''DRM can really force people to use pirated games'': StarForce speaks to games.on.net about piracy, customer anger, and more

[Faint_Man_Australia]

Has anyone ever actually been locked out of software (game or other) or know someone who has been due to activation limits? Including asking for more activations from whoever it is necessary. I recently (last month) ran out of activations on my red alert 3 key and was given more within a few hours after asking via email. I have heard of a few people running out but then receiving more. Just wondering if anyone has experienced a real lockout from this (not an internet sob story where you don't have the whole picture).

Myself, Windows XP. When I phoned Microsoft they said they were unable to provide more activations as a result of receiving legal advice not to. After 2 1/2 weeks of back and forth eventually my XP serial key was given unlimited activations.

[TRB]

That doesn't explain why there are startup online games founded on the F2P model.

GW2 is the obvious example, and it hasn't failed.

Where do I get my free copy of GW2?

[Marius]

GW2's box sales alone at $60 a pop are a pittance compared to the game's development costs.

They're effectively using a F2P model.

[James Pinnell]

GW2's box sales alone at $60 a pop are a pittance compared to the game's development costs.

They're effectively using a F2P model.

I'd agree GW2 is basically free to play, largely because it doesn't require an on-going fee structure. Because it relies on retail price, which will drop, the game will eventually become so cheap it will be practically free.

[Jimmah]

I'd agree GW2 is basically free to play, largely because it doesn't require an on-going fee structure. Because it relies on retail price, which will drop, the game will eventually become so cheap it will be practically free.

And expansion packs/DLC.

And micro-transactions.

GW2 isn't free to play - it has a substantial entry cost and no one as yet knows what other sources of income Anet are going to use. Using your logic all games which don't have an ongoing fee structure are free to play.

Why am I so poor then?

Jimmah

[RaTTuS007]

No you not paying per hour. You are paying per month. Big difference.

Blizzard are more then happy to sell you a 730 Hour card for $14.99 USD, limited for 30 days.

You can play 24/7 in that month if you want and pay the same as if you played 2 hours that month.

Would the purchase of shorter time blocks appeal to you? I'm sure for some players paying for what you "use" is pretty appealing

In china maybe, not anywhere else can you pay wow by the hour.

[TRB]

GW2's box sales alone at $60 a pop are a pittance compared to the game's development costs.

They're effectively using a F2P model.

So all those games that sell for $60 or less [like BF3, for example. which I got on the week of release for $30] basically didn't make any money, barely covered their dev cost?

[Marius]

That's a bad comparison. An MMO takes a lot more money to develop than an FPS.

There's also a lot more ongoing content and patching, a lot more data stored server side, and a lot more server bandwidth needed.

And expansion packs/DLC.

And micro-transactions.

GW2 isn't free to play - it has a substantial entry cost and no one as yet knows what other sources of income Anet are going to use. Using your logic all games which don't have an ongoing fee structure are free to play.

Why am I so poor then?

Jimmah

You're not going to be forced to pay for those. In the original GW I only played Prophecies.

F2P doesn't mean totally free. It means you pay for what you want. GW2 is F2P because of the lack of subscription. You pay for the initial box, because you want the starter content. However, you're free not to buy anything more.

[TRB]

That's a bad comparison. An MMO takes a lot more money to develop than an FPS.

There's also a lot more ongoing content and patching, a lot more data stored server side, and a lot more server bandwidth needed.

and you base this on what empirical evidence?

what is this "a lot more data"? are you saying that the character data difference between GW2 and BF3 is some massive difference in storage required?

What 'ongoing content' is going to be supplied for GW2 that isn't going to be part of DLC?

What 'a lot more bandwidth' are we talking about?

I bet you can't quantify, even roughly, the difference you're assuming there is.

I put it to you that the dev cost of games like BF3 [which are all online all the time too] are very similar.

GW2 is estimated to sell at least 3.5 mill copies.
if they get $50 per copy then box sales alone are in excess of $170mil.
Did they spend more then that on development? no.
I don't think you have any empirical evidence to support the claim that GW2 cost more then BF3 to develop or run.

F2P doesn't mean totally free. It means you pay for what you want.

wrong.

F2P means it is FREE TO PLAY.

Do you want me to break out the definition of free?

F2P is not a category where you are REQUIRED to spend a sum of money BEFORE you can access the core game content.
F2P means that with NO INITIAL OUTLAY you can start playing.

