Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Mar 2013 14:46 UTC
Games "To see anyone defending EA and Maxis for the state of SimCity, even were it in perfect working order on launch, depresses me to my core. This self-flagellation-as-skincare notion, where gamers loudly and proudly defend the destruction of their own rights as consumers, is an Orwellian perversity. That it might be considered in any way controversial to call them out on their crap, to point out that no, always-on DRM is not an advantage to anyone, is bewildering. It's a sign of just how far the gaming world has fallen into the rabbit hole of the publisher's burrowing." As usual, RPS hits the nail on the head so hard it shoots through the board.
Permalink for comment 555119
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Sing of the Times
by WorknMan on Mon 11th Mar 2013 16:08 UTC in reply to "Sing of the Times"
Member since:

EA breaks games with DRM, removes features til it's working again: "Oh well, they're just trying to keep people from stealing their stuff"

Yep, that's pretty much it, and I think it's a justifiable reason on their part. Don't get me wrong... I would never support this model for games, but I don't blame them for doing it. I'm sure they're getting tired of people pirating their stuff, while at the same time you have a bunch of f--ktards screaming about how piracy helps the industry. I'm sorry guys, but piracy does NOT help the industry ;) You get hundreds of thousands of people torrenting games, and then you wonder why publishers resort to the online-only DRM. Hello? WTF did you think was going to happen? They're not just going to sit back and watch while you play $60 games for free.

The main argument against this kind of DRM is that you can never make something that can't be cracked, but as more and more of the code goes server-side, I'm sure they will eventually make something that's uncrackable, assuming they haven't already. So I understand the business reasons why they're doing it, and I understand this is the future.

Do I AGREE with it? No. Assuming their PC games are being pirated to the point where they would have to go out of business if they didn't resort to this model, then I'd rather see them go out of business. If I can't really own the games, I'm just not interested, unless maybe they're having a fire sale for like $10. Then it's sort of like a rental ;) Since games are only entertainment, I can easily live without them.

And I also think it's a bit hypocritical for people to shun this kind of DRM on one hand, and embrace Steam on the other. I'm not sure if Steam requires the 'always on' connection, but you're still 'buying' games that you don't really own, and that can be 'switched off' at somebody else's discretion.

Edited 2013-03-11 16:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3