I will certainly make sure that all my family and relatives find out and can avoid games with DDRM at a distance.

 

Why? I mean is it because it might be an issue for them, say because they format and reinstall every month or constantly buy new hardware, or are you simply using them as a form or protest?

 

Oh, and what's the extra D you keep using for? Draconian?

Oh, and what's the extra D you keep using for? Draconian?

Yes. Several people have adopted DDRM to differentiate between "friendly" DRM (CD checks, cd keys) and the harsher stuff (Online activations, limited installs).

I will certainly make sure that all my family and relatives find out and can avoid games with DDRM at a distance.

 

Why? I mean is it because it might be an issue for them, say because they format and reinstall every month or constantly buy new hardware, or are you simply using them as a form or protest?

 

They don't reinstall very often (though they do sometimes), but they do like to return and play older games (and I mean even games more than 10 years old) after some time has passed just like I do.

 

Oh, and what's the extra D you keep using for? Draconian?

 

That's correct, Madam!

Why? I mean is it because it might be an issue for them, say because they format and reinstall every month or constantly buy new hardware, or are you simply using them as a form or protest?

That's a good point. I try not to influence the purchasing habits of people around me (I'm obnoxious enough on the Internets already), but I do tell people I know of this when the issue comes up, because for most people, gathering information about DRM in the products they are purchasing is not a habit. I wouldn't need to do this if the conditions and limitations of DRM were clearly specified on the box - but they aren't. Why do you think that is?

He's right though, this is only an issue for a small minority of gamers. Even more so when it comes to Spore.

 

But given the stink that can be kicked up over things like wheelchair access i'm not saying that EA is right to ignore it.

 

Feel free to use that disabled person analogy btw, it'll be a fresh start to the inevitable round of Hitler comparisons.

Edited October 17, 200817 yr by Nick_i_am

That's correct, Madam!

 

I am no madam!

 

Why do you think that is?

 

If I'm going to be cynical (and I am), I'd say people are probably more likely to accept the DRM when they've already bought it and are now waiting for it to install so they can play it.

That's correct, Madam!

 

I am no madam!

 

My apologies then! Given your screen-name, however, perhaps I can be forgiven for assuming that initially.

If I'm going to be cynical (and I am), I'd say people are probably more likely to accept the DRM when they've already bought it and are now waiting for it to install so they can play it.

Yeah, and people are even more likely to accept it after they have the game up and running, without any apparent problems whatsoever. Which was kinda my point.

 

 

My apologies then! Given your screen-name, however, perhaps I can be forgiven for assuming that initially.

Yeah, I made the same assumption too... but back then HK was using some shopped Viconia pic as avatar...

Yeah the Viconia pic made me think HK was a woman as well. I tend to do that. Lajciak is faceless, and random n00b is a deranged psychopath.

Nice article on Stardock's analysis of legitimate vs. exaggerated DRM complaints, along with their updated Bill of Rights:

 

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1026

I'm a professional hockey star and one of the most prolific right-wingers in NHL history, according to my avatar.

Nice article on Stardock's analysis of legitimate vs. exaggerated DRM complaints, along with their updated Bill of Rights:

 

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1026

 

As a comment, I did find it funny when people on Sins message forum started complaining because patches needed to be downloaded through impulse.

 

I agree with the CEO in that you can't make all parties happy.

Nice article on Stardock's analysis of legitimate vs. exaggerated DRM complaints, along with their updated Bill of Rights:

 

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1026

 

Illegitimate Complaints

 

• Keeps people from installing the program on as many PCs as they own. I own an office full of PCs. I don't think Microsoft would be happy if I installed Office on all of them.
   
  
• Keeps people from easily having LAN parties with their game. We allow this but demonizing publishers who frown on this seems unreasonable.
   
  
• Requires people to get updates through a specific source (Steam, Impulse, publisher secure website, etc.). This is one of our biggest pet peeves. If a game ships and there's some bug found that materially affects gameplay, then sure, put out a patch wherever. However, we've had users complain loudly that Sins of a Solar Empire v1.1 (essentially a free expansion pack) requires Impulse to download. Publishers have every right to make sure the people downloading updates are legitimate customers.
   
  
• Makes it harder for people to resell programs. (Not saying reselling programs is right or wrong, only that it is not the function of DRM to make it hard or easy to do this, it's a separate issue.)
   
  
• DRM is just wrong in principle, you buy something, you own it and should be able to do whatever you want. This is a view held by some but the person who makes the thing has the right to distribute it how they want. If I spend $5 million making a game, someone paying $50 doesn't "own" it. There has to be some middle ground on serving customers and protecting IP holders.
  

