Piracy: The Urgent Imperative

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: jjones
How about these publishers and developers get the money their games are worth - through advertising. Let the games be free, or nominal cost (say $10 - $20), but laden with ads. That way if the game is actually good, it generates more ad revenue by virtue of it being played more often. It's either that or Steam or some similar system, because DRM will never work.

Uh . . . no. Not a chance. Loading the game with ads is a sure fire way to destroy sales, especially in more story/plot driven genre's. Imagine Pepsi billboards splattered along walls in Oblivion. Ugh.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: Canai
Bottom line: DRM will never hinder pirates, only those who purchase the software. Period. They can do all the studies and come up with all the fancy new ideas they want, but it'll never work.

Of course they will never admit this. They will most likely say what we've all heard before... that piracy is some huge monstrous loss for the industry and completely play it up. Maybe they should pay me to do the study? I'll sit around for a couple months and just rehash something said by some various study executive months ago about how Piracy = Bad... same results!

 

[MTDEW]

Id release my game in an unfinished state, then require you register and download a patch to fix it after the games launch.

No wait....uhh....... that hasnt worked so far...




Its simple , do what the movie industry did.

Offer games for a good price.... $19.99 (not $60)

$20 for a dvd makes pirating / burning a copy not worth the hassle when its so much easier to just grab a copy at a local walmart.
And even if the movie is pirated, at $20, chances are the person will buy the retail copy even if he owns a pirated copy if he really likes the film anyway.

Now $60 vs Free + a couple minutes of your time = Pirated software everywhere!

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Meh. I'm so tired of excuses. 'They wouldn't have bought the game anyway.' Yeah, so? They're now playing a game for free, and that decreases their demand for games across the entire industry. Someone playing their newly pirated game ain't exactly running to Gamestop to buy some other game, either. You're lying to yourself if you think that doesn't have a huge impact, or that it shouldn't count just cause they wouldn't have bought it if they had to actually pay. And prices are too high? Please. PC game prices drop like rocks. People could just wait, but they don't, they steal instead.

Frankly, PC gaming is long on piracy and long on excuses for piracy and long on people all riled up because someone though it might be a good idea to find a way to keep people from stealing their stuff. Sheesh.

 

[shortylickens]

On a completely unrelated topic: Has anyone figured out how to play Blu-ray discs without DRM?

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Meh. I'm so tired of excuses. 'They wouldn't have bought the game anyway.' Yeah, so? They're now playing a game for free, and that decreases their demand for games across the entire industry. Someone playing their newly pirated game ain't exactly running to Gamestop to buy some other game, either. You're lying to yourself if you think that doesn't have a huge impact, or that it shouldn't count just cause they wouldn't have bought it if they had to actually pay. And prices are too high? Please. PC game prices drop like rocks. People could just wait, but they don't, they steal instead.

Frankly, PC gaming is long on piracy and long on excuses for piracy and long on people all riled up because someone though it might be a good idea to find a way to keep people from stealing their stuff. Sheesh.

I agree with you. This is the first issue I remember being so adamant about. I really wish more people would voice this opinion here. Why I grow so angrey about it is mostly because I'm sick of hearing excuses. You get to young adulthood and hear all the same excuses you heard when you were a kid and it makes you sick.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Meh. I'm so tired of excuses. 'They wouldn't have bought the game anyway.' Yeah, so? They're now playing a game for free, and that decreases their demand for games across the entire industry. Someone playing their newly pirated game ain't exactly running to Gamestop to buy some other game, either. You're lying to yourself if you think that doesn't have a huge impact, or that it shouldn't count just cause they wouldn't have bought it if they had to actually pay. And prices are too high? Please. PC game prices drop like rocks. People could just wait, but they don't, they steal instead.

Frankly, PC gaming is long on piracy and long on excuses for piracy and long on people all riled up because someone though it might be a good idea to find a way to keep people from stealing their stuff. Sheesh.

I agree with you. This is the first issue I remember being so adamant about. I really wish more people would voice this opinion here. Why I grow so angrey about it is mostly because I'm sick of hearing excuses. You get to young adulthood and hear all the same excuses you heard when you were a kid and it makes you sick.

