LMAO, no its obvious you don't know what a strawman argument is or you haven't done your homework on anti-DRM misinformation, as both of those statements are often posed as legitimate arguments against DRM and aren't easily disproven as long as DRM is circumvented:
So tell me scarecrow, given you posted in each of those threads and the points I made are clearly "strawmen" as you claim, why are you wasting precious breath huffing and puffing on my arguments instead of blowing those pipes at the actual sources?
Like I said, its clearly obvious the claim "DRM doesn't work at stopping piracy" is a fallacy that serves as a pillar of the anti-DRM and pro-piracy argument, one that isn't easily refuted unless DRM is in fact effective and provably so, which it is in this case, proving without a doubt that DRM is effective in combating piracy. Done huffing and puffing scarecrow? Thought so.
No, it is an argument against DRM, but it certainly isn't the only one.... and a point DRM isn't designed to combat or disprove. DRM is designed to prevent piracy, first and foremost. If its effective in that endeavour, then a more accurate gauge of whether its more or less beneficial than DRM on actual sales can be made.
But again, lost sales due to DRM isn't the main concern here, stopping piracy is. When you're looking at piracy rates of 50-90%, that is the only concern. Now that we've seen this form of DRM is 100% effective in preventing piracy, we've also seen it has in fact lead to increased sales from those who would have pirated it instead if the option was available. Now the paradigm shifts to comparing sales lost due to DRM to sales gained from potential pirates, which is fine. But the goal and purpose of DRM: to prevent piracy was accomplished, which again confirms DRM is a necessary inconvenience.
Right, DRM isn't an issue at all for consoles because it actually works, isn't easily circumvented and is seen as a necessary inconvenience. DRM also happens to be the only thing that keeps the 2nd hand and rental market viable on consoles, something no one ever mentions with regard to resale on the PC compared to consoles.
Well its certainly better than arguing ignorantly and aimlessly claiming it could be "anything" or "everything" other than the obvious conclusions that all credible data sources support.
apoppin
Lifer
So *some* games DRM INCONVENIENCES you
But other that are just as bad are OK ?
what superpowers do i need to develop to see the difference between Atari and UBi's activation limit, for example? How is "Saint Steam" more restrictive DRM somehow OK but Atari's is evil, somehow?
:roll:
the only difference i see, is that pirates started bitching about an activation scheme they cannot crack and you are just carrying their campaign on for them
And its no wonder you didn't include your full quote the relevant portions below:
You questioned the sincerity of their intentions and asked for precedence, I clearly provided such evidence. Of course the action would not be directly applicable, given the promised protection removals and the SecuROM revoke tool are different.
Red Irish
Guest
- Mar 6, 2009
- 1,605
- 0
- 0
I always question the sincerity of their intentions. The company's objectives and mine are not always harmonious (I'll give you an easy example: I generally like to pay less money for better games). If I failed to question their intentions, I would be an idiot.
And in this case, you're saying that company doesn't have a right to protect their IP and content from piracy? Even after a statement saying this DRM was used to prevent early piracy, clear indications it is effective in preventing piracy, and a clarification clearly stating they fully intend to remove or relax such protections, you still want to question their intentions?
I'd say questioning intentions blindly based on nothing but paranoia, hysteria and fearmongering while ignoring all reasoning and evidence to the contrary would do more to make you look like an idiot than anything else.
[/quote]
Nor does it need to, the intent of my post was clear, just as the intent of yours was. Its obvious you want to focus on specifics in a case where specifics do not matter, only intentions. You questioned the sincerity of their intentions, asking why you should believe what they had to say based on precedence for any of their other games. Obviously they could not have proven this to your satisfaction using an "identical example" of an unprotected exe, as this is the first time they've used such a Tages based activation for one of their games.
But of course, none of that should really be necessary, as Atari has very clearly and sincerely stated their intentions above and have really given us no reason to think otherwise or believe they are attempting to deceive us. Unforunately the same cannot be said about you with regard to sincerity and intent to deceive, can it?
Just wanted to clarify the first part of the post, it is very obvious the people whining the most about Riddick's DRM are the ones who intended to pirate it. Not saying that necessarily translates to anyone in this thread, but its very obvious if you read some of the links I provided, any of the blog comments, or reviews that allow for comments. Riddick's DRM works, the people who can't pirate have plenty of time to whine about it, the people who have bought it are playing it, so don't really need to whine about DRM that isn't impacting them.
