This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Are steam only games inmune to piracy?

#71The cranky hermitPosted 8/17/2014 7:31:25 PM
And yes, reducing piracy is preventing it, if it simply stops one person from pirating the game, it "prevented" them from pirating it

But it didn't prevent piracy. It prevented an individual from committing piracy. Two different things.

And if you *don't* think those are two different things, well, you're playing word games, but the original claim is still wrong. DRM does, in fact, prevent individuals from pirating games. In fact, it's been downright effective at preventing individuals from pirating games on occasion. I very much doubt you can ever demonstrate that being nice to your customers has ever been effective at preventing individuals from pirating games, outside of presenting flimsy anecdotal evidence.

And in all reality, all you are doing at this point is playing the semantics game, which is tedious and pointless.

No, that's not all I'm doing. See my second paragraph - you may have ignored it, but I am making a point here that hasn't got anything at all to do with arguing over the meaning of words.

And secondly, you're the one who started it by trying to explain to me what he REALLY meant by "preventing" piracy.
---
http://thecrankyhermit.wikispaces.com/
Year-by-year analysis of the finest gaming has to offer, and (eventually) more!
#72TimePharaohPosted 8/17/2014 7:50:51 PM(edited)
The cranky hermit posted...
And if you *don't* think those are two different things, well, you're playing word games, but the original claim is still wrong. DRM does, in fact, prevent individuals from pirating games. In fact, it's been downright effective at preventing individuals from pirating games on occasion. I very much doubt you can ever demonstrate that being nice to your customers has ever been effective at preventing individuals from pirating games, outside of presenting flimsy anecdotal evidence.


...how about the fact that anyone actually buys games? Every person who buys a game chooses to purchase it instead of pirating it. Now why would people do this? A single person who buys a game to "support a company", guess what? He just bought a game because the company was "nice" to him and made him want to support them.

And show me this person who said "darn, I was going to pirate this game, but dat DRM stopped me so I guess I'll buy it"? That doesn't exist. If someone wants to pirate something...they will. Easily.
#73Lum_YatsuraPosted 8/17/2014 8:01:27 PM
Setzera posted...
There isn't a single game / DRM system I'm aware of that can't be pirated. So far the only way to prevent piracy is to please your fans, give them the benefit of the doubt.

I remember Ubisoft made 2 copies of a game once, one with DRM and one without, the one with DRM was hacked a pirated tons more times, than the version that had no DRM and could be easily done.

People will do it just to spite DRM.


It's interesting the times when nobody cares enough to bother. Several of the GBA movies haven't been dumped (standard equipment doesn't work on them).

Or when pirates find other ways around an issue than tackle it head-on. I don't recall StarForce in Pac-Man World 2 being directly cracked.
---
3ds fc: 5026 4515 5016
We'll ion buzz to the blue stars over there!?
#74The cranky hermitPosted 8/17/2014 8:05:06 PM
...how about the fact that anyone actually buys games? Every person who buys a game chooses to purchase it instead of pirating it. Now why would people do this? A single person who buys a game to "support a company", guess what? He just bought a game because the company was "nice" to him and made him want to support them.

Funny, I always thought that the de facto customer buys a game because they wanted the product.

Or are you saying that making a game itself counts as being nice? In that case, every company is nice just by having a product available to buy, and you contribute nothing at all by saying "they should be nice to the customers," because they already are.

And show me this person who said "darn, I was going to pirate this game, but dat DRM stopped me so I guess I'll buy it"?

You're putting words into my mouth. All I claimed is that DRM has prevented individuals from pirating, not that it enticed them into paying (though intuitively a percentage of them must have). It worked pretty well for Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=24035
---
http://thecrankyhermit.wikispaces.com/
Year-by-year analysis of the finest gaming has to offer, and (eventually) more!
#75VoxwikPosted 8/17/2014 9:29:40 PM
I've seen a few people make references to "illegally" playing Sim City. I've never played the game mind you, but if someone bought it and used a hack to play it offline that is not illegal. The courts sided in the favor of the consumer on that front.

I think DRM is probably most effective at casual piracy, like someone just trying to use their optical drive burner to straight up copy a game disc. If they run into a problem they might just give up or lend the game (which has the same net effect as piracy of course) but I think it's silly to say the DRM does nothing at all.

There is no good excuse for intrusive DRM though, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't consider Steam's intrusive. Not all Steam games even use the optional DRM either, for that matter.
#76TimePharaohPosted 8/17/2014 9:47:18 PM(edited)
The cranky hermit posted...
Funny, I always thought that the de facto customer buys a game because they wanted the product.

Or are you saying that making a game itself counts as being nice? In that case, every company is nice just by having a product available to buy, and you contribute nothing at all by saying "they should be nice to the customers," because they already are.


If a customer buys a game simply because they want a product, why buy it? They can download it, have the product, and save the money. If "I want this" is the "de facto reason" as you say, then purchasing it is a moot point.

Ever heard of "No Steam, no buy"? And people refusing to buy games on Origin? Hmm, why would that be? People hate EA because they're "not nice" to customers. So are you saying the inverse isn't true?

Obviously people are more inclined to give certain groups money. I will never buy another Capcom game, because they're a ***** company, much like I won't buy a Ubisoft game. However I buy Suda51 games on platforms I own because I want to support his games (unless they're Capcom games now, because **** Capcom overrides that). Same goes for music. I buy CD copies of rips I already have, because I want to support that specific artist for whatever reason.

