Is DRM Destroying Archival Games?

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: MStele
I think we both sit on different sides of the fence, but you make a good arguement. I think both of us makes a great point depending on perspective. I guess we'll just have to see how it goes in the future.

Agreed. Well, good luck getting Mask of Eternity to work again. I still have a the large boxed copy of that game in my basement. Great game.

 

[MStele]

You can create an offline account with GFWL and save all games locally. Standalone patches are also availiable. Going online is not required. What I don't like is that you still are required to have GFWL installed even if you don't use the online service.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
More simply, plenty of DRM exists which does not have the issues he is complaining about. Therefore, his complaint is at best with one very specific implementation of DRM, not DRM in general. In all likelihood, it is focused on the non-DRM portion of a package that includes DRM.

His argument is with DRM that is implemented without addressing potential issues that may arise when the DRM no longer functions like it's supposed to. Auth/patch servers going offline, GFL going offline, etc..

You are right, many DRM implementations will not be susceptible to the specific issues he experienced, but the article is about what may potentially happen to other games using DRM "solutions" in the future. i.e. us not being able to play our legally purchased games. That's the real issue here.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

No, it's not about that, and that's the whole problem. As I've noted, GFWL is considerably more then just DRM, and his problem his with the entire system, not just the DRM portion of it, and yet her portrays it as if GFWL was nothing but DRM.

He provides zero evidence that it's the DRM portion of GFWL that is the sole cause of his problem, and doesn't even stop to consider if maybe the problem is actually mandated auto-patching.
This is flat out disingenuous. The game did not stop him from playing due to a failure to authorize DRM. It stopped him from playing because he lacked a patch which was required.
And given that the game logged him in, and did in fact allow him to play the game *at all* suggests fairly heavily that the DRM actually worked *fine*. He was cleared as a legitimate user, began downloading the patch.....and that was the problem.


After that, precisely two paragraphs - one entirely composed of a snarky quote, the other half dedicated to his unsupported, and in fact illogical conclusion that the DRM was responsible for his gaming woes - make the whole of his 'arguement'.

And the whole thing is wrapped in two large paragraphs spouting off nothing but how evil DRM is.



Now, could you write a very interesting article on the risks, legal implications and possible solutions to DRM issues that may arise in legacy gaming situations? Sure, absolutely.
This, however, is not it. This is claptrap propaganda.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: MStele

Copyright law is copyright law. If you find something to the contrary please let me know, but only congress can change those sort of policies. All a court can do is rule on individual cases on the low end and on the high end deem some policies unconstitutional. I think the case your talking about had to do with Autodesk and the ruling was in Washington state, and it was about an individual selling the software he had purchased. Judge said that it was legal for him to sell it. We all know its legal to sell software, afterall, look at the used games market. My point was that with software there are two parts, the media and the software itself. You own the media but license the software. The judge ruled that he had the right to sell it, but that only congress can decide on making the license portion more explicit in regards to resale. In any case, the court was in Washington state and doesn't count anywhere else.

Interesting that you bring this up...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...8088257642007463E3.DTL

...Valve/Steam are based in WA, and if this is upheld it essentially invalidates Valve's EULA with regards to game re-sale. (IMO)

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

It would certainly require changes, yes. Not the kind gamers will be happy with though.

The judge made pretty clear it was ownership, in his opinion, because the software was licensed forever. If this doesn't get overturned on appeal, you can bet those software licenses are all of a sudden going to have explicit time limits. Hardly the kind of thing I'd expect people to be cheering.

 

[MStele]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
It would certainly require changes, yes. Not the kind gamers will be happy with though.

The judge made pretty clear it was ownership, in his opinion, because the software was licensed forever. If this doesn't get overturned on appeal, you can bet those software licenses are all of a sudden going to have explicit time limits. Hardly the kind of thing I'd expect people to be cheering.

