The Needles: How Dumb Do They Think We Are?

[dududf]

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?

I'm not here to argue the morals of piracy.

It can be viewed as a form of protest.

I mainly use it, if I wanna give a game a try, or something major is inhibiting my purchase or most of the time To find out if I like the damn thing. all games that I liked and pirated I've purchased.

Every single damn one, even obscure ones (Evil Genius anyone?).

And now we're swerving off topic.

OT:

Why should we purchase something that assumes that everyone is a pirate? And even then only punishes the legit customers.

I will NEVER buy a game, that has stupid DRM included. Regardless. If Half Life 2 Episode 3 came out tomorrow I would say "Fuck it" and just wikipedia the plot and be satisfied.

Also...

That's a false assumption.

Which you then "prove" by two assumptions and a speculation of your own.

QED.

Abusus non tollit usum.

He has a point. You countered my assumption with another assumption.

God I'm/your funny. Both of us swinging our assumptions around as if they are proper representations.

 

[Seldon2639]

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.

Quoted for Truth

If the issue is "I need to be able to reinstall if I change computers" do it the same way Itunes does. If the issue is "I need more than one computer to have it, 'cause I have more than one", have two or three activations.

But all of those arguments sound like a smokescreen to me.

 

[JakobBloch]

QED

Please don't use that term when you don't prove anything. I have no ligitimate reason for asking this. It just seems to offend me for some reason (I am not being sarcastic or anything. I really don't know why).

as for the DRM: Making DRM frontloaded will do nothing to halt piracy. If the copy is checked for authenticity when the game starts it is very easy (relatively speaking) for the crackers to bypass or remove the check. The check should instead happen while you play the game. If the check says the game is pirated a variable will shift. The variable will then block some important bit of gameplay... say the ability to glide. Then you put in a couple of more of these each with its own check variable and effect.

This will not stop the pirating but it will slow it down for a time and more importantly it will cause no inconvenience to the customer - I think.

 

[the1ultimate]

Well I've always been against games which aren't simply insert, install and play.

If the installation limit isn't theirs' it raises the question of why they have one at all.

Really piracy isn't being prevented no matter what the protection on the game and developers are still enjoying commercial success. In fact Stardock have already shown that there is little difference between requiring a disc to play and no disc at all. Which is infinitely more convenient than having to keep a disc on hand, or even loading a separate application before booting your game.

I get the feeling that copy-protection isn't much more than a measure taken by executives who are ignoring the fact that the net effect of their "protection" is nothing, except perhaps some gamer backlash.

 

[LCP]

I wouldn't be angry if the DRM actually worked, but it doesn't so its ridiculous.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

I've said it before and I will say it again: Piracy is an industry straw man - DRM is only marketed as anti-piracy, the real goal is to cut down secondary sales and starve the second-hand games market. Pirates just help that goal along by providing a convenient target that also lets publishers take the moral high ground.

 

[Baneat]

A lesson to learn. Never ever put DRM on a game that is extremely easy to pirate (That is, single player games, online features are bare to nil on them). It's doable on a multiplayer game, since pirates can't pass the protection on the servers for long, but a single player, that's gonna hurt your sales.

 

[Shamus Young]

This is so much like the last BioShock fiasco. Confusion. Flamewars. Changing policies that don't really change. 2kElizabeth out in front, talking nonsense and taking heat for the decision-makers:

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1290

What a stupid, pointless mess.

The original BioShock still requires activation today, even though the game isn't even on the shelves anymore and the only place you can get the game is used or from the pirates. Even if you're ignorant enough to think that DRM fights piracy, there are no longer any sales to protect. Yet legit users are STILL bearing the burden of that rotten system.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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.

However, you are also using Occam's Razor to devolve the debate, what about the extra piracy that DRM adds due to problems in the user base?
Or the extra PR gained by the pirated code being available?
Or the pirates that then purchase the game because of altruism?

Any debate can be black and white as long as you don't take any notice of the grayscale.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

I thought the big thing about SecuROM wasn't that it's DRM (Steam is technically a form of DRM too) but that it's "malware" that actually messes with your computer somehow. Or was that just rhetoric?

Also, the Steam entry for Bioshock 2 has removed the "Third Party DRM" tag, but changed the line about install limits to "SecuROM offers unlimited activations on up to 5 PCs." Uhh... so did they get rid of SecuROM or didn't they, and why did the activations drop from 15 to 5?!?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I thought the big thing about SecuROM wasn't that it's DRM (Steam is technically a form of DRM too) but that it's "malware" that actually messes with your computer somehow. Or was that just rhetoric?

The thing is that it can, and often does, and you've allowed it to do so via the EULA. Thus allowing the DRM to scrag your computer in violation of some country's Data Protection Laws.

DirectX had these problems when it was first released. Norton still has them.

How do you produce statistics on how effective DRM is though? Because if you could find out how many pirates there were on your system, you wouldn't need it in the first place.

 

[Caliostro]

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.

You know what we do know?

- Those people DO exist. We know there are people who just don't wanna pay for it, and there are people who simply can't pay for it, or honestly wouldn't buy it anyways. How many of which? Nobody knows.
- A copy pirated is NOT a copy not sold. Pirating costs nothing, buying costs money. So while people who pirate may not have bought the game otherwise, you can be sure a certain number of people wouldn't have bought it otherwise. Saying 1 pirated copy = 1 lost sale is the same as saying if you gave out 10 million Ferraris for FREE today, they should be selling 10 million a day otherwise.
- Piracy creates publicity through the most effective means in the business - word of mouth. Simple effect. The more people have something the more they talk about it as common interest.
- All numbers on the matter are random guesses. For either sides. You have sales numbers, and even those are very fishy, and often unreleased. Everything else is speculation.


