Let's talk DRM.

[MinisterofDOOM]

With Ubisoft's always-online DRM fiasco now gaining some serious steam, I figured this was a great time to see where NICO's gamers stand on the subject of DRM.

For those not aware, Ubisoft's PC games starting with Assassin's Creed 2 (just released) are going to require you to be connected to the internet at all times in order to play them. This includes single player games (like AC2). This is not a single authentication, requiring a quick check-in. The system requires a CONSTANT connection. If the connection is broken, the game BOOTS YOU OUT and your progress since the last save is lost. That means if your router dies, your ISP just sucks, you trip over your modem cable, or Ubisoft's master servers go down, you're screwed. Once the connection is back you can continue playing from the last save.

Not only is this COMPLETELY unacceptable, but Ubisoft has the gall to present it as though it's something beneficial or ingenious. When criticized, they don't even have the nads to stand up and say "Yes, it's utter BS, but it's what we're doing." Instead, they act like there's nothing at all ridiculous about it. They talk about how you can carry on from the last save as though that's perfectly normal and you have no right to expect anything more from your game. Even worse, this system means you simply can't play these games when you don't have an internet connection. No playing them on your laptop on the bus or train or plane or in the car. Which is a joke.My favorite part came early on, though, when they were responding to criticism of the limited number of installations allowed by their old DRM model. They presented this new always-online system as an "unlimited installs" DRM model, as though that was something that had never been done before, and something that could not be done by any other means than this always-only authentication. What a joke. Their PR people are playing dumb better than anyone I've ever seen. They really just REFUSE to acknowledge that people could be upset by this...or could be anything but ecstatic about it.

Anyway, onto the real picture:My view is pretty simple. I despise DRM. And the reason I hate it is because it ONLY harms the law-abiders. DRM does not stop pirates, it merely delays them. Admittedly delays can translate into a lot of saved sales on launch day, but at what cost? Saddling all HONEST, PAYING customers with constant mistrust? And that's where my real intolerance for DRM comes into play. It isn't just the inconvenience, it's the fact that DRM is, effectively, a game publisher's way of treating every one of its customers as a criminal. They can't trust us. Or DRM wouldn't exist. Except there's just one problem with that: I don't pirate games! I have no intention of pirating games. In fact I have the opposite intention and would have regardless of the existence or lack of existence of DRM in the entertainment marketplace. When I buy a game, I am supporting that developer, and that is a very conscious thing for me. Entertainment as an investment. It's not exactly a new concept. But it completely undermines DRM from the consumer point of view.And from the pirate side of things, we have the simple fact that they are never stopped by DRM, only hindered. So if the product has a high enough profile, it'll get pirated. It WILL get pirated. DRM or no DRM. But NOT BY ME. So why should I have to be saddled with mistrust and inconvenience when A) I'm not the pirate and B) the game is still getting pirated anyway?

DRM is a disgusting and backward idea. The very name is disgusting, and I don't use the word "disgusting" lightly. "Digital rights management." Think about what that means. If someone else is "managing" the rights you supposedly "own," are they really your rights? Do you really own them? If I pay for a license to a software program, I deserve the rights to that license. Not "managed" rights, or restricted rights. Not rights that are available when the publisher deems necessary. They are MY RIGHTS. Not the publishers. I have paid. The transaction is completed. The publisher should be out of the picture. It's not their business at this point. If I buy a case of Coke, does Swire, the local bottling facility, deserve to tell me when and where I can drink it? Even if it helps curb coke thefts? Can the Ford dealer dictate where I'm permitted to drive my car? If none of those things make sense, why do we let software developers tell us how we can use the software we LEGALLY PURCHASE?

