Page 19 of 29 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 285

Thread: LGP Introduces Linux Game Copy Protection

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FUesir View Post
    What, exactly, does (for example) Starduck stand to lose from a Linux port? Why not set a more reasonable price? Hell, if they simply give out the code, fanatics would write them a port for free, and they can build a Linux fan base that might pay off big later on a sequel.
    I can assure you, you're thinking logically and rationally. There is nothing of the sort going on when they come up with this. They expect to see the same sorts of return they see with the WINDOWS titles on everything else. If you can't give them that, they're not interested.

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redeeman View Post
    Fuesir:

    thats not true, even if nobody pirated, they would STILL push for DRM, because they are stupid and doesent realize it does NOT stop anyone from pirating anyway.

    DRM is nothing more than a public statement that everyone is practically criminals, and it aint right.
    Well, you wouldn't have had Michael Simms doing this if they weren't doing it the way it's described- I'd already convinced the man to shelve the whole idea back THREE YEARS AGO. Quite a few people have seen to it that the titles are, at best, breaking even right at the moment- from the looks of things, it's not "at best" by any stretch of the imagination.

    No, I don't believe that a download is a "lost sale"- it's a bit different in my view. Each one of those downloads is akin to violating the terms of the GPL. Willfully.

    I find it highly shameful that Linux users could do anything of the sort in light of how we all are supposed to view IP rights, etc. You want to lash out at somoene, go find those freeloaders that are downloading the stuff and yell at them as much as LGP for putting DRM into things- they're as much to blame as Michael Simms. You want to fight the good fight? Fight that as well if you're not going to pick your fights. Honest. That's not meant to be an attack on you- merely to point out you're missing a key part of the big-picture problem and you're not really fighting the fight the way it needs to be done if you're going that route.
    Last edited by Svartalf; 06-26-2008 at 01:18 AM.

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    370

    Default

    while the people pirating these games are doing stuff wrong, with all do respect, they are not the ones calling ME a criminal, the people employing DRM are..

    what is the saying? two wrongs do not equal one right?

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redeeman View Post
    DRM is nothing more than a public statement that everyone is practically criminals, and it aint right.
    While I don't think it can all be attributed to piracy, I don't think even those who decide on DRM are that inane. I think a more likely case is akin to the movie and music industries: when sales are naturally down anyway, attribute it to piracy rather than people cutting down on luxuries (as games also are) in a soft economy. I do not believe they cackle in smoke-filled rooms deciding how to make gamers' lives more miserable, they just desperately want to believe that it's something at least somewhat in their power to control (piracy) rather than factors completely out of their control (like the economy).

    As for picking fights: it's a matter of the lesser of the evils. When I was in college (studying computer science naturally), I would try to convince friends whom I knew pirated, not to. Even after college for a while I would still try. Now with the heavy-handed and disproportionate response rights-holders have taken to, I have far, far less sympathy for them. If you treat people like criminals, do not be surprised if they act like like ones. The ball is now in the industry's court to prove that they seriously would drop DRM if piracy were much reduced (not stopped, for that is impossible) and take steps towards it now even with all the piracy, as right now they seem to find any and every excuse to impose DRM regardless of circumstance.

    (That is in general BTW; LGP is better than most publishers in holding out so long before even attempting such a thing.)
    Last edited by borgus; 06-26-2008 at 01:35 AM.

  5. #185

    Default

    My opinion as a owner of 12 LGP games:

    I'm willing to pay a significant higher price a LGP game than for the Windows version. But I'm expecting them to deliver a next to perfect product and that doesn't include a DRM system. I simply do not accept a system which makes me depending on LGP's will.

    I used to vote with my wallet and I'll do it in the future, but then LGP wont get anything. If they want me to be a customer in the future, they should rethink about this DRM-thing. And yes, I don't thrust the if-we-go-belly-up-we-will-patch-out-the-drm thing.

    Two proposals:

    1.) release a "nodrm"-patch after maybe two years. I don't know how their salenumbers are over the time, but other game companies to it the same way and they are still alive. And as soon as this patch is released also the drm-haters will/can buy that game.

    2.) Cut down on the price. If they really think that they'll raise their sales with this DRM system, the should be able to cut down the price. If the sell their games for half or less of the current prices, maybe I'm willing to buy it, even if the games contain a (moderate) DRM system. It's the same reason why I bought ETQW. Yes, eventually the servers will be shutted down. Maybe id releases something to avoid problems, maybe not. I knew this and nevertheless I bought the game, because I got it for 10.- (swiss francs), and not for > 80.- (price for LGP game incl. shipping). For that price I can life with a "rented" product.

    May they listen to their current customers or search new ones. (dropping some of the old ones)
    Last edited by rettichschnidi; 06-26-2008 at 06:04 AM.

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Max Spain View Post
    Well, this is one looong thread In response to the people whining about Savage 2 and ET:QW's online checks, I just have to say that this is nothing out of the ordinary (afaik.) Savage 2 and ET:QW track their users and guarantee unique online names by having players log in with usernames/passwords. This is not an unreasonable practice or cause for concern. If any of you have not played those games, I would recommend them. Concerning the Penny Arcade game On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkenss, the only DRM is an install validation which requires you to authenticate once.

