The Needles: How Dumb Do They Think We Are?

[Worgen]

really gaming as a whole is determined to destroy itself, just today I got mass effect 2 for the 360 (would have rather got it on pc but my saves are on my xbox) and it wanted me to log into the ea account thing then input a bunch of codes for dlc stupidity and all that, even consoles arnt safe from companies being stupid altho at least ea has backed off its weird pc shit for the most part, I guess Ill see how c&c 4 handles itself, Ive heard tale that it wants to access the net the whole time your playing it

 

[Weaver]

This new-fangled gadget called Steam demanded its own kind of tribute and if you didn't pay, you didn't play.

Except that steam is free...

Also I'm sick of everyone calling every PC gamer a pirate. I buy about 20-30 PC games a year, and last year including all the deal packs on steam I acquired about 70. Not that I really wanted that many, but hell they were in packs. Part of me thinks game companies are just whiny assholes. I only have so much money to give, but apparently that isn't enough and I'm a dirty thieving bastard just because I like to play on the PC and don't sacrifice my rent money to buy games I don't even want.

 

[archvile93]

I'll care when this applies to a game that won't be terrible.

 

[Seldon2639]

~snip~

Isn't that all a bit like saying it shouldn't be illegal for me to steal a Ferrari, because I'm not going to buy one anyway, so they aren't losing a sale, and I'm giving them the free advertising of people seeing me drive it, and me talking about it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those were your second and third points, weren't they?

If a company wants to advertise by giving samples, even free copies, to drum up word of mouth support, that's one thing. But the argument that it shouldn't be prevented because it creates word of mouth means I should be allowed to steal anything.

But, wait, you'll say. A Ferrari actually costs materials to make, whereas a game costs nothing to make more copies of.

Yes, true, but irrelevant. Most of the cost of a Ferrari is not in the actual parts (or even labor) of making the machine, otherwise it'd cost relatively. The intellectual property is where the cost comes from, as well as the need to make back the investment of research and development. So, as long as Ferrari is charging me more for their car than the pure "resources" put into it cost, we have to accept that intellectual property has value in and of itself.

I'm gonna stick to my guns here.

 

[Seldon2639]

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?

The rare valid point.

As a purely business decision, it may be a bad one, I don't doubt that.

What riles me is the "pirating isn't bad" arguments that pop up. We should be able to take a breath and discuss this rationally (using proper and appropriate analogies).

 

[Void(null)]

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.

Wrong wrong wrong oh... and wrong.

I can absolutely, positively, 100% confirm that not only does Bioshock not require activation via digital distribution... it also has zero traces of SecuRom.

SecuRom is still present in the demo, but was patched out of the full game and if you purchased the title via digital distribution like Steam, you never have to deal with SecuRom and BioShock 1 ever again.

From discussion of This Thread [http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1083521] over at the Steam forums.

1: Uninstalled BioShock
2: Reinstalled BioShock
3: Updated and Ran BioShock
4: Ran SecuROM Remover, it could not find any traces of SecuROM.

Then I ran a scan on the BioShock Folder with protection ID. Again, no signs of SecuRom.

While the current situation with BioShock 2 is a shame, you should at the very least check your facts before making baseless accusations about the original.

As for not being sold anymore.

Where to Buy BioShock?

Impulse - $19.99 [http://www.impulsedriven.com/bioshock]
Steam - $19.99 [http://store.steampowered.com/app/7670/]
Amazon - New from $9.49 or Used from $8.95 [http://www.amazon.com/BioShock-pc/dp/B000MK694E/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1264579721&sr=8-4]
Best Buy - $19.99 [http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Bioshock+-+Windows/8275519.p?id=1171057792382&skuId=8275519&st=BioShock&lp=4&cp=1]
Walmart - $29.82 [http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=5013189]

A far cry from:

the game isn't even on the shelves anymore and the only place you can get the game is used or from the pirates.

Retail versions may require SecuRom to call home on install, but it should be a simple case of calling home to be told to no longer worry about machine activations, and SecuRom will be removed without consequence when the game is patched up. There is simply no way around this without recalling all of the discs and reprinting them.

