Entitled gamers, corrupt press and greedy publishers

[Mize]

Always online DRM is am unreasonable fair use restriction. Why do you think EA insists it's not DRM but required because of the online component of SimCity? Certainly there are games that would be rather dull when not online, but many others simply use online status for increased sales and DRM. In these cases it's an unreasonable restriction on fair use and an invasion of privacy (why should EA get to know if I'm running the game at my house, my grandmother's house or my office in Beijing).

IMHO always online DRM will die a legal death. Imagine if you could only play a DVD or BluRay while connected to the internet? That's would go down as a fair use issues.

 

[Ghostz]

People proposing the state to regulate fair commerce almost never happens in the US, not even the most liberal of liberals and I live in New York, the state only more liberal is probably California lol. I haven't payed attention to SimCity but I've been following Gears of War Judgement and like I said, people are voting with their wallets. The game isn't selling as well as gow3 because they ship an unfinished game, in the tale end of the generation, in a month where you can simply pass it for other games. I concede if there hasn't been a sim-whatever in so many years it may be impossibly diffcult to pass up the new one even knowing the draconian drm is there but still that's your choice.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

People proposing the state to regulate fair commerce...

No-one has proposed that in this thread AFAIK.

 

[Ghostz]

I never said they would, or that they'd do it successfully, so there's no point trying to have that argument. I was saying the consumer often looks to the state to regulate things they don't like, rather than self-regulate with their purchasing choices. That's just human behaviour.

What is your implication here then? You're wrong in assuming people look to the state to regulate ( yes, that would be a proposition ) because they can't regulate their own behavior. That's nonsensical. I have a desire to have sex with every attractive women I see but I'm not going to go rape them.

 

[Mize]

This thread has some of the worst analogies I've ever read.

 

[Ghostz]

You won't have to read bad analogies if people don't make stupid generalities. See what I did ther?

 

[function]

Are you implying that you can't regulate your own behaviour?

See what I did ther?

The edit to imply intentional irony?

 

[Ghostz]

^^ Me? Never.

The edit to imply intentional irony?

I never notice me ironic cynicism before it's too late. Damn it all! Burn the hedges!

 

[Mize]

We don't have anti-trust laws because consumers are so great at preventing market abuse now, do we? The capitalistic ideal that "consumers voting with their wallets" will self regulate bad or unethical practices in the marketplace is just plain wrong.

Every day many of us buy products and services (often unbeknownst to us) from companies we would prefer not to do business with but have no choice or no control over what choice there is. 401k plans are notorious money-makers for investment bankers that have required year after year of regulation to stop unethical practices (that still go on) because consumers have no clue and the vehicles are so opaque.

I could go on and on with examples, but I'm sure you get my point.

Getting back to always-online DRM, it seems nobody wants to answer the questions of "what if" all software, DVDs, music, etc. worked this way? By the arguments used in favor of always-online DRM, this should be acceptable for these as well, right? No more movies on the iPad at 35,000 feet or DVDs on the TV in the basement where there is no internet connection or working on that presentation as you fly to Japan.

All of those are unthinkable for the same reason something as trite as not being able to play SimCity on the way to China is unthinkable. There is no good reason for an internet connection to be required.

 

[Cjail]

What is your implication here then? You're wrong in assuming people look to the state to regulate ( yes, that would be a proposition ) because they can't regulate their own behavior. That's nonsensical. I have a desire to have sex with every attractive women I see but I'm not going to go rape them.

People look to the state to regulate but often DON'T self-regulate.

 

[Ghostz]

We don't have anti-trust laws because consumers are so great at preventing market abuse now, do we? The capitalistic ideal that "consumers voting with their wallets" will self regulate bad or unethical practices in the marketplace is just plain wrong.

You are moving the target by making it a making a "moral" argument. Why push your morals on everyone? I reject your religion!

