What can I say, arrest me, for a crime I haven't yet comitted, that reminds me of something...
Anywayz maybe I will buy the damned game coz I really want to help those guys, they seem quite romantic in a cold blooded and scheming industry, but I will crack it eventually so I won't be bothered while installing it time and again. Have you ever tried to make a BGT mega-mod setup my friend, last time it took me 3 full hours, and before that a whole 2+hours endeavor was a complete failure, meaning UNiNSTAL & TRY AGAIN from scratch.
At least I am sincere enough to admit it openly before hand, while many of you will do the same thing when the time comes, but you lack the guts to admit it, well that's ok with me just stop preaching, reminds me again of some certain people called Pharisees...
@nizhidrhamannit - no one is calling for a preemptive strike against you; it's you who openly stated you'd be pirating the game. Purchasing it and cracking the DRM is an entirely different matter; it may still be illegal, but at least you would have paid for the game, thus supporting Beamdog and remunerating their work, which is fair.
Not sure how the mega-mod installation argument applies. Yes, the thought of being able to benefit from most of those features without having to install a thousand mods is one of the things that make BG:EE so appealing for many of us. All the more reason to purchase it!
Mark my words DRM & DLC will ruin the whole fun dissappoint old BG fan community and make us stick to the OLD ORIGINAL games...
Not a chance. The vast majority of gamers are used to DRM schemes and have obviously accepted them as evidenced by the number of sales for titles out there that use much more intrusive DRM. Only a few who absolutely insist on no DRM at all will refuse to support any game which includes it. Even for those who are strongly opposed to DRM, their nostalgia will likely win out over these concerns when it comes to one of the greatest RPGs of all time.
While we all would love it if games had no DRM at all, it's really nothing compared to the old school "DRM" we had to deal with like CD checks.
Mark my words DRM & DLC will ruin the whole fun dissappoint old BG fan community and make us stick to the OLD ORIGINAL games...
Not a chance. The vast majority of gamers are used to DRM schemes and have obviously accepted them as evidenced by the number of sales for titles out there that use much more intrusive DRM. Only a few who absolutely insist on no DRM at all will refuse to support any game which includes it. Even for those who are strongly opposed to DRM, their nostalgia will likely win out over these concerns when it comes to one of the greatest RPGs of all time.
While we all would love it if games had no DRM at all, it's really nothing compared to the old school "DRM" we had to deal with like CD checks.
Personally, I prefer the old-school CD check. It's nice to play a game without a CD, but a CD is at least something you own. Some of the forms today require an internet connection and a working DRM server. If I want to play a game released today 10 years later, and it requires connecting with a server, it may be problematic if that company no longer exists 10 years later.
As for a vast majority of gamers being used to DRM... well, I think most gamers by now have been exposed to them, but I don't think it is universally accepted. People put up with it, but I don't think accepted is the right term to use there. Large sales number of a game have little correlation with DRM unless you can quantitatively measure the effects of sales between two identical games, one with DRM, and one without. Companies like CD Projekt Red, which does sell identical games with and without DRM, seems to talk highly about the latter as I last recall (though I could be wrong).
I understand and agree with what you've written. I compare the notion of being able to play the game years later to the idea of shoes wearing out. When you buy a pair of shoes, you have no expectation that they will last forever. No game company ever makes a representation that you will be able to play a game forever either, regardless of whether they include DRM or not. There's no warranty on the media either if you happen to damage it (although some companies will gladly replace your copy and others will not). While I am aware that a DRM means authentication, I think the concern that the company will not exist or the servers may go down is just another event which prospective buyers will have consider when deciding whether or not to purchase the game. When I bought my lawn mower, I considered how likely it was the company who manufactured it might still be in business 10 years from now so that I can get parts for it when it needs servicing. Many games for which companies have paid also provide servers so they can play multiplayer, which they then take down after a number of years because the user base is no longer there and it's not economical for them to continue to run them. Support ends after a specified time and no more patches are released. These are issues every gamer and game company confront and DRM is no different. To use your example, if you break the CD for a game you just bought, you may be screwed, even though the company may still exist.
Under no circumstances can any of this be justified as an excuse to steal.
A question comes to mind with all the people complaining about the online authentication. Are the servers that are doing the authenticating for this game Beamdog's or are they Atari's as they are the actual rights holders of the Baldur's Gates games? It seems to me that if they are Beamdog's servers and it was to go out of business one day(and assuming it wasn't able to perform the patch mentioned in all the pre-order FAQs about removing the authentication) that it would just switch to Atari to perform the check.
You make some valid points there, and I agree. I typically like to attribute games kind of like a novel I can pick up and read from my shelf. In the old days, where authenticating DRM didn't existed, the longevity of games can be quite long. Even today, I sometimes take some of my old CD games that date back to 1994 and 1995 and, with or without a little tweaking to make them work with Windows 7, I can still play them even today. Just a couple years ago, I was still playing Mechwarrior 2 dos multiplayer with some old-school players, which is a testimate to the longevity a little piece of digital art can have. For a lot gamers, I think, this is 'better' than what we have today, and may be part of why we see some DRM fuss around every gaming forum out there and why box editions are still popular.
I bought Mass Effect 3 a while ago, back when it was released. While I clearly made the conscious decision to accept EA's DRM, which includes connecting to Origin every time I wish to play, I still get a little bummed out when I think about inconveniences this causes. I've had times where I simply could not play because my internet went down temporarily, or their servers went down. If they close doors tomorrow, I won't be able to play, and the irony of this is that I can still play the games I bought a decade-and-a-half ago.
I agree that there are issues every gamer and game company will have to confront, whether or not there is DRM. It used to be a lot more flexible though, and I think that gives value to a product. If BG:EE were to release without DRM, as minimal as it is, I think the value of the product would be further increased.