So do you guys think the solution is making it harder for legit customers to play/install games by imposing install limits, internet activations, root kits, etc..? (you may not, just posing the question) Seems to me the current trend is to punish legit customers while the pirates don't have any hassles at all. So why would anyone want to actually buy a game? I buy games to support good developers and good games, but if it's going to mean I have to install SecuROM on my system to do so, then I just won't buy that game. I'm not going to pirate it either. Anyway it goes, it's a lost sale from me, and for someone with less morals it ends up being a pirated copy. So how does SecuROM stop piracy? It doesn't. No matter what EA says, stopping piracy is not their main goal. The main goal is to stop the used market and casual disc swapping, which is again an attack on paying customers. They want to milk every last cent off the people who are still buying games.

The argument that pirates aren't going to buy the game anyway is completely valid IMO. Sure it's not a good excuse if you are a pirate, but it's a good argument against not using invasive DRM. There are a couple reasons I believe that. First of all, if publishers would realize they aren't going to stop piracy, they can focus more energy on the people actually buying their games. Right now those customers are secondary to the "fight" against piracy, which they will lose every time. They are hiding behind that argument.

Second, if they stop focusing on pirates they may be able regain some trust from pirates themselves. Bear with me here.. When you buy a game with, lets say SecuROM, you are automatically treated like a pirate. You have to "prove" you aren't by entering a serial number, activating on the internet, only getting a limited number of installs, etc.. So if you're already a potential pirate when you buy a game, why not just pirate it? That's not how I look at it myself, but i'm sure many others do. So if publishers get rid of DRM and start treating their paying customer like actual customers and not pirates, then they might find more people trust them and start buying games again. Look at sales of Sins of a Solar Empire as a very good example of this.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: coloumb
The huge difference between consoles and PC's - the DRM is built into the console whereas a PC has no DRM built in. It's more difficult and time consuming [plus you are probably voiding your console warranty] to play a hacked game on a console. Implement a hardware based DRM system on the PC and you should see piracy decrease. Alas - Intel tried something similar with their Pentium chips [mainly to increase security] - but that caused such an outcry from privacy advocates that it was scrapped. I would think PC enthusiasts would be completely against any hardware based DRM schema because this goes against what the PC stands for - complete freedom to do what YOU want rather than what "Big Brother" wants.

The article looks like it's geared towards on-line gaming rather than single player gaming which the PC is popular for - it's almost a requirement that a console game be on-line capable these days.

I wouldn't be surprised if the future of PC gaming [multiplayer] is a "free 2 play" system. You can play the game for free, but if you want upgrades or no advertisements, then you'll have to pay for those luxuries.

It would also be too easy for hackers to crack the code for "pirate servers" so the ads weren't displayed.

It's actually slightly easier to pirate a game on a console; the only difficult part is a one-time thing. In many cases, people buy the pre-modded console and never have to worry about the hard part. At worst, you need to make hardware modifications ***once*** and then pirating on the console is easy.

Pirating on a console
1) Download image
2) Burn image
3) Play game

Pirating on a PC
1) Download image
2) Burn or mount image
3) Run any necessary software to hide emulators, for instance
4) Obtain CD key, either from the NFO or from a keygen on the disc
5) Install the game
6) Patch game to latest version, find crack for this version
7) Copy crack, sometimes this may involve running additional software
8) Play game

These steps on PC vary from game to game. It can be as few as 4 steps (just copy a crack) but it is never as simple as pirating on a console.

 

[thilanliyan]

I would definitely buy more games (more than I already do) if they were cheaper...and unfortunately they don't come down in price quickly at all (like someone previously suggested). $50-60 is too much for a game. I got Clear Sky for $35 off Steam (I prefer to have a hard copy of it but it was cheap) and that's the limit I'm willing to pay now.

I'm not sure of the exact costs involved but do games actually take a lot more money to develop than movies? I figure if they can sell movies for $20-$30 why not games? Imagine if PC games were $15-$30 cheaper than their console counterparts? PC game sales would be doing much better.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Meh. I'm so tired of excuses. 'They wouldn't have bought the game anyway.' Yeah, so? They're now playing a game for free, and that decreases their demand for games across the entire industry. Someone playing their newly pirated game ain't exactly running to Gamestop to buy some other game, either. You're lying to yourself if you think that doesn't have a huge impact, or that it shouldn't count just cause they wouldn't have bought it if they had to actually pay. And prices are too high? Please. PC game prices drop like rocks. People could just wait, but they don't, they steal instead.

