The Needles: How Dumb Do They Think We Are?

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
The Needles: How Dumb Do They Think We Are?

BioShock 2's installation limits were scaled back to... different installation limits?

Read Full Article
 

Nimbus

Token Irish Guy
Oct 22, 2008
2,162
0
0
I totally agree. They haven't scaled back shit. It's insulting that they think we're this stupid.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
It's a sad fact of life these days that the way most companies work is to treat its staff and customers like morons - and its partially their fault because all the company execs see are morons in their dealings.

"I fell on a piece of wet floor and was awarded Umpty thousand pounds!" - Why the eff didn't you look where you were going?

So, legislation has to come in protecting companies from morons, and in the most Orwellian manner, that means rules and regulations to protect the "rights" of the company against the "rights" of the individual.

Which means we all lose.

But we can't be moaning about it, oh no, because that means we're world wide whingers, and that has it's own little hate faction already to tell us off because they've had to deal with that for ages.

The time of the carrot has long since passed. Now it's only the stick, and you have to pay to get beaten.

Just as a basic metaphor:
Imagine if you bought a book at full price that had a few pages missing but they were promised to be released later.
Then you had to ring up the book owners to tell them you could start reading it. And you could only read it if they were awake.
Then you could only read it a few times and no-one else could read it.
(Actually this is starting to sound like a Kindle)
And you could only read it at home.

OR...you could pay a guy to photocopy the pages of the book, along with a synopsis, the author's details, what the prevailing mood of the book is and he'd thrown in a first draft from the author.

Even if you are 100% down-the-line legal, doesn't the latter look so much more inviting?

The reason piracy exists is that it's easier to pirate the game than purchase & play it normally. Until you can produce a DRM that makes the legal copy easier to use than the pirated copy, then you're just giving the pirates a free ride.
 

Caliostro

Headhunter
Jan 23, 2008
3,253
0
0
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought "oh...thanks for nothing" when they announced they were replacing the installation limits with... installation limits...

I'm not against piracy protection. I encourage it. I disagree with you that Steam was the "root of all evil" that are DRMs schams. That's like blaming 9/11 on the guy that invented jumbo jets.

However I stand heavily against all forms of installation limits on principle. Partially because I'm paranoid, but mostly because I BOUGHT THE FUCKING GAME, I DIDN'T RENT IT. If I wanted to rent a game I'd subscribe to an MMO. This "installation limit" crap does nothing if not inconvenience the legitimate customer AND MAKE IT BETTER FOR THE PIRATES. This is as backwards as it gets. The pirate gets the game for free -AND- doesn't have to deal with the installation limits bullshit... It's like they're asking us to fuck them over.

This whole move by the Bioshock team, however, was dishonest at best. It reeks of the P.R. team trying desperately to avoid a nightmare by tossing Windows Live the hotpotato...

Probably not going to be touching this one anytime soon.

Ps: If I were you I wouldn't be very optimistic. Look at how successful recent piles of tripe were: Transformers movies, Twilight books and movies, MWII... People like it, it's the only explanation.
 

CyberKnight

New member
Jan 29, 2009
244
0
0
It's a shame "day one DLC" only gets a passing mention. "Digital distribution", which is being pushed as the "next big thing" for console gaming, is the way they've been forcing DRM into the console world as well (you can't sell, rent, trade, or borrow an Xbox Live Arcade game either, and Microsoft controls where or how many times you can install them -- same with Sony and the PSN, or Nintendo and WiiWare).

It used to be that you could avoid this by sticking to games on a physical disc, but tying DLC to a "first purchase" is just their way of shoving their control out to discs as well.

I'll be in that same "tempted to yell 'I told you so!'" boat when they start making this "DLC" an essential part of the game, rather than just an alleged "bonus".
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
The Title was my thoughts exactly when I saw the article.

They do all of this to avoid pirating... but frankly, all I'm seeing is more and more reason to pirate.

They do all of this... always inconveniencing the customer, never the pirate. I've only bought games with reasonable DRM. I bought Bioshock TWICE (when the DRM was sort of removed), I've bought STALKER shadow of chernobyl atleast 4 times, I bought Fallout 3, Supcom, many many more. But these titles the horrid DRM? None of them. I had a pre-order for Bioshock 2, when I found out about the DRM I cancelled my pre-order and searched for a couple of good torrent sites.

