GOG gone? DRM'd? WTF?

[enderfall]

The pirates aren't screwing legitimate consumers over, the publishers are. The pirates are just an excuse.

If the publishers could they'd find a way to charge you per-level to play a game.

You're right. The legitimate consumers are getting screwed over by the same companies they are giving their money to. Pirates don't factor at all in this... . Do you think that if "pirating" did not exist, that there would be a reason for publishers to add DRM?

Why do people continue to defend pirates anyway?

[JordanPlayer]

Oh, and once again, thank you pirates. Yet another example of how they are screwing over legitimate consumers (if in fact my theory is correct).

As another user has already stated, pirates are just the scapegoat for the publishing industry to fall back on. DRM included in games has always been easily bypassed by online groups and does not provide protection... why would publishers keep including DRM then when it only interferes with legitimate customers? The reason is to cut down used game sales. Legitimate customers would be the group reselling the game, most pirates don't sell physical copies. This is why publishers (such as EA on sports games) have started including the $10 fee to play online because somehow they feel entitled to make money from the sale of their used game.

Paid DLC is a way for publishers to squeeze more money from customers because it is nearly straight profit and isn't something you can resell. This kept Gamestop out of this market until just recently with in-store DLC purchase capabilities.

[enderfall]

As another user has already stated, pirates are just the scapegoat for the publishing industry to fall back on.

But why would anyone need to put any defense measures in (regardless of how much they actually prevent pirating) if pirates did not exist? Do you think that crime is going to be eliminated by hiring more police officers? No, it might go down slightly, but there will always be criminals. The point is, some criminals would be deterred by higher police levels. Relating that to pirating, publishers believe that some level of pirating would be eliminated by DRM, thus enabling them more revenue.

The reason is to cut down used game sales

Except gog.com had ZERO impact in the used game market. So yes, pirates are to blame.

[GSZX1337]

Looks like I'll be buying Duke Nukem 3D and Shogo: Mobile Armor Division on disc then.

[JordanPlayer]

But why would anyone need to put any defense measures in (regardless of how much they actually prevent pirating) if pirates did not exist? Relating that to pirating, publishers believe that some level of pirating would be eliminated by DRM, thus enabling them more revenue.

I do believe that DRM was developed in response to piracy; however I don't think it has evolved over the years as a tool to continue preventing it. No matter what type of DRM is on a game it is relatively easy to bypass (and usually similar). DRM acts as a control for the publisher over what a legitimate customer can and can't do with their software. This can be anything from requiring a disc to be present in the drive (so it is harder for multiple people to share/borrow a game at once), restricting installation limits (harder to resell, customer is "licensing software", less likely to let people borrow), etc. Both of those controls benefit the publisher.

Except gog.com had ZERO impact in the used game market. So yes, pirates are to blame.

Most publishers like to have control over their products. If a game doesn't have DRM it can be easily distributed for free (even by legitimate customers); if it has DRM this distribution (sharing/borrowing) is restricted and would nudge someone wanting to play the game to make a purchase (such as through that website).

[enderfall]

I do believe that DRM was developed in response to piracy; however I don't think it has evolved over the years as a tool to continue preventing it. No matter what type of DRM is on a game it is relatively easy to bypass (and usually similar). DRM acts as a control for the publisher over what a legitimate customer can and can't do with their software. This can be anything from requiring a disc to be present in the drive (so it is harder for multiple people to share/borrow a game at once), restricting installation limits (harder to resell, customer is "licensing software", less likely to let people borrow), etc. Both of those controls benefit the publisher.

Like I said, I'm not disputing the merits of what is and what is not DRM, nor am I trying to say that it actually acts as a monumentally successful deterrent. The bottom line is DRM is a direct result of pirating. Period. No pirates, not DRM, it's that simple.

If a game doesn't have DRM it can be easily distributed for free (even by legitimate customers); if it has DRM this distribution (sharing/borrowing) is restricted and would nudge someone wanting to play the game to make a purchase (such as through that website).

That is pirating. Just because you don't download it through a torrent, doesn't mean it is not the definition of pirating.

[JordanPlayer]

The bottom line is DRM is a direct result of pirating. Period. No pirates, not DRM, it's that simple.

DRM is the result of publishers wanting complete control over what the customer does with their product. A publisher's perfect world would be everyone paying full price for their game, never reselling it, and never letting a friend borrow the physical game to play... essentially 1 license per person rather than the customer actually "owning" the product. All three of those things are in contrast to what quite a few gamers today do; many people wait for prices to drop, lots of people sell/trade in used, and a decent amount of people let friends borrow games. The EA Sports online activation code is a great example of DRM control for consoles where piracy is at a much smaller level... they want to cut down on used sales for their sports games where they don't get any of the profit. On the PC Activation Limits do the same thing for future resell. DRM would have found it's way into games whether they were pirated or not, publishers seem to loath Gamestop's used sales cutting into their profits (how they feel entitled to profits when someone is selling used is a mystery to me).

Article about recent court ruling:
http://kombo.com/news/Court_Ruling_Coul ... s_Illegal/

That is pirating. Just because you don't download it through a torrent, doesn't mean it is not the definition of pirating.

I was talking about borrowing a physical disc/cartridge from a friend... in no way or form is that pirating.

PS: Should be my last reply; cluttering the GOG topic

[Droid party]

If the publishers could they'd find a way to charge you per-level to play a game.

And that would be the day that I put down the controller and go outside to play forever.

[aaron]

but where will consumers get their old games? if only someone on a small, independent retro-gaming forum were selling some old pc games with a buy one get one free deal!

hey, you can put links in your signature. cool!

[Pulsar_t]

Publishers ought to just release all old games as freeware, or abandonware for that matter. A few already do that, and kudos to them too, but is there a reason why the likes of DN3D are still being sold when its engine has been open-sourced for many years now?