Assassins Creed Origin DRM Hammers Gamers’ CPUs

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Nationalism via game dev and region locking. Beyond that, I don't know jack shit behind Japanese DRM and region locking practices.

I usually play games that are available in the US google play store (For instance Fate Grand Order) and they tend to refuse to run if rooted.

 

Edit: And also a custom rom, but their are more workarounds for that

[jagdtigger]

43 minutes ago, tjcater said:

Maybe with that standard DRM for HTML coming to the limelight, we will see less situations where 4k is limited to edge (Still hate that its a private blob that we can't inspect legally)

You still have to deal with playready which means all PC's that run pre kaby lake CPU's are locked out... Even though some of them could play it just fine.

[Drak3]

39 minutes ago, tjcater said:

I usually play games that are available in the US google play store (For instance Fate Grand Order) and they tend to refuse to run if rooted.

 

Edit: And also a custom rom, but their are more workarounds for that

That's going to be concern over cheats, uploading malware, and exporting .APK.

[paddy-stone]

23 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

How about you look at the definition of potential. I mean if you would of read the comment it explained everything. 

 

I guess it goes over people heads when say this kid is on steam, added a game to his cart then his friend messages him saying hey look I found it for free. Kid empties cart, pirates game and boom. Lost sale. Kid was willing to pay. 

 

Cant prove how often this happens so there is nothing to show how much lost sales pirating is having on the companies. Thats why its a potential loss. Saying its imaginary or since its not factual evidence is just fucking retarded. 

 

So, you're saying it's not imaginary, by making up an imaginary situation? and then say calling it imaginary is retarded?  - Ummm what?

There can be no proof or lost sales as they can't see what people's intent was even in your imaginary situation, unless they have a poll when you leave the checkout or something asking if you have found the game cheaper elsewhere or pirated it - unless they've now taken surveillance to a whole new level and are spying on their potential customers?

 

Anyway, this discussion has gone way off track now... lets stop the arguing hey? we won't ever see each others side of the debate it's clear.

 

[Back on track]  I think we can all agree that this level of stupidity with the DRM is at best fruitless, and only harming their own sales of the game as potential customers hear about it and decide it's not worth bothering about if it ruins your gaming experience and/or makes your hardware/OS sweat unnecessarily?

[mynameisjuan]

6 minutes ago, paddy-stone said:

So, you're saying it's not imaginary, by making up an imaginary situation?

Ummm...its not an imaginary situation. Ive seen it and know others do the same. You cant prove lack of sales but saying potential sales are imaginary is incorrect. I mean potential sales are taking into affect with big device releases such as phones, consoles,...etc. 

 

Potential customers have a chance of paying. But when what they want can be had for free right in front of them, the once willing to pay customer is now not paying. Why people cant understand this simple concept blows my mind. 

 

Also this isnt off topic. Its all about why companies use DRM and in the end hurt the paying customers. 

[paddy-stone]

I'm not debating this anymore, as I previously said. It may seem like a simple concept to you, but other people factor different things into their assessments of a situation. Just because you have seen it happen does not mean it's the same for everyone. Did you call your friend retarded and preach at him?

 

I am Not debating any more! this discussion is tired, peace deals would have more chance of being settled than this.

[Thaldor]

2 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Lately i have a feeling that the R in DRM isnt standing for rights, but restriction. The case where my phone got banned because of root, low res streams in anything other than IE and edge, locking down 4k to the newest HW, the attempt with xbone to deny playback when more than x viewer recognized by the camera, etc...

And that's quite true. As far as I remember I have never seen DRM protecting something while allowing full usage of the product, but always restricting the usage of the product. CD DRM didn't only restrict copying of the CD, but also restricted devices which could play it (used few CDs back in the day as frisbees, because they wouldn't play in my car stereos, PC or even in my Walkman D-NE511 because of DRM). But that's a bad example.

 

In games I don't mind single time DRM protection, like the old CD-keys or like single time online activation as long as it's effortless and just that one time because that didn't really restrict the use of the product. But as you look at the modern DRMs they are not really ment to protect the product, they are there to restrict the product. As I said (in the page 5) as example the VMProtect is far more than just running the game in virtual machine to protect it. May it be Ubisoft haven't activated all of the features that VMProtect offers, but if people eat that shit up without fighting, I can nearly promise the next Ass is Greed -game will have a little supprise from the VMProtects toolbox.