A question comes to mind with all the people complaining about the online authentication. Are the servers that are doing the authenticating for this game Beamdog's or are they Atari's as they are the actual rights holders of the Baldur's Gates games? It seems to me that if they are Beamdog's servers and it was to go out of business one day(and assuming it wasn't able to perform the patch mentioned in all the pre-order FAQs about removing the authentication) that it would just switch to Atari to perform the check.
It would have to be patched either way, whether DRM is removed or if it switches to say, Atari, for a check (the software needs to know where to check to check). Or it can be left alone, though I don't think most people would like that.
I feel like this is more a principled discussion about DRM than an actual discussion of the copy protection this game will have. That is fine, but you should realize that the claim for a completely DRM free product is a very demanding one. If your opinion is that either a game (or dvd player, or game console, or whatever) is completely DRM free or it isn't worth buying, then there is clearly not much to discuss here, since this game won't be. And I mean, I´d expect 98% (minimum) of the people who´d want to buy this game to have access to internet, and for them this won't be a problem at all. On the contrary, it sounds a lot better than switching cd:s back and forth. In fact, when I think about it, it sounds fantastic!
@vortican ... For a lot gamers, I think, this is 'better' than what we have today, and may be part of why we see some DRM fuss around every gaming forum out there and why box editions are still popular.
I bought Mass Effect 3 a while ago, back when it was released. While I clearly made the conscious decision to accept EA's DRM, which includes connecting to Origin every time I wish to play, I still get a little bummed out when I think about inconveniences this causes. I've had times where I simply could not play because my internet went down temporarily, or their servers went down. If they close doors tomorrow, I won't be able to play, and the irony of this is that I can still play the games I bought a decade-and-a-half ago.
I agree that there are issues every gamer and game company will have to confront, whether or not there is DRM. It used to be a lot more flexible though, and I think that gives value to a product. If BG:EE were to release without DRM, as minimal as it is, I think the value of the product would be further increased.
To your first point, it's clearly those who value the convenience of digital download who are driving game sales. I would point to the rise in digital distribution of EVERY medium, not just games, and the abundance of MANY platforms for this (Origin, Steam, Impulse, Beamdog client...). I believe that if it were actually studied, one would find that the digital distribution crowd is the growing group and the boxed game group is growing smaller. There's an entire generation of gamers now who are growing up without even knowing what it's like NOT to have DRM. It's the new normal.
Now, the question for Beamdog really is not the value of the product intrinsically but how much money can they make with a DRM-free product vs. the lost sales they believe they prevent by including DRM. If the incremental increase that comes from DRM-free product outweighs the combined cost of: including the DRM technology (in development and operating the activation servers), the sales lost from implementing DRM, and the sales preserved by preventing pirating to any degree, then you'd be right. Obviously, Beamdog and their partners believe that gross profit will be higher with DRM than without. While there is evidence to suggest that DRM does very little to combat piracy, and some sellers of artistic works have indeed no included any measure to protect themselves either by not including DRM or giving away their work to anyone and allowing them to pay what they want, those people are still in the minority.
To be clear, I believe that a DRM-free approach does work in most circumstances (that companies which operate in this way can remain profitable) but I don't believe that it in itself can increase sales to any significant degree.
It just struck me though, that I do wonder if those who claim it is such a burden to have to authenticate upon install pay any subscriptions to WoW or MMOs. You can not play those games at all if you don't have internet connectivity, and they costs much more than any game that operates on a subscription-based pricing model. To me, that illustrates the silliness of that argument for those individuals. To the small slice of gamers who are like you, who play games without DRM 10 or 15 years later, your points have a lot of merit, but just remember, you're a minor subset of gamers and unfortunately, unless you have a very responsive company (which Beamdog appears to be, and I still believe that despite their ownership by EA, Bioware is), you're not going to drive the decision.
Well I certainly can't imagine or would make any illusions of driving any decisions relating to whether or not DRM would be included, however hopeful I am to the issue. And yes, digital download is becoming the new norm. I myself enjoy the convenience of being able to download a game and not worry about having to drive out to a store to pick up a disc.
On the issue of DRM from the business side, that being Beamdog, I do highly suspect that incrementally, there would be more sales without DRM, and the reasoning behind this is that I have never seen even the most intricate DRM systems work. If there is an illicit copy of a DRM implemented game that is available, then the DRM system has failed. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and when it doesn't work, it is but extra baggage attached to the software. I'm no CEO or anything like that, but I did study business, and to me, DRM just seems completely illogical when customer relationships is the key to most forms of success. Of course, the only way to know is if there is a quantitative study on this issue that actually compares sales number.
I did take a time to look up the sales figures for the Witcher 2. There is a lot of factors that one must take into account, but the game was released DRM free on gog.com, and I do believe it incorporated some littler forms of DRM in it's other modes of distribution. The sales of the gog.com version came in second compared to most other forms of digital distribution, though Steam took first place. Interestingly enough, Steam in itself is a form of DRM, but then again, it does offer a library of modern games for it's users and their deals are very, very good. Gog.com coming second does bring some interesting insight into the matter, however, since it's store consists primarily of old games and is for the most part a new company that emerged in recent years.
It's a little silly to be discussing so in depth about DRM, considering how little this will be present in BG:EE, but then DRM never really made sense to me and it's an interesting topic nonetheless.
What I meant was that when you log into GOG to DL your games, you need to type in your user name and password. With BG:EE you need to do the same with the added level of a simple authentication check to see if you paid for the game. How can that be seen as a huge issue? I´m just trying to understand how some people directly refuse to play a game they love because a fast check to see if you stole it..
Because it happens only once with GOG. With GOG you log in *once* to download the installer, and that's all. You can then use the installer offline, an unlimited number of times, forever. Twenty years in the future if the GOG servers are dead and gone, you can still use that installer.
With the method Beamdog is using, it needs to check with the server on every install. Twenty years in the future if the Beamdog servers are gone then you couldn't install BGEE again.
The "but they said they would remove the authentication if they turned off the servers!" issue and why some people consider it an insufficient assurance was already addressed on page 1 of this thread.
