Slashdot Mirror
Game Distribution and the 'Idiocy' of DRM
In light of the increased focus on the DRM controversy in recent days, Ars Technica did an interview with execs from CD Projekt's Good Old Games about where the problems are with current DRM implementation. "For me, the idiocy of those protection solutions shows how far from reality and from customers a lot of executives at big companies can be. You don't have to be a genius to check the internet and see all the pros and cons of those actions." Penny Arcade is also running a three-part series on DRM from game journalists Brian Crecente and Chris Remo. Crecente talks about how some companies are making progress in developing acceptable DRM, and some aren't. Remo recommends against a trend of overreaction to minor gripes.
Is crack it.
There are now two games I *really* wanted that I can't get because I don't want their DRM infesting my machine. Nor do I want to use pirated games (being a programmer myself I don't like to download illegally, I really would prefer to pay), so I don't get to play at all.
I've been a computer gamer since 1983, and this not being able to buy things because of stuff put there to stop piracy is a new experience for me.
I hope its short lived, or the number of new games I buy is going to plummet.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
I saw a good quote from a games company's enlightened Chief Executive recently -
"DRM can encourage the best customers to behave slightly better. It will never address the masses of non-customers downloading your product."
Why the others haven't understood this I don't know. And note the 'DRM can encourage...'. I'd say I'm a good customer (I spend a bunch anyway), but I'm increasingly drawn to warez, because they - and I can't believe I'm writing this - are less likely to screw my gaming PC. What is the world coming to?
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
DRM takes control of the product away from the consumer and put it in the hands of the media owner. When you buy any DRM-encumbered media, you don't control that media. The way you use that media is determined by the content owner. Don't have an HDCP-compatible monitor? Well, I guess you can't view these discs in HD the way they were intended. Don't have a fairplay-compatible MP3 player? Tough, you can't listen to the music you bought and paid for. The hilarious thing is that every single DRM scheme ever invented has been circumvented by pirates, and only legitimate, law-abiding consumers have to put up with this. Why buy media which is just going to impede your efforts to use it, when you can download it and play it any damn way you want to?
current DRM?
acceptable DRM?
right..
"Penny Arcade is also running a two-part series on DRM from game journalists Brian Crecente and Chris Remo."
It's a three part series, only two parts are up. The third will be up on Monday.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
You can't protect software by disabling it. Corporations underestimate the community's ability to understand, and work around, any software problem they come across.
Remember that approach to DRM?
Even that can be screwed up. Knowledge Revolution, makers of Working Model, a kind of CAD system with a physics engine, once shipped me a program with that kind of DRM. Unfortunately, the manual was just slightly out of sync with the program; if the program wanted a page number more than halfway through the manual, it wouldn't work. It often took a few tries to get the program to run, retrying until the page number that came up was in the first half of the manual.
Actually, I'm surprised that Microsoft doesn't support some standard Windows DRM system based on their Trusted Computing Platform technology.
For game developers, the realistic solution is to either develop for consoles, or develop multiplayer versions that require a server account.
Talk about false dichotomy.
It'd be like "Either I can rape my kids, or have no children". Guess what? There's a third, and very palatable answer. We'll let YOU figure that out, if you are mentally able.
"Remo recommends against a trend of overreaction to minor gripes"
That, in a nutshell, is why the industry isn't taking all the bleating about DRM seriously. DRM is a business decision. It's not there because they hate your freedom, it's there because they think it will help stop or at least slow piracy. If the world wasn't full of thieves, there would be no DRM.
Acting like DRM will go away if you cry about it is childish. It will only go away by becoming invisible. Nobody seems to know that iPhone apps are protected with DRM, nor that it helps bring prices down (although it certainly doesn't have to; PSP DRM hasn't had any effect on software prices).
The real issue is that DRM doesn't work well in the hands of software producers (audio/video/apps), because their monetary conflict of interest pushes them to wield the power of DRM to extort hight prices.
The only successful DRM comes from hardware makers (read: Apple) who balance the power to govern sales without extortion prices and without runaway piracy, because their interests are aligned with both consumers and intellectual property content producers.
That's why Microsoft's DRM didn't work; the company only cared about producers because it wasn't selling its DRM products directly to consumers, and subsequently stacked the deck against end users.
Apple carries DRM like the Ring.
The Japanese iPhone Failure Myth
I stopped buying games after being bitten too many times. First, I didn't understand. Then I thought "oh, well. I'll just crack the game".
The thing is, I have a few old games, such as the original worms (none of the others are as good in my old, grumpy opinion) and C&C: Red Alert. I have the CDs (though scratched badly in some cases), but that ancient hard disk with all those lovely cracks on has long since been lost.
The end result is that I can't play the games, at least not in a practical manner. So what am I supposed to do here? I can still play and enjoy my favourite CDs and DVDs many years on. Why not games?
Actually, I'm generally happy with ID and will still buy the games. The reason being is that they release the source to the old engines. As a result, I can still play my copy of Doom, Doom 2 and Quake 2 on a modern machine, with no trouble.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
There is no such thing as "acceptable DRM". By it's very existence, a non-DRM'd game will always be more acceptable than one which has added bloatware in the form of DRM attached to it.
I've always bought my games. I often download pirated games to try out, but if I like them, I almost always buy them. There are a few exceptions where I've never gotten around to buying a copy, but they are far outweighed by the number of games that I've paid for and never played, still sitting on my shelf in their shrinkwrapping.
However, a few years ago, I was so furious with the music industry selling me a useless CD that I couldn't play that I vowed never to buy another music item again. I have a whole basement full of CDs, but none of them are dated after 2005!
With the bad experience I had with Bioshock, I'm very tempted to do the same thing with games. I certainly won't buy Spore even though I'm a fan of Will Wright's games, solely because of the awful DRM. I've tolerated having to use No-CD crack up until now but if things keep getting worse, I'll stop buying games altogether and I'd encourage others to do the same.
Talk about false dichotomy. It'd be like "Either I can rape my kids, or have no children". Guess what? There's a third, and very palatable answer. We'll let YOU figure that out, if you are mentally able.
I think the answer that you are insinuating is rape your spouse as that is most equivalent to the situation here. Now instead of falling into your false dichotomy, I think the correct answer is divorce and find a new wife...the equivalent of buying a game that doesn't force drm down your throat. There are a lot of good games that go ignored.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Brother, I think you need to rethink your statement
Your argument is flawed, its like bringing up the automobile and computer analogy when it comes to running OS X on a regular x86 PC. You also forget that DRM is control, DRM is bondage and it is god damn annoying.
