"Digital Rights Management drove me to Piracy"

dreamers75

My opinion of what to do is simply have 2 versions of the game and make both unplayable unless connected to the net. On the DL version have this game will not be unlocked until XX/XX/XXXX and on the disc version have INTERNET REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION even if its a single player game.

Thus leaving out an integral part of the game ie the EXE and only allowing download of it on that date. As an extra protection use the YOU CANT OPEN THE DOOR AS IT HAS NO HANDLE type of DRM seen in a few games recently ie ledges in Batman, ledges in Damnation its gay but it works.

Piracy imo only affects a game a week before release and maybe 2 days after, forum monkeys just need to post that its gay/brilliant/gay and post screenshots.

not physically allowing anyone to play the game until release date does actually work.

Sadly non internet peeps suffer maybe offer a post in patch service ala the oul floppy patches

But to summarise stop pirates paying the game in the 5 days before the release and 2 after and i reckon 70% of piracy is stopped. majority of pirates are forum monkeys who just want to say gay/brilliant befor everyone else.

marco_polo

Maximilian wrote: »

It's just pure greed. Stupid limited editions, DLC - all greed. Look at Activision's antics of late. I can think of only one motivation for the shenanigans at IW.

These big publishers only care about milking every last cent out of customers. I don't mind publishers trying to make money but I don't like being screwed. They don't treat their customers with respect. Now with Ubisoft's DRM, they have gone to a new low - actually treating their customers with contempt. How many companies in any industry, force all of their customers to put up with a "feature" that is universally hated by them, while ignoring their complaints.

The world needs more Valve-like companies.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=22378

Now in general I have alot of time for Valve but I can't say they are immune to the madness. Left4Dead2 was 49.99 last week (seems to be down to 29.99, now its the same price as the original :rolleyes:).

Anyway recently I picked up L4D + L4D2 + the Orange box for a shade over 45 euros on amazon.co.uk, which probably would have been slightly over double that on steam a few weeks ago. Obviously as the publisher they get a cut of that 45, however does it not make more sense to sell it to me directly through steam at a much more competitive rate? And since unlike other third party games, from the POV of my Steam account there is absolutely no difference as to whether it was a retail version or a direct steam version of the valve games that I installed, it makes even less sense. (Of course I realise that you have to factor in that price drops on amazon are cutting into their margin on the game rather than Valves cut, but even still they should be making alot more money off the direct sale)

It certainly flies in the face of statement like this:

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=22378

“Last weekend, we decided to do an experiment,” he says, referring to this past weekend’s Left 4 Dead sale, which brought the game down to $24.99 through Steam – sales rose 3000 percent, and revenue far eclipsed the game’s sales during its launch window.

Meanwhile, Newell notes, retail sales did not change at all (full Steam integration allows Valve to monitor retail sales as well) – defeating the assumption that Steam sales cannibalize retail sales.

“One thing that really annoys me is the inefficiency of pricing we have in our industry,” Newell says.

When Valve held its recent holiday sale, titles discounted by 10 percent (the minimum) they saw revenue (not unit) increases of 35 percent. At a 25 percent discount, revenue was up 245 percent.

At 50 percent off, revenue was up 320 percent, and at a 75 percent discount, revenue was up an astonishing 1470 percent. Newell stressed again that those revenue boosts represent actual revenue dollars, and not unit volumes.

cadea

Overheal wrote: »

Thats another issue is the outrageous pricing model.

But one thing I would like to add on Steam: I was considering buying Chaos Theory over xmas only to sleuth the steam forums and discover the PC version is such a woeful port it wouldnt have been worth my $4.

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&securitytoken=2f40c7ab1d7314b7735a964135df9b593e43ca34&f=383&page=1&pp=25&sort=lastpost&order=desc&daysprune=-1

That is not entirely true, are you sure you didn't mean Double Agent? DA is unplayabley bad. I was always a huge fan of the Splinter Cell series, bought them all, Chaos Theory would not work on vista or W7 at all thanks to Starforce, i was so happy to pick it up on steam for that price, a woefull port? really? MW2 and Alien vs Predator and Wolfenstein now they are jokes on PC thanks to being bad ports but Chaos Theory imo stands up as one of the good ones.