 

1. Kinda iffy. IMO the problem isn't being able to install things on as many computers as you want, but rather being able to re-install on the same computer as many times as you want.

2. I agree. Easy LAN play is a major bonus, but I can't really hold the lack of it against anyone. Requiring everyone that wants to play to have a copy seems reasonable to me. It would be nice if more companies would implement something like what Blizzard did with spawned copies of Starcraft and Diablo that allowed only LAN play and only against the original.

3. I agree with this one. I really don't see what is so bad about this and was unaware that this was a complaint in the first place.

4. Totally wrong. This is not a separate issue and I fail to see how you could consider it one. It may not be the initial intent of DRM to limit resale, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it as an invalid arguement.

5. Another iffy one. IMO, once the customer purchases a game, the developer no longer has any say over what the customer does with the game except when it comes to redistribution.

1. Kinda iffy. IMO the problem isn't being able to install things on as many computers as you want, but rather being able to re-install on the same computer as many times as you want.

2. I agree. Easy LAN play is a major bonus, but I can't really hold the lack of it against anyone. Requiring everyone that wants to play to have a copy seems reasonable to me. It would be nice if more companies would implement something like what Blizzard did with spawned copies of Starcraft and Diablo that allowed only LAN play and only against the original.

3. I agree with this one. I really don't see what is so bad about this and was unaware that this was a complaint in the first place.

4. Totally wrong. This is not a separate issue and I fail to see how you could consider it one. It may not be the initial intent of DRM to limit resale, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it as an invalid arguement.

5. Another iffy one. IMO, once the customer purchases a game, the developer no longer has any say over what the customer does with the game except when it comes to redistribution.

 

1. I disagree. There are in fact people that do not like the validation DRMs because they can burn through the activations like mad installing on multiple computers. He takes into account reinstalls in the legitimate complaint section IIRC.

2. I agree.

3. I agree, and when people on Stardock (that all champion Stardock for their lack of copy protection) started bitching and calling Stardock hypocrites for implementing this stuff, I just rolled my eyes and smacked my head.

4. I agree that this is not a separate issue.

5. I am not sure what my stance on this is. The problem with digital media is that times are changing, and it's becoming easier and easier to transfer IP. I think his analogy is a poor one though.

That's correct, Madam!

 

I am no madam!

 

My apologies then! Given your screen-name, however, perhaps I can be forgiven for assuming that initially.

Take it easy! I made that mistake once myself... Since then she...damn he doesn't use female avatars anymore.

I found this story interesting, although the site of origin is a bit dubious. Anyone else heard of this happening?

 

Copyright Cops Target Kids

going after a mechanic in the UK for playing the radio in his garage?

 

i call bullsh1t on that.

Good read:

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=262157

 

I basically agree with everything said in the article. Carry on.

I basically agree with everything said in the article.

 

As do I, thanks for posting the link!

2. I agree. Easy LAN play is a major bonus, but I can't really hold the lack of it against anyone. Requiring everyone that wants to play to have a copy seems reasonable to me. It would be nice if more companies would implement something like what Blizzard did with spawned copies of Starcraft and Diablo that allowed only LAN play and only against the original.

It's interesting you mention this as Blizzard has taken it a step in a more restrictive direction -- completely removing LAN play from Diablo 3 in order to help prevent piracy. Want multiplayer? You'll have to play through Battle.net. I don't know if they have / will do the same with Sarcraft 2 though.

2. I agree. Easy LAN play is a major bonus, but I can't really hold the lack of it against anyone. Requiring everyone that wants to play to have a copy seems reasonable to me. It would be nice if more companies would implement something like what Blizzard did with spawned copies of Starcraft and Diablo that allowed only LAN play and only against the original.

It's interesting you mention this as Blizzard has taken it a step in a more restrictive direction -- completely removing LAN play from Diablo 3 in order to help prevent piracy. Want multiplayer? You'll have to play through Battle.net. I don't know if they have / will do the same with Sarcraft 2 though.

Really? I hadn't heard about that. Blizzard is just full of good ideas these days, aren't they?

Intentionally removing the lan party crowd from their market seems pretty silly. Those things are having something of a renaissance with the advent of laptops that don't entirely suck.

Yeah, but I'm betting they aren't going to focus their PR efforts on that.

 

And of course there's always a chance for an outcry-triggered patch to enable it later, or even a community patch.

I wouldn't be surprised if the LAN group is a small piece of the Diablo pie though.

Are LAN's really that big anymore? I figured with wireless networks and wifi, it's a very small group.