The whole "Loss of potential profit" thing is bullshit as is. Nor is it an excuse for such horrible DRM. Face it companies, if someone has never bought a game before, they wouldn't have payed for your game either way, even if pirating was impossible.

And then THIS, where they try to make it look like they're "Caving in" when they are actually just putting the blame on some one else... I'm never buying another 2K game because of this bullshit.

2K is now up there with Ubisoft, and EA.

[sub]shit at this rate I'm going to run out of game companies.[/sub]
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Who wouldn't want to pay the same ammount of money you used to pay to own a game to buy a restrictive license to play it instead?
 

Andy_Panthro

Man of Science
May 3, 2009
514
0
0
I have to say I'm eternally grateful for things like Good Old Games.

Each time I see ridiculous methods of DRM being forced on PC gamers, I make a vow to buy more DRM-free GOG games, or DRM-free/light (just a CD key for example) indie games.

We've had years of various over-restrictive DRM methods, with no effect on pirates but plenty of adverse effects on paying customers. Now, the big idea is to shift towards Steam type "services", with Games for Windows Live, EA DLC (DA:O, ME2), new battle.net and so on. This is just a different type of DRM, and I don't like it. What's even worse is that the old DRM methods remain, but these new ones are added on top! Lets not forget the farce that was GTA4...

[edit] to answer your question "How Dumb Do They Think We Are?", I would imagine "very". I hope that we don't collectively prove them right.
 

SnootyEnglishman

New member
May 26, 2009
8,308
0
0
So to "solve the problem" it seems all they did was sack one company and put it the hand of another? Doesn't look like you solved the problem at all. If you wanna stop people from Pirating do what they did with Batman Arkham Asylum and make so parts of the game don't function as properly as if you bought it with legal tender like printed bills
 

GoldenRaz

New member
Mar 21, 2009
905
0
0
I can't help but to wonder how much a game would lose by not having anything in the way of SecuROM, DRM, online activation, etc. I doubt that they would lose any amount of money worthy of mentioning when you take into consideration the amount of money used to put this in the game.

Ah well, I'm certainly no expert in the area (hell, I'm not even a PC gamer) so I'm probably talking out of my ass right now. Enlightening read.
[sup]Have I ever mentioned that "bamboozle" is probably my favourite word in the English language?[/sup]
 

Seldon2639

New member
Feb 21, 2008
1,756
0
0
dududf said:
The Title was my thoughts exactly when I saw the article.

They do all of this to avoid pirating... but frankly, all I'm seeing is more and more reason to pirate.

They do all of this... always inconveniencing the customer, never the pirate. I've only bought games with reasonable DRM. I bought Bioshock TWICE (when the DRM was sort of removed), I've bought STALKER shadow of chernobyl atleast 4 times, I bought Fallout 3, Supcom, many many more. But these titles the horrid DRM? None of them. I had a pre-order for Bioshock 2, when I found out about the DRM I cancelled my pre-order and searched for a couple of good torrent sites.

The whole "Loss of potential profit" thing is bullshit as is. Nor is it an excuse for such horrible DRM. Face it companies, if someone has never bought a game before, they wouldn't have payed for your game either way, even if pirating was impossible.

And then THIS, where they try to make it look like they're "Caving in" when they are actually just putting the blame on some one else... I'm never buying another 2K game because of this bullshit.

2K is now up there with Ubisoft, and EA.

[sub]shit at this rate I'm going to run out of game companies.[/sub]
That's a false assumption. If someone is interested in playing the game, three things can happen:

1. They buy the game.
2. They pirate the game.
3. They go without the game.

Let's assume there's an even distribution, so 1/3 buy, 1/3 pirate, and 1/3 go without. Do you really believe that all of the 1/3 who pirate would go without if pirating were unavailable?

Do we really honestly believe that the people who pirate games are too poor (or don't like games enough) to buy the games if they had to?

Some portion of pirates would buy the games if they had to. That means that the existence of pirating does eliminate some stream of income for the company. QED.
 

Georgeman

New member
Mar 2, 2009
495
0
0
Answer: Very dumb indeed. We are not gamers to them, just numbers. Cattle ready to be farmed. Those "geniuses" want to get money from us without even trying. Rather than realizing that ENCOURAGING gamers to become pirates must be one of the dumbest decisions ever in the history of games' marketing (alongside acting contrary to their customers wishes), they insist on doing their own crap NOT realizing (or refusing to realize) that they will be brought closer and closer to their own doom.
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
Seldon2639 said:
dududf said:
The Title was my thoughts exactly when I saw the article.

