Jump to content
jagdtigger

Pirates Crack Microsoft’s UWP Protection, Five Layers of DRM Defeated

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited) · Original PosterOP
20 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

That's not DRM.  That's called a business arrangement. xD

 

Every time you've ever played a game on a console, you've been subject to DRM.  Every time you played a movie, it's the same.  It didn't hinder your ability to use it at all.  I guaranty you that 90% of the time DRM is in effect, you didn't even know it.  Usually it's not obvious unless you're trying to do something illegal.

Like when i want to put my films on phone so i can watch them on it? Or you want to put it onto your NAS so you dont have to fiddle around with discs? Or you just want to preserve them so you make an iso out of them?(<- this one is actually true for games too) All of these are legal uses labeled as illegal by some corps so they can generate more profit. BTW lets just say all of my films are DRM free.... ;) And so far the only non-intrusive DRM i seen is steam* and origin*(but im starting to shift over to GoG in case of buying games).

 

/EDIT

* But these are a gamble too, if the company goes down or gets bought and the new owner's only intention is to eliminate competition you will loose all you games. And then you will have only 2 choice. Either buy it again or download it... And even then if you download you would be labeled as a pirate. And this is why is why i say DRM should die.

Edited by jagdtigger
Link to post
Share on other sites

the best analogy for the DRM is your house:

 

You can either leave the door open and trust people not to steal you (GOG).

Most people don't want to enter anyway, those that want to enter will enter.

 

You can lock it and trust people don't have a way to unlock it (Steam).

Anyone that wants to steal something will enter with almost no effort. You are basically just prevent those that didn't wanted to robe you in the 1st place from entering. Still it's a dissuasion in turning honest people into robbers i guess.

 

You can go the nuclear option, ravenous dogs and a moat with crocodiles. 

People can drug the dog and the crocodiles and will if they want to enter to steal you. But every time you want to enter your house you have to give food to the crocodiles and sedate the dogs or vice versa, it's costly on the family budget and you loose a lot of time to enter your house every day.

You are robbed on a daily basis the same way, it just takes the robbers longer, sometimes they have to go back and get pet food and when they finally robe you the pie is no longer fresh :)


.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Then I apologise for the confusion.

No problem. I can see how my post could be interpreted the way you interpreted it and I could have made a better job expressing myself.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Supporting a product does not have to be post sale.  Proper product support comes from other metrics as well, like contingencies in place for when servers are decomiisioned or the original OS it is written for becomes obsolete.

I would be OK with that.

It does not benefit the developers though so they give consumers the middle finger. So what you are suggesting will most likely never happen on a wide scale unless a law gets passed.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

No, the problem is the company that implemented it because it is doing exactly what they programed it to do. 

The company is the one causing the problem, but the DRM is the problem.

There is an important difference.

And I am not sure if you understand the implications of this sentence. What you are saying is the DRM was purposely designed to prevent paying customers from accessing the content they are entitled to. if that's what you believe (that the purpose of DRM is to block the content from paying customers) then I find it even harder to understand why you hold the position you do.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Would you also blame encryption as the technology that prevent authorities from cracking child trafficking rings? Or the criminals that use it?

It entirely depends on what you define the problem as. You can define this issue in two ways.

1) As you defined it, the problem is that authorities are unable to locate child trafficking rings because of encryption, then I would say encryption is the problem.

2) If you define the problem as "child trafficking rings exist" then I would not blame encryption for it.

 

Since I don't believe there is a solution to number 2 we have to focus on number 1. How would I solve that? I would solve it by tying to work around the encryption, just like I would feel no problem working around a DRM if it was giving me issues.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

After all it is the same thing.  DRM is a broad term that encompasses technology done right and technology that is extremely shit to old users.  The only people who can change that are the companies that program it.

Well, personally I believe there is no such thing as "DRM done right", as it is always, to some degree, detrimental to the product, and there is a severe lack of empirical evidence that it has any benefits at all.

So right now all we know for sure is that DRM costs developers time and money to implement and that in the best case scenario most customers won't notice it, but in most cases it has at least a small (sometimes large) negative impact on the experience for the customer. it could be a simple thing like needing to put in a CD key when you install the game (no CD key would be a better experience for the customer) to things like Assassings creed where it apparently has a noticeable impact on performance.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

To what end? you say it's good to know how to crack DRM, but...

