DRM: Seriously?

Do you have a constant internet connection while playing games?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 75.0%
  • No

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • The grue ate my internet connection....

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    20
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chibibar

I'm on the fence about this one. On the one hand I see the point of the companies. The DRM is in DIRECT response to people thinking it's okay to pirate & steal the products they worked so hard on. On the other hand, 99% of the people harmed by these draconian tactics are not the ones who are causing the issue in the first place. In fact, I would argue that the only people this DOESN'T hurt are the very ones who are causing the problem. Pirates always find ways around the DRM anyway so it just doesn't work.

But NOT having any DRM at all doesn't make sense either. That would be like saying, "You shouldn't have any locks on your car doors because a burglar is going to get in anyway." This is short-sighted. DRM may not prevent everything, but it stops a good number of people from being able to pirate.

So while I don't like DRM I fully understand it. I just think there's got to be a better way that doesn't alienate such a large number of people.
DRM is less like putting a lock on your car door and more like making the starter call chevrolet headquarters every time you turn the key to get permission for you to drive your car.... and your engine gets bad reception frequently. Whereas, the majority of people it was designed to stop (the pirates) just know to just swap out the starter.

You may understand the motivation BEHIND DRM, but you must also understand DRM is much more effective at irritating genuine customers than it is in preventing piracy.

You know what's a lot more effective at combating piracy? A reasonable pricing point. An updated business model that doesn't rely on gouging your potential customers for 60 dollars right up front for a game that has somewhere between 3 and 5 hours of content (I'm looking at you, Call of Duty franchise). Frequent expansion pack/DLC additions.

---------- Post added at 11:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 AM ----------

As I said, they can fix the issue by slapping a big red "Internet Connection Required to Play" sticker on the box under PC requirements.
Slapping a "cellular connection required to drive" sticker on a car doesn't mean people won't rail about how it sucks, nor stop O'Reilly from selling replacement starters.
I agree. I think price DOES make a big difference.

Pirates are getting pretty good at cracking DRM and finding ways around it.

I hate to keep using Steam as an example but it is a good one. They are making money (I assume since they are still in business) with their software and direct download. They even have sales on games which people gobble them up like hotcakes (I know I take advantage of that) I got TONS of game from Steam.

Steam DOES have DRM (authenticate via their server once and can play offline or online) that is awesome. why can't other business model follow that?

---------- Post added at 11:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 AM ----------

You may understand the motivation BEHIND DRM, but you must also understand DRM is much more effective at irritating genuine customers than it is in preventing piracy.
Grasshopper! You must re-read my post! I said this very thing already.

My big question has already been asked also. And that's how long will these servers be working? I mean, I sometimes go back and play Wizardry, for God's sake! And that came out in the 80s! Will they leave game servers up forever? Because that's how long I should be able to play these games.[/QUOTE]

heh... I just recently bust out my police quest series and master of orion II
I know what you mean.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
You may understand the motivation BEHIND DRM, but you must also understand DRM is much more effective at irritating genuine customers than it is in preventing piracy.
Grasshopper! You must re-read my post! I said this very thing already.

My big question has already been asked also. And that's how long will these servers be working? I mean, I sometimes go back and play Wizardry, for God's sake! And that came out in the 80s! Will they leave game servers up forever? Because that's how long I should be able to play these games.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I meant my post to be more in conjunction with yours rather than in contention, using the metaphorical "you" not the specific "you." ...with only fixing the metaphor.

---------- Post added at 11:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 AM ----------

I also have an issue with steam, though. What happens if, 15 years from now, you have the sudden urge to play Left 4 Dead but don't have it installed because you've gone through 4 computers in the interim, and for some reason steam no longer exists?

I still play Ultima Underworld 1 and 2 from time to time, the best first person RPGs the mid 90s had to offer. I still say Whiplash is the best multiplayer racing game ever to be released on the PC. All games of this appropriate age.
 
