Bjossi on 12/2/2011 at 18:29
In my opinion publishers should be legally forced to release patches that replace game exes and libraries with completely unprotected ones, because otherwise they will never do it. DRM is good for preventing early piracy at best, both because games get cracked pretty damn fast no matter how intrusive and ridiculous the DRM scheme is and because the critical sales period is fairly short. As soon as a game is cracked the DRM becomes nothing but an annoyance for the buyers.
Sulphur on 12/2/2011 at 18:42
I don't know about that last point, Bjossi. DRM is always an annoyance to customers regardless of whether it's been cracked or not. Saying that it's unjustifiable to keep DRM for a game once it's is cracked means that the devs might as well ship on day one without DRM, since cracking always happens so damn fast.
I don't see that happening, however, unless you're CD Projekt or another studio with the balls to do that (like Ubisoft did with one title, PoP 2008, just before it completely went ass-over-tits on its always-on DRM). I agree that they should remove the DRM once it no longer serves a purpose, but on the principle of market/financial sense that would only be after the game's sales have tailed off.
lost_soul on 12/2/2011 at 19:19
Yes, BJossi, you're describing a happy medium. id has always done this for example, and (I think) Epic has too. If they removed the stuff in, say six months, that would be a good compromise.
On the other hand, when it is eleven years later and I want to play System Shock 2 on my netbook, I just get PISSED and avoid the publisher in the future. Yep, I've got an original copy on CD.
EvaUnit02 on 12/2/2011 at 20:14
Quote Posted by Bakerman
Wow, I didn't even catch that. Though technically it's not *in* Malaysia either... might as well be though.
It's a sovereign city-state and no amount of arguments regarding geography and heritage will change that fact.
Quote Posted by Sulphur
(like Ubisoft did with one title, PoP 2008, just before it completely went ass-over-tits on its always-on DRM).
Hmmm? The boxed retail releases of GRAW2 and Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood were DRM'less as well.
Also Far Cry 2, Splinter Cell: Double Agent and Anno 1404 had their respective DRM solutions removed later in patches.
Sulphur on 12/2/2011 at 20:25
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Hmmm? The boxed retail releases of GRAW2 and Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood were DRM'less as well.
Didn't hear about that before, as far as I can recall the PC version of PoP 2008 got all the press for it. The more you know, eh.
Bjossi on 12/2/2011 at 20:47
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I don't know about that last point, Bjossi. DRM is always an annoyance to customers regardless of whether it's been cracked or not.
I agree that they should remove the DRM once it no longer serves a purpose, but on the principle of market/financial sense that would only be after the game's sales have tailed off.
Oh, of course. I was trying to say that before a game is cracked, the DRM has the purpose of keeping the hackers at bay long enough so that the more easily persuaded pirates just go and buy it instead of waiting. During that period it doesn't annoy the buyers any less, but once the DRM is rendered pointless its presence has the sole effect of annoying the buyer while the pirates enjoy the successfully hacked game for free.
Perhaps it would be a good option to remove it 8-12 months after release, 6 seems a bit early but then again I have no numbers to base my claims on, so I'm only thinking aloud.
I believe DRM only really works on a specific kind of pirate; one that actively pirates but can be persuaded to buy. A good number of the pirates are ones that wouldn't even buy a game at gunpoint. They should not even be part of the numbers, copying data is a neutral action that does not result in any financial damage to the publisher or developer. Here is a fun question; which will win over more pirates to the good side, strong DRM or no DRM?
june gloom on 12/2/2011 at 20:57
lost_soul please refrain from using the following terms and phrases ever again:
"unwanted"
"corporate"
"malware"
"honest" or "innocent" but especially in conjunction with "customer"
"DMCA"
"dark mod"
mods and modding in general
"penumbra"
the name of any game made more than 10 years ago
"average joe" (or really, anything that uses "joe" as a prefix or suffix)
"good user interface"
"linux"
censoring swear words with **** because if you're going to swear just fucking do it
"unreasonable"
"ever heard of" or any other sort of rhetorical question directed at evil corporations such as "you know what"
"listen to me/us"
using "we" or "us" to refer to consumers ("we, the consumers of your product")- when speaking rhetorically directly to evil corporations
speaking rhetorically directly to evil corporations
"take away what i paid for"
"what i paid for"
"turn off the servers"
"doom 3 engine"
"cross-platform"
"open-source"
"freedom fighters"
"the masses"
any mention of your supposed "rights"
car analogies
the name of any console, especially if complaining about them not being open-source or whatever or comparing them to PCs
"corrupt"
"muhaha"
"pirate" or "piracy"
"arbitrary"
any reference to hitler or the nazis or any other dictatorship
"capitalist pigs"
the name of any LGS game if comparing them to anything else
"steam"
"gog.com"
"entitled"
"malicious"
"bleh"
if you can avoid these terms and phrases your posts will be a lot less fucking irritating
hope that helps
Bakerman on 13/2/2011 at 00:04
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
It's a sovereign city-state and no amount of arguments regarding geography and heritage will change that fact.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want it any other way.
Quote Posted by Bjossi
Here is a fun question; which will win over more pirates to the good side, strong DRM or no DRM?
No, no, this is why we have governments - to legally enforce that we
do the right thing! :p
