@Tanthalas You are leaving out a very real fourth option. We can respectfully argue our case in a relevant forum and attempt to convince the developers to change. The ship may have already sailed for the initial release. But they can still release on GOG in the future which would cause me to purchase AGAIN. They can also begin preparing for a BG2 release without DRM. Keeping quiet and accepting DRM is a terrible option. Why even have forums for a game if not to discus things like this?
And please stop acting like civil disobedience has not proven to be a very effective mechanism for change in this country. Piracy is not always an evil act. There are many ways of enacting change and this is one of them. Whether or not you agree with the morality of it doesn't change the effectiveness. If you can show a corporation that a policy costs them more than it makes them a change may occur. I've already bought the game. But if someone else who would have paid for the game is so offended by DRM that they seek a readily available alternative I will not be casting any stones. I do dislike people who pirate everything and have no desire to ever pay. But like I said before, they were never going to be customers anyway and aren't worth a second thought.
There is still a healthy and active community there and has been for years. I'm sure you could find whatever you need for Baldurs Gate available there. On the interwebs, nothing ever really dies. I don't see why it matters if the info (patches, etc.) doesn't come from official sources. If it's the same thing, why does it matter?
Now nishidrhamannit, since you decided to get personal, let me clue you in on my history with these games. Your presumption that I have no history with Baldurs Gate is simply untrue and frankly, stupid. I owned and played every game based on the Infinity Engine; every Baldurs Gate game and expansion, Icewind Dale game, with the exception of Planescape: Torment. I chose not to play that because I wasn't sold on that setting. However, I am very much familiar with these games and have also bought collections that included them because I wanted another game in the collection, so I ended up with multiple copies. Up until a few years ago, I still owned them all until I gave them to someone who was a collector. I have further kept track of the franchise and the people who developed it for all these years because they made such great games. In a broader sense, I've been playing the spiritual predecessors to these games since personal computer gaming originated, starting with text adventures to the old SSI gold box games (I played them all), as well as owning and playing first and second edition D&D pen and paper games (from which the settings and characters for all these games were derived) for 25 years.
Why you felt this impacted anything at all regarding this discussion is beyond me. In fact, the only purpose I can see to your statements is to attack someone and inflame the discussion (which has been remarkably congenial and respectful until your rude, inaccurate, and uninformed statements). How long one has played a particular game has nothing to do with this discussion and lends no credibility to anything, but for your edification, not too long ago, I was playing one of the original SSI games in a DOSBOX. Simply because I haven't picked up Baldurs Gate in years does not diminish my affection for these games and multiple times, I've stated that I want Beamdog to succeed with this game, not only because I really enjoy Baldurs Gate but because I support the company and the legacy of the franchise and hope they make MORE games on it. That is precisely WHY I argue that the DRM is a relatively small price to pay. If you choose to interpret that as my having less than a passing interest in this game, then that's your uninformed opinion, but it is not true. I do not know if I will be playing BG:EE 10 years from now and I can't think of what possible difference that would be to anyone.
I suggest you keep your personal opinions on other posters to yourself because you haven't a clue about any of us.
As for the "DRM is bad" argument, I think that Treyolen is seeing things only from the customer's perspective, but the company's perspective, as an equal partner in the transaction of buying the game, needs to be considered. If you like this game and want to see more, DRM may be necessary for Beamdog to continue to offer their products. It is not true that it offers no value to the customer if the presence of DRM saves Beamdog money by avoiding piracy of their products. While it can be a burden, the question of how much of a burden is significant. A one-time authentication to install seems like a trivial burden considering the value that this version of the title represents. I applaud those who make stands based on principle, but for a $17.99 purchase, I'd think most people would want to take an intellectual or moral stand on more important subjects and simply buy the game. Insisting on an even lower price if one has to expend time hacking it to meet your personal ideal of what a game should is silly.
But hey, we're all entitled to be silly. I just don't see a need to deprive one's self of hours and hours of enjoyment over something so trivial for a $17,99 purchase. $17.99 and a small degree of inconvenience for possibly 10 years of continued enjoyment? There isn't a better value out there, in my opinion.
@Vortican I stand corrected on the Bioware forums. Thank you. But activation servers are a different thing altogether. Atari has a great track record of supporting games for D&D like Temple of Elemental Evil. And by great I mean they quit patching a very buggy game and left it to the community to finish. That game had amazing potential and was left to die. But at least it didn't have online authentication. This allowed several wonderful fan mods to rescue the game and for me to install it again and again. I promise you that if an activation server had existed it would have gone offline.
I did pre-order the game. And I would pay for it again from GOG. But that doesn't remove my feelings regarding DRM. If this isn't the best place to make my feelings known to the developers, may I ask you to point me to a better place? My understanding was that this was a good place for people passionate about this game to express their opinions. Or should we limit these forums to "OMG Steam rules Beamdog droolz" and "Vin Diesel is so the right Sarevok" threads?
And please stop acting like civil disobedience has not proven to be a very effective mechanism for change in this country. Piracy is not always an evil act. There are many ways of enacting change and this is one of them. Whether or not you agree with the morality of it doesn't change the effectiveness. If you can show a corporation that a policy costs them more than it makes them a change may occur. I've already bought the game. But if someone else who would have paid for the game is so offended by DRM that they seek a readily available alternative I will not be casting any stones. I do dislike people who pirate everything and have no desire to ever pay. But like I said before, they were never going to be customers anyway and aren't worth a second thought.
Treyolen, I didn't play Temple of Elemental Evil, so I can't comment on Atari's support of it. I do know that Atari has gotten a horrible reputation for the quality of their games and EA has a horrible reputation when it comes to DRM.
Please don't mistake my comments for wanting to shut down the discussion and stop this conversation. I want quite the opposite, actually. If Beamdog reads this and decides to remove the DRM (unlikely) then it won't affect me in any way. Note that I agree that less (or no) DRM is preferable for us. I'm just commenting that some forms of DRM are a very minor inconvenience and that there may be benefits to us and the companies which have not been considered here. That does not mean I disagree with everyone who disapproves of the DRM nor do I agree with everyone who understands why they did it. I actually agree with most of what's been written here regarding DRM in general.
I would criticize one statement you just made, that Piracy is not always an evil act. With that, I absolutely disagree. Piracy is theft, no matter how you slice it. That's not a moral objection, that's an absolute fact. Taking something which does not belong to you, for which you did not pay the owner, and for which you have no legal right to use, is theft. I see absolutely no justification for it. Also consider that piracy can affect the availability of the product for other legitimate users. Perhaps the piracy problem gets so bad that the company stop support of the product (or stops offering it) because it becomes so unprofitable. Perhaps even more DRM is instituted, making it more difficult for legitimate payers to use the product. Piracy has all sorts of adverse consequences beyond the moral implications of it and it should not be tolerated by anyone. When one pirates software, not only are you ripping off a company which is trying to make money to produce more quality products for YOU, the consumer, you're disincentivizing to produce future products, breaking several laws, and devaluing the product itself.
The pirates whose statements appeared in the article about Spore are absolutely disgusting. They are like digital looters who smash up virtual store windows in protests. Civil disobedience does not apply here. There is no law forcing you to buy this product. Voice your grievances with the company and either choose to buy the product, conform to the terms of the license to which you agree when you install it, or don't buy it and tell the company why. DON'T BE A THIEF. It doesn't prove a point to anyone except that you're a thief and expect companies to react accordingly.
@Vortican We'll have to agree to disagree on the piracy angle. There is a big difference between script kiddies who never pay for anything and actually make it a hobby to pirate stuff. They are not customers and will never be customers. They don't cost the company anything because they would never buy the game under any circumstances. These people are losers and don't merit discussion.
But legitimate customers who would have given money for a DRM free product that turn to piracy are lost sales. These people do cost the company money. And from the company perspective this is a bad thing. These are the people that can make a statement. I would rather make the arguments here in this forum where the developers can see and hopefully consider. But it is naive to just dismiss anyone who takes the other approach.
And I do believe that a passion project like this one that invokes so many fond memories from all of us is the most likely to not need any DRM. Most of us want to support what these guys are doing. The DRM is like a slap in the face to people like me who would have hit a Paypal donation button if this thing was free.
Please bear in mind that a pirate download DOES NOT EQUAL a lost sale. I'll tell a quick story about an ex-roommate to illustrate the point. This guy, let's call him Nate, was big into the Dreamcast pirate scene. Everyday I would come home from work to find my unemployed and broke roomie surrounded by a stack of burned discs from my computer. A couple times I would ask him what he was playing. More than once he couldn't tell me because the entire game was in Japanese. I asked him, "Why did you even download this if it's all in Japanese?" His answer, "Because I could."
Nate was never a potential customer. Nate had no money. Nate couldn't buy a game if his life depended on it. Nate didn't even like most of the games he downloaded. There were no lost sales because of Nate. Fighting the Nates of the world is a pointless exercise for developers. But the collateral damage in that war is the relationships with customers like me.
