Because the author made a faulty assertion. Correcting it then becomes relevant.Strazdas said:People stopppign stealing stuff is good, but how is this related to the topic at hand?
Because the author made a faulty assertion. Correcting it then becomes relevant.Strazdas said:People stopppign stealing stuff is good, but how is this related to the topic at hand?
Everything on Steam is also on torrent sites, even the early access, alphas, betas, indies and everything. For any game that has a following cracked Steam updates come hours after Steam patches.BigTuk said:Let's take Steam for example...that's poretty unobtrusive DRM right there. no fuss with passwords, or install disks, it's tied to your account and as long as you've logged into steam in the past 3 or so months...you can use offline play.
Suyre, we'd all love if everyone went GoG's no DRM route but the fact that GoG's entire library is up on the torrent sites... yeah... kinda proves the point. DRM can't stop determined pirates, but good DRM combined with sensible pricing makes it far more cost effective to simply buy the game than to spend the time pirating, patching, repatching, etc.
Im still not in udnerstanding what assertion was done here and why is stealing stuff even relevant here?Sarge034 said:Because the author made a faulty assertion. Correcting it then becomes relevant.Strazdas said:People stopppign stealing stuff is good, but how is this related to the topic at hand?
DRM does not stop piracy in any way. therefore it already failed its only purpose. What it does, is annoy legal costumers and actually turn them towards piracy, because piracy becomes a better service where your games actually work. Piracy is a fact of life. It was around ever since copyrighted material existed. In the 80s peopel copied casettes. In the 18th century people copied plays. Its not something new or something anyone ever managed to combat.Branindain said:I get that DRM can be annoying and all, but these threads frustrate me. Everyone screeches in outrage at DRM and insists it needs to be eradicated, and the earth from whence it sprung salted so that it may never return. However, piracy itself doesn't annoy anybody, it just gets handwaved away as being part of life. It's like Yahtzee talking to Metal Gear - "Oh pirates, did you steal 4 million copies of that game again? You larrikins you."
I understand that you can't "solve" piracy, but realistically, even if it's the optimum solution, you can't expect a game company which hears that millions of people are illegally downloading their game to just shrug it off. That would be infuriating, they're honour bound to search for solutions. So when they do, and they fuck it up and overdo it, tell them so, but remember to spare some rage for the freeloading gamers while you're at it.
This is very true. A cousin asked me to play Rust with him couple days back so i told him i dont have one. he then gave me link to 3 different versions of the game on torrent sites. Everything gets pirated, every collectors edition directors cut extended version and so on gets pirated.Zac Jovanovic said:Everything on Steam is also on torrent sites, even the early access, alphas, betas, indies and everything. For any game that has a following cracked Steam updates come hours after Steam patches.
Steam is about as useless as DRM can be, if anything it helps piracy by steamlining the cracking process and making every pirated game work with same idiot proof instructions.
Congratulations, you've proven that old games have already been pirated, including games that originally had DRM. Yet somehow GoG still makes good money without DRM. A definite point in the win column for your argument.BigTuk said:Suyre, we'd all love if everyone went GoG's no DRM route but the fact that GoG's entire library is up on the torrent sites... yeah... kinda proves the point.
While it's certainly true that it's LIKELY that a high percentage of pirated copies wouldn't translate to sales, it's more than a little intellectually dishonest to say that NONE of those copies would translate to sales. There are certainly people out there with the attitude of "Why buy what you can get for free?".NuclearKangaroo said:a pirated copy of a game should never be considered a potential sale lost, some people simply wouldnt have bought you game regardless
if you offered someone a lamborgini for free, they would likely accept it, that doesnt mean they would have OR could have bought the car otherwise
SNIP
Except in this case, the Lamborghini that is being offered is stolen. A better analogy is that if someone came across a Lamborgini with the keys in it, some people would hop in and take it.NuclearKangaroo said:if you offered someone a lamborgini for free, they would likely accept it, that doesnt mean they would have OR could have bought the car otherwise
But, after nearly 10 years of it FAILING to remotely "control the market", wouldn't you say this approach isn't working? It's like they're sitting there going "well, we have to do SOMETHING... I don't care if it doesn't work. We'll just tell our shareholders we're being proactive about it, even if it has a success rate of 0%."Fox12 said:DRM isn't really about piracy. It's about controlling the market. Not just in video games either, this is common practice.Trishbot said:Has DRM ever - EVER - prevented a game from being pirated?
