Then why the hell does EA enforce the "$10 solution" and UbiSoft as well charging extra money for the multiplayer part of games, eh?
Pachter Supports Ubisoft DRM
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I just have to ask.
Since the only way to get totally rid of DRM is to get rid of pirates and that is about as likely as totally stopping any kind of theft, what is the best solution to deal with pirates?
All I read on this forum is how bad DRM is, it seems your more pissed at the hopeful solution than the problem. It's like being pissed at the medication that doesn't work than the illness your actually suffering from.
I am not a PC gamer so I don't know a whole lot about DRM, save having to put in some code every time I install a game (I am now suffering DRM on the console though) but by the sound of it ubisoft are atleast trying to solve there problem, it sounds like it has it's flaws but what would you do in there position?
In all likely hood this post will go ignored but I live in hope.
It's a very short sighted approach, much like Ubisoft.
Since the only way to get totally rid of DRM is to get rid of pirates and that is about as likely as totally stopping any kind of theft, what is the best solution to deal with pirates?
All I read on this forum is how bad DRM is, it seems your more pissed at the hopeful solution than the problem. It's like being pissed at the medication that doesn't work than the illness your actually suffering from.
I am not a PC gamer so I don't know a whole lot about DRM, save having to put in some code every time I install a game (I am now suffering DRM on the console though) but by the sound of it ubisoft are atleast trying to solve there problem, it sounds like it has it's flaws but what would you do in there position?
In all likely hood this post will go ignored but I live in hope.
I bought UFC '10, it came with a code that you have to input to play online and get 4 fighters, the code needs a patch to work.
They also messed up how you input the code, although thats a little bit down to PSN. When you go to redeem the code it takes you to the place to buy a code for second hand players, you have to go to the top right to redeem the code instead of buying it, which alot of people have mistakingly bought for £3.50 (I think, it's £3+ anyway.)
They also messed up how you input the code, although thats a little bit down to PSN. When you go to redeem the code it takes you to the place to buy a code for second hand players, you have to go to the top right to redeem the code instead of buying it, which alot of people have mistakingly bought for £3.50 (I think, it's £3+ anyway.)
If people put there hand in there pockets instead of pirating them, you wouldn't have to jump through DRM hoops.KingTiger said:
It's a very short sighted approach, much like Ubisoft.
"'I welcome the flamer comments on this one ... we have no interest in your business since you don't pay for stuff anyway.'"
lolwut? I pay for all my stuff, and I still think you're incredibly stupid. First of all, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about here (of course, you never DO have any idea what you're talking about, so that's nothing new). Secondly... Oh screw it. Why bother?
I just wish the industry as a whole would stop listening to every stupid thing that spills out of Pachter's mouth these days.
lolwut? I pay for all my stuff, and I still think you're incredibly stupid. First of all, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about here (of course, you never DO have any idea what you're talking about, so that's nothing new). Secondly... Oh screw it. Why bother?
I just wish the industry as a whole would stop listening to every stupid thing that spills out of Pachter's mouth these days.
He misses the point. Most people hate Ubi DRM not because they want to pirate/share games, but because now they can't play games they bought anywhere - they must have an internet connection and there is no guarantee that game will always work.
im not against DRM but i prefer EA DRm- thanks for getting this game- please give the the obvioudly placed code at the back of the manuel!
"If people didn't snatch purses then we wouldn't have to weld purses to women's arms." Punishing the legitimate customers because of the actions of criminals is not how justice works. There is no reasonable way to stop piracy. Period. Any method to prevent piracy is going to either be completely impractical or completely draconian.omega 616 said:
When you come down to it, there are two types of information pirates. The first do it for reasons that they justify. They hate corporations, they dislike DRM, games are priced for more than they're worth. These people will buy games if given the incentive, such as slack or no DRM. The other type do not care about morality or justice; they want free games. They will not purchase a piece of software because they do not purchase software. They live by that immoral tautology. They will always pirate games. There is no point in putting DRM in anything because the first will cite it as a reason not to buy something and the second will just bypass it anyway.
You raise a fair point. However, the problem is DRM doesn't work, at all. The Ubisoft system was brand new and it only took weeks to crack, every future use of it will be cracked even faster. Pirates will always win in the long term, there is no system currently existing that can prevent this.omega 616 said:
With all that in mind the current DRMs out there are basically pointless. If the systems are pointless, then we are much less tolerant of them, especially when they pose a major inconvenience like forcing you to be always online for single player.
