An Interview with Oleg

[Icewolf]

This would be impossible considering the numbers and locations but as an example I use a business software that generates a code number everytime it is installed and to activate it, I must phone this code number into their office ,they then give me an activation code that I must manually type into an activation box.

[Qpassa]

Originally Posted by Icewolf

This would be impossible considering the numbers and locations but as an example I use a business software that generates a code number everytime it is installed and to activate it, I must phone this code number into their office ,they then give me an activation code that I must manually type into an activation box.

photoshop uses some similar protection and have been hacked...

[WTE_Galway]

Oh well ... my gaming machine is offline.

I don't even fly FSX (with its one off activation) because its too much hassle to renew the activation.

The assumption that everyone that buys games is online is actually unfounded.

[zauii]

Been waiting way to long for this baby to care if it has online activation or whatever.. i am not missing out.
Sure if you live under circumstances where you've no decent connection options you can be worried but otherwise, just about any modern society has broadband.
Frankly it's not more than right that the developers exploit their right to protect their games, even if it's via online activation you do accept the terms when you buy the game.

The whole shenanigan about "We're not physically owning it then" Is just child's play, this has been done since 10 years back, besides a 40-50$ dollar investment ain't gonna cost you your life is it?
If it is maybe you should reconsider gaming at all...

[Blackdog_kt]

It's not about shennanigans actually, it's about options, rewarding what we consider good game design and the publisher rewarding his customers in return. If i have to accept a constant connectivity requirement with all the potentiall technical problems it poses, then the game better have some pretty funky features tied to that online protection scheme.

I used to play an MMO game which is, of course, always online. I accepted the risk of downtime because the connectivity requirement gave me so much in return, plus the company reimbursed its customers with extra subscription time if downtime was their fault. Heck, the connectivity requirement was in fact the entire game and it was a rich, varied and very competitive experience far and away ahead of everything i've seen in multiplayer in my life.

However, if a developer spends 30% of his total budget on implementing DRM that targets the non-buyers, instead of spending it on features to please the buyers, then that's a developer i refuse to reward with my cash, at least until workarounds surface that enable me to use the software with the least amount of possible overhead and things that could go wrong.

By that time the game is a lot cheaper too, which in the end evens out pretty nicely. If they force me to hunt for illegal modifications before their game is playable, then it's only fair that i'll pick it up at a reduced price. It's not like i'm stealing after all, a game that i buy is mine and i can do whatever i want with it. The EULA might say otherwise but EULAs rarely hold against consumer laws in any EU court anyway, so if i buy the game i can mod/hack it or do whatever else i want with it, as long as i'm not reselling modified copies and pretending it's my original work. If i buy a car that runs on unleaded and i want to try running it on 110 octane avgas that's my right to do so, it's the same with computer games.

I think the main drive behind DRM is not limiting piracy, it's limiting second hand sales, which is again a violation of most established consumer laws and ethics. If i buy it it's mine to use, change (as long as i don't redistribute it for monetary gain), donate and resell, end of the story. That's what DRM targets primarily and tries to change.
What they can't grasp is that they will never be able to totally control this, because legitimate buyers can just as well use modifications to circumvent the publisher's infringement on their consumer rights. They are essentially throwing money down the drain instead of using them on cooler stuff, like a fat, printed manual that actually documents the game's features like in the old days, or an extended storyline arc instead of the "weekend wonder" gameplay spans that some of the new games have.

Let them do what they want, we can still vote with our wallets and mod the heck out of anything we don't like.

[Untamo]

+1 @ Blackdog's comments.

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

It's not about shennanigans actually, it's about options, rewarding what we consider good game design and the publisher rewarding his customers in return. If i have to accept a constant connectivity requirement with all the potentiall technical problems it poses, then the game better have some pretty funky features tied to that online protection scheme.

I used to play an MMO game which is, of course, always online. I accepted the risk of downtime because the connectivity requirement gave me so much in return, plus the company reimbursed its customers with extra subscription time if downtime was their fault. Heck, the connectivity requirement was in fact the entire game and it was a rich, varied and very competitive experience far and away ahead of everything i've seen in multiplayer in my life.

However, if a developer spends 30% of his total budget on implementing DRM that targets the non-buyers, instead of spending it on features to please the buyers, then that's a developer i refuse to reward with my cash, at least until workarounds surface that enable me to use the software with the least amount of possible overhead and things that could go wrong.

By that time the game is a lot cheaper too, which in the end evens out pretty nicely. If they force me to hunt for illegal modifications before their game is playable, then it's only fair that i'll pick it up at a reduced price. It's not like i'm stealing after all, a game that i buy is mine and i can do whatever i want with it. The EULA might say otherwise but EULAs rarely hold against consumer laws in any EU court anyway, so if i buy the game i can mod/hack it or do whatever else i want with it, as long as i'm not reselling modified copies and pretending it's my original work. If i buy a car that runs on unleaded and i want to try running it on 110 octane avgas that's my right to do so, it's the same with computer games.

I think the main drive behind DRM is not limiting piracy, it's limiting second hand sales, which is again a violation of most established consumer laws and ethics. If i buy it it's mine to use, change (as long as i don't redistribute it for monetary gain), donate and resell, end of the story. That's what DRM targets primarily and tries to change.
What they can't grasp is that they will never be able to totally control this, because legitimate buyers can just as well use modifications to circumvent the publisher's infringement on their consumer rights. They are essentially throwing money down the drain instead of using them on cooler stuff, like a fat, printed manual that actually documents the game's features like in the old days, or an extended storyline arc instead of the "weekend wonder" gameplay spans that some of the new games have.

Let them do what they want, we can still vote with our wallets and mod the heck out of anything we don't like.

Be careful with all that freemarket thinking mate, people will think your a Yank or something.

[Codex]

Originally Posted by Icewolf

This would be impossible considering the numbers and locations but as an example I use a business software that generates a code number everytime it is installed and to activate it, I must phone this code number into their office ,they then give me an activation code that I must manually type into an activation box.

Originally Posted by Qpassa

photoshop uses some similar protection and have been hacked...

Same goes for Windows, you have a certain number of installs before you have to ring up and activate after a fresh install. It's interesting to think that software piracy has most likely contributed to Microsoft OS's being used on 98+% of PC's since the late 90's

I wish developers would get 100% earnings for developing games and apps etc but we don't live in a perfect world and we do need anti piracy measures, but +1 to Blackdog_kt for those comments, they're right on the money. I personally think anti piracy measures need to be re thought and become more imaginative.

[dduff442]

What really gets people going is that measures masquerade as anti-piracy requirements that are really methods of extending producers control over media, introducing anti-competitive elements like planned obsolescence into products. Many of the newest and most fashionable media, e.g. iPhone apps, exhibit rigid producer control. Some products have auto-update features that may limit functionality at any time chosen by the producer.

Not so long ago, purchasers of an ebook edition of 1984 discovered it had disappeared from their machines without their consent. Even ignoring the massive irony, the very idea that you can buy something only for the seller to unilaterally rescind the sale without notice is appalling.

DRM schemes requiring occasional net connection are annoying but bearable -- so long as consumers can be reassured they're not being muscled into a place where they're at the mercy of the content producer.

The music industry complains loudest about piracy, but is piracy really their problem or is it that they haven't had anything novel to bring to the market in more than a decade? No new Elvis, no new Beatles etc. New forms of music have reverted to their condition prior to the 1950s -- niche products of little interest to the mass market.

dduff442