What happens if, 15 years from now, you have the sudden urge to play Left 4 Dead
15 years from now they don't care. They aren't interested in supporting a 15 year old game, and it's quite possible that you won't be able to find a computer/OS capable of playing it without problems unless you keep the original machine you used for it.

The primary question we are really getting down it is this:

Do we own a game we purchase, or are we merely licensing software?

Microsoft does not support windows 3.1. If you work at it, you can find the software, and you can get it running on a core i7 processor. But do you become angry with Microsoft because they made it require certain hardware and drivers that are no longer available or supported today?

Do you have any 16mm films in your house? If you did, then do you become angry with the company that distributed Night of The Living Dead on film because they made it a requirement that you must use a 16mm film projector to view the media?

The only difference is that the constant internet connection requirement is an artificial one to combat piracy. But it's really no different than the inherent anti-piracy features built into the 16mm film - each copy became progressively worse due to the analog nature of the medium.

But here's a quick question. Another method of copy protection is the venerable dongle. You stick a USB gadget in the USB connector on your computer and it will enable gameplay. Unplug it and the game turns off. This way you can sell the game to a friend - because the dongle goes along with it and you can no longer play it. It's completely anonymous, requiring no registration, and they can't track your usage.

Would you rather see them use a dongle than an internet connection?

Eventually, the dongle will no longer work on later operating systems and hardware configurations. Further, it's a pain to deal with dongle software problems.

But when you are selling a game that has a profit potential of $60 million, and you have solid numbers that show that lower protection will result in a "small" 2% loss of that profit, you may come to decide that $1.2 million is worth the additional trouble of the higher protection.
 
I also have an issue with steam, though. What happens if, 15 years from now, you have the sudden urge to play Left 4 Dead but don't have it installed because you've gone through 4 computers in the interim, and for some reason steam no longer exists?
This is a concern, but at this point, I'd be surprised if Valve didn't have a planned contingency plan for this of some kind.

As to the whole "don't buy it angle", I am totally fine with that. It is why I never Ubisoft games for the PC, and do my research before getting any for my consoles about any strange authentification issues.

I do buy games on Steam, because their DRM (so far) allows me to maintain the play experience that I want without interfering with my ability, say, to watch an HD-streaming movie, or download a big system update, while I play Civilization by throttling my internet connection with a never-ending-handshake routine.
 
K

Kiff

You may understand the motivation BEHIND DRM, but you must also understand DRM is much more effective at irritating genuine customers than it is in preventing piracy.
Grasshopper! You must re-read my post! I said this very thing already.

My big question has already been asked also. And that's how long will these servers be working? I mean, I sometimes go back and play Wizardry, for God's sake! And that came out in the 80s! Will they leave game servers up forever? Because that's how long I should be able to play these games.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I meant my post to be more in conjunction with yours rather than in contention, using the metaphorical "you" not the specific "you." ...with only fixing the metaphor.

---------- Post added at 11:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 AM ----------

I also have an issue with steam, though. What happens if, 15 years from now, you have the sudden urge to play Left 4 Dead but don't have it installed because you've gone through 4 computers in the interim, and for some reason steam no longer exists?

I still play Ultima Underworld 1 and 2 from time to time, the best first person RPGs the mid 90s had to offer. I still say Whiplash is the best multiplayer racing game ever to be released on the PC. All games of this appropriate age.[/QUOTE]

In 15 years, you'll be able to do what I did for Descent I and II. Find an emulator for Windows 7 (similar to DosBox) and download the game. Aren't the source codes for game released eventually? I mean, really, you could say the same about any outdated game. It doesn't mean you didn't get your monies worth when you bought it.
 
