Online Activation Is a Ripoff

[Markness]

howdy

This is becoming rather muddled.

Lets restate Shamus's point. Online Activation is a ripoff and I want it gone. Suppose Shamus gets his way. Then what? Surely he has thought this far ahead. Surely he acknowledges that something would be needed to replace it. Since cd protection is the only other system around, I'd say that he wants cd protection back. This is not a baseless comment. It is a reasonable conclusion.

I'll restate my point. The new system (online activation) is better than the old system (cd in drive checking). I have stated my reasons for this, and no-one really stated counter-points. I'm not saying online activation is perfect and will never be replaced. I'm just saying its the best choice at this point and there is no-reason to boycott companies using it.

As you said, there is no point arguing over what quote means what.

 

[Ytmh]

Alright, so let's look at your arguments then! Sorry for the excessive quoting but since this was on page 3, it's simpler to not have to go back and forth so I'll post it all here:

Hmm, yep. Because after downloading a 6 gig game from the internet, It would obviously be such a huge inconvenience to them ... or not. Piracy is way more inconvenient than buying it, assuming you are willing to pay the cash, so you have no argument there.

Convenience is subjective at this point. It's for me 10000% easier and more convenient to grab a torrent of any X game than it is to actually jump through any of the hoops required to actually buy things and I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees it that way. It may as well be very convenient to buy a game through steam for example than it would be to find it pirated, but this is all rather variable and no generalizations can be made that are accurate enough.

1. Swapping CD's is very annoying compared to the install and store the CD for potential need to reinstall method. If you play a few different games a day you will be forever switching and switching back. With the activation method, once it's installed you can forget about it.

Except that if the servers go offline for any given reason or you have no net access, you can't use the product you paid money for. This is a big, big, problem regardless of how convenient it seems to you. Nevermind of course countries where net access is greatly restricted or even nonexistent. The bottom line is, you're paying full price for a rental were the activation source to disappear.

2. Considering Cd's are constantly being swapped, they will get lost if you aren't very organised, and face it, most of us aren't. Once the Cd is lost, that's it, you can't even play the game let alone reinstall it. With online activation, you can put the disc in a safe place and not it have constantly moved around and lost. This keeps the disc in a place you know where it is, and actually preserves it. I find it disappointing you do not even acknowledge the positives of online activation.

Someone already mentioned it, but your own sloppiness is your own fault. I have never lost a single CD my entire life and likewise what you're saying is similar to a shop replacing your Mp3 player because you misplaced it free of charge. Taking care of your things your responsibility and that's the end of that. Since this is the entire point you're making, not being sloppy counters this potential "benefit."

3. Online activation is screwing over the incredibly small minority or people who don't have any access (not even for a minute or two) to internet in the same way that releasing games with alright graphics is screwing over people with poor computers. Ie, it's providing an overwhelming positive experience with a few downsides to a small group of people. The reason you find people disagreeing with you is because, just as people want better graphics, people want a better system of protection than cd's.

So first you need to somehow provide actual data that it's an "incredibly small minority" that is being screwed by this system, then you need to argue that it's completely worthwhile to screw them over to begin with as the benefits are great. Judging from the previous point, the benefits as it stands are at best temporary and ultimately pointless.

Another thing you have to somehow provide data for is that people want a better system of protection than the cd-era systems. As far as I know, considering the enormous backlash for things like Spore and so on, it seems to be QUITE the contrary. The example of Bioshock is also not to be ignored, as pointed out in the article; it renders the game unplayable and there's nothing you can do about it.

4. I know from experience that online activation is harder to crack than a no-cd. This means more pirates won't be bothered and if you will believe all those pinning blame on piracy for poor sales, more people buying games, and more industry growth which is good for everybody.

So, you're an experienced cracker/pirate? I don't know what kind of experience you may have then on cracking the DRM systems, or how it somehow validates your argument. Either show your cards here or you're essentially claiming by fiat that online activation is harder to crack and leaving it at that, which is not a real argument.

5. You spent much of your article complaining about how great the threat of losing the game forever is. The chance of this is minute however. For this to happen you would need to have lost your install somehow (probably wouldn't happen before you finished it once or twice anyway) and the servers have gone down (which would give the company a reputation of this, which would decrease sales which the company would go out of its way to avoid) and didn't issue a patch before the servers were down (which would only happen if the company bankrupted) you could always download it which if it isn't legal it should be. The chances of the above happening are much less likely than losing/scratching a cd since you are always swapping them around.

