SOW - with new DRM model by UBI ?

[HKLE]

Dear Community

I am sure, you have followed the UBI DRM discussion. I know, publishing date for SOW may still be far away, but ...

... is it really necessary to have UBI as publisher, given their current attitude versus the customer ?

Sorry to stir this up

Thank you

HKLE

[AndyJWest]

Dear Community

I am sure, you have followed the UBI DRM discussion. I know, publishing date for SOW may still be far away, but ...

... is it really necessary to have UBI as publisher, given their current attitude versus the customer ?

Sorry to stir this up

Thank you

HKLE
Is there any real evidence that Ubi will be the publisher?

[13th Hsqn Protos]

None.

[HKLE]

Is there any real evidence that Ubi will be the publisher?

Well. IL2 was published with the help of Ubisoft ????

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I guess 1C will publish it in Europe, not sure about the Americas and co.

Wasn't it stated before that Maddox Games already dropped Ubisoft?

[HKLE]

Sigh ....

This seems good news to me.

Ubisoft keeps an open forum on BOB ...

HKLE

[4H_V-man]

I was a beta-tester for Rise of Flight. To this date I have not bought it mainly because of the requirement to have a constant internet connection to use it. I'm looking forward to SOW (mainly after it moves into new theaters), but if it has this same requirement, it will be a show-stopper for me.

I agree that developers are entitled to make it as difficult as possible for software pirates, but there are other ways to insure this that are less intrusive or problematic than many of the solutions being used now. I hope 1C can find a compromise that will satisfy them as well as the largest number of customers as well.

[HKLE]

I was a beta-tester for Rise of Flight. To this date I have not bought it mainly because of the requirement to have a constant internet connection to use it. I'm looking forward to SOW (mainly after it moves into new theaters), but if it has this same requirement, it will be a show-stopper for me.

I agree that developers are entitled to make it as difficult as possible for software pirates, but there are other ways to insure this that are less intrusive or problematic than many of the solutions being used now. I hope 1C can find a compromise that will satisfy them as well as the largest number of customers as well.

well. Would be a nogo for me too. I already cancelled SH5 preorder for the same reason.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

You folks that didn't buy Rise of Flight because of the online requirement might be interested in this:

http://riseofflight.com/Blogs/post/2010/02/05/LOGIN-OFFLINE-ACCESS-GRANTED!!!.aspx

They're dropping online connection for offline play. Worth reading the whole article.

So spread the word to all of your friends that balked at the login requirement and didn't purchase RoF. Now, there is no excuse not to give it a try!

[Tree_UK]

I guess 1C will publish it in Europe, not sure about the Americas and co.

Wasn't it stated before that Maddox Games already dropped Ubisoft?

Or was it the other way round?

[Foo'bar]

I guess 1C will publish it in Europe, not sure about the Americas and co.

Wasn't it stated before that Maddox Games already dropped Ubisoft?

Who said that, and where can I read it?

IMHO we don't have any other newer information than UBI is still publisher for the west.

If that will be good is a different question.

[FS~Hawks]

Oleg has always said the UBI soft is the publisher for the western world.

[Letum]

Oleg has always said the UBI soft is the publisher for the western world.

Source?

I imagine 1C will publish in Europe.

[csThor]

Contract for development of SoW was signed way back and until there's an announcement that Ubisoft is no longer aboard for SoW this still stands. Just because something would be better for all of us it doesn't mean things are as we wish them to be. :(

And re: Ubishaft's BS "service" - You should remember, Ubishaft, that you want to sell me things. So it's you who has to make me an offer I can't resist ... I, as a customer, set the conditions of purchase, not you. And that's a fundamental business rule.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Well, if that the case, and the russian version don't have DRM, if i have to i will fly to Moscow to buy a russian copy, and then find a way to have the text on english or spanish. Or even learn russian, just for not having to deal with the DRM issue of Ubi. :)

[csThor]

Tell you what ... if that is indeed the case I will personally hand over my €€€ to Oleg. Rather 150€ for him than a cent for the farts at Ubishaft.

[Letum]

Contract for development of SoW was signed way back and until there's an announcement that Ubisoft is no longer aboard for SoW this still stands.

Again, do you have a source for this?

[csThor]

None I could link to ATM but Ubisoft did make an announcement on SoW way way back and some personal connections to Maddox Games confirm that Ubi is not yet out of the picture. I just don't want people to assume that they're not involved anymore when we have zero evidence on the contrary.

