Magister Lajciak

Well, it would be easier if you listed the games you are interested in and we could tell you whether they come with DDRM or not or if it is still unknown. If the game is relatively far from release (more than a few months) than it is almost certainly unknown, but there are clear trends by company. For example, EA is prone to using DDRM on its new PC releases, but we still don't know what DRM system will be used for most of the upcoming games - e.g. Dragon Age. It seems pretty likely that EA will use DDRM on all of its future PC titles, though I suppose they could change their minds - future is difficult to predict.

This means I will be buying Fallout 3. Yeah, I might pick up a copy as well - if only to show that games with lesser amounts of DRM will sell. Wait. So you would rather pay for and purchase a terrible game with less annoying DRM than a really good game with super annoying DRM? Isn't that a bit like choosing what TV shows to watch based on the content of the ads rather than the quality of the show? Actually, I would not purchase a terrible game at all even with FDRM. Nor would I purchase a game with DDRM regardless of how good it was in other aspects. I would only purchase a good game without DDRM. Well, that eliminates FO3 then. Why? I have heard some pretty good things about FO3.

Yes, in a party-based game, such a system makes eminent sense.

Incorrect, but let's not derail yet another topic with your spam. I agree, and I, personally, would not have put them on the list. Indeed - I wish DRM companies developed and publishers utilized more such ways to hamper pirates while leaving legitimate users unaffected.

This means I will be buying Fallout 3. Yeah, I might pick up a copy as well - if only to show that games with lesser amounts of DRM will sell. Wait. So you would rather pay for and purchase a terrible game with less annoying DRM than a really good game with super annoying DRM? Isn't that a bit like choosing what TV shows to watch based on the content of the ads rather than the quality of the show? Actually, I would not purchase a terrible game at all even with FDRM. Nor would I purchase a game with DDRM regardless of how good it was in other aspects. I would only purchase a good game without DDRM.

strictly speaking, as a publisher, Atari doesn't licence games at all. it has a licence from Hasbro to publish D&D games, but there's nothing to stop Hasbro licencing another publisher. I believe Atari's license is exclusive and long-term. It probably has years to run before it expires. Getting back to Storm of Zehir discussion, since Atari already has the license, it might as well milk it with more NWN2 expansion. I guess getting milked is not bad in all circumstances!

again, WOTC don't make the games, they just licence other people to make them & rake in the cash. they hardly need to restructure in order to licence handheld games, and it wouldn't require them to stop licencing PC games either. you can chew gum & walk at the same time. I think Morgoth was referring to Atari's policy, not WotC's policy. As a publisher, Atari does more than just license games.

Both Fade and Earthbound seem like very reasonable DRM systems. They both only affect pirates, while the legitimate user continues to enjoy hassle-free experience.

That could be the case. I remember the rumors that BG3 is going to be produced (but did not have a developer yet) in 2004 when Atari representative stated something to that effect on the forums. Some more rumors have since appeared, but it was all a long time ago. Perhaps we hear so little about it, because the game was hugely delayed due to the decision (either on Atari's part or being 'forced' by Hasbro/WotC) to change the 3.5E system to 4E. I can see how such a change could account for why it is taking them so long to get the game to a presentable state - that is if the current rumors and the 2004 rumors are connected.

Same here - and by a huge margin.

This means I will be buying Fallout 3. BTW: As a technical matter, a CD-check is also a from of DRM, hence the confusion between you and Nightshade, but it is a form of DRM that is vastly preferable to the online activations and install limits. Because this kind of confusion is common, I think we need a new term specifically for the DRM that makes the user's playing of the game dependent on the company even after he purchases the game. I think Draconian DRM would be a good term - it could be abbreviated as DDRM. The less restructive DRM could be called Friendly DRM or FDRM.

enjoy it while it lasts. because, other than premium mods, it definitely is the last 3.5e game you'll see. That's the plan - I intend to enjoy it to the fullest! I don't think it's 'definitely' the last 3.5e game we will see - there is perhaps chance of one more expansion pack if this one sells well, but yes, it is unfortunately pretty likely that this is the last one. If it has to be the last one - let it be an expansion pack that makes 3.5E go out with a bang rather than a whimper! On this I trust Obsidian pretty well.

Well, I am just happy that Storm of Zehir carries on the banner of D&D 3.5E CRPGs for a while longer.

