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

[AntiChri5]

A game with always online DRM comes out.

Bob and Sam both want to play it. Sam cares strongly about always online DRM and refuses to buy any game with it. Bob does not give a single fuck.

Bob buys the game. The worst thing that can happen to him within the scenario is that, in ten years or so he will not be able to play it.

Sam does not buy the game. Sam never plays the game. The worst possible thing within the scenario that can happen to Bob is the only possible thing within the scenario that can happen to Sam.

What is better, to get a game you may not have access to in ten years or ensure you never have access to the game at all?

 

[Vegosiux]

What is better, to get a game you may not have access to in ten years or ensure you never have access to the game at all?

The fact that a day only has 24 hours ensures I will never have access to the majority of the games at all.

And I am at the liberty to choose which ones I will have access to. YOu act as if Sam is cutting off the nose to spite the face. No, he isn't, he's just putting on a pair of Groucho Marx glasses and taking his money where he'd rather spend it.

 

[Signa]

Wow, there are so many people here I'd love to have harsh words with, but I'm just going to stick with answering the question in the thread title.

A) People care more about their own self-pleasure than the damage that pleasure might cause. It's so self-destructive it's amazing no one seems to be willing to acknowledge it, like a smoker who doesn't believe the anti-smoking ads.

B) They use the "it doesn't bother me so it doesn't hurt anyone" defense. They are right to a point with that one, because other people do like to over-blow issues such as this. However, that is all ignoring the fact that the companies that use these DRM schemes are far more interested in maintaining control over their products and their customers than offering a rewarding expereince. There is little reason to fall in line to that mentality, especially since you are paying for that (smaller and smaller) carrot on that (larger and larger) stick.

Face it people, when you buy a game, you are feeding the company that made that game. That means making everything about that company stronger for the practices they employed to bring that game to you. DRM is a sign of strong disrespect for you as their customer, the one who feeds them. It's like feeding a dog that bites you every time. Just because you have a strong tolerance to pain, or have heavy gloves to protect you doesn't mean you should keep feeding that dog as if it belongs cuddled on your lap. It's a monster that either needs to learn its place, or be put down.

 

[AntiChri5]

Sam is denying himself something he wants because it will cease to function in ten years. Which is utterly senseless.

No game, console or computer lasts forever. Physical copies break, get lost damaged and stolen. Digital copies get the servers shut down and licenses revoked/suspended/the companies responsible for managing the licenses go out of business. Either way, the games become unaccessible.

The only real difference is that you have more control over the state of the physical copy. You can store it carefully, make back-ups ect.

Nobody LIKES always online DRM. No one is in favour of it, it doesn't have any actual fans. The people who don't mind it simply don't view it as a dealbreaker. Not once has whether or not a game has always online DRM influenced me the slightest bit on whether or not to purchase it.

And you know what? I don't have a single game with always online DRM.

The question of whether or not i should buy a game is really, really simple. Is the expected enjoyment i will get from the game equal to the asking price of the game? There are no other considerations. It's not about fighting corporate greed or consumer rights or standing for freedom or anything so dramatic and over the top.

It's about whether or not i want to play a videogame.

 

[AntiChri5]

Good god the self righteous hyperbole is delicious.

 

[Signa]

Wow, there are so many people here I'd love to have harsh words with, but I'm just going to stick with answering the question in the thread title.

A) People care more about their own self-pleasure than the damage that pleasure might cause. It's so self-destructive it's amazing no one seems to be willing to acknowledge it, like a smoker who doesn't believe the anti-smoking ads.

B) They use the "it doesn't bother me so it doesn't hurt anyone" defense. They are right to a point with that one, because other people do like to over-blow issues such as this. However, that is all ignoring the fact that the companies that use these DRM schemes are far more interested in maintaining control over their products and their customers than offering a rewarding expereince. There is little reason to fall in line to that mentality, especially since you are paying for that (smaller and smaller) carrot on that (larger and larger) stick.

Face it people, when you buy a game, you are feeding the company that made that game. That means making everything about that company stronger for the practices they employed to bring that game to you. DRM is a sign of strong disrespect for you as their customer, the one who feeds them. It's like feeding a dog that bites you every time. Just because you have a strong tolerance to pain, or have heavy gloves to protect you doesn't mean you should keep feeding that dog as if it belongs cuddled on your lap. It's a monster that either needs to learn its place, or be put down.

Tell me again how buying always online games makes my lungs go grey and kill me. No wait that was an analogy, because accepting DRM that doesn't inconvenience me will get stronger repercussions like...? More games will get DRM that doesn't inconvenience me?

Ok tell me, me using MY MONEY from MY labor on products I LIKE will change products away from WHAT YOU WANT.

Yeah I know that it feed the producer of the product, but i dont have a problem with the product. YOU DO.

Back when I was in School there was this girl. No one liked her. You know why? Because she did more or less the same argument you did right now, except it was about vegetables. She was a vegetarian and we were all given the "its as bad as smoking" and "you support bad business". You are that girl.

Wow dude, hyperbole much? Calling me a girl to boot? You're in denial about the damage you're doing to my hobby. You refuse to see others' perspectives because you're having too much fun damaging the industry for the long-term. All I asked for what a little self control, and look at how you jumped down my throat (classic nicotine deprivation response. I kid, I kid.). You can have your hobby with out the interference of DRM to spend your money from your labors on the things you love if you just slap the industry back for disrespecting you. The DRM will disappear, and BOTH of us can have what we want.

But who am I kidding, with an attitude like that, I don't know why the industry should respect you. You're just a drug addict returning time and time again for your next fix, and now they want you to be their dancing bear because they have you hooked, and you're willing to do anything for that next fix.

 

[Vkmies]

Because sometimes you want to play a good video game?

Look, I know where you are coming from. I am a collector, I love my physical games and consoles and the thought of them not being there forever is ridiculous. But you know what? I have 250+ games on Steam. Why would I ever want to do that? Because I want to play video games, that's why. Owning my games is a big part of the gamer I am, but the final reason why I buy games? I buy games to play them. And I just might want to play Mark of the Ninja.

You find me a DRM-free packaged copy of Mark of the Ninja with manuals and posters and shit and you know what? I will buy it. But you can't. So what can I do? I tell you what I can do. I can buy it on fucking Steam, play it, have fun and risk that some day it wont work anymore because DRM. It sucks, but that's life for you. You want to play games? You need to change with them, otherwise you will never play anything ever again.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Well in the case of Diablo 3, I can't see myself ever going back to it, so them shutting down it's servers wouldn't bother me.

And my internet hardly ever cuts out at all. If it does, what are the chances I'm going to want to play one of my always online games at that exact moment.

In short, it doesn't inconvenience me so I don't care. Although I will say that always online games with a focus on single player is fucking stupid, like Assassin's Creed.

If it does ruin your game, then I feel sorry for you, and by all means, tell those publishers.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

However, that is all ignoring the fact that the companies that use these DRM schemes are far more interested in maintaining control over their products and their customers than offering a rewarding expereince.

Assuming that people cannot tell the difference between a quality game with DRM and a lousy game with DRM is assuming they are idiots. If a game is "rewarding" to me, and has DRM, I will weigh the inconvenience of the DRM against the reward. I don't just buy games reflexively, DRM or not, and then say "Oh woe is me, foxed by another lousy DRM title, when will I learn?".

But who am I kidding, with an attitude like that, I don't know why the industry should respect you. You're just a drug addict returning time and time again for your next fix, and now they want you to be their dancing bear because they have you hooked, and you're willing to do anything for that next fix.

YOU SEE DEXTER? This is why I can't help but laugh at the anti-DRM side of things. It's the FUCKING RHETORIC. How can you *NOT* laugh at this? It's so over the top you can't even see the top.

Signa, find a better metaphor. Drug addiction is better than the Holocaust as far as analogues go, but you're still reaching.

 

[PH3NOmenon]

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.

I don't see the games I purchase with always on DRM as purchases, I see them as rentals. Or leasing, whichever you prefer. By the time the games I purchase with always on DRM close down, I'll be long bored with them or they won't even run on my OS any more. Or they'll have been cracked. I still have a disk copy of duke nukem 3D laying around. I'm not inclined to play it any time soon, even if it would still work.

I'm aware of the danger involved and don't buy games with always on drm from small companies.

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.

Trust in customer service. Mind I'm not saying that you should, I'm saying I do. for most big titles with this kind of drm, any common problems tend to float to the top of the user forums and become hard for the company to ignore. To be honest, the only games that I ever had that actually became unplayable were games without always on drm and I never could get them to work properly.

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.

Good planning. I actually never saw the big error 37 for diablo 3, because I didn't play it for a week after release. You're absolutely correct in it being an annoyance. But people still buy cars and houses with obvious and listed faults too. For the sole reason that they simply don't think of the faults as particularly relevant.

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

Convenience, mostly. Lack of another option, of course. Less obsessed with ownership than the average bear, possibly. Because we're always on-line anyways and if the net connection hiccups I have bigger issues than worrying about my game not being playable.


I generally spend my money with principles in mind. I cancelled my WoW account when I felt that I didn't get enough content for my money. I refused to buy X-com until it dropped to thirty bucks because the tactics didn't hold up on the hardest difficulty. I didn't buy Skyrim simply because it was too damn buggy (New Vegas rammed that lesson home hard). But always-on-drm hasn't been obtrusive enough for me to make it a big factor in my purchasing behaviour. Not yet, at any rate. Maybe once I get burned by it hard enough, my opinion will change. For now, I'll happily overlook it in any major title that catches my eye.

