• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

DRM is scaring me

Powermoloch

Powermoloch

Lifer
Although i haven't got any bad experiences (so far). But i got alot of titles from ubisoft...I'm downloading patches as we speak 🙁
 
Unlike many on this board, I have no issues with DRM of any form. Do I think that some companies are going overboard trying to prevent pirates - to the point where they are alienating some of their fanbase? Sure. But the fact of the matter is that the problem lies with software pirates. If everyone would just buy their software (or if less people would steal it), then it is very likely that DRM would never have come to the point it has.

But, seeing as how I love PC gaming, I say "bring on the DRM!" Happy to have it if it means that developers will continue bringing quality games to the PC platform. Much better than the alternative, IMO.

Also, I guess I should mention that I am an intellectual property attorney by trade. That might skew my viewpoint on this particular subject.
 
Last edited:
I have a problem with DRM. It assumes I'm a criminal before I've done anything, impairs the functionality of the software, and completely fails in its attempt to prevent software piracy. So, it doesnt fulfil its stated goal while negatively impacting me. Why should I like DRM then? It doesnt do me or the software vendor any good. About the only person it benefits is the DRM vendor, who laughs all the way to the bank about how gullible publishers are.
 
soxfan said:
But, seeing as how I love PC gaming, I say "bring on the DRM!" Happy to have it if it means that developers will continue bringing quality games to the PC platform. Much better than the alternative, IMO.

Also, I guess I should mention that I am an intellectual property attorney by trade. That might skew my viewpoint on this particular subject.
Click to expand...

Fortunately Ubisoft just publishes console ports, which I can buy used. This allows me to still enjoy their good games, while giving the same gesture back to a company who is basically giving PC gamers the middle finger. I would also happily watch Ubisoft go bankrupt and a studio who knows how to treat its paying customers flourish in their place. If you love PC gaming, I would think this would be a desired outcome for you too. DRM done correctly is one thing. DRM which causes negative effects to paying customers is absolutely unacceptable though.

My copy of Assassin's Creed 2 works on the PS3 offline just fine, so why would I pay for an inferior product, which also can't be easily resold once I'm done with it?

P.S. I purchased and played Assassin's Creed on the PC and I do enjoy the superior graphics it provided. The DRM employed in PC version of AC2 is enough of a con for me to just do without it, if purchasing it meant giving any money to Ubisoft.
 
Last edited:
I love AC I, but I'll hold my trigger finger on AC 2 when it gets better (if not, oh well it's just a game).

I could get the PS3 version, but it's expensive as usual D:
 
If I never have to know about the drm and its not messing with my pc then meh. Steam is drm and I love it. It actually offers something. Ubisoft makes rayman games. /thread
 
soxfan said:
Unlike many on this board, I have no issues with DRM of any form. Do I think that some companies are going overboard trying to prevent pirates - to the point where they are alienating some of their fanbase? Sure. But the fact of the matter is that the problem lies with software pirates. If everyone would just buy their software (or if less people would steal it), then it is very likely that DRM would never have come to the point it has.

But, seeing as how I love PC gaming, I say "bring on the DRM!" Happy to have it if it means that developers will continue bringing quality games to the PC platform. Much better than the alternative, IMO.

Also, I guess I should mention that I am an intellectual property attorney by trade. That might skew my viewpoint on this particular subject.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have a problem with DRM if it actually stopped the people that it's designed to stop. Supposedly... that's pirates. But as we all know, a good 95% of games have their copy protection broken within the first day, with the rest 5% usually happening within a week. So obviously, pirates aren't being bothered.

Hell, DRM in general doesn't even bother me. Hell I use steam pretty regularly (and I've amassed a pretty large collection there), and it's a pretty competent form of DRM. I find it increasingly annoying as more and more devs decide to stack their games with extra DRM... mostly Securom and other activation limit DRMs.

I have one particular game on steam, called Wings of Prey... it's protected by TAGES and has a 3(!) activation limit without any ability to receive an activation back by using a revoke tool or uninstalling it. So, when I upgraded my computer and reinstalled Win 7, I lost an activation. Great. So now, if I do it again, SOL unless I email some vague russian email asking for more activations. Remind me again, who is DRM supposed to defeat?