[Letum]

So far I have zero evidence either way!

In the lack of any evidence assuming they are not involved is the correct stance.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

csThor is right, Ubi announced about BoB several years ago. I couldn't find a link in the shallow search i made, but i also remember it well.

[csThor]

Actually the announcement is already ancient history. :mrgreen:

http://www.ubi.com/US/News/Info.aspx?nId=3950

[Red Dragon-DK]

well. Would be a nogo for me too. I already cancelled SH5 preorder for the same reason.

Did the same thing. Not gona bye a single game with DRM in.

[BadAim]

And re: Ubishaft's BS "service" - You should remember, Ubishaft, that you want to sell me things. So it's you who has to make me an offer I can't resist ... I, as a customer, set the conditions of purchase, not you. And that's a fundamental business rule.

Oh, Thor, quit being wishy washy and tell us what you really think about Ubi. :P

[Letum]

Oh no!
I'm already refusing to buy SHV.
Online DRM for SOW will break my heart and save me money.

[Chivas]

Ubisoft did officially announce SOW back in 2006, but have said nothing since. At about the same time Oleg"s team suggested everthing if fine between them and UBISOFT. For the last four years neither party has mention the other.

Tree says he has called UBISOFT and they stated they are no longer involved with SOW. This and the fact that neither party has mentioned the other in the last four years suggested that they no longer see eye to eye and Lawyers were/are involved. If there was a rift, hopefully its all settled now, so it won't effect access to the product in the West.

[csThor]

"Someone has called UBISOFT ...[/i]"

You have now three seconds to figure out how much that actually means - in a multinational corporation with several thousand employees. This statement means squat. Ubi didn't know it's own backyard when Il-2 was still fresh and they don't know their own backyard now, either.

Face it - corporations as Ubi don't make announcements like the one I posted when there is not something to hold on to - such as a contract. Currently all evidence we have points to them holding the publishing rights outside the former USSR.

[Chivas]

"Someone has called UBISOFT ...[/i]"

You have now three seconds to figure out how much that actually means - in a multinational corporation with several thousand employees. This statement means squat. Ubi didn't know it's own backyard when Il-2 was still fresh and they don't know their own backyard now, either.

Face it - corporations as Ubi don't make announcements like the one I posted when there is not something to hold on to - such as a contract. Currently all evidence we have points to them holding the publishing rights outside the former USSR.



I agree that all facts suggest that UBI is still the publisher, but I doubt very much that they still are. Not an official word from UBI in four years about SOW suggests to me that they are no longer involved, especially if Oleg still plans to release SOW this fall.

[MikkOwl]

Contracts can have all kinds of clauses in them stating that it's valid to break it if this or that happens.

What is troublesome is if UbiSoft have paid for development costs of Storm of War. It would be trickier to get out of that one in such a case.

Any contract can usually be broken, if one has the cash to pay for the penalty of breaking it. Storm of War is probably big business as far as revenues go, so it could make sense to pay to get out of UbiSoft's upcoming poor treatment of it.

It is alsooo possible that Storm of War could be published by UbiSoft and not have to sign up for spyware services at Ubi - i.e. they would not implement it in that title as an exception to their new rule. I do think I read that they said that 'most' titles would have their crappy spyware arrangement, which means there is room for exceptions.

I would most likely not ever pay for a copy of Storm of War that comes with UbiSoft spyware. I would rather pay Maddox Games as well.

[GT182]

I won't buy SHV because of UBI's new DRM policy. And if they do the same for SOW: BOB, I won't buy it either. Sales will tell who's going to get the shaft. I don't want to see Oleg get hurt, but UBI is going to kill sales if they add the DRMs.

I've been playing X3 Terran Conflict in the new Gold pack by Egosoft. They pulled the DRMs out with the new release, and now they've got an even bigger following than they ever had before.

The writing is on the wall... NO DRMs. Find other ways to stop pirating, and leave us honest people alone!

[nearmiss]

I wonder

What of Oleg was on a contract back in 2006 and terms required him to finish within 4 years, and if he wasn't finished Ubi would not publish without a new contract.

Oleg may have decided to just run down the clock and build an even better BOB SOW. Even he did eventually publish outside Russia with UBI he might make a much better financial deal.