I also have an issue with steam, though. What happens if, 15 years from now, you have the sudden urge to play Left 4 Dead but don't have it installed because you've gone through 4 computers in the interim, and for some reason steam no longer exists?
Valve is on record as stating that they DO have a method to deactivate the require Steam Authentication and make their games run without Steam, and have pledged that they WILL issue patches in the event that they even need to shut it down or the company goes out of business. They made this statement right after they released HL2, I believe.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
In 15 years, you'll be able to do what I did for Descent I and II. Find an emulator for Windows 7 (similar to DosBox) and download the game. Aren't the source codes for game released eventually?
Only if the developer so decides to, which is still an extreme rarity. Otherwise what you're describing is still just as illegal as piracy. Interplay still exists and still holds the rights to the Descent franchise... and even though the source code was released, it was released "under the terms of a non-free license."

I also have an issue with steam, though. What happens if, 15 years from now, you have the sudden urge to play Left 4 Dead but don't have it installed because you've gone through 4 computers in the interim, and for some reason steam no longer exists?
Valve is on record as stating that they DO have a method to deactivate the require Steam Authentication and make their games run without Steam, and have pledged that they WILL issue patches in the event that they even need to shut it down or the company goes out of business. They made this statement right after they released HL2, I believe.[/QUOTE]

That's good for those games already installed, but (and this is a genuine question), are you able to "reinstall" games without steam? Like I said... 3 or 4 computers down the line, steam might not be there to first-time-authenticate your reinstallation, if such is even possible.

It all just raises too much discomfort with me, personally.

GOG.com is getting a lot of my business though, these days, even though I was ticked off by their "we're closing" publicity stunt.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Would you rather see them use a dongle than an internet connection?

Eventually, the dongle will no longer work on later operating systems and hardware configurations. Further, it's a pain to deal with dongle software problems.
As much of a pain as dongles are, it's expressly legal to bypass the DRM if the software company isn't supporting the dongle anymore. If I'm no mistaken it's one of the exceptions explicitly added to the DMCA. No such exemption exists for online activation. If a company refuses to support it's online activation, you can't legally bypass that DRM; if the company won't support a dongle, you can.


So, for those of you who think that DRM is no big deal as long as the consumer is made aware of it, just how much would you put up with as long as the box said "broadband internet connection required to play". Some of these have already been considered by game companies:
0. Some of the game's code for saving is stored on a remote server (this is the method used in AC2, SC:C, S7, etc. as I understand it)
1. Some of the game's code for gameplay is stored on a remote server and lag in the connection may cause side effects like strangely behaving enemies, inventory glitches, texture loading problems, etc.
2. The entire game is stored on a remote server and loading the game will depend on current demand. The more people playing, the longer the load time.
3. All user input is processed on a remote server. This means all the lag problems of an online FPS will be added to every single player game. (Yeah, try playing Rock Band like that.)
4. The entire game is run on a remote server (a la OnLive). Your screen resolution and all other video options are preset and heavily compressed to send to you. All actions are noticeably laggy (with no client-side prediction possible). Not only does your internet need to be steady, it also needs to be fast the whole time as well.


Straight up question, how much will you put up with before it's worth complaining about? No counterarguments about "it's their right" (fine, it is, but I'm asking when exercising that right will keep you from buying). No strawmen about "what do you want, no DRM at all?" (I'm not asking what I want, I'm asking what you'll put up with.) It's this simple, as long as the DRM fails to stop pirates, and fails to stop consumers from buying, then it's going to keep getting more severe. At what point do you consider DRM to be too intrusive to put up with? I've made my decision by striking Assassin's Creed 2 from my list of potential purchases. Where will you draw the line?
 
I also have an issue with steam, though. What happens if, 15 years from now, you have the sudden urge to play Left 4 Dead but don't have it installed because you've gone through 4 computers in the interim, and for some reason steam no longer exists?
Valve is on record as stating that they DO have a method to deactivate the require Steam Authentication and make their games run without Steam, and have pledged that they WILL issue patches in the event that they even need to shut it down or the company goes out of business. They made this statement right after they released HL2, I believe.
That's good for those games already installed, but (and this is a genuine question), are you able to "reinstall" games without steam? Like I said... 3 or 4 computers down the line, steam might not be there to first-time-authenticate your reinstallation, if such is even possible.

