Always-on-DRM - why buy games with it?

[EtherealBeaver]

I dont care if all go always on. I have spend more time with the power out than I have with my internet out. That doesn't mean I should only enjoy games I can play without the power on. It isn't something that inconveniences me so I wont let it rule my enjoyment.

If I can make an argument the same pattern as yours, but to show how ridicules it is.

Do your entire argument with high system requirements.

I dont know if you ever played diablo 2 but I know a lot of people have. If it had had Always On DRM, chances are pretty great that the servers would be down long ago because its not a good business for companies to keep said servers running.

However, is it not the right of the consumers to use their own property? I know tons of people who still enjoy playing diablo 2 today and Im sure that there will be other games that people will love to be able to play 12 years in the future. Why would anyone ever want to ruin that? It makes videogames history almost impossible to showcase for future generations and makes it impossible to enjoy a game from your childhood in 10 years time because chances are that the servers will be down.

That doesnt really seem like fair business to me and personally I will have no part of it.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

People buy because they want to play the game more than the always on puts them off simple.

No, it's not that simple. There's also the underlying reason for why it doesn't put them off. It doesn't put them off because they didn't think it through, and they don't care about the potential long term consequences. What if suddenly EVERYONE starts making games with always-on DRM? What are you gonna do when every new game you buy can be shut down permanently? That's why people need to stop buying games with always-on DRM. Stop thinking about short-term enjoyment of the game and start thinking about what it could do to you in the future. If enough people simply refuse to buy a game with always-on DRM, the company will absolutely have to remove it. The reality that most people don't seem to realize is that we, the consumers, still have that power. Why would we be so stupid to give it to a corporation and thank them for it?

I thought it through.

And slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy. How dare you eat beef! That will become cannibalism. You dont think of the long term consequences. Doesn't roll that way. Long term consequences are pure "what if" scenarios by now.

Here is the thing.

I dont care if all go always on. I have spend more time with the power out than I have with my internet out. That doesn't mean I should only enjoy games I can play without the power on. It isn't something that inconveniences me so I wont let it rule my enjoyment.

If I can make an argument the same pattern as yours, but to show how ridicules it is.

Do your entire argument with high system requirements.

You do realize that we live in a capitalist world, right? It's more than a "what if" scenario. Corporations strive to control as much as they can get away with. That includes their customers. With everything going on these days you have to be a blind fool to think otherwise. And for the record, social issues are too varied and dependent on a large number of factors to simply switch always-on DRM with beef or high system requirements in order to prove a point. It's not even apples and oranges. It's more like apples and horseshoes. So I don't have to apply my entire argument with beef or high system requirements because that would be a completely different issue.

 

[DoPo]

they dont. aulways on DRMs get cracked within a day. longest one was a week and that was for GTA4. Granted, Diablo 3 took a bit, but thats because its built like a MMO, not as a normal game.

Yes, "took a bit", that's one way of putting it. The beta server files were leaked (not all but still) but even with those, as far as I know, there still isn't a fully working pirate version.

 

[gigastar]

The Modern Warfare 2 boycott was proof enough.

Was it?

Also the PC version of MW2 didnt lead to as much boycotting as it did mass hacking and piracy.

 

[Twilight_guy]

People put time and energy into MMOs. MMOs have to have a server running to work. Why don't we ask why anyone would ever play an MMO? (You could make an argument for single player games not needing this but the reasoning for your arguments are going to be the same as an MMO since you asked question that can be applied to MMOs).

You don't own software. Like, at all. You license software. That has been true for over 30 years. I don't care if you have never read the fine print, it's a fundamental part of software distribution. People don't give a shit about it and do what they want, but it's how things work.

Steam. Every game you own on Steam is directly connected to if their servers are running. Single player, multiplayer, whatever. Nobody calls them out for having the power to end your entire library with the push of a button (or rather pull of the plug on their server room). They have an offline mode but it still requires validation and imposes restrictions. Why does anyone use Steam?

Personally I, shock shock, don't have a problem with it. I think it sucks, like a lot, but I see a bright future when the internet is ubiquitous and DRM is far better designed and useful. I think this could lead to some good ideas to try and stem piracy and I think too many people are strangling the infant in its crib because of how stupid DRM is now without considering what it could be. Then again maybe I just want to be able to make money off of programming like a horrible horrible bastard.

 

[DoPo]

The Modern Warfare 2 boycott was proof enough.

Was it?

Erm...dude, you're directly confirming what the other dude said. He said that the MW2 boycott was a proof enough that gamers...well, actually, let me quote the exact same sentence you overlooked

And because, honestly, gamers can be pretty spineless when it comes to resisting.

Yeah, it's just a sentence before your cherry picked quote. I'd suggest you read the whole thing before criticising people next time. You know, unless you want to look like you do now.

 

[Olikar]

Oh, and we wouldn't have this problem if pirates weren't so fucking persistent and we didn't rush to defend them. We reap what we sew.

No, we wouldn't have this problem if most devs didn't got about 'dealing with' piracy like retards.
DRM does not prevent piracy, it causes it. If your game has intrusive DRM then your just making your position worse as a cracked version wont have DRM, you're making pirating even advantageous.

 

[Loonyyy]

Because you want the game, and assume that the DRM won't be an issue. Surely they wouldn't put something in the game that would make it more of a hassle than a pirated copy. Surely they wouldn't hurt legitimate consumers for having the decency to pay for their goods.

Of course, you find out you're mistaken when things go wrong, and by then, it's too late.

 

[Doom972]

Nobody wants it, but if it comes with a game that many people really want to buy (Diablo 3), people will buy it.

The only game I bought with that sort of DRM is Assassin's Creed II, after reading that they removed it in a patch. Too bad that they kept the cloud-only saves.

If the publisher would close down the servers without releasing a patch that removes the DRM, someone else will develop that patch.

 

[Auron]

I'm already always online when I'm playing so it makes no difference, why would I skip a game I'm interested in again?


8 years ago every single multiplayer title in the market used Gamespy, Gamespy's shutting down several games trying to blackmail devs right now. People found more than one way around to play most of the games if not all. I hate Gamespy much more than steam, EA's or blizzard's drm but would not consider skipping gamespy games altogether, I had considerable fun.

 

[Risingblade]

People don't give a shit and just want to play the game? How is that so hard to understand?

 

[Olikar]

But nobody pirates for that reason. People pirate for the same reasons as everyone else. THey want free stuff, and don't want to pay for it.

DRM is just a convenient justification. It's like when religious people justify homophobia or racism by saying "My imaginary friend told me it was a good idea." They're completely full of shit.

That's bullshit and you know it, people don't simply pirate because it's free there are many other reasons involved, with DRM and ease of access being the biggest .

And even if DRM isn't the reason people pirate, it is still pointless to put it in. If you put DRM on a game people will still pirate it and it wont add ANY real difficultly in pirating it, all you will do is put off legitimate customers. Plus you say DRM is just a convenient justification, but the way I see it is piracy is just a convenient justification for greedy companies to further intrude on your rights as a consumer and to try and squeeze every last penny out of you.

 

[EtherealBeaver]

But nobody pirates for that reason. People pirate for the same reasons as everyone else. THey want free stuff, and don't want to pay for it.

DRM is just a convenient justification. It's like when religious people justify homophobia or racism by saying "My imaginary friend told me it was a good idea." They're completely full of shit.

[citation needed]

I have loads of mates who pirate because they cant be arsed to deal with DRM. I pressure them to also buy the games - at least the ones they like - but they rarely bother installing them because dealing with DRM can be so frustrating

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Because you want the game, and assume that the DRM won't be an issue. Surely they wouldn't put something in the game that would make it more of a hassle than a pirated copy. Surely they wouldn't hurt legitimate consumers for having the decency to pay for their goods.

Of course, you find out you're mistaken when things go wrong, and by then, it's too late.

Where on earth did you get this ridiculous idea from? I want the game, and I'm 100% sure the DRM *will* be an issue. History suggests it will. For at least a week post launch, it will be an annoying and persistent issue. And after that it will be a seldom seen but still hugely annoying issue if and when it crops up.

Like, my copy of Diablo 3 inconvenienced me for about 45 minutes out of the 40 hours or so I played it. Not really a big deal, but still irritating when it happened. I was all "BLARGLE FUCKING ONLINE DRM". And then I went and did something else for a while.

Who knows though. Maybe SimCity will explode and burn down my building, and the corpses of the people inside will rise and ravage the city, bringing about a new era of terror and destruction. That MIGHT justify the level of hand wringing, doomsaying and out and out hysteria propagated in this thread.

 

[Loonyyy]

Because you want the game, and assume that the DRM won't be an issue. Surely they wouldn't put something in the game that would make it more of a hassle than a pirated copy. Surely they wouldn't hurt legitimate consumers for having the decency to pay for their goods.

Of course, you find out you're mistaken when things go wrong, and by then, it's too late.

Where on earth did you get this ridiculous idea from? I want the game, and I'm 100% sure the DRM *will* be an issue. History suggests it will. For at least a week post launch, it will be an annoying and persistent issue. And after that it will be a seldom seen but still hugely annoying issue if and when it crops up.

When you're relatively new to it. When I started on PC gaming, it was in the decline of SecuRom, which I had a few experiences with, and just prior to the advent of always on for singleplayer. I'd never experienced the hassle of the Half-Life/Steam fiasco, so I thought when purchasing Assassin's Creed 2, that it would work as advertised. I was mistaken. I couldn't play the game for more than an hour or so at a time before my less than stellar net connection would cause me to be dropped from the game. I didn't have to lose internet connection, just fail to connect enough that the system would decide that my connection issue clearly meant something illegitimate. For some people, this sort of thing is the point-if you choose to purchase the game, and it doesn't work, then it's a problem. But most of us assume the products will work, because they're selling them, and their running is pretty basic functionality.

Like, my copy of Diablo 3 inconvenienced me for about 45 minutes out of the 40 hours or so I played it. Not really a big deal, but still irritating when it happened. I was all "BLARGLE FUCKING ONLINE DRM". And then I went and did something else for a while.

Cool. Story. Bro. By the time D3 came around, I'd learnt my lesson. Once Bitten, Twice shy.

Who knows though. Maybe SimCity will explode and burn down my building, and the corpses of the people inside will rise and ravage the city, bringing about a new era of terror and destruction.

Thanks. That's a measured, mature response to some genuine issues people have with a system which has been flawed since it's inception. Issues you yourself have experienced.

That MIGHT justify the level of hand wringing, doomsaying and out and out hysteria propagated in this thread.

Where do I go with the hysteria and doomsaying? Where did I say that this is some unstoppable evil?

Now, if there comes a time, where internet access is so ubiquitous to make concerns about connectivity truly trivial (Which may or may not be the case, depending on where you live), and if game companies can promise that either 1) Authentication servers can stay live or 2) That a patch removing the online requirement is ready for release, in case the servers need to be shut down, then I've relatively little problem with the practice. It's still a silly solution, and it still won't solve anything in it's current iteration, but once the problems for the consumer are gone, I have no problem with it. I honestly think that the problems will become less severe as time goes on. Not more. But hey, I'm a doomsayer *facepalm*. You either need to check the vocabulary, or the sarcasm on that one, I'm not sure which.

It's still going to deliver an inferior product. It's still going to be inferior to a copy of the game without the protection, as the protection stands in it's current iteration. If they can remove an important enough component and prevent it from being viewed well enough, I'm sure there'll be problems with that, the big one I see coming up is modding, and how you do it with content you have no access to. Then again, I don't expect most games to be moddable, but it's a nice feature.

But seriously, stop with this ridiculously condescending, confrontational attitude towards people who have the slightest issue with Always on DRM. It's unbecoming, and you're better than it, really.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

But seriously, stop with this ridiculously condescending, confrontational attitude towards people who have the slightest issue with Always on DRM. It's unbecoming, and you're better than it, really.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa. Whoa nelly. Whoa.

I was responding to your soothsaying proclamation that people who choose to purchase always online DRM products do so out of ignorance, and that by the time they realize what's up, it's "too late". Like, our new corporate overlords are erecting a statue of John Ricitiello in the village square and EA's Corporate Enthusiast Officers are coming to the house to drag your family to the gulag or something.

I don't enjoy the rhetoric that PRESUMES those who don't share your concerns are ignorant dupes, any more you than you enjoy my rhetoric that those who are concerned are panicky hysterics. Shall we split the difference and allow each other our respective viewpoints? I'm totally sympathetic to people who have dodgy internet connections RIGHT UP TO THE POINT where they start in with the "sheeple" nonsense that permeates this thread, and every other thread on the subject. Once that shit starts, the gloves are off.

In retrospect your post was fairly tame, though, and I made you pay extra freight for the behavior of others, so for that I apologize.

 

[bojackx]

People buy because they want to play the game more than the always on puts them off simple.

No, it's not that simple. There's also the underlying reason for why it doesn't put them off. It doesn't put them off because they didn't think it through, and they don't care about the potential long term consequences. What if suddenly EVERYONE starts making games with always-on DRM? What are you gonna do when every new game you buy can be shut down permanently? That's why people need to stop buying games with always-on DRM. Stop thinking about short-term enjoyment of the game and start thinking about what it could do to you in the future. If enough people simply refuse to buy a game with always-on DRM, the company will absolutely have to remove it. The reality that most people don't seem to realize is that we, the consumers, still have that power. Why would we be so stupid to give it to a corporation and thank them for it?

Umm... I'm afraid it is still as simple as that.

People will buy the games because they want to play the game. The fact that the game may not be accessible in a few years is hardly a cause for concern for the here and the now. Not many people have the restraint necessary to avoid buying a game they really want, just because there's a possibility that the problem will expand.

Personally, there's very few games that have it right now and I don't see it becoming huge any time soon. Even then, there's very few games that I will truly miss after a few years. I don't know about anyone else, but that's what I feel about it all.