A suggestion re the DRM / OSM to make it acceptable to all sides

[rascal101]

One can understand the reasons why a publishing company such as Ubisoft would want to introduce something along the lines of the DRM or OSM whatever it’s called to prevent piracy which for a publishing company is a very real threat and issue despite what some folks on this forum might say! –

At the same time one can understand the concerns of gamers re privacy or simply internet, cost, speed or just plain access that would seem to render such a system so utterly impracticable or just plain unacceptable to most. I stress the concerns of gamers are just as legitimate as those of the publisher!

So here is a compromise that might work for all….

Why not employ the DRM / OSM for the initial, immediate 6 months following release of a new title - with the proviso that after that initial release period has expired the publisher undertakes to remove the DRM / OSM so that full ‘rights and ownership’ go to those who originally, legitimately purchased the game -

This would ensure the publisher would get maximum return from their investment, at the same time it would ensure the customers get full ownership of their own investment over time.

One could look at the 6 months period as an opportunity to hone the game, to iron out bugs, introduce updates and patches and to consider mods.

The next installment of SH5 i.e. years 43 to 45 could then be introduced, on the basis of a real return on Ubisoft’s original investment with less bugs, but covered by the same covenant. Customers would be free to enjoy the new add-on, while those who purchased the first release are free to enjoy it and mod it free of the internet until the cows come home.

Of course I am assuming pirates wouldn’t be so interested in a game once its been in the public domain for so long and would be hardly likely to invest their own efforts in such an old game as those who are really interested in playing it would have already done so by this time.

Once the 43-45 add-on goes ('fully public', my phrase) 6 months following the release then the two halves can be merged via a general 'patch' and everyone’s happy.

I may live in a fantasy world but then my suggestion above could actually be a workable compromise

Be interested to hear from SubSim Members or Ubisoft on this suggestion

Regards

Rascal

[Brag]

Rascal, though I see what you are trying to achieve, this sounds to like assuming the position for someone to start introducing stuff up my bun-hole. NO, thank you very much.

[rascal101]

Depends who you view a compromise - if it means continued access to games on my PC - then hell I'd supply the KY :o.....:rotfl2:

All publishers are tying to hit piracy so this could be one way to do it and keep games on PC's its that simple

Besides such a ix month period as outlined could offer a real opportunbity for gamers and publishers to really communicate with one another - rather than just rant and rave in their own private mutually exclusive listtle worlds

Any way was an idea lets see who else says waht -

R

Rascal, though I see what you are trying to achieve, this sounds to like assuming the position for someone to start introducing stuff up my bun-hole. NO, thank you very much.

[Highbury]

Why not employ the DRM / OSM for the initial, immediate 6 months following release of a new title - with the proviso that after that initial release period has expired the publisher undertakes to remove the DRM / OSM so that full ‘rights and ownership’ go to those who originally, legitimately purchased the game -

You have never been, and will never be, given "Ownership" of any software you have ever spent money on. You are given an End-User License. The End-User License Agreement stipulates the terms under which you are allowed to use that License. This means you have purchased the right to use THEIR program how they see fit. This is not new to online DRMs. All software has been "sold" this way, and it won't change.

Just like if you buy a movie on DVD.. you don't "own" that movie.. the studios do. You have a copy of someone else's intellectual property and a set of rules under which you can use it (No public display, copying etc.) It is exactly the same.

Yes the DRM is a pain etc etc, yadda yadda... but if we are all going to turn into frickin Forum Lawyers would you at least learn the laws?

[KL-alfman]

All software has been "sold" this way, and it won't change.



only if you neglect the existence of:
freeware, shareware, abandonware, open-source, .....

[Highbury]

only if you neglect the existence of:
freeware, shareware, abandonware, open-source, .....

That is just being obtuse, obviously I mean when money changes hands... :doh:

[KL-alfman]

That is just being obtuse, obviously I mean when money changes hands... :doh:


see it as you like.
but the sentence I quoted is just too narrow-minded.

[JScones]

You have never been, and will never be, given "Ownership" of any software you have ever spent money on. You are given an End-User License. The End-User License Agreement stipulates the terms under which you are allowed to use that License. This means you have purchased the right to use THEIR program how they see fit. This is not new to online DRMs. All software has been "sold" this way, and it won't change.

Just like if you buy a movie on DVD.. you don't "own" that movie.. the studios do. You have a copy of someone else's intellectual property and a set of rules under which you can use it (No public display, copying etc.) It is exactly the same.

Yes the DRM is a pain etc etc, yadda yadda... but if we are all going to turn into frickin Forum Lawyers would you at least learn the laws?
I see they've got you brainwashed too. Something I posted earlier, although you can search the Court records for the actual judgment documents... http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1253262&postcount=62

All you need are some balls and cash and you'll cut through the tissue paper that is called the Licence Agreement. ;)

Further, I am aware of at least two copyright cases in Australia where the Publisher took people to court for selling modified files...and despite having it stipulated as a no-no in their LA, the Publishers lost.