It is good because if issues arise in the future, we might already have the solution to it.

Again, it's like finding a cure for a disease you not have yet. I don't have cancer but I would feel calmer knowing that if I ever got it, there was an effective cure for it. I would also be happy for the people who are affected by it since they can now get help.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

And you think the people looking to circumvent DRM are doing it for the small percentage of people with genuine issues?

I don't, but I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Just because something can, and probably will, be used for bad purposes doesn't mean it has good applications too.

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Obsolescence is one problem and that isn't necessarily intrinsic to DRM,   Do you also get shitty because you can't run windows 95 on new hardware?  I paid for win 95, I should be allowed to use it today, MS should have to write a sata driver for win 95.  Sometimes you have to learn to let go of old shit, sometimes a third party can legitimately get around it.  But at the end of the the day it isn't old OS kernals and device drivers that are the issue, it's the fact MS won't release the code or release drives to make it work.

I wouldn't get mad at it because it doesn't affect me, but if someone was affected and found a way to make it work then I would think it was morally acceptable for them to do so.

But the big difference here is, like I said before, compatibility breaking is a side effect while the purpose of DRM is to restrict users.

Both may have the same effects on the users, but the intentions behind them are completely different and the reason why I think one is more acceptable than the other.

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

So when they go bad in the future then deal with them, Crack the DRM on old games that aren't being sold anymore.  Whatever,  I just don't think it's a fair or robust argument that obsolete and unsupported software from the past is justification to Can DRM altogether or to circumvent it for today's software. 

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I think you misread the sales numbers of New Vegas.

It sold 5 million copies in the US, but the estimated overall sales were over 12 million. So at most they lost ~8% of their sales.

However, that is just the potentially lost sales number. The real number for lost sales is most likely far lower.

So one of the most pirated games lost maybe 5% of their sales because of piracy. Still quite high, but not anywhere near 20%.

 

This is exactly what I mean by the pro-DRM side basing their entire stance on false narratives. You did not find a 20% piracy rate strange, even though it was in actuality ~8% (rough numbers). This is exactly what I mean when I say piracy is an overblown issue.

No Fallout 4 sold 12 million copies, New Vegas sold 5.

 

Quote

Bethesda Softworks is calling Fallout: New Vegas' launch a success, with more than five mission copies shipped since the game's release, with retailers calling for more. Now all they have to do is fix it.

https://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/11/fallout-new-vegas-makes-millions/

 

Now that is of course not a complete unit sales because that's how many at that point in time so if we use SteamDB to check total owners then that is 5,089,036 right now today, so the only people not on Steam is people that have cracked the game and also never purchased it. Edit: Game requires Steam even if you buy it from a retail store for PC.

 

Quote

5,089,036 ± 68,227 owners
4,461,330 ± 63,921 players total87.67%
145,394 ± 11,588 players in last 2 weeks2.86%

https://steamdb.info/app/22380/graphs/

 

Be a bit more careful when checking numbers and make sure you you are looking at the correct ones, I almost made the same mistake when looking for New Vegas sales.

 

Remember that study was conducted over only 3 months so a heck of a lot more people could have downloaded the game after the study or used private closed trackers and not a public open one, which is very common for the long term persistent pirates to use and that community isn't small (FYI I've used a few private trackers over the years).

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mr moose said:

And you think the people looking to circumvent DRM are doing it for the small percentage of people with genuine issues?

Actually, I think they do it for fun and for fame (within the pirating community).  I don't believe they even do it to release, that's secondary.

5 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

That's not DRM.  That's called a business arrangement.

Surely you're not that dense.  It's DRM implemented because of a business arrangement.  If Playready isn't DRM, then that term has no meaning.

5 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

Usually it's not obvious unless you're trying to do something illegal.

Really?  How many times have we seen draconian DRM that limited the number of times people could reinstall (on the same machine, no less)?  Or times where the DRM failed to perform properly and cause legitimate customers to have issues?  Illegal?  How about the developers just screwed up the implementation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

No problem. I can see how my post could be interpreted the way you interpreted it and I could have made a better job expressing myself.

 

I would be OK with that.

It does not benefit the developers though so they give consumers the middle finger. So what you are suggesting will most likely never happen on a wide scale unless a law gets passed.

I would not presume to try and understand why any developer does what they do.  

 

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The company is the one causing the problem, but the DRM is the problem.

There is an important difference.