Considering point No.2, your argument here has very little weight (you seem to think most people are sloppy, so this renders whatever comparison moot.) Furthermore, The ways online activation work are various and it's hard to generalize, but you're assuming a best case scenario when the reality is that if the activation server goes down, everything else is pure luck. Sure you can keep your install if it lets you play without phoning home (or you somehow pre-emptively enabled such a feature,) but you're screwed if anything needs to be done to your hardware and you lose it. Only one thing failing in this case (auth server) means that everything else you listed are basically taking steps to try to preserve the product you paid for in spite the fact that you already have no way to reinstalling it or playing it again were you not careful enough. Sometimes you don't even have such an option (games that must phone home, etc.)

You can in theory keep a CD around for quite a lot of time; this it is mostly dependent on you keeping it safe. The auth server however has nothing to do with you and were it to fail, like Microsoft's example, you are left taking evasive action trying to cling on to whatever you can. Sure we can account for unexpected problems like the CD burning in a fire, or what not, but as you can probably find out many people (myself included) still own entire game collections which are CD based without much of a problem. Only time will tell how many people will be able to say the same about these online activation games, but I suspect not too many.

So there, I think that covers just about everything you said and, really, you're not making a very strong argument in favor of online activation at all, much less a good one against cd-era anti-piracy systems. In fact the only thing you've said against cd-era systems is that cds can get scratched if you're sloppy. If that's all you really have against those systems, well, take better care of your cds!

 

[Overlord2702]

I know of a game thats never been Pirated yet. VBS 2. the reason why is its a full militray encrpytion on it (it IS a militray sim in use by the USMC, ADF, etc) hell VBS1 was so hard to pirate too and only then it was buggy as hell and none of the addon packs worked for it.
My reason for this is why DONT the publishers just encrypt the game with a high lvl encrpytion instead of little to none and get rid of this DRM crap that punishes people for not being a pirate?
Also publishers stop overpricing games in AUS for no fucking reason

 

[Royas]

Shamus, reading your article makes it sound like you're not completely up-to-date about how the new battlenet is running. I had lost my warcraft 3 cd's some time ago, but I still had the case + the CD key. The new battlenet download service is already available where you're able to tie keys to accounts, so I decided to do that. Lo and behold, I could download and install the game. So it isn't just DRM activation, there's a good level of service attached.

Obviously this does nothing to your valid argument of "what if blizzard goes broke" or "what if they change personality". I'd prefer to own my games and selling licenses for singleplayer games is invasive. If they do go under, I'll take a gamble with piracy and hope no malicious virus gets installed when I get around their activation.

I had the same problem, same game in fact. Except I did it the other way around. I lost the cases and kept the CD's. =(

In the end yes, online activation isn't the most fun thing in the world, however if it does prevent piracy at any degree you have to respect a companies rights to implement it. If you dislike the fact that you have to register online, don't buy the game. If enough people aren't buying the games due to the registration something will change. Game companies enjoy profits.

Actually, no, I don't have to respect the company's right to use online activation. I don't believe they should have that right. In some countries, I understand that they may not actually have that right, but they just haven't had anyone go after them for it. I don't care if it prevents piracy 100% (I'm of the belief DRM does almost nothing to prevent piracy, BTW), I still consider it dishonest and virulently anti-consumer. Yes, they may prevent a few particularly lazy pirates from getting their game, but they also manage to piss off people like me, who are happy to pay for their games.

The publishers know that their DRM is hated, too. You'll notice that they rarely mention the DRM explicitly on the cover, they just mention something about needing an online connection to play. They know that mentioning the DRM specifically will hurt sales. So they sneak it in. If you can't do something out in the open for fear of ticking off your customer base, you have no business doing on the sly.

Private companies have the right to do what they will with their products, regardless of whether or not you disagree with them. Your only real way of not respecting their right to do so is to refuse to buy their games. The only way things will change is if it starts to hit them where it counts...their profits.