Overheal

cadea wrote: »

That is not entirely true, are you sure you didn't mean Double Agent? DA is unplayabley bad. I was always a huge fan of the Splinter Cell series, bought them all, Chaos Theory would not work on vista or W7 at all thanks to Starforce, i was so happy to pick it up on steam for that price, a woefull port? really? MW2 and Alien vs Predator and Wolfenstein now they are jokes on PC thanks to being bad ports but Chaos Theory imo stands up as one of the good ones.

I need help interpreting that.

Which are the ones worth buying on steam for 64-bit W7. I only have Pandora Tomorrow on CD and have played the first one to death.

Chairman Meow

The guy in the OP was actually within his rights to download a copy, if hed already paid for it. Technically, he didnt pirate anything..

Drakar

Technically, when he "downloaded" it from a torrent site, he also potentially uploaded it to a load of people, so even if he owned a licence to play he probably technically did something wrong.

cadea

Overheal wrote: »

I need help interpreting that.

Which are the ones worth buying on steam for 64-bit W7. I only have Pandora Tomorrow on CD and have played the first one to death.

Sorry, few beers involved, Chaos Theory is the best of the series imo, easily worth 4 quid.

Maximilian

Gunmonkey wrote: »

Well...too be blunt...why shouldnt they?? I mean, their customer base (PC gamers) show massive contempt by claiming their work isnt worth their precious precious money, as was shown in the link marco_polo gave that the pirate versions of Ubisofts DRM-free Assassins Creed was over 1 million. They obviously wanted the game, otherwise they wouldnt have pirated it. It wasnt "to try it/demo it" as otherwise there would have been more sales. Now granted ubisofts new strategy is bag-of-cats retarded (they should have had a short grace period in case of internet drop-off, lord knows mine does it incessantly) but there is only two other ways to prevent piracy: make it hard to obtain (like shutting down torrent sites....look how well that worked :rolleyes: ) or have REAL reprecussions for pirating. None of us here would walk into a store and nick stuff as there could be a far stronger security guy at the door or the prospect of CCTV + Gardaí = fun times in jail, same cant be said for digital piracy, since no Torrent site would give out or even track users info/IP address.

The plain and simple reason is that the pirates are greedy too, in that a company has the outright gall to ask them for money in exchange for a product they want!!!!!! Honestly, if someone ever brings up the whole "greedy publisher/developer" argument in a piracy discussion I fall around laughing at the sheer hypocrisy of the statement

I didn't say that pirates weren't greedy also nor did I suggest that publishers shouldn't make money; my point was that the publishers are blatantly ripping off their paying legal customers, with inflated prices (adding 10 euro to the latest COD), limited editions and DLC consisting of content excised from the original game etc - which has a side-effect of driving people to piracy also, simply because they can't afford it or feel the price is completely unfair. I don't think people mind paying a fair price for a good product. Piracy is wrong but every pirate knows that. Unmitigated greed is also wrong, but legal and these publishers seemingly revel in it despite the complaints from their customers.

In short, they want to have their cake and eat it. They want to eliminate piracy while at the same time bleed their customers dry. Does anyone think that they would drop their prices if piracy were to suddenly disappear overnight?

marco_polo wrote: »

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=22378

Now in general I have alot of time for Valve but I can't say they are immune to the madness. Left4Dead2 was 49.99 last week (seems to be down to 29.99, now its the same price as the original :rolleyes:).

Anyway recently I picked up L4D + L4D2 + the Orange box for a shade over 45 euros on amazon.co.uk, which probably would have been slightly over double that on steam a few weeks ago. Obviously as the publisher they get a cut of that 45, however does it not make more sense to sell it to me directly through steam at a much more competitive rate? And since unlike other third party games, from the POV of my Steam account there is absolutely no difference as to whether it was a retail version or a direct steam version of the valve games that I installed, it makes even less sense. (Of course I realise that you have to factor in that price drops on amazon are cutting into their margin on the game rather than Valves cut, but even still they should be making alot more money off the direct sale)

It certainly flies in the face of statement like this:

No they're not immune to it either disappointedly but they're better than most, their games are universally brilliant and they always support their games and encourage modding. I really am happy to pay full whack to Valve. At least I know who is getting the money and that they care about their customers at the end of the day.

yoyo

Overheal wrote: »

I need help interpreting that.

