Wirehead Studios

General Discussion => Controversy Corner => Topic started by: Phoenix on 2017-06-26, 03:12

Title: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Phoenix on 2017-06-26, 03:12
According to Square Enix, ever PC gamer is automatically a scumbag thieving pirate and people only buy games because DRM like Denuvo is somehow preventing piracy:

“Thanks to you for the incredible service your team provide – it’s great to partner with you! It’s thanks to you guys that people have to buy the game.”


Do any of you find this more than mildly insulting?  I know some of you have over 700 games on Steam.  I know every game on my machines is paid for and legitimate.  Yet, it's not us, the gamers, that are thanked for making these companies millions of dollars, it's the freaking copy protection police they thank!  I'm glad I don't seem to own any of their games if this is their attitude, but besides myself who doesn't have one of their games?  I have no love for game pirates, but with Denovo being cracked in 5-10 days, this is either a completely ignorant position for Square Enix to hold, or a deliberate slap in the face for gamers.  I know one thing.  The pirates and crackers are going to read this and say "challenge accepted".  When this is all done with I really hope that gamers can one day look back at Square Enix having shot their mouths off as being the catalyst that caused Denuvo to go belly-up.  I really hope that one day publishers will understand that DRM does not stop pirates.  All it does is punish legit players, and we're getting a bit fed up with being treated like criminals all the time when we're the ones that keep them in business.

Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Thomas Mink on 2017-06-29, 21:42
Same old, same old.. really. Is it insulting? Yes. But it's also nothing new and has been said for years by various companies. However, those that say it with such tone as shown here almost makes me want to purposely pirate their games just to spite them. I won't, mind you, but it really does make me think about it.

And it's sad that some still don't see how DRM only hurts the legitimate user.

As for Square Enix games.. I played FFXIV for a few months, a subscription-based MMO, and purchased the Heavensward expansion. So obviously I'm a pirate.

Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Angst on 2017-08-15, 18:14
Kinda like how every time I purchase a movie I'm forced to watch upwards of 5+ minutes of ads and filthy thief montages until they let me access the media I paid for.

Sad fact is, in cases like this, piracy provides a better quality product.

I had the same reaction to forcing players to use a "play disc" when there was really no non-anti-piracy reason to do so.

I understand trying to protect yourself from theft, but on the other hand, you can't call it a "stolen/lost" sale when it's not one you would have gotten anyway. 's why I like steam. Some devs are bright enough to understand that people may not buy the app at $60, but they'll probably shell out for $10-20, and you have the freedom to do so whenever you want.

Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Phoenix on 2017-08-16, 05:11
Yeah, and then there's this crap:




Trying to use the DMCA in this manner is, in essence, trying to create a legal requirement for users to consume copyrighted material.  Um... no.  That's not how it works.  First, you cannot force a person to consume media.  You can't force someone to go to a specific website on the internet.  Second, if there's child pornography or classified information on your computer you're criminally liable for it.  That puts a legal burden on the user to control the content on their computer.  Web hosts, and their respective ad pushers, have ZERO authority to control how their site is displayed once it reaches your hardware's circuits.  I'm really hoping this gets thrown out of court with prejudice as the DMCA was authored - however poorly - to address piracy, not ad blocking.

I go a step further.  I don't just run adblock, I also run Noscript, which really shuts down the crapware on the net.  I whitelist sites I trust or need functionality on.  Any others are disabled by default, and then treated selectively.  Don't like it?  Fine, I don't have to visit your site.  Most websites are no longer a single website anyway;  They're an amalgam of about a dozen (or more) different sites all running javascript and setting a few hundred different tracking cookies.  How do I know any of those secondary sites are legit?  How do I know that ad isn't coming from a malware-infected server?  I don't, so I'm going to block all that crap until I know the site is safe, and I'm still going to block the ad farms like doubleclick.  It's a bit more inconvenient sometimes when a site misbehaves due to a disabled script, but a "clean" page with adblock running that takes only a few seconds to load is preferable to the eyesore popup flashing animated and potentially dangerous crap that causes a page to take 20-30 seconds minimum to load on a 30+ Mbit connection because half the page is coming from God-knows-where to serve up the craptastic ad content.

So this is what it's all come to:  Someone bitches because people aren't making them their easy money so they lawyer up and play victim.  It couldn't possibly be that nobody wants their crap and it's their fault for being a crappy company or having an outdated and failed business model and needing to adapt... you know, the way capitalism used to work.  No, it HAS to be that everyone is a criminal and is "stealing" from them because people aren't doing thing the way they want so they have a temper tantrum like the spoiled little babies they are and sue so they can make everyone give them money that they did not earn.  Too sporking bad.  The day I am no longer able to filter that crap from my computer is the day I turn the internet off and don't look back.