Actually, they only have the right to do what they want within the limits of applicable consumer protection laws. As I understand it, some of these limited activations schemes may be technically illegal in some countries, but the authorities haven't considered them to be a big enough problem to do anything about it. Even in the USA, there is some question about the legality. Yes, the EULA technically states that everything they do is fine, but those haven't always stood up in court. For instance, some federal courts have rejected the idea that you are buying a license instead of a product, specifically in regards to the doctrine of first sale.

The publishers won't even explicitly mention the activations or the limitations on the packaging. It's left as a surprise for the consumer, discovered only after opening the game (making it non-returnable) and trying to install. That goes beyond anti-consumer and enters into the area of fraud. That's why there are lawsuits currently out regarding these activation schemes.

I do agree that the only real way to change these things is to hurt the publishers in the wallet. I just have a hard time telling someone not to pirate a game with online activation. That will also hurt them in the wallet, and makes them look like idiots at the same time. I'm usually very against piracy, but when it's the pirates who are enabling me to play my game regardless of the publisher's server status, I find I feel much more positively towards them.

 

[Fulbert]

I don't see why I can't license them the right to ask to use the money I payed for the licence to ask to play the game they sold me. Make them report whatever they are doing with my money and demand it whenever I feel they use it unappropriate way. Like, you know, bribing officials or lobbying laws I don't like.

 

[Markness]

Yeah, real long post, I summerised the quotes as best I could to try and reduce space. If you don't mind I'll quote from some of my post on page 3 since that white tiger guy made some of the same points as you.

Piracy is not more Convienent

Convenience is subjective at this point. It's for me 10000% easier and more convenient to grab a torrent of any X game than it is to actually jump through any of the hoops required to actually buy things and I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees it that way.

A paying customer drives to the shop, buys it, then brings it back, at which point the only difference between their copy and a pirates copy is that they have to authenticate (which takes what, 30 seconds?). A pirate has to find the torrent etc then download a rather large file. Unless you are paying for a rapidshare account it will take ages to download the links individually or you could use torrents which are rather unreliable. Then they have to extract, unpack, crack, probably find a cd key. Pirate copies generally have more bugs and online multiplayer is almost impossible to work consistantly. It's not as easy as you might believe.

Also pirates have to worry about virus's.

1. Swapping CD's is annoying/time-consuming. You don't have to with activation method.

Except that if the servers go offline for any given reason or you have no net access, you can't use (activate) the product you paid money for. This is a big, big, problem regardless of how convenient it seems to you. Nevermind of course countries where net access is greatly restricted or even nonexistent. The bottom line is, you're paying full price for a rental were the activation source to disappear.

As much as I'm sure that Shamus isn't arguing for the rights of countries with less internet access, you may have a point there. In that case I would suggest that the game be released as disc based in that region. As for your first sentence, we are talking about online activation right? Internet access not needed after installation? Like I said before, even if the activation servers were to disappear, the company didn't issue a patch and you were to lose your installation(s) there are still ways of getting the game to work. You could always turn to the pirates or (and i don't know if this is possible) the company would let the community release a patch to remove the activation.

Swapping cd's is more annoying. Once the activation is done you can forget about it.

2. Cd's are constantly being swapped - meaning they get lost/damaged

sloppiness is your own fault

I'm not saying that developers should replace lost disks or anything like that but it's a fact that it harder to maintain disks and keep track of disks when they are constantly being swapped around. With online activation you can just keep them all in a draw in case you need to reinstall. Convenient, less swapping more playing and less damage.

Basically discs taking more damage and being lost more is a reality. Your argument is like dismissing the greater security of linux because people should just do more to avoid infection from virus's. It doesn't change the fact it's a benefit and one that save me at least a fair bit of money. I'm sure other people have had to buy game's again because the disks have been lost, damaged or stolen.

Online activation isn't screwing over anybody except the incredibly small minority without access to internet (at all)

So first you need to somehow provide actual data that it's an "incredibly small minority" that is being screwed by this system, then you need to argue that it's completely worthwhile to screw them over to begin with as the benefits are great. Judging from the previous point, the benefits as it stands are at best temporary and ultimately pointless.

Another thing you have to somehow provide data for is that people want a better system of protection than the cd-era systems. As far as I know, considering the enormous backlash for things like Spore and so on, it seems to be QUITE the contrary. The example of Bioshock is also not to be ignored, as pointed out in the article; it renders the game unplayable and there's nothing you can do about it.

Ok, the people who can't use online activation consist of the people who

• 1. Don't have internet themselves
  2. Don't have any friends or acquaintances with mobile internet
  3. Don't have or are unwilling to use a laptop that they can take down to the nearest McDonalds and activate it with the wi-fi.
  4. Aren't desperate enough to do something else like, I don't know, take their computer to an internet cafe (are you allowed to do that I don't really know).

That rules out most gamers in the world. According to this site http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats14.htm 75% north americians have internet. Now what do you think the % for gamers would be? Should we start a revolution and refuse to buy MMO's because they discriminate against people without internet? Start a petition every time a game have multiplayer or an online component?

Spore was widely hated not because of the online activation but because of the other crap the game installed on your computer. I think that stuff couldn't even be removed after the game was uninstalled.

Bioshock is still a relatively new and popular game and it still has few years left in it to hopefully make a profit. Generally some developers release their games like at least 10 years after release ie command and conquer tiberium sun was released last year I think.

Notice the servers for Bioshock are still up, you can still activate your game.

4. I know from experience that online activation is harder to crack than a no-cd. This means more pirates won't be bothered and if you will believe all those pinning blame on piracy for poor sales, more people buying games, and more industry growth which is good for everybody.

So, you're an experienced cracker/pirate? I don't know what kind of experience you may have then on cracking the DRM systems, or how it somehow validates your argument. Either show your cards here or you're essentially claiming by fiat that online activation is harder to crack and leaving it at that, which is not a real argument.

For the average pirate, applying a no-cd crack is ridiculously easy, I have used them before and it's two simple steps before you're in the clear. I haven't looked too deeply into avoiding online activation, but from what I've seen it is more complicated. The mere fact that it's a change is enough to put some potential downloaders off.

5. You spent much of your article complaining about how great the threat of losing the game forever is. The chance of this is minute however. For this to happen you would need to have lost your install somehow (probably wouldn't happen before you finished it once or twice anyway) and the servers have gone down (which would give the company a reputation of this, which would decrease sales which the company would go out of its way to avoid) and didn't issue a patch before the servers were down (which would only happen if the company bankrupted) you could always download it which if it isn't legal it should be. The chances of the above happening are much less likely than losing/scratching a cd since you are always swapping them around.

Considering point No.2, your argument here has very little weight (you seem to think most people are sloppy, so this renders whatever comparison moot.) Furthermore, The ways online activation work are various and it's hard to generalize, but you're assuming a best case scenario when the reality is that if the activation server goes down, everything else is pure luck. Sure you can keep your install if it lets you play without phoning home (or you somehow pre-emptively enabled such a feature,) but you're screwed if anything needs to be done to your hardware and you lose it. Only one thing failing in this case (auth server) means that everything else you listed are basically taking steps to try to preserve the product you paid for in spite the fact that you already have no way to reinstalling it or playing it again were you not careful enough.

You can in theory keep a CD around for quite a lot of time; this it is mostly dependent on you keeping it safe. The auth server however has nothing to do with you and were it to fail, like Microsoft's example, you are left taking evasive action trying to cling on to whatever you can.

I'm in a agreement about the always phone home thing. Always on internet for single player is complete bullshit. I'm just talking about the one time thing when you install the game.

Even if the server goes down, so what? You still have your copy of the game. You can still play your game. You might say that you're just renting from that point on. Well, if you say take better care of disks, I'll say take better care of the hard drive. You could say with cd detection you are just renting from the moment you buy it, if you cd breaks then you lose access to the game instantly. Your cd is not going to break if you have it in the box and never taking it out like you would with online activation. Technically with online activation, you buy the game, you activate it then it yours forever just like the cd is yours forever. Once you have it all you have to do is keep it safe just like you have to keep a cd safe (not easy with the swapping and the scratching etc), the only difference is that while the servers are up or the company releases a patch (or the community as I discussed above), even if you fail to keep it safe you can just get it back again.

One point I forgot to mention first time around was with online activation you have all your games with you, all the time. No more turning up to lan parties and forgetting that one game, no more having to worry about gathering all cds when going on a trip. Cd drive malfunction is another problem you don't have to worry about when it's time to play some games. If you have your computer, you have your games instead of, if you have your computer and your cds you have your games.

