A lurker speaks
Mesquite
online with ....the precursor to Genie on the Commodore 64. I can't recall
what it was called. I've been a lurker most of the time and only very rarely
spoke out. Tonight, sitting here in a truck stop (I'm an OTR trucker) on New
Years Eve after downing 4 24 oz. Bud light Cheladas I've decided to post a
message. You guys amaze me.....you talk to a pirate with the utmost
disdain...yet you hate any software developer who tries to beat piracy,
although we all know it isn't possible, they still have the right..I have
bought both Distant Guns and Jutland....I haven't played Jutland yet, mostly
because I'm brushing up on the history by reading "Castles of Steel" by
Robert K. Massie. I have started it up and it seems to run ok. I have played
Distant Guns and it is a great game. You guys are denying yourselves these
games because of the antipiracy baggage that comes with them....well, that
is certainly your right, but I look for good games wherever I can find
them.....I can live with the efforts to keep pirates from stealing their
work, and it seems a little incredible to me that you guys are so vehemently
against these games because they are trying to protect the fruits of their
labors. I guess I've bought every game Norm Koger has ever done....hell I've
bought almost every wargame ever done by anybody...and I'm damn sure not
going to quit buying good games on some principal that they shouldn't try to
protect against pirates.
You guys can flame me, call me an idot for buying their games, what
ever....I've bought good games and bad, and it doesn't bother me in the
least to screw up on the chance I might get a real gem. I just wanted to
"speak" out on my amazement at what I see all of you guys saying. You really
seem like a great bunch of gamers,but to me you come on like whackos when it
comes to the various anti-piracy methods employed by developers. Oh
yeah, to add fuel to the fire....I like CMSF....you can play it just like
CMAK and CMBB, and you always could....I always seemed to stall out playing
CMSF that way...the one minute at a time way....and so I tried out the real
time method even though I didn't think I'd like it as I hate most real time
games....well to my amazement, I enjoyed it greatly and flew through the
campaign in that mode....sometimes it pays to try something new.
Back to Lurking.
Itty Bitty Titty
"Mesquite" <gle...@att.net> wrote in message
news:E_Y6l.12256$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
Fuckin' 'Ell! You tell these ponces mate! Never in me life 'ave I seen a
bunch of wee gits, the daft pritchards be all here 'cause they've been
tossed from every other forum, like the tossers they are!
~Cheers Mate! And a 'appy Cristobal Colon to you!!!!
eddys...@hotmail.com
> I just wanted to
> "speak" out on my amazement at what I see all of you guys saying. You really
> seem like a great bunch of gamers,but to me you come on like whackos when it
> comes to the various anti-piracy methods employed by developers.
Yup - maybe you've noticed that it's especially the guys who work in
IT who are dead-set against it. If you see a bunch of doctors all
saying a particular medecine is bad for you, you can always choose to
ignore that too, but chances are they are right all along.
Another aspect is that buying wargames is also a message of support
for a particular developer - if I know I'm going to be treated as a
crook as soon as I run into a problem, they're not getting my money.
Case in point : even if Jutland didn't have DRM, I wouldn't buy it
because of the way JR treats his customers.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Briarroot
> I've been playing computer games a long fucking time....I first got
> online with ....the precursor to Genie on the Commodore 64. I can't
> recall what it was called. I've been a lurker most of the time and only
> very rarely spoke out. Tonight, sitting here in a truck stop (I'm an OTR
> trucker) on New Years Eve after downing 4 24 oz. Bud light Cheladas I've
> decided to post a message. You guys amaze me.....you talk to a pirate
> with the utmost disdain...yet you hate any software developer who tries
> to beat piracy,
>
Nonsense!
> You guys are denying yourselves these games because of the antipiracy
> baggage that comes with them.
>
True, but that has nothing to with any developer's desire to thwart
pirates. It's the way some go about it that turns me off.
>..well, that is certainly your right, but
> I look for good games wherever I can find them.....I can live with the
> efforts to keep pirates from stealing their work, and it seems a little
> incredible to me that you guys are so vehemently against these games
> because they are trying to protect the fruits of their labors. I guess
> I've bought every game Norm Koger has ever done....hell I've bought
> almost every wargame ever done by anybody...and I'm damn sure not going
> to quit buying good games on some principal that they shouldn't try to
> protect against pirates.
>
But that isn't why I refuse to buy those games.
> You guys can flame me, call me an idot for buying their games, what
> ever....I've bought good games and bad, and it doesn't bother me in the
> least to screw up on the chance I might get a real gem. I just wanted to
> "speak" out on my amazement at what I see all of you guys saying. You
> really seem like a great bunch of gamers,but to me you come on like
> whackos when it comes to the various anti-piracy methods employed by
> developers.
>
Huh? What do you mean *we* come on like wackos? What do you call a
developer that demands that paying customers prove that they aren't
pirates before being allowed to install a game? What do you call a
developer that makes his customers jump through innumerable hoops in
order to re-install a game? You've grabbed hold of the wrong end of the
stick!
I'm not against publishers and developer protecting their intellectual
property, I'm against them making *me* do the difficult part. If, as
you say, preventing piracy is impossible, then why should I *ever*
submit to the indignities of the DRM that SES has dreamed up? I have
numerous ways to entertain myself, I don't feel a need to own *every*
decent game that comes along. Thus, whenever an IP owner throws up a
series of obstacles that make purchasing and using his product
difficult, I simply laugh to myself and move on to something else.
In my view, SES's actions are downright demented. They act as if they
were selling a game that millions of people were clamoring to buy rather
than a few thousand possibly interested hard-core wargamers. Given the
tiny size of their potential market, they ought to be *courting*
pirates, not trying to stop them. At least then they might generate a
bit of positive word-of-mouth advertising. As it is they just look
stupid. It's as if they've gone to great trouble to devise a devilishly
clever safe in which they've locked a pile of shit. Okay I'm impressed,
but who the hell do they think wants to break into that safe?
--
"Man will always be Man. We tried so hard to create a society that was
equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbor. But there's
always something to envy: a smile; a friendship; something you don't
have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there
will always be rich and poor; rich in gifts - poor in gifts, rich in
love - poor in love." - Comrade Commissar Danilov in "Enemy at the Gates"
kev9000
thoughts and feelings about this DRM thing. It might make the likes of
Mesquite understand where I am coming from even if they do not agree
(but I won't call them a whacko if they don't agree).
I have games from publishers long gone. Still enjoy them.
So I say this to publishers. You guarantee me permanent access to your
games, and you can have permanent access to the ~$50 I hand over for
them. Or could I just loan you the money while the DRM servers are
being supported? I'll want it back if my circumstances change,
though. And you'll in effect want your game back if your
circumstances change. Deal? I'll even throw in the interest you'll
earn on my money as a sweetener.
Because for me, handing over money for a game means that I have
guaranteed permanent access to the game. >$50 is getting to be a
bigger investment in this day and age. Buying a game that depends on
a DRM server is for me a rental proposition. If you ask me to rent
access to your DRM server, which is in effect what these companies
offer, then I think we are talking about a rental charge of a couple
of dollars (less?) a month while the DRM server is up and pinging.
And personally speaking I am not interested in that proposition,
because if I love a game I play it for years. I still play War in
Russia sometimes. Where would the SSI activation server of 1992(?) be
now (if it had not been republished)?
To developers who say they will support their games with activation
codes *when* their publisher no longer provides a DRM service, I say:
I have games from developers who, well, walked away from their game
support simply because of other things in their life. They have a
right to do that. Still enjoy their games. Wouldn't still enjoy them
if they had DRM.
To gamers who say I am doing myself out of a lot of fun, I say that I
can live with that because I want my fun to be good value for money.
There are a lot of things I don't do that are fun and are poor value
for money (assuming of course, that these DRM-supported games are
fun).
There are other arguments against DRM, but this is the position that I
feel most strongly about, and it means I will never, never, “purchase”
a game with server DRM. Period. I'll keep my money for the products
that offer good, long-term value, and support the publishers who
provide this and who assume, correctly, that I am a customer, not a
pirate.
Vincenzo Beretta
> you hate any software developer who tries to beat piracy,
Actually, we hate any software developer who tries to beat his customers.