Which are the ones worth buying on steam for 64-bit W7. I only have Pandora Tomorrow on CD and have played the first one to death.

If chaos theory has a Starforce free patch (by Ubi themselves not the cracked version) or it simply uses Steams own protection nowadays it will work on x64 windows, if it still is infected with Starforce it will not, as Starforce drivers fail to work under x64 windows or Vista/7 due to serious security holes in it

Nick

Mantel

dreamers75 wrote: »

valve ****ed up other than the steam sales only fanboys buy valves latest games from them on day 1. Its always cheaper to go to a shop and buy it. Its basically doing an Activision and saying FU to your fans.

It's cheaper to buy from play.com then going to the a shop but people still go to the shop. The only problem? You have to wait, for both. Steam is just an instant (that's not too instant sometimes) gratification system, you see a game, you buy it and play other games or go to work while it downloads. Steam sees day one sales because people are lazy and in some case want the advanced order stuff that comes with it, the carrot of pre-order DLC.

hooradiation

Maximilian wrote: »

I didn't say that pirates weren't greedy also nor did I suggest that publishers shouldn't make money; my point was that the publishers are blatantly ripping off their paying legal customers, with inflated prices (adding 10 euro to the latest COD), limited editions and DLC consisting of content excised from the original game etc - which has a side-effect of driving people to piracy also, simply because they can't afford it or feel the price is completely unfair.

Really? REALLY?
This is the argument that you want to run with?

If you don't like DLC or limited editions or think games in general cost to much, then the only acceptable is DON'T BUY THEM.

And you know what, i can understand children reasoning that if they want something and can't afford it they should take it because they want it, but that shit won't fly as adults.

Games are a luxury item, it's not something you need to survive. You have no intrinsic right to games. Don't like the product that's being offered or can't afford it? Then act like a goddamn adult and just do without.

You can't steal a piece of entertainment and then try to claim the publishers made you do it, it's horseshit.

PogMoThoin

hooradiation wrote: »

Really? REALLY?
This is the argument that you want to run with?

If you don't like DLC or limited editions or think games in general cost to much, then the only acceptable is DON'T BUY THEM.

And you know what, i can understand children reasoning that if they want something and can't afford it they should take it because they want it, but that shit won't fly as adults.

Games are a luxury item, it's not something you need to survive. You have no intrinsic right to games. Don't like the product that's being offered or can't afford it? Then act like a goddamn adult and just do without.

You can't steal a piece of entertainment and then try to claim the publishers made you do it, it's horseshit.

See, we're seeing a shift in direction, it used to always be the way that on pc, the developers made the game and released the tools for the community to run their dedicated servers, modify the game and make extra content. Now the greedy developers aren't releasing the tools and are purposely killing the pc community, giving them full control to charge for petty dlc and extra maps ala console games. Mods and community made content prolong a game and keep people playing for longer, just look at BF2. Developers want to be able to just turn off a game servers (like we've seen) ending support and make customers buy the new version, sometimes pretty soon after release.

Maximilian

hooradiation wrote: »

Really? REALLY?
This is the argument that you want to run with?

If you don't like DLC or limited editions or think games in general cost to much, then the only acceptable is DON'T BUY THEM.

And you know what, i can understand children reasoning that if they want something and can't afford it they should take it because they want it, but that shit won't fly as adults.

Games are a luxury item, it's not something you need to survive. You have no intrinsic right to games. Don't like the product that's being offered or can't afford it? Then act like a goddamn adult and just do without.

You can't steal a piece of entertainment and then try to claim the publishers made you do it, it's horseshit.