The battle against DRM is uphill enough as it is, without us being made to look like a misinformed idiots clinging to disinformation.

 

[Michizane]

I wonder if EA or activision would be willing to go into this little experiment: release a new hot anticipated game that's a new IP for 20 dollars. See what happens, you're big enough to take it I bet. If it doesn't work, just up the price again. I really do believe that most people would pirate less and buy more if they were just cheaper.
Also haven't we clearly seen that the more creative DRM like the one found in Arkham Asylum has the same effect(if not more) and none of the backlash from the community?

 

[IgneusMaeror]

At times it feels like DRM in PC games is treated like a minorities problem. It is hard to tell how these ridiculous "solutions" are justified, but I think at very least a part of them is thinking: "What the hell, if gamers want to avoid this kind of problem, they'll play it on the consoles." I may still be mistaken, but many years ago, I felt a slight shift within the gaming business. It felt like gaming is becoming somewhat more console-centric, which I thought wasn't actually a bad idea, I didn't like it much when the personal computer (which has many, many, more productive uses) was called a "gaming rig". To get back to my initial train of thought, this shift might really have happened, I don't have any statistical data at hand (and besides, I don't believe any statistical data which I haven't doctored myself), but maybe this whole DRM misery is, at least on a sub-conscious level, treated as a minorities problem, because most people who do not want to pay a thousand bucks every few months to upgrade their "gaming rig", and still want to play most games, have switched to consoles anyway.

All this aside, I am more infuriated with the whole DLC thing. What happened to good, old fashioned expansion packs? Why the urge to deliver a meaningless package that doesn't have enough content to be released as an expansion? This thing has seen more abuse, and is climbing up the audacity scale much faster than the DRM solutions. What's with day-one DLC, which is basically withholding portions of the game to sell them separately, (which spells out rip-off, no matter what some corporate shill at Bioware/EA said about the Dragon Age: Origins add-ons), or those laughable pre-order bonuses? We've seen some pretty basic gameplay elements released as DLC, like a Chest to store your loot in, in Dragon Age: Origins, so where is this going? What other features are going to be ripped from games and sold separately? In-game music? The ability to save? Half the fucking story-line?

 

[Weaver]

~snip~

Isn't that all a bit like saying it shouldn't be illegal for me to steal a Ferrari, because I'm not going to buy one anyway, so they aren't losing a sale, and I'm giving them the free advertising of people seeing me drive it, and me talking about it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those were your second and third points, weren't they?

If a company wants to advertise by giving samples, even free copies, to drum up word of mouth support, that's one thing. But the argument that it shouldn't be prevented because it creates word of mouth means I should be allowed to steal anything.

But, wait, you'll say. A Ferrari actually costs materials to make, whereas a game costs nothing to make more copies of.

Yes, true, but irrelevant. Most of the cost of a Ferrari is not in the actual parts (or even labor) of making the machine, otherwise it'd cost relatively. The intellectual property is where the cost comes from, as well as the need to make back the investment of research and development. So, as long as Ferrari is charging me more for their car than the pure "resources" put into it cost, we have to accept that intellectual property has value in and of itself.

I'm gonna stick to my guns here.

So what if you went to the library and read a book you were never going to buy? Let's say you heard great things about Timeships by Stephen Baxter and you spend all day in the library reading it. Half way through you realize you don't like it so you put it back and leave. By your own moral standards you should go out and buy that book so the author gets money, right?

All this aside, I am more infuriated with the whole DLC thing. What happened to good, old fashioned expansion packs? Why the urge to deliver a meaningless package that doesn't have enough content to be released as an expansion? This thing has seen more abuse, and is climbing up the audacity scale much faster than the DRM solutions. What's with day-one DLC, which is basically withholding portions of the game to sell them separately, (which spells out rip-off, no matter what some corporate shill at Bioware/EA said about the Dragon Age: Origins add-ons), or those laughable pre-order bonuses? We've seen some pretty basic gameplay elements released as DLC, like a Chest to store your loot in, in Dragon Age: Origins, so where is this going? What other features are going to be ripped from games and sold separately? In-game music? The ability to save? Half the fucking story-line?