Now, a perfect example of DRM really is that from Bad Company 2. You have the option to register the game online and play with no disc, or play with the disc in the drive.

I have no issues with copyright holders protecting their content, what I do have an issue with is how they do it.
 
soxfan said:
Unlike many on this board, I have no issues with DRM of any form. Do I think that some companies are going overboard trying to prevent pirates - to the point where they are alienating some of their fanbase? Sure. But the fact of the matter is that the problem lies with software pirates. If everyone would just buy their software (or if less people would steal it), then it is very likely that DRM would never have come to the point it has.

But, seeing as how I love PC gaming, I say "bring on the DRM!" Happy to have it if it means that developers will continue bringing quality games to the PC platform. Much better than the alternative, IMO.

Also, I guess I should mention that I am an intellectual property attorney by trade. That might skew my viewpoint on this particular subject.
Click to expand...

Yea, you're not biased at all. I personally don't believe in the concept of intellectual property. It's simply a way to limit the free flow or an artistic medium and unfairly ensure a revenue stream for that which does not deserve one (If something was worth money, people would pay for it, as long as the cost was unreasonable).

I don't have a problem with some DRM, but other DRM schemes I do. Activation doesn't bother me, neither does disc checks, or account-based services such as Steam(provided they have an offline mode).

Intrusive applications that run as device drivers, or that hook into the system kernel, software that requires a constant internet connection or you can't play, services that don't work correctly with virtual drive software, or SATA DVD drives. These types of DRM are unacceptable. Any software publisher that utilizes such systems go on my "Do not buy/play" list, and I don't consider them at all. They're not even worth pirating. Oh yes, did I also mention that none of these actually WORK?

I love PC Gaming, but I would rather not have games at all, if the alternative is games featuring DRM that is described in the above paragraph.
 
soxfan said:
If everyone would just buy their software (or if less people would steal it), then it is very likely that DRM would never have come to the point it has.
Click to expand...

of course there would still be DRM, if only to prevent the 2nd hand game market. that's the reason why i don't buy off steam anymore (as well as their lack of quality control for what they sell).
 
Simply, I don't buy games with DRM more extensive then a CD key.. I refuse to support it, it just adds costs to the game while decreasing the game's quality.
 
fatpat268 said:
I wouldn't have a problem with DRM if it actually stopped the people that it's designed to stop. Supposedly... that's pirates. But as we all know, a good 95% of games have their copy protection broken within the first day, with the rest 5% usually happening within a week. So obviously, pirates aren't being bothered.

I have no issues with copyright holders protecting their content, what I do have an issue with is how they do it.
Click to expand...

This. DRM does not stop piracy, period. It's a waste of time and money for them and us. Learn from Steam and move on...
 
I'll add one more thing too. Ubisoft's DRM scheme is basically a hold your files hostage on a DRM server scheme, which in turn makes my purchase, in reality, a polished up rental. This is exactly the same scheme as Steam, except that Steam has an offline mode and all the files are present (encrypted, but still present in their entirety), plus Steam games don't crash when your Internet is down.

If you're going to make my "purchase" a rental, then please price it accordingly. This is why all my Steam "purchases" are in the $20 or less category and typically have been $10 or less. At those price points, I begin to not care about my inability to resell anything purchased through them. Above $20 I do care enough that I'll either go without entirely or put off the purchase. Since I typically have more money than time to play games anymore, this often results in a lost sale for the publisher as well.

P.S. Concerning the title of this thread. There's no reason to be scared.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1595262/ubisoft-drm-cracked
 
Last edited:
DRM scares me too. Enough to the point that i'm careful about what I buy.

Assassins Creed 2 is a great example, it looks like a fun game. My friends who have it on consoles praise it. Given that information it would be a sure buy for me because it's right on my radar in my bullseye zone. However the DRM is a deal breaker for me, I have decided I won't support the individuals behind that kind of thinking. Constant online, creating yet another account (Ubisoft account) to play this game, game crashing if internet hiccups,.... just way to many negatives to justify a purchase even if the game is exemplary.

So i'm scared that if DRM continues down a path that AC2 has laid that I will not be buying some games that otherwise deserve my attention.
 