A Licence Agreement is NOT law, so before becoming a self elected Forum Lawyer, would you at least learn the laws?

BTW, I write Licence Agreements and in consultation with my RL Lawyer, I know what they do and do not actually constitute. I just don't have the same letterhead as Ubisoft and others to scare people into submission. ;)

[Highbury]

Fair enough. But the brainwashing shots are uncalled for. I have never attacked you, so please back the F**k off.

[JScones]

It wasn't a shot - your comment proves that you believe what they write. Thus they have effectively fooled you, and many others, into believing their claims. That's what they aim to do.

So before calling everyone else frickin Forum Lawyers, perhaps you may like to back the F**k off and look in the mirror? That's all I'm saying. ;)

[Highbury]

It wasn't a shot - your comment proves that you believe what they write. Thus they have effectively fooled you, and many others, into believing their claims. That's what they aim to do.

So before calling everyone else frickin Forum Lawyers, perhaps you may like to back the F**k off and look in the mirror? That's all I'm saying. ;)

Fair enough. As for the "forum lawyers".. everyone seems to think their Congressman is going to help save them from an unjust video game.. it is just getting beyond ridiculous.

Yes online DRMs suck. SHV has one. Buy it or don't.

[Lord Justice]

:hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

All this latest idea means to me is that I will get to play it...after six months.

I prefer the 'One time only' idea myself.

[rascal101]

I really and truly give up - what I thought was a reasonable compromise for all parties - so quickly devolves into a pile of irrelevant crap about the inticacies of a license agreement -

I'f you cant stay on subject why post

Silent Hunter 5 be damed I've had enough - its not wirth the bother

r

[JScones]

Fair enough. As for the "forum lawyers".. everyone seems to think their Congressman is going to help save them from an unjust video game.. it is just getting beyond ridiculous.
Weelll...over here at the moment we don't have an R18+ classification for video games. Anything that would fit that classification is refused and thus not allowed for sale, unless modified to meet at least the MA15+ classification.

There's one state Attorney General here that is dead set against having an R18+ classification. However, public pressure has now seen the Federal Attorney Generals Department open up the debate for public consultation and voting.

Not exactly the same issue of course, but proof that even video games can reach the highest levels when enough people complain.

Yes online DRMs suck. SHV has one. Buy it or don't.
And pragmatically, that is exactly what it all boils down to. :up:

[Sailor Steve]

I really and truly give up - what I thought was a reasonable compromise for all parties - so quickly devolves into a pile of irrelevant crap about the inticacies of a license agreement -

I'f you cant stay on subject why post

Silent Hunter 5 be damed I've had enough - its not wirth the bother


Hey, I'm right there with ya! Didn't work for me, but I was there.

As for the rest, it's always difficult to stay on topic. Any topic. It starts when someone makes a simple off-the-cuff comment, and someone else (a lot of the time me) sees it and has to agree or disagree (usually the latter) and someone else (a lot of the other time me) has to say how he feels about it, and here we are.

And I was on topic at the top and now I'm not, but I had to say something, and...


Sorry.:oops:

[rascal101]

Your right and me too, but at least its a compromise if publishers believe this is the way to go to prevent piracy, and until someone comes up with something else then that’s what they will do

Otherwise we’ll just wind up with console being the only means for games delivery and that’s totally unacceptable for those of us interested in a little more than a ‘game’

And you do get to play it from release albeit with all the crap that the DRM implies, but knowing that at the end of the six months you get the game complete

It’s just a compromise - you know making the best of a bad thing

An idea instead of all the negativity from here at the moment

R

All this latest idea means to me is that I will get to play it...after six months.

I prefer the 'One time only' idea myself.

[rascal101]

always a pleasure to cross swards with you Sailor Steve

Lord I wonder how this will all turn out - I'm pretty much unlikely to purchase SH5 now its so fraught now - I mean I'll see the box on the shelf and wonder and ponder, you know for old times sake etc etc

But the DRM thing has really put me off

I've been playing Flashpoint Dragon Rising multiplayer - is good and most of the time runs reasonably well - and I stress reasonably - but when it doesn’t it just doesn’t go at all, you get disconnected for no reason, or your pings are so laggy its not worth it

And for us here in Aust we're so far away from any one else our pings are always higher so folks from over seas get narky when we turn up on their servers. This ping thing is a pain, not saying it’s an issue with the DRM but it does put you off playing multi player

There you go now I've strayed form my own topic

Best Wishes
R

Hey, I'm right there with ya! Didn't work for me, but I was there.

As for the rest, it's always difficult to stay on topic. Any topic. It starts when someone makes a simple off-the-cuff comment, and someone else (a lot of the time me) sees it and has to agree or disagree (usually the latter) and someone else (a lot of the other time me) has to say how he feels about it, and here we are.

And I was on topic at the top and now I'm not, but I had to say something, and...


Sorry.:oops: