You cant have it both ways. You cannot say you are anti drm when 80% of your sales have drm.sanquin said:Are you that naive? If you want your game to reach a wide market, you almost NEED to be on steam these days. I know people who stopped buying games anywhere else, because you can get them on steam anyway right? And I've also seen plenty of people complain online that certain games weren't available on steam. These days, it would be stupid to not release a game on steam. Once again, that's why the physical copy is there. It's the customers' fault for insisting on buying the digital version off of steam when they can order the physical copy without steam as well. If they care about such a thing that is.albino boo said:
So, fine, let me slightly change my argument so it holds up in your court of law, your honour. The witcher 2's physical copies only had DRM for a very short time, yet even after that they still sold plenty of copies. So my point still stands. A game doesn't need DRM to prevent piracy. (And an additionA game needs to be good to (partially) prevent piracy.
Anti piracy in PC games?
- Thread starter mohit9206
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm fairly certain that I pay taxes for the availability of libraries (And many other things). I'm perfectly fine with that, as am I with a premium for a multi-use license. That means that the creator of the work is paid for the service they do society.faefrost said:
Because libraries is a social tool, meant to promote education and culture, and not a means to get things for free.
Me, I'd rather personally own books, but I can't afford all of them nor do I have anywhere to store them. Been thinking about buying some kind of tablet with E-reader functionality, then buy all the books and comics I want to read.
A company will not commit financial suicide in the name of principle. It can't do that and stay a company. But that's not even relevant, because they don't impose the DRM on the product - The market place does.albino boo said:
And they need to distribute on this market place because it's the single most popular digital market place in the world. If they didn't, they would not make the money spent on development back, even less make a profit out of it.
So yes, you can be anti-DRM and still distribute through a platform with DRM. It's the choice of the consumer whether to use the DRM free platforms (Which exist), or the DRM included platform.
You are given a choice. If you want it on Steam, that's on you. If you want it without DRM, then you can get it without DRM.
They can still claim to be anti-DRM, based on them actually revising their policy on it. Just because it had it once doesn't mean that it needs to keep it.sanquin said:So, fine, let me slightly change my argument so it holds up in your court of law, your honour. The witcher 2's physical copies only had DRM for a very short time, yet even after that they still sold plenty of copies. So my point still stands. A game doesn't need DRM to prevent piracy. (And an addition
And it didn't. A company can change, just the same as any person can.
I'll add to what prevents piracy:
* More respectful attitudes by users towards creators - That being what I've been arguing about all this time. People should not take creators for granted.
* More convenient means to distribute and charge for products - Probably the single most important thing of all.
* Making sure that any product that people are willing to pay for is available in their market (Digital allows real time price adjustment - Use it!) - I would love this and it would effectively put a permanent end to my own bad habits.
* Lots and lots of good PR - Post release updates and responding to the community (Which is not saying you should do everything they tell you to) does improve sales.
* Making features incredibly inconvenient for pirates - This is not something I recommend however. Do not put feature server side when it can be done locally, because you only hurt the ability to keep the game playable in the future. It's a real shame that the industry is adopting this principle far more than any other (For the purpose of profit).
Actually, you can have DRM free games on Steam. Bindings of Isaac is one - you basically buy it through Steam and download it from there but you don't need Steam to run it. It very loosely uses Steam just for achievements and only if Steam is running at the same time as BoI. In effect, it's not really much different than if you get the game through GOG as there you'll also pay GOG and download it from them.Mutant1988 said:
I don't know if the Witcher is employing the DRM of Steam or not but just saying - it doesn't need to. Steam could be (and is, by few) used for distribution only.
Ah, cool. I actually didn't know that. I figured the offline mode was as close as you could get to a Steam without active DRM. That's nice to hear anyway, that creators have the option not to use the Steam license authentication to start games (Or make to work offline).DoPo said:
So then that shoots down the idea that Steam is a DRM in and of itself. It's not then, because using the DRM part of it appears to be voluntary.
The point I was making is still valid though - You can claim to be against DRM and still release on a platform with DRM, as long as people are given the option to use the marketplace without it.
To not do that would be economical suicide. And that's great, if you never want another Witcher game.
Principles and ideals are great - But they need to be adapted to reality. Especially in economics. If people simply don't use marketplaces without DRM, then you would be a fool to release only on such a marketplace. Your good intentions will just disappear along with the company.
If a clothing company says its anti sweatshop labour but 80% of products are made in sweatshop then they are not anti sweatshop. If 80% of products are sold with DRM then you are not anti drm.Mutant1988 said:
There is a key sever on the steam version, I know because I got failed to contact key sever error on it when I bought it in a saleDoPo said:
Yeah That sounds good in theory but those tricks... only work until they're found. Then they are just as easily patched out. The antipiracy measures aren't any more effective than DRM... but it does allow for some metrics by the publisher and a good laugh. Metrics since they will invariably assume it is a bug and post on the forums or support about it so it gives them a tangible idea of how many pirates are out there.mohit9206 said:
Digital retailers like steam I think have the best form of DRM. The steam client and service is in itself a drm platform but one that does not bog down your system and actually confers some benefits to the users, I mean them steam sales brah, them daily deals. I do not regret having my steam client up and running in my system tray constantly. Origin likely works in a similar manner.