 

My thoughts about IP-laws in spoilers, because who cares and I think that discussion is offtopic:

Spoiler

"IP-laws are there to protect the creators"

HaHaHAHAHaaaa... Bullshit. They are there to protect those who have paid for creator to create, at least in the gaming industry.

No artist owns their art, the company the artist works for owns their art and some companies are so much bullshit that they don't even pay the artist for their art (at least in Finland there's no laws forcing companies to pay to interns and many companies do just that, they "hire" interns to work and they don't need to pay a cent to them). Some companies go as far to restrict the artist to use their art in their portfolio.

 

On the money side. The artist who made the 3D-model of Bayek, which earns probably 7-9 number figures to the Ubisoft probably gets around 5000 furs /month if he/she is in lead/senior position, if he/she was in junior position, well sucks to be there, that's around 2000-3000 furs a month and as the game has been finnished, probably unemployed if not good enough to get continuation to the contract. Unlike in music industry and art industry, gaming industry doesn't know the word royalties or origin rights, so if you work for the company, sucks to be you, you don't own your own art even if the law says so. Some artists have brought this up in the industry, but well haven't changed anything and their careers were probably there, no business guy would hire a person who stands for his/hers rights if there's a line full of people who don't even know/care about their rights. This problem is huge within the bigger companies like EA, Ubisoft, Konami and so on (espacially Konami #FucKonami; If you didn't know, Hideo Kojima doesn't own any rights to Metal Gear even when he has created it), in smaller and newer companies there's hope for a better future. Like Supercell gave original employees salary and stocks (not much, IIRC something like 1-2% max.), partly because the salary was small but also so everyone knew that if they did their best the value of those stocks would rise and so they would gain kind of royalties out of the work they have done adn when the company was sold everybody got a nice cut from that juicy cake.

 

How this differs from others. If you are an musican and you make a song for a movie or just for yourself and that song is used elsewhere, you get the royalties even if you are listed in a record company. If you are a painter and paint a wall painting to some company that wants your art on their wall, if that piece is used anyother way (like in game or in marketing or in T-shirts) you still have the rights for that piece and you can get royalties. In both industries you also, as the original creator, have the right to revoke rights and control where your art is used, if the record company wants to include your song into their collection album, you have the right to deny them. In digital art, as an artist you have no rights, for example if Konami decided to make a Metal Gear -game without Kojima, they very probably can do that even when Kojima has the original creator right to deny and probably in any other industry that would work, but not in gaming industry, too much money in the top and too less organization in the bottom and no one cares.

 

Originally in the past when copyright laws were written they probably were a great thing. But in modern times they are the most lobbyed laws which no more protect the creator and creator rights for the art, but the rights of the companies that "create". The whole law would need huge changes to really work in the modern world and protect those who acctually need protection (the real creators, not the producers and owners).

 

[jagdtigger]

14 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

there's a line full of people who don't even know/care about their rights

(Sorry, i didnt wanted to qutoe the whole thing.)

Thats not limited to that industry only. Its a huge problem at every big corp... The monkeys above the workers have only rights without obligations. And the workers have no rights just obligations.

[WMGroomAK]

@jagdtigger, Just as an update, Ars has an updated article this morning with a statement from Ubisoft where the company is asserting that: 

Quote

In a statement to Ars Technica, a Ubisoft spokesperson said bluntly that "the anti-tamper solutions implemented in the Windows PC version of Assassin’s Creed Origins have no perceptible effect on game performance." The spokesperson added that the game "uses the full extent of the minimum and recommended PC system requirements... while ensuring a steady 30fps performance."

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/11/ubisoft-denies-pc-drm-is-slowing-down-assassins-creed-origins/

 

Personally, I find this statement to be fairly much crap as it doesn't make too much sense unless Ubisoft is silently admitting that they absolutely suck at optimizing their games for PC over console...

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, WMGroomAK said:

@jagdtigger, Just as an update, Ars has an updated article this morning with a statement from Ubisoft where the company is asserting that: 

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/11/ubisoft-denies-pc-drm-is-slowing-down-assassins-creed-origins/

 

Personally, I find this statement to be fairly much crap as it doesn't make too much sense unless Ubisoft is silently admitting that they absolutely suck at optimizing their games for PC over console...

