According to the multiple websites I've seen that compared free AV software, MS Security Essentials is one of the best. I use it on all of my systems now.
I know a lot of people read game reviews. We need to start including 'What DRM this game has'
in each and every review.
Well I can't vouch for this personally since I canceled my subscription years ago, but I've heard that PC Gamer now has a section in the "system requirements" section that lists DRM.
I totally get your point, but I don't see why a game company can't write a game for linux and, just like how apt makes sure that you have dependencies installed or Windows programs make sure you have dependencies installed, do a simple check and if you don't have XYZ installed, simply go out and have the installer download it?
I think the bigger reasons for the lack of Linux games are 1) Windows 90% market share and 2) the fact that most games use DirectX. I'd love to see MS do some sort of system to port older versions of DirectX to OS X / Linux / Unix. That way game companies could at least make *nix ports of a game that's a few years old and get the ball rolling.
And if a lot more people completely boycots [sic] DRM-crippled software/games/music/movies...
And that's where your little plan fails. Why? *Most people don't care*.
The reason "most people" don't care is because they haven't been bit by DRM yet. Give it a few more years when they go to replay Awesome Game X and they can't because the activation servers are offline or they're out of activations and can't get new ones issued.
This is where the above strategy works great, as everytime you "vote with your dollars" you are helping them kill the platform. Never before have the publishers had the complete black box control like they have with the x360 and PS3, and if it is one thing the companies like it is total control. no dedicated servers, no modding, no content allowed that isn't approved by them. My guess is that control is worth more to them than their PC games division, which is why companies like Ubisoft are screwing their customers so damned hard.
Which is why I always tell everyone not to only boycott the PC version of a game with DRM, but boycott the console versions as well. If you just buy it on console, you're only supporting killing off PC gaming.
1) Companies aren't trying to fight piracy with DRM (anyone who reads slashdot should be well aware of that), piracy is just an excuse for the companies to violate their paying customers rights to try to squeeze more money out of them. Even if all piracy vanished overnight, the game companies would still lie and blame piracy every time someone refuses to buy their product due to DRM.
2) Copy protection is not the same as DRM. Copy protection involves making it difficult / impossible for an individual to redistribute copies of a game, but it does not affect the customers ability to use the game however they want (installing it 1,000 times, buying 100 computers for their own home and installing it on every one of them, loaning it to your friends, etc). DRM prevents users from fully using the software that they bought by restricting your ability to lend it to a friend, how many times you can install it, and how many different hardware setups you can install it on. See the difference between copy protection and DRM now?
3) Copyright infringement is not stealing. Stealing means that one person loses and another person gains. It costs money to manufacture the box and everything in it when you see a boxed game at a store - if you take that, then it's stealing because there were costs involved with making it that will not be compensated. However, it costs nothing to download a file and the game company doesn't lose a single cent from it. Now you can claim all you want that pirating is wrong because you believe XYZ, that's fine and your right. However, don't try to distort the argument and falsely claim that copyright infringement is stealing, because it's not.
4) Companies have shown that piracy doesn't encourage additional DRM or else they would actually use DRM that worked. The fact that DRM is cracked pretty much instantly on games with even the most restrictive DRM shows that they obviously aren't putting much effort into it. Also, game companies make a higher profit on console game sales (to to the rigged pricing of new console games), so that's all the incentive they needed to kill PC gaming (it's also why I advocate not only boycotting a game on PC due to DRM, but don't buy it on a console either).
in an attempt to do prove to their shareholders that they are trying to do SOMETHING to protect their investment
You'd think so, wouldn't you? However, given the massive costs of DRM (cost of implementing it, cost of tech support to maintain it, bad press, lost sales due to boycotts), there's no way DRM can be profitable, especially since companies get flooded with emails / forum posts about how people are not buying the game due to DRM - it's in the shareholders interests to sell more copies and to have a thriving company. Pissing off your customers so that they stop buying while increasing your operating costs at the same time is NOT the way to do that.
5)
Stop trying to justify piracy with the fallacious argument that it will somehow teach the publishers a lesson if you pirate the game.
While I greatly disapprove of pirating something just because you're greedy and want things for free, pirating a game that you would never buy due to DRM I understand. I already pointed out the lie of your "pirating is stealing" argument and it's pretty common knowledge that piracy has nothing to do with increasing DRM, so why don't you rethink and try to come up with a reason for people not pirate a game with DRM when they refuse to buy DRM games?