Stallman is right about DRM, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p9IU4zp7mU) it is software malicously created to control the end user. Who really wants big brother rather it be Micro$oft, Apple or EA games to sell the end result of the user's experience with thier software to the highest bidding spammer.
Rethink your argument, little kids should never be brought up at the grown up table.
Dr. D
The idea that DRM can be moderate seems fairly sensible on the surface(some DRM schemes are more restrictive than others, therefore the less restrictive ones must be moderate, and everybody knows that moderation is good!); but in a more important way, it is nonsense.
A DRM system consists of a locked box and a key. In order to be effective, the system must simultaneously know the key, while preventing the user from knowing it. This means that the DRM system must deny the user access to some or all of his own system. There is absolutely nothing "moderate" about being locked out of parts of your own memory space. In this sense, all effective DRM systems are absolute. If DRM is working, it isn't your computer, period. Some DRM systems are more indulgent than others about what and how they restrict; but that isn't the same thing as moderation.
Note: there are some DRM systems that don't control the user in this way, and might be said to be genuinely moderate; but none of them are effective. Further note: my opposition to DRM is no more an endorsement of piracy than my opposition to mass surveillance is an endorsement of murder.
It works, people don't seem to realize just how much power they have, especially in todays shaky economy. Just make sure you do not give a dime to companies that use DRM, they will either learn or die out.
DRM does not comply to Montesquieu his most enlighted ideas about trias politica. Wich have been used by both the ancient greek and the Roman's. History tell's us it is the best way to do it ! Therefore, at this time, all modern country's are based on trias politica. DRM Destroy's this verry basic principle & requirement for a fair and modern democracy.
We all have accepted DRM to a POINT. Having to have a DVD in a DVD drive to play a game was a annoying, BUT it was something I was willing to put up with because it still felt like I owned the game. However, this new DRM which REQUIRES online activation AND limits instillation's on how many PC's I can play on has crossed a threshold which many of US will not accept. The game stops feeling like property we own and feels like a rental/lease.
I unfortunately bought one game with this crap DRM on it(spore) and regret it. I cannot shake the feeling that they will shut down the activation servers like walmart is going to do and the game(s) that people have bought with this DRM will be screwed over. Some people have said that they(EA) will release a patch that will fix the DRM if they did that. I say, why would they? If they are bought out, go out of business, or just decide to shut them off, what incentive will they have to release a patch for this? None, that's how much.
This has nothing to do with stopping pirates, this is about stopping resales(which is illegal). They are starting with PC users because they are a smaller test group, but their goal is to get similar DRM set up in consoles so you cannot resale your console games.
As much as I hate to say it, Spore is still hitting record sales figures.
The DRM has obviously enraged a lot of us here, and I have no doubt that has cost them some sales. But I don't think "we" (meaning those who understand how much DRM can cripple a game) are the demographic that is going to make or break the game. This is a mass market game, and practically all the reviews I've seen (even here on slashdot!) ignore the DRM issue. Practically all the people I've talked to about the game have no idea what I'm talking about when I tell them about the DRM, and are in for a very nasty time the third time they need to reformat their system, or reinstall the game for whatever reason.
EA made a calculated decision here, knowing that they would lose some of our support, but if the casual gamer (let's face it, the target Spore demographic) gives up on trying to install his friend's game and buys his own copy, that's a win for EA. If a few years down the track he hits hit three install limit, what's he going to do? Buy another copy, probably. Even if he doesn't, EA has the original sale and has lost nothing. The fact that the pirates have a far superior product is amusing and ironic, but irrelevant to EA's bottom line.
Until the reviewers take their jobs seriously and start actually pointing out serious fundamental flaws in the game, companies like EA can be confident that they have made the right decision.
...the social contract that says "it's really not nice to do that". Some people use the "would you say you did that if the programmer/artist was in the room with you?" test. This test can fail. It can fail if the programmer/artist isn't really the person taking home the pay. Back in the day, it often was; but now many of them are just employees, so they might not care if you pirated the game and if they got paid barely living wages and worked 70 hour weeks, they might even applaud you. Same deal with music. This will depend somewhat on how the artists feel about their relationship with the recording industry. Any number of one-song phenoms, and even current artists with bad deals won't care, because they don't get the money anyway. Some artists who've already got their mansions won't care, and may even regard giving it away as philanthropy. Others still want their beans and aren't ready to set up "The Foundation", so they'd be pissed off.
Oh, and there is one other effective DRM and sensible, but it's only valid if the product relies on the network. Sell a userid, and prohibit multiple-logons. At that point, your enforcement mechanism is similar to an ISP abuse department. Legitimate buyers will call to find out why the service turned off, and get reminded to keep their password secure. Everybody else will shut up, or they might try but then the operator will say "you're not the registered user, piss off". Too many games are fun without network access for this technique to really impact the market.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Have an online component accessible only to legit users. For non-online games, have a "bragging rights board," discussion boards, exclusive interviews and chats with game designers, and other premium material available to anyone with a valid serial number.
Also, use some form of on-screen, 24/7 "not registered" watermark or distinctive screen color, so all your friends know you haven't registered your copy yet and therefore don't have access to all the cool stuff registration provides. Maybe have a "please register or buy now" nag screen between levels. Just make sure it's merely a nag screen and that it doesn't interfere with the game - that's just an invitation to cracking.
Registration should be simple:
Provide your serial number, a nickname, and an age range if local laws require it or limit access to certain online content based on age. In the USA, that might be "age under 13", "age 13-17," age 18+. Age under 13 would be ineligible for any promotions that require giving personal information unless their parents provided permission. Ages under 13 and 13-17 would be ineligible for invitations to tournaments or anything else that required a legal liability waiver unless their parents signed it.
Make the product available for download for free in an unregistered form, and make it very easy to buy it.
Now that's a form of DRM I can live with.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
With DRM we (Gamers & Publishing companies) have to find a happy medium. (For some, I know that would be NO DRM.) One has to realize that publishing a GOOD game involves risk. Companies want know that someone can't just steal their hard work. However, we (Gamers) don't want to be cheated, vilified, or shackled (unduly.) We all know that the "DVD in drive" or CD "Keys" don't work. Also (as is the case of Spore) Internet activation and Install limits don't work either. And no wants rootkits on their computer. The best (by best, I mean the most gamer-friendly and unobstrusive) DRM has appeared to be STEAM. Having your games tied to an online account may be annoying, but it is far better than any alternative. Plus, who here wants to buy a fun game and then hear that friend "x" just got a cracked version for free. It makes me feel cheated. Just my ramblings/2 cents.