> although we all know it isn't possible, they still have the right..I have
> bought both Distant Guns and Jutland....I haven't played Jutland yet,
> mostly because I'm brushing up on the history by reading "Castles of
> Steel" by Robert K. Massie. I have started it up and it seems to run ok. I
> have played Distant Guns and it is a great game. You guys are denying
> yourselves these games because of the antipiracy baggage that comes with
> them....
I have DG, and the only thing ever that denied me playing the game was his
very "antipiracy baggage" (I think that one can safely add JR to the
"baggage").
> well, that is certainly your right, but I look for good games wherever I
> can find them...
...And, since there are a lot of them, good luck to developers who make
unpopular choices...
> I like CMSF....you can play it just like CMAK and CMBB, and you always
> could....
Please, point me to both the CM's comparable OOBs and random map generators
in CM:SF.
Giftzwerg
cbdc34...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, ryand...@yahoo.com says...
> So I say this to publishers. You guarantee me permanent access to your
> games, and you can have permanent access to the ~$50 I hand over for
> them. Or could I just loan you the money while the DRM servers are
> being supported?
Yup. I'll "buy" software with an "eLicense" that can be revoked at the
publisher's whim only when I can pay for it with "eMoney" that I can
withdraw from their bank account the moment their Nazi DRM fucks up and
I can't play my game.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Taliban militants are beheading and burning their way through
Pakistan's picturesque Swat Valley, and residents say the insurgents now
control most of the mountainous region outside the lawless tribal areas
where jihadists thrive."
- Associated Press
"Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!"
- Giftzwerg
Giftzwerg
says...
> You guys are denying yourselves these
> games because of the antipiracy baggage that comes with them....
I think you misspelled, "Some developers are denying themselves our
money because of the antipiracy baggage they're stupid / paranoid enough
to insert."
Steve Bartman
>Another aspect is that buying wargames is also a message of support
>for a particular developer - if I know I'm going to be treated as a
>crook as soon as I run into a problem, they're not getting my money.
>Case in point : even if Jutland didn't have DRM, I wouldn't buy it
>because of the way JR treats his customers.
Passing through on the holiday.
The last line is a good point, as this guy (I'm reading back-threads)
seems like a major-L. weenie. But seriously, has the ranting about DRM
on the ng ever caused one dev. to not do what he was going to do
anyway, either way? Some use DRM, some don't, everybody here pretty
much knows by now which is which, so what's the point of re-making the
point over, and over, and over, and over . . .?
Most of the traffic on the ng isn't about games you play, it's about
games you guys won't ever buy. Aren't you at the point of diminishing
returns?
Happy New Year.
Steve
rus4...@hotmail.com
You lost me with "long fucking time."
Didn't even read the rest of it.
kev9000
> games you guys won't ever buy.
My problem is that I want to buy more games in the future. So I think
it's no harm to keep the DRM issue prominent - either for me or the
publishers I may buy from someday.
Giftzwerg
sbar...@visi.com says...
> But seriously, has the ranting about DRM
> on the ng ever caused one dev. to not do what he was going to do
> anyway, either way?
The music industry sure does seem to be backpedaling like crazy because
of the DRM-pushback from their customers.
> Some use DRM, some don't, everybody here pretty
> much knows by now which is which, so what's the point of re-making the
> point over, and over, and over, and over . . .?
To ensure that the issue stays front-and-center in the public eye,
instead of letting developers and publishers pull their shit behind the
usual veil of euphemistic horsepucky.
Remember Norm Koger telling us breathlessly about all the wondrous
benefits of "server-based software?" Yeah. Whew. Thanks, Norm; I
totally want to be locked out of my software like those dipshits at
gamesquad.
> Most of the traffic on the ng isn't about games you play, it's about
> games you guys won't ever buy. Aren't you at the point of diminishing
> returns?
Not if we can help others avoid Nazi eLicensing and steer them towards
developers and publishers who don't assume every one of their customers
is a fucking criminal.
Every time I see a post from someone who tells Battlefront or SES to go
piss up a rope, I get a huge rush of blood to my ego.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> But seriously, has the ranting about DRM
> on the ng ever caused one dev. to not do what he was going to do
> anyway, either way?
Logically this is an unanswerable question - unless a developer would
come forward and gives a positive answer there's no way we would know
the answer one way or another.
What I do know is that "DRM ranting" is not confined to this little
corner of the 'Net. A recent poll at The Wargamer had 60+% of voters
saying they won't buy DRM'ed games anymore.
PC wargaming is a software niche, so a developer who doesn't listen to
what the majority of his customers are saying is important is in for
major hurt.
More broadly speaking : every developer has ideas on how to do things.
Sometimes these ideas are brilliant, sometimes they are simply
boneheaded. We (try to) point out the boneheaded ideas but in the
final analysis it's up to the developer.
And that's not limited to DRM.
For an example : the idiot who developed General Commander : when his
game got talked about at The Wargamer forum he posts to say that he
will not answer questions in a public forum, but only in his private
one and you need to buy the game to get access to it.
I *know* this will effectively kill his game right there and then,
because his forum will be devoid of life and every prospective buyer
will take one look at it and conclude that the game is pushing up
daisies with zero people interested in it.
So I tell him that in the forum. As he refuses to play ball in that
forum I even mail him that. No response. At that point you simply give
up on both that developer and his product, nothing you say or do is
going to save either of them.
But what you can do is warn other developers not to make the same
mistake. And that's why I post about DRM and other daft ideas in
here : as a warning light for other developers. Their call.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
kev9000
> because his forum will be devoid of life and every prospective buyer
> will take one look at it and conclude that the game is pushing up
> daisies with zero people interested in it.
I am simply amazed that somebody work so hard to develop a game and
then just turn around and effectively kill it like that...
eddys...@hotmail.com
Darwin ...
It became very clear from the very first posts of that developer that
no matter what people suggested he would insist on gamers playing the
game like he demanded and jumping through whatever hoops he put in
there.
Monitoring this game because this may very well be the very first
wargame for which the activation server suddenly dies as his publisher
pulls the plug.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Steve Bartman
>On 1 jan, 22:53, Steve Bartman <sbart...@visi.com> wrote:
>> But seriously, has the ranting about DRM
>> on the ng ever caused one dev. to not do what he was going to do
>> anyway, either way?
>
>Logically this is an unanswerable question - unless a developer would
>come forward and gives a positive answer there's no way we would know
>the answer one way or another.
Fair enough.
>What I do know is that "DRM ranting" is not confined to this little
>corner of the 'Net. A recent poll at The Wargamer had 60+% of voters
>saying they won't buy DRM'ed games anymore.
OK. But to your point above, is that a significant number of
wargamers? What's the denominator for the hobby? Looking at this ng it
seems as if 80+% of posts are by five or so people. If you five rant
about DRM until the cows come home, should a developer care? If they
even ever see it? Speaking as an only sometime wargamer, I get a lot
more utility from you hard-core guys when you actually talk about
games you own and play, since inevitably you play them differently,
and usually more intensely, than I would.
You can, of course, discuss anything you like here. I'm only
suggesting that, with time finite, you might grow the hobby more and
attract more ng traffic by spending posts on games you DO own or will
own rather than saying for the Nth time why you won't own.
>PC wargaming is a software niche, so a developer who doesn't listen to
>what the majority of his customers are saying is important is in for
>major hurt.
True. But that supposes that the folks here and at The Wargamer are a
significant portion of the total universe.
>But what you can do is warn other developers not to make the same
>mistake. And that's why I post about DRM and other daft ideas in
>here : as a warning light for other developers. Their call.
Well, you work in the field, so maybe you have intel about how many
developers lurk here. Or maybe posting in Web forums is more useful. I
don't know, as I don't read them (except the WITP forum.) I hate
trying to manage text in a Web environment when I have a great
threading newsreader sitting there waiting for me. I just wish Usenet
still had the traffic it used to have in the areas I'm interested in
reading.
Steve
Giftzwerg
sbar...@visi.com says...
> >What I do know is that "DRM ranting" is not confined to this little
> >corner of the 'Net. A recent poll at The Wargamer had 60+% of voters
> >saying they won't buy DRM'ed games anymore.
>
> OK. But to your point above, is that a significant number of
> wargamers? What's the denominator for the hobby? Looking at this ng it
> seems as if 80+% of posts are by five or so people. If you five rant
> about DRM until the cows come home, should a developer care? If they
> even ever see it?
