Sign that Obsidians suports DRM?

[ramza]

It seems like an Obsidian developper is threatening us (customers) that the CRPG D&D industry will collapse if we don't buy MoW. I will not buy any of this and I personnally hate being intimidated in such a way... Please, Obsidian, do not become like EA... DO not support all this DRM craziness...

 

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=26652

 

Well, since the next D&D CRPG will surely be using the 4th edition rules, I say "good riddance" if we never get one...

[Moatilliatta]

What? Intimidation?

Isn't Rob McGinnis just saying that DnD games won't be made if people don't buy them?

[Volourn]

Tough.

[Slowtrain]

I dunno. I didn't really read that as intimidation. More just like a statement of truth. No customers = no games.

 

I think we've all been through this enough know to realize that if gamers do not buy pc games because of the DRM, rightly or wrongly the message that publishers will get is pc games don't sell.

[Magister Lajciak]

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.

[Volourn]

Actually, the message that gets sent is that the company failed to deliver what the customers wanted.

[SteveThaiBinh]

If you don't like DRM, is boycotting the most effective means of applying pressure for what we want, which is DRM-free games? Probably not, since Storms of Zehir is only in production because NWN2 and MotB sold well (I think a dev has said that). A better approach is to buy lots of games from Good Old Games and Stardock. Let's show the publishers that the DRM-free model is financially viable.

[Starwars]

People are mainly reacting because it looks like Rob is defending Atari in how they've delayed MoW for so long now. MoW was completed a little less than a year ago now, and the supposed reason it's been delayed for so long is because of Atari implementing their DRM thing. I think it's a bit of annoying situation from the consumers side, since buying it will support Atari and I really believe they have *really* dropped the ball on how they've handled MoW. At the same time, I wish to give support to Ossian and the chance of more NWN2 content.

 

But come on... you're intimidated by this?

 

And if I remember correctly (though I really can't remember where, possibly it was through the NWN2 community guys who're in contact with Ataris EU people) that the DRM system for MoW is (or was at the time, a few months ago now) going to require a 1 time online activation. You won't need to be online or anything like the NWN1 premium mods. But don't quote me on that, wish I could remember exactly where I read it.

[Slowtrain]

I'm sure publishers are somewhat frsutrated as well. From their point of view, they are trying to protect their investment in a product. There is nothing wroing with that. They probably don't like having to antagonize and upset their potential customers in the process though. My guess is that within a short period of time a middle ground approach to drm will be found that makes publishers feel safe and that gamers can live with.

[Gorgon]

I think what this means is that the writing on the wall is that more games will be developed for consoles first and foremost, and then ported to PC. All things being equal that will lessen quality. As far as I can tell this is already happening with a number of games.

 

I don't see why developers would not port to PC if the game is a success, that would be throwing away money.

[ramza]

1) Let me rephrase it: this Obsidian guy is supporting DRM in the sense that he is basically asking us to buy Atari's new product that has a new type of DRM just for the sake of the d&d crpg industry. So, in other words, we are headed to a vicious circle: we hate DRM but we cannot boycott it just so that we may have even more products with DRM. This is just the beginning for Atari: they will probably extend their DRM scheme to all their other products (including maybe SoZ). I have no wish to support any of these schemes.

 

2) DRM is useless since all games get pirated (some of them, even before their official release). It only hurts loyal customers...

 

3) Games are just games. If they don't want to make any more pc games, then I don't care. Besides, I wouldn't have bought any of their games just because they have this crappy DRM. My wallet will be happier on the other hand. This whole thing sounds retarded anyway... The only solution they have found is to withdraw from the pc market altogether... how clever... If they took the time to read other people's suggestions, they would have figured out more ways to make money... How come GOOD pc games sell in high numbers despite all the piracy paranoia (BG, KOTOR, etc)? If they make games that are playable and DRM-light, there is no problem at all. People go out and buy the games willingly (they even buy the sequels without a second thought)...

Edited September 27, 2008 by ramza

[random n00b]

Not paying full price for rental rights of software that contains malware is the only thing consumers can do in the face of this DRM escalation. Making lots of noise is a possibility as well, but if statements like Rob's are anything to go by, it's pointless.