If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
"DRM can encourage the best customers to behave slightly better. It will never address the masses of non-customers downloading your product."
Seriously, WTH is that supposed to mean? By better it means, not loaning it to your brother, it means not being able to sell it. All perfectly reasonable things.
DRM definitely does encourage customers to visit the pirate sites to get proper usability back by downloading cracks (AKA no cd cracks). Eventually you are going to lose a number of customers who get fed up and cut out the middle man (the producer) and start with the cracked version. After all you trained them for years this is where you get the full value product.
For signature that fakes a mod parent up comment.
Lets face. DRM has been a total and utter failure. It doesn't even slow down piracy, much less eliminate.
It has trained a generation of PC gamers to download cracks to get around annoyance, it has trained a generation of cracker to provide that service. Annoy people long enough and they will eventually skip over the buying phase and go straight to the trusted download scene. After all the publishers have forced to go here for fully functional copies of their own software for years.
Consumers don't need producers, they need us. Withhold our dollars from those who push "Defective by Design" products will eventually have an impact.
In the meantime buy games that are fully usable out of the box and don't require a visit to bit Torrent to correct the deficiencies.
Stardock Boxed products and www.gog.com downloads are fully consumer friendly. Anything else?
Remo recommends against a trend of overreaction to minor gripes.
But DRM isn't just a cause of "minor gripes." Yes, not being able to install a game after installing it three times may be a minor gripe. But making a whole decade of culture non-accessible is not.
Games are part of our culture. It's important to have them in a preservable format. We can still play Pac Man and Space Invaders, but will we be able to get today's games to run in 20 years, when all the license servers are turned off and all the current publishers are out of business? Ironically, it's the pirates and hackers who give us hope that our culture will not be lost in a few years' time.
It's a catch-22 I'm afraid. If you don't buy their shit, then like a bunch of retards on the short bus, they cry because someone popped their cock into their face. And by that, I mean they cry about piracy because of the lack of sales. So if you buy their shit, it only shows you support their DRM. If you don't buy their shit (and don't even bother pirating it either) they'll still think you pirated it.
Honestly, fuck them all. Give me a gun, and line every single one of those assholes up. Things would change quick like.
DRM has no right to exist. I've said it before and I'll say it again. People should weork to destroy any and all DRM by any means possible. DRM is to dangerous to be allowed to survive. All DRM must be terminated for there to be a future in fair use for computing. If some content producer business must perish, then so be it.
"it's there because they think it will help stop or at least slow piracy. If the world wasn't full of thieves, there would be no DRM."
Nonsense. It is well known by now. That this does nothing to slow piracy. See evidence in the last 30 years of computer gaming. DRM exists now to stop you from lending the game to your brother and to stop you from selling it.
"Acting like DRM will go away if you cry about it is childish."
Derogatory nonsense this time. Change happens from protest all the time. When DRM protest continue to strangle sales on the most egregious DRM offenders, industry will take notice and try desperately to not be the next target of wrath from offensive DRM. Some like Stardock will sell the virtue of DRM freedom (Just like all the DRM free music now available).
"The only successful DRM comes from hardware makers (read: Apple)"
Again more nonsense. People can't tell the difference between Apple DRM and Microsofts DRM. Apples is a "success" because Apple built a better moustrap (ipod), and a better service (itunes) and marketed both better. Note that now their are several sources of DRM free music, including from Apple itself. You have to be a half-wit to consider buy DRM's music IMO. Look at recent announcements to shutter DRM servers from Microsoft, Yahoo and Walmart which will strand customers.
DRM is for chumps. Just say no.
"Athough, as time wears on, I'm getting tired of having to play a cracked (and thus having to jump through hoops to patch) version - it's becoming not worth the money to buy even those games."
Or an incentive not be a continuous pirate.
"The problem is not pirates, as Stardock clearly demonstrates."
I don't think Stardocks clearly demonstrates anything. They demonstrate a point that works for them. But then piracy isn't an equal action across the marketplace. Some are both targeted more and the consequences are likewise unequal. e.g. deeper pockets.
"The only copy protection that is really needed is of the physical media. Make it so Joe-Sixpack can't burn off a quick copy for their buddy and you've done all you can possibly do to prevent piracy."
Remember slashdot's reaction to music on a stick? I don't think anything will please some people.
What are your basis for saying that loaning the game to your brother or selling it are perfectly reasonable things to do? Not that I necessarily disagree, but I'd like to know how you justify it.
Well, you have nobody else to blame when the DRM system screws up your computer or the publishers turn off the activation servers. I just hope the DRM hits you in the head hard and soon.
Happy playing.
"What are your basis for saying that loaning the game to your brother or selling it are perfectly reasonable things to do? Not that I necessarily disagree, but I'd like to know how you justify it."
Much like I can loan/sell Books/CDs/Movies. I think first someone has to justify why games are some special type of copyright material that can't be loaned/sold.
Just because publishers would like it to be so, doesn't make it so. They are attempting to end first sale doctrine exception of copyright by build walls to stop it, that doesn't mean they have the right to stop it.
You own a physical copy of a game. You can do what you want with that copy so long as it falls within the bounds of what copyright allows. Copyright only covers, well, copying. Selling the game or loaning it to somebody isn't covered by the law, and is therefore allowed.
There's a popular misconception that you do not own media, but merely license it. This simply isn't true. When you buy a game in a box you own that box and its contents. The only thing you don't own is the right to make a copy of the contents in a way that is covered by copyright law.
And that is why loaning and selling a game are perfectly reasonable.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
I don't particularly agree with loaning it to someone, but re: selling it, read about first sale doctrine.
By what name do you wish to be mourned?
The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Â 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. That means that a copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "first sale rule" or "exhaustion rule".
Is my justification.
I don't particularly agree with loaning it to someone,
"Loaning a game" implies that while the game is loaned out, the original owner can't play it. It's your game - you should be able to damn well decide who to loan it to. If you substitute "book" for "game", it sounds pretty ridiculous.