Beyond all that though, I am more pissed at the solution then the problem. The amount of people who pirate a game has no effect on me, the legitimate consumer. What does have an effect are the failed stopgaps against those pirates. I don't care if a DRM is 100% effective, if it's draconian and unreasonable I won't buy the product.
Kanodin0 said:
So your solutions, if you were in charge of stopping piracy, would be do nothing 'cos it's going to happen no matter what? Were lucky you two don't run the police force.Earthbound said:
There must be laws around that protect copyright laws so couldn't they just drown the site owners in legal stuff like lawsuits etc till they take down the sites, set a standard that if you put up a piracy site it will cost you.
If there was anything that actually worked then that's a different argument, but as long as DRM fails so completely supporting it is simply absurd. I fail to see the relevancy of your prosecution idea, it doesn't make the DRM less ineffective or less obnoxious. Allow me to define my thought process: I'm merely arguing that DRM is a non-solution that makes things worse for actual consumers and that it is therefore better not to have any, not that publishers should give up on protecting their copyrights entirely. It's better to do nothing then to make things worse.omega 616 said:
You seem to want possible solutions to piracy, but I fail to see the point of the inquiry, it's not like these ideas will actually be implemented even if the random people on this board actually had a brilliant piracy stopper.
That said, if given a choice the anti-piracy measures I would employ are ones that make the legitimate version the best possible version. Valve for instance does this with constant updates and improvements to their games. Ubisoft's DRM on the other hand is something that makes the legitimate version inferior to the pirated copy because of the DRM. In addition I would foster a good public image, try to make my company liked by the customers so that they feel a since of loyalty. Again DRM goes against this method by treating customers like criminals.
What I am basically saying is, don't totally hate on a company for trying to protect there products. There trying there best, they maybe going overboard or failing completely but in there eyes they have to do something.Kanodin0 said:
I think some gamers (PC especially) have become very spoiled and picky, "it has overpowering DRM, I am not getting it", "it doesn't have dedicated servers, one star on amazon", "it doesn't have mod tools, what kind of game is this", are you connected to the net 99% of the time? Yes? So why are you ignoring the game? "'cos a few times a year the net might go off and I can't play it" so play another game, are you really going to play it for a solid year?
I know some internets are unreliable and go off once a week, for the rest of us is it a big deal?
People can still steal DVD's right of a HMV store, so should they get rid of CCTV and electronic tags 'cos I know they make me feel like a criminal, walking through those detectors and constantly being watched, yet I still have over 400 DVD's (about 300 bought from a HMV store).
I don't actually want an answer to my "what form of DRM would you use" question, I am simply asking to make people think like ubisoft and how they would go about protecting there products, instead of acting like a child and saying "thats a shit idea, so is that, so is that", basically, can you do better? No? Then don't throw so much hate at them.
The must be losing a massive amount of cash, (a conservative stab in the dark) say 100,000 people pirate a new pc game costing £30, thats £3,000,000 lost (I am not buying "I pirate it as a demo" argument) would you be okay losing that amount of cash?
Why should I support Ubisoft's system? I've been over this the customer has no responsibility to support and bankroll their fight against piracy. If they choose to keep DRM they choose to lose my business with them. You can call me spoiled all you like but they don't have some right to my money, they have to earn it, and a system like theirs is not something I'll ever pay for.omega 616 said:
Just so I'm clear I'm by no means advocating piracy. I'm advocating consumers protecting themselves from publishers and their failed attempts at stopping piracy at the expense of their paying customers.
If you don't want to buy a game 'cos your not interested in a game thats your call, but your only robbing yourself if your not buying a game 'cos of the DRM. Ubisoft wont miss your money, en mass they will miss the cash but they must still be selling games.Kanodin0 said:
You make it sound like there actively trying to punish you, when there just not quite grasping DRM.
I do wish more people would join me in not buying their stuff yes, but lack of numbers is no reason to give up. The anti-DRM movement is actually growing quite nicely. Even if it's only a drop in the bucket now, in the long term I think it will be successful.omega 616 said:
That may be true, infact I bet it is.Kanodin0 said:
What will the devs think though? We make games, they get pirated, we try to stop pirating and they don't buy our games, talk about becoming disillusioned.