    The big problem I see with this LGP thing is that you have to authenticate over and over. This system is NOT well thought out, unnecessary, and should not be applied to a single player game. When/if someone cracks that system, they will completely remove the need to authenticate. In other words, successive authentications will ONLY inconvenience people not using the crack (or fix as I would call it.) LGP should only use an install validation like Greenhouse (distributors of PARSPD) which doesn't inconvenience legit users much (just get online, enter your username/pass, and you're done.) They could also have a validation take place when you update the game.
    This.


    I'm not completely against DRM as I said earlier in this thread.
    Also I can see DRM on many other linux titles as well, but the implementation of it is the important part to me.

    I of course would prefer a single time verification method at least for singleplayer games, such as a simple CD-Key authentication.
    Yep, that would be much better in the terms of usability for end-users.

  7. #187

    Default

    Sorry for going of topic with this post but I came across this while reading up on DRM issues and the business model of this music site is the best I have seen yet for promoting unknown artists:
    http://amiestreet.com/
    and a bit more about their business model:
    http://www.crunchbase.com/company/amiestreet
    again, sorry for going off topic. It does nothing to combat piracy but it does go a long way to promote good artist's help them profit by cuting out the middle man.
    cheers

  8. #188
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redeeman View Post
    while the people pirating these games are doing stuff wrong, with all do respect, they are not the ones calling ME a criminal, the people employing DRM are..

    what is the saying? two wrongs do not equal one right?
    Infringement is a CIVIL affair. They're not calling you a criminal.

    Going on about it in precisely this manner (instead of doing it the way the FSF is doing it) will endear you to NOBODY and it blunts the message you're trying to get across. You will flatly NOT have me telling you to buck it up or any crap like that. And you did provide a suggestion in the other thread (I'll get to looking into it here shortly- quite a few suggestions for something that MIGHT be doable at least as a FOSS answer or to get the indie to publish a Linux version... Impressive.)- keep thinking in THOSE lines and you're going to be in a better position to make your stand work. You CAN'T expect people to take you at all seriously when you go on like you do about all of this in precisely this manner. Honest.

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rettichschnidi View Post
    1.) release a "nodrm"-patch after maybe two years. I don't know how their salenumbers are over the time, but other game companies to it the same way and they are still alive. And as soon as this patch is released also the drm-haters will/can buy that game.
    Decent enough proposal. I wish I had a bit more pull than I do these days with him- it would be something I'd tell him he ought to do with this if I could because if it's a "necessary evil", it only needs to be in there for the viable commercial shelf life of the product at 2-4 years from initial release.

    2.) Cut down on the price. If they really think that they'll raise their sales with this DRM system, the should be able to cut down the price. If the sell their games for half or less of the current prices, maybe I'm willing to buy it, even if the games contain a (moderate) DRM system. It's the same reason why I bought ETQW. Yes, eventually the servers will be shutted down. Maybe id releases something to avoid problems, maybe not. I knew this and nevertheless I bought the game, because I got it for 10.- (swiss francs), and not for > 80.- (price for LGP game incl. shipping). For that price I can life with a "rented" product.
    Heh... Unfortunately, with the insane royalty schedules that the publishers often insist upon, unless you can assure a Linux porting publisher of at least something like 5-7k units sold, the price CAN'T come down. The royalties paid out to MAKE the installs everyone's buying has to be paid up-front and then is made up as part of the sale price. With smaller numbers, you have to make up bigger chunks of that money somehow.

    That's part of the problem. LGP isn't pricing this just to gouge money out of you- it's because they're predicating sales at being like about 2-4k MAX for a given title right at the moment. It's why Runesoft's wanting 200 up-front sales before they can even start offering the titles they're doing with Deck13- they've got to pay at least the rights holder their royalties, largely up-front, for a production run of even 1000 installs of the game.

    When you buy a Windows title or buy a Linux title from some of the forthright individuals that provide Linux games along with the Windows versions, you're buying directly from them. You don't have a rapacious middleman that holds the rights and expects to be paid first in the picture. It's why it's preferable to get them to make Linux versions themselves (Even Michael Simms says this in an interview with him in one of the UK Linux magazines...). The problem is, they don't see us as customers yet in most of the cases. So...you end up having a chicken and egg problem.

    Everyone wants the chicken because that's what they're used to from the Windows and to a lesser extent the Mac world these days. Unfortunately, you've got this egg that might become a chicken if you keep it warm, nurture it, and let it hatch- but you all can't wait. You don't want DRM (a seperate fight...). You want it right now. (Another fight...) You want it at the same pricing as the Windows versions (yet another fight...). All of which will fix itself in due time if you don't all go off on a rampage over all these different issues all at once.

    Everybody needs to come to the realization that you've got an egg here instead of the chicken- and if you don't act like it's an egg, all you'll get is an omelet, instead of what you REALLY wanted in the first place.
    Last edited by Svartalf; 06-26-2008 at 11:49 AM.

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shiver View Post
    The arguing is mostly pointless as those who think DRM is needed will not change their minds and vice-versa.
    Back in the early 80s, games came with some really annoying 'copy protection', such as silly prismatic lenses you had to hold in front of the TV screen in order to try to read some fuzzy-looking text to type in to start the game, which you usually got wrong at least one time in two. By around 1990, pretty much all that had gone, because companies eventually realised that it didn't work, it was a waste of their time and it did drive away customers.

    I don't see any reason why the current DRM mania shouldn't go the same way.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •