• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

[Game] Greedy devs rant

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Murphy

Murphy

Grizzled Veteran
Nov 22, 2005
7,059
743
36
liandri.darkbb.com
#1
Ffffuuuuuuuuuuuu:mad:

I have Neverwinter Nights with both expansions and built several small modules with it. I mainly bought the expansions for what they added to the editor but they were sorta cool to play too. So, recently my brother an I wanted to play the game cooperatively and what do I have to see?
You need two different CD-Keys to play together!!!

Now I just bought he Battle For Middle-Earth Anthology today. I only wanted one, but the store only had the Anthology and it only cost 20
 
#2
Agreed. All these new restrictions in an effort to reduce piracy (and to get you to buy more copies of the game) to earn them more profits are only hurting the legal customers. One of the main reasons that I see when people say they are going to hold off on a purchase of a game is the DRM or other anti-pirate measures. These companies are probably losing more due to their anti-piracy than the pirates themselves. Stardock, for example, has had a large amount of success with Sins of A Solar Empire, which has no measures against piracy. The CEO of the company even admitted that piracy was not really much of a problem.

And now with Starcraft II not even including LAN at all, well, I hope that it does not become a trend.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#4
Murphy said:
All hail Epic and UT2004 where it checks for your key if you want to go online but you can play on Lan just fine and you don't even need the DVD in the tray. That's how it's effin' done, ladies and gentlemen.*clap-clap*
Click to expand...

epic made ut99 and atari made ut2004. but i agree. hear hear.

i believe that the age of buying games on a disc or in a store are coming to a close. the only real fool proof method of keeping games legit is steam imo.
 
Upvote 0
#6
ONLY if I buy them do I have a right to cry about anything! Pirates have no say in this, or at least they shouldn't have.
Stardock was right in this regard: You make games for your customers and if pirates don't like them, fine, who cares, they didn't pay for it anyway.

Besides, it didn't say on the package "watch out, you can't play this unless you buy some more of this". Or else I wouldn't have bought it and this thread wouldn't exist.

It's such a strange and arbitrary rule too. As I said, I buy any other multiplayer game (e.g. Monopoly, Risk, Chess, a stack of cards...) I can play it with buddies. But it's different for computer games? Explain to me how that makes any sense before you lash out baby-speak and a smiley-onslaught as if I was a crying ten year-old.

epic made ut99 and atari made ut2004. but i agree. hear hear.
Click to expand...
Atari published it.
 
Upvote 0
#8
Murphy said:
Now, their financial success ain't none of my problems so if they know better, fine, but they should be effin' forced to write that kind of rip-offy-business on the back of the box!
Click to expand...

Agreed, if they are going to put arbitrary limits on their products, then the consumer should get fair warning about it, so we can decide if we want to support that with our monies or not.

In the box where they list system requirements, they should also be forced to list any DRM related limitations, thats only fair, consumers have rights too, and how can we vote with our wallets if we don't know what we're getting? we shoulden't have to visit forums to get information like this from others who have allready bought the game, that information should be as readilly avalible as the system requirements.
 
Upvote 0
#10
Bommel said:
Are you seriuosly ranting about the fact that each players needs its own copy of a game if they want to play simultaneously?
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You shouldn't have to buy multiple copies of a game per household. If you want to play LAN, you should be able to with one copy. Now I know there are things like Hamachi, but still, it's not worth buying more than one copy if you want to play with a family member.
 
Upvote 0
#11
Bommel said:
Are you seriuosly ranting about the fact that each players needs its own copy of a game if they want to play simultaneously?
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yes, I am.
Why is a computer different form any other game? If I buy Monopoly I only need one box to play it with others. Heck, even if I buy a game for a console I can play it with my brother right away. If I go out and buy Mario Kart or Halo I can go home, pop it in and off we go. But if I want to play a computer game I need two copies just to play it with my brother?
Explain the difference to me, please!

As I said, I think it's fine if everyone needs his own copy for online play - but for a Lan? No, I don't think so.
 
Upvote 0
#14
worluk said:
You are trying to put this issue on moral feet while it simply is economical..
Click to expand...

The two are not that sepperate, there certainly are limits to what customers will stand for, be it animal testing, lead based paint, or getting suprice buttsechs when buying a product, nobody likes getting screwed out of their money, and there are limits to what companies should get away with in the name of more profit.

As a consumer, i care about my rights, and you should too, and the games biz is in bad need of some fair guidelines, at the very least we should know more about what we're buying, games are practically leased to us thease days, only we don't get to see the lease contract untill we've allready forked over our money... how is that fair?
 
Upvote 0
#16
Murphy said:
Yes, I am.
Why is a computer different form any other game? If I buy Monopoly I only need one box to play it with others. Heck, even if I buy a game for a console I can play it with my brother right away. If I go out and buy Mario Kart or Halo I can go home, pop it in and off we go. But if I want to play a computer game I need two copies just to play it with my brother?
Explain the difference to me, please!

As I said, I think it's fine if everyone needs his own copy for online play - but for a Lan? No, I don't think so.
Click to expand...

he's right ya know. online play is one thing. lan games is another. and plenty of companies let you play lan on multiple comps with one key so the ones that don't are just being unfair and ****.

worluk said:
Decision of the distributer (and in the end a matter of technical feasability).
Click to expand...

so you're saying we should be okay with it just cuz one person said "because i said so"? no, i refuse.

i realize that my words have no effect on the matter, but i refuse to shutup about it when i see it as wrong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#17
Murphy said:
I know the reason it is like it is due to someone deciding it to be that way. But that doesn't explain why I should find this acceptable!
Click to expand...


i dont find it acceptable that it starts raining when i want to go out swimming...

so you're saying we should be okay with it just cuz one person said "because i said so"? no, i refuse.
Click to expand...

refuse as long as you want to. When you buy the game and accept its license you are bound to it wether you refuse or not.
"Wrong" here is hardly objective. I dont see anything wrong with having each user require a seperate license if he wants to play the game.
If you dont like that, dont buy it. The only problem here, if any is that you usually dont get to read the license agreement until you already bought the game.
 
Upvote 0
#18
worluk said:
i dont find it acceptable that it starts raining when i want to go out swimming...
Click to expand...
Me neither, I hate it when I get wet when I'm swimming. Let's start another rant-topic because this has nothing to do with mine...

You are only pushing the reason one step back, btw.

For me the issue is crystal clear. If I buy a game, I and my household should be able to play it. That's what games are made for after all.

Yet some people here seem to find it acceptable that every player has to have his own copy of the game for a household Lan. My question is, why should this be acceptable? My question was not: "How is this legally fortified", or "Why would devs do that?". It was "Why should this be acceptable (to me)?"

You answered, because it's in the license. No. That's the reason that makes me accept it (if at all...). It is not the reason that makes me find this acceptable!

So again, what's so different about a game like Neverwinter Nights and a box of Monopoly? Should I find it acceptable that I have to buy five boxes of Monopoly before I am allowed to play it with my family?
What about movies? If I want to watch a chick-flick with my better half, should I have to buy my own copy first before we can watch hers together?
 
Upvote 0
#19
Murphy said:
For me the issue is crystal clear. If I buy a game, I and my household should be able to play it. That's what games are made for after all.
Click to expand...

Thats your perception of things. Im quite sure you will find distinctive section in quite a few EULAs that tell you on how many machines you may concurrently run the software with each license version.

With your arguments you could as well say why would you have to find it acceptable that each of your family has to buy an individual ticket to the movie theatre when you only need to buy the film once to watch it at home...

In the end, "if it's acceptable for you" is of no matter whatsoever. Accept it or not, if you dont, dont buy the game. If you dont accept the politics and the license agreement after you bought the game is of as much relevance to the distributors as me not liking rain when swimming is to you.

So again, what's so different about a game like Neverwinter Nights and a box of Monopoly?
Click to expand...

One is a piece of software, the other is a board game. While you could create a copy of monopoly to play 2 games at once it would certainly violate some regulations, same for software.

Your misconception imo is that you think that software should allow several people to play with it. It would be similar to Parker selling monopoly pawns individually. 4 people would have to buy their pawns to play.

Closest to what you are arguing for would be a n-players license pack. Now if you would have a 4 player pack and would be restricted in some way to play with it, i would fully agree with you.
 
Upvote 0
#20
worluk said:
In the end, "if it's acceptable for you" is of no matter whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Except in this little micro-cosmos that is my topic, where this is ALL that matters...
worluk said:
Accept it or not, if you dont, dont buy the game.
Click to expand...
That choice was not mine to make with NwN, CnC:G and BFME because I only found out about that after I had already bought the games and opened them. As I said before, IF this was printed on the box I wouldn't have bought them.

And again, you push this back to the license. I know that if I bought Monopoly with a license attached to it that tells me I have to wear a silly hat and a fake moustache while playing it I would have to do just that, but that still doesn't answer my question!

Why should I find this acceptable to the point that it doesn't even need a warning on the box? If you can't answer that or if you think it is irrelevant and you don't want to answer, please don't post in here at all.

One is a piece of software, the other is a board game. While you could create a copy of monopoly to play 2 games at once it would certainly violate some regulations, same for software.
Click to expand...
I don't want to run two games of BFME at once. I want to run one game with me as a host and my brother as a client. Matter of fact, if we wanted to play the singleplayer campaigns simultaneously we could do that if we were interested in them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu