57 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
 |
| 57. |
No subject |
Sep 12, 2008, 12:08 |
Kha |
|
|
If when i buy a game, i'm getting the license, the right to play, how they say. Will i be able to play after 5... 10 ... 15 years?
And if not, what the publisher will do in order to grant me my purchased right to play? Reinstall the authentication servers and all account info belonged to me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 56. |
No subject |
Sep 12, 2008, 10:53 |
Verno |
|
|
Well said. If people are upset with the concept and enforcement of IP laws then stop voting in Republicans 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Super Mario 3D Land, Tales of Graces F, Fire Emblem 3DS
Watching: Hannibal, Community, Life |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 55. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 12, 2008, 02:20 |
timesten |
|
|
it may be too late to add to this thread, but ive been meaning to post in one of these for a while.
i dont like drm in games, and it will sway me from buying if im on the fence, but the popular opinion here seems to be that a purchase equals ownership.
this is not correct. it is this way in all media. games, movies, music. when you buy a cd, dvd, or game, you are not buying the game, but a license to use it. this may seem contrary to what you think you are doing, but that is based on your ignorance of the transaction. this concept is becoming clearer now with digital distribution.
if you think about it, there is no other way it could be. if i write a song, or game, why would i sell that to you for 15 or 50 dollars? i wouldnt. if you were actually buying the song or game, you could then resell or make it available at your discretion. this cuts the creator out of the equation.
if you mean that you own the plastic disc that contains the game, i think you are correct. you do own that plastic. the contents however are someone elses creation that they make available to you, with certain restrictions, for a small fee(much less that what it took to create it because of a hopeful volume of sales).
if you mean that you own the license, then i think you are correct again, and you should be able to do with it what you please. that is, as long as you understand that when you transfer it, you end your claim to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 54. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 12, 2008, 01:08 |
Xirix |
|
|
Too bad...I'm going down the dark path I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 53. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 11, 2008, 23:41 |
Jerykk |
|
|
They can shove this "license to play" thing right up their ass.
You guys act like this is a novel concept. Software EULAs have stated for years that you don't own the software, only a license to use the software.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 52. |
Just the other day... |
Sep 11, 2008, 23:01 |
talmand |
|
|
This is funny to me. I was chatting with a buddy the other day and I tossed out the theory that one reason for this silly DRM is to test the waters of exactly how much control a gamer is willing to accept from the publisher. My theory included the possibility that they are using this test to determine how to stop, or at least slow down, the resale market. The PC gaming market is not as big as the console one so they can stand to lose some money playing with the technology. Once they got what they need it'll be moved over to consoles so that once a game has been played on a console it will never work on another console. Hard drives and online connectivity will make this possible. Goodbye resale market. In fact, the Wii sorta does this with the VC content purchased online now, it is tied to your machine. I've always thought that the resale market would always be considered a bigger problem than piracy because you can equate a resale transaction as a lost sale for the publisher but you cannot say that about piracy. It's even possible to lose multiple sales from one game as it trades hands multiple times and the retailer benefits every time. Even if this has not been the plan from the start it is going to be the end result based on how things have changed over the years. First we get EULAs that state you do not own the software you purchased but, in fact, you purchased a "license" to the software and we've accepted that. Then we have to "verify" our "license" to the software and we've accepted that. Now we have limits on how many times we can install the software or the number of machines it can be installed to or both. I feel the market is on the verge of accepting this as inevitable. Only a huge backlash, which has started with Spore, or major lawsuits will prevent it. But the courts and government have been so screwed up lately on all things technology that I have no faith in that turning out fairly for the consumer. Politicians seem to hate gamers anyway.
Now's the time for a small developer/publisher with some marketing savvy to point out that you buy their game you own it, no drm, resale if you wish and they won't claim their customer base are a bunch of thieves that steal the food from their children's mouths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 51. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 11, 2008, 21:11 |
Talisorn |
|
|
Please don't pirate Bone. As a green muppet once said, "If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny." Simply not buying the game is the best protest you can make. I agree. I'm not going to buy the game ... well at least not until it hits the bargain bin.