I do agree with the other parts though, at the minimum, they should've allowed for installs to be returned on uninstall similar to other forms of SecuROM activation used in the past. In any case, my mind is at ease now that Atari has stated their intention to relax install limits sometime in the future. I'm also hoping they release detailed statistics about sales and piracy rates for Riddick.
mindcycle
Golden Member
- Jan 9, 2008
- 1,901
- 0
- 76
Red Irish
Guest
- Mar 6, 2009
- 1,605
- 0
- 0
The link to the Atari forums in mindcycle's last post contains a very interesting exchange:
http://www.ataricommunity.com/...howthread.php?t=673039
There, you will find an attempt to allay fears relating to the DRM on Dark Athena issued by some poor Atari PR rep charged with the task of calming the raving, hysteric and unthinking promoters of piracy (for you and me folks, that means Atari's customers and potential customer). He sounds convincing, until you analyse the language employed and realise that he does not in fact make a firm commitment to anything. In any event, I feel that the first response to the Atari rep's post made by thejtrain should be drawn to the attention of everyone reading this thread:
Thanks for getting back to us in a speedy timeframe, MajorHavoc - it's appreciated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorHavoc
As of today only about 10% of all the Riddick PC games sold have been activated more than once.
All due respect, but at this point in the game's lifecycle, that statistic is essentially meaningless. It's only been out for a week - for the most part people aren't worried about using up their three installs in a week, they're worried about using them up over time just due to normal hardware or OS upgrade cycles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorHavoc
DRM is not designed to keep you from playing the game, nor is it designed to combat any after market sales. After market sales for PC games are nowhere near what they are for console games anyway, aside from ebay, craigslist and yard sales I can?t even really think of anywhere to get used PC games.
Again, all due respect, but the magnitude of availability of secondhand sales has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it's right or proper to prevent them altogether (GameStop still sells them, though not as many, and you forgot Goozex & Half.com, just to name a couple more). Regardless of whether the activation-based DRM is designed to prevent secondhand sales as an end in itself, it surely is effective at doing so, and could be construed as a violation of the First-Sale Doctrine of consumer's rights (for a couple of recent court decisions affirming that doctrine, see Vernor v. Autodesk and UMG v. Augusto).
Originally Posted by MajorHavoc
I want to make it clear that there are people who are monitoring activations so if and when we get into an issue with people not being able to play that issue will be addressed. Should the case get so severe it effects a large portion of the gamers, more activations will be set in place as needed. Further down the line the DRM will be removed and a new unprotected exe will be released.
So to summarize if you buy Riddick legally on the PC we are going to do our best to make sure you can play it for as long as you want.
Your communication is certainly appreciated MajorHavoc, and at some point down the road when the activation-based DRM is fully removed, I may consider purchasing a copy then. But until then, activation-based DRM, regardless of all protests to the contrary by well-meaning publisher reps like yourself, essentially holds my ability to play a game I purchase hostage to the good graces of the publisher. If Atari is in a helpful mood, they'll let me play it. If they're not, they won't. It's as simple as that - they may be in a good mood now, as you're trying to reassure us that they are, but that's not guaranteed in perpetuity. It sounds harsh and perhaps a bit blue-sky/what-if, but that's what most of us are concerned with.
What might be more helpful as a constructive communication to your potential customers, would be a plainly-worded policy on what kind of parameters go into a "yes, here's another activation because you need it"/"no, we think you're a pirate so you don't get any more" decision on the part of the customer support folks who we'd theoretically be calling to ask for another activation, should we use up the 3 we're allotted. If I call for a fourth activation tomorrow, I imagine they'd probably say "yes". If I call for my 25th 6 months from now, what would they say? What assurances can you give us that Atari won't (on purpose or through an unfortunate economic situation) pull a Microsoft Music Store and pull the activation servers? Or pull a Microsoft Windows 98 and just unilaterally decide to stop supporting a product they've sold and was at the time still used by a significant portion of the market?
