FFXV gets cracked 4 days before release because developers didn't encrypt Origin version

[TechyBen]

On 04/03/2018 at 5:09 PM, techstorm970 said:

Not encrypting your game is like getting out of your car, except you leave it unlocked with the keys in it.  Total lack of common sense here. So stupid, much wow...

You mean if you leave your keys in your car an entire new one is copied to the thief and uploaded to the internet?

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

Ok.....thats what I said...there are still people that can easily pay for a game but if you have a free option right in front of you with no consequences....people will still take the free option. 

You have the opportunity right now, have you taken the free option? People are mostly honest.

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Im not saying the industry will die nor that DRM is its saving grace. Never did and never will say that. Literally the only thing I am saying is it impact sales is one way shape or form.

And all I'm asking is for you to show me any proof whatsoever that that is the case.

3 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

I dont get how you cant grasp the concept. I mean fuck, its the basis of competition. If someone can pay for a game, yet finds a way to get it for free, thats a potential loss. The company could of lost literally nothing or $60.

Once again, potential loss is a completely invalid argument. You can't call someone a criminal because maybe they caused you to lose money.

5 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Again not fucking arguing for DRM or the way companies treat their customers. Yeah DRM treats us like we are the pirates but my argument is that you cant blame then for worrying.

I can, because statistics prove there is no reason to worry and it's 30 years too late to claim it was a moment of panic.

6 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

I wouldnt take anyone to court on potential losses...where the fuck did you get that from, cause I sure in hell didnt say it. They know they cant take the to court, thats why fucking DRM exist!

Except current copyright law does allow them to take people to court for breaking drm, at least in the US and some other countries. That's what DRM brings, you can't make excuses for their "worrying" without considering the consequences of their "concerns". DRM doesn't work but it gives them legal grounds to take pirates to court for money they never stole, and THAT is why DRM exists.

[mynameisjuan]

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You have the opportunity right now, have you taken the free option? People are mostly honest.

Not the people I know. 

8 minutes ago, Sauron said:

And all I'm asking is for you to show me any proof whatsoever that that is the case.

What proof you want? Want me to do a quick 300 page report also that you would give no effort to read? 

 

I mean you cant sit and think of literally any situation that piracy will cause a profit loss. Well what if someone walked into my mom's photo gallery, bought one of the photos, walked out, made 100 copies and started handing them out right outside her shop (its digital with no real loss to the owner right?) . Your argument is its not theft because the people that were potential buyers would have never bought it in the first place, where she could of sold only that 1 or could of sold a 100. Well ok then the "proof" shows it increases sales by word of mouth, free marketing....ok well who the fuck knows if that will actually give more sales or just go unnoticed. Essentially fighting an argument with the same argument. 

 

17 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Once again, potential loss is a completely invalid argument. You can't call someone a criminal because maybe they caused you to lose money.

Im sorry but if I spend time creating something just to have someone copy and distribute it, yeah Id consider them a criminal. 

 

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Statistics can say largely whatever you want them to,  you just have to phrase the question differently.

 

There is no evidence or validation of claims that DRM has not worked to stem potential income loss.   Because potential revenue cannot be observed or accounted for beyond large scale analysis that does not detail causality.   It's like the people who claim god exists because you can't prove he doesn't.   You can't prove lost revenue does not exist simply because there is no direct evidence is does.   Sales figures can rise and fall in any period for a myriad of reasons,  a rise in total sales numbers does not prove potential revenue is not lost through piracy.  That is merely conjecture on unqualified figures.

 

Also before people get too ingrained in this debate, there are no studies/analysis that separate sales figures into categories like PC/console  and multiplayer/single player.

All we know is there is a large discrepancy between the growth of the entire gaming industry and the revenue of PC games.  I personally have trouble accepting that game developers are taking reduced revue because they feel generous.  They are doing it to maintain sales, but without hard figures we can only guess why that might be the case.

Pretty spot on. 