Makes sense to me, not saying that is the case. Just a thought

[noxnoctum]

The irony is this may well drive people to not buy it and instead just pirate it (I'm sure the pirates will figure out a way around the DRM and make a "fix"... they always have in the past). So really it only screws over the legitimate customers.

I know I'm certainly considering that for SH5. I'll still buy it, because I want to support the developer, but I'll get a pirated copy too and use that as a backup in case my internet connection goes down so I can still play offline.

[Flanker35M]

S!

RoF now can be played offline too after last update :)

[noxnoctum]

S!

RoF now can be played offline too after last update :)

Wait, so is Ubi changing their DRM stance???

[Dano]

Wait, so is Ubi changing their DRM stance???

No, UBI have nothing to do with RoF.

However in the light of their latest DRM being cracked in something like 25 hours they may just need to revise it, my money is on them continuing to stick their heads inthe sand though.

[Avatar]

Wow, I had always thought that 1c had finally gotten away from UBI, especially after the Pacific Fighters BS they went through...

Like others here, I have finally said no to UBI's new type of DRM. I'm not against DRM but I am against having to be online all the time to play offline, just plain BS, IMHO. So if SoW comes with this form of DRM I will unfortunately have to pass, just like I am with SHV. I will not give the impression to the suits that I approve of this type of DRM in any way shape or form. I know too many people that can't play SHV just because of this requirement, e.g., military personnel stationed abroad on active duty, friends in remote, and not so remote places where their connections aren't reliable at all, etc. and UBI has made it abundantly clear in their statements that they don't care about people with those types of issues: "We think most people are going to be fine with it. Most people are always connected to an Internet connection." Well I guess their marketing guys need to learn a bit more and I hope they learn the hard way, and the only way they will learn and that's by losing money.

Unfortunately, people who say they are against this type of DRM but buy the game anyway stating they are "supporting the developers" are still sending the wrong message. The bean counters only look at the bottom line, how much money a title makes. They could care less if you agree with their chosen DRM or not, they only care if you buy their games. PERIOD!

[MikkOwl]

UbiSoft has plenty of people working for them. They have many different values and motives. But the owners and executives have one motive in common - they all want to get paid more. So that's how they act. Most corporations, as they are made up for more than a single owner, act on this one unifying motive.

If whatever they do brings in more money for them (or at least they think that it does) then they will conclude that this is a terrific idea. Losing some reputation is nothing if they percieve that they are either gaining more profit or that their profit decreased less than expected.

I too would love to have bought SH5 (I bought SH3 and SH4) and support this niche sim market, but it will NEVER, EVER happen if it is bundled with extra software designed in a way that significantly affects my ownership and use of the product they want to sell me. Moreover, it is fairly certain that they use it for very extensive data mining (monitoring and logging my personal profile + game usage patterns) for uses that might further profit them, and who knows what.

Buying this is not showing support for Silent Hunter, but showing support for this DRM (+ who knows what else) system. You are voting, with your money, sending a message to not just UbiSoft but everyone else saying "I like it, it works, and here's my money to prove it". Your forum word doesn't carry any weight if you still buy it.

I will never, ever buy Storm of War either if they try something similar. Requirement to be online to use their online gaming services (multiplayer on public servers they host) is Ok, but not for single player or playing with my friend on a LAN. There it steps into the "None of their business" zone.

If SoW did do this, then perhaps some other company will make a decent flight sim (maybe not WW2 but whatever), and I'm sure IL-2 will have increased lifespan and more improvements. And maybe some future release of a stand-alone addon to SoW will come along that doesn't have the DRM crap in it.

[Wolf_Rider]

An employer friend bought an English designed winch control program which he runs on concerts to enhance lighting effects... an interesting feature of the program, was in having to be online to install it as well as having to be online to uninstall it. In between those two situations however, there was no necessity to be online to run the program.


If it weren't for the pirates, there would be no need for protection methods eh?

[AndyJWest]

An employer friend bought an English designed winch control program which he runs on concerts to enhance lighting effects... an interesting feature of the program, was in having to be online to install it as well as having to be online to uninstall it. In between those two situations however, there was no necessity to be online to run the program.


If it weren't for the pirates, there would be no need for protection methods eh?

Next year, the Ford Motor Company intends to release an 'online' control system for their cars: you don't have to be connected at all times, just when you want to use the accelerator or brakes...

