Hell Kitty

If people can continue to say they didn't buy a game because of DRM, then other people can continue to point out they've not had the problems the anti-DRM crowd complain about. See, anecdotal evidence works both ways. Your continued insistence that my individual experience isn't relevant is hypocritical when you don't also attempt to dismiss the individual experiences of the anti-DRM crowd. Okay then, you've convinced me. I shall emerge from my cocoon to become a beautiful anti-DRM butterfly and fight against the terrible corporations potentially hindering my leisure activities. Or maybe I'll just continue to enjoy playing the games I've bought instead. So you don't even need to activate to play, or you used a crack? It doesn't matter, all I wanted to know was whether you were fighting the idea of DRM of you were actually "hurt" by it. If people are going to continue to insist that DRM hurts paying customers, they can't just ignore the times it doesn't.

Hells Angels are everywhere. Bandidos too.

I'll believe it when I see it.

I'm currently playing Crysis now that I have a video card that can run it on high (with very high tweaks), and I often stop just to admire the scenery. And yes, the water is nice.

It holds as much water as the "well I didn't buy it" argument. I'm not arguing for DRM I'm arguing against the idea that "it only hurts paying customers". I'm still wondering if you had any trouble activating Spore. That's not a definitive claim, it's an assumption. As much as the anti-DRM crowd want to think that DRM hurts sales of the game, games with DRM continue to sell well, so I'm going to continue to assume the anti-DRM folks claims are wrong, until they are able to prove otherwise. Same goes for those in the industry claiming that piracy is killing PC gaming. So if they think they have a good reason then it doesn't matter that you or anyone else think they don't.

Yes. And yes. Frankly I'm quite surprised at the animosity that some forumites are showing towards those that are trying to take a stand on this issue. I completely understand that DRM doesn't quite anger many gamers the way it angers some of us (although they would be glad to be rid of it anyway). What I don't understand is why Hurlshot, Hell Kitty and Alanschu are actively trying to discourage and sometimes downright ridicule those that have taken a stance against DRM. Is it too hard for you to accept that there are law-abiding customers that do not pirate games but who are upset about having their fair-use rights systematically stripped away from them? Perhaps you feel their numbers are too low to have an impact. Regardless, don't you feel they're protesting about something that at the end of the day does affect you, no matter how slight the effect may be? Wouldn't you be glad if every publisher adopted Stardock's principles? If so, why discourage and belittle them? Perhaps you guys are just playing the devil's advocate, but that's not the vibe I'm getting from the tone of the posts. I have no problem with people protesting, and if enough people protest and convince major publisher to abandon DRM then great. I don't think repeating the same old lines over and over is an effective form of protest, especially when those claims aren't as great as protesters claim ("it only hurts sales!" - but sales are good "it only affects paying customers!" - but most paying customers activate their games without hassle), and as I've never had a problem with any sort of copy protection in the roughly 20 years I've been PC gaming, it's not something that gets my knickers in a knot.

No I don't know it's true, I'm simply making an assumption based on the fact there isn't any evidence that what the anti-DRM crowd claims is true, that DRM significantly hurts sales. They're the ones making the claim so they're the ones who need to provide the evidence. Why do I have to post numbers, I'm not the one making any definitive claims, the onus isn't on me. There are people who don't buy particular games because they include DRM, no one is arguing that, what I'm arguing is that the anti-DRM crowd are as unable to prove that DRM significantly hurts sales as publishers are unable to prove that every pirated copy is a lost sale. And until either side is able to backup their claims I'm not going to worry about either of them. I've already pointed out that by saying I've never been affected by it I mean I've never had copy protection stop me from playing games I own, but I'm sure you'll continue to ignore that. Despite the anti-DRM crowd insisting that "it only hurts paying customers", I'm a paying customer who has never been hurt by it (apparently so is Hurlshot). This isn't a private conversation, and not everything I post is a direct response to you, rather it concerns the topic in general. Exactly! What good are the people who claim to be protesting doing if they only post about it on internet message boards. It does to them.

Because it might never get there? Why fight a battle against a problem that doesn't, and might never exist? Oh, and you're playing Spore, so what was your experience with activation?

I never said you did. I'm saying the people it does break the deal for, well there simply aren't enough of them to matter, even though they might want to think otherwise. I agree with this, but if a game is selling well enough for publishers what reason do they have to change? Especially for a bunch of people who "never would have bought the game anyway"? Ineffective in stopping piracy sure, but we don't know what's effective or ineffective to the publisher. Like I said earlier, if no pirated copy available immediately or a pirated copy that's limited in some way convinces one person to buy a legit copy of the game, then perhaps that's enough to convince publishers that the copy protection is effective. Pissed off customers only matter if there are enough of them. The same people saying over and over "it doesn't work" and "it only hurts paying customers" isn't going to convince publishers of anything. Except I've never needed to do that, so no, it's not affecting me right there. I'm sure the companies that use DRM believe they have a good reason, and insisting they don't won't convince them otherwise. Things like limited activations and needing a connection to the internet to play are new, but jumping through hoops to play a game you've bought is unfortunately nothing new to PC gaming, and it's something PC gamers have shown they will put up with.

