Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alpheias
65
|
Posted - 2011.09.22 22:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/09/22/how-diablo-iiis-drm-will-affect-you/
WTF?
GÖ½ When your ship gets blown to bits GÖ½ And you lose your Faction fits \Gÿ+/ Don't worry GÖ¬ GÖ½ GÖ¬ GÖ½ GÖ½ GÖ¬ GÖ½ GÖ¬ Be Happy \Gÿ+/ |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
45
|
Posted - 2011.09.22 22:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
"ubisoft did it, so we will do it too!!!!!11oneoneone" [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Alpheias
65
|
Posted - 2011.09.22 22:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:"ubisoft did it, so we will do it too!!!!!11oneoneone"
Bring on Torchlight 2, Grim Dawn and Path of Exile, I say.
GÖ½ When your ship gets blown to bits GÖ½ And you lose your Faction fits \Gÿ+/ Don't worry GÖ¬ GÖ½ GÖ¬ GÖ½ GÖ½ GÖ¬ GÖ½ GÖ¬ Be Happy \Gÿ+/ |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
338
|
Posted - 2011.09.22 22:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
It's almost surely the way all games will act like in a decade or two, it's unavoidable, sadly. AAA-game offline single player mode is dying out, slowly. You'll only get online massively singleplayer (lol, did you know, Nintendo tried to copyright that?) or multiplayer (obviously online, not so sure about the massively part) for most games, even those further down the "production quality" rungs. It's only a matter of how they'll gracefully degrade (and hopefully restore) the performance in case the network connection is shaky or even cuts off, and how will they protect the player from the bad side-effects of a less-than-ideal connection.
So all in all, a resounding "meh". http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Contributor_name:Akita_T#Contributions_link_collection |
Myxx
Atropos Group
56
|
Posted - 2011.09.22 22:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
+1 reason to not give blizzard more of my cash
the other reason i wouldnt try d3 is the real money auction house. |
Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
263
|
Posted - 2011.09.22 22:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
Gonna +1 the resounding 'meh'
companies pulling this crap is irritating. Nobody cares that much about the marginal social networking and e-fame features making it online only adds, they do care when your internet connection screws up (as it inevitably does) and you can't play that game you paid $60 for.
|
SpaceSquirrels
Scordite Excavating Xenaphobe
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.22 23:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
We have no one to blame but ourselves.... Ok maybe just the people that keep ripping off games. I for one buy them. |
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 03:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
its not like it wont be piratable. but DRM is the PC way, as consoles will soon have 1 time use codes to access the online portion ect. |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
101
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 04:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
I am confident i will only download and play a cracked version of this game now. |
Froz3nEcho Sarain
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
86
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 14:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
The reason why I never buy Ubisoft games.. even when I do love some of their games. ******* consoles. ~ When everything fades away, an echo is the only sound that will remain ~ -á-á~ Chaos is a name for any order that produces confusion in our minds ~ |
|
Zagam
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
97
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 14:18:00 -
[11] - Quote
What gets me about Blizzard is that their EULA basically says that you are effectively renting the game, and that Blizz can cut you off whenever they want to, for whatever reason. Its like Sony's failed attempts at full-on DRM on CDs, where you could really only listen to the CDs in your car, or on a dedicated CD player. |
SpaceSquirrels
Scordite Excavating Xenaphobe
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 14:57:00 -
[12] - Quote
^ Technically thats what all software licenses say...minus of course open sourced ones. Technically you dont own your own consoles and a few other devices as well. Some phones dont apply because their under different laws.
Whats also interesting is blizzard offers bounties to people that turn in others with cracked games or that have hacked em. (And blizzard has enough man power to track people down and then proceed to sue the **** out of them...) Did that to some folks that cracked SC2 and distributed it. |
Zagam
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
97
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 15:07:00 -
[13] - Quote
SpaceSquirrels wrote:^ Technically thats what all software licenses say...minus of course open sourced ones. Technically you dont own your own consoles and a few other devices as well. Some phones dont apply because their under different laws.
Whats also interesting is blizzard offers bounties to people that turn in others with cracked games or that have hacked em. (And blizzard has enough man power to track people down and then proceed to sue the **** out of them...) Did that to some folks that cracked SC2 and distributed it. Yes, but Blizzard is very blatant about it, and goes crazy with online-only DRM.
DRM is not so much of a "thing" than a spectrum of things. You have completely consumer-centric DRM (input the CD key, go to town on the game), all the way to profit-centric DRM (here is your CD key, you can only play online, and can only install this 3 times before you are screwed). The best policy is the one in the middle, as it doesn't alienate consumers, yet still maintains a degree of control and prevention of pirating.