@Vortican I find your argument comical that the audience that wants to play games fifteen years later is so small that you're on a forum for an almost fifteen year old game making it. If we were on a Madden 2013 board you would have a point. But we're not. This is a very different demographic.
DRM treats paying customers like thieves and doesn't affect thieves at all because they pirate. This makes no sense and should not be acceptable. This is absolutely a principle issue and not a practical one. But the baseline for acceptability should be zero DRM. If you accept this level of DRM as normal than egregious violations become even worse.
World of Warcraft is not DRM. That is a very handy side effect that Blizzard enjoys. That product is clearly a Server/Client setup that REQUIRES servers to function at all. Diablo 3 is a form of DRM since the server requirement was artificially grafted on to the single player experience. Let's keep the discussion to relevant comparisons.
Arundor, Kyon, Elys, Nizhidrhamannit, Treyolen, and others who will not be purchasing this game because of DRM. I am with you.
When I pay money for something, I want to own it. I have over 700 movies, 300 games, etc. etc. etc. legally purchased, and I'm currently working on backing up ALL of these onto hard drives. I recently purchased 24TB worth of hard drives to do this with.
I have no problem paying for things, but I refuse to pay for something when I don't know how long I will have access to it (the Hard Drive purchase is scary for me in this regard, as they do fail - but I have no other choice). I respect anyone who doesn't care if it has DRM, but please also respect the viewpoints of the people who do care - it's simply a state of mind. I think mine is superior, and you think mine is idiotic. That's fine - I understand that, and I'm not here to turn anyone to my side. I simply asked the question, and I'm making the developers of the game know where I stand. Now, to address some comments and to state why I feel this way:
Quote from Tanthalas "And again, if you want to "stick it to the man" for the game having (a very mild form of) DRM, then don't buy the game.
Saying that you'll pirate the game because it has DRM and acting like you're some kind of Paladin on some noble cause is simply ridiculous. The game having DRM is just the excuse you're using to be cheap.
And the funny part of all this, I'm pretty sure that the original games forced you to have the disc in your PC to play the game, that's basically a form of DRM too. The BGEE version with its "wicked" DRM can actually be played concurrently on more than one PC, something the original can't be."
I don't know the reason why everyone pirates, but throwing everyone under the "they are cheap" category is not a good answer to that question. I understand it, and maybe it is because some people are cheap. It is also because of this mind set: - COOL! BG Remake! I'm buying this! - (Discovers DRM). Nevermind, I will not purchase anything that has DRM - Pirates the game.
In this instance, it has nothing to do with being cheap. It has everything to do with the person NOT going to purchase the game anyway. AFTER the person made their mind up to not purchase, they pirated. No loss of sales to the publisher occurred. This individual does not want a product with DRM, and therefore would have never purchased it anyway.
Ubisoft's DRM was just found to have a terrible "bug" involved that would allow viruses and hackers to get into your system. DRM is a terrible thing. Guess how I can get the game for free AND without this free backstage pass into my system - pirate it! It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to purchase the game and then spend hour after hour trying to make it safe to install on your system. If I have to do that, then I want the game at 85% off. Not willing to do that for me? I'll download it then. I'm not saying I did, but I'm explaining the mindset.
I understand Ubisoft's DRM is much harsher than what will be in this game, but it is still DRM, and it still has security in place that may not allow me to play it in 1 year, or 5 years, or 10 years. I won't spend my money on something like that.
As far as CD-checks, there are easy ways around this. You can simply download a no-CD file for your game.
"Purchasing it and cracking the DRM is an entirely different matter; it may still be illegal, but at least you would have paid for the game, thus supporting Beamdog and remunerating their work, which is fair."
Again, if I'm spending my time to do this so I feel more comfortable about my purchase, I want compensation (like, money off). Also, because there is no gray area (a whole other issue), it is still the same amount of illegal. If I'm going to do something illegal and take the same risks, why would I want waste my time cracking it? Also, by doing so, I might not be getting all of the benefits (like online play). So, now I'm paying full price for an inferior product that I had to spend much of my time on.
"racking a game for your own personal use is fine, but it becomes piracy if you give the cracked version away for free and that is wrong."
It's still illegal. Me wanting to back-up my games, I've looked into this. It is legal to own a working back-up of whatever you purchase, but it is illegal to crack/break any form of DRM/code they put on the disc, even if the end result is to make a working back-up. Again, it's black and white, no gray.
"I would choose no DRM.
However, it is unfortunately not possible to own a DRM-free version of BG:EE. Since the DRM on BG:EE is very light and I really want to play the game, purchasing it is a no-brainer for me. It's fine if you find DRM a deal-breaker regardless of its heavyness, but it really does not justify pirating the game. The devs have spent countless hours of work on it, and they need to make a living out of it. How would you like it if your boss didn't pay you for your work, or your customers didn't pay you for your product?"
I make independent films, and I've been thinking about doing this: - Put a film I make online to sell. Mark it for $30 million. - Put the film on a pirate website (don't get me started on entrapment, just go along with the point of the story) - Try to catch someone downloading it. Once I do, take them to court and demand $30 million, because that's what I lost whenever they downloaded it. I mean, I spent COUNTLESS hours working on it, and this is my living!
Again, a download isn't ALWAYS a lost sale. As being a creator of content myself, I understand this. So, people downloading my films....well, it doesn't really bother me. And, if I made something on a movie that required you to sign into the Internet every 5th time you wanted to watch it, then I would expect it to be pirated more as the pirated version wouldn't have this idiotic and annoying protection.
"you are basicly spit into the well you are drinking from. ' I'm a sucker for these games, absolutely love them - But skrew those who make them"
It depends - are the pirating just to pirate and they WOULD have purchased the game otherwise? Then yes. If no purchase was to be made, then no - you are having no affect on who made the game. Actually, you might help them in the long run by talking to your friends on how good the game is.
