4 ms·

I believe this is (most of the time) the best solution these days, but it's still starting from a position of assuming the customer is a criminal. If you're no

I believe this is (most of the time) the best solution these days, but it's still starting from a position of assuming the customer is a criminal. If you're not actually adding any useful internet-based features, then this is just another DRM system that will piss off paying customers when they want to play but don't have a net connection because they're using a laptop on a plane flight.

mquander 16y ago
What's wrong with assuming the customer is a criminal if the big majority of your customers are, in fact, criminals? (Presuming that by "customer" you just mean "person playing your game.") The question should be: how do you account for the fact that your customers are criminals and still make money without crippling your game? Putting useful features online is a good answer to that question.
- dingy 16y ago
  Well, if I'm the (non-criminal) customer and you're the game producer, what's wrong with it is that you're making your problem my problem. It isn't, it shouldn't be and I'm not going to let it be (and no, I don't pirate, I just don't buy stuff I dislike).
  - mquander 16y ago
    That's why I said "without crippling the game." You're right, though; most developers will make their problem your problem, either to a small degree (by making sure that some useful things are only accessible for authenticated online clients) or a large degree (requiring always-on connectivity, nutty DRM schemes.) I don't think there's really anything "wrong" with that, though. It's not very fair, but that's how the world works. Given that people are going to continue to try making money from games, it seems like an optimal outcome.
    - dingy 16y ago
      So, it's not fair but there's nothing wrong with it? I don't think we have the same definition of the word "wrong".
      - mquander 16y ago
        I guess we don't.
    - chc 16y ago
      I'm not sure it's an optimal outcome. It might help it some cases, but it definitely feeds the problem it's trying to solve. The less people like you, the less guilty they'll feel screwing you over. I don't pirate games, but pirating Activision titles would feel downright good. It also often creates the paradox that pirates get a better experience. Once the pirates work around all your antifeatures, the pirated version is actually a better product than the one you're selling (which makes piracy even more tempting).
- frobozz 16y ago
  There are two reasons: 1) It drives your customers to your competitors If you had a choice between a shop that detained you in an "interview room", and checked your bags, pockets and body cavities against the receipt, every single time you went there, and one that just had a few CCTV cameras, which would you choose? 2) It makes people think "If I'm going to be punished anyway, I might as well commit the crime" In some countries (IIRC, both Finland & Netherlands do this), purchasers of recordable media are "treated as criminals" and pre-emptively fined for copying music (specifically music, not software). If I were subject to that kind of treatment, you bet I'd copy as much music as I could lay my hands on.

mquander 16y ago

What's wrong with assuming the customer is a criminal if the big majority of your customers are, in fact, criminals? (Presuming that by "customer" you just mean "person playing your game.") The question should be: how do you account for the fact that your customers are criminals and still make money without crippling your game? Putting useful features online is a good answer to that question.

dingy 16y ago
Well, if I'm the (non-criminal) customer and you're the game producer, what's wrong with it is that you're making your problem my problem. It isn't, it shouldn't be and I'm not going to let it be (and no, I don't pirate, I just don't buy stuff I dislike).
- mquander 16y ago
  That's why I said "without crippling the game." You're right, though; most developers will make their problem your problem, either to a small degree (by making sure that some useful things are only accessible for authenticated online clients) or a large degree (requiring always-on connectivity, nutty DRM schemes.) I don't think there's really anything "wrong" with that, though. It's not very fair, but that's how the world works. Given that people are going to continue to try making money from games, it seems like an optimal outcome.
  - dingy 16y ago
    So, it's not fair but there's nothing wrong with it? I don't think we have the same definition of the word "wrong".
    - mquander 16y ago
      I guess we don't.
  - chc 16y ago
    I'm not sure it's an optimal outcome. It might help it some cases, but it definitely feeds the problem it's trying to solve. The less people like you, the less guilty they'll feel screwing you over. I don't pirate games, but pirating Activision titles would feel downright good. It also often creates the paradox that pirates get a better experience. Once the pirates work around all your antifeatures, the pirated version is actually a better product than the one you're selling (which makes piracy even more tempting).
frobozz 16y ago
There are two reasons: 1) It drives your customers to your competitors If you had a choice between a shop that detained you in an "interview room", and checked your bags, pockets and body cavities against the receipt, every single time you went there, and one that just had a few CCTV cameras, which would you choose? 2) It makes people think "If I'm going to be punished anyway, I might as well commit the crime" In some countries (IIRC, both Finland & Netherlands do this), purchasers of recordable media are "treated as criminals" and pre-emptively fined for copying music (specifically music, not software). If I were subject to that kind of treatment, you bet I'd copy as much music as I could lay my hands on.