I remember before this generation of consoles I don't remember having major crashes , bugs and other mishaps with my games on my ps2. Just because it is a "new"(even though the current generation has been around for six years or so) system and many things have changed should not be an excuse for game breaking bugs and other problems. The games I bought for the ps2 and gameboy never said they were not going to have bugs. So I see no logic in your argument in how this generation of games can be marred with bugs and that is ok and the previous generation had very rarely had such bugs.

Pre-internet games and home-use programs would like to speak with you. Said programs weren't perfect, but their quality was light years ahead than what we have to contend with now. And when a bug appeared, the company that made the program would end up with massive amounts of egg on it's face and quickly go into damage control, putting very cheap discs in stores and PC magazines (read: shareware) that one could get either for free or for mere pennies to fix the problem.

Software programmers have just become coddled, unprofessional and outright lazy. And the companies themselves have become absurdly and sickeningly greedy.

Yeah, this does seem to be how things have progressed. The customer has become the consumer, and the consumer is a greedy inconvenience; or so modern corporate doctrine seems to go, anyway.

I don't agree with this, To me the publishers have become to greedy, requiring to many late nights of the programmers to push code out at an acceptable rate

though the end result may appear to be "coddled, unprofessional and outright lazy"

I like how tehy complained about internet connection required for patches. How else are you supposed to get the patch?

Retail Fo3 GOTY, the patch was on the second disc (installed with DLC)

This is a double-edged sword. If developers/publishers don't have anti-piracy measures to rely on (no matter how reliable/unreliable they actually are), they lose incentive to continue to develop/publish PC games. Piracy can potentially take a huge chunk of the profits. It's one reason why MMORPGs make the most money - you can't pirate subscriptions. Other PC games make a bit of money at first, then piracy eats away at the profits. I don't blame developers/publishers for being wary of that.

I wish I had statistics that showed how many legit copies of particular games were sold vs how many were pirated.

I'm not saying I agree with forcing Steam or Origin or whatever Ubisoft does, but I do see the need to at least pretend to safeguard the products and profits of developers/publishers so that they continue to want to give us great PC games. Without safeguards, why bother? Why spend thousands upon thousands of dollars developing a great game, only to see your hard work not pay off because of pirating?

As far as bug-free games, geez they're so complex it's impossible to release one bug-free in an acceptable time frame. Granted, some games are way worse than others in this respect and do feel rushed.

You can pirate MMORPGS...people don't because they prefer the playerbase built by the legit servers. Piracy is a nonissue. Console devs would be giving up if that were the case(Skyrim was available for download for the X360 a week before it was released). What companies are seeing here is they can make over double what they were before by forcing consumers into this third party agreement with steam(And eliminate the second-hand market at the same time). Actions like this are what is being addressed.

This sort of behavior is already unacceptable for motion pictures. Video games shouldn't be any different.

But at the same time, we as game players lose. They are under no obligation to develop or publish great games for us.

they are still responsible if they release defective products though

Exactly. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything (in the video game business). Research the game and the developers before you buy the game, or wait for the game to lower in price or wait for reviews to come out for it.

But it is good that someone is standing up for the consumer. That is a practice that needs to be... well practiced more.

File a lawsuit against them.

I think there's a balance: "buyer beware" is always good advice, but I think there's a reasonable limit beyond which people shouldn't have to expect to be ripped off, mucked about or have various other problems and shenanigans foisted on them. My opinion is that the software industry (particularly the part involved with entertainment) has crossed that line, and by quite a margin.

It's true. My concern is DRM though, not games released with bugs. I see this increasing DRM as a desperate attempt to keep the industry profitable enough to continue developing and publishing, and I see the fight against DRM as double-edged sword that would benefit consumers in the short term but potentially harm them greatly in the long term if profits are damaged enough by pirating to halt future development.

I'm looking at it long term, understanding that it's a for-profit industry with no developer or publisher under any obligation to continue to release great games if they feel it's not worth the risk without DRM.

For a new game no one ever heard of sure, but when you're playing Supercoolgame C, the third in the series, and the devs had said 'Hey guys we should make people put in their authorization code every 40 minutes to ensure it's a legit copy.' And then there's also 'Let's make those people who bought it at a Gamestop pay 30 bucks for a one use access code.'

Who cares if some guy buys the game at Gamestop, if you buy the game and like it, you'll want to buy the DLC, so the company that dev'd the game is STILL turning a profit.

Edit: I still say Publishers and Devs are trying to run an inner circle monopoly.

I've heard more talk about pirating software with increased DRM then I have on any game without it. I have doubts that DRM actually increases profits at all or effects the number of piracy issues in a good way.

Just because the masses are unaware of the issues revolving around increased DRM doesn't mean it's ok. To be honest, I didn't realize how large of a problem it was until the release of Skyrim. I don't play many games and the ones I do don't have online requirements for a reason. For every one of us that "talk with our wallet" and avoid buying a certain game, there are 100 others who just want their games and don't care if they have to sign away their souls to get it. Until the laws are changed, nothing the minority does will effect the industry. We'll just eventually have to find a new hobby as we'll be pushed out by the people who don't care.

Yeah, my 70 hours of Skyrim so far was really short...

I hope the second and third part are focused on and pressed hard. They are killing the Pc.