As outlandish as Ubisoft's new DRM model is, I'm kind of glad they did it. I can see it drawing huge amounts of media attention--maybe even media outside the gaming realm--to DRM as a whole. Starforce was a big deal a few years ago, but it was not well known outside software circles. I'd love to see Ubisoft's screwup put them and DRM on the evening news. I'm sick of game publishers telling me what I can do with my games. I pay $40, $50, $60 apiece for their products and that should earn me the RIGHT to use it how, when, and where I see fit. The piracy issue might not be going away, but neither is the issue of my rights. The distinguishing characteristic of these two issues is that one represents the honest, law-abiding, paying customer, and the other represents criminals. Last I checked, it takes income to make product. Maybe publishers should reconsider who they offend. I would say they have a lot more to lose by alienating customers than they even by entirely ignoring piracy. "Lost sales" to piracy is one thing. A common argument is that most pirated games aren't really "lost" as the people pirating the game wouldn't have paid for it even if they hadn't pirated it. But all that aside, lost sales from would-be legitimate customers should be the publishers' primary concern. They are certainly a lot more tangible.

Also, here's a link to Ubisoft's PR guys in full Ignorance Mode while under heavy fire:http://www.computerandvideogam...e=pcg

[RCA]

Think about what that means. If someone else is "managing" the rights you supposedly "own," are they really your rights? Do you really own them?

I didn't know what DRM is and as soon as I read what you wrote, I immediately thought of the examples you used. It's BS and I hope HOPE people destroy what ever infrastructure Ubisoft has to handle DRM (like what they did to MW2 and their server issue). I hope this becomes Ubisoft's biggest mistake. Also I won't be buying any of Ubisoft's products as long as they are using DRM. I'm right with you MoD, it is absolutely unacceptable.

Your threads are usually pretty good and I usually read them, but do they need to be SOO long? You're killing me.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I suck at being succinct, I know. Sorry.

[Hijacker]

Penny Arcade had an issue on this exact topic last friday:

I agree that DRM is the spawn of Satan himself. I do understand that companies need to protect their games to an extent, but I've seen too many rootkits and other horrific things installed on a user's computer for the sake of copy protection.

SecuROM from Spore installed a rootkit, and EA had a lawsuit on their hands for that as their own EULA did not state that it would be installed. Sony had a similar issue crop up around the turn of the century with their music CDs installing rootkits.

The irony of the situation is that every time a publisher comes up with another outlandish idea of DRM, it's taken as a challenge from the community to crack. I've watched these dances from afar with the PSP Homebrew, and the iPhone Jailbreak. The companies aren't winning the war, but are in fact giving the people on the other end reasons to do what they're doing.

Ubisoft's idea of DRM is cream of the crop retarded. Even Steam doesn't require an internet connection to play games in single player mode. I rarely wish this on any company out there that produces good quality games, but I hope Ubisoft fails miserably with this. While my computer has rarely been without an internet connection for the past 10 years or so, having a company tell me I will require one to play their games is a slap to the face. Primarily because now I have to open up my computer to their cloud server (in the advent I were to actually own a future Ubisoft title). Having to maintain a connection like that opens my side up to potentially harmful acts from outside sources.

No matter which way you look at it, nobody wins in these scenarios, except for those that this type of draconian software was designed to stop. Need I remind everyone of IWNet and how it's hardened a community against the company as well as given them reason to hack the game (when the initial reason of it was to lower hacking rates).

EDIT: I was just reading Tycho's post in regards to that comic, and he used the word draconian as well. I find it humorous that multiple people call this avenue the same horrific word.

DOUBLE EDIT: Even Ubisoft has admitted they are expecting this DRM to be cracked and made null and void. It makes me wonder why they even bothered with it and didn't do something else to delay the piracy.

PCGM: Do Ubi believe this DRM is unhackable?Ubi Response: They accept that it's all DRM's fate to be eventually hacked, explaining that internally, they've already talked of a timescale for how long their games will be protected by it. But, they believe that it's secure enough for them. "We wouldn't do it if we didn't believe in it. The guys who designed it believe in it. Do we think that it's the one system that God has sent onto earth that will never be cracked by anybody ever? We can't guarantee that, but we believe in it.

"

Taken from a Q&A with PC Gamer and Ubisoft.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Even STARFORCE has admitted that no DRM is crack-proof. They offer up timeframes and show that, depending on the importance (for lack of a better term) of the title, that timeframe can vary. Some games no one cares about are never cracked as no one cares to pirate them. But the big-name ones are always cracked in a hurry.