[/QUOTE]

Your probably going to be out of luck if you bought the game over Steam and don't have it installed, as you might not be able to get the source files anymore, but if you bought the disc, all you'll need is the patch. This is one of the reasons I highly advise people to back up their Steam folders periodically. Also, I should have made it clear: Valve's promise only applies to the games it has created. I don't think they can remove the protection from other titles unless the other companies OK it.

Honestly, it all comes down whether you want cheap games with unobtrusive DRM you MIGHT lose access to down the line, or you demand the a physical copy and all the prices that entails. I can live with the distant chance I could lose some old games, as long as I get them cheaply.
 
J

Jiarn

I love physical copies, mostly because I love displaying my boxes.... and the convienence.
 
C

Chibibar

Where I draw the line?

If a single player game requires constant internet to play and all content are on my system (flash game excluded like FB games) I won't buy them (like FP, AC2 is off my list)

What I will put up with?
Steam DRM system. Granted Gas ask a VERY valid question in terms of what about the software that I purchase but didn't download (I got tons of those due to space issue)
 
Honestly, it all comes down whether you want cheap games with unobtrusive DRM you MIGHT lose access to down the line, or you demand the a physical copy and all the prices that entails. I can live with the distant chance I could lose some old games, as long as I get them cheaply.
I think big publishers (since they have the resources to take a few risks), should try something along this line.

Two (approximate) options:

A) A "play" license: entitles you to play on the publisher's servers via digital download and authentification. Play is at the sufferance/maintenance of the company servers, but cheap. Could possibly be tied into a subscription service of some kind (like Rhapsody, except for games).

B) A "box" license: entitles you to a physical copy of the game and access to the publisher's servers if you wish. Much more expensive than a "play" license, but ensures that you have a playable copy of the game even when the publisher stops supporting it, or access to their servers is otherwise denied.

Or some such. I've thought for a long time that if publishers want to take back the bargain-bin/used/coupon gaming market, they need to stop approaching consumers as if they all have the same purchasing behavior.
 

Necronic

Staff member
Dongles have a literal lifetime limiit though. They WILL fail. I don't dislike the dongle idea though.

And Gas, your attitude on this surprises me a bit considering your politics. Those companies can do whatever they want. You have a choice to not buy it. Funny thing is, the people that complain about DRM the most often seem to be the people that still HAVE to buy it. If a customer is unable or unwilling to actualize their own market power then the failure rests on their shoulders, not the companies.

Basically, anyone here who bought a game that they knew had DRM they didn't like simply can't complain about it, or at least should mitigate the complaint with "but the game is so awesome it doesn't matter." If you can't do that then you are a junkie who doesn't like his dealers product, but buys it nonetheless.

Th DRM argument seems to revolve around a massive divide in the answer to this question: Does it even work? Its an interesting argument. Here's my response.

Anyone who doesn't think DRM works should immediately disable all of their anti-viruses, run in admin mode, and change all of their passwords to password.

No matter what your PC security is, you are still hackable. So why even use it? Because all security relies on removing the path of least resistance. It isn't a matter of stopping everything. Its about making it harder. Hell, that's even how a dam works. To think that security systems are flawed because someone can still break them is ridiculous, and flies in the face of the entire understanding of security systems.

Now, adding a value comparison of 'how much does it hurt the customer vs how much does it protect' is a better argument. But...take a step back.

If you are buying the product anyways then you make this equation very simple.
 
Just some thoughts on the subject:

1) Ubisoft's DRM takes things to far. By all means people should not buy games that use it and should complain about it, make your reason for lack of purchase known. That said, don't pirate the games as a response. You only add fuel to the fire and allow Ubisoft and other developers to justify their DRM. To companies a pirate is a pirate and they will try to stop them, don't buy the game, don't pirate the game and help break the cycle.

2) Steam is awesome. I built my gaming machine soon after Steam for mac came out because I was so impressed with how far it had come from the days of CS 1.6 when I first used it (before "switching" to the mac).

