- Status
figmentPez
Staff member
I'm really not surprised that this happened. Nor will I be surprised when gamers completely fail to learn their lesson, and continue to play the games that have such restrictive DRM.
figmentPez
Staff member
Even if pirates stopped completely, this type of restriction would still happen because of the used game market. Companies would be working on ways to stop gamers from reselling what they've bought.
figmentPez
Staff member
From a previous thread on DRM:
"Another sign that online activated DRM is coming to consoles: Sony is requiring a key-code to play SOCOM: Fireteam Bravo 3 online on the PSP"
Used Games Market is "Defrauding the Industry," Claims Developer
"Another sign that online activated DRM is coming to consoles: Sony is requiring a key-code to play SOCOM: Fireteam Bravo 3 online on the PSP"
Also:
Used Games Market is "Defrauding the Industry," Claims Developer
Take-Two To Battle Used Games Market
D
Dusty668
Yah, cause pirates always sell the games they didn't buy back to the stores where they didn't get them. And they would get away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids.
Yet it only hurts the people who bought the game legally, spawning more pirates.
The case of DRM happy Industry people and Pirates isn't a case of Good Vs. Evil, because nether side is innocent. One is looking to screw the companies and one it looking to screw the consumers. You shouldn't be rooting for ether side to win.
C
Catafish
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/07/ubisoft-drm-authentification-server-is-down-assassins-creed-2/
hahahahahahahaha, good work ubisoft.
hahahahahahahaha, good work ubisoft.
C
Chibibar
Sadly, these new DRM actually encourage MORE pirates since the pirated version are playable WITHOUT all these stupid DRM issues
I have been saying this forever.Sadly, these new DRM actually encourage MORE pirates since the pirated version are playable WITHOUT all these stupid DRM issues
Listen, you can't beat pirates. You can't. You will make a wall, they will just rip it down, you will make a bigger wall, they will rip it down again, you will make a new wall with armed guards, and they will just dig a hole under it, and THEN rip it down. That is what I don't get about this. You are making everything harder for the consumer that actually purchased it, while the only job you made harder for the pirates is the team that cracks it, and only for a few days.
News flash Ubisoft. Most people that pirate do it because they don't feel like putting down the money on the game. That means, even if they DIDN'T pirate it, they would most likely not buy it anyways, thus making the sale irrelevant. Yes, you may have the fencer that may sway to one side or the other at some point, but what is going to push him to your side? I can tell you one thing, it WON'T be draconian DRM.
There's an blog entry by an indie game developer who talks about this particular issue:
http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2010/03/more-thoughts-on-anti-pirate-measures.html
I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but I generally think it's worth the read. The part specifically relevant is:
I don't actually have statistics on hand regarding the number of sales of console games vs PC games, so I don't know if his point is valid.
figmentPez
Staff member
That argument strikes me as the same as those in favor of ever increasing game prices, and never allowing games to go on sale. Yes, if you charge $70, $80, $100 a game, there will be gamers who pay it. If you never put titles on a greatest hits discount, then you'll probably sell more units at launch. However, you'll loose out on a lot more sales overall by not dropping prices, and no pirate is going to purchase every game they have been blocked from pirating. All the while, higher prices and DRM hassles will antagonize customers. Having customers begrudgingly handing over money is not a position a business should want to be in.
This isn't about what every gamer does. It is about what policies will result in the most money earned for the company. Which it is entirely the company's perogative to do. The price of a game should be as high as you can before sales drop off so significantly that overall profit goes down. This is not just for the benefit of greedy faceless corporate demonfolk, it is for the benefit of the coders and artists who worked hard to produce the game and want to be compensated. If enough people are willing to pay $100 for a game, well, I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. (I personally would not). I think the general system of high initial prices for the people who absolutely need it now followed by a bunch of sales on steam on a few months later is a pretty fine system.
Many people want to be able to try a game before they buy it. That's fine. That's what demos are for. Some companies don't do demos, and I think they have no one to blame but themselves if that increases piracy. But it's not a justification for piracy, it's a justification for a quality demo.'