Just how undesirable does copy protection make a product? Just how many of the potential customers really care? Do PC games with DRM do worse than those without? This has been the entire point of my argument all along. Despite DRM and less than stellar reviews Spore is apparently selling really well. Publishers insist that piracy hurts PC gaming and gamers insist that DRM hurts PC gaming, and both sides assume it's an obvious fact, but neither side can offer any definitive proof and as such aren't going to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with them. The reason people make comments like DRM causing people to avoid the game when they otherwise would have bought it is because they think it matters (by significantly lowering sales proving DRM hurts the game), but we seem to be in agreement that it doesn't. I agree with that, as do many others, but like I mentioned previously, what a publisher thinks makes copy protection worth it is likely to differ from what gamers think. This simply isn't true. Yes, it is true. When I say it doesn't affect me I mean copy protection has never stopped me from playing any game I own. Spending time finding third party nocd cracks for games with copy protection is no different to spending time finding them for games without copy protection, or time downloading patches or drivers, or time spent finding the ideal configuration, or even the time spent just installing the game. That's PC gaming, you can't stick the disc in the drive and begin playing straight away. The only game I've bought that required activation was Alone in the Dark. Entering the activation code was no different to entering registration codes for numerous games over the last couple decades. Doesn't require a cd so no time spent looking for a crack, and when uninstalling that game I revoked the license allowing me to reinstall later or sell the game. Not a problem.

I assume every time anyone says something like "People who would have otherwise bought the game now think twice" they are suggesting those lost sales are significant, otherwise why even mention it? To the publisher, is "I won't buy this game because of DRM" any different to "I won't buy this game because it's a console port" or "I won't buy this game because it's buggy" or "I won't buy this game because I don't like it"? How is "I'll pirate this game because I don't like DRM" different to "I'll pirate this game because I don't like the developer" or "I'll pirate this game because I can't afford it" or "I'll pirate this game because I never intend to buy it"? That's why pirating or avoiding buying a game as a form of protest is pointless. Publishers will continue to use copy protection as long as they think it works. If no pirated copy available or a pirated copy that's limited in some way convinces one person to buy a legit copy of the game, then perhaps that's enough to convince publishers that copy protection works. Whereas one person not buying a copy because of the protection it uses seems to be enough to prove to gamers that DRM is a terrible, immoral waste of money. Companies wanting gamers to prove they own the copy of the game they're using is nothing new. Neither are gamers who feel entitled to any game without having to pay for it. Publishers wouldn't have any reason to use copy protection if no one pirated games, but people will still pirate games even if none use copy protection. Many folks might like to use copy protection as justifying their piracy, but the truth is they'll just find some other reason, like they can't afford it, or it only provided a mere 10 hours of horrible entertainment they were forced to endure. Personally, I don't like the idea of games installing hidden protection systems without my knowledge, but the reality is that is doesn't really affect me so I don't care. Which translates to I'm not going to avoid buying a game I want because of the copy protection it uses. I really don't like the idea of limited installs or being connected to the internet to play, but I'm computer savvy enough that I can always use a crack to get around that.

Mary Elizabeth McGlynn has the sexiest voice ever. That is all.

I'm sure that the people who refuse to buy a game because of it's DRM like to think the stand they are taking is a meaningful one, but is there really any way to know that this is true? I mean if all the recent PC games that have required activation were replaced with versions without DRM, would sales suddenly increase a meaningful amount? It just seems like gamers claiming that DRM has a huge effect on PC game sales isn't much different to publishers claiming that piracy has a huge effect on PC game sales, in that neither side can really prove such claims.

I bought Alone in the Dark online from the Atari store, and it required a one time activation on install, and when uninstalling allows you to revoke the license*. No need to worry about limited installs or calling home every time you load the game. *Not that I'd ever replay this bugfest.

26

The first intro I remember being impressed by was Soul Blade on PS1.

Apparently dismemberment is an issue in Japan, and games are usually modified for release, but dismemberment plays a big part in this game (whatever that means) and so it just gets banned. Basically, gore okay, severed body parts not okay. Still haven't seen anything actually confirming this.

Heh.

Yep. A guy on RPS mentioned playing the Russian version (it's totally okay because he's going to buy the English version) and either the English version is out or it's the Russian version fan translated.

And yet you chose to play it for 10 hours. Oh, sorry, you were forced to play it for 10 hours. The "oh I only make this much and games are like sooo expensive" sob story it just pathetic. Games are luxury items, no one needs to play them, and certainly no one is forced to play them. "I was forced into it. By myself!" Companies make and sell games. You want to play them, you buy them. Don't want to pay for them, then you don't get to play them.

Well obviously the reason stores decide to release games early is because they are cleverly attempting to combat piracy by releasing legit copies of games that have been pirated and are available for download on the internet.

Wow, thats stupid that they had to do that. So you call cocaine a "stimpack" and its all good? People in AU cant connect those dots? I can't speak for my fellow countrymen, but if I ever encountered real world drugs in games my immediate reaction would be to inject my eyeballs with whatever the hell I could get my hands on. I don't think there will be missing content, just name changes from the sound of it. I'm sure someone will offer some kind of mod that changes the names to real world drugs, much like you see in other games where firearms are given real names, or the names of vehicles in the GTA series changed to the real world inspiration.

Um, because you played it for 10 hours.

Playing the latest Sims 2 expansion. Kicking my sims out of their lovely homes and sticking them in the awesome apartments I built.

^ I agree with that. Combat in Bloodlines was functional, just like Deus Ex. Combat in JA2 was awesomecalafragdalisticexpealadoshis. Silent Storm combat was even better, because there ain't nothing like taking out the side of a building with a single grenade.