Stick Online Forums

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/02/17/ubisoft-drm-doesnt-sound-like-such-a-good-idea-anymore/

Congratulations, Ubisoft.  Now I'll pirate Splinter Cell: Conviction, instead of buying it, so I can have a crack that bypasses your retarded-ass bullshit.

It baffles me that it doesn't seem to get through developer's thick !@#$ing skulls.

They want:  People to buy their games, and not pirate them.

They do: Punish the people who buy it by making their product ridiculously inconvenient to anyone who DOESN'T pirate it.

WHY CAN YOU NOT COMPREHEND SIMPLE PSYCHOLOGY THAT A THIRD GRADER COULD FIGURE OUT?  DO YOU GUYS HAVE A !@#$ING GRIP ON REALITY? 

That's bullshit and for Assassin's Creed 2 , OMG , they're going to fail and the number of people buying their games is going to fall badly.

This is a joke! I have to have internet to play? Oh your funny.

Oh shit, I just moved and my internet isn't getting installed for another week. Have no fear, I've got an awsome SINGLE player game, assasins creed 2 to play. Ohshit... I need online? gtfo.


(http://www.cad-comic.com/comics/cad/20100219.jpg)

Quote from: Bloodseeker on February 19, 2010, 06:32:13 AM
That's bullshit and for Assassin's Creed 2 , OMG , they're going to fail and the number of people buying their games is going to fall badly.

I don't think they really care how many people buy this game on pc. They make there money off the console. That is why this game comes out months after the console with all this DRM.

@other people
Yeah i agree, and i have been saying this for a while now.

It might be a good idea to make a game with no drm to get good press right now in this bad press instance. It will make you look good.

Woopie! Another excuse for being a pirate!

Quote from: Lucifer on February 19, 2010, 12:45:46 PM
Woopie! Another excuse for being a pirate!

Eh, as ridiculous as it is, I would still never say its a legit reason for pirating - nothing is.

I'm a proud Pirate. Yarrr!

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/07/ubisoft-drm-snafu-reminds-us-whats-wrong-with-pc-gaming.ars

I agree that DRM's can be mildy annoying at times (this one sounds maybe a bit more annoying than usual) and I by no means like them, but at the same time I can understand the need to at least attempt to combat piracy. So many gamers can be so one sided and selfish about the whole ordeal, but hate to break it to you, losing millions of dollars in sales from pirates is a big deal no matter how you cut it. Music in some cases can be a bit of a different story for a number of reasons (in some cases can actually help bands, not that it is an excuse per say), but games... Not so much. What is really unfortunate in my mind, is that pirating has become a big enough problem with the games to begin with in which it is even neccessary to try and come up with methods to prevent it like this.

My school blocked Rapidshare /cryFace - I'm living on a college, so the school's internet is MY internet D:

@Seifer:  Yeah, that comic is how I first heard about it.  I didn't know what it was talking about, so I googled it, and holy shit.

@Scott:  Yeah, read about that last year.  Nice to see Ubisoft never learns.

@Meiun:  That's all fine and good, except for one problem.  These anti-piracy protections do NOTHING to stop piracy.  All they are doing is punishing the people who buy it legitimately.

Frankly, I love the Splinter Cell series.  I want Splinter Cell Conviction when it comes out, and I am going to get Splinter Cell Conviction when it comes out, end of story.  Now, I have a choice.  Buy it legally, and be extremely inconvenienced by this DRM that doesn't work, or pirate it, and have a crack that bypasses their bullshit altogether. I don't care about the legality of the issue, I don't care about the spending of money to purchase the game.  And incidentally, yes, I had EVERY intention of BUYING this game.

Now, you tell me.  Which is the more logical selection?  

Quote from: Meiun on February 19, 2010, 02:55:42 PM
I agree that DRM's can be mildy annoying at times (this one sounds maybe a bit more annoying than usual) and I by no means like them, but at the same time I can understand the need to at least attempt to combat piracy. So many gamers can be so one sided and selfish about the whole ordeal, but hate to break it to you, losing millions of dollars in sales from pirates is a big deal no matter how you cut it. Music in some cases can be a bit of a different story for a number of reasons (in some cases can actually help bands, not that it is an excuse per say), but games... Not so much. What is really unfortunate in my mind, is that pirating has become a big enough problem with the games to begin with in which it is even neccessary to try and come up with methods to prevent it like this.

Like Chaos stated, it doesn't really stop pirating. People will find a way to bypass the DRM, like always, and then the people who actually payed for it are stuck dealing with it. Chaos and I were going to buy it, but if they include this crap, we might just have to pirate it to get a better version.

I won't condone pirating anything publicly, as I like to support companies and industries that I take pleasure in investing in (good example would be BioWare).  I have recently ceased the downloading of all music illegally (yes, I will admit that I have pirated in the past), as I do genuinely feel bad that I am ripping off bands that I do enjoy listening to and would feel bad if they went out of business or even worse "sold-out" (I hate that term) because of the lack of income partially due to piracy.  Couple that with the fact that I am now in a more stable financial position with the new job, and I cannot listen to anything other than Compact Discs at work if I want to listen to music.

Regarding games though, I did throw a tantrum once, when I had heard that Spore was implementing DRM in their game.  Then I pulled my head out of my ass and realized that people were making a mountain out of a mole hill over it.  I fully understand that when you deal with the amount of expected revenue that games should bring in (4-5x as much as a CD for instance), it is a slap to the face, and it is no surprise that companies suffer because of it.  Do I think such extreme methods of protection are the correct route to go?  I honestly don't know, because I can't offer an alternative solution.  It's actually a well known fact that some software out there is actually pirated by the employees who developed the software to begin with (see Adobe).  Developers realize they aren't going to get a good cut for their efforts, especially when they are the leading standard in their field of development (i.e. Photoshop), so what better way to rake in some extra revenue than to go and crack your software, then anonymously sell the crack for a minimal price to a couple hundred (if not thousand) potential buyers, therefor making yourself a little extra rent money.  At least that's what I've heard.

I won't bitch about DRM software too much now-a-days, because as Meiun said, piracy is a legitimate problem, and this is the "solution" for now.  I don't have a better solution to offer to companies, and I am one that will never bitch about a situation without at least having an alternative solution to offer.  I hate it when people do that, so you won't catch me doing it.  Now if I had an alternative solution and I won't even be heard on the idea, then I will bitch, and then I will bitch some more, and more, and more, until I am heard.

Oh, and Jake, DRM will not stop people, you are correct, nothing will stop people.  It is there as a deterrent.  Think of it like barb wire.  You lay it out, knowing full well that someone could easily just take a rug and throw it over the wire, then walk across it and continue on trespassing, but at least they had to get the rug to do it.

EDIT: So with all that said, for everyone here who bitches about DRM and how it's punishing those who actually pay, I challenge you to think up of an alternative solution that would be more effective on piracy, as well as not as much of a burden to buyers (and effectively earning the industry it's due revenue for their hard efforts).

Quote from: Jake on February 19, 2010, 03:24:54 PM

Quote from: Meiun on February 19, 2010, 02:55:42 PM
I agree that DRM's can be mildy annoying at times (this one sounds maybe a bit more annoying than usual) and I by no means like them, but at the same time I can understand the need to at least attempt to combat piracy. So many gamers can be so one sided and selfish about the whole ordeal, but hate to break it to you, losing millions of dollars in sales from pirates is a big deal no matter how you cut it. Music in some cases can be a bit of a different story for a number of reasons (in some cases can actually help bands, not that it is an excuse per say), but games... Not so much. What is really unfortunate in my mind, is that pirating has become a big enough problem with the games to begin with in which it is even neccessary to try and come up with methods to prevent it like this.

Like Chaos stated, it doesn't really stop pirating. People will find a way to bypass the DRM, like always, and then the people who actually payed for it are stuck dealing with it. Chaos and I were going to buy it, but if they include this crap, we might just have to pirate it to get a better version.

True, I was more getting at the point that I dont exactly blame them for trying. I think we all agree that it would be nice if they could find a better way of doing it though (easier said then done, but still).

Pirating's only a problem for PC games. Just design your games for consoles and you'll be fine.

I'm going to buy Assassin's Creed 2.

I used to pirate games. The simple fact is, I have never had enough money to buy games. I figure, if I was never going to buy the game in the first place, the company is not losing a sale by me acquiring the game for free. I understand that ethically this logic has some flaws, but it works for me. The reason why I no longer pirate games is because I do not see the benefit of spending the extra effort. It is easier for me to wait until I have enough money to buy the game and the game quickly and easily downloads and installs on my computer. Pirating requires a certain amount of effort that I am no longer willing to spend. It is easier for me to deal with this DRM (which just means I have to have internet while I play this game which in effect is almost all the time so I really won't be inconvenienced 99% of the time) rather than going through the effort to find this game on some torrent, install it, make sure I have all the right pieces in place, potentially have to scrap all that if it doesn't work and find a new torrent, etc etc. It's just not worth my time.

What does bother me is that, while I can choose to not buy the game to "take a stand" against this type of DRM I still want to play the game, but I'm not going to pirate it to do so. I really wish game developers would listen to people rather than do things like this. They are still going to make tons of money on their games. They are not going to see much lost revenue from this. And as a result, they will assume that their efforts have not been wasted.

Quote from: Torch on February 19, 2010, 03:42:12 PM
Pirating's only a problem for PC games. Just design your games for consoles and you'll be fine.

Thanks...

Actually, I think if game developers move towards products like Steam the PC gaming market would be much closer to consoles in this respect.

Quote from: Torch on February 19, 2010, 03:42:12 PM
Pirating's only a problem for PC games. Just design your games for consoles and you'll be fine.

Actually... I think that's incorrect.  I can't back that up, but I've heard of problems with say the X-Box console and such.  Again, don't quote me, but I've heard that piracy is getting tricky on that as well...

Quote from: Scotty on February 19, 2010, 03:45:56 PM

Quote from: Torch on February 19, 2010, 03:42:12 PM
Pirating's only a problem for PC games. Just design your games for consoles and you'll be fine.

Actually... I think that's incorrect.  I can't back that up, but I've heard of problems with say the X-Box console and such.  Again, don't quote me, but I've heard that piracy is getting tricky on that as well...

Oh you can definitely crack consoles. It's a lot trickier though. I'm not sure on the current gen consoles, but on the old Xbox you had to have some device installed on it. But then you could just install whatever the heck you want. I even have emulator software on it and have thousands of old console games installed from NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, etc. I'm sure you could do something similar on the current gen, but you just wouldn't be able to go online with them maybe.

Quote from: Lingus on February 19, 2010, 03:49:24 PM

Quote from: Scotty on February 19, 2010, 03:45:56 PM

Quote from: Torch on February 19, 2010, 03:42:12 PM
Pirating's only a problem for PC games. Just design your games for consoles and you'll be fine.

Actually... I think that's incorrect.  I can't back that up, but I've heard of problems with say the X-Box console and such.  Again, don't quote me, but I've heard that piracy is getting tricky on that as well...

Oh you can definitely crack consoles. It's a lot trickier though. I'm not sure on the current gen consoles, but on the old Xbox you had to have some device installed on it. But then you could just install whatever the heck you want. I even have emulator software on it and have thousands of old console games installed from NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, etc. I'm sure you could do something similar on the current gen, but you just wouldn't be able to go online with them maybe.

Like I stated in my first post, it's just a deterrent, it'll never be fool-proof.

Quote from: Torch on February 19, 2010, 03:42:12 PM
Pirating's only a problem for PC games. Just design your games for consoles and you'll be fine.

I must object to that.

People, while it is alot harder, can and will pirate games over to consoles. I myself do not do so because of all the trouble and the fact I have no console as of right now. But I hear the way it works is that you download the crack, then install it onto a blank CD on your computer.

You pop it into your console, and you're good to go. I doubt that's all there is to it- you may need a hacked console of sorts for some games and I know for a fact I'm missing alot of details, but it is very possible to get cracked games on a console that uses CDs. The reason the PC is home to most pirates is because it's easier on the PC to put it simply.

Quote from: DarkBlade325 on February 19, 2010, 04:01:28 PM

Quote from: Torch on February 19, 2010, 03:42:12 PM
Pirating's only a problem for PC games. Just design your games for consoles and you'll be fine.

I must object to that.

People, while it is alot harder, can and will pirate games over to consoles. I myself do not do so because of all the trouble and the fact I have no console as of right now. But I hear the way it works is that you download the crack, then install it onto a blank CD on your computer.

You pop it into your console, and you're good to go. I doubt that's all there is to it- you may need a hacked console of sorts for some games and I know for a fact I'm missing alot of details, but it is very possible to get cracked games on a console that uses CDs.

Definitely. Consoles won't read CDs which do not have a certain feature to them. I'm not sure of the details, but the CD itself is special somehow. It's not something you can write to a normal CD by using a normal CD burner. With that in mind, for a crack like this to work (a burnt CD copy of the game) you have to have something installed on your console that allows you to load a CD which has the special feature, then remove this CD and load the burnt copy of the game. This is how my PS2 was set up. Alternatively, if the console has a HD, there is a device installed which does... something... and allows you to load some kind of OS of sorts on the hard drive which then allows you to load games on your hard drive.

Yeah I figured as much. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but don't console pirates have to bypass some kinda safety feature on their cracked games to go online play? Or do companies just don't bother seeing how it's a pain to thrash around in a console to hack it?

Shame Ubisoft went to such lengths though. Why is it that when most game companies try to fix something they do the exact opposite? Boggles the mind.

Quote from: Lingus on February 19, 2010, 04:08:18 PM
there is a device installed which does... something...

Likely just a boot-loader, at least that's what the older model PS3's would have done to them in order to put Linux on them.

Quote from: DarkBlade325 on February 19, 2010, 04:18:52 PM
Yeah I figured as much. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but don't console pirates have to bypass some kinda safety feature on their cracked games to go online play? Or do companies just don't bother seeing how it's a pain to thrash around in a console to hack it?

Shame Ubisoft went to such lengths though. Why is it that when most game companies try to fix something they do the exact opposite? Boggles the mind.

99.9% of the time, unless you draw some serious attention to yourself that microsoft looks into you specially, you won't get caught. The only time you will have an issue pirating on a colsole online is if you've pirated the game BEFORE it's offical release, because when your on there servers before the games in stores, they know something is afoot.