3) Gas you can backup your game files and installs in steam, I've never used it though so I don't know the full extent.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
And Gas, your attitude on this surprises me a bit considering your politics. Those companies can do whatever they want. You have a choice to not buy it.
My politics are not in conflict with my stance here. I never said the company can't do what they want, I said they were stupid for doing *this.* Never have I advocated making DRM illegal. I've simply said it's an ineffective and backward way to go about this, and that they use it to cover up an antiquated and less sustainable business practice.

Just to switch gears a bit, consider New York. They've raised the taxes on cigarettes so high that there is now an actual, functioning black market for cigarettes. Surprise surprise, higher prices have led to decreased overall revenue, both for the city in taxes and the cigarette makers and sellers as profits. The problem here is not that cigarettes need a complicated licensing/rights management scheme to police them, it's that the price has far exceeded the value. Thus, the black cigarette market, and thus, the rampant nature of software piracy.
 
I thought they were taxing the hell of cigarettes in New York in an attempt to keep people from smoking them. You know, tax it until it's too expensive to keep buying them?
 

figmentPez

Staff member
3) Gas you can backup your game files and installs in steam, I've never used it though so I don't know the full extent.
I back-up all the Steam games I care about, and I've installed from the back-up to save time downloading. If there is a patch for Valve games that makes retail copies playable without Steam, I'd assume it would work on back-ups as well. It's a pretty flexible system as well, it can automatically break up the back-up over multiple discs (CD, DVD, dual-layer DVD or a custom size). You can back up multiple games together, or just one at a time.
 
I thought they were taxing the hell of cigarettes in New York in an attempt to keep people from smoking them. You know, tax it until it's too expensive to keep buying them?
At least from Bloomberg's perspective, that's exactly why they're doing it. If he could pull it off, he would ban cigarettes from NYC entirely.
 
C

Chibibar

I thought they were taxing the hell of cigarettes in New York in an attempt to keep people from smoking them. You know, tax it until it's too expensive to keep buying them?
At least from Bloomberg's perspective, that's exactly why they're doing it. If he could pull it off, he would ban cigarettes from NYC entirely.[/QUOTE]

Yea, but then people can still smoke in their own home right? black market (or go across state line) buy cigs and drive back.
 
it's that the price has far exceeded the value. Thus, the black cigarette market, and thus, the rampant nature of software piracy.
The value is not a fixed point, everyone has different values for a given object. So you can't really say that the price has far exceeded the value, especially given that millions of customers still buy at the elevated rates in NY.

The reason a black market exists is that there is that the cheaper end of the market is so under-served that new enterprises can make significant money by serving that market.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The PC game market has no such problem - there are hundreds of games in most genres at every price point from $1.99 through $200. Furthermore, every game lowers its price over time in order to capture the greatest profit potential it can.

If people are willing to wait and run a year or five behind the curve they can get every game they want at the price they want. It's the same game.

What people are paying $60 for is the ability to play the game right now.

At $60 it's worth it to the company to use the most strict DRM possible. When they sell it on the bargain rack for $15 they may weaken the DRM because it causes too many support issues, reducing their profit.
 

Necronic

Staff member
I have never understood people paying full price for a game. In the last year I got the entire total war collection for like 40$, most of which was for Empire total war (which, ironically, is the worst of the games).

And yeah, Gas I get that argument. You dislike it because its a stupid business practice. I don't know if I can agree though. Consider Ubisoft. Their revenue has grown consistently over the last decade or so to ~400 mil ~2002 to >1bil in 2008. Hard to argue that their business model isn't working.
 
I thought they were taxing the hell of cigarettes in New York in an attempt to keep people from smoking them. You know, tax it until it's too expensive to keep buying them?
At least from Bloomberg's perspective, that's exactly why they're doing it. If he could pull it off, he would ban cigarettes from NYC entirely.[/QUOTE]

Yea, but then people can still smoke in their own home right? black market (or go across state line) buy cigs and drive back.[/QUOTE]

No, the latest cigarettes have tobacco rights management (TRM) built in with location awareness so you can't, for instance, light up a cigarette purchased in NJ if you are currently located in NY. They automatically self-extinguish when you cross the border with a lit one even.