It's only when "loaning a game" translates to "burn a copy of the game" that you run into trouble. But that's not really "loaning", is it?
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Has anybody even brought up the fact that, at least in my opinion, the best DRM is the kind that Blizzard uses for WoW, or what's used for Steam - register your key online and "log in" to play, meaning you can only play one copy at a time.. Who then cares how many copies you have installed in the world?
I could...eat them??
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
But the GP was saying why there shouldn't be DRM, and requiring the user to have the disc is a form of DRM. Without that, what he means is he should be able to install the game, and then lend the disc to someone. That person can install the game, and then they can both still play, because without the DRM, it wouldn't require a disc to play. It's less ridiculous if you replace "loaning a book" with "taking a book down to Kinko's to get it copied for free by my friend who works there so he can have a copy, too."
By what name do you wish to be mourned?
Most reasons why someone doesn't purchase a particular game can be boiled down to one of the above. If I simply don't purchase a game, there's no guarantee which of the five basic reasons was the reason why I didn't purchase it. In the case of Bioshock, it was the DRM itself, but I haven't told 2K games why I haven't gotten it. From their perspective, it could be any of the above reasons, when in fact it is because of the DRM.
If I don't buy Bioshock, I have sent the same message to 2K games as has the guy with a five year old Dell POS with a Celeron and Intel Integrated graphics, the MMORPG-or-bust gamer, the broke college student paying for school by himself, the living-under-a-rock gamer whose last purchase was DOOM, and the "gamer" whose entire software collection comes from Limewire, when the reality is that my reasoning isn't any of those. The problem is that I've got their statisticians and marketing folks grabbing their magic 8-balls trying to figure out why my software shelf doesn't have a copy of Bioshock on it; odds are that I probably have been categorized in their pirate category.
In the case of Spore, EA games is being told that they've gone so far with the solution with reason #5 that DRM has become their reason #6, and it's a reason that they can very easily overcome. This backlash that TFA advises against is actually working because if every one of the 1-star comments on Amazon is a single lost sale, that's 2,578 lost sales as of this writing. That's something that EA's bean counters can't otherwise explain away. The fact that EA has changed a policy at all is a step in the right direction (they're not going to abolish DRM overnight - SecuROM is on the other side of the fence convincing them that DRM does indeed work).
For a consumer to want to use a purchased product for legal purposes. If the DRM is all that prevents it, the term that applies to such a situation is "product defect".
For Microsoft it's important that people use their software (even if pirated) rather than the free alternatives. Of course they could have implemented a much more draconian scheme with their WGA crap, but that would simply piss off their users instead of making them buy a valid XP or Office license.
Do you think movie theaters are abusing when they don't allow you to resell your ticket or share it with your bother once you saw the movie?
Personally I think the solution would be to do exactly like movies. The first six months, games should be "sold" like movie theater tickets. As a "one play only" policy is not enforceable, I guess the best model would be, let's say a three month renting through digital distribution. After that, they should be sold like movie DVD. As for the price, what about $15 for renting and $45 for buying the media and a transferable right to use. Would you find this acceptable?
What about digital distribution? I bought Portal on Steam so I don't own a physical copy. Should I still have the right to sell what I bought to someone else or is it just for physical media?
First sale doctrine. It's a basic consumer right. A book publisher can't tell you what you can do with a book after you have purchased it. Similarly, a video game publisher shouldn't be able to tell you what you can do with your video game after you have purchased it.
Sadly, as far as digital copyrighted works are concerned, the first sale doctrine went out the window with the digital millennium copyright act. Now content sellers can place "technological protection measures" on their products, and it is illegal to break them.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
As the wikipedia article says, the first sale doctrine is only valid as long as you buy a good and not a license to use. Right now publishers still use the term "buy a game", but if they simply used "buy a license to play the game", then the first sale doctrine won't be applicable.
Since 10 weeks now I've been programming for a game company that gives it's games away for free. Browser and 3D Client MMORPG games mostly. The money is made with ads, Premium accounts and ingame benefits. Zero fuss with DRM. It simply doesn't fly. DRM will have a different, undesired effect:
Gaming is the last bastion that OSS has to take. Because it's the most risky, still under constant advancement, the least productive and among the most complex, OSS gaming is behind regular productivity software in closing in on critical mass. However, I expect DRM to push a few more into OSS gaming and modding projects. Let's not forget: Modders are the key in 3D gaming. Win them over, and you've won. It may take a decade or so, but in the end, OSS is going to win out in gaming, DRM can't stop it. To the contrary, it encourages it. Game Vendors will switch to service oriented stuff like WoW or Valve eventually. Or to what my employer is doing.
Looking at recent OSS game progresses, such as the Spring RTS Framework, Planeshift, Sauerbraten or Vegastrike I have no doubt that in the long run OSS will take over.
Bottom line:
Quit moaning and join the community of an OSS game.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
BEFORE you use it.
Just like you can with a packet of crisps. Not many people will want to buy that packet of crisps AFTER you've eaten it.
For me, if I lent someone my copy of StarCraft, it meant I was no longer able to play the game while my copy was loaned out. And naturally, loaning a console game is truly "loaning" for most people. That's what I was thinking of.
But you're correct, of course. If you're talking about pure digital content that can be completely installed on and run from the hard drive, then there's no such concept as "loaning" the software to someone. It's always a copy. And then the problem gets a bit more nebulous.
Ultimately, though, PC game developers are going to have to face up to a hard truth: they're relying on the good will of their customers to pay for a product that they could, without too much technical difficulty, get for free. This means that developers need to focus two aspects of game development:
a) They must forge a relationship with their customers, so that their customers are enthusiastic about supporting their development efforts with their money. Blizzard and StarDock operate on completely different scales, but both companies have very loyal customers who are willing to part with their money, with the understanding that it will likely go to fund further development of products they enjoy.
b) They can provide online services to enhance the game, and thus provide an incentive for legitimate purchases. Obviously, an MMO is the most extreme example of this, where the entire game takes place online. But matchmaking for online play, quick and easy patches, online bonus content... these are all ways of enhancing the player's experience as well.