Quote from: DarkBlade325 on February 19, 2010, 04:18:52 PM
Yeah I figured as much. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but don't console pirates have to bypass some kinda safety feature on their cracked games to go online play? Or do companies just don't bother seeing how it's a pain to thrash around in a console to hack it?

I didn't go online with either hacked console. I always assumed that they would be able to tell somehow. It's possible that they wouldn't, but it's also possible that they could.

Quote from: Scotty on February 19, 2010, 04:29:44 PM

Quote from: Lingus on February 19, 2010, 04:08:18 PM
there is a device installed which does... something...

Likely just a boot-loader, at least that's what the older model PS3's would have done to them in order to put Linux on them.

I'm not sure. This was on my old Xbox. But it was just some kind of chip with a switch on it (allowed you to turn the hack off if you wanted to load the console legit). I don't know what that chip did, but I assume it's what you're talking about.

Quote from: Torch on February 19, 2010, 03:42:12 PM
Pirating's only a problem for PC games. Just design your games for consoles and you'll be fine.

Nope, my sister's boyfriend pirates 360 games, he has about 10+ games on blank discs.

If you want the game buy it and go online and get a crack for it. If you want nothing to do with them don't buy and don't steal it.

Just because the produck has something on it that you don't like does not give you the right to take it.

Your taking away money for people who work hard on something. Not every one who made this game was part of the team who made the drm.

Quote from: ARTgames on February 19, 2010, 05:18:00 PM
If you want the game buy it and go online and get a crack for it. If you want nothing to do with them don't buy and don't steal it.

Just because the produck has something on it that you don't like does not give you the right to take it.

Your taking away money for people who work hard on something. Not every one who made this game was part of the team who made the drm.

This.

I've made a huge rant before, but honestly, no matter how you look at it pirating is illegal - as in, against the law. Ethically, people can try to justify and rationalize all they want, but its worthless, because you all know its the wrong thing to do, to take something without proper payment for it. (And don't go on the entire "Its not stealing, its copyright infringement" tirade. I know, and I've heard it a thousand times. Legally its different, ethically its the same.)

I'm not activist, and I don't mind pirates, as long as they are open about it or know its wrong - I hate people who try to justify it as legal or moral. Especially when it comes to things like this, people say "Oh, this has DRM on it. Because of that, it is okay and legitimate of me to download it illegally to prove my point and because the company is in the wrong here." You do NOT own the company, you do NOT have control over their products, you do NOT have a say in how they do their business, period. If a business wants to screw themselves over, or do things their own way, it is entirely up to them. You can choose to not support them by not buying it - but saying pirating is the answer isn't right. If you were a stock holder or their president, then sure... but you aren't.

@Scotty:  The problem is, DRM isn't a solution, because it ISN'T a deterrent.  Once someone makes a crack, there might as well be no DRM at all, at least for the people who pirated it.  For the people who actually PAID for it, they spent money for an inferior product.

They may as well make DLC that are all viruses as the incentive to purchase their game.

@Art:  True point, one that I overlook.  Could always purchase it then just crack it.  Not sure I like the idea of them getting the money and thus encouraging them that their DRM is accepted, though...

@Cactuscat:  I make no excuses.  As I said before, there is no question about should I get the game or not.  I'm getting it, period.  If they release Conviction without this DRM, I will buy it.  If they release Conviction WITH this DRM, I will pirate it.  If they release Conviction with the DRM, and later decide to patch it to remove it, I will go purchase it at that time.

Is this legally okay?  No.

Is this ethically okay?  No.

Do I give a shit if this is legally or ethically okay?  No.

Quote from: Scotty on February 19, 2010, 03:33:24 PM
Oh, and Jake, DRM will not stop people, you are correct, nothing will stop people.  It is there as a deterrent.  Think of it like barb wire.  You lay it out, knowing full well that someone could easily just take a rug and throw it over the wire, then walk across it and continue on trespassing, but at least they had to get the rug to do it.

EDIT: So with all that said, for everyone here who bitches about DRM and how it's punishing those who actually pay, I challenge you to think up of an alternative solution that would be more effective on piracy, as well as not as much of a burden to buyers (and effectively earning the industry it's due revenue for their hard efforts).

It's not even barbed wire though, it's a little curb for piraters to step over. The fact is, they shouldn't do anything at all until they develop DRM that actually works, because all they're managing to do right now is alienate their customer base. What they need to do is take the time to test their DRM to higher extents instead of including it in as a minor deterrent and pissing of people who payed for the game while the piraters get away scott free. The second a crack gets out there, they need to turn the DRM off and get rid of it, because it is effectively useless at that point. Games that came out with new and improved DRM have never once stopped me from dling cracked versions of them. If this new DRM for Assassins Creed 2 actually works, then it was worth it in every way. But the second it gets cracked, it means the DRM was included in vain, and at that point the only thing they're doing is bitch slapping the paying customers by including it in future copies.

Cactus: Please, don't impose your morals that have been shaped by society and religion, on any of us. People need to make up their own minds about what is right and wrong, it is not up to society to make that decision for anyone. That's an issue I have with modern day thought processes. People modify their own morals based on laws set in place, and don't even attempt to think for themselves. When is it morally right to drink? Many would say the day you turn 21, as if on that magical day a person finally has the maturity to make that decision to drink. In my mind, most of the pirating I have done has been morally sound (not that morals really matter anyway, considering I'm not particularly religious or spiritual). Most, if not all games I have pirated I was never going to buy in the first place. The company's profits are not effected in any way by my actions. If you could goto the store with a copy machine, take a loaf of bread, and duplicate it and go home while the original bread remains at the store, would you? Does this effect anyone? No. The loaf of bread is still on store shelves and nobody ever knew what happened. This, my friends, is called a loss of a potential sale in the market. In real life however, it could mean the loss of nothing, or possibly the loss of a real sale. Analysts can't know which potential sales were actual losses or no loss at all, so they clump us all together. If my thought processes dictate that I was indeed going to buy a game that I instead pirated, I agree that I made a morally wrong choice. On the other hand, if I have no intentions of ever buying that game anyway, I know in my heart that I never was a potential sale to being with, therefore I know that I am free from doing something one might consider morally wrong. Since companies can't possibly attempt to know anyone's mindset, they go on piracy rates and attempt to falsely extrapolate that data to find out how many real world sales they are losing. Generally, they overestimate the amount of sales they lose, especially some companies that believe every loss of a potential sale is the loss of a real sale. Or in other words, they believe every single person that pirates a game would have bought it if they didn't pirate it. This is complete and utter bullshit, yet people actually believe them.

Go ahead, hate me for actually having the intelligence to make my own choices. I acknowledge the risk going into it, and don't give a shit whether people think it's wrong or not, unless it somehow effects me. Most PC games are shitty ass ports these days, and I'll be damned if I'm going to drop $60 bucks on one of them. Certain, good ports still come out, and I buy them to show my support. You got one thing majorly wrong Cactus, I DO have control over their product. And it's a very nice feeling.

Quote from: Chaos on February 19, 2010, 11:04:15 PM

@Art:  True point, one that I overlook.  Could always purchase it then just crack it.  Not sure I like the idea of them getting the money and thus encouraging them that their DRM is accepted, though...

QuoteYour taking away money for people who work hard on something. Not every one who made this game was part of the team who made the drm.

also

By not buying the game your also not encouraging them to make fun pc games. Which is worth more to you?

Quote from: ARTgames on February 19, 2010, 11:15:20 PM

Quote from: Chaos on February 19, 2010, 11:04:15 PM

@Art:  True point, one that I overlook.  Could always purchase it then just crack it.  Not sure I like the idea of them getting the money and thus encouraging them that their DRM is accepted, though...

QuoteYour taking away money for people who work hard on something. Not every one who made this game was part of the team who made the drm.

also

By not buying the game your also not encouraging them to make fun pc games. Which is worth more to you?

Not true.  I buy fun PC games that I enjoy.  Case in point, I have never pirated any Sims 2 or Sims 3 product.  Why?  Because I love the series, and have proven themselves to be excellent (except for Sims 3 now, which has proven to be a buggy mess).  And I own ALL the Sims 2 expansions.  Hell, I just purchased 4 of the Stuff Packs for Sims 2 just yesterday (they were used copies from a local bookstore, but I purchased them nonetheless).  

I own a legitimate copy of every Splinter Cell game.  I had every intention of purchasing Conviction, until I heard about this.

The thing is, I encourage and support the games that have proven to be fun and enjoyable to me.  I don't appreciate being screwed over by a company, and god damn, I will gladly screw them back.

Chaos i was not stating something about you. I was asking you a yes or no question.

Is not buying this under the fear of this encouraging DRM worth more to you than supporing them to make a PC game?

Quote from: ARTgames on February 19, 2010, 11:25:43 PM
Chaos i was not stating something about you. I was asking you a yes or no question.

Is not buying this under the fear of this encouraging DRM worth more to you than supporing them to make a PC game?

Incidentally, "Which is worth more to you?" is not a yes or no question.

As for your question:

Yes.

Quote from: Chaos on February 19, 2010, 11:27:44 PM

Quote from: ARTgames on February 19, 2010, 11:25:43 PM
Chaos i was not stating something about you. I was asking you a yes or no question.

Is not buying this under the fear of this encouraging DRM worth more to you than supporing them to make a PC game?

Incidentally, "Which is worth more to you?" is not a yes or no question.

oops my bad. :P well i get mixed up some times.

Quote
As for your question:

Yes.

ok, just wanted to know.

I guess i need to convince meiun to take off that drm on so 3.

Quote from: ARTgames on February 19, 2010, 11:30:41 PM
I guess i need to convince meiun to take off that drm on so 3.

GOD DAMNIT MEIUN!


:P

Quote
@Cactuscat:  I make no excuses.  As I said before, there is no question about should I get the game or not.  I'm getting it, period.  If they release Conviction without this DRM, I will buy it.  If they release Conviction WITH this DRM, I will pirate it.  If they release Conviction with the DRM, and later decide to patch it to remove it, I will go purchase it at that time.

Is this legally okay?  No.

Is this ethically okay?  No.

Do I give a shit if this is legally or ethically okay?  No.

I know - I expected that much of you, I meant to make a clause that I wasn't pointing fingers at you, because you I trust.

@Jake: .........What? I wasn't trying to impose my morals on you at ALL. I was stating how I FEEL about them, based on my own moral choices that I have decided for myself. Whether or not they are shaped by society, that doesn't matter.

I feel you are insulting my intelligence, like saying me following part of society is wrong. Like you said, we all make our own choices, and I have made my own. Don't tell me that I shouldn't say anything to you about them, then go on to insult the way I think about things. That is incredibly hypocritical. On top of that, when I said you do not have control over the product, I meant what happens or how that product is created. In that case, you do NOT unless you work for that company.

"Hate me for actually having the intelligence to make my own choices." Are you saying I haven't? God dang, that is so arrogant. Just because I don't follow your same way of thinking, I'm wrong? And yet you are telling ME to be open minded? What the hell is that?

If I decide that killing is fine, and morally okay in my mind - is it then? You would argue no. Why? Who cares, because we are all allowed our own moral choices right Jake? No, the law is in place to set the standards, and I believe it does a basic job of that.

Don't tell me I shouldn't tell other people how to think or act when you are doing the exact same thing.

EDIT: And you know what,  I bet most of your morals and ethics you have today are in some-way-shape-or-form molded by society and/or religion. The fact that you may believe killing is wrong is because our society dictates so. If we grew up in a lawless society where killing is okay, then our view may be similar or the same. You can be your own person, but no matter which way you look at it, you are always effected by your surroundings and society. And to say following society is always wrong... is just plain stupid. Society is you, and you are part of society.

Quote from: Cactuscat222 on February 20, 2010, 12:30:03 AM
@Jake: .........What? I wasn't trying to impose my morals on you at ALL.

Ehemm...

Quote...you all know its the wrong thing to do, to take something without proper payment for it. (And don't go on the entire "Its not stealing, its copyright infringement" tirade. I know, and I've heard it a thousand times. Legally its different, ethically its the same.)

QuoteI'm not activist, and I don't mind pirates, as long as they are open about it or know its wrong

QuoteI hate people who try to justify it as legal or moral

According to these quotes, you hate me if I don't believe what you believe about piracy, and somehow you don't think that's imposing your beliefs on us? Don't try to hide behind your wall of "That's how I FEEL about them". You clearly told every one of us how we should feel about it and somehow think you were justified for doing so. Please read your first post over again so you can see why I replied the way I did.

QuoteI feel you are insulting my intelligence, like saying me following part of society is wrong. Like you said, we all make our own choices, and I have made my own. Don't tell me that I shouldn't say anything to you about them, then go on to insult the way I think about things. That is incredibly hypocritical. On top of that, when I said you do not have control over the product, I meant what happens or how that product is created. In that case, you do NOT unless you work for that company.

You misunderstand my point. You can believe what you want to believe about piracy, but don't expect everyone else to agree with you. I never insulted your particular views on piracy, only your views on other people's views of piracy.

Quote"Hate me for actually having the intelligence to make my own choices." Are you saying I haven't? God dang, that is so arrogant. Just because I don't follow your same way of thinking, I'm wrong? And yet you are telling ME to be open minded? What the hell is that?

You misinterpreted that statement. I meant that specifically within the context of me. I made no reference to your beliefs regarding piracy. You specifically said "I hate people who try to justify it (piracy) as legal or moral" and that was my response to that. You implied that you hate me because I made my own choice on the matter rather than follow society blindly (not saying that you did).

QuoteIf I decide that killing is fine, and morally okay in my mind - is it then? You would argue no. Why? Who cares, because we are all allowed our own moral choices right Jake? No, the law is in place to set the standards, and I believe it does a basic job of that.

There is no universal right or wrong. If somebody believes killing is fine, then that's their choice. My own moral system says that it's not fine. Do I hate these people for believing that way? Nope. Will I tell them that their morals are flawed? No, because I cannot say their morals are right or wrong because right and wrong is up to each and every individual. Law is extremely important for setting standards. We need law for society to function. Does that mean everyone needs to agree with law and form their morals based on law? No. Is it often times the natural outcome? Yes.

QuoteDon't tell me I shouldn't tell other people how to think or act when you are doing the exact same thing.

I'm simply telling you that I will think and act how I want, despite what you say.