And I am not sure if you understand the implications of this sentence. What you are saying is the DRM was purposely designed to prevent paying customers from accessing the content they are entitled to. if that's what you believe (that the purpose of DRM is to block the content from paying customers) then I find it even harder to understand why you hold the position you do.

 

It entirely depends on what you define the problem as. You can define this issue in two ways.

1) As you defined it, the problem is that authorities are unable to locate child trafficking rings because of encryption, then I would say encryption is the problem.

2) If you define the problem as "child trafficking rings exist" then I would not blame encryption for it.

 

I understand the implications, I just hate the companies not the concept of DRM, just like I hate child traffickers and not the concept of encryption.  But if in my analogy, working around DRM has the same implications as working around encryption, then no one is safe to use it.

 

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Well, personally I believe there is no such thing as "DRM done right", as it is always, to some degree, detrimental to the product, and there is a severe lack of empirical evidence that it has any benefits at all.

So right now all we know for sure is that DRM costs developers time and money to implement and that in the best case scenario most customers won't notice it, but in most cases it has at least a small (sometimes large) negative impact on the experience for the customer. it could be a simple thing like needing to put in a CD key when you install the game (no CD key would be a better experience for the customer) to things like Assassings creed where it apparently has a noticeable impact on performance.

There is a midfield of information on DRM out there, It's easy to find articles that support the perception it is only negative,  but the thing is that doesn't stand to reason. Companies are only concerned with money, if DRM was only a sink and not, at the bare minimum, a protection of income, they wouldn't be hell bent on using it every time.  If it plays no role in revue stream and only costs, then why is it part of the business model?  

 

I am very much a proponent of if you build it, you get to decide what it is and how it is used.  If that cost you money so be it.   Anything that dictates to a company (or person for that matter) that they can't make their products their way is abhorrent to me.  As a consumer I do not buy products I don't like.  I do not own any Ubisoft titles since HOMM7 was an unsupported failure.  

 

 

Also an interesting side note, many of the studies into game revenue/profits and DRM/piracy, don't take into consideration the changing economics of the average gamer and the growth of the industry.   Which are very important considerations I'd like to know more about.   I have previously linked to pretty damning proof that the music industry suffered greatly due to piracy and the internet.  There is no reason to assume there will not be some similar effects in software.

 

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It is good because if issues arise in the future, we might already have the solution to it.

Again, it's like finding a cure for a disease you not have yet. I don't have cancer but I would feel calmer knowing that if I ever got it, there was an effective cure for it. I would also be happy for the people who are affected by it since they can now get help.

So because some DRM is not implemented right you think all DRM should be compromised?

 

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I don't, but I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Just because something can, and probably will, be used for bad purposes doesn't mean it has good applications too.

You can't argue that someone using something for bad purposes is evidence it lacks good implementation and use.

 

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I wouldn't get mad at it because it doesn't affect me, but if someone was affected and found a way to make it work then I would think it was morally acceptable for them to do so.

But the big difference here is, like I said before, compatibility breaking is a side effect while the purpose of DRM is to restrict users.

Both may have the same effects on the users, but the intentions behind them are completely different and the reason why I think one is more acceptable than the other.

 

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

Of course DRM is designed to restrict users, But you are still confusing legitimate use of DRM to restrict users who don't pay for it, and the side effects of poorly implemented DRM.    There is a difference between the two.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mr moose said:

There is a midfield of information on DRM out there, It's easy to find articles that support the perception it is only negative,  but the thing is that doesn't stand to reason. Companies are only concerned with money, if DRM was only a sink and not, at the bare minimum, a protection of income, they wouldn't be hell bent on using it every time.  If it plays no role in revue stream and only costs, then why is it part of the business model?  

Personally I hate it when I see a research paper on it and they have filled it 80%-90% of Indy or low volume not very popular titles which completely skews the analysis. There is also a difference between piracy not negatively effecting the industry as a whole, and in ways benefiting it, and piracy effecting specific franchises or publishers that only deal in large volume popular titles.

 

Another issue is including console sales in the data set when looking at piracy rates on PC or not breaking down the results so you can see it on a per platform basis. There is a reason why developers by in large have switched to console first then port to PC. There is also a reason why PC gaming as made a big shift towards online elements that require an account and to be signed in at all times, this is a very clear understanding by developers/publishers that their games will get cracked and the only viable way to combat this is to develop the game itself to counteract this.