It's just a matter of weighing your costs. Is DRM worth what it costs honest paying customers? Publishers say yes, customers say no. Which pretty much answers the question right there. If it's bad for customers, it's bad for business.

That comic is good...but I don't know anyone who actually thinks like that. I don't say "I'll pirate it, then." I say "screw 'em." I won't buy it, and I won't play it.

[Hijacker]

You and I have the same attitude. I won't buy the game, nor will I pirate it. However, as Tycho stated, there's a LOT of people out there that will pirate a game because they think they're justified due to being upset.

[RCA]

The man represents pirates. The car represents paying customers. The bus represents Ubisoft DRM

Pretty well summed up...

[Empty V]

This is a very touchy subject and has been for years. I remember the first huge DRM discussions back when iTunes started adding DRM to their purchased music and iPods. I can understand both sides of the story. The dev's are sick of losing income to deadbeat pirates and the real customers are sick of the inconvenience. Realistically if the pirates can't krack the app chances are they're not going to buy it. It's not in their nature to monetarily support people creating apps they enjoy. I consider them the leeches of the electronic age. Guess who suffers, all of the law abiding torrent users out there, including myself.

BTW the only DRM apple has on their apps is that if you buy their pro-apps suite(final cut studio) you can't have the same serial # active on the same network. When you buy a new OS disk there isn't a serial number or activation attached to it. So basically nothing is stopping you from distributing it and obviously they're 100% aware of this and I don't see them changing their ways. Ohh yeah their last major OS upgrade was only $29.

[MinisterofDOOM]

The dev's are sick of losing income to deadbeat pirates and the real customers are sick of the inconvenience.

It's not the developers who push DRM, it's publishers.

[Empty V]

It's not the developers who push DRM, it's publishers.

You're right, my bad.

[C-Kwik]

While I understand both sides, I think the impact of this would be minute. Few people don't have access to internet on their PC these days. Hell, a ton of people play almost solely online. And I'm sure they've done enough analysis to determine that its worth it to lose the small very small percentage of consumers who do not have access to internet all the time than the impact of pirating. While implementation of DRM has negative side effects, they are typically small for the majority. And before you start pointing fingers at the people who make and publish games, consider they are just responding to the people that exploit it. The root cause in all of this are those who pirate games. If pirating were a non-issue, then DRM would have no need to exist at all. The way I see it, the people being most vocal about this issue should be the ones cracking down the hardest on pirates. The irony is most people will be quick to criticize a company for implementing DRM but sits idly by when they hear news of a game being hacked and open to pirating (not that it tends to be as public).

You and I have the same attitude. I won't buy the game, nor will I pirate it. However, as Tycho stated, there's a LOT of people out there that will pirate a game because they think they're justified due to being upset.

Actually, I tend to think that most people on the technical side of hacking a game are doing it for the challenge and perhaps the noteriety. The people who use the hacks are likely either the cheap people who aren't willing to pay for a game and/or those who think its cool to not have to pay for their games. There's a bit of noteriety in being able to say to your friends that you get all your games for free or that you have or know how to get access to it. Its unfortunate as there should be much more pride in being able to say that you worked hard and earned the ability to pay for your own games.

Now keep in mind, I hate that there is so much security on current consoles. I'd love to be able to put a modern console in my car with the ability to play games off the hard drive. I had that exact set-up with an original XBOX. While I had the ability to copy games directly onto the hard drive, I only put games on it that I owned. Its unfortunate that I can't do this with the current XBOX, but I certainly can't blame MS for making it this way considering how bad it got with the first XBOX.

[MinisterofDOOM]

While I understand both sides, I think the impact of this would be minute. Few people don't have access to internet on their PC these days.

On their home desktops, sure. What about everywhere else? What about playing the game on the train on your laptop, or the countless other locations that ARE NOT at home, hard-wired, and always-online? No wifi, no game. THAT ALONE makes it unacceptable. And justifying it with "well, it's not that big a deal" doesn't change the fact that it is wrong. I OWN the damn game. It is as simple as that. Any restrictions on how, where, when, if I can play it after I pay for it should not be legal.