QuoteEDIT: And you know what,  I bet most of your morals and ethics you have today are in some-way-shape-or-form molded by society and/or religion. The fact that you may believe killing is wrong is because our society dictates so. If we grew up in a lawless society where killing is okay, then our view may be similar or the same. You can be your own person, but no matter which way you look at it, you are always effected by your surroundings and society. And to say following society is always wrong... is just plain stupid. Society is you, and you are part of society.

You are correct in that many of my morals and ethics are molded by society. The difference between me and other people though is that I have reflected on my moral choices and why I have these beliefs rather than having these beliefs simply because everyone else does. Following society is not wrong, but I think it's important to know why you're following society in the first place.

@chris, how is an anti-piracy tool not a deterrent? It is set in place to deter people from pirating a game. I'll use my previous barb wire example. A person lays out barb- wire to prevent tresspassing.  Someone is determined enough to tresspass, so they drive back home, grab the bathroom rug, drives back, throws the rug over the wire, and walks across.  That is a deterrent.  Now let's say we have someone who stumbles upon the land and realizes that he would like to get on the land. So now he has to find the owner by trailing the wire to the house, talk to the owner, and get permission to pass freely. Owner says yes, so now anytime he wants to cross, he has to speak with the owner, who will never say no to this man out of gratitude for him actually doing the right thing and asking.  Is it a inconvenience for the man who wants to pass with permission? Yes, but I guarantee that if there was no wire at all, there would be a lot more tresspassers.  And you can't say that the man pit up the wire thinking it will prevent ALL tresspassing, that's just silly, but it does cut down on tresspassers who don't have a rug or wire cutters.

@Jake, so if the tresspassers are killing and stealing his livestock, he shouldn't put up barbwire amongst other thing to prevent tresspassers? Because it's not fool proof? Ok, how's this then: barb-wire, electric fence, and a maze of landmines, in that order. That seems pretty effective. Why not with our games today, implement barb-wire, electric fences, and 200 square miles of land mines around our game, and then we'll also poison the livestock to ensure ultimate compliance with our DETTERENTS. Cause that is what all that is. Someone is going to bring a rug, insulated wire cutters, and a mine detector, as well as a cure for the poison to get away freely.

So again, for all you who bitch, I've yet to see a more effective idea for preventing piracy come from any of you. So until then (and now I'm freely imposing) shut the shit up.

I gotta agree with Chaos. If a company decides to screw over their buyers with some patch to their game that !@#$s it up, they deserve to be screwed the same unless they actually listen to their fans and fix it. I buy games from companies that deserve the money. If a company like Ubisoft decides to !@#$ over their buyers, they don't deserve my cash. Oh, and I'll be pirating their game as a little sign of that.

Also, pirates aren't hurting their profits anymore than the people who just don't have enough money to buy the game. Pirates will download the game and play without paying, people who don't know about pirating and don't have the money for the game won't pay either. You can counter my point by saying "Pirates ARE hurting profits, they should wait for the price to go lower". But the companies ARE getting money aren't they? CoD:MW2 was and I believe still is the most SELLING game on the market. I believe it also had the most piraters on first days of release. Infact, Infinity Ward encouraged piraters to pirate the game because of their shitty matchmaking system. Pirates could play online with legit players. So there was even MORE of a reason to pirate that game, and yet IW is still swimming in money. Know where all that money comes from? Consoles. Think IW is just lucky that most people like consoles? Nope, take a look at VALVe. VALVe built their company on PC gaming offering some of the best game titles to date, and yet they're still up and running aren't they? They're even gracious enough to offer free DLC to those who play on the PC. Even with all the cracked versions of Steam for online play with other pirates, they're still up and running.

PC Pirates are barely hurting profits as most gamers are on consoles at the moment and they are the guys pumping all the money to companies. And pirates won't wait for a game price to drop to buy it. Humans have a limit of patience. It doesn't matter if you say it's wrong to pirate, or if the government says its wrong to pirate, one way or another it will continue. If it was really a serious problem, then I'm sure that the law would have jumped on pirating alot more eons ago. As of now you have a better chance of driving off a cliff into a pit of lava than getting caught by officials for pirating. And even if you do all you get is a slap on the wrist.

Heheheh, no. I believe meiun can vouch for an acquaintence that is financially ruined as well as his children and possibly grandchildren for pirating. How many millions was he fined meiun?

Quote from: Scotty on February 20, 2010, 11:00:47 AM
@chris, how is an anti-piracy tool not a deterrent? It is set in place to deter people from pirating a game. I'll use my previous barb wire example. A person lays out barb- wire to prevent tresspassing.  Someone is determined enough to tresspass, so they drive back home, grab the bathroom rug, drives back, throws the rug over the wire, and walks across.  That is a deterrent.  Now let's say we have someone who stumbles upon the land and realizes that he would like to get on the land. So now he has to find the owner by trailing the wire to the house, talk to the owner, and get permission to pass freely. Owner says yes, so now anytime he wants to cross, he has to speak with the owner, who will never say no to this man out of gratitude for him actually doing the right thing and asking.  Is it a inconvenience for the man who wants to pass with permission? Yes, but I guarantee that if there was no wire at all, there would be a lot more tresspassers.  And you can't say that the man pit up the wire thinking it will prevent ALL tresspassing, that's just silly, but it does cut down on tresspassers who don't have a rug or wire cutters.

Well, hey, if you want to keep using that analogy, perhaps we should complete it, yes?

You plop a barbed wire down there.  Along comes this man who wishes to come through.  But no, forget the rug.  He builds a BRIDGE over the barbed wire.  Incidentally, this is a strong bridge, so the owner is powerless to destroy it.  So, the guy builds this bridge, then walks on through.  Now, other people come along to this barbed wire, and hey, someone has built a bridge going right over it!  Congratulations, you managed to deter all of one person.  And you DIDN'T, because they merely saw it as a challenge, and built their bridge anyway.  And now, you have an unbreakable bridge that anyone who comes across your pretty barbed wire can simply walk over.

THAT'S what you're calling a deterrent?

Quote from: Scotty on February 20, 2010, 11:46:26 AM
Heheheh, no. I believe meiun can vouch for an acquaintence that is financially ruined as well as his children and possibly grandchildren for pirating. How many millions was he fined meiun?

Pirating WHAT, though?

Simple enough, only now let's finish the analogy that you didn't bother to complete. Now let's say the owner got fed up and called in the big guns because someone now has built a bridge on Unauthorized territory. Transition to real life now, now isp's and the government are getting involved with "taking down you inpenitrable bridge." do you REALLY think your mindset and justifications are above the law, because if you want a FOOL-PROOF method to stop pirating software, THAT is my solution (since none of you care to think on your own). I say we up the enforcement, the fines, and the punishment, and remove all drm. Let em steal it, but pay with financial ruin. That is my solution, care to think of anything else?

And I will go ahead and say you over exaggerated arrogance is quite annoying. Again, read my first post and tell me your analogy is NOT making a mountain out of a mole hill.  Riddle me this chris, if you are playing AC2 on your desktop at home, when are expecting to not have Internet exactly?

QuoteSimple enough, only now let's finish the analogy that you didn't bother to complete. Now let's say the owner got fed up and called in the big guns because someone now has built a bridge on Unauthorized territory.

I didn't 'finish the analogy', because not only did you just take the train off the tracks, you bolted bloody wings on it and took to the sky.

Not once have I argued the legality.  I clearly stated, plain as day, my stance is that DRM does nothing.  I imagine you can't refute this, seeing as you decided to change the subject entirely.  

QuoteTransition to real life now, now isp's and the government are getting involved with "taking down you inpenitrable bridge."

Let me rephrase this analogy.  It's not an unbreakable bridge. However, with a snap of the fingers, you can make an exact duplicate.  Also, they are camouflaged.  Good luck destroying them.

Quotedo you REALLY think your mindset and justifications are above the law,

QuoteIs this legally okay?  No.

Is this ethically okay?  No.

Do I give a shit if this is legally or ethically okay?  No.

Quotebecause if you want a FOOL-PROOF method to stop pirating software, THAT is my solution (since none of you care to think on your own).  I say we up the enforcement, the fines, and the punishment, and remove all drm. Let em steal it, but pay with financial ruin. That is my solution, care to think of anything else?

Funny, I don't recall once saying I ever cared about having a fool-proof method.  DRM isn't even a method, however, because IT DOES NOTHING.

My solution?  Stop using DRM.  You'll get the exact same effect on the pirates, and NOT piss off and annoy the people who are actually BUYING your product.  Beyond that, I don't give a shit.

Quote
And I will go ahead and say you over exaggerated arrogance is quite annoying.

I assure you, the irony of reading this after seeing your post is not lost on me.  I appreciate how, instead of refuting my statement with logic, you're deciding to fling poo.  Classy.

QuoteAgain, read my first post and tell me your analogy is NOT making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Are you !@#$ing listening to yourself?  Allow me to repeat myself YET again.

Stop using DRM.  You'll get the exact same effect on the pirates, and NOT piss off and annoy the people who are actually BUYING your product.  It's not a deterrent if it does NOTHING.  Actually, if anything, it's a deterrent to PURCHASE the game.

QuoteRiddle me this chris, if you are playing AC2 on your desktop at home, when are expecting to not have Internet exactly?

Irrelevant, and oddly self-centered towards me, but okay.  How about any time my internet isn't working?  Or, hey, how about when I'm on a laptop on the road and want to play my !@#$ing game?  Or, hey, how about 10 years from now, when the game is old, and Ubisoft decides they no longer want to support a server?  Or, how about when Ubisoft's server potentially goes down for a period of time, and I'm left unable to play my game until it's fixed?

Does that answer your question?


EDIT:  I really don't know if I can make this any clearer to you, but by !@#$ing god, I will try, because it saddens me to see someone who, as I've known him thus far, has exercised great logic and reasoning, and yet is unable to understand simple psychology.

de?ter
   /dɪˈtɜr/ Show Spelled[dih-tur] Show IPA
?verb (used with object),-terred, -ter?ring.
1.
to discourage or restrain from acting or proceeding: The large dog deterred trespassers.
2.
to prevent; check; arrest: timber treated with creosote to deter rot.

For DRM to deter people, it has to actually discourage or restrain them from pirating.  It DOESN'T.  Therefore, it is not a deterrent.  DRM DOES discourage or restrain people from PURCHASING the game, therefore, it IS a deterrent from getting the game legitimately. 

DRM does not stop people from pirating.

DRM DOES stop people from purchasing.

I can't make this any clearer!


GET RID OF DRM.  Does it stop pirating?  NO.  Does it stop purchasing?  YES. 

!@#$ING STOP IT.

Quote from: Scotty on February 20, 2010, 11:00:47 AM
@Jake, so if the tresspassers are killing and stealing his livestock, he shouldn't put up barbwire amongst other thing to prevent tresspassers? Because it's not fool proof? Ok, how's this then: barb-wire, electric fence, and a maze of landmines, in that order. That seems pretty effective. Why not with our games today, implement barb-wire, electric fences, and 200 square miles of land mines around our game, and then we'll also poison the livestock to ensure ultimate compliance with our DETTERENTS. Cause that is what all that is. Someone is going to bring a rug, insulated wire cutters, and a mine detector, as well as a cure for the poison to get away freely.

So again, for all you who bitch, I've yet to see a more effective idea for preventing piracy come from any of you. So until then (and now I'm freely imposing) shut the shit up.

I believe the best way to stop piracy right now is by removing DRM completely. Upping fines and punishment on the other hand will do nothing, considering they already do this to make an example out of people. You get upset with us by not offering an alternative, yet you have failed to provide a good one yourself. These publishers are pretty much saying "well we don't know how to fix piracy so lets add a system that doesn't work and shit on the people who are paying for the product!". My logic in this scenario is that if a system doesn't work and is pissing off your customers, GET RID OF IT. Whether or not I know of an alternative to DRM is a null point, so I will not "shut the shit up", but thanks for asking.

I'd go on in detail to refute your analogy regarding barbed-wire, electric fences, etc, but Chaos has already driven the point home more than enough. I am awaiting your rebuttal on that before I continue.

Oh, and one shitty alternative to completely get rid of piracy is cloud gaming. If that ever takes over as the main way of distributing games, I will cry tears of blood.

I've contemplated not wasting my time and just taking the higher road by not further fueling your arrogance (not to mention I'm doing this from my iPhone), but after reading that two or three times, I gave in. I know you don't care about law, think you're above, you're careless, or think that if a deterrent isn't good, it can't be defined as a deterrent at all, or that you don't care to support hard work by buying it if you "think" it is an inconvenience (since all you can base all of this off of is what other people are saying, as the games haven't even been released yet). I'm not quite understanding what I didn't refute, therefor classy, as it has clearly been established that you don't give two shits about honoring terms and supporting hard work because (for you mr desktop and Internet at home) that is such an inconvenience.  What about a laptop on the road? YOU DON'T OWN ONE! What about when the servers go down? When have they? And what about when they discontinue DRM servers, we've discussed this countless times how the likely course of action would be to patch out drm at that point, because really, they've given up on revenue at that point for that game. So there ya go mr. Arrogance, is that enough of a refute from mr. Classy?  

@Jake, you forgot enforcement, strict enforcement with intense will effectively scare many into not pirating. How is that not going to be effective again?

It doesn't count as a refutation until you actually refute my post, so no.

Let me cut straight through your insults and distractions and bullshit, so you can stop conveniently ignoring it.

Are you of the belief that DRM deters people from pirating?

Is it an effective deterrent? No. But that doesn't mean it isn't classified as one. Are there other ways to go about deterring pirates, yes. Increase enforcements, fines, and as I've already stated (and we can all agree) remove drm. Let the punishments do the detering.

Quote from: Scotty on February 20, 2010, 03:11:03 PM
Is it an effective deterrent? No. But that doesn't mean it isn't classified as one. Are there other ways to go about deterring pirates, yes. Increase enforcements, fines, and as I've already stated (and we can all agree) remove drm. Let the punishments do the detering.

I would like to present THIS topic,

http://torrentfreak.com/spore-most-pirated-game-ever-thanks-to-drm-080913/ ,

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/landmark-study-drm-truly-does-make-pirates-out-of-us-all.ars ,

http://www.digitalrenaissance.se/2008/10/02/sony-admits-drm-increase-piracy/ ,

http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-900.html ,

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/22/oreilly-drops-ebook.html ,

as evidence that disagrees.