Thanks, added it to first post. Its a lie alright, the game constantly calls the DRM and they think that wont have a negative effect on the game...

[Sniperfox47]

On 10/31/2017 at 10:16 AM, mynameisjuan said:

Its just semantics at this point. If you take something that isnt yours, physical or not, without offering anything in return, its theft or stealing. I mean now we should be fighting over how I "copyright infringed" your recipe. Because after years of people saying I stole your recipe when in reality I jotted it down on a wet napkin its apparently incorrect. Yes copyright infringement is technically correct but this all started as people call it theft because it feels like it.

Yes... It's Semantics... It's about whether piracy is theft, which means it's a discussion about the meaning of theft, which is literally the definition of semantics... It's 'just' semantics at every point...

 

People use the word stealing wrong, when referencing things like "stealing" a recipe. That doesn't mean I'm not going to correct you for using it wrong. Don't be part of the problem.

 

20 hours ago, MageTank said:

Once again, entertainment is NOT required for survival. Stealing food to stave off starvation is done for the sake of survival. Your life depends on food in that situation. You cannot make piracy akin to survival, because the reasons behind those actions are not the same. While both involve taking what doesn't belong to you, one involves keeping yourself alive, the other involves not having access to a form of entertainment. An easy way to compare the two, is the "scavengers" vs "looters" in any natural disaster. Take the recent hurricanes in the US. You had families technically stealing food from a store in order to survive, and you had other individuals that were looting electronic stores to steal TV's. While both can be considered theft, the intent behind the action is entirely different, as is the difference between wants and needs. In dire situations, survival comes first. Last I checked, lack of entertainment is not a dire situation prudent to ones survival. 

Again, entertainment *is* required for survival insofar as mental health is required for survival, but nonetheless that's why I offered both the food example and the cold example, because food is a matter of survival but the cold is a matter of discomfort.

 

And about scavenging and looting, you're right. And both the scavenging and looting are illegal... And both are justified...

 

I think you need to look up the definition of justified:

Quote

having, done for, or marked by a legitimate reason.

there is a very legitimate reason for looters to loot. Because it benefits them, and does not cost them. Why do you think any humans do anything? Because they forsee more benefit to it than cost. For you to pass it off as 'Well they just do it because they're entitled' is overly reductionist and detracts from a discussion of whether or not the actions and regulations surrounding the act are reasonable.

 

20 hours ago, MageTank said:

Intellectual property, while not physical, is still property. Taking what does not belong to you, is theft, is it not? Why are these two things mutually exclusive? I am not asking a rhetorical question either, I genuinely want to know. Are we arguing semantics, or is it impossible to steal intellectual property and consider it theft?

Taking what does not belong to you is theft. Yes. (Steal: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return)

Copying something is not taking something. (Take: remove (someone or something) from a particular place)

Since you do not remove the content from the other person it is not, by definition, theft, stealing, taking without permission, or any other synonym.

 

Yes we are arguing semantics. We're arguing whether something (piracy) is also something else (theft) which is a semantic argument by definition.

 

Yes, it is possible to steal IP. If you write a recipe (your IP) on a piece of paper, and then I steal that piece of paper, I am also stealing your IP, because that IP (the recipe) is a property of the paper.

 

20 hours ago, MageTank said:

If you can find me a study that is even remotely accurate, I'll gladly take a look at it. I am not against learning, but every study I've seen on piracy thus far, seems to be missing a ton of critical information as far as statistics goes. Now, with this being a sociology/psychology study, I imagine statistics won't be as important, so I'll gladly read if you are willing to provide a source.

I won't have time tonight before work, but I'll trawl through my bookmarks and try to find some good ones to send your way this weekend if I can make some time.

 

20 hours ago, MageTank said:

Then what is the reason? I keep getting roundabout answers here, and it doesn't really go anywhere. Some are saying they don't pay because they can't afford it, others say they don't pay because they don't want to spend money on a product they don't like. If you have a definitive answer as to why people pirate (and if it makes enough sense), i'll gladly accept it. Not being able to afford something doesn't make it okay, nor does the "i may not like it" argument. Some platforms offer refunds if you didn't spend many hours on the game, and other have free trials/demo's for products. It's also one of the biggest reason why reviews exist, though you will have a hard time finding a review that is accurate from a reliable source.