 

It should be fairly obvious that certain games have different requirements, risks and protections required than other games. To expect that everything is the same within the industry is lack of critical assessment on the matter, probably influenced by only reading the summary of studies that come to the conclusion you support without doing any critical analysis of it to understand how it was conducted and why it came to the conclusion.

 

As much as I like the idea of games not using DRM, actively buying games from developers and publishers that do no use them, re-buying most of my classic games on GOG I can still see the need for popular large volume of sale games that are heavily single player focused needing DRM to protect against piracy. Piracy is not a one size fits all issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Personally I hate it when I see a research paper on it and they have filled it 80%-90% of Indy or low volume not very popular titles which completely skews the analysis. There is also a difference between piracy not negatively effecting the industry as a whole, and in ways benefiting it, and piracy effecting specific franchises or publishers that only deal in large volume popular titles.

 

Another issue is including console sales in the data set when looking at piracy rates on PC or not breaking down the results so you can see it on a per platform basis. There is a reason why developers by in large have switched to console first then port to PC. There is also a reason why PC gaming as made a big shift towards online elements that require an account and to be signed in at all times, this is a very clear understanding by developers/publishers that their games will get cracked and the only viable way to combat this is to develop the game itself to counteract this.

 

It should be fairly obvious that certain games have different requirements, risks and protections required than other games. To expect that everything is the same within the industry is lack of critical assessment on the matter, probably influenced by only reading the summary of studies that come to the conclusion you support without doing any critical analysis of it to understand how it was conducted and why it came to the conclusion.

 

As much as I like the idea of games not using DRM, actively buying games from developers and publishers that do no use them, re-buying most of my classic games on GOG I can still see the need for popular large volume of sale games that are heavily single player focused needing DRM to protect against piracy. Piracy is not a one size fits all issue.

The other thing is since 2000, demand for games has increased, expendable income has increased, access to pc's capable of playing AAA titles has definitely increased/become more affordable (this is reflected in sales figures with both Intel and AMD and GPU sales figures). Yet revenue from AAA titles does not seem to have shared the same increase.  What makes it hard is (as you say) the lack of separation of data, especially between MMO (which require server log in and are less likely to be pirated) and stand alone single player. 

 

 


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Really?  How many times have we seen draconian DRM that limited the number of times people could reinstall (on the same machine, no less)?  Or times where the DRM failed to perform properly and cause legitimate customers to have issues?  Illegal?  How about the developers just screwed up the implementation.

A fraction of a percentage of the time that DRM has gone by unnoticed.


Make sure to quote or tag me (@JoostinOnline) or I won't see your response!

PSU Tier List  |  How to build a gaming PC for $400US or less   |  The Real Reason Delidding Improves Temperatures

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
5 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

A fraction of a percentage of the time that DRM has gone by unnoticed.

We already busted that flawed argument, stop throwing it around.... :dry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mr moose said:

I understand the implications, I just hate the companies not the concept of DRM, just like I hate child traffickers and not the concept of encryption.  But if in my analogy, working around DRM has the same implications as working around encryption, then no one is safe to use it.

Again, your analogy is flawed because the primary purpose of encryption is not to hide child traffickers. It wasn't designed with that specifically in mind.

DRM however, is designed with the specific intention of limiting the freedoms of paying customers. That is the design-goal of it.

 

And like I said earlier, depending on how you phrase the question, encryption is the problem.

 

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

There is a midfield of information on DRM out there, It's easy to find articles that support the perception it is only negative,  but the thing is that doesn't stand to reason. Companies are only concerned with money, if DRM was only a sink and not, at the bare minimum, a protection of income, they wouldn't be hell bent on using it every time.  If it plays no role in revue stream and only costs, then why is it part of the business model?  

You are not entirely correct that companies are only concerned with money.

Control over users is also a VERY important thing to them. The indirect effect of controlling consumers is of course money, but companies are often willing to give up short term monetary gains if it means they can, for example, push a competitor out of the market using sleazy tactics like forcing compatibility issues outside of their own ecosystems. 

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

I am very much a proponent of if you build it, you get to decide what it is and how it is used.  If that cost you money so be it.   Anything that dictates to a company (or person for that matter) that they can't make their products their way is abhorrent to me.  As a consumer I do not buy products I don't like.  I do not own any Ubisoft titles since HOMM7 was an unsupported failure.  

