Borderlands [PC]

[Soggy_Popcorn]

Copy protection schemes don't hinder most legit buyers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of DRM and such and it's unfortunate that a few legit buyers do have issues with it, but to say that DRM hurts more legit buyers than it stops pirates is statistically wrong.



Epic and Valve have deeper pockets than most. They can afford to release content for free. I love that they do it, but not every studio can do so.

@ the DRM thing: are you kidding? Pretty much every game recently released with a controversial DRM scheme had side effects from it.

Example: Mass Effect. There were all sorts of bugs, glitches, and other crap on the PC version (again, a product of it being a console port) that were allegedly fixed by cracking the copy protection. And I've heard of a lot of these instances.

Most legitimate consumers HATE DRM schemes. For very good reason.

Also, at the DLC: think about if the UT3 fixes weren't free. Epic: "Well, we're going to release UT3 now, with its infamous UI and other problems, and later, we're gonna give you more content!!! Er, not free by the way." That would have been a disaster.

Point is, something like Shivering Isles was obviously a full-fledged expansion pack. And thus justified in charging for it. But something like some extra content that was planned before release, but charged for after, whether to address a deficiency or just add stuff, is very disheartening.

L4D2 is in a grey area, which is exactly why there's so much controversy over it.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

So, if Borderlands went and came out, or Dragon Age, or any other game, and they didn't announce their DLC (which is the very same DLC being worked on regardless of when it's announced) until say... 2 weeks to a month AFTER the release, everything would just be dandy? Even though you're getting the same thing for the same price? (if there's a price)

It would be better when everything is done is a good manner. If the updates came out around a time when the players would have naturally finished the game, then it would be good. The people can choose to move on to an other game or stay with the same one expanded with upadtes. I would not be so certain 2 week to 1 month would eb a good timeline for all games, but something to that effective is much more appreciable.

That is my belief even in cases where the updates are the same content and price. I would imagine a lot of others disagree, but I don't not see why people have to be impatient. If the game is worth updating, the companies will notice the player base and do so. If its bad, then getting updates beforehand won't make it better and the players will leave regardless.

 

[Sjosz]

So, what if the game is good, and you get updates beforehand? The argument that you can't know if the game is good before it's out is valid for not knowing if it's bad, too.

It's optional content at the end of the day. If they announce it beforehand, and you end up not liking the game, then good for you that you're not buying it. If you do like the game and you buy it, good for you too! Seems a bit of a moot point to complain about the offering of optional extras.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

Let me expanded on my wording. If the updates were made before the game is release, then it seems dishonest for them to charge for it as DLC when they could have included it with the core game. If they would choose to charge extra for the base game, then it would be their choice. The only reason they dont is because they know people are willing to shell extra money buying DLC, but not for a more expensive base game. It is just the kind of dishonestly that should be noticed.

 

[xMurphyx]

@ the DRM thing: are you kidding? Pretty much every game recently released with a controversial DRM scheme had side effects from it.

True for many games.

Most legitimate consumers HATE DRM schemes. For very good reason.

Not true. Most legitimate customers don't give a darn. Most legitimate customers also don't think EA is evil. Just because internet forums are full of loud people who complain about DRM doesn't mean that the huge majority of people who buy games doesn't just buy them and start worrying when they don't run. Not before.

The idea that including no DRM means you get a lot more customers is also not true, in my opinion and Sins of a Solar Empire is not a good example for this. A huge percentage of any sales they got more that they attribute to having no DRM is actually due to having free publicity for the game because every site and magazine had an article about Sins of a Solar Empire not having DRM.
There are some idealists who bought the game to make a statement and who boycott games with DRM they deem too intrusive, but the vast majority just doesn't care.

As for the DLC thing, I agree with q_mi_4_3. I'm not complaining about it, but it doesn't seem completely kosher.

 

[T2A`]

but to say that DRM hurts more legit buyers than it stops pirates is statistically wrong.

Good job negating your relevancy with a single statement!

DRM never stops piracy. Therefore DRM hurting legit buyers at all means you're the one who is wrong.

 

[xMurphyx]

I know my buddy and I bought two copies of Age of Empires way back in the days because we were bummed that we couldn't just burn the one we already had...
Seeing how inept many people are with computers I'd say that "DRM stops no piracy" must be false.

It's a bit like setting your naughty porn folder to 'hidden'. Does it work against your mom? Yes. Does it work against your buddies on a Lan? Probably not.

 

[Sjosz]

Let me expanded on my wording. If the updates were made before the game is release, then it seems dishonest for them to charge for it as DLC when they could have included it with the core game. If they would choose to charge extra for the base game, then it would be their choice. The only reason they dont is because they know people are willing to shell extra money buying DLC, but not for a more expensive base game. It is just the kind of dishonestly that should be noticed.