Ridiculous? Of course it is. Nobody would even think of coming out with such c**p if it wasn't the computer software market. I don't know what the real solution is, but hopefully whoever is responsible for publishing SoW:BoB will realise from the RoF fiasco that p***ing off potential customers and encouraging the 'crackers' and pirates isn't a sensible marketing strategy. In my local supermarket, there are plenty of opportunities to 'pirate' a tin of baked beans or a bar of chocolate, but the profit they make on making purchases easier for the rest of us outweigh the losses. I'm no fan of the retail food industry, but at least they understand how to look at the big picture.

[MikkOwl]

An employer friend bought an English designed winch control program which he runs on concerts to enhance lighting effects... an interesting feature of the program, was in having to be online to install it as well as having to be online to uninstall it. In between those two situations however, there was no necessity to be online to run the program.Interesting arrangement. Being online to install it is not a big hassle. I don't think I would put up with the 'online to uninstall' part though. Once I pay for it, install and activate it, that's it - it is mine. Don't want any more hassles (including DVD checks, which are noisy, impractical and discs are not the most durable thing). I have hard drive errors and other things that can be random, and not being able to uninstall something we bought is a preposterous idea. Still, that system is mild enough to be tolerable as long as it is patched out later (else the software could be permanently broken if they stop supporting it and take down their authorization servers).

If it weren't for the pirates, there would be no need for protection methods eh?True. Although there's a lot of things to be said about it.

(A copy here is defined as being a copy that functions).

The cost of manufacturing a copy of a medium that is digital is zero. The cost of distribution is also zero. In a market economy, this means supply is infinite. And that the market value of such a copy is zero.

Before the apperance of fast computers, large storage medium and the Internet, it was a good business model to offer the service of producing a copy and distributing the copy to consumers. But having a business model where one is selling the service of providing one digitally made copy (which costs nothing) and distributing it (again, does not have to cost anything) is maybe not the most innovative or well thought out anymore.

In order to try to keep the old business model of selling the copy and distribution, supply must be choked somehow. But one can also attempt to coerce people into choosing only their service. Two main methods:



Attempt to make it more difficult to produce a copy (what we are discussing mainly in this topic).
Threats of, and carrying out: violence, robbery or kidnapping in any combination (by a third party, nearly always the state) if people choose to handle the task of producing a copy and distribution themselves instead of choosing the offered service.


The second needs legislation in order to support it specifically. There are smaller things which are fairly innocent where the stake-holders of the business model run campaigns for the public that attempt to make people believe that copyright infringement of any kind is not copyright infringement, but theft (a different crime, where someone is robbed of something. Like stepping into a game/movie store and literally taking a DVD case with print and disc inside and walking out - the store then deprived of those items).

Personally I think (and many, many, many others) that if someone does something good for you (like a favor), you should return the favor. That means give back to the people who gave to you. Also, people can do it for purely selfish reasons - trying to secure 'more of the same' enjoyment in the future (gaming studio can go bankrupt or try making other less interesting games in order to profit more). I think these two are big reasons people choose to buy officially distributed copies even though they have plenty of alternatives. It is harder to always do so when the officially distributed version is less attractive/appealing (in the form of it just performing worse and being inferior to other versions).

Anti-copy schemes are morally completely OK. People are trying to sell something they made and are just trying to limit the supply through those means to raise the market value. It will usually not limit supply much but will make the product on offer (possibly) crappier if care is not taken. I.e. requiring a registration code and going online to check it once to enable the functionality is agreeable for nearly everyone, but being constantly online as a requirement when it is not technically required is nonsense for many. So it would be to have to enter a new reg key each time software is to be used or a movie watched.

Crap. Long, long post. :( Pardon everyone.

[MikkOwl]

Next year, the Ford Motor Company intends to release an 'online' control system for their cars: you don't have to be connected at all times, just when you want to use the accelerator or brakes...

Ridiculous? Of course it is. Nobody would even think of coming out with such c**p if it wasn't the computer software market. I don't know what the real solution is, but hopefully whoever is responsible for publishing SoW:BoB will realise from the RoF fiasco that p***ing off potential customers and encouraging the 'crackers' and pirates isn't a sensible marketing strategy. In my local supermarket, there are plenty of opportunities to 'pirate' a tin of baked beans or a bar of chocolate, but the profit they make on making purchases easier for the rest of us outweigh the losses. I'm no fan of the retail food industry, but at least they understand how to look at the big picture.
Good analogy with the supermarket there. I'm going to remember it for the future. Copyright crimes are very different in that no one is deprived of anything, unlike the supermarket analogy. But the concept of business doing something that is good/bad for them is absolutely the same. :)

[Flanker35M]

S!

