Square Enix PROBABLY just earned another 1.000,000 if not more.

[DreadStunLock]

What you mean it wouldn't work?

On Starcraft II, before you are allowed to play Offline mode, you HAVE to log in at least once every so often. Same thing can be applied.

[Cronky]

Don't games already do that with verifying your license key online? How will that protect Deus Ex more than any other game out there?

What happens to people who have spotty or no connection to the internet? (A very small minority, yes, but that doesn't stop said person from buying a game, a single player one at that, from a store)

[DreadStunLock]

Don't games already do that with verifying your license key online? How will that protect Deus Ex more than any other game out there?

What happens to people who have spotty or no connection to the internet? (A very small minority, yes, but that doesn't stop said person from buying a game, a single player one at that, from a store)

The thing about Battle.net is being checked all the time.

If you don't log on for a week or 2, you are asked to log on before you can go offline to play.

Also the internet connection does not matter if it's good or not, because when you are playing Solo, it doesn't use any internet at all.

[Cronky]

It still sounds like the same thing, and on top of that it wouldn't help in calming the tide of piracy that would inevitably be all up on the game. Why? Because there is ONLY Single Player. Blizzard knows that if you're buying Starcraft 2 that you're most likely NOT buying it strictly for the Single Player campaign. Their majority is going to be in for the Online multiplayer. When you're already online it's easy to check and see if you're playing Legit.

Deus Ex, or any Single Player only game, doesn't have that convenience for a video game company. Since WHY should I, as a paying customer, HAVE to go online to play my purely single player game. I didn't buy it with the thought of "Oh boy! I get to go online with this game!", so forcing me to go online to do checks is an inconvenience. Yes, most will understand a one time license check. The same as anyone who goes to a theater wouldn't be bothered by a guy waiting to check your ticket to get in. If that same guy came into the movie you were seeing every 30 minutes to check your ticket, you'd probably get pissed that he's ruining your experience that you paid for.

It's pretty much what Frvge sig alludes to. Treating your customer's like pirates simply because you're trying to combat piracy doesn't work. DRM, and things like it, only really inconveniences the actual customer, not the person who downloads the crack. In some cases legit customers will use these same means to ESCAPE the bars that are meant for those who are stealing the game. Ubisoft is the prime example again with their idea on a Single Player DRM. Again, it's not perfect. It's trying to strongarm piracy out by forcing multiple checks on an outside variable, which works to a degree, but mostly just punishes those who bought the game by forcing the same restrictions. Is there another option that is actually effective though? Not that I've heard of yet, and license checking multiple times doesn't quite seem to be a viable answer either.

Course that's all assuming that piracy hurts the video game (or any other) industry as much as people "in the loop" make it seem. Yes, they lose a lot of potential money. I'm sure some games lose millions of dollars, but then the same level of games (The Witcher 2) and companies (Good Old Games) release stuff without DRM and everything is going on just fine. Yes, Witcher 2 had DRM intitially, but it was taken off by it's first patch days after it's release. Since that's what DRM is there for, initial profits, not long-term. Game companies don't care if their game isn't making money 5 years, and 3 games down the road. It's mostly about the first month(s), or even week(s), that will determine whether the game was a success or not.

[NeoSuperior]

Bioware showed, how to do it right.

Mass Effect 1 had SecuRom. (You could only install it 3 times, later 5 times)
   -> Bioware realized that this was the wrong way.

Mass Effect 2 had no "limited installations"/"internet as reqiremen" (aside from standard DVD protection(s))
   -> People buyed it, because they were happy about Bioware being so fair with this great singleplayer game

[Cronky]

Exactly. Strict DRM is a dying fad because game companies are learning that their actual customers are the only ones that are punished by it. If your product is worth the money it costs to purchase, then people will buy it. Maybe not ALL people, but the majority will stay on the side of people purchasing rather than pirating.

[Tidenburg]

I thought the Assassins Creed 'DRM' was pretty clever. It doesn't matter if you have 'patchy' internet, because it only requires a connection sometimes to download the missing pieces (iircc). We're moving into a time when most people have internet, even moreso if they also have a gaming PC. I bet even less than a point of a percent of people who are hardcore PC gamers also don't have internet...

About the UBI servers going down, taking the whole game down. Isn't that exactly what Steam does?

[NeoSuperior]

About the UBI servers going down, taking the whole game down. Isn't that exactly what Steam does?

