Spore, EA, DRM, etc.

[The_cranky_hermit]

Gaming class computers and nice big widescreen monitors aren't monthly dedications

Neither is a computer game.

And why assume broadband internet access?

It's very difficult to download a game without one.

I was just discussing piracy with a friend minutes ago, he made a good point (Reminded me) that even if there was no such thing as piracy, It would barely help. I know that I would not buy THAT many more games, I would play the games that i bought more and I would be wise with what I spent my money on. The point is 95% of the games that I pirate I would not buy even if it was the only option of obtaining it.

It would be very difficult to prove that. It's equally difficult to take this claim seriously when they admit to spending hundreds of dollars on a "decent" PC that serves mainly to play said games that they claim they wouldn't have spent a penny on anyway.

For instance lets say you put $200 in savings for food. You want to buy a game and have no money that hasn't been budgeted. You say "I have no money" because you have money that is to be used for food.

If you're working fulltime at even a crappy job, you're probably making at least $200 in a week. You don't need to spend $200 to feed two people for just the week it took you to earn it. Claiming you budgeted 100% of your income on food doesn't work unless you're trying to feed four people on a single minimum wage income. In Kansas.

Whatever I budget, after that goes to paying off student loans, and after that hopefully new tires before winter.

If paying off loans and having new tires is more important to you than having computer games, then this is the right decision. But this decision comes with another responsibility - forfeiting the games that you've deemed less important.

unless you know someone life situation I highly recommend you keep your month shut when making personal comments

If you don't like people making "personal comments," then I suggest you not give "personal" excuses for pirating games. Such as "honestly I have no money" (but if I were rich I'd totally buy my games).

[Dem Pyros]

Gaming class computers and nice big widescreen monitors aren't monthly dedications

Neither is a computer game.

And why assume broadband internet access?

It's very difficult to download a game without one.

First off, a computer game isn't a monthly dedication, but it is something that is purchased usually every three months or so by the casual gamer. It's not something that once purchased a goal is achieved and it isn't a thought after that. If you're into video games, you have to spend money now and then on video games. Computers and monitors last years, games cycle.

It's easy to download a game without broadband internet access. It just takes longer.

[The_cranky_hermit]

First off, a computer game isn't a monthly dedication, but it is something that is purchased usually every three months or so by the casual gamer.

So what? What does it matter what casual gamers "usually" do? The fact of the matter is that games are not a monthly dedication. There's no reason not to buy only what you can afford and live without the games you can't. Even if this means less than one game every three months.

It's not something that once purchased a goal is achieved and it isn't a thought after that.

That depends on how high your income is. If your income is high enough that you don't have to "save up" for a brand new game, then your "some of us don't have the extravagant sums of money to pay for things other than essential modern civilized needs" claim holds no water.

you have to spend money now and then on video games

And if you can afford a gaming PC and a monitor just once, you can afford the video games "now and then."

It's easy to download a game without broadband internet access. It just takes longer.

It would hardly be a good investment of your time. Or electricity bill.

[DaFox]

It's easy to download a game without broadband internet access. It just takes longer.

It would hardly be a good investment of your time. Or electricity bill.

Wait wait wait, People uh turn off their computers?

[Dem Pyros]

First off, a computer game isn't a monthly dedication, but it is something that is purchased usually every three months or so by the casual gamer.

So what? What does it matter what casual gamers "usually" do? The fact of the matter is that games are not a monthly dedication. There's no reason not to buy only what you can afford and live without the games you can't. Even if this means less than one game every three months.

Neither is cable, neither is a residence, neither is internet access, neither is food for that matter.

There's no reason to not live in a building and not survive off of your own muscles. Even if this means your life span is cut down to only a few weeks.

It's not something that once purchased a goal is achieved and it isn't a thought after that.

That depends on how high your income is. If your income is high enough that you don't have to "save up" for a brand new game, then your "some of us don't have the extravagant sums of money to pay for things other than essential modern civilized needs" claim holds no water.

But if your income isn't that high, then saving up for a brand new game once a year and that being the only spare amount of money around, then it's a constant strain on your cash flow, budgeting or no budgeting.

you have to spend money now and then on video games

And if you can afford a gaming PC and a monitor just once, you can afford the video games "now and then."

Um, no, because cash flow can vary quite a bit. The point I was making with the monitor and the PC being one-time payments is that if your cash flow is 1500 dollars a month and you have an excess amount at one point to buy nice electronics, and then you get fired and are forced to get a job that pays 200 dollars a month (obviously an exaggeration for the point), then you no longer have the influx of money and thus it's unreasonable to justify a "you have a nice computer so you should be able to buy video games" argument.

It's easy to download a game without broadband internet access. It just takes longer.

It would hardly be a good investment of your time. Or electricity bill.

I wouldn't say it's a bad investment of your time because you don't have to monitor it, but it would be an incredible waste of electricity.

That is of course you're not hijacking electricity from your neighbor...

[Paradigm Shifter]

Starforce is/was a mess. I first encountered it with problem is Silent Hunter 2. Tremendous installation problem!

StarForce is the best example of DRM taken way, way too far. The backlash against StarForce has been significant, to the point where it's really only used in territories that see ultra-high piracy rates (Russia etc.). SecuROM is headed down that road, though. :(

...

General - £5 doesn't quite work out to $5, but I guess after you include R.O.B syndrome, it probably would be about $5 in the States... so, yeah. $5, and I'll 'rent' my games. Any more than that, and the publishers can take a running jump.

...

...

Y'know, I'm getting kinds bored of this thread. Well, not the whole thread, as some of the points raised have been quite interesting... but I've had this sense of deja vu with some posts. And that is boring me.

[MaulSidious]

I just bought Warhead without knowing the DRM until it asks me to go online for activiation. This part is acceptable

Erm what if you dont have the internet?

[Abram]

What kind of freak has a computer AND plays games, and doesn't have internet access?

Is it a cheesy requirement, but not hard to achieve. Not that i support that crap or anything...

[DaFox]

What kind of freak has a computer AND plays games, and doesn't have internet access?

Is it a cheesy requirement, but not hard to achieve. Not that i support that crap or anything...

There are actually quite a few people that have such.

[skeeder]

For instance lets say you put $200 in savings for food. You want to buy a game and have no money that hasn't been budgeted. You say "I have no money" because you have money that is to be used for food.

If you're working fulltime at even a crappy job, you're probably making at least $200 in a week. You don't need to spend $200 to feed two people for just the week it took you to earn it. Claiming you budgeted 100% of your income on food doesn't work unless you're trying to feed four people on a single minimum wage income. In Kansas.

You obviously did not catch the concept and went straight after the idea.

Your argument is flawed, your attacking our reasons for piracy instead of defending the companies. You make no arguement to justify any companies pathetic and abusive means to protect content that end users buy and justify it all under the umbrella that "its not your right".

Does pursuit of happiness make it a right? maybe. Maybe not. Do I care? No. Want I want from is a viable, intelligent REASON for companies doing this. Not rebuttals to our reasoning of why we do it.

[The_cranky_hermit]

Neither is cable, neither is a residence, neither is internet access, neither is food for that matter.

Uh yeah, those are "monthly dedications." Either you pay for them every month or you don't have them at all.

There's no reason to not live in a building and not survive off of your own muscles. Even if this means your life span is cut down to only a few weeks

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. These things are basic necessities in a first-world standard of living. Video games are not a basic necessity to any standard of living whatsoever.

But if your income isn't that high, then saving up for a brand new game once a year and that being the only spare amount of money around, then it's a constant strain on your cash flow, budgeting or no budgeting.

Not at all. If you're saving up for any item that isn't required to sustain your standard of living (and games are NEVER required for this) and it becomes a "strain" on your cash flow, then you're doing budgeting wrong.

The point I was making with the monitor and the PC being one-time payments is that if your cash flow is 1500 dollars a month and you have an excess amount at one point to buy nice electronics, and then you get fired and are forced to get a job that pays 200 dollars a month (obviously an exaggeration for the point), then you no longer have the influx of money and thus it's unreasonable to justify a "you have a nice computer so you should be able to buy video games" argument.

If something like that severe happened, trying to get ahold of video games should be the last thing on your mind.

You obviously did not catch the concept and went straight after the idea.

What? I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. Or what you mean by differentiating between "the concept" and "the idea." All I know here is that you presented a flawed hypothetical scenario, and I explained why it was flawed.

Your argument is flawed, your attacking our reasons for piracy instead of defending the companies.

I don't see what purpose "defending" the companies would serve, as opposed to attacking flawed excuses for stealing from them.

You make no arguement to justify any companies pathetic and abusive means to protect content

I don't have one. I made my position on DRM clear several posts back - I just don't care whether they use it or not.

justify it all under the umbrella that "its not your right".

