Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Ubisoft busting out the online DRM beams

145791055

Posts

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Oh god I had the robocop game where you drive around and that was the best motherfucking game. I drove around semi-futuristic urban detroit for hours on end.

    Then some motherfucking van came blasting by shooting at me, and I thought to myself, "Well, it is detroit."

  • Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User
    edited February 2010
    So, Steam is DRM and lets you play offline. Is this Ubisoft refusing to go through Valve and putting out an inferior DRM?

  • Milamber_29Milamber_29 Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    i dont know about anyone else but to me piracy is purely about cost. i will pirate a game and if i like it i will wait untill its at the right price for ME and then buy it.

    i spend $20 on assasins creed 2 days ago cause i had a go and thought it was WORTH my $20 i dont like it enough to spend $30 on it but i will go out of my way to spend $300 AUD on GH world tour when it was new because i felt that i was getting my moneys worth with all the periferals but i refused to pay $80 AUD rrp for any of the other games on their own i waited till i found them on special for $40

    part of the problem i face is that in australia games cost a fortune. if assasins creed 2 came out in aus at 60-70 dollars like it does in the states id probably consider buying it but im not im going to pirate it for a while because i dont want to spend $100 for 10 hours of entertainment. thats the same with forza 3 and COD MW2

    what iv found is there is a price that if u make your game that price i wont think twice about buying it. its about $50 AUD for new and i want it and about $20 for older good games.

    so perhaps the answer to piracy isnt "spend millions on drm and make games more expensive and annoying" maybe its "do away with DRM save your millions and knock $10 off the price of the game"

    what about the rest of u?

  • StriferStrifer Registered User
    edited February 2010
  • Milamber_29Milamber_29 Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    i would also like to point out that if u drop the price of a game by say $10-$20 then the incentive to "sell it back" also decreases because the patron wont get as much for it. say he buys a game for 70 and then sells back for 50 so the final transaction means u end up spending $90 which is about $20 to play one through and keep the other saving you $50 now if the game only cost $50 to start with he would only get 30 back ...so the cost of buying and keeping 2 games would be 100 and the cost of buying 2 games and swapping one in is then 70....so whats the point for only 30 dollars extra you can have both games forever (unless one of them realy sucks)

    if the games cost less the margins for the tradins are less and thus people will want to keep their games more often and the retail stores would sell more NEW games giving the games companys extra cash and lowering piracy.

    the question is; is it worth losing that $20 to cut into both tradins and piracy.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    So, Steam is DRM and lets you play offline. Is this Ubisoft refusing to go through Valve and putting out an inferior DRM?

    Ubisoft already has stuff available on Steam though. People love Steam and find it non-intrusive. It provides functionality people like to use. Ubisoft has nothing to gain with this shit.

    Here's my question (I can't exactly browse the Steam store at this point) - are Ubisoft titles still going to be available on Steam or are they pulling out with new titles from now on?

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • EndomaticEndomatic Registered User
    edited February 2010
    This is the wrong way to take things.

    When Stardock announced that they were giving DRM the bum's rush, I went there and bought more games SPECIFICALLY because they did that.

    I think there are a lot of people out there like myself that will reward good faith with cold hard cash.

  • CombatLibrarianCombatLibrarian Registered User
    edited February 2010
    I think that perhaps any discussion along the lines of "is heavy handed DRM good/bad" or "is piracy in the face of heavy handed DRM good/bad" might largely be irrelevant...at least, to Ubisoft who is, in the end, making this decision. This is because to Ubisoft (who is, in the end, making the decision), DRM itself is irrelevant.

    It doesn't stop piracy, and it barely slows it. In fact, early news of a new, draconian DRM scheme will quite possibly add fuel to the fire of the crackers working on this stuff. They already know that the fruits of their efforts will be in higher demand than usual, likely even to themselves.

