You can't always believe everything that you read

True but I did check the TOS after reading that. (from MS site not a link) and it is in there

That's the sad truth... and the main reason why we will see more and more abusive DRM system in the future until everything is renting/steam only.

A lot of peoples don't seems to be able to handle the complex concept of "future". For them if they don't have problem with something as this exact moment then it means that they never will and they refuses to even consider the remote possibility that something bad could ever happens.

Then there's the mixed approach. In my case, when it comes to places like Steam, PSN or X-Box Live, I purchase only what I cannot get elsewhere. For some titles, that I know I will be playing a decade from now, I try to ensure that future by purchasing physical media over digital download. (The exception being GOG with their DRM free installers.) Some games, I know I will get some fun out of, but after five years, I likely won't bother with them anymore. In their case, I tend to not mind purchasing digitally, even if there's a possibility that I won't be able to play it in a decade.

I loathe always connected DRM, but have to wonder if people will care in 10-20 years, when we may have reliable net connections everywhere.

The internet requirement really has little to do with it for me. I have 24/7 internet, I get service interruptions like once a month, it's not a big deal to me. I think most people in the countries with the largest sales numbers don't really worry about that.

My issue is that it is not just internet access you need, but a server to contact, and one run by the company. This is something I am sure you know, but in debating DRM many people don't make that connection. Looking at comments on this news story, or on the recent Dragon Age 2 DRM announcement, I see a ton of people saying "well I have good internet so who cares" or "you need internet to buy the game so what's the big deal?" People, random average joe consumer people, do not make the connection that you don't just need internet, you need a specific server.

Now on the PC I have a very who gives a shit attitude, because it's an open platform and you can't really stop people from playing games they bought unless they are multiplayer. On the PS3 or Xbox 360 though, those are closed systems. I could never tolerate this kind of DRM on a closed system, no way no how. What happens when Microsoft shut down Live support on the 360 like they did the original Xbox? All your games and DLC are now on borrowed time, when the console or HDD goes, so do all your purchases.

Which is why I mention how I tend to only purchase digital items there, when I have no other platform choice or when I know I won't be playing it in 7+ years. I have to wonder though... People pirate PSP games and use them on their custom firmware. Perhaps it will be the same for 360/PS3 one day, and people shafted by these companies actually will have a way to regain their purchases.

It's possible, I don't know enough about Xbox 360 or PS3 hacking to say how viable that would be as a solution. I do know that on closed systems it is certainly not as easy as just firing up uTorrent and getting the game you paid for back...

If you have to rely on a cracked copy to keep playing your game it begs the question in so many peoples' minds, "Why pay in the first place?" This is a losing strategy for platform vendors and publishers both. I am not quite sure why they want to travel down this road, it's only enforceable via draconian legal involvement and I'm not sure they'll be able to demonize little Johnny the pirate who's 10 quite the same way they demonized "Snake" the pot dealer who's 25 with a 16 year old girlfriend and a million tattoos.

And that leads right to one of the real, underlying issues that the publishers try so hard to avoid having to address: that most of the stuff they churn out these days doesn't provide long-term entertainment anymore, people won't be playing them anymore after a year, or even a month or two. Underlying issue because this not only leads into the problems with piracy, but also the used-games market that the publishers hate so much. They are going on and on about how Gamestop selling second-hand games just a few weeks old is bad for them, but fail to, or pretend not to, realise the cause: people don't care about the game, it isn't important to them, they didn't particularly like it and don't think they'll ever want to play it again. Who would claim the people who sell a game for maybe 25% of the original purchase price only a few weeks after release, planned to do so when they bought it and do this by principle? No sane person shells out $60 for a game expecting to be selling it again within weeks.

So this is another way that publishers themselves are fuelling piracy and the used-games market. They gear their titles specifically for that part of players who just play around with the games for a few hours, grow tired of it and then move on, rather than trying to make a game that people will gladly pay for and add to their collections. It's game design that is made for the teenage P2P populace, not the "serious" audience with the money ready to be spent. It's their own fault, all of it, down to every single "lost sale".

No matter what you think of the last decade's FPS titles, you have to agree that an 8-hour linear shooting game with a weak story does not provide much incentive to return after those 8 hours. For some people, multiplayer is a big part of making a game interesting in the long-term. But multiplayer is pretty much the same for all games, plus you have to play a lot to get good at them and have fun, meaning that people tend to focus on only one title. In short: the average mainstream game design of the 2000s fails at targetting a viable long-term market.

