These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Blizzard does a Ubisoft?

Author
Cpt Placeholder
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#21 - 2011-09-23 21:50:55 UTC
Bane Necran wrote:
Since there's going to be a real world cash market for players to sell items they find, insisting people be connected to battlenet all the time when playing is the only way to be sure there's no haxxoring, duping, or general item shenanigans.


I don't see a connection there.
Did you ever play D2?

You had a single player mode, an open B.Net mode and a closed B.Net mode. On closed B.Net, the characters were stored on their servers and out of your reach (except for the numerous bugs/exploits D2 had). On the other modes, you had the character data on your computer and could play offline and obviously cheat, open B.Net was full of custom/cheated items.
Of course you had no way to transfer your single player characters to closed B.Net (except for a rumored exploit).

Eliminating single player and open B.Net had nothing to do with cheats, it's purely a profit decision.
While I personally never cared about open B.Net, I don't like their removal of single player mode.
Bane Necran
Appono Astos
#22 - 2011-09-23 22:33:46 UTC
Cpt Placeholder wrote:
Bane Necran wrote:
Since there's going to be a real world cash market for players to sell items they find, insisting people be connected to battlenet all the time when playing is the only way to be sure there's no haxxoring, duping, or general item shenanigans.


I don't see a connection there.
Did you ever play D2?


Yup.

And you really don't see a connection between item sales for real world funds, and not wanting to allow players to play the game without being policed?

"In the void is virtue, and no evil. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness." ~Miyamoto Musashi

Cpt Placeholder
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#23 - 2011-09-23 22:39:58 UTC
I don't see a connection between disallowing single player mode and multi player cheating or item buying.
The AH is obviously going to be a multi player feature, I don't see how it would affect single player games if you put a clear separation between single player characters and multi player characters like D2 had.
VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2011-09-23 23:20:49 UTC  |  Edited by: VKhaun Vex
Quote:
My intention with Diablo III is to solo the game. I realise that’s not the way many will play it, it’s not what the Diablo series is most famous for, and it’s arguably not the primary way Blizzard intends the game to be played.


Stupid article, written by an author who knew it was stupid when he wrote it.
He's saying always on DRM is bad, because being online all the time causes problems...

Hell you could play solo in tons of online games if you wanted to. That doesn't mean they're all bad games because you have to be connected and their servers have to be up. It just means it's an ONLINE GAME. Nitpick the details all you want, but D3 doesn't claim to be anything less than a game which needs a constant internet connection.

I'm also tired of hearing about other games in the same genre like I have to choose a side. I love action RPG's and I plan to buy at least two of the three upcoming games mentioned here (Path of Exile, and D3... not sure about Torchlight). Pretending one unreleased game is better than another unreleased game is not making a point, it's just making an assumption. Defending one doesn' t mean you dislike another.





Cpt Placeholder wrote:
I don't see a connection between disallowing single player mode and multi player cheating or item buying.
The AH is obviously going to be a multi player feature, I don't see how it would affect single player games if you put a clear separation between single player characters and multi player characters like D2 had.



It's basically the same concept as impulse buying. They put sale items on the ends of the aisles in the super market with big price reduced stickers on them so you'll jump and buy them even if you wouldn't have passed their normal shelf location while getting what's on your list.

By forcing everyone to play online they make it very available to participate and just like you might grab a box of cereal, you might just take your solo character and throw his old junk on the market. Add to that other little incentives like giving them a few free real money listings per month and they increase the overall use of their AH system. Both real money and in-game currency, rather than losing all that participation to all the people who would have played offline while their internet broadband connection was wide open anyway.

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch

Bane Necran
Appono Astos
#25 - 2011-09-24 01:33:48 UTC
Cpt Placeholder wrote:
I don't see a connection between disallowing single player mode and multi player cheating or item buying.
The AH is obviously going to be a multi player feature, I don't see how it would affect single player games if you put a clear separation between single player characters and multi player characters like D2 had.


What we're talking about is being able to play without being online, or at least i thought so. I'm probably going to do the whole thing solo, because none of my friends are very interested, but i'll still have to be online, which is fine, because i'm online constantly anyway.

What Blizz is doing, allowing every player to sell whatever they find for real world cash, means they're very confident they can make sure no hacking of any sort is going on, and that means a constant connection to them. I'm not sure how much clearer i can make that.

"In the void is virtue, and no evil. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness." ~Miyamoto Musashi

Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#26 - 2011-09-24 01:55:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia
Herping yourDerp wrote:
its not like it wont be piratable. but DRM is the PC way, as consoles will soon have 1 time use codes to access the online portion ect.