Another point I forgot to mention is that with online activation you can have multiple people playing the game at once because you are not limited to 1 cd. Therefore family members do not have to fight over whos turn it is when you have more than one computer.

I hope I've made clear a few more of the advantages of online activation. The only situation where I can see that cd detection would be better is in the case where a largish proportion of the gamers didn't have access to internet. Wow, effort. Anyway sorry if I made any mistakes it is now 3:45 am here and needless to say I'm going to bed.

 

[Ytmh]

Just a quick reply:

You could say with cd detection you are just renting from the moment you buy it, if you cd breaks then you lose access to the game instantly.

By that logic ANYTHING that you have ever bought except, I don't know, services like electricity, are rentals. The fact is, buying a CD is no different than buying a car or a blender. You bought it, you own it, and unless you don't take care of it you can keep it around for the foreseeable future. If you don't see the difference with something that has online activation, then well no point in continuing this exchange any further.

As for:

Well, if you say take better care of disks, I'll say take better care of the hard drive.

Yes because obviously both have the exact same failure rates. It's not even that an HD may go bad, but you may want to actually uninstall the game for X reason, but you can't or you'll lose the game forever. This is akin to throwing your CD away on purpose, going by your examples. How is this reasonable at all or even comparable?

And hilariously:

You could always turn to the pirates...

Aren't they technically trying to NOT GIVE REASONS for people to pirate games? Likewise, viruses? I don't know, people also catch viruses through e-mail, so I assume checking your email is just as dangerous as pirating a game if that's what you're getting at.

 

[WJeff]

Isn't it funny how DRM is a never ending battle? Developers include it because people steal their games, and people steal their games because developers include it.

Now, here's my main argument...

Though I don't like online activation DRM, I see the reason behind it. Developers don't want their game stolen. That's totally fair. A lot of money goes into making games, and I wouldn't want to see a million people enjoying my game without paying me a cent, and then whining at me when I delay the sequel because I don't have enough money. Now, having said that, I know that people say that DRM tends to only punish the people who legally own the game. That's true to one extent, but it really does prevent a lot of piracy to another extent. Honestly, if a game were released with absolutely no DRM, it would make a total profit of about $100. If it were a Valve game, it wouldn't make any money at all. However, if it's released with DRM, it generally will make a good profit, the drawback being a bunch of whiny fanboys and negative reviews on Amazon.

Now, before I get a bunch of people yelling at me for allowing the corporations to limit me or that bullshit, let me clarify that I do not like DRM. I simply think it is necessary. However, the trick is doing the DRM right. An example of online DRM done right is Steam DRM. It ties the product code to your account, rather than your computer. That means no install limits, and backups. And as Shamus states, added bonuses like free weekends and big deals. I know that Steam does have problems, but it's really the best, friendliest DRM you can get.

An example of DRM done wrong is the standard Securom. No, it doesn't screw up your computer like so many people say (My computer still runs just as fast post-BioShock), but it only gives you a few installs, then the product key is useless.

In conclusion, account based DRM is the way to do it. Steam's been doing it for a while, and it's why most of my games have been bought on Steam. Recently, Microsoft integrated Gamertag based DRM into their GFW service, so they're catching on, too. I think an era of smart DRM is almost upon us. But don't think an era of no DRM will ever be upon us. Well, it might be. But you can also call it "The death of PC gaming".

 

[Ytmh]

So, cd-based anti-piracy systems also count as DRM? Last I checked, they didn't. If they didn't, then I guess PC gaming already died a long time ago eh? DRM is not the only option nor is it really necessary and I'm sort of unsure of how effective all these anti-piracy things are considering that entire continents run on only piracy (and have since the 80s!) so really, it must not really make much of a difference.

 

[Nutcase]

Isn't it funny how DRM is a never ending battle? Developers include it because people steal their games, and people steal their games because developers include it.

False. These days developers know full well the DRM is not going to keep pirates out, but use it anyway to screw their legit customers out of fair use while blaming pirates. Pirates have a variety of motives, but most of those motives are considerably less principled than "because there's DRM on the legit version".

Honestly, if a game were released with absolutely no DRM, it would make a total profit of about $100.

