The Age of New DRM

[Hell Kitty]

I'm getting the impression that people are beginning to pirate the games just to spite the publishers who make such draconian schemes as this.

 

How is pirating a game because you want to play it without having to pay for it any different to pirating a game because you want to spite the publisher? In both cases you've now got a game you didn't pay for and the publisher doesn't know your reasons. Does the spiteful downloader then delete the game even after they've just spent the bandwidth on it (and if using torrents, helped distribute it to others) and give themselves a pat on the back knowing they've "stuck it to the man?

Edited January 29, 2010 by Hell Kitty

[Hurlshort]

Not purchasing a game in protest = Fine and dandy

 

Pirating a game in protest = dumb

 

True story, you can survive your entire life without playing games.

[Trenitay]

You're insane! We must play those games!

[Tigranes]

Jesus wheeze hoi polloi.

 

1) Pirating a game = stealing

2) DRM does not reduce piracy significantly; it might reduce some but it also increases some

 

Can't we stick this up as some sort of canon, then move on? why start it all over again? Nobody here said they'll pirate games, why begin the argument about 'entitlements'?

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I'll pirate games.

[Tigranes]

I'll kill you

[Slowtrain]

I do agree with the question Purk asks though:

 

Outside of forums like this how many people really care?

 

I do think people would care more if they knew, but how many people even know what DRM is?

[zazei]

I honestly don't mind limited activation or internet check to activate while the installation runs because the few games I brought with that all seems to have removed it after a year or two once the hype is over. However with this it seems like a permanent thing you never get rid of and that is unacceptable for me. One reason is that for one reason or another sometimes even fast connection internet is down and I want to be able to play or be entertained then as well if I got nothing else to do at the moment.

 

The second reason is that if they use servers like this I'm not entirely sure what will happen when the game start to turn old. Will it still be possible to access those servers for a 10 year old game? Or in the worse case, what will happen if the company fails? I trust some companies to look after their customers even when everything fails but these guys are really not one of them. >_>

[Hurlshort]

I've always been rather relaxed on the DRM issues, I never cared much about limited activations and all that, but even I think having to be online at all times for a single player game is ridiculous. That's why I'd like to here a stronger confirmation than that FAQ.

[Hell Kitty]

Not purchasing a game in protest = Fine and dandy

 

Pirating a game in protest = dumb

 

True story, you can survive your entire life without playing games.

 

I don't like the way this company works, so I'll no longer do business with them = fair enough

 

I don't like the way this company works, so I'll steal from them = criminal scumbag roofles

 

DRM does not reduce piracy significantly; it might reduce some but it also increases some

 

Define significantly.

 

it might reduce some but it also increases some

 

So it'll stop some people from pirating, but it will also cause others to pirate? But that would mean DRM is useless! Quick, contact Ubisoft and let them know. Be sure to include all the data that lead you to this assumption conclusion.

 

Nobody here said they'll pirate games, why begin the argument about 'entitlements'?

 

The piracy as a solution to DRM thing that hurlshot mentioned is a pretty common response to this out in internet land. Unless you were only interested in discussing how this effects folks who post on the Obsidian Forum Community.

[Slowtrain]

I've always been rather relaxed on the DRM issues, I never cared much about limited activations and all that, but even I think having to be online at all times for a single player game is ridiculous. That's why I'd like to here a stronger confirmation than that FAQ.

 

 

generally, i've beep pretty tolerant of DRM as well, but really, the thought of being forced to make an account with a publisher and give up personal information of any sort just to play a game doesn't sit well with me. It will probably never happen actually. If it were my bank or insurance company, maybe. But some random game company? No way.

 

edit: The interesting thing about DRm is that the more extreme it becomes the more people will be bothered by it and consequently the greater its negative effect will be.

 

Not everybody is bothered by the same things in DRM systems. For example, I don't particularly mind limited activations, no reselling, or being online in order to play, but other people do.. The more seperate roadblocks that DRm puts up the greater the chance that someby will be annoyed by the DRM and not buy the game.

 

 

However, as long as the publisher plainly labels the box with the DRM requirements, so that no buyer is taken by surprise and can make an informed decision, I can't really say the publishers are doing anything objectionable.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Slowtrain

[Mikhailian]

The problem with Securom is that it was cracked years ago, and hasn't been measurably updated since. Its code is just sort of bandaided on top of the game, but as is displayed by the widespread availability on P2P sites of cracked on day 1 or earlier games that were supposedly protected by it, it's shockingly easy for any so called "hacker" to just yank it out. So really, what does it's presence accomplish, aside from annoying some of the paying customer's, or lending some thin sense of justification to the pirates who seek it? Although I don't agree with them, the question is no less valid.