Your point?
> Speaking as an only sometime wargamer, I get a lot
> more utility from you hard-core guys when you actually talk about
> games you own and play, since inevitably you play them differently,
> and usually more intensely, than I would.
Speaking as someone primarily interested in the hobby and its future,
I'm really not terribly concerned if you're getting any "utility" from
... uh, anything.
> You can, of course, discuss anything you like here. I'm only
> suggesting that, with time finite, you might grow the hobby more and
> attract more ng traffic by spending posts on games you DO own or will
> own rather than saying for the Nth time why you won't own.
I think Eddy's point is that DRM is a flaming hot-button issue
*everywhere* these days. And for some pretty obvious reasons, it tends
to dominate a great many threads.
Until *developers* smarten the fuck up and stop turning their customers
into anti-DRM evangelists, I'm afraid you're gonna read rather a lot
about it. My suggestion would be to speak with asshole developers and
publishers who can't seem to think of their customers as anything but
criminals.
If you can bring these asshats around, I'm pretty sure DRM threads will
dry up pretty fast.
Vincenzo Beretta
> wargamers? What's the denominator for the hobby? Looking at this ng it
> seems as if 80+% of posts are by five or so people. If you five rant
> about DRM until the cows come home, should a developer care?
Do some research on statistics: percentage of the whole whose opinion is
needed to reach a 90% certainity in a poll, for example. Or even 80%. You
could be surprised
Steve Bartman
I've taken graduate statistics courses. These aren't random samples.
Steve
Giftzwerg
sbar...@visi.com says...
> >> OK. But to your point above, is that a significant number of
> >> wargamers? What's the denominator for the hobby? Looking at this ng it
> >> seems as if 80+% of posts are by five or so people. If you five rant
> >> about DRM until the cows come home, should a developer care?
> >
> >Do some research on statistics: percentage of the whole whose opinion is
> >needed to reach a 90% certainity in a poll, for example. Or even 80%. You
> >could be surprised
> >
> I've taken graduate statistics courses. These aren't random samples.
Hmmm. What percentage of this newsgroup do you imagine thinks Nazi DRM
is A Good Thing?
Cuz I got a hot flash for ya, Mr. Graduate Statistics; I'd bet it's less
than 1% who *like* massively-intrusive activation. You might get a
slightly higher reading for "it's necessary" or "I just don't give a
fuck," but pretty clearly a significant majority of gamers of every
stripe utterly loath being treated like criminals.
kev9000
> suggesting that, with time finite, you might grow the hobby more and
> attract more ng traffic by spending posts on games you DO own or will
> own rather than saying for the Nth time why you won't own.
You might might find a better way to "grow the hobby more" rather than
simply suggesting that people shut up.
Vincenzo Beretta
Why not?
We are of different ages, come from different nations and have different
backgrounds. Our jobs range to very close to the industry (developers,
journalists...) to very far. The only thing this NG has in common is an
interest in wargames, coupled, in a lot of cases, with a more general
interest in videogames. There is no "groupthink", as the frequent fla...
heated discussions about everything daily demonstrate. And the vast majority
of the "samples" are against DRM.
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
And that's the real point here. Another of those "World's Thinnest
Book" jokes could be based on "Exhaustive Listing Of PC Users Who Wish
There Was More DRM In Their Lives."
In other words, I'm not sure we need a "Graduate Statistics Course" to
inform us that PC users *fucking hate fucking DRM schemes*.
Yeah. Whew. Thank all gods that we can't just plug in a fucking CD,
install the game, and play the fucking thing anymore.
Vincenzo Beretta
> Book" jokes could be based on "Exhaustive Listing Of PC Users Who Wish
> There Was More DRM In Their Lives."
AKA "The Unbearable Cluelessness of Being" (subtitle: "DRMs are useful to
defeat YOU pirates!" and other tales)
kev9000
But access to wargames as well as wargames themselves is a legitimate
topic. Isn't server-DRM a feature of a wargame product along with,
say, the manual?
And I would rather be sick of reading anti-DRM posts than being sick
of being locked out of wargames.
Anti-DRM statements may be the province of a few "whackos" (I don't
think so - see other forums). But if we aren't vocal as consumers and
send a message to publishers that going down the DRM road is a bad
idea those very "silent non-whackos" will be the ones crying over the
games and the money they wasted on them (again, see other forums).
As for your graduate studies in Statistics. When somebody comes up to
me and essentially says "I have done graduate studies in statistics so
will you shut up"... well, what can you say when are faced with an
argument like that? I bow to your rhetorical skill. What was your
first degree in? Law?
kev9000
Hah! Samples don't have to be random!
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
Which is why I think Herr Bartmann has things ass-backwards. His
attitude is, "Why do you guys keep talking about Nazi DRM?" My attitude
is, "Why do developers keep inflicting Nazi DRM on their customers?"
Steve Bartman
Irrelevant. By the act of posting about a topic on a public forum the
sample becomes self-selected. It might be representative of the entire
universe, but you can't use statistical methods to assert that.
Furthermore, since most of the posts here are made by a self-selected
group of only 5-10 individuals (granted, some with massively inflated
egos and opinions of their grandiosity) you can't draw any statistical
conclusions.
It may be true that DRM is too new a topic for the full range of
consumer opinion to have washed back to its purveyors through the
market system. Or, it may have, and those using it are happy with the
sales trade-offs they see. More likely I think is that the cycle is
only partly complete, and there will be further modifications in the
DRM-realm in coming months and years. I'm primarily asking if the
vocal opinions of a relative handful of non-DRM-supporters outweighs,
or will outweigh, real numerical market results?
And even if those opinions do outweigh sales results, isn't making the
point, oh, five times, as useful as making it ten?
Steve
Steve Bartman
<ryand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Anti-DRM statements may be the province of a few "whackos" (I don't
>think so - see other forums). But if we aren't vocal as consumers and
>send a message to publishers that going down the DRM road is a bad
>idea those very "silent non-whackos" will be the ones crying over the
>games and the money they wasted on them (again, see other forums).
The best message to send is not to buy. Standing out on the sidewalk
repeatedly shouting that You'll Never Eat Their Food does start to
look like whacko behavior. Or at minimum, egomaniacal behavior.
>As for your graduate studies in Statistics. When somebody comes up to
>me and essentially says "I have done graduate studies in statistics so
>will you shut up"... well, what can you say when are faced with an
>argument like that?
That it is correct. Or not. But not engage in an ad hominem attack
because you can't engage the statistical one?
I bow to your rhetorical skill. What was your
>first degree in? Law?
History. But I have formally studied law, yes.
Steve
Steve Bartman
You need to work on your reading comprehension. Re-read my first
sentence. There's no doubt that it does not say what you assert.
Steve
Giftzwerg
9b53f1...@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, ryand...@yahoo.com says...
> People are sick of reading anti-DRM posts. I am too.
Me, too. But this is like observing that prisoners on death row are
sick of hearing about executions; it's kinda the topic of the day, no?
> But access to wargames as well as wargames themselves is a legitimate
> topic. Isn't server-DRM a feature of a wargame product along with,
> say, the manual?
Ask my friend Bob, whose copy of Jutland is *still* bricked by SES's
broken server-chaining. Does it really make a difference if the game
doesn't run because it's so badly programmed that the executables won't
run, or because the DRM is so badly programmed that it's failing to
recognize a valid installation?
Won't run is won't run. Can't play is can't play. Period. If you've
bought a game and it doesn't work, it makes absolutely no difference
*why* it doesn't work.
> Anti-DRM statements may be the province of a few "whackos" (I don't
> think so - see other forums). But if we aren't vocal as consumers and
> send a message to publishers that going down the DRM road is a bad
> idea those very "silent non-whackos" will be the ones crying over the
> games and the money they wasted on them (again, see other forums).
Silence is acquiescence. Vocal resistance is vocal resistance. Guess
which one asshole developers prefer?
von Schmidt
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 04:00:11 -0800 (PST), kev9000
>
> >Anti-DRM statements may be the province of a few "whackos" (I don't
> >think so - see other forums). But if we aren't vocal as consumers and
> >send a message to publishers that going down the DRM road is a bad
> >idea those very "silent non-whackos" will be the ones crying over the
> >games and the money they wasted on them (again, see other forums).