I'm not condoning piracy; I'm just stating that I understand why people pirate, and I understand that piracy isn't always a lost sale. And I'm not saying I will pirate this! When it hits GoG, you will have my money. Until then though, I can wait. If it never makes it to GoG, or gets rid of ALL DRM, you will never have my money.
@Vortican I find your argument comical that the audience that wants to play games fifteen years later is so small that you're on a forum for an almost fifteen year old game making it. If we were on a Madden 2013 board you would have a point. But we're not. This is a very different demographic.
Why? I'm aware that I'm a member of a small group. Do you expect this game to achieve the same level of sales as Halo or World of Warcraft? I hope that you're not and I hope Beamdog is not because you will both be disappointed. I made this point because the argument that you may want to install the game at some point in the future only applies to a very tiny subset of gamers. Even within those who will PLAY a game like this, it's not a majority. It's one thing to be nostalgic but it's another entirely to continue to play the same game on a Windows PC for 15 years. I loved BG and Neverwinter Nights and up until a few years ago, I still owned physical copies, but I didn't have them installed and had not for years. Yes, this is a particular demographic and obviously, there are more people here who enjoy playing old games, but I still doubt that there are a lot of people who actually are still playing those games now. I could be wrong but I believe the argument still has merit. In the grand scheme of things, we're all a small slice of the gamer demographic.
Now, if this game blows up like a mofo and Beamdog sells a bajillion copies, I'll be proven wrong and no one would be happier than I. I want companies like Beamdog to succeed.
DRM treats paying customers like thieves and doesn't affect thieves at all because they pirate. This makes no sense and should not be acceptable. This is absolutely a principle issue and not a practical one. But the baseline for acceptability should be zero DRM. If you accept this level of DRM as normal than egregious violations become even worse.
Don't retail stores have locks on their doors? Don't they have security tags on their products? Securing your inventory is not treating customers like thieves. When the feds cop a feel at an airport or strip search grandmothers just on the off-chance one of them might be a terrorist, THAT'S mistreatment. Private companies trying to prevent theft by building modest security is not treating a customer like a thief. I don't insist on a baseline for acceptability for anyone but myself. I wish more companies operated DRM-free, but I'm willing to tolerate a certain level of protection because I want the industry as a whole to succeed and I'm skeptical that companies which give away their products can survive in the long-term. It's a different story if we had a RIGHT to own these games, but we do not. We only have the right to choose to purchase them as is or not. We are all perfectly within our rights to argue for change, and I support that.
World of Warcraft is not DRM. That is a very handy side effect that Blizzard enjoys. That product is clearly a Server/Client setup that REQUIRES servers to function at all. Diablo 3 is a form of DRM since the server requirement was artificially grafted on to the single player experience. Let's keep the discussion to relevant comparisons.
I see a relevant comparison there. The DRM-free World of Warcraft experience wouldn't require a password, encryption, or secure servers according to your model. The only thing you'd need would be a unique username to identify yourself. In fact, hacking is a major issue in that game and other MMOs so security concerns are even more important than in BG:EE. The fact that it's a client/server setup isn't the point. I don't see why DRM has to be confined to a single-player experience.
I guess the point I was trying to make was that players of World of Warcraft understand that they are paying a monthly fee with the expectation that they will be able to play that game for that month and the next, as long as they keep paying. If they don't want to play anymore, they stop paying. When you buy BG:EE, you're expecting to be able to install and play that game forever, anytime you want, with no strings. I don't think that's a realistic or logical expectation and I find it entirely reasonable that Beamdog would want to control the number of copies that are out there. It's the same reasons artists sign their work, produce limited editions, and destroy the molds of their sculptures, so that they CAN'T be copied and devalued by frauds. If Beamdog wanted to give away their work and allow it to be shared freely, they certainly could have done that. Placing conditions on the use of products seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Ironically, since you pointed out a rather comical aspect of my argument, I have to mention that I found Daverian's request for a discount (for this time spent cracking DRM after purchasing the official version) rather amusing. He essentially wants Beamdog to sell him a non-DRM version of the game for less than the DRM version because he had to modify the game to fit his tastes. I'm sure that makes about as much sense to Beamdog as it does to me, which is very little. I'm all for pleasing customers, but it's illogical to think that Beamdog would increase the risk of piracy and at the same time, sell the game cheaper. They're not in the business of trying to lose money.
Not pointing fingers here... I found many of Daverian's other points quite logical.
Daverian you made your point quite clear my friend, strong, solid arguments 100% pure fact, couldn't say it any better myself, I just hope the guys in charge get the picture, sometimes people choose only to see their own truth, through colored glasses and distorting lenses, refuse to even listen to the other part...
Expect (but not really) some equally strong and solid counter arguments from the opposition...
Just an FYI, it's going to be released via other distribution platforms. From the FAQ: "Will this game be on Steam? Or GOG? Or Impulse? Or...
A: We cannot comment on the future availability of BG:EE on Steam, GOG, or any other distribution service at this time. BG:EE is temporarily exclusive to Beamdog."
It's just temporarily exclusive to Beamdog. It will be on GOG for sure.
In this instance, it has nothing to do with being cheap. It has everything to do with the person NOT going to purchase the game anyway. AFTER the person made their mind up to not purchase, they pirated. No loss of sales to the publisher occurred. This individual does not want a product with DRM, and therefore would have never purchased it anyway.
The problem is that people use the existence of DRM as an excuse to justify pirating a game, that's why they're being cheap. A game having DRM doesn't make it morally right to pirate a game, but people pretend that it does.
Furthermore, let me point to another one of your arguments:
As far as CD-checks, there are easy ways around this. You can simply download a no-CD file for your game.
So, you have no problem in bypassing CD checks, but suddenly you have a problem with bypassing the authentication of a game you've purchased? Sounds like BS to me.
@Tanthalas If people use DRM as an excuse to pirate it sounds like a counterproductive thing to include. And CD checks are not the same thing at all. The CD doesn't go offline when the cost of maintenance can no longer be justified. CD checks are still DRM and should also be discouraged. But they DO NOT present the same risk.
That's sort of a cop out Treyolen. DRM isn't the only reason people pirate and it does make it more difficult to create pirated versions, even if it does not reduce piracy substantially. I agree with your assertion on CD-checks, but it seems to me that the likelihood of the servers going offline at some point in the future, when presumably much fewer people are playing the game is comparable to the number of CDs which wear out or are damaged, destroyed, or lost.
In both cases, there's a very small segment of game purchasers who want unrestricted rights to play the games forever. It's like you're telling Beamdog, "Hey, you're never going to stop piracy, and anything you do to combat it which limits my experience is unacceptable, so don't worry about piracy and let people steal your stuff, OR give it away for free and you don't have to worry about that."
And some people are saying, "If you don't, I'll steal it."
And CD checks are not the same thing at all. The CD doesn't go offline when the cost of maintenance can no longer be justified. CD checks are still DRM and should also be discouraged. But they DO NOT present the same risk.
And BGEE can be installed on multiple PCs and played concurrently offline. You cannot do that with the disc version. So while they do not present the same risk, BGEE's system also presents advantages. And I think you're really exaggerating the risk of BGEE becoming unplayable to force your point, we might as well start arguing about broken CD's.
Besides, you're ignoring the real point of my post. @Daverian was saying that he had no problem in bypassing the DRM of the CD version of the game, but then he suddenly has a problem in buying BGEE and bypassing its DRM. That's why I called his argument BS.
@Tanthalas No one is saying they don't want to pay anything for a game. And if a person does say that, they were never going to be a customer and whether or not they unfairly play your game doesn't affect you in the least. Let go of the idea of fair. The question is whether or not DRM increases or decreases profit. Profit is the only motivation for a corporation.
And I'll just ask a simple question. Can you tell me any game servers from the Baldur's Gate era that are still operational? It's an honest question. I don't know the answer already. I do believe that all of the official BG forums are gone and the official patch servers are gone. Where can I get patches for the original version without relying on 3rd parties? Your answer may shed some light on our very real concerns.
@Treyolen People are using DRM as an excuse to go pirate a game. I'm not talking about profits or corporations, I'm talking about people being hypocrites.
The fact that you can still easily find the official patches of the original games on 3rd party sites is why there's no real reason for concern.
And the real point of most of our arguments is that DRM is bad. It is all bad in all forms. It offers zero value to the customer and constitutes a burden for the customer. Arguing over whether or not the burden is significant is foolish. A gilded cage is still a cage.
Spinning code wheels are bad! Game manual text checks are bad! CD checks are bad! Rootkits are bad! Online server checks are bad! Anything else that I'm missing or is thought of next will be bad!
While vortican on the other hand I doubt that you had your way with BG series in the past, I doubt that you have a history at all with these games, I doubt that you share the love and affection I DO with BG, not to mention fully modded BGT.
My guess is that you are excited about this new (??? NEW ??? o_O) game, yum yum, but in a couple of months you'll move on to the next best thing...
I have been playing BGT a whole DECADE+ comprende? capisce?
AND I mean to play the EE version for the next DECADE or so...
@Treyolen Its bad but its there. And so our choices are:
- Refuse to buy the game. - Accept it and buy the game, and most likely never be bothered by its existence.
Some people are defending a third option:
- Pirate the game while pretending that their piracy is justified by the existence of DRM, which is utter hypocrisy. A game having DRM does not make it morally acceptable to pirate it.
Unfortunately, whether it is morally acceptable or not, the third option is going to happen, somewhere, and someplace. It doesn't matter what the justification is. The only thing that should matter, at least to Beamdog, is the cause, and the cause is at least partially pointed towards DRM. Because if the DRM wasn't there, I do think some of these individuals would in fact purchase the game. What their personal morals are doesn't matter. Neither does the depth of how intrusive the DRM system really is, which in this case, isn't very intrusive at all.
I'm not defending the practice of piracy or anything like that, but the fact of the matter is, people all have different perceptions on morals and different regards for the law. People are not robots, they are human, and perceptions are part of human nature. I'm sure there are many, many people out there who would like the fourth option of not having to deal with DRM and buying the game in support of a good product. Some people can tolerate DRM, but most people hate it.
While I'm pretty positive BG:EE will never come to that, stories like those always highlight something that too many game publishers/developers ignore. People post on forums complaining about DRM because they are sick of it, and that's fine too. In introductory marketing, students are typically taught that customers make a purchase based on perceived values and how well a company can deliver such. DRM just so happens to add no value and sometimes takes value away. Hence we have threads like these, both for concerned potential customers who wishes clarity and for people to vent their frustrations in hopes that someone high-up would read them.
Comments
Anywayz maybe I will buy the damned game coz I really want to help those guys, they seem quite romantic in a cold blooded and scheming industry, but I will crack it eventually so I won't be bothered while installing it time and again. Have you ever tried to make a BGT mega-mod setup my friend, last time it took me 3 full hours, and before that a whole 2+hours endeavor was a complete failure, meaning UNiNSTAL & TRY AGAIN from scratch.
At least I am sincere enough to admit it openly before hand, while many of you will do the same thing when the time comes, but you lack the guts to admit it, well that's ok with me just stop preaching, reminds me again of some certain people called Pharisees...
Not sure how the mega-mod installation argument applies. Yes, the thought of being able to benefit from most of those features without having to install a thousand mods is one of the things that make BG:EE so appealing for many of us. All the more reason to purchase it!
While we all would love it if games had no DRM at all, it's really nothing compared to the old school "DRM" we had to deal with like CD checks.
I understand your points but theft is illegal and wrong. Period.
As for a vast majority of gamers being used to DRM... well, I think most gamers by now have been exposed to them, but I don't think it is universally accepted. People put up with it, but I don't think accepted is the right term to use there. Large sales number of a game have little correlation with DRM unless you can quantitatively measure the effects of sales between two identical games, one with DRM, and one without. Companies like CD Projekt Red, which does sell identical games with and without DRM, seems to talk highly about the latter as I last recall (though I could be wrong).
I understand and agree with what you've written. I compare the notion of being able to play the game years later to the idea of shoes wearing out. When you buy a pair of shoes, you have no expectation that they will last forever. No game company ever makes a representation that you will be able to play a game forever either, regardless of whether they include DRM or not. There's no warranty on the media either if you happen to damage it (although some companies will gladly replace your copy and others will not). While I am aware that a DRM means authentication, I think the concern that the company will not exist or the servers may go down is just another event which prospective buyers will have consider when deciding whether or not to purchase the game. When I bought my lawn mower, I considered how likely it was the company who manufactured it might still be in business 10 years from now so that I can get parts for it when it needs servicing. Many games for which companies have paid also provide servers so they can play multiplayer, which they then take down after a number of years because the user base is no longer there and it's not economical for them to continue to run them. Support ends after a specified time and no more patches are released. These are issues every gamer and game company confront and DRM is no different. To use your example, if you break the CD for a game you just bought, you may be screwed, even though the company may still exist.
Under no circumstances can any of this be justified as an excuse to steal.
You make some valid points there, and I agree. I typically like to attribute games kind of like a novel I can pick up and read from my shelf. In the old days, where authenticating DRM didn't existed, the longevity of games can be quite long. Even today, I sometimes take some of my old CD games that date back to 1994 and 1995 and, with or without a little tweaking to make them work with Windows 7, I can still play them even today. Just a couple years ago, I was still playing Mechwarrior 2 dos multiplayer with some old-school players, which is a testimate to the longevity a little piece of digital art can have. For a lot gamers, I think, this is 'better' than what we have today, and may be part of why we see some DRM fuss around every gaming forum out there and why box editions are still popular.
I bought Mass Effect 3 a while ago, back when it was released. While I clearly made the conscious decision to accept EA's DRM, which includes connecting to Origin every time I wish to play, I still get a little bummed out when I think about inconveniences this causes. I've had times where I simply could not play because my internet went down temporarily, or their servers went down. If they close doors tomorrow, I won't be able to play, and the irony of this is that I can still play the games I bought a decade-and-a-half ago.
I agree that there are issues every gamer and game company will have to confront, whether or not there is DRM. It used to be a lot more flexible though, and I think that gives value to a product. If BG:EE were to release without DRM, as minimal as it is, I think the value of the product would be further increased.
Now, the question for Beamdog really is not the value of the product intrinsically but how much money can they make with a DRM-free product vs. the lost sales they believe they prevent by including DRM. If the incremental increase that comes from DRM-free product outweighs the combined cost of: including the DRM technology (in development and operating the activation servers), the sales lost from implementing DRM, and the sales preserved by preventing pirating to any degree, then you'd be right. Obviously, Beamdog and their partners believe that gross profit will be higher with DRM than without. While there is evidence to suggest that DRM does very little to combat piracy, and some sellers of artistic works have indeed no included any measure to protect themselves either by not including DRM or giving away their work to anyone and allowing them to pay what they want, those people are still in the minority.
To be clear, I believe that a DRM-free approach does work in most circumstances (that companies which operate in this way can remain profitable) but I don't believe that it in itself can increase sales to any significant degree.
It just struck me though, that I do wonder if those who claim it is such a burden to have to authenticate upon install pay any subscriptions to WoW or MMOs. You can not play those games at all if you don't have internet connectivity, and they costs much more than any game that operates on a subscription-based pricing model. To me, that illustrates the silliness of that argument for those individuals. To the small slice of gamers who are like you, who play games without DRM 10 or 15 years later, your points have a lot of merit, but just remember, you're a minor subset of gamers and unfortunately, unless you have a very responsive company (which Beamdog appears to be, and I still believe that despite their ownership by EA, Bioware is), you're not going to drive the decision.
On the issue of DRM from the business side, that being Beamdog, I do highly suspect that incrementally, there would be more sales without DRM, and the reasoning behind this is that I have never seen even the most intricate DRM systems work. If there is an illicit copy of a DRM implemented game that is available, then the DRM system has failed. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and when it doesn't work, it is but extra baggage attached to the software. I'm no CEO or anything like that, but I did study business, and to me, DRM just seems completely illogical when customer relationships is the key to most forms of success. Of course, the only way to know is if there is a quantitative study on this issue that actually compares sales number.
I did take a time to look up the sales figures for the Witcher 2. There is a lot of factors that one must take into account, but the game was released DRM free on gog.com, and I do believe it incorporated some littler forms of DRM in it's other modes of distribution. The sales of the gog.com version came in second compared to most other forms of digital distribution, though Steam took first place. Interestingly enough, Steam in itself is a form of DRM, but then again, it does offer a library of modern games for it's users and their deals are very, very good. Gog.com coming second does bring some interesting insight into the matter, however, since it's store consists primarily of old games and is for the most part a new company that emerged in recent years.
It's a little silly to be discussing so in depth about DRM, considering how little this will be present in BG:EE, but then DRM never really made sense to me and it's an interesting topic nonetheless.
With the method Beamdog is using, it needs to check with the server on every install. Twenty years in the future if the Beamdog servers are gone then you couldn't install BGEE again.
The "but they said they would remove the authentication if they turned off the servers!" issue and why some people consider it an insufficient assurance was already addressed on page 1 of this thread.
DRM treats paying customers like thieves and doesn't affect thieves at all because they pirate. This makes no sense and should not be acceptable. This is absolutely a principle issue and not a practical one. But the baseline for acceptability should be zero DRM. If you accept this level of DRM as normal than egregious violations become even worse.
World of Warcraft is not DRM. That is a very handy side effect that Blizzard enjoys. That product is clearly a Server/Client setup that REQUIRES servers to function at all. Diablo 3 is a form of DRM since the server requirement was artificially grafted on to the single player experience. Let's keep the discussion to relevant comparisons.
Arundor, Kyon, Elys, Nizhidrhamannit, Treyolen, and others who will not be purchasing this game because of DRM. I am with you.
When I pay money for something, I want to own it. I have over 700 movies, 300 games, etc. etc. etc. legally purchased, and I'm currently working on backing up ALL of these onto hard drives. I recently purchased 24TB worth of hard drives to do this with.
I have no problem paying for things, but I refuse to pay for something when I don't know how long I will have access to it (the Hard Drive purchase is scary for me in this regard, as they do fail - but I have no other choice). I respect anyone who doesn't care if it has DRM, but please also respect the viewpoints of the people who do care - it's simply a state of mind. I think mine is superior, and you think mine is idiotic. That's fine - I understand that, and I'm not here to turn anyone to my side. I simply asked the question, and I'm making the developers of the game know where I stand. Now, to address some comments and to state why I feel this way:
Quote from Tanthalas
"And again, if you want to "stick it to the man" for the game having (a very mild form of) DRM, then don't buy the game.
Saying that you'll pirate the game because it has DRM and acting like you're some kind of Paladin on some noble cause is simply ridiculous. The game having DRM is just the excuse you're using to be cheap.
And the funny part of all this, I'm pretty sure that the original games forced you to have the disc in your PC to play the game, that's basically a form of DRM too. The BGEE version with its "wicked" DRM can actually be played concurrently on more than one PC, something the original can't be."
I don't know the reason why everyone pirates, but throwing everyone under the "they are cheap" category is not a good answer to that question. I understand it, and maybe it is because some people are cheap. It is also because of this mind set:
- COOL! BG Remake! I'm buying this!
- (Discovers DRM). Nevermind, I will not purchase anything that has DRM
- Pirates the game.
In this instance, it has nothing to do with being cheap. It has everything to do with the person NOT going to purchase the game anyway. AFTER the person made their mind up to not purchase, they pirated. No loss of sales to the publisher occurred. This individual does not want a product with DRM, and therefore would have never purchased it anyway.
Ubisoft's DRM was just found to have a terrible "bug" involved that would allow viruses and hackers to get into your system. DRM is a terrible thing. Guess how I can get the game for free AND without this free backstage pass into my system - pirate it! It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to purchase the game and then spend hour after hour trying to make it safe to install on your system. If I have to do that, then I want the game at 85% off. Not willing to do that for me? I'll download it then. I'm not saying I did, but I'm explaining the mindset.
I understand Ubisoft's DRM is much harsher than what will be in this game, but it is still DRM, and it still has security in place that may not allow me to play it in 1 year, or 5 years, or 10 years. I won't spend my money on something like that.
As far as CD-checks, there are easy ways around this. You can simply download a no-CD file for your game.
"Purchasing it and cracking the DRM is an entirely different matter; it may still be illegal, but at least you would have paid for the game, thus supporting Beamdog and remunerating their work, which is fair."
Again, if I'm spending my time to do this so I feel more comfortable about my purchase, I want compensation (like, money off). Also, because there is no gray area (a whole other issue), it is still the same amount of illegal. If I'm going to do something illegal and take the same risks, why would I want waste my time cracking it? Also, by doing so, I might not be getting all of the benefits (like online play). So, now I'm paying full price for an inferior product that I had to spend much of my time on.
"racking a game for your own personal use is fine, but it becomes piracy if you give the cracked version away for free and that is wrong."
It's still illegal. Me wanting to back-up my games, I've looked into this. It is legal to own a working back-up of whatever you purchase, but it is illegal to crack/break any form of DRM/code they put on the disc, even if the end result is to make a working back-up. Again, it's black and white, no gray.
"I would choose no DRM.
However, it is unfortunately not possible to own a DRM-free version of BG:EE. Since the DRM on BG:EE is very light and I really want to play the game, purchasing it is a no-brainer for me. It's fine if you find DRM a deal-breaker regardless of its heavyness, but it really does not justify pirating the game. The devs have spent countless hours of work on it, and they need to make a living out of it. How would you like it if your boss didn't pay you for your work, or your customers didn't pay you for your product?"
I make independent films, and I've been thinking about doing this:
- Put a film I make online to sell. Mark it for $30 million.
- Put the film on a pirate website (don't get me started on entrapment, just go along with the point of the story)
- Try to catch someone downloading it. Once I do, take them to court and demand $30 million, because that's what I lost whenever they downloaded it. I mean, I spent COUNTLESS hours working on it, and this is my living!
Again, a download isn't ALWAYS a lost sale. As being a creator of content myself, I understand this. So, people downloading my films....well, it doesn't really bother me. And, if I made something on a movie that required you to sign into the Internet every 5th time you wanted to watch it, then I would expect it to be pirated more as the pirated version wouldn't have this idiotic and annoying protection.
"you are basicly spit into the well you are drinking from. ' I'm a sucker for these games, absolutely love them - But skrew those who make them"
It depends - are the pirating just to pirate and they WOULD have purchased the game otherwise? Then yes. If no purchase was to be made, then no - you are having no affect on who made the game. Actually, you might help them in the long run by talking to your friends on how good the game is.
I'm not condoning piracy; I'm just stating that I understand why people pirate, and I understand that piracy isn't always a lost sale. And I'm not saying I will pirate this! When it hits GoG, you will have my money. Until then though, I can wait. If it never makes it to GoG, or gets rid of ALL DRM, you will never have my money.