Ya there is definitely a balance. I'm not saying that the consumers are total idiots, but still think that they could use their brains a little better. I do agree that there should be a happy medium. If that will ever happen. In reality- It won't


Well hey you live and learn. I do agree that I don't like the access codes, and the games where you have to constantly be online just to play it. Those are annoying. We should all live by the motto... TRUST NO ONE.... especially Publishers and Devs.

I seriously doubt it affects the number of piracy issues too. I personally don't think it does anything but slightly delay it.

However, if it makes the developers and publishers feel more confident, then in the long run some form of DRM must remain, otherwise they have no reason to work hard bringing us games. Not this crazy DRM we have now mind you. I'm mad enough I'm going to have to install Steam and Origin when I build my new rig.

The only other solution I see is lowering development costs substantially, and that's definitely not a good solution. Profit is the name of the game, and if they need some form of DRM in order to feel secure, then so be it. I'd rather deal with some form of DRM than not have many games developed for my chosen platform (PC) in the future.

I read an article about a company that intended to prove how piracy was hurting the gaming sales and how DRM was preventing it, so they published a game without DRM and their intention was to publish the sales records later and show how low the sales were because everyonw would pirate the game, however they refused to publish the sale numbers after the experience, wonder why that was?

In my opinion I find it ok that there should be some form of DRM, something really simple and easy like a CD-Key, this should prevent most of the lost sales though piracy, those that do not have money and are intent on not paying for the product really do not matter since there are pretty much no lost sales to theese people (sure it svcks they are getting the product for free when everyone else pays for it, but atleast the customer that pays for the game does not suffer for the insane DRM(Something that is happening nowadays, the only people that the DRM is screwing up or preventing from playing the game are the people that paid for it)).

What developers need to do instead of forcing people to go online to jump through hoops to use their games is to use a simple cd key to activate the game (non internet) and make something online that makes the customer want to go online and register their cdkey to their account (making the cdkey available on another computer via install but not useable on another account), this can be free stuff, events, achievements or whatever.

I also don't agree with requiring internet connections or 3rd parties for DRM. It's too extreme. It's turning potential customers away.

I think modern DRM is still very much in an experimental phase. There needs to be just enough to keep developers and publishers feeling secure, but not enough to turn potential customers away. I don't know what that happy medium could be.

You can't compare an MMORPG to other games in terms of revenue. They have completley seperate business models. PC games make money at first but it is market saturation, not piracy, that causes the drop in ongoing revenue per title. The average MMORPG player will spend much more money over time due to monthly subscription costs. If you want to bother looking at the actual market data (most studio execs don't like facts getting in the way of business) then piracy does not actually hurt profits, it may even bolster them. Look at the record industry. During the height of the Napster file sharing movement the record industry was making record profits. Then Napster was shut down and DRM was added to music and profits tanked. Once DRM was removed and RIAA approved downloads became available then profits came back. The lesson that was, or at least should have been, learned was that digital piracy is driven by an unwillingness to pay for a product as it is offered. There are three important pieces there, Price, Product and Conditions.

Price, there are some who won't pay any price no matter what. These people would not have purchased the product to begin with, any resources aimed at stopping this group would be wasted. However there are others who would be willing to pay, but it is dependant on the quality of both Product and Conditions.

Product, pirates and customers both have equal desire in a product, this is illustrated by the number of illegal copies of Avatar vs those of Spice World there are circulating about. If it's not worth buying then it's not worth stealing. But how do you know if something is worth buying? Most consumers like to try something out before purchasing it, this covers everything from test drives to free samples of microwave burritos at the store. Once upon a time most games had demos that you could play to see if you liked the game before you actually purchased it. Then someone got it in their head to release "demos" that were more or less beta testing grounds which made consumers think that the whole game would be as buggy as the demo. Rather than going back to the idea of the demo as a chance to hook the gamer in the concept was largly dropped as a whole. If someone wants to play the game for an hour or two before they spend money on it they have few choices, ever more restrictive DRM schemes that ensure "only you can play your games" narrow the choices even further. So here we see where a pirated copy could become a sale that would not have happened otherwise. If someone won't purchase the game with out trying it first, and does not like it when they do try it then there is no sale lost. The issue comes from those who turn to piracy to get their "demo" and end up liking the game but never getting around to actually purchasing it. These are also actual lost sales because without an official demo they will never get to the point where they cannot continue without purchasing.

Conditions, part of the reason that Napster was so popular was because it offered every song as a single. There are, as evidenced by ITunes, many people willing to pay for a single song but not the rest of the album. This was an underserved consumer demographic that went to the only source offering just the product without the additional condition of having to purchase a dozen B-side tracks to get the one song they wanted. Every pirated copy in this group represents a lost sale, this is where the publishers can do the most to diminish piracy. If you want to play Skyrim without Fast Travel, wait a little bit and the mod community will help you out. Want to play without having to create a Steam account? You have no legal options. If players are taking the risks by downloading hacks and cracks from shady sources to use with copys of games that they legally purchased then the publisher has done something very wrong.

It's not about the actual effects of piracy, it's what the developers, publishers and investors (for public companies) want, and they want DRM of some form. We all know DRM doesn't stop piracy and we all know a well-developed game will bring a profit, but if the developers, publishers and investors demand DRM then they get DRM. If they think it will help safeguard their profit, then we are stuck with it, and apparently that's exactly what they think.