And of course piracy is the reason for DRM. The whole point is that piracy is going to continue existing regardless of DRM's exsitence. Piracy might be the reason for DRM, but publishers don't HAVE to use it. The argument isn't over whether DRM has a purpose. It's whether the benefits are worth the costs. I don't believe they are. And I CERTAINLY think that publishers should be consciously be seeking the least impactful forms of DRM possible.

I basically entirely disagree with you. It is NOT a small portion of people who suffer from DRM. EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO BUYS A GAME suffers from it. Having to leave a disk in a drive to play a game. Having to "check in" with servers. Having to deal with limited installs. That's not a small number of people. Whether it's a PROBLEM for them is another thing, but again, last I checked wrong is wrong all the time, not just when it becomes annoying. I don't draw the line at being annoyed. Sure, DRM isn't always completely inconvenient. But the fact remains that someone is trying to tell you what you can do with something you own. It's unconstitutional. It should not be allowed.

[C-Kwik]

On their home desktops, sure. What about everywhere else? What about playing the game on the train on your laptop, or the countless other locations that ARE NOT at home, hard-wired, and always-online? No wifi, no game. THAT ALONE makes it unacceptable. And justifying it with "well, it's not that big a deal" doesn't change the fact that it is wrong. I OWN the damn game. It is as simple as that. Any restrictions on how, where, when, if I can play it after I pay for it should not be legal.

Sure. But how many people actually use laptops for gaming in a place that is not connected to some network? I see people playing WoW at school all the time. It sucks indeed, but the impact is small.

As for being legal, you do not own the content. Only the right to use it. As such, I'm pretty sure they can dictate how and when one can be allowed to use it. Perhaps this is a technical legal argument, and certainly not ideal from a consumer perspective, but again, the impact is likely to be very small.

And of course piracy is the reason for DRM. The whole point is that piracy is going to continue existing regardless of DRM's exsitence. Piracy might be the reason for DRM, but publishers don't HAVE to use it. The argument isn't over whether DRM has a purpose. It's whether the benefits are worth the costs. I don't believe they are. And I CERTAINLY think that publishers should be consciously be seeking the least impactful forms of DRM possible.

They don't have to use it, of course. But its naive to think they didn't put some thought and analysis into it. The result of the analysis could be wrong, but its what they are going to go with. For them, the bottom line is most important. And if they are deciding to go forth with such DRM, then their projection is likely that this is more profitable.

I basically entirely disagree with you. It is NOT a small portion of people who suffer from DRM. EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO BUYS A GAME suffers from it. Having to leave a disk in a drive to play a game. Having to "check in" with servers. Having to deal with limited installs. That's not a small number of people.

Again, it comes down to impact. Is inserting a disc to play a game unreasonable? Particularly if the game is not an online game with a unique ID (Counter-Strike for example). Or one that's tied to a monthly service charge and account based (WoW). Such nuances hardly constitutes a major impact. Hell, I'm not even sure I'd call that minor. How many people it affects is only part of the equation. How much trouble it causes is another.

This particular piece of DRM is more intrusive than the others you mentioned, but potentially more effective initially. Which is probably most effective as if it delays finding a workaround for long enough that the demand of the game is down, then the overall impact from pirating might be significantly reduced. However, another argument might be that this could remove the need for having to put a disc in the drive (something you mentioned as an impact of DRM). What each person puts more value on will vary. The reality is they can't please everyone. Not reducing the amount of pirating that occurs is likely not a realistic option for them. This appears to be PC specific as well. And PC games are generally more notorious for hacking games as it generally requires no hardware modifications and have little risk of bricking a PC. They could just move completely to consoles, if it got bad enough, but I'm sure they do realize that there is a strong and viable PC market.

Whether it's a PROBLEM for them is another thing, but again, last I checked wrong is wrong all the time, not just when it becomes annoying. I don't draw the line at being annoyed. Sure, DRM isn't always completely inconvenient. But the fact remains that someone is trying to tell you what you can do with something you own. It's unconstitutional. It should not be allowed.

In an ideal world, things are all black and white, right and wrong. The reality is we live in a pretty grey world. Even with regards to legal issues; perhaps especially. And how is it unconstitutional?