    Developers of DRM have become, in the face of the evidence against heavy DRM, modern day snake oil salesmen. Whether the impact on actual sales is real or perceived, the ill real or imagined, the 'cure' of DRM is bottled wood alcohol with food coloring. Somewhere out there, either reporting for an internal team or selling from an outside source such as SecuROM, are individuals willing to sell the false cure-all of heavy DRM to the people in charge at various publishers. It will remove warts, cure their baldness, and increase sales by 80%.

    And I can see why it works. When we start getting into the realms of "potential sales", things become very hard to prove or disprove. If a game sells well, I'm certain this is put forward as proof positive that their magic DRM juice has worked it's wonders. If a game's sales are less than stellar, such arguments as "Just imagine how bad the sales would have been if you hadn't used it" most likely bubble to the surface.

    Must they do something regarding piracy? I'm not quite convinced. Piracy is a harsh reality. It will never, ever go away...not to angry fist-shaking, not ostensibly to lawyers, and especially not to draconian DRM techniques.

    If something is to be done, I think the trick is to, as some are starting to realize, incentivize legitimate purchase rather than trying to punish illegitimate purchase. You will fail at the latter, but you may get surprising results from the former. The features listed as bonuses in the Ubisoft DRM package, for example, would be a lot better received if they were optional rather than compulsory. They need to be more elegant as well. They cannot convince us that internet access more often than at the time of save or load is required, for example, for cloud based save games. I fear, however, that someone has convinced them that accessing the internet every blood second of gameplay (for a single player game) is necessary to curtail piracy. If a check were performed only at startup, and again when services such as cloud based saving are accessed, that would be sufficient. Making me start back at the last save game because my wifi had a hiccup would have a tolerable occurrence level at less than 1.

    My own personal response will be to not purchase the game. If it's a game I actually care about, I'll let Ubisoft know that I'm not purchasing it, and why.

  • BeltaineBeltaine The End of TimeRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    What if we break down "pirate" into different subsets?

    1. People that pirate for the sake of pirating. Would never buy the game anyway.

    2. People that pirate for the sake of having a playable demo. If they like, they buy. If not, well, they won't continue playing it anyway.

    3. People that pirate to avoid copy protection annoyances like having the CD in the drive or Starforce mucking up their machine. Since they have a real copy, are they still a pirate, though?

    4. Pirating due to budget. They can't (don't want to) pay $50+ for a game. May or may not buy at a reduced price.

    That's all I can think of, if you have more, please suggest.

    What do you think the percentages of the above look like? Which could be easily reduced by publishers making small changes? Would it make a difference?

    PSN: Beltaine-77
    Steam: beltane77
    Gamertag:Beltaine
  • Milamber_29Milamber_29 Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    i know if they will pull from steam. most companys make things available through steam OR in stores. stuff in stores tends to operate on their own and the steam version uses steam (clearly). so likely you will have a choice; dload the game and use a good DRM system or buy the disk and be frustrated and hateful. i know what im doing.

  • ArtereisArtereis Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I like this anti-piracy measure. I impulse buy way more software than I can actually finish in a given year. This makes it a lot easier on me, because I have some automatic exclusions.

    steam_sig.png
  • lilBlilB Registered User
    edited February 2010
    i would also like to point out that if u drop the price of a game by say $10-$20 then the incentive to "sell it back" also decreases because the patron wont get as much for it. say he buys a game for 70 and then sells back for 50 so the final transaction means u end up spending $90 which is about $20 to play one through and keep the other saving you $50 now if the game only cost $50 to start with he would only get 30 back ...so the cost of buying and keeping 2 games would be 100 and the cost of buying 2 games and swapping one in is then 70....so whats the point for only 30 dollars extra you can have both games forever (unless one of them realy sucks)

    if the games cost less the margins for the tradins are less and thus people will want to keep their games more often and the retail stores would sell more NEW games giving the games companys extra cash and lowering piracy.

    the question is; is it worth losing that $20 to cut into both tradins and piracy.

