.

Hey, if the developers can stick it out on their own, more power to them. I'm not rooting against them, far from it. But still, Jim's reaction to SOPA and et al. seems disproportionate and childish. Besides, I think you and Jim have missed a really important fact here which I already touched on--the vast majority of pirates don't actually care if a game was released by a big publisher or not. They just want free stuff. Simple as that. Giving developers more control over their IP's won't make a lick of difference over how much their games are pirated. In fact, I'd call Jim's complaint a pointless distraction from the real issues of piracy and should have been addressed as a completely different issue.

As for the anti-piracy measures ... Need to be blunt: Plain wrong. Shutting down torrent sites is just as counter-productive as the shutdown of Mega has proven to be. The files still exist and can easily be moved somewhere else. And it caused a massive amount of collateral damage up to this day already, and will do so even more when the servers can't be paid for anymore to keep the data living for the time being.

Proven to be? What are you smoking? MegaUpload's owners ARE IN PRISON. I can't think of a clearer message to send to anyone who wants to run a website where someone else's copyrighted work is put up for anyone to download. Sure, pirates can shuffle the files elsewhere... until those sites get shut down, too, or their administrators realize that they have to diligently filter out copyrighted material or else they'll also suffer the same fate of MegaUpload. And the more piracy sites that get shut down, the better. Soon, pirating will become too difficult, aggravating, and even dangerous for casual Internet users. Anonymous's little hissy fits may grab headlines but aren't going to stop this from happening. That's your future, chum, hope you're looking forward to it.

So, sorry, but the whole idea that enforcing the law just makes a problem worse doesn't apply here anymore than it does in any other crime. No, you can't stop everyone from prostituting themselves, selling drugs, shoplifting, or vandalizing city streets. However, that's no excuse not to even try, and besides, with no enforcement at all, all of those crimes would be much more prevalent. It's the same idea here. Yes, better enforcement won't stop piracy completely, but it can curtail it, which is the whole point. Honestly, I don't see why this is so hard to understand. There's nothing new about the idea of stopping someone from taking something that doesn't belong to them.

 

[AhumbleKnight]

Ok.... when did we get so ridiculously entitled that a company deserves to burn at the stake and have their property stolen from them... because they made us finger in a code that takes all of 45 seconds of your life to punch in. Really? Fucking really?

You call it 'burning at the stake' and 'entitlement', I call it 'customer feedback' and 'angry and frustrated'.
Also, it takes a fuck load longer than 45 seconds to punch in a code. It took me half an hour to get Batman AA working with that DRM + my shitty internet connection. It took over four fucking hours to get the broken assed shitty DRM in Dragon Age to work properly. And I have it far better (and worse) than a lot of people out there. We, the customers, are not happy. My spare time is short. I don't get that much of it and I would like to spend none of that time on DRM bs!

EA may not have won any favors with enforcing Origin for Battlefield 3... but I haven't seen them abusing their playerbase with it either. Newsflash: EA doesn't give a shit what porn you watch. As if Origin even scans for those kind of files...

If that is what you think people are annoyed with then you have completely missed the point. I don't claim to talk for anybody else, but for me; I don't want anybody to scan my computer for any reason that is outside the fair use of their product. Origin has no opt out options for that level of invasion of privacy.

But if you truly must condemn EA for their use of Origin... there's always the console version. No Origin on that, only a registration code. But apparently that's a crime against humanity as well.

So you're saying that if I don't like Origin I should go out and buy a console so I can play a game I am interested in on a platform I would prefer not to use? Don't be stupid.

And to reply to your points:

1st point: if it takes you 4 hours to get a game to work, I can only wonder how much of that is "user error"... But perhaps that's a natural downfall to PC gaming as a whole. One of the few negative aspects it has. A console normally never has the issue you encounter.

It is not a natural downfall of PC gaming as a whole seeing as this type of thing does not normaly happen. It wasn't 'user error' it was the DRM failing to correctly change the windows service's status in order to be able to authenticate. Once I figured out the issue I had to manualy open up the service and manualy change it's status every time I ran the game. This is not user error. This is buggy DRM.

2nd point: You're making a mountain out of a molehill. You and everyone else. You argue against it on principle, while giving a free pass to just about everything else. Ever had those banner ads that say "Find a car in today!"? Guess what, the fucking banner ad just violated your "privacy". The fact you think privacy exists on the internet at all is a joke in itself. If you want your privacy back, unplug your modem and never look back.

I like my privacy. What I put up on the internet is limited. I don't want any program to scan my computer. Being connected to the internet does not allow people to scan your computer (unless you are an idiot and don't use an effective virus checker etc.). Those banner ads use you IP address to work out your approx location. This is not an invasion of my privacy. This is code that is run from inside your browser and provides nothing more than a web hit from a specific location. I don't think that privacy exists on the internet, but I do think that what is on my computer should not be available without my permission.

3rd point: I'm not telling you to do anything. I'm just listing a perfectly viable alternative to dealing with Origin. A PS3 or 360 is not some uncommon item to find in a household, and it doesn't have to deal with Origin. Perfectly viable solution that haters seem to conveniently forget or scoff at in the name of lolPCelitism so that their incessant whining is justified. If you refuse to own a console, then you get to deal with the shortcomings of your intentionally narrow field of gaming.

There are other viable alternatives:
1) Don't use it, thus voting with your wallet.
2) Complain about it so that the company recieves customer feedback on a product.
Both of these are valid. Neither is PC elitism. I don't know where you pulled that shit from. I don't like to play on consoles as much as I do on the PC. That is not elitism. I am not saying that one is better than the other. I am only stating person preference. I happen to think that people should use whatever platform they prefer for their gaming and that they all have their advantages. It is simply a matter of customer satisfaction. I am not satisfied.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

The simple reason they don't do more stuff like steam is look what happened with origin as soon as it was announced everyone came out and said they hated it and would never use it and just pirate EA games so I can see why publishers would be put off this kind of service.

People would have been fine with Origin if EA hadn't made it into mandatory spyware. With Origin, EA basically tells their consumer base, "You either let us spy on you (to let us look at every inch of your computer), or you don't get to play our games."

Really, they basically made it more convenient to be a console gamer with their games, because they can't spy on consoles, but even if they could there will be nothing to be found, unlike the things they want to look for on people's PCs.