Always-on-DRM - why buy games with it?
- Thread starter EtherealBeaver
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh sorry I probably didnt make myself clear then - no there is no always-online-drm in Deus Ex 2 but they do have a support to help customers fix the game and if they cant fix one game within a year, I see no reason to belive they can fix another game in the same time frame either - it was to point out that you cant nessecarily rely on companies actually providing support for stuff they sell which doesnt work.Akalabeth said:
Edit:
In bulletrun those "10 years" was actually only "7 months". And if I have to do illigal stuff to play a game I bought legally, something is definatly wrong with the business practice. Forgive me but I would probably consider the argument you presented invalid on that basis.Jodah said:
I think ignorance may play a large part in this.
I've only recently started using Steam seriously, I've figured out for Ubisoft games I'll need Uplay, EA i'll need Origin and for some games I'll need GFWL. Now which if any of them need always on-line DRM, I dont know.
Do I search every game on Google to see it requires always on-line?
I'll probably forget. But if i find a certain DRM service too big an inconvenience, I certainly wont be making another purchase from that developer.
I've only recently started using Steam seriously, I've figured out for Ubisoft games I'll need Uplay, EA i'll need Origin and for some games I'll need GFWL. Now which if any of them need always on-line DRM, I dont know.
Do I search every game on Google to see it requires always on-line?
I'll probably forget. But if i find a certain DRM service too big an inconvenience, I certainly wont be making another purchase from that developer.
do you know why i bought a few games with always on-line (starcraft 2 and diablo 3)?
because i wanted to play the games and the always on-line isn't really an inconvenience for me. i doubt blizzard is going under anytime soon either so no worries about the servers disappearing in the foreseeable future.
yeah, yeah, i'm supporting games with something i don't like philosophically, but i don't regret buying and playing them - which is really the issue with playing games period. did you enjoy the game when you did play it? did it have any major hiccups that annoyed you? not everyone will have gameplay issues with the always on-line, or at least enough to truly regret the purchase. your mileage may vary.
because i wanted to play the games and the always on-line isn't really an inconvenience for me. i doubt blizzard is going under anytime soon either so no worries about the servers disappearing in the foreseeable future.
yeah, yeah, i'm supporting games with something i don't like philosophically, but i don't regret buying and playing them - which is really the issue with playing games period. did you enjoy the game when you did play it? did it have any major hiccups that annoyed you? not everyone will have gameplay issues with the always on-line, or at least enough to truly regret the purchase. your mileage may vary.
Private services are not illegal. they are not liked by the studios, of course, since they allow people who illegally obtained a game copy in most of the time, but the servers themself are not illegal. It is, however, in soem countries ilelgal to conenct to such servers with your legally obtained client. But thats the silly countries with silly laws, like america.EtherealBeaver said:
Just a quick question for those people who say that they are buying a "product" when they are buying a game. What exactly are you buying? The box, the disc (if it even comes with one), the manual? When you say product, are you talking about the tangible, physical objects or the intangible game? If you're talking about the game, what exactly do you own? The software? The IP? The right to use (ie play) the software as you choose? The right of modify the software should you wish, even if it violates copyright law? What does "owning" a game actually mean? Not trying to be sarcastic or anything, but for all those who are presenting the consumer-right-to-ownership points, what do you think you own when you buy a game, if not a license to use the softare (like ANY other piece of software you buy)?
Talking about consumer rights is a lot simpler when comparing physical objects that intrinsically define what "ownership" is, than to intangible products like games. Seems like that until the law can clearly define what "owning" a game actually means, then DRM is the necessary evil. Just as it can said that consumers have a right to play the game whenever, the companies have a right to protect it however. Not saying that always on DRM is perfect, or efficient (or even effective), but it is a method of protection. Whether it is just a teething stage as the publishers test the waters to see what works and what doesn't is yet to be seen, but with the way the world is shifting towards the internet-age, it's more that likely that ANY form of software valiadation in the future will include an active internet connection.
Whatever you think of them, publishers aren't stupid. They probably do realise that DRM in general don't really stop piracy, but what is the alternative? DRM-free software which requires no cracking/hacking at all or DRM-embedded software which provides some level of protection? And always on DRM isn't about punishing those who bought the game, it's about keeping out those who didn't - at least in theory.
Talking about consumer rights is a lot simpler when comparing physical objects that intrinsically define what "ownership" is, than to intangible products like games. Seems like that until the law can clearly define what "owning" a game actually means, then DRM is the necessary evil. Just as it can said that consumers have a right to play the game whenever, the companies have a right to protect it however. Not saying that always on DRM is perfect, or efficient (or even effective), but it is a method of protection. Whether it is just a teething stage as the publishers test the waters to see what works and what doesn't is yet to be seen, but with the way the world is shifting towards the internet-age, it's more that likely that ANY form of software valiadation in the future will include an active internet connection.
Whatever you think of them, publishers aren't stupid. They probably do realise that DRM in general don't really stop piracy, but what is the alternative? DRM-free software which requires no cracking/hacking at all or DRM-embedded software which provides some level of protection? And always on DRM isn't about punishing those who bought the game, it's about keeping out those who didn't - at least in theory.
I realize the reason I buy DRM games (well I've limited myself to Steam DRM games) is cause I want to show that I support the industry. But I realize I should try to make an effort to show that I want freedom in how I play my games.
1. You own the software and all its files.
2. You own the license to play the game how the company wants you to, and how they want you using the files.
It's kind of ironic when the latter turns out be more convenient than the former.
From what I've seen, there are two sideslicey said:
1. You own the software and all its files.
2. You own the license to play the game how the company wants you to, and how they want you using the files.
You just pointed out the problem. The "In theory." The problem depends on how the DRM version of a game compares to the DRM Free (or cracked) version.licey said:
It's kind of ironic when the latter turns out be more convenient than the former.
Private servers require a modification of game files which, as per the standard EULA, is illigal. Depends on whether you take the EULA as law or not but in either case, if you dont take it as law, you also know its your property and not a licence. If you do belive the EULA however, its illigal.Strazdas said:
At least in Blizzards games but I cant belive they are the only ones trying to pull a fast one
I couldn't really care less. While yes, my Steam library would suffer a lot if they'd shut down steam, I don't really see them doing this. As for other games that were always-online... only one comes to mind, really; besides Steam-games of course, and that's Assassin's Creed 2. Well, I played through it once or twice and will never come back to it, so what do I care if they shut down the service?
Ten years from now it will probably be available through GOG anyway.
Ten years from now it will probably be available through GOG anyway.
I will not buy games that have no good reason for an always on connection but require it anyway. Something like L4D2, where the whole point of the game is really to play online with other people I will still buy though.
I think in the end it depends on the game. Still, for single player only games I will avoid like the plague DRM solutions like Ubisoft's.
In fact I know they said they are going to one time activation only but I still don't trust them. They treat their customers like criminals and then wonder why people don't buy their games anymore!
I think in the end it depends on the game. Still, for single player only games I will avoid like the plague DRM solutions like Ubisoft's.
In fact I know they said they are going to one time activation only but I still don't trust them. They treat their customers like criminals and then wonder why people don't buy their games anymore!
Breaking the EULA is not illegal. Breaking an EULA would be a civil matter, part of contract law and not criminal law.EtherealBeaver said:
1. Private servers are the game servers that run on hosting sites. They do not require the client. they are seperate programs, very often programmed from scratch by some fans and start working propertly after years of being opensource and heavy modification. all they do related with the client is being able to read info sent form client and send appropriate back. nothing illegal there.EtherealBeaver said:
2. you are the illegal party by nodifieng the client in order to connect to the server. server is not at fault that you connect to it via modified copy.
EULA is law only in silly countries, must i repeat myself?
To be honest if a game had DRM like that I just buy it for console. If I want online, I go ps3 or PC depending on graphics.
No point, from the topic in general no one has been able to give an example of a AAA title that is currently in the wild that requires a constant connection due purely to DRM requirements. The examples we have had so far are a few older Ubisoft games, which have since been patched to no longer need always on DRM and a few Free 2 Play games which frankly if you're moaning about always on DRM in a game that you got for fucking nothing... well really!
So now that SimCity once again proves that online-DRM harms paying consumers and makes them unable to use the product they bought and paid for, I figured that this topic was relevant again.
Why do some consumers put up with anything like this and why the hell do companies get away with adding DRM which directly prevents paying customers from using a product they bought legitimately? And yes, I am aware of the "because I want to play it" argument but with crap like this, you aren´t able to play it anyway.
Why do some consumers put up with anything like this and why the hell do companies get away with adding DRM which directly prevents paying customers from using a product they bought legitimately? And yes, I am aware of the "because I want to play it" argument but with crap like this, you aren´t able to play it anyway.