Sign that Obsidians suports DRM?

[Magister Lajciak]

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.

 

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.

[Walsingham]

I think on balance I'd buy a Obs game even with DRM. But I'd make a really annoying noisewhile doing so. A lot. And there would be no more dancing when I saw an Obs developer online.

[ramza]

Ok, I am sorry for getting carried away with my comments. It's just that such a statement from a developper came at a really bad time and wasn't helping much in the actual context of draconian DRM schemes that only hurt the loyal fanbase.

 

Nonetheless, I am still worried that the use of DRM is an ongoing trend and there is no way for us to prevent this. I get the impression that the actual answer from producers/distributors is "STFU, accept it and buy our games or we won't make any more of those you like". This whole approach maddens me...

 

Cheers.

[newc0253]

i dislike DRM as much as the next person, but silly anti-DRM hysteria is worse.

 

folk need to chill is all.

[Hurlshort]

DRM is probably here to stay, but there are many different levels of DRM. EA has already backed off on a lot of restrictions. There should be a compromise that makes both publishers and paying customers happy, and hopefully we'll find it soon. I'll be honest, the ultra-whining against any form of DRM just makes me more sympathetic to the publisher's cause. I'm no fan of DRM in it's current form, but EA is making some steps to improve the system and people are still overreacting.

[ramza]

Actually, what I didn't like was how he underlined the fact that if we didn't buy the module, the whole industry would collapse. Just as if a single module could influence the market if it happened to be a flop. Now, if SoZ failed to deliver, that would have been an other issue... But MoW is pretty insignificant in terms of sales and revenue. I, for example, do not buy games onlines. So, I wouldn't have bought the game anyway unless there was a physical copy of it.

 

I can understand how our Obsidian friend wishes to promote Ossian's product since it is both beneficial to Atari (Atari gets the money and is the publisher of SoZ, so Obsidian must be on good terms with them) and to Obsidian itself (they probably get a small percentage of the revenues since they "created" the engine).

 

However, I am no fool and I am not buying such PR talk.

[ramza]

The topic is also being discussed on the BIO boards:

 

http://nwn2forums.bioware.com/forums/viewt...m=122&sp=30

 

And I particularly agree with this guy:

 

And to be blunt, *we* are not hurting Ossian here. Atari is. If *we* don't buy it in the originally projected numbers, that's not *our* fault. I find it astonishing that the delay and bad feelings about this project are due *entirely* to the actions of one entity here, Atari, and yet, we keep getting told that if we don't all run out and buy it in mass quantities on the first day, *we're* the bad guy. Really? I call bulldookey on that. We've been, honestly, jerked around by Atari on this, and now that some of us have the bad form to say "You know what, i'm not buying it, enjoy your DRM", or "I'm going to wait and make sure this thing is not as buggy as candy on the street in Florida", WE'RE the bad guys. We're the ones cutting of OUR noses to spite OUR faces?

[Moatilliatta]

I'm pretty sure Rob didn't mean to say not buying MoW == Death of the entire DnD games industry. I belive he was speaking in general terms that people should be careful that their not buying a product doesn't have an effect that isn't desired with that effect being no more DnD games because the publisher thinks the market isn't there.

 

Don't read something into his post that isn't there.

[Gorth]

what I didn't like was how he underlined the fact that if we didn't buy the module, the whole industry would collapse.

I would like a link to that exact quote please?

[newc0253]

what I didn't like was how he underlined the fact that if we didn't buy the module, the whole industry would collapse.

I would like a link to that exact quote please?

actually, his exact words were 'if you don't buy MoW, we'll shoot this dog'.

 

and he even provided a picture of the dog:

(yes, it's the same dog that national lampoon threatened in 1973. the dog is now very, very old).

Edited September 28, 2008 by newc0253

[Montgomery Markland]

what I didn't like was how he underlined the fact that if we didn't buy the module, the whole industry would collapse.

I would like a link to that exact quote please?

actually, his exact words were 'if you don't buy MoW, we'll shoot this dog'.

 

and he even provided a picture of the dog:

(yes, it's the same dog that national lampoon threatened in 1973. the dog is now very, very old).

 

This is the best post on an internet forum that I've seen this month.

 

In honor of this post, this thread should be renamed "Sign that Obsidian supports shooting dogs."

[ramza]

what I didn't like was how he underlined the fact that if we didn't buy the module, the whole industry would collapse.

I would like a link to that exact quote please?

 

Then I project/guess the end result is that D&D games on PC will no longer occur, cutting out this displeased community.

 

Personally, I like my RPGs on the PC. But, if the market is no longer here then, if I was Atari, I would shift my target market.

 

Consoles are a much lower-cost platform to develop for since you don't have to worry about compatibility or DRM.

 

See the link in my first post to check the source.