The sad thing is, Spore has integrated online content. EA could have simply used the same method Blizzard and Stardock have used successfully - you must have a legitimate CD-Key to connect to online services. Now, they're simply alienating potential customers, and those who were determined to obtain the game without paying would have done so anyway.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
You do have the right to sell it, in the theoretical sense. However this clashes with the fact that Steam's copy protection prevents you from doing so, and it's illegal to crack that protection. But in a nitpicky hair-splitting way, you have the right to sell it, just not the right to do what you need to do to make the sold copy work.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
The 1980s were filled with 'copy protection' schemes, some of them really nasty which included floppy disk reads and writes that would thrash the head to the point it would be thrown out of alignment. People got fed up with this, and the industry had to remove copy protection from their games, or face going out of business.
The same crap is happening how, but with 'reactivations', phoning home and other such crap, and now people are getting fed up with that, and companies are starting to realize that they better ease up or they may go out of business.
The more things change, the more they stay the same
I don't pirate games out of issues of mortality. Well I might download a a cracked version to test out but if I like it I will by a copy but if DRM is overly restrictive I wont touch it
Its not as if I'm against having to put a disk in every time I want to play a game I have to do that with consoles but the need to "phone home" every use seems annoying I might want to play games somewhere I have no net access. I also don't like having to jump though hoops to play a leggit game. Its sometimes easier to play games that have been cracked than ones from the official disk.
Really I want to play games without having to mess about with it first just hit install and go.
In the end the companys are shooting themselves in the foot as I just wont buy games that require overly restrictive DRM and theres alway gonna be someone who will break there DRM so cracked versions from bittorrent will work
I might be a minority in believing that game devs ought to get something back but why should I punished for what others will contiue to do
Most Damage is done by people who are AWAKE
... on your house or car? If you wouldn't for these products, why should you for your software? DRM like anything will be abused by the powers that be, I don't want to go down the road of trusted computing where your hardware is never your own.
"If you can't open it, you don't own it!" as far as I'm concerned. If modern software is not owned at all, then why "buy" it? Since it's not really yours. Unfortunately, I disagree with the current software model where the user never really owns his software, no one would accept that for their house or car they wanted to modify, fix or renovate. Why the hell do we accept it for software?
DRM has of recent caused a wave of discontent. Its the topic of the month, and noone seems to happy with it. Obviously, there will be some very public changes coming regarding DRM (EA has backed down a step or two with Spore already). But what about the long-term effects? The makers of CoD4 have stated that they are no longer interested in creating PC focused games, since the amount of pirated CoD4 instances became so great. Spore has been pirated so much that it was hailed as the most pirated game in human history. Will this color EA's interest in publishing more PC games? How many will pirate the next popular title? How many game companies have stopped creating PC titles to instead focus on console only titles? Overall, the popularity of pirating seems to be increasing. With that in mind, it will get harder for new game businesses to start up (barriers to entry go higher) and the market will be less enthusing to already established businesses. The end result is that the market for PC games will be less populated, and the gamers will receive fewer toys to play with. How do the gamers benefit from this? DRM serves a function. Companies want to make money, and they see DRM as a great way to do that. Gamers want to play games without getting royally screwed. Customers want to actually get a product once they have paid the sometimes exorbitant prices. Yes, it sucks. But like the Prisoners Dilemma, the only way both teams can profit (and stay in the game indefinetly) is if they cooperate. At the moment, both teams act like superpowers, certain in the truth that they have moral justice on their side. To draw a picture, the game publishers are the US and the gamers are USSR. Both teams know they are right, and they try to enforce this right by building more and more nuclear missiles. In the end, the teams only achieve the "Mutually Assured Destruction" formula. Game publishers no longer sell games (because very few will pay for them), and gamers no longer get to play games (because all the game companies migrated to console only). Noone gets to pass Go, noone collects $500. This is boring, but only actual communication between the interest groups can rectify the problem. DRM is by all accounts a b0rked idea, and making it tougher and tougher will only drive away the customers. On the other hand, game creators need to eat and they have to make money creating their games. The big companies will need to find a different way of making their games sell. But until they get there, gamers will have to show some restraint, and still BUY the games that get an overall good review. The only way those big companies will bother to find the acceptable fix is to show them the market is right there waiting for them. That means you voice some concerns, and some righteous fury if necessary, but you don't upheave the market or otherwise make it unprofitable long-term.
You can resell a ticket before a movie performance.
What you're paying for is the theatre experience. You're paying for the employees of the theatre, the rent, the heating, a/c, maintenance and eventually, the movie itself.
I could have D/L'ed and watched a camcorder version of The Dark Knight a few days after release. I wanted the full-on theatre experience and even went as far as waiting for an IMAX ticket. It's like the difference between seeing a band live from within the crowd and watching the concert on DVD at home afterwards.
Concluding sentence in the last paragraph ? No, not even close to acceptable. You can only replicate a theatre experience at home with a seriously spec'ed system, whether it be games or movies on DVD. The only option available should be outright purchase to do with as you see fit.
Squirrel!
Spore is to Will Wright as Daikatana is to John Romero.
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
Right now publishers still use the term "buy a game", but if they simply used "buy a license to play the game", then the first sale doctrine won't be applicable.
Except that the publishers already make that claim, and the courts continue to (for the most part) discount it and rule that software is sold, not licensed. The paragraph in the Wikipedia article titled "Computer Software" elucidates this situation, but it's too long to quote effectively.
99% of music listeners want to listen to the song on their PC or iPod.
99% of game purchasers care that it will function on their PC for the next 6 months at a maximum.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Saw this on USENET (yes it still there)
Maybe if company agree to this sort of thing then worries about DRM wouldn't be such a problem.
---
1) Right of Free Use: If you limit number of installations, the publisher MUST provide a "revoke" tool.
What it entails for the publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to limit the software's installation to one or more computers based on their hardware configuration and registered online ("Activation"). They must provide a free stand-alone tool, preferably on the same distribution medium, that the User can use to de-authorize previously activated computers. The total number of Activations and De-activations must be unlimited in number, but can be limited as to number of uses in a particular time period.
How It Would Work:
When you install a game, the software must be activated online as is the standard practice today. However, what this Right provides is a method for the User to de-activate an installation so the software can be transferred to another computer, either due to hardware failure, upgrade or resale. This tool needs to be provided free to the user, preferably on the CD/DVD with the game (or downloaded if the game is purchased through digital distribution) and must be stand-alone. De-activation would require proof of ownership (the CD in the drive and the CD-key should be enough), and would display a list of all computers authorized to run that software. The User could then select the computers to be de-activated. Note that this tool does NOT have to be run on the Authorized computer, or require the Authorized software to be installed. In order to prevent misuse of this tool, the Publisher can allow only a certain amount of Authorizations/ DeAuthorizations per day/week/month, but cannot limit the TOTAL amount of de-Authorizations.