When you look at why some of the games on GOG were so successful, you see the difference instantly. I remember reading in old magazines back in the day, and talking with other gamers, that the real hits were played for many months, countless hours. There were really deep titles for which even a year or two after release, magazines would still publish hints and strategies for them because people were still playing them, still experimenting, practicing, and discovering new stuff. It might not seem like this is commercially interesting for the publisher, but if they just showed some long-term thinking, they would see that it is, because everyone wants their own copy of these games vs. a used one, and they are ready to buy more of a similar kind, again and again. Today's rhythm of getting it over with and moving on to the next, will not be sustainable for much longer. Already, only very few of the top AAA titles even make a profit. People are bored.


As for the PSN/DRM issue, with the encryption and chain of trust for the PS3 recently and irrevocably blown wide open, the possibility of Sony starting to "constant-online-DRM" all their titles, at least those from the PSN store, suddenly doesn't seem so far-fetched anymore. There's no way on fixing the hack without exchanging hardware, and one of the few remaining things they could do if they were really intent on making life hard on the hackers and homebrew scene would be to require online connection anytime and everywhere possible. Sure it's one more pain in the ass for the paying customers, but given their previous history of handling similar cases, I think such a consumer-hating move would possibly have to be expected from Sony.

The sucky part is that games such as BCR2 are not even shareable. Most of the PSN titles are able to be acquired between five persons, and be activated in five different machines. BCR2 is only usable in a single one.

I blame the pirates. Sure, companies such as Ubisoft and Sony are doing some very anti-consumer things, but it is all because they feel they must combat piracy. Folks can argue all they want about whether or not piracy is actually hurting these companies that badly (like the 'every pirated game does not necessarily constitute a lost sale' argument). However, the fact remains that without the threat of piracy, these companies wouldn't have to go to these lengths to protect their property rights.

Instead of getting angry at these companies defending their property, why not get angry at the actual cause? Geohot et al may not be pirates, but they sure as heck are enabling pirates by releasing this crack. If you are getting stung by hornets, do you get mad at the itchy rash you develop or do you take action against the hornets themselves (e.g. bug spray or leaving the area)? It is much the same situation that game developers have currently. Sony can either fight the pirates, or they can just leave the gaming market entirely.

I used to be more against DRM, but at this point I just want piracy to cease. Piracy pushed many new games off the PC to consoles; developers and publishers wanted to release on a more secure platform. If consoles are now all insecure (the PS3 was essentially the last bastion of safety), what is the future of gaming in general? I would rather DRM exist and have many new games I want to play, rather than neither existing.

Meh, I've pretty much stopped supporting consoles. I will still buy them for the few good games there are, but anything that's available on the PC gets purchased for the PC. People can blame piracy all they want, but companies decide whether or not the consumer gets fucked, and if a company decides I get fucked, fuck that company.

Piracy will never cease. It always has happened, it always will happen. Like it, loathe it, it doesn't matter.

Companies may feel the need to defend their products, but all they succeed in doing is making piracy an ever more attractive option for those not willing to put up with bullshit DRM methods.

DRM methods singularly fail to stop piracy to any significant degree. There is precisely 0 justification for any DRM method that in any way negatively impacts your legitimate paying customers.

There are people who buy DRM infested games then crack the ever loving smeg out of them because they don't want to put up with bullshit DRM. I was forced to do this with a game, because the DRM prevented me from playing it as I wished. Left something of a bad taste in my mouth, because I shouldn't have had to do that. Funny thing is, the pirates never had that trouble, just the stupid twat that bought the bastard in the first place.

DRM affects no one but the legitimate paying customer. DRM only screws over legitimate paying customers. Your basic pirate who pirates everything because they can is not a legitimate paying customer. DRM does not affect pirates. DRM does not screw over the pirate.

While piracy surely was the root cause of various copy protections being implemented to begin with, I doubt it's the primary reason to continue using more convoluted DRM systems today. I'd wager second-hand sales plays a larger part, though of course the corporations can't say that because it'd make them look like the bad guys.

I'm not claiming that's how it is, but that's what I think.