 

When a developper is voicing his thoughts, it is NEVER neutral. He should have been more careful with his choice of words. He is entitled to his opinion, yes. He spoke the truth, yes. However, he is not suggesting anthing constructive. It is obvious that he didn't mind Atari using DRM as long this meant more d&d games for everybody. In other words, we should not boycott games using the new DRM or we will not get any more games. We are being punished twice. Yay, who wants games with draconian DRM anyway?

Edited September 29, 2008 by ramza

[Killian Kalthorne]

Yay, who wants games with draconian DRM anyway?

 

I don't. And if there is enough of those who don't that causes the industry to collapse, maybe, just maybe the publishers should not have used DRM.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[ramza]

Yay, who wants games with draconian DRM anyway?

 

I don't. And if there is enough of those who don't that causes the industry to collapse, maybe, just maybe the publishers should not have used DRM.

 

Exactly, the industry is bringing this upon itself.

 

On the other hand, both EA and Atari do not need the pc market to survive. They are economically viable with only the console market. It is mainly us, pc gamers, that will be on the losing side. However, we would still be losing if we accepted to buy games with limited installs. So, "good riddance" I say...

[Killian Kalthorne]

I don't really consider myself a PC gamer any more. I play games more on my XBox 360 than I do on my PC. Only game I play on the PC is NWN2 and that is because there isn't a XBox 360 version of it. *hint hint*

[Dark_Raven]

If you were Sand I would sock you in the face for that lame comment.

[Gorth]

When a developper is voicing his thoughts, it is NEVER neutral. He should have been more careful with his choice of words. He is entitled to his opinion, yes. He spoke the truth, yes.

Yes

 

However, he is not suggesting anthing constructive.

Are you?

 

It is obvious that he didn't mind Atari using DRM as long this meant more d&d games for everybody. In other words, we should not boycott games using the new DRM or we will not get any more games.

That is because you can not boycott the DRM part without boycotting the rest of the game.

 

We are being punished twice. Yay, who wants games with draconian DRM anyway?

How? Did you end up with the DRM part without the rest of the game?

 

It is simple math really, if the number of units sold drops, you shift towards a different market. In this case, console gamers. Investors play a game of "ROI". No investors, nobody to commission guys like Obsidian to work on projects.

 

What they (publishers) need is a business model that works entirely like pay-per-view. You can play a game via a remote desktop on a server and your credit card only gets charged for the time you actually play. Then we can do away completely with disagreements about shrink wrap licenses, DRM and all kinds of other nasty stuff, because there is no need for a publisher to protect the content of the media that is used to distribute a game. Plus, running on the publishers hardware, you get the same benefit as consoles, they have all the exact hardware specs that it is going to run on

[kirottu]

What they (publishers) need is a business model that works entirely like pay-per-view. You can play a game via a remote desktop on a server and your credit card only gets charged for the time you actually play.

 

I don

[random n00b]

I don

[Killian Kalthorne]

If you were Sand I would sock you in the face for that lame comment.

Good thing I am not a Hugo Weaving wannabe.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Does Rob McGinnis support the burning of the Reichstag? Find out in this critique of an unrelated forum post.

[ramza]

I would also like to point out that we, pc gamers, are the only ones to suffer from the industry's "capricious" nature. Console gamers do not suffer from these DRM games even though consoles suffer from piracy as much as pc gaming. I remember how all of my friends had hacked the first playstation and had approximately 100 pirated games on their shelves. Yet, here we are being imposed DRM schemes and being "threatened" that we won't be getting any more games if we do not comply. Even though DRM doesn't work (because every game gets hacked in the end), they insist on wasting money in order to develop more and more complex schemes.

 

Everything worked well with the CD-key check. Why change this? Why put the blame on piracy when a game flops because it simply is not good? I am not suggesting anything new. I am just asking developpers/distributors to keep the model they have been using for so many years.

 

We are being punished twice here because:

1) we are being imposed games with draconian DRM

2) if we don't buy those very same games, there won't be making any more of those games we like

 

Conclusion: our dear Obsidian friend tells us that it is pointless fighting against DRM schemes and that boycotting a product will only hurt us in the long run. Well, we are already hurt from the very beginning since we are not even allowed to properly play a game. Not getting games of the same kind wouldn't be such a big loss afterall...

 

For me (and others too), no matter how good a game is and no matter how much we want to play it, we will never accept to buy under a license agreement that is similar to the one used by EA (and Atari with MoW). It is a shame for the developpers but all the blame falls to the distributor who chose to use DRM in the first place.

 

PS: With all this worlwide economic crisis, I doubt we will have enough money to buy games anyway...

[Morgoth]

Way to exaggerate there, ramza!

[J.E. Sawyer]

I would also like to point out that we, pc gamers, are the only ones to suffer from the industry's "capricious" nature. Console gamers do not suffer from these DRM games even though consoles suffer from piracy as much as pc gaming.

Console piracy is rampant in many areas (southeast Asia, for instance), but not in the United States.

[Nick_i_am]

Console piracy is rampant in my pants.