These are some of the concerns that law-abiding non-pirates like myself have about this kind of DRM, and I certainly hope you take it in the respectful but principled manner in which it's meant.
http://www.ataricommunity.com/...howthread.php?t=673039
There, you will find an attempt to allay fears relating to the DRM on Dark Athena issued by some poor Atari PR rep charged with the task of calming the raving, hysteric and unthinking promoters of piracy (for you and me folks, that means Atari's customers and potential customer). He sounds convincing, until you analyse the language employed and realise that he does not in fact make a firm commitment to anything. In any event, I feel that the first response to the Atari rep's post made by thejtrain should be drawn to the attention of everyone reading this thread:
Thanks for getting back to us in a speedy timeframe, MajorHavoc - it's appreciated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorHavoc
As of today only about 10% of all the Riddick PC games sold have been activated more than once.
All due respect, but at this point in the game's lifecycle, that statistic is essentially meaningless. It's only been out for a week - for the most part people aren't worried about using up their three installs in a week, they're worried about using them up over time just due to normal hardware or OS upgrade cycles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorHavoc
DRM is not designed to keep you from playing the game, nor is it designed to combat any after market sales. After market sales for PC games are nowhere near what they are for console games anyway, aside from ebay, craigslist and yard sales I can?t even really think of anywhere to get used PC games.
Again, all due respect, but the magnitude of availability of secondhand sales has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it's right or proper to prevent them altogether (GameStop still sells them, though not as many, and you forgot Goozex & Half.com, just to name a couple more). Regardless of whether the activation-based DRM is designed to prevent secondhand sales as an end in itself, it surely is effective at doing so, and could be construed as a violation of the First-Sale Doctrine of consumer's rights (for a couple of recent court decisions affirming that doctrine, see Vernor v. Autodesk and UMG v. Augusto).
Originally Posted by MajorHavoc
I want to make it clear that there are people who are monitoring activations so if and when we get into an issue with people not being able to play that issue will be addressed. Should the case get so severe it effects a large portion of the gamers, more activations will be set in place as needed. Further down the line the DRM will be removed and a new unprotected exe will be released.
So to summarize if you buy Riddick legally on the PC we are going to do our best to make sure you can play it for as long as you want.
Your communication is certainly appreciated MajorHavoc, and at some point down the road when the activation-based DRM is fully removed, I may consider purchasing a copy then. But until then, activation-based DRM, regardless of all protests to the contrary by well-meaning publisher reps like yourself, essentially holds my ability to play a game I purchase hostage to the good graces of the publisher. If Atari is in a helpful mood, they'll let me play it. If they're not, they won't. It's as simple as that - they may be in a good mood now, as you're trying to reassure us that they are, but that's not guaranteed in perpetuity. It sounds harsh and perhaps a bit blue-sky/what-if, but that's what most of us are concerned with.
What might be more helpful as a constructive communication to your potential customers, would be a plainly-worded policy on what kind of parameters go into a "yes, here's another activation because you need it"/"no, we think you're a pirate so you don't get any more" decision on the part of the customer support folks who we'd theoretically be calling to ask for another activation, should we use up the 3 we're allotted. If I call for a fourth activation tomorrow, I imagine they'd probably say "yes". If I call for my 25th 6 months from now, what would they say? What assurances can you give us that Atari won't (on purpose or through an unfortunate economic situation) pull a Microsoft Music Store and pull the activation servers? Or pull a Microsoft Windows 98 and just unilaterally decide to stop supporting a product they've sold and was at the time still used by a significant portion of the market?
These are some of the concerns that law-abiding non-pirates like myself have about this kind of DRM, and I certainly hope you take it in the respectful but principled manner in which it's meant.
JoshGuru7
Golden Member
- Aug 18, 2001
- 1,020
- 1
- 0
Chizow, please take my comments with a grain of salt and not so personally. I'm not criticizing you, only the unsubstantiated opinions which you are arguing are "proofs". I suspect we agree on more than we disagree, for example I agree with you that one of the anti-DRM positions is that DRM really isn't ultimately effective at preventing piracy. Your restatement of this position into terms that allows you to "disprove it" if any person has ever failed to pirate a game (you based it on five posts from an internet forum) is the very definition of a straw man argument and that's all that I was pointing out. If you want to really prove that this argument is baseless then you need to look at trended sales projections in multiple scenarios that involved several DRM schemes including no-DRM. This is why I suggested the study in my previous post, and I thought it would be obvious from the context that I was talking about cross-developer, being that they could share similar experiences with different DRM and no DRM.