False. Physical copies of Stardock games have no DRM and they have made millions of profit. All downloads on GoG.com are sold with no DRM. Prince of Persia didn't have DRM. I have personally bought two games during the past year that have no DRM.

Now, before I get a bunch of people yelling at me for allowing the corporations to limit me or that bullshit, let me clarify that I do not like DRM. I simply think it is necessary.

False, as demonstrated above. At least if "necessary" = "profitable".

However, the trick is doing the DRM right. An example of online DRM done right is Steam DRM. It ties the product code to your account, rather than your computer. That means no install limits, and backups.

Valve wouldn't have to tie the game to the account or to the computer in order to use online DRM equivalent in strength to what they have now. The reason they have chosen to tie the game into an account is simply to kill resale and loaning.

And as Shamus states, added bonuses like free weekends and big deals. I know that Steam does have problems, but it's really the best, friendliest DRM you can get.

The only reason I use Steam at all is that the deals sometimes put games at $5 and lower, and at that point the price becomes agreeable for a rental (which all Steam games are).

 

[Ian S]

Very good article, but I would like to correct Shamus on one thing that I'm surprised nobody else brought up: BioShock no longer requires online activation. IIRC, 2K Boston released a patch which, among other things, deauthorizes your machine and no longer requires online verification every time you play the game. Sometime last year, I believe they even made an announcement that they would do away with it entirely and it would no longer be required as part of the installation process. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I remember them saying.

I don't expect, however, for other publishers like EA to be as forward-thinking. While they did release a deauthorization tool for games, I think online activation is still required. Now I don't think EA is going anywhere anytime soon. Then again, I think we all thought Origin would be around at the height of Ultima and Wing Commander's popularity. And we thought the same too of Microprose with Master of Orion and X-Com. Now those companies are no longer. However, considering Steam and Good Old Games have since come along and made a lot of these older games available once again. I can easily see that sort of thing happening for today's games. That's another alternative I'm surprised Shamus didn't consider.

 

[Sanaj]

Thanks for the article Shamus Young.

The simple answer for all these problems is: publishers are evil. Necessary, but evil.

Publishers may be necessary, but everything they do isn't necessary.

Online activation should not be required for a game with a single player campaign.

A more effective way to fight piracy would be to reduce the price of new games.

Hidden Ninja Message.

 

[Markness]

Just a quick reply:

You could say with cd detection you are just renting from the moment you buy it, if you cd breaks then you lose access to the game instantly.

The fact is, buying a CD is no different than buying a car or a blender. You bought it, you own it, and unless you don't take care of it you can keep it around for the foreseeable future.

The point is you bought it you own it could also apply to the files on your computer. I could say the exact two lines above replacing buying a cd with having an online activated game. I will concede that I would definitely prefer the cd method is the game could never be reinstalled after one installation, but this isn't the case. You have to be realistic. How many people will be affected by the servers shutting down 5 - 10 years after the game has been released. I'm probably not going to be playing halo 1 again, let alone installing it. The point is before you even start debating over this, you're assuming that the company or the community won't release a patch that enables it to be reinstalled. I happen to believe that it just isn't likely that this will happen.

Well, if you say take better care of disks, I'll say take better care of the hard drive.

It's not even that an HD may go bad, but you may want to actually uninstall the game for X reason, but you can't or you'll lose the game forever. How is this reasonable at all or even comparable?

What is easier between keeping files safe or keeping a cd safe is very subjective. This is really just a back-up point from the fact that it's unlikely you will be put in this situation at all. What is reasonable is for people to expect a system that provides more convenient and easier ways of keeping games for future playing. Having to keep track of your cd's just complicates things and is just annoying.

And hilariously:

You could always turn to the pirates...

Aren't they technically trying to NOT GIVE REASONS for people to pirate games? Likewise, viruses? I don't know, people also catch viruses through e-mail, so I assume checking your email is just as dangerous as pirating a game if that's what you're getting at.

The hilariously line is perplexing as this is your weakest argument in the post. Obviously after they have taken the servers down they will not care if anybody pirates it. They have nothing to gain by stopping piracy at that point. Also obviously, piracy and emails have different levels of virus danger. With piracy you are installing files and executables issued by a known criminal in the hope that it will let you do something illegal. Checking emails is completely different.