 

The whole well you can prove they lost money is being countered with a point where prove to me it was the pirating that actually increased sales. 

Economics is extremely complicated and relating sales to pirating alone doesnt mean jack all. 

 

And dont forget that studies are not detailed enough to show what includes pirating games that are no longer released and only available by pirating, which for the most part is probably a huge portion, hence lack of loss in sales.  

[Sauron]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Statistics can say largely whatever you want them to,  you just have to phrase the question differently.

 

There is no evidence or validation of claims that DRM has not worked to stem potential income loss.   Because potential revenue cannot be observed or accounted for beyond large scale analysis that does not detail causality.   It's like the people who claim god exists because you can't prove he doesn't.   You can't prove lost revenue does not exist simply because there is no direct evidence is does.   Sales figures can rise and fall in any period for a myriad of reasons,  a rise in total sales numbers does not prove potential revenue is not lost through piracy.  That is merely conjecture on unqualified figures.

Even so they're the ones assuming guilt until innocence is proven. They could take people to court over this and since they have no proof to substantiate any of their claims I find it ridiculous. Conjecture or not, DRM clearly can't curb piracy and yet the industry is just fine, with record setting revenue every year.

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Also before people get too ingrained in this debate, there are no studies/analysis that separate sales figures into categories like PC/console  and multiplayer/single player.

All we know is there is a large discrepancy between the growth of the entire gaming industry and the revenue of PC games.  I personally have trouble accepting that game developers are taking reduced revue because they feel generous.  They are doing it to maintain sales, but without hard figures we can only guess why that might be the case.

I'm all for more studies, but the copyright lobbies don't want them. As for PC revenue, it may have something to do with frequent and steep sales on steam, don't you think? Console games have historically been more expensive (partly due to the system manufacturer's publishing fee) and less prone to crazy sales. Besides it's not like piracy doesn't exist on consoles, it just requires more work (sometimes).

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

Well what if someone walked into my mom's photo gallery, bought one of the photos, walked out, made 100 copies and started handing them out right outside her shop (its digital with no real loss to the owner right?) .

Does your mom use DRM on her printed photographs? Must be new technology... /s

 

TO BE CLEAR, I'm not saying piracy should be legal. I'm saying that it shouldn't be treated like theft and that DRM is not a solution, if anything it is the problem.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

Even so they're the ones assuming guilt until innocence is proven. They could take people to court over this and since they have no proof to substantiate any of their claims I find it ridiculous. Conjecture or not, DRM clearly can't curb piracy and yet the industry is just fine, with record setting revenue every year.

Are they though?  if breaking DRM is against the law and you break it then you are guilty That's not an assumption, hell these groups even brag about breaking DRM all over the internet.   The debate about DRM is largely a debate over ideals. both piracy and DRM are as old as the hills and to be honest I find little way to explain breaking DRM on brand new software outside of piracy.   There are members here who make great arguments for breaking DRM on legacy and unsupported software (that you have paid for), but not for current fully supported titles. 

 

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

I'm all for more studies, but the copyright lobbies don't want them. As for PC revenue, it may have something to do with frequent and steep sales on steam, don't you think? Console games have historically been more expensive (partly due to the system manufacturer's publishing fee) and less prone to crazy sales. Besides it's not like piracy doesn't exist on consoles, it just requires more work (sometimes).

 

I think there are way to many facets in the industry to explain it and drawing a conclusion on the current data would be erroneous.  Hence why the debate is largely about ideals and not actual facts.

 

[mynameisjuan]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Does your mom use DRM on her printed photographs? Must be new technology... /s

 

TO BE CLEAR, I'm not saying piracy should be legal. I'm saying that it shouldn't be treated like theft and that DRM is not a solution, if anything it is the problem.

Ok well then what should be done to pirates since its illegal but shouldnt be charged at all apparently? 

 

And yes DRM is a part of the problem, but some people just dont want to pay. 

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Ok well then what should be done to pirates since its illegal but shouldnt be charged at all apparently? 