In fact, aren't the most pirated games of all time those WITH DRM?
What does DRM truly accomplish, besides wasting developer resources, getting in the way of legitimate customers, and making fans angry?
Yeah, as someone who was actually around for code wheels, this is true - a quick trip to the copier and you're off to the races. Given the advent of digital distribution, it's not even really doable at all; publishers could opt for the similar "look up the word in the owner's manual" trick, but since digital files are even easier and more convenient to copy and distribute than paper, it'd be an exercise in futility. (And nostalgia, which is where my interest comes from.)Kinitawowi said:Not only is it not cheaper for publishers (because it's a physical product that has to be made, rather than just data in the Interwebs), but it's too easy to photocopy it and render it completely useless. And if your argument is "useless = just as effective as any other DRM haw haw", then sadly you're wrong. Diablo 3's always online DRM stinks and it's a pain to use it when your internet's having a strop, but it's worked. D3 has proved a nightmare for pirates.
But the real problem with DRM isn't people stealing shit, it's that DRM can be more problematic for legitimate users than those who choose to pirate. Anything can be boiled down to behaviours - the real solution to overcrowded prisons is for people to stop being criminals - but it doesn't actually address the matter at hand.Sarge034 said:I would have thought the most obvious solution would be for people to stop stealing shit, but calling out the cause of the issue and not the symptom isn't the bandwagon opinion...
Well, that was my point. The not intrusive DRMs are not effective.Strazdas said:Well my my, you have to share this DRM that isnt intrusive and annoying and is even effective. since there is no real world examples.nevarran said:Nothing bad with DRM, as long as it isn't to intrusive and annoying. The problem is, those DRMs are easier to crack and therefore less effective.
whats ridiculous is to think piray is theft, piracy is not theftWarpedLord said:While it's certainly true that it's LIKELY that a high percentage of pirated copies wouldn't translate to sales, it's more than a little intellectually dishonest to say that NONE of those copies would translate to sales. There are certainly people out there with the attitude of "Why buy what you can get for free?".NuclearKangaroo said:a pirated copy of a game should never be considered a potential sale lost, some people simply wouldnt have bought you game regardless
if you offered someone a lamborgini for free, they would likely accept it, that doesnt mean they would have OR could have bought the car otherwise
SNIP
Of course, there's absolutely no way to know for sure, so like most "logical" arguments about piracy, this one's pointless.
Except in this case, the Lamborghini that is being offered is stolen. A better analogy is that if someone came across a Lamborgini with the keys in it, some people would hop in and take it.NuclearKangaroo said:if you offered someone a lamborgini for free, they would likely accept it, that doesnt mean they would have OR could have bought the car otherwise
Some of us wouldn't. And don't.
(and please don't give me the tired old "it's not theft if it's not a physical object" crap. That's ridiculous and everyone knows it)
That is why I said that it might be extremely annoying for people with different usage habits. I wasn't saying that everyone who dislikes it is wrong, only that it is not as bad as Weeping Angels made it out to be.Strazdas said:I connect my phone to internet once per month. The "my currently active game" gets launched twice a day or once a day depending on the day of the week. i play it when i am traveling. this means that i would be fucked royally if i wanted to play FF mobile.DrOswald said:With the mobile FF4, 5 and 6 games: Once you start the game with a connection you can start it 10 more times without having an internet connection. 10 times is a good amount. I tend to leave my current game of choice launched, so 10 launches would probably take several weeks to use up, and the chance of none of those launches having an available connection seems almost impossible.
Earthbound had 2 layers of DRM (actually 5, but they can be conveniently blocked into two main categories.)xaszatm said:Okay, I want to say this now, before this conversation continues that I am not a fan of DRM. I think the entire practice is a waste of time and effort and that a good game will sell well with or without it. A good game will cause people who were thinking about pirating it buy it instead. The rest of the people who pirate it are the people who pirate everything anyways.DrOswald said:Anytime DRM locks you out of a game you rightfully own it is a false positive. So every single example of DRM hurting the consumer.