Also, don't think I didn't notice you only picked on the weakest parts of my argument. Parts that are only there to back up the strong with, to provide an answer to frankly unlikely hypothetical situations.

 

[Knight Templar]

If I don't want a red car that doesn't mean I immediately want a green one.

I can't see him saying the "old system" is his choice, so since your argument is based of this assumption it is rendered moot.
I could assume he doesn't want the "old system" and I would be just as right as you are now.

I hope the above post addressed your concerns but in case it didn't, heres an analogy. There are two colours of car - red and green - and everybody needs a car and one guy starts yelling about how he hates green cars and green cars are rip-offs. You can reasonable and accurately assume he wants a red car.

But there is more than just the two ways to do things, and even if their was only 2 it still would not mean he wants what you say he does, maybe he wants this system but also wants a legal guarantee that a patch will be made to remove online activation, just as an example. There are shades of gray between black and white, and there is middle ground and compromise here.

In the comments for a MovieBob review somebody implied that Hollywood is run by Jews who make propaganda, yet they did not mean that in the slightest. It was clear that the words gave that message (not directly), but he meant for them to give a different message, which they did, just not as strongly.

You can take apart my words and pull out a quote or three that gives the impression I love FFX, I enjoy the turn based combat of Pokemon, I liked leveling in oblivion (a bit) and I enjoy story driven games. I hate FFX, yet you could think I like it from comments I have made.
It would be logical and reasonable and totally wrong.

Where's your evidence that he doesn't want the old system? You make out like I don't have evidence.

No you have evidence, its just not very good and thats my problem. You are saying "he wants this" when its not clear that is so, to be fair its not clear he doesn't but again thats my point, its not clear enough to be the basis for anything. You could very well be right, but since I could be just as right its a moot point.
Its like arguing if a solar flare is going to go off in our direction in the next hour, we could both pull up all the supporting facts we like, but at the end we've got no clue and are both just as likely to be right.

Shamus could just clarify for us.

That would make things much easer, you could PM him if you so wished. Its rare for a staff member to comment in their own articles from my experance.

 

[Elementlmage]

People use the example of World of Goo all the time as a case for DRM, why is that? It would probably have sold less with DRM.

Sorry, that argument is just as baseless as saying that it would have sold more with DRM. There's no way to ever know, so you're just projecting your ideology.

The point of World Of Goo is to point out that whether a company is "friendly" or not, uses DRM or not, piracy will STILL happen.

So arguing, as Shamus seems to do, that if enforcement isn't perfect it shouldn't happen is a non-argument. It's like arguing if we can't prevent murder perfectly, we ought to legalize it.

His other arguments against DRM are valid.. but the point of "It doesn't work anyway" isn't. Nothing will work anyway. The only thing that will stop piracy is if we released all games for free. Since developers like to eat, that ain't gonna happen.

So rather than rant on and say "Piracy happens because of copy-protection", which is garbage, let's try to figure out better ways to lessen piracy, knowing full well that we won't eliminate it. Offering extra goodies recognizing purchase may be the way to go, but let's be honest, if those goodies are digital, they too will be hacked and passed around. It's funny, but piracy may bring us back to the days of Zork et all, where buying the game bought you more than a disk and a 6 page glossy brochure, but actually got you stuff.

I'm sorry; I must be misreading that. Did you just compare Software Cracking/Sharing(It's not Piracy, Piracy is done for profit!)to Murder?

World of Goo is an unfortunate example of "piracy" but one that, thankfully, has no equal in the realm of computer gaming. Almost every other example of Goo's model(Well made game+little/no DRM) has met with a warm reception and great fiscal success. Stalker SoC(not so much CS xD) is a prime example of this. Heck, you don't even need a CD key to play the game and it managed to sell a whopping 2 million copies on a supposedly dead platform. Then ofc you have Galactic Civ 2, Demigod(so help me god if you quote that server overload BS I will ram my bayonet down your throat), which, despite a few hick-ups, went platinum, Sins of a Solar Empire, and then you have the opposite of the spectrum. Spore, which had(and still has) the most intrusive and painful DRM of any game to date is also the most "pirated" game of all time and is said to have a "pirate"-legitmate user ratio of like 10-1.