 

[Sargonas42]

It's really quite simple. Some games have it, some don't. Some Gamers want to play certain games, others don't. The people who fall into the first half of both categories don't care because that's the cost of playing the game, and they are voting with their wallet by saying they are ok with it.

That's why people buy games with it.



(It's a moot argument anyways, next-gen consoles will have it as well as PC titles at that point. The market is changing, whether Gamers want it to or not. We really don't have a say in it, no matter how much we "vote with our wallets" or protest.. because at the end of the day those of us who care, and talk about it online, and protest still only make up for about 12% of the buyers in the market.)

 

[Vegosiux]

Ok I am just a drug addict because I have a good internet connect. Solid logic right there. Yeah I am in denial because it doesn't bother me as much as you.

You know, just because I "can" always be online doesn't mean that I "want to" always be online, nor does it mean I "am supposed to" or "should" always be online.

Do you seriously think the always online DRM complaints come just from people with shoddy internet?

It is about what you want. I already have what I want. I spend my money on it.

"I've got mine, so fuck you." Yeah, a lot of people I meet have such an attitude.

You just want me to not get what I want so you can have what you want, and decide where I spend my money.

Wait, you don't want games without always online DRM? (Because that's the only way this can make any sense)

Oh, wait a second...

Right, I walked right into this one again.

 

[Laughing Man]

It's really quite simple. Some games have it

but do they? The conversation as slowly drifted in to a general DRM topic but the OP specifically mentioned always on DRM, to my knowledge the only major game publisher to us this in an exclusive single player with no online content is Ubisoft and I think even they have given that up. The closest major release to it at the moment has to be D3 but if you dig a little bit you can at least see the logic behind it, yeah you may complain that the single player didn't need it but the underlying reasons for it are at least good enough.

Are their actually ANY other major game titles out there that use always on DRM?

Okay yeah Simcity will use it but that's because Maxis clearly has gotten tired of making the games and has decided that if the game fails hard EA will leave them to sleep in peace.

 

[Generic4me]

They buy games with always-on DRM because it's a good game and they want it, and there's nothing exactly the same as it elsewhere.

Well, most people. I'm one of those caring people that refuses to buy any games with any kind of DRM or online passes in them. Period. I won't support that garbage and it needs to die.

 

[Woodsey]

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.

All I can do is give you my word that I haven't bought any games with always on DRM, unless you count WoW. But that's an MMO so it doesn't count. I mean it when I say I really bloody despise always on DRM as you should be able to tell by my first post. I think Assassin's Creed and Diablo 3 are the big two games I can think of that I decided not to buy and it only took a few hours after release day for me to not regret the choice.

AC3 has a one-time activation , along with the rest of Ubisoft's catalogue. They gave up on their always-on bullshit months ago.

I am still waiting on an answer for a support ticket regarding Deus Ex 2 which I placed a year ago for instance.

It's not that surprising that support has ended for an 8 year old game.

 

[lacktheknack]

I don't.

My internet likes to flicker. This isn't a problem with normal internet use, but it can cause problems with multiplayer... problems I don't want to deal with in single-player.

This is why I'm OK with Steam, actually - once you're in, Steam doesn't care if you're online or not.

 

[Vegosiux]

I think the most legitimate ones come from them. Most others are doing it on principle. Here is the thing. Should and could is completely irrelevant.

Guild wars could have been made with an online and an offline component. It was made full online so that is the product I dealt with. Not with an imaginary one. And the online part didn't bother me.

You seem to have mistaken genre for DRM.

Tell me more about how you stopped buying Xbox games because I dont have an Xbox. Its a shitty additude of "I've got mine, so fuck you". Listen the day you put in a 38 hour work week instead of me then you get to tell me where those money goes. Until then you dont get to dictate how I spend my money so you can get games the way you like.

Just 38 hour work week? Sign me up!

Stop acting like my purchasing decisions oppress your freedoms. Unless you are a child laborer in china then get over yaself.

This one has already been explained to you.

I live in reality where games are what is available and not warped after what I want them to be. You see... not buying the new Sim City will not make another appear in a puff of smoke without an online DRM.

Of course not, nobody is arguing that, so who are you talking to?

And you seem to have mistaken "not caring about DRM that doesn't affect me" with "Liking always online DRM".

Not at all, but someone's taken the goalposts down the road.

Well I know it is hard to get your head around it, but it is really quite simple.

Listen. You wanna insult me, insult me directly and take the consequences as a man.

I dont care the DRM is there.... because it doesn't affect in any meaningful way.... so it wont affect my purchasing decisions in any meaningful way.

You know, if it weren't for your first paragraph where you seem to have proclaimed yourself an authority on which complaints are legitimate and which aren't, and for that veiled insult right before this, I'd take that "I've got mine, fuck you" remark back about now.