I'm not suggesting for a second piracy is justified. I am trying to suggest some reasons why people do pirate. I think you need to read people's posts first before making obnoxious comments.

I agree with you actually.

marco_polo

hooradiation wrote: »

Really? REALLY?
This is the argument that you want to run with?

If you don't like DLC or limited editions or think games in general cost to much, then the only acceptable is DON'T BUY THEM.

And you know what, i can understand children reasoning that if they want something and can't afford it they should take it because they want it, but that shit won't fly as adults.

Games are a luxury item, it's not something you need to survive. You have no intrinsic right to games. Don't like the product that's being offered or can't afford it? Then act like a goddamn adult and just do without.

You can't steal a piece of entertainment and then try to claim the publishers made you do it, it's horseshit.

Explaining the reasons behind people actions does not automatically mean that somebody condones those actions.

Maximilian

PogMoThoin wrote: »

See, we're seeing a shift in direction, it used to always be the way that on pc, the developers made the game and released the tools for the community to run their dedicated servers, modify the game and make extra content. Now the greedy developers aren't releasing the tools and are purposely killing the pc community, giving them full control to charge for petty dlc and extra maps ala console games. Mods and community made content prolong a game and keep people playing for longer, just look at BF2. Developers want to be able to just turn off a game servers (like we've seen) ending support and make customers buy the new version, sometimes pretty soon after release.

I think modding is a victim of it's own success. For a while there, CS was the biggest thing going, and it was completely free. I remember reading somewhere at the time, some guy from EA or the like talking about ways to make money from mods. It was inevitable that the big publishers were going to try and find a way to cash in. Again, Valve take a sensible approach and encourage it, because it gives people a reason to buy the game and it builds a fanbase. Bohemia are good that way too. The Arma mods stuff is just astounding really, better than BI themselves in many ways.

dreamers75

Maximilian wrote: »

I think modding is a victim of it's own success. For a while there, CS was the biggest thing going, and it was completely free. I remember reading somewhere at the time, some guy from EA or the like talking about ways to make money from mods. It was inevitable that the big publishers were going to try and find a way to cash in. Again, Valve take a sensible approach and encourage it, because it gives people a reason to buy the game and it builds a fanbase. Bohemia are good that way too. The Arma mods stuff is just astounding really, better than BI themselves in many ways.

Modding used to be a way to hire talented people ( i was offered a job mapping for MOHAA exp packs ) but now its being thrown to the side for the sale of the maps gimps like me would have made for free.

but on the console you cant map, console is the way forward Ubi and Ea want to go there years after proclaiming they would fail. **** all PC gamers can do other than take the **** in the ass and if your game isnt working due to DRM then get the NOCD its worked before it will work again.

Sucks to be us, altho we prolly have the consoles and do buy the games

hooradiation

Maximilian wrote: »

I'm not suggesting for a second piracy is justified. I am trying to suggest some reasons why people do pirate. I think you need to read people's posts first before making obnoxious comments.

Well if you're going to give a set of reasons as to why piracy people pirate i think it's fair to assume your either agreeing or are sympathetic to the views being put forward unless you make it clear that you're not.

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Now the greedy developers... Developers want to be able to just turn off a game servers

You REALLY need to stop saying that. I'm sure you mean publishers, but if you think any of these decisions come from the developer side you're crazy.

PogMoThoin wrote: »

See, we're seeing a shift in direction, it used to always be the way that on pc, the developers made the game and released the tools for the community to run their dedicated servers, modify the game and make extra content. Now the greedy developers aren't releasing the tools and are purposely killing the pc community, giving them full control to charge for petty dlc and extra maps ala console games. Mods and community made content prolong a game and keep people playing for longer, just look at BF2. Developers want to be able to just turn off a game servers (like we've seen) ending support and make customers buy the new version, sometimes pretty soon after release.

I don't get this attitude.
Firstly, what makes you think you have any kind of right to Mod tools or anything like that?
I understand "that's the way it's always been" but publishers are under no obligation to have the developers spend time and money making these tools fit for public release.

Secondly, if people are willing to pay for DLC then why shouldn't publishers pursue that? Like it or not there is clearly a market for it - i mean if you don't like it, simply don't buy it. What's the bother?