I disagree. An anti-cancer medication that completely eradicated cancer but also immediately terminated brain functionality would technically work at curing cancer but it would hardly be mentioned as a solution to cancer. The end result - a healthy human - is the real goal and you need to compare each component with this end goal in mind. Similarly, DRM that prevents some people from pirating software but then does more harm than good is not worth discussing on its own merits without regard to the larger picture. In other words:
1) how does this DRM implementation affect the short term profit of the software product?
2) how does this DRM implementation affect the long term profit of future software products from this company?
3) how does this DRM implementation affect the PC gaming industry and future software titles from anybody working in the industry?
If you're arguing your case without respect to those three points then how are you different from the cancer researcher jumping up and down trying to get their brain-killing cancer cure approved?
The only thing that matters is the three points outlined above. If there was a way that companies could increase piracy 10 fold and it would still lead to an increase of profits for them (in-game advertising?), then they should do it. You don't get any points for stopping piracy if it means you make less money.
You're stretching quite a bit to say that either of these is true. A few posts on a forum does not make a real data point and we can both agree that a torrent of this game will probably be up at all of the usual sites in a depressingly short amount of time. EFBB has been available via torrents for several years, so I'm skeptical how many pirates that would have downloaded it at the $0 price point really went out and purchased a $50 copy at launch because they couldn't wait for the torrent or play the campaign with slightly worse graphics. I bet in this case 0-day piracy is a lot less significant than Atari claims.
The underlined portion is all that was ever, and will ever be significant for this discussion. I may be willing to cut off my nose to spite my face in private affairs, but companies like Atari should rightfully face shareholder suits if they do not pursue the strategy that maximizes profits regardless of the effect on piracy. Certainly you would agree with that point if you put yourselves in the shoes of an Atari stockholder.
I agree with you and I think this is the key point. Consoles do have DRM, but it is completely un-intrusive. I own every console and have never had a game not work because I had something else installed on the console. I have never had to worry about activation limits, revoke tools, certifying games after I upgraded hardware, or whether the developers validation server was down. From the user point of view the DRM is completely transparent and any disc I put in my PS3 will work exactly as expected.
If a game has restrictive DRM on the PC I will pay $10 more for the PS3 version without thinking twice about it, which is sad considering my PC gaming system is top of the line. I would pay $20 more for the PC version without DRM, but software companies besides indie developers and valve haven't really figured out yet how to market to users like me.
I haven't seen facts that meaningfully speak to the net benefit of DRM - and I have looked! You certainly haven't provided them, and your strong opinions about the net benefit of DRM (ie... DRM is necessary) is completely nonfactual. You would get credit in a debate for at least taking a position and arguing for it, but this isn't a debate and most of the time "nobody knows yet" is the right answer despite it being boring. Having an opinion just to have an opinion doesn't become anybody.
Incidentally, your attempt to lump "pro-piracy" and "anti-DRM" advocates together is intentionally insulting to most of the people in this thread including myself. It might be a good decision if you were arguing for the benefit of an uninformed jury and trying to influence them, but remember the context here. Each of the posters in this thread has either expressed concerns about DRM based on stated poor experiences of their own, or they have expressed concern about the limitation of their rights as consumers. Branding them as pro-piracy does nothing but illustrate how ready you are to have strong opinions about issues you lack information to accurately determine.
apoppin
Lifer
You do not speak for me nor do you speak for the majority of Atari customers; you attitude is very elitist to "demand" anything of anyone.
if you don't want to buy a great game on a principle that is fine. But then no one holding to those principles should be playing any other game with similar DRM - that is hypocritical to the max. It includes all Steam games - which are far more restrictive and allow for no reselling - and certainly Ubisoft's FC2 - the only difference being a hard to find revocation tool that does not always work.
Oh I don't take them personally, you just make for an easy target when you repeatedly use terms you don't fully understand and then try to turn it around on me, especially when you don't bother to criticize the very sources of those "strawmen" arguments.