>
> The best message to send is not to buy. Standing out on the sidewalk
> repeatedly shouting that You'll Never Eat Their Food does start to
> look like whacko behavior. Or at minimum, egomaniacal behavior.
Not buying a game to send a message only works if you let the seller
*know* that you are not buying it. And why you're skipping his
otherwise lovely offering.
Otherwise it's a case of a tree falling in the woods without a
publisher hearing it.
Regards,
-von Schmidt
Steve Bartman
<von_s...@mail.com> wrote:
>Not buying a game to send a message only works if you let the seller
>*know* that you are not buying it.
No, he knows it when his sales trends are not what he'd forecast, or
show a downward trend.
And why you're skipping his
>otherwise lovely offering.
One consumer of thousands . . .
Even if what you say is true, is this the best forum to tell that
publisher your views? Are any of them here?
>Otherwise it's a case of a tree falling in the woods without a
>publisher hearing it.
I think it's a very dense publisher (note: not developer) who doesn't
know there are anti-DRM POVs in the marketplace. But I repeat, is this
the best place to let them know individual views? Are they here? Or
are the high-volume regular posters just engaging in ego stroking,
trying to convince themselves that their one (1) lost unit of sales is
more than your proverbial tree to that publisher?
Steve
Andy Brown
Nothing new but numerous anti-DRM points conveniently grouped together
in one place. The OP's first point is a good example of how DRM can
bite you when you least expect it.
http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=326578&mpage=1#326631
Andy Brown
Vincenzo Beretta
> sample becomes self-selected. It might be representative of the entire
> universe, but you can't use statistical methods to assert that.
I understand: God, Lord Almighty of everything in Heaven and Heart (AKA "one
of us in disguise") disguised Himself as a common wargamer and handpicked
some Selected Few to compose this NG (and the opinions herein expressed) in
His Image. True, to the uninitiated it could still seem that the NG was born
by the coincidence of people sharing a common interest, but Enlighted Minds
will readly see the proofs of Intelligent Design. I always suspected that.
> Furthermore, since most of the posts here are made by a self-selected
> group of only 5-10 individuals (granted, some with massively inflated
> egos and opinions of their grandiosity) you can't draw any statistical
> conclusions.
I dont know about your graduate courses, but I wouldn't consider a pollster
career path were I in your place.
> It may be true that DRM is too new a topic for the full range of
> consumer opinion to have washed back to its purveyors through the
> market system. Or, it may have, and those using it are happy with the
> sales trade-offs they see.
Or maybe pirates crack protected games since forever, while on Amazon
"Spore" has an average customer review one and half stars thanks, mostly, to
its DRM scheme.
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000FKBCX4
Vincenzo Beretta
>>otherwise lovely offering.
>
> One consumer of thousands . . .
So one shouldn't even bother to vote at the elections, right? I mean, what
difference could a vote make? Videogames are not Florida :o)
JP
"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:t4hvl4ddmelc2onb4...@4ax.com...
Hmmm.......suddenly the phrase "Book smart, street dumb" comes to mind.
kev9000
> sentence. There's no doubt that it does not say what you assert.
You're suggesting that people shut up talking about DRM. And I have
degrees in Statistics, Philology, Linguistics, Physics, Law,
Astronomy, Anthropology, Philosophy and Mathematics so you really
should listen to what I say very, very carefully.*
Kev9000
*I only have a degree in one of those but I thought adding them in
would help my argument.
kev9000
> because you can't engage the statistical one?
It was you who introduced the CV (irrelevant evidence). And I have
seen no evidence of a statistical argument from you.
Dimensional Traveler
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:08:40 +0100, "Vincenzo Beretta"
> <rec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I've taken graduate statistics courses. These aren't random samples.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> We are of different ages, come from different nations and have
>> different backgrounds. Our jobs range to very close to the industry
>> (developers, journalists...) to very far. The only thing this NG has
>> in common is an interest in wargames, coupled, in a lot of cases,
>> with a more general interest in videogames. There is no
>> "groupthink", as the frequent fla... heated discussions about
>> everything daily demonstrate. And the vast majority of the "samples"
>> are against DRM.
>>
> Irrelevant. By the act of posting about a topic on a public forum the
> sample becomes self-selected. It might be representative of the entire
> universe, but you can't use statistical methods to assert that.
>
The same applies to _any_ opinion survey. They all have the bias of "of
those who agreed to participate in this survey", thereby becoming part of
the sample. It is an inescapible part of _any_ sample involving humans.
Quite frankly, as someone who's worked at the grunt end of actually getting
people to take opinion surveys, its the least of the problems with most of
them. The much bigger issue is the fact that almost all such surveys are
commissioned by some company involved in that industry or line of business.
So they all are, to varying degrees of blatantness, biased by what that
company wants and is looking for.
--
"What Kind of perv rememembers the scenes where she's clothed???" -
Anim8rFSK, 8/23/08
Steve Bartman
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>The same applies to _any_ opinion survey. They all have the bias of "of
>those who agreed to participate in this survey", thereby becoming part of
>the sample.
It depends on how the sample is selected. Few commercial samples are
truly random; there were controls for demo/psychographics in most of
the ones I've commissioned. But it's a long throw between "would you
participate in a survey after being randomly chosen" to "I have such a
virulent hatred of DRM that I will choose to use my free time, on
dozens of occasions, to post against it on public forums."
The much bigger issue is the fact that almost all such surveys are
>commissioned by some company involved in that industry or line of business.
That's one reason why an outside observer should usually take a poll
of polls. But for the surveying entity, if the survey is
professionally designed, the results are often useful. It's just that
often the reasons for the survey are proprietary. The survey org may
not be looking for what, to an outside observer, it seems the survey
would find. I knew a product manager who did a survey precisely to get
a refusal-to-participate rate. It gave her useful info.
But that's getting away from the main point. Count up the participants
on this ng who post on DRM. Compare to any estimate of wargamers you
choose. The opinions are self-selected, and not statistically
significant.
Steve
Steve Bartman
> Hmmm.......suddenly the phrase "Book smart, street dumb" comes to mind.
Have we met? Didn't think so.
As I now must return to the economy after the holidays, and since
there's little content here on actual wargames worth my time, I'll bid
your little He-Man Developer Haters Club a fond farewell. Here's
hoping you all can actually find a game you'll buy. Someday.
Steve
Steve Bartman
Got you beat by three.
Buh-bye.
Steve
JP
Running away ?...................again ? My, you always seem to have an
excuse.
Here's hoping you succeed in your latest self-appointed crusade; that of
saving developers who you;
a. do not work for.
b. have no financial or personal involvement in.
In other words, one wonders your motive.
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> > Irrelevant. By the act of posting about a topic on a public forum the
> > sample becomes self-selected. It might be representative of the entire
> > universe, but you can't use statistical methods to assert that.
>
> I understand: God, Lord Almighty of everything in Heaven and Heart (AKA "one
> of us in disguise") disguised Himself as a common wargamer and handpicked
> some Selected Few to compose this NG (and the opinions herein expressed) in
> His Image. True, to the uninitiated it could still seem that the NG was born
> by the coincidence of people sharing a common interest, but Enlighted Minds
> will readly see the proofs of Intelligent Design. I always suspected that.
Never forget, too, that you're addressing the one human being on this
planet who really believes that the Segway scooter is a success:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-
historical/browse_thread/thread/c3e6f14c9565e716?q=segway+group:*war-
historical*+author:Giftzwerg#e95ccce3a19b2f7a
Even the retards who invented this dumbass scooter don't believe that.
But here's my favorite Stevie Bartmann idiocy, expressed in the same
thread:
"Capital does not flow to such propositions, and capital is not stupid"
Yah. Capital is fucking brilliant. Which is why we're doing so well
today, econonomically.
> > It may be true that DRM is too new a topic for the full range of
> > consumer opinion to have washed back to its purveyors through the
> > market system. Or, it may have, and those using it are happy with the
> > sales trade-offs they see.
>
> Or maybe pirates crack protected games since forever, while on Amazon
> "Spore" has an average customer review one and half stars thanks, mostly, to
> its DRM scheme.
> http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000FKBCX4
Can't be! Users *must* grimly rate software without recourse to
practical considerations like, "will it run on my machine" and "can I
only briefly rent it?"
Giftzwerg
sbar...@visi.com says...