Yep. Oddly enough thought, most enterprise level software and many home applications require annual license renewal. Gamers are really the only software users not subjected to license limits, even though support is often pulled 3-5 years afte release. In a world where we have digital distribution, limited time licensing might need to come regardless since its expensive to maintain software in pepetuity.

It would be like leasing a car indefinetely, but while your not driving it you park it in your neighbors yard. Every so often, you lease more cars and as you get new ones you park the old ones in your neighbors yard also. Your neighbor is happy at first because your leasing cars from a buddy of his and he gets a cut, but down the line it gets annoying to have all this stuff in your yard that no one even uses. I some point it because a large burden.

Now maybe tech will improve so much that software today won't take up much space then, but would it be appropriate to ask a company to continue supporting software for abscure platforms that aren't viable anymore? People worry about Steam going away and not having access to software. I think the problem is the inverse. Steam will be around a long time. At what point do we forgive and forget? I think 5-year licenses from time of purchase are reasonable, with the option to renew for a drastically reduced rate, assuming the software is still profitable and continued support is merited. Good software will stick around longer, bad software won't, simple as that.

I've got tons of old games from my DOS/Win95 days. Sure, i can play quite a few of them through emulation and old computers...and every so often I get a nastalgia kick from it. But if you like me, nastalgia goes away quickly and you realize thats its just antiquated software, so you go back to your current stuff. Its rare to actually play an old game that holds its own with todays stuff. In a way, gamers are nothing but hoarders. I think its time we clean house.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: MStele

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
It would certainly require changes, yes. Not the kind gamers will be happy with though.

The judge made pretty clear it was ownership, in his opinion, because the software was licensed forever. If this doesn't get overturned on appeal, you can bet those software licenses are all of a sudden going to have explicit time limits. Hardly the kind of thing I'd expect people to be cheering.

Yep. Oddly enough thought, most enterprise level software and many home applications require annual license renewal. Gamers are really the only software users not subjected to license limits, even though support is often pulled 3-5 years afte release. In a world where we have digital distribution, limited time licensing might need to come regardless since its expensive to maintain software in pepetuity.

It would be like leasing a car indefinetely, but while your not driving it you park it in your neighbors yard. Every so often, you lease more cars and as you get new ones you park the old ones in your neighbors yard also. Your neighbor is happy at first because your leasing cars from a buddy of his and he gets a cut, but down the line it gets annoying to have all this stuff in your yard that no one even uses. I some point it because a large burden.

Now maybe tech will improve so much that software today won't take up much space then, but would it be appropriate to ask a company to continue supporting software for abscure platforms that aren't viable anymore? People worry about Steam going away and not having access to software. I think the problem is the inverse. Steam will be around a long time. At what point do we forgive and forget? I think 5-year licenses from time of purchase are reasonable, with the option to renew for a drastically reduced rate, assuming the software is still profitable and continued support is merited. Good software will stick around longer, bad software won't, simple as that.

I've got tons of old games from my DOS/Win95 days. Sure, i can play quite a few of them through emulation and old computers...and every so often I get a nastalgia kick from it. But if you like me, nastalgia goes away quickly and you realize thats its just antiquated software, so you go back to your current stuff. Its rare to actually play an old game that holds its own with todays stuff. In a way, gamers are nothing but hoarders. I think its time we clean house.

If we accept licenses that are only valid for a fixed period, how does this benefit us in any way? Why should we "clean house", as you say? I don't understand why you advocate marketing practices that in no way prove advantageous to the paying customer, are you a paying customer? The only thing companies need to do is release a patch to remove DRM once the game has been on the market for a few years, after all, anybody who wants to download a pirate copy has already "been there and done that" by this stage. Why can't DRM include a guarantee to remove protection in the event that the company goes bust or in the situation outlined above? I think you see things from a single perspective and are only concerned with what's good for the companies, whilst failing to address the legitimate concerns of customers who hand over increasingly greater amounts of money for games.