In any case, a simple admission you don't know what a strawman argument is or you aren't familiar with the finer points of various anti-DRM/pro-piracy arguments would've been sufficient.LMAO. 5 posts on an internet forum? Tell me scarecrow, how many people have successfully cracked Dark Athena? Once again, THERE IS NO WORKING CRACK FOR RIDDICK: DARK ATHENA, which means any and all misinformation about DRM being pointless also flies out the window. If Dark Athena's DRM didn't work, you'd see a very different tone in this thread, with the #1 argument being such restrictive DRM is pointless because the game is already cracked and pirates are enjoying the "non-crippled" version. You know you wanna say it, c'mon go for it. Oh wait, you can't, because Riddick's DRM is 100% effective as of today. LOL.
No, not really. You just have to look at the fact piracy rates are 0% on the PC for this title, right now, proving without a doubt that DRM is effective in preventing piracy. Knowing that fact, proving increased sales from a sample population that would've undoubtedly pirated the game if given the chance also shows the attached meme that "people who would pirate wouldn't buy games anyway, so DRM isn't needed regardless" has no merit. The only way either of these points are easily refuted, and hence, strawmen arguments, is if DRM is 100% effective, which it typically is not. But that still doesn't mean DRM is pointless, as it is still more effective at preventing piracy than no DRM at all even if it isn't 100% effective.
As for cross-developer, is this a joke? Last time we went down that road, you claimed it could be "anything" or "everything" other than piracy when specifically confronted with cross-platform titles, sales and piracy rates. Then you claimed those very developers of cross-platform titles were being disingenous or lying about their intentions when they made public statements clearly identifying piracy as their main concern for such cross-platform or console-exclusive strategies.
Now that's a strawman.
The problem with your strawman is that DRM doesn't impact the functionality of the title in any way. No, make no mistake, the only people right now on planet Earth who are not having problems playing Dark Athena are the ones who purchased the game and have legally bypassed the DRM with a legitimate serial key and activation. As it is right now, the DRM may limit various other features or expectations, like resale or number of machine installs, but again there is positive outlook those problems will be remedied in the future. Now, applied to your cancer strawman, you could choose no treatment and high probability of death, an ineffective treatment that might extend your life with limited activity, or a treatment that is highly effective and allows you to function normally, but may shorten your normal life expectancy. In either case, you can choose the second two options to extend your life with treatment and the possibility of a better cure, but only the last option will allow you to fully enjoy that additional time on the planet.
More harm to whom? I'm going to assume you mean the end-user, but again, what data points do you have to back the assertion it does more harm than good in that aspect? Surely you're not claiming the concerns of the small % of people who do have issues with DRM outweigh the impact of piracy rates shown to be as high as 50-90% are you? Even your own anecdotal claims substantiate this. You claim to have had issue with Bioshock, that's 1 title out of how many others that you own with DRM?
As for 1-3, you can't make any accurate assessment without first addressing the main issue that impacts all of those first and foremost: piracy. We've already seen numerous times piracy skews any such data points and allows for various other lies and misinformation to perpetuate themselves, making it much more difficult to extract that information.
That's the point I'd say. Any researcher would make sure the cure was effective first before attempting to address any of the other peripheral issues, like long-term side effects, impact on life expectency, etc. In this case, not addressing piracy first and foremost would be a pretty brain-dead attempt at solving the problem of piracy.
Here's a pretty simple analogy, if you were a farmer, what would you care about profit if 50-90% of your potential crop was destroyed or stolen by vermin or thieves before it even went to market?
Uh, no I'm not stretching when I say either of these are true. Its a fact Riddick's DRM is 100% effective, as of right now. I've provided very clear evidence with a thread that's hundreds of pages long documenting the progression from Day 1, frustrating both would-be crackers and pirates alike. And that's just 1 thread, pop into any thread on Riddick and cracks and you'll find similar.
There is still no crack for Riddick as of today, and its what? Day 10? In that thread, there is unrefutable evidence many of those would-be pirates have in fact bought the game. Hell, they even provide screenshots as if to gloat! All of those sales are without a doubt, sales that Atari would not have made if a functional crack were available. This absolutely lends creedance to the claims publishers have made about the importance of Day 0 and 1 copy protections and directly refute the "strawmen" arguments you apparently have such issue with.
As for whether or not it will be cracked, I'm not so optimistic, nor are those attempting to crack or pirate the game. Its definitely the most difficult protection to-date, as it mixes both software and hardware protections that are completely dependent on each other in order to function, the most important of which originates from Atari/Tages servers.