DRM won't disappear 'cos the pirates won't, so being anti-DRM means the devs are left making a loss on everything.
Producing a game obviously costs money, if nobody is buying it there not making there money back but there product is still being used, so there obviously going to be at a loss.
No wonder people keep saying PC gaming is dieing.
Producing a game obviously costs money, if nobody is buying it there not making there money back but there product is still being used, so there obviously going to be at a loss.
No wonder people keep saying PC gaming is dieing.
Like I said earlier I'm hoping they'll adopt the Valve/Stardock/Indie approach, reward the people who buy your game legitimately and build loyalty when possible.omega 616 said:
I'm also not arguing for the permanent removal of all DRM, well I am, but I understand pragmatically that shareholders have no interest in this argument and want to see you doing something to protect sales. But as long as all DRM's fail you may as well use as unintrusive a DRM as possible to satiate those shareholders while keeping guys like me from getting angry. What I hope to see happen, pragmatically speaking, is arresting the development of DRM's so they don't become more draconian but stay at a less intrusive and equally ineffective level.
As far as I know, Pachter loves throwing these incendiary devices into the clawing, teeth-nashing Pit of Fanbois, just to see how they react. However, some of you have some typically skewed techy views of what is and isn't legal.
A company, any company, does have a right to protect their intellectual property and be the sole determiners of how that property is distributed and used. They are allowed to devise systems that facilitate such goals. While there isn't necessarily a legal president, it is definitely in the company's best interest to use strategies that do not cause the customer to judge the product to be unworthy of purchase. This is because we, as customers/consumers, have a right to not buy what we judge to be an inferior or devalued product; more simply, if you don't like it, don't buy it
As best as I can tell, a company only hears and understands two basic sounds, the creak of the wallet opening and the slap of the wallet shutting. If a company hears many wallets creaking open, then it feels whatever it is doing is a good and successful strategy and will continue to pursue such a strategy. If the company hears too many wallets slapping shut, then a wisely run company will reevaluate its strategy and position and devise something new such to engender more wallets creaking open. Any other sound, such as the shrill of internet posters, is generally ignored or filtered out as random or unintelligible noise.
In my own opinion, Ubisoft is pursuing a bad business strategy that will damage its reputation(if, it has any to damage) and result in a gradual reduction of revenue while costs(managing a dysfunctional DRM system) increase. However, as I said, Ubisoft is perfectly legal and in its right to pursue such a suicidal path. Only time will tell what Ubisoft's fate will be.
EDIT:Just something else, I think the best way to fight against the corporate DRM kool-aid movement is to create publicly generated content, games, movies, TV shows, books, etc, and we set up our own systems of distribution for such content. If the content creators/publishers are not going to create products that provide value to us, the customers, then I think we should take matters into our own hands to create our own unrestricted content that exists independently. EDIT to the EDIT: Never mind. The idea is too idyllic.
A company, any company, does have a right to protect their intellectual property and be the sole determiners of how that property is distributed and used. They are allowed to devise systems that facilitate such goals. While there isn't necessarily a legal president, it is definitely in the company's best interest to use strategies that do not cause the customer to judge the product to be unworthy of purchase. This is because we, as customers/consumers, have a right to not buy what we judge to be an inferior or devalued product; more simply, if you don't like it, don't buy it
As best as I can tell, a company only hears and understands two basic sounds, the creak of the wallet opening and the slap of the wallet shutting. If a company hears many wallets creaking open, then it feels whatever it is doing is a good and successful strategy and will continue to pursue such a strategy. If the company hears too many wallets slapping shut, then a wisely run company will reevaluate its strategy and position and devise something new such to engender more wallets creaking open. Any other sound, such as the shrill of internet posters, is generally ignored or filtered out as random or unintelligible noise.
In my own opinion, Ubisoft is pursuing a bad business strategy that will damage its reputation(if, it has any to damage) and result in a gradual reduction of revenue while costs(managing a dysfunctional DRM system) increase. However, as I said, Ubisoft is perfectly legal and in its right to pursue such a suicidal path. Only time will tell what Ubisoft's fate will be.
EDIT:
They are actually stealing your time which is wasted while waiting for a game to restart after a glitch online. I make $17 an hour. That could add up fast. I am a customer...not a toilet bowl.