 

[MStele]

If we accept licenses that are only valid for a fixed period, how does this benefit us in any way? Why should we "clean house", as you say? I don't understand why you advocate marketing practices that in no way prove advantageous to the paying customer, are you a paying customer? The only thing companies need to do is release a patch to remove DRM once the game has been on the market for a few years, after all, anybody who wants to download a pirate copy has already "been there and done that" by this stage. Why can't DRM include a guarantee to remove protection in the event that [/list]the company goes bust or in the situation outlined above? I think you see things from a single perspective and are only concerned with what's good for the companies, whilst failing to address the legitimate concerns of customers who hand over increasingly greater amounts of money for games.

[/quote]

Well, we have been paying the same amount for games for 10 years now. Console rates have gone up , not pc, and in many cases games are being released at a 39.99 which is below the median. So the arguement that we hand over increasingly amounts of money is false, unless your simply buying more software now than you used to. I am a paying customer, and I can't stand it when people pirate, so I should say that upfront.

Its not about advocating disadvantageous marketing practices. Its about realizing that everything has oportunity cost in this world. Gaming is a consumption luxury, and in no way can it be considered mandatory. If you want to buy things that have intrinsic value, go buy some books or a guitar. It is not that i'm siding with companies. In regards to software, technology has changed and developers finally have the ability regulate their product in a way that they have had the right and authority to do from the beginning. Software licensing is not a new idea, so we should stop acting like the big bad software companies want to come steal your kids. We've simply become jaded and confortable over time with the way its always been done, and times are changing. I'm just trying to be a existentialist in a sea of moralists.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: MStele
So the arguement that we hand over increasingly amounts of money is false

Check out the price of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 on Amazon and then ask me what I think of your analytical skills.

 

[MStele]

This isn't the first game to say $60 for PC just to come out at 50 at release. We'll just have to wait and see. I've found many articles that state that MW2 will not be released at the previously announced price of 60, but who knows. Officially it is though. One game hardly sets precedent, but if we start seeing a pattern i'll concede to your point. Up to now we have seen very few PC releases >50 that weren't collectors/deluxe editions.

I know I personally won't buy it if it comes out at 60, even though I loved the first one. Twelve months from now we'll see how many games come out at 60 and if it becomes normal then i won't complain. I'll just stop spending money on games.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: MStele
This isn't the first game to say $60 for PC just to come out at 50 at release. We'll just have to wait and see. I've found many articles that state that MW2 will not be released at the previously announced price of 60, but who knows. Officially it is though. One game hardly sets precedent, but if we start seeing a pattern i'll concede to your point. Up to now we have seen very few PC releases >50 that weren't collectors/deluxe editions.

I know I personally won't buy it if it comes out at 60, even though I loved the first one.

Do you want me to post links to other titles that cost over 50 at release, or should we just leave it here?

 

[MStele]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: MStele
This isn't the first game to say $60 for PC just to come out at 50 at release. We'll just have to wait and see. I've found many articles that state that MW2 will not be released at the previously announced price of 60, but who knows. Officially it is though. One game hardly sets precedent, but if we start seeing a pattern i'll concede to your point. Up to now we have seen very few PC releases >50 that weren't collectors/deluxe editions.

I know I personally won't buy it if it comes out at 60, even though I loved the first one.

Do you want me to post links to other titles that cost over 50 at release, or should we just leave it here?

What other PC titles that are non collectors edition have come out at 60? If there are the list is small i'm a avid PC gamer

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: MStele
So the arguement that we hand over increasingly amounts of money is false, unless your simply buying more software now than you used to. I am a paying customer, and I can't stand it when people pirate, so I should say that upfront.

In regards to software, technology has changed and developers finally have the ability regulate their product in a way that they have had the right and authority to do from the beginning. Software licensing is not a new idea, so we should stop acting like the big bad software companies want to come steal your kids. We've simply become jaded and confortable over time with the way its always been done, and times are changing. I'm just trying to be a existentialist in a sea of moralists.