I'm glad someone shares my sentiments towards DLC. I've expressed more or less the same thoughts before and got flamed saying that "DLC is worth it" and that it's "the best" and "if you don't like it, don't buy it" which I don't so I didn't really understand that argument.

Simply put, there is NOT enough content in DLC to justify it's price. Pre-order bonuses and other bullshit like that are one of the main reasons I hate the new corporate nature of gaming companies. In the 90s they were these smaller enthusiastic group of nerds (more or less exactly like myself) who just wanted to make something cool and fun. Now it's about money, business deals, the bottom line and pumping out shit that above ALL ELSE will sell to the most people possible. It doesn't have to be fun - it just has to sell. Money for the company = money for the CEO. IMO this is why Valve makes such fantastic games, Gabe Newell, say what you will about him, LIKES games and cares about his product as well as the developers. This allows for a lot of free-flowing and new ideas and it harbors love for their product.

Maybe this is the reason we see a decline in support now-a-days. I remember UT got updates like new maps and game modes, all for free. I remember very open modding platforms with heavy community involvement, maps and enthusiasm. Christ I remember developer involvement in the community, releasing community map packs with proper acknowledgments. I just don't see this anymore. The console players don't get mod tools and the PC players don't seem to care anymore. Maybe it's from years of being dicked around? Maybe it's because the tools just aren't there? I don't know.

Getting back to DLC, I just hate linking it to my account as well. I often hear people dreading a shift to new consoles because they'll have to transfer all of their DLC over and it will be a pain in the ass. Like the 500 megs of rockband songs they bought or whatever. What I always ask is what the hell makes them think they'll be able to transfer it at all? They seem to actually TRUST Microsoft, Sony and to a lesser extent Activision and EA to not dick them around and make them buy more DLC. I would not be surprised if when the new consoles are released the basic attitude is "lulz sorry, you have to buy it all again." Can anyone give me a reason why they wouldn't do this? Making people angry obviously doesn't matter to them, they do it all the damn time.

 

[sunpop]

Didn't arkham asylums' devs do something that wasn't drm but if you have a pirated copy of the game there was a glitch that caused the cape to not work and anyone who posted got busted? Why can't we do something like that?

 

[Weaver]

edit cause i'm stupid and posted in the wrong thread T_T

 

[Caliostro]

Isn't that all a bit like saying it shouldn't be illegal for me to steal a Ferrari, because I'm not going to buy one anyway, so they aren't losing a sale, and I'm giving them the free advertising of people seeing me drive it, and me talking about it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those were your second and third points, weren't they?

If a company wants to advertise by giving samples, even free copies, to drum up word of mouth support, that's one thing. But the argument that it shouldn't be prevented because it creates word of mouth means I should be allowed to steal anything.

But, wait, you'll say. A Ferrari actually costs materials to make, whereas a game costs nothing to make more copies of.

Yes, true, but irrelevant. Most of the cost of a Ferrari is not in the actual parts (or even labor) of making the machine, otherwise it'd cost relatively. The intellectual property is where the cost comes from, as well as the need to make back the investment of research and development. So, as long as Ferrari is charging me more for their car than the pure "resources" put into it cost, we have to accept that intellectual property has value in and of itself.

I'm gonna stick to my guns here.

You're basing your entire argument in a fallacy. Piracy = Stealing.

When you steal a Ferrari the loss doesn't come from the fact that I can no longer sell YOU a Ferrari, but from the fact that the car you stole can't be sold to anyone else. A car that cost resources to make, that had an expected profit, suddenly is gone without any profit. At the end of the day, whether I steal the Ferrari and use it myself, or throw a grenade in it and turn it into scrap metal, is irrelevant. It's not the loss of "intellectual property" or of a "potential sale" to you, it's the loss of a real, actual, tangible sale because the product you could sell is gone.

