| 25 FEB 2009 at 11:47pm |
An_InklingSpace Cadet
Posts : 171
Joined: 20 JUN 2008
Status : Online | ^^I think some are reading Shadow's words a little more strongly than they're intended. His claim that the fact the game has DRM is not completely independent of David's choices, is absolutely correct.
David chose to develop a game for Play First, assumedly, knowing how they operate and the distribution methods they use.
Note, there's no blame here, just facts.
One can view the situation any way they like - Play First may have been David's only chance to get the game made, or so far and away the best choice that it outweighed DRM considerations. Maybe David does not have an issue with Play First's DRM and was happy to go along with it, despite having other options... - but to claim David's choices have nothing at all to do with the use of DRM on the game, is factually incorrect. Whether this shifts one's view of David positively, negatively or not at all is up to the individual. Personally, I'd be loathe to criticise him too heavily, or even at all, as getting games funded is not easy, sometimes requiring less than optimal partnerships. So, without further info he gets the benefit of the doubt from me. Not that I actually have a massive issue with DRM anyway.
Who is this great burdensome slavering dog-thing that mediocres my every thought? ([i]Nick Cave - We Call Upon the Author[/i])
|
| 26 FEB 2009 at 12:08am |
shadow9d9Sorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 295
Joined: 17 JUN 2006
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Ivinia (25 FEB 2009 11:22pm)
This is kind of funny actually. Your making Dave responsible for Play First's decision. What makes it so funny is that no one is making Caitlin, who started this post and DOES work for Play First, responsible.
This has to be the first time I've seen this happening too. Remember StarForce? No one blamed the developers of Black Mirror for it - they put the blame on TAC. Yet here we are blaming the dev this time around... unbelievable. :
Playfirst is absolutely responsible.. obviously. I wouldn't touch their software with a 10 foot pole and I am very glad I emailed them before renting the game from them. No one has ever denied this. No one has excused them.
Dave agreed to make a game for them and therefore he is just as responsible. He knowingly developed with those terms.
Are you denying this?
What is amazing is that you want to pretend like Dave is some victim and Playfirst is pulling some fast one on him and all of us.
This is not a criticism of anyone. Just facts.
I will buy his other games and support him, but not this game. I wish him success with this particular game, but I cannot buy it, unfortunately.
If people don't mind it, all the more power to them.
Black Mirror has maybe 3 more seconds of loading on it because of the crap that is starforce. Yet, I own a physical copy, enjoyed the game with no problems, and have my copy for future use.
Disclaimer:&&&&Please do not take my opinions personally. I have strong opinions that may differ harshly with other popular opinions. I also have a rather direct way of expressing them. Keep this in mind when reading and do not get upset!
|
| 26 FEB 2009 at 1:27am |
Jenny100Guild Master
Posts : 3510
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Here's a link to an interview with Dave Gilbert, where he describes how much he didn't know about Playfirst.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slrdYE1WYwo
I don't blame him for wanting to get his game made. I just wish it were for a company other than Playfirst with their DRM and tracking software (which I think is worse).
|
| 26 FEB 2009 at 3:53am |
shadow9d9Sorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 295
Joined: 17 JUN 2006
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Jenny100 (26 FEB 2009 1:27am)
Here's a link to an interview with Dave Gilbert, where he describes how much he didn't know about Playfirst.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slrdYE1WYwo
I don't blame him for wanting to get his game made. I just wish it were for a company other than Playfirst with their DRM and tracking software (which I think is worse).
I don't have time to watch a 10 minute video right now, but whether he knew before or not, the responsibility was his to research thoroughly before entering into a business deal.
Unless they somehow tricked him.. but again, his responsibility to check.
If more people email playfirst with complaints, they might pull a Mass Effect PC and remove the DRMs.
Disclaimer:&&&&Please do not take my opinions personally. I have strong opinions that may differ harshly with other popular opinions. I also have a rather direct way of expressing them. Keep this in mind when reading and do not get upset!
|
| 26 FEB 2009 at 12:51pm |
ags-sshIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 16
Joined: 20 MAY 2008
Status : Online | In theory, Playfirst could be using the DRM to oppress the poor and cause the credit crunch, but in reality you can email them and say "please can I reactivate" and they do, no problem. I find it weird when people say "Why do they do this DRM, you can download the game for free all over the net"... well, DUH! A lot of the versions available for download are time-limited beta versions so if you download them you'll get an unfinished, untested version that will expire soon (or may have done so already).