    The price of the trade-ins would drop to a point where they are profitable. Volume VS. Profit. Basically, the price is set at a point where they make the most money. A lot of work and research go into this. Trade-ins affect the price point quite a bit thats why some games can drop in price really fast. What the publishers want is to use DRM to kill the trade-ins, then the distributor can dictate the price. Resale / trades looses them way more in sales than piracy.

    DLC is basically a method they came up with to try and make money off of second hand software and increase revenues from first-hand. Install limits simply try to force all software to be first-hand which would make things more simple.

    There is a really complex balance to all this. Just getting the price right is difficult enough.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Beltaine wrote: »
    What if we break down "pirate" into different subsets?

    1. People that pirate for the sake of pirating. Would never buy the game anyway.

    2. People that pirate for the sake of having a playable demo. If they like, they buy. If not, well, they won't continue playing it anyway.

    3. People that pirate to avoid copy protection annoyances like having the CD in the drive or Starforce mucking up their machine. Since they have a real copy, are they still a pirate, though?

    4. Pirating due to budget. They can't (don't want to) pay $50+ for a game. May or may not buy at a reduced price.

    That's all I can think of, if you have more, please suggest.

    What do you think the percentages of the above look like? Which could be easily reduced by publishers making small changes? Would it make a difference?

    Unfortunately, this isn't a situation where you justify piracy. Everyone doing it knows it is illegal to do so.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • ChirpingCricketChirpingCricket Registered User
    edited February 2010
    i know if they will pull from steam. most companys make things available through steam OR in stores. stuff in stores tends to operate on their own and the steam version uses steam (clearly). so likely you will have a choice; dload the game and use a good DRM system or buy the disk and be frustrated and hateful. i know what im doing.

    This is a critical point for me. If Ubisoft uses the Steam DRM for online purchases and thus forgoes this ridiculous "online all the time" requirement then I am more likely to continue purchasing Ubisoft games. Should that turn out to not be the case, I'll simply acquire the games through other means without having to worry about this DRM issue.

    The issue here for me is that those groups who are cracking the games and making them available via assorted torrent sites is that those downloads are a better product than what I can get in a store. No need for a CD/DVD, no invasive DRM and the files generally install and run smoother. Rather than combat this companies continue to rely on methods aimed more at stopping the reproduction of a game's physical media rather than the data itself.

    Ubisoft et al, this is not 1999. You need to seriously revamp your DRM methods.

  • NomenclatureNomenclature Registered User
    edited February 2010
    I understand that game companies may be suffering from piracy, but these kinds of draconian tactics would seem to be more anti-productive than helpful at piracy prevention.

    I don't pirate. But let's say hypothetically that in my youth, I may have pirated some titles with a 'I'm stickin' it to tha man, because I'm young and cool!' attitude to justify said hypothetical piracy. I have since outgrown any hypothetical immature ideas. So I understand why companies feel the need to protect their products.

    However, today I fork over my hard earned bucks and buy game titles and expect to be able to play them at home, with or without internet connection, and the ability to install them on my machine as many times as I wish. I don't see these expectations as unreasonable.

    What if you lose internet? What if you just don't want to bother with internet? What if you're very unlucky and your computer's OS crashes multiple times and you need to reinstall more than three times? Too bad, so sorry, come again, okay thanks bye!

    So, if I want to have the options of being able to play without an internet connection, or to install as many times as I wish on my computer, guess what I have to do. I have to download a crack, or a cracked copy of the game. But I won't, because I got a copy of my game legally, and abiding by law and being a good little citizen is all the rage these days.

    So how much of an effect is this new DRM going have on hackers / pirates? I'm willing to guess, 'not much.' They'll probably find a way crack it none-the-less, and distribute the software, and they'll suffer none of the inconveniences of DRM licensing. Meanwhile, those who PAID for the game, are being punished by these DRM restrictions.

    I just don't get it. If this continues, eventually, we'll only be able to play games while the CEOs of gaming companies are in the same room with us breathing down our necks, while hackers / pirates will be in a LAN room with their buds sippin' beer and havin' a good ol' time. Yeah, this all makes so much sense.

