Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd May 2012 09:51 UTC
In the News "Over half of PC users worldwide have admitted to using pirate software last year, according to a study by the trade group Business Software Alliance. BSA's ninth annual Global Software Piracy Study has shown a sharp increase in software piracy, especially among emerging economies. In the UK, more than one in four programs users installed in 2011 were unlicensed." If people decide en masse not to adhere to a law, said law is worth about as much as the paper it's written on. Laws become functional not because of the Queen's signature, but because the people decide to adhere to it. It's becoming ever clearer that as far as digital goods go, the law is not functional - for better or worse.
Thread beginning with comment 519011
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The result of all of this ...
by WorknMan on Tue 22nd May 2012 15:41 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

The result of all of this is that commercial apps and games in the future will be at least partly (or completely) server-side.

The main argument against DRM is that it does nothing to prevent piracy. However, Diablo 3 has some of its code base on the server, and, to my knowledge, has yet to be cracked. I wouldn't be surprised if games in the future are entirely streamed off the server, OnLive-style. So how are you going to pirate that? Answer - you can't.

While music and movies/tv will probably never be uncrackable (since if you can see it or hear it, you can copy it), but the same is not true for apps and games.

Reply Score: 2

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Bad idea. Depending on some server requires constant connection. That's a ridiculous requirement for a single player game.

Fail.

Edited 2012-05-22 16:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

CapEnt Member since:
2005-12-18

I don't think that any big corporation will bet on a service that could disappear overnight, or has unwilling updates that makes their current data unreadable after some years (like 10 ou 20 years in the future). Not to mention that doing monthly payments for every single software that you need in a PC will be a blow.

And if you tries to solve that by having all the data server side, after two or three crashes with massive data loss, the world will remember, the hard way, why we abandoned decades ago the "dumb terminal-mainframe" model.

The greatest problem with anything online lies in the persistence of the service. If i want to play my two decades old Doom, i just need to install and run. If i want to run some very old commodore junk, i just need to fire my emulator. Could you do that with a single player game streamed online just because the company are afraid of pirates?

If i pay for something that does not need a server for anything, i want to be able to use it anytime. I would not pay for a single player game that by the end of day can vanish without a trace.

Reply Parent Score: 3

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I don't think that any big corporation will bet on a service that could disappear overnight, or has unwilling updates that makes their current data unreadable after some years (like 10 ou 20 years in the future).


They're already doing that now. Most Microsoft products and other 'industrial strength' apps like the Adobe CS stuff already require some sort of server-side authentication to install and keep running. I don't know if any of this stuff is uncrackable yet, but I'm sure it will be, once more and more of it is on the server. Not necessarily the WHOLE thing, but enough of it such that it would be impossible to pirate. Nevertheless, they've already got people trained to accept the fact that their apps have to 'phone home' to the mother ship in order for them to run.

I would not pay for a single player game that by the end of day can vanish without a trace.


You wouldn't, but a lot of people will, and they already have. Diablo 3 is a prime example. When it comes to games, I wouldn't boycott them for this reason. I mean, if a really hot chick wants to get together for a night of monkey sex, I'm not going to turn her down just because I might not be able to shag her again. So if there's a game I really want to play that requires server authentication, I'd probably buy it, but I'd also wait until the price drops. Unlike apps that I really need, if a game does go away at some point, it's not the end of the world, plus I'd probably be done playing it by then anyway. That being said, I don't personally play a lot of games, so it would be a 'once a year' kind of thing, and it would be like a $30 purchase (or 'rental'), so I could live with that.

Edited 2012-05-22 18:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: The result of all of this ...
by Fergy on Tue 22nd May 2012 20:26 in reply to "The result of all of this ..."
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

The main argument against DRM is that it does nothing to prevent piracy. However, Diablo 3 has some of its code base on the server, and, to my knowledge, has yet to be cracked.

That's funny. I didn't buy Diablo 3 because of that DRM. I however did buy Torchlight 2 and Grim Dawn.

Reply Parent Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, and guess which of those games is destroying the two other in sales...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_III#Sales

...actually, all other, more or less.

Edited 2012-05-29 17:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2