2) Right of Activation: If the publisher requires Activation, they must provide some assurance of method to bypass this should the method of Activation no longer be available.
What it entails for the Publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to require the User to Activate their software through the method of their choice. But if that method should no longer be available (be it due to technical or financial reasons), they must ensure that the user can continue to use the software they paid for even though the Activation service is no longer running. This assurance can take many forms; a legal promise to release a patch should the Activation Servers be taken down and a waiving of rights to take legal action of any third-party who rights software to allow the same, or a universal "key" that is held in escrow, to be released only should the Activation servers go down, that allows installation and use of the Software without Activation.
How It Would Work:
Basically, the Publisher needs to provide the User with a "back-door" that can bypass the Activation requirement should they chose to no longer allow Activations, either because it is costing them too much money or they are no longer in business. The best way for the User is if the Publisher has a patch or some sort of universal serial number that allows the User to bypass Activation; this patch/key is held in escrow until the Activation Servers go down and is then released to the general public. Of course, this may dramatically compromise the usefulness of the DRM, so other methods can be used, for example: providing source-code and funds that can be released to pay a programming team to successfully develop a patch after the fact. Alternately (but least palatable to the User) the Publisher can simply promise to release code and not prosecute should a third-party (e.g., a "cracker") want to develop some method to bypass the Activation (but, note, they must provide enough code to make this a possibility)
3) Right to Privacy: Any data-collection from these activation services will be opt-out (except as what is required for activation), will not be matched to any personally identifiable information
Are you the guy sending all those spam mails?
I've said this a few times before, but Steams' subscriber agreement says no such thing. Games on Steam are sold as single payment subscriptions. I don't own the orange box, I subscribe to it!
I'm not really worried about it though, Steam is such a valuable asset that even in the very unlikely event that Valve goes under whoever bought it would keep it running. It is a bit annoying how this'll kill off the second-hand market but I guess in future all the decent old games that today you'd get in second-hand will be available at GOG!
Nick
I used to play NASCAR Racing 2003, by Sierra/Papyrus, which did use SecuROM. There was a VERY TINY minority which had a problem with SecuROM, and this was due to a very specific type of CD drive that was incompatible with it. Nonetheless Papyrus issued a fix for this.
NR2003 was cracked, of course. Heck the game could even be installed with a CD key consisting of all zeros. However the value of SecuROM was in keeping out wreckers from the Sierra matching service, WHICH required having the disk in the drive to connect (as well as an install with a valid CD key). Sierra would run their own race servers, as well as hundreds of other private servers would show up on the list. It was easy for any server owner to ban a player who decided to waste his $60 copy of the game be a wrecker, no matter what log-on name he used, because all his login IDs were tied to his CD Key. Those who decided to use a cracked copy could not access the matching service, and had to resort to playing on IP based servers, which usually meant you had to join a league or beg for invites to private races. Ironically, two IP based server matching apps appeared which in turn had their own version of checking to see if the player was running a cracked game, and would boot them. Players running cracked games had a tendency to become wreckers, simply because they could not be banned permanently and they had nothing to lose.
While individual servers would enact their own bans on wreckers that only applied on their server, Sierra would eventually ban the most flagrant of wreckers and griefers from even being able to connect to the matching service. Because your online logins were tied to your CD key, this alone was sufficient to deter the majority from becoming wreckers. because this would mean having to buy a fresh copy of the game just to acquire a "clean" CD key (additionally, the algorithm for generating keys for this game has not been cracked to this day). Without SecuROM, online racing in NASCAR Racing 2003 would have become a big cluster fuck.
All this has resulted in NASCAR Racing 2003's resale value for copies with a clean CD key reaching $150+. Keep in mind this is a 5-1/2 year old game that is out of print.
Why don't publishers give up a little profit and put games on SD Cards? Look how cheap an SD Card reader is. With a little code judo, you can tie a game to the SD Card it's placed on. (The SD Cards have secure areas, and mfg registers and stuff.) Every copy of a game would be different. In essence, watermarked. What do you get?
Using an SD Card could make PC Games more like console games.
The problem is DRM and other protection mechanisms are unpopular, but in many areas it is clear that piracy is allowed to run rampant that there will be no sales. This is especially true for "popular" software.
There are some people that claim not to pirate - but it is certain they have some software they didn't pay for. Maybe someone just gave it to them or maybe their morality is a little more flexible when it comes to certain things. The problem is that for the last 20 years or so piracy has become pretty mainstream. Why would anyone pay for something when the same thing (sometimes better) is available for free? I'm not talking about free open-source here, I am talking about pirated software. Literally everything you could ever ask for is available for free by anonymously downloading it. So why would anyone pay? It is just a little too easy today and really there is no putting the genii back in the bottle. Piracy is here to stay.
The goal of a lot of pirate web sites and such is to make it impossible to obtain revenue from music, movies, books, software and anything else that can be put in digital form. While I believe these evangelists are few in number, the Internet provides them with a strong presence. Often, the pirate sites will come up first in Google before the publisher's web site. What does that say about popular software? There are some people that will pay - shareware has run at about 5% of users paying for over 20 years. But that is as far as it goes. Name one business that can exist with 5% of the revenue they had last year.
Face it, in the near future every piece of software will be available for free. The only question will be if anyone finds it profitable to publish software. Offhand, I would say the number of players will be very limited. Most software will be a web service where the user never gets to hold anything on their computer. Open source will have a role, but probably not much larger than it is today.
Dont confuse Product with Service.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
It's only when "loaning a game" translates to "burn a copy of the game" that you run into trouble. But that's not really "loaning", is it?
But it is sharing, just like our mothers taught us.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
No it's not actually a loan, then. However, in a world where "file sharing" means allowing anybody with a computer to make a complete, indistinguishable copy without disrupting or depriving the original owner in any way, I'm not terribly surprised that so many people think that burning a copy for their friends counts as "loaning".
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
I Own the prince of darkness for linux. I totally stopped buying from them. I asked them to fix the issue of how I play the game. I cannot play the game offline!!!! I asked and they were no help at all. Everytime I launch the game, the supposedly one time activation does it everytime I launch. It will not work! I have to be plugged in all the time. Will not work on my laptop when I am away from home. Never again!!!!
what a modest proposal
Much like I can loan/sell Books/CDs/Movies. I think first someone has to justify why games are some special type of copyright material that can't be loaned/sold.