Of course, you do know that there is a limit to the amount of disc space there is, and that announcements for extras doesn't mean that the extras are already done.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

It shows that they have the foresight to plan this. Even now, with many games and their DLC, its just to divide the core package up so user has to pay for more payments. Right now, they could have a game worth 20/20, but instead of releasing as is, they divide it and have the base game be 16/20, and 4 DLC worth 1/20. That way, they charge you the price of the core game plus any DLC price they name, all by making the usual amount of work they would have done anyways. But instead of charging for exactly 20/20 worth of content, now they can charge more. These are the kinds of schemes that should not be supported. While your points are valid, they do not invalidate mine.

 

[Sjosz]

It shows that they have the foresight to plan this. Even now, with many games and their DLC, its just to divide the core package up so user has to pay for more payments. Right now, they could have a game worth 20/20, but instead of releasing as is, they divide it and have the base game be 16/20, and 4 DLC worth 1/20. That way, they charge you the price of the core game plus any DLC price they name, all by making the usual amount of work they would have done anyways. But instead of charging for exactly 20/20 worth of content, now they can charge more. These are the kinds of schemes that should not be supported. While your points are valid, they do not invalidate mine.

No, but having foresight to announce DLCs prior to release does not say when the ideas for the DLC came into play in the first place. Planning to get any game within the parameters of a game disc is hard work, and tough calls get made to make sure a full game fits on disc. If extra ideas and expansions come up halfway through development that won't ever make it onto that disc, and it's not integral to the main game to have, but they're really cool, why wouldn't they develop those ideas to release as DLC later? I get that you would believe that games are getting stripped so that the stripped content can generate more revenue but to be honest, that's pretty freaking insane, and would making a solid game near impossible. The likelihood of such a scheme being the case is extremely small.

You're right, such schemes should not be supported and you're not supporting such a scheme by getting games that announce DLC prior to game release. But not believing such a thing (especially coming from developers who know what they're talking about) seems to be easier to a lot of people than believing and trusting a developer behind good games to give them a satisfying product.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

No, but having foresight to announce DLCs prior to release does not say when the ideas for the DLC came into play in the first place. Planning to get any game within the parameters of a game disc is hard work, and tough calls get made to make sure a full game fits on disc. If extra ideas and expansions come up halfway through development that won't ever make it onto that disc, and it's not integral to the main game to have, but they're really cool, why wouldn't they develop those ideas to release as DLC later? I get that you would believe that games are getting stripped so that the stripped content can generate more revenue but to be honest, that's pretty freaking insane, and would making a solid game near impossible. The likelihood of such a scheme being the case is extremely small.

If thats the case, then they could have plan it as an even bigger expansion, and then release at the proper time. After all, they are not restriced to the left over material alone, and they can always add more to that as well.

You're right, such schemes should not be supported and you're not supporting such a scheme by getting games that announce DLC prior to game release. But not believing such a thing (especially coming from developers who know what they're talking about) seems to be easier to a lot of people than believing and trusting a developer behind good games to give them a satisfying product.

This is where foresight on our part, and vigilance, come to play. Gearbox might be good, and not pull this stuff, but when other companies see the success this method brings, then they can start pulling it. How can we truely know which is honest or not? Obviously, Capcom's SF4 DLC debacle is bad. But for players who don't know developers other than by the products they buy, they will never know what goes on in the planning stages. And even for Gearbox, who's to say what Really went on in their planning rooms? So to that effect, the best way to eliminate the doubt is to eliminate the practice that leads to doubt.

 

[TomWithTheWeather]

@ the DRM thing: are you kidding? Pretty much every game recently released with a controversial DRM scheme had side effects from it.

Most legitimate consumers HATE DRM schemes. For very good reason.

Actually most legitimate users don't know it's there. The hardcore, forum reading, PC gamer doesn't represent "most users", but that is beside the point.

I'm not disputing that DRM is controversial and that it causes issues for a small number of users. My point is that for most legit users, DRM is transparent. Shoot, I'd be willing to bet many PC gamers that complain about it do so because they know it's there, not necessarily because it affected them personally. I'm primarily a PC gamer and I've only ever had one game give me DRM related issues (Spore).

I don't like DRM for the same reasons you guys don't like it either. I wish there were a better solution and maybe some day there will be.

I'm not trying to defend DRM and I know there are legitimate problems with it having issues on a minority of legit users' PCs and that if any one legit, paying gamer has an issue with it, then the problem needs to be addressed.

Good job negating your relevancy with a single statement!

Who said I was relevant in the first place?

DRM never stops piracy. Therefore DRM hurting legit buyers at all means you're the one who is wrong.

Sorry, let me clarify. DRM doesn't stop piracy, but it can help slow it a little. My bad for a poor choice of words.

I'm personally of the opinion that DRM should go away. Shoot, a lot of devs I know feel that way. It's mostly the publishers that push it on us after seeing the sales data. I'm under the impression that if DRM didn't have any effect at all, we would've stopped using it a long time ago.