[James Pinnell]

F2P doesn't mean totally free. It means you pay for what you want. GW2 is F2P because of the lack of subscription. You pay for the initial box, because you want the starter content. However, you're free not to buy anything more.

Spot on.

Because micro transactions and expansion packs exist, no-one is forcing you to buy them. Using BF3 or any other retail game as a comparison isn't fair, since an MMO is forced to be played online and thus carries significant costs relating to servers, ongoing events, maintenance, customer service, and so forth.

BF3's ongoing costs, like most multi-player FPS games, are hidden because they are paid for by ISPs or swallowed by the developer. Ongoing content for them is almost *always* in paid DLC and the experience is hardly as complex as an an evolving online world.

GW2 uses a reverse F2P mechanism - you pay for the original access and get free ongoing playtime for life with no restrictions on play like many traditional F2P games have (character slots, guild access, experience and gold limits) as opposed to paying nothing for access and then paying for an expanded experience (quests and the things I listed above).

You can still play the original GW now, and even if you didn't buy any expansion packs, the game was still provided with new content, patches and overall support for years after its release.

That said, I will agree that F2P isn't technically a valid term for this type of setup, but neither is "Pay to Play" either. Anet isn't getting an ongoing stream of revenue to cover their costs for server fees, content/event creation, and future feature additions.

[TRB]

You're wrong about BF3.
They have a vast backend network setup handling just as much character data as GW2.
They have to maintain all the same level of log-in servers and the only data difference is in actual gameplay, but guess what, its not that much data, its not like here is Australia where we don't have unlimited quota.
They aren't paying their network links by the megabyte.

on top of that they use a browser interface which could well use up as much or more data as the character data in a game like GW2.

[Cas Bitton]

In china maybe, not anywhere else can you pay wow by the hour.

It's seems my humour has been lost on a few people , 730 hours is about 1 month

[Bluefire]

The main issue for always on drm/cloud isnt an issue for the developed world.. but here in australia our connection is so ****..
If it rains arround here you get water in the lines, shorts and loose internet, the joys of a **** pairgain system.
We pay a shitload for our internet ... Most decent countrys are $50ish a month completely unlimited and a **** tonne faster than our piss poor 5mb/s.

Im not a particular fan of an always on connection being required for single player games.. there is _nothing_ an always on connection can offer me for a single player game, all it does is get in my way... Keybinds, saves etc are easy to do yourself and do not require an internet connection to do.
If I was to go visit my parents house for example.. stay over night and bring my laptop.. Options are intermitant 2G wireless... IF want to climb up to the roof and mount the dongle up there, Only works at one end of the house and thats if its not blowing a southerly which results in no signal at all. Or 33.6k dialup (56k which synch's below 20k) Neither of which is acceptable to browse the internet these days.. let alone play a game.
So when they go on holiday and I go look after the damn dog.. I make sure I bring single player games that do not require internet connection.

Until Australia gets acceptable speed/stability/price on its internet for the entire country I think always on drm should be illegal here... we are already paying the game publishers "The Australia Tax" may as well make them work for it.

Now always on drm for "multiplayer ONLY games" doesnt particularly worry me as long as its not chewing a **** tonne of bandwith, kicking you off every hour when it looses synch with the master server etc..
But when you require an internet connection for a single player game ie: diablo which is singleplayer and should be 4 player lan or optional via internet... And tell me that no.. you cannot play that anywhere but home.. well if it wasnt free.. I wouldnt be buying it.
As d3 for example is a free game I wont complain to much.. but.. I will definatly be looking for a offline server client so I can play whenever I want.. and when they eventually shut their servers down I can keep my characters and still play my game.

[Marius]

Games publishers shouldn't have to blame for the lack of infrastructure spending by the Australian Government.

And if DRM was illegal here, games just wouldn't be released...

But when you require an internet connection for a single player game ie: diablo which is singleplayer and should be 4 player lan or optional via internet... And tell me that no.. you cannot play that anywhere but home.. well if it wasnt free.. I wouldnt be buying it.
As d3 for example is a free game I wont complain to much.. but.. I will definatly be looking for a offline server client so I can play whenever I want.. and when they eventually shut their servers down I can keep my characters and still play my game.

But it's multiplayer. All balancing has been done around co-op. Saying it's singleplayer is like saying WoW is single player.

[Bluefire]

So there are heroic 4man dungeons that REQUIRE 4 player to clear ? Or you can complete the entire game singleplayer and have the option to multiplayer if you choose ?