Exploitation of labour is not comparable to a "voluntary" end user usage restriction of an entertainment product.albino boo said:
I also ask you to prove that paying CD Projekt Red for their games contribute to DRM being more common place.
Because if that's the case, it's because end users chose to support DRM themselves. They could always buy from the non-DRM marketplace.
No it isn't. The reason why sweatshop labour is used because its cheaper than non sweatshop labour. You can make exactly the same argument about financial suicide not to using sweatshops that you made about not using steam. Why is one finical suicide ok when the other is not?Mutant1988 said:
Because one of them relies on the perpetual misery of others (Poverty and lack of education, collapsed economy etc) while the other does not?albino boo said:
And yes, if you buy products from a company that uses sweat shop labour, that's partly your fault that they continue doing so.
But if you are given the option to buy the exact same thing, without sweat shop labour, and you still choose the first - You are a selfish jerk. You were given the option not to and chose not to use it.
The scenario people are presented with the game however is this - Buy the game with DRM (No labour exploitation) or without DRM (Still no labour exploitation).
Again, those two things are not comparable, in any direct sense. Except that both the concept of DRM and the continued use of sweat shops stem from poor attitudes. The "Not giving a shit about anyone but myself" attitudes.
And the customers also have an obligation to care, lest they perpetuate the current state of affairs. Like buying it on Steam and stating that you are just fine with it's DRM. Or buying sweat shop labour products of any sort.
CD Projekt Red obviously give a shit about DRM, because if they didn't they would not offer the option of buying without it.
HypocrisyMutant1988 said:
noun: a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude
They could put games on steam without drm but don't. They play to gallery by pretending to be against them man while shielding themselves with DRM on 80% of their sales. You can twist and turn as much as you like but it won't change the fact the they have option of no DRM but don't use it on steam.
And I think it's the responsibility of the people that care about no DRM to buy the version without it. Because that is the most effective way to enact change.albino boo said:
Them offering the option is more than enough to warrant them publicly expressing a disapproval of DRM.
Because they do provide users with the option. Options are good in this regard and because a version with DRM is one of those options, does not invalidate the one that is.
It's up to customers to dictate what kind of market they are willing to accept. The company still needs money to sustain itself and honestly - It's not a massive moral compromise to have DRM. It's dumb and pointless, but it does not negate being against DRM.
Again, ideals + reality = Compromise.
They could very well do what you suggest and go out of business. Do you think that will make DRM disappear?
And if you can't see a moral distinction between the use of sweat shop labour and digital rights management, then I'm sorry, but I no longer have any desire to speak with you.
In regards to worker exploitation it's not really a matter of whether their business can sustain itself without it or not, as a means to justify it's use. A business model that rely on the misery of others should not exist in the first place. That is why the civilized world abolished slavery.
And why it should abolish sweat shops, which is slavery in everything but name. But I don't see a country like China collapsing any time soon, especially not when western companies are so heavily invested in exploiting it's workers (And the Chinese government happily obliges). You know how we stop that? By demanding oversight into the conditions of workers, by the authority of an independent labour and human rights interest group.
The everything or nothing policy that you demand does not work in reality and you are incredibly naive to believe it could.
If you want to change the industry, do your part and buy the version without DRM and tell all your friends to buy it too. The more people that chose that option, the more likely Steam are to change their policies.
They have the option of not using DRM on steam but don't use it. If they are so anti DRM why do they use DRM on steam?Mutant1988 said:
Presumably because it's mandated by their investors or publisher. You know, the ones that stand to lose millions if the game fails to sell (Likely when it's not on Steam) or get pirated (Arguable how much of a loss that entails, but I bet a lot of investors frown upon the very concept)?albino boo said:
They still provide consumers with the ability to chose what business model to support. If people want DRM, they will get DRM.
CD Projekt Red can't change the industry without the support of customers.
So why would investor not insist on a universal drm release? It doesn't make sense.Mutant1988 said:
I refer you to this
http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/cd-projekt-red-waves-goodbye-to-drm/1100-4783/
Note the past tense when referring to Atari. So they clearly think that Steam DRM is ok and in their own words.
Presumably because the developers stated the optional DRM release as a condition to work on it at all. They probably didn't want to have it DRM free at all, but they can't just up and replace a development team.albino boo said:
That bit is important. In fact, the single most important thing of all.albino boo said:
A company that can't stay in business can't change the business.
