Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[timferius]

So much vagueness in those answers.

I'm happy they seem to be seeing sense, but a sorry would have been nice.

Not going to hold my breath for a sorry. They seem pretty sure they handled it well still, but that people want it changed. At least their even pretending to listen to their fanbase finally, instead of going "Sorry, I can't hear you over all those pirates and their yarring!"

[nenjin]

At a bare minimum, no longer having limited installs on games you paid for is a blessing. That was one of the primary things stopping me from buying.

[Levi]

Nice, but I don't particularly want to activate my games by registering either.

[Paul]

Their next DRM system involves surgically installed chips in your hand. They send you a U-Surgery kit in the mail as part of your registration process, along with a scanner-mouse that all your games must be played with. You implant the chip in your hand, then the mouse scans the chip while you play. Should you move your hand off the mouse for more than 30 seconds, or it pick up another chip from a different gamer, the game shuts down. It's also a convenient way for them to monitor their fans, keeping track of their blood pressure and other health indicators to determine how much entertainment they get out of certain game series. That way the next generation of the games can be price targeted to each fan specifically based on how much they like the game and their socio-economic status, with the games that rich people like going at upwards of $1000.

[Draco18s]

This is a step in a direction, I admit.

Yup, it's a step.  In a direction.  Have yet to see if it's a good step or the right direction.

[Zangi]

Their next DRM system involves surgically installed chips in your hand. They send you a U-Surgery kit in the mail as part of your registration process, along with a scanner-mouse that all your games must be played with. You implant the chip in your hand, then the mouse scans the chip while you play. Should you move your hand off the mouse for more than 30 seconds, or it pick up another chip from a different gamer, the game shuts down. It's also a convenient way for them to monitor their fans, keeping track of their blood pressure and other health indicators to determine how much entertainment they get out of certain game series. That way the next generation of the games can be price targeted to each fan specifically based on how much they like the game and their socio-economic status, with the games that rich people like going at upwards of $1000.

Don't forget, you pay for the chip and the scanner-mouse.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

You know, the PC gaming industry nowadays has things pretty backwards. Instead of asking themselves "why do more and more people pirate our shitty console ports" the major companies go "Oh no piracy is an inevitable universal constant much like gravity, how do we fight that shit HARD". This is a step in a direction, I admit. I'm not sure how I'd do things if I were the head of a gaming company, but right now, without any thought or money poured into it, I prefer the League of Legends free model for online games and, honestly, no DRM at all for singleplayer games coupled with paid, download-only DLC. I'd say expansions, but those have fallen somewhat on the wayside nowadays. Pirates have proven time and again they can handle even the best DRM, so just put some trust in people and shovel that bogsubstance away.

Online-only DRM works in the sense that if your game is a mumorpeger or has extensive online capabilites which cannot be replicated in singleplayer, people won't pirate your game unless you charge out your ass. If it's fun they might even keep playing it. It does not work in the sense that oh no you couldn't possibly play Diablo 3 offline no no, because, you see OH GOD WHAT IS THAT BEHIND YOU

However since apparently people still buy, things are staying pretty much the same. I say apparently not because I pirate, but because my slow-as-molasses laptop pretty much peaks with 2004 games and there aren't really that many of them around.

Dear Ubisoft: Make games that are worth a damn without 20 DLCs and years of fixing and you'll see your piracy rate steeply drop to >5%. Regardless of security measures therein.

[Cheese]

Last time they did this, with Starforce, they just ended up making the most recent rendition of insane always online DRM.

[Viken]

Actually, think of it like this: The price of a brand new game, off the shelf is $60USD right now.  If game develope companies quit paying for DRM software all together, then they could possibly save enough money in their budgets to reduece the price of games back down to $45USD or the like and still be able to make more profit than they had previously; which would make alot more people happy, mean alot more money to go around; and less people to pirate the games because of lack of funds.

Most pirates just don't have the money to buy the newest games and DLC that come out, and when the industry is so big that people are forced to pick-and-choose over a period of time, piracy is much more likely to happen. Fact.

[Shadowlord]

Actually, think of it like this: The price of a brand new game, off the shelf is $60USD right now.  If game develope companies quit paying for DRM software all together, then they could possibly save enough money in their budgets to reduece the price of games back down to $45USD or the like and still be able to make more profit than they had previously;

What non-built-into-the-platform DRM software do you think is in $60 console games? No, really. Think about that for a minute before you consider whether cutting out their budget for PC game DRM would cause them to change their prices in any way. (... Unless they are Valve)

[lavenders2]

PC gamer logic:

Ubisoft implements bad DRM: Screw you Ubisoft, you suck! Remove DRM!
Ubisoft removes always online DRM: You still suck!