Frankly, PC gaming is long on piracy and long on excuses for piracy and long on people all riled up because someone though it might be a good idea to find a way to keep people from stealing their stuff. Sheesh.

I agree with you. This is the first issue I remember being so adamant about. I really wish more people would voice this opinion here. Why I grow so angrey about it is mostly because I'm sick of hearing excuses. You get to young adulthood and hear all the same excuses you heard when you were a kid and it makes you sick.

Let's say consumer A decides that he's not going to buy game X.

The number of people who demand the game is D.

If A decides to pirate X, does that change D? No, the demand doesn't change. The people who were going to buy the game are still buying the game. The people who were not going to buy the game still aren't buying it.

The act of playing a game for free does not do anything to the game's demand. These is no correlation. If anything, the people who weren't going to buy the game anyway will give positive reviews for the game (if it's good) and that will increase demand.

The only argument you can possibly make is that the pirates did intend on buying the game, but chose to pirate it. However, that's not the argument that was made; the argument made was that somehow someone pirating the game causes others to not want to purchase the game. That makes no sense. If anything, more people will want to play the game because there are that many other people playing the game as well (giving it a higher probability of being a fun experience).

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: jjones
How about these publishers and developers get the money their games are worth - through advertising. Let the games be free, or nominal cost (say $10 - $20), but laden with ads. That way if the game is actually good, it generates more ad revenue by virtue of it being played more often. It's either that or Steam or some similar system, because DRM will never work.

Uh . . . no. Not a chance. Loading the game with ads is a sure fire way to destroy sales, especially in more story/plot driven genre's. Imagine Pepsi billboards splattered along walls in Oblivion. Ugh.

While it may not work in Oblivion, Pepsi ads in a game like GTA or Max Payne would have made plenty of sense. There are lots of genres where ads can work.

How many games have easter eggs in them that are nothing more than advertisements for other games in the series or made by the same developer?

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: Denithor

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
thats just it..im not willing to go to all that trouble to play their games, i will play another company's games that doesn't make me go through all that trouble..i want to sit
down and have some quick fun, not have to contact the company just to play the damn game

The point is, you activate once and there is no further intrusion until you want/need to move the game onto a different system. Then you have to contact them for a new key, activate once on the new system and away you go.

That's what the SecuROM model is attempting to do. It's not a viable solution IMO. When you boil it down it just means extra work for the end user. The typical gamer doesn't want to go through all that hassle just to play a game. Look at console sales vs PC as a good indication of that.

The problem is it is not going away.
It doesn't matter how loudly people stomp their feet or yell on forums they are not going to do away with copy protection. The greatest loss of sales to any title is during the first 72 hours of release. Whatever method they use will need to make them think that it gives them that amount of time before the software is cracked.

SecuRom and FlexLM are totally different in both the way they work and the way they are implemented. SecuRom is based on heavy encryption and altering how the actual game works on the system. FlexLM is based on a key file stored on the pc that anyone can make copies of if they like. There is nothing intrusive or a hassle about it. You install the software, enter your serial , it goes online, retrieves the key, and you never have to go online again unless you want to move it to another pc.

And even that has been fixed in the latest FlexLM. Once you have the key file you can move the software to any pc without ever going online again. When you uninstall the software it modifies the key file to tell it you uninstalled. Then you copy the key to another pc and install the software there and it uses that same key file. The key files are only about 1KB in size so easy to move around.

Have you ever heard of StarForce?

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Have you ever heard of StarForce?

Good point. We need to wake up and realize that we can make a difference by protesting DRM. It worked for starforce and it can work for securom. I was hoping the whole Spore controversy would do it, but I guess only time will tell. Until then, i'm going to suggest that anyone who is against securom or any other form or internet activation / limited install DRM, does the right thing and doesn't support it by buying games with that kind of protection. If you do buy those games then you can't complain about DRM since you essentially voted "yes" to the continued use of it.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: Eeezee


Let's say consumer A decides that he's not going to buy game X.