Well, I did point out that it has probably more to do with the current stock market than with the negative publicity due to DRM. In fact, I just found an article indicating that Spore is selling rather well - it seems to have exceeded 1 million copies already (link: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170143). We don't really know the effect of the negative publicity on sales, though, since we don't know how many copies Spore would have sold without it. I think I remember reading about some supposedly conservative projections predicting sales of Spore at 5-8 million copies and possibly many more. But, of course, those projections were not just for the first few weeks of the game, but over a longer period and in any case they were just projections, so they could have simply been wrong (in either direction) regardless of the DRM issue.

Frankly, that's pretty stupid. You subscribe to a service and then categorise all mail coming from the provider of that service as spam and junk mail? And then, when you fail to heed an important notice with regards to the service you have subscribed to and the consequences take you by surprise... it's somehow THEIR fault? Wow. Er, yeah. Customer's always right, eh buddy? It's not stupid at all - indeed in economics we call that concept rational ignorance - one should not waste his time on things unimportant to him. The vast majority of 'corporate mail' are various advertisements of their products, which is spam and I have no interest in that. Also, I don't subscribe to DRM-services like that, so for me it is an issue only insofar as it illustrates that even a huge company such as Walmart is ready to shut down its online activation servers. Frankly, I doubt I have ever missed anything important by not reading corporate spam-mail and I am not about to start reading it for the sake of monitoring if a company decides to shut down its online activation - much better to have stuff requiring no online activation.

Check here for the 'commercial success' of draconian DRM: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ERTS#ch...ource=undefined Notice, how EA's stock has declined by about 20% since the release of Spore and the DRM fiasco. To be fair, the stock decline is probably not the result of DRM and might instead have something to do with the financial crisis plaguing the stock market, but EA's post-Spore stock market performance is still nothing to brag about.

Here is a recent piece of news which basically confirms my fears that online activation can seriously impact the longevity of games. The article can serve as a cautionary tale for those who hold the belief that company size and success are guarantees that DRM online activation servers will be maintained indefinitely. Source: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/26/walma...utting-dow.html The rest of the article is essentially the e-mail notice sent by Walmart to warn of this situation. On a positive note, Walmart is giving its customers a window of opportunity to burn their DRM-protected songs to a CD (it is by no means clear that all other companies would even do that - it would depend to some extent on the reason for their server shutdown), but to be honest I almost never check corporate mail, which I actually divert to a separate account that I use for online registration and the associated spam mail. I only check the account for retrieving passwords if I need to do so. I bet lots of people do the same. Ironically, Walmart is transitioning to a DRM-free business model of music distribution, which is itself a very positive thing, but it no longer feels the need to maintain the online activation servers used in its old business model (one of many reasons why a company might shut down its online activation servers). At least the customers can burn their music to a CD if they react in time, but if you are like me, you create a special e-mail account for all the corporate/junk mail when asked to register and access it only to retrieve passwords, so I am guessing many people will miss that and simply lose access to their purchased music after a while. If this kind of thing can happen with Walmart, it can happen with any company. Walmart is absolutely huge in comparison with EA. Just to illustrate, market capitalization of Walmart was over $223 billion a year ago (the latest figure I could find), while EA had a market capitalization of comparatively meager $14.1 billion in July (again, the latest figure I could find). If Walmart feels it can no longer economically justify running its online activation servers and it has so much more money than EA, I am entirely unconvinced that EA could be trusted not to make such a decision, should it become more profitable to shut these servers down. That's not even taking into account the possibility of EA going out of business or a plethora of other events that might lead to the impossibility of online activation.

Draconian DRM is not a dead horse - it is a very topical issue at the moment. As to how many threads it should be mentioned in, I cannot give you a number, but it is perfectly legitimate to mention it in threads that are relevant to it, which means threads that discuss games that have such DRM or games that are not released, but may well have such DRM. I think most gamers' issues with DRM are not anti-copy systems, but rather limited installs and online activation. And yes, it is a 'feature' of the game itself, or rather an anti-feature, since draconian DRM is integral to the usage of the game itself. Unlike a color of the box, DRM is installed with the game and affects how a game is used, which makes it a part of the game itself as far as the end user is concerned.