I'm not advocating piracy or lack of piracy. I just hate when people spew off opinions without solid reasoning behind their views.
I see many people who say "buy the game and then get a crack, because pirating it is wrong" - yet buying it and cracking it still rewards the company for using DRM and gives them further incentives. The only two viable options to fight DRM are to not the buy the game and pirate or to not buy the game and not pirate -- additionally, whichever one you pick, do not buy the game for any console as well. Game companies will only stop using DRM when they see a massive drop in profits.
That's what you've been doing THE ENTIRE GODDAMN THREAD. The "everyone agrees with me, you must be stupid" lines, the political accusations, the "you must love DRM" bits...
No, no it isn't. If you bothered to read what I wrote you'd know that. Once again, you put what you WANT me to say into your head instead of reading what I ACTUALLY say. You really might want to see a doctor about that, because that's not normal.
First, saying that "it's fitting to screw them over" does not mean I feel entitled. I have an easy opportunity to play the game while still not rewarding them for their vile actions - as I said before, I'm no worse off if I don't play it because it's a game. You don't care about that because it runs contrary to your preconceived prejudice that anyone who pirates anything feels entitled to get things for free.
Copy protection is NOT DRM. DRM involves restricting your ability to use the product you bought in the way you desire. Copy protection only prevents you from making a copy / easily distributing copies if they are made. Copy protection does no limit your ability to install / reinstall the software to your hearts content or to install it on 1,000 computers that you own if you so choose. DRM does.
Just out of curiosity, who did you vote for in 2008? From your attitude of projecting your opinions onto others, I'm pretty sure I know who, I just want to see if I'm right.
This is exactly the crap you accused me of, and what you've been doing the whole thread. You dodge points people make with handwaving and then counter with insane garbage like this
.
No, that was a "to the side" comment that had nothing to do with the conversation. I just wanted to know if I was right about your attitude since most people with your "I know everything and no one can tell me different" attitude voted for one of the candidates.
You fail at trying to debate because a debate means you listen to the other persons statements and then counter them. You never listened to my statements and as such your counter-arguments had nothing to do with what I was saying. Stop making up your mind about what people should think or do before you find out their views and when they're contrary to your preconceptions, accept that you were wrong - don't keep screaming that you're right when you're not. It just makes you look like a petulant child.
You said you're getting it whether you pay for it or not. I don't know how else I can restate this to make it clearer.
No, I said that I'm not paying for it, whether I get it or not. It's the exact opposite of what you're claiming. I have no problem not playing the game because it's a fucking game, I don't lose anything by not playing it. However, I will never pay for DRM, no matter the circumstances. That's why I buy cd's and rip my own mp3's instead of buying online because despite iTunes claiming to be DRM free, I don't trust them to actually be 100% DRM free.
You're saying that DRM has nothing to do with piracy (it was around a lot longer than used games).
You're confusing copy protection with DRM.
Once again, you provide no actual argument and instead scream your ideas of what I should be saying, despite the fact that they're the opposite of what I'm saying.
Just out of curiosity, who did you vote for in 2008? From your attitude of projecting your opinions onto others, I'm pretty sure I know who, I just want to see if I'm right.
There are many DRM schemes that do nothing to prevent second hand sales (like a CD key).
No, that's copy protection, not DRM.
Another use of DRM is to curb piracy.
If DRM was to prevent piracy, then DRM would actually stop piracy. It doesn't since the vast majority of games are cracked BEFORE it's released and those that aren't are cracked shortly after. Even Ubisoft's new "unbreakable" DRM was cracked on day one.
Not everyone on this site buys in to the whole groupthink here.
If by "groupthink" you mean "reading interviews with game publishers where they openly talk about wanting to destroy second-hand sales" and the fact that DRM doesn't work, then yes, I'm well aware people like you exist.
A lot of people spent months or years of their life creating that.
A lot of people at GM spent years designing and building new cars. However, that doesn't give me an obligation to buy a Government Motors car.
Yet you feel justified to do whatever you want.
Yes, I do, because everyone is justified in not paying for a product that they are morally opposed to. People who are morally opposed to fur clothing are not required to buy fur clothing, hillbillies morally opposed to foreign cars are not required to buy foreign cars, and gamers opposed to DRM are not forced to buy games with DRM.
I don't really care if you do it or not, but you have to realize you that it is a pretty dick thing to do.