[MinisterofDOOM]

They don't have to use it, of course. But its naive to think they didn't put some thought and analysis into it.

I don't think that. What I think is that they did their analyses and decided to hell with the customer, because no one will actually do anything about it. Except, as EA and Starforce learned, sometimes they actually do. And that's where a lot of my issue with DRM comes from. A lot of companies are perfectly happy to step all over their honest customers in their attempts to run off pirates. Sony and the PSP are a great example. Starforce is another. Ubisoft is the worst yet. The companies do NOT genuinely care about their customers. All they care about is whether the customers are upset enough to stop handing over money. So they're telling us right there: pirates are more important to them than customers. Which is backward. And DRM is the focal point of that misthinking.

Quote »Again, it comes down to impact.[/quote]NO. It does not. It comes down to RIGHTS. Is it okay for someone to shoot you as long as it doesn't hurt you very much? DRM is DRM is DRM. It's ALL unacceptable. It has always been unacceptable. It will always be unacceptable.

Quote »The reality is they can't please everyone.[/quote]The only person they should be worried about pleasing is the guy handing over his $60. And he's the guy getting bent over. DRM isn't about PLEASING anyone. It's about holding their hand so they can't be naughty.

Quote »In an ideal world, things are all black and white, right and wrong. The reality is we live in a pretty grey world. Even with regards to legal issues; perhaps especially. And how is it unconstitutional? [/quote]The world is very black and white. People would have you believe otherwise, but the fact is right is right, wrong is wrong, and integrity stands for less every day. Everyone is treated like a criminal because they might be. It's everywhere. And adding measures to restrict, oversee, regulate, or babysit is all an invasion of personal rights and privacy. What I do in my home is NO ONE's business but my own. If I make a thousand copies of a game in my living room, that's my business. If I use them to profit, then it becomes the business of the original creator. But PERSONAL USE is something that can never be allowed to be invaded, or we're setting a dangerous precedent. Yes, this means restrictions must be lighter, and piracy might run more rampant. The rights of individuals must ALWAYS come before the profits of businesses. DRM is exactly the other way around. It is, on the most fundamental level, WRONG.

As for the whole "not buying the product, you're buying a license to the product" deal...on some levels that's entirely irrelevant. I have never cared for the whole EULA thing, either, mainly because you have no choice but to agree, but can only read it after purchasing and opening the product...which means in most cases it can't be returned. It's an old issue, but it fits right in with the DRM problem: more managing of my rights. More important than the purchased license is that things are purchased with an understanding that the purchased item belongs to the purchaser. If you're going to defy that convention and pull the "you agree to this license or cannot use this product" crap, it needs to be on the box, not in the installer. DRM restrictions on the box. And repercussions on the pricetag. $60 for a game I can play whenever? Sure. For the game I can only play when Ubisoft lets me? That's less product. I expect an appropriately reduced pricetag.EULA is inherently flawed anyway, and always has been. There were similar debates to this about EULAs a decade or so ago. The big problem with the EULA is that you aren't required to agree to it to make the purchase, only to use the product. It's a legal bait-and-switch.

If publishers want to make DRM part of the product, they can't play one side. A $60 game isn't a $60 game anymore if I can't play it. It doesn't matter what form of ethereal agreement the $60 was traded for.

In the end, the problem is that publishers believe they can slap DRM on a game and go an as though nothing has changed. As long as enough end users still buy the thing to profit, they don't care. They have no incentive to do things right, or to make themselves accountable for the changes they're making on the user end. They'd make us all stream live video of ourselves holding the game disc and reciting a one-time password before playing if they could get away with it. I am not tolerant of that attitude. I think it is disgusting and I think something needs to be done about it. But the lack of understanding and exposure of the problem on the public level is miniscule. Hence my hope that Ubisoft's gaff will attract a little higher profile attention as time goes on.

I am not a criminal.I will not be treated like one.It does not get any simpler than that.