I disagree. When you are modifying a product for the purpose of harming customers I think you should not be free to do whatever you want.

I am certain you agree with that mentality too, in certain situations. For example the recent news about a DRM hijacking Chrome passwords. The developers made their product that way on purpose, and I think the law should step in and dictate that they can't do that.

That is an extreme example but you get the point. Advocating for no regulations is advocating for no consumer protection, and that will not end well.

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

Also an interesting side note, many of the studies into game revenue/profits and DRM/piracy, don't take into consideration the changing economics of the average gamer and the growth of the industry.   Which are very important considerations I'd like to know more about.   I have previously linked to pretty damning proof that the music industry suffered greatly due to piracy and the internet.  There is no reason to assume there will not be some similar effects in software.

Regarding the growth of the industry, companies are making more profits than ever before.

In the last 10 years EA's spending have increased by 59% and their profits have increased by 100%.

Not sure if that's the kind of information you were asking for though.

I wrote about it in this thread here.

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

So because some DRM is not implemented right you think all DRM should be compromised?

I believe the only way to implement DRM "right" is to not implement it at all, so yes.

I think it is an unnecessary thing which only harms consumers. Since I am a strong believer in the idea that everyone should strive to make the world a better place (a position I completely understand not everyone shares), DRM is a big slap in the face of my core beliefs.

It is designed to be a tool for oppression. There is of course a scale of how bad the different DRMs are, but I can't think of a single one which falls in the territory of having a positive impact.

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

You can't argue that someone using something for bad purposes is evidence it lacks good implementation and use.

I can argue that because I don't think DRM can be used for anything but bad purposes. Like I said, I don't think good implementations of it exists. There exists implementations that are better or worse than other implementations, but they are all varying degrees of bad.

Can you think of a good DRM? One that doesn't have a negative impact on the consumers. Even better would be if you could mention one with documented evidence that it has had a positive effect for the developers too.

 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

The other thing is since 2000, demand for games has increased, expendable income has increased, access to pc's capable of playing AAA titles has definitely increased/become more affordable (this is reflected in sales figures with both Intel and AMD and GPU sales figures). Yet revenue from AAA titles does not seem to have shared the same increase.  What makes it hard is (as you say) the lack of separation of data, especially between MMO (which require server log in and are less likely to be pirated) and stand alone single player. 

I highly recommend you read what I linked earlier regarding EA's financial situation now vs 10 years ago.

At least with EA, it seems like it has shared the same increase.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I believe the only way to implement DRM "right" is to not implement it at all, so yes.

I think it is an unnecessary thing which only harms consumers. Since I am a strong believer in the idea that everyone should strive to make the world a better place (a position I completely understand not everyone shares), DRM is a big slap in the face of my core beliefs.

It is designed to be a tool for oppression. There is of course a scale of how bad the different DRMs are, but I can't think of a single one which falls in the territory of having a positive impact.

So you believe in only making it a better place for consumers? What if the end result of your ideals is to destroy the thing you like? What if the end result is a regression in the industry?

 

I've only ever seen you argue on the position of the consumer, and don't give me a giant spiel about greedy corporations and massive profits etc I'm not blind to that and it's a real thing but your giving off an screw everyone it's all about me vibe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

So you believe in only making it a better place for consumers?

Not necessarily. There is certainly a balance. If it's between making consumers having to put in a CD key when they install the game, or a game developer losing millions of dollars then I can completely side with the developer, just to take an extreme example.

I do however put more weight on the consumers since they are far the majority. Call me a socialist or whatever, but if something is detrimental to let's say 5 million people, and benefits 5 people, then I will usually side with the 5 million people (again, I may not always do that because there is a balance to be had).

 

I am OK with some types of DRM. I still think they have a negative impact to the quality of the product, even a simple CD key has, but I can understand why developers use them on some level. Like I said earlier in the thread, it's a necessary evil, but it's still evil (DRM as a whole that is, not specifically CD keys). But the lack of evidence that they have a positive impact for the developers makes it very hard to side with them if you compare it to the negative effects.

I haven't bought three (3) copies of Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction because I think Blizzard deserves three times as much as they charge for it. I have done so because DRM has screwed me over twice (for example Blizzard changing the CD key format so the old key doesn't work with the new installers).

 

 

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

your giving off an screw everyone it's all about me vibe.