I guess it's a PC gamer centric thing, but just because stuff has been free since year dot does not mean you're entitled to it for free forever. You were never entitled to it all in fact.

Maximilian

hooradiation wrote: »

Well if you're going to give a set of reasons as to why piracy people pirate i think it's fair to assume your either agreeing or are sympathetic to the views being put forward unless you make it clear that you're not.

Actually no it's not a fair assumption to make. There's a difference between trying to understand something and sympathizing with it. At no point did I say I agree with or sympathise with piracy, quite the opposite in fact. That's a baseless assumption you made yourself. What I have been saying essentially, is that publishers have been acting in a manner which I think actually encourages people to pirate. If I said fast food advertising encourages people to eat unhealthily, would you then impute an opinion on my part that I agree with unhealthy eating?

hooradiation wrote: »

You REALLY need to stop saying that. I'm sure you mean publishers, but if you think any of these decisions come from the developer side you're crazy.

Of course I mean publishers.

hooradiation wrote: »

I don't get this attitude.
Firstly, what makes you think you have any kind of right to Mod tools or anything like that?
I understand "that's the way it's always been" but publishers are under no obligation to have the developers spend time and money making these tools fit for public release.

Secondly, if people are willing to pay for DLC then why shouldn't publishers pursue that? Like it or not there is clearly a market for it - i mean if you don't like it, simply don't buy it. What's the bother?

I guess it's a PC gamer centric thing, but just because stuff has been free since year dot does not mean you're entitled to it for free forever. You were never entitled to it all in fact.

Again you are making assumptions. He didn't say anyone has a "right" to mod tools, he is merely expressing annoyance that they are not being released as frequently as before. He didn't say publishers shouldn't be allowed to charge for DLC either nor I think, has anyone else. DLC could be great if done right. This forum is filled with threads and posts with people, quite rightly, complaining about DLC, limited editions, and even full games that are a rip-offs, falsely advertised etc. The fact that your not obliged to buy them, doesn't make them any less of a rip-off nor does such an option dis-entitle you to express an opinion on the matter.

hooradiation

Maximilian wrote: »

Actually no it's not a fair assumption to make. There's a difference between trying to understand something and sympathizing with it. At no point did I say I agree with or sympathise with piracy, quite the opposite in fact. That's a baseless assumption you made yourself.

No, it is. this is a pretty ambiguous way of communicating, and if you're not clear then misunderstanding will happen.
Now lets move on.

Maximilian wrote: »

What I have been saying essentially, is that publishers have been acting in a manner which I think actually encourages people to pirate. If I said fast food advertising encourages people to eat unhealthily, would you then impute an opinion on my part that I agree with unhealthy eating?

That's a bad analogy, mostly because the first part of it may have been what you meant, but it's not analogous to what you said.


And, I reject your idea that people have been "encouraged" to pirate. That's a cop out.
We're not talking about an essential product here so what we are looking at here is people who have decided that "i want it" is enough of a reason to take it.

There is no blame on the publishers here. Zero. They may be pricing in ways people don't like, ubi's latest DRM may be backwardassretarded but that is not 'encouraging' people to do anything. It's just a lame excuse.

People want these games, they don't want to pay for them, so rather than just say that they pretend they are being oppressed or mistreated somehow.


It's such an amazingly awful, and very typically of the internet, kind of rubbish my only surprise is it hasn't ended up in the CT forum.

Maximilian wrote: »

Again you are making assumptions. He didn't say anyone has a "right" to mod tools, he is merely expressing annoyance that they are not being released as frequently as before. He didn't say publishers shouldn't be allowed to charge for DLC either nor I think, has anyone else. DLC could be great if done right. This forum is filled with threads and posts with people, quite rightly, complaining about DLC, limited editions, and even full games that are a rip-offs, falsely advertised etc. The fact that your not obliged to buy them, doesn't make them any less of a rip-off nor does such an option dis-entitle you to express an opinion on the matter.

Whatever you may take from it, when someone outright states that "Now the greedy developers aren't releasing the tools and are purposely killing the pc community" I'm going to take more than just 'merely expressing annoyance' from it.

And given the level of rage at things like IWNet, i think you're being disingenuous if you're going to tell me that the PC gaming community don't expect a certain level of tools/modding potential as a god given right.

Hercule

Increasingly aggressive DRM -vs- increasingly sophisticated piracy is the future Unfortunately most companies are beginning to spend more time trying to protect their games and lock them up in diabolical DRM that they end up creating systems which hinder legit users of the game - it sucks but then again so does the PC games market compared to consoles.

(excluding MMOs). I cant think of a major PC title or game I have owned aside from call of duty 4 that hasnt tried to incorporate some laborious login system to play multiplayer games - usually to its detriment - this includes every game on the steam platform.

Thanks to Microsoft, Ubisoft, Valve and perhaps a few others this is a fundamental part of PC gaming now and other then the odd stats/awards systems I don't see what this login/DRM systems improve upon or how they add value to a PC game as a product in any way

Maximilian

hooradiation wrote: »

No, it is. this is a pretty ambiguous way of communicating, and if you're not clear then misunderstanding will happen.
Now lets move on.



That's a bad analogy, mostly because the first part of it may have been what you meant, but it's not analogous to what you said.


And, I reject your idea that people have been "encouraged" to pirate. That's a cop out.
We're not talking about an essential product here so what we are looking at here is people who have decided that "i want it" is enough of a reason to take it.

There is no blame on the publishers here. Zero. They may be pricing in ways people don't like, ubi's latest DRM may be backwardassretarded but that is not 'encouraging' people to do anything. It's just a lame excuse.

People want these games, they don't want to pay for them, so rather than just say that they pretend they are being oppressed or mistreated somehow.


It's such an amazingly awful, and very typically of the internet, kind of rubbish my only surprise is it hasn't ended up in the CT forum.




Whatever you may take from it, when someone outright states that "Now the greedy developers aren't releasing the tools and are purposely killing the pc community" I'm going to take more than just 'merely expressing annoyance' from it.

And given the level of rage at things like IWNet, i think you're being disingenuous if you're going to tell me that the PC gaming community don't expect a certain level of tools/modding potential as a god given right.

Nothing I've said is ambiguous. My meaning is perfectly clear from what I wrote. At no point did I say I sympathized or condoned piracy. The opposite in fact. You have neither the humility to admit that nor the manners to apologise for suggesting that I do condone piracy.

You make semantic arguments all you like but when I said "encouraged" I obviously mean provoke, cause, incite etc. How is that a cop-out? Who ever said games were essential? Who ever said merely wanting a game is a justification for piracy? I didn't nor would I. Nobody else did. Who is making excuses? Where have I said publishers bad behavior excuses piracy?

Do you honestly think that in the face of publisher's recent behavior, nobody will decide to pirate a game out of sheer anger or some form of protest (have a peek at some publisher forums)? Do you think admitting that possibility equates to an endorsement of piracy? You actually believe that publishers are utterly blameless and their own actions, policies, the prices they charge etc. have no effect whatsoever on people's motivation to pirate software?

It's like your response was generated through the infinite monkey theorem and this was the best result. Its exhausting. We actually agree on the morality of piracy for the most part, although I wouldn't take such an absolutist view.

Overheal

hooradiation wrote: »

PogMoThoin wrote:

Now the greedy developers... Developers want to be able to just turn off a game servers

You REALLY need to stop saying that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8To-6VIJZRE

I don't get this attitude.
Firstly, what makes you think you have any kind of right to Mod tools or anything like that?
I understand "that's the way it's always been" but publishers are under no obligation to have the developers spend time and money making these tools fit for public release.

I don't think he ever claimed it was a "Right". Just that it was Right.

Secondly, if people are willing to pay for DLC then why shouldn't publishers pursue that? Like it or not there is clearly a market for it - i mean if you don't like it, simply don't buy it. What's the bother?