 

[Darenus]

I think this article just scared me for many days to come and probalby unsettles me about gaming entirely...

I knew I had discussions like that already and knowing that developers/publishers won't necessarily be able to keep things comfortable due to the fear of piracy but this is really just a friggin' ripoff...

And as a passionate 2nd-hand purchaser I find it even more unsettling, because of pretty much every damn DRM option there is.

I'd like to lead here to a very short review of "Riddick - Assault on Dark Athena" for a second. Anyone heard of "The Spoony One"? A good reviwer and manic victim of the 80s and 90s who basicly gave the entire Riddick game a 5 seconds review, which I write down here (loosely remembering)

"I only just rented this game and it has a DRM, so enjoy your short lived action title for the full rental price, if it even works! "

Something along that line I am already fearing for my Burnout Paradise pack, to the point I actually consider getting it AGAIN but on the console instead...

Fellow gamers... I am officially worried over our rights.

 

[Generic_Dave]

I have a thought on piracy from my own experience. (whisper) I have downloaded things illegally in the past(whisper) but generally they're things I wouldn't have bought. I'd NEVER have actually gone out and bought them. And many of the things I have downloaded, I went out and bought (if they were any good) when they were available (I download TV shows when they are on TV in the states, but I still buy the DVD- box set once it was dropped to a reasonable price in HMV). It's just a thought that occurs to me, but maybe if nothing was pirated, people just wouldn't play the games or listen to the cds or whatever. I mean I'm not going to fork out E60 on something I know nothing about. And I know in the days of the internet we know everything about everything but there's still nothing like a hands-on before making that purchase. And before anyone screams "Demo" at me, can you honestly tell me you've never play a demo and loved it and then been sorely disappointed by the game? If you can, you're luckier than I. A Demo is after all a marketing ploy.

Am I being naive here?

Aside from that I hate DRMs and they're mainly pointless because there are usually ways around them.

 

[ratix2]

how the hell did everyone read this as a "steam sucks" article? read it again people, the only thing about steam is the praise the author gives it. but there is a BIG difference between steam and online activation. steam is a digital distribution and community platform, online activation is just that, activating your game online instead of putting in a cd key.

as they said, yes, steam requires activation, ONCE, in the games entire lifetime, not every time you install it. after that just go download the game and your fine (or usually the whole thing is installed from the disc and steam just updates the game).

also, steam does have a little thing called a "backup utility". with this you just backup ANY steam game and can install it later without having to re-download it. and the re-instillation process takes around 10-15 minutes for 5+ Gb games. and once you have backed it up there is no need to ever create another backup again, just burn it to a disc and store it someplace.

my point is this, steam is not what is being discussed here, and why so many people seem to think it is is beyond me. not saying steam doesent have its issues, valve needs to rework vac and offline mode needs work as well, but other than that steam is awesome and really has little to do with the discussion at hand.

 

[Merlark]

amen, we have gaming as the new national pass time with all these new gamers entering the market and spending more money then ever to entertain themselves.

I've never pirated a game, but I envy my friends that do. Anyone who has said theft is property must have been talking about online activation because if you steal it then it actually becomes yours. burn it to disk, drop it into your drawer.

If you BUY it however, its not yours, its rented.

I personally kick every company in the chops when I have problems accessing the game I bought, in the form of nasty emails and tech support calls.

I weep for the day where my favorite games disappear forever, because they don't exist in a playable format anymore. That day will come, its not a theory, its a fact.

you have to keep wise to this stuff, eventually we will have to make a stand and hit blizzard and other company's were it hurts, their wallets.

 

[Shamus Young]

The argument about "which system would you prefer" becomes much clearer when you look at it from the viewpoint of the consumer.

All systems - securom, CD check, manual, activation - are all bypassed. Maybe one is harder than another for the cracker, but all games are always cracked in all cases. There are no exceptions. For the end user, they get the game the same way: Go to the torrents and download it.

Some people say activation fights piracy. Some say it has no effect. We can't settle this debate, but we can demonstrate that all DRM systems have the SAME effect on piracy. All systems are always cracked, no one system takes statistically longer than any other, and pirates all go through the same steps to obtain the game, regardless of the original system used.

Some systems are more onerous than others for honest customers, but a system which threatens your ownership of the game is the worst.