I really don't know what else to tell you. False positives are why everyone hates DRM, because they are afraid that there will someday be a false positive and their game wont work. The "make the game buggy" strategy does nothing to prevent false positives, it only changes the result. That result is still DRM ruins the game, it is just harder to see that this is the case.
The "bug DRM" strategy does not increase security in any way. Once the pirates know it is there it is the exact same thing as normal DRM to them. The real purpose of bug DRM is to avoid bad press or convert it into good press. DRM false positives are a rare occurrence, but they generate a lot of negative press. On the other hand, a very small portion of the user base, say 1%, having a really buggy game experience generates almost no bad press. They don't know it is DRM so they never call foul. They just think they bought a bad game. And then eventually, after the DRM has been cracked, the developer can release a public statement showing how clever they are and everyone is so impressed at how they turned the tables on the pirates.
If we are stuck with DRM I want it up front. I want to know what is going on so I can make an informed decision or solve the problems the DRM is causing. I don't want my shit to just randomly stop working so I have to hunt down why. I don't want developers to be able to hide their draconian DRM and anti-consumer practices.
That being said, I've never heard of false positives being the reason behind disliking DRM. I thought that DRM was universally disliked because not only was it ineffective, but DRM treated the consumers like they were criminals and wasted the consumer's time. If there is too much hassle to play the game, most people will either ignore said game, or pirate it if they really want to play the game.
Now, "Bug" DRM instead tries to make it so people who pirate are the ones who have too much hassle. While it is true that once a person finds the bug, it can be fixed, but once again, people don't like waiting. If it is taking a while for pirates to break a game, they will either lose interest or just buy the game. Spyro and Earthbound took years to figure out AND both told you right away that you were using a pirated copy so if you had a false positive, you would know. In addition, most good games with "bug" DRM had a very small percentage of said false positives. So I'd rather have "bug" DRM than "upfront" DRM because the former doesn't waste my time if I buy it. Though, of course, I'd rather have no "bug" DRM at all.
in reality it is:BigTuk said:"We locked it but they broke the lock"
or
"We knew they'd break the lock so we didn't bother to close the door"
So rather than rage about DRM being ineffective and annoying. Well here's a thought, how do you suggest they protect their up to 30 million dollar investment? Bonus if it's something that will actually prevent piracy for more than 1 day and not inconvenience the user...
so, DRM is fine as long as it does not exist?Monsterfurby said:As was stated: DRM per se is fine, but only if it is not implemented in a way that blocks or hurts the player's experience.
what studies have shown is that the peopel you mention are outnumbered by the people with attitude of "i tried this game i downloaded and want to support developer so more of this gets made". as in, people dont like buying cat in a bag, and demos no longer exist.WarpedLord said:While it's certainly true that it's LIKELY that a high percentage of pirated copies wouldn't translate to sales, it's more than a little intellectually dishonest to say that NONE of those copies would translate to sales. There are certainly people out there with the attitude of "Why buy what you can get for free?".
Of course, there's absolutely no way to know for sure, so like most "logical" arguments about piracy, this one's pointless.
(and please don't give me the tired old "it's not theft if it's not a physical object" crap. That's ridiculous and everyone knows it)
SecuRom was one of the worst DRMs ever invented. half the users could not even play their games because the spyware it installedo n your computer to check for legallity did not actually work correctly. Bioshock was cracked on day 1. In fact i went and checked just for this. The game was released on August 21, 2007 in NA and lter elsewhere. Team FairLight has cracked and shared it on August 21, 2007, for whole world. Therefore, any nonamericans had it cracked more than a week BEFORE the official release. Securom has never given crackers any trouble.nevarran said:Well, that was my point. The not intrusive DRMs are not effective.
Actually as I think about it now, the Bioshock DRM was quite effective and I don't recall it being intrusive. A SecuROM, if I'm not mistaken. It was a new version, just by the time the game was launching. And it held like a month, before it was cracked. I personally know a few people, who bought the game, because they didn't wanted to wait for the crack.
fair enough, there certainly are people who keep thier phones connect 24/7 and it would not be a problem for them. that is, until their servers fail to connect.DrOswald said:That is why I said that it might be extremely annoying for people with different usage habits. I wasn't saying that everyone who dislikes it is wrong, only that it is not as bad as Weeping Angels made it out to be.