I've been reading alot of DRM lately. I'm fine with Disc checks, but what I'm sad about was installation limits and limits on activation. Although I have 2 games with activation limits (CC Red alert 3 and Mass Effect), they're great. But when it comes on upgrades/reformatting...it's pretty unsettling.

I guess i'll be paying attention on what I'm buying. Albeit only Disk check games only.
 
allthatisman said:
This. DRM does not stop piracy, period. It's a waste of time and money for them and us. Learn from Steam and move on...
Click to expand...

Steam games are broken relatively fast. Digital Distribution only equates to not having to prepare/ship out a boxed product - which is a win/win for the publisher.

I'd like to see a system in place where you can directly support the developer rather than the greedy publisher...
 
I have a quick question...


I Have experienced steam (Played portal/HL2/team fortress). But I was wondering if i register my retail (boxed) games through steam. Will there be any installation limits/authorizations and online requirements as well?

thanks 🙂
 
Raduque said:
I personally don't believe in the concept of intellectual property.
Click to expand...
Without sidetracking this thread too much, I think you're framing things inaccurately when you state that you do not believe in the concept of intellectual property. I'm pretty sure you would acknowledge the existence of industrial property, inventions (patents), trademarks, poetry, novels, films, music, architectural designs, paintings, photographs and sculptures. All of these things took real effort to create and most of them only exist because the creator was intending to profit from them.

A more honest way of framing the question would be that you believe you should be able to acquire any of these items without compensating the person who created them. I can see the attraction from your perspective (taking a guess here that you don't create any IP), but it seems short-sighted if it applies to other people besides yourself. Sure you could get Mass Effect 2 for free... except it wouldn't exist. Or maybe it would exist, but it would contain 30 minutes of gameplay during which Commander Shepard would be trying to extend the Nike brand to the furthest reaches of the galaxy in his Coca-Cola cruiser. Except that wouldn't exist, because Nike and Coca-Cola would no longer have any branding ability.
 
Last edited:
tommo123 said:
of course there would still be DRM, if only to prevent the 2nd hand game market. that's the reason why i don't buy off steam anymore (as well as their lack of quality control for what they sell).
Click to expand...

Seems like we've got a good discussion going here.

As to this specific comment, note that I didn't imply that DRM wouldn't exist. Just that the extreme forms of DRM (tages, securom etc,) would likely not have been in the same form.

The comments re: the effectiveness of DRM are valid. If DRM prevented pirates without impacting most valid purchasers, I doubt many would have any problem with it at all. That is why many do not have an issue with the physical copy protection on most consoles. Absent a damaged disc, there is no impact on valid end users.
 
Bateluer said:
Simply, I don't buy games with DRM more extensive then a CD key.. I refuse to support it, it just adds costs to the game while decreasing the game's quality.
Click to expand...

Do you have any data/evidence to support your conclusion that DRM adds to the cost of development? What about data comparing the cost of DRM to the cost of piracy?
 
Raduque said:
Yea, you're not biased at all. I personally don't believe in the concept of intellectual property. It's simply a way to limit the free flow or an artistic medium and unfairly ensure a revenue stream for that which does not deserve one (If something was worth money, people would pay for it, as long as the cost was unreasonable).
Click to expand...

You sure you don't believe in intellectual property at all? Or do you simply object to copyright, which is but one form of IP and the basis upon which most publishers impose DRM on end users?

If you disagree with the concept of IP entirely, I would be happy to show you the myriad economic analyses that clearly disprove your conclusion. Heck, even the founding fathers recognized the value of intellectual property. They literally wrote the basis for a patent and copyright system into the constitution.
 
Last edited:
JoshGuru7 said:
Without sidetracking this thread too much, I think you're framing things inaccurately when you state that you do not believe in the concept of intellectual property. I'm pretty sure you would acknowledge the existence of industrial property, inventions (patents), trademarks, poetry, novels, films, music, architectural designs, paintings, photographs and sculptures. All of these things took real effort to create and most of them only exist because the creator was intending to profit from them.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that the really great examples of the bolded above were not made with an eye for profit.
Look how many truly great artists died in poverty, they didn't stop making fantastic art because they didn't get compensated for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top