Downloadable Content, Expansion Packs, etc. generally refer to something that was not available at the time of release. Like Bob in the Level Design Desk said "Fcuk me, I've got some great Ideas for some new maps" - So the guys at bungie, can you believe it - they published a Halo 2 map pack. Sound.

Then companies started putting it on the disc well before launch and it became:

Bob: "Okay all my maps are done and ready for the launch date! People are going to love this!"

Wig: "No no no Bob. We're going to lock your content. Because like an upselling prostitute we want to wait till the customer already has their pants off before we tell them they can have it all - for more money of course."

Remember all the random **** they packed into Timesplitters 2? Loved that game. Level Builder and all.

I guess it's a PC gamer centric thing, but just because stuff has been free since year dot does not mean you're entitled to it for free forever. You were never entitled to it all in fact.

Like Toyota drivers were never entitled to working brakes and accelerators. Genius.

PogMoThoin

hooradiation wrote: »

I don't get this attitude.
Firstly, what makes you think you have any kind of right to Mod tools or anything like that?
I understand "that's the way it's always been" but publishers are under no obligation to have the developers spend time and money making these tools fit for public release.

Secondly, if people are willing to pay for DLC then why shouldn't publishers pursue that? Like it or not there is clearly a market for it - i mean if you don't like it, simply don't buy it. What's the bother?

I guess it's a PC gamer centric thing, but just because stuff has been free since year dot does not mean you're entitled to it for free forever. You were never entitled to it all in fact.

So I guess You're happy with the way games have gone or are You just trolling? You seem to be attacking everyones posts here, even when they agree with You.

I never said it was a right, its just always been the way. Many games were released with added content arriving some time afterwards to prolong the game. These usually ended up being in most cases nearly as big as the original game. I had no problem paying for the SWAT 4 or F.E.A.R. expansion packs. Now we're seing dlc being just a map or two and a new weapon for €10-15 (COD -WAW) or stuff already made and on the disk being locked out(Bioshock2). We see them add a tenner to the price of a game, just because they know people are going to buy it anyways. Milking and gouging

I'm glad I'm an Arma player, the game cost me €30 and new community made missions, mods and maps are appearing every single day and I'll gladly buy the expansion pack when it appears
http://www.armaholic.com/index.php?c=news_arma_2

Maximilian

PogMoThoin wrote: »

So I guess You're happy with the way games have gone or are You just trolling? You seem to be attacking everyones posts here, even when they agree with You.

I never said it was a right, its just always been the way. Many games were released with added content arriving some time afterwards to prolong the game. These usually ended up being in most cases nearly as big as the original game. I had no problem paying for the SWAT 4 or F.E.A.R. expansion packs. Now we're seing dlc being just a map or two and a new weapon for €10-15 (COD -WAW) or stuff already made and on the disk being locked out(Bioshock2). We see them add a tenner to the price of a game, just because they know people are going to buy it anyways. Milking and gouging

I'm glad I'm an Arma player, the game cost me €30 and new community made missions, mods and maps are appearing every single day and I'll gladly buy the expansion pack when it appears
http://www.armaholic.com/index.php?c=news_arma_2

Actually with the exception of maybe L4D1, Arma2 is one of the best games I've ever bought value for money wise.

DLC is like the bastard child of expansion packs. I wish they would ditch DLC in favour of proper expansions, like BI are doing (hopefully) with Arma.

PogMoThoin

Now if BI can make money on a game that costs €30 in Game on release day and release modding tools and dedicated servers, surely this prooves that the others are just milking and gouging every last cent.

Optimalprimerib

just look at nintendos approach to piracy on the ds. One year the sales of the ds sky rocketed all due to the dstt cards allowing for free games. Everyone, their mother, their granny, their dog got one. And nintendo loved it. It meant that their console was selling.

Their attempts to "stop" this. Every year release a newer slightly different version of the ds, blocking the piracy knowing full well that it will be cracked days after the release. Their profits continue to climb, the only ones to suffer are the developers.

Optimalprimerib

just look at nintendos approach to piracy on the ds. One year the sales of the ds sky rocketed all due to the dstt cards allowing for free games. Everyone, their mother, their granny, their dog got one. And nintendo loved it. It meant that their console was selling.