Agreed on all counts. Ramza is a respected community member - he just got a little carried away, that's all. I can understand that, as passions on DRM are flying high - I am pretty angry about EA's DRM myself. Still, it is better not to overreact to innocent comments.

I think this is a bad idea. Draconian DRM a la that in Spore is a major uhm, feature, uhm of a game and it is, therefore, perfectly reasonable to discuss it in a thread related to the game in question. Besides, channeling all DRM talk into one thread is liable to limiting exposure of that talk, which is also bad, considering how many of us think it is a very important issue. Some company forums (e.g. BioWare) do try to limit such talk to one thread for precisely that reason, but luckily Obsidian is not embroiled in that fiasco (and I hope that remains the case), so it is safe and does not have to restrict the rage to one thread only.

He's not supporting DRM, he's pointing out what he thinks is a likely result of low sales for MoW based on people not buying it due to DRM. That prediction has nothing to do with whatever his personal opinion is on DRM (which I have no idea regarding, Rob can speak for himself). I agree - I think only very few people have interpreted his remarks as actually supporting the kinds of draconian* DRM schemes that EA has inflicted on its games. But please forgive those people their snarkiness, many of us are genuinely upset (and ready to boycott) over what is being done with DRM in the case of EA and afraid that other companies might follow suit, so some of us overinterpret anything related to the issue. *I don't have any significant problem with DRM schemes such as CD checks. Heck, I would be even willing to acquiesce to install limits and online activations, as long as both of those features 'auto-expired' based on an internal clock after a reasonable period of time since the games release - I am after game's longevity for which it must be independent of online servers etcetera and patches to make it independent are not going to come if a company that published it is failing and has other problems - no matter what it has promised before.

Come on now - the comments were not supportive of DRM and Rob does not have to explain everything he says. That would just be ridiculous. I am just as opposed to the draconian DRM schemes imposed by EA as most people here, but Rob has not come out in support of them. Only very few people are (mis-)interpreting it that way. Also, let us not forget that Atari has actually been a positive publisher in this regard. It's DRM consists of CD-checks, which are just fine. I have to say I feel somewhat grateful to Atari for restraining itself with its DRM schemes - look at NWN2 and MotB - only CD-checks needed. As to MoW, yes, the online check needed each time you play is very draconian, but that is because MoW is being distributed exclusively online, so they have no real way to implement less restrictive DRM schemes (though it does mean I will not be buying MoW) - I am hopeful that CD-distributed Atari games will retain the hitherto-used and quite reasonable DRM system of CD-checks.

Oh come on now. You would not buy a game with a well written story with great characters, music, voice acting..........that was well reviewed by both fans and critics alike, because of the rule set? I find that hard to believe. I don't like 4E for PnP and have decided to stick with 3.5E and the Pathfinder RPG until 5E comes along at which point I may or may not switch depending on how good that will turn out to be. In a CRPG, though, I think the ruleset would be much less bothersome to me, since the computer takes care of that and the devs pre-simulate the world, so I don't have to deal with doing that as a DM in a system I dislike and that is counter-simulationist. As such, I would probably buy a 4E CRPG from Obsidian for the story and the characters. I would still prefer, however, that 3.5E stays with computer games as long as possible (but not at the cost of supporting games with draconian DRM a la Spore - I recognize the need for some DRM [CD-checks are fine], but definitely not in the form of limited installs and online activations - unless DRM expires automatically after a certain period).

Obsidian could clearly do a good job with BG3 - making an excellent new D&D 3.5E game and throwing references to the Bhaalspawn saga. The only problem in that regard is that I am not sure Obsidian could handle the workload considering how many other games it is already developing.

That is not a sign that Obsidian supports DRM. I think you are hyperventillating a bit, ramza, though I cannot really blame you considering what EA is doing with its DRM schemes. Atari, actually, is now among the better publishers. Neither NWN2 nor the MotB contain draconian DRM requiring online activations and having limited installs, so that is all great in my eyes. I hope neither will the Storm of Zehir, since I am greatly looking forward to buying and playing that game. As to MoW, I thought it was released long ago, no? I recall going to the boards many months (perhaps even a year) ago, and it was apparently already close to finishing. I stopped going to the boards, when I found out that the game will require online checks each time we want to play it, which meant I pretty much lost all interest in the game and ceased to follow its progress altogether.