It shouldn't be charged as if it was theft. I'm not sure you know what theft charges entail. A fine is definitely reasonable, hundreds of $$ in "damages" and jail time is not.

3 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

And yes DRM is a part of the problem, but some people just dont want to pay. 

And DRM can't stop them.

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Are they though?  if breaking DRM is against the law and you break it then you are guilty That's not an assumption, hell these groups even brag about breaking DRM all over the internet.   The debate about DRM is largely a debate over ideals. both piracy and DRM are as old as the hills and to be honest I find little way to explain breaking DRM on brand new software outside of piracy.   There are members here who make great arguments for breaking DRM on legacy and unsupported software (that you have paid for), but not for current fully supported titles. 

You are guilty but not of theft, just like stealing something doesn't make you guilty of homicide. And what makes you guilty should not be breaking the DRM but rather distributing copyrighted content without permission. That would be reasonable.

 

As for reasons to break DRM on modern software, stuff like Denuvo actively hurts a game's performance and there are other DRM "solutions" that constantly inconveniences the user. Even outside games, just think of blu-ray: you buy the movie and if you want to play it on your pc without breaking the DRM you need proprietary (often paid for or at least ad supported) software and a "certified" cable (God forbid you be allowed to watch your movie on a VGA screen!);  if you want to watch it on your mobile device you're pretty much screwed unless you have some other subscription service of sorts, effectively meaning you need to buy the movie twice for no reason. I could go on for hours. I have yet to find a single DRM that doesn't pose any inconvenience to me, although I consider some to be more acceptable than others - if people who pay are more inconvenienced than people who don't (with exceptions) there is a fundamental problem in the system.

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I think there are way to many facets in the industry to explain it and drawing a conclusion on the current data would be erroneous.  Hence why the debate is largely about ideals and not actual facts.

Maybe so, but corporations can get people in jail based on those ideals. I don't know about you but I don't like that.

[ItsMitch]

*walks into the thread hoping for inciteful content*

*see's comments*

 

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You are guilty but not of theft, just like stealing something doesn't make you guilty of homicide. And what makes you guilty should not be breaking the DRM but rather distributing copyrighted content without permission. That would be reasonable.

Just ideals.  You want it one way while game devs want it the other.  Who has more say in the matter, the person who claims they pay for the content but  has no real stake in it, or the game dev who claims without it they lose revenue?  

 

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

As for reasons to break DRM on modern software, stuff like Denuvo actively hurts a game's performance and there are other DRM "solutions" that constantly inconveniences the user. Even outside games, just think of blu-ray: you buy the movie and if you want to play it on your pc without breaking the DRM you need proprietary (often paid for or at least ad supported) software and a "certified" cable (God forbid you be allowed to watch your movie on a VGA screen!);  if you want to watch it on your mobile device you're pretty much screwed unless you have some other subscription service of sorts, effectively meaning you need to buy the movie twice for no reason. I could go on for hours. I have yet to find a single DRM that doesn't pose any inconvenience to me, although I consider some to be more acceptable than others - if people who pay are more inconvenienced than people who don't (with exceptions) there is a fundamental problem in the system.

Maybe so, but corporations can get people in jail based on those ideals. I don't know about you but I don't like that.

So you are talking about two different industries and two different types of DRM now.  I haven't seen a game that requires you buy a specific Cable to play. 

 

[Kamina]

Square Enix should get their refund.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 3/4/2018 at 7:52 PM, SC2Mitch said:

Pretty much almost every game on steam has some form of DRM (Steam DRM is embedded in MOST games, not all)

I'd say you can see Steam itself as a form of DRM (acknowledging it is more than that).

Having never installed Steam on a PC of mine, I must agree with @EPENEX, though.

 

On 3/4/2018 at 8:26 PM, Derangel said:

Harmful? Steam has several issues, but it is why PC gaming is as big as it is now.

It depends on the point of view: it can only be harmful or beneficial to someone. Personally, I don't see PC gaming "being big" as something that should make me happier (or sadder, for that matter).