What does this have to to with DRM? Believe it or not, all the time I was explaining to you why it's bad to steal CoD4, it was in fact not an attempt to justify EA's use of SecuROM.

Want I want from is a viable, intelligent REASON for companies doing this.

Because it's their product. They made it, they own it, they sell it. They can do their own business of their own product any way they please as long as they follow existing regulations. And there's nothing unfair about the way they do business either - anyone who doesn't like the conditions they've set has the option to rightfully and conveniently choose not to get the game.

Not rebuttals to our reasoning of why we do it.

Not making excuses for stealing in the first place can't hurt your odds of not getting rebuttals to them.

[DaFox]

@skeeder Cranky will never understand, he still has games that he has queued up to play from the 90s, he doesn't know what its like to have nothing to play.

[p2987]

@skeeder Cranky will never understand, he still has games that he has queued up to play from the 90s, he doesn't know what its like to have nothing to play.

But he does know "Thou shalt not steal" well

[The_cranky_hermit]

he doesn't know what its like to have nothing to play.

I know quite well what it's like. Back in '01, I was so poor I had to make Deus Ex last eight months. I rented Conker's Bad Fur Day one week too.

he still has games that he has queued up to play from the 90s

Thanks to things like Steam, GameTap, GoG, and eBay, you can too even if you have to live on the cheap (relatively speaking).

[scavvenjahh]

Hello again !
DRM turning your *full retail game* into a *3-install license rental* has nothing to do with your budget !
See ya !

[Abram]

quote... overload......

.....brain...hurting.....

Can't... handle..........!!



AAAAAARRRRGGH!!

[Paradigm Shifter]

DRM turning your *full retail game* into a *3-install license rental* has nothing to do with your budget !

Precisely.

I don't care whether you think piracy is valid, or whether it's the most evil thing this side of the Devil himself. But if you want to keep this evidently pointless backwards-and-forwards going (pointless because it's painfully evident that neither of the parties are going to change the views of the other party) then take it to Private Messages.

[skeeder]

Cranky and I have managed to completely de-rail this thread.

I apologize for him.

:lol:

[Mesh]

I'd put the 'needs an online server' as a bigger drawback to the max limit of installs.

Of course the 2 are related.

Example, I have here ev:nova, needs the online server, if it ever goes down, my game is dead.

[Dem Pyros]

Neither is cable, neither is a residence, neither is internet access, neither is food for that matter.

Uh yeah, those are "monthly dedications." Either you pay for them every month or you don't have them at all.

Missed the point.

There's no reason to not live in a building and not survive off of your own muscles. Even if this means your life span is cut down to only a few weeks

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. These things are basic necessities in a first-world standard of living. Video games are not a basic necessity to any standard of living whatsoever.

Missed the point.

But if your income isn't that high, then saving up for a brand new game once a year and that being the only spare amount of money around, then it's a constant strain on your cash flow, budgeting or no budgeting.

Not at all. If you're saving up for any item that isn't required to sustain your standard of living (and games are NEVER required for this) and it becomes a "strain" on your cash flow, then you're doing budgeting wrong.

No. If a new game is 50 dollars, and you only have 5 dollars left over after budgeting for all necessary first world expenses, and it would therefore take ten months to purchase a game, I would say that's most definitely a strain on your cash flow.

It's not "doing budgeting wrong," it's not having that much money.

The point I was making with the monitor and the PC being one-time payments is that if your cash flow is 1500 dollars a month and you have an excess amount at one point to buy nice electronics, and then you get fired and are forced to get a job that pays 200 dollars a month (obviously an exaggeration for the point), then you no longer have the influx of money and thus it's unreasonable to justify a "you have a nice computer so you should be able to buy video games" argument.

If something like that severe happened, trying to get ahold of video games should be the last thing on your mind.

Severe? Losing a job and gaining one that pays less is "severe" if you still have enough money for monthly payments for everything?

Want I want from is a viable, intelligent REASON for companies doing this.

Because it's their product. They made it, they own it, they sell it. They can do their own business of their own product any way they please as long as they follow existing regulations. And there's nothing unfair about the way they do business either - anyone who doesn't like the conditions they've set has the option to rightfully and conveniently choose not to get the game.

So let me ask you this.

What is your opinion on the Sony BMG Rootkit scandal?

(Also sorry for derailing the thread)