Getting back to always-online DRM, it seems nobody wants to answer the questions of "what if" all software, DVDs, music, etc. worked this way? By the arguments used in favor of always-online DRM, this should be acceptable for these as well, right? No more movies on the iPad at 35,000 feet or DVDs on the TV in the basement where there is no internet connection or working on that presentation as you fly to Japan.

All of those are unthinkable for the same reason something as trite as not being able to play SimCity on the way to China is unthinkable. There is no good reason for an internet connection to be required.

I can't play a number of games on my way to China all of which require online connections. I'm not understanding the point. Where can I get my offline play for swtor on my trip to Japan in May? I mean it's practically a single player game already in the same sense that simcity is.

 

[Mize]

You are moving the target by making it a making a "moral" argument. Why push your morals on everyone? I reject your religion!

Are you serious? Anti-trust / anti-fraud is somehow a personal subjective thing for you?

I can't play a number of games on my way to China all of which require online connections. I'm not understanding the point. Where can I get my offline play for swtor on my trip to Japan in May? I mean it's practically a single player game already in the same sense that simcity is.

Congratulations. This is knows as "dodging the point" as you clearly can read. There are plenty of online games that simply aren't games without being online. I made it clear that those are *not* what I'm talking about. I am referring to games that do not require any online component but require online connectivity. SWOTR is an MMO. SimCity has entirely private modes.

Now answer the questions. If windows 9 required always-online would you be okay with that? How about Office 2014? How about a DVD you purchased of Star Wars Episode XXI?

We're discussing media with no need for an online connection requiring it. Either stop dodging the point and answer the question or admit you're grasping for straws - and missing.

 

[Ghostz]

Are you serious? Anti-trust / anti-fraud is somehow a personal subjective thing for you?

Anti-trust laws in this country are joke and they only work about a 1/3 of the time if you get caught. It certainly doesn't deter behavior.

Congratulations. This is knows as "dodging the point" as you clearly can read. There are plenty of online games that simply aren't games without being online. I made it clear that those are *not* what I'm talking about. I am referring to games that do not require any online component but require online connectivity. SWOTR is an MMO. SimCity has entirely private modes.

How do you know simcity won't evolve? How do you know they won't turn it into a service something closer to a mmo?

Now answer the questions. If windows 9 required always-online would you be okay with that? How about Office 2014? How about a DVD you purchased of Star Wars Episode XXI?

I don't even use Windows. I'm using a FREE OS. See, you don't have to use Windows, how about showing some agency instead of mental dissonance?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What is your implication here then? You're wrong in assuming people look to the state to regulate ( yes, that would be a proposition ) because they can't regulate their own behavior. That's nonsensical.

There are people who wish they didn't smoke but still do. There are people who wish they weren't so fat but still over-eat. There are people who wish they had a better job but won't go looking. There are people who hate buggy software but still end up buying buggy software. There are people who hate the DRM schemes of HD content they have bought (BRDs) but they still buy them rather than boycotting the products until the companies change behaviour. There are people who want to learn an instrument but don't spend the time practising. And there are people who wish DRM wasn't present in games but will still buy them.

If you believe human beings are 100% conscious entities operating on intelligent reasoning and with complete control over their actions and choices, always making the intelligent choice for the greater good and willing to make personal sacrifices to stand up for their principles, you have a very different outlook on society and history than I. But this isn't an RSCPA thread and that subject doesn't need to be discussed.

tuna : People can choose not to buy DRM

me : people having to choose not to buy DRM means people choosing to go without something they like, which they aren't fond of doing. If there was an easy alternative, they'd switch. If the State would step in and make DRM illegal, people would be all in favour. But as it is, DRM will be a choice that the companies will make and I expect it'll get minimal resistance from customers.

All the rest of this discussion is people going off at tangents on politics and psychology and goodness knows what.

 

[Mize]

Anti-trust laws in this country are joke and they only work about a 1/3 of the time if you get caught. It certainly doesn't deter behavior.




How do you know simcity won't evolve? How do you know they won't turn it into a service something closer to a mmo?

I don't even use Windows. I'm using a FREE OS. See, you don't have to use Windows, how about showing some agency instead of mental dissonance?

You've not answered anything. A free OS (one of my daily drivers has been Linux since 1998) has nothing to do with the questions you refuse to answer. What something might "evolve into"? LMAO, that's just too cute!

I'll take your reply as acknowledgement of defeat.

 

[Ghostz]

There are people who wish they didn't smoke but still do. There are people who wish they weren't so fat but still over-eat. There are people who wish they had a better job but won't go looking. There are people who hate buggy software but still end up buying buggy software. There are people who hate the DRM schemes of HD content they have bought (BRDs) but they still buy them rather than boycotting the products until the companies change behaviour. There are people who want to learn an instrument but don't spend the time practising. And there are people who wish DRM wasn't present in games but will still buy them.

If you believe human beings are 100% conscious entities operating on intelligent reasoning and with complete control over their actions and choices, always making the intelligent choice for the greater good and willing to make personal sacrifices to stand up for their principles, you have a very different outlook on society and history than I. But this isn't an RSCPA thread and that subject doesn't need to be discussed.

tuna : People can choose not to buy DRM

me : people having to choose not to buy DRM means people choosing to go without something they like, which they aren't fond of doing. If there was an easy alternative, they'd switch. If the State would step in and make DRM illegal, people would be all in favour. But as it is, DRM will be a choice that the companies will make and I expect it'll get minimal resistance from customers.

All the rest of this discussion is people going off at tangents on politics and psychology and goodness knows what.

For me it's has never been about making the right choice, making the "moral" choice or really being that "intelligent" a misnomer. The reason why people like Blizzard and EA or whatever/whoever can get away with online drm is because there isn't a substantial push back against it.

I found out a few days back there's twice as many negative words in the English language than positive ones. People just like to bitch and moan but never exercise any real agency about crap that isn't going to affect their very existence and well-being. Eventually DRM will simply go away because it's not scalable, you can't economize it when the internet's hackvist IQ is expanding.

...and seriously, making more laws? Like politicians are ever going to get around to doing anything anyway......I know that sh*t is universal.

You've not answered anything. A free OS (one of my daily drivers has been Linux since 1998) has nothing to do with the questions you refuse to answer. What something might "evolve into"? LMAO, that's just too cute!

I'll take your reply as acknowledgement of defeat.

Defeat? I didn't know there was even a battle. Your questions were easily refuted by exercising the simplest of choices. That's why your argument has nowhere else to go.

 

[tuna]

Tuna, do you really not see the problem? Do you honestly think always online DRM is ok?

I did not buy the Capcom PSN games that require online DRM. But if I owned a publisher I would like to see them maximize revenue. If having online DRM would stop or delay piracy (seems to work pretty good for D3 and new Sim City) then that is something that the publisher should do.

The company I work for employ online DRM for our software products and that seems to work pretty well. We used hardware dongles before.

 

[tuna]

My stance is this. If I would like to sell a game/SW product that requires an internet connection I should be free to do that. A lot of people will not be able to use that product and should therefor not buy it. That is perfectly fine. But there should be very few restrictions on what you can produce and sell. And if people buy my product despite not liking my restrictions, good for me! Hopefully a competitor without my restrictions will not appear, but that can happen in a free market.

 

[Ghostz]

I think everyone who is software production is ok with DRM, at least that's the consensus I get. But yea that's the social contract. The seller has the freedom to sell product with DRM in it and the buyer has the freedom to not purchase based on the intent of the seller.

 

[Mize]

Defeat? I didn't know there was even a battle. Your questions were easily refuted by exercising the simplest of choices. That's why your argument has nowhere else to go.

But you refuted nothing.
It's really a simple question that you cannot seem to answer directly.

Is it acceptable for all software to require always-online DRM?

Can you even answer that simple question?

If there is software where always-online is *not* acceptable, what is your criteria for not acceptable?

Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not you run linux. It's just a very simple question.