I've interviewed Dave a couple of times for another AG site, and know Dave well. Dave quit his day job, lived off his savings and a small income from selling the Blackwell games before Playfirst came along. He was living hand-to-mouth and wasn't sure if he'd be able to afford to keep making games. So a few anti-DRM fundamentalists object to Playfirst's T&C, etc. and make a big noise about it but most people are happy to buy software on these terms. It's not as it he's one of these high paid banking execs that have really made a mess of things or a guy who invested your pension fund with Bernie Madoff without due diligence: he's just a guy who makes games! And pretty awesome ones at that.
For the latest on all things about Adventure Game Studio, [url=http://ags-ssh.blogspot.com]read my blog![/url]
|
| 26 FEB 2009 at 1:24pm |
GonchiSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 337
Joined: 24 SEP 2007
Status : Online | Meh. Discussing this at length seems pointless to me as it simply boils down to either:
A - You don't mind DRM, in which case you should buy the game as you'll likely enjoy it
B - You don't like DRM, in which case you should avoid the game at all costs.
I'm one of the "anti-DRM nazis", so as much as I like Dave and his games I'll be passing on it.
But I'm not so complicated as to flee, &&or stand here in silence. &&But I'm not so simple as to not caution, &&that there aren't three minutes, or a hundred words, that could define me.&&&&[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlR-6Tw-5bE]Brief description of my person[/url] - Cuarteto de Nos
|
| 26 FEB 2009 at 3:08pm |
| Deleted User | Although I'm a member of the "support the Indies" Nazi's, I'm also an occasional member of the "anti-DRM" Nazi's. When DRM disallows me to play my games when, where and how often I want to, I become a rabid "anti-DRM "Nazi, specifically for that kind of DRM.
So just for this specific kind, I'm with Gonchi. Sad.
|
| 26 FEB 2009 at 4:03pm |
shadow9d9Sorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 295
Joined: 17 JUN 2006
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By ags-ssh (26 FEB 2009 12:51pm)
In theory, Playfirst could be using the DRM to oppress the poor and cause the credit crunch, but in reality you can email them and say "please can I reactivate" and they do, no problem. I find it weird when people say "Why do they do this DRM, you can download the game for free all over the net"... well, DUH! A lot of the versions available for download are time-limited beta versions so if you download them you'll get an unfinished, untested version that will expire soon (or may have done so already).
I've interviewed Dave a couple of times for another AG site, and know Dave well. Dave quit his day job, lived off his savings and a small income from selling the Blackwell games before Playfirst came along. He was living hand-to-mouth and wasn't sure if he'd be able to afford to keep making games. So a few anti-DRM nazis object to Playfirst's T&C, etc. and make a big noise about it but most people are happy to buy software on these terms. It's not as it he's one of these high paid banking execs that have really made a mess of things or a guy who invested your pension fund with Bernie Madoff without due diligence: he's just a guy who makes games! And pretty awesome ones at that.
I appreciate the situation and understand it. I'd pay more money than $20 for the game to support dave more if it had a regular backup, but that option doesn't exist yet.
You could only put the game on 3 computers. Playfirst may not be around in the future to validate the game, hence having you lose it.
" I find it weird when people say "Why do they do this DRM, you can download the game for free all over the net"... well, DUH! "
Well, if it doesn't prevent piracy, it serves no purpose... that is the point. Why screw the consumers to protect something that isn't actually protected.
Disclaimer:&&&&Please do not take my opinions personally. I have strong opinions that may differ harshly with other popular opinions. I also have a rather direct way of expressing them. Keep this in mind when reading and do not get upset!
|
| 26 FEB 2009 at 4:08pm |
Mr Innocent.Journeyman
Posts : 1316
Joined: 15 JAN 2008
Location: GR
Status : Offline | I do not at all appreciate being called a nazi, many of whom are responsible for some of the worst human rights infractions in history, especially for opposing DRM methods that infringe on consumer rights. The mods will hear about this. In fact, if the comparison is not deleted, my JAF account will be.
|
| 26 FEB 2009 at 4:37pm |
ags-sshIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 16
Joined: 20 MAY 2008
Status : Online | Sorry, got carried away and did a "Godwin". I've changed it to "fundamentalist": obviously I can't change the bits where other people have quoted it.
For the latest on all things about Adventure Game Studio, [url=http://ags-ssh.blogspot.com]read my blog![/url]
|
| 26 FEB 2009 at 5:34pm |
Mr Innocent.Journeyman
Posts : 1316
Joined: 15 JAN 2008
Location: GR
Status : Offline | There are a number of reasons I think that fundamentalist is incorrect at best and still inappropriate at worst, but thank you for changing the word that offended me anyway.
|
| 26 FEB 2009 at 6:01pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
There is nothing Nazi-like or "fundamentalist" about consumers expressing legitimate concerns that a particular DRM scheme is unfair or undesirable.
Personally, I don't care who made the decision to place such rigid restrictions on paying customers or who knew about it in advance. I will never agree to those terms and neither will many other people here.
Either change the terms and alter the DRM or lose the sales.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 26 FEB 2009 at 6:07pm |
| Deleted User | Yes, well, I don't really understand why someone would want to do namecalling at people who would like to completely own their games.
As I have said many times before, I have no problem at all with DRM that does not restrict the ownership rights of the legal owner who bought the rights to enjoy the intellectual property embodied by the game. I mean, when I buy a book, are you going to only allow me to read it only once, and only in a certain area, and all at one time?
I cannot read a little every day, take the book with me on holiday, and perhaps pick it up again in a year or two to browse through it again? So how come it has to be that way with a game, and why am I being called ugly names, when I do not enjoy being restricted in that way?
|
| 26 FEB 2009 at 8:30pm |
loobilooPrivate Detective
Posts : 598
Joined: 3 APR 2008
Location: UK
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By TheTraveler (26 FEB 2009 6:07pm)
Yes, well, I don't really understand why someone would want to do namecalling at people who would like to completely own their games.
As I have said many times before, I have no problem at all with DRM that does not restrict the ownership rights of the legal owner who bought the rights to enjoy the intellectual property embodied by the game. I mean, when I buy a book, are you going to only allow me to read it only once, and only in a certain area, and all at one time?
I cannot read a little every day, take the book with me on holiday, and perhaps pick it up again in a year or two to browse through it again? So how come it has to be that way with a game, and why am I being called ugly names, when I do not enjoy being restricted in that way?
My sentiments exactly! I can buy books , music & films without any restrictions to enjoy them whenever & wherever I want in the future. Music, & films in particular survive despite problems with piracy & still continue to offer productions to cater for niche audiences so I despair that AGs continue to struggle. The download option seems to becoming more prominent but while strict copyright restrictions are in place a lot of gamers just won't buy them so obviously a lot less will be sold! I'd quite happily pay more for a boxed version that's 'mine' & as far as piracy goes - although I don't condone it at all, it's a fact of life, will reach a larger audience & perhaps could be positively viewed as 'advertising'.
|
| 26 FEB 2009 at 9:28pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By loobiloo (26 FEB 2009 8:30pm)
& as far as piracy goes - although I don't condone it at all, it's a fact of life, will reach a larger audience & perhaps could be positively viewed as 'advertising'.
That is a good point, loobiloo. The more people talk about it, and see it, etc., the more word spreads around, about it, and the more people want it, and the more that specific item becomes a sought after product in a culture.
That is the very idea behind free samples as a marketing ploy, I suppose- is to give exposure to the product, and to get word of mouth going.
By making these observations, I am not in the least condoning piracy; in fact, the phenomenon of videogame piracy frustrates me, because, tbh, it is probably a worse exploit of the internet and of an industry than any of the other "pirated" genres like film and music.
I am also not suggesting that for this reason piracy should not be combated (in a reasonable fashion, of course), which is easier said than done, I realise.
Still, it is an interesting angle to consider. Sadly, the whole piracy and DRM issue is a very complex one. My personal belief is that the combating of piracy should go deeper than just DRM alone. It's a cultural phenomenon that should be addressed at it's roots. The re-inforcement of the knowledge that piracy is akin to stealing;- (well it is stealing) should be actioned.
More marketing cash should be spent to bring that message across, but perhaps the gaming industry has not organised itself enough for those kinds of measures yet. I suspect the time will still come.
|
| 26 FEB 2009 at 11:36pm |
IviniaGuild Master
Posts : 4459
Joined: 7 JUN 2003
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (26 FEB 2009 6:01pm)
There is nothing Nazi-like or "fundamentalist" about consumers expressing legitimate concerns that a particular DRM scheme is unfair or undesirable.
Personally, I don't care who made the decision to place such rigid restrictions on paying customers or who knew about it in advance. I will never agree to those terms and neither will many other people here.
Either change the terms and alter the DRM or lose the sales.
Now THIS I can agree with.
Trying to lay it flat at Dave's feet was BS.
|
| 27 FEB 2009 at 12:35am |
shadow9d9Sorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 295
Joined: 17 JUN 2006
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Ivinia (26 FEB 2009 11:36pm)
Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (26 FEB 2009 6:01pm)
There is nothing Nazi-like or "fundamentalist" about consumers expressing legitimate concerns that a particular DRM scheme is unfair or undesirable.
Personally, I don't care who made the decision to place such rigid restrictions on paying customers or who knew about it in advance. I will never agree to those terms and neither will many other people here.
Either change the terms and alter the DRM or lose the sales.
Now THIS I can agree with.
Trying to lay it flat at Dave's feet was BS.
Can I get you to answer for the record? o you think Dave was not responsible for creating a game that would use DRMs?
I just want to know if you honestly think that this was foisted upon him unknowingly...
Disclaimer:&&&&Please do not take my opinions personally. I have strong opinions that may differ harshly with other popular opinions. I also have a rather direct way of expressing them. Keep this in mind when reading and do not get upset!
|
| 27 FEB 2009 at 12:54am |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Regardless of who you were addressing in the above reply Shadow9d9, I have no verifiable information on what Dave knew and what he did not know about the publisher's plan to include such a restrictive form of DRM.
I also don't really care as it doesn't change my decisison not to buy any game with that kind of extremely limiting DRM.
Otherwise, IMO, assigning blame OR assuming innocence sans reliable information about the details is just a pointless exercise in speculation.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 27 FEB 2009 at 3:57am |
| Deleted User | The more I read about all this disturbing news concerning how our beloved games will be delivered, on this thread and all the discussions on DRM on this and other numerous forums, the more I realize that ultimately I will have to find a new hobby at some point and time. Online gambling perhaps. As of yet, I have not encountered an overwhelming desire to purchase a game via download for myself. However, I would do such only if I was able to back up said game to hard copy and DRM does not enter into the equation. (which to me seems like a more cost effective sans higher profit margin for the developer method of delivery) Heck, 10-12 years down the line I just might encounter the desire to replay this particular game. Who knows what next-gen PC I’ll own or what op-sys we’ll be stuck with, but even so at least I’ll have the chance to tweak it or consult talented tech-support for assistance. On the other hand, there is no way I could possibly expect the on-line distributer to be still around when I need the activation material/support again. I may be really/totally ignorant about much of this but hearing phrases like “tracking software,” “DRM affects…where and how,” “install x times limits,” “buying a game that you rent,” suggests something amiss here (there’s that sour taste again) that the industry should not take lightly. So, in consideration of Emerald City and Playfirst’s terms and conditions and privacy policies, my answer is a definite no and that in itself is a shame since I have always enjoyed Dave’s games in the past.
|
| 27 FEB 2009 at 4:16am |
IviniaGuild Master
Posts : 4459
Joined: 7 JUN 2003
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (27 FEB 2009 12:35am)
Can I get you to answer for the record? Do you think Dave was not responsible for creating a game that would use DRMs?
I just want to know if you honestly think that this was foisted upon him unknowingly...
Point is, I don't give a crap if he knew. At what point did I say he never would have known? As has been pointed out several times in this thread, you can't hold a developer responsible for a publisher imposing DRM. They contracted him to design a game. They built it. This isn't even a case of him deciding to take his game to PlayFirst. There was no game. What part of all this are you missing?
Publisher: Shadow9d9, we know you quit your job and chewed through all your savings in trying to pursue your dream of making adventure games. Here's chunk of money to design a game for us and we'll cover all development expenses. Hopefully this will allow you to pursue your passion and create some of your own titles.
Shadow9d9: Will it be released with DRM?
Publisher: Yes.
Shadow9d9: Stick your money up your a$$ then, I would rather go back to a boring job and never make another game again! Heck, in this economy I'll probably end up living on the streets, but at least I made a stand.
Perhaps anyone who DOES fully develop games should not go to portals because they use DRM. If you want your game to reach a mass audience, you need to go to publishers - they like DRM. Blame the publisher, not the developer.
The only thing we agree on is that DRM sucks. You seem driven on attacking the developer. Wait...technically he's not even the developer, he's the designer.
I'll tell you what, feel free to hold a developer or designer responsible if they are as big as BioWare or Jane Jensen who do have some influence. Not some guy working on his laptop in a coffee shop who's just trying to pay his rent and keep his head above water for a few more months and who carries very little weight with publishers.
If you want to do some good, go after the publisher and make a big stink. Maybe they will change their ways. Going after Dave is pointless and doesn't do any good.
|
| 27 FEB 2009 at 5:02am |
shadow9d9Sorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 295
Joined: 17 JUN 2006
Status : Offline | I would never attack the developer. That is the difference between our perspectives. All I have done is point out that it wasn't some manipulation on Playfirst's part, and that it was all known ahead of time, and therefore, part of the responsibility goes to him.
Since when does responsibility equal an attack?
I have corresponded multiple times with Playfirst, explaining my problem. I have urged others to do the same.
