LGP To Introduce Game Copy Protection
I feel that as long as the company's server is online and responsive, that online authentication (like steam does) is a great idea with more benefits than drawbacks.
First of all, let's compare the pros and cons of using something like Steam to play Half Life 2 vs playing a pirated copy.
Using Steam to play Half Life 2, I
- get automatic patches
- can download all game content from any location I'm at without having to search for it.
Playing Half Life 2 pirated? Well, I
- probably won't have the most up to date patch because the crack for it doesn't exist yet
- would have to wade through malicious sites trying to find a crack, bombarded with a bunch of annoying pop-ups and banners or (see next)
- may have to advertise to the world that I'm downloading a cracked copy of HL2 because my IP address is visible via Bit Torrent
- may end up downloading a bunch of malicious software bundled in with the cracked version, because, let's face it, I have NO way of knowing where this cracked version is clean; what is to stop Mr Leet Hax0r from injecting a keystroke logger service along with the crack that he has so "generously" provided?
Using pirated software is so incredibly inconvenient vs using Steam that aside from the legal and moral aspects, it is a complete no brainer for me to purchase the games. I'm currently investing 2-3 hours a day in Valve's Team Fortress 2, a title which you can purchase for __$20__. Who in their right mind is going to try to pirate Team Fortress 2?
And sorry to say, but if I'm a game developer and 10,000 people are pirating my game, I'm not going to care about the 10 people who want to play my game from their internet-less hotel room. That is also a no brainer. Online authentication is here to stay and if/when the developer/publisher goes out of business, as you pointed out, if the game is popular enough, cracked copies will be readily available, so your argument about needing to have a non-authenticating single player game is null.
Matt Ownby hasn't submitted any stories.
I've noticed that Slashdot seems to enjoy to stir fear into everyone's hearts by posting stories of perceived Censorship injustices.
Ok... so... if my hypothetical son came into my house with a bag full of horse manure and wanted to spread it all over the rug and stink up my house... if I say 'No!', I am censoring him because I am preventing him from experiencing what it would be like to smear manure on a rug and sniff it in? I don't think so. But if my son came home with a filthy video or magazine and wanted to read it, am I censoring him because I won't let him read it in my house? Strangely enough, some Slashdot users would say yes. To me, both these scenarios are exactly the same. They both involve someone coming into my home and wanting to spread filth around, but since it's my (and my wife's) home, we're the ones who call the shots, not our kids. The kids can pour as much manure on their rugs in their own houses when that time comes if they choose to do so. Of course, we will advise them that they won't enjoy the consequences of that action, but we will realize that it's their decision to make.
Now regarding the issue of "censoring" bad parts out of movies... let's say that you came to my door with an awesome suit but had manure on the bottom of your shoes and you wanted to come in. Would I say "No under any conditions" ? No, I think I'd probably say "You can come in if you clean the crap off the bottom of your shoes." And then would you say "What? But that would totally change the artistic expression I am trying to present with this suit with crap-covered shoes! You are censoring my outfit!"
That is, of course, ridiculous. It's equally ridiculous in my opinion, if I buy or rent a movie, and want to edit out the parts