Treyolen, I get your points and totally understand. I'm reminded of bands who put up music for free on their website and ask people to pay what they want for it. I believe Radiohead did that and made like $3 million, which is likely MUCH more than they ever made when they were affiliated with a label who published their products and gave them a cut of sales. That model can work. I just don't see why this particular DRM is sticking in your craw as much as it is.
I totally agree about the pirates too, but I view those who would have paid money (but don't) and then pirate products almost worse than the tools who steal every piece of software on their computers. Keep in mind that I used to view piracy as totally acceptable. People who say they would pay for software were it not for some issue, then pirate it anyway... I just don't see any moral value there. If they really would pay for it, then they would pay for it! Using that logic is just an excuse to get a free game in my opinion... they're no better than the looters.
I'm glad Beamdog isn't shutting this thread down. That's one gripe I have about Bioware's forums... they're a little strict on forums. I hope Beamdog doesn't take a clue from them in that regard and I do hope that they read this discussion because I think a lot has been covered here and it's all valuable info for them.
@Vortican I do think this is a light flavor of DRM. But it is still DRM. And on a passion project like this it just seems out of character. I would bet anything that it's WotC and/or Atari insisting on it and not the developers. So if this is as successful as I hope it is and work is started on BG2, I'd like to see the developers use their strengthened position to push for no DRM.
Shutting this thread down would be terrible form. This has been very respectful for the most part and very on topic. I'm hoping that they are reading every post! I want to help these guys as much as I can. It's sort of a "help me help you" kind of thing I just want the best experience possible for years to come. And I hope these guys are rewarded handsomely for their effort.
@Treyolen A pirate him/herself is not a lost sale, but a potential customer turned pirate always is. There are people of all types out there, and it doesn't matter if we think they are scum.
@vortican In regards to pirates who would have paid for a product but did not, I agree that it is wrong. At the same time, however, dismissing their justification because of moral reasons (or perhaps a lack of morals) is not enough to account for their actions. If they would have paid for it, then why didn't they? To answer this, we would have to look at the product again. Whatever their actions are, I think it's just as important for companies to recognize what is causing their actions. Otherwise, it's a vicious cycle. DRM gets stricter and stricter, and people pirate more and more. We might not agree with it, but it can't be stopped until the core issue is addressed.
You accuse me of getting personal, while at the same time calling my presumption stupid and false.
By your answer I'm only forced to stick to the same stupid presumption.
You gave (sold maybe?) the original BG series boxes "a few years ago to a collector", when I treasure them.
You haven't played BGT for at least those few past years, when I tried every single fan made mod that there is out there, and love them all, and I feel grateful to this great community of loving & caring people, all of them talented no less, that kept the spirit alive.
You didn't play PLANESCAPE at all, when most of the hard core IE games fans out there absolutely worship it.
I am ashamed to admit that I played it only 2 times, one vanilla, and one modded with the great fan made util that addresses the graphics & resolution problem, and this because as a retired adventure games player (retired coz modern adventure games are NOT adventure games anymore) I happen to think that TORMENT is one of the better adventure games of all times (with a PC & party that xp) rather than a pure d&d RPG, meaning not that much of a replayability value there...
I have no interest in continuing a pissing contest but the fact remains that your presumption is stupid and false. It's stupid to presume you know what experiences I have had because you do not know me, and as I've written, it's false to claim that I have no experience with these games. I stand by my statements and have no idea why it matters at all whether I GAVE them (not sold), played any mods, or played any particular game. It has no bearing at all on the subject at hand nor my ability to participate in the discussion.
I don't think that the quality of the product can ever be used to justify stealing it. I do agree that we need to examine the root cause of the hostility to understand it. I do believe in terms of sale and warranties. I also believe in resales. I think that if a person is dissatisfied with a product for any reason, they have a right to receive fair value for their money and address that with the company. If you bought a game and hated the DRM or hated the game itself, you're perfectly within your rights to address that to the company and request a refund or resell the product. I think the marketplace needs to figure out a way to resell digitally-downloaded software and license keys in a way that's legal, protected, and workable. Some EULAs allow for this.
I think that there is definitely something lost when pirates copy software. It may be accurate to say that it's not a lost sale to the company and there are millions of Nates out there who copy stuff just to have it without paying for it. Companies still deserve to be paid whenever someone uses their software. I understand that there will always be ways to break DRM but at this time, there's no other way to prevent these company's IP from being abused, and it's their right to protect their investments. Even if it deters SOME pirates, and loses SOME customers, it's obviously worth it to most of these companies, rather than simply trusting that their users won't abuse the grants in the license.
That brings up a critical point that often gets missed in these discussions: when you buy a software package, you have no ownership over that product. You're merely given a license to use it under certain conditions but you never actually own anything but the media on which the software resides, or access to the site which contains it. You don't own IT in any way. You're a user, not an owner, so it's not like you have any property interest at all. It's quite a more one-sided relationship.
@Vortican It's not obviously worth it to these companies. Many of them seem to believe it is worth it to them. The entire point of this conversation is to convince them otherwise. It does no good to care about the Nates of the world. They will never pay for your product. This makes them irrelevant to a corporation. Corporations are abstract things that don't care about fairness or equality or the golden rule. Corporations by their very nature care only about profit. The people who work at a corporation may care about whether or not Nate is not being a very good boy. But they need to get over it. If the corporation makes more money without DRM then DRM is counterproductive. Many of us believe this is the case, especially in terms of this particular product.
Vortican, with regards to ownership of software, I believe that this is more of a trend and practice that has kind of evolved and devolved over the years. There are still software you can buy where you do technically have ownership over it. Go to gog.com, buy a title there, and you own it. As they state on their site "You buy it. You own it. 100% DRM-free." Back it up on disc, modify it, whatever. It's mostly the large corporations who have, by trend, shifted ownership of the product away from the consumer. I believe part of the reason they do this because they become deluded in thinking they can control piracy and thus maximize their profits.
Companies deserve the right to get paid for their labor and work, yes, and that is perfectly understandable. But DRM is not the solution. Even mild forms of DRM will not deter pirates. As I have mentioned before, even the most intricate DRM systems fail. In fact, I don't believe I know a single high-demand software product that has prevented pirates from making them available. DRM is not a scarecrow for pirates, it never has been. It may be an excuse for shareholders to tell them the company has this little system going on to control piracy (as CDPR's CEO had suggested), but again, I have never seen it work. If someone can tell me what kind of value DRM actually gives the end customer, I might change my stance on this, but for the most part, it is anti-consumerist baggage that doesn't serve it's own purpose and thus makes it absurd to include it in the first place. Both from the consumer perspective, and the business perspective.
There is little if any justification for stealing in our society, or at least it is frowned upon by laws, culture, and customs, but this never changes the fact that software piracy exists and is very, very difficult to control. It's a problem for companies trying to maximize their profits, but to think they can control it through DRM, which is actually frowned upon by legitimate paying customers, almost fits the definition of insanity.
Hey dude, I agree with the concept that DRM-free can make money. I've seen it work. However, with how easy it is to distribute digital information these days, I don't see a majority of companies choosing to go DRM-free. They might as well not even charge for their products if they're just going to give it to you with no license key, no activation, or no CD check. Yeah, they'll make some money, but it will be just like it was when PCs were in their infancy. My homies and I split the cost of games when I was a kid and made a copy for each other. That's one sale that should have been two. Granted, your argument that there wouldn't have been any sale if I'd been Nate has merit, but keep in mind there was no internet back then, so no way to easily get hold of an original copy of the product. That's all changed now. Before corporations figured out the web (heck, before they figured out BBSes), it was easy as pie to get free software and the piracy was insane. Corporations probably lost out on more revenue proportionally (to the total revenue of the industry) back then than they do now. Now, it's actually dangerous to pirate software and grannies are getting cease and desist letters and trolled for thousands of dollars in settlements. I wouldn't risk pirating these days because it's just not worth it for a $20 game. It's not even worth it for a $60 game.
Corporations care about profit and that's as it should be, but they have to be responsive to their customers or they won't make any money. If they can make money DRM-free, more power to them, but I'm not willing to dismiss the use of DRM or take it out of their toolkit because I believe it can have a constructive purpose, protect some of their revenue, and be an effective deterrent against some of the Nates out there. I don't think ignoring Nate is in their best interest either because it justifies what Nate does. If they roll over and say, "Hey Nate, go ahead. You can steal from me. I don't care, I make enough money.", that's just plain dumb. It's like saying to the thief who steals the cash right out from your wallet, "Go ahead, I got more money at home!" Would any of us tolerate that? Why should a corporation? I don't believe there's nothing they can do about it.
An example: Napster was shut down because it was a haven for piracy and the music producers got sick of it. Now, it's riskier than ever to pirate music and there are ways to get legal, DRM-free music, but you still have to pay SOMETHING for it. The industry is big enough now that it can sustain itself without restrictive DRM but there still exists a model for payment with which everyone can survive and be happy. There will always be thieves, but at least the market has figured out ways to deal with the thieves and hold them accountable. DRM-free isn't the solution in every case. I would also not make the assumption that all corporations are the same and make blanket generalizations about their motives. In the end, corporations are made up of people, all of whom have values, and their values translate into how they do business. Some will be more responsible and responsive than others.