Their attempts to "stop" this. Every year release a newer slightly different version of the ds, blocking the piracy knowing full well that it will be cracked days after the release. Their profits continue to climb, the only ones to suffer are the developers.

Rev Hellfire

There seem to be two issues discussed here.

On the whole DRM issue publishers/developers are in a bit of a lose/lose situation.
When they include it they're lambasted from on high, but when a publisher/developer releases a game without protection they're pirated to the extreme. As someone mentioned before a quick look at the number of sales to the number of players demigod encountered should educate people to need for DRM these days.

As for the DLC issue I suspect a major driving force there (at least with dlc provided with the game) is monetise the second-hand market for publisher/developer. This way at least each subsequent sale of the product can bring in additional revenue, this would be especially true of the console market. Regardless of if it 'right' or not, it's understandable that they would seek a slice of the lucrative second-hand market which otherwise provides them with no income.

The idea that piracy helps hardware manufactures is a bit of a fallacy, since most consoles are provided at either a lose to begin with or have very small margins. The profit comes from the licensing on the games sold.
Though perhaps older kid like the DS which have been out for a while may at this stage have much lower manufacturing costs coupled with the fact that development costs will most likely have been recovered by now.

Venom

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

There seem to be two issues discussed here.

On the whole DRM issue publishers/developers are in a bit of a lose/lose situation.
When they include it they're lambasted from on high, but when a publisher/developer releases a game without protection they're pirated to the extreme. As someone mentioned before a quick look at the number of sales to the number of players demigod encountered should educate people to need for DRM these days.

As for the DLC issue I suspect a major driving force there (at least with dlc provided with the game) is monetise the second-hand market for publisher/developer. This way at least each subsequent sale of the product can bring in additional revenue, this would be especially true of the console market. Regardless of if it 'right' or not, it's understandable that they would seek a slice of the lucrative second-hand market which otherwise provides them with no income.

The idea that piracy helps hardware manufactures is a bit of a fallacy, since most consoles are provided at either a lose to begin with or have very small margins. The profit comes from the licensing on the games sold.
Though perhaps older kid like the DS which have been out for a while may at this stage have much lower manufacturing costs coupled with the fact that development costs will most likely have been recovered by now.

Well the whole problem with DRM is that it dosen't stop piracy, 99% of the time it just angers the customers who have bought the product. Ubisofts insane DRM in Assassins Creed 2 not only has major issues with saves not working but in far to many cases people cant even play the game they paid for as the Ubisoft servers are having a ****fit.

If someone is going to pirate a CD,DVD or video game they are going to pirate it end of story and should not be factored into lost sales as they were never going to pay for the product in the first place.

Over the top and faulty DRM as found in AC2 only drives away people who would of paid for the product which the low level sales on the PC have proven.

Venom

PogMoThoin wrote: »

So I guess You're happy with the way games have gone or are You just trolling? You seem to be attacking everyones posts here, even when they agree with You.

I never said it was a right, its just always been the way. Many games were released with added content arriving some time afterwards to prolong the game. These usually ended up being in most cases nearly as big as the original game. I had no problem paying for the SWAT 4 or F.E.A.R. expansion packs. Now we're seing dlc being just a map or two and a new weapon for €10-15 (COD -WAW) or stuff already made and on the disk being locked out(Bioshock2). We see them add a tenner to the price of a game, just because they know people are going to buy it anyways. Milking and gouging

I'm glad I'm an Arma player, the game cost me €30 and new community made missions, mods and maps are appearing every single day and I'll gladly buy the expansion pack when it appears
http://www.armaholic.com/index.php?c=news_arma_2

I agree with you 100% but did you honestly expect DLC not to be used to gouge more money from customers? How much longer will companies like Rockstar (GTA4) or Bethesda (Fallout 3) continue to produce proper DLC when the current trend of cutting out or holding back parts of the original product is getting to be the norm.

When the respected Developers such as Bioware (DAO, ME2) follow the trend of ripping off customers I dispair.