I think that's kind of the point everybody's trying to make to you... there is no one answer of why people pirate content. What I've been trying to point out is that oversimplifying it down to "well people are just entitled" only serves to discourage deeper thought into the subject and discussions of why people do it, better ways to avoid people doing it, and ways to restructure legislation in ways consistent with modern psychological models.

 

My argument was never that it was "okay" since the entire idea of whether something is okay or not is just an ephemeral construct we make without any real significance.

 

My argument was always that it's "justified" that there is a reason behind it. And that we should acknowledge those reasons so we can adapt to work with them. So that we can adapt techniques to combat piracy to ways that are more deterrent and less harmful to consumers. And that sticking a super intrusive DRM agent into your game that chews your customer's CPU does the exact opposite of that...

 

Also: side note, the whole argument of "Some platforms offer refunds if you didn't spend many hours on the game" is kind of silly since it only works for specific kinds of games. Games like Ashes and Elite, if you want a decent experience you'll spend well over the hour that steam provides just tuning and tweaking controls before you even start to test it out...

 

20 hours ago, MageTank said:

Considering the many other problems plaguing humanity, I am sure you understand why this issue is sitting on the back burner. People in the poorest countries would rather have access to food and clean water first before entertainment becomes a focal point. That's not to say you don't already agree with that, but I am just saying that resources are better allocated elsewhere for now. Sure, I wouldn't mind seeing the baseline be comfortable for everyone on earth, but we have to solve problems one at a time before we spend resources trying to make this the new standard. Also, the "improve mental health" thing, that will only work for movies. Give people access to any multiplayer game ever, or the dark souls series, and you will find mental health at an all time low.

 

I don't disagree with that. But that it isn't at the top of the priority list doesn't change that it isn't an issue. The resource allocation to improving life for the third world is an absolute joke. The US can spend 610 billion dollars on the military, but only 30 billion on economic foreign aid? I'm sure even a sliver of that military budget could make some decent change for third world countries. But then who would make our shoes?

 

You seem to misunderstand though, I'm not saying give people free access to everything. In an perfect communistic world that would be ideal, but it wouldn't work with modern economics, if only due to international licensing. My proposal would be more along the lines of an entertainment allocation factored into mincome. Of course that relies on us actually getting mincome off the ground first.

 

20 hours ago, MageTank said:

So, to reaffirm where we all stand on this, allow me to clarify my original points. 

1. Piracy cannot be justified just because you cannot afford it, or disagree with the asking price of a good/service.

2. Access to entertainment, while potentially good for ones sanity, is not yet a human right

3. Piracy is not on the same level of stealing food for survival

4. I am not a cop, despite having an officers mustache. If you feel like pirating something, I won't stop you or judge you (unless you try to ironically defend piracy, then I am going to judge you super hard)

 

Now we wait for the notification spam.

And my counterpoints still are:

1. Piracy can be justified and has been now multiple times. You can disagree with whether it's right nor wrong, and it's definitely illegal, but that doesn't change that it has a justification.

2. Agreed. I'm not arguing it is, merely making an aside that it should be.

3. Agreed. Although I'd argue it is on the same level as breaking into someone's shed for warmth in the cold, assuming the cold is merely enough to cause discomfort and not hypothermia, frostbite, or other negative health conditions.

 

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

They make perfect sense though, in what way do they not? Allowing provisions for people to obtain copies of IP without the right to do so, but only when it does not hurt the IP holder? That makes no sense at all, actually think that through properly and how that can be enforced.

 

You do not need evidence as the IP holder it is yours you set the conditions for access, if you break those you have broken the law. You can't argue around this and try and prove you did not harm the IP holder, you broke the law.

 

Just like you are innocent until proven guilty, unless you do no support this, if you have admitted guilt or found to be guilty then you are. You do not get convictions dropped because the crime you committed did not harm anyone or anything, that is not an argument you get to make in court. You can present that as mitigating circumstances for a reduced sentence but you are still guilty of the crime.