Bought Silent Hunter 5, it needs internet connection when playing. No biggie for me, as RoF used it too. I understand the reasons why people dislike such features, but for me no problem at all. I have a legit copy of the game and no need to keep DVD in drive with this feature..much like Steam.

[mazex]

I get so tired of all this hysteria regarding DRM systems whatever they are called...

I just don't understand why people get so upset? Software has been protected by different versions of copy protection systems since the C64 days. Remember the tedious work of finding weird codes in those manuals? As it is now the online solution is the one that will prevail. Just face it. Everyone that are in the target group for buying games are connected now They have spent enough cash on a rig to be able to play the game and computers like that are in 97% of the cases connected to the Internet. The ones not connected are the ones travelling in the lap of their owner and that is a minor problem. People on 28k modems are not in the target group, and they have not been for 10 years.

I just installed Battlefield: Bad Company 2 yesterday and after the installation I got the question:

Do you want a DVD check when starting the game or online autentication that removes the need for having the disc in the computer?

I suppose you can guess what I choose? The alternative that makes it easiest for me as a paying customer. I just love that I don't to find a disc to play ROF.

There is only ONE developer of high budget sub simulators right now and their publisher decides to go with and online DRM system. What happens? Half of the so called "community" says they will not buy the game (like they refused to buy the excellent SH3 due to Star Force whining). It's fortunate that they are only a couple of hundred people so their crying will have no effect. The "men on the street" will hopefully buy the game so the whiners can get SH 6 in the end. Guess what? Whoever publishes it will sure have an online protection too. As will all other games in a few years. Start looking for your old board games while the rest of us enjoys the removed need to find those discs to be able to play.

Sure - as a customer I would love to have a game with no protection systems at all. But as it is now the companies are fleeing the PC market due to piracy. The invention of a fool proof DRM system (and that will require online authentication in some way) could actually be the solution that brings on a new renaissance of PC gaming where enough copies are sold to support nice markets like the flight simulator market...

/Mazex

[csThor]

The day when you have to subject to a monthly subscription even for playing offline games will be the day when you know why people object to such bullcr@p, mazex. This is only the beginning of a development that gives publisher executives wet dreams - DLCs at every turn, monthly subscriptions even for offline content ... I for sure won't act as cow for the publishers to milk for money at every corner.

[T}{OR]

The day when you have to subject to a monthly subscription even for playing offline games will be the day when you know why people object to such bullcr@p, mazex. This is only the beginning of a development that gives publisher executives wet dreams - DLCs at every turn, monthly subscriptions even for offline content ... I for sure won't act as cow for the publishers to milk for money at every corner.

+1000. Well said.

[kimosabi]

The day when you have to subject to a monthly subscription even for playing offline games will be the day when you know why people object to such bullcr@p, mazex. This is only the beginning of a development that gives publisher executives wet dreams - DLCs at every turn, monthly subscriptions even for offline content ... I for sure won't act as cow for the publishers to milk for money at every corner.

I agree. It is neat that they have the opportunity to update or patch your game at every available time that way but that function could just as well be implemented when you choose to go online. They sure are exploiting the DLC market and just look at what X-box has become now, you can't turn it on once without being prompted about updates or "necessary" or "cool" content for your game. It's annoying to say the least. Industry is industry and if things get much worse than they are right now, I'm not buying their games. If they implement that behaviour in SOW I'm not buying that either. Updating or patching should be a user choice, not publishers.

[AdMan]

plus it's highly invasive

[Tree_UK]

Ubi is not the publisher, end of.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I don't think it's invasive at all, it's just unnecessary. I had internet problems a while ago and guess what, couldn't play Rise of Flight becase of some stupid need for being online all the time. It's reasonable that people don't like it.

Something I can't get is the problem with Star Force. Even the "old" Star Force never gave a single issue on my computer, and in latest versions it's dumbproof and doesn't install anything.

What's up with that? Buy, install, type a number in a box and you're good to go. Hard, ain't it?

[virre89]

well. Would be a nogo for me too. I already cancelled SH5 preorder for the same reason.