There are always levers that companies can use that will grant them their customers, such as improving the quality of their products, address the P2P issues, go after pirates individually, stuff like that. But with DRM as part of a company's toolkit that is used to deter piracy should assume that the DRM actually works. In my personal opinion, it doesn't work, and evidence has shown that it doesn't work, no matter how little or how much of it is included in a software package. Ubisoft not too long ago, maybe a year or two, I can't remember, almost claimed victory over piracy with some of their draconion DRM systems--unfortunately, their own financial statements said the contrary when they lost most of their revenues in one fell swoop. I highly doubt stripping DRM would make piracy worst than it is, but this is just my opinion.
I certainly agree that draconian DRM is going to piss off enough paying customers that they may lose money because of it, but I don't see how stripping DRM wouldn't make a product more pirated than it otherwise would have been. For some who say the DRM is the reason they are pirating, they're going to turn into Nate because they can. Many people will take anything they can get for free, even if it's wrong, just because they can. They know it's wrong but the fact is that without DRM, it's harder to know who's doing it. The risk is lower, so why not do it?
I believe that holding to one's principles is a harder thing than resisting an opportunity to get something for nothing. That's assuming one has principles about this sort of thing in the first place. Many don't even think about it.
I think that companies are correct to assume the worst and must protect their property. I don't know of any profitable business that leaves their doors wide open with no protection at all and relies on the honor system to prevent theft. Such a business will never be successful because it's inviting theft.
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.
To explain this further: I made a comment in regards to someone saying that I should buy the game and then crack it. Well, if I am going to buy the game at full price, just so I can spend countless hours trying to crack it, in order to get a version that I can install anytime WITHOUT connecting to the Internet (which I think I deserve since I bought it anyway), I think I should get a rebate. Meaning, I'm not going to pay full price for a game that I have to spend my time on altering in order to get it to be the product that I want. Not only this, by doing so, I might ruin my chances to play online. So, not only am I wasting time, I'm losing functionality.
I love when people on Amazon.com rate some product, let's do Lord of the Rings blu-ray for example, 5 stars because it's a great movie. Then, you have those that rate a movie 1 start because they left out the extended cut, did a crappy job in transfering, and didn't include all the special features. The people who rate it 5 stars bash everyone who rate it 1, because, "they movie rocks! They know it, but they are rating it 1 star because the transfer isn't good! And because it's not extended! The movies are still good!"
Yes, they are still good, but you are rating the product AS A WHOLE. This includes EVERY aspect of it, including packaging, playback ability, etc. The same goes for a game. I love Baldur's Gate, but DRM is part of the product now in the Enhanced Edition. It makes the game less valuable in my opinion. So less, that it's not worth buying at all. And, if there was a chance I was good enough to crack the game myself, it would take a lot of time and education to do so. I want compensated for that. I am not saying they should remove the DRM and then sell it to me for cheaper. Hell, if they removed the DRM and sold it for $50, I would buy it.
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.
.....
A CD check bypass is simple single file download that takes 3 seconds and is readily available. Bypassing authentication on a game is actual work on my end. And, if it's as easy as finding a version online to download, well, I'm still breaking the law. Why would I legally purchase a game so I can break the law? So the developers can get money? I bet if I am sued, and I proved to the developers that I bought the game first, I would still get sued. Again, black and white - no gray.
And you still throw that word "cheap" around to classify everyone that downloads games. Assumptions are dangerous, and you should open your mind. I don't think you understand how people operate at all. You have several types:
1) Those that download everything, just to do it. They would have never purchased the product. These people aren't cheap; they are just horders. No lost sale
2) Those that have no money. I don't know what your lifestyle is like, but some people can barely afford to feed themselves. No lost sale.
3) Those that can afford to purchase media, but do not if they don't like the entire package. The entire package can consist of DRM, picture quality on movies, special features on movies, etc. I actually buy DVDs instead of Blu-Rays if the DVDs have special features and the Blu-Ray doesn't. These people aren't being cheap - it's because they want the product, but it isn't worth to them, the price it is listed at.
4) People download to "try before you buy." With PC games, you can't rent them.
5) It isn't available in their part of the world. And, if it is, it is priced 2X, 3X, sometimes 5X what it costs us in the states.
6) Those that download to make a statement. Many people were downloading Spore just to prove the DRM did nothing. They probably didn't even play the game after downloading - they just wanted to rack up the number in spite of EA.
7) Then, yes, there are some people that just download it because they don't want to pay money (and are cheap - but this is very few)
@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.
And I refuse to buy the game.
As far as your third option: It is not legally acceptable to pirate it. Morally? Different people have different morals. Do you believe in murder? Is murder OK?
You will most likely answer no, it isn't morally right to murder.
that's fine. What did you think about Bin Laden's death? What about a rapist that has targeted multiple people in your family? What about someone attacking you? There are justifications for EVERYTHING. Unfortunately, law is black and white. We are people though, and morals are gray. It is morally fine for many people to pirate a game if they had NO intention of purchasing it in the first place. It is morally fine for many people to pirate a game in order to "try before you buy." Just because it doesn't fit your morals, doesn't mean it doesn't fit someone elses. Game companies, and law makers for that matter, need to realize that there are gray areas. They also need to realize that we are people, and there are so many unique circumstances to consider when you are judging the actions of someone else.
On the news earlier, they were speaking of domestic violence (which I believe to be a terrible thing). They were speaking about a husband who murdered his wife in front of his kids. On the news station, they had a woman yelling that we need harsh harsh HARSH punishment for people who do this to keep them from doing it. That was her solution - harsher punishment.
Well, newsflash. Things happen in the heat of the moment. People think they can get away with murder. People also will commit suicide after commiting murder. Also, some people just do not care. Making laws harsher (making DRM stronger) won't fix the issue. The issue is to figure out WHY people act the way they do, and fix that problem.
"Let's make it a 30 year prison sentence if you steal food!"
Well, umm...that isn't going to stop people from stealing if they are hungry. How about you fix the hunger, eh?
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.
And please stop acting like civil disobedience has not proven to be a very effective mechanism for change in this country. Piracy is not always an evil act. There are many ways of enacting change and this is one of them. Whether or not you agree with the morality of it doesn't change the effectiveness. If you can show a corporation that a policy costs them more than it makes them a change may occur. I've already bought the game. But if someone else who would have paid for the game is so offended by DRM that they seek a readily available alternative I will not be casting any stones. I do dislike people who pirate everything and have no desire to ever pay. But like I said before, they were never going to be customers anyway and aren't worth a second thought.
Treyolen, I didn't play Temple of Elemental Evil, so I can't comment on Atari's support of it. I do know that Atari has gotten a horrible reputation for the quality of their games and EA has a horrible reputation when it comes to DRM.
Please don't mistake my comments for wanting to shut down the discussion and stop this conversation. I want quite the opposite, actually. If Beamdog reads this and decides to remove the DRM (unlikely) then it won't affect me in any way. Note that I agree that less (or no) DRM is preferable for us. I'm just commenting that some forms of DRM are a very minor inconvenience and that there may be benefits to us and the companies which have not been considered here. That does not mean I disagree with everyone who disapproves of the DRM nor do I agree with everyone who understands why they did it. I actually agree with most of what's been written here regarding DRM in general.
I would criticize one statement you just made, that Piracy is not always an evil act. With that, I absolutely disagree. Piracy is theft, no matter how you slice it. That's not a moral objection, that's an absolute fact. Taking something which does not belong to you, for which you did not pay the owner, and for which you have no legal right to use, is theft. I see absolutely no justification for it. Also consider that piracy can affect the availability of the product for other legitimate users. Perhaps the piracy problem gets so bad that the company stop support of the product (or stops offering it) because it becomes so unprofitable. Perhaps even more DRM is instituted, making it more difficult for legitimate payers to use the product. Piracy has all sorts of adverse consequences beyond the moral implications of it and it should not be tolerated by anyone. When one pirates software, not only are you ripping off a company which is trying to make money to produce more quality products for YOU, the consumer, you're disincentivizing to produce future products, breaking several laws, and devaluing the product itself.
The pirates whose statements appeared in the article about Spore are absolutely disgusting. They are like digital looters who smash up virtual store windows in protests. Civil disobedience does not apply here. There is no law forcing you to buy this product. Voice your grievances with the company and either choose to buy the product, conform to the terms of the license to which you agree when you install it, or don't buy it and tell the company why. DON'T BE A THIEF. It doesn't prove a point to anyone except that you're a thief and expect companies to react accordingly.
Actually, piracy is copyright infringment. Theft is something else. Theft takes the actual object, making it unavailable for other people to purchase (example, if I take a CD from a store, they lose the ability to sell that object). If I download the CD, the object still exists for purchase. Now, I did not purchase it, but would have I in the first place? I guess in a way you could see it as theft, but if no purchase was intended in the first place, it is much less severe.
Please explain how you devalue the product? If anything, you enhance it's popularity. I'm not agreeing with piracy, but I'm not closing my mind off either.
@Treyolen A pirate him/herself is not a lost sale, but a potential customer turned pirate always is. There are people of all types out there, and it doesn't matter if we think they are scum.
@vortican In regards to pirates who would have paid for a product but did not, I agree that it is wrong. At the same time, however, dismissing their justification because of moral reasons (or perhaps a lack of morals) is not enough to account for their actions. If they would have paid for it, then why didn't they? To answer this, we would have to look at the product again. Whatever their actions are, I think it's just as important for companies to recognize what is causing their actions. Otherwise, it's a vicious cycle. DRM gets stricter and stricter, and people pirate more and more. We might not agree with it, but it can't be stopped until the core issue is addressed.
Hey dude, I agree with the concept that DRM-free can make money. I've seen it work. However, with how easy it is to distribute digital information these days, I don't see a majority of companies choosing to go DRM-free. They might as well not even charge for their products if they're just going to give it to you with no license key, no activation, or no CD check. Yeah, they'll make some money, but it will be just like it was when PCs were in their infancy. My homies and I split the cost of games when I was a kid and made a copy for each other. That's one sale that should have been two. Granted, your argument that there wouldn't have been any sale if I'd been Nate has merit, but keep in mind there was no internet back then, so no way to easily get hold of an original copy of the product. That's all changed now. Before corporations figured out the web (heck, before they figured out BBSes), it was easy as pie to get free software and the piracy was insane. Corporations probably lost out on more revenue proportionally (to the total revenue of the industry) back then than they do now. Now, it's actually dangerous to pirate software and grannies are getting cease and desist letters and trolled for thousands of dollars in settlements. I wouldn't risk pirating these days because it's just not worth it for a $20 game. It's not even worth it for a $60 game.
Corporations care about profit and that's as it should be, but they have to be responsive to their customers or they won't make any money. If they can make money DRM-free, more power to them, but I'm not willing to dismiss the use of DRM or take it out of their toolkit because I believe it can have a constructive purpose, protect some of their revenue, and be an effective deterrent against some of the Nates out there. I don't think ignoring Nate is in their best interest either because it justifies what Nate does. If they roll over and say, "Hey Nate, go ahead. You can steal from me. I don't care, I make enough money.", that's just plain dumb. It's like saying to the thief who steals the cash right out from your wallet, "Go ahead, I got more money at home!" Would any of us tolerate that? Why should a corporation? I don't believe there's nothing they can do about it.
An example: Napster was shut down because it was a haven for piracy and the music producers got sick of it. Now, it's riskier than ever to pirate music and there are ways to get legal, DRM-free music, but you still have to pay SOMETHING for it. The industry is big enough now that it can sustain itself without restrictive DRM but there still exists a model for payment with which everyone can survive and be happy. There will always be thieves, but at least the market has figured out ways to deal with the thieves and hold them accountable. DRM-free isn't the solution in every case. I would also not make the assumption that all corporations are the same and make blanket generalizations about their motives. In the end, corporations are made up of people, all of whom have values, and their values translate into how they do business. Some will be more responsible and responsive than others.
Hrmm...a lot to comment on here. My one thought though before I turn in for the night is that corporations are appearing to learn, but then they prove they have no clue. Itunes rocks, and then they bump up prices. Digital distribution prices are still too high, and the more popular it gets, the more prices go up. I know Mr. CEO has 4 houses and wants another, but not everyone is made of money. You can either make things REALLY expensive, and sell a few, or you can make things REALLY cheap and sell a lot. McDonalds is a good example of the latter, and they make LOTS of money. Now, is McDonalds good? Eh, it's not the best, but much of the music out there is crap too. I use radio and Pandora, and only stick to buying a few CDs of the bands I really love.
And no, I'm not saying it's OK to pirate if a game is too expensive. I'm just stating it's another reason people do, and it should be addressed. Price things fairly - it shouldn't cost me more to buy digital songs that it would to purchase the album in a store.
$20 for this game is outrageously awesome! But, the DRM kills it for me. I would pay $50 for this game with no DRM, but I would understand if others would disagree.
To summarize this little but very interesting conversation held in this thread over the last few days, or cut a long story short, I fistly want to clearly state that even though I was called "cheap, hypocrite, stupid", amongst other things I hold no grudge to anyone, you may call me anything your psyche and inner self makes you feel like calling a completely unknown person you address in a forum, me... " I can dance on the head of a pin, as well, fleet of foot n' all that..."
But gentlemen and... "gentlewomen" (as a certain ever scheming bard would say), you failed to convince me!
To me:
STUPiD is the whole DRM thingy, coz man is it smart move when the seller of the product outright discourages me from being legit and happily and without question buying their product?
CHEAP is this "for only 2,99 EURO more..." DLC idea, coz why on earth would I pay extra money for official New NPC + items for a game that I have already bought once and has such history (10 whole years) with great fan-made mods that I can get totally FREE ???
And HYPOCRiTiCAL... hypocritical is this whole siuation goin' on in modern games industry, or the free(?) market concept in general, that diminishes individuals with personalities and willpower to mere zombie automatons, part of a mindless mob, able (and expected or made with certain brainwashing techniques to be so) only to consume, after a hard day's work...
But this has been the subject of countless debates, after debates, mostly held by soulless half dead morons pretending to be the... living epitomy of wisdom, talking wooden tongues, hardly ever reaching any positive or beneficial conclusion for real and alive everyday stuggling people...
STUPiD is the whole DRM thingy, coz man is it smart move when the seller of the product outright discourages me from being legit and happily and without question buying their product?
CHEAP is this "for only 2,99 EURO more..." DLC idea, coz why on earth would I pay extra money for official New NPC + items for a game that I have already bought once and has such history (10 whole years) with great fan-made mods that I can get totally FREE ???
You claim that "why would I pay for only New "NPC + items" ( which is not true, you just try to justify yourself pirating it ) - "with great fan-made mods that I can get totally FREE" - if the new content is so worthless for you, dont pirate the game and dont get it, its worthless for you after all, no?
While people here in this thread claim that DRM is stupid, they are at least buying the game to support beamdog to make further Enhanced games, you just hiding behind it in order to,again, justify yourself pirating it.
Its like entering a Store that you hate their service and steal a product you like in the name of good service..
I've already said that I would buy the damned game coz I want to help those guys... blah blah... but I will crack it eventually, coz I want not to be bothered when installing it time and again...
What's wrong with you people?
DLC on the other hand is a totally different matter, I WiLL NEVER pay for BG EE DLC not one in a million, and I'm afraid that there will be conflicts with the fan modding community...
I've already said that I would buy the damned game coz I want to help those guys... blah blah... but I will crack it eventually, coz I want not to be bothered when installing it time and again...
What's wrong with you people?
DLC on the other hand is a totally different matter, I WiLL NEVER pay for BG EE DLC not one in a million, and I'm afraid that there will be conflicts with the fan modding community...
Than Im sorry(!!) for my harsh reaction.
As for DLC, Phillip Daigle already said that there will be more free DLCs than paid ones. and i think that because the bg mod community is big and exist,they cant make an "Npc -Only" or "Item-Only" DLC, because no one will purchase it ( except of ipad users.. ) - they will have to come up with something more extensive, something like Trial of Luremaster - which is worth any cent.
Im not afraid of conflicts with the mods, the Devs working hard so it will be as compatible as possible with the old mods..
And please stop acting like civil disobedience has not proven to be a very effective mechanism for change in this country. Piracy is not always an evil act. There are many ways of enacting change and this is one of them. Whether or not you agree with the morality of it doesn't change the effectiveness. If you can show a corporation that a policy costs them more than it makes them a change may occur. I've already bought the game. But if someone else who would have paid for the game is so offended by DRM that they seek a readily available alternative I will not be casting any stones. I do dislike people who pirate everything and have no desire to ever pay. But like I said before, they were never going to be customers anyway and aren't worth a second thought.
The thing about this argument is that it instantly falls apart as soon as you realize that not buying the game would have the exact same effect to the company: a lost sale.
If someone doesn't want to buy a game with DRM, then they can just not buy it. As soon as you pirate it instead you're just a hypocrite.
A CD check bypass is simple single file download that takes 3 seconds and is readily available. Bypassing authentication on a game is actual work on my end.
No, bypassing the authentication of a game is another download that takes 3 seconds.
And you still throw that word "cheap" around to classify everyone that downloads games. Assumptions are dangerous, and you should open your mind. I don't think you understand how people operate at all. You have several types:
Yes there are several types, but we're talking about one type here: the ones who use DRM as an excuse to pirate a game.
Please explain how you devalue the product? If anything, you enhance it's popularity.
Piracy only really works as free publicity for obscure titles. For popular and well-known brands, easy-access to pirated goods is much more likely to be detrimental to sales.
DLC on the other hand is a totally different matter, I WiLL NEVER pay for BG EE DLC not one in a million, and I'm afraid that there will be conflicts with the fan modding community...