Just because publishers would like it to be so, doesn't make it so. They are attempting to end first sale doctrine exception of copyright by build walls to stop it, that doesn't mean they have the right to stop it.
IIRC the "first sale doctrine" originates from book publishers trying to impose similar conditions, about a century ago. To be subsequently told by the courts to take a running jump.
RMS' "The Right to Play [a game]":
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
just s/Book/Game/ and you're there :p
Your argument would make some sort of sense if "imaginary property" was actually something someone had to pay for. All he did is replicate some bits. How long does a sequence of bits have to be in order to deserve protection? (100 bits? 1k? 1M?).
Any spore installation (or any other program for that matter) is copied millions of times in the course of normal use on a single computer (regardless of whether money was given to some 3rd party). It is loaded from the hard disk to RAM, occasionally swapped back to disk and vice versa. What makes this copying "OK" and other copying not "OK"?
We profess not to police religion or thoughts. So, if I meditate on the first 1K bits of spore, am I performing a violation of some act?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I guess the problem with that is you lose all moral authority when you actually decide the game is worth playing but don't wish to pay.
I skipped buying spore because of the DRM. I have not pirated it either. I fail to see how I have anymore moral authority than NitroWolf in objecting to products being crippled by DRM. Neither of us gave the company money for the game, and both of us are willing to pay for it if they remove the DRM. Neither of us will give a company money for a crippled program, that is a principle. Principles do not have to be legal.
from dictionary.com: principle 1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I used to buy a fair number of games. It was an impulse thing mostly, browse the shop, "wow that looks cool", buy and play. However, was burnt by some annoying DRM, started to read up on the topic, and now I don't do this. Not for any conscious decison to boycott. However, before I plunk down cold hard cash I want to google to see how obnoxious the DRM is. Howevver, by the time I have done this I don't tend to buy even if there is no DRM - the impulse to buy has passed. I am staring at a shelf of 40-50 legit games as I type, but I can't think of a single game I have bought since last Christmas. Same response for music, I got burned by a DRM-poisoned faux CD (which they refunded after I got *very* upset with the manager in the shop the next day) - CD buying is now down from 1-2 per week fo 6-7 per year. Ultimately, they either provide me with a quality product at a fair price, or I don't buy. The discussion about whether this means the "artists" will prosper as a consequence is irrelevant to me - whether or not they and their business model survive is their problem, not mine.
He argues against over-reacting to DRM, his reason, the idea that your game cannot be played once the drm servers are down is invalid because some hacker will risk jailtime so you can play your old game.
That makes Remo the fuckface of the minute (this is the internet, there are a lot of fuckfaces around) for me.
A counter to a bad situation is not hoping that years from now someone else will be willing to break the law for your sake.
That is like saying, well we can have mock trials and lynchings because decades later a civil right group will fight to have the victims pardoned post-humously.
DRM is bad now and must be removed NOW. Allow DRM to continue and sooner or later we won't have the hardware anymore to run cracks even if someone is willing to risk decades in jail for breaking it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Except that the publishers already make that claim, and the courts continue to (for the most part) discount it and rule that software is sold, not licensed.
Presumably most judges take the position that if something looks like a sale then it is a sale. Regardless of what may be claimed after the event. Especially if it the publisher isn't selling directly to the customer.
What about digital distribution? I bought Portal on Steam so I don't own a physical copy. Should I still have the right to sell what I bought to someone else or is it just for physical media?
You do own a physical copy. It is stored on your hard drive. And you have the right to sell your hard drive. You don't have the right to make copies of your hard drive and sell those.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
On the front, at the bottom left, it has the "PC CD-ROM SOFTWARE" logo.
But keeping the wreckers out of the servers with your "standard" way of doing things? This would mean only using a CD key. As I paying customer, I certainly would not want that to be the only shield of security. What if the key algorithm had been broken? Then what? The server entrance verification required 1) that the disk be in the drive. 2) the .exe was checked and could not be the cracked one.
More about the NR2003 disk. To date there are no ISO copies of this disk that function as the original, as it uses an intentional physical flaw that cannot be duplicated by a CD burner. The cracked version of course is easily available, but it's useless for getting on the matching server. All you can do is play offline, or join IP based servers, and even then you will get kicked out and banned as soon as you are discovered to run a cracked version.
Most players of this game would not want cracked versions to be able to join online, as most of the time they are trouble. In fact most are very protective of their CD key and disk, because without it they are unable to enjoy online racing.
I look at the disk as being an actual physical CD key. I liked the fact that if someone else were to race online, they would need a physical key as well. And Sierra had no problems replacing a scratched disk for $5. And I admit I used the cracked .exe as well, only for offline use (as I wanted to physically preserve my disk). But when it came to SecuROM, the value in preventing wreckers from joining online because they were unable to make a "real" copy was in spades, because it actually worked.
Ok, the problem here is that a boycott of the software wont solve the issue, if you want DRM gone then they give you the solution on the box, call technical support every 5 min with a DRM biased problem. Have EVERYONE call in and report a DRM biased problem. When they hold their troubleshooting meetings and they see 100 million plus calls relating to the software and that their call centers can't handle the load from all the clogged tech support DRM related issues they will have to look at a different solution.
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
What you're paying for is the theatre experience. You're paying for the employees of the theatre, the rent, the heating, a/c, maintenance and eventually, the movie itself.
Theaters +1 overrated. Mod them down.
My HT experience is by far more entertaining than going to IMAX/AMC or the like. I'll happily wait for the DVD to release and watch it at home.
Theaters are just another dying/failing business model. It used to be fun, exciting, and hip (I suppose) to watch midnight releases of new movies, or be the first to see a new movie, but nowadays, its just not.
I remember how cool it was to see Star Wars, The China Syndrome, and other movies back in the 70's, but Now that most media is or could be digital, and I've invested a fair chunk into a HT, I'd rather just watch it at home. I'm by no stretch of the definition an 'av-phile', but I have nice gear, a comfortable viewing room, good quality popcorn, and can by-and-large control the stink/noise/annoyances that always accompany theaters.
So what if I have to wait a little bit, the experience is far more enjoyable.