Saying something like "DRM discourages piracy but being nice to your customers doesn't encourage support" is pretty derpy, and sounds like something written by an RIAA CEO. Cause it's not like giving incentive to your customers is the model of a massively successful digital distribution platform or anything, nope.
#77SetzeraPosted 8/17/2014 9:47:54 PM
Edavy89 posted...
I didn't have to correct it for him, I had to explain it for you. He simply made the mistake of assuming people on gamefaqs have common sense and didn't need it spelled out to them in black and white.

And yes, reducing piracy is preventing it, if it simply stops one person from pirating the game, it "prevented" them from pirating it. You seem to be mistaking preventing piracy with eliminating piracy, which no one ever claimed.

And in all reality, all you are doing at this point is playing the semantics game, which is tedious and pointless.


You sir, I shall give free drinks and bacon, should the opportunity ever arise. I just don't have the energy to deal with these things anymore.
---
| AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 ghz | MSI 970A-G46 | MSI HD 7870 2GB | 8GB 1600 DDR3 | 650W Corsair | Win7 64bit | 1TB WD Blue | CM 912 HAF |
#78The cranky hermitPosted 8/17/2014 10:05:07 PM(edited)
Lending games doesn't have anywhere near the same net effect as piracy. You can only borrow a game if you personally know someone who bought the game, and you have to wait until they're done with it. This severely limits how many "lost sales" can possibly occur as a result. No such limit exists with piracy, nor do the pirates have to wait for anyone to be done with the game. For reference, as of early 2012, over 4.5 million people pirated The Witcher 2, while only 1 million bought it. For used games to have the same net impact, you would need 4.5 million cheapskates to borrow a legitimate copy from 1 million of their personal friends. More if the game sold more than 1 million copies. This simply does not happen.

If a customer buys a game simply because they want a product, why buy it?

You tell me. Because EVERY game is bought by SOMEONE. Regardless of how "nice" the company selling it is.

Ever heard of "No Steam, no buy"? And people refusing to buy games on Origin? Hmm, why would that be? People hate EA because they're "not nice" to customers. So are you saying the inverse isn't true?

Anecdotal evidence does not impress me. A few people being vocal about their platform loyalty on message boards does not prove that EA games sell less than anyone else's.

Saying something like "DRM discourages piracy but being nice to your customers doesn't encourage support" is pretty derpy, and sounds like something written by an RIAA CEO.

"DRM discourages piracy" actually means something, and it's been demonstrated to work on occasion.

"Be nice to your customers" means precisely dick. It can't possibly be demonstrated to work, because it doesn't even mean anything.

Cause it's not like giving incentive to your customers is the model of a massively successful digital distribution platform or anything, nope.

Pointing to Valve and Steam is a gigantic red herring. Steam isn't a game! And Valve is barely in the business of game development these days. You can't point to Valve's success as a model for how game developers should behave. They are completely different businesses, even for devs that distribute on Steam. Nor does distributing Steam by any means ensure that there will be success.

Valve invests very little in any given game on Steam. They risk almost nothing for any given game on their platform, and reap disproportionately high rewards. The devs risk everything. You can not say to any game dev "do what Valve does and you'll be rewarded too."
---
http://thecrankyhermit.wikispaces.com/
Year-by-year analysis of the finest gaming has to offer, and (eventually) more!
#79petran78Posted 8/18/2014 7:29:16 AM
Mewone posted...
lol, careful talking about piracy here. I was modded on these forums for "illegal activities" without the chance to contest just for saying that I think piracy is okay in certain situations. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thread got shut down by some massively biased, anti-piracy mod.


haha, yes my post was deleted as well. yet over 10 million people in my country know that those broadcasters dont have any license....well, if a state supports illegal activities, I give up.....

Gamefaqs is not for such discussions

The cranky hermit posted...
No, nothing in that post made any sense either. You are still rambling utter nonsense that can't even be classified as wrong. There was not one sentence, clause, or syllogism in that brain fart of a post that applied to anything at all.


we're adults. Please discuss in a respectful manner. Degrading the opinion of others by ironic comments does not suit your culture. Fortunately your post wasnt deleted, though according to Gamefaqs TOS it should

I cant develop my argument further because my post was deleted, even though it was stating the obvious. The higher you are, the easier it is to cover your crimes....
---
Q.You want so see some other stuff? What Console? A.Console? Q.What platform? A.Uh, Moral Turpitude?
Q.PC it is, then.
#80Edavy89Posted 8/18/2014 7:52:33 AM
Setzera posted...
Edavy89 posted...
I didn't have to correct it for him, I had to explain it for you. He simply made the mistake of assuming people on gamefaqs have common sense and didn't need it spelled out to them in black and white.

And yes, reducing piracy is preventing it, if it simply stops one person from pirating the game, it "prevented" them from pirating it. You seem to be mistaking preventing piracy with eliminating piracy, which no one ever claimed.

And in all reality, all you are doing at this point is playing the semantics game, which is tedious and pointless.


You sir, I shall give free drinks and bacon, should the opportunity ever arise. I just don't have the energy to deal with these things anymore.


Haha thanks. Yeah, at this point I can't say i care anymore either. The bottom line is your point was correct, and hermit is arguing for the sake of arguing just because he wants to. And like my previous post said, at this point the whole thing is just tedious.