No, it may be the focus of your interest in the discussion, but again, its easily dismissed and takes a backseat to the root cause of any such concerns: piracy. Its simple enough, you can't make any accurate analysis of sales and quality with a monster 50-90% variable like piracy floating around.
And that's only so because your consoles are running controlled/closed hardware and software with limited functionality compared to a PC. If you have a problem with it, maybe petition or lobby MS to make their platform more secure? Oh right, they decided to make the XBox instead simply because they could control all variables, install hardware and software limitations without conflicting with the interests of their OS on the PC and hardware they have no control over. But again, even concerns about DRM related issues on the PC are grossly overstated with all available information showing very few people encounter problems, and certainly far fewer than the number of pirated copies for titles with those kinds of protections.
That's great, and you have choices. PS3 developers can put a title out there with a high assurance their title will not be pirated due to the various effective forms of DRM employed. PC developers cannot. I'm sure they've considered marketing to people like you (see: World of Goo, Soccer Manager, Assassin's Creed, Prince of Persia etc), but then again, they're probably not as concerned about that vocal 1-10% minority compared to the 80-90% who would pirate their games with no protections whatsoever.
LMAO, no you've just chosen to ignore all the factual information presented or you haven't looked hard enough. Again, we've already discussed this with comparisons of cross-platform titles on the consoles compared to the PC. You just decided to believe "anything" or "everything" other than piracy, then went on to question the motives and sincerity of the actual decison-makers in the industry.
It shouldn't be insulting if you don't pirate games. You'd be naive to think the pro-Piracy advocates aren't piggy-backing your arguments and using you as a virtual meatshield in promoting anti-DRM propaganda. Again, I've linked quotes directly indicating as much, sentiments clearly illustrated further in any threads, reviews, blogs and comments about DRM and piracy. I've very clearly shown the arguments are the same, even if the intentions are different. If you don't get that, feeling insulted shouldn't be your main concern.
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of what I've written. I'm not trying to convince anyone who has repeatedly shown they're intent on spreading misinformation. I'm simply showing their arguments are often based on lies, half-truths and fearmongering so that those who are genuinely interested in the truth can make an informed decision. As for lack of information lol, again, I think its pretty clear who is providing the bulk of the information and who is choosing to perpetuate common misinformation, and even some who would choose to completely ignore all relevent information.
I would hardly call that detailed, but it certainly provides a glimpse of what kind of statistics and tracking they're capable of. I actually wanted to see total sales, total attempts at activation, total # of discrete IPs attempting to use illegal keys, total number of banned IPs, that kinda thing, both before and after they release any unprotected exe.
A few things you don't seem to understand about that blurb by MajorHavok is that's a single serial key producing over 50,000 authentication attempts. While that certainly doesn't directly translate into # of discrete users trying to pirate the game, you can imagine just how staggering that number might be once a number is released for all invalid/illegal serial keys. That 3-4 million number for UT3 was pretty extreme, this might come close.
I'm hoping they release the number of discrete IPs attempting to use an illegal key and also the number of those IPs that later authenticated with a legit key. That should give a very accurate representation of the scale of piracy and how many casual pirates would've ended up buying a legit copy.
Another thing about the authentication of previously banned IPs or hardware, they don't state exactly what it takes to have your IP or hardware banned by their server. Similar to password spamming, I think you need to meet a threshold before your IP or machine is banned. There's actually a few threads on Atari about it, and I saw similar on my 4th machine when I tried to reinstall.
Red Irish
Guest
- Mar 6, 2009
- 1,605
- 0
- 0
Thanks for clearing that up. We have an inability to resell a product versus your firm assurance that there is a "positive outlook those problems will be remedied in the future". Can you give me the prescription of those "happy pills" you're taking? Are they legal?
Thank you for finally acknowledging that we are being used as unpaid security beta-testers. You may have no problem with regards to acting as a DRM guinea pig every time you buy a game, but some of us, well, we like our systems without the associated problems and we have this crazy idea that our rights should be protected. Incidentally, I hope you are not in in any way responsible for screening medication prior to public release.
But its not my firm assurance, as I stated earlier it breaks down like so:
Originally posted by: chizow
LMAO. This is a no-brainer. Are we going to believe:
1) statement on official forums from an Atari employee stating they fully intend to increase activations as needed, and also plan to release a patch removing all DRM limits.
or
2) some random guy on the internet that clearly doesn't understand (or subscribe to) the Social Contract saying we shouldn't believe anything in 1) and should instead boycott the game for no other reason than unsubstantiated fearmongering.