Why would there be conflicts with the fan modding community? Overhaul won't be selling the mods made by the fan modding community, they'll be selling content developed by Overhaul.
...they will have to come up with something more extensive, something like Trial of Luremaster - which is worth any cent..
There you said it yourself, and you're only making my arguments all the more solid.
Correct me if I'm wrong but when IWD1 add-on Heart of Winter officially came out, and all we IE game fans most willingly bought it, we were more or less dissapointed by the small size of the actual content, so THE GREAT GUYS at INTERPLAY (Blackisle+Bioware doesn't really matter) whose motto was BY GAMERS FOR GAMERS (and indeed) most eagerly made Trials of The Luremaster and allowed everyone to downloaded it for free as a compensation to their supporting fan community...
To explain this further: I made a comment in regards to someone saying that I should buy the game and then crack it. Well, if I am going to buy the game at full price, just so I can spend countless hours trying to crack it, in order to get a version that I can install anytime WITHOUT connecting to the Internet (which I think I deserve since I bought it anyway), I think I should get a rebate. Meaning, I'm not going to pay full price for a game that I have to spend my time on altering in order to get it to be the product that I want. Not only this, by doing so, I might ruin my chances to play online. So, not only am I wasting time, I'm losing functionality.
Yes, they are still good, but you are rating the product AS A WHOLE. This includes EVERY aspect of it, including packaging, playback ability, etc. The same goes for a game. I love Baldur's Gate, but DRM is part of the product now in the Enhanced Edition. It makes the game less valuable in my opinion. So less, that it's not worth buying at all. And, if there was a chance I was good enough to crack the game myself, it would take a lot of time and education to do so. I want compensated for that. I am not saying they should remove the DRM and then sell it to me for cheaper. Hell, if they removed the DRM and sold it for $50, I would buy it.
I completely understand rating the product as a whole and I agree. People are entitled to their opinions. However, you seem to be under the impression that you get to determine the price of what you bought. I suppose in a certain respect you could try to haggle with the seller, but if they're not willing to budge, you don't deserve a penny. If you bought this game, you knew what you were getting (DRM and all) and you're perfectly able and permitted to complain about it, but you have no right to any money back for something you knew you were getting. While it's true that your labor involved in cracking the software is worth something (to you), nobody ever represented to you that you would be compensated for that and it's not a feature that's missing. It's part of the product as a whole, as you wrote. It's somewhat of an illusion of entitlement, this argument. You're not entitled to anything other than what the company promised.
A CD check bypass is simple single file download that takes 3 seconds and is readily available. Bypassing authentication on a game is actual work on my end. And, if it's as easy as finding a version online to download, well, I'm still breaking the law. Why would I legally purchase a game so I can break the law? So the developers can get money? I bet if I am sued, and I proved to the developers that I bought the game first, I would still get sued. Again, black and white - no gray.
Creating the CD check may be as much work as bypassing authentication. Until we've done it ourselves, we don't really know. I don't know that one is less work than the other but it could be as easy as commenting out 2 lines of code.
7) Then, yes, there are some people that just download it because they don't want to pay money (and are cheap - but this is very few)
I think this number is greater than you believe. Pirating these days, while much riskier, is still very easy. Even worse, many people who know next to nothing about computers believe it is perfectly acceptable. They have a misguided notion that once they buy a piece of software, they own it and can install it on as many computers as they wish. Very few EULAs permit this, but they do it anyway if they can get away with it. They loan it out to their friends, their buddy or kid who "knows all about computers" installs it for them or cracks it. I've even seen some people in a professional setting (retail computer stores) install pirated and cracked copies of Windows on customers' computers (and were paid for it). It goes on all the time, everyday, everywhere.
Unfortunately, law is black and white. We are people though, and morals are gray. It is morally fine for many people to pirate a game if they had NO intention of purchasing it in the first place. It is morally fine for many people to pirate a game in order to "try before you buy." Just because it doesn't fit your morals, doesn't mean it doesn't fit someone elses. Game companies, and law makers for that matter, need to realize that there are gray areas. They also need to realize that we are people, and there are so many unique circumstances to consider when you are judging the actions of someone else.
... Making laws harsher (making DRM stronger) won't fix the issue. The issue is to figure out WHY people act the way they do, and fix that problem.
I would not say that morals are grey, but that some people don't value morality as much as others. It is not that those who murder believe it to be moral, but they believe an immoral act can be justified under certain circumstances. I think everyone here (and in society) believes that murder is immoral. Murder of a child rapist though... it's still murder, but many people say, "They deserved it." That is, unfortunately, a human failing in thinking that we can take the law into our own hands. That's not acceptable. I may not agree with laws, but when I agree in a society to live according to those laws, I have a responsibility to follow them, even if I don't agree. I can work to change them, or defend myself legally with a justification, and if (in America at least), a jury of my peers find that I was justified, they can set me free or even refuse to acknowledge the validity of the law, but I may have still committed an immoral act.
The "try before you buy" argument holds no water. That's what demos are for and nobody's entitled to those either (unless the company voluntarily puts them out there). I don't even think people consider the morality of what they're doing in these circumstances. They see a chance to get something for free, they take it, and justify it to themselves by saying that it's a big corporation and they can afford to lose that money... it's only $20 after all. They don't even think about the fact that there could be millions of people doing the same thing and that there were people who worked sometimes for years on these projects and deserve to be paid. I agree that making laws harsher won't fix the problem. The market needs to come up with creative ways to protect digital property and satisfy the demands of customers. We'll get there, we're just not there yet. There wasn't a legal mechanism for purchasing digital music a few years ago. Now there is. Just because there's no solution still doesn't justify theft.
Actually, piracy is copyright infringment. Theft is something else. Theft takes the actual object, making it unavailable for other people to purchase (example, if I take a CD from a store, they lose the ability to sell that object). If I download the CD, the object still exists for purchase. Now, I did not purchase it, but would have I in the first place? I guess in a way you could see it as theft, but if no purchase was intended in the first place, it is much less severe.
Please explain how you devalue the product? If anything, you enhance it's popularity. I'm not agreeing with piracy, but I'm not closing my mind off either.
A proper comparison would be counterfeiting. I believe it's a more insidious kind of theft and just as severe. It has to do with the basic economics of scarce resources. Counterfeiting money is illegal because if everyone could replicate dollars, dollars would have no value. There would be so many of them out there that the same dollars wouldn't buy the same number of goods. Prices would go through the roof because people couldn't measure value properly.
If a million copies of a particular piece of software are made available for free, nobody is going to pay for it. If a million copies of a work of art are made, and indistinguishable from the original, the value of that artwork is much less than an original single piece. That's why forgeries aren't as valuable as the original as well. Granted, the difference between theft and copyright infringement is more of a technical and legal term as nothing is being stolen but then again, you never owned that software anyway. You only own a license to use it. Appropriating a license without paying for it can carry some pretty severe legal consequences in most countries.
Hrmm...a lot to comment on here. My one thought though before I turn in for the night is that corporations are appearing to learn, but then they prove they have no clue. Itunes rocks, and then they bump up prices. Digital distribution prices are still too high, and the more popular it gets, the more prices go up. I know Mr. CEO has 4 houses and wants another, but not everyone is made of money. You can either make things REALLY expensive, and sell a few, or you can make things REALLY cheap and sell a lot. McDonalds is a good example of the latter, and they make LOTS of money. Now, is McDonalds good? Eh, it's not the best, but much of the music out there is crap too. I use radio and Pandora, and only stick to buying a few CDs of the bands I really love.
And no, I'm not saying it's OK to pirate if a game is too expensive. I'm just stating it's another reason people do, and it should be addressed. Price things fairly - it shouldn't cost me more to buy digital songs that it would to purchase the album in a store.
Well, I don't buy the notion that corporations raise prices just because they can or because CEOs are greedy. Companies that do this don't last very long. Apple has chosen to target a higher price point and make more profit per unit than Amazon. Both strategies have worked in markets like tablets. People are willing to pay more for more features, larger screens, and innovation. However, as long as prices are determined in a free marketplace, both are justified. You can choose to pay more for Apple, or you can buy a cheaper tablet. Both may serve your needs just as well as the other and you get to make the choice, but one approach is not better than the other. As for digital music, I would point out that now you have the choice to go a la carte, but we did not before. If we wanted a single track, we either had to hope there was a single released, or make copies and extract that track. Now you can buy only the single for a buck or the whole album for what, $9 or $10? That's a general price decrease compared to 20 years ago when a CD cost $19.99 and you didn't get to choose what you got. It was all or nothing. When you factor in all the options for digital radio, it's amazing the level of choice we have now that we didn't have before. I don't think prices are too high at all right now, but I've never used iTunes (I avoid the i because of their closed system mentality). As long as pricing is not determined in a monopoly, by a government, or in a highly regulated economy, the price you get is fair and what the market has determined. It may not be to your liking, but it's not as if there is a puppeteer arbitrarily determining the price.
