@InsufferableMONKEY Did I challenge the authority of His Lordship, the Mighty Tanthalas (may his locks never go gray!)? If so, I repent of my misdeeds, good sir!
@Aosaw - I cannot use the right words for those that steal the work of others and convince themselves that it is all right because (pick a self-satisfying and erroneous reason).
@Tanthalas CD checks are bad. No one is saying any different. Did your mother teach you that two wrongs do make a right? Your argument is based on the fact that because something worse was done in the past it is ok to do something bad now. I reject that premise.
I also reject the premise that a CD check is as bad as an online authentication. A CD check relies on something that is in my control from the day I make my purchase. An authentication server can go down tomorrow. I know that they promised a patch to remove the DRM, but they also promised me a pre-order badge. Neither one is guaranteed. I couldn't care less about the badge, but I would be very upset about the server. That couldn't be an issue if the DRM method was a CD check.
It doesn't matter why people are offended by DRM (although the reasons should be clear to anyone), only that they are. It means they won't be reaching into their wallets and preordering, or ordering at all for that matter. Especially when the product is a warmed-over version (no offense to Beamdog, I know they had contractual limitations) of a readily, cheaply available game from 1998. It's our favorite game, but let's be realistic.
Beamdog is going to lose revenue because of the DRM. That's what really matters. And it's a shame that they're going to -- the idea of Baldur's Gate 3 (or any new Infinity Engine game) seems more graspable now than it ever did before, and they need BG:EE to be as commercially successful as possible to continue down that road.
@Tanthalas CD checks are bad. No one is saying any different. Did your mother teach you that two wrongs do make a right?
The thing is, first you need to actually prove that those "two wrongs" are actually "wrongs" in the first place. This all goes back to the same argument that only consumers have rights, but companies don't.
The thing is, first you need to actually prove that those "two wrongs" are actually "wrongs" in the first place. This all goes back to the same argument that only consumers have rights, but companies don't.
I don't think anyone has argued that. Companies have intellectual property rights, and those rights should be protected. The real question is whether DRM actually accomplishes rights protection, or whether it simply tramples on consumers. I'd wager most progressive computer users believe the latter. But they still have to obtain software, so they suffer through the DRM. But Free Software and open source are changing that rapidly.
The thing is, when would you consider that DRM has actually been successful in accomplishing rights protection? When there's zero piracy? Outside of something like Diablo III that's probably never going to happen. When DRM has been able to at least partially prevent piracy? That already means that it has accomplished some rights protection, and I believe that's what most non-draconian DRM attempts.
It is a question of rights, @Reekwind. If it were a question of effectiveness, you could make the same argument for locks on your car door - because if someone is going to steal your car, they're going to steal your car whether the door is locked or not, and having to have your key on you at all times restricts your rights to drive the car that you purchased.
The trouble is that there are plenty of people who, if they could, would just make a copy of the game and distribute it to all their friends, not because they want to and damn the system, but because they don't realize it's not something the developer doesn't want them to do. An authentication, whether it's online or using a registration key on a box, tells the consumer, "Hey, we just want to make sure that you're the person who bought this game."
The right of the consumer is to install the game and play it. This right is validated by the authentication. In the same way that a person's right to see a movie is validated by a ticket stub.
Except that in this case, you can use that same ticket stub to see the same movie over and over again, as many times as you want.
The question we should be addressing is the level of DRM that is acceptable. But in a world where digital media - that is, a product that has no physical entity - is purchased and used, you need to be able to protect your rights as a developer, and DRM is the only way to ensure that you at least have the minimum protection.
@Tanthalas CD checks are bad. No one is saying any different. Did your mother teach you that two wrongs do make a right? Your argument is based on the fact that because something worse was done in the past it is ok to do something bad now. I reject that premise.
I also reject the premise that a CD check is as bad as an online authentication. A CD check relies on something that is in my control from the day I make my purchase. An authentication server can go down tomorrow. I know that they promised a patch to remove the DRM, but they also promised me a pre-order badge. Neither one is guaranteed. I couldn't care less about the badge, but I would be very upset about the server. That couldn't be an issue if the DRM method was a CD check.