First paragraph - Apparently we're all eternally leasing and not buying software. Also, I fail to see the connection of piracy with the OP. DRM hurts paying customers, largely doesn't prevent piracy, and is a means of enabling control over things the publisher shouldn't have control over (e.g. install limits, backups, enabling or disabling my software usage, preventing resell, etc.).

Second paragraph - As an existentialist, my world view is one where I am buying something rather than leasing it eternally. Software licensing isn't a new idea, but neither is the first-sale doctrine. Also, nice straw man on the "steal your kids" argument too. We're not so extreme as to think the software companies are out to do the world in, but we're not so gullible as to think their intentions aren't in pursuit of extracting as much cash from consumers as possible either. DRM has enabled for-pay map packs, day one DLC which is already on the disc ready to be unlocked, and games which can't be resold. I'd say the consumer is on average paying much more than they paid in the past. It's just that the marketing departments have made the fleecing as palatable as possible for the sheeple to submit to.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: MStele
This isn't the first game to say $60 for PC just to come out at 50 at release. We'll just have to wait and see. I've found many articles that state that MW2 will not be released at the previously announced price of 60, but who knows. Officially it is though. One game hardly sets precedent, but if we start seeing a pattern i'll concede to your point. Up to now we have seen very few PC releases >50 that weren't collectors/deluxe editions.

I know I personally won't buy it if it comes out at 60, even though I loved the first one. Twelve months from now we'll see how many games come out at 60 and if it becomes normal then i won't complain. I'll just stop spending money on games.

Yes, I've seen many articles stating that licensing for consoles is around $10 per game, so I would expect the maximum price for any PC game to be $50, which for MW2 is probably fair since it's going to be a highly sought after title. However, charging $60 for the PC version is just plain milking the consumer as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: MStele

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: MStele
This isn't the first game to say $60 for PC just to come out at 50 at release. We'll just have to wait and see. I've found many articles that state that MW2 will not be released at the previously announced price of 60, but who knows. Officially it is though. One game hardly sets precedent, but if we start seeing a pattern i'll concede to your point. Up to now we have seen very few PC releases >50 that weren't collectors/deluxe editions.

I know I personally won't buy it if it comes out at 60, even though I loved the first one.

Do you want me to post links to other titles that cost over 50 at release, or should we just leave it here?

What other PC titles that are non collectors edition have come out at 60? If there are the list is small i'm a avid PC gamer

You stated that pc games have not increased in price in recent years. Indeed, you actually stated that it was a "false argument". I provided an example that refuted this position. There are other examples: games in Europe used to cost ?30, now most are released at ?50 or more. If you want to cling to your initial position that is your priviledge.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

You got those prices indexed to inflation properly?

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
You got those prices indexed to inflation properly?

Are you jumping on the "pc games are not more expensive now" bandwagon?

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
You got those prices indexed to inflation properly?

Do you have data on quantities sold each year and customer base increases? Over the last 30 years we've seen the games industry grow from a niche market to a huge GDP contributor that is beginning to rival Hollywood in terms of profits per year. If inflation was the only factor at work, I assure you the games industry would be dead completely by now.

 

[MStele]

[First paragraph - Apparently we're all eternally leasing and not buying software. Also, I fail to see the connection of piracy with the OP. DRM hurts paying customers, largely doesn't prevent piracy, and is a means of enabling control over things the publisher shouldn't have control over (e.g. install limits, backups, enabling or disabling my software usage, preventing resell, etc.).

Second paragraph - As an existentialist, my world view is one where I am buying something rather than leasing it eternally. Software licensing isn't a new idea, but neither is the first-sale doctrine. Also, nice straw man on the "steal your kids" argument too. We're not so extreme as to think the software companies are out to do the world in, but we're not so gullible as to think their intentions aren't in pursuit of extracting as much cash from consumers as possible either. DRM has enabled for-pay map packs, day one DLC which is already on the disc ready to be unlocked, and games which can't be resold. I'd say the consumer is on average paying much more than they paid in the past. It's just that the marketing departments have made the fleecing as palatable as possible for the sheeple to submit to.
[/quote]

I guess this thread is running in circles so I'll just make this my final post..thanks all who contributed.