They do all of this to avoid pirating... but frankly, all I'm seeing is more and more reason to pirate.

They do all of this... always inconveniencing the customer, never the pirate. I've only bought games with reasonable DRM. I bought Bioshock TWICE (when the DRM was sort of removed), I've bought STALKER shadow of chernobyl atleast 4 times, I bought Fallout 3, Supcom, many many more. But these titles the horrid DRM? None of them. I had a pre-order for Bioshock 2, when I found out about the DRM I cancelled my pre-order and searched for a couple of good torrent sites.

The whole "Loss of potential profit" thing is bullshit as is. Nor is it an excuse for such horrible DRM. Face it companies, if someone has never bought a game before, they wouldn't have payed for your game either way, even if pirating was impossible.

And then THIS, where they try to make it look like they're "Caving in" when they are actually just putting the blame on some one else... I'm never buying another 2K game because of this bullshit.

2K is now up there with Ubisoft, and EA.

[sub]shit at this rate I'm going to run out of game companies.[/sub]
That's a false assumption. If someone is interested in playing the game, three things can happen:

1. They buy the game.
2. They pirate the game.
3. They go without the game.

Let's assume there's an even distribution, so 1/3 buy, 1/3 pirate, and 1/3 go without. Do you really believe that all of the 1/3 who pirate would go without if pirating were unavailable?

Do we really honestly believe that the people who pirate games are too poor (or don't like games enough) to buy the games if they had to?

Some portion of pirates would buy the games if they had to. That means that the existence of pirating does eliminate some stream of income for the company. QED.
That being said, do you think pirates will buy the game if they can't pirate it?

I think that's also an equally silly statement.
 

Seldon2639

New member
Feb 21, 2008
1,756
0
0
dududf said:
That being said, do you think pirates will buy the game if they can't pirate it?

I think that's also an equally silly statement.
Do I think all of them will? No. Do I think some of them will: yes.

And, not for nothing, but isn't there also a fairness issue here? Economics aside, how is it reasonable that people are being allowed to use (without paying) something that other people worked long and hard on?
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
Nimbus said:
I totally agree. They haven't scaled back shit. It's insulting that they think we're this stupid.
Unfortunatly it seems to be the way they are treating us as of late and its really annoying.

Nicely written and wlel pointed article Andy
 

Kojiro ftt

New member
Apr 1, 2009
425
0
0
It is a switch-a-roo.

But really, who needs 15 activations? Or even 5? They should allow 2 activations, and provide deactivations. And phone support for deactivations in the case of HDD crashes. As long as the process is easy and automated, there is no problem.

There are much bigger problems with PC gaming than software activation.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
No Andy I disagree, they haven't shot themselves in the foot. They are up to the bloody stumps that remain of their knee caps.
 

Seldon2639

New member
Feb 21, 2008
1,756
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
Seldon2639 said:
That's a false assumption.
Which you then "prove" by two assumptions and a speculation of your own.
Abusus non tollit usum.
1. Some portion of the gaming population pirates games
2. Some portion of the population which pirates games would buy those games if pirating were not an option.
3. Therefore, pirating does remove some income stream from gaming companies.

The part of that syllogism which is debatable is the second part. The conclusion follows logically if the assumptions are sound.

If you don't believe any pirates would buy the games if they could not pirate, that's fine, but then the argument is only over that question.

Abusus non tollit usum.
Yes and no. Abuse does not remove legitimate use, but what is "legitimate"? If one defines a legitimate use of a game as "unlimited personal use on the individual system for which you bought the game, without the ability to copy, have more than one concurrent installation, or share", then the abuse of those provisions which had previously not enforced the purely legitimate use is now causing a crackdown on all illegitimate use
 

GeekFury

New member
Aug 20, 2009
347
0
0
This is why PC gaming is going down the toilet, I've noticed in my local video game shops, theres like 2 shelves for PC games ( not counting the 'budget' games, new games. ) and about 10-20 for x-box ( Retor and 360 ) and for Playstation ( PS3 and PS2 ) also for the Wii and DS games, kinda sad really.