Treyolen, after further reflection on the authentication server vs. a CD check, I think that people who buy computer software are setting themselves up with unrealistic expectations. I would hope that if someone bought any piece of software, they would not expect to use that same version 15 years later. I mean, it would be great if it were that good that they felt that there was nothing better, but expecting a piece of a software, no matter what it is, to still be usable 15 years later is somewhat unreasonable just because of the nature of the industry. Stuff changes extremely fast in the PC industry and it's accelerating. Programs become incompatible and unsupported, phased out, products are abandoned, publishers and developers go out of business, standards are altered or abolished... this stuff changes all the time. We're lucky if we buy a game or a piece of software and we're able to play it 5 years later due to incompatibility. Even the hardware is designed with planned obselesence. This means that anyone who CAN do this is simply lucky and I don't view them as losing anything if they can't.
To use an absurd example: when I buy a pair of shoes, I don't expect that I'll be wearing that same pair of shoes for 10 years. Shoes wear out. I know when I buy those shoes that I'll be buying a new pair in a few years. This doesn't bother me because I understand that shoes are things which eventually need repairs or replacing when I buy them. The same is true of cars and computers. I bet everyone here who has Baldur's Gate and is still playing it is NOT playing it on the same PC they on which they originally played it. So, being that we are aware of computer hardware, cars, and shoes all having a limited lifespan, why would anyone be concerned about authentication servers going down (and Beamdog not following through with their word of a patch)? The only answer is that people view computer SOFTWARE as a permanent thing. In my opinion, this is a mistake. Software is no more permanent than hardware or anything else. One should not buy a piece of software with the expectation that they won't have to replace, upgrade, or find new software to accomplish the same task in a few years, or they will be disappointed. That, however, is not the fault of the developers for planning software lifecycles. It is a reality of the industry itself. It just so happens that DRM is another cog in the machine, and in the process protects the profits of those who created the software. I view that as a good thing as if it does prevent a massive loss of potential profit, the developer stays in business to create the next great piece of software. I suppose one could view that as a risk of a potential loss of future possible play time, but it still seems a silly thing about which to be concerned in light of the natural tendency of computer stuff.
I hate DRM, but I understand the pressures they are going through to add DRM to the game. And i accept the DRM path they chose is the absolute minimum required. Just check once if you actually bought the game and never disturb you anymore.
To me it feels no different than a store employee checking my receipt before delivering me the goods I bought.
I hate DRM, but I understand the pressures they are going through to add DRM to the game. And i accept the DRM path they chose is the absolute minimum required. Just check once if you actually bought the game and never disturb you anymore.
To me it feels no different than a store employee checking my receipt before delivering me the goods I bought.
This is pretty much exactly how I worded it several pages ago, and I still agree.
@Vortican I am afraid of the world you describe. I think it is a very real possibility and see DRM as an engine moving us toward that goal. A good game is a form of art. Art should be timeless and accessible for as long as possible. The original BG and BG2 are great examples that still play just fine on a newer computer. I would cringe to see a planned obsolescence remove the expectation to play these games for no reason than because the developer wants to force me to buy the newest version. I still play NES games. I still love me some Ultima. And I still have my original BG discs.
I don't think the expectation that a product I buy should offer the same utility for my lifetime is excessive. I'm not talking about a consumable product like shoes or automobile brakes. I'm talking about a digital product that doesn't need any maintenance. Let me worry about keeping my hardware compatible. I actually enjoy that sort of challenge.
Beamdog or any other corporation has every right to sell a product that doesn't meet my expectations. I think they would lose out on more business that way than if they catered to the non-DRM crowd. The people who accept DRM do so for convenience. I've never heard anyone complain that their product didn't have enough DRM. Non-DRM people are often passionate and supportive of the companies that treat them right. We are a profitable bunch if our expectations are met. And a product like this one is tailor made for our demographic.
This isn't about right and wrong. This is about how to make the most money. My side thinks there is more money to be made without DRM and we're pushing for a developer we like to listen to our request.
@vortican: There is nothing stopping software/data from persisting endlessly, short of hardware failure, destruction, or.. you guessed it, DRM. But there has been a fundamental change in the mindset of the consumer, spurred by the content producers, that digital media content is not 100% owned by the purchaser. Rather, it is rented or licensed to them, with occasional checks of the content's validity. Comparing bytes of data to shoes or other physical goods that deteriorate just doesn't hold up as an argument; as long as you back up your data, it will last forever. And emulators like DOSBOX exist for the very reason that people still have old, 100%-owned content they still want to see or play.
Kind of off-topic, but the way DRM was handled by Ubisoft made me chuckle. When they incorporated their always-on scheme, they claimed success while their revenues dropped by some large magnitude. The last game I bought from Ubisoft was IL-2, but I know that personally, I avoid their games solely because of their wicked DRM schemes.
