"Digital Rights Management drove me to Piracy"

Azza

I haven't looked into DA:O but I don't think DLC in Mass Effect 2 is ripping us off.

Currently everything bar the lastest expansion and a costume pack is free. These 2 items have come like 2 months after release.

I don't see the paid for stuff being essential. The costume pack is only €2.00 hardly going break the bank.

The new dlc with another character was worth the asking price.
Don't see anything wrong with this type of DLC.

Maximilian

Azza wrote: »

I haven't looked into DA:O but I don't think DLC in Mass Effect 2 is ripping us off.

Currently everything bar the lastest expansion and a costume pack is free. These 2 items have come like 2 months after release.

I don't see the paid for stuff being essential. The costume pack is only €2.00 hardly going break the bank.

The new dlc with another character was worth the asking price.
Don't see anything wrong with this type of DLC.

I'm actually going to have a look at that DLC for dragon age. I think that stuff is probably closer to a mini-expansion or what DLC should be (as opposed to what it now generally is - a rip-off) DLC could be great if properly handled.

Venom

Azza wrote: »

I haven't looked into DA:O but I don't think DLC in Mass Effect 2 is ripping us off.

Currently everything bar the lastest expansion and a costume pack is free. These 2 items have come like 2 months after release.

I don't see the paid for stuff being essential. The costume pack is only €2.00 hardly going break the bank.

The new dlc with another character was worth the asking price.
Don't see anything wrong with this type of DLC.

Well the original DO:A DLC (Shale,Armor and the fortress quest) felt more like stuff that was cut from the original game so as it could be used as DLC and from what Iv seen posted about the latest stuff is thats its ok but not worth the price charged.

ME2's launch DLC of crash site quest and useless character really felt as like it was cut from the game just to be offered as exclusive DLC.

Overheal

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.

The shift in direction came from there ("We want to let the community add their contributions to our game") on to "We want to also release extra content to the community" which became "We want to cover our costs of making new content for the community" [Which was say, Oblivion] which became "We cant compete with the community content" which gets us to where we sit now, "We'll prohibit/hinder community content to profiteer in-house DLC"

If I had said this 5 years ago people might have called me a doomsayer with a cliche Slippery Slope argument. But look: There it is.

You want a Slipperierer Slope? Ubisofts servers will one day be used to charge you for the Time you spend playing their titles.

citizen_p

somtimes DRM is serioulsly fooked up, some games i got are feking stupid....you install it once, uninstall and then when you feel like giving it another go "invalid cd key" or "this cd key has already been used"


and im not gonna pay another 30 euro for a game i already have

yoyo

The fact that every single review of this game comments on the DRM raises the question has it gone to far, I was just browsing the Irish Times website there and saw a review of the AC2 pc game HERE and its given a mention of the DRM, funnily enough never knew the Irish Times reviewed video games up till now...

Nick

Maximilian

yoyo wrote: »

The fact that every single review of this game comments on the DRM raises the question has it gone to far, I was just browsing the Irish Times website there and saw a review of the AC2 pc game HERE and its given a mention of the DRM, funnily enough never knew the Irish Times reviewed video games up till now...

Nick

Its a shame DRM such as Steam doesn't work. Its about as unobtrusive as it gets. The IT were probably reviewing the console version.

Coriolanus

IT reviewed the PC version. They started a games page in The Ticket every Friday a month or two ago. Good to see imo, thought the two opening columns were cringeworthy tbh.

Anyway, to anyone who doesn't think DRM forces people to pirate, take me for example. Live in the boonies with no reliable always on broadband. To play AC2 (which I want to) I'll have to either move, or get a cracked .exe, since one exists.

Maximilian

Nevore wrote: »

IT reviewed the PC version. They started a games page in The Ticket every Friday a month or two ago. Good to see imo, thought the two opening columns were cringeworthy tbh.

Anyway, to anyone who doesn't think DRM forces people to pirate, take me for example. Live in the boonies with no reliable always on broadband. To play AC2 (which I want to) I'll have to either move, or get a cracked .exe, since one exists.

I think actually it has been cracked now. Some kind of fake server you run to fool the game into thinking it is connected to Ubisoft. I read someplace that it works perfectly (albeit with a legit copy). If true, then Ubisoft's DRM is a complete joke - it's often said that pirates get a better product than legitimate buyers - all the more so now.

Overheal

Maximilian wrote: »

I think actually it has been cracked now. Some kind of fake server you run to fool the game into thinking it is connected to Ubisoft. I read someplace that it works perfectly (albeit with a legit copy). If true, then Ubisoft's DRM is a complete joke - it's often said that pirates get a better product than legitimate buyers - all the more so now.