[C-Kwik]

I don't think that. What I think is that they did their analyses and decided to hell with the customer, because no one will actually do anything about it. Except, as EA and Starforce learned, sometimes they actually do. And that's where a lot of my issue with DRM comes from. A lot of companies are perfectly happy to step all over their honest customers in their attempts to run off pirates. Sony and the PSP are a great example. Starforce is another. Ubisoft is the worst yet. The companies do NOT genuinely care about their customers. All they care about is whether the customers are upset enough to stop handing over money. So they're telling us right there: pirates are more important to them than customers. Which is backward. And DRM is the focal point of that misthinking.

How are they stepping over ALL their customers. Its only those who might feel an impact from this that would be affected. If it was going to imapct every customer to an unreasonable extent, do you think they would have done this? And they are in business to make money. And money determines how a company proceeds. Bottom line is what they are after. As for pirates being more important, it comes down to this. How many people will be affected by this DRM to the point that they wouldn't buy the game vs how much they would lose due to piracy. As I said, the impact will probably be quite small. Even many that are not happy about this would still buy the game and play it as they will still have access to internet much of the time. Is it perfect? Nope. But its their RIGHT to make a game how they see fit to maximize profits and minimize losses. And if their analysis is correct, they feel there is a net gain to be had by doing this.

NO. It does not. It comes down to RIGHTS. Is it okay for someone to shoot you as long as it doesn't hurt you very much? DRM is DRM is DRM. It's ALL unacceptable. It has always been unacceptable. It will always be unacceptable.

Noone is being physically harmed by DRM. Its a very different situation. That said, what about the people who make the games? Do they not have a right to protection from theft? Keep in mind that game companies employ real people. Can piracy affect them? Sure. If a company loses profit, they lose some ability to continue paying a salary. And in this economy, that is more the case.

The only person they should be worried about pleasing is the guy handing over his $60. And he's the guy getting bent over. DRM isn't about PLEASING anyone. It's about holding their hand so they can't be naughty.

Perhaps I should ask you then, who is this DISPLEASING? I doubt that it is going to displease everyone, nor would it displease everyone 100%. There will be some people that this will genuinely affect, but that is likely to be far and few between.

The world is very black and white. People would have you believe otherwise, but the fact is right is right, wrong is wrong, and integrity stands for less every day. Everyone is treated like a criminal because they might be. It's everywhere. And adding measures to restrict, oversee, regulate, or babysit is all an invasion of personal rights and privacy. What I do in my home is NO ONE's business but my own. If I make a thousand copies of a game in my living room, that's my business. If I use them to profit, then it becomes the business of the original creator. But PERSONAL USE is something that can never be allowed to be invaded, or we're setting a dangerous precedent. Yes, this means restrictions must be lighter, and piracy might run more rampant. The rights of individuals must ALWAYS come before the profits of businesses. DRM is exactly the other way around. It is, on the most fundamental level, WRONG.

This thread is proof that the world is not black and white. Opinions vary. Outside of absolute properties of nature, everything is subject to interpretation. We can have very technically written laws, but even those are still subject to interpretation. Work with the law, even in mild forms, and you'll see how grey the world really is.

I agree that what you do in your home is your business. But the problem and reality is that people do pirate software (and other media). And while media companies certainly understand that it can't be stopped, they have the right to try and limit it as best they can. Will there be some collateral damage? Sure. But its not like were measuring the collateral damage of a bomb being dropped in the middle of a city. People have the right not to buy games with this DRM. And will they lose some sales as a result? Probably. Will it offset the losses from piracy? Its likely the Ubisoft seems to think so. The irony here is that you can actually make as many copies of a game under this DRM as you want. And put it on as many computers as you want. Play it without a disc. It resolves some issues other methods of DRM has had. Different people will see this differently, but all is not negative.

What consumer rights are being violated? The game (and its price) is not being forced on them. If a consumer feels that it is not the right product for them, then they don't buy it. The choice to purchase a game is just that...a choice.