The only thing companies do when they release their games with strings attached is motivate me to "obtain" and hack the program myself.

Is it right? No. Is what they are requiring of me right? No.

Do they have a right to do it? Yes, it's their software.
So what justifies my actions?

My action may be considered wrong, but where does one draw the line on the demands of a multi-billion dollar company?

Take a look through history at the actions taken by individuals and/or groups of people who are ignored that KNOW they have no chance to meet an opponent on equal ground. Dirty strong arm tactics require a dirty underhanded response.

The obvious retort is: "well don't play the game". And that is valid.
I say: "power to the people".
The very people, I might add, who have given these companies money time and again to make them what they are.

Today's corporate mindset doesn't seem to grasp that. Hell, look at CCP, we had to FORCE them not to ruin their own game. Until we hit them in the pocketbook they didn't give ONE GOD DAMN about what any of us wanted. The consumer rarely factors into the equation for corporations anymore.

Once they get your money it becomes a game of how much bullshit will the consumer put up with before they stop paying. It's a game of greed, power, control. The only thing on the mind of a 21st century CEO.

I'll gladly give them money for a product with no strings attached.
If that isn't an option I'll do everything in my power to motivate them to remove the strings.
VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2011-09-24 03:26:55 UTC  |  Edited by: VKhaun Vex
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:

Is it right? No. Is what they are requiring of me right? No.

Do they have a right to do it? Yes, it's their software.


Yes+No = Pr1ncess Alia logic

They are putting out a product that they invested time and money into making. If youchoose not to buy it but to pirate an altered version of it for free. That is very simply wrong, legally and morally. You are stealing. In situations where you want to use a pirated version, nothing stops you from also buying a box copy to keep things honest and give them their due.

You won't though, will you?




Pr1ncess Alia wrote:
Once they get your money it becomes a game of how much bullshit will the consumer put up with before they stop paying. It's a game of greed, power, control. The only thing on the mind of a 21st century CEO.

I'll gladly give them money for a product with no strings attached.
If that isn't an option I'll do everything in my power to motivate them to remove the strings.


You'll talk a big game about greed and control, but then go straight to the ends justifying the means.
Stealing to send them a message, makes the stealing 'okay'.

If you were more morals than free entertainment seeking, you would simply not play.

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch

Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#28 - 2011-09-24 04:02:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia
VKhaun Vex wrote:
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:

Is it right? No. Is what they are requiring of me right? No.

Do they have a right to do it? Yes, it's their software.


Yes+No = Pr1ncess Alia logic

They are putting out a product that they invested time and money into making. If youchoose not to buy it but to pirate an altered version of it for free. That is very simply wrong, legally and morally. You are stealing. In situations where you want to use a pirated version, nothing stops you from also buying a box copy to keep things honest and give them their due.

You won't though, will you?




Pr1ncess Alia wrote:
Once they get your money it becomes a game of how much bullshit will the consumer put up with before they stop paying. It's a game of greed, power, control. The only thing on the mind of a 21st century CEO.

I'll gladly give them money for a product with no strings attached.
If that isn't an option I'll do everything in my power to motivate them to remove the strings.


You'll talk a big game about greed and control, but then go straight to the ends justifying the means.
Stealing to send them a message, makes the stealing 'okay'.

If you were more morals than free entertainment seeking, you would simply not play.


yes+no?? wtf are you talking about now?
Did I say something that wasn't accurate?

You reply with assumptions that you somehow already know who I am and what I do. You also, as you have before, conviently and completely ignore contradictions and explanations contained in the very post of mine you try to pick apart.

You would edit your response down to "never mind I'm dumb" if you saw the collection of games I shell out money for. I make way more money than a person with my little responsibilities and debt needs. And I spend more of my disposable income on media/entertainment than anything else.

More often than not, my previously posted reasons for pirating isn't even the primary reason I pirate. I usually try out software, or check out a movie, before I buy a blueray or do-up an order on Steam. Yes, I actually buy the stuff I enjoy.

And science is on my side too. People that pirate volumes of media more often than not spend much more money on media. (I'll dig up the citation if you need)

I never said what I was doing was morally right, but I did provide my personal justification for my actions. Are you suggesting a company that tries to lever intrusive and restrictive software through their game onto my machine has the moral high ground? If so we disagree, however even if I grant you that, their high ground is more of a mole hill.