BioWare using this way for NWN 1 and NWN 2 : Release with DRM , made patches , with last patch remove DRM . I hope Beamdog use same way for Enhanced Editions .
Outside of something like Diablo III that's probably never going to happen. When DRM has been able to at least partially prevent piracy? That already means that it has accomplished some rights protection, and I believe that's what most non-draconian DRM attempts.
Diablo Online has already been cracked, actually.
Many DRM defenders seem to not take into account that a number of people only pirate something because they have the ability to get it for free, and wouldn't bat an eyelid if they hadn't. Better yet, some of them even decide to make a proper purchase afterwards, if they happen to like the product well enough.
The talk about morals is irrelevant, because it differs from person to person, and we all know the market isn't built on morals.
So the question should be - does the sales loss due to piracy outweigh the income from piracy, both advertisement and sales?
So the question should be - does the sales loss due to piracy outweigh the income from piracy, both advertisement and sales?
The cost-benefit analysis of DRM is very relevant. While there is a nominal benefit by filtering out some naive forms of sharing (friends passing around copies), there is a much larger cost to a company by licensing ineffectual DRM technology and losing sales to legitimate, DRM-frustrated customers.
We don't have hard evidence that DRM has been successful, but we do have hard evidence that it has not. Even the best protection schemes on AAA titles are cracked in a matter of days. It just plain doesn't work. Publishers (and their shareholders) need to understand this and abandon the DRM business model completely, as it only serves to punish their legitimate customers.
There have been many DRM-free publishers listed in this thread; I believe the best example was the Humble Indie Bundle, which proved to be a huge commercial hit. As always, the indies are forging ahead and defining the future shape of the game industry. It's the larger companies that are afraid to move away from the status quo.
@Reekwind Well said! I consider Beamdog to be pretty close to an indie developer and want them to advocate for the same issues relevant to other indies. This means the elimination of DRM among other things. It won't happen overnight since they are in bed with the big developers on this project. But I do expect them to help push the agenda since I believe it is in their best interest.
I also reject the premise that a CD check is as bad as an online authentication. A CD check relies on something that is in my control from the day I make my purchase. An authentication server can go down tomorrow. I know that they promised a patch to remove the DRM, but they also promised me a pre-order badge. Neither one is guaranteed. I couldn't care less about the badge, but I would be very upset about the server. That couldn't be an issue if the DRM method was a CD check.
@Treyolen CD can breaks. Mine did =/ At least with a digital copy I can control where my data is and I have several backups (I know i'm a bit late to the party)
Reekwind, it is not true that DRM is an absolute failure in every case. That's like saying that if we don't have an unbreakable lock, we shouldn't bother locking our doors at all. Just because there isn't a foolproof DRM isn't proof that the entire model has failed. While it's true that the model appears to be shifting to free-to-play and incentives to pay instead of a brute force to DRM (and I support that transition), even you mentioned that the cost/benefit analysis is important. In fact, it's SO important that companies obviously have calculated that they'd make MORE money with DRM than without. The only way to know if that's actually true is to release the same product DRM-free with incentives to pay and see which one makes more dough. I don't see how that would occur.
To your point about the licensing model... this has been the case for a very long time, rooted in familiar traditions used by artists and content creators for centuries. It's not a new thing. I believe it's just that individuals don't grasp it in regards to software, perhaps because they don't view it as art like we do. They DO compare it to consumable goods (even if that's a bad comparison, but I don't think so). Why, because its nature is that it can be infinitely copied, should that mean that a different standard applies? If anything, that validates the licensing model itself as it's the only way for a content creator to control their work against those who would profit from it without doing anything to create it.
As for planned obsolescence, it's absolutely true that eventually, technology simply does not support previous generations. We started with computers the sizes of entire rooms, then created mainframes, then minicomputers, then microcomputers, now we have phones and tablets. You can't take software that ran on a mainframe or mini and put it on a phone or a PC. Emulators help, but eventually, they will not work either. That's not even planned to a large extent, it's just a natural sign of progress. It may take a while, but I don't believe that it's reasonable to expect this kind of compatibility forever.
Frankly, it annoys me to read about those pirates who eventually make a purchase. Sure, there are some, but almost every game these days has a demo. That's what they're for! Why pirate the whole freaking thing and then MAYBE pay for it later? Just get the demo! Companies can't know if anyone will pay for the thing if they give away the software first. That's the entire point of DRM and why most of the world works the same way; pay first, play later.
