All very true, the bloody awful level of DRM only makes people want to pirate even more but if people weren't pirating them in the first place they wouldn't be going to such lengths to protect their games now. I abhor the levels of DRM Ubisoft are now using and I think it's totally unfair for paying customers like myself. It's for this reason I have no sympathy whatsoever with people who steal games getting infected by a virus because if there were no pirates there would be no DRM. If you don't like the levels of DRM on a game don't buy it but for godsake don't go and pirate it because it will make it even worse for paying customers. Just because people don't like the DRM is not an excuse to get it for free.
I just removed a 'Java exploit' picked up by Microsoft security essentials, I don't torrent games but I have watched a few films recently. If I like something I do go out and buy it on blu-ray.
It does give you a pretty solid excuse for buying the game and then cracking it though. I've had games where the copy protection was so broken I've had to use a NoCD just to play the game. The original rainbow six was the first game I remember having major problems with
Yup bad DRM harms legit consumers not pirates. I'm all for things like steam which I think is amazing really. It adds to the experience of a game for me giving me loads of extra features and somewhere in all those lovely features is a way for them to check I'm legit in a way I don't even really notice. While I'm not someone who thinks I can download what I want for free I get really riled up by the whole piracy=stealing nonsense or a pirated download=a lost sale. Piracy isn't stealing by definition, it's piracy and plenty of people download things they would never have bought ever. This doesn't legitimise what they are doing but I bet loads of people download high-end professional software who would never in a million years have forked out hundreds of pounds for it legitimately.
Likewise. Most modern games are actually impossible to use legally if you're behind a proxy. They say that it requires an internet connection; what they fail to mention is that only one sort of internet connection will do. And if you're proxied, they don't provide any config tools or offline workarounds (at least in EA's case - GTAIV is the one exception to this).
regarding piracy, i've always wandered if downloading a game which is not available for your region is considered theft. There are many places like that (including where i live to a degree), where you cannot buy a game online because it's not for your region or that there no shops which sell the games or if they are sold then they are very overpriced. i personally wouldn't consider it theft because there is no other way to get a hold of the games they would want.
Sadly yes. That is like the the person that stole bread from your store because he is starving... do you let him? Morally, yes. But the law in every country says no (else you'll have all city bums at your door step asking or taking without your consent your bread). Even though you had unlimited bread, where do you mark the line between poor and those who have a bit money but not enough... and how will you feed your family if you keep giving away free bread (assuming you only sell bread)? While not a perfect analogy, it's still holds in the eyes of the law.
The problem with reviews, is that if I had followed them, I would be the proud owner of Far Cry 2 (which Bit-Tech gave a 9). Whatever happened to game demos. Nowadays if you want to try out a game before release, you have to BUY it. Wheres the logic in that?
The point of subjective reviews is that you should follow people with the same tastes as yourself. There are plenty of review sites For example, I'm not going to read official Nintendo/Sony/Xbox magazine haha or Cashspot Gamespot.
I'm gonna be a stereotypical Libra here, and try and see both sides. I kind of agree with the side of downloading games to try before buying, but only for the same reasons that I think that games should be provided with a demo that is freely available. For example, if I wanted to try Starcraft 2, being the type of gamer who doesn't really like games like Starcraft, I'd look for a demo. If there wasn't a demo, I'd shrug and go and play Team Fortress 2 or torrent the game to try it. If I liked it, I would buy it. However, I would be miffed that there wasn't a demo. It's not like the days when a demo was only useful before the game came out, and any time spent cropping the game down beforehand was just sapping away at the release date. I see a lot more people buying games about a month after release than on launch than I used to. Once the game is signed and sealed, surely it can't be too difficult just to chop a game down to 2 missions? (I realise that I will be proved wrong shortly.) On the other hand, I know that torrenting games is STEALING and WRONG. I understand the whole "no sympathy" thing, but indecisive gamers like myself like to try before we buy. I haven't downloaded a game in a very long time because I prefer to buy my games and send the profits down the line to the people who made it, because I appreciate the effort. And I agree that the people who blindly torrented the game because they wanted it so badly that they couldn't drop £40 on it and got infected with nasty trojans deserved it. If only for not virus checking it.
you can play starcraft 2 for free for 7hrs anyway get a guest pass of your m8s who have retail copys you can download the official installer for free from there website as long as you have a bnet account with the guest key on it they arnt hard to find. so piracy of sc2 is cause you wont buy it no other reason. If you cant make a decision in 7hrs your crazy as most new games dont even give 7hrs of gameplay lol a quick google found a site offering keys for 50pence lol. as for starcraft 2 been expensive its not really got mine for £23 on release from pre order that amazon had going about 1 year back they have to sell you for lowest price which it was around £20 or so a year ago. fun for me lol tesco and asda both had it on special for £25 were i lived. They were sold out the next day so i guess they sold fast
i think you missed what i was getting at. People are not going to starve if they don't play games. what i believe i was trying to say was, can it be considered piracy if the game is technically not available in the country since there is no support available. so this would mean that the dev doesn't really lose anything if someone pirated the game.