 

23 hours ago, mr moose said:

No platform or product is without flaws, but steam is certainly (IMHO) the best platform to date for buying and managing digital content.

I consider GOG to be superior in any aspect as a platform. Having said that, I don't see the need for a centralized distribution platform at all, I feel better served by B2C models.

 

In the end, the choice of isntalling Steam, buying games with DRM, buying games with microtransactions/lootboxes, buying games in pre-release-sub-alpha-we-barely-coded-two-lines, etc, is each of them a legitimate choice. But that doesn't make them any less of a choice.

 

22 minutes ago, SC2Mitch said:

*walks into the thread hoping for inciteful content*

Not sure whether you hoped for *insightful* comments or whether you shouldn't be too disappointed at the incitefulness of the comments

<Insert Fry here>

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I consider GOG to be superior in any aspect as a platform. Having said that, I don't see the need for a centralized distribution platform at all, I feel better served by B2C models.

 

In the end, the choice of isntalling Steam, buying games with DRM, buying games with microtransactions/lootboxes, buying games in pre-release-sub-alpha-we-barely-coded-two-lines, etc, is each of them a legitimate choice. But that doesn't make them any less of a choice.

Personally I much prefer Steam over GOG mainly for the game library management, ease to re-download any random game I feel like at the time and also that it keeps the games up to date.

 

Early access games is a big problem but that's not really the core of Steam either and that could be stomped out over night if they wished, I wish they would.

 

Another issue is in the game industry B2C mostly isn't even possible simply due to how the industry is structured i.e. game publishers. B2C fits more with directly buying off the developers but that is very rare. Steam could cut out one of the middle men and become a publisher but that's not a good idea.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Personally I much prefer Steam over GOG mainly for the game library management, ease to re-download any random game I feel like at the time and also that it keeps the games up to date.

I guess it has to do with the best platform being no platform in my case, so the minimalist GOG approach wins it for me. I can live with an online store, but that's about it. Installing clients is a no-go, and it goes downhill from there  

In the end, any "A is better than B" in this context should be translated to "I prefer A to B".

 

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Another issues is in the game industry B2C mostly isn't even possible simply due to how the industry is structured i.e. game publishers. B2C fits more with directly buying off the developers but that is very rare.

Yes, one thing is what I like and another thing is what for-profit companies will find in their best interest to do. Steam is obviously happy to intermediate, and its success probably means that developers can sell better thanks to Steam (because Steam has marketing value, and/or because once it became massive it was hard to sell outside). I'd rather buy directly from the developers. Centralizing information can be done separately from purchases: I'd rather have an IMDB of games and buy from developers

In any case, I do think that the internet is the right tool to shave off many middlemen, and publishers have become negative value-added agents pretty much the way record labels did. They got big when they had a purpose, and now they're just standing in the way of a better possibility.

 

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Steam could cut out one of the middle men and become a publisher but that's not a good idea.

Steam's business is being the middleman, so...

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Steam's business is being the middleman, so...

I said one of . But Steam becoming a publisher and then likely the biggest publisher in the industry is a really bad idea, overnight monopoly. I mean why would you publish with EA or whoever who then lists your game through Steam, just cut them out and go straight to Steam.... and now Steam owns everything.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, leadeater said:

I said one of . But Steam becoming a publisher and then likely the biggest publisher in the industry is a really bad idea, overnight monopoly. I mean why would you publish with EA or whoever who then lists your game through Steam, just cut them out and go straight to Steam.... and now Steam owns everything.

I think the distinction between publisher and platform has to be clear. I like Steam as I can install and see games from any PC I'm logged in on. I'm more inclined to buy indie games on itch.io and Steam than I am publishers these days. EA and Activision seem to only push proven formulas rather than innovation (classic "if it ain't broken, add loot boxes" syndrome). If I were a developer, I wouldn't mind giving Steam/Valve a cut of the pie as more users will see the game versus just a page on itch.io. 