> But that's getting away from the main point. Count up the participants
> on this ng who post on DRM. Compare to any estimate of wargamers you
> choose. The opinions are self-selected, and not statistically
> significant.
What a juvenile twat.
Here's how you can avoid dodging the very point you keep so idiotically
ducking. Here's how you can address the real question. Please point
your Magic Graduate Studies Skillz to the following point:
POP QUIZ
What percentage of gamers:
(1) Want all their games to feature hugely-intrusive Nazi eLicensing.
(2) Wish that *none* of their games featured this kind of Gestapo DRM.
I'd argue that the percentages here are statistically indistinguishable
from 100% of gamer wanting games to be absolutely DRM free.
But I await your fuckwitted strawman.
Giftzwerg
@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, ryand...@yahoo.com says...
> > You need to work on your reading comprehension. Re-read my first
> > sentence. There's no doubt that it does not say what you assert.
>
> You're suggesting that people shut up talking about DRM. And I have
> degrees in Statistics, Philology, Linguistics, Physics, Law,
> Astronomy, Anthropology, Philosophy and Mathematics so you really
> should listen to what I say very, very carefully.*
<LoL>
Ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing!
Giftzwerg
sbar...@visi.com says...
> >Anti-DRM statements may be the province of a few "whackos" (I don't
> >think so - see other forums). But if we aren't vocal as consumers and
> >send a message to publishers that going down the DRM road is a bad
> >idea those very "silent non-whackos" will be the ones crying over the
> >games and the money they wasted on them (again, see other forums).
>
> The best message to send is not to buy. Standing out on the sidewalk
> repeatedly shouting that You'll Never Eat Their Food does start to
> look like whacko behavior. Or at minimum, egomaniacal behavior.
Wrong.
The best message to send is, "I won't buy, and *you shouldn't buy,
either*. And here's why."
But I don't expect you to understand this, given your obvious
limitations in the realms of marketing, statistics, and business.
Briarroot
> ...
> It may be true that DRM is too new a topic for the full range of
> consumer opinion to have washed back to its purveyors through the
> market system. Or, it may have, and those using it are happy with the
> sales trade-offs they see. More likely I think is that the cycle is
> only partly complete, and there will be further modifications in the
> DRM-realm in coming months and years. I'm primarily asking if the
> vocal opinions of a relative handful of non-DRM-supporters outweighs,
> or will outweigh, real numerical market results?
>
But it's not a black or white issue.
We vocal few are not objecting to DRM in general, only to the types that
actively prevent us from enjoying the software that we've purchased.
When evaluating a game these days, one of the *first* things I do is to
find out what kind of DRM it incorporates. Even the mainstream gaming
magazines like PC Gamer have begun including this information in their
reviews. Why do you suppose they're doing that? Could it be that lots
of ordinary gamers hate nazi DRM just like we do?
> And even if those opinions do outweigh sales results, isn't making the
> point, oh, five times, as useful as making it ten?
>
<shrug>
1) Where else can we bitch?
2) How long does it take to click the Next Message button?
3) How many posts are *you* going to make expressing your desire to
never again read a post about stupid DRM schemes?
If you're truly interested in promoting the hobby of wargaming, then you
ought to be devoting your time to telling developers and publishers that
nazi-like DRM schemes are a form of self-inflicted wound. Those of us
here with "massively inflated egos and opinions of their grandiosity"
aren't going to stop talking about this issue until it goes away.
--
"Every time that we try to lift a problem from our own shoulders and
shift that problem to the hands of the government, to the same extent we
are sacrificing the liberties of our people." - John F. Kennedy
Briarroot
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 04:00:11 -0800 (PST), kev9000
> <ryand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Anti-DRM statements may be the province of a few "whackos" (I don't
>> think so - see other forums). But if we aren't vocal as consumers and
>> send a message to publishers that going down the DRM road is a bad
>> idea those very "silent non-whackos" will be the ones crying over the
>> games and the money they wasted on them (again, see other forums).
>
> The best message to send is not to buy. Standing out on the sidewalk
> repeatedly shouting that You'll Never Eat Their Food does start to
> look like whacko behavior. Or at minimum, egomaniacal behavior.
>
Nonsense!
Publishers and developers who use nazi DRM schemes have already proven
they don't understand their market. If their sales fail to meet their
expectations they might just think they didn't advertise enough or in
the right places; or worse, they'll think a few "egomaniacs" in a Usenet
forum have been conspiring to scupper their efforts. After all, some of
these developers seem downright neurotic when it comes to criticism of
their games! The very best message we can give them is to - loudly and
repeatedly - explain *why* we aren't buying their games. Some seem to
be listening and some seem intent on ignoring us. Guess who gets our cash?
Briarroot
You're blowing this "ego" thing way out of proportion. Are we to
understand that you don't have one? The evidence in this thread
suggests otherwise!
But please, clue us in. Where *can* we go to tell publishers of our
dislike for their stupid DRM schemes?
Briarroot
That's not just a good example, it's an absolutely *classic* case of:
What Can Go Wrong Will Go Wrong!
Briarroot
Heh.
When Steve mentions "the high-volume regular posters just engaging in
ego stroking" with "massively inflated
egos and opinions of their grandiosity," he isn't really engaging in an
ad hominem attack. He's just being friendly. <wink>
Briarroot
>
> As I now must return to the economy after the holidays, and since
> there's little content here on actual wargames worth my time, I'll bid
> your little He-Man Developer Haters Club a fond farewell. Here's
> hoping you all can actually find a game you'll buy. Someday.
>
Translation: having made a fool of himself, Steve will go back to
lurking for a while. Uh-huh. Okay.
Vincenzo Beretta
>
> What percentage of gamers:
>
> (1) Want all their games to feature hugely-intrusive Nazi eLicensing.
>
> (2) Wish that *none* of their games featured this kind of Gestapo DRM.
>
> I'd argue that the percentages here are statistically indistinguishable
> from 100% of gamer wanting games to be absolutely DRM free.
The interesting thing in the Spore/Amazon case is how even those who gave to
the game a four stars mark are asking for DRM to be removed:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R385XOJTF1WY3C/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R385XOJTF1WY3C
I.E. The mark is actually given to the game not "as it is", but in an ideal
cracke.... DRM free state.
But, of course, the people on Amazon are not a "statistical relevant" group:
after all, they only represent that part of the general population who
bought a nazi-DRMed game. What do they know? (rollseyes)
Vincenzo Beretta
> degrees in Statistics, Philology, Linguistics, Physics, Law,
> Astronomy, Anthropology, Philosophy and Mathematics so you really
> should listen to what I say very, very carefully.*
Let's see... I actually did one year in Earth Sciences (and passing all the
exams) and one year in Letters & Philosophy (and passing all the exams)
before dropping out and going to the Creative Writing Academy (it was not in
capital letters, but...) After graduating I did one year of specialization
in scriptwriting, and then a further specialization in comic book writing.
Hmmm... all the above should add substance to the *creativity* of my
arguments, doesn't it? ^^
kev9000
>>would help my argument.
>>>Got you beat by three.
You're a hell of a statistician Steve. I said I had only one degree
from the list of subjects cited but you drew the invalid conclusion
that I had only one degree.
Giftzwerg
2859a3...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, ryand...@yahoo.com says...
<rimshot>
Man, you're on a roll.
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
At one time, I worked closely enough with a government to learn that
you don't authorise an enquiry until you're certain that you know the
result you want and you pick the organisation which is going to give
you that result.
I cite as an example the Ken Starr Chamber.
HermanH
wrote:
>
> At one time, I worked closely enough with a government to learn that
> you don't authorise an enquiry until you're certain that you know the
> result you want and you pick the organisation which is going to give
> you that result.
>
> I cite as an example the Ken Starr Chamber.
Well, governments are made up of lawyers and that is the first rule of
the courtroom. Never ask a question that you don't already know the
answer to...
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
wrote:
>Have we met? Didn't think so.
Now THERE'S a snide little lawyer-like attempt at a put-down.
Does it work here on Usenet? NO FUCKING WAY!
You don't know me, either, but if you ever catch on fire, I'll piss on
you. Maybe if you don't, too.
Ralph Hoenig
"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> schrieb >
>
> But that's getting away from the main point. Count up the participants
> on this ng who post on DRM. Compare to any estimate of wargamers you
> choose. The opinions are self-selected, and not statistically
> significant.