What a bunch of sissys , so IF BoB would require an internet connection you'd actually skip it? I know Oleg already confirmed they won't go down this road more or less, however some people are just so pecky it's both funny, ridiculous and retarded at the same time. But fine if you wanna miss out on ROF and SH5 , it's your loss no one else, and frankly i would've liked BOB to have a constant Internet connection requirement as well just as a principle.

If a DRM stops you after years of waiting i feel sorry for you and how you value the products.

[csThor]

To quote myself ...

The day when you have to subject to a monthly subscription even for playing offline games will be the day when you know why people object to such bullcr@p, mazex. This is only the beginning of a development that gives publisher executives wet dreams - DLCs at every turn, monthly subscriptions even for offline content ... I for sure won't act as cow for the publishers to milk for money at every corner.

This is why such ridiculous schemes are being introduced. The publishers want to push users into accepting DLCs at every corner and ultimately pay to play even for offline games. Have fun with micro-payments for every little thing if you're so keen on such a system. :roll:

[Sarcasm on] Want a quick flight in Storm of War - North Africa QMB? No problem, just add your credit card details for monthly subscription. Only 9,99 €. What? You don't have the new Macchi MC.202 Series III, yet? Go to our shop and purchase it. Just 14,99 €.[/Sarcasm off]

[Igo kyu]

Apparently, it's a bust.

http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/03/05/027258/Ubisofts-New-DRM-Cracked-In-One-Day

I still don't know whether SoW will be on UbiSoft.

[Blackdog_kt]

The comments on that slashdot page are hilarious

Engineering hours building unbreakable DRM: $1.6M
Marketing devoted to managing customer hostility to new DRM: $800K
Lost sales due to customers boycotting your product: $2M
Having some wiseass kid from Sweden break your DRM on the first day: Priceless
Discovering you just spent a ton of money to make the pirated version more attractive: Doubly Priceless.

The thing is, the latest stream of DRM implementations have a very ironic effect. They make the purchase tied to and dependant upon the release of a crack, ie some people buy the games thanks to the pirates. How is that so?

Well, i have frequent ISP problems. I will never buy something that doesn't work offline for single player. However, if SH5 is cracked i can buy it and install the crack on top of it and i'm good to go.

On one hand you could say the bean-counters will get the wrong message because all they look at is the amount of sales. What i would consider a good middle ground solution however, would be to buy the game, crack it and e-mail them telling them that the cracked version works better and we would prefer to buy that one if we had a choice.

I don't think DRM will survive in the long run. It's already being phased out of the music industry (where it was first introduced) and the first signs of weakness have appeared in the gaming industry as well. Look at EA. After the debacle with Spore (one of the most pirated games ever), their latest titles shipped with little to no DRM at all. For example, Dragon Age:Origins had a one-time online activation if you bought a digital download copy, while the boxed editions had a simple disc check. Look at other high profile examples as well, Fallout 3 had no protection whatsoever and it sold like mad.

In the day and age that we live in and having years of previous experience, it's naive of company executives to think they will be able to contain,railroad and manage the habbits of the PC gamer for their own needs. So, the only viable alternative for them is a very simple course of action that's been the cornerstone axiom of the market business since the ancient times: If you want to make good sales you need a good product, respect your potential customers and don't p*ss them off.

Or they can just keep chasing their DRM chimera until they go bankrupt.

[Wolf_Rider]

Next year, the Ford Motor Company intends to release an 'online' control system for their cars: you don't have to be connected at all times, just when you want to use the accelerator or brakes...

Ridiculous? Of course it is. Nobody would even think of coming out with such c**p if it wasn't the computer software market. I don't know what the real solution is, but hopefully whoever is responsible for publishing SoW:BoB will realise from the RoF fiasco that p***ing off potential customers and encouraging the 'crackers' and pirates isn't a sensible marketing strategy. In my local supermarket, there are plenty of opportunities to 'pirate' a tin of baked beans or a bar of chocolate, but the profit they make on making purchases easier for the rest of us outweigh the losses. I'm no fan of the retail food industry, but at least they understand how to look at the big picture.

Good analogy with the supermarket there. I'm going to remember it for the future. Copyright crimes are very different in that no one is deprived of anything, unlike the supermarket analogy. But the concept of business doing something that is good/bad for them is absolutely the same. :)


Actually, it was a terrible analogy, though ya get used to that sort of thing :grin:

but there is something which is quite, quite misunderstand there as well, I think... a purchaser, in reality only buys a license to run the game/ sim. The inner workings/ code. etc. etc belongs to the author/ developer/ publisher.