 

Say if I decided to get a lawn chair and go to your property and sat at the very edge out of the way so it's not possible to effect you in any way at all. I'm doing nothing other than sitting, maybe having a non alcoholic drink. You come out and ask me to leave your property, it is yours after all, and my reply was "No I'm not leaving, I'm not hurting you in any way". Should you need to prove that I am hurting you in some way or should you have the ability to call the police and get me removed by force because I am trespassing on your property without your consent?

 

If you are not happy with the above then you cannot be happy with anyone obtaining copies of software/games without paying for it or complying with the conditions of access set out by the owner/creator.

 

IP laws are there to protect the owners/creators and only for that purpose. If you want consumer protection laws then talk about those. I'm also not saying that IP laws can override consumer protection laws or vice versa.

The point that's trying to be made is that while "is it against the law to pirate something" may be a legal question, "is it wrong to pirate something" is a philosophical question and "are current laws against piracy justified?" is a philosophical and logical question. "Are laws justified" is not in itself a legal question...

 

If you're going to make the claim that "current piracy laws are justified, because piracy hurts me", and then are provided evidence that it does not hurt you, but continue to claim it hurts you, it definitely falls on you to provide some kind of evidence you're being hurt.

 

If you really want to make this a legal issue, the analogy would be this:

1. The matter of whether current piracy laws are justified is brought before the court
2. Media companies set forth the claim that laws are justified because piracy hurts them
3. Evidence was provided that piracy does not hurt them, or at the very least not to the extent of their claims (In the form of studies that have shown limited negative effects due to piracy)
4. They have since refused to defend themselves with counter-evidence
5. The "Jury" (which is to say the legislative bodies) have continued to "rule" (legislate) in favor of the media companies.

which even in the legal system puts the burden of proof back on them... Unless you're saying the question of "Are the current Piracy Laws justified" is a case of criminal law...

 

Your analogy has nothing to do with the question at hand though. The question is not "is it infringement?", the question is "is the fact that it's infringement valid? Are current laws actually reasonable?".

 

This situation is you telling your friend that this guy who sat on your lawn assaulted you, and then your friend questioning you and asking you for proof. And then your friend showing you a video of the interaction on your lawn and the guy *not* assaulting you, and then you continuing to make claims that he assaulted you while providing no proof of your own.

[NovusBal]

Little update here: 6700k sitting at 4.3, hits 100% just walking around, insane amounts of issues, mouse delays, input delays for keys, it's freezing my entire damn system. That's with background processes turned off besides monitoring tools.

 

Guess i'll have to put it to potato mode so it doesn't poop the damn bed, what the heck Ubisoft. No performance hits my derrière, unless they are just accepting the game is so poorly optimised that they may as well mail me pictures of the game, might have less bleeping input delay.

[mynameisjuan]

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

...

Wow you are really defending pirates hardcore right now....f off with piracy is justified. I dont care if billy cant afford the game because or poor wages, too many bills,...etc. How about he doesnt pirate the game and get off his ass and get a job so he can, because his laziness is not justified even though you consider it justified. He has no right over any of us of not having to pay. 

 

All I read was piracy is justified and them not paying for a product a company spent money to create is totally fine. 

[MyName13]

17 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Wow you are really defending pirates hardcore right now....fuck off with piracy is justified. I dont care if billy cant afford the game because or poor wages, too many bills,...etc. How about he doesnt pirate the game and get off his ass and get a job so he can, because his laziness is not justified even though you consider it justified. He has no right over any of us of not having to pay. 

 

All I read was piracy is justified and them not paying for a product a company spent money to create is totally fine. 

Ahh, the typical "you are lazy, get off your ass / work harder, everything is possible" argument, trying to change someone's view or point out their mistakes/flaws is incredibly futile.

[Sniperfox47]

20 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Wow you are really defending pirates hardcore right now....f off with piracy is justified. I dont care if billy cant afford the game because or poor wages, too many bills,...etc. How about he doesnt pirate the game and get off his ass and get a job so he can, because his laziness is not justified even though you consider it justified. He has no right over any of us of not having to pay. 

 

All I read was piracy is justified and them not paying for a product a company spent money to create is totally fine. 