Frankly, it annoys me to read about those pirates who eventually make a purchase. Sure, there are some, but almost every game these days has a demo. That's what they're for! Why pirate the whole freaking thing and then MAYBE pay for it later? Just get the demo! Companies can't know if anyone will pay for the thing if they give away the software first. That's the entire point of DRM and why most of the world works the same way; pay first, play later.
Things may have changed since several years ago, but one thing I have learned about demos is that they are not to be trusted. More than once I had played a demo and thought "cool, I wanna full version", only to be greatly disappointed and regret wasted money.
Same applies to books too, when the first chapter is available for free and you have to pay for the rest.
These are not demos, but traps luring the potential customer to spend on the full version. By my estimation, about 50% of the content should be offered for examination, if an accurate judgement is to be made. Quite surprising that none of big publishers seem to realize that 50% can hook much better than 10% - or they simply know their product is not worth it, which is called scamming.
As for pirates turning legit customers, I can readily account that I would never ever pay for a movie (cinema or DVD) without seeing it full first. It is not necessary for me to watch them, and I can live happily without them just as fine. If I couldn't torrent it, I wouldn't buy either.
PS Just to clarify, I'm not advocating the piracy, I only state the a pirated copy is not immediately a lost sale.
Reekwind, it is not true that DRM is an absolute failure in every case. That's like saying that if we don't have an unbreakable lock, we shouldn't bother locking our doors at all.
But a worthless, broken lock that doesn't deter unwanted entry and sometimes even locks out the rightful homeowner is worse than no lock at all.
In fact, it's SO important that companies obviously have calculated that they'd make MORE money with DRM than without. The only way to know if that's actually true is to release the same product DRM-free with incentives to pay and see which one makes more dough. I don't see how that would occur.
This can and does occur in the form of DRM-free or DRM-light Game of the Year (GotY) editions of popular games. Day-one versions are loaded with DRM. Customers know this, and they wait for the GotY edition to arrive. Companies eventually make the sale, but at a far decreased price.
I think companies project they'll make more money through DRM by stifling the used game market. It's become nearly impossible to turn a used game you no longer want into cash anymore. A server keeps track of total machine installations / installations per machine and the game is often locked to a Valve/Origin account. Even with a physical disc, once you install, it becomes more or less a brick. I'm sure companies made more money this way at first, but now that consumers have caught on to the scheme, it no longer makes financial sense. But the shareholders keep pushing for these false protections.
As for planned obsolescence, it's absolutely true that eventually, technology simply does not support previous generations. We started with computers the sizes of entire rooms, then created mainframes, then minicomputers, then microcomputers, now we have phones and tablets. You can't take software that ran on a mainframe or mini and put it on a phone or a PC. Emulators help, but eventually, they will not work either. That's not even planned to a large extent, it's just a natural sign of progress. It may take a while, but I don't believe that it's reasonable to expect this kind of compatibility forever.
Except that with mainframes and minicomputers, computers hadn't yet become truly personal. And there wasn't much digital content being created at all then. But that's not to say data from that time hasn't lived on or is somehow no longer relevant. I still have data from my first computer, a 1978 Northstar Horizon Z80. The source code for the first HTTP server and client browser still exists at CERN.
Old software used to interpret the data may not run on modern systems, but as long as digital art and expression exists, communities of concerned people will find a way to consume it, whether that means writing emulators or other finding other methods of ensuring consumability. DRM fights against this goal.
I haven't read every comment in this thread, but I just wanted to say, for what it's worth, that I can't stand DRM of ANY kind. I did pre-order the game because I want to support the project and I want to be able to play it as soon as it launches, but I seriously considered cancelling my order after I found out about the online authentication process. I will pay for BG2EE as well, but I will probably get cracks for both games as soon as they became available because I hate the uncertainty that comes with not being able to back up my own software.
I can install Baldur's Gate off my old CDs with no authentication process of any kind. (Contrary to what some people have said, BG had no CD checks to authenticate the game. If you did a full install, no CD was necessary. The only reason you would need a CD to play the original BG is if you don't have enough HDD space for the entire game.) I can back up my discs by storing ISOs on my external HDD or burning new copies to ensure that I'll always be able to play.
If Overhaul is making an enhanced version Baldur's Gate, they should not be adding a layer of inconvenience that was not present in the original game.
While I have paid for BGEE and plan to buy BG2EE because the originals are some of my favorite games of all time, I probably won't buy any other games from Beamdog because of their use of DRM. The bottom line is that making a game inconvenient to play is not a way to win over customers.