How? We've already established that due to DRM, I will not buy their game - that was their lost sale right there, not because of the option of piracy (or else I wouldn't have bought all these games I own that DON'T have DRM when I could have pirated them) AND we've also established that they are not losing anything from me copying a file (the only costs involved are bandwidth, which are paid for by me and the others on the torrent). They lose absolutely nothing, so unless you're arguing that not buying a product you don't want (regardless of if it's a game, computer, car, deodorant) is being a dick, you have no argument.
Really? Then how come I stopped buying games that had DRM as soon as I became aware of it's existence years ago yet never downloaded a game until last month? Whoops! Looks like your "argument" of deciding my motives for me and ignoring when I tell you the motives behind my actions massively backfired.
Go peddle your pro-DRM bullshit to the children dumb enough to listen to you. There's no point in pretending like you're doing anything but trolling and bashing people who don't like DRM (which is why people like you made the same false arguments against me BEFORE I ever downloaded a game when I criticized DRM).
I like your trolling. Instead of trying to make up a BS reason for 1) why I should pay to be raped by DRM or 2) how a company that has already lost my sale (due to DRM) can somehow magically lose it again if I download it, you just make childish insults.
The difference is I'm not going to act like I DESERVE to have the game. That's what I've been talking about here, but for some reason you can't grasp that.
I do not in any way feel like I "deserve" to play it for free, nor have I said it. In fact, I've said the exact opposite. You just refuse to accept that because you're convinced that anyone who doesn't love DRM feels entitled to have everything they want for free. You refuse to listen to what anyone says if it conflicts with your pre-determined idea of what people should think.
I hate DRM. And I hate people like you because you refuse to admit that your actions are exactly the kind of thing that makes publishers feel DRM is necessary.
If you hated DRM, you wouldn't be bashing me for NOT buying DRM'd games. You yourself admit to pirating, so your issue is not that I pirated a game, you issue is that I pirated a game because I wouldn't buy it due to the DRM. That sounds an awful lot like promoting DRM. Also, you, me, publishers, and everyone else on the planet knows that DRM has nothing to do with piracy, so your reason to "hate people like me" is void as well.
You don't understand the meaning of the word entitlement and there's nothing I can do about that. I'd buy you a dictionary but you wouldn't read it, so there's no point.
If you can't understand that, no matter what they do, I will never pay for DRM, then there's no reasoning with you. I've already explained that I only pirate games with DRM and I only do that because it's not harming the company at all (they already lost my sale, remember?). Take away torrents so I can't get DRM games at no cost and I still won't buy DRM. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You think if you promote DRM enough that it'll magically become just, but it's not and never will be.
Wow, troll much? Copying a file (especially one that I've already decided on moral grounds that I will not pay for) is NOT stealing because the company doesn't lose anything from it. In order for there to be theft, someone must lose something while another gains. They lose nothing by copying a file.
I don't get people like you - why don't you care about your rights? Why don't you care about having control over the property you pay for? Why are you so eager to be beaten down and forced to do things against your will? It's completely illogical.
When did I say I "should" have it? Never. The game is there for free and the company is losing nothing because they already lost my sale. It would be illogical NOT to download it.
It's like if you wanted to charge me $5 for a cup of lemonade and I said "$5 is too much" and walked on by. Then someone else walks up and offers me a cup of lemonade for free - you already lost my sale so you're not being harmed by it and it's not costing me a thing, so why not accept it?
If all the torrents and cracks disappeared overnight, I wouldn't feel like I was missing out in the slightest. You push your own opinion on me and try to claim that I feel like I HAVE to have it - I don't. I simply realize that the company can't lost my sale twice and that there's no logical reason not to pirate a game that I'm morally opposed to paying for.
No one made them buy a DRM ridden POS. They / you decided that they're ok with taking it up the ass from DRM. They could take a stand against DRM too and stop buying the games, but they're too stupid and think that they "have" to have it or they'll die.
Your "you got it free and I paid for it" argument holds no ground. You decided that DRM was worth paying for, I decided it wasn't. You made the choice to buy it, so don't bitch about those who chose to save their hard earned money for something worth buying.
Or they'll openly proclaim that they're going to pirate the game in protest. Nice way of justifying to the publishers that they should keep pushing DRM on us.
Consumers and publishers / developers alike know that DRM has nothing to do with piracy (hence why DRM never stops piracy) - it's about killing used game sales / intentionally breaking the game in a few years so force the moronic masses to buy the next version of the game instead of playing the old game.