    (long sigh)

  • CombatLibrarianCombatLibrarian Registered User
    edited February 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Beltaine wrote: »
    What if we break down "pirate" into different subsets?

    1. People that pirate for the sake of pirating. Would never buy the game anyway.

    2. People that pirate for the sake of having a playable demo. If they like, they buy. If not, well, they won't continue playing it anyway.

    3. People that pirate to avoid copy protection annoyances like having the CD in the drive or Starforce mucking up their machine. Since they have a real copy, are they still a pirate, though?

    4. Pirating due to budget. They can't (don't want to) pay $50+ for a game. May or may not buy at a reduced price.

    That's all I can think of, if you have more, please suggest.

    What do you think the percentages of the above look like? Which could be easily reduced by publishers making small changes? Would it make a difference?

    Unfortunately, this isn't a situation where you justify piracy. Everyone doing it knows it is illegal to do so.

    Actually, as far as #3 goes, I'm not sure the legal question is so clear. Good old fair use vs. contractual obligation (and no, an EULA does not write new laws, so 'you agreed to it in the EULA so that's the law' isn't a valid argument).

  • Milamber_29Milamber_29 Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I fall into that last catagory belt.
    what i have observed (this may be an australian thing) is that my mates who are massive gamers will go to extrodinary lenths to BUY games at a reasonble price. i mean it would take them 5 min to get it off bit torrent but they want the games and they want to pay money for a legit disk but they dont want to pay $100 for them.

    so they will buy 3 games for $5 dollars on special and trade them in for 1 game and buy another game on special somewhere for $35 that you can trade both in for the game they want for just $50 all up.

    and i know i spend a small amount of money at game stores and much more at big retailers who slash the prices cause they dont know what certain games are "worth" (i use the term loosely) and if more new games cost a price im likely to jump at id spend more money on games full stop. if i could get 4 new games for 200 over 3 months im likely to spend 200 because $50 is just within that impulse buy. if i can only get 2 new games for 200 over 3 months i wont even buy 1 because its to much of an investment.

  • DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I wonder what would happen if a pirated copy comes out that doesn't require authentification all the time.

    If Ubisoft sees big retail sales and very little authentification to their network, would they realize how inconvenient their DRM is?

  • ChirpingCricketChirpingCricket Registered User
    edited February 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Beltaine wrote: »
    What if we break down "pirate" into different subsets?

    1. People that pirate for the sake of pirating. Would never buy the game anyway.

    2. People that pirate for the sake of having a playable demo. If they like, they buy. If not, well, they won't continue playing it anyway.

    3. People that pirate to avoid copy protection annoyances like having the CD in the drive or Starforce mucking up their machine. Since they have a real copy, are they still a pirate, though?

    4. Pirating due to budget. They can't (don't want to) pay $50+ for a game. May or may not buy at a reduced price.

    That's all I can think of, if you have more, please suggest.

    What do you think the percentages of the above look like? Which could be easily reduced by publishers making small changes? Would it make a difference?

    Unfortunately, this isn't a situation where you justify piracy. Everyone doing it knows it is illegal to do so.

    Actually, as far as #3 goes, I'm not sure the legal question is so clear. Good old fair use vs. contractual obligation (and no, an EULA does not write new laws, so 'you agreed to it in the EULA so that's the law' isn't a valid argument).

    You're allowed a backup copy of your software as the current law stands but we've yet to have a binding case in the United States that really gives it a firm platform. The courts have routinely been torn between the argument that software is licensed vs. sold. The current consensus in the courts leans towards software being treated as a sold item and thus limits how far a EULA can go in restricting how you use that software. Adobe for instance tried to sue a guy for reselling their software, stating it was forbidden by their EULA, and the courts slapped it down saying he had a right to resell. Of course, he had not read or accepted the EULA either so...yeah.

    There are a few interesting cases percolating quietly in the federal courts regarding digital consumer rights and it seems very few people are paying attention to them. We could see the playing field shift drastically in just a few years.

  • ChirpingCricketChirpingCricket Registered User
    edited February 2010
    Djiem wrote: »
    I wonder what would happen if a pirated copy comes out that doesn't require authentification all the time.

    If Ubisoft sees big retail sales and very little authentification to their network, would they realize how inconvenient their DRM is?

    Would they care would be my question. From your line of thought they've already made the sale, why bother if the person ever authenticates or plays the software. To them it's another point towards making a profit.

  • DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Djiem wrote: »
    I wonder what would happen if a pirated copy comes out that doesn't require authentification all the time.

    If Ubisoft sees big retail sales and very little authentification to their network, would they realize how inconvenient their DRM is?

    Would they care would be my question. From your line of thought they've already made the sale, why bother if the person ever authenticates or plays the software. To them it's another point towards making a profit.

    Yes but they don't need to maintain a server, since people are buying the equivalent of a DRM-free game.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Djiem wrote: »
    If Ubisoft sees big retail sales and very little authentification to their network, would they realize how inconvenient their DRM is?

    I've seen little to suggest that Ubisoft is rational about this topic. They would still equate it to piracy or thievery somehow.

    If they were to release a game that had no DRM at all, and it had huge booming numbers for sales, they'd still complain that it's not as high as it could be due to piracy.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Beltaine wrote: »
    3. People that pirate to avoid copy protection annoyances like having the CD in the drive or Starforce mucking up their machine. Since they have a real copy, are they still a pirate, though?
    Piracy is piracy. It is not the same as making a backup of your own copy. By downloading it illicitly you are helping other pirates, whether by briefly seeding that torrent, or simply adding +1 to the number of people who obtained it illegally. You're part of that data set that shows more people pirated it than bought it.

    3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504
    Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
  • Milamber_29Milamber_29 Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    another point here is that games are a serious investment.
    if u buy a DVD movie for $15 or whatever you can watch it once and forget about it confident in the fact that you have got your moneys worth. it makes a DVD an atractive purchase.
    if u buy a new game you are essentialy saying that i will spend my hard earned cash to spend 20 odd hours in your world. which seems fair.
    but the difference being that if u buy a dvd and dont like it you havent realy LOST any value out of it. you still have a movie and whether you liked it or not u have seen it and got your values worth.
    if u dont like a game you probably wont finish it ...so your spending a lot of money for value that may or may not acutally exist something you cant determin at point of purchase. and its not like dvds where u cans see it in the cinima before hand and go yeah i like it.

    what ubisoft is going is instead of sweetening the deal and going if u spend your cash on OUR game we will not only entertain you but if your interested we will then supply you with more entertainment and wwe will make your life easy and try and make sure you get the most out of the time and money u invested in us.

    what they are saying is invest you money in this piece of entertainment which u can get for free elsewhere and if you do buy from us we will then punish you with hard DRM and make your gaming experience less enjoyable so that you wont use the free version.

    now if thie buisness model was used in ANY other form of retail said store would imediately go bankrupt

    i work in car audio retail. if i said to a customer "buy this stereo its realy good but im going to charge you through the nose for it and you will only be able to use it as long as u come back to the store every day to get it activated" they would go "f*** off im gonna get the one offered across the road"

    and i know that said persons who DO buy stuff off me dispite the fact that you can get it cheaper off ebay (or off the back of a truck) is that when i sell something i say this is whats best for you and here is a warrenty. you pay that extra for quality of service and a garentee.

    what does ubisoft offer for your money no garentee of service and quality of product. just a garentee that when your internet fails so will the game.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Beltaine wrote: »
    What if we break down "pirate" into different subsets?

    1. People that pirate for the sake of pirating. Would never buy the game anyway.

    2. People that pirate for the sake of having a playable demo. If they like, they buy. If not, well, they won't continue playing it anyway.