Ubisoft/EA/Blizz follows the "the consumer is screwed" model because they really don't care about the players, but rather about profit. They know people will buy their games regardless of the DRM, even if they have to supply a DNA sample each time they sign on.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
338
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 15:26:00 -
[14] - Quote
I am amazed why some people don't complain you can't play EVE or WoW without being connected to the internet :P http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Contributor_name:Akita_T#Contributions_link_collection |
Deviana Sevidon
Panta-Rhei Butterfly Effect Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 16:43:00 -
[15] - Quote
Game piracy was certainly not the only concern. Cheating is another big problem.
A lot of bots, farmers or duped items are circulating in D2, so Blizzard is taking additional measures to protect legitimate players from cheating assholes. |
Zagam
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
99
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 18:54:00 -
[16] - Quote
Akita T wrote:I am amazed why some people don't complain you can't play EVE or WoW without being connected to the internet :P
OMG! Why Can't I play EVE without my dial-up internet??? |
Zagam
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
99
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 18:55:00 -
[17] - Quote
Deviana Sevidon wrote:Game piracy was certainly not the only concern. Cheating is another big problem.
A lot of bots, farmers or duped items are circulating in D2, so Blizzard is taking additional measures to protect legitimate players from cheating assholes.
I understand that completely. And agree completely.
What I don't understand is why internet connection to the battle.net servers is needed for playing the single-player campaign. For anything involving multi-player (even over LAN), I think you should use internet access. But for single-player campaign... not so much.
|
Mikloo Braca
Black Rock Military Industries
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 18:57:00 -
[18] - Quote
I stopped buying ubisoft games a while ago because of the DRM and now I'm not getting Diablo 3. |
Cpt Placeholder
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 21:10:00 -
[19] - Quote
SpaceSquirrels wrote:We have no one to blame but ourselves.... Ok maybe just the people that keep ripping off games. I for one buy them. They may be less at fault than you, I believe. You don't find it bad enough not to buy the game and thus you support the practice.
Ubisoft thinks they can get away with using any crap DRM they want because it won't affect sales negatively and may stop a few pirates that are too stupid to read a text file with 3 instructions. Blizzard is smarter, their goal is to get more players onto B.Net to populate the game and the real money auction house. SC2 requires an online check "only" once a month.
It makes little sense to keep online checks active after cracks are released. When a game got old, some developers used to release patches that removed CD checks but nowadays they don't give a crap about you after you bought the game. |
Bane Necran
52
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 21:21:00 -
[20] - Quote
Since there's going to be a real world cash market for players to sell items they find, insisting people be connected to battlenet all the time when playing is the only way to be sure there's no haxxoring, duping, or general item shenanigans.
I oppose it in other games, but at least it makes sense this time. |
|
Cpt Placeholder
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 21:50:00 -
[21] - Quote
Bane Necran wrote:Since there's going to be a real world cash market for players to sell items they find, insisting people be connected to battlenet all the time when playing is the only way to be sure there's no haxxoring, duping, or general item shenanigans.
I don't see a connection there. Did you ever play D2?
You had a single player mode, an open B.Net mode and a closed B.Net mode. On closed B.Net, the characters were stored on their servers and out of your reach (except for the numerous bugs/exploits D2 had). On the other modes, you had the character data on your computer and could play offline and obviously cheat, open B.Net was full of custom/cheated items. Of course you had no way to transfer your single player characters to closed B.Net (except for a rumored exploit).
Eliminating single player and open B.Net had nothing to do with cheats, it's purely a profit decision. While I personally never cared about open B.Net, I don't like their removal of single player mode. |
Bane Necran
52
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 22:33:00 -
[22] - Quote
Cpt Placeholder wrote:Bane Necran wrote:Since there's going to be a real world cash market for players to sell items they find, insisting people be connected to battlenet all the time when playing is the only way to be sure there's no haxxoring, duping, or general item shenanigans. I don't see a connection there. Did you ever play D2?
Yup.
And you really don't see a connection between item sales for real world funds, and not wanting to allow players to play the game without being policed? |
Cpt Placeholder
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 22:39:00 -
[23] - Quote
I don't see a connection between disallowing single player mode and multi player cheating or item buying. The AH is obviously going to be a multi player feature, I don't see how it would affect single player games if you put a clear separation between single player characters and multi player characters like D2 had. |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 23:20:00 -
[24] - Quote
Quote:My intention with Diablo III is to solo the game. I realise thatGÇÖs not the way many will play it, itGÇÖs not what the Diablo series is most famous for, and itGÇÖs arguably not the primary way Blizzard intends the game to be played.