Probably similar to the little >1MB Dosbox someone made to trick the Steam servers into showing you as logged on to TF2 so you could earn the (stupid) random weapon drops.

This being the complete inverse though I dont see how Ubisoft can counteract a client-side server spoof.

Maximilian

Overheal wrote: »

Probably similar to the little >1MB Dosbox someone made to trick the Steam servers into showing you as logged on to TF2 so you could earn the (stupid) random weapon drops.

This being the complete inverse though I dont see how Ubisoft can counteract a client-side server spoof.

Assuming it's true I think that's the nail in coffin for it. They will probably persevere with it but hopefully, if it does prove to be a failure, other publishers will be less likely to follow suit.

PogMoThoin

Overheal wrote: »

Probably similar to the little >1MB Dosbox someone made to trick the Steam servers into showing you as logged on to TF2 so you could earn the (stupid) random weapon drops.

This being the complete inverse though I dont see how Ubisoft can counteract a client-side server spoof.

But AC2 has only been successfully cracked yesterday, when the game was released weeks ago. They're going to call this drm a success as it delayed the release day pirates. It obviously didn't get them to buy the game, but it'll be interesting to see does it bother them that they're hurting legitimate buyers only.

Azza

PogMoThoin wrote:

They're going to call this drm a success as it delayed the release day pirates. It obviously didn't get them to buy the game, but it'll be interesting to see does it bother them that they're hurting legitimate buyers only.

It was a success in that its prevented zero day piracy and lasted longer than other DRM's. Wether it gets some pirates to buy the game is something we won't know unless they release figures. Its something if they can consistently do for each game might see a gradual rise in sales numbers. This could be offset by people boycotting there products.

Having been cracked once however it might be easier for the hacker groups to hack other gamea using similar methods.

yoyo

Azza wrote: »

It was a success in that its prevented zero day piracy and lasted longer than other DRM's. Wether it gets some pirates to buy the game is something we won't know unless they release figures. Its something if they can consistently do for each game might see a gradual rise in sales numbers. This could be offset by people boycotting there products.

Having been cracked once however it might be easier for the hacker groups to hack other gamea using similar methods.

So have other copy protections, that didn't require a online connection to play. Funny enough I was in wexford with my family at easter, now I dont have a gaming laptop but I found this would be a situation some gamers would be in, We have no internet down there, except in the pub which has a wireless internet connection patrons can use, If I had any other game on my laptop I could have played it internet free, with AC2, SH5, or even the new splinter cell I cannot, this is one example of how this retarded DRM will affect legitimate purchasers, I hope people would boycot this drm by not buying their games, and give ubi the 2 fingers to cop the fu*k on :P

Nick

Stercus Accidit

Azza wrote: »

Having been cracked once however it might be easier for the hacker groups to hack other gamea using similar methods.

They just faked the Ubisoft server on the computer, that will work for any server connection type drm, expect zero day piracy for any game using this sh1t method of drm in future.

pwd

The only compiled code you can prevent being cracked is compiled code the end user has no copy of. I.e.: Code that runs on a server.
In multiplayer games you can make use of this principle to prevent piracy.
With single player games, it's just a matter of time. If people really want to crack it they will.

Coriolanus

pwd wrote: »

The only compiled code you can prevent being cracked is compiled code the end user has no copy of. I.e.: Code that runs on a server.

Jesus, don't give them ideas! I can see it now, Assassins Creed 3 will be streamed on a youtube like service or something.

Fidelis

It's a vicious circle; sales of PC games fall as consumers decide to avoid the harsh DRM. Developers blame drop in sales on piracy, introduce tougher DRM on future titles.

My friend... "Timmy" has bought many, many games after initially pirating them, for no reason other than to support the developer. The "every download means lost revenue" arguement is nonsense.

Azza

Remember piracy came before DRM, DRM is a reaction to the massive scale of piracy. You got any numbers to back up the claim that DRM causes a loss in sales that is greater than the sales gained by the DRM reducing or delaying the cracking of the game.

Fidelis wrote:

The "every download means lost revenue"

This nonesense is peddled out every time. No publisher or game developer believes that every download is lost revenue. But they always get accussed of believing that. Just waiting for the old piracy is just as big on console chessnut as well.

Fidelis wrote:

"Timmy" has bought many, many games after initially pirating them, for no reason other than to support the developer.

