Know clue why I'm surprised in any shape or form

I don't think it's just the fact that the player has to be on the server to play single-player. Another factor is that Blizzard's servers overloaded on launch day for the majority of the players and for the ones who could get on, the game didn't play right.

 

Because it is an art? Tell me this: has any artist who did it strictly for the money been remembered as a great influence on aesthetics and culture? They might do it for recognition.

Your argument is that I should not give a man a small glass of water because it will not quench his thirst. His chances of having his thirst quenched are better with the small glass than without it. So it is with them "learning" that DRM hurts business and does not help it.

Even if they still make money, DRM is not helping them make that money. It is just that there are not enough pirates for them to consider changing tactic. DRM does not put a stop to piracy, but it has harmed the experience of people who do not try to get around it. It will drive more people to become pirates simply because they do not like being treated badly as a paying customer.

Some boycotting is more likely to make them learn than none because as you say, they want profits. Do you acknowledge this?

 

The difference with video games is that video games are part of a huge business. It usually doesn't take much money to create a piece of art like a painting or a sculpture. However, it takes millions of dollars to create a game. They still need to make money to make a profit and with great studios like Team Bondi and Pandemic going under, it's hard to not care about money. There's no question that a video game is art, but it's also a product to be sold, and it's created to make a profit.

Not true. DRM isn't a way to stop piracy completely. DRM is to stop the people who are too impatient to wait for a crack, and go out and buy the game instead. I don't like DRM either, but it's there for a reason. When people look at DRM they look at a massive success as the only way it can be effective, when in reality, implementing it does get more people to buy the game, which is the whole point of it.

 

Indie developers manage to make a profit (I assume) despite a lack of rigorous anti-piracy measures. How do they do it?

I see. That explains why they have kept it up. It does not deter most pirates, though. Even the RIAA is admitting that innovation is the most effective method. I have yet to meet a pirate who was doing it when they could have bought the game just as easily.

And it does annoy me a great deal. Like with Sony taking out the third party OS option (and most other systems simply not allowing it from the start; Apple, anyone?). You already payed for the hardware in that case, and you were using software that was not involved with them. I was planning to install a Linux distribution. That really pissed me off.

 

Perhaps one day they'll realize that the only people who get harmed by DRM is the paying customers.

 

Much lower budget, basically no staff, not as graphically advanced, usually very short games. It's not exactly a science to see the difference. And which companies do get the most recognition? The indie developers or the companies that make the huge blockbusters? The latter. By a very large margin. Video games are not an art, they are just entertainment and it's all a business, and the consumers like it this way.

You might say that, but how come PC games without any sort of DRM still get pirated to hell and back? Like with the Witcher 2, which has been pirated at least four times for every copy bought. They are very much against any sort of DRM, and yet people still pirate their game like crazy. Which proves that DRM is the only way to go if you are a sensible developer.

 

They should not. I have the same problem with the film industry.

I have never heard of it. Not the first one, either.

Do they profit despite the amount of piracy? This is important.

I disagree. If people do not want to buy your game without you fucking it up with DRM, then you are not making it appealing enough. No one has an obligation to pay you for your bad decisions. Competition should be based on the quality of a product and consumers should have to learn that if you do not pay for a game willingly, the company will die out. If you want more games, it is prudent to pay. These economic principles paired with innovation will do a better job of curbing piracy than anything else.

 

They sold 1.2 million copies in 2011, but people are also considering Witcher 2 to be one of the best RPGs in a long time.

 

Have you played it? Who made it, and what language is it in? Surprised I have not heard of it.

Also, piracy tends to skyrocket if the pricetag is ridiculous. Should have asked about the price as well.

 

They already do. They couldn' t care less. Perhaps one day the customers will realize they are the ones holding all the cards ? Buy it or leave it, it' s as simple as that, it' s just a marshmallow test variant. Fooled me once, shame on you, fooled me twice, shame on me.

[video=youtube;QX_oy9614HQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX_oy9614HQ[/video]

 

I played it. Great game, but too much traditional fantasy for me. It was made by CD Project Red, a polish company who translated it to English.

 

How much did it cost/where is it sold?

 

REMEMBER HOW BAD PORTAL 2 AND SKYRIM DID IN SALES BECAUSE THEY GOT PIRATED SO HARD DUE TO NOT HAVING ANY FORM OF DRM!
Oh wait...


Point is if you make a good game and advertise it correctly then people will buy it
Yes there will always be pirates but at the end of the day as long as the consumers outweigh the pirates then who cares.
DRM benefits nobody
Pirates continue to pirate
Consumers are forced to do needless things
Companies waste more money on DRM.

 

Games with DRM seem to have more copies sold, compared to how many were pirated. Therefore it is a safe assumption to say that DRMs benefit the companies. Is that something you would call a waste now?

 

Ignore piracy and look at the profits alone, because piracy is not theft; it is functionally equivalent to simply not buying the game. Do companies without DRM sell fewer copies than companies with it? Furthermore, if your logic is that more money is better, why don't you go to straight-up extortion? Why would they settle for less, right?

 

But looking at pure profit is dependent on advertisements alone, while looking at how many copies they sold, versus how many were pirated, show what DRM can do to your sales. To answer to your question though, games with DRM do sell better than games without. Take the biggest RPG without DRM last year, the Witcher 2. This game did not sell nearly as well as the biggest game with DRM, which was Skyrim. So that's more evidence that DRM is better than none, right?

Elaborate on the extortion, I do not understand the context.

 

I will argue that Witcher 2 was a matter of advertisement, as again, I had not heard of it before this thread. At all.

... Skyrim had DRM? Please source that. Others have implied differently in this thread already.

You sidestepped my question. Would you be arguing for extortion because it gets more money as well? Where do you draw the line?

 

And yet it was big enough that four and a half million people downloaded it, versus one million people buying it. That's a lot of people downloading it. Are the pirates just into more obscure games than people who actually buy games?

http://muslimgamer.com/skyrim-patch-adds-drm-thanks/ Skyrim requires Steam to be running for you to play it. That's DRM.

Not really, because I am not arguing for DRM making money. I am arguing for it working against piracy. And although money is part of that, it's not everything.

 

In all likelihood they are. Pirates are not most people. Also, how do you know that four million pirated it? Where did you get that number?

It was a patch added on later. At that point it could only serve to hinder those who had already bought the game. Did I read incorrectly? Please note that this only affect people after the game's release and that it does not apply in the same way a built-in DRM from the day of release would.

 

so much tl;dr in this thread, but i like diablo iii so far, i haven't had any problems whatsoever.