As for the whole "not buying the product, you're buying a license to the product" deal...on some levels that's entirely irrelevant. I have never cared for the whole EULA thing, either, mainly because you have no choice but to agree, but can only read it after purchasing and opening the product...which means in most cases it can't be returned. It's an old issue, but it fits right in with the DRM problem: more managing of my rights. More important than the purchased license is that things are purchased with an understanding that the purchased item belongs to the purchaser. If you're going to defy that convention and pull the "you agree to this license or cannot use this product" crap, it needs to be on the box, not in the installer. DRM restrictions on the box. And repercussions on the pricetag. $60 for a game I can play whenever? Sure. For the game I can only play when Ubisoft lets me? That's less product. I expect an appropriately reduced pricetag.EULA is inherently flawed anyway, and always has been. There were similar debates to this about EULAs a decade or so ago. The big problem with the EULA is that you aren't required to agree to it to make the purchase, only to use the product. It's a legal bait-and-switch.

Whether you care for EULA or not is irrelevant. They are within their legal rights to set up a EULA and its terms. And while I'd agree that it would be nice to see the terms of a EULA on the box, it would be rather difficult to fit it onto a typical box. For the most part, the terms are not going to be a big deal so I'd rather see more info about the game. Damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess. But where is the black and white in that?

If publishers want to make DRM part of the product, they can't play one side. A $60 game isn't a $60 game anymore if I can't play it. It doesn't matter what form of ethereal agreement the $60 was traded for.

Perhaps if it affects you, then sure. But as I said before, you don't have to buy the game. That is your RIGHT. Its the same as if you were buying a car and determined a particlar car doesn't have enough space for your needs. You don't buy it. Or you may pay some lesser amount for it. Still, others may find that the same car meets their own needs just fine. And will pay full price. Very grey.

In the end, the problem is that publishers believe they can slap DRM on a game and go an as though nothing has changed. As long as enough end users still buy the thing to profit, they don't care. They have no incentive to do things right, or to make themselves accountable for the changes they're making on the user end. They'd make us all stream live video of ourselves holding the game disc and reciting a one-time password before playing if they could get away with it. I am not tolerant of that attitude. I think it is disgusting and I think something needs to be done about it. But the lack of understanding and exposure of the problem on the public level is miniscule. Hence my hope that Ubisoft's gaff will attract a little higher profile attention as time goes on.

You know, there are examples of inconveniences we all have throughout different industries as a result of criminal behavior. Walk into a jewelry store that is a standalone shop. You might have to be buzzed in through the steel front door. Walk into a large store. You might see surveillance cameras set up all over. Walk into a bank. You might have to deal with the teller through a thick piece of bulletproof glass. File a theft claim with your insurance company and see how much info they will look at to confirm the claim is legitimate. This is the reality we live in. These businesses are allowed to protect their profits and investments. Gaming or any other media is no different. Sure, it can suck, and businesses understand that. They are certainly going to keep in mind the impact it has on their bottom line. And if they can make more money by eliminating some of this they will. But that's likely not the projection they have. They could be wrong and if so, they will make appropriate adjustments.

And if the public's awareness is miniscule, doesn't that say something about how much DRM has actually affected the majority of people?

I am not a criminal.

No you are not.

I will not be treated like one.

You are not in jail or on trial.

Don't buy the game.

It does not get any simpler than that.

[RCA]

http://www.bradcolbow.com/archive.php/?p=205

[breadbox]

Why I hate DRM:

I bought a zune. I have lots of mp3s.

I install zune software (blows soooo hard and is white, and you can't change that. WTF?)

Plug in zune. Due to DRM it recognizes maybe 1/10th of my music that is stored on my external drive. Move enough to make me happy onto the zune.

disconnect it and listen to it in the car. Happy with it.

Plug into usb to charge, but my external HDD is no longer on.

I take fully charged Zune to listen, only to find out I can't listen to any track on the Zune anymore because the source files got moved. (want to burn it with fire)

Not the files physically on the zune but the source files. Rendering my Zune to be #)GB of worthlessness. Hence making the old a** Iriver Hp-120 the best mp3 player to ever have been made and even that got discontinued and is close to impossible to find in working condition.

The HP-120 was at the time I owned one, Slightly thicker than the ipod at the time, half the weight, it had a remote line to control every function minus mic record, It played ogg mp3 wma wav maybe a couple others, It was 20GB and had 16hour playback(actual 16hour non stop playback) No software just firmware. you could default the firmware and delete files. It was an amazing portable hhd that played music files. Yet today this doesn't really exist.