While I believe there is no excuse for piracy, stopping people selling their old game crosses the line. Screw you Ascaron. No way am I paying full price for this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 50. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 11, 2008, 20:40 |
Kxmode |
|
|
Please don't pirate Bone. As a green muppet once said, "If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny." Simply not buying the game is the best protest you can make.
-----
http://www.gamemusicjukebox.com/
Game p/reviewer for http://www.gameindustry.com/
DRM needs to die... now |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 49. |
No subject |
Sep 11, 2008, 20:10 |
Bone43 |
|
|
Ive yet to not pay for a game in the last 15 years, but with all the bullshit lately with this DRM crap it really makes it tempting to get the game with out the bullshit attached!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 48. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 11, 2008, 20:01 |
Narf2029 |
|
|
| Non-transferable license? I guess the retailer will have to keep it then... But don't worry. It'll be cracked shortly after release, if not before release. My money is on two days. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Huh? I'm sorry, I was thinking about cake. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 47. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 11, 2008, 19:52 |
z3razerviper |
|
|
Another game I wont be buying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 46. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 11, 2008, 19:18 |
Darks |
|
|
Im right there with you PhopheT.
This games going to bomb out hard, and I’ve been awaiting this one for a long time too but again I will not now or ever support this type of obtrusive DRM. Especially when a pirated copy has no restrictions. This does nothing but piss of the legitimate consumers. These publishers will never understand if you screw over everyone by pretty much calling them a pirate they will retaliate by acting like one or boycott the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 45. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 11, 2008, 19:02 |
NKD |
|
|
Hoping that Crysis Warhead will not have the limited install SecuRom DRM.
It's okay, you'll beat it in a day and never get the urge to play it again, so you really only need one install.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 44. |
No subject |
Sep 11, 2008, 18:30 |
beigemore |
|
|
Yet another game I can pass on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 43. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 11, 2008, 18:24 |
Overon |
|
|
Hoping that Crysis Warhead will not have the limited install SecuRom DRM. It's EA dude. Every game released by EA in the past months has had limited install Securom DRM. Am I wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 42. |
No subject |
Sep 11, 2008, 18:19 |
PropheT |
|
|
they say a purchase represents a license to play, rather than ownership of the game itself, and that this license is non-transferrable.
Scratch that game from my list.
I'm usually pretty tolerant of the DRM stuff and I hate piracy of games. But I draw the line at being told I don't own what I buy. They can shove this "license to play" thing right up their ass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 41. |
No subject |
Sep 11, 2008, 16:50 |
noman |
|
|
Stardock's recent company-line about piracy is mostly marketing. First of all as mentioned in this thread, to get the patches and updates, you have to register the game and that is non-transferable.
Assuming they do come out with a very playable and stable game in the first place, they have two things in their favor. One, their games are far smaller piracy target compared to FPS or RPGs like Bioshock, Mass Effect or Crysis. Second, their games had smaller development budget.
This doesn't excuse Spore's or Mass Effect's DRM (because of which I haven't bought either titles), but Stardock drawing parallels between their and CryTek/EA/Take2/Bioware products is laughable and keep in mind I am not talking about quality, rather the potential for being pirated and the development budget.
[Hoping that Crysis Warhead will not have the limited install SecuRom DRM.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 40. |
No subject |
Sep 11, 2008, 16:45 |
Kxmode |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 39. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 11, 2008, 15:46 |
Jerykk |
|
|
There's $50 less they won't be getting, and it's not piracy's fault this time.
I don't think it really matters whether or not you actually pirate it. The publishers will just pull a statistic out of their ass which nobody can verify anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 38. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 11, 2008, 15:44 |
Overon |
|
|
Well, they lost a legit customer here, and no, I will not pirate it, just won't give it the time of day now. It probably won't even be pirating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
57 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