If you walk to a gamestop and steal a copy of a game, that's stealing. Piracy would be walking up to the Ferrari stand, look up a model, then building your own replica right there, for no cost, in a matter of minutes, and driving off in the car you made. Not quite the same.

The colossal difference lies in the fact that stealing comes with a real, tangible, quantifiable loss. You lost the exact value of the product, since you can no longer sell it and will need to replace it. In Piracy all loss is basically conjecture. There is no actual product loss. You could argue that there is a potential loss, but as I mentioned before there's both positive and negative interactions with "potential", a wildly immeasurable variable anyways...

 

[Epitome]

DRM is NOT to stop piracy!!? They say that, but they are not that stupid. The second hand market takes more sales from them every year and they know it. They want games to be such a pain in the ass to sell on that the market dies. Thats why the limits exist. Even if you wanted to combat piracy think who does an install limit hurt? I stopped Pc gaming a long time ago, now I buy classics or Xbox games. If I reaaaaaaaly want something, there are alternatives.

 

[IckleMissMayhem]

After all, what's gone wrong in any given situation is never as important as who can be blamed for it.

Lesson for life, right there.

Have these - fresh outta the oven!!

 

[DTWolfwood]

so i read that the 15 time activation thru microsoft can be reset if you call them <.<

 

[ImprovizoR]

They wont get my money. There are a lot of other games coming out this year that I'm actually looking forward to. What's the point of limiting installations anyway?

 

[a.element.of.fire]

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.

Didn't arkham asylums' devs do something that wasn't drm but if you have a pirated copy of the game there was a glitch that caused the cape to not work and anyone who posted got busted? Why can't we do something like that?

That kind of DRM and it is a DRM will cause inconvenience to the paying customer. One customer is to many go look at Mass effect.

The Arkham asylum thing was just a glitch the developers tried to pass of as DRM the pirates got around it with in a day and its been use in a few games and not stopped them yet. the more it gets used the faster they will get around it.
The current DRM that is used does not slow down pirates by much more than a day and that's if they do not get it before the release day.

 

[DayDark]

So what if you went to the library and read a book you were never going to buy? Let's say you heard great things about Timeships by Stephen Baxter and you spend all day in the library reading it. Half way through you realize you don't like it so you put it back and leave. By your own moral standards you should go out and buy that book so the author gets money, right?

Well, not really. The library already paid the author for allowing you to read the book, and you already paid the library through your taxes.

 

[DancePuppets]

I can see why they do it but I don't entirely agree with them. The thing is though, that it does put off the people who know very little about video games who would otherwise pirate it, I know that this is a small number but as someone who buys all my games legitimately it makes me feel slightly better that, at least some people who would have pirated the game will either buy it or not get to play it.

 

[Shamus Young]

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.

Wrong wrong wrong oh... and wrong.

I can absolutely, positively, 100% confirm that not only does Bioshock not require activation via digital distribution... it also has zero traces of SecuRom.

[...]

Retail versions may require SecuRom to call home on install, but it should be a simple case of calling home to be told to no longer worry about machine activations, and SecuRom will be removed without consequence when the game is patched up. There is simply no way around this without recalling all of the discs and reprinting them.

The battle against DRM is uphill enough as it is, without us being made to look like a misinformed idiots clinging to disinformation.

So you told me I was wrong, and then confirmed everything I just said? And then called me an idiot? I've been following this story since day one and I banged out many, many articles on it as the story unfolded. Feel free to step up if you think you can keep up, but you'll mind your manners or piss the hell off.

I was talking about the boxed copy. You can tell because I said it was "no longer on the shelves". Digital copies do not appear on shelves. That boxed copy will now and always require activation. That's my point. The game was cracked right away, but the DRM is with us forever, protecting a game that isn't for sale from piracy that has already happened. That game will turn into a coaster if they ever take down the activation servers, which must happen someday because servers cost money and the game that requires them has stopped making money.

The fact that the digital copy doesn't have these problems does nothing to help the loyal fan who put up $60 for a physical copy of this on launch day.