Poll: Have the big companies gone too far?

[SpartanBlackman]

As we all know, the big game publishers are working together to try and stamp out piracy. Piracy is, of course bad, but now, now I think that the companies have finally crossed the line.

Pay to win is not related to piracy, but it deserves a mention. It is important that companies get money. If a game is free, then pay to win is OK. But Pay to Win on a subscription based game, such as EVE? Weapons which will be undoubtably better than starting weapons in BF3? Is that OK? To a degree, yes, as it still gives the customer choices within buying their games


EA makes it so that you get free DLC content if you buy it new- This is one of the better forms of DRM, as it makes it so that you still get the full game when you buy iy. Some companies make it so that you have to BUY some key aspects of the game, such as multiplayer if you buy the game second hand. but all of this can be justified to a degree, the publishers need their money in order to survive.


But, honestly, this is unacceptable.
http://dvice.com/archives/2011/06/capcom-tries-to.php
Capcom is making it so that you can get one save in the new Resident Evil game. One save. No deleting it. Want to lend the game to a friend? Nope. They have to continue from where you were. You sure as hell can't trade it in. Coming from Rehashing: The company, I don't think that they have any reason to do this, it screws over fans much more than it helps them. Fans have been screwed over by the big companies not wanting to lose a few dollars in all sorts of ways that would never be tolerated anywhere else. What if you read a book that deleted itself as you read it? Itunes music that can only be played a few times before you have to re-purchase. The consumer has been screwed over for some time now, but what do you guys think about all the Anti-Piracy and anti-Trade in features? Will it stop you from getting games?

 

[Limecake]

wow I never knew capcom would do that to their customers, I'd also like to point out that the emulation community will probably see a huge demand for this game just to get around the one save file rule.

I wasn't hurt that some developers decide to release DLC to combat the rentals of games but this is ridiculous. I would never buy a game that let's me only play through it once, just like I wouldn't pay full price for a Blu Ray I can only watch once.

 

[Valdsator]

So, this is actually like renting a game for full price. Huh, I thought replay value was good in games.

This is going to be the most pirated game in history.

 

[Korak the Mad]

This decision will end up hurting the game company, because almost no one will want a game that you can only play once.

 

[baddude1337]

This is one of the dumbest moves I have ever seen a company too. This game is gonna get pirated right up the ass.

 

[BlueberryMUNCH]

...One save file?
That's a terrible idea; what if you save and the game glitches out?

...If this is true.../facepalm.

 

[Sixcess]

I think they're fighting a losing battle, and it would solve a lot of their problems if they published better games.

I'm not saying all of the output of the big names is bad, but enough of it is squarely in the lazy sequel/cash-in category that people become indifferent. They'll pirate Generic FPS the Zillionth because they don't really care. Not everyone of course - some people are going to pirate regardless, but I doubt yet more restrictions will do anything other than piss more people off, and the games will still get cracked and pirated anyway.

Amnesia was pirated to hell and back, but it still sold more than the developers had hoped for due to great word of mouth. The Witcher II - in fact GoG's entire existence - proves that releasing a game without DRM is possible if it is good and if people want to support the company so that they'll make/pubish more games like these in the future.

 

[Erana]

To me, this seems as much to me like they're trying to prevent second-hand sales as they are trying to push gaming as a service. I despise this model, personally.

The biggest issue here is: Why do this on a Resident Evil game? They're notorious for their forget-the-empty-fire-extinguisher-type puzzles. That's a serious kick in the shin.

 

[Qitz]

While pirating does suck, no one likes having their hard work stolen right up from under them, the attempts to make pirating harder, or re-selling for that matter, is getting completely out of control.

There are developers that are talking about making both multiplayer AND singleplayer campaigns require constant internet connection.

In the end, the developers are hurting themselves more trying to stop piracy than the actual pirates are. I know I don't like having a company tell me what I can and can't do with a product I LEGALLY buy.

 

[RA92]

The next Resident Evil will be an OnLive exclusive.

 

[darth.pixie]

To quote Terry Pratchett, it's like trying to beat mice to death with a rattlesnake.

If this is going to be the case, I certainly won't buy their games and it will be pirated to hell and back because any code can be broken. If only people would understand that. Best anti-piracy method would be to sell the game with the artbook or something. And also make it really good. I'm pretty sure that they won't follow through with this, but who knows. It's their money anyway...

 

[teqrevisited]

Yeah that Capcom initiative is going too far. Then the customers end up having to turn to modders for their convenience. Worst of all, it gives them what they perceive a legitimate excuse to pirate the title and then Capcom have lost £40 for each person that decides this.

What they need to do is give customers an incentive to buy the game. Treat them with all due respect and at least attempt to trust them. I know it's far from foolproof, but with more incentive and good customer relations their general reputation would probably increase and cause more potential customers to willingly drop money on their titles to support the developers & publishers.

 

[Mister Six]

I liked how Batman: AA handled it, namely gimp the game if people pirate it, thereby screwing over the pirates without even touching your customers. That and toss in feelies, we love us some feelies.

 

[veloper]

Capcom is even shittier than I thought.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

I might care if this was a high profile game.

It's Resident Evil #879, and it's on the DS to boot. Moving on!

 

[jpoon]

Several corporations have taken DRM way too far, Crapcom being one of them. I will not be buying ANYTHING from them with draconian DRM.

DRM promotes piracy, don't support DRM...

 

[LordLundar]

Then there's the other part of the problem: The save is locked into the system and can't be removed. Space for save games is still finite, especially with the 3DS which uses it's memory for digital titles as well. Having a game that takes a chunk out your system's maximum capacity is just plain wrong. In fact, it goes so far that I would say it's a non-replicative virus. Yup, you heard right, capcom is intending to infect your system with a virus that cannot be removed. Worse still, they're using a popular title so people will overlook it because it's popular. And if the title is successful enough, other companies are lible to try it, and with other systems as well. The only platform I can think of being safe from this would be the PC because no antivirus will allow such a file to bypass it's filters.

Time to walk away.