Paingiver: Then came this EULA's, NO-LAN, Online-Only, Steam-Only, rootkits(SecuROM, Tages etc..) Day by day freedom stripped away from us and they contiune to strip away it and will continue....
.
By using excuses like "piracy" (invented by media and fear of piracy promoted for certain goals) they are "using" us, they are "treating" us how they like.
It is enough that we swallow this "piracy" pill. It is enough for "company rights". Isn't it time for "our rights and freedom"?
Let me tell you a little story way back from my days, which started with the C64 and an Amiga. Yes I pirated games. Not one or two but all of them.
The first time I really became aware that this does have consequences was with Apidya developed by Kaiko (with Chris Hülsbeck on board). A side-scrolling shooter similar to the R-Type series which became glowing reviews (90% or more) everywhere. But it didn't sold and two years later Kaiko was out of business. I remember (but can't prove / link) about an article where it was stated that they sold only 10'000 copies of it. Even with the smaller market at that time in mind, everyone with basic math can see why.
The turning point for me was the dissolution of Thalion Software who created classics like Ambermoon / Amberstar / Dragonflight / Lionheart, but couldn't sell enough to stay in business - but about every Amiga gamer had at least one or more of those titles at home.
The way you point at piracy is, as if it's been used as a scapegoat to cut your rights as a costumer. This may be the case in several occasions, but isn't the norm. Two problems with that:
- there's no "who was first? The egg or the chicken?" question here. Piracy was rampant before the first copy protection was put on games.
- you can't take rights without also taking duties.
You can't claim the right to play your games DRM-free and force companies to release them so, with no solution on how to prevent piracy. Yes this does work in some cases (gog.com) but as a norm, it failed time and time again. Yet we're wondering why companies are TRYING to protect themselves from it?
I'll stand on my point of view: to actually do something against further and more DRM, don't pirate and pay for what you play.
ddmuse: Yet Bethesda still pissed on fans by forcing Steam with Skyrim. It's not about protecting the product. It's about killing the second-hand market.
Sources besides your (obvious) opinions? I have yet to see Bethesda stating about the second-hand market being a problem. We heard so from EA and what not, but the closest to Bethesda I could pin, was Obsidians Chris Avellone stating on F:NV.
ddmuse: Unless there's already a reliable source for the information (???), I wish the government did something useful for a change and passed transparency laws requiring software and game companies to fully disclose total investment versus total profit for each program or game every year. Then we'd see a whole lot less sympathy for dick moves like this.
That's.... mindboggling... epic.... ridiculousness.
Wait. You meant that seriously?
Government (or politicians) and transparency should not be allowed to be used in the same sentence by law. Not even for description purpose which I just did. Ever.
However if your.... proposal.... would be accepted, I can come up with 100 other companies where THIS. WOULD. ACTUALLY. MATTER. Within 15 minutes. Like every bank, pharmaceutical / oil / healthcare company as a start.
ddmuse: We're starting to stray into the copy protection vs. DRM debate, which is probably not fruitful here. The point is that Bethesda was able to sell a fuckton of copies of its games before deciding to use online-DRM (Steam). ;-)
We already strayed on several occasions. Like between DRM and digital distribution. However Bethesda was able to sell a fuckton of copies with Steam, which makes your point moot.
The point is, the publishers / devs don't have to prove they trust us gamers that we don't pirate their work. It's us gamers who have to earn that trust back. And I don't see this happening, not even with The Witcher 2.