I'm not saying this to be antagonistic. I really appreciate how digital distribution has allowed small companies like Beamdog/Overhaul to cater to niche markets that aren't served by big developers. I want Beamdog/Overhaul to succeed with the projects they're working on, but I don't want to support a company that intentionally restricts the ability of customers to use software that they've paid for.
I can install Baldur's Gate off my old CDs with no authentication process of any kind. (Contrary to what some people have said, BG had no CD checks to authenticate the game. If you did a full install, no CD was necessary. The only reason you would need a CD to play the original BG is if you don't have enough HDD space for the entire game.) I can back up my discs by storing ISOs on my external HDD or burning new copies to ensure that I'll always be able to play.
Frankly, it annoys me to read about those pirates who eventually make a purchase. Sure, there are some, but almost every game these days has a demo. That's what they're for! Why pirate the whole freaking thing and then MAYBE pay for it later? Just get the demo! Companies can't know if anyone will pay for the thing if they give away the software first. That's the entire point of DRM and why most of the world works the same way; pay first, play later.
Things may have changed since several years ago, but one thing I have learned about demos is that they are not to be trusted. More than once I had played a demo and thought "cool, I wanna full version", only to be greatly disappointed and regret wasted money.
Same applies to books too, when the first chapter is available for free and you have to pay for the rest.
These are not demos, but traps luring the potential customer to spend on the full version. By my estimation, about 50% of the content should be offered for examination, if an accurate judgement is to be made. Quite surprising that none of big publishers seem to realize that 50% can hook much better than 10% - or they simply know their product is not worth it, which is called scamming.
As for pirates turning legit customers, I can readily account that I would never ever pay for a movie (cinema or DVD) without seeing it full first. It is not necessary for me to watch them, and I can live happily without them just as fine. If I couldn't torrent it, I wouldn't buy either.
PS Just to clarify, I'm not advocating the piracy, I only state the a pirated copy is not immediately a lost sale.
I... what?
Okay, there's a lot in here.
First, the subject of demos. Not every developer has mastered the art of the demo. It's hard to show just enough of a game to give the player a taste of what the game is like, without spoiling the story. Bastion does it well - they give you the first level, let you play around in that first level so you can see what the gameplay is like, and then that's it.
Where the demo fails, most often, is when it is either created using an early build of the game, or it shows a part of the gameplay that is not emblematic of the game's actual mechanics. Demonstrating the Super Mario Bros games by letting you play a water level, for instance, would be a terrible introduction to the game.
A demo is not designed to give you half the content so that you feel compelled to buy the game in order to finish the story. A demo is designed to show you what the game is going to be like. Giving you "50% of the content" isn't a good strategy for selling games. What if the full game is 80 hours long? Do you just give away 40 hours of gameplay for free? Players might buy the game eventually, but you're talking weeks or even months before they even reach the end of the demo--at which point the player is going to resent having to pay money all of a sudden for a game that they've been happily playing for free.
As for pirated games being a good way to attract customers, there is no incentive for the pirate to buy the game once he has stolen it. Some people might make the purchase, but a lot of people won't.
Pirating movies to see the full film before you pay for it is immature and--do I really need to repeat it?--illegal. Part of being a consumer is taking the risk to pay for something in the hopes that it will be worthwhile. If half-way through a film you decide you don't like it, you can always walk out and ask for your money back. People do it all the time. I've done it before. I feel bad, but if it's not worth my money, I have no problem getting a refund. That's why the refund exists.
Sorry, but I have no patience for piracy of any kind. Trying to justify or rationalize it as a consumer's right to "try before you buy, even if the product's creator doesn't want you to", is complete and utter bull.
EDIT: I missed the "several years ago" bit in your post. I'll agree that demos used to be kind of non-plussing. They've gotten a lot better, though. Now, for the games that I'm likely to enjoy, the demos do a good job of telling me what the gameplay is actually going to be like. Bastion is a good example; so is Final Fantasy XIII-2 (turns out I didn't like some of the mechanics, so I didn't buy the game, which is something I'm glad I discovered beforehand).
I also may have misinterpreted your point at the end. It sounded like you were "not advocating piracy" while at the same time admitting that you pirate movies yourself. If that wasn't the case, then I apologize.
Although I have not had concrete answers previously, especially concerning the possibilities (or-not) : To lend, to exchange, to offer or re-sell, BG.EE under DRM ?, Things that I have the right or ability to do with physical version .
Modders need in their workstation, multiple installations . How to handle it with DRM ? Modders can they clone different images of the game for their tests/mod ? Free ? And unconstrained as permitted vanilla version ?