That's the prime reason that developers feel the need to protect their software.
You must be new here, because it's well known that developers don't use DRM to stop piracy, they use DRM to stop second-hand game sales and to force games to become unplayable by turning off activation servers, thus forcing people to buy new games.
I don't feel entitled to it in the slightest. However, I'm not buying it due to the DRM - the company has already lost my sale. They lose NOTHING, not even one cent, by me pirating it, so what reason is there not to? Because someone like you who defends DRM says that it's wrong?
No, if you bothered to READ my previous post, you'd see that I buy tons of games that DON'T have DRM. I only have no intention of buying it due to DRM. If all the self-punishing DRM apologists like yourself would just disappear, then DRM would die much faster. You are the cause of DRM - the people who just bend over and take it up the ass and then bitch at those of us who refuse to be punished for buying a product.
Hardly. They want to screw you over for buying their product, so (since I'm not buying it anyways) it's only fitting that I should benefit at no cost AND avoid the horrible DRM. Since me pirating a game that I have no intention of buying (due to DRM) doesn't harm the company in any way, there's no reason why I shouldn't pirate it.
I'm sorry, but that's just not negotiable. I will pay once, no more.
But, I expect the full game for my $60. If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60. I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you. The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.
Bingo. I never would have considered pirating games until companies went gung-ho with raping their customers with DRM. I only pirate games with DRM and I gladly buy games that don't have DRM (my massive stack of video games attests to the fact that I gladly buy). If DLC is done a year or two down the road and is used in place of releasing an expansion on a disc, I can understand it. However, this recent trend of having DLC right from the beginning is just removing content from the game and then charging you multiple times to get the full game.
So because I pointed out that you don't understand the modern definition of the word in the US (which yes, it is a different definition than it used to be and different from the rest of the world) and that you fail to realize that the meanings of words change over time / location (fag is a derogatory term for homosexual in the US but means cigarette in the UK, gay used to mean happy and now it means homosexual), I'm an arrogant prick? Nice to know that you concede that you messed up. I accept your apology.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the multiple websites I've seen that compared free AV software, MS Security Essentials is one of the best. I use it on all of my systems now.
By that time the DRM is often gone and/or irrelevant
Online activation is never "irrelevant" if it still remains. It's still a time bomb waiting to go off (no pun intended).
I know a lot of people read game reviews. We need to start including 'What DRM this game has' in each and every review.
Well I can't vouch for this personally since I canceled my subscription years ago, but I've heard that PC Gamer now has a section in the "system requirements" section that lists DRM.
I totally get your point, but I don't see why a game company can't write a game for linux and, just like how apt makes sure that you have dependencies installed or Windows programs make sure you have dependencies installed, do a simple check and if you don't have XYZ installed, simply go out and have the installer download it?
I think the bigger reasons for the lack of Linux games are 1) Windows 90% market share and 2) the fact that most games use DirectX. I'd love to see MS do some sort of system to port older versions of DirectX to OS X / Linux / Unix. That way game companies could at least make *nix ports of a game that's a few years old and get the ball rolling.
And if a lot more people completely boycots [sic] DRM-crippled software/games/music/movies...
And that's where your little plan fails. Why? *Most people don't care*.
The reason "most people" don't care is because they haven't been bit by DRM yet. Give it a few more years when they go to replay Awesome Game X and they can't because the activation servers are offline or they're out of activations and can't get new ones issued.
This is where the above strategy works great, as everytime you "vote with your dollars" you are helping them kill the platform. Never before have the publishers had the complete black box control like they have with the x360 and PS3, and if it is one thing the companies like it is total control. no dedicated servers, no modding, no content allowed that isn't approved by them. My guess is that control is worth more to them than their PC games division, which is why companies like Ubisoft are screwing their customers so damned hard.
Which is why I always tell everyone not to only boycott the PC version of a game with DRM, but boycott the console versions as well. If you just buy it on console, you're only supporting killing off PC gaming.
A few errors in your argument:
1) Companies aren't trying to fight piracy with DRM (anyone who reads slashdot should be well aware of that), piracy is just an excuse for the companies to violate their paying customers rights to try to squeeze more money out of them. Even if all piracy vanished overnight, the game companies would still lie and blame piracy every time someone refuses to buy their product due to DRM.