The number of people who demand the game is D.

If A decides to pirate X, does that change D? No, the demand doesn't change. The people who were going to buy the game are still buying the game. The people who were not going to buy the game still aren't buying it.

The act of playing a game for free does not do anything to the game's demand. These is no correlation. If anything, the people who weren't going to buy the game anyway will give positive reviews for the game (if it's good) and that will increase demand.

The only argument you can possibly make is that the pirates did intend on buying the game, but chose to pirate it. However, that's not the argument that was made; the argument made was that somehow someone pirating the game causes others to not want to purchase the game. That makes no sense. If anything, more people will want to play the game because there are that many other people playing the game as well (giving it a higher probability of being a fun experience).

The logic we're missing here is that consumers intentions are driven by consumer behavior. Consumer behavior is broad and rigorous which involves a combination or mix of psychology, sociology, sociopsychology, anthropology and economics. Theft, which piracy is a form of, is a internal influence (motivation). If I can pirate, I no longer have to worry about problem solving or decision making. If I don't have to give up money for gas, food, movies, and so fourth, then piracy becomes a more attractive resolution. This is bypassing the basic model of consumer decision making: problem recognition, Information search, information evaluation, decision making, and post-purchase evaluation.

Piracy is a bad influence on demand because market demand is based on what people are willing to give up for that product. "D" itself , then becomes a inflated and worthless statistic . We learned in the great depression that money under the pillow or in a safe is worth nothing because there was nothing to buy when everybody else was to afraid to make an exchange. If you had 100 million dollars now, what would you do with it? Keep it in the bank? No, you'll spend, invest, or find some way to procure it. Money is for the exchange of goods and services, simple as that. Piracy is just as useful as that money under the pillow. Without exchange, you're ultimately harming the economy intentionally or not and that is why it is illegal to pirate today.


We now have publishers today too scared to sell PC games at all because of piracy let a lone "deterrents" such as DRM's. So you can count your lucky stars that some over your favorite titles are still coming to the PC. To sweep piracy under the rug like it was a non-issue, I think, is just as ludicrous as the act itself and is the wrong way of thinking. For example, If you lived in New Jersey 6-7 years ago, you would of known how hard it was to get car insurance or at least insurance at a reasonable rate as a new driver ( less than 5 years experience). Why? Consumer laws. People thought by passing laws to prevent insurance companies from "taking advantage" of their consumers, it would be beneficial while it did exactly the opposite. Nobody wanted to compete in NJ for auto insurance. So the little insurance they offered in NJ sky rocketed. My point is, every consumer and seller has something to offer, or exchange. If you don't meet half way with either the buyer or seller, you'll have a system waiting to derail or a bubble waiting to burst. DRM's are a way the seller is trying to meet half way with the consumer. If you don't like it, don't buy it or make matters worse by pirating it. Voice your opinion that you think DRM's are not beneficial to the buyer. Some of you did all ready on a particular game from how many times you can reinstall the game. So what did they do? They met you half way by giving you double the installs. Still do not like it? Some even offered a patch to get rid of it.

This is how a healthy economy and market demand is established - fair and reasonable exchanges.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Meh. I'm so tired of excuses. 'They wouldn't have bought the game anyway.' Yeah, so? They're now playing a game for free, and that decreases their demand for games across the entire industry. Someone playing their newly pirated game ain't exactly running to Gamestop to buy some other game, either. You're lying to yourself if you think that doesn't have a huge impact, or that it shouldn't count just cause they wouldn't have bought it if they had to actually pay. And prices are too high? Please. PC game prices drop like rocks. People could just wait, but they don't, they steal instead.

Frankly, PC gaming is long on piracy and long on excuses for piracy and long on people all riled up because someone though it might be a good idea to find a way to keep people from stealing their stuff. Sheesh.

I agree with you. This is the first issue I remember being so adamant about. I really wish more people would voice this opinion here. Why I grow so angrey about it is mostly because I'm sick of hearing excuses. You get to young adulthood and hear all the same excuses you heard when you were a kid and it makes you sick.

Let's say consumer A decides that he's not going to buy game X.

The number of people who demand the game is D.

If A decides to pirate X, does that change D? No, the demand doesn't change. The people who were going to buy the game are still buying the game. The people who were not going to buy the game still aren't buying it.

The act of playing a game for free does not do anything to the game's demand. These is no correlation. If anything, the people who weren't going to buy the game anyway will give positive reviews for the game (if it's good) and that will increase demand.

The only argument you can possibly make is that the pirates did intend on buying the game, but chose to pirate it. However, that's not the argument that was made; the argument made was that somehow someone pirating the game causes others to not want to purchase the game. That makes no sense. If anything, more people will want to play the game because there are that many other people playing the game as well (giving it a higher probability of being a fun experience).

No, no, no.

It isn't demand only for the game in question, but demand for games in general, or possibly even entertainment in general. I would've thought that the statement that a man who pirates a game doesn't go out and buy any other games would've made that obvious.

We all have finite amounts of time, and if you're spending that time playing a pirated game, there is no need to buy any games period. The time is spent. Thus, demand for entertainment across the board goes down.

Or put more simply, a man who steals a pepsi isn't about to run out and buy a pepsi. But he's also not about to run out and buy a coke, either. The theft of the pepsi affects the soda industry, even if the man would never have bought a pepsi if he couldn't steal one.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
Meh. I'm so tired of excuses. 'They wouldn't have bought the game anyway.' Yeah, so? They're now playing a game for free, and that decreases their demand for games across the entire industry. Someone playing their newly pirated game ain't exactly running to Gamestop to buy some other game, either. You're lying to yourself if you think that doesn't have a huge impact, or that it shouldn't count just cause they wouldn't have bought it if they had to actually pay. And prices are too high? Please. PC game prices drop like rocks. People could just wait, but they don't, they steal instead.

Frankly, PC gaming is long on piracy and long on excuses for piracy and long on people all riled up because someone though it might be a good idea to find a way to keep people from stealing their stuff. Sheesh.

I agree with you. This is the first issue I remember being so adamant about. I really wish more people would voice this opinion here. Why I grow so angrey about it is mostly because I'm sick of hearing excuses. You get to young adulthood and hear all the same excuses you heard when you were a kid and it makes you sick.

Let's say consumer A decides that he's not going to buy game X.

The number of people who demand the game is D.

If A decides to pirate X, does that change D? No, the demand doesn't change. The people who were going to buy the game are still buying the game. The people who were not going to buy the game still aren't buying it.

The act of playing a game for free does not do anything to the game's demand. These is no correlation. If anything, the people who weren't going to buy the game anyway will give positive reviews for the game (if it's good) and that will increase demand.

The only argument you can possibly make is that the pirates did intend on buying the game, but chose to pirate it. However, that's not the argument that was made; the argument made was that somehow someone pirating the game causes others to not want to purchase the game. That makes no sense. If anything, more people will want to play the game because there are that many other people playing the game as well (giving it a higher probability of being a fun experience).

No, no, no.

It isn't demand only for the game in question, but demand for games in general, or possibly even entertainment in general. I would've thought that the statement that a man who pirates a game doesn't go out and buy any other games would've made that obvious.

We all have finite amounts of time, and if you're spending that time playing a pirated game, there is no need to buy any games period. The time is spent. Thus, demand for entertainment across the board goes down.

Or put more simply, a man who steals a pepsi isn't about to run out and buy a pepsi. But he's also not about to run out and buy a coke, either. The theft of the pepsi affects the soda industry, even if the man would never have bought a pepsi if he couldn't steal one.

That would be ideal, everyone just ignore games with harmful and/or troublesome DRM and go buy games without such DRM. THAT would send a powerful message that would kill off this DRM craze real quick.

Making it mandatory to put on the case what DRM (if any) is being used and what it does would go a long way to help remove DRM from games. I'd wager good money the vast majority of people who buy PC games don't research a game to find out what DRM is on it, and if they could see on the back of the box what "extras" they are getting at least 40% of people will chose to avoid such things as online activation and install limits (there are those who don't care and/or don't know any better).