>
> Steve
Ok, so here I am, a lurker for years. Never voiced my opinion on DRM.
Guess what, I hate it!
Ralph Hoenig, Germany
BP
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>"What Kind of perv rememembers the scenes where she's clothed???" -
>Anim8rFSK, 8/23/08
[*]???
Holdit
online.de says...
As someone who lurks a lot more than he posts, I would like to add my "I
hate it" for the record.
Although I have posted my dislike of intrusive/"rental" DRM in the past
also - does that make me one of the top five? <preen>
Paul
Holdit
giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
> In article <t4hvl4ddmelc2onb4...@4ax.com>,
> sbar...@visi.com says...
>
> > >Anti-DRM statements may be the province of a few "whackos" (I don't
> > >think so - see other forums). But if we aren't vocal as consumers and
> > >send a message to publishers that going down the DRM road is a bad
> > >idea those very "silent non-whackos" will be the ones crying over the
> > >games and the money they wasted on them (again, see other forums).
> >
> > The best message to send is not to buy. Standing out on the sidewalk
> > repeatedly shouting that You'll Never Eat Their Food does start to
> > look like whacko behavior. Or at minimum, egomaniacal behavior.
>
> Wrong.
>
> The best message to send is, "I won't buy, and *you shouldn't buy,
> either*. And here's why."
>
assume that if people who post here don't tend to like messy DRM
systems, then other like-minded people won't either.
When explained the Battlefront e-Licensing system to my brother (who has
never heard of Usenet and does not frequent game message boards), his
immediate response was "fuck 'em, they can keep it" - this was even
before I'd outlined what I thought of it myself.
(I had deliberately explained it from a neutral point of view because I
wanted to get his "natural" reaction - just to test the possibility
that, just maybe, I was overreacting myself.)
Anecdotal, I know, but not worthless for all that, in my opinion.
Paul
finbogey
I think I'll mention it every chance I get now. Obviously the message
wasn't getting through, leaving it to Mr. Eddy to bring up all the
time. Apparently it appeared to statisticians and pollsters that it
was just 4 or 5 cranks that hate it.
(No graduate school degrees, but I did knock a guy out with two
punches once. If we're bragging.)
-fin
Dimensional Traveler
Anim8rFSK is a regular in some of the sci-fi groups I frequent. That was
one of his posts in a thread in (IIRC) the rec.arts.sf.tv group. I just
find it a funny quote and something useful to rib him with. *grin*
--
DirkG
All this begs the question that the consumer even knows about the DRM
before they buy a game. I bought Lock-On Gold on the close-out rack
years ago on a whim, then discovered that it had Starforce. I knew the
original version didn't so it didn't occur to me that the Gold version
would. Personally, I think software should identify the DRM on the box
the way we have to read about nutritional value and the health risks
about operating heavy machinery while drunk. How many people just buy
the game not knowing what they're going to have to deal with later.
Heck, there was a pretty vocal crowd that defended Starforce.
Briarroot
>
Right, most PC game buyers don't pay any attention to what kind of DRM a
game has as long as it doesn't prevent them from running the program.
Only when they're faced with with massive negative publicity campaigns
and threats of legal action, as in the case of Starforce and UbiSoft,
will the big publishers back away from their protection schemes. They
just don't care about a few hundred DRM complaints appearing in web
forums and Usenet groups because that represents only a very small a
part of the overall market for mainstream games - which is measured in
millions. *Wargame* publishers on the other hand, a group whose
potential market is at best a few thousand grognards, should be paying
careful attention to every DRM critic. Professional pirates tend to
ignore niche products because they can't sell 'em easily, so if small
wargame publishers decide that preventing casual piracy is indeed a goal
worth pursuing, then they ought to be thinking about *enhancing* their
relationship with the market not alienating it. The message they need
to hear is: "Make your potential customers *want* to give you their
money, don't make them hate your guts."
> Personally, I think software should identify the DRM on the box
> the way we have to read about nutritional value and the health risks
> about operating heavy machinery while drunk. How many people just buy
> the game not knowing what they're going to have to deal with later.
> Heck, there was a pretty vocal crowd that defended Starforce.
>
Yeah, system requirements and DRM components ought to be prominently
displayed on boxed retail units as well as featured in online ads and
reviews. 'Cranks' like us should insist on this point.
--
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick
themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill
eddys...@hotmail.com
> > I've taken graduate statistics courses. These aren't random samples.
>
> Why not?
>
> We are of different ages, come from different nations and have different
> backgrounds. Our jobs range to very close to the industry (developers,
> journalists...) to very far. The only thing this NG has in common is an
> interest in wargames, coupled, in a lot of cases, with a more general
> interest in videogames. There is no "groupthink", as the frequent fla...
> heated discussions about everything daily demonstrate. And the vast majority
> of the "samples" are against DRM.
Hole in one.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
If someone doesn't buy a product, the producer has no way of knowing
why, what's wrong with the product. Is it the price ? the era ? the
scale ? the command level ?
Not buying *and* at the same time saying *why* you're not buying is
doing them a huge favour - other companies in other industries spend
huge amounts of money to get the same info.
We should be charging SES for this invaluable market data we're
providing them :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> Even if what you say is true, is this the best forum to tell that
> publisher your views? Are any of them here?
JR admitted to be still lurking in here only a couple of months ago
<waves> - so, yes, they are.
> I think it's a very dense publisher (note: not developer) who doesn't
> know there are anti-DRM POVs in the marketplace.
Giving the way Norm Koger announced it in here you'd think they
collectively think people prefer it.
>But I repeat, is this
> the best place to let them know individual views?
Ok, you might not realize this but a couple of us took it to the next
level and confronted them with it on their own forum.
I got banned at the Battlefront forum for asking too many penetrating
questions about their DRM (*) and if you really want to know the whole
story of what happened at what was then StrategyZone do a Google
search in here. Keywords : "Don Maddox" and "JR"
You're really discussing something while missing a whole lot of pieces
of the puzzle.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
(*) by the same guy who dared to post a "This Forum has been around
for 10 years now. We have never, ever, even ONCE banned someone for
expressing an opinion that is critical of our work."
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003385
eddys...@hotmail.com
> I'll bid
> your little He-Man Developer Haters Club a fond farewell.
Your well-reasoned, evidence rich, non-authoritive posts will be
missed.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Mike Kreuzer
news:7520df1a-c9f7-427a...@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
He'll be back. Unfortunately.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
eddys...@hotmail.com
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7520df1a-c9f7-427a...@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 4 jan, 03:05, Steve Bartman <sbart...@visi.com> wrote:
> >> I'll bid
> >> your little He-Man Developer Haters Club a fond farewell.
>
> > Your well-reasoned, evidence rich, non-authoritive posts will be
> > missed.
>
With a new degree to dazzle us most likely.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
> Heck, there was a pretty vocal crowd that defended Starforce.
These days, though, it's almost (almost...) possible to defend
Starforce, at least on the basis of, "It beats the shit outta server-
chaining; at least I can crack it (sooner or later) and it can't brick
my game on somebody's whim in two months."
In other words, give me Starforce over activation any day.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <gjrv12$tf...@news.motzarella.org>, a...@a.com says...
>
> > Heck, there was a pretty vocal crowd that defended Starforce.
>
> These days, though, it's almost (almost...) possible to defend
> Starforce, at least on the basis of, "It beats the shit outta server-
> chaining; at least I can crack it (sooner or later) and it can't brick
> my game on somebody's whim in two months."
>
> In other words, give me Starforce over activation any day.
Publishers are becoming aware of the anti-DRM backlash - over at The
Wargamer Rich Hamilton of HPS is asking for gamer's input on what is
acceptable copy protection for them
Anything goes as long as these 2 criteria are met :
1) ability to backup the installer / disk
2) ability to install when publisher goes bust
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
HermanH
> In article <gjrv12$tf...@news.motzarella.org>, a...@a.com says...
>
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
Perhaps that is the long-term strategy, overall. Introduce something
so bad that customers will accept virtually any other option as a
'lesser evil.
Giftzwerg
35g2000pry.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > I think it's a very dense publisher (note: not developer) who doesn't
> > know there are anti-DRM POVs in the marketplace.