Thanks for admitting they don't care about DRM that much. Its almost like they are are saying things for advertising purposes while using DRM. You know because business always tell the 100% truth and never shade things to create an image.Mutant1988 said:
They care enough to release an version of their game without DRM (Now in any case). Just because they sell it on steam and steam requires the version have DRM, does not mean they support DRM, anyone who bought that game on steam could have bought it DRM Free from GOG, They chose not to because it is more convient to buy it on steam and have it with the rest of their steam games, than to go to GOG, Sign up there, buy it through there and such.albino boo said:
They could have like the X3 Devs put out a Crack that allowed them to bypass Steam's DRM possibly, but again the people who bought it on Steam clearly do not care that it has DRM, had they they would have bought it from GOG.
The Company itself is anti-DRM, The customers who chose to buy it from Steam, either don't care or aren't inconvenienced enough by Steam's "DRM" to care.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't everybody who bought the game anywhere get a free GOG copy of Witcher 2 (well, unless you buy it from GOG, in the first place, that is).Cecilo said:
EDIT: Ah, it's both 1 and 2, actually [http://www.gog.com/witcher/backup]
Let me tell you a couple of stories one of the type of DRM you're suggesting and one that rejected the notion.
The first story. The game was Titan Quest, developed by Iron Lore Development and published by Nordic games. An interesting game but one that had considerable issues. One such issue was random crashes. This turned out to be intended as was part of a disk check. Slight problem though. It didn't work right. People who had legitimate copies who kept the disks in during play were getting hit by these and because it was an error coded into the game when the user filed a bug report they were met with a "you pirated it, go buy a new copy" from the Customer Service department. Meanwhile patches removing the check hit the net and people who ACTUALLY pirated the game would have said patch and not run into any issues. Iron Lore Entertainment is now gone due to lack of funds due to poor development decisions (Dawn of War: Soulstorm was their last title, regarded as the worst entry in the series and suffered the similar level of crippling bugs that Titan Quest did.) and the former CEO to this day accuses piracy for it.
Second story and this one's a little more well known, though not by much. Most people are familiar with Stardock Entertainment due to recent events but this is not related to that. No, this goes back a number of years. A Russian company known as Starforce was considered by a number of game publishers to be the king of DRM. For users it was less well received with reports of physical damage to systems relating to the DRM's methods in dealing with optical media burners not uncommon but dismissed by the company in question. Starforce marketing staff approached Stardock upper management with a deal for the latter to utilize the former's DRM system in their games. This offer was flatly rejected with a substantially negative response from Stardock representatives. In retaliation, when the game in question (Galactic Civilizations 2) was released, pirated copies naturally made their way to the torrent sites. One such pirated copy was traced to Starforce offices and was not a "pure copy". It was laced considerably with viruses, trojans, and other unpleasant things. This version was summarily rejected from the community and Stardock had one of their most successful product launches in the company's history. A trend that continued until other issues arisen but had not overly hampered them. The company still stands as a solid developer and though they utilize Steamworks DRM system in recent titles, have maintained a solid consumer relationship and pro-consumer attitude that serves them well.
Now granted to some these two stories might seem like exceptions to the rule but it is indicative that working with your customers and not treating them all like thieves is far more effective than any DRM in existence.
The first story. The game was Titan Quest, developed by Iron Lore Development and published by Nordic games. An interesting game but one that had considerable issues. One such issue was random crashes. This turned out to be intended as was part of a disk check. Slight problem though. It didn't work right. People who had legitimate copies who kept the disks in during play were getting hit by these and because it was an error coded into the game when the user filed a bug report they were met with a "you pirated it, go buy a new copy" from the Customer Service department. Meanwhile patches removing the check hit the net and people who ACTUALLY pirated the game would have said patch and not run into any issues. Iron Lore Entertainment is now gone due to lack of funds due to poor development decisions (Dawn of War: Soulstorm was their last title, regarded as the worst entry in the series and suffered the similar level of crippling bugs that Titan Quest did.) and the former CEO to this day accuses piracy for it.
Second story and this one's a little more well known, though not by much. Most people are familiar with Stardock Entertainment due to recent events but this is not related to that. No, this goes back a number of years. A Russian company known as Starforce was considered by a number of game publishers to be the king of DRM. For users it was less well received with reports of physical damage to systems relating to the DRM's methods in dealing with optical media burners not uncommon but dismissed by the company in question. Starforce marketing staff approached Stardock upper management with a deal for the latter to utilize the former's DRM system in their games. This offer was flatly rejected with a substantially negative response from Stardock representatives. In retaliation, when the game in question (Galactic Civilizations 2) was released, pirated copies naturally made their way to the torrent sites. One such pirated copy was traced to Starforce offices and was not a "pure copy". It was laced considerably with viruses, trojans, and other unpleasant things. This version was summarily rejected from the community and Stardock had one of their most successful product launches in the company's history. A trend that continued until other issues arisen but had not overly hampered them. The company still stands as a solid developer and though they utilize Steamworks DRM system in recent titles, have maintained a solid consumer relationship and pro-consumer attitude that serves them well.
Now granted to some these two stories might seem like exceptions to the rule but it is indicative that working with your customers and not treating them all like thieves is far more effective than any DRM in existence.