That is not my intention but I can see why I come off that way. I'd like to think of it as the other way around.

That I despise selfishness and look down on it, and most of the time corporations are extremely selfish to the point of harming everyone else. It's not that I want everyone to appease me and I only side with consumers because I am one, but rather that I want society as a whole to be better.

It's not that I think all corporations are evil, but I find it very difficult to side with a lot of the decisions they make when they put their needs above society as a whole.

 

I know that not everyone will agree and that's fine, but I hope you can see where I am coming from too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Again, your analogy is flawed because the primary purpose of encryption is not to hide child traffickers. It wasn't designed with that specifically in mind.

DRM however, is designed with the specific intention of limiting the freedoms of paying customers. That is the design-goal of it.

DRM is not designed with the specific intention of limiting genuine customers, that's just the way some companies have used it.

 

Quote

And like I said earlier, depending on how you phrase the question, encryption is the problem.

 

 

You are not entirely correct that companies are only concerned with money.

Control over users is also a VERY important thing to them. The indirect effect of controlling consumers is of course money, but companies are often willing to give up short term monetary gains if it means they can, for example, push a competitor out of the market using sleazy tactics like forcing compatibility issues outside of their own ecosystems. 

Which all equals money.

 

Quote

I disagree. When you are modifying a product for the purpose of harming customers I think you should not be free to do whatever you want.

Customers are also free not to use it.  If I want to write a program that sends me a copy of your hard drive then permanently deletes your. And this is written clearly all over the box then you have no right telling me not to.  

 

 

Quote

I am certain you agree with that mentality too, in certain situations. For example the recent news about a DRM hijacking Chrome passwords. The developers made their product that way on purpose, and I think the law should step in and dictate that they can't do that.

That is an extreme example but you get the point. Advocating for no regulations is advocating for no consumer protection, and that will not end well.

Consumer protection?  if you can't use a product you paid for then take them to consumer affairs. you don;t need to break today's DRM to prove a point there.

 

Or alternatively, if a company doesn't adequatley describe what their product limitations are then either A. don't buy the product or B. take them to consumer affairs.

 

Quote

Regarding the growth of the industry, companies are making more profits than ever before.

In the last 10 years EA's spending have increased by 59% and their profits have increased by 100%.

Not sure if that's the kind of information you were asking for though.

I wrote about it in this thread here.

No, the problem is the their profits have only grown 100% while the rest of the industry has grown in excess of 160% .  They are not experiencing the same returns on that growth.  I can't really claim why because as I said earlier there are no break downs to were the revenue is and where it is going.

 

Quote

I believe the only way to implement DRM "right" is to not implement it at all, so yes.

I think it is an unnecessary thing which only harms consumers. Since I am a strong believer in the idea that everyone should strive to make the world a better place (a position I completely understand not everyone shares), DRM is a big slap in the face of my core beliefs.

It is designed to be a tool for oppression. There is of course a scale of how bad the different DRMs are, but I can't think of a single one which falls in the territory of having a positive impact.

If you ask software developers most of them will tell you the positive impact is in maintaining sales revenue. And don;t tell me that's bullshit because we just don't know. there are just as many small time business without DRM (LIKE audio books and GOG etc) as there are who strive to implement DRM bigger and better every time.

 

Quote

 

I can argue that because I don't think DRM can be used for anything but bad purposes. Like I said, I don't think good implementations of it exists. There exists implementations that are better or worse than other implementations, but they are all varying degrees of bad.

Can you think of a good DRM? One that doesn't have a negative impact on the consumers. Even better would be if you could mention one with documented evidence that it has had a positive effect for the developers too.

 

I highly recommend you read what I linked earlier regarding EA's financial situation now vs 10 years ago.

At least with EA, it seems like it has shared the same increase.

Again, you are only comparing ea to ea,  you need to compare that to the entire industry and see if there has been a difference in profit growth and revenue growth depending on the product.   You don't think it is curious we have more cheaper gaming hardware on the market, significantly more gaming pc's and MMO s through the roof. Steam seems to be seeing an average of 32,000 copies of every game in their store (some just are shit) and there are something like 2000 new games produced every year. but AAA title prices seem to be dropping, not even keeping up with inflation. general increases in profit do not mean there is no problem. The growth in sales does not seem to in line with every other metric.

 

Don't you want answers to that before making claims about it?  I do.


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×