 

The way I see it is A) Valve needs to reduce the amount of DRM allowed on the platform, i.e. I don't mind "signing" a EULA, but I do mind having non-Steam DRM in a game already on Steam's DRM, B) Valve needs a lower cut as last I heard they're taking a whopping 15% of every sale, and C) less platforms, namely Origin and Uplay (though Ubisoft has been adding more games to Steam and Square Enix has as well rather than relying on their own). 

 

Steam and Valve should not be considered publishers. They should hold no rights to an IP except to fulfill distribution of digital media as chosen by the developer. 

[leadeater]

21 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

If I were a developer, I wouldn't mind giving Steam/Valve a cut of the pie as more users will see the game versus just a page on itch.io. 

 

The way I see it is A) Valve needs to reduce the amount of DRM allowed on the platform, i.e. I don't mind "signing" a EULA, but I do mind having non-Steam DRM in a game already on Steam's DRM, B) Valve needs a lower cut as last I heard they're taking a whopping 15% of every sale, and C) less platforms, namely Origin and Uplay (though Ubisoft has been adding more games to Steam and Square Enix has as well rather than relying on their own). 

 

Steam and Valve should not be considered publishers. They should hold no rights to an IP except to fulfill distribution of digital media as chosen by the developer.

Those points are the main reason why I think it would be a very bad idea for Steam/Valve to become a publisher. Right now they have very little skin in the game when it comes to piracy and DRM, as long as they are making profits there is no clear line between them and those two factors so they don't have to care.

 

If they were a publisher then things could get bad fast. Steam would then have a reason to push DRM, and for something that is as embedded as the Steam client is the potential for overreach is huge. Constant background scanning of the computer for games for example, outright ban of account and loss of all legitimate purchases, hardware GUID restrictions and so on. The ways it could go bad is huge.

[Derangel]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Personally I much prefer Steam over GOG mainly for the game library management, ease to re-download any random game I feel like at the time and also that it keeps the games up to date.

GOG Galaxy is pretty good with that. Not perfect and Steam's management features are vastly better (at least compared to last time I used Galaxy) but it is a workable solution if you want something to easily download and auto-update games.

[WereCat]

9 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

Moral of the story, next time don't commercialize your high budget game in a shitty platform like Origin, stick to the ones that work like Steam and GOG.

GOG no DRM, not even need to crack it then

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Derangel said:

GOG Galaxy is pretty good with that. Not perfect and Steam's management features are vastly better (at least compared to last time I used Galaxy) but it is a workable solution if you want something to easily download and auto-update games.

I've not actually used Galaxy, didn't really know it existed or forgot it did. Haven't brought anything off GOG in a few years, might try it out.

[8uhbbhu8]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I've not actually used Galaxy, didn't really know it existed or forgot it did. Haven't brought anything off GOG in a few years, might try it out.

Galaxy has it's good points but I agree steam IS far superior. (The NO DRM part is by far the best part of gog )

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, 8uhbbhu8 said:

Galaxy has it's good points but I agree steam IS far superior. (The NO DRM part is by far the best part of gog )

Checked my order history, all before Galaxy existed, yay for no bad memory.

 

P.S. banned for laughing at my post 

 

Edit:

That moment when you realize you brought a game on Steam you already owned on GOG

[8uhbbhu8]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Checked my order history, all before Galaxy existed, yay for no bad memory.

 

P.S. banned for laughing at my post 

Fellow pre galaxy goger  

 

This is where I call in yoshi, pcguy, and energycore to combine their powers to unban me and then permaban you right?  

[Tsuki]

2 hours ago, Derangel said:

Steam's management features are vastly better

This is actually the reason i dont buy things on GoG.

Steams Library management system is infinitely better.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, Tsuki said:

This is actually the reason i dont buy things on GoG.

Steams Library management system is infinitely better.

Also download speed seems to be epic slow, I get 13MB/s from Steam servers and currently getting 0.1MB/s from GOG.