Again, you're conflating justified with righteous. Justified just means they have a reason to do it. Which they do. It doesn't mean that doing it is right.

 

I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying it should be tolerated. All that I'm saying is that you're misusing words, and in doing so, misrepresenting the argument.

[mynameisjuan]

7 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Ahh, the typical "you are lazy, get off your ass / work harder, everything is possible" argument, trying to change someone's view or point out their mistakes/flaws is incredibly futile.

No it was just one example of "billy works part time because he doesnt want to do anything and makes jack poo money so he pirates everything". Thats is considered justified for him pirating which is BS. Not going to get into an argument about what people can do with their lives. 

 

7 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

All that I'm saying is that you're misusing words, and in doing so, misrepresenting the argument.

Misusing words doesnt ever mean we are misrepresenting the argument. See, english has this thing called context. We can ukfc up our words uncorrectly, somehow and can understand exactly what the person means. 

 

I mean, its f'ing called pirating, were they are known for STEALING stuff. Whether or not you thing that is the correct terms, people know what the hell we are talking about. 

[Sniperfox47]

52 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Misusing words doesnt ever mean we are misrepresenting the argument. See, english has this thing called context. We can ukfc up our words uncorrectly, somehow and can understand exactly what the person means. 

 

I mean, its f'ing called pirating, were they are known for STEALING stuff. Whether or not you thing that is the correct terms, people know what the hell we are talking about. 

*Facepalm* apparently not, since you misunderstood my argument entirely and have this idea that I'm "defending piracy" through my attempts to explain piracy, and encourage a more studied exploration of the subject. Not once have I said people should pirate, not once have I said that piracy is a positive force, not once have I said that piracy is righteous. And yet that's apparently what you've taken from our discussion. This is the entire reason why semantics are important.

 

Unless you want to just start having a discussion where we all just use our own definitions for things, in which case "Squa kwee fibble fuu.".

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

The point that's trying to be made is that while "is it against the law to pirate something" may be a legal question, "is it wrong to pirate something" is a philosophical question and "are current laws against piracy justified?" is a philosophical and logical question. "Are laws justified" is not in itself a legal question...

Well frankly no matter how anyone tries to spin it taking something that is not yours is not ok. So I don't know where that can go. Some of the specific legal areas of IP laws may be crap but specifically trying to weaken them to allow for the apparent moral provision to allow certain people to pirate content would degrade the laws effect to almost pointless.

 

It seems to be completely lost on most people that those laws are to protect the creators, not us consumers. Most people don't like tax loopholes so how is putting in loopholes in to laws such as this a good idea?

 

Most of the cases put forward that have some good merit behind them have nothing to do with IP law at all, unfair charging or not properly adjusting pricing to the region is a consumer law.

 

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

If you're going to make the claim that "current piracy laws are justified, because piracy hurts me", and then are provided evidence that it does not hurt you, but continue to claim it hurts you, it definitely falls on you to provide some kind of evidence you're being hurt.

It's not about hurt, if you own something it is yours. You get to say who and how people can use it, as long as those conditions do not violate something like consumer protection laws. There is never a need to prove the taking of something you own and have the rights to hurts you in some way.

 

If I created something and say you cannot have it for free then you can't.

 

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

If you really want to make this a legal issue, the analogy would be this:

1. The matter of whether current piracy laws are justified is brought before the court
2. Media companies set forth the claim that laws are justified because piracy hurts them
3. Evidence was provided that piracy does not hurt them, or at the very least not to the extent of their claims (In the form of studies that have shown limited negative effects due to piracy)
4. They have since refused to defend themselves with counter-evidence
5. The "Jury" (which is to say the legislative bodies) have continued to "rule" (legislate) in favor of the media companies.

This is only talking about changing current law. In a court case where you have infringed on someones IP proving whether or not you hurt them is not evidence for dismissal, only a reduced sentence.

 

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Your analogy has nothing to do with the question at hand though. The question is not "is it infringement?", the question is "is the fact that it's infringement valid? Are current laws actually reasonable?".

It does, and is exactly what you and others are trying to put forward. What's critically important is the fact that you are saying the damage or hurt is the important thing. You're whole basis of argument is on that so there is an example of why it's not relevant to whether or not you are allowed to exercise your right as the owner to say get off my land.