While "the ends justify the means" is not cure-all logic to be used in any application, it does not mean that there are not cases where it doesn't hold true. I absolutely think it holds true here. The more people that send the message to companies that we won't tolerate intrusive and contingent software the more of a chance we have at not looking at crap like this as in inevitability of the industry.

You might think I'm the devil for breaking the sacred rules you hold so dear, I see it as sending a message to an incompetent greedy company. In my eyes, they aren't playing fair so neither will I. I never suggested I was engaging in a righteous moral crusade, only a battle of wills and principles. No one is asking for you to agree with it, but it's not too much to ask that you properly understand it.

On that note, it's not stealing. This isn't theft. No one is throwing bricks through the window of GameStop and grabbing boxes.
It's copyright infringement.
If you do not agree with that much, take it up with the SCOTUS, they made the rule not me.
*the more you know*
VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2011-09-24 04:50:40 UTC
I quoted for yes+no.
Questions are not assumptions.
Not interested in arguing the vocabulary of theft.


I don't think there is a moral contest for one party or the other to have the high ground. A company putting a product out on the market is a neutral, normal action. They have the right to do anything they want within the law when it comes to that product and it's not morally 'wrong' or 'right' or on any size or formation of moral land. It's just their business strategy to make money from a product. Supply and demand and all that. We're not talking about food, clothing or shelter.

I've often commented about other business strategies that I don't like, I may even have called them 'wrong' or some word like that, but I don't really mean MORALLY wrong, only that I don't like having to spend more to get less. But if I'm willing to spend X to get Y, it's not the fault of anyone but myself. If I'm not and they don't make the sale it's not fault of anyone but them. Neither case involves morality.

Only the person who takes the product and does not give them the cash, has done something 'wrong' in my opinion. If that's not you then great. I am not/don't need to accuse anyone. Just making the point.




Pr1ncess Alia wrote:
While "the ends justify the means" is not cure-all logic to be used in any application, it does not mean that there are not cases where it doesn't hold true.


I agree in general, and I now really like you.
You didn't just say that to win an argument...
You opened it up as a general statement.
Critical thinking is beautiful.

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch

Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#30 - 2011-09-24 07:06:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia
VKhaun Vex wrote:

I've often commented about other business strategies that I don't like, I may even have called them 'wrong' or some word like that, but I don't really mean MORALLY wrong, only that I don't like having to spend more to get less. But if I'm willing to spend X to get Y, it's not the fault of anyone but myself. If I'm not and they don't make the sale it's not fault of anyone but them. Neither case involves morality.

Only the person who takes the product and does not give them the cash, has done something 'wrong' in my opinion. If that's not you then great. I am not/don't need to accuse anyone. Just making the point.


the forum gobbled up my post I just typed. I do love this topic and I'm very bored at work tonight (it's absolutely dead in here) soooo.... Let's see if I can at all recreate it and just completely threadjack this into a piracy discussion. Pirate


I do agree with you for the most part.

You aren't wrong, I only found part of your argument invalid. I am that guy. I definitely obtain a product produced by a company without paying for that specific copy. And I think your right that we can use these terms right and wrong without inherent morality being attached. It's one big gray area.


My piracy is a questionable act. We'll call this a given.
Their distribution of intrusive/loaded software is a questionable act. We'll call this a given.



At face value, am I more wrong in the execution of my act than they are? I would concede, yes. Legally speaking it's not even debatable.

Their recourse is to pursue me for violation of copyright. (it's the law)
Should they be able to?

-Have I hindered their business? Hurt their business? I don't prevent them from producing the software nor do I prevent them from selling their software. In fact, an argument could be made that I encourage their sales through advertisement. Copyright violation is a violation of the law, not of the copyright holder (thus the need to distinguish it from it not actually being considered theft) Have I in any way wronged that company?No.

Am I more right in the justification for my actions than they are? I would argue, yes

Is my recourse to this limited to not buying their software? (no obviously)
Should it be?

-I would make the argument that the lack of legal support for my own consumer rights borders on justification for piracy. While the software they bundle with the game I want may be considered legal, can it in any way have a detrimental effect on my own computer? Can it impact my use of that computer and/or the software therein?Undoubtedly.




The law does not do this topic justice. (pun intended). This is why right vs wrong not only falls apart when we dig deeper, it seems to flip onto it's head. The devil is always in the details.

Copyright laws are contentious in their own right. That they apply to software without more legal specificity is a joke. In fact, some would say where there is no personal gain nor physical copy, copyright laws aren't even applicable.