2) Copy protection is not the same as DRM. Copy protection involves making it difficult / impossible for an individual to redistribute copies of a game, but it does not affect the customers ability to use the game however they want (installing it 1,000 times, buying 100 computers for their own home and installing it on every one of them, loaning it to your friends, etc). DRM prevents users from fully using the software that they bought by restricting your ability to lend it to a friend, how many times you can install it, and how many different hardware setups you can install it on. See the difference between copy protection and DRM now?
3) Copyright infringement is not stealing. Stealing means that one person loses and another person gains. It costs money to manufacture the box and everything in it when you see a boxed game at a store - if you take that, then it's stealing because there were costs involved with making it that will not be compensated. However, it costs nothing to download a file and the game company doesn't lose a single cent from it. Now you can claim all you want that pirating is wrong because you believe XYZ, that's fine and your right. However, don't try to distort the argument and falsely claim that copyright infringement is stealing, because it's not.
4) Companies have shown that piracy doesn't encourage additional DRM or else they would actually use DRM that worked. The fact that DRM is cracked pretty much instantly on games with even the most restrictive DRM shows that they obviously aren't putting much effort into it. Also, game companies make a higher profit on console game sales (to to the rigged pricing of new console games), so that's all the incentive they needed to kill PC gaming (it's also why I advocate not only boycotting a game on PC due to DRM, but don't buy it on a console either).
in an attempt to do prove to their shareholders that they are trying to do SOMETHING to protect their investment
You'd think so, wouldn't you? However, given the massive costs of DRM (cost of implementing it, cost of tech support to maintain it, bad press, lost sales due to boycotts), there's no way DRM can be profitable, especially since companies get flooded with emails / forum posts about how people are not buying the game due to DRM - it's in the shareholders interests to sell more copies and to have a thriving company. Pissing off your customers so that they stop buying while increasing your operating costs at the same time is NOT the way to do that.
5)
Stop trying to justify piracy with the fallacious argument that it will somehow teach the publishers a lesson if you pirate the game.
While I greatly disapprove of pirating something just because you're greedy and want things for free, pirating a game that you would never buy due to DRM I understand. I already pointed out the lie of your "pirating is stealing" argument and it's pretty common knowledge that piracy has nothing to do with increasing DRM, so why don't you rethink and try to come up with a reason for people not pirate a game with DRM when they refuse to buy DRM games?
I'm not advocating piracy or lack of piracy. I just hate when people spew off opinions without solid reasoning behind their views.
I see many people who say "buy the game and then get a crack, because pirating it is wrong" - yet buying it and cracking it still rewards the company for using DRM and gives them further incentives. The only two viable options to fight DRM are to not the buy the game and pirate or to not buy the game and not pirate -- additionally, whichever one you pick, do not buy the game for any console as well. Game companies will only stop using DRM when they see a massive drop in profits.
That's what you've been doing THE ENTIRE GODDAMN THREAD. The "everyone agrees with me, you must be stupid" lines, the political accusations, the "you must love DRM" bits...
No, no it isn't. If you bothered to read what I wrote you'd know that. Once again, you put what you WANT me to say into your head instead of reading what I ACTUALLY say. You really might want to see a doctor about that, because that's not normal.
First, saying that "it's fitting to screw them over" does not mean I feel entitled. I have an easy opportunity to play the game while still not rewarding them for their vile actions - as I said before, I'm no worse off if I don't play it because it's a game. You don't care about that because it runs contrary to your preconceived prejudice that anyone who pirates anything feels entitled to get things for free.
Copy protection is NOT DRM. DRM involves restricting your ability to use the product you bought in the way you desire. Copy protection only prevents you from making a copy / easily distributing copies if they are made. Copy protection does no limit your ability to install / reinstall the software to your hearts content or to install it on 1,000 computers that you own if you so choose. DRM does.
Just out of curiosity, who did you vote for in 2008? From your attitude of projecting your opinions onto others, I'm pretty sure I know who, I just want to see if I'm right.
This is exactly the crap you accused me of, and what you've been doing the whole thread. You dodge points people make with handwaving and then counter with insane garbage like this
.
No, that was a "to the side" comment that had nothing to do with the conversation. I just wanted to know if I was right about your attitude since most people with your "I know everything and no one can tell me different" attitude voted for one of the candidates.