If a game has a demo and is appropriately priced, then piracy absolutely is costing people money. How much, I don't know, but it's clearly enough that Ubisoft felt the need to go through all this effort, however misguided it may have been. Developing and maintaining those servers wasn't free.
Many people want to be able to try a game before they buy it. That's fine. That's what demos are for. Some companies don't do demos, and I think they have no one to blame but themselves if that increases piracy. But it's not a justification for piracy, it's a justification for a quality demo.'
If a game has a demo and is appropriately priced, then piracy absolutely is costing people money. How much, I don't know, but it's clearly enough that Ubisoft felt the need to go through all this effort, however misguided it may have been. Developing and maintaining those servers wasn't free.
figmentPez
Staff member
You're assuming that it's easy to know that point, and that games aren't already priced over that. Valve has already shown that regular discounts (Steam sales are up to two a week, at least) don't negatively impact non-discounted sales, and actually increase them (including retail sales as well, oddly enough), and Microsoft is testing sales on XBLA and Games on Demand for Windows, but Nintendo still has yet to bring back the Player's Choice line of titles. Nintendo refusing to discount games doesn't necessarily mean they've made the choice that will make them the most money, only that they think will make them the most money long-term. In fact, I'm pretty sure it can't be doubted that Nintendo knows that they'll make more profits off of games put on the Player's Choice list, they're just afraid that if titles predictably drop over time, that they'll lose launch sales to frugal gamers waiting for that drop, and that drop in launch sales will eventually result in a lost in Player's Choice sales as well. It's a long term strategy, but no one knows for certain if it's the right strategy. Personally, I think it's more important to win customers good will, and to put out the Player's Choice titles, than it is to make them resentful over being able to afford fewer games.
In the last year, year and a half, I've spent over $250 on games from Steam, Telltale Games and GOG, most of which I've bought on sale. In that same time I've bought 3 Nintendo DS games for a total of $72. I haven't bought anything for the Wii. That's mainly because there are no Player's Choice titles to catch my eye. If my purchase history even remotely reflects overall trends, Nintendo is in trouble.
Back to my point, however. Making your customer mad at you is never a good choice if you can avoid it. Bilking a customer for all you can will not work over the long run. Customers need to feel that they've gotten their money's worth. That goes for customer service as well. Paying customers who are getting a worse experience than pirates are going to wonder why they're bothering to pay.
Except that every game bought 2nd hand is a confirmed lost sale, as obviously the person getting it would be paying for it.
While for pirating, you really think all those people in 3rd world countries would start buying the game you're kidding yourself.
And there's also the fact that some so called DRM like limited installs and registering your cd-key in a way it can't be used with another account do little against someone trying to crack the game, as those are simply extra bytes to be removed once the actual protection is cracked, but the legit copies can't be traded or loaned, thus limiting the used game market.
It's pretty obvious they're doing stuff to stop reselling, so they must think it's a problem.
I prefer Stardock's take on it: http://pc.ign.com/articles/906/906495p1.html and http://draginol.joeuser.com/article/303512/Piracy_PC_Gaming
And there was another good one about xbox players that also have a PC, and why aren't they just pirating the PC version?!
Also, this is BS:
1. To "work", anti-piracy measures only need to stay unbroken for the peak sales period of the game. That is, the first three months or so. If it stays uncracked for that long, the developers win. I never said that there was uncrackable DRM, because that is not true. It does not need to be uncrackable.
Yeah, if that's actually true i'd like to see some actual data on that, it should be pretty easy to get... frankly i find it more easy to see this as simnply a measure to make devs/publishers feel safer.
PS3 games can't be pirated for a bunch of reasons... and yet where are those sales compared to the 360 version of multiplat games?! Even if you account for console units sold the PS3 is still behind.
---------- Post added at 07:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 AM ----------
And some more Stardock stuff: http://forums.demigodthegame.com/349758/page/10/
And most people on the net didn't like Demigod.
- Status