T.Y.
P.S. :
Because of this : Gamers need to install & reinstall multiple installations to play & try differents style of mods . Then, Gamers can they install, desinstall and reinstall, successively, several versions of the games from the DRM client ... ? Free ? And unconstrained as permitted vanilla version ?
You can install the game as many times as you want but I'm not sure if for every multiple installation on the same computer if you need to activate each installation.
Comments
@Aosaw - I cannot use the right words for those that steal the work of others and convince themselves that it is all right because (pick a self-satisfying and erroneous reason).
I also reject the premise that a CD check is as bad as an online authentication. A CD check relies on something that is in my control from the day I make my purchase. An authentication server can go down tomorrow. I know that they promised a patch to remove the DRM, but they also promised me a pre-order badge. Neither one is guaranteed. I couldn't care less about the badge, but I would be very upset about the server. That couldn't be an issue if the DRM method was a CD check.
only that they are. It means they won't be reaching into their wallets and preordering, or ordering at all for that matter. Especially when the product is a warmed-over version (no offense to Beamdog, I know they had contractual limitations) of a readily, cheaply available game from 1998. It's our favorite game, but let's be realistic.
Beamdog is going to lose revenue because of the DRM. That's what really matters. And it's a shame that they're going to -- the idea of Baldur's Gate 3 (or any new Infinity Engine game) seems more graspable now than it ever did before, and they need BG:EE to be as commercially successful as possible to continue down that road.
The thing is, when would you consider that DRM has actually been successful in accomplishing rights protection? When there's zero piracy? Outside of something like Diablo III that's probably never going to happen. When DRM has been able to at least partially prevent piracy? That already means that it has accomplished some rights protection, and I believe that's what most non-draconian DRM attempts.
This is your only warning.
The trouble is that there are plenty of people who, if they could, would just make a copy of the game and distribute it to all their friends, not because they want to and damn the system, but because they don't realize it's not something the developer doesn't want them to do. An authentication, whether it's online or using a registration key on a box, tells the consumer, "Hey, we just want to make sure that you're the person who bought this game."
The right of the consumer is to install the game and play it. This right is validated by the authentication. In the same way that a person's right to see a movie is validated by a ticket stub.
Except that in this case, you can use that same ticket stub to see the same movie over and over again, as many times as you want.
The question we should be addressing is the level of DRM that is acceptable. But in a world where digital media - that is, a product that has no physical entity - is purchased and used, you need to be able to protect your rights as a developer, and DRM is the only way to ensure that you at least have the minimum protection.
To use an absurd example: when I buy a pair of shoes, I don't expect that I'll be wearing that same pair of shoes for 10 years. Shoes wear out. I know when I buy those shoes that I'll be buying a new pair in a few years. This doesn't bother me because I understand that shoes are things which eventually need repairs or replacing when I buy them. The same is true of cars and computers. I bet everyone here who has Baldur's Gate and is still playing it is NOT playing it on the same PC they on which they originally played it. So, being that we are aware of computer hardware, cars, and shoes all having a limited lifespan, why would anyone be concerned about authentication servers going down (and Beamdog not following through with their word of a patch)? The only answer is that people view computer SOFTWARE as a permanent thing. In my opinion, this is a mistake. Software is no more permanent than hardware or anything else. One should not buy a piece of software with the expectation that they won't have to replace, upgrade, or find new software to accomplish the same task in a few years, or they will be disappointed. That, however, is not the fault of the developers for planning software lifecycles. It is a reality of the industry itself. It just so happens that DRM is another cog in the machine, and in the process protects the profits of those who created the software. I view that as a good thing as if it does prevent a massive loss of potential profit, the developer stays in business to create the next great piece of software. I suppose one could view that as a risk of a potential loss of future possible play time, but it still seems a silly thing about which to be concerned in light of the natural tendency of computer stuff.
I wrote a tl;dr as the rest of you, but Ill just say something real short instead: You are making this to much of a big deal.
To me it feels no different than a store employee checking my receipt before delivering me the goods I bought.
I don't think the expectation that a product I buy should offer the same utility for my lifetime is excessive. I'm not talking about a consumable product like shoes or automobile brakes. I'm talking about a digital product that doesn't need any maintenance. Let me worry about keeping my hardware compatible. I actually enjoy that sort of challenge.