I would like to expand on the copyright infringement vs theft issue. Imagine you own a house with a nice yard that you have plastered with "DO NOT TRESPASS" signs. Theft is like someone walking in to your yard and taking your lawnmower. You have actually lost something. Copyright infringement is like someone walking through your yard in spite of the signs. You didn't really lose anything. Your software is still safe and sound and available to paying customers. Comparing this to someone stealing cash from your wallet is missing the point.
The Nates of the world are trespassers. They don't do any real harm because again, they couldn't buy your game if their life depended on it. Is it really worthwhile losing sleep over a person like that? I can't imagine it is productive to jeopardize your relationships with paying customers in any way to keep Nate off your lawn. This isn't Plants vs. Zombies. Nate is not trying to get in your house to eat your brainz. Just ignore him like any other internet troll.
Comments
And please stop acting like civil disobedience has not proven to be a very effective mechanism for change in this country. Piracy is not always an evil act. There are many ways of enacting change and this is one of them. Whether or not you agree with the morality of it doesn't change the effectiveness. If you can show a corporation that a policy costs them more than it makes them a change may occur. I've already bought the game. But if someone else who would have paid for the game is so offended by DRM that they seek a readily available alternative I will not be casting any stones. I do dislike people who pirate everything and have no desire to ever pay. But like I said before, they were never going to be customers anyway and aren't worth a second thought.
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/index
There is still a healthy and active community there and has been for years. I'm sure you could find whatever you need for Baldurs Gate available there. On the interwebs, nothing ever really dies. I don't see why it matters if the info (patches, etc.) doesn't come from official sources. If it's the same thing, why does it matter?
Now nishidrhamannit, since you decided to get personal, let me clue you in on my history with these games. Your presumption that I have no history with Baldurs Gate is simply untrue and frankly, stupid. I owned and played every game based on the Infinity Engine; every Baldurs Gate game and expansion, Icewind Dale game, with the exception of Planescape: Torment. I chose not to play that because I wasn't sold on that setting. However, I am very much familiar with these games and have also bought collections that included them because I wanted another game in the collection, so I ended up with multiple copies. Up until a few years ago, I still owned them all until I gave them to someone who was a collector. I have further kept track of the franchise and the people who developed it for all these years because they made such great games. In a broader sense, I've been playing the spiritual predecessors to these games since personal computer gaming originated, starting with text adventures to the old SSI gold box games (I played them all), as well as owning and playing first and second edition D&D pen and paper games (from which the settings and characters for all these games were derived) for 25 years.
Why you felt this impacted anything at all regarding this discussion is beyond me. In fact, the only purpose I can see to your statements is to attack someone and inflame the discussion (which has been remarkably congenial and respectful until your rude, inaccurate, and uninformed statements). How long one has played a particular game has nothing to do with this discussion and lends no credibility to anything, but for your edification, not too long ago, I was playing one of the original SSI games in a DOSBOX. Simply because I haven't picked up Baldurs Gate in years does not diminish my affection for these games and multiple times, I've stated that I want Beamdog to succeed with this game, not only because I really enjoy Baldurs Gate but because I support the company and the legacy of the franchise and hope they make MORE games on it. That is precisely WHY I argue that the DRM is a relatively small price to pay. If you choose to interpret that as my having less than a passing interest in this game, then that's your uninformed opinion, but it is not true. I do not know if I will be playing BG:EE 10 years from now and I can't think of what possible difference that would be to anyone.
I suggest you keep your personal opinions on other posters to yourself because you haven't a clue about any of us.
As for the "DRM is bad" argument, I think that Treyolen is seeing things only from the customer's perspective, but the company's perspective, as an equal partner in the transaction of buying the game, needs to be considered. If you like this game and want to see more, DRM may be necessary for Beamdog to continue to offer their products. It is not true that it offers no value to the customer if the presence of DRM saves Beamdog money by avoiding piracy of their products. While it can be a burden, the question of how much of a burden is significant. A one-time authentication to install seems like a trivial burden considering the value that this version of the title represents. I applaud those who make stands based on principle, but for a $17.99 purchase, I'd think most people would want to take an intellectual or moral stand on more important subjects and simply buy the game. Insisting on an even lower price if one has to expend time hacking it to meet your personal ideal of what a game should is silly.
But hey, we're all entitled to be silly. I just don't see a need to deprive one's self of hours and hours of enjoyment over something so trivial for a $17,99 purchase. $17.99 and a small degree of inconvenience for possibly 10 years of continued enjoyment? There isn't a better value out there, in my opinion.
I did pre-order the game. And I would pay for it again from GOG. But that doesn't remove my feelings regarding DRM. If this isn't the best place to make my feelings known to the developers, may I ask you to point me to a better place? My understanding was that this was a good place for people passionate about this game to express their opinions. Or should we limit these forums to "OMG Steam rules Beamdog droolz" and "Vin Diesel is so the right Sarevok" threads?
Please don't mistake my comments for wanting to shut down the discussion and stop this conversation. I want quite the opposite, actually. If Beamdog reads this and decides to remove the DRM (unlikely) then it won't affect me in any way. Note that I agree that less (or no) DRM is preferable for us. I'm just commenting that some forms of DRM are a very minor inconvenience and that there may be benefits to us and the companies which have not been considered here. That does not mean I disagree with everyone who disapproves of the DRM nor do I agree with everyone who understands why they did it. I actually agree with most of what's been written here regarding DRM in general.
I would criticize one statement you just made, that Piracy is not always an evil act. With that, I absolutely disagree. Piracy is theft, no matter how you slice it. That's not a moral objection, that's an absolute fact. Taking something which does not belong to you, for which you did not pay the owner, and for which you have no legal right to use, is theft. I see absolutely no justification for it. Also consider that piracy can affect the availability of the product for other legitimate users. Perhaps the piracy problem gets so bad that the company stop support of the product (or stops offering it) because it becomes so unprofitable. Perhaps even more DRM is instituted, making it more difficult for legitimate payers to use the product. Piracy has all sorts of adverse consequences beyond the moral implications of it and it should not be tolerated by anyone. When one pirates software, not only are you ripping off a company which is trying to make money to produce more quality products for YOU, the consumer, you're disincentivizing to produce future products, breaking several laws, and devaluing the product itself.
The pirates whose statements appeared in the article about Spore are absolutely disgusting. They are like digital looters who smash up virtual store windows in protests. Civil disobedience does not apply here. There is no law forcing you to buy this product. Voice your grievances with the company and either choose to buy the product, conform to the terms of the license to which you agree when you install it, or don't buy it and tell the company why. DON'T BE A THIEF. It doesn't prove a point to anyone except that you're a thief and expect companies to react accordingly.
But legitimate customers who would have given money for a DRM free product that turn to piracy are lost sales. These people do cost the company money. And from the company perspective this is a bad thing. These are the people that can make a statement. I would rather make the arguments here in this forum where the developers can see and hopefully consider. But it is naive to just dismiss anyone who takes the other approach.
And I do believe that a passion project like this one that invokes so many fond memories from all of us is the most likely to not need any DRM. Most of us want to support what these guys are doing. The DRM is like a slap in the face to people like me who would have hit a Paypal donation button if this thing was free.
Nate was never a potential customer. Nate had no money. Nate couldn't buy a game if his life depended on it. Nate didn't even like most of the games he downloaded. There were no lost sales because of Nate. Fighting the Nates of the world is a pointless exercise for developers. But the collateral damage in that war is the relationships with customers like me.
I totally agree about the pirates too, but I view those who would have paid money (but don't) and then pirate products almost worse than the tools who steal every piece of software on their computers. Keep in mind that I used to view piracy as totally acceptable. People who say they would pay for software were it not for some issue, then pirate it anyway... I just don't see any moral value there. If they really would pay for it, then they would pay for it! Using that logic is just an excuse to get a free game in my opinion... they're no better than the looters.
I'm glad Beamdog isn't shutting this thread down. That's one gripe I have about Bioware's forums... they're a little strict on forums. I hope Beamdog doesn't take a clue from them in that regard and I do hope that they read this discussion because I think a lot has been covered here and it's all valuable info for them.
Shutting this thread down would be terrible form. This has been very respectful for the most part and very on topic. I'm hoping that they are reading every post! I want to help these guys as much as I can. It's sort of a "help me help you" kind of thing
A pirate him/herself is not a lost sale, but a potential customer turned pirate always is. There are people of all types out there, and it doesn't matter if we think they are scum.
@vortican
In regards to pirates who would have paid for a product but did not, I agree that it is wrong. At the same time, however, dismissing their justification because of moral reasons (or perhaps a lack of morals) is not enough to account for their actions. If they would have paid for it, then why didn't they? To answer this, we would have to look at the product again. Whatever their actions are, I think it's just as important for companies to recognize what is causing their actions. Otherwise, it's a vicious cycle. DRM gets stricter and stricter, and people pirate more and more. We might not agree with it, but it can't be stopped until the core issue is addressed.
By your answer I'm only forced to stick to the same stupid presumption.
You gave (sold maybe?) the original BG series boxes "a few years ago to a collector", when I treasure them.