Consumer advocacy laws are nigh on nonexistent in this application. Consumer rights on what can be considered acceptable or unacceptable for distributed software are... well, how about I wait here while someone goes and tries to find some. P

If companies like Blizzard didn't lobby to have laws that sway to their advantage in such matters, I would say I am surprised we haven't seen anti-trust cases against people that attach such strings to their products!
The game is rigged on the outset.
And now they want to chase down people that have had no impact (or if anything, a positive impact) on their business and sue them claiming lost profits.

In a world of endless legalese, universally ignored EULAs (that are barely readable much less comprehensible to anyone without a law degree) and stated lack of consumer advocacy the game of who is right and wrong because much more confusing. Consumer options are also stifled by these software monstrosities that gobble up or sue into oblivion any game studio that shows promise of competition.

The game is one of control and greed. And the law has never had much to say about greed. This holds true back to the days when the term "caveat emptor" was coined.



Once such a precedence is set in the industry, when we just consider this software a given and accept it, what is next? Can software harvest/utilize my CPU cycles for non-game related purposes just by putting it in the EULA? If my only recourse is to boycott their product, and all the products eventually incorporate this ****... where does that leave me? SoLaJWF, that's where.

The legal cards may be stacked against the pirates, who for the most part only want a reasonable product at a reasonable price (not all pirates are like this as we know). If I'm playing an online game, I accept I need to connect to your servers. If I'm not, then I shouldn't need to. Is including a feature like buyable/sellable items justification for the connection?... depends, can I opt out? Or am I playing "Buy/Sell swords online"? Again, gray area. Where do we draw this line?

"Caveat emptor Alia, you don't like it don't buy it" -hypothetical person
fair enough.

"Caveat venditor" is my retort. We have something on our side they do not... and what the entire argument boils down to at the end of the day...Social justice. You can argue against that concept, if it's not obvious my posts here are my argument for it.

If they want to **** with their customer base, we'll do the same thing right back at em. And until the cards are dealt evenly, until we have fair and equal expectations for both the buyer and the seller this problem will exist.

Until then one could even argue we have the responsibility to respond in kind when we see a company trying to see just how much crap they can get away with.

Good stuff.
VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2011-09-24 07:46:53 UTC
Quote:
Once such a precedence is set in the industry, when we just consider this software a given and accept it, what is next? Can software harvest/utilize my CPU cycles for non-game related purposes just by putting it in the EULA? If my only recourse is to boycott their product, and all the products eventually incorporate this ****... where does that leave me? SoLaJWF, that's where


The precedence is already set, and they are indeed pushing on consumers.

CoD map packs. Weak expansions. My favorite is when games launch with DLC... if the DLC is there at launch then it was part of the development cost! It's just a price hike to get the rest of the games side quests or whatever it's contents are. Even if only cosmetic, it's cosmetic stuff that was developed along with the box cost. 'Don't buy it' doesn't even work here, because buying the main game means you paid full price for partial development.

No discussion can even be had while we're free falling like we are. We have not yet reached the point where the average person cares at all about any of this. The next CoD could launch with DLC, a map pack, and extra DLC for more guns totaling $100, ALways on DRM, and it could send your browser history to advertisers... no one would flinch. It would still break records and there would still be fans on every forum calling it awesome for having all the 'extras'.

The only glimmers of hope IMO

1) Cash Shops on free to play games.
Most people hate this because... well most games that do this do it badly, but it's a GOOD system. It's basically incentive to donate to development meaning they get more money for doing well and keeping people interested. It also completely eliminates piracy as an issue.

2) Good game companies.
For every game coming out with issues like DRM, there are mainstream games that argue with it. Normal people who don't follow the issues become aware when it's part of their marketing, and by buying their game you support their position.

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch

Alpheias
The Khaleph
#32 - 2011-09-24 08:42:26 UTC
VKhaun Vex wrote:


2) Good game companies.
For every game coming out with issues like DRM, there are mainstream games that argue with it. Normal people who don't follow the issues become aware when it's part of their marketing, and by buying their game you support their position.



Sure, technical issues with DRM are annoying. But the biggest question I have, which I think I share with a lot of people is, why am I the one that is getting punished when I have already paid the developer or publisher?

I think Blizzard's move, to go with a DRM solution to combat cheaters than devise the means to do so properly, is ultimately going to bite them in the face as there is always going to be technical issues with a 'always online' DRM solution which Blizzard will be forced to address sooner than later.

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.

VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2011-09-24 09:25:12 UTC
Alpheias wrote:
Sure, technical issues with DRM are annoying. But the biggest question I have, which I think I share with a lot of people is, why am I the one that is getting punished when I have already paid the developer or publisher?

I think Blizzard's move, to go with a DRM solution to combat cheaters than devise the means to do so properly, is ultimately going to bite them in the face as there is always going to be technical issues with a 'always online' DRM solution which Blizzard will be forced to address sooner than later.


Being punished, and biting them in the face would require actual technical issues.

Do you have any of those to cite?

The article only mentions issues with online games, linking those to DRM by noting that Blizz made the game online only so they could keep the DRM on for everyone who plays it. It doesn't say anything about any new tech problems caused by DRM itself.

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch

Alpheias
The Khaleph
#34 - 2011-09-24 11:09:15 UTC
VKhaun Vex wrote:
Alpheias wrote:
Sure, technical issues with DRM are annoying. But the biggest question I have, which I think I share with a lot of people is, why am I the one that is getting punished when I have already paid the developer or publisher?

I think Blizzard's move, to go with a DRM solution to combat cheaters than devise the means to do so properly, is ultimately going to bite them in the face as there is always going to be technical issues with a 'always online' DRM solution which Blizzard will be forced to address sooner than later.


Being punished, and biting them in the face would require actual technical issues.

Do you have any of those to cite?

The article only mentions issues with online games, linking those to DRM by noting that Blizz made the game online only so they could keep the DRM on for everyone who plays it. It doesn't say anything about any new tech problems caused by DRM itself.


I think you read into much what I wrote if you are asking for citations, I meant that DRM as whole really doesn't stop piracy per se and is more of a nuisance for the customer than the intended pirate therefore "punishes" the customer.

Ubisoft were among, if not, the first to go with the 'always online' DRM solution for which they recieved a lot of negative press for, as it required a permanent connection and initially had plenty of (technical) issues like how the game did not save your progress if your connection suddenly died, only that the game terminated itself so that came back and bit Ubisoft in the face which was the case with Splinter Cell: Conviction and Assassin's Creed 2.

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.

Karma
Vortex Incorporated
#35 - 2011-09-24 11:41:38 UTC
I guess I'm not gonna buy this game then...


their loss.

Everyone vs. Everyone Online

"The universe is made of stories, not atoms"

SpaceSquirrels
#36 - 2011-09-24 14:11:12 UTC
Lol you can't ever justify piracy....especially for a video game. If you want to send them a message don't buy it/play it at all. Piracy shows there is a demand for it, and you're just to cheap to buy it.

Lol some twisted moral crusade over video games...and "The corporations man!" This isn't stealing food for your family here folks. No such thing as video game starved children in Africa.
Zey Nadar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2011-09-24 14:44:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Zey Nadar
Piracy cannot be justified. However, in many cases RESELLING what you once bought is another thing altogether. Game companies are trying to reduce it as well wtih stuff like DRM, while second hand gamesales should be at least morally justified.

Sometimes the countermeasures are mild, like you only get some luxury ingame item if you are the original buyer, but soon it may turn into "if you aren't the original owner, you cant play this game". DRM can make this happen. I do not like the idea.

ps. Ive never played diablo and this will ensure that I will not try this version either. I am vehemently against DRM in singleplayer games.
SpaceSquirrels
#38 - 2011-09-24 20:05:42 UTC
^
Oh totally agree. While I don't agree with piracy I also think the laws concerning electronics and software are BS... Especially the hardware ones or physical copies of software.

No where else will you find such control measures. Wanna sell your car...You can but ford gets to make it so your steering wheel doesn't work for the next guy until you pay them.
Not the original owner of that house...? The builder gets apart of that resale money too.

Ridiculous. The arguments against second hand sales are silly as well. Takes away markets etc. I'd like to point out there can't be a second hand market without an original sale...

Damn I could rant all day about DRM controlling second hand sales, or ownership of hardware.
Alpheias
The Khaleph
#39 - 2011-09-25 11:29:47 UTC
SpaceSquirrels wrote:
Lol you can't ever justify piracy....especially for a video game. If you want to send them a message don't buy it/play it at all. Piracy shows there is a demand for it, and you're just to cheap to buy it.

Lol some twisted moral crusade over video games...and "The corporations man!" This isn't stealing food for your family here folks. No such thing as video game starved children in Africa.


What? I don't think anyone was trying to justify piracy.

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.

SpaceSquirrels
#40 - 2011-09-25 13:36:43 UTC
^ Yeah there were a couple of people. I've heard a few reasons in other places as well. Wasnt a directed statement towards anyone person.
Previous page123Next page