I can't tell if they're using GPS or some other system, but it's pretty neat technology.

---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

 
I thought they were taxing the hell of cigarettes in New York in an attempt to keep people from smoking them. You know, tax it until it's too expensive to keep buying them?
At least from Bloomberg's perspective, that's exactly why they're doing it. If he could pull it off, he would ban cigarettes from NYC entirely.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe anyone in the government is dumb enough to cut that much revenue out of their budget. Then again I know people who think that the government does want everyone in the country to stop smoking so there you go.
 
C

Chibibar

I thought they were taxing the hell of cigarettes in New York in an attempt to keep people from smoking them. You know, tax it until it's too expensive to keep buying them?
At least from Bloomberg's perspective, that's exactly why they're doing it. If he could pull it off, he would ban cigarettes from NYC entirely.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe anyone in the government is dumb enough to cut that much revenue out of their budget. Then again I know people who think that the government does want everyone in the country to stop smoking so there you go.[/QUOTE]

I have to agree. I mean look at the prohibition. That didn't work.

Now with the high taxes, NYC are NOT getting any revenue from the black market cigs.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I thought they were taxing the hell of cigarettes in New York in an attempt to keep people from smoking them. You know, tax it until it's too expensive to keep buying them?
That's assuredly the underlying intent, but they also wanted the tax revenue. In either case, it just shows what happens when you set your price too high.

it's that the price has far exceeded the value. Thus, the black cigarette market, and thus, the rampant nature of software piracy.
The value is not a fixed point, everyone has different values for a given object. So you can't really say that the price has far exceeded the value, especially given that millions of customers still buy at the elevated rates in NY.

The reason a black market exists is that there is that the cheaper end of the market is so under-served that new enterprises can make significant money by serving that market.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The PC game market has no such problem - there are hundreds of games in most genres at every price point from $1.99 through $200. Furthermore, every game lowers its price over time in order to capture the greatest profit potential it can.

If people are willing to wait and run a year or five behind the curve they can get every game they want at the price they want. It's the same game.

What people are paying $60 for is the ability to play the game right now.

At $60 it's worth it to the company to use the most strict DRM possible. When they sell it on the bargain rack for $15 they may weaken the DRM because it causes too many support issues, reducing their profit.[/QUOTE]

Last I heard Ubisoft hadn't weakened their DRM, but I might have missed it. And the price drop over time isn't an applicable disproof - it's not getting cheaper as a courtesy, it's getting cheaper because it isn't fresh any more.. it's last year's technology (which is ~20 in computer years) and it can't compete with the latest that is out. The same game a year later is much like the same cigarette 20 years later - harder to sell because it isn't fresh. Piracy is the software industry's black cigarette market, and it's so cheap it's free. That nobody there is making a profit from their work is testament to how odious many find DRM to be.

No, value isn't a fixed point of course, obviously, since as you say some are actually willing to shell out the 60. Something about more dollars than sense. But obviously it's to the point where a great many feel the price is too far above the value. It's not just about playing for free, it's that 0 is closer to the true value of the game to these people than 60 is. Whereas I just re-bought games I ALREADY OWNED (and yes, legitimately) on GOG.com for the convenience, new OS compatibility, and... oh yes... the complete lack of DRM.

I have never understood people paying full price for a game. In the last year I got the entire total war collection for like 40$, most of which was for Empire total war (which, ironically, is the worst of the games).

And yeah, Gas I get that argument. You dislike it because its a stupid business practice. I don't know if I can agree though. Consider Ubisoft. Their revenue has grown consistently over the last decade or so to ~400 mil ~2002 to >1bil in 2008. Hard to argue that their business model isn't working.
It's making a profit, but it's myopic. They could be making more, and they could be contributing to making "buying" the default process instead of an alternative weighed equally with "pirating." Even the mighty eventually fall, if bad practices persist long enough. Also, remember that the video game industry as a whole has seen unprecedented growth, not just Ubisoft. More money was actually spent on video games this past year than on movies.
 