You haven't played BGT for at least those few past years, when I tried every single fan made mod that there is out there, and love them all, and I feel grateful to this great community of loving & caring people, all of them talented no less, that kept the spirit alive.
You didn't play PLANESCAPE at all, when most of the hard core IE games fans out there absolutely worship it.
I am ashamed to admit that I played it only 2 times, one vanilla, and one modded with the great fan made util that addresses the graphics & resolution problem, and this because as a retired adventure games player (retired coz modern adventure games are NOT adventure games anymore) I happen to think that TORMENT is one of the better adventure games of all times (with a PC & party that xp) rather than a pure d&d RPG, meaning not that much of a replayability value there...
I have no interest in continuing a pissing contest but the fact remains that your presumption is stupid and false. It's stupid to presume you know what experiences I have had because you do not know me, and as I've written, it's false to claim that I have no experience with these games. I stand by my statements and have no idea why it matters at all whether I GAVE them (not sold), played any mods, or played any particular game. It has no bearing at all on the subject at hand nor my ability to participate in the discussion.
I don't think that the quality of the product can ever be used to justify stealing it. I do agree that we need to examine the root cause of the hostility to understand it. I do believe in terms of sale and warranties. I also believe in resales. I think that if a person is dissatisfied with a product for any reason, they have a right to receive fair value for their money and address that with the company. If you bought a game and hated the DRM or hated the game itself, you're perfectly within your rights to address that to the company and request a refund or resell the product. I think the marketplace needs to figure out a way to resell digitally-downloaded software and license keys in a way that's legal, protected, and workable. Some EULAs allow for this.
I think that there is definitely something lost when pirates copy software. It may be accurate to say that it's not a lost sale to the company and there are millions of Nates out there who copy stuff just to have it without paying for it. Companies still deserve to be paid whenever someone uses their software. I understand that there will always be ways to break DRM but at this time, there's no other way to prevent these company's IP from being abused, and it's their right to protect their investments. Even if it deters SOME pirates, and loses SOME customers, it's obviously worth it to most of these companies, rather than simply trusting that their users won't abuse the grants in the license.
That brings up a critical point that often gets missed in these discussions: when you buy a software package, you have no ownership over that product. You're merely given a license to use it under certain conditions but you never actually own anything but the media on which the software resides, or access to the site which contains it. You don't own IT in any way. You're a user, not an owner, so it's not like you have any property interest at all. It's quite a more one-sided relationship.
Companies deserve the right to get paid for their labor and work, yes, and that is perfectly understandable. But DRM is not the solution. Even mild forms of DRM will not deter pirates. As I have mentioned before, even the most intricate DRM systems fail. In fact, I don't believe I know a single high-demand software product that has prevented pirates from making them available. DRM is not a scarecrow for pirates, it never has been. It may be an excuse for shareholders to tell them the company has this little system going on to control piracy (as CDPR's CEO had suggested), but again, I have never seen it work. If someone can tell me what kind of value DRM actually gives the end customer, I might change my stance on this, but for the most part, it is anti-consumerist baggage that doesn't serve it's own purpose and thus makes it absurd to include it in the first place. Both from the consumer perspective, and the business perspective.
There is little if any justification for stealing in our society, or at least it is frowned upon by laws, culture, and customs, but this never changes the fact that software piracy exists and is very, very difficult to control. It's a problem for companies trying to maximize their profits, but to think they can control it through DRM, which is actually frowned upon by legitimate paying customers, almost fits the definition of insanity.
Corporations care about profit and that's as it should be, but they have to be responsive to their customers or they won't make any money. If they can make money DRM-free, more power to them, but I'm not willing to dismiss the use of DRM or take it out of their toolkit because I believe it can have a constructive purpose, protect some of their revenue, and be an effective deterrent against some of the Nates out there. I don't think ignoring Nate is in their best interest either because it justifies what Nate does. If they roll over and say, "Hey Nate, go ahead. You can steal from me. I don't care, I make enough money.", that's just plain dumb. It's like saying to the thief who steals the cash right out from your wallet, "Go ahead, I got more money at home!" Would any of us tolerate that? Why should a corporation? I don't believe there's nothing they can do about it.
An example: Napster was shut down because it was a haven for piracy and the music producers got sick of it. Now, it's riskier than ever to pirate music and there are ways to get legal, DRM-free music, but you still have to pay SOMETHING for it. The industry is big enough now that it can sustain itself without restrictive DRM but there still exists a model for payment with which everyone can survive and be happy. There will always be thieves, but at least the market has figured out ways to deal with the thieves and hold them accountable. DRM-free isn't the solution in every case. I would also not make the assumption that all corporations are the same and make blanket generalizations about their motives. In the end, corporations are made up of people, all of whom have values, and their values translate into how they do business. Some will be more responsible and responsive than others.
I believe that holding to one's principles is a harder thing than resisting an opportunity to get something for nothing. That's assuming one has principles about this sort of thing in the first place. Many don't even think about it.
I think that companies are correct to assume the worst and must protect their property. I don't know of any profitable business that leaves their doors wide open with no protection at all and relies on the honor system to prevent theft. Such a business will never be successful because it's inviting theft.
To explain this further:
I made a comment in regards to someone saying that I should buy the game and then crack it. Well, if I am going to buy the game at full price, just so I can spend countless hours trying to crack it, in order to get a version that I can install anytime WITHOUT connecting to the Internet (which I think I deserve since I bought it anyway), I think I should get a rebate. Meaning, I'm not going to pay full price for a game that I have to spend my time on altering in order to get it to be the product that I want. Not only this, by doing so, I might ruin my chances to play online. So, not only am I wasting time, I'm losing functionality.
I love when people on Amazon.com rate some product, let's do Lord of the Rings blu-ray for example, 5 stars because it's a great movie. Then, you have those that rate a movie 1 start because they left out the extended cut, did a crappy job in transfering, and didn't include all the special features. The people who rate it 5 stars bash everyone who rate it 1, because, "they movie rocks! They know it, but they are rating it 1 star because the transfer isn't good! And because it's not extended! The movies are still good!"
Yes, they are still good, but you are rating the product AS A WHOLE. This includes EVERY aspect of it, including packaging, playback ability, etc. The same goes for a game. I love Baldur's Gate, but DRM is part of the product now in the Enhanced Edition. It makes the game less valuable in my opinion. So less, that it's not worth buying at all. And, if there was a chance I was good enough to crack the game myself, it would take a lot of time and education to do so. I want compensated for that. I am not saying they should remove the DRM and then sell it to me for cheaper. Hell, if they removed the DRM and sold it for $50, I would buy it.
.....
A CD check bypass is simple single file download that takes 3 seconds and is readily available. Bypassing authentication on a game is actual work on my end. And, if it's as easy as finding a version online to download, well, I'm still breaking the law. Why would I legally purchase a game so I can break the law? So the developers can get money? I bet if I am sued, and I proved to the developers that I bought the game first, I would still get sued. Again, black and white - no gray.
And you still throw that word "cheap" around to classify everyone that downloads games. Assumptions are dangerous, and you should open your mind. I don't think you understand how people operate at all. You have several types:
1) Those that download everything, just to do it. They would have never purchased the product. These people aren't cheap; they are just horders. No lost sale
2) Those that have no money. I don't know what your lifestyle is like, but some people can barely afford to feed themselves. No lost sale.
3) Those that can afford to purchase media, but do not if they don't like the entire package. The entire package can consist of DRM, picture quality on movies, special features on movies, etc. I actually buy DVDs instead of Blu-Rays if the DVDs have special features and the Blu-Ray doesn't. These people aren't being cheap - it's because they want the product, but it isn't worth to them, the price it is listed at.
4) People download to "try before you buy." With PC games, you can't rent them.
5) It isn't available in their part of the world. And, if it is, it is priced 2X, 3X, sometimes 5X what it costs us in the states.
6) Those that download to make a statement. Many people were downloading Spore just to prove the DRM did nothing. They probably didn't even play the game after downloading - they just wanted to rack up the number in spite of EA.
7) Then, yes, there are some people that just download it because they don't want to pay money (and are cheap - but this is very few)
And I refuse to buy the game.
As far as your third option: It is not legally acceptable to pirate it. Morally? Different people have different morals. Do you believe in murder? Is murder OK?
You will most likely answer no, it isn't morally right to murder.
that's fine. What did you think about Bin Laden's death? What about a rapist that has targeted multiple people in your family? What about someone attacking you? There are justifications for EVERYTHING. Unfortunately, law is black and white. We are people though, and morals are gray. It is morally fine for many people to pirate a game if they had NO intention of purchasing it in the first place. It is morally fine for many people to pirate a game in order to "try before you buy." Just because it doesn't fit your morals, doesn't mean it doesn't fit someone elses. Game companies, and law makers for that matter, need to realize that there are gray areas. They also need to realize that we are people, and there are so many unique circumstances to consider when you are judging the actions of someone else.
On the news earlier, they were speaking of domestic violence (which I believe to be a terrible thing). They were speaking about a husband who murdered his wife in front of his kids. On the news station, they had a woman yelling that we need harsh harsh HARSH punishment for people who do this to keep them from doing it. That was her solution - harsher punishment.