 

My right as the owner for how to get you off my land is a different matter and is actually much closer to what you are trying to talk about but you should never remove the rights of someone for something they own in that type of way you are trying to justify.

 

Have you actually thought about this from the context of the creator at all?

[MageTank]

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

-The biggest snip I have ever performed on this forum-

To step outside of this battle of "semantics", I have a great deal of respect for the amount of time and effort you are putting into this discussion. I genuinely thank you for trying to have a real conversation about this with me, as you are probably the only person to have stuck around this far to get through this stubborn head of mine. While I disagree with a great deal of what you have to say on the subject, it does not change the points you make that seem valid in my mind, nor the degree to which you are going to illustrate those points. 

 

Now, looking at what you said in that paragraph that was addressed to me (and ignoring what was said to leadeater entirely), there is one part I still disagree with wholeheartedly. It's this part: 

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Again, entertainment *is* required for survival insofar as mental health is required for survival, but nonetheless that's why I offered both the food example and the cold example, because food is a matter of survival but the cold is a matter of discomfort.

Entertainment in and of itself may or may not have an impact on mental health (have not seen the studies myself, but I suppose it could have an impact on sanity if I were to hazard a random guess on the subject), it still does not mean digital entertainment falls under the same category. There are other forms of entertainment that one can seek that doesn't require going the immoral/illegal route. Kids are basically able to make due with any object as long as they have enough of an imagination to accompany them. Adults, while lacking as much of an imagination, still have ways to keep themselves entertained without having to resort to consuming (since you've convincingly pointed out that "take" is an incorrect term) something they did not pay for. 

 

As for my misuse of "justified", I suppose I should have added a word that preceded it, such as moral or legal. For example: Scavengers might be morally justified to take what does long belong to them for the sake of survival, and might not be legally justified, but looters are not legally or morally justified in doing so. So you definitely got me on that part.

 

The take vs steal vs copy part, also can't argue against that, the literal definitions are in your favor. 

 

As for you looking up the articles/sources, I appreciate it, so thanks in advance for those.

 

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I think that's kind of the point everybody's trying to make to you... there is no one answer of why people pirate content. What I've been trying to point out is that oversimplifying it down to "well people are just entitled" only serves to discourage deeper thought into the subject and discussions of why people do it, better ways to avoid people doing it, and ways to restructure legislation in ways consistent with modern psychological models.

 

My argument was never that it was "okay" since the entire idea of whether something is okay or not is just an ephemeral construct we make without any real significance.

 

My argument was always that it's "justified" that there is a reason behind it. And that we should acknowledge those reasons so we can adapt to work with them. So that we can adapt techniques to combat piracy to ways that are more deterrent and less harmful to consumers. And that sticking a super intrusive DRM agent into your game that chews your customer's CPU does the exact opposite of that...

 

Also: side note, the whole argument of "Some platforms offer refunds if you didn't spend many hours on the game" is kind of silly since it only works for specific kinds of games. Games like Ashes and Elite, if you want a decent experience you'll spend well over the hour that steam provides just tuning and tweaking controls before you even start to test it out...

I am fully aware that I can be dense at times, and things don't always come through as they should. I have no problem with piracy, I mostly have a problem with people that try to morally defend piracy. I completely understand why people pirate, but I don't understand the need to defend the act from a moral standpoint. I am pretty sure we are all in full agreement that DRM just doesn't work. It's only obfuscating the gaming experience without really succeeding with it's intended purpose. As others correctly put it: it does more harm for the actual paying consumer than those that simply "consume" it without paying. 

 

From what I can see with the above text, it seems like you are saying people can have reasons to pirate, without it being morally/legally okay to do so. If that is indeed your message, then I can say that I agree with that.

 

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I don't disagree with that. But that it isn't at the top of the priority list doesn't change that it isn't an issue. The resource allocation to improving life for the third world is an absolute joke. The US can spend 610 billion dollars on the military, but only 30 billion on economic foreign aid? I'm sure even a sliver of that military budget could make some decent change for third world countries. But then who would make our shoes?

 

You seem to misunderstand though, I'm not saying give people free access to everything. In an perfect communistic world that would be ideal, but it wouldn't work with modern economics, if only due to international licensing. My proposal would be more along the lines of an entertainment allocation factored into mincome. Of course that relies on us actually getting mincome off the ground first.