With copyright crimes... there is a hint in there... there are losers. They would be royalties, ownership, sales profit, etc.

Could you give some more detail on your hesitation at having to be online to perform an uninstall? (similar to online activation but for removal from the system... the uninstaller throws up a code for removal verification)


There was a court case down here in Australia featuring the movie and music houses versus ISP's. The issue was forcing ISP's to monitor and flick illegal downloaders. The plaintifs hired private investigators to join up to bittorrent, etc, and log IP addresses. The IP addresses were forwarded to the target ISP (IInet, which is the smaller of the big provider) at a volume of 3,000 per week/ over a few weeks and their refusal to honour their own ToS forced the legal action (the refusal was based on the sheer volume of complaint). The case went in favour of the ISP but is in appeal.... two weeks after that, a local got busted uploading the new super mario bros game, a week before release... his out of court settlement to nintendo was a ridiculous amount of money - AUD$1.5 million. The Federal Government here is battling to have installed a China type site/ keyword blocking service through the ISP's.

[T}{OR]

What a bunch of sissys , so IF BoB would require an internet connection you'd actually skip it? I know Oleg already confirmed they won't go down this road more or less, however some people are just so pecky it's both funny, ridiculous and retarded at the same time. But fine if you wanna miss out on ROF and SH5 , it's your loss no one else, and frankly i would've liked BOB to have a constant Internet connection requirement as well just as a principle.

If a DRM stops you after years of waiting i feel sorry for you and how you value the products.

The World doesn't rotate around you, you do know that? :)

Jokes aside, I don't want to reply in aggressive manner, like your post sounds - instead I will say this: not all people have internet connection, especially the crowd that plays SH5. There are two different roads publishers can take:

1/ Intrusive, draconian DRM style, which will only make them loose sales because people do not like to be forced to do certain things. And, like any car can be stolen, so can any software protection be cracked.

2/ More open to the community and buyers, by offering quality products and add ons to those that have the original copy. This is just the tip of the iceberg, there are many ways in which they can profit much more than the obvious message they are giving to the buyers now, which is: 'we do not care'.

[MikkOwl]

Actually, it was a terrible analogy, though ya get used to that sort of thing :grin:
Heh heh. I thought it was good, because he was only talking about smart business as far as selling copies went. The supermarket is much like the game developers in the sense that by having unguarded easily accessible collections of good scattered about, people in there can easily grab them. And some of it gets lost. They could do it in other ways to minimize theft, but they don't, because they earn more profit in the open way.

but there is something which is quite, quite misunderstand there as well, I think... a purchaser, in reality only buys a license to run the game/ sim. The inner workings/ code. etc. etc belongs to the author/ developer/ publisher.Almost everyone that buys a game, considers it to be buying a product - it is theirs. Maybe not to reverse engineer and re-sell parts of the code for their own profit. But the unlimited use of it, and the ability to sell their copy of it to others. Technically you are absolutely right - there's all those 'you must agree' things popping up in order to be able to install it.

With copyright crimes... there is a hint in there... there are losers. They would be royalties, ownership, sales profit, etc.Maybe yes, maybe no. It is a potential loss, and I think there are people who definitely would buy it if they could not copy it elsewhere, if they could justify the expenditure, if they wanted it badly enough, if they had the money, if they liked the company enough, if there was not something else they would rather spend the money on, if they were willing to risk buying something that might be very shitty, and perhaps without being able to sell their copy. Knowing who would have done what in what circumstance is impossible, and is only speculation.

A copied work does not destroy the original, and a copy in itself is not considered a "rival good" legally, and as such, not lost income. Unless, of course, someone is literally selling unauthorized copies at large quantities, and passing it off as as the official, original product/seller etc.. Like trying to sell imitation apparell with the label of the original company to people.

Could you give some more detail on your hesitation at having to be online to perform an uninstall? (similar to online activation but for removal from the system... the uninstaller throws up a code for removal verification)(Code as in you just have to enter a code to uninstall it that is on the case/manual/disc, or actually be online and connect to some server? It does not matter much though, as my specific objections are similar for both cases).

I am concerned about the potential problems it would cause if my install become non-functional due to any reason (hardware failiure the most common, but also me messing about with tweaks in my XP Home Edition, or by modding the game). This meaning that the install could dissappear off my drive (the drive itself could have died), or that some files are missing that do not permit the uninstaller to function, or internet to function in corellation. I then see the really significant pissed off expression I would have at the prospect of having a game I bought and not be able to install it, because it was not uninstalled, without messing around with begging for them to 'authorize' me to install my game on my hardware.