I agree that it needs to be enforced, but it's really not easy to do. From what I've heard (and I could be wrong), it's very hard to pin down people that are pirating. Instead, they nail down a few people here and there and fine them millions. Basically, they make an example out of them. This to me is very wrong, if you consider the fact that if I stole some games from the store, the max possible fine would be under $10,000 and most likely probation. A great deterrent would be to take down the sites hosting these torrents, except for the fact that this is also extremely hard because these sites usually aren't doing anything wrong. Just like how Google isn't doing anything wrong for the websites found within it.

What you're suggesting Scotty, is already being tried. As you can see, it's not working as well as they want it.

It would be more beneficial for companies to (seemingly) throw away that money to an agency who could hunt down pirates as opposed to investing it into a shitty drm. They clearly haven't thought any of this through, and some project manager is sitting in his office with a huge shit eating oblivious grin on his face right now.

Quote from: Jake on February 20, 2010, 03:41:37 PM
I agree that it needs to be enforced, but it's really not easy to do. From what I've heard (and I could be wrong), it's very hard to pin down people that are pirating. Instead, they nail down a few people here and there and fine them millions. Basically, they make an example out of them. This to me is very wrong, if you consider the fact that if I stole some games from the store, the max possible fine would be under $10,000 and most likely probation. A great deterrent would be to take down the sites hosting these torrents, except for the fact that this is also extremely hard because these sites usually aren't doing anything wrong. Just like how Google isn't doing anything wrong for the websites found within it.

What you're suggesting Scotty, is already being tried. As you can see, it's not working as well as they want it.

Simple way to enforce it is do what Cox Cable does where I live. Any new game I download immediately gets my internet turned off, and I have to call them and make a bullshit excuse like someone haxed into my wireless or I forgot to put a password on it. No matter what excuse you come up with they give you 1 strike, and it's a 3 strikes and you're out deal, meaning you're basically blacklisted from using their service. I'm on strike 2, and as !@#$ed up as this system is, I can say without a doubt it's "deterring" me from downloading ANYTHING new.

I had cox in Cali, and have seen people get hit for that. I agree and think that is probably one of the best ways to go about handling it. If every ISP enforced it, there would be a LOT less piracy.

Quote from: Scotty on February 20, 2010, 06:19:54 PM
I had cox in Cali, and have seen people get hit for that. I agree and think that is probably one of the best ways to go about handling it. If every ISP enforced it, there would be a LOT less piracy.

I have to wonder how well that works versus programs such as Peer Guardian 2.

If every PC came with a live guard armed with a gun this would not be a problem at all.

Well theres always going to be programs that can circumvent any kind of monitoring that ISPs can do, but the point is that if such a thing is enforced it really would decrease the amount of pirates. Thing is, most pirates are incredibly bad at it. Just look at 50% of the comments on The Pirate Bay torrents. They have to be walked through every single !@#$ing step, whether it be downloading a torrenting program, installing and using software like Daemon Tools or Magic ISO, finding cracks, or the extreme hassle of getting a game to work over a program like hamachi. All these steps, along with the high possibility of getting viruses, or having to scrap the entire process if the torrent ends up to be shat, are enough to deter many would-be pirates. Adding the need of another program like Peer Guardian 2 just piles more load onto the question: Is it really worth it? Is all that time and effort really replace the time and effort required to just go out and earn it? The more effort ISPs put into enforcing the protection of their games, the harder that question will be. DRM was a sad attempt at this, and whoever came up with the idea is coming to stay in my warm abyss,  but I do fear the future will bring many more inconveniences to pirates.

I don't really know if there is a good way to fool ISPs currently, as all traffic has to go through them.

QuoteI don't really know if there is a good way to fool ISPs currently, as all traffic has to go through them.

encryption. a port 80 http encrypted file transfer is really going to be hard to block. File does not even need to be encrypted. could ssl it.

Quote from: ARTgames on February 20, 2010, 07:00:55 PM

QuoteI don't really know if there is a good way to fool ISPs currently, as all traffic has to go through them.

encryption. a port 80 http encrypted file transfer is really going to be hard to block.

very true, but that could easily be overlooked by many

onlive would fix the piracy.

Careful art, chris and Jake might get a little livid at that thought, not that I am disagreeing.  The biggest problem with torrent websites is that they post up things saying "we cannot be held responsible..." yet we know they don't give more of a shit than chaos.  You can't pin torrent sites so long as they properly cover their ass, but you can bust webservers for hosting illegal material, as opposed to facilitating the downloading of (potentially illegal) material.

QuoteCareful art, chris and Jake might get a little livid at that thought, not that I am disagreeing

yeah. that's kind of why i brought it up. :P

So I am not the only one who was out for blood today!

I myself stated that cloud gaming is a fix for piracy earlier in this topic. I don't mind the service at all, but it's not for me. I can definitely see companies latching on to something like OnLive.

I consider OnLive a replacement for game rentals, not game purchasing.

As for what Scott was saying about ISPs watching this stuff, to my understanding, it's not even that.  The way I understand it is that a particular company will hire a "anti-piracy" company to watch this stuff.  What they'll do is go on a particular torrent site, and download the torrent, and pretty much discover the people who are seeding it.  They will pretty much warn you, and pressure your ISP to drop you if you continue to do it.

Not necessary chris, there are actually false torrents out there that have you the minute you add them to your bittorrent.  They don't need to scan seeders or leechers, they'll just log everyone whodownloads their torrent.

@ Jake, I guess I just assumed you were taking a stand like chris against cloud gaming.

P.s. I am now drunk for the first time all week (wait, is that a record? I think so!), so forgive the iPhone typos.

I don't like cloud gaming cause I like to actually own my property.

And I like to actually keep the hookers that I pay good money for, but that isn't how that works now is it? What's your point?

Quote from: Scotty on February 20, 2010, 09:20:11 PM
And I like to actually keep the hookers that I pay good money for, but that isn't how that works now is it? What's your point?

That you're a sucker.  ;)

Quote from: Scotty on February 20, 2010, 08:50:10 PM
Not necessary chris, there are actually false torrents out there that have you the minute you add them to your bittorrent.  They don't need to scan seeders or leechers, they'll just log everyone whodownloads their torrent.

@ Jake, I guess I just assumed you were taking a stand like chris against cloud gaming.

P.s. I am now drunk for the first time all week (wait, is that a record? I think so!), so forgive the iPhone typos.

Most YARR pirates I know use private websites with private trackers and such. Only way to get into those websites is to be invited by another member. If you use those kinda websites, then false torrents are very rare.

I have 2 things I have to say about the people saying to just buy it and then crack it if you don't like the DRM.

1. By buying the game you are sending a message to the developer that what they have done is okay, and they will be more likely to continue doing it.

2. They are selling the PC version for $60!!!!! That is completely unacceptable and I will absolutely NOT buy it until the price goes down AND they have a sale on steam that brings it below $40-45.

By doing this they have now done 2 things that would cause people to be more likely to pirate. I have always said that making games MORE affordable will make people less likely to pirate. So by making it more expensive will clearly do the opposite. I don't even care what their reasoning behind this was. The end effect will be that more people will be less able to purchase the game. Ultimately, they will be losing revenue rather than recapturing lost revenue due to pirating. It's counterintuitive.

So, my earlier comment about buying Assassin's Creed 2 really should have been, I will eventually buy Assassin's Creed 2. I will not pirate it. But I will also not spend full retail price on it.

Quote from: Lingus on February 23, 2010, 08:21:12 PM
I have 2 things I have to say about the people saying to just buy it and then crack it if you don't like the DRM.

i agree, iv said that my self in this topic.

Quote from: Lingus on February 23, 2010, 08:21:12 PM
1. By buying the game you are sending a message to the developer that what they have done is okay, and they will be more likely to continue doing it.

i agree.

Quote from: Lingus on February 23, 2010, 08:21:12 PM
2. They are selling the PC version for $60!!!!! That is completely unacceptable and I will absolutely NOT buy it until the price goes down AND they have a sale on steam that brings it below $40-45.

I agree but i dont ever see that happing. most games are only -$10 less than 360 and there starting to be less. Good thing Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is only $45 at amazon.

Quote from: ARTgames on February 23, 2010, 08:55:54 PM

Quote from: Lingus on February 23, 2010, 08:21:12 PM
2. They are selling the PC version for $60!!!!! That is completely unacceptable and I will absolutely NOT buy it until the price goes down AND they have a sale on steam that brings it below $40-45.

I agree but i dont ever see that happing. most games are only -$10 less than 360 and there starting to be less. Good thing Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is only $45 at amazon.

It will. I imagine by the next Steam holiday sale it will be pretty cheap. If not then, then I'll wait for the next holiday sale. I honestly don't care if I have to wait 2+ years. I'm not spending that god damn much on a video game.

Quote from: DarkBlade325 on February 21, 2010, 12:28:49 AM

Quote from: Scotty on February 20, 2010, 08:50:10 PM
Not necessary chris, there are actually false torrents out there that have you the minute you add them to your bittorrent.  They don't need to scan seeders or leechers, they'll just log everyone whodownloads their torrent.

@ Jake, I guess I just assumed you were taking a stand like chris against cloud gaming.

P.s. I am now drunk for the first time all week (wait, is that a record? I think so!), so forgive the iPhone typos.

Most YARR pirates I know use private websites with private trackers and such. Only way to get into those websites is to be invited by another member. If you use those kinda websites, then false torrents are very rare.

I do my Pirating via Warez websites which post links to the files in the form of webhosting links such as Rapidshare, Megashare, Hotfile, etc etc. Yes, if you wan't to download at any real speed you need to spend the 10 bucks a month for a membership, but it's much more safe and alot alot quicker and reliable. The volume of people on these forums at any given time, and I visit numerous ones are usually close to 5000 people. At once. I would say that warez pirating such as this is becoming more and more popular.

Quote from: Seifer on February 24, 2010, 03:49:31 PM

Quote from: DarkBlade325 on February 21, 2010, 12:28:49 AM

Quote from: Scotty on February 20, 2010, 08:50:10 PM
Not necessary chris, there are actually false torrents out there that have you the minute you add them to your bittorrent.  They don't need to scan seeders or leechers, they'll just log everyone whodownloads their torrent.

@ Jake, I guess I just assumed you were taking a stand like chris against cloud gaming.

P.s. I am now drunk for the first time all week (wait, is that a record? I think so!), so forgive the iPhone typos.

Most YARR pirates I know use private websites with private trackers and such. Only way to get into those websites is to be invited by another member. If you use those kinda websites, then false torrents are very rare.

I do my Pirating via Warez websites which post links to the files in the form of webhosting links such as Rapidshare, Megashare, Hotfile, etc etc. Yes, if you wan't to download at any real speed you need to spend the 10 bucks a month for a membership, but it's much more safe and alot alot quicker and reliable. The volume of people on these forums at any given time, and I visit numerous ones are usually close to 5000 people. At once. I would say that warez pirating such as this is becoming more and more popular.

Yeah I personally am in a private torrent website myself thanks to a friend, though I'm not pirating much now days.

Ha! You pay... for illegal software downloading!? Hah! Those people are brilliant! At that point I would just pay for the game legitimately.

Yes but I download upwards of 100gb a month sometimes. It's not games. Very rarely. I download movies, music and tv shows. Tons. I save ALOT of money this way. And I can download a movie in like two minutes. Nothing like speeds of 4mb/s.

I think this topic should stay away from more of the hows to pirating and more about the effects of it.

Quote from: Seifer on February 24, 2010, 04:54:38 PM
Yes but I download upwards of 100gb a month sometimes. It's not games. Very rarely. I download movies, music and tv shows. Tons. I save ALOT of money this way. And I can download a movie in like two minutes. Nothing like speeds of 4mb/s.

I still find the concept amusing. Regardless of how effective it is, someone has swindled you into knowingly paying for an illegal product. The only way I've ever been able to justify pirating to myself was that it is free and that it was the only way I could afford to enjoy these things. If I had to start paying for it, it'd be out the window. At that point I would simply save up and pay for it legally. Which is exactly what I do now.

Quote from: ARTgames on February 24, 2010, 05:09:14 PM
I think this topic should stay away from more of the hows to pirating and more about the effects of it.

Agreed. And actually, the topic is really DRM and its effects (which ironically includes pirating).

That is brilliant, and when you think about it, it's no different than buying bootleg DVDs.  I should build a data center and get rich doing that, until I go to jail that is!  Charge pirates for free stuff! Ha!

Quote from: Scotty on February 25, 2010, 08:28:07 PM
That is brilliant, and when you think about it, it's no different than buying bootleg DVDs.  I should build a data center and get rich doing that, until I go to jail that is!  Charge pirates for free stuff! Ha!

Lol, good, so it's not just me.

No, you're not the only one.  That's like doubly illegal.  I just think it's funny that people would pay for free stuff. 

That's like literal Arr type pirates agreeing to paying a "pirate our ship" fee to board a ship then rob it.  It just doesn't make sense!

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/tenenbaum-675000-is-absurd-when-i-caused-21-in-losses.ars

well if you want story's like those
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas

$1,920,000 for sharing 24 songs. Might as well rob a music store at gun point and take everything for a lot lesser price.

Quote from: ARTgames on February 27, 2010, 10:22:28 AM
well if you want story's like those
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas

$1,920,000 for sharing 24 songs. Might as well rob a music store at gun point and take everything for a lot lesser price.

Yeah, but the judge came back and reduced it to some odd $50k if I remember.  Even he realized that the punishment was so disproportionate.  Still... 50k?  That's a brand new sports car.

Quote from: Scotty on February 27, 2010, 10:38:21 AM

Quote from: ARTgames on February 27, 2010, 10:22:28 AM
well if you want story's like those
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas

$1,920,000 for sharing 24 songs. Might as well rob a music store at gun point and take everything for a lot lesser price.

Yeah, but the judge came back and reduced it to some odd $50k if I remember.  Even he realized that the punishment was so disproportionate.  Still... 50k?  That's a brand new sports car.

yup, i agree

Quote from: Scotty on February 27, 2010, 10:13:47 AM
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/tenenbaum-675000-is-absurd-when-i-caused-21-in-losses.ars

That's why you always block your shares folder... If you aren't contributing to the problem you won't be targetted. Of course, if everyone were to do that... well, it would eliminate piracy as we know it. Obviously, that's the point of these kinds of cases.