 

I understand that Rob's taking one for the team and all, but really, his arguments fail to convince. Because, if a SecuROM-protected game bombs, obviously this must mean that there's no PC gaming market to exploit. Nevermind that other games without integrated trojans sell just fine. Nah, couldn't happen. Piracy killed D&D.

Edited September 27, 2008 by random n00b

[Kaftan Barlast]

And everyone should remember that the main reason a game does not sell well is because its bad, not because of piracy. GTA4 was released several days in advance and the amount of downloads was staggering, yet it sold a gazillion copies. Too Human didnt have nearly as many downloads, but it sold like **** because its a ****ty game.

 

 

And consoles have a massive pirate market. Here in Sweden there is atleast one or three shops in every larger town that will hack your console for a small fee, if you cant do it yourself. The PS3 doesnt have a stable hack yet, but every other console, stationary or portable is pirateble. And downloading and using pirated console games is much easier than on the PC, you just burn the iso, stick it in the drive and youre ready to go, no fuss at all. You can evn connect a hardrive to the Wii and play the games without having to burn them first. ..so yes, there is absolutely no piracy problem with consoles and we should all put our faith in sony and microsoft to save the dying gaming market

Edited September 27, 2008 by Kaftan Barlast

[aries101]

Rob McGinnis is simply just saying that if people don't buy enough pc games, they will cease to exist. This means that Atari won't be releasing any more games for the pc, only for the consoles. This also means no more Obsidian D&D pc games. In a market based economy this is how it works (this is comment, not an invitation to a political debate).

 

As for Atari's having their own download service for their games, like many others I have to ask this: 'why does atari not just use steam?'

[GreasyDogMeat]

I think the whole Atari DRM delay situation is ridiculous and that its killing the premium module project before it has a chance to thrive. Its just injury added to insult.

 

Think it boils down to whether a person wants to stand up for treating their customers fairly, or whether they prefer the game. I personally don't think any game is worth rotten treatment.

[Tigranes]

I think you're overreacting a little bit ramza, matter-of-fact comments like that, albeit from the dev's pov, can be found everywhere. Anyway, remember when we were asked to buy BoS so Van Buren could be made? Can't get worse than that.

 

As for MoW, well.... I try not to think about what's happening with that. Heh.

[Montgomery Markland]

1) Let me rephrase it: this Obsidian guy is supporting DRM in the sense that he is basically asking us to buy Atari's new product that has a new type of DRM just for the sake of the d&d crpg industry.

 

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 don't think it's a crazy limb to go out on to say: "If consumers do not buy a company's product the company will likely revise their product offerings" coupled with a declaration as to what you think would be the most likely product offering revision.

[Dark_Raven]

Rob has an account here. He better get his butt online and start explaining himself before things get out of hand.

 

Obsidian uses DRM or some other form that limits the installs of the game or forced registration, count me out on any more Obsidian sales.

 

D&D games? I wouldn't buy them. They would use that ****ty 4th edition rule set and setting, I want nothing to do with it.

[Kelverin]

D&D games? I wouldn't buy them. They would use that ****ty 4th edition rule set and setting, I want nothing to do with it.

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.

[Dark_Raven]

No I would not. I would be supporting the screw up they did with 4th ed rules and screwing up the Forgotten Realms setting if I bought something that used 4th ed. Not gonna happen.

[Magister Lajciak]

D&D games? I wouldn't buy them. They would use that ****ty 4th edition rule set and setting, I want nothing to do with it.

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).

[Magister Lajciak]

Rob has an account here. He better get his butt online and start explaining himself before things get out of hand.

 

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.

[Magister Lajciak]

1) Let me rephrase it: this Obsidian guy is supporting DRM in the sense that he is basically asking us to buy Atari's new product that has a new type of DRM just for the sake of the d&d crpg industry.

 

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.

[kirottu]

Rob has an account here. He better get his butt online and start explaining himself before things get out of hand.

 

Overreacting much?

[Tigranes]

Yep. I'm not accusing ramza of being a rabble-rouser or anything, but tthis one is a stretch too far and it really does muddy the waters. If the public feedback against draconian DRM is to have an effect, it needs to prevent becoming polemical/reactionary (any more). Rob's comment is fine.