    3. People that pirate to avoid copy protection annoyances like having the CD in the drive or Starforce mucking up their machine. Since they have a real copy, are they still a pirate, though?

    4. Pirating due to budget. They can't (don't want to) pay $50+ for a game. May or may not buy at a reduced price.

    That's all I can think of, if you have more, please suggest.

    What do you think the percentages of the above look like? Which could be easily reduced by publishers making small changes? Would it make a difference?

    Unfortunately, this isn't a situation where you justify piracy. Everyone doing it knows it is illegal to do so.

    Actually, as far as #3 goes, I'm not sure the legal question is so clear. Good old fair use vs. contractual obligation (and no, an EULA does not write new laws, so 'you agreed to it in the EULA so that's the law' isn't a valid argument).

    I'd also wager that if the game doesn't function for the user, they probably are well within their legal rights to make it work. Ala, no more copy protection on the CD.

    My girlfriend absolutely adores Sims2, but her install absolutely refuses to play the legal copy of the game unless she sits there for about 40 minutes clicking and hitting okay to the "please insert the legal copy of the game" while shouting at the monitor and opening and closing the CD tray.

    After 40 minutes? Bam, she's in. So, being a computer IT guy, she asks me to fix it.

    No CD crack? Now she double clicks it and is in fine. I fail to see the issue there at all.

    I'd probably equate it to leasing a car from a dealer, and then as soon as you refill the gas the engine refuses to start because you didn't use their premium gas from them. Of course, they didn't tell you about that. They also refuse to service said car without even knowing if it was the gas you used or if their gasDetectorChip malfunctioned. So you take it to the mechanic, and he's a nice guy and has known you all his life and knows exactly the problem. So he fixes it, and does it for free, because well you've known him forever. Viola, your car works perfectly.

    So you bring your car in for it's yearly maintenance or whatever to the dealer and they throw their hands up and say that it's wrong and that future cars will have more advanced mechanics to stop this from happening in the future.

  • PipboyPipboy Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    C'mon now guys, no cheating. You can't leave out group 5: People who would buy the game, but realized they could pirate it for free. Not to rain on anybody's parade here or anything, but they do exist. I must admit that I did it a time or two myself in my misspent youth.

  • FroodFrood Registered User new member
    edited February 2010
    I'm not the gamer I used to be. I'll admit it. The world has,
    vampirelike, pierced my neck with it's fangs and conspired
    not to drain my blood but rather precious moments of free
    time. The absolutely assinine DRM scheme being outlined
    here is simply not worth the trouble of dealing with, especially
    as the free moments I find for gaming are usually because
    there is not convenient net access around for other necessities.
    Will I pirate the game? Absolutely not. Ubi has the right to
    do whatever they feel necessary (within the bounds of the law)
    to protect their property no matter how draconian the measures
    they choose to take. My choice is to have nothing to do with
    them or their product. My money will go to other more
    deserving companies and my purchases will be of other less
    restrictive titles.

  • DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Frood wrote: »
    I'm not the gamer I used to be. I'll admit it. The world has,
    vampirelike, pierced my neck with it's fangs and conspired
    not to drain my blood but rather precious moments of free
    time. The absolutely assinine DRM scheme being outlined
    here is simply not worth the trouble of dealing with, especially
    as the free moments I find for gaming are usually because
    there is not convenient net access around for other necessities.
    Will I pirate the game? Absolutely not. Ubi has the right to
    do whatever they feel necessary (within the bounds of the law)
    to protect their property no matter how draconian the measures
    they choose to take. My choice is to have nothing to do with
    them or their product. My money will go to other more
    deserving companies and my purchases will be of other less
    restrictive titles.

    Brought to you by The Painkeeper.

