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

[Bluefire]

With reguards to the 730hrs for $15.. without an expiry date would be awesome.. But you know it wouldnt happen.. would be $15 for 30hrs max (probably more like $15 for 15-20hrs) if it was pay per hour, they caculate the montly prices on how much the average player plays, some will be higher, some lower but price is calculated to compensate for the expenses based on what the average is.
Its the same as an ISP.. oversell your service knowing that 100% of your userbase will never be online at the same time or you arent competative on price.
If every player with an active wow sub tried to log on at once their servers would all be overloaded and a large number of people wouldnt be able to connect.
Pay per hour would cause such a stink with the "hardcore" players that the casuals would be convinced they were getting ripped off to and the game model would most likely bomb.

[James Pinnell]

With reguards to the 730hrs for $15.. without an expiry date would be awesome.. But you know it wouldnt happen.. would be $15 for 30hrs max (probably more like $15 for 15-20hrs)

It wouldn't, because a market president has already been set that 1 month of "MMO" = roughly $15. Just like people baulk at paying more than $0.99 on the App Store for anything, once a control price has been set in the marketplace it takes a pretty massive incentive to change it. Considering that MMOs require quite a large time investment, no-one would take it up.

A game card in itself is 730hrs for $15 - you can use it whenever you want and you aren't obliged to subscribe to a payment plan. It's also at risk of price movements because it's a physical product, thus why you can find them cheaper.

Since the movement now is heavily towards F2P, now that has been proved over (LOTR Online), and over (World of Tanks) and over (Tribes: Ascend) and over (League of Legends) - a pay-per-hour system of gaming is not only incredibly unlikely but introduces more of a bureaucratic overhead for developers they can't be bothered to deal with. Games, unlike internet cafes, don't have "per hour" overheads.

[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.

I have to dispute this. There are fundamental differences between the make up of a content server like Battlelog and a persistent MMO world. You're just thinking about bandwidth costs which are a fraction of the overall load. The reason MMO's largely require a subscription or ongoing funding is to cover the human capital required.

First off, and this isn't even taking into account dedicated servers for PC whcih aren't moderated or maintained by EA, offsite servers, the largest amount of people EA would have on a BF3 server would be 64. These servers do not have to be monitored 24/7 either, so you can almost essentially set them and forget them. Most server admins won't bother to monitor them unless there is a report of a cheater or the server drops offline for some reason.

An MMO server can sometimes hold up to 2000+ players, split across enormous zones that interface with other servers that host instanced content. These servers require an almost constant human presence of moderators and network administrators to ensure server load is stable, raid/event/quest content is operating correctly and players aren't harassing, griefing or abusing bugs.

On top of this, MMO servers are significantly more complex beasts - A BF3 server is a largely static empty field, where an MMO server involves NPC properties that may operate on scripting or an AI based free-mind algorithm. These properties are constantly changed and modified on the fly to improve gameplay, or as part of a real-time event that drastically impacts the state of the entire server.

MMO devs also need to introduce free new content on a regular basis, generally monthly and outside of a standard expansion pack system. This can include new quests, new raids/dungeons, loot, talents, abilities and so on. All of this stuff requires inhouse artists, programmers, designers and a host of other teams to roll out without delay.

If you're wondering about this, take a look at this great dev blog about how the team at CCP had to react to an enormous sudden spike in player activity thanks to the recent Burn Jita event. http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=2864 Can you imagine this happening in BF3?

Most of what you said there is beside the actual point though.
GW2 is not suddenly free to play because its an MMO and BF3 isn't.
the argument was that GW2 is F2P because it has ongoing costs with servers .etc.
and I pointed out that BF3 also has ongoing costs yet its not being called F2P.

F2P is clearly free, not some arbitrary upfront cost before you can play.

[Bluefire]

Yes both bf3 and gw2 have an ongoing cost.
however.. they arent really compareable.
bf3 is limited to its shithouse login server which is an origin expense not a bf3 expense (and marketing covers that for ea so it is a non-issie)
the rest of bf3's onging expenses are a **** webpage (battlelog) and the occasional bug fix, both of which were budgeted for in the purchase price.

gw2 the game servers are hosted by and paid for by the developer not a 3rd party hence it is deemed "f2p.. aka: pay2win" even tho it has an inital purchase cost you are not paying for montly access to the servers... technically the term f2p does not describe gw2 on several levels.. 1: its not free..and 2: you have to pay to win.. but saying that a game does not follow a monthly subscipton marketing model after the innital purchase doesnt sound as good to marketing departments so they choose the "f2p" designation even tho it is incorrect

[Otto-matic]

Because options aren't always compatible with each other.

Blocking single player sessions from joining online isn't the hacking problem. The hacking problem is giving people the server architecture to tinker with and create hacks that work in online sessions.

Likewise, D2 tried the perks approach, and people still got confused as to why they couldn't bring their offline characters into ladder matches.

There are ways around the server architecture hacking issues. D3 for example, server verified input, like they already have.

If you post a warning at the start of a single player session saying you can't use these characters online then people wonder why they can't use them online, those people are idiots. I know they'll still exist even if they are reminded why every 10 seconds.

Suffice to say, primary purpose of always online is restrictive DRM, no matter what spin they put on it.

[Fireslide]

Because options aren't always compatible with each other.

Blocking single player sessions from joining online isn't the hacking problem. The hacking problem is giving people the server architecture to tinker with and create hacks that work in online sessions.

Likewise, D2 tried the perks approach, and people still got confused as to why they couldn't bring their offline characters into ladder matches.

There are ways around the server architecture hacking issues. D3 for example, server verified input, like they already have.

If you post a warning at the start of a single player session saying you can't use these characters online then people wonder why they can't use them online, those people are idiots. I know they'll still exist even if they are reminded why every 10 seconds.

Suffice to say, primary purpose of always online is restrictive DRM, no matter what spin they put on it.

They had warnings on Diablo 2 if I recall correctly, it still didn't stop people from playing SP and then wondering why they couldn't play on battle.net or worse, join a hacked open server where pvp was enabled in town and instantly die and lose their gear.

[Bluefire]

I know it might be a bit harsh..
But how is less stupid people in a game you want to play online a bad thing ?
If people want to join a hacked server and die.. well thats one less idiot you may have had the misfortune of grouping with

[Marius]

I don't think people expected open game security to be compromised so easily.

[Bluefire]

Query still stands

Just tanked a heroic in wow.. top dps as the tank with 19k average..
18k 2nd place.. hunter
12k 3rd place.. mage
8k 4th place.. warrior
Im all for less stupid people in online games right now

[RaTTuS007]

Query still stands

Just tanked a heroic in wow.. top dps as the tank with 19k average..
18k 2nd place.. hunter
12k 3rd place.. mage
8k 4th place.. warrior
Im all for less stupid people in online games right now

Christ, I had the same thing all night tonight topped dmg most runs I did as the tank.

[TRB]

Step 1: stop playing wow.
Step 2: start playing a intellectually challenging game.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: profit!

[IvanTSR]

Hidden: show

lol this idiot actually thinks cloud gaming is the future... I will NEVER buy a game that has such a moronic system of pay to play by the hour. You can bet 99% of I know will pirate any game they actually like if it has such a **** feature.

This guy is living in a fantasy world.

I'll bite

How do you intend on stealing a software licence when games in the future are delivered:

With a sole distribution channel
When no files are stored on your computer
Content is streamed directly to you on demand
An internet connection is mandatory
All character progress, save games, content are synced to the cloud after gameplay session has ended
No resale of software licence, tied to your primary account

This is the part when you boycott the game, right? The truth is, these are all existing methods used by games today.

It's disappointing to see a total disregard for the games I enjoy, then read a few comments highlighting exactly why we are in this postion.

I'm glad a few of our members dislike games enough to see it's downfall, kudos.

The growth in DRM tech is far and away one of the best things, actually I'd say the best thing to happen to the PC games industry in over a decade.

What do you clowns think led to the rise and rise of the console market? it was a successful business model. Piracy on consoles has never reached the kind of proportions you witness on PC - this meant that from a return on investment point of view a publisher would know that 'ok approx x no. of units will ship' as people needed a physical disc to play.

PC has always been another story. The rise of PC piracy during the 2000s combined with the rise of consoles as the only credible business model for a serious publishing business (particularly if a publicly listed company) led to something really bad. Companies deciding to not invest anything of substance into PC games - except the pittance require to create a port which would generate a small profit.

Enter new and innovative forms of DRM. Many gamers outcry as now they actually have to pay for games. But wait. Games start to get better again....

The Russian was on the money. DRM creates the opportunity for publishers to actually have some security surrounding their investment and it is leading to increased quality and investment in the sector. If you can't see that you're a fool.

[DarthLondar]

Hidden: show

lol this idiot actually thinks cloud gaming is the future... I will NEVER buy a game that has such a moronic system of pay to play by the hour. You can bet 99% of I know will pirate any game they actually like if it has such a **** feature.

This guy is living in a fantasy world.

I'll bite

How do you intend on stealing a software licence when games in the future are delivered:

With a sole distribution channel
When no files are stored on your computer
Content is streamed directly to you on demand
An internet connection is mandatory
All character progress, save games, content are synced to the cloud after gameplay session has ended
No resale of software licence, tied to your primary account

This is the part when you boycott the game, right? The truth is, these are all existing methods used by games today.

It's disappointing to see a total disregard for the games I enjoy, then read a few comments highlighting exactly why we are in this postion.

I'm glad a few of our members dislike games enough to see it's downfall, kudos.

The growth in DRM tech is far and away one of the best things, actually I'd say the best thing to happen to the PC games industry in over a decade.

What do you clowns think led to the rise and rise of the console market? it was a successful business model. Piracy on consoles has never reached the kind of proportions you witness on PC - this meant that from a return on investment point of view a publisher would know that 'ok approx x no. of units will ship' as people needed a physical disc to play.

PC has always been another story. The rise of PC piracy during the 2000s combined with the rise of consoles as the only credible business model for a serious publishing business (particularly if a publicly listed company) led to something really bad. Companies deciding to not invest anything of substance into PC games - except the pittance require to create a port which would generate a small profit.

Enter new and innovative forms of DRM. Many gamers outcry as now they actually have to pay for games. But wait. Games start to get better again....

The Russian was on the money. DRM creates the opportunity for publishers to actually have some security surrounding their investment and it is leading to increased quality and investment in the sector. If you can't see that you're a fool.

GoG.com seem to be doing fairly well with their DRM free games...

[Marius]

One of the things in GOG's favour is they use that as a selling point.

DRM effectively creates a niche market for non-DRM.

But it doesn't mean that every game can just abandon DRM, because then there's no differentiation for stores like GOG to exist.

[TRB]

One of the things in GOG's favour is they use that as a selling point.

DRM effectively creates a niche market for non-DRM.

But it doesn't mean that every game can just abandon DRM, because then there's no differentiation for stores like GOG to exist.

So we have to have DRM so that a a niche is created, rather then just have a better user experience across the board?

That is really grasping at straws and drawing long bows ...