I'm also just not accepting the idea that the copy does not belong to me and that I would not be able to sell it to someone else. I'm not very firm with this principle though.. For example, I use Steam, and I bought several games there, including IL-2 1946. Steam does not require me to have neither a DVD in a drive nor to be online, which is as it should. But of course, I cannot sell the games to others. I have never once sold a game to anyone in my life though so it's probably why I'm letting it slide. But principally I want to be able to. :p

I am fine with some DRM/functionality limitation. But only in non-invasive ways and in ways that do not limit my freedom with 'my copy' beyond a minimum of hassle. I have 100mbit internet fiber optic connection which flies at 12 megabytes per second, yet it, as well as my router, just is not stable enough.


There was a court case down here in Australia featuring the movie and music houses versus ISP's. The issue was forcing ISP's to monitor and flick illegal downloaders. The plaintifs hired private investigators to join up to bittorrent, etc, and log IP addresses. The IP addresses were forwarded to the target ISP (IInet, which is the smaller of the big provider) at a volume of 3,000 per week/ over a few weeks and their refusal to honour their own ToS forced the legal action (the refusal was based on the sheer volume of complaint). The case went in favour of the ISP but is in appeal.... two weeks after that, a local got busted uploading the new super mario bros game, a week before release... his out of court settlement to nintendo was a ridiculous amount of money - AUD$1.5 million. The Federal Government here is battling to have installed a China type site/ keyword blocking service through the ISP's.Scary stuff. The EU and Sweden (my home) is experiencing similar things. The movie/record industry and some of the game industry are lobbying like MAD in all the local governments and in the EU headquarters. They build networks and manage to even, in a couple of cases, appoint corrupted judges to judge in critical cases regarding copyright infringement interpretation (The pirate bay trial).

Over 90% of the Swedish population (and we have a representative democracy system - or so we thought) is completely against the idea of copyright extending to include copying media/software for private, non-commercial use. Yet the laws that are being altered represent the interests only of the industry special interest group.

The governments are also very keen on surveilance and wire-tapping + storing all communication through ISP's and mobile phone companies of EVERY citizen in the whole country irellevant of being suspected of a crime or not, which is being implemented too. I think the two are related. Need infrastructure to carry out either of them, and they are both mutually supportive of each others' cause, so..

[HKLE]

What a bunch of sissys , so IF BoB would require an internet connection you'd actually skip it? I know Oleg already confirmed they won't go down this road more or less, however some people are just so pecky it's both funny, ridiculous and retarded at the same time. But fine if you wanna miss out on ROF and SH5 , it's your loss no one else, and frankly i would've liked BOB to have a constant Internet connection requirement as well just as a principle.

If a DRM stops you after years of waiting i feel sorry for you and how you value the products.

Hi

I was absent for some time and am surprised to find so many comments.

Just to answer this comment:
The point is not to be online or not - the point is, if you like being thrown out in the middle of a dogfight because of no internet connection or a connection broken down. This - in my opinion - is a killer for my motivation even to BUY the game. Single player status is offline by definition - even if UBI wants to change that.

This problem happens much more likely with games such as SH5, where missions tend to last several hours. So - this game may not be affected so much - still I do not want such a DRM applied to it - and as said above - I would not buy it.

Additionally - customers get confused by these online options. There currently is a discussion going on (at subsim), where people lost save games because of DRM forcing them to store it online. UBI meanwhile gave them the possibility to store locally as well, but synchronizing with server saves seems to be tricky sometimes.

You like cloud computing in this way - go ahead. I shall not follow. And I do not think, that I am pecky because of this opinion, or retarded or ....

[Wolf_Rider]

fair enough mikowl... you have some good points there and interesting in your country's parrallel situation, re 'net filters.
The onselling of copy (books/ software/ music, etc) though is where the writer/ copyright holder suffers a loss in losing out on royalties.... this is the part which needs to be kept in mind.

out of curiosity, what operating system do you run?


~


it boils down to, I suppose, some peoples' right to protect their work and other people feeling it is their right to ignore that, eh?
(socialism can never work effectively without capitalism)

[tagTaken2]

troll troll troll troll etc

Get out.