  • CombatLibrarianCombatLibrarian Registered User
    edited February 2010
    Beltaine wrote: »
    3. People that pirate to avoid copy protection annoyances like having the CD in the drive or Starforce mucking up their machine. Since they have a real copy, are they still a pirate, though?
    Piracy is piracy. It is not the same as making a backup of your own copy. By downloading it illicitly you are helping other pirates, whether by briefly seeding that torrent, or simply adding +1 to the number of people who obtained it illegally. You're part of that data set that shows more people pirated it than bought it.

    No, I'm afraid 'appearance of a crime when viewed without sufficient detail' is not the same as 'an actual crime'.

  • Lars_DomusLars_Domus Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Beltaine wrote: »
    3. People that pirate to avoid copy protection annoyances like having the CD in the drive or Starforce mucking up their machine. Since they have a real copy, are they still a pirate, though?
    Piracy is piracy. It is not the same as making a backup of your own copy. By downloading it illicitly you are helping other pirates, whether by briefly seeding that torrent, or simply adding +1 to the number of people who obtained it illegally. You're part of that data set that shows more people pirated it than bought it.

    No, I'm afraid 'appearance of a crime when viewed without sufficient detail' is not the same as 'an actual crime'.

    Both the DMCA and EUCD criminalizes the circumvention of DRM.

    oslosig.jpg
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I'm noticing people registering specifically for this thread. I didn't know the situation was that important.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Lars_Domus wrote: »
    Beltaine wrote: »
    3. People that pirate to avoid copy protection annoyances like having the CD in the drive or Starforce mucking up their machine. Since they have a real copy, are they still a pirate, though?
    Piracy is piracy. It is not the same as making a backup of your own copy. By downloading it illicitly you are helping other pirates, whether by briefly seeding that torrent, or simply adding +1 to the number of people who obtained it illegally. You're part of that data set that shows more people pirated it than bought it.

    No, I'm afraid 'appearance of a crime when viewed without sufficient detail' is not the same as 'an actual crime'.

    Both the DMCA and EUCD criminalizes the circumvention of DRM.

    What is their ground legally?

  • Lars_DomusLars_Domus Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    bowen wrote: »
    Lars_Domus wrote: »
    Beltaine wrote: »
    3. People that pirate to avoid copy protection annoyances like having the CD in the drive or Starforce mucking up their machine. Since they have a real copy, are they still a pirate, though?
    Piracy is piracy. It is not the same as making a backup of your own copy. By downloading it illicitly you are helping other pirates, whether by briefly seeding that torrent, or simply adding +1 to the number of people who obtained it illegally. You're part of that data set that shows more people pirated it than bought it.

    No, I'm afraid 'appearance of a crime when viewed without sufficient detail' is not the same as 'an actual crime'.

    Both the DMCA and EUCD criminalizes the circumvention of DRM.

    What is their ground legally?

    I don't understand your question.

    oslosig.jpg
  • BeltaineBeltaine The End of TimeRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I didn't make the list to justify piracy.

    I made the list for this discussion point:

    How much piracy would publishers eliminate if they took steps to correct reasons for pirating instead of applying blanket solutions?

    If those 4 subsets are divided evenly:

    For the Number 1's: Not much you can do, 25% of would-be pirates still pirate.

    Number 2's: Release meaningful, accurate demos of your game before the full game's release date. Now, you possibly eliminate 25% of piracy.

    Number 3's: Either eliminate DRM's and copy protection (Stardock games) or find someone that can code one worth a damn that isn't obtrusive. Eliminating another 25%.

    Number 4's: Lower the price of the game. (I know, we always have the defenders of the game prices chime in here, but hear me out.) I suggest keeping the shelf copies the same retail price, but dropping the price of a digital copy by $5, or even $10. Another 25% gone.

    3 Easy steps to eliminate 75% of piracy, go!

    **these are example numbers, I have no idea what percentage of piracy each group accounts for**

    PSN: Beltaine-77
    Steam: beltane77
    Gamertag:Beltaine
  • ElvenshaeElvenshae Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Lars_Domus wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Lars_Domus wrote: »
    Beltaine wrote: »
    3. People that pirate to avoid copy protection annoyances like having the CD in the drive or Starforce mucking up their machine. Since they have a real copy, are they still a pirate, though?
    Piracy is piracy. It is not the same as making a backup of your own copy. By downloading it illicitly you are helping other pirates, whether by briefly seeding that torrent, or simply adding +1 to the number of people who obtained it illegally. You're part of that data set that shows more people pirated it than bought it.