Now, if this game blows up like a mofo and Beamdog sells a bajillion copies, I'll be proven wrong and no one would be happier than I. I want companies like Beamdog to succeed. Don't retail stores have locks on their doors? Don't they have security tags on their products? Securing your inventory is not treating customers like thieves. When the feds cop a feel at an airport or strip search grandmothers just on the off-chance one of them might be a terrorist, THAT'S mistreatment. Private companies trying to prevent theft by building modest security is not treating a customer like a thief. I don't insist on a baseline for acceptability for anyone but myself. I wish more companies operated DRM-free, but I'm willing to tolerate a certain level of protection because I want the industry as a whole to succeed and I'm skeptical that companies which give away their products can survive in the long-term. It's a different story if we had a RIGHT to own these games, but we do not. We only have the right to choose to purchase them as is or not. We are all perfectly within our rights to argue for change, and I support that. I see a relevant comparison there. The DRM-free World of Warcraft experience wouldn't require a password, encryption, or secure servers according to your model. The only thing you'd need would be a unique username to identify yourself. In fact, hacking is a major issue in that game and other MMOs so security concerns are even more important than in BG:EE. The fact that it's a client/server setup isn't the point. I don't see why DRM has to be confined to a single-player experience.
I guess the point I was trying to make was that players of World of Warcraft understand that they are paying a monthly fee with the expectation that they will be able to play that game for that month and the next, as long as they keep paying. If they don't want to play anymore, they stop paying. When you buy BG:EE, you're expecting to be able to install and play that game forever, anytime you want, with no strings. I don't think that's a realistic or logical expectation and I find it entirely reasonable that Beamdog would want to control the number of copies that are out there. It's the same reasons artists sign their work, produce limited editions, and destroy the molds of their sculptures, so that they CAN'T be copied and devalued by frauds. If Beamdog wanted to give away their work and allow it to be shared freely, they certainly could have done that. Placing conditions on the use of products seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Ironically, since you pointed out a rather comical aspect of my argument, I have to mention that I found Daverian's request for a discount (for this time spent cracking DRM after purchasing the official version) rather amusing. He essentially wants Beamdog to sell him a non-DRM version of the game for less than the DRM version because he had to modify the game to fit his tastes. I'm sure that makes about as much sense to Beamdog as it does to me, which is very little. I'm all for pleasing customers, but it's illogical to think that Beamdog would increase the risk of piracy and at the same time, sell the game cheaper. They're not in the business of trying to lose money.
Not pointing fingers here... I found many of Daverian's other points quite logical.
Hear, hear!
Daverian you made your point quite clear my friend, strong, solid arguments 100% pure fact, couldn't say it any better myself, I just hope the guys in charge get the picture, sometimes people choose only to see their own truth, through colored glasses and distorting lenses, refuse to even listen to the other part...
Expect (but not really) some equally strong and solid counter arguments from the opposition...
Well, I'm waiting... all ears... CONViNCE ME...
A: We cannot comment on the future availability of BG:EE on Steam, GOG, or any other distribution service at this time. BG:EE is temporarily exclusive to Beamdog."
It's just temporarily exclusive to Beamdog. It will be on GOG for sure.
Furthermore, let me point to another one of your arguments: So, you have no problem in bypassing CD checks, but suddenly you have a problem with bypassing the authentication of a game you've purchased? Sounds like BS to me.
In both cases, there's a very small segment of game purchasers who want unrestricted rights to play the games forever. It's like you're telling Beamdog, "Hey, you're never going to stop piracy, and anything you do to combat it which limits my experience is unacceptable, so don't worry about piracy and let people steal your stuff, OR give it away for free and you don't have to worry about that."
And some people are saying, "If you don't, I'll steal it."
Besides, you're ignoring the real point of my post. @Daverian was saying that he had no problem in bypassing the DRM of the CD version of the game, but then he suddenly has a problem in buying BGEE and bypassing its DRM. That's why I called his argument BS.
And I'll just ask a simple question. Can you tell me any game servers from the Baldur's Gate era that are still operational? It's an honest question. I don't know the answer already. I do believe that all of the official BG forums are gone and the official patch servers are gone. Where can I get patches for the original version without relying on 3rd parties? Your answer may shed some light on our very real concerns.
People are using DRM as an excuse to go pirate a game. I'm not talking about profits or corporations, I'm talking about people being hypocrites.
The fact that you can still easily find the official patches of the original games on 3rd party sites is why there's no real reason for concern.
Spinning code wheels are bad!
Game manual text checks are bad!
CD checks are bad!
Rootkits are bad!
Online server checks are bad!
Anything else that I'm missing or is thought of next will be bad!
There are no exceptions to the DRM is bad rule.
While vortican on the other hand I doubt that you had your way with BG series in the past, I doubt that you have a history at all with these games, I doubt that you share the love and affection I DO with BG, not to mention fully modded BGT.
My guess is that you are excited about this new (??? NEW ??? o_O) game, yum yum, but in a couple of months you'll move on to the next best thing...
I have been playing BGT a whole DECADE+ comprende? capisce?
AND I mean to play the EE version for the next DECADE or so...
Its bad but its there. And so our choices are:
- Refuse to buy the game.
- Accept it and buy the game, and most likely never be bothered by its existence.
Some people are defending a third option:
- Pirate the game while pretending that their piracy is justified by the existence of DRM, which is utter hypocrisy. A game having DRM does not make it morally acceptable to pirate it.
I'm not defending the practice of piracy or anything like that, but the fact of the matter is, people all have different perceptions on morals and different regards for the law. People are not robots, they are human, and perceptions are part of human nature. I'm sure there are many, many people out there who would like the fourth option of not having to deal with DRM and buying the game in support of a good product. Some people can tolerate DRM, but most people hate it.
Anyone remember this game? (see linky)
http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/12/spore-drm-piracy-tech-security-cx_ag_mji_0912spore.html
While I'm pretty positive BG:EE will never come to that, stories like those always highlight something that too many game publishers/developers ignore. People post on forums complaining about DRM because they are sick of it, and that's fine too. In introductory marketing, students are typically taught that customers make a purchase based on perceived values and how well a company can deliver such. DRM just so happens to add no value and sometimes takes value away. Hence we have threads like these, both for concerned potential customers who wishes clarity and for people to vent their frustrations in hopes that someone high-up would read them.