For multiplayer that counts for all "online-server based online games"


However for singleplayer there is this little thing in steam, called "offline mode", that doesn't exist in Ubi's game launcher.

[Cronky]

I thought the Assassins Creed 'DRM' was pretty clever. It doesn't matter if you have 'patchy' internet, because it only requires a connection sometimes to download the missing pieces (iircc). We're moving into a time when most people have internet, even moreso if they also have a gaming PC. I bet even less than a point of a percent of people who are hardcore PC gamers also don't have internet...

Assassins Creed's DRM was clever. It had complaints because you may not have always NEEDED a connection, but because you never knew when you had to have one. Downloading these little pieces, even if you were never shown, and server side "Patchy"-ness ultimately got customer attention. Why is the paying customer having to be held back from content when pirates of the game, who the DRM is for, bypass it altogether?

As for the percentage point of hardcore players that don't have internet... Yes, that percentage is getting small, but that in no way means that game companies (big ones that is) will just shun them because they "haven't gotten with the times". It doesn't even matter if you're hardcore or not though as anyone who has 60 dollars can buy a brand new game. If they happen to have a computer that can run said game (whether for school, work, friend, etc.), but no internet, then why should they be not able to play?

It's the same reason why physical media versions of our games/movies/books/music wont go away even though digital distribution is better for both publisher and customer.

[DreadStunLock]

I thought the Assassins Creed 'DRM' was pretty clever. It doesn't matter if you have 'patchy' internet, because it only requires a connection sometimes to download the missing pieces (iircc). We're moving into a time when most people have internet, even moreso if they also have a gaming PC. I bet even less than a point of a percent of people who are hardcore PC gamers also don't have internet...

Assassins Creed's DRM was clever. It had complaints because you may not have always NEEDED a connection, but because you never knew when you had to have one. Downloading these little pieces, even if you were never shown, and server side "Patchy"-ness ultimately got customer attention. Why is the paying customer having to be held back from content when pirates of the game, who the DRM is for, bypass it altogether?

As for the percentage point of hardcore players that don't have internet... Yes, that percentage is getting small, but that in no way means that game companies (big ones that is) will just shun them because they "haven't gotten with the times". It doesn't even matter if you're hardcore or not though as anyone who has 60 dollars can buy a brand new game. If they happen to have a computer that can run said game (whether for school, work, friend, etc.), but no internet, then why should they be not able to play?

It's the same reason why physical media versions of our games/movies/books/music wont go away even though digital distribution is better for both publisher and customer.

What the hell is a definition of a hardcore gamer?

[Cronky]

From what I gathered: Someone who buys a game (in this case for PC) with full knowledge that their system, that they've invested money in specifically for gaming, can handle it.

The definition changes each time it's used though. I can be a hardcore gamer if I can get to World 8 in Super Mario 3 in 5 minutes also. Double Warp Whistle!!

[DreadStunLock]

From what I gathered: Someone who buys a game (in this case for PC) with full knowledge that their system, that they've invested money in specifically for gaming, can handle it.

The definition changes each time it's used though. I can be a hardcore gamer if I can get to World 8 in Super Mario 3 in 5 minutes also. Double Warp Whistle!!

For some reason 2010 and 2011 would have been the worst years to be a hardcore gamer, the only thing I am seeing is, Skryim, DX:HR and 2 of the SC's Expansions :(...Gosh, horrible.

[Spark Mandriller]

2010 was pretty good for hardcore gamers. Ketsui and Daioujou got emulated, yeeeeeeeeeah.


though tbqh 2010 was also a bad year for hardcore gamers because every year is a bad year for them because they think of themselves as hardcore gamers. seriously people who do that need to stop it's kinda sad. like damn.

[Spekkio]

Forcing people to validate their media content on the internet is a poor business decision; it restricts the pool of possible buyers to those who have internet.

I know that you guys are saying this with largely PC video games in mind, but video games aren't the only thing subject to piracy.

[Spekkio]

Exactly. Strict DRM is a dying fad because game companies are learning that their actual customers are the only ones that are punished by it. If your product is worth the money it costs to purchase, then people will buy it. Maybe not ALL people, but the majority will stay on the side of people purchasing rather than pirating.

And when your product is overpriced, media companies think it's a better investment to pursue legislation and innovative copy protection rather than lower your price point.