>
> Giving the way Norm Koger announced it in here you'd think they
> collectively think people prefer it.
<laughter>
Yeah, he had a bowl of feces studded with undigested kernels of corn,
and he was selling fudge ice cream with almonds. He hit the road pretty
fast once a murmur of, "Uhm, are you trying to sell us *shit*?!?"
surfaced.
> > But I repeat, is this
> > the best place to let them know individual views?
>
> Ok, you might not realize this but a couple of us took it to the next
> level and confronted them with it on their own forum.
>
> I got banned at the Battlefront forum for asking too many penetrating
> questions about their DRM (*) and if you really want to know the whole
> story of what happened at what was then StrategyZone do a Google
> search in here. Keywords : "Don Maddox" and "JR"
Don'tcha love it? We should just plain shut up in forums where anybody
can say anything, the better to be banned and have our posts disappeared
in any forum run by (a) the publisher or (b) some lickspittle like
Maddox.
Yeah. Whew. That'll work *great*!
Giftzwerg
nos...@mrnospamplease.com says...
> (No graduate school degrees, but I did knock a guy out with two
> punches once. If we're bragging.)
Heck, I can top that. I once knocked a guy out with *zero* punches.
I stopped a guy for suspected drunk driving, and take him out of the car
for the usual sobriety tests. He decides he's having none of it,
whirls, and serves up a haymaker. But it's winter. And we're standing
on the icy shoulder. His feet fly out from under him, and he
faceplants, catching his chin on the door-handle of his truck.
Klooooooooooooong. Lights out.
[And, of course, in the iron logic of police brass, *I'm* the Bad Guy,
because (it was before cruiser-cam) I'm standing there unhurt over an
unconscious drunk with a split-open chin ... with no way to prove it
wasn't me but karma who laid him out cold. Time to put on your best
"Who, me?" look.]
Giftzwerg
4ce42f...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > In other words, give me Starforce over activation any day.
>
> Publishers are becoming aware of the anti-DRM backlash - over at The
> Wargamer Rich Hamilton of HPS is asking for gamer's input on what is
> acceptable copy protection for them
>
> Anything goes as long as these 2 criteria are met :
>
> 1) ability to backup the installer / disk
> 2) ability to install when publisher goes bust
Agreed.
[To be honest, I don't even much worry about (1) anymore; whatever disk-
based copy protections they use, it's a dead certainty that it'll be
cracked long before something bad happens to my installation media. So
if I can't make a backup today, I'll be able to back it up in six
months.]
Giftzwerg
89c7f9...@y1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, herm...@gmail.com says...
> > In other words, give me Starforce over activation any day.
> Perhaps that is the long-term strategy, overall. Introduce something
> so bad that customers will accept virtually any other option as a
> 'lesser evil.
<shrug>
If that's their plan, it's working. And the future is all
virtualization anyhow, so even rootkit-based protections are starting to
seem a lot less scary.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> And the future is all virtualization anyhow
In what sense ? server-based software ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > And the future is all virtualization anyhow
>
> In what sense ? server-based software ?
I think the trend is pretty clear; already I'm running in virtualized
environments professionally, and a time will come when all my home
systems are VM platforms. At that point, it's going to be increasingly
impossible for something like Starforce to get at the *real* operating
system, because it will have no way of knowing that the virtualized OS
*isn't* the real OS. So when it loads its nasty little driver-set, it
will be doing so in a virtual world (one of dozens on my PC) that's only
going to be used to run that specific game.
Indeed, I can see a point where VMs will even kick the shit outta
activation-based software; users will install a new VM, install the
software in it, activate, and just save the VM off as an image
somewhere. The VM image won't change, so when it's started up, the
software will "see" the same virtual world and still be activated.
Pirates will start putting Windows 9 images on torrents, pre-loaded with
an activated copy of DISTANT GUNS VII: TRAFALGAR.
Frank E
wrote:
>It may be true that DRM is too new a topic for the full range of
>consumer opinion to have washed back to its purveyors through the
>market system. Or, it may have, and those using it are happy with the
>sales trade-offs they see. More likely I think is that the cycle is
>only partly complete, and there will be further modifications in the
>DRM-realm in coming months and years. I'm primarily asking if the
>vocal opinions of a relative handful of non-DRM-supporters outweighs,
>or will outweigh, real numerical market results?
What makes you think that there's a difference between the two? Can
you name one wargame with server based DRM that's actually selling
well?
You might not like the vocal minority on this NG (and I do wish there
were more people posting things like AARs instead of OT threads) but I
submit to you that their track record in picking good and bad games is
better than any 'reviews' web site out there.
Rgds. Frank
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <f5bf2347-19f2-4501-869e-21d95bd1af40
>
> > > And the future is all virtualization anyhow
>
> > In what sense ? server-based software ?
>
> I think the trend is pretty clear; already I'm running in virtualized
> environments professionally, and a time will come when all my home
> systems are VM platforms. At that point, it's going to be increasingly
> impossible for something like Starforce to get at the *real* operating
> system, because it will have no way of knowing that the virtualized OS
> *isn't* the real OS. So when it loads its nasty little driver-set, it
> will be doing so in a virtual world (one of dozens on my PC) that's only
> going to be used to run that specific game.
Well, @work I'm already managing 4 VMWare servers, one of which
contains legacy server-activated software which is now secure whether
that activation server is still up (it isn't) or not but I never made
the mental connection that I could do the same at home with my games -
probably because I never needed it.
The problem really is that running older wargames in VMWare works -
but we'll need a couple more iterations of it for current 3D games to
be supported.
[ Mental note : when the demo for CMx2 Normandy gets released : check
if it runs in VMWare - if it does ...]
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
rus4...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I can certainly buy into items 1 and 2. And of course I don't want the
publisher to break my PC. I believe that BF has stated publicly that
they will "unlock" CMSF if they go under. Does that let them off the
hook at all? I'd argue that they have treated their customers better
than SES, so perhaps we should extend the former more latitude in this
regard than the latter.
But, IMO, there's a larger question that tends to get lost in all this
agitation of hands and arms about DRM. People are being asked to plop
down bucks to rent a wargame. In the case of Jutland, you end up with
nothing but some downloaded files and a code that may, or may not,
activate the game. There's no disc are anything else.
Is it reasonable for one part of the wargaming community to insist
that such a "rented" game is of equal value to one that's been
purchased? The question is relevant, as evidenced by the views
expressed in this thread. The individual who initiated the thread
believes that one is on par with the other. His Usenet audience
apparently disagrees.
What I'm getting at is that there's an element in the wargaming
community that is perpetuating this nonsense, FANBOYS I think you call
them. Give them a title that even temporarily and/or superficially
addresses their interest, and they'll spread their cheeks for just
about anyone, even the likes of Jim Rose. They are the enablers of
this BS and SES couldn't get along without them.
I tested TC2M, off and on, for two years, at times, for up to eighty
hours a week. Were I to have discovered that the publisher intended to
rent the game, rather than sell it, I wouldn't have bothered. Nor
would I have suggested that anyone else purchase the game. I feel that
strongly about this "rental" issue. This isn't right, and the
"battlelines" over wargame rentals shouldn't be blurred by the
relative merits of the content, as those are 100% a matter of taste.
The real fight here is between rental, even "for life with good
behavior," and irrevocable ownership. And I reserve my right to say
so, at least anyplace where I can voice my opinion without it being
"moderated."
Giftzwerg
@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > I think the trend is pretty clear; already I'm running in virtualized
> > environments professionally, and a time will come when all my home
> > systems are VM platforms. At that point, it's going to be increasingly
> > impossible for something like Starforce to get at the *real* operating
> > system, because it will have no way of knowing that the virtualized OS
> > *isn't* the real OS. So when it loads its nasty little driver-set, it
> > will be doing so in a virtual world (one of dozens on my PC) that's only
> > going to be used to run that specific game.
>
> Well, @work I'm already managing 4 VMWare servers, one of which
> contains legacy server-activated software which is now secure whether
> that activation server is still up (it isn't) or not but I never made
> the mental connection that I could do the same at home with my games -
> probably because I never needed it.
>
> The problem really is that running older wargames in VMWare works -
> but we'll need a couple more iterations of it for current 3D games to
> be supported.
