I didn't mean to upset you but you made the point you "Own" a game as a major part of your argument. In that argument it is not true. You just do not "Own" any software (including games).

Summer, I am disappoint.

Myself? I don't care if they charge or not. If they do, I probably won't play it. If they don't then that's cool. I vote with my wallet (or without it, in the case of MMOs that don't make me subscribe).

Again, semantics. What's more likely, the developer/publisher breaking into my house and stealing my disc so I can't play it anymore (they can't stop me from playing it otherwise), or a developer shutting down the servers of an MMO and my saves being lost forever? For all intents and purposes, I do own the game. I can disconnect from the internet and play the game forever if I want. As long as I have a machine to play it on, I can play it, and even if I don't technically "own" it, the chances of it being taken away from me are so slim it's laughable. However, with a pay-per-play MMO my game is unplayable whenever the developer says so, and there's a 100% chance they can stop me from playing it because they can shut down the servers or ban me from them.

Isn't it funny that when, commonly these days, someone uses the term "Buddy" it's hardly in an amicable/friendly/jovial so on and so forth way?

Anyways, I think perhaps its more of an agreement. You pay $15 dollars a month, and they'll allow you to keep using the actual service. It's like getting free tickets to Disneyworld for a year, but everything inside still costs you money.

EDIT: What the heck does Leet even mean.

No, but at least with WoW you can view them online through the armory, 3d model just like the game.

It seems today, many gamers are forgetting that nobody's forcing anybody to buy anything. It's as if people act as if they've lost their freedom of choice to not buy games. And yes, the idea of people "owning" games is an obsolete idea that many still cling to.
[/rant]

Like I said, I do own it in the sense that as long as it's DRM free, I can play it forever. I own the disc, and for all intents and purposes own the game until the disc is taken away from me.

I've never seen a problem with paying for MMOs. To me, it's only $15, so I've got to skip a movie and mcdonalds one month, clearly the end of the world.

Way to miss the point.


But not being able to play the game beats the point of having a character.

I'll admit, everybody likes it better when there's no DRM and the game is theirs to do whatever they want with, but sometimes people act as if they don't have a choice to not buy a game with DRM. It's like some people have an addiction to buying new games, and whenever one of those has a new, more radical form of DRM, there's always so much drama. It's kind of scary.

My point is that if you pay for more game time, your character is still there. Of course you won't be able to play as your character if you can't play the game...

Okay then, so would you like to play a game that you can only play if you're constantly connected to the internet? What happens if your internet goes down? Or you can't afford to keep paying your net bill each month? Guess what, you're stuck with a game you paid $50 bucks for and can't even play.

THAT is why DRM is bad. Because you don't get what you pay for out of a game with that much DRM.

If I go out and buy a new game that isn't online only, I expect to be able to play it offline whenever and where ever I so choose. Think about it, with that kind of DRM it's like buying a shirt and your mother telling you that you can only wear it while she's around and ONLY then. Oh and guess what, that shirt just cost you the price of a day or two worth of food.

Anyway, on topic: As for the whole character still being there argument, some developers delete inactive content after a certain amount of time. So all those hours of grinding can go right down the drain.

I'm not arguing that it isn't stupid or annoying; I think it's an unwise move. What I'm saying is that I don't get why people make such a big fuss about it when buying the game is completely and totally optional.

Paying doesnt bother me -- what bothers me is paying for time I dont use, Like if I pay half way through a month I still pay for the two weeks I didnt play and I still have to re-subscribe on the 1st of the next month. Or If I pay for a month and I lost my internet or my PC breaks and I dont actually get to play. I'd rather it work like pay as you go, pay for the month and each minute your playing adds to the total amount and once it reaches that amount (1 month, two, three depending on how much you paid for) you have to re-subscribe.

I think thats a tactic Square Enix is employing with FFXIV to attract more casual audiences who can only squeeze in two or three hours of game play here and there every few days so cant justify paying for a monthy rated MMO. Good plan imo.

Because in the end we're selfish and desire the game, even if it has DRM or subscriptions. The people who actually pay for these games are the ones whose desire has surpassed the opportunity cost.

Kind of like Assassin's Creed II on the PC is going to be? That is the worst kind of DRM I've ever heard of, topping that crap that Spore had. Down with DRM!

Anyways, I honestly don't mind paying a monthly fee for MMO's. It costs a lot of money to keep servers running, and paying developers to keep making fresh content. The original game isn't going to sell well forever, so they need to keep their player base happy with fresh content, so that the developers can keep making money.

You get exactly what you pay for out of a game with DRM. If an internet connection is required to play the game, then they'll post it on the box right next to "keyboard and mouse required" and go about their merry day. I have a game called X-Wing Alliance that will not even run if a joystick is not detected. You know Spore outright refused to even install on my old computer? Just gave me a little prompt saying my system requirements were below minimum and aborted on it's own. That's just how the game was made, and it's no different if the internet is required instead of a joystick or a mouse or a video card with 1GB of memory.

The problem here is that you think you deserve something different from what the developer is putting out. You think you're entitled to all these things as some matter-of-fact. For some reason there are people that think they are entitled to the core video game that makes up an MMO completely for free, and see monthly fees as some kind of affront to their sense of self-worth.

They can charge whatever they damn well please for their game, and they can make their game do whatever they damn well want it to do. If someone makes an $80 game that only plays once and then locks itself down forever, they can. Maybe it won't sell all that great, but that's economics too. It's not as if you have any kind of "Gamer's Bill of Rights" that says you are entitled to be able to install a game on as many computers as you want as many times as you want for all eternity and must never pay additional fees.

My response to DRM: Games should be made for the consumer in mind, not the pirate, since they are just going to steal it anyway...

In terms of paying for MMOs, I can't really bring myself to do it. I played guild wars and atlantica online mostly in terms of mmos. Guild wars was pay once play forever and I can happily say I have logged over 4k hours on it. Atlantica online is quite possibly the greatest free to play game out there, if you haven't tried it then you should, you don't have anything but time to lose.

http://static.clanbase.com/CB/images/news/2008/gamers_bill_of_rights.jpg

Like that's an actual thing that holds clout in the industry. :rolleyes:

That's just it. That thing you linked? You don't have that.

Yes I pretty much follow it except about the CD/DVD in drive to play one. I think that one needs to be there to stop people simply passing round their disks. If a game doesn't meet any of the other points I simply don't buy it.

What difference does it make if you follow it though? You're not the one making and publishing games.

Voting with your wallet sounds like as good a form of democracy as any...

However, in this case I think Ragnalin might not get to sample very many titles.

No but it means they get one less purchasee and an angry raving DRM unfriendly rabid squirrel e.g after hearing about ubisoft I wrote a nice little review about the whole system on a review Pfft it's not much but it will be once I'm finished.

EDIT:

I don't mind I'm already extremely particular about what games I play already

Yep, they need to pay me to moderate MMOs. That way I could clean up the chat and make it a more enjoyable place to play online.