But there are some good games out there with unpleasant DRM (FarCry 2 anyone?), and they will be pirated if for nothing more then out of spite.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: Regs
We now have publishers today too scared to sell PC games at all because of piracy let a lone "deterrents" such as DRM's. So you can count your lucky stars that some over your favorite titles are still coming to the PC. To sweep piracy under the rug like it was a non-issue, I think, is just as ludicrous as the act itself and is the wrong way of thinking.

And we have publishers who aren't scared at all. Like Stardock, who released Sins of a Solar Empire with no DRM at all and has sold over half a million copies so far.

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/n...re-Sells-500-000-Units

Originally posted by: Regs
DRM's are a way the seller is trying to meet half way with the consumer. If you don't like it, don't buy it or make matters worse by pirating it. Voice your opinion that you think DRM's are not beneficial to the buyer. Some of you did all ready on a particular game from how many times you can reinstall the game. So what did they do? They met you half way by giving you double the installs. Still do not like it? Some even offered a patch to get rid of it.

Exactly, which is why anyone against DRM shouldn't buy games that include it any longer. It's the only thing publishers will listen to.

The thing is, the publishers aren't meeting anyone halfway. They want to milk every last cent out of their paying customers. As long as that happens, they'll give the public the "perception" that they're easing up on DRM, when in fact its worse now then it's ever been (besides maybe starforce). Two more installs doesn't make up for the fact that I can't realistically sell my legally purchased game, or the fact that i'm actually "renting" the game. If you actually think that they are doing any of this to meet us halfway then they have you believing exactly what they want you to believe.

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
No, no, no.

It isn't demand only for the game in question, but demand for games in general, or possibly even entertainment in general. I would've thought that the statement that a man who pirates a game doesn't go out and buy any other games would've made that obvious.

We all have finite amounts of time, and if you're spending that time playing a pirated game, there is no need to buy any games period. The time is spent. Thus, demand for entertainment across the board goes down.

Or put more simply, a man who steals a pepsi isn't about to run out and buy a pepsi. But he's also not about to run out and buy a coke, either. The theft of the pepsi affects the soda industry, even if the man would never have bought a pepsi if he couldn't steal one.

Pirates will pirate, and people will steal. It's not going away anytime soon. If Pepsi knows a bunch of people are stealing their product, do you think they are going to go out and produce a "protected" can? You can open it, but it tastes like shit until you activate it using a special code you have to download over the internet. No, they accept the fact that a certain amount of people are going to steal their product and there is little they can do about that, so they focus their advertising and marketing offers towards the people who are still willing to buy pepsi.

I understand you're point here, that as more people pirate games the demand for games as a whole drops. You could argue both sides of that.. but.. what i'm trying to point out is that what games publishers are doing right now doesn't make any sense. You can't expect that throwing up more roadblocks will help at all. Look at the current state of the music industry as a good example. Or at least the big music publishers.

 

[quadomatic]

I think that if publishers moved to digital distribution platforms like Steam, they would be much better off. Steam is a great alternative to crappy DRM. Hell, it's been working for Valve just fine.

Now that I have paypal, I check Steam first before I buy a game.

Even better, I think everyone needs to realize the days you can sell boxed data on optical discs is over. The gaming, film and music industries all need to change to cheap or ad-supported subscription services, or something crazy that no one has even thought of.

Honestly, I can kind of relate this to TV. Who would pay for individual episodes of a show when they can see it all on TV for free?...wait...people do that.

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: quadomatic
I think that if publishers moved to digital distribution platforms like Steam, they would be much better off. Steam is a great alternative to crappy DRM. Hell, it's been working for Valve just fine.

Now that I have paypal, I check Steam first before I buy a game.

Even better, I think everyone needs to realize the days you can sell boxed data on optical discs is over. The gaming, film and music industries all need to change to cheap or ad-supported subscription services, or something crazy that no one has even thought of.

Honestly, I can kind of relate this to TV. Who would pay for individual episodes of a show when they can see it all on TV for free?...wait...people do that.

lol... I can remember when people would give me the strangest look when I said "My dad pays for Satellite TV" service [this is back when you had to buy the HUGE dish]. Now look where we are at - people will give you weird looks if you don't have cable or direct-tv service.

