The gawd-almighty merged DRM in Silent Hunter V thread

[Onkel Neal]

You get that impression because you think that if someone does not rage against it, they must like it

I will explain exactly what I think, again. I do not like DRM, I do not like CD serial keys, having the CD in the tray to play, online activation, user passwords, firewalls, Captcha, virus protection, anti-spambot Q&A, ATM pin codes; I don't like any of it, Sam I am. But they are necessary because people steal, people do things they should not do and they are hidden by lies and anonimity. So, DRM has become necessary. I am not closing my eyes to the real fact that game companies should get paid if someone plays the game. And I won't argue "piracy <> lost sales", or the other typical stuff we have seen 1000 times. If the DRM works, then hopefully Ubisoft will make a good pile of $$ on SH5 and fund another one with a bigger budget and more generous development cycle.

No, I don't like DRM, but I'm not going to go all mob and pitchforks over it either. Ok?

Disclaimer: I do not think that all people who oppose the DRM are software pirates. Some are, some are not. Peace.

[Nordmann]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

No, I don't like DRM, but I'm not going to go all mob and pitchforks over it either. Ok?

That's your choice, but unless the consumer speaks out, nothing will ever change. In fact, it is likely that many companies will begin to adopt similar policies, further alienating the PC gamer, and potentially restricting PC titles to those with constant and reliable (shoot, there goes most of Europe!) net connections.

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Disclaimer: I do not think that all people who oppose the DRM are software pirates. Some are, some are not. Peace.

It's funny really, I've seen such accusations levelled in a few threads over the past few weeks, but it isn't logical at all. DRM is a non issue to pirates, these enterprising individuals work their way round such "protection" within hours of the game's release!

Originally Posted by Méo

Of course you did not say 'wrong'.

But when you say that you got the strange impression that he likes DRM, I assume you insinuate it is somewhat 'wrong'.

Otherwise, I don't see the point of your post (#1555)

But it doesn't really matter, as Neal said: Peace.

I was insinuating nothing, only attempting to clarify the meaning of Neal's posts on the subject. That was the point of my post, not that I need to justify it to you. Thanks.

[IanC]

Originally Posted by Nordmann

It's funny really, I've seen such accusations levelled in a few threads over the past few weeks, but it isn't logical at all. DRM is a non issue to pirates, these enterprising individuals work their way round such "protection" within hours of the game's release!

That's a good point. It's not the pirates who are complaining, they're probably smiling and rubbing their hands at having a new project to 'work' on.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

...they are necessary because people steal [...] So, DRM has become necessary.

If online DRM was necessary, than all games would have it (it would be
necessary for them to have it!). That they don't, shows it isn't.
It may be advantageous, but it can't be necessary.

Somewhere between no DRM and cutting off fingers of gamers to prevent
piracy, there is a happy medium between the the need of producers to
protect their game and the need of customers to have rights to what they
paid for.

You appear to think that Ubisoft's new DRM has not crossed the line and
become to much of a problem for the customer to justify. Fair enough.

It's all about what you are prepared to put up with in the battle against
piracy. What it isn't about is having to put up with something because it is
necessary. It evidently isn't.

It may yet be revealed to be the case that not having such intrusive DRM
is necessary for a game to sell. That all depends on where people draw the line.