Stupid article, written by an author who knew it was stupid when he wrote it. He's saying always on DRM is bad, because being online all the time causes problems...
Hell you could play solo in tons of online games if you wanted to. That doesn't mean they're all bad games because you have to be connected and their servers have to be up. It just means it's an ONLINE GAME. Nitpick the details all you want, but D3 doesn't claim to be anything less than a game which needs a constant internet connection.
I'm also tired of hearing about other games in the same genre like I have to choose a side. I love action RPG's and I plan to buy at least two of the three upcoming games mentioned here (Path of Exile, and D3... not sure about Torchlight). Pretending one unreleased game is better than another unreleased game is not making a point, it's just making an assumption. Defending one doesn' t mean you dislike another.
Cpt Placeholder wrote:I don't see a connection between disallowing single player mode and multi player cheating or item buying. The AH is obviously going to be a multi player feature, I don't see how it would affect single player games if you put a clear separation between single player characters and multi player characters like D2 had.
It's basically the same concept as impulse buying. They put sale items on the ends of the aisles in the super market with big price reduced stickers on them so you'll jump and buy them even if you wouldn't have passed their normal shelf location while getting what's on your list.
By forcing everyone to play online they make it very available to participate and just like you might grab a box of cereal, you might just take your solo character and throw his old junk on the market. Add to that other little incentives like giving them a few free real money listings per month and they increase the overall use of their AH system. Both real money and in-game currency, rather than losing all that participation to all the people who would have played offline while their internet broadband connection was wide open anyway. |
Bane Necran
52
|
Posted - 2011.09.24 01:33:00 -
[25] - Quote
Cpt Placeholder wrote:I don't see a connection between disallowing single player mode and multi player cheating or item buying. The AH is obviously going to be a multi player feature, I don't see how it would affect single player games if you put a clear separation between single player characters and multi player characters like D2 had.
What we're talking about is being able to play without being online, or at least i thought so. I'm probably going to do the whole thing solo, because none of my friends are very interested, but i'll still have to be online, which is fine, because i'm online constantly anyway.
What Blizz is doing, allowing every player to sell whatever they find for real world cash, means they're very confident they can make sure no hacking of any sort is going on, and that means a constant connection to them. I'm not sure how much clearer i can make that. |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2011.09.24 01:55:00 -
[26] - Quote
Herping yourDerp wrote:its not like it wont be piratable. but DRM is the PC way, as consoles will soon have 1 time use codes to access the online portion ect.
The only thing companies do when they release their games with strings attached is motivate me to "obtain" and hack the program myself.
Is it right? No. Is what they are requiring of me right? No.
Do they have a right to do it? Yes, it's their software. So what justifies my actions?
My action may be considered wrong, but where does one draw the line on the demands of a multi-billion dollar company?
Take a look through history at the actions taken by individuals and/or groups of people who are ignored that KNOW they have no chance to meet an opponent on equal ground. Dirty strong arm tactics require a dirty underhanded response.
The obvious retort is: "well don't play the game". And that is valid. I say: "power to the people". The very people, I might add, who have given these companies money time and again to make them what they are.
Today's corporate mindset doesn't seem to grasp that. Hell, look at CCP, we had to FORCE them not to ruin their own game. Until we hit them in the pocketbook they didn't give ONE GOD DAMN about what any of us wanted. The consumer rarely factors into the equation for corporations anymore.
Once they get your money it becomes a game of how much bullshit will the consumer put up with before they stop paying. It's a game of greed, power, control. The only thing on the mind of a 21st century CEO.
I'll gladly give them money for a product with no strings attached. If that isn't an option I'll do everything in my power to motivate them to remove the strings. |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.24 03:26:00 -
[27] - Quote
Pr1ncess Alia wrote: Is it right? No. Is what they are requiring of me right? No.
Do they have a right to do it? Yes, it's their software.
Yes+No = Pr1ncess Alia logic
They are putting out a product that they invested time and money into making. If youchoose not to buy it but to pirate an altered version of it for free. That is very simply wrong, legally and morally. You are stealing. In situations where you want to use a pirated version, nothing stops you from also buying a box copy to keep things honest and give them their due.
You won't though, will you?
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:Once they get your money it becomes a game of how much bullshit will the consumer put up with before they stop paying. It's a game of greed, power, control. The only thing on the mind of a 21st century CEO.
