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

[Radoh]

Because I'm always online anyways and I see no reason to deny myself games for my preferred platform because of it.

Honestly, I've had all of three times where I had issues with DRM, and that was in Assassins Creed II because my internet was a little shoddy. You know what I did as a result of it kicking me out of the game? I double clicked the icon, waited half a second, and started playing again uninterrupted for the rest of the night.
Hell, I actually got off better in that because with all the butthurt about losing access to the game everyone who had a server outage (something I myself experienced to no real negative impact) and got ALL the DLC for free.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Hmmm.

We're still playing Warcraft 3: Frozen Throne. Ever since Starcraft 2 we are allowed to just log into our Blizzard accounts and get the installation files and install away, and play on whatever hardware (running Windows) we fancy. You know, the thing we used to do was to copy the game installation directory from machine to machine, backup and restore windows registry files and run third-party no-disc patches and fixes. All that luxury comes directly from Blizzard now, after only ten years or so. I like that. By your definition, WC3 uses alway-on DRM, as multiplayer isn't that much fun without (official) servers. I don't mind it, since it makes sense and I believe there's no other crapware or malware or any safedisc shenanigans going on.

With other games, copy protection doesn't come as natural. I played Diablo 3 during the beta, and I was quite fed up with it before things got public. I did not buy or play the final release, as it clearly did not tingle my tastebuds. Even if I had liked the game, always-on DRM would not have made any proper sense to me.

Same goes for the decidedly one-player rides of Assassin's Creed, had I actually liked those games. Only letting me play my single player experience when connected to the mothership is not something I like - or accept, for that matter.

I love my Big Daddy figurine and I like my collector's edition CD that looks like an old vinyl, but I am pissed off at the fact that 1) none of the classic old music is on the CD and 2) the game came with an online activation that made no sense whatsoever. So I have it in a prominent place and finger the Big Daddy every now and then, but I never installed it from the original media, as I like my computers and all the computers I touch to be without malware, ransomware, SecuROM, you name it - shit won't fly around here.

 

[TheRaider]

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?

For a lot of people games are short term enjoyment, so they don't think long term.

As a developer I appreciate the need to try and protect your product. Always-on DRM can be a real pain to some consumers but I am sure they do some sort of cost/benefits analysis and deciede the benefits outweigh the cost to the company.

I agree with the general sentiments that things like boycotts don't work since the titles most likely to use it tend to be the biggest titles released. The failure of these titles doesn't hinge on always-on DRM, although of course it would be interesting if you could compare sales with and without however this doesn't seem something that is possible to quanitify because of the large number of factors.

 

[Cry Wolf]

Simple answer? It doesn't bother a lot of people. I have never bought a game with always online DRM, and I now actively check games for stuf like hiding content behind online registration, on-disc DLC and the like. It's note worth the hassle, I've got plenty of other stuff to spend my money on.

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.

Look, I don't usually like just dropping a link instead of making a case myself but I get the distinct feeling that all I'm going to get for my effort is a lot of contradiction.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem

 

[Aeshi]

For the same reason you buy games that require Dual-core processors or 4GB of RAM. Because you..

A) Want to buy the game
and
B) Either meet the system requirements or were too stupid to read them.

 

[Zakarath]

I'll buy them if I want to play them. Simple as that. Pirating is not something I do, and boycotting screws over the decent people who made the game just as much as the publisher who pushed the DRM.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

Of course, I CAN go somewhere else to get tube socks... if you want to play Assassin's Creed 3, you sort of don't have an alternative other than playing the console version, so I feel bad for you.

I thought the console version also had to be connected to the internet to be played. Am I misinformed on that part? I might be willing to pick up a used copy if that's the case.

Nope. You can play the console versions offline. I know, I did it. That goes for AC2/2.5/2.75 as well. I can't say I've ever seen a console game with always-on DRM.

That's the beauty of console gaming. PC gamers may have superior graphical capabilities, but at least we don't have to deal with the nonsense publishers attempt to saddle us with.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Yeah I only bought Diablo 3 3 to cop op with my mate since we never co op however he never held his end of the bargain (depsite being a hardcode Diablo fan, it seen he lack self control to gaming as he always busy with his work).

Anyway I suppose the reason why people buy a DRM game is that it doesn't effect them too much. Sever overloaded? Just wait a while until it died down, need the internet 24/7 to play it? Sure they got no problem/ limits with their network provider.

 

[Tyelcapilu]

I have faith in Steam, and I find it to be extremely convenient, which means it's actually more convenient to purchase the games on there than to manually get store-bought/steam-free versions.

 

[snowbear]

Errrm well I think we need to make it clear the always on drm isn't always such the massive issue that people make it out to be. If the game is a single player only game then Always on DRM is a big no no imo and I will not buy.

However if its a multiplayer game that has the drm then I see no issue as I have to be online anyway, and if the drm server is shut down the the multiplayer servers will be shut down too so its makes little to no difference.

I will say what im more against is charging for online services. Hence I will never buy a multiplayer game on xbox live. Why the hell should I pay Microsoft to play my games online. Xbox live is essentially the same as always on DRM anyway. so to the guys saying this is why they only buy games on consoles.... Have fun when the xbox live / psn services get terminated

 

[Nazulu]

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

Yep. That's all it is. Gotta get their fix or they'll kill over.