...don't know what DRM is and they don't care. MOST people don't know how to get a cracked copy of a game or even how to install a no cd patch. MOST people pay $49 for a new game at a big box store, bring it home, install it on their computers, then play the game. All this uproar about DRM really isn't warranted for MOST people. So while it's fun and all to sit and preach from our tech-savvy high-horses, we aren't MOST people. Interestingly enough, the DRM employed by these companies keeps MOST people from making easy and illegal copies and giving them to their friends.
Walmart is shutting down their DRM servers for their online MP3 service. If someone doesn't read their email (maybe they don't use the account anymore) and doesn't know about this, next month all of their music bought before Feb 2008 will be unable to be moved to any other devices.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2661
So any proponents of DRM want to argue this is acceptable?
Why is Stardock raised up as the Paragon of DRM free software? Has anyone ever tried to resell any game on ebay or trade it in? Point is that game is registered against the email address you used and essentially you can't download any patches without access to the original email. Of course, the pirates are solid in releasing the latest patches.... Maybe if everyone who buys a Stardock product uses a different email address from a free webmail account then this might work...but then who knows what billing details they hold online. Would love to be corrected - I night start buying some of their games again...
OK, I admit it, I hate games that force me to insert a cd/dvd in order to play and I hate the idea of having to log on to confirm that I still have a legal game and have not stolen it. It makes me mad that I should have to put up with additional protection software that I have to install and is frequently not even mentioned in a 45 page EULA that I'd need a degree in law to understand.
That said, I still buy games I want to play because I don't want to see the PC die as a gaming platform. And, on the occasions where I play something I enjoy for ~20-40+ hours, I try to think that the price of £30 was less than a night in the pub and the taxi ride home.
When it comes to the DRM, try to see it from the developers/publishers point of view. If they see their game being downloaded 60,000 times on torrent sites, they are going to think that they need to stop it happening and the only way they can see how to stop it happening is by introducing more restrictive control of the software.
If you want to see less restrictive DRM, then the publishers/developers have to be convinced that they will see a good return on their investment. Games have changed over the years, the days of an individual coder releasing a game solo are almost gone, check out the credits of any new game now and you'll die of boredom before it finishes. All of those people need to be paid.
There is a middle ground though, many people have said that they have tried out a pirated version, liked it and purchased a game. Why not go a stage further? Write to the publisher/developer and say that you have a pirated version and include the cash for the full retail price of it? You were going to purchase it anyway and you can do it in an anonymous manner (postal/money order, cash). Sure, it's going to piss off retailers, but the publisher/developer will get the FULL retail amount (and I bet they will love you for it). Explain in the letter that you like the game and want to pay them, but are unhappy with the DRM. Even if you can't afford the full price, send them what you think is fair or can afford and explain why.
Even if they trace you, I think they would have a hard time persuading a judge that you did wrong by pirating the software and then paying for it.
Try something like the following,
To whom it may concern,
I have a pirated version of XXX. I have pirated it because I dislike your copy protection. However, because I enjoy XXX, I feel that I should reimburse you for the time and effort you took to develop it. Please find enclosed the retail amount for XXX.
http://www.geocities.com/cloudchip/
EA /Sony is firing DRM volleys at the pirates yelling "A vast ye thieving scum" and all their shots fall short landing on the merchantmen customers who complain about poor marksmanship.
Instead of adjusting their aim, EA / Sony fires yet a bigger broadside.
And the real pirates aren't even in this battle because they are sailing the Jolly Roger far off over the horizon playing all the de-tormented games that will fit on a 6 terabyte hard drive.
Comic on SPORE drm:
http://www.geocities.com/cloudchip
spore DRM is not that bad: you get to play without cd in the drive, and requires only the starting activation on-line, so it's not different from steam in that aspect.
there is the tree strike rule, that really bothers me, because it erode the possibility of reselling the game - ea promised to allow for deactivations, but it's for now just a promise. We'll see...
They offer the promise of deactivation so you can resell the game later. That has got to be the biggest whopper I've heard in a long time. We see stories time and again that what really happens is this:
1. Company sells a product with activation style DRM.
2. Company promises to support their DRM.
3. Company no longer sells much of the product, so they discontinue support for the DRM.
That's it. There is no financial incentive for this company to ever remove the DRM or allow for deactivation. They don't make money on the resale unless it is some monthly fee or a reactivation fee. All that ever seems to happen is that the company decides they don't want to sell the DRM product anymore, and then turn off the servers that supported that product. They have your money, and you have nothing.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Theaters +1 overrated. Mod them down.
My HT experience is by far more entertaining than going to IMAX/AMC or the like. I'll happily wait for the DVD to release and watch it at home
You are definately in the minority with that statement. The vast majority of people do not exclusively prefer the home experience to that of theaters.
By your own admission, you have invested 'a fair chunk' into your home theater. You have dedicated what appears to be an entire room, and a large amount of cash into replicating a theater experience. That isn't possible for some of us that do have an interest in it, and is certainly out of reach of most moviegoers.
How much have you spent on your home theater? $10,000 on equipment. I know a good projector and screen will likely run you a few grand. The sound system to replicate that of a theater would run a few grand. Sound dampening for the walls, good 'theater-like' seats aren't what you find on craigslist all that often either. At $10/ticket, it would take me and 4 of my friends nearly nearly 2000 trips to the local theater to reach the $10k mark. I can also choose to go to any theater I like, and if you ever decide to move, either you leave behind a gutted movie room, or you have to reinvest in new equipment and retrofit your new home.
Now, don't think I'm talking down on home theaters. I have one myself. Yet they remain a definate fringe, and can not completely replace the true theater experience unless you are beyond wealthy.
For example, there is a theater near my home that is a converted opera house from the 1920s. They preserved the style, installed a professional theater sound and projection system, sell assigned seating, and generally provide a true unique experience. There is another theater that I know of which will serve you dinner while classic films are shown. Convincing my wife to cook me dinner and serve it to me mid-showing would be more than awkward. A third theater will show films, and hold discussions on the art direction and bring in experts or those who worked on the film to discuss their experiences.
They provide an experience that can never be matched by my home theater.
And for the rest of the films, those summer blockbusters that are shown in multiplexes? Well, the remaining 90% of the population that isn't interested in constructing a home theater will continue to fill the seats for a long, long time.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
I can't see myself installing this thing twice. I'll just look at the 2005 youtube video and imagine what it would be like playing that game, not the shit that came in the box.