I'll gladly give them money for a product with no strings attached. If that isn't an option I'll do everything in my power to motivate them to remove the strings.
You'll talk a big game about greed and control, but then go straight to the ends justifying the means. Stealing to send them a message, makes the stealing 'okay'.
If you were more morals than free entertainment seeking, you would simply not play. |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2011.09.24 04:02:00 -
[28] - Quote
VKhaun Vex wrote:Pr1ncess Alia wrote: Is it right? No. Is what they are requiring of me right? No.
Do they have a right to do it? Yes, it's their software.
Yes+No = Pr1ncess Alia logic They are putting out a product that they invested time and money into making. If youchoose not to buy it but to pirate an altered version of it for free. That is very simply wrong, legally and morally. You are stealing. In situations where you want to use a pirated version, nothing stops you from also buying a box copy to keep things honest and give them their due. You won't though, will you? Pr1ncess Alia wrote:Once they get your money it becomes a game of how much bullshit will the consumer put up with before they stop paying. It's a game of greed, power, control. The only thing on the mind of a 21st century CEO.
I'll gladly give them money for a product with no strings attached. If that isn't an option I'll do everything in my power to motivate them to remove the strings. You'll talk a big game about greed and control, but then go straight to the ends justifying the means. Stealing to send them a message, makes the stealing 'okay'. If you were more morals than free entertainment seeking, you would simply not play.
yes+no?? wtf are you talking about now? Did I say something that wasn't accurate?
You reply with assumptions that you somehow already know who I am and what I do. You also, as you have before, conviently and completely ignore contradictions and explanations contained in the very post of mine you try to pick apart.
You would edit your response down to "never mind I'm dumb" if you saw the collection of games I shell out money for. I make way more money than a person with my little responsibilities and debt needs. And I spend more of my disposable income on media/entertainment than anything else.
More often than not, my previously posted reasons for pirating isn't even the primary reason I pirate. I usually try out software, or check out a movie, before I buy a blueray or do-up an order on Steam. Yes, I actually buy the stuff I enjoy.
And science is on my side too. People that pirate volumes of media more often than not spend much more money on media. (I'll dig up the citation if you need)
I never said what I was doing was morally right, but I did provide my personal justification for my actions. Are you suggesting a company that tries to lever intrusive and restrictive software through their game onto my machine has the moral high ground? If so we disagree, however even if I grant you that, their high ground is more of a mole hill.
While "the ends justify the means" is not cure-all logic to be used in any application, it does not mean that there are not cases where it doesn't hold true. I absolutely think it holds true here. The more people that send the message to companies that we won't tolerate intrusive and contingent software the more of a chance we have at not looking at crap like this as in inevitability of the industry.
You might think I'm the devil for breaking the sacred rules you hold so dear, I see it as sending a message to an incompetent greedy company. In my eyes, they aren't playing fair so neither will I. I never suggested I was engaging in a righteous moral crusade, only a battle of wills and principles. No one is asking for you to agree with it, but it's not too much to ask that you properly understand it.
On that note, it's not stealing. This isn't theft. No one is throwing bricks through the window of GameStop and grabbing boxes. It's copyright infringement. If you do not agree with that much, take it up with the SCOTUS, they made the rule not me. *the more you know* |
VKhaun Vex
Viziam Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.24 04:50:00 -
[29] - Quote
I quoted for yes+no. Questions are not assumptions. Not interested in arguing the vocabulary of theft.
I don't think there is a moral contest for one party or the other to have the high ground. A company putting a product out on the market is a neutral, normal action. They have the right to do anything they want within the law when it comes to that product and it's not morally 'wrong' or 'right' or on any size or formation of moral land. It's just their business strategy to make money from a product. Supply and demand and all that. We're not talking about food, clothing or shelter.
I've often commented about other business strategies that I don't like, I may even have called them 'wrong' or some word like that, but I don't really mean MORALLY wrong, only that I don't like having to spend more to get less. But if I'm willing to spend X to get Y, it's not the fault of anyone but myself. If I'm not and they don't make the sale it's not fault of anyone but them. Neither case involves morality.
Only the person who takes the product and does not give them the cash, has done something 'wrong' in my opinion. If that's not you then great. I am not/don't need to accuse anyone. Just making the point.
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:While "the ends justify the means" is not cure-all logic to be used in any application, it does not mean that there are not cases where it doesn't hold true.