You're right, I don't think everyone is stupid enough to believe you, but there may be a few.
and the direct quote and assurance:
Unless something changed and you bought Riddick, you're not anything in this sample population. Stop trying to claim otherwise. Riddick's DRM has no impact whatsoever on you, as you've clearly decided to "opt-out" rather than subject yourself to any such beta testing or resulting implications.
As for the rest of us "unpaid testers" who are actually effected, I'd say we don't mind given its not a Beta and the Tages Activation is clearly ready for PRIME TIME and extremely effective at what it was meant to do, prevent piracy.
It doesn't prohibit our ability to resell the game (well it does for me, as I artificially reached my limit to test its implementation), if anything effective DRM will increase the resale value of our games by preventing piracy. Once an unprotected exe or install limits are increased, any such concerns will be less of an issue. In the meantime, I can say with 100% certainty that DRM has the least impact on those who legally purchased the game out of all the people who are actually trying to play the game.
Almost done with EfBB myself, looking forward to AoDA. :thumbsup:
Red Irish
Guest
- Mar 6, 2009
- 1,605
- 0
- 0
No, but it forces you to place your trust in the seller (you know, it has "so many" activations left). Aren't you the one who keeps talking about pirates and pirates who were forced to buy? You can't have it both ways chizow, either you trust people or you don't.
Given that you have consistently maintained the postion that people are not to be trusted (all those accusations of "pirate", etc), you must now admit that the possibilties of second-hand sale are limited to the point of effectively being non-existent.
Thank you for taking on the function of acting as an "intellectual whipping boy" in Atari's stead, thereby subjecting yourself to the observations of the serious posters on this thread, like your work as a DRM beta-tester, it is also (presumably) unpaid, and you are to be commended.
You can't be serious with this, oh right, you don't understand the Social Contract theory and its underlying principles. I'll keep this brief because its something that can't be adequately covered in the amount of time I'm willing to dedicate to it, but maybe take one of those magistrates, judges or attorneys at work tomorrow out to lunch and have them explain it to you.
As for why the Social Contract theory and law based on it work and are accepted by most modern societies...its simple, it relies on accountability and enforceability. Prerequisites the anonymity of the internet fail to adequately account for. This is the key point you continually seem to be missing. Everyone knows who Atari is and there's no reason to doubt their assurances. The same cannot be said for the potential market for video games where users have repeatedly demonstrated when given the choice, the overwhelming majority would choose to steal rather than pay.
Red Irish
Guest
- Mar 6, 2009
- 1,605
- 0
- 0
That was my point chizow, as you can't trust people, given that "the overwhelming majority would choose to steal rather than pay", you can't trust sellers of Dark Athena when they tell you that it has 2 activations left. Therefore, there is a serious impediment to any form of second-hand sale. I'm sorry that all of this seems to be whizzing over your head.
In that case you would have recourse though, given the anonymity of the internet no longer applies and there is enforceable penalty.
If you agreed to and paid for an item expecting 2 activations and you didn't get that, what would you do? So ya, if that was your original point or not, its still inaccurate.
Red Irish
Guest
- Mar 6, 2009
- 1,605
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: chizow
In that case you would have recourse though, given the anonymity of the internet no longer applies and there is enforceable penalty.
So, in sense, or rather in nonsense, you are now arguing that the DRM on Dark Athena does not represent an impediment to resale?
There are approximately two or three posts between each of your statements above. Which is it this time? Another whipping?
And where do I state its not an impediment to resale? Do I need to start linking actual definitions for words here? I know English isn't your first language, but seriously, all you're doing here is showing how dishonestly you argue.
You seem to be stuck on my claim that Riddick's DRM doesn't prohibit a user's ability to resell the game. It does not, as you can resell the game if there are active installations remaining.
The currently implemented DRM may limit features and expectations, but it clearly does not prohibit resale explicitly.
Furthermore, directly quoting the EULA, being a person who actually owns the game:
So again, satisfied with your whipping? Or are you going to keep arguing dishonestly in an attempt to extract meaning from words that are explicit in meaning as they read?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter