DRM Shuts Down PC Version of Gears of War [Slashdot]

[Sabz5150]

They purchased a product designed to stop them from enjoying it. I have no sympathy when it works as advertised. Which is why i recommend against purchasing PC games.

As I have no sympathy when it is circumvented.

EULA says i can wipe all of the files off your hard drive, and you're not allowed to sue me for it. It's unlikely an EULA would stand up in court on it's own, it doesn't appear to be a legally binding contract.

The EULA says that upon purchase, the user has a non-refundable, non-transferrable license to operate the software purchased. If the user is not able to utilize the license they have purchased (i.e. are not allowed to play the game), then the company is in violation of the EULA.

The EULA is a legally binding contract. If it's not, then I challenge you to strip from your own all references to reverse engineering, copying, circumvention of protection methods and likewise.

You seem to believe that a shield is only a shield depending on which side you are standing on. It works both ways.

The EULA in NO WAY allows a developer the ability to destroy the contents of a user's hard drive. It has a liability clause that says should that happen by freak accident, the company is not responsible. I promise you this, if you were found to be intentionally deleting content of a user's hard drive, there'd be some jail time in your future. That, or you'd be buying a dozen Ferraris for guys in Russia. Daily.

Once again, i suggest not buying from companies who use it as a defense mechanism.

The clueless 18 year olds won't listen. DRM and those that support it feed off of ignorance. Stupidity is what makes the product sell. Now, put a big warning label on the game (as was the case with music CDs... see how long THAT lasted?) and things will change. But oh no, can't do that... profits and all.

Sure i can, it's called DRM. And if you try to bypass it, you're breaking the law. And if the publisher doesn't like you for whatever reason, they could prosecute you for it.

Likewise, if you do not provide me with the goods and services which we agreed upon when the game and license were purchased, you are breaking the law. You are stealing the customer's money. You are, at that point, a criminal.

Worry not, this will end up in court one day.

Personally, i write a letter to my congresscritters every 6 months asking that the modify the DMCA. What have you done to help put an end to this madness?

I support the circumvention of DRM methods. It's like putting rat poison in a wound. It doesn't kill you... but you bleed to death constantly paying to make new methods which will only be circumvented again. Lather, rinse, bloodbath.

The DMCA will not be modified. People like you make too much money for that to happen.

I'm in complete agreement. Notice i'm recommending people not buy products that use DRM?

So you are basically saying don't buy your product? Cool. Can I advertise this fact?

In this economy, any company that doesn't strive to make a profit will soon go out of business. Venture capitol only lasts for so long...

Again, so much the better. Put your hand on that stove enough times and not only will you find out it burns, you'll quickly realize that your hand is injured beyond the ability to heal properly.

[Sabz5150]

DRM does not and will not ever help the developer. It isn't "copy protection" in the traditional sense.

It helps the developer get paid. After the money's in their hands, they do not care.

DRM is different. It does not punish pirates. It doesn't hurt pirates one bit. It does, however, hinder people who actually put down the money for the real thing. It's backwards. You can argue piracy this, piracy that all day long but the end result of all of this is that the pirated copies of Gears of War still work and the legitimate ones don't without manipulating the system clock. I'm all for anti-piracy measures. DRM is not one. It's something different. It was thought to be anti-piracy at first but it's become plainly obvious that it does not work. How can anything that encourages legitimate customers to seek out exploits be called "anti-piracy" with a straight face? There are better options out there.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

DRM is a money making scheme, plain and simple.

[roushimsx]

Not if you're behind a firewall. And then there's the problem that a lot of apps won't start if you haven't been online yet at least once.

To be fair, an internet connection is listed as being one of the minimum requirements and expecting it to work through a firewall without specific exemptions set is like complaining about losing frames while gaming with a full AV scan running in the background. Bonus points for making it easy to backup games and for having a fairly easy to run offline mode.

Steam has come a long way in the last few years. I remember when it was in beta I thought it was a pile of shit. Hell, even after HL2 came out it was pretty spotty. I got lucky and was able to unlock my game right on time, but I knew some dudes that had to wait a few days before they could play. For a while now though, it's been wonderful.

Never having to hunt down patches is an especially nice feature.

[monkeychemist]

If you pirate the game, the developers are going to keep licensing harsher DRM schemes to try and stop you. In which case, you're just making it worse for yourself. Unfortunately this path requires a sacrifice on your part.

Wrong. $Developers have no way of figuring out how many or who is pirating their games. Furthermore, they have no way of proving that the people pirating would actually buy their game. The statistics they throw out are always gross estimates with no conclusive proof. Piracy is just an excuse for failing companies...when really it was a bad game or retarded DRM, like in this case, that brings on the failure.

[Sabz5150]

There are certain DRM copy protection methods that I do not mind. The Nintendo Wii's is one of these. The method prevents copying and play on another console. It doesn't get in the way of me playing my game and it doesn't prevent me from making a copy of my DLC for backup purposes.

Also of importance, it doesn't remove my Homebrew Channel. Yes, I could in fact use it to pirate Wiiware and VC games. But I don't. I even let the Nintendo Channel watch my playing stats, so Shig KNOWS I am playing the HBC. But he also knows that I legally purchase his wares.

He leaves me alone, I support him by buying his product.* It's rather simple. See how that works?


(*The exception is the Wii Speak thing. That's a slap in the face of used game stores and I refuse to support it.)

[heybtbm]

Wrong. $Developers have no way of figuring out how many or who is pirating their games. Furthermore, they have no way of proving that the people pirating would actually buy their game. Statements made in my posts are always Anecdotal hyperbole with no conclusive proof. Piracy is just an excuse for failing companies...when really it was a bad game or retarded DRM, like in this case, that brings on the failure.

FTFY.

[Sabz5150]

FTFY.

Alright... you've made a claim, provide your evidence.

[monkeychemist]

Likewise, if you do not provide me with the goods and services which we agreed upon when the game and license were purchased, you are breaking the law. You are stealing the customer's money. You are, at that point, a criminal.

Worry not, this will end up in court one day.

It would be cool to have a big class-action suit against DRM on a specific game. All the PC GoW customers should get together and sue Epic. They purchased a game for lifetime use, not for a set amount of time. It's like the check you give epic suddenly gets withdrawn from their bank account and goes back to the buyer. You bet Epic would sue within weeks.

I just don't get how DRM is legal. Seriously, you have examples like this and what about giving a game or trading with a friend. I own MGS4 for my PS3. My friend wants to play it but doesn't have the money. So I lend it to him and he plays it through then gives it back. If you replace the PS3 references with a new PC game with DRM then we committed a crime. Kinda also kills places like this forum where people buy, sell and trade games all the time...

[monkeychemist]

FTFY.

wow you're so cool! I'm so happy that you did that

[Sabz5150]

It would be cool to have a big class-action suit against DRM on a specific game. All the PC GoW customers should get together and sue Epic. They purchased a game for lifetime use, not for a set amount of time. It's like the check you give epic suddenly gets withdrawn from their bank account and goes back to the buyer. You bet Epic would sue within weeks.

I just don't get how DRM is legal. Seriously, you have examples like this and what about giving a game or trading with a friend. I own MGS4 for my PS3. My friend wants to play it but doesn't have the money. So I lend it to him and he plays it through then gives it back. If you replace the PS3 references with a new PC game with DRM then we committed a crime. Kinda also kills places like this forum where people buy, sell and trade games all the time...

Neither of us support piracy. However I think our complaint with DRM methonds and their issues (such as the ones in articles like this) can be summed up in five words:

We are not collateral damage.

[monkeychemist]

Neither of us support piracy. However I think our complaint with DRM methonds and their issues (such as the ones in articles like this) can be summed up in five words:

We are not collateral damage.

I 100% agree. It is after all why we are part of this forum/community. We like to see those games on the shelf. While I can play nes/snes on my cell phone, I much prefer playing the way it was meant on the proper console.

[roushimsx]

Wrong. $Developers have no way of figuring out how many or who is pirating their games.

1) $Yes they do
2) $Yes they can
3) It's normally the $Publisher that insists on the inclusion of copy protection / DRM schemes, not the $Developers.

It's also very telling when an expansion pack that does have copy protection (such as Incubation: The Wilderness Missions or Duke Nukem: Plutonium Pak sells more than the base game that didn't have copy protection.

[Sabz5150]

1) $Yes they do
2) $Yes they can
3) It's normally the $Publisher that insists on the inclusion of copy protection / DRM schemes, not the $Developers.

It's also very telling when an expansion pack that does have copy protection (such as Incubation: The Wilderness Missions or Duke Nukem: Plutonium Pak sells more than the base game that didn't have copy protection.