You fail at trying to debate because a debate means you listen to the other persons statements and then counter them. You never listened to my statements and as such your counter-arguments had nothing to do with what I was saying. Stop making up your mind about what people should think or do before you find out their views and when they're contrary to your preconceptions, accept that you were wrong - don't keep screaming that you're right when you're not. It just makes you look like a petulant child.
You said you're getting it whether you pay for it or not. I don't know how else I can restate this to make it clearer.
No, I said that I'm not paying for it, whether I get it or not. It's the exact opposite of what you're claiming. I have no problem not playing the game because it's a fucking game, I don't lose anything by not playing it. However, I will never pay for DRM, no matter the circumstances. That's why I buy cd's and rip my own mp3's instead of buying online because despite iTunes claiming to be DRM free, I don't trust them to actually be 100% DRM free.
You're saying that DRM has nothing to do with piracy (it was around a lot longer than used games).
You're confusing copy protection with DRM.
Once again, you provide no actual argument and instead scream your ideas of what I should be saying, despite the fact that they're the opposite of what I'm saying.
Just out of curiosity, who did you vote for in 2008? From your attitude of projecting your opinions onto others, I'm pretty sure I know who, I just want to see if I'm right.
There are many DRM schemes that do nothing to prevent second hand sales (like a CD key).
No, that's copy protection, not DRM.
Another use of DRM is to curb piracy.
If DRM was to prevent piracy, then DRM would actually stop piracy. It doesn't since the vast majority of games are cracked BEFORE it's released and those that aren't are cracked shortly after. Even Ubisoft's new "unbreakable" DRM was cracked on day one.
Not everyone on this site buys in to the whole groupthink here.
If by "groupthink" you mean "reading interviews with game publishers where they openly talk about wanting to destroy second-hand sales" and the fact that DRM doesn't work, then yes, I'm well aware people like you exist.
A lot of people spent months or years of their life creating that.
A lot of people at GM spent years designing and building new cars. However, that doesn't give me an obligation to buy a Government Motors car.
Yet you feel justified to do whatever you want.
Yes, I do, because everyone is justified in not paying for a product that they are morally opposed to. People who are morally opposed to fur clothing are not required to buy fur clothing, hillbillies morally opposed to foreign cars are not required to buy foreign cars, and gamers opposed to DRM are not forced to buy games with DRM.
I don't really care if you do it or not, but you have to realize you that it is a pretty dick thing to do.
How? We've already established that due to DRM, I will not buy their game - that was their lost sale right there, not because of the option of piracy (or else I wouldn't have bought all these games I own that DON'T have DRM when I could have pirated them) AND we've also established that they are not losing anything from me copying a file (the only costs involved are bandwidth, which are paid for by me and the others on the torrent). They lose absolutely nothing, so unless you're arguing that not buying a product you don't want (regardless of if it's a game, computer, car, deodorant) is being a dick, you have no argument.
Really? Then how come I stopped buying games that had DRM as soon as I became aware of it's existence years ago yet never downloaded a game until last month? Whoops! Looks like your "argument" of deciding my motives for me and ignoring when I tell you the motives behind my actions massively backfired.
Go peddle your pro-DRM bullshit to the children dumb enough to listen to you. There's no point in pretending like you're doing anything but trolling and bashing people who don't like DRM (which is why people like you made the same false arguments against me BEFORE I ever downloaded a game when I criticized DRM).
I like your trolling. Instead of trying to make up a BS reason for 1) why I should pay to be raped by DRM or 2) how a company that has already lost my sale (due to DRM) can somehow magically lose it again if I download it, you just make childish insults.
The difference is I'm not going to act like I DESERVE to have the game. That's what I've been talking about here, but for some reason you can't grasp that.
I do not in any way feel like I "deserve" to play it for free, nor have I said it. In fact, I've said the exact opposite. You just refuse to accept that because you're convinced that anyone who doesn't love DRM feels entitled to have everything they want for free. You refuse to listen to what anyone says if it conflicts with your pre-determined idea of what people should think.
I hate DRM. And I hate people like you because you refuse to admit that your actions are exactly the kind of thing that makes publishers feel DRM is necessary.
If you hated DRM, you wouldn't be bashing me for NOT buying DRM'd games. You yourself admit to pirating, so your issue is not that I pirated a game, you issue is that I pirated a game because I wouldn't buy it due to the DRM. That sounds an awful lot like promoting DRM. Also, you, me, publishers, and everyone else on the planet knows that DRM has nothing to do with piracy, so your reason to "hate people like me" is void as well.
You don't understand the meaning of the word entitlement and there's nothing I can do about that. I'd buy you a dictionary but you wouldn't read it, so there's no point.
If you can't understand that, no matter what they do, I will never pay for DRM, then there's no reasoning with you. I've already explained that I only pirate games with DRM and I only do that because it's not harming the company at all (they already lost my sale, remember?). Take away torrents so I can't get DRM games at no cost and I still won't buy DRM. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You think if you promote DRM enough that it'll magically become just, but it's not and never will be.
Wow, troll much? Copying a file (especially one that I've already decided on moral grounds that I will not pay for) is NOT stealing because the company doesn't lose anything from it. In order for there to be theft, someone must lose something while another gains. They lose nothing by copying a file.
I don't get people like you - why don't you care about your rights? Why don't you care about having control over the property you pay for? Why are you so eager to be beaten down and forced to do things against your will? It's completely illogical.
When did I say I "should" have it? Never. The game is there for free and the company is losing nothing because they already lost my sale. It would be illogical NOT to download it.
It's like if you wanted to charge me $5 for a cup of lemonade and I said "$5 is too much" and walked on by. Then someone else walks up and offers me a cup of lemonade for free - you already lost my sale so you're not being harmed by it and it's not costing me a thing, so why not accept it?
If all the torrents and cracks disappeared overnight, I wouldn't feel like I was missing out in the slightest. You push your own opinion on me and try to claim that I feel like I HAVE to have it - I don't. I simply realize that the company can't lost my sale twice and that there's no logical reason not to pirate a game that I'm morally opposed to paying for.
No one made them buy a DRM ridden POS. They / you decided that they're ok with taking it up the ass from DRM. They could take a stand against DRM too and stop buying the games, but they're too stupid and think that they "have" to have it or they'll die.
Your "you got it free and I paid for it" argument holds no ground. You decided that DRM was worth paying for, I decided it wasn't. You made the choice to buy it, so don't bitch about those who chose to save their hard earned money for something worth buying.
Or they'll openly proclaim that they're going to pirate the game in protest. Nice way of justifying to the publishers that they should keep pushing DRM on us.
Consumers and publishers / developers alike know that DRM has nothing to do with piracy (hence why DRM never stops piracy) - it's about killing used game sales / intentionally breaking the game in a few years so force the moronic masses to buy the next version of the game instead of playing the old game.
That's the prime reason that developers feel the need to protect their software.
You must be new here, because it's well known that developers don't use DRM to stop piracy, they use DRM to stop second-hand game sales and to force games to become unplayable by turning off activation servers, thus forcing people to buy new games.
I don't feel entitled to it in the slightest. However, I'm not buying it due to the DRM - the company has already lost my sale. They lose NOTHING, not even one cent, by me pirating it, so what reason is there not to? Because someone like you who defends DRM says that it's wrong?
No, if you bothered to READ my previous post, you'd see that I buy tons of games that DON'T have DRM. I only have no intention of buying it due to DRM. If all the self-punishing DRM apologists like yourself would just disappear, then DRM would die much faster. You are the cause of DRM - the people who just bend over and take it up the ass and then bitch at those of us who refuse to be punished for buying a product.
Hardly. They want to screw you over for buying their product, so (since I'm not buying it anyways) it's only fitting that I should benefit at no cost AND avoid the horrible DRM. Since me pirating a game that I have no intention of buying (due to DRM) doesn't harm the company in any way, there's no reason why I shouldn't pirate it.
I'm sorry, but that's just not negotiable. I will pay once, no more.
But, I expect the full game for my $60. If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60. I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you. The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.
Bingo. I never would have considered pirating games until companies went gung-ho with raping their customers with DRM. I only pirate games with DRM and I gladly buy games that don't have DRM (my massive stack of video games attests to the fact that I gladly buy). If DLC is done a year or two down the road and is used in place of releasing an expansion on a disc, I can understand it. However, this recent trend of having DLC right from the beginning is just removing content from the game and then charging you multiple times to get the full game.
So because I pointed out that you don't understand the modern definition of the word in the US (which yes, it is a different definition than it used to be and different from the rest of the world) and that you fail to realize that the meanings of words change over time / location (fag is a derogatory term for homosexual in the US but means cigarette in the UK, gay used to mean happy and now it means homosexual), I'm an arrogant prick? Nice to know that you concede that you messed up. I accept your apology.