Beamdog or any other corporation has every right to sell a product that doesn't meet my expectations. I think they would lose out on more business that way than if they catered to the non-DRM crowd. The people who accept DRM do so for convenience. I've never heard anyone complain that their product didn't have enough DRM. Non-DRM people are often passionate and supportive of the companies that treat them right. We are a profitable bunch if our expectations are met. And a product like this one is tailor made for our demographic.
This isn't about right and wrong. This is about how to make the most money. My side thinks there is more money to be made without DRM and we're pushing for a developer we like to listen to our request.
Kind of off-topic, but the way DRM was handled by Ubisoft made me chuckle. When they incorporated their always-on scheme, they claimed success while their revenues dropped by some large magnitude. The last game I bought from Ubisoft was IL-2, but I know that personally, I avoid their games solely because of their wicked DRM schemes.
Many DRM defenders seem to not take into account that a number of people only pirate something because they have the ability to get it for free, and wouldn't bat an eyelid if they hadn't. Better yet, some of them even decide to make a proper purchase afterwards, if they happen to like the product well enough.
The talk about morals is irrelevant, because it differs from person to person, and we all know the market isn't built on morals.
So the question should be - does the sales loss due to piracy outweigh the income from piracy, both advertisement and sales?
We don't have hard evidence that DRM has been successful, but we do have hard evidence that it has not. Even the best protection schemes on AAA titles are cracked in a matter of days. It just plain doesn't work. Publishers (and their shareholders) need to understand this and abandon the DRM business model completely, as it only serves to punish their legitimate customers.
There have been many DRM-free publishers listed in this thread; I believe the best example was the Humble Indie Bundle, which proved to be a huge commercial hit. As always, the indies are forging ahead and defining the future shape of the game industry. It's the larger companies that are afraid to move away from the status quo.
To your point about the licensing model... this has been the case for a very long time, rooted in familiar traditions used by artists and content creators for centuries. It's not a new thing. I believe it's just that individuals don't grasp it in regards to software, perhaps because they don't view it as art like we do. They DO compare it to consumable goods (even if that's a bad comparison, but I don't think so). Why, because its nature is that it can be infinitely copied, should that mean that a different standard applies? If anything, that validates the licensing model itself as it's the only way for a content creator to control their work against those who would profit from it without doing anything to create it.
As for planned obsolescence, it's absolutely true that eventually, technology simply does not support previous generations. We started with computers the sizes of entire rooms, then created mainframes, then minicomputers, then microcomputers, now we have phones and tablets. You can't take software that ran on a mainframe or mini and put it on a phone or a PC. Emulators help, but eventually, they will not work either. That's not even planned to a large extent, it's just a natural sign of progress. It may take a while, but I don't believe that it's reasonable to expect this kind of compatibility forever.
Frankly, it annoys me to read about those pirates who eventually make a purchase. Sure, there are some, but almost every game these days has a demo. That's what they're for! Why pirate the whole freaking thing and then MAYBE pay for it later? Just get the demo! Companies can't know if anyone will pay for the thing if they give away the software first. That's the entire point of DRM and why most of the world works the same way; pay first, play later.
Same applies to books too, when the first chapter is available for free and you have to pay for the rest.
These are not demos, but traps luring the potential customer to spend on the full version. By my estimation, about 50% of the content should be offered for examination, if an accurate judgement is to be made. Quite surprising that none of big publishers seem to realize that 50% can hook much better than 10% - or they simply know their product is not worth it, which is called scamming.
As for pirates turning legit customers, I can readily account that I would never ever pay for a movie (cinema or DVD) without seeing it full first. It is not necessary for me to watch them, and I can live happily without them just as fine. If I couldn't torrent it, I wouldn't buy either.
PS Just to clarify, I'm not advocating the piracy, I only state the a pirated copy is not immediately a lost sale.
I think companies project they'll make more money through DRM by stifling the used game market. It's become nearly impossible to turn a used game you no longer want into cash anymore. A server keeps track of total machine installations / installations per machine and the game is often locked to a Valve/Origin account. Even with a physical disc, once you install, it becomes more or less a brick. I'm sure companies made more money this way at first, but now that consumers have caught on to the scheme, it no longer makes financial sense. But the shareholders keep pushing for these false protections. Except that with mainframes and minicomputers, computers hadn't yet become truly personal. And there wasn't much digital content being created at all then. But that's not to say data from that time hasn't lived on or is somehow no longer relevant. I still have data from my first computer, a 1978 Northstar Horizon Z80. The source code for the first HTTP server and client browser still exists at CERN.