It's the sad truth that always is going to stir up a shit storm.

 

[Cry Wolf]

I wanted to get in on the issue of Piracy because it is the big bad boogie man on both sides of the argument.

One side going "They are just doing this in order to fight imaginary pirates" while the other side conjures up massive overstatements of the influence of piracy as well a lack off understanding of how to fight it.

There is a Digital rights Management issue going on here ofc. However it often tend to make a different issue slide off. There is often a much greater endgame of an what starts as a DRM (steam being the best example). The whole thing of getting your players online opens up opportunities for everything from distribution to intergame interaction. It is the MMO principal. You can make a game with relatively boring and simple mechanics more engaging by implementing of more people. How many people online do you need in order to make an engaging matchmaking system? How much does an engaging match making system add to your game (CiV very little, Dota alot). Can you harness the power of the playerbase correctly essentially.

Look, I'm not trying to be hurtful when I say this - but you really need to edit your post so it's coherent. I have no idea where to even start addressing what you've said.

 

[Easton Dark]

Good job to the people who say they don't care because they're always online anyway.

It's not like there are thousands upon thousands of gamers who are not so universally privileged who you are having these businesses fuck in the mouth. Don't care about them, or the future when (and not if) those servers go down.

I cringe when people say "My purchase means nothing", I laugh at "The company doesn't care", but I get angry, not angry like hit something, but consumer angry, when people support harmful business practices without thinking of what it could mean for others, because their 1 or 2 games of the dozens that came out that year just had to be purchased, or worse, purchased on a whim.

 

[Cry Wolf]

Good job to the people who say they don't care because they're always online anyway.

It's not like there are thousands upon thousands of gamers who are not so universally privileged who you are having these businesses fuck in the mouth. Don't care about them, or the future when (and not if) those servers go down.

I cringe when people say "My purchase means nothing", I laugh at "The company doesn't care", but I get angry, not angry like hit something, but consumer angry, when people support harmful business practices without thinking of what it could mean for others, because their 1 or 2 games of the dozens that came out that year just had to be purchased, or worse, purchased on a whim.

I support this message in it's entirety. It says everything the post/edit to my last post I was writing meant to say Thanks!

 

[Loonyyy]

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".

I was referring specifically to myself. I could have made it more clear, but I didn't feel that I was going to come under fire for it. And, after quoting a section where I mentioned the condescension, the bit about "soothsaying" is rubbing me very much the wrong way.

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.

Clearly, once you've bought these games it is too late to not buy them, especially as they are non-returnable, a consequence of DRM. Let's not get carried away by reading into my post things that I did not say, shall we, or are you a mind-reader now? (See how fucking annoying that is?) I'm not talking about corporate overlords, or any nonsense or histrionics, and I'm not even talking about EA. My problem in particular was with a Ubisoft title. I know EA hate is a big thing right now, but try to stick to critiquing my own positions.

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.

But I never said those who don't share the concern are ignorant dupes. And I've read your posts on the topic before, so I know you're far from ignorant on the topic. So let's not get angry for me about something I didn't say, about an attitude I don't think you hold, when I made no statement about your knowledge in particular. In fact, I wasn't describing any attitude, but the one that led me to buy a product saddled with this DRM scheme.

Shall we split the difference and allow each other our respective viewpoints?

It'll happen when you stop attacking peoples expression of their viewpoints. Asking for clemency from argument after starting one is a poor solution to the problem, when using a little more tact would get better responses. But yes, I'm satisfied to let bygones be bygones. I think I understand your point well enough, and I think in my last post, I made mine clear.

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,

I wasn't saying people are "Sheeple" or any nonsense like that. I was saying, that I, like many consumers for all I know, bought a game with the always on DRM because I was ignorant of the effect it would have. Big titles like Assassin's Creed have a wide audience, many of whom aren't core gamers. I'm willing to bet I wasn't the only one who bought it without knowing the problems it would cause.

and every other thread on the subject. Once that shit starts, the gloves are off.

Well, you might want to keep the gloves on until you're sure your target has that attitude. To be honest, this just seems like looking for trouble though.

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.

Thankyou. I could have been more clear that the case I was citing was my own, but I really thought it was obvious enough for a throwaway shortform answer.

 

[Darks63]

Well for me its the cost, hr cost of buying a series for pc off steam for example vs the price of getting the games on the console. I got Ass creed 1-revelations for 13 bucks if i wanted the same on the console even used that would have run me prolly 60 bucks at least did i like having to be logged into steam and the ubisoft thingy at the same time nope but i beat all the games and got my monies worth.

And as far as taking a "stand " against this practice pc gamers failed that test with Diablo 3 since it sold really well.

 

[Tanakh]

No, you are making a purchasing decision. I didn't buy some soup the other day because it wasn't on sale. I wasn't taking a stand.

I don't know why people can't just say "I'm not buying X because of reason Y" and leave it at that. No, they always have to portray themselves as civil rights revolutionaries and pretend they're part of an epic struggle for consumers everywhere. I'm honestly not trying to be mean, but the whole thing is deeply ridiculous. There are evidently a lot of people on this forum in sore need of more drama and purpose in their lives.

Thats why i love you man, you take my arguments, redact them in a less confrontational way and save me the work to type. Carry on.

Edit: If anything i am dissapoitned in your lack of appreciation for healty cookies.