For some reason some people think that because developers are out to make money it somehow invalidates their right to own what they create. You mention your world view where you are buying rather than leasing it eternally, but as an existentialist we must except the world as it is and not as we would see it, and with that information you decide how you wish to operate within it. Morality is dependent on perspective and the entity that defines it.

My arguement is that we need to stop acting like we have choice in places we don't. In regards to software and specifically copyright law, society has dictated that it work as it does thus far, and that as consumers (to consume), we have only two real choices. A ) You buy software but realize that by doing so you are agreeing to the rules as they've been set, regardless of whether you agree with them or not (morality call). B ) You don't buy software and thus withhold the one thing of value that developers really need from you. Since we are end users, there is virtually no arguement that can be made that video games are a necessity and life, so you can't say your being forced into anything.

Its as simple as that. I'm ok with developers doing whatever they want to do with their product, because ultimately if they screw it up its them that suffer and not me. Fortunately, the market tends to correct itself so all of these nasty things you think they are doing will in the long run be accepted or not accepted by the market and thats that.

So the most important thing is that if you feel that Company X isn't doing something they way you prefer, don't buy from Company X. Period. Thats how capitalism works. If you don't like how copyright law and EULA operate, then stop buying products that rely on them or move to GNU licensing and go to a free platform where you really can do what you want. I think its a battle of will. I'm willing to bet that many people who complain about MW2 $60 will still pay it. That's just sad.

Have a good day. I respect all of your opinions, even if I don't agree with them.

 

[Red Irish]

nm

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
You got those prices indexed to inflation properly?

Are you jumping on the "pc games are not more expensive now" bandwagon?

No I'm pointing out that pure, numerical prices need to be adjusted quite a bit to get the actual cost. 2003 dollars and 2009 dollars are different units, so taking for granted that $60 2009 dollars is greater then $50 2003 dollars should not be done.

I have no idea whatsoever whether things are more expensive or not. Just figure that evidence should at least be on the level.

Do you have data on quantities sold each year and customer base increases? Over the last 30 years we've seen the games industry grow from a niche market to a huge GDP contributor that is beginning to rival Hollywood in terms of profits per year. If inflation was the only factor at work, I assure you the games industry would be dead completely by now.

Oh, it's absolutely a bigger industry. But that's not really the point. Increased volume and increased pricing are entirely different things.

 

[PingSpike]

If I was pumping shit tons of tired crap every year, I'd want all the old better shit I already sold to stop working too. I mean, I can't be bothered to sell or support those old games anymore, even if there is demand so it'd really be better if they went away entirely so consumers could buy my new garbage, hopefully with way shittier restrictions on its use.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
If I was pumping shit tons of tired crap every year, I'd want all the old better shit I already sold to stop working too. I mean, I can't be bothered to sell or support those old games anymore, even if there is demand so it'd really be better if they went away entirely so consumers could buy my new garbage, hopefully with way shittier restrictions on its use.

No shit

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: MStele
So the most important thing is that if you feel that Company X isn't doing something they way you prefer, don't buy from Company X. Period. Thats how capitalism works. If you don't like how copyright law and EULA operate, then stop buying products that rely on them or move to GNU licensing and go to a free platform where you really can do what you want. I think its a battle of will. I'm willing to bet that many people who complain about MW2 $60 will still pay it. That's just sad.

Have a good day. I respect all of your opinions, even if I don't agree with them.

Thoughts become words, words become actions, and actions become real change. Furthermore, you'll never enact a positive change in the world on your own, therefore there needs to be a dialog if you ever hope to change how the world is. Also, without dialog, boycotting, etc. we will never shape the world into a better place.

I respect your opinions as well. I also agree it is likely and sad that most will buy the game and put up with this anti-consumerism. I am often personally torn between just wanting to play a good game and boycotting anti-consumer behavior as well.