{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/15/2015 11:53:17 PM
2
This has everything to do with a business making money and DRM. Now that many games are digital, it makes it harder to control who has purchased the game to play, and who is playing for free. There is a gray area here, and the industries and consumers are trying to figure out where the line will be drawn. On one side you have people that bought a game, and want to play it feeling they have bought the rights to play that game as they see fit. On the other you have a business that doesn't want to make a product only to have people buy it, and then share it with a bunch of people that didn't pay for it. The law is playing catch up here as well determining where that line should be drawn.
The particular issue is here is one person buying the game to play on two accounts. A single person should realistically be able to use his copy as he sees fit. Unfortunately that same scenario could be one person buying the game to play it on his account, and then letting his friends and family play on his/her system for free.
I think a fix for this in the future will be people purchasing content, and then buying additional "keys" for a price that is far cheaper than a brand new copy, but can be given to people to access the original content.
English
-
Now the "keys" idea could be a good compromise so that people won't get turn off from their favorite game while still not paying through the nose. I for one bought TTK on my brother's profile and am myself unable to play but have played it one one of his spare characters would gladly pay, say $15 for example, to play as well. But having to pay multiple times for content of this price might be asking I bit much.
-
I'm not saying this is you, but I'm tired of people who played 1000+ hours over the last year complaining that the $100 they paid over the last year was too much, can you name a single other game ever made that provided a experience that was less than 10 cents a hour? Almost every week games are released that give you under 20 hours of content for $60 and a word I never spoken about them (and at $3 a hour that's 20 times more expensive).
-
[quote]I'm not saying this is you, but I'm tired of people who played 1000+ hours over the last year complaining that the $100 they paid over the last year was too much, can you name a single other game ever made that provided a experience that was less than 10 cents a hour? Almost every week games are released that give you under 20 hours of content for $60 and a word I never spoken about them (and at $3 a hour that's 20 times more expensive).[/quote] First off the main problem with your statememt is that its not logical and doesnt pertain to those games you are talking about because destiny is an fpsmmo. Mmos r suppose to be played over 1000s of hours to achieve the best stuff throught the whole thing. Two, Dcuo is one of the first mmos to come to consoles and be played over 1000s of hours. Dcuo has had its backlash with certain changes it has made and has changed them back. the fact of you saying that "your tired about people complaining about a game they paid 100 dollars for since other games are sold for about the same plus dlc and nothing is said about them" is nul void because the two genres of game do not corrolate one bit! Mmos compared to games you play threw once and go back to every now n then or never go back to are not the same. Mmos r built, structured and made to be played non stop till the companys servers stop. Not some 60 20 hour tops game you are talking about.
-
Skyrim
-
So go be a Bethesda fan boy
-
Edited by Wagsman1: 9/16/2015 4:50:02 AMI've thought in the time since this came out that it could be a possible fix, and in order to protect developers, each copy could come with a fixed amount of keys that could be shared with whoever shares the console. The developer protects his right to make money off of his copyrighted material, and the purchaser protects his right to share the content that they legally bought. The person that is "mooching" in this case pays a fee to access content legally. The legendary edition was supposed to be the stop gap between allowing gamesharing in the first year, and going full DRM in the second year. In your specific case, you were supposed to buy your own copy of everything for $60 giving you full ownership of your own copy that is tied to your account. So if you bought your own console and moved out next year, all you would need to do is re-download all the content and you would be good to go, rather than be tied to your brothers console for the life of this game. I think that was the theory on their end. Specifically as many of their customers are teenagers that will no doubt move out at some point. This gives those people the ability to live their life and play this game on their own terms instead of only being able to play the game when the visit their brother or what have you. However, the theory didn't pan out too well.
-
Nobody likes DRM.... No one will ever like DRM... We all saw how the gaming community responded to Microsoft and DRM
-
It doesn't matter if you like it or not. What matters in the end is what's legal. If companies lobby politicians to make laws that allow DRM, then that's the law. If you don't like it change the laws. Hell, let's just go all the way and make all games free because why not???
-
"It doesn't matter if you like it or not" Really???? Ask Microsoft how well DRM went
-
You make a few good points here. Especially your idea of "keys". I don't believe the issue of multiple accounts on a single console is the issue, as long as it is a single console. So only one version of the game can be used at a time. You also have to balance the needs/rights of the consumer. I chose to buy the digital version of Destiny, despite the fact that it costs the same as the physical copy, because it comes with two licenses, so I can play the game on two consoles at once. I balance that with the fact the I can't resell the game. Publishers have to consider that consumers have a great deal of choices where to spend our money. If they're not giving us value for our investment we'll find somebody else who is.
-
It is a violation of EULA to not allow an account on the same console to have access to any content purchased on the console. The idea of "keys" is moot because of that.
-
Edited by Wagsman1: 9/17/2015 12:40:55 AMThat is incorrect. EULA is a contract between the licenser and the purchaser. In this case, Bungie is the licensor and the player is the purchaser. The contract states that the purchaser has the right to use a copy of the software; however, the licenser may define ways in which the copy can be used, which is what Bungie has done here. Additionally, there are two licenses in question. The local license is granted by Microsoft and Sony for their consoles, and generally allows for multiple users on a single console. The system license is granted by the developer or owner of the content. They have the legal right to define the system license however they see fit and to inform the purchaser via the EULA. If the purchaser accepts the EULA, they enter into a contract that states that they will not redistribute or resale the content without the expressed written consent of the licenser. DRM is an additional failsafe built into digital content to protect the licenser from purchasers redistributing their content without their knowledge or permission.
-
The two licenses in question come with the Microsoft DRM. They are part of the contract with the consumer when the game is purchased. The Microsoft DRM page, which if have linked to elsewhere, is very clear on this, nowhere does it say that some games at the discretion of the Publisher may invalidate either of these to licenses which we purchase with a game. If you have read documentation somewhere that says otherwise then please include your sources. But this is all a moot point, as the tTK software description on the page clearly states that the Local license is included with the game. They are not living up to the EULA on the package of the software. So either they need to offer refunds for people who want what was advertised, or they need to FIX the defective software.