    No, I'm afraid 'appearance of a crime when viewed without sufficient detail' is not the same as 'an actual crime'.

    Both the DMCA and EUCD criminalizes the circumvention of DRM.

    What is their ground legally?

    I don't understand your question.

    I'll take tautologies for $700, Alex.

    elvenshae2_zps569236d5.png
    Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
    The FATE of the Rebellion PBP
    FotR on Obsidian Portal
  • McAllenMcAllen Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The law and government seem to be the only definitive way to lower piracy, I'm sure less people will pirate if nations starting blowing trial balloons and reported that they'd be coming down hard on pirates.

    But that is the main point that I'm most ignorant about, I don't know how legal it would be or if there would be any way to track people for sure. I wouldn't want the guvmehnt to put me in jail, but if they required me to reformat my computer if I was caught would probably stop looking for ways to make my PC gaming more convenient.

    Is it bad to pirate a game that you have bought more than once before? I have bought Starcraft and Diablo 2 more times that I care to remember, maybe developers should start subscriptions that allow you to play a certain library of games to justify all this internet quirkiness.

  • SteevLSteevL What can I do for you? Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    I'm noticing people registering specifically for this thread. I didn't know the situation was that important.

    I think it's more because of today's comic. We always get people registering for the forums because of a PA comic. What is rare is when they actually post in the proper thread as we're seeing now rather than creating their own and writing it as if Mike/Jerry read the forums.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Lars_Domus wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Lars_Domus wrote: »

    Both the DMCA and EUCD criminalizes the circumvention of DRM.

    What is their ground legally?

    I don't understand your question.

    I'll take tautologies for $700, Alex.

    Meaning, while copyright law is well and dandy; how do they stand up when a court case is thrown at them for circumventing DRM? In this case, I'm wondering how they legally stand up for someone circumventing a game that they legally paid for but are unable to play because of DRM.

  • CombatLibrarianCombatLibrarian Registered User
    edited February 2010
    Lars_Domus wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Lars_Domus wrote: »
    Beltaine wrote: »
    3. People that pirate to avoid copy protection annoyances like having the CD in the drive or Starforce mucking up their machine. Since they have a real copy, are they still a pirate, though?
    Piracy is piracy. It is not the same as making a backup of your own copy. By downloading it illicitly you are helping other pirates, whether by briefly seeding that torrent, or simply adding +1 to the number of people who obtained it illegally. You're part of that data set that shows more people pirated it than bought it.

    No, I'm afraid 'appearance of a crime when viewed without sufficient detail' is not the same as 'an actual crime'.

    Both the DMCA and EUCD criminalizes the circumvention of DRM.

    What is their ground legally?

    I don't understand your question.

    I think what he's trying to point out. (Or possibly not, but this would be what I would have pointed out also), is that the criminalization of bypassing DRM as it applies to people doing so to software they have legitimately purchased is in a dubious legal state. The legality of telling people that they cannot do this with software they have legitimately purchased is being questioned in courts for good reason, as has been previously pointed out in this thread.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    bowen wrote: »
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    Lars_Domus wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Lars_Domus wrote: »

    Both the DMCA and EUCD criminalizes the circumvention of DRM.

    What is their ground legally?

    I don't understand your question.

    I'll take tautologies for $700, Alex.

    Meaning, while copyright law is well and dandy; how do they stand up when a court case is thrown at them for circumventing DRM? In this case, I'm wondering how they legally stand up for someone circumventing a game that they legally paid for but are unable to play because of DRM.

    Probably claims of tech support having not been contacted regarding the issue.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
145791055
Sign In or Register to comment.