Without getting too deep into a political discussion, I think the problem goes further than this. It's not so much that we don't give the money required to make a difference, but that the money we do give, doesn't seem to make it to those in need. We have all these "charitable companies" that seem to be profiting more off the donations than those actually in need of the donations. I won't speak as if I know how any of it works, but my genuine feeling is that these companies tend to profit off the misfortune of others, despite claiming to be "non-profit" charities. 

 

As for your second part of the above quote, it seems some countries are actually pushing for things like the Internet to become a right. Finland seems to have been pushing for Internet access to be a right since 2009. The only logistical issue is, can a good/service be considered a human right, and if so, who pays for it? 

 

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

And my counterpoints still are:

1. Piracy can be justified and has been now multiple times. You can disagree with whether it's right nor wrong, and it's definitely illegal, but that doesn't change that it has a justification.

2. Agreed. I'm not arguing it is, merely making an aside that it should be.

3. Agreed. Although I'd argue it is on the same level as breaking into someone's shed for warmth in the cold, assuming the cold is merely enough to cause discomfort and not hypothermia, frostbite, or other negative health conditions.

1. Fair enough

2 and 3. Firm Handshakes all around

[kirBi]

As for the response to Ubisoft's statement, I think this comment by Ars staff pretty much sums up my thoughts.

Also, since there are arguments everywhere about piracy in general, I present you the ultimate piracy machine.

Behold the amount of damage it's causing to the music industry!

[Donut417]

On 10/30/2017 at 3:18 PM, jagdtigger said:

ubisoft

The minuet I see a game is from Ubisoft, I generally just kill the idea of ever playing that game. The game becomes dead to me. 

[ATFink]

 

On 10/30/2017 at 1:18 PM, jagdtigger said:

They always complain about piracy but for some reason only the paying customer gets screwed , meanwhile pirates have a better experience because the resource hog DRM is stripped out from their game. Ubisoft tries to grasp harder but in the end they will loose even more because of that...

Although I'd happily pay a developer for their work this makes me not want to play the game at all because I'll be screwed over when running resources in the background (which I frequently switch to). This makes me want to pirate the game to reduce CPU utilization (if it turns out to be something I'm interested in). I hope this causes more recognized piracy for AC: Origins in order to prevent other studios from making moves like this. Unfortunately this will come at the expense of a more lucrative AC franchise (and possibly AC game quality in the future), but I think more pirates in this case would be for the greater good of games in the future even if the means is morally unjust (in order to stop this kind of action).

[Guest lilbman]

16 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

And that is why 1 download != 1 lost sale, you just contradicted your own statement...

 

No, not really...

 

How about a comparison?

 

Let's take Jimmy.  Jimmy wants to play the new Assassins Creed game, and is reluctant to buy it even though he buys most games, but would buy it if he had to. He wants to illegally download it instead.  He does so. 

 

And then there's Jake.  Jake wants the new Assassins Creed game as well, and can't buy it because he is buried up to the neck in student loan debt.  He pirates most of his games, but because of the uber-DRMs found on the Assassins Creed game, pirating the game won't work.  Jake decides that he can't get the game, because he needs the $60 to buy ramen to sustain himself.  

 

It's only a lost sale if they are in Jimmy's situation because they COULD buy it, but would rather pirate it; therefore, if given no other option, they would buy it.  That is a legitimate case of 'one download=one lost sale' because there was a chance of the sale happening, and by giving them a free alternative, they lost it.

 

People in Jake's situation have no money to give; therefore there's no chance of them buying it anyway-so how can you lose a sale that had no chance of happening?

[NovusBal]

A few individuals have pointed out that Assassins Creed: Origins review copies were entirely fine resource wise, however after release their is significant resource issues. Owh boy owh boy this keeps getting better.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, NovusBal said:

A few individuals have pointed out that Assassins Creed: Origins review copies were entirely fine resource wise, however after release their is significant resource issues. Owh boy owh boy this keeps getting better.

Wow that is so bad, I hope reviewers nail them for this. How can you review a game if you are not even playing the retail version that your viewers/readers are getting, and are not told so.