Well, newsflash. Things happen in the heat of the moment. People think they can get away with murder. People also will commit suicide after commiting murder. Also, some people just do not care. Making laws harsher (making DRM stronger) won't fix the issue. The issue is to figure out WHY people act the way they do, and fix that problem.
"Let's make it a 30 year prison sentence if you steal food!"
Well, umm...that isn't going to stop people from stealing if they are hungry. How about you fix the hunger, eh?
Exactly!
Actually, piracy is copyright infringment. Theft is something else. Theft takes the actual object, making it unavailable for other people to purchase (example, if I take a CD from a store, they lose the ability to sell that object). If I download the CD, the object still exists for purchase. Now, I did not purchase it, but would have I in the first place? I guess in a way you could see it as theft, but if no purchase was intended in the first place, it is much less severe.
Please explain how you devalue the product? If anything, you enhance it's popularity. I'm not agreeing with piracy, but I'm not closing my mind off either.
Wonderfully said!
Hrmm...a lot to comment on here. My one thought though before I turn in for the night is that corporations are appearing to learn, but then they prove they have no clue. Itunes rocks, and then they bump up prices. Digital distribution prices are still too high, and the more popular it gets, the more prices go up. I know Mr. CEO has 4 houses and wants another, but not everyone is made of money. You can either make things REALLY expensive, and sell a few, or you can make things REALLY cheap and sell a lot. McDonalds is a good example of the latter, and they make LOTS of money. Now, is McDonalds good? Eh, it's not the best, but much of the music out there is crap too. I use radio and Pandora, and only stick to buying a few CDs of the bands I really love.
And no, I'm not saying it's OK to pirate if a game is too expensive. I'm just stating it's another reason people do, and it should be addressed. Price things fairly - it shouldn't cost me more to buy digital songs that it would to purchase the album in a store.
$20 for this game is outrageously awesome! But, the DRM kills it for me. I would pay $50 for this game with no DRM, but I would understand if others would disagree.
But gentlemen and... "gentlewomen" (as a certain ever scheming bard would say), you failed to convince me!
To me:
STUPiD is the whole DRM thingy, coz man is it smart move when the seller of the product outright discourages me from being legit and happily and without question buying their product?
CHEAP is this "for only 2,99 EURO more..." DLC idea, coz why on earth would I pay extra money for official New NPC + items for a game that I have already bought once and has such history (10 whole years) with great fan-made mods that I can get totally FREE ???
And HYPOCRiTiCAL... hypocritical is this whole siuation goin' on in modern games industry, or the free(?) market concept in general, that diminishes individuals with personalities and willpower to mere zombie automatons, part of a mindless mob, able (and expected or made with certain brainwashing techniques to be so) only to consume, after a hard day's work...
But this has been the subject of countless debates, after debates, mostly held by soulless half dead morons pretending to be the... living epitomy of wisdom, talking wooden tongues, hardly ever reaching any positive or beneficial conclusion for real and alive everyday stuggling people...
While people here in this thread claim that DRM is stupid, they are at least buying the game to support beamdog to make further Enhanced games, you just hiding behind it in order to,again, justify yourself pirating it.
Its like entering a Store that you hate their service and steal a product you like in the name of good service..
PLEASE!!!
What's wrong with you people?
DLC on the other hand is a totally different matter, I WiLL NEVER pay for BG EE DLC not one in a million, and I'm afraid that there will be conflicts with the fan modding community...
As for DLC, Phillip Daigle already said that there will be more free DLCs than paid ones. and i think that because the bg mod community is big and exist,they cant make an "Npc -Only" or "Item-Only" DLC, because no one will purchase it ( except of ipad users.. ) - they will have to come up with something more extensive, something like Trial of Luremaster - which is worth any cent.
Im not afraid of conflicts with the mods, the Devs working hard so it will be as compatible as possible with the old mods..
If someone doesn't want to buy a game with DRM, then they can just not buy it. As soon as you pirate it instead you're just a hypocrite.
Correct me if I'm wrong but when IWD1 add-on Heart of Winter officially came out, and all we IE game fans most willingly bought it, we were more or less dissapointed by the small size of the actual content, so THE GREAT GUYS at INTERPLAY (Blackisle+Bioware doesn't really matter) whose motto was BY GAMERS FOR GAMERS (and indeed) most eagerly made Trials of The Luremaster and allowed everyone to downloaded it for free as a compensation to their supporting fan community...
No CHEAP tricks with 2,99/whatever DLC there...
Creating the CD check may be as much work as bypassing authentication. Until we've done it ourselves, we don't really know. I don't know that one is less work than the other but it could be as easy as commenting out 2 lines of code. I think this number is greater than you believe. Pirating these days, while much riskier, is still very easy. Even worse, many people who know next to nothing about computers believe it is perfectly acceptable. They have a misguided notion that once they buy a piece of software, they own it and can install it on as many computers as they wish. Very few EULAs permit this, but they do it anyway if they can get away with it. They loan it out to their friends, their buddy or kid who "knows all about computers" installs it for them or cracks it. I've even seen some people in a professional setting (retail computer stores) install pirated and cracked copies of Windows on customers' computers (and were paid for it). It goes on all the time, everyday, everywhere. I would not say that morals are grey, but that some people don't value morality as much as others. It is not that those who murder believe it to be moral, but they believe an immoral act can be justified under certain circumstances. I think everyone here (and in society) believes that murder is immoral. Murder of a child rapist though... it's still murder, but many people say, "They deserved it." That is, unfortunately, a human failing in thinking that we can take the law into our own hands. That's not acceptable. I may not agree with laws, but when I agree in a society to live according to those laws, I have a responsibility to follow them, even if I don't agree. I can work to change them, or defend myself legally with a justification, and if (in America at least), a jury of my peers find that I was justified, they can set me free or even refuse to acknowledge the validity of the law, but I may have still committed an immoral act.
The "try before you buy" argument holds no water. That's what demos are for and nobody's entitled to those either (unless the company voluntarily puts them out there). I don't even think people consider the morality of what they're doing in these circumstances. They see a chance to get something for free, they take it, and justify it to themselves by saying that it's a big corporation and they can afford to lose that money... it's only $20 after all. They don't even think about the fact that there could be millions of people doing the same thing and that there were people who worked sometimes for years on these projects and deserve to be paid. I agree that making laws harsher won't fix the problem. The market needs to come up with creative ways to protect digital property and satisfy the demands of customers. We'll get there, we're just not there yet. There wasn't a legal mechanism for purchasing digital music a few years ago. Now there is. Just because there's no solution still doesn't justify theft. A proper comparison would be counterfeiting. I believe it's a more insidious kind of theft and just as severe. It has to do with the basic economics of scarce resources. Counterfeiting money is illegal because if everyone could replicate dollars, dollars would have no value. There would be so many of them out there that the same dollars wouldn't buy the same number of goods. Prices would go through the roof because people couldn't measure value properly.
If a million copies of a particular piece of software are made available for free, nobody is going to pay for it. If a million copies of a work of art are made, and indistinguishable from the original, the value of that artwork is much less than an original single piece. That's why forgeries aren't as valuable as the original as well. Granted, the difference between theft and copyright infringement is more of a technical and legal term as nothing is being stolen but then again, you never owned that software anyway. You only own a license to use it. Appropriating a license without paying for it can carry some pretty severe legal consequences in most countries. Well, I don't buy the notion that corporations raise prices just because they can or because CEOs are greedy. Companies that do this don't last very long. Apple has chosen to target a higher price point and make more profit per unit than Amazon. Both strategies have worked in markets like tablets. People are willing to pay more for more features, larger screens, and innovation. However, as long as prices are determined in a free marketplace, both are justified. You can choose to pay more for Apple, or you can buy a cheaper tablet. Both may serve your needs just as well as the other and you get to make the choice, but one approach is not better than the other. As for digital music, I would point out that now you have the choice to go a la carte, but we did not before. If we wanted a single track, we either had to hope there was a single released, or make copies and extract that track. Now you can buy only the single for a buck or the whole album for what, $9 or $10? That's a general price decrease compared to 20 years ago when a CD cost $19.99 and you didn't get to choose what you got. It was all or nothing. When you factor in all the options for digital radio, it's amazing the level of choice we have now that we didn't have before. I don't think prices are too high at all right now, but I've never used iTunes (I avoid the i because of their closed system mentality). As long as pricing is not determined in a monopoly, by a government, or in a highly regulated economy, the price you get is fair and what the market has determined. It may not be to your liking, but it's not as if there is a puppeteer arbitrarily determining the price.
Thanks for your thoughts.
The Nates of the world are trespassers. They don't do any real harm because again, they couldn't buy your game if their life depended on it. Is it really worthwhile losing sleep over a person like that? I can't imagine it is productive to jeopardize your relationships with paying customers in any way to keep Nate off your lawn. This isn't Plants vs. Zombies. Nate is not trying to get in your house to eat your brainz. Just ignore him like any other internet troll.