Honestly, if it's true it doesn't surprise me. Fact is, you're taking a chance and if you get burned with malware you have no comeback. That's just the way it is. I understand the arguments against DRM, but the problem is not the pirating - it will happen and has always happened. The problem is the likes of Ubisoft using invasive and sometimes buggy DRM management. One reason I stopped buying Ubisoft titles is the stupid DRM systems they insist on inflicting on people. Not everyone has a decent internet connection, and even if we did, what right do they have to impose online verification for single player titles! The latest version of The Settlers comes to mind. It shouldn't be the case that every time you play a game you have to connect to the internet. That adds up to quite a chunk of bandwidth allowance and I think that's wrong. Steam has its faults and annoyances, but nobody can deny it works well for the most part in managing this problem. That's why most of the games I play now are bought through Steam. Because, mostly, it doesn't cause DRM hassle. I'd rather pay for a game and have peace of mind than risk getting malware on my PC. If it's got overly restrictive DRM controls, I won't buy it. Simple as.
I kind of get what you're saying although as you say the analogy doesn't really work. If I made a loaf of bread and a bum could copy it digitally I wouldn't have lost anything by him copying the bread....... It's a contentious issue that isn't going to be solved perfectly, I just hope that systems like steam continue and not crippling DRM. Like it or not the world has changed and publishers need to change too, we've seen the right way to do it (steam, spotify etc) and the wrong way to do it (too many to mention).
The theft argument is bumph, as is the conjecture as to lost sales. The problems here aren't the technology or that in the digital age everyone has become a criminal. Rather the situation is that media needs to be created, bought, and paid for in a fair and reasonable manner. It's not like the people who actually write these games we're talking about are going to see a proportionate percentage of the cash from sales, lost or otherwise. The same goes for music and film. I could really wax lyrical about media consumption and creation in the digital age... but I won't.
I totally disagree. There have been studies done by game developers who've removed DRM as a goodwill gesture, and it's been shown that adding DRM does not hurt sales at all, in fact until a crack is released it actually helps sales. The only reason Ubisoft is adding nasty DRM is that they've been burnt a lot of times in the past - for example, in 2008 they released a game with no DRM, as a goodwill gesture. In short, they said 'ok, you say you won't pirate games if there's no DRM, now's your chance to act on your words. Unfortunately, the game still got pirated to death. Statistically, when a crack is released for a game, the sales drop significantly. If adding DRM that's kinda nasty but takes three months to crack is the solution, with higher sales, that's what the publishers will do. Doubtless some of the people who pirate games would have bought them - not all, but some. Using MW2 as an example of a developer is kinda unfair - Bobby Kotick has publically said **** you to all gamers, not just PC gamers - even other developers have been very critical. Yes, but do still be careful. Usually, the false positives you can totally ignore are the heuristics ones, which look for virus-like behaviour rather than known viruses. Others would at least be worth checking up on. I'm not sure that DRM is the massive evil people make it out to be. Certainly, I've never been denied gameplay by a game (not even the Ubisoft DRM), and in none of the games I've bought in the last few years have I even noticed DRM (it helps that I buy games on Steam when I can). Totally true! It's still copyright infringement in the US sense, but it depends where you live. From a moral sense, yes, it's still copyright infringement. Read this article - it's actually very good, if very long (35k words), and it just might change your viewpoint or at least help you understand why DRM is included: http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html
hehe I know.. I laughed so hard when the music industry spents millions on protecting music cd's- and a kid put magic marker around the edge and copied it all
There are better incentives than draconian DRM to make people buy games. The big games, the really big games - like MW2 are those that have built their bases on a solid MP experience. You end up with a simple choice when it comes to piracy on MP games. You can either buy the game and play it with protection, or pirate it and either not play on line at all or play with other pirates, most of whom will be cheating. Accurately sums up my stance on what's required to dissuade piracy on PC. Pity games on Steam are so damn expensive. And as to games being infeasible on PC, maybe it's not the games that are infeasible, but the companies providing them. The humble bundle was considered a success by the indie devs involved in it. http://www.wolfire.com/humble http://www.readwriteweb.com/start/2010/05/open-source-gaming-Cheesecake.php