[Solo]

I wonder if the companies at all really know just how easily their DRM product can be cracked? I think that they keep thinking that they can indeed have a killer DRM that wont be cracked. Why else would they keep having and upgrading the DRM's in the games now a days?

 

I just want them to make bug free games and if some security measures are needed then let them be normal type in the code and be done with it.

[Oner]

However, as long as the publisher plainly labels the box with the DRM requirements, so that no buyer is taken by surprise and can make an informed decision, I can't really say the publishers are doing anything objectionable.

How specific is the description of DRM on retail boxes?

 

BTW, neckthrough already said it: At least some of the DRM counter-measures are against rental stores and resellers (and any company bigwig that still thinks it stops pirates should be fired).

Sooo..it needlessly annoys buyers. Which will lead to more pirates.

 

And another thought: there was a law/agreement/whatever that as long as you had proof that you indeed possess a genuine copy of a game, you could freely copy the disc (for personal use only, of course). AFAIK that hasn't changed (not that I bother reading the EULA), so... buying a game and then downloading a pirated version wouldn't be against the law, again, AFAIK.

 

Also ........... I forgot.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Oner

[Gorgon]

I'm sure they are well aware of the analog loophole, and that all it really takes is time regardless of what software it is. The main problem for publishers is not that a game can be cracked, but that torrent sites are so prevalent it's often many times easier to download a game illegally than to pay for it. P2P is the real enemy, and their victories so far have been very minor.

[Tigranes]

Define significantly.

 

No, because in the absence of respectable, well-researched figures the best anybody, including professionals, can do is speculate based on rough numbers, existing arguments and trends. Getting into the nitty-gritty without real nitty-gritty to speak of is pointless and just leads to circular arguments.

 

But that would mean DRM is useless!

 

Yeah, because all those companies wasting time & money on DRM can't be wrong! I mean, it's not like they're not acting on their assumptions.

 

However, as long as the publisher plainly labels the box with the DRM requirements, so that no buyer is taken by surprise and can make an informed decision, I can't really say the publishers are doing anything objectionable.

 

They're not doing anything illegal, or unethical, no. That doesn't mean what they're doing is above criticism, or is even smart business.

[Humodour]

or unethical, no.

 

That's arguable. Generally the government leaves these things to the market to sort out, but if businesses get to bold in screwing over consumers, they WILL act.

[Hell Kitty]

Getting into the nitty-gritty without real nitty-gritty to speak of is pointless and just leads to circular arguments.

 

Yes. Welcome to internet threads about piracy and DRM.

 

Yeah, because all those companies wasting time & money on DRM can't be wrong!

 

Well they obviously are, according to you. You just aren't explaining why.

 

I mean, it's not like they're not acting on their assumptions.

 

That's what everyone is doing.

[Tigranes]

That's what everyone is doing.

 

Yes, exactly.

[RPGmasterBoo]

The only anti piracy measure that ever worked was Starforce 3 (but not even on all of the games protected by it). It was boycotted into oblivion by a clever pirate disinformation campaign.

 

It took me half an hour to set my Steam Company of Heroes up. I had to register for... something... - it wouldn't let me play the game if I didn't. A major hassle since I'm not so dumb to forget that only a few years ago registration was completely optional. At most you had dickcheck and CDkey.

 

That worked fine for years. No credible reason for changing it.

[Oner]

dickcheck

[Guest Slinky]

One hell of a DRM you got there Boo. Talking about invasion of privacy

[Gorgon]

The future of biometrics

[deganawida]

I'm getting the impression that people are beginning to pirate the games just to spite the publishers who make such draconian schemes as this.

 

How is pirating a game because you want to play it without having to pay for it any different to pirating a game because you want to spite the publisher? In both cases you've now got a game you didn't pay for and the publisher doesn't know your reasons. Does the spiteful downloader then delete the game even after they've just spent the bandwidth on it (and if using torrents, helped distribute it to others) and give themselves a pat on the back knowing they've "stuck it to the man?

 

Don't ask me. I was just commenting on the argument that all downloading seems to be based on entitlement, while I'm seeing a lot of people who normally wouldn't touch pirated games start to talk about pirating games because they're ticked off. Whether or not they do so is between them and God.

[Purkake]

The only anti piracy measure that ever worked was Starforce 3 (but not even on all of the games protected by it). It was boycotted into oblivion by a clever pirate disinformation campaign.

 

It took me half an hour to set my Steam Company of Heroes up. I had to register for... something... - it wouldn't let me play the game if I didn't. A major hassle since I'm not so dumb to forget that only a few years ago registration was completely optional. At most you had dickcheck and CDkey.

 

That worked fine for years. No credible reason for changing it.

I personally know someone who's disc drive crapped out because of Starforce. Also, it worked for about 6 months, not forever.