Most legitimate customers don't give a darn. Most legitimate customers also don't think EA is evil.

What he said.

 

[DarQraven]

My original point, which many if not all seem to have missed, is not about developer's motives for creating DLC. Of course it's about money from the business point of view, and about pleasing fans from the developer point of view.
It's about how you present this to the customer.

As other have already stated, I, like many others can't be arsed to read up on gamer opinions on a certain developer/publisher or their track record for fanbase service if I'm interested in one of their games. Certain names stick (Ubi, EA negatively, Valve positively) but otherwise I'm going by reviews of the game itself.
As such, I have no way of knowing whether this particular developer is one of the 'bad guys'.

If it has indeed come to the point where announcing DLC before the game has even launched is a selling point, so be it. By all means announce your plans to expand the game.

However, stuff gets suspicious once, within this announcement, details on the content of this DLC are already given, the DLC already has a title, a launch date set, etc. Even though we might have an inside source than can put suspicions to rest, the same can't be said for everyone.

This is purely a PR thing.
I have no gripes with DLC, as long as it doesn't divide online communities and it doesn't contain stuff that should have been in the base game in the first place.

 

[Sjosz]

If thats the case, then they could have plan it as an even bigger expansion, and then release at the proper time. After all, they are not restriced to the left over material alone, and they can always add more to that as well.

Who is to say that it isn't a bigger thing than they had left over?

This is where foresight on our part, and vigilance, come to play. Gearbox might be good, and not pull this stuff, but when other companies see the success this method brings, then they can start pulling it. How can we truely know which is honest or not? Obviously, Capcom's SF4 DLC debacle is bad. But for players who don't know developers other than by the products they buy, they will never know what goes on in the planning stages. And even for Gearbox, who's to say what Really went on in their planning rooms? So to that effect, the best way to eliminate the doubt is to eliminate the practice that leads to doubt.

I disagree. The doubt is, by a large part, your own doing. Being vigilant and all is cool, and anyone should buy the games they play being informed of what they're buying, but there's a difference between being vigilant and being suspicious and having made conclusions before the facts are in. It's a case by case thing, really.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

Certainly I have no made a conclusion regarding this specific case. All I've said is that this practice is generally bad (from my view), and can lead to bad things. Whether this game will be part of that issue remains to be seen. I have not, and will not, tell anyone not to buy the game or DLC. I will say that they should be conscious of their own decision and more importantly the result of those decisions.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Sorry, let me clarify. DRM doesn't stop piracy, but it can help slow it a little. My bad for a poor choice of words.

It doesn't even do that, and that seems to be the point that publishers are missing. I haven't met a single developer in all my years dealing with and being in the game industry that was both not insane and did not hate DRM.

I'm personally of the opinion that DRM should go away. Shoot, a lot of devs I know feel that way. It's mostly the publishers that push it on us after seeing the sales data. I'm under the impression that if DRM didn't have any effect at all, we would've stopped using it a long time ago.

Which is what you're saying here.

What DRM stops is casual pirating. I would be surprised if statistic could show anything, but I'd be shocked nearly to death if the retarded methods of activation and such that we have now curb casual pirating any more than a simple disc check from the SafeDisc era ever did.

The thing is, anyone who is not just casually copying software is either going to buy it or knows where to get illegitimate copies that work fine.

I don't know what method publishers use to determine whether DRM is successful for them or not, but I would think bad press from using activation, for example, does far more damage than having no DRM at all. Estimated copies sold vs. estimated copies pirated tells you nothing. What if your game is awful and nobody WANTS to pirate it? I think copies pirated says more about how good or hyped your game is than that your DRM scheme was successful/unsuccessful.

Hopefully some day game publishers will come to the same "startling" conclusion as the recording industry is right now: DRM does nothing more than make you look bad when something goes wrong.

As far as the DLC thing goes, who cares. If the DLC isn't worth the money, don't buy it. I almost never buy DLC because the longer you wait, the more likely it is to either come out free or at a heavily reduced price.

 

[FuLLBLeeD]

Shut the hell up about DRM and start talking about how many sleepless nights you are going to have trying to get a shotgun that does 2 more points of damage.

 

[SleepyHe4d]

http://evaxephon.com/stream/

That's a stream of someone playing a pirated copy, if anyone is interested in watching.

Imo the game doesn't look too good, but I was never interested or getting it in the first place. Meh.

 

[T2A`]

Sorry, let me clarify. DRM doesn't stop piracy, but it can help slow it a little. My bad for a poor choice of words.

It doesn't slow it either. It is literally no deterrent at all.

Apparently the game is released the 20th. Disregarding the fact that it's already on the torrent networks for the 360 version (can't verify legitimacy but still), I will see how long it takes on the 20th before it gets torrented.

I give it two hours tops.

 

[SleepyHe4d]

(can't verify legitimacy but still)

Yes you can, look at the post above.

edit: uh oh, m00nay is lurking, I saw him in the chat.