I wouldn't mind buying games from steam - but there are 2 reasons why I currently do not for the most part - I can't resell the game and they cost the same as the store bought versions. About the only time that I do is when they have a special deal on a combo pack or the game price is reduced.

I really can't understand why companies such as GameFly won't offer PC games as part of their rental service considering how reportedly easy [or easier] it is to pirate games on the xbox360, ps3, gba, etc. I'm aware there are PC game subscription services - but those services provide access to the older library of games. How about a service that includes the latest games? I would gladly pay [and can afford] the cheap bastard rate [$16.00 for 1 game checked out at gamefly]...

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
When you buy a game with, lets say SecuROM, you are automatically treated like a pirate. You have to "prove" you aren't by entering a serial number, activating on the internet, only getting a limited number of installs, etc..

You aren't treated like a criminal when you buy a game with SecuRom. Unless you start doing alot of investigating (like those of us around here), you'll never even realize the game has any anti-pirating measures whatsoever. I see it about the same as video cameras in stores, or "stoplight" cameras at intersections; if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Now, I was completely against SecuRom when it first came out, because of the limited number of installs. I have games that I still play from 1999, that I've probably installed 15 times or more each. But now that almost all of the publishers have gotten that straightened out through refunding, for lack of a better word, your installs, I see nothing wrong with it. Hard drives don't fail very often, and if yours are, you should be spending more money on hardware, and less on games to begin with.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: myocardia
You aren't treated like a criminal when you buy a game with SecuRom. Unless you start doing alot of investigating (like those of us around here), you'll never even realize the game has any anti-pirating measures whatsoever. I see it about the same as video cameras in stores, or "stoplight" cameras at intersections; if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Now, I was completely against SecuRom when it first came out, because of the limited number of installs. I have games that I still play from 1999, that I've probably installed 15 times or more each. But now that almost all of the publishers have gotten that straightened out through refunding, for lack of a better word, your installs, I see nothing wrong with it. Hard drives don't fail very often, and if yours are, you should be spending more money on hardware, and less on games to begin with.

Bullshit. SecuRom can destroy your CD drive and some versions won't run if you have daemon tools or Alcohol 120% or even ran Process Explorer since your last reboot. This is shit that

What the common user would end up with is a machine that just doesn't function right and they won't know it is because SecuRom did it, they will think their PC just sucks.

On top of that, try and figure out how to uninstall SecuRom, ask your average user to uninstall it and see if they can.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: skace


Bullshit. SecuRom can destroy your CD drive

I believe that was Starforce, not SecuRom. Both suck and are detrimental to games, but Starforce has its own reserved circle in hell.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I believe that was Starforce, not SecuRom. Both suck and are detrimental to games, but Starforce has its own reserved circle in hell.

Well, SecuRom can cause Windows to fail to read a perfectly working CDRom. In other words, the cdrom can work in BIOS, work in safe mode, boot into windows and it won't read shit because of what SecuRom does to it.

 

[emilyek]

No DRM that makes the pirated version better than the official one.

No more crappy console ports.

No more genre-homogenized self-conscious 'big seller' FPSs about Space Marines or Alien Invasions or WWII or Modern Gun Combat Simulators or Supernatural Horror or Xtreme Street Racing.

No more games designed for an imaginary computer that exists five years down the road.

No more pricing schemes that try to to make up losses by breaking products into pieces; by nickel-and-diming consumers with DLC that should have come with the game; using in-game ads.

No more pandering to the PC gamer base and then releasing a product riddled with consolitis; also see: hyping weak points as special features.

No more early releases, expecting users to patch through everything that should have come in the box.

No more achievements; they are console runoff and have no place whatsoever in a PC game with a story central to it.

No more self-conscious focus on 'replayablity'; if a game touts 'replayability' they might as well just say that the game is short and lacks complexity.

Less movie and more game; "cinematic" is out of control.


That's the stuff that developers need to address if they want PC gaming to survive.

Perhaps, if they don't want it to survive, they can blame everything on piracy and move completely to console development and they'll have what looks like a good reason for doing so.

 

[Coldkilla]

It'd be cool for there to be a technology in which the game is run off of a remote server while still utilizing your personal system's resources. Which would eliminate any actual files that could be modified in an individuals computer.