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

[EtherealBeaver]

I dont understand people who buy games with always-on-DRM honestly. Why would anyone ever buy a game with that kind of DRM?

First off, you lose the game you bought along with any DLC or microtransactions you spent money on the second they close down the servers. The latest example is Bullet Run [http://www.shacknews.com/article/77680/soe-shutting-down-f2p-fps-bullet-run] where the company decided to shut off the servers very early after the games launch. Granted, it is a F2P game but that doesnt change the fact that you spent money on it and that it intrinsically has got online DRM.
I have many old games I still enjoy playing - X-COM:UFO Enemy Unknown or Master of Magic for instance. If they had had Always-on-DRM, I would not still be able to play them which would really suck for me.

Secondly, if something goes wrong anywhere in the process, you are screwed. Without always-on-DRM you can at least try and fix things from your side but with the always-on-DRM you set yourself at the mercy of a company which most likely gets tons of complaints like yours and may or may not give a rats ass about your case. I am still waiting on an answer for a support ticket regarding Deus Ex 2 which I placed a year ago for instance.
An example of this going wrong is the latest SimCity ban case [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130127/19023721799/redditor-points-out-flaws-simcitys-online-only-drm-gets-banned-ea-his-troubles.shtml]. Granted, it is a beta and granted it got fixed - but without always-on-DRM, that would never had happened in the first place.

Thirdly: Server capacity. Why would you ever buy a game you cant be sure you can play? If the servers are full, again as in the SimCity case above or as with Diablo3 [http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Blizzard-Apologizes-Diablo-3-Server-Problems-Delays-Real-Money-Auction-House-42607.html], you cant play the game simply because the company ran out of servers which were completely unnessecary for all the people who just wanted the singleplayer experience.



To me, if I buy a product I want to have my damn product and be able to play it for as long as I want - regardless of the producers desire to keep an arbitrary server, which isnt even nessecary for the game itself, online. I have games from the 90´s I still play at regular intervals because I like them - games like UFO: Enemy Unknown or Master of Magic - and if they had had always-on-DRM, I strongly doubt I would have been able to still play those titles.

Disclaimer: And yes, naturally there are some games which rely on always-on-drm for the player experience and I understand that, with the online aspect in the game, naturally servers will be nessecary and its not likely that those will be up for ever - but with games or modes in games which have no online aspect, why would it ever be justifiable?


TL;DR Always-online-DRM may cause you to lose your game when the company decides to stop funding their servers, they massively inconvinience you (potentially constantly), you are being put at the mercy of the company with the only course of action available being to hope they will bother helping you some time within the next week or so.

I just dont get it - why would anyone ever want to buy a game with Always-on-DRM?

 

[Smooth Operator]

It is simply a matter of convenience overshadowing common sense, also training users via propaganda.

In the first part people are willing to throw away all their rights just so their consumer lust will be sated once more, and the second is that companies have been inching forward DRM control since the start of this industry, every year some people object but the crawl goes forward none the less, and all of the sudden games you buy aren't legally even yours anymore and can be taken away at any moment (in the US anyway, elsewhere such nonsense is illegal).
And not only is this the accepted standard but the PR for DRM is so good they got people trained like dogs, right now consumers themselves are the biggest active PR force promoting corporate control... it is quite astounding.

 

[Sack of Cheese]

This is why I like console games more, among many other reasons.

Anyhow, it's just my opinions but I figure some gamers may not be fully aware of always-online DRM. They don't frequent gaming websites, they just go out the shop and grab whichever catches their attention.

Or they just want to play the game so very very much and either they don't own other DRM-free platforms in which they can game on or the game itself is only available on the PC.

 

[TheRaider]

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

 

[Vegosiux]

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

This, really, all there is to it.

Of course I still consider people who put up with it instead of stirring up some racket a bit foolish in this particular regard, but, bleh, as long as I can have viable options that don't require always online, I'll be that guy who's perfectly willing to pass up on a game now and then.

 

[Zeh Don]

The Raider nailed it.
And because, honestly, gamers can be pretty spineless when it comes to resisting.
"But I really wanna play it!" overrides the "If I buy this, I make everything worse" arguments. The Modern Warfare 2 boycott was proof enough. Diablo III was further proof - and in that case, the game was ultimately pretty fucking terrible to boot!

 

[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?

 

[Dryk]

Because people value their short-term fun over the long-term preservation of their medium

 

[DazZ.]

This is why I like console games more, among many other reasons.

Good luck with that next gen!

 

[Assassin Xaero]

You know there are people who don't care, right?

 

[Olikar]

You know there are people who don't care, right?

Yeah, I like to call them idiots.

 

[Murrdox]

You know there are people who don't care, right?

Yeah, I like to call them idiots.

Don't give me that. Yeah maybe I don't like "Always On" DRM for Diablo 3 but I'm an idiot if I don't care? Know why I don't care? Because I'm playing on my Desktop. My Desktop is always connected to the internet. Thus there's never going to be a situation in which I can't play Diablo 3 unless the power is out, Diablo 3's servers are down, or my internet is having an outage. In 2 of those 3 situations, I have bigger problems than Diablo 3.

Don't casually insult your fellow gamers.

As for my thoughts on Always On, I think it's remarkably short-sited of the developers. 10 or even 5 years from now very few people will be playing those Always On DRM games, making maintenance of the authentication servers a waste of money. However, the game itself might still be worth something as a budget game that can be sold digitally for $5.

Unless you provide an update to the game to disable the DRM, you really can't take advantage of all those budget sales, because you don't want to keep the servers up.

Thus you LOSE money in the long run. You effectively shorten the shelf-life of your own game.

Of course developers really don't care about this, and the numbers might back them up. Really all they care about is the first 3 months or so of a game's release when its sales are at their highest level. If they can minimize the amount of pirating that occurs during this time, they can maximize their sales in this very important time period in a game's life.

Of course, I've never heard of an Always-On DRM game besides an MMO that wasn't available pirated... so the success of this strategy is dubious.

 

[VanQ]

Because gamers are willing to pay to take a huge, metaphorical beating up the backside just so they can play their Super Lens Flare Dubstep Zombie Warfare 3 because everyone else is talking about it. As long as they're willing to pay to have a huge burning lump shoved down their back pipe then companies will happily supply for them.

Don't give me that. Yeah maybe I don't like "Always On" DRM for Diablo 3 but I'm an idiot if I don't care? Know why I don't care? Because I'm playing on my Desktop. My Desktop is always connected to the internet. Thus there's never going to be a situation in which I can't play Diablo 3 unless the power is out, Diablo 3's servers are down, or my internet is having an outage. In 2 of those 3 situations, I have bigger problems than Diablo 3.

You're absolutely wrong on that regard. If Blizzard decided tomorrow that it was no longer profitable to run their Diablo 3 servers then you will never be able to play it again. A game you paid full price for, probably bought the collector's edition too but it doesn't matter. Once those servers are gone so is your game. You have an expensive paperweight if you bought the physical edition, that's all.

However you're clearly content to be at the mercy of your publisher overlords. Power to you in that regard, but I'm still happy that I never bought a game with always online DRM. And I plan to continue not buying hoping that the rest of the gamers out there realise what it is they're supporting and stop buying the games.

Even if I have to never play my favourite game's sequel, ever. I will no cave to that bullshit.

 

[Strazdas]

i dont. i dont buy such games.
but people usually buy it because they dont care.
they play a game for a week and thne drop it to never ben seen again.

Don't give me that. Yeah maybe I don't like "Always On" DRM for Diablo 3 but I'm an idiot if I don't care? Know why I don't care? Because I'm playing on my Desktop. My Desktop is always connected to the internet. Thus there's never going to be a situation in which I can't play Diablo 3 unless the power is out, Diablo 3's servers are down, or my internet is having an outage. In 2 of those 3 situations, I have bigger problems than Diablo 3.

Liking or disliking - fine. its your opinion.
lack of care - ignorance and idiocy.
It may not apply to your CURRENT unique situation.
you know, FIrst they came.... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...]

As for my thoughts on Always On, I think it's remarkably short-sited of the developers. 10 or even 5 years from now very few people will be playing those Always On DRM games, making maintenance of the authentication servers a waste of money. However, the game itself might still be worth something as a budget game that can be sold digitally for $5.

how many new retail games do you buy that are 10 years old? so their not making much money anyway.

Of course developers really don't care about this, and the numbers might back them up. Really all they care about is the first 3 months or so of a game's release when its sales are at their highest level. If they can minimize the amount of pirating that occurs during this time, they can maximize their sales in this very important time period in a game's life.

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.
in fact the Assasins Creed 2 fiasco shows the opposite. legally obtained copies didnt work due to server failures, while pirates were already playing it and having fun.

 

[BoneDaddy_SK]

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

This, really, all there is to it.

Of course I still consider people who put up with it instead of stirring up some racket a bit foolish in this particular regard, but, bleh, as long as I can have viable options that don't require always online, I'll be that guy who's perfectly willing to pass up on a game now and then.

All very true. I myself can't help seeing it as a little stupid from a business perspective, though. All it does is encourage piracy. There are some cases where it makes sense, but a lot of others where it doesn't.

 

[Murrdox]

You're absolutely wrong on that regard. If Blizzard decided tomorrow that it was no longer profitable to run their Diablo 3 servers then you will never be able to play it again. A game you paid full price for, probably bought the collector's edition too but it doesn't matter. Once those servers are gone so is your game. You have an expensive paperweight if you bought the physical edition, that's all.

However you're clearly content to be at the mercy of your publisher overlords. Power to you in that regard, but I'm still happy that I never bought a game with always online DRM. And I plan to continue not buying hoping that the rest of the gamers out there realise what it is they're supporting and stop buying the games.

Even if I have to never play my favourite game's sequel, ever. I will no cave to that bullshit.

Yes, you are correct. I didn't address that factor in my post. When it comes to Diablo 3, again... I just didn't care. It's not that awesome a game. I haven't missed it in the months since I last played it, and I won't miss it in 5 years if Blizzard shuts off the server and I can't play it anymore. Would my attitude about that game be different if it was as valuable to me as, for example, my System Shock 2 CD? Of course it would, but I made my purchase decision knowing what I was getting into, and I really just didn't care that much. That doesn't make me ignorant or an idiot. It just means I know the limitations of the game at hand and I'm comfortable with them.

And sorry... I don't really believe you when you say you wouldn't buy your favorite game just because of Always On DRM. Thousands of people said that about the last Call of Duty game when they weren't going to allow PC Servers. PC Players still bought the game in droves. Maybe you wouldn't buy the game, but 99% of the complainers probably will.

 

[Sack of Cheese]

This is why I like console games more, among many other reasons.

Good luck with that next gen!

Thank you, that's very nice of you.

 

[EeviStev]

I know KFC is bad for you and I always have "The KFC Regrets", ie. that bloated feeling when your stomach is chockers with oil and salt; but I eat it (occasionally) because I'll be damned if it doesn't taste delicious.

 

[Murrdox]

how many new retail games do you buy that are 10 years old? so their not making much money anyway.

Quite a lot actually. In the last 6 months I got Planescape, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 (my old Baldur's CDs are scratched, I can't reinstall anymore), Dungeon Keeper, Condemned: Criminal Origins, and a small handful of others that I can't think of right now. Probably spent as much on all those old titles as I could have on 2 newer titles.