I also know a "Billy" who admits that after pirating a game he bought them afterward. However in sum cases was a loss of revenue still because he bought some games at a later date when the price was reduced. He also admits piracy in a few cases lead him to not buying a game. However the majority of times pirating a game he believes he would not have bought the game anyway.

PogMoThoin

Azza wrote: »

Remember piracy came before DRM, DRM is a reaction to the massive scale of piracy.

Agree with You there, piracy is not something new, piracy was rampant during the 8bit days 25 years ago. I remember copying friends games in the mid 80's with 2 tape decks in a quiet room, double decks weren't invented then. Lots of my games were copies and when I bought a game it got copied for others.

The only difference is that today there are figures of the amount of copies. Lower the price of the games and more people will buy them, if pc games were still €20-30 I'd buy lots more. I'll not buy any with this type of drm.

Azza

I also think a lower price would equal more sales. But with game development costing much more than it use to can developers/publishers afford to sell games at a lower price point.

pwd

I think it was on this thread that someone linked an article about revenue for games on steam being several times higher when prices were reduced. So that suggests that game publishers can't afford not to sell at a lower price point.

I do think that trying to move whatever possible from local machine to server for games is probably a trend. It only really works for multiplayer games though.

hooradiation

Overheal wrote: »

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

That's not even close to analogous, well done.

PogMoThoin wrote: »

So I guess You're happy with the way games have gone or are You just trolling?

I am. Shocking i know.
Or rather, i think the Internet has given a vocal minority of whiny children a massive echo chamber and objectively the narrative they present of them being constantly abused and mistreated is rubbish.

PogMoThoin wrote: »

I never said it was a right, its just always been the way.

Ok.
Now explain to me how the fact that it used to be a certain way means that it should always be that way, if it's not a right.

Fidelis

Azza wrote: »

You got any numbers to back up the claim that DRM causes a loss in sales that is greater than the sales gained by the DRM reducing or delaying the cracking of the game.

I do not, but I'd be intrigued to know how such numbers would be calculated!

Oh and people, stop feeding the troll

marco_polo

hooradiation wrote: »

That's not even close to analogous, well done.




I am. Shocking i know.
Or rather, i think the Internet has given a vocal minority of whiny children a massive echo chamber and objectively the narrative they present of them being constantly abused and mistreated is rubbish.





Ok.
Now explain to me how the fact that it used to be a certain way means that it should always be that way, if it's not a right.

Bad game developers positively thrive on consumers that will settle for any old crap that is thrown their way. I for one am glad that not everyone shares your world view.

Antar Bolaeisk

Nevore wrote: »

Jesus, don't give them ideas! I can see it now, Assassins Creed 3 will be streamed on a youtube like service or something.

It's called "Onlive"

Cuddlesworth

Here is the problem the way I see it.

Its as easy to buy a game online as it is to pirate it. And pirating it doesn't cost 50+. Its way more easy to buy online then it is to go out and pick up a copy. So in terms of the end user, piracy is the best option in terms of cost time.

If games online were much cheaper and a system was used to give more features then a simple download(steam) then I would see this being the better option in terms of a value/cost/time ratio.

But it would seem that publishers want the games sold at the same prices regardless of medium sold and they want this due to pressure from the bricks and mortar stores who are and can hold them to ransom. They want this because online sales are slowly eating their profit margins and none of them had the foresight to enter into and become a dominant player in this new medium.

Zombrex

Fidelis wrote: »

I do not, but I'd be intrigued to know how such numbers would be calculated!

Oh and people, stop feeding the troll

The problem with numbers for piracy is that publishers count every priated copy as a lost sale.

As someone on joystiq pointed out Crysis sold 2 million copies, but the piracy rate was something like 1:30. But no one seriously thinks that if the game hadn't been pirated it would have sold 60 million copies.

I in no way support piracy, and i think it is killing PC gaming as more and more publishers move to console only, but at the same time publishers do use it as a handy scapegoat for why their crap game didn't sell well.

Azza

Wicknight can you provide evidence to such a claim that the publishers count every single download as a lost sale.

I have never heard a single developer/publisher state that.

Zombrex

Azza wrote: »

Wicknight can you provide evidence to such a claim that the publishers count every single download as a lost sale.

I have never heard a single developer/publisher state that.

A quick Google found Gamasutra's article when EA specifically reversed this position when down playing piracy of Spore

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20424

Perhaps oddly, these comments represent an almost total role reversal from the normal dialogue on the topic from publishers and industry associations -- which usually stresses sales lost to piracy.