Old software used to interpret the data may not run on modern systems, but as long as digital art and expression exists, communities of concerned people will find a way to consume it, whether that means writing emulators or other finding other methods of ensuring consumability. DRM fights against this goal.
I can install Baldur's Gate off my old CDs with no authentication process of any kind. (Contrary to what some people have said, BG had no CD checks to authenticate the game. If you did a full install, no CD was necessary. The only reason you would need a CD to play the original BG is if you don't have enough HDD space for the entire game.) I can back up my discs by storing ISOs on my external HDD or burning new copies to ensure that I'll always be able to play.
If Overhaul is making an enhanced version Baldur's Gate, they should not be adding a layer of inconvenience that was not present in the original game.
While I have paid for BGEE and plan to buy BG2EE because the originals are some of my favorite games of all time, I probably won't buy any other games from Beamdog because of their use of DRM. The bottom line is that making a game inconvenient to play is not a way to win over customers.
I'm not saying this to be antagonistic. I really appreciate how digital distribution has allowed small companies like Beamdog/Overhaul to cater to niche markets that aren't served by big developers. I want Beamdog/Overhaul to succeed with the projects they're working on, but I don't want to support a company that intentionally restricts the ability of customers to use software that they've paid for.
Okay, there's a lot in here.
First, the subject of demos. Not every developer has mastered the art of the demo. It's hard to show just enough of a game to give the player a taste of what the game is like, without spoiling the story. Bastion does it well - they give you the first level, let you play around in that first level so you can see what the gameplay is like, and then that's it.
Where the demo fails, most often, is when it is either created using an early build of the game, or it shows a part of the gameplay that is not emblematic of the game's actual mechanics. Demonstrating the Super Mario Bros games by letting you play a water level, for instance, would be a terrible introduction to the game.
A demo is not designed to give you half the content so that you feel compelled to buy the game in order to finish the story. A demo is designed to show you what the game is going to be like. Giving you "50% of the content" isn't a good strategy for selling games. What if the full game is 80 hours long? Do you just give away 40 hours of gameplay for free? Players might buy the game eventually, but you're talking weeks or even months before they even reach the end of the demo--at which point the player is going to resent having to pay money all of a sudden for a game that they've been happily playing for free.
As for pirated games being a good way to attract customers, there is no incentive for the pirate to buy the game once he has stolen it. Some people might make the purchase, but a lot of people won't.
Pirating movies to see the full film before you pay for it is immature and--do I really need to repeat it?--illegal. Part of being a consumer is taking the risk to pay for something in the hopes that it will be worthwhile. If half-way through a film you decide you don't like it, you can always walk out and ask for your money back. People do it all the time. I've done it before. I feel bad, but if it's not worth my money, I have no problem getting a refund. That's why the refund exists.
Sorry, but I have no patience for piracy of any kind. Trying to justify or rationalize it as a consumer's right to "try before you buy, even if the product's creator doesn't want you to", is complete and utter bull.
EDIT: I missed the "several years ago" bit in your post. I'll agree that demos used to be kind of non-plussing. They've gotten a lot better, though. Now, for the games that I'm likely to enjoy, the demos do a good job of telling me what the gameplay is actually going to be like. Bastion is a good example; so is Final Fantasy XIII-2 (turns out I didn't like some of the mechanics, so I didn't buy the game, which is something I'm glad I discovered beforehand).
I also may have misinterpreted your point at the end. It sounded like you were "not advocating piracy" while at the same time admitting that you pirate movies yourself. If that wasn't the case, then I apologize.
Although I have not had concrete answers previously, especially concerning the possibilities (or-not) :
To lend, to exchange, to offer or re-sell, BG.EE under DRM ?,
Things that I have the right or ability to do with physical version .
I raise again the discussion on other aspects :
Modding questions & DRM :
Multiple installations & DRM ?
Modders need in their workstation, multiple installations .
How to handle it with DRM ?
Modders can they clone different images of the game for their tests/mod ?
Free ?
And unconstrained as permitted vanilla version ?
T.Y.
P.S. :
Because of this :
Gamers need to install & reinstall multiple installations to play & try differents style of mods .
Then,
Gamers can they install, desinstall and reinstall, successively, several versions of the games from the DRM client ... ?
Free ?
And unconstrained as permitted vanilla version ?
Source :
http://www.baldursgateworld.fr/lacouronne/baldurs-gate-enhanced-edition/25371-bgee-les-mods-compatibles-avec-bgee.html
You can install the game as many times as you want but I'm not sure if for every multiple installation on the same computer if you need to activate each installation.