C

Chibibar

There are some truth in value of games. I have personally bought over 10 copies of Starcraft (original and broodwars) cause I keep losing my disks.

I LOVE steam cause I can download anytime (until they go out of business) but still..... until then. I LOVE IT.

There are some games I WILL buy at original price if I feel it is worth it. StarCraft II, Diablo series, WoW (yes I got collectors edition for cataclysm) I have bought the castlevania series (yes got almost all of it except the 64 series)
 
You know Chibi... if you have an original copy of Starcraft, you can just register it at Battle.net and they'll let you download as many copies of the battlechest version you want for free :)
 

Necronic

Staff member
There seem to be 3 major topics here. Here they are with my views on them:


1)Price point. Finding an ideal price point is difficult. Its effectively a Laffer curve. However, when revenue is growing this rapidly few companies will say 'we are charging way too much.'

2) Does DRM protect software. See my argument above. If you really believe that DRM does nothing then turn off your anti-virus and leave your car and house doors unlocked. Because someone will break those security systems anyways. Security is never about 100% prevention, its about removing the path of least resistance.

3) Does DRM hurt sales. This isn't the same as asking 'does DRM piss me off'. Those are two very different questions. And, if you're looking for an answer, please see #1.

With regard to GBs statement, there is absolutely no way to prove your viewpoint. Your argument effectively boils down to "do it this other way and you will make more money." Why would any company, change their already very profitable business model without a massive down payment of good reason?
 
Why would any company, change their already very profitable business model without a massive down payment of good reason?
Hehehe, this part makes me lol. Countless profitable companies screwed themselves going down routes that didn't have any reasoning behind their choice, nevermind good reason. I understand your point, but this particular assemblage of words just got to me...
 
C

Chibibar

You know Chibi... if you have an original copy of Starcraft, you can just register it at Battle.net and they'll let you download as many copies of the battlechest version you want for free :)
Yea. I know that now, but that didn't help me 5 years ago ;)
 
I thought they were taxing the hell of cigarettes in New York in an attempt to keep people from smoking them. You know, tax it until it's too expensive to keep buying them?
At least from Bloomberg's perspective, that's exactly why they're doing it. If he could pull it off, he would ban cigarettes from NYC entirely.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe anyone in the government is dumb enough to cut that much revenue out of their budget. Then again I know people who think that the government does want everyone in the country to stop smoking so there you go.[/QUOTE]

I have to agree. I mean look at the prohibition. That didn't work.

Now with the high taxes, NYC are NOT getting any revenue from the black market cigs.[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree that it's silly, I'm just pointing out that Mike Bloomberg actually wants to ban cigarettes as an end goal.
 
C

Chibibar

I don't disagree that it's silly, I'm just pointing out that Mike Bloomberg actually wants to ban cigarettes as an end goal.
It is a good goal, but I'm not a smoker. I have a few friends who are. It is HARD to kick the habit (I have seen them over 10 years trying to quit) but you have to have the will do it.

The price of cig is going up, but they are willing to sacrifice other stuff to buy cigs. unless it is banned across the U.S. people will continue to smoke and obtain them one way or another.
 
J

Jiarn

Yeah cause the whole illegal thing really killed the Marjiuana market right?
 
C

Chibibar

Yeah cause the whole illegal thing really killed the Marjiuana market right?
Well... Marijuana has always been illegal (at least for a long while for many people) alcohol and Cigs are different story. They have been around and legal for sometimes. Taking them away is hard like removing a tax that government institute.

There was a time when alcohol was illegal and you saw how that turn out. Can you imagine the government institute a total ban on alcohol and cigs? slap a fine and jail time? (like Marijuana)
it would be a logistic nightmare!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top