That's the rub, of course, but the hardware is getting so huge so
quickly that we're just a year or so from the point where the trend-line
of resources that can be devoted to a virtual machine will wildly exceed
what a "consumer" 32-bit OS can offer. Someone running a VM environment
on a 64-bit machine with 16GB of RAM can quite easily dole out a 4GB
slice to his XP / Vista 32 VM. And tomorrow's Octo-Core CPU is gonna be
cruising at about 25% when a big VM is running.
NoSpam
> punches once. If we're bragging.)
>
Well, if we're just bragging, I got laid last week! (Old Bastard)
And I won't buy DRM either, no matter how good the game.
Henius
> As someone who lurks a lot more than he posts, I would like to add my "I
> hate it" for the record.
>
So it is lurker time. Count me in as "lurker against DRM big time".
Latest calamity is happening on steam. Not only do you need to have
steam open to play, but STALKER Clear Sky also needs to be
"registered" at a place called "Tages, the AAA copy protection site".
Two times DRM is better than one.
Hah, Tages' site has apparantly been down during the christmas week,
and people cannot get their purchases to work. And Tages is on
vacation. Some other games are also affected.
I am one of the luckier: I have only problems with multiplayer, as
Tages forgot to give me the needed registration key. I mailed before
new year, but no response yet. How unexpected.
And this link is especially for Mr. Steve:
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=725779
Quite a good read. The whole forum is about activation problems,
really.
-Henius
Dimensional Traveler
ends support".
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
<nos...@mrnospamplease.com> wrote:
>(No graduate school degrees, but I did knock a guy out with two
>punches once. If we're bragging.)
>
>
If it counts, I once KO'd a bloke with a fork leg.
Graham Thurlwell
<snip>
> But, of course, the people on Amazon are not a "statistical relevant" group:
> after all, they only represent that part of the general population who
> bought a nazi-DRMed game. What do they know? (rollseyes)
I thought Amazon would let people post reviews even if they hadn't
bought the game?
--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
nos...@jades.org /is/ a real email address!
Vincenzo Beretta
"Graham Thurlwell" <nos...@jades.org> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:4bcded18...@d.thurlwell.btopenworld.com...
> On the 4 Jan 2009, "Vincenzo Beretta" <rec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> But, of course, the people on Amazon are not a "statistical relevant"
>> group:
>> after all, they only represent that part of the general population who
>> bought a nazi-DRMed game. What do they know? (rollseyes)
>
> I thought Amazon would let people post reviews even if they hadn't
> bought the game?
I took the time to read most of them back when I was supposed to write my
Spore review (thanks to God I was able to skip this one). A lot of buyers
give some quite detailed accounts of their troubl... nightmares with the
game's DRM - like: they install it on their laptop, see that it doesn't run
well (a legit attempt: I discovered that some unthinkable games run fine on
my EeePC even if the specs are well under) = still one activation burned.
One could say that they had it coming. But I feel that "Average Joe" (i.e.
someone who enters a shop and buys a game for himself or his son the way he
would buy a book) shouldn't have a minor degree in modern computing (101 -
Internet searches; 102 - Common DRMs; etc.) to play a game. Not to mention
how Spore's box is quite opaque re: the specific DRM stunt.
finbogey
>I can certainly buy into items 1 and 2. And of course I don't want the
>publisher to break my PC. I believe that BF has stated publicly that
>they will "unlock" CMSF if they go under. Does that let them off the
>hook at all? I'd argue that they have treated their customers better
>than SES, so perhaps we should extend the former more latitude in this
>regard than the latter.
Yeah, somehow I just don't buy this. If a company is going under, I
reckon the last thing they're thinking about is unlocking their DRM.
They'll be more involved with trying to save their ass. And in a lot
of cases, the usual finger pointing, lawsuits, etc.
-fin
HermanH
>
> Yeah, somehow I just don't buy this. If a company is going under, I
> reckon the last thing they're thinking about is unlocking their DRM.
> They'll be more involved with trying to save their ass. And in a lot
> of cases, the usual finger pointing, lawsuits, etc.
>
> -fin
Especially since it would be an illegal act on their part to give away
assets of the company that is under receivership or bankrupt.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> I believe that BF has stated publicly that
> they will "unlock" CMSF if they go under.
Yup, and next time they do that read carefully what they actually say.
They won't say "we promise to release an unlock" - they'll say
something like "we promise to do our utmost to release an unlock".
Why the careful wording ? Quite simply : because legally they won't be
allowed to release such an unlock and they bloody well know it. When
they fold and people then start to blubber about "but, but you
*promised*" they'll say they did their utmost, as promised, but that
alas the law wasn't allowing it etc.
I know they're just trying to make a buck, but in my eyes promising
something you *know* isn't possible is the same as flat-out lying.
> Does that let them off the
> hook at all? I'd argue that they have treated their customers better
> than SES, so perhaps we should extend the former more latitude in this
> regard than the latter.
Granted - they are *very* dilligent about getting people unlocked, not
like SES where customers have to wait up to a week to get help. That's
why if they ever release a "must have, can't do without game" I'll
probably overlook the DRM too.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Holdit
@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
>
> Granted - they are *very* dilligent about getting people unlocked, not
> like SES where customers have to wait up to a week to get help. That's
> why if they ever release a "must have, can't do without game" I'll
> probably overlook the DRM too.
>
Are you thinking that game might be Histwar: Les Grognards?
Paul
--
As regular readers will know, I'm a happy little atheist and have no
truck with religion -- but beware the pious on either side of the
debate...And pious, joyless atheists who want to denude our culture of
every bit of harmless, seasonal fun are just as stupid and irritating as
pious theists who can't look at any situation without using the
perspective of a 2,000-year-old book of tall tales.
- Ian O'Doherty
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <a5d0032c-6195-440a-a06d-1e2b7c8252c5
>
>
>
> > Granted - they are *very* dilligent about getting people unlocked, not
> > like SES where customers have to wait up to a week to get help. That's
> > why if they ever release a "must have, can't do without game" I'll
> > probably overlook the DRM too.
>
> Are you thinking that game might be Histwar: Les Grognards?
Yup - that's the one I had in mind when I typed the above. The rest of
the pipeline at Battlefront is either not my cup of tea (add-ons to
Strategic Command), RTS-crap (Theatre of War 2) or something for which
alternatives are or will be available (CMx2 Normandy vs. Panzer
Command "West")
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Holdit
@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
I'm in the same boat - having zero interest in CM:SF (even without e-
Licensing). I did bring up the E-Licening issue on the HLG forum but
that achieved nothing more than the predictable piracy accusation.
Although I've said that I won't be buying it, I *might* make an
exception in this case, mainly because the French
Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars is my favourite period, and this game does
seem very promising. Before I cough up the cash, however, I will be
doing the following:
1. Downloading the demo and playing it to death in order to identify
what I perceive to be problems.
2. Carefully reading every review I can find (whilst mentally allowing
for (a) the relatively easy ride games tend to get in online reviews and
(b) that the reviewer may not necessarily have sufficient understanding
of the period.
3. Scouring the forums and this newsgroup for feedback from users
regarding all technical or historical and gameplay.
Only then, if I consider HLG to be the most historical and technically
reliable repreentation of grand tactical warfare from the period and I
consider that this is a game I absolutely *must* have, even if that
means accepting e-Licensing, will I go ahead and buy it. How likely is
this with all those hurdles to be jumped? Not very, because I'm hard put
to think of any other game I've ever played that would have satisfied
these requirements.
Needless to say, without the e-Licensing, that process would have been
shortened to:
1. Buy it. Now.
There is a logical inconsistency with this approach, though, because it
means that if I do buy it then I'm going to like and play it a lot, then
I'm more likely to get burned by the eventual disappearance of
Battlefront than if it was a game I was lukewarm about and would
probably have stopped playing by the time support was withdrawn. Oh, the
irony - activation DRM means you should only buy games you don't like
all that much. (Shome mishtake shurely...)
(As an aside, the whole Steam thing has relegated the upcoming Empire:
Total War from a must purchase to a definitely won't purchase for me
because it has no chance of passing the above tests.)
Paul
--
"The civilian deaths in Gaza are to be mourned, and anyone who says
otherwise is reprehensible. But in a sick and twisted irony, they are
mourned more by Israelis than by Hamas, who know that every dead
Palestinian kid is worth another piece of propaganda."
-Ian O'Doherty