Awesome. Show me how you arrived at those numbers.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I think he did explain how he arrived there. Expansions with protection selling more copies than the game it expands...

This whole mess is unfortunate, but I hope it's the Oak Stake driven through the heart of DRM or at least the beginning of the end.

Only thing that bothers me is that I thought it was legal to crack programs you legally purchased. I did this with ReBirth when my disk met a grisly end (disk drive snap!). It's academic now since it's free/abandonware now. :/

[Sabz5150]

I think he did explain how he arrived there. Expansions with protection selling more copies than the game it expands...

Those were not the titles described in the articles referenced. Also, the articles (and numbers) automatically assume a sale per pirated copy. If I were to pull a number out of the same place they did, I'd say around 80% of the people who play a pirated copy would not purchase a copy legally... either because they're cheapasses, they are doing it to Damn the Man(TM), or they just can't afford it because they're 13 years old and found this bittorrent thing.

This whole mess is unfortunate, but I hope it's the Oak Stake driven through the heart of DRM or at least the beginning of the end.

One can only hope so.

Only thing that bothers me is that I thought it was legal to crack programs you legally purchased. I did this with ReBirth when my disk met a grisly end (disk drive snap!). It's academic now since it's free/abandonware now. :/

Circumvention is not permitted thanks to the DMCA. Overhyped claims of ZOMG TEH PIRATEZ KILL MAH BUZINESS has let them do things that were once illegal to do. Not to mention the EULAs make you sign your life away.

You USED to be able to make a copy for backup purposes... but that means that you'd rely on your backup should "aww snap" happen instead of forking over cash for yet another license.

Devs... wanna fix THAT? Give me a free (or low cost... 2 bucks or so) replacement for my disc should it be damaged. I can even send you the pieces if you'd like.

[TonyTheTiger]

It helps the developer get paid. After the money's in their hands, they do not care.

DRM is a money making scheme, plain and simple.

Are you sure about that? I'm not being flippant here, either. I'm genuinely doubtful that DRM actually helps increase a publisher's/developer's profits in any significant way. Look at what happened with Spore on Amazon. I think that debacle convinced at least a few people who would have bought the game to either not spend the money at all or seek out an exploit. So in the case of Spore, DRM either pushed away potential customers or created more pirates. How does either result help increase revenue?

You could argue that DRM forces people to buy a legit copy but I get the impression that the number of people who would have pirated the game if DRM were not present who now, because of DRM, end up actually going out to buy the game make up an infantesimal percentage. I would certainly venture a guess that it makes up a smaller percentage than the above scenarios.

If DRM were horrible for the end user but amazingly good for the publisher then I could at least understand why it would stick around. But DRM doesn't appear to be good for anybody. And because it's still relatively new publishers haven't entirely gotten the memo yet but they're gradually growing more privy to the problems. EA did sort of address the Spore fiasco.

[monkeychemist]

1) $Yes they do
2) $Yes they can
3) It's normally the $Publisher that insists on the inclusion of copy protection / DRM schemes, not the $Developers.

It's also very telling when an expansion pack that does have copy protection (such as Incubation: The Wilderness Missions or Duke Nukem: Plutonium Pak sells more than the base game that didn't have copy protection.

As stated in my post earlier, those numbers are estimation with no factual information. Also, the expansion pack selling more than the base product mens nothing. My little brothers are fanatical about blizzard games. They will buy multiple copies of the expansion packs to make multiple characters.

[monkeychemist]

If I were to pull a number out of the same place they did, I'd say around 80% of the people who play a pirated copy would not purchase a copy legally...

I would agree with that estimate. I think most people that play the pirated game would not purchase it to begin with. People will then say, why would you play a game that you wouldn't pay for? The answer is probably that they wouldn't pay $50 for it, but maybe $10 or $20. Or they expect it to suck but want to give it a chance...then realize that it sucks and delete it. I know that playing demos off the PSN has VERY much encouraged me to stay on the good side of the law...and then if I like the game I wait until it sells for $20-30.

[roushimsx]

My little brothers are fanatical about blizzard games. They will buy multiple copies of the expansion packs to make multiple characters.

You obviously don't understand the difference between an expansion pack for a mid-late 90s tactical game and an expansion pack for a modern day MMORPG.

[Skelix]

All this talk about this makes me want to play GoW on the PC even more, and now I can't.

I wonder when they'll fix this, and when they do. Will we lose all our saves etc? Last time they updated the Games for Windows dashboard I lost all my GoW single player saves.