Piracy DOES affect the industry, positively and negatively... But here's the kicker: nobody, not one person, has the slightest idea what the final math comes down to. Anyone who tells you they do is lying.

 

[Caliostro]

This is so much like the last BioShock fiasco. Confusion. Flamewars. Changing policies that don't really change. 2kElizabeth out in front, talking nonsense and taking heat for the decision-makers:

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1290

What a stupid, pointless mess.

The original BioShock still requires activation today, even though the game isn't even on the shelves anymore and the only place you can get the game is used or from the pirates. Even if you're ignorant enough to think that DRM fights piracy, there are no longer any sales to protect. Yet legit users are STILL bearing the burden of that rotten system.

What bogs my mind is that apparently companies still think this kind of DRM inconveniences anyone but the legitimate customer.

This kind of aggressive DRM has an assbackwards logic from the start: Instead of rewarding your legitimate customer you try to inconvenience them... Because clearly the people who reverse engineered and rendered useless your last 20 attempts to stop them will just give up now.

I'll say it again, it's like these companies are asking us: "PLEASE! Please screw us over!".

 

[alexelric]

DRM has one main problem, companies assume it can't be bypassed or circumvented by any means, and that it would enforce the players to only be able to obtain the product by making 1 or more "legitimate purchases" of the title... and ladies and gentleman this is a big pile of horse manure they are trying to feed both the buyers and themselves.

As I said before I live in Venezuela, over here it is not rare that a PC game goes for, roughly, 130 bucks at release date, and they DON'T get cheaper as time goes as it happens in other countries. Given that the average outcome over here is 600 a month you can see the problem.

Most (if not all) PC gamers over here rely on piracy by downloading the title themselves or even buying bootleg copies, witch can be bought for about 15 to 30 dollars depending on the title and/or seller... and most of the bootleggers Remove the DRM from the game. Hell piracy over here is so organized that stores/sellers (mostly stands/kiosks) offer Guarantee over their bootlegs, and that includes the bypassing of the DRM! (yes this is a rather weird country)

However, I can see the problem, with the increase of DRM the companies alienate the buyers, either because they DON'T want to re-buy a game just because installing limits, the secuROM/ whatever other software the companies put in utterly screws their machines, leading to data, time and money lost... and that's only two reasons I can come up with from the top of my head.

My point is, how long before the companies realize that if they keep this up they could be seeing the kind of thing that happens over here in my country spreading farther? most PC buyers purposely AVOID DRM-protected games already, when are they going to realize this hurts them where they feel it the most, their profits?

 

[jimduckie]

gee this just gets me to consider ... quitting gaming ... WTF i hear you say ? ... it's getting so technical that it will be too expensive to play anymore ... they are going to go digtal someday just because of one thing .... M-O-N-E-Y ... they lose lots through piracy and don't want to share ... yeah it's bullshit

 

[Charlie the Grenadier]

2K have made me

 

[Khujager]

Securom doesn't piss me off nearly as much as GFWL. It is enraging to be playing a game you've payed for in full for 2 hours only to realize you can't save because you're not signed into GFWL. Or registered for GFWL. Then you alt-tab to get into your stupid GFWL account and your game freezes. And then you throw 17 puppies into a wood chipper.

I refuse to buy any games with GFWL from now on unless it can be modded out, a la Fallout 3. I had all sorts of performance issues with that until I got a mod that removed GFWL.

GFWL hate aside, if I buy a game on STEAM there should be no other DRM, it's by far the best digital distribution platform and additional DRM is overly redundant and helps no one. I refuse to pirate it, I will just flat out not buy it.

 

[Katana314]

Calm down a bit.

Do me a favor, anyone who has Bioshock on Steam currently. Install it. Then completely delete it without deactivating it. Then install it again from scratch. REPEAT 500 TIMES.

If you didn't notice, Take Two only does this thing to curb the initial re-sale market where we trade all the games into Gamestop or our local Completely Legitimate Basement Seller. It was only after a few months on the market that they completely removed the DRM through a patch and simply allowed all activations; something they said they planned to do from the start.

I'm actually kinda appalled no one here takes any thought as to WHY they would include these things. "Well obviously they made the game shitty so they could get RICH!" "Well obviously they used DRM so they can CONTROL US" "Well obviously they expect it to make pirating the game impossible!"
Please, people. Try to look at both sides for once.

 

[Twad]

Corps/Medias will get away with pretty much anything they want since people just silently obey and beleive everything they order them to. Dont think, just nod, obey and buy. And so far, it works wonders.

So yeah, my guess is that they think we are dumb, for everyone out there is a thief and a wannna-be pirate.

As if pirates would be concerned by these DRMS and stuff, they just hack them and play.
While the legitimate consumer bear all the burden of "big brother" abouve his shoulder.

 

[Dogmeat T Dingo]

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.

This is a bit tangential, but not everyone who pirates isn't a paying customer. I have often bought a game and THEN pirated it, to get past the DRM. The reasons are various but mostly this has to do with when I buy a physical game in a store and want to be able to run it on my PC without the disc, to avoid losing/damaging it and thus my ability to play the product I paid for. Considering that I've already paid good money for the game, who am I hurting? I'm not depriving anybody of their income.

I totally understand the need for developers to be paid for their work, believe me. But every game I've ever encountered has been pirated/cracked within a week or two of release, if not earlier. It just reeks of extra expense, perhaps developers should consider writing off the non-paying players as an unfortunate yet unavoidable demographic, and simply focus on improving convenience to their paying customers?