As for Dave making money, I'd prefer he create a fund where people donate to help his cause in addition to buying his games. Steven Brust, an author I like, did such a thing. I sent money that way as well as bought his books.
I don't understand why point out an obvious fact is equal to an attack just because you don't like the fact or what it may or may not imply.
Disclaimer:&&&&Please do not take my opinions personally. I have strong opinions that may differ harshly with other popular opinions. I also have a rather direct way of expressing them. Keep this in mind when reading and do not get upset!
|
| 27 FEB 2009 at 5:05am |
shadow9d9Sorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 295
Joined: 17 JUN 2006
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Camaroboy1968 (27 FEB 2009 3:57am)
The more I read about all this disturbing news concerning how our beloved games will be delivered, on this thread and all the discussions on DRM on this and other numerous forums, the more I realize that ultimately I will have to find a new hobby at some point and time. Online gambling perhaps. As of yet, I have not encountered an overwhelming desire to purchase a game via download for myself. However, I would do such only if I was able to back up said game to hard copy and DRM does not enter into the equation. (which to me seems like a more cost effective sans higher profit margin for the developer method of delivery) Heck, 10-12 years down the line I just might encounter the desire to replay this particular game. Who knows what next-gen PC I’ll own or what op-sys we’ll be stuck with, but even so at least I’ll have the chance to tweak it or consult talented tech-support for assistance. On the other hand, there is no way I could possibly expect the on-line distributer to be still around when I need the activation material/support again. I may be really/totally ignorant about much of this but hearing phrases like “tracking software,” “DRM affects…where and how,” “install x times limits,” “buying a game that you rent,” suggests something amiss here (there’s that sour taste again) that the industry should not take lightly. So, in consideration of Emerald City and Playfirst’s terms and conditions and privacy policies, my answer is a definite no and that in itself is a shame since I have always enjoyed Dave’s games in the past.
I wouldn't worry too much. Starforce, I believe, is now a thing of the past due to the volume of complaints. Galactic Civ 2 was unique in that it had no copy protection period and didn't even need a cd to be your drive to play and sold phenomenally well. Mass Effect was supposed to have DRM for the pc version and the complaints made the publisher remove the DRM.
The future is still bright.
Disclaimer:&&&&Please do not take my opinions personally. I have strong opinions that may differ harshly with other popular opinions. I also have a rather direct way of expressing them. Keep this in mind when reading and do not get upset!
|
| 27 FEB 2009 at 3:21pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
It would seem that Ivinia and Shadow9d9 agree that we as consumers need to focus mainly on the publishers when lodging complaints about restrictive, intrusive, problematic types of DRM.
Today's commercial game developers / studios / designers have little or nothing to say about it and in the end, they don't create or implement DRM software. They don't write EULAs either and most of them have no control over marketing decisions, product packaging / delivery, return policies, quality of tech support or other matters beyond simply designing the games.
That aside, do any of us here know for certain what Dave's situation was /is? Do we know where, when and by whom the decision was made to implement this DRM scheme? Do we really care?
Cheers, Terry
|
| 27 FEB 2009 at 8:00pm |
loobilooPrivate Detective
Posts : 598
Joined: 3 APR 2008
Location: UK
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By shadow9d9 (27 FEB 2009 5:02am)
.........
I have corresponded multiple times with Playfirst, explaining my problem. I have urged others to do the same.
As for Dave making money, I'd prefer he create a fund where people donate to help his cause in addition to buying his games. Steven Brust, an author I like, did such a thing. I sent money that way as well as bought his books........
On the first point: All that anyone can do, if you disagree with a system of distribution, is let them know. Unfortunately the reality in the case of Playfirst (& others similar) is that they produce hundreds of 'throwaway' games for the casual market. If you subscribe to them you can download games that will entertain you for many more hours & cost less than an evening out! Yes! I do it! but I'm not interested in hanging onto the games afterwards (apart from one or two that I'll look out for boxed versions of) so the restrictions don't matter - I'm sure I'm not the only one so therefore there is no incentive for the company to remove them!
As for Dave (or any other developer) creating a fund. It's a lovely idea but so unrealistic. It was, though, a very nice thing for you to do to support the author you like.
But, if I were in Dave's shoes I personally would regard the creation of a fund as a form of 'begging', sorry! But what from the point of view of the potential donatee? I'm in the same boat as many people - I can afford to make a small donation here & there but when you start taking steps back you see the extent of need for them in more places than you could ever hope to help. I'm sorry, but as much as I love games, on the greater scale of things there are other urgent causes more in need of contributions.
|