But, I can further argue that a majority of people who may have downloaded the music from that guy, including the guy himself, may not have bought it even if they weren't able to pirate it. In otherwords, the damages they are assuming are assumed. And the fact that the format is digital means they would have had no damages whatsoever. No lost revenue, no lost product. I always compare it to walking into a retail store and taking a CD off the shelf. I may not have bought the CD in the first place, but it cost money to produce that item, and the store lost a sale because they have one less CD to sell. Now, if I were to walk into the store, take the CD and make a copy of it, but leave the original CD, then no harm no foul. Sure, it's still illegal, but consider that I would not have bought the CD in the first place and the retail store has no lost revenue at all. It's pretty foggy morally since you could argue that if I don't have enough money then I shouldn't be able to enjoy something just by taking it, but it still makes sense logically.

Yup, and that's partially why piracy is such a debatable issue. Companies are losing potential sales, not real sales. It's possible that they might not be losing any money, or they could be losing money equivalent to a real sale. If we extrapolate this to a large amount of people, how many real sales are companies actually losing? This isn't an easy answer, despite companies often times claiming that each pirated game is a lost sale.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Didn't even take a full 24 hours yet!

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars

I honestly feel bad for Ubisoft. They've got the best intentions, they're just really really stupid.

I'm quoting a dear friend of mine off another forum.  I think everyone can find at least some sense of agreement in something she says.  I personally think this is spot on:

QuoteThey will never create a DRM that pirates cannot get around. Ever. Know why? They do this for fun. They love a new challenge, and that's exactly what new DRM schemes are to that sort of brain.

Every single new "haha, this'll stop em for sure!" DRM scheme that comes out comes down to nothing more than a brand new fun challenge for the big crack groups, and the prize is e-peen bragging rights. There is literally nothing you can do to stop people like that.

The only thing you can do to curb piracy is to produce good games, at a fair price, in a manner that is convenient, fast, and simple for your paying customers.

iTunes proved quite nicely that if you give people a fast, simple way to let them give you a reasonable amount of money for a product they previously might just have pirated off Limewire, they will. Hell, look at the recent Norwegian study that showed people who pirate music were also ten times as likely to buy music.

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars

Sure, the record companies have flagging sales, but that's because the way consumers are willing to purchase music changed drastically over the last decade or so, and the record companies still refuse to recognize that, for better or worse, their customers changed their business model for them.

Steam is another good example. I buy a crapton more games these days since I use Steam alot more. Hardly a week goes by I'm not tempted by either a Midweek Madness or Weekend deal. Sure, I may not buy many Triple A titles at full price the minute they come out anymore, but that has far more to do with the fact that I'm tired of spending 50 bucks on a game that's an over-hyped piece of crap, or a potentially great game, but it's so strangled by bugs until the first patch it's largely unplayable. On the other hand, I've bought 28 games off Steam just since the beginning of Steam's last month-long Holiday sale bonanza dealie-o, so i have such a big backlog of games I'm willing to wait a couple months till the first big glaring bugfix patch comes out and Steam has it on a weekend deal for 10-15 bucks off.

Game companies don't need to spend a hojillion dollars to make a great game, nor does having a huge budget mean it's going to be a great game. Spore didn't fail entirely due to pirates (though due, again, to craptastic DRM, more people than usual probably pirated out of sheer spite...I know I downloaded the copy I actually installed off Usenet and just used the retail key I'd purchased to register it), it failed because it was a sh*tty game. Avatar the video game didn't flop due to piracy, it failed because no one wants to play horrible movie ports that are barely a step above shovelware in game quality but millions were spent on licensing.

On the other hand, Torchlight, a budget game by an indie company, I bought at full price back in November for 20 bucks, have since bought, at various sale prices ($5-10), 5 additional copies for friends (via Steam, because buying games for friends is ridiculously easy to do in Steam), recommended to at least 7-8 more people and still load up every few weeks, because it is a ridiculously good and fun game, the company is active in their community, and gave modders a crazy good set of tools to play around with to extend playability even further. I don't know if sales numbers for the game have been released, but I read an interview with one of the devs that said they were very pleased with their preliminary numbers.

I won't even get into how sick I am of PC gaming bearing the brunt of the blame for game piracy when there's plenty of Xbox 360 pirating going around, and I am willing to bet quite alot of money I don't have that there's *far* more actual big-time professional pirates dealing in pirated 360 games than PC games. And they're actually *selling* those.

Piracy has become kind of the catch-all excuse for the total failure of media companies to willingly adapt their business model to the current environment of consumers. That album didn't sell well? It wasn't because the artist was an untalented-but-pretty hack who sings trite drivel (but according to test groups should totally do well!), it was piracy. That game failed? It wasn't because it was so buggy it wasn't playable for a month and a half till that first patch of major bugfixes came out, it was pirates. That 450KB e-book you were trying to sell for 19.99 fell off the NY Times bestseller list? Piracy, not the sheer ridiculousness of paying almost as much for a few KB of data as you would a hardcover book (and on that note, now that publishing companies are trying to force the 9.99 Amazon e-book format issue so they can charge what they think appropriate, i.e. 14.95+, watch em crying in about 6 months to a year about how piracy of e-books is killing them, there's no money in e-books, a bloo bloo bloo. Mark my words.)

So, to sum up. Quit making horrible, boring, bug-ridden, barely-better-than-shovelware in quality but still big-budget games and blaming their failure on piracy, quit giving us craptastically convoluted DRM schemes that make your willing-to-pay customers want to pirate your game to avoid, and give us a fast, no-bullsh*t way to pay you, let me download our games and get to playing them without alot of hassle (Steam, Good Old Games, etc.). That will reduce quite alot of "casual" piracy, as it did in the music industry with iTunes.

Hardcore pirates, crack groups, and groups who make big money on selling pirated games on street corners and markets? I dunno what to tell you, cause there's literally not a damn thing you can do to stop em. All you can really do is curb the desire for casual piracy as much as you can, and you can't do that by pissing off your paying customers with crazy DRM that is useless within a week of release anyways.

That is EXACTLY what I believe.  There is not a single thing in that post that I would change.

Quoteand on that note, now that publishing companies are trying to force the 9.99 Amazon e-book format issue so they can charge what they think appropriate, i.e. 14.95+, watch em crying in about 6 months to a year about how piracy of e-books is killing them, there's no money in e-books, a bloo bloo bloo. Mark my words.

The publishers know people will pay $10-$20 for a book (my mother for example) and they can make even make more money because there is no dead tree involved.

Amazon was price fixing there stuff and publishers did not like it. publishers felt like Amazon was devaluing there books. Amazon did try and push back and removed a big publisher from there store but soon backed out and gave in.

Now Apple is out with this Ipad and publishers can use them as a point for there lever to push Amazon around.

You have now entered THE EBOOK WARS! please toon back in when the nook and ipad comes out!

Now for the rest of the post i agree and have been saying. Make it a tun more easier to buy then steal and people will most likely buy. But i also feel its not ok at any time to steal video games, music, or videos. Now buying them and then breaking there drm is ok (not legally ofcoures).

I too agree with the above post. The one thing I want to point out is that the example of iTunes doesn't prove that selling the product at a reasonable price in a convenient manner will eliminate piracy. It will make people more likely to buy, but it will not eliminate piracy. The example actually shows that even with the iTunes model, people will continue to pirate... but you might make more sales anyways. The only thing that will eliminate piracy entirely would be to eliminate the ability to pirate, which will never happen. But if there's the possiblility then people will always be tempted regardless of how little it is actually saving them in money or convenience.

Quote from: Lingus on March 04, 2010, 07:04:49 PM
I too agree with the above post. The one thing I want to point out is that the example of iTunes doesn't prove that selling the product at a reasonable price in a convenient manner will eliminate piracy. It will make people more likely to buy, but it will not eliminate piracy. The example actually shows that even with the iTunes model, people will continue to pirate... but you might make more sales anyways. The only thing that will eliminate piracy entirely would be to eliminate the ability to pirate, which will never happen. But if there's the possiblility then people will always be tempted regardless of how little it is actually saving them in money or convenience.

That's the thing.  It ISN'T possible.  There is no possibility, and there never will be.  Anything that can be programmed can be 'unprogrammed'.  The sooner they understand this fact, the better for everyone.

@Scotty:  Incidentally, that is exactly what I was talking about when I was saying that DRM isn't a deterrent. 

"They will never create a DRM that pirates cannot get around. Ever. Know why? They do this for fun. They love a new challenge, and that's exactly what new DRM schemes are to that sort of brain."

The people who crack it see it as a challenge, and the people who follow only have to use the crack made by the former.  Thus, as much as the companies wish to claim it, it can't even be classified as a deterrent, because it achieves nothing in the way of preventing pirating. :-X

Quote from: Chaos on March 04, 2010, 07:38:08 PM

Quote from: Lingus on March 04, 2010, 07:04:49 PM
I too agree with the above post. The one thing I want to point out is that the example of iTunes doesn't prove that selling the product at a reasonable price in a convenient manner will eliminate piracy. It will make people more likely to buy, but it will not eliminate piracy. The example actually shows that even with the iTunes model, people will continue to pirate... but you might make more sales anyways. The only thing that will eliminate piracy entirely would be to eliminate the ability to pirate, which will never happen. But if there's the possiblility then people will always be tempted regardless of how little it is actually saving them in money or convenience.

That's the thing.  It ISN'T possible.  There is no possibility, and there never will be.  Anything that can be programmed can be 'unprogrammed'.  The sooner they understand this fact, the better for everyone.

In other words, there will always be piracy in some form or another. The only way to entirely eliminate it would be to give away the product for free AND make it MORE easily available and accessible than it would be to pirate AND remove any hint of advertising. Which will obviously never happen, so yea... there will always be piracy.

Piracy might go away one day. Can anyone say cloud computing?

i already have....on page 4 of this topic!
http://www.stick-online.com/boards/index.php?topic=769.msg20422#msg20422

While I agree that piracy will never go away... that doesn't mean no measures should be put in place to prevent it.

Crime will never go away, but that doesn't stop us from putting laws and punishments in place to deter people from causing them. Yes, current DRM screws over the buyer - however, I think its fair that the companies seek out ways to prevent it to the best of their ability, so that only the hardcore junkies can get through it, and not your average computer user.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 04, 2010, 09:53:06 PM
i already have....on page 4 of this topic!
http://www.stick-online.com/boards/index.php?topic=769.msg20422#msg20422

I talked about it on page 1 or 2! HA I win!

Cactus: Sadly, the average computer user can pirate whatever they want.

Quote from: Jake on March 04, 2010, 10:05:26 PM

Quote from: ARTgames on March 04, 2010, 09:53:06 PM
i already have....on page 4 of this topic!
http://www.stick-online.com/boards/index.php?topic=769.msg20422#msg20422

I talked about it on page 1 or 2! HA I win!

i dont see it!

Quote from: Jake on March 04, 2010, 10:05:26 PM
Cactus: Sadly, the average computer user can pirate whatever they want.

i will not say every one but its close to it.

Quote from: Cactuscat222 on March 04, 2010, 10:02:42 PM
While I agree that piracy will never go away... that doesn't mean no measures should be put in place to prevent it.

Crime will never go away, but that doesn't stop us from putting laws and punishments in place to deter people from causing them. Yes, current DRM screws over the buyer - however, I think its fair that the companies seek out ways to prevent it to the best of their ability, so that only the hardcore junkies can get through it, and not your average computer user.

DRM doesn't prevent pirating.  DRM doesn't DETER pirating.  There's evidence that DRM even CAUSES some people to pirate.  Your analogy doesn't work.

Quote from: Cactuscat222 on March 04, 2010, 10:02:42 PM
While I agree that piracy will never go away... that doesn't mean no measures should be put in place to prevent it.

Crime will never go away, but that doesn't stop us from putting laws and punishments in place to deter people from causing them. Yes, current DRM screws over the buyer - however, I think its fair that the companies seek out ways to prevent it to the best of their ability, so that only the hardcore junkies can get through it, and not your average computer user.

I understand what you are saying, as I've fought that battle earlier in this topic for you, and I can even understand the necessity for companies to try and protect their income, but the part that I do disagree with, is that it takes ONE "hardcore junky" to crack it, then the average computer user can pirate it.

My bad Art, bottom of page 3.

Quote from: Jake on March 04, 2010, 10:35:37 PM
My bad Art, bottom of page 3.

i see it now. yup you beat me to it.

Quote from: Chaos on March 04, 2010, 10:23:01 PM

Quote from: Cactuscat222 on March 04, 2010, 10:02:42 PM
While I agree that piracy will never go away... that doesn't mean no measures should be put in place to prevent it.

Crime will never go away, but that doesn't stop us from putting laws and punishments in place to deter people from causing them. Yes, current DRM screws over the buyer - however, I think its fair that the companies seek out ways to prevent it to the best of their ability, so that only the hardcore junkies can get through it, and not your average computer user.

DRM doesn't prevent pirating.  DRM doesn't DETER pirating.  There's evidence that DRM even CAUSES some people to pirate.  Your analogy doesn't work.

"Yes, current DRM screws over the buyer - however, I think its fair that the companies seek out ways to prevent it to the best of their ability, so that only the hardcore junkies can get through it, and not your average computer user." As in, not use DRM, but some other method to deter or prevent pirating...

And yes, I know only one person needs to crack it. But if there is a way to make that process painful for the average user, then I can assure you that will help.

Well okay then, what would you suggest they do?

Wow... This is the worst authentication mechanism I've EVER seen... Connecting to a server??... That really is effective, since the important files are on another PC, crackers can't edit files like that... But in reality, this is the worst choice they could've made. If they couldn't secure their games to the extent of being hard to crack, how are they going to protect their webserver? If their webserver security technics are as bad as software ones, their servers are gonna go down atleast once a week... It takes just one no-life hacker to break their packet encryption and spam it to hell... Not to mention changing their packet encryption mechanism is alot of work...

All in all, this is the most idiotic thing a gaming company could do...

Quote from: krele on March 05, 2010, 12:33:58 PM
Wow... This is the worst authentication mechanism I've EVER seen... Connecting to a server??... That really is effective, since the important files are on another PC, crackers can't edit files like that... But in reality, this is the worst choice they could've made. If they couldn't secure their games to the extent of being hard to crack, how are they going to protect their webserver? If their webserver security technics are as bad as software ones, their servers are gonna go down atleast once a week... It takes just one no-life hacker to break their packet encryption and spam it to hell... Not to mention changing their packet encryption mechanism is alot of work...

All in all, this is the most idiotic thing a gaming company could do...

Huh?

The DRM they are using is to ensure authenticity of the game, not so much authentication.  As of right now, they aren't holding any financial information.  Besides, if they were, how is that any different from any other commercial MMORPG?  Attacks on the server can effectively be prevented (as proven by other companies rather well) for the most part.  I fail to see how this relates to the topic?

Quote from: Scotty on March 05, 2010, 01:05:51 PM

Quote from: krele on March 05, 2010, 12:33:58 PM
Wow... This is the worst authentication mechanism I've EVER seen... Connecting to a server??... That really is effective, since the important files are on another PC, crackers can't edit files like that... But in reality, this is the worst choice they could've made. If they couldn't secure their games to the extent of being hard to crack, how are they going to protect their webserver? If their webserver security technics are as bad as software ones, their servers are gonna go down atleast once a week... It takes just one no-life hacker to break their packet encryption and spam it to hell... Not to mention changing their packet encryption mechanism is alot of work...

All in all, this is the most idiotic thing a gaming company could do...

Huh?

The DRM they are using is to ensure authenticity of the game, not so much authentication.  As of right now, they aren't holding any financial information.  Besides, if they were, how is that any different from any other commercial MMORPG?  Attacks on the server can effectively be prevented (as proven by other companies rather well) for the most part.  I fail to see how this relates to the topic?

My bad. I didn't understand the first time what this is about...

So, why the hell are they doing this? I just don't get it. Needing internet connection to play the game is bad. Especially with all the d/cing stuff they wrote on that site... So, when the server lags, or your internet connection cuts off, you lose all the progress made until the last time you saved? I don't know how you guys feel about this, but to me this looks as a fail of the year...

OffTopic: Scotty, I was just wondering, why are you giving me hard time everytime I post... 90% of this forum's posts make no sense whatsoever, but I'm the only one you bash from time to time... Why?

Ok i agree that having to have internet for a offline is crappy but i don't think its super uber uber bad. I mean you need a nice stable internet to play games like wow or stick online and people seem ok.

I'm not at all promoting they should do this. I'm just saying its not the apocalypse.

Quote from: Scotty on March 05, 2010, 10:20:18 AM
Well okay then, what would you suggest they do?

Honestly, I couldn't tell you. Its not my job, and I haven't had the time or resources to put my mind to it. I'm just stating that I think its fair that companies try to protect their profits/products -  whether or not it screws the person over is a different story.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 05, 2010, 05:50:04 PM
I'm just saying its not the apocalypse.

No, it is. I'm pretty sure.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 05, 2010, 05:50:04 PM
Ok i agree that having to have internet for a offline is crappy but i don't think its super uber uber bad. I mean you need a nice stable internet to play games like wow or stick online and people seem ok.

I'm not at all promoting they should do this. I'm just saying its not the apocalypse.

I agree with Art entirely. There is nothing inherently wrong with this method. 99% of computer users (btw, pulled that number outta my ass, so w/e) will not have a problem with this. They will have a stable connection to the internet for the time they are playing this game. The only problem with this method is the fact that it is a potential problem for no other reason than to verify that you have a legal version of the game. As well, the fact that there will be a crack anyways means that this potential problem is effectively pointless. So, essentially, paying customers will have this DRM thing hanging over their head while they are playing a game that they spent their hard earned money on. They probably won't run into issues with it, but it doesn't make them feel good to have to worry about their internet possibly going out and losing their progress for no reason. And knowing that had they pirated the game, they could be playing the game for free with none of the worry.

Edited to remove my comment.

Completely off topic, but I lul'd.
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t287/LucifersUncle/666.jpg

Quote from: Scotty on March 06, 2010, 01:02:43 AM
Edited to remove my comment.

AHAHAHAHA

Quote from: Jake on March 06, 2010, 01:26:51 PM

Quote from: Scotty on March 06, 2010, 01:02:43 AM
Edited to remove my comment.

AHAHAHAHA

Krele can thank Jake for that.

Quote from: Scotty on March 06, 2010, 03:32:40 PM

Quote from: Jake on March 06, 2010, 01:26:51 PM

Quote from: Scotty on March 06, 2010, 01:02:43 AM
Edited to remove my comment.

AHAHAHAHA

Krele can thank Jake for that.

Don't give me the credit bud. Your the nice guy here.

Quote from: Jake on March 06, 2010, 07:29:33 PM

Quote from: Scotty on March 06, 2010, 03:32:40 PM

Quote from: Jake on March 06, 2010, 01:26:51 PM

Quote from: Scotty on March 06, 2010, 01:02:43 AM
Edited to remove my comment.

AHAHAHAHA

Krele can thank Jake for that.

Don't give me the credit bud. Your the nice guy here.

Eat shit and choke to death you thunder chode!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/07/ubisoft-drm-authentification-server-is-down-assassins-creed-2/)

Lol, nice. I'm sure anyone could have called that. Don't most online games have problems with servers on first release? I love all of the comments of people complaining that this happened. And then the one or two guys saying, "You shouldn't have bought the game if you weren't going to like the down-time... etc." But all those comments are grayed out. To be honest, I agree with them. If you can't deal with an online game going down, that clearly states you must have a constant internet connection and therefore implying that you would need to be connected to a server at all times, then don't buy it. Yes, if they are going to impliment this kind of feature it should work, but most online games have this problem and people deal with it. The only reason they are having a problem (and I will give them this) is because it's pointless to have the feature in the first place. But again, then they shouldn't have bought it. If everyone had just not bought the game, we might have waited a month for them to drop the DRM, and then everyone would be happy.

Its not as bad as games that you cant finish do to a bug.

They're hinting that it was likely a DDOS attack via the forum topic.  It's kind of funny, because all the people who are split on the whole DRM thing are going "Those pirates F'd you over!  How can you..."  But the topic that they are talking about is ridiculously heated.  I'd hate to be the one forum moderator that's been trying to control it.  Hell, they even had photos of giant cocks pasted on the topics.  They had to take down the topic long enough to allow the mods to go in and clean it up before they could open it again (foolishly) to allow more bashing.  Quite entertaining!

yeah it was a ddos
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/08/ubisoft_anti_drm_hack_attack/

I don't think that's fair. That just proves that other people can take down a service if they really wanted to. Not that the service has a fault if used correctly. Its true if its offline it would not matter but that's what the past 9 pages talk about.

The attack wasn't a "SEE SEE, YOUR SERVER'S DOWN, WE TOLD YOU!", it was the hackers making the customers aware of what can happen to their product, how quickly their hard earned $60 is no longer usable. (As well as punishing ubisoft for their dipshittery)
Keep at it!

Quote from: theregister
Meanwhile Ubisoft's much criticised controls have been broken by software hackers. A hacker group called Skid-Row managed to bypass DRM restrictions on Silent Hunter 5 less than 24 hours after the game was published.

I lol'd.

QuoteThe attack wasn't a "SEE SEE, YOUR SERVER'S DOWN, WE TOLD YOU!",

thats not my point at all. and i did not say that any ware in my post. unless you can point it out.

Quoteit was the hackers making the customers aware of what can happen to their product, how quickly their hard earned $60 is no longer usable. (As well as punishing ubisoft for their dipshittery)
Keep at it!

The point is hackers did something it was not made for. If the server can take a normal load and under normal circumstances then i don't see how this proves anything because a ddos is not a normal load but an attack. All it proves is ddos are good at taking down servers.

If i hate cell phones because i don't think they give good service (or if Ubisoft makes a game with drm) and i put out a powerful radio jammier (or hacker ddos) to stop phone calls, does that prove cell phones have bad service? No it does not.

Now if Ubisoft servers when down because a lot of people were playing there game then that's ok. Thats there fault. That proves a point.

The point it proves is that, if the server goes down for ANY reason, all the consumers who bought it are !@#$ED.

Its just a bunch of hackers acting like children. Yeah no duh, if ddos there servers people will not be able to play. Does that really need proving? no.

Was it Ubisoft fault that people could not play that day? no, it was the hackers.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 01:57:09 PM
Its just a bunch of hackers acting like children. Yeah no duh, if ddos there servers people will not be able to play. Does that really need proving? no.

Was it Ubisoft fault that people could not play that day? no, it was the hackers.

The point it proves is that, if the server goes down for ANY reason, all the consumers who bought it are !@#$ED.

Quote from: Chaos on March 17, 2010, 02:02:21 PM

Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 01:57:09 PM
Its just a bunch of hackers acting like children. Yeah no duh, if ddos there servers people will not be able to play. Does that really need proving? no.

Was it Ubisoft fault that people could not play that day? no, it was the hackers.

The point it proves is that, if the server goes down for ANY reason, all the consumers who bought it are !@#$ED.

we know that already! WHY DO WE NEED TO PROVE IT? All it did was make the people who payed for it not be able to play... Should i cut the power to your house to prove that your pc takes electricity? no, you already know that. As i said, a bunch of hacker acking like children.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 01:57:09 PM
Its just a bunch of hackers acting like children. Yeah no duh, if ddos there servers people will not be able to play. Does that really need proving? no.

Was it Ubisoft fault that people could not play that day? no, it was the hackers.

No, it was Ubisofts fault.

Let me give you an analogy. There is crime in the world, no? For that we have policeman. What if every police officer decided that they hated life, and took out their anger on innocent people? Does that mean it's the criminals fault for how these officers act, considering the fact that these officers only exist because of crime?

The answer is no. It's one thing to deal with crime as an officer, and it's another to wrongly take out your anger on unsuspecting civilians.

In my opinion, the hackers are proving a point. The DRM should not stop people from playing a single player game, even if the servers are down. I blame Ubisoft for making a terrible decision. They're not protecting anything, they're stopping people from enjoying a game they payed for.

Quote from: Jake on March 17, 2010, 02:07:09 PM

Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 01:57:09 PM
Its just a bunch of hackers acting like children. Yeah no duh, if ddos there servers people will not be able to play. Does that really need proving? no.

Was it Ubisoft fault that people could not play that day? no, it was the hackers.

No, it was Ubisofts fault.

Let me give you an analogy. There is crime in the world, no? For that we have policeman. What if every police officer decided that they hated life, and took out their anger on innocent people? Does that mean it's the criminals fault for how these officers act, considering the fact that these officers only exist because of crime?

The answer is no. It's one thing to deal with crime as an officer, and it's another to wrongly take out your anger on unsuspecting civilians.

jake your missing it. Your analogy is missing a big point.

Quote
What if every police officer decided that they hated life

In this chase the did not "police officer decided that they hated life". A criminal gave them a drug to make them hate life. Now whose fault is it?

Eek, shouldn't have hotlinked  :-[

But really, no matter how you look at it. The hackers were not in the rite and did not rite. IMO.

Lets say Sony make the psp 5 and it came with no batteries and you had to keep it plunged into the wall all the time. You know that was stupidness but you bought it any was for some weird reason.

Then a random psp 5 hater came out of no ware and cut the power to your house. Was that really necessary if you got the psp5 knowing when you boght it you need to keep it plunged in? Whose fault was it that you could not play a psp5 that day?

P.S. i would never buy this psp 5! And im not getting creed 2. I do not like this drm and i will not support it. But i will not also harm people who have it just because i don't like it. Im not proving anything to that person that they don't already know. It gets every one no ware and just keeps hurting the people who paid. The thing i dont mind the hacker doing is breaking the drm so people can play it offline. But they have already done that. :D

Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 01:57:09 PM
Its just a bunch of hackers acting like children. Yeah no duh, if ddos there servers people will not be able to play. Does that really need proving? no.

That may or may not be true. I assumed, like you do, that everyone who bought a game with this DRM should realize what they are buying. But there's a lot of stupid people out there who either do no research, don't take the time to read notices on the box, or don't understand what they mean by "Requires constant internet connection to play." These people who may not have understood what the DRM did were made aware. Still a stupid reason for hating on Ubisoft. All the hackers did was make them look bad. Which I guess is a good thing. The quicker they realize this DRM is bad the better. Then I can buy the game.

One thing my friends mentioned was that rather than buying the game for the PC and supporting this DRM, they would be willing to buy it for the 360. This would show that the game itself is good, and that they support the game, but not the DRM. On the other hand, it is also not giving support to PC games (which I think should be done, but only without this kind of DRM). At the same time, I'm not entirely sure how much a game developer is going to look at the sales from one platform to another. I have a feeling they are going to see their sales as a whole. They will likely get thousands of sales for the PC anyways. Plenty to justify their DRM. They will also likely get plenty of sales on console, enough to justify the game's success. The only way they would truely see the DRM as a bad thing is if people were to boycott the games as a whole regardless of platform. Otherwise they will just continue to produce the games for both including the DRM on PC, and or cutting out PC production all together (which would be a bad thing).

Well

Quote from: Lingus on March 17, 2010, 03:21:03 PM

Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 01:57:09 PM
Its just a bunch of hackers acting like children. Yeah no duh, if ddos there servers people will not be able to play. Does that really need proving? no.

That may or may not be true. I assumed, like you do, that everyone who bought a game with this DRM should realize what they are buying. But there's a lot of stupid people out there who either do no research, don't take the time to read notices on the box, or don't understand what they mean by "Requires constant internet connection to play." These people who may not have understood what the DRM did were made aware. Still a stupid reason for hating on Ubisoft. All the hackers did was make them look bad. Which I guess is a good thing. The quicker they realize this DRM is bad the better. Then I can buy the game.

One thing my friends mentioned was that rather than buying the game for the PC and supporting this DRM, they would be willing to buy it for the 360. This would show that the game itself is good, and that they support the game, but not the DRM. On the other hand, it is also not giving support to PC games (which I think should be done, but only without this kind of DRM). At the same time, I'm not entirely sure how much a game developer is going to look at the sales from one platform to another. I have a feeling they are going to see their sales as a whole. They will likely get thousands of sales for the PC anyways. Plenty to justify their DRM. They will also likely get plenty of sales on console, enough to justify the game's success. The only way they would truely see the DRM as a bad thing is if people were to boycott the games as a whole regardless of platform. Otherwise they will just continue to produce the games for both including the DRM on PC, and or cutting out PC production all together (which would be a bad thing).

fine. fine. i agree, look here: http://www.amazon.com/Assassins-Creed-2-Pc/dp/B001TOQ8R0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1268853869&sr=8-3

Ah. That's not the retail game box if I'm correct. The correct box has a warning from what I've seen.

Though if you scroll down to the very first customer review they point it out.

Shame on Amazon for not pointing this out. I'm curious if Steam has the "Requires constant internet connection warning". They do on all MMOs, so I would think it says for this game.

But yea, I guess that kind of makes my point. A lot of people will look at the main information on that Amazon page and click "Buy" without any other research not even bothering to scroll down and read reviews. But, even if they didn't know at the time of buying, they know now because of the servers going down. I would love to see everyone who bought the game return it, have Ubisoft issue an apology, remove their DRM, and drop the PC price of the game to $40. That would almost guarantee massive numbers of sales.

Quote from: Lingus on March 17, 2010, 03:42:38 PM
Shame on Amazon for not pointing this out. .... They do on all MMOs, so I would think it says for this game.

yeah they really really should. Amazon to fault there. But i hope most people at least take a look down if a game has got 60+ 1 start reviews out of 70 in all. :P

but at steam they have:

Quote from: http://store.steampowered.com/app/33230/A PERMANENT HIGH SPEED INTERNET CONNECTION AND CREATION OF A UBISOFT ACCOUNT ARE REQUIRED TO PLAY THIS VIDEO GAME AT ALL TIMES AND TO UNLOCK EXCLUSIVE CONTENT. SUCH CONTENT MAY ONLY BE UNLOCKED ONE SINGLE TIME WITH A UNIQUE KEY. YOU MUST BE AT LEAST 13 TO CREATE A UBISOFT ACCOUNT WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT. UBISOFT MAY CANCEL ACCESS TO ONLINE FEATURES UPON A 30-DAY PRIOR NOTICE PUBLISHED AT

But i still have a feeling that the number of people who were going to buy the pc game of this that did not know about the drm was really really low. But idk im making that number up. And on the retail copies there is a big white text on the front cover that says you need an Internet connection. And if you miss that i think thats more of the users fault than any one else. Its not like they did not try and worn you.

edit:
BTW you all would probably like gta sa pc drm. You just placed it in your dvd drive and pressed install. No CD key or Internet required.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 04:06:14 PMAnd if you miss that i think thats more of the users fault than any one else. Its not like they did not try and worn you.

True, but the point I was making with that is that the DDOS attacks served to inform these people. The message was not, "Hey everyone who already knows this DRM is crappy, look how crappy the DRM is!" It was, "Hey everyone, this DRM means when the servers go down, you can't play the game you paid $60 for!" and it was effective in that sense, and there were likely people who came to that realization because of it.

Whether or not Ubisoft attempted to inform people is not in question. The point is that regardless of how they went about informing people, some people most likely did not realize it. After the DDOS attacks, everyone knows. And hopefully that will cause more people to take action such as returning the game.

Quote from: Lingus on March 17, 2010, 04:25:18 PM

Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 04:06:14 PMAnd if you miss that i think that's more of the users fault than any one else. Its not like they did not try and worn you.

True, but the point I was making with that is that the DDOS attacks served to inform these people. The message was not, "Hey everyone who already knows this DRM is crappy, look how crappy the DRM is!" It was, "Hey everyone, this DRM means when the servers go down, you can't play the game you paid $60 for!" and it was effective in that sense, and there were likely people who came to that realization because of it.

Well as i said before i don't think that was that many people. But as i said i have no number to back that up. And i don't think you do ether.

Quote from: Lingus on March 17, 2010, 04:25:18 PM
Whether or not Ubisoft attempted to inform people is not in question. The point is that regardless of how they went about informing people, some people most likely did not realize it. After the DDOS attacks, everyone knows. And hopefully that will cause more people to take action such as returning the game.

Come on! I think the amount of people who wanted this for PC and did not read the news stories, or see the all in caps letter on steam, or the fount of the box is a really really low number. I am sorry but if you don't read the front of your game box before installing the game its not the game makers fault. That's the users fault.

I mean come on look at this:
(http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/3633/44323092620fa584751bo.jpg)
How could you blame Ubisoft for not properly informing the user. (off topic but doesn't the word permanent look like the word pregnant? nah, must just be me)

I don't even think if a lot of people did not know that about the drm that ddos ubisoft was not a good idea. There is a better more legal ways of doing it. And at no point do two wrongs make a rite. This is argument is just getting silly now.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 04:39:08 PM
Well as i said before i don't think that was that many people. But as i said i have no number to back that up. And i don't think you do ether.

No, but the important point is that there were any.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 04:39:08 PM

Quote from: Lingus on March 17, 2010, 04:25:18 PM
Whether or not Ubisoft attempted to inform people is not in question. The point is that regardless of how they went about informing people, some people most likely did not realize it. After the DDOS attacks, everyone knows. And hopefully that will cause more people to take action such as returning the game.

Come on! I think the amount of people who wanted this for PC and did not read the news stories, or see the all in caps letter on steam, or the fount of the box is a really really low number. I am sorry but if you don't read the front of your game box before installing the game its not the game makers fault. That's the users fault.

Art, you're missing my point. I'm not saying it's Ubisofts fault. I clearly said that it was the "stupid people" who didn't realize this. It's definitely their fault for not doing more research. What I'm getting at is now that these people who didn't know (through no fault of Ubisoft) now know (because of the DDOS attack) they will be more likely to demand the DRM to be removed or return the game for a refund (at least I'm hoping).

Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 04:39:08 PM
I mean come on look at this:
(http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/3633/44323092620fa584751bo.jpg)

Well, you're the one who found the Amazon link that had no warning. Honestly I think you're discounting how stupid or unaware some people can be. I bet there's more people that didn't know about this than you think. Yes, anyone who calls themself a "gamer" probably knew. Anyone who cares about what they buy probably knew. But impulse buyers, or parents buying a game for a kid. They may not have known.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 04:39:08 PM
I don't even think if a lot of people did not know that about the drm that ddos ubisoft was not a good idea. There is a better more legal ways of doing it. And at no point do two wrongs make a rite. This is argument is just getting silly now.

I don't know. I agree two wrongs don't make a right, but I still think this was a very effective (not necessarily "good") way of shocking people into an understanding. As far as I'm concerned if companies are going to start using shady DRM tactics, it's fair game for hackers to use shady tactics to show them how wrong they are.

Iv never seen you like this Lingus. You must really want this game without the price and drm.

Well, considering I'm very pro PC (versus console) yes. This kind of thing is what kills PC gaming. If you have to pay the same price and get a worse product it's not worth it. But for me I don't have a console and can't justify buying one, but I will always have a PC. So if PC games go this route I pretty much won't ever buy games.

That's why I was curious what people thought of my earlier comment about buying this for the console versus PC. If people think that's a viable method for showing game companies what they think it might mean the end of PC gaming as we know it!

(Okay, maybe I'm being a bit dramatic...)

It just scares me what you all will do to have it your way. I hope this all sticks to simple internet war.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 08:09:19 PM
Iv never seen you like this Lingus. You must really want this game without the price and drm.

Don't blame him.  Blame Ubisoft.  I'm sure he would gladly take the game WITH the price and without the DRM.  This is exactly what this topic has been about, and I believe my point has been THOROUGHLY proven.  DRM is one cause of piracy.  If we want to reduce piracy, clearly DRM is what needs to be OUTLAWED.

QuoteDon't blame him.  Blame Ubisoft.

well i kinda did. I was blaming Ubisoft for having those two things he does not want. But its still his fault he wants to play it. :P

[joking context]
Chaos DRM does not cause piracy, people do!
[/joking context]

Chaos i agree that this DRM is not good. I just don't really agree how people are combating it.

I think the best way of combating it is not giving them money and telling them why. I'm not going to steal there game, or ddos there server. I think not giving them cash will hurt them ware it hurts them the most. The pocket.

I just hope no ones dies because they cant play there ac2. (im over exaggerating but you get the point)

Quote from: Chaos on March 17, 2010, 09:31:55 PMI'm sure he would gladly take the game WITH the price and without the DRM.

Not really no. I will not pay $60 for a PC game. Especially if I'm getting digital distribution (Steam). It makes no sense. What the hell is all of that money going to? They're just inflating their prices. What's even worse is that one major reason for inflating prices is to account for lost sales due to piracy. But you'd think the DRM would handle that (not accounting for the fact that we all agree that this DRM will cause people to pirate more... obviously Ubisoft did not think so.) So why would they have the DRM AND inflate the price? If they did one but not the other I would feel better, but I would still be pissed. Actually, to be honest, I almost would have bought the game with the DRM if the price were lower. But probably not.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 18, 2010, 01:58:29 AM
I think the best way of combating it is not giving them money and telling them why. I'm not going to steal there game, or ddos there server. I think not giving them cash will hurt them ware it hurts them the most. The pocket.

I completely agree with you, and that's what I'm doing and I hope others are doing... but the reality is that a lot of people are going to buy this game. They will make enough money on it to justify their DRM. So in the end that method is futile. My friend and I were having this exact discussion, and he said my mindset was the same as people who don't vote because they think their vote doesn't count. My response was basically, "Yes, exactly." That's exactly how I feel in both situations. It's futile to act because my actions are outweighed by the vast throngs of people who don't care what results their actions bring about.

Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 01:54:44 PM
I completely agree with you, and that's what I'm doing and I hope others are doing... but the reality is that a lot of people are going to buy this game.

No, that's what you think the reality is. Do you have PC sails numbers to justify that?  The argument that every one is stupid and they must be protected form overpaying for a DRMed video game by breaking the law just seems so silly to me. Especially coming form you, a person who says smart stuff all the time.
[joking context]
Who do you think you are? A government regulation?
[/joking context]
I need to have one bad joke a post.

Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 01:54:44 PM
They will make enough money on it to justify their DRM. So in the end that method is futile.

Well what is not paying off now will do so in the future. If people still buy this game and they hate the game's DRM then they are not going to get AC3 if it has the same requirements. If people still get AC3 with all this DRM then i guess the DRM was not as bad as you all make it out to be. The problem will fix its self ether way.

Also Lingus just get the game off ebay and crack it. Your not supporting Ubisoft, your not stuck with the DRM, its not illegal, and its not going to be $60.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 18, 2010, 02:03:58 PM

Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 01:54:44 PM
I completely agree with you, and that's what I'm doing and I hope others are doing... but the reality is that a lot of people are going to buy this game.

No, that's what you think the reality is. Do you have PC sails numbers to justify that?

http://www.product-reviews.net/2009/11/24/assassins-creed-ii-ubisoft-unveil-detailed-sales-figures/

Actually doing better than I even thought. So yes, it is futile. People will buy the game regardless of how much they might complain about the DRM. I know this is true even before looking at the above article because want instant gratification. Most people are not going to abstain from something they want just to prove a point. If they want to play AC2, they will buy it. True, the DRM is annoying, but at least they get to play the game.

And no, I will not crack the game. But I should point out that it's not only because I'm trying to prove a point. I just don't want to waste the time or effort to look up the crack and implement it. Besides, buying the game off ebay still indirectly adds to their sales. That's how retail sales work. They sell so many units to a retail company and if all of those units sell they get more. The more sales the retail store makes, the more sales the game company will make. Same thing with ebay purchases.

Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 02:49:07 PM

Quote from: ARTgames on March 18, 2010, 02:03:58 PM

Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 01:54:44 PM
I completely agree with you, and that's what I'm doing and I hope others are doing... but the reality is that a lot of people are going to buy this game.

No, that's what you think the reality is. Do you have PC sails numbers to justify that?

http://www.product-reviews.net/2009/11/24/assassins-creed-ii-ubisoft-unveil-detailed-sales-figures/

Actually doing better than I even thought. So yes, it is futile.

QuoteDo you have PC sails numbers to justify that?

Its funny how no ware in that article they mention the pc sails. The pc game was not even out when that article was posted....

Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 02:49:07 PM
And no, I will not crack the game. But I should point out that it's not only because I'm trying to prove a point.

What point and to who?

Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 02:49:07 PM
Besides, buying the game off ebay still indirectly adds to their sales. That's how retail sales work. They sell so many units to a retail company and if all of those units sell they get more. The more sales the retail store makes, the more sales the game company will make. Same thing with ebay purchases.

Well no. Your buying the game off some one who already did the deed. You buying the game off some one else is not making them any more money. The used market is not the same as the retail.

I'm going to say i quite with this subject for now. We are going no ware. I'm not mad at you just really wired out. And i think i should step away.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 18, 2010, 02:58:10 PMIts funny how no ware in that article they mention the pc sails. The pc game was not even out when that article was posted....

That's a good point, but they don't mention it anywhere in any article that talks about sales. They don't make the distinction between 360 and PC. Which only goes to prove my earlier point (as well as this one). They aren't going to look at PC versus 360 sales when making a determination of the game's success. All they care about is how many total sales because in the end they only care about total profits. And if the article I linked to is an indication then they are going to make plenty of money.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 18, 2010, 02:58:10 PM

Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 02:49:07 PM
And no, I will not crack the game. But I should point out that it's not only because I'm trying to prove a point.

What point and to who?

The point I've been making this whole time. That the DRM sucks and the price is too high. And it would be to Ubisoft. But as I metioned, it's not because of this, and I don't really think I'm making any kind of point by not buying the game anyways.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 18, 2010, 02:58:10 PM

Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 02:49:07 PM
Besides, buying the game off ebay still indirectly adds to their sales. That's how retail sales work. They sell so many units to a retail company and if all of those units sell they get more. The more sales the retail store makes, the more sales the game company will make. Same thing with ebay purchases.

Well no. Your buying the game off some one who already did the deed. You buying the game off some one else is not making them any more money. The used market is not the same as the retail.

Ah used. I thought you meant from a retail Ebay store. Are people already selling used copies of the game? Why? To get their money back? Wouldn't they just return it to the store? I would rather see them return it because then that goes back to the retail store which then eventually (if the returns are high enough and they don't just resell the returns) get back to Ubisoft. And if they are doing it to make money (buying and reselling games) then it's the same as a retail store. The more units they sell, the more units they buy to resell. That's how sales numbers work.


But yes, you're right. We're going in circles here. This is a topic that agitates me a bit. I'm not trying to take it out on you specifically or anything.

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but AC2 was cracked successfully after it's release. Which means me, as a PC gamer will NEVER buy the retail copy, simply because it will be worse than the cracked version.

edit: made post in not best of mind.

You're confusing me Art. What you're saying is, theres two choices. A. Support DRM and Ubisoft's decision to use it by buying their game. (Because buying their game in any way is telling them they can still make money off their decision, and they can continue to.) B. Don't support them, and don't buy the game. But then you suggest playing it at a friend's house? Would you mind explaining to me the difference between playing a game at a friend's house and downloading it?

*edit*
Oh, you don't have to respond, I didn't notice you edited your post.

That post was not well made. (my old one) But ill defend some of it.

QuoteYou're confusing me Art. What you're saying is, theres two choices. A. Support DRM and Ubisoft's decision to use it by buying their game. (Because buying their game in any way is telling them they can still make money off their decision, and they can continue to.) B. Don't support them, and don't buy the game.

At no point did i say support DRM. I even said if you do any of those things tell Ubisoft you hate there drm. Its just an assumption you made and others here that buying the game = Support DRM. (which is debatable its self)

I rather buy a game I like then take it for ever just because i don't like something about it. But i know you all don't feel that way so i suggested the others. Also i had more than 2 choices. You forgot about the "get the game used and crack it."

QuoteBut then you suggest playing it at a friend's house? Would you mind explaining to me the difference between playing a game at a friend's house and downloading it?

Simple. Going to a friends house is different from downloading it because only one person can use the game at a time. Its also not illegal.

Its ok, i did take away the post probably before you got done reading it threw. I'm sorry.

As I said, buying their game is telling them what they're doing is fine. Big companies like Ubisoft won't give a flying rabbit shit about you sending them an email about how you dislike their methods. You bought their product, and that's all that matters. Your flawless "Getting the game and cracking it" doesn't mean shat to Ubisoft, as they have no idea you're even cracking it. In the end, all you're doing by purchasing their product, is telling them they can continue to use DRM and you'll still pay for it.

*edit*

Quote from: ARTgames
Simple. Going to a friends house is different from downloading it because only one person can use the game at a time. Its also not illegal.

Isn't the point of DRM to stop Piracy? To stop loosing potential sales? To stop people from using your product without purchasing it? How is it any different if I let 100 people come into my house and play a game, then them all downloading it? I don't see how only being able to play it one at a time matters at all. It also confuses me how you think cracking the DRM off their game isn't illegal o.O.

Quote from: Lucifer on March 22, 2010, 11:50:55 PM
As I said, buying their game is telling them what they're doing is fine. Big companies like Ubisoft won't give a flying rabbit shit about you sending them an email about how you dislike their methods. You bought their product, and that's all that matters. Your flawless "Getting the game and cracking it" doesn't mean shat to Ubisoft, as they have no idea you're even cracking it. In the end, all you're doing by purchasing their product, is telling them they can continue to use DRM and you'll still pay for it.

Developing DRM cost them something. These DRM programmers/servers are not free. If they can see people will buy there games maybe they wont take the time to keep developing it. Maybe even take take it off there games to come.

QuoteIt also confuses me how you think cracking the DRM off their game isn't illegal o.O.

Your splitting hairs here. But ill still explain:

It is true that technically it is illegal to break there DRM. Thats is 100% true. But its debatable, like so:
The point of the DRM is to keep you from giving the game to other people. If you get your game and break the DRM for you self i don't see anything wrong with that.

To me downloading a game you like without paying is much worse than getting the by game legal means and breaking the DRM for your own use. Fair?

Quote from: Lucifer on March 22, 2010, 11:50:55 PM
How is it any different if I let 100 people come into my house and play a game, then them all downloading it?

Do you? Can 100 people play the game at the same time at your house? I really want you to think about this part of the agument. Your getting weird like ling.

I want you to explain to me how using something at a friends is the same as stealing. No matter how you look at it downloading a game without paying is stealing. I dont see how using the game at a firends is stealing.

QuoteIsn't the point of DRM to stop Piracy? To stop loosing potential sales? To stop people from using your product without purchasing it?

Its to stop people form copying it not from using it.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
DRM technologies attempt to control use of digital media by preventing access, copying or conversion to other formats by end users.

Using my buds games is not breaking the "preventing access, copying or conversion to other formats by end users.".

Why does the fact that we wouldn't be able to play the game at the same time matter? Especially for a single player game, once you beat it, you're basically done with it. I argue that letting your friend play the entire game at your house is the same as them downloading it because it has the same effect. The company is still loosing the potential sale, and your friend is still using the product without having to pay for it. The point of DRM is to keep you from giving the game to other people, as you say. Companies want you and your friends to buy the game separately, hence the use of CD Keys.

I'm just going to say that i do agree with you that if you use some ones game it can make you less or more inclined to buying it. But not any more or less than piracy does. (I think that's what your saying Lucifer)

But i do feel sharing your copy with thousands of people on the internet is diffrent from sharing your copy with a small number of friends.  Which is why i felt its wrong to download and not wrong to use a buds.

I do agree 1 pirated game does not always equal 1 lost sail. But i don't think you should pirate if you just want the game without paying even if you can buy it.

I also feel you should not pirate a game if you don't like its DRM but you like the game. Or if a game has anything you don't like on it, that does not give you the right to steal it. I feel you should pay for a legal copy for it but break its DRM. But we went over that already. :P

I should have said that insted of what i did in my last posts.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 22, 2010, 11:24:30 PMAt no point did i say support DRM. I even said if you do any of those things tell Ubisoft you hate there drm. Its just an assumption you made and others here that buying the game = Support DRM. (which is debatable its self)

Quote from: ARTgames on March 23, 2010, 12:13:18 AM

Quote from: Lucifer on March 22, 2010, 11:50:55 PM
As I said, buying their game is telling them what they're doing is fine. Big companies like Ubisoft won't give a flying rabbit shit about you sending them an email about how you dislike their methods. You bought their product, and that's all that matters. Your flawless "Getting the game and cracking it" doesn't mean shat to Ubisoft, as they have no idea you're even cracking it. In the end, all you're doing by purchasing their product, is telling them they can continue to use DRM and you'll still pay for it.

Developing DRM cost them something. These DRM programmers/servers are not free. If they can see people will buy there games maybe they wont take the time to keep developing it. Maybe even take take it off there games to come.

I'm sorry Art, but your arguments are just not valid. What Luc is saying is true. By giving the company money for a game that includes this DRM, you are in effect telling them that you are willing to give them money for the product. In other words, you support the game and all of its features. If there was an aspect of the product you did not like, you would not have bought the game... You might be saying, "Well, I don't like the DRM but I wanted the game anyways. So I don't really support the DRM." But, to Ubisoft that doesn't matter. In the end, the only thing that matters to them is the sales. They made a product, and it is selling. That tells them the product they made is good and they probably don't have to change it. The only thing that will change their mind is if their sales drop.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 23, 2010, 12:13:18 AM

Quote from: Lucifer on March 22, 2010, 11:50:55 PM
As I said, buying their game is telling them what they're doing is fine. Big companies like Ubisoft won't give a flying rabbit shit about you sending them an email about how you dislike their methods. You bought their product, and that's all that matters. Your flawless "Getting the game and cracking it" doesn't mean shat to Ubisoft, as they have no idea you're even cracking it. In the end, all you're doing by purchasing their product, is telling them they can continue to use DRM and you'll still pay for it.

Developing DRM cost them something. These DRM programmers/servers are not free. If they can see people will buy there games maybe they wont take the time to keep developing it. Maybe even take take it off there games to come.

QuoteIt also confuses me how you think cracking the DRM off their game isn't illegal o.O.

Your splitting hairs here. But ill still explain:

It is true that technically it is illegal to break there DRM. Thats is 100% true. But its debatable, like so:
The point of the DRM is to keep you from giving the game to other people. If you get your game and break the DRM for you self i don't see anything wrong with that.

To me downloading a game you like without paying is much worse than getting the by game legal means and breaking the DRM for your own use. Fair?

Quote from: Lucifer on March 22, 2010, 11:50:55 PM
How is it any different if I let 100 people come into my house and play a game, then them all downloading it?

Do you? Can 100 people play the game at the same time at your house? I really want you to think about this part of the agument. Your getting weird like ling.

It's interesting, because my friend who is also against pirating says the same thing about this topic. He will let me play through a whole game at his house and I never have to buy the game. So in other words, he just removed any chance of me buying the game... Yet he's against piracy. Of course, I can see his logic. He knows I won't buy the game (these are always games which are exclusive to console, which he knows I will never get because I can't afford a console). And, at the same time, I think in some cases, he feels that if I play through the game I may even be inclined to purchase it because I had the chance to play it. If I get hooked on the game and really enjoy it, I will want to play it more and potentially to the point of buying a console and the game (though this is less likely).

And Art, what do you mean by "Weird like ling"? You think I'm being weird because I'm arguing against your points? Why? Am I not allowed to have my own opinion on something? I feel we are all having a rather rational discussion on the topic at hand. So I don't really see how anyone is getting "weird."

Ling i think you should read my last post before this one. My views were changed from the post you quoted. That post you quoted i was not really being that rational at that time. Chaos helped me there on msn. But for anything else we can agree to disagree.

Also for that "wired like ling" was just a joke. I was trying to end that post like a past one but word it for Lucifer. No hard feelings man. Sorry i sounded that way.

I would like to contribute by pointing out that the publishing companies are not neccesarily selling the experience of playing a game. What they are selling is one tangible disk with one copy of the game's data. When a friend comes over to your house and plays your game, they are enjoying the exact same copy of legally acquired data that you do.

A similar example would be standing outside a concert that you have not purchased tickets for. One might say this is like pirating, because you are enjoying the same music for free that people have paid money for. However, I would disagree - the concert people are not selling music. They are selling the rights to sit in one of their seats over the course of one 2 hour performance at their facilities.

You're not automatically charged every time you hear a song being played in public. You cannot charge people for the concept of entertainment itself, but you can charge them for a physically existing object (television, football, etc.) that can be used a source of entertainment.

That's what I think the difference between pirating and simply sharing something with your friends is. When you play Super Mario 64 at a friend's house, you are, with consent of the owner, sharing in the entertainment of the exact same tangible game cartidge and copy of game data that your friend has legal rights to. When you download some game illegally off of the internet, you are enjoying a different copy of the game data that you have not purchased the legal rights to.

Just some of my insight on the matter, in any case.

That is fair to bring up. Thank you.

Quote from: LeGuy on March 23, 2010, 06:18:33 PM
A similar example would be standing outside a concert that you have not purchased tickets for. One might say this is like pirating, because you are enjoying the same music for free that people have paid money for. However, I would disagree - the concert people are not selling music. They are selling the rights to sit in one of their seats over the course of one 2 hour performance at their facilities.

The problem I'd like to point out with that analogy, is that you're not standing outside of the concert, you're sitting on the lap of the friend that bought the ticket.

Quote from: Lucifer on March 23, 2010, 06:30:17 PM

Quote from: LeGuy on March 23, 2010, 06:18:33 PM
A similar example would be standing outside a concert that you have not purchased tickets for. One might say this is like pirating, because you are enjoying the same music for free that people have paid money for. However, I would disagree - the concert people are not selling music. They are selling the rights to sit in one of their seats over the course of one 2 hour performance at their facilities.

The problem I'd like to point out with that analogy, is that you're not standing outside of the concert, you're sitting on the lap of the friend that bought the ticket.

Haha, well, yes. There's going to be a lot of loopholes when you're talking about any legal matter. But the purpose of my post was just to give a basic idea of my opinions on the difference between pirating and just sharing the game with a friend. The analogy was just used an example to point out that the experience of entertainment is not neccesarily what is being sold.

Its hard to make an analogy dealing with information using physical property's. Since information's can be copied copied perfectly as many times as you want and it never get worn out.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 23, 2010, 05:47:19 PM
Ling i think you should read my last post before this one. My views were changed from the post you quoted. That post you quoted i was not really being that rational at that time. Chaos helped me there on msn. But for anything else we can agree to disagree.

Fair enough. I was just responded to that one string of comments. I understand you changed what you said a bit later one. Take my comment for what it's worth.

Quote from: ARTgames on March 23, 2010, 05:47:19 PM
Also for that "wired like ling" was just a joke. I was trying to end that post like a past one but word it for Lucifer. No hard feelings man. Sorry i sounded that way.

Understood. Hard to tell your tone from the post. Thanks for explaining.

Quote from: LeGuy on March 23, 2010, 06:18:33 PM
I would like to contribute by pointing out that the publishing companies are not neccesarily selling the experience of playing a game. What they are selling is one tangible disk with one copy of the game's data. When a friend comes over to your house and plays your game, they are enjoying the exact same copy of legally acquired data that you do.

A similar example would be standing outside a concert that you have not purchased tickets for. One might say this is like pirating, because you are enjoying the same music for free that people have paid money for. However, I would disagree - the concert people are not selling music. They are selling the rights to sit in one of their seats over the course of one 2 hour performance at their facilities.

You're not automatically charged every time you hear a song being played in public. You cannot charge people for the concept of entertainment itself, but you can charge them for a physically existing object (television, football, etc.) that can be used a source of entertainment.

That's what I think the difference between pirating and simply sharing something with your friends is. When you play Super Mario 64 at a friend's house, you are, with consent of the owner, sharing in the entertainment of the exact same tangible game cartidge and copy of game data that your friend has legal rights to. When you download some game illegally off of the internet, you are enjoying a different copy of the game data that you have not purchased the legal rights to.

Just some of my insight on the matter, in any case.

Not the best analogy. I guess better would be inviting people over to watch TV. Or ordering a pay-per-view item such as a boxing match and inviting people over to watch it. You're paying for it a single time (or in the case of TV monthly, but for one instance of the service) and yet multiple people are gaining the benefits. Pirating would be more like hooking up a cable from your TV and running it to your neighboors house so they can get free TV (of course, again this analogy breaks down a bit when you consider digital bandwidth and box sets). Now, if your friend lives nearby and they have a key to your house or whatever, and they can pop buy whenever they want to watch your TV... they don't have to pay for it ever do they?

So yes, the legality is one thing. That's more to do with what is reasonable to be able to monitor. There's no way they can even know that you're letting a friend over to watch TV, or play a video game. But honestly, if they could find a way I bet they would restrict it. Because what it comes down to for the company is money. If they're losing money due to these actions, and they can do something to try and prevent it, they will.

What this all comes down to is this. Any company should be allowed to take whatever measures they choose to protect their profits. You can't deny them that. That's what capitalism is all about. But, at the same time, the consumer has the right to refuse to buy whatever product they don't like. And so in this way if a company wants to sell more products and make more profit, then they have to do things that makes the consumer happy. If consumers are going to buy these games even if they have this DRM, and even if they are overpriced, then the company will make a profit and continue to do what they're doing.