Honestly, if they removed it, it should be ok to buy their games again right? Pretty sure it was the number one complaint, and they just removed it. What happened is the PC community literally told them to F off and just stay away anyway. PC gamers are entitled, elitist people that are incredibly pessimistic and will stuff developers heads in regardless of actions, judging them on past movements.

Exhibit A: Ubisoft DRM
Exhibit B:

Call of duty with no change: Same shit since 2007
Call of duty blops 2: WTF it's not even COD anymore! Stop copying HALO!

I don't blame developers for shutting out the PC community.

[Dsarker]

No, the logic goes like this for the DRM.


Ubisoft implements bad DRM: Screw you, Ubisoft, you suck! Remove DRM!
Ubisoft promises to remove DRM: Woo! Purchaser power!
Ubisoft instead adds more: Screw you, Ubisoft, you suck! Remove DRM!
Ubisoft removes part of it, under certain conditions: We still don't trust you.

[lavenders2]

No, the logic goes like this for the DRM.


Ubisoft implements bad DRM: Screw you, Ubisoft, you suck! Remove DRM!
Ubisoft promises to remove DRM: Woo! Purchaser power!
Ubisoft instead adds more: Screw you, Ubisoft, you suck! Remove DRM!
Ubisoft removes part of it, under certain conditions: We still don't trust you.

True. But this time they DID remove it. I can definitely see the reason to not trust them much, but this is certainly a step in the right direction. Don't forget that this has been removed for some time now. Let's just pray that it works out for Ubisoft, otherwise they may return with an even harsher system. If DRM really was increasing their profits, well........

[Dsarker]

No, the logic goes like this for the DRM.


Ubisoft implements bad DRM: Screw you, Ubisoft, you suck! Remove DRM!
Ubisoft promises to remove DRM: Woo! Purchaser power!
Ubisoft instead adds more: Screw you, Ubisoft, you suck! Remove DRM!
Ubisoft removes part of it, under certain conditions: We still don't trust you.

True. But this time they DID remove it. I can definitely see the reason to not trust them much, but this is certainly a step in the right direction. Don't forget that this has been removed for some time now. Let's just pray that it works out for Ubisoft, otherwise they may return with an even harsher system. If DRM really was increasing their profits, well........

It doesn't even necessarily have to be increasing their profits. If they don't increase their profits /after/ this, then really, there is no reason not to have DRM. And remember, correlation in finance can be told to mean causation, so if they have bad games, bad publicity, or other reasons for people not to purchase games, they'll lose money and turn /right/ back to DRM.

[scriver]

PC gamers are entitled, elitist people that are incredibly pessimistic and will stuff developers heads in regardless of actions, judging them on past movements.

Eh. "Gamer entitlement". The most meaningless phrase in the business today. Here's a good Forbes blog explaining why people are way to fast to shout "entitlement!" these days. I link to page two, because while the first page is a good read, it's on the second part that what's relevant to this at hand is written:

All told, we’re left with the notion that gamers should simply “show some respect” to hard-working developers, whatever the situation. And while I agree that showing respect to fellow human beings, and especially those who work hard to create products you love, is a good thing most of the time, it’s also a two-way street.

We rarely hear of corporate “entitlement” but surely it exists. Do some of these game developers and publishers act as though they can take their fans for granted? Do they use pernicious forms of DRM and licensing that make it almost as if gamers don’t even own the games they “purchase” and force customers to leap through irritating hoops simply to play in the first place? Do they listen to their fans complaints or simply brush them off with clever, and at times downright combative, PR?

The simple fact of the matter is this: a customer is entitled to spend their money however they choose. They’re also entitled to make their concerns and complaints about a game or any other product known.

Companies themselves are not entitled to much of anything. They’re not guaranteed sales of the games they make, or a fawning customer base, or anything else for that matter. They have to earn all that; consumers simply have to buy something. It’s not an even playing field. And it never will be in a market economy.

So let’s put the sword to this overgrown, ill-used, and much abused notion that somehow upset gamers are acting “entitled.” Even if they are, well they’re entitled to that. It’s all a piece of the “vote with your wallet” philosophy. You may not be able to just up and leave America if you’re not patriotic enough for the rah-rah crowd, but you can up and leave a brand (at least outside of the healthcare industry) without batting an eye – though you may shed a tear.

People too often act as though complaining about a product and voting with your wallet are two distinct acts, but they’re not.

If anything, acts of gamer “entitlement” are mostly attempts at giving second or third chances to a developer or publisher. It’s a customer basically telling you exactly what’s wrong with your product before saying “We won’t buy your product ever again!”

That sort of information strikes me as quite useful, actually. Almost the sort of data you might pay for. But I’ve never been a big believer in the value of yes-men.