I agree in general, and I now really like you. You didn't just say that to win an argument... You opened it up as a general statement. Critical thinking is beautiful. |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2011.09.24 07:06:00 -
[30] - Quote
VKhaun Vex wrote: I've often commented about other business strategies that I don't like, I may even have called them 'wrong' or some word like that, but I don't really mean MORALLY wrong, only that I don't like having to spend more to get less. But if I'm willing to spend X to get Y, it's not the fault of anyone but myself. If I'm not and they don't make the sale it's not fault of anyone but them. Neither case involves morality.
Only the person who takes the product and does not give them the cash, has done something 'wrong' in my opinion. If that's not you then great. I am not/don't need to accuse anyone. Just making the point.
the forum gobbled up my post I just typed. I do love this topic and I'm very bored at work tonight (it's absolutely dead in here) soooo.... Let's see if I can at all recreate it and just completely threadjack this into a piracy discussion.
I do agree with you for the most part.
You aren't wrong, I only found part of your argument invalid. I am that guy. I definitely obtain a product produced by a company without paying for that specific copy. And I think your right that we can use these terms right and wrong without inherent morality being attached. It's one big gray area.
My piracy is a questionable act. We'll call this a given. Their distribution of intrusive/loaded software is a questionable act. We'll call this a given.
At face value, am I more wrong in the execution of my act than they are? I would concede, yes. Legally speaking it's not even debatable.
Their recourse is to pursue me for violation of copyright. (it's the law) Should they be able to?
-Have I hindered their business? Hurt their business? I don't prevent them from producing the software nor do I prevent them from selling their software. In fact, an argument could be made that I encourage their sales through advertisement. Copyright violation is a violation of the law, not of the copyright holder (thus the need to distinguish it from it not actually being considered theft) Have I in any way wronged that company?No.
Am I more right in the justification for my actions than they are? I would argue, yes
Is my recourse to this limited to not buying their software? (no obviously) Should it be?
-I would make the argument that the lack of legal support for my own consumer rights borders on justification for piracy. While the software they bundle with the game I want may be considered legal, can it in any way have a detrimental effect on my own computer? Can it impact my use of that computer and/or the software therein?Undoubtedly.
The law does not do this topic justice. (pun intended). This is why right vs wrong not only falls apart when we dig deeper, it seems to flip onto it's head. The devil is always in the details.
Copyright laws are contentious in their own right. That they apply to software without more legal specificity is a joke. In fact, some would say where there is no personal gain nor physical copy, copyright laws aren't even applicable.
Consumer advocacy laws are nigh on nonexistent in this application. Consumer rights on what can be considered acceptable or unacceptable for distributed software are... well, how about I wait here while someone goes and tries to find some.
If companies like Blizzard didn't lobby to have laws that sway to their advantage in such matters, I would say I am surprised we haven't seen anti-trust cases against people that attach such strings to their products! The game is rigged on the outset. And now they want to chase down people that have had no impact (or if anything, a positive impact) on their business and sue them claiming lost profits.
In a world of endless legalese, universally ignored EULAs (that are barely readable much less comprehensible to anyone without a law degree) and stated lack of consumer advocacy the game of who is right and wrong because much more confusing. Consumer options are also stifled by these software monstrosities that gobble up or sue into oblivion any game studio that shows promise of competition.
The game is one of control and greed. And the law has never had much to say about greed. This holds true back to the days when the term "caveat emptor" was coined.
Once such a precedence is set in the industry, when we just consider this software a given and accept it, what is next? Can software harvest/utilize my CPU cycles for non-game related purposes just by putting it in the EULA? If my only recourse is to boycott their product, and all the products eventually incorporate this ****... where does that leave me? SoLaJWF, that's where.
The legal cards may be stacked against the pirates, who for the most part only want a reasonable product at a reasonable price (not all pirates are like this as we know). If I'm playing an online game, I accept I need to connect to your servers. If I'm not, then I shouldn't need to. Is including a feature like buyable/sellable items justification for the connection?... depends, can I opt out? Or am I playing "Buy/Sell swords online"? Again, gray area. Where do we draw this line?
"Caveat emptor Alia, you don't like it don't buy it" -hypothetical person fair enough.
"Caveat venditor" is my retort. We have something on our side they do not... and what the entire argument boils down to at the end of the day...Social justice. You can argue against that concept, if it's not obvious my posts here are my argument for it.
If they want to **** with their customer base, we'll do the same thing right back at em. And until the cards are dealt evenly, until we have fair and equal expectations for both the buyer and the seller this problem will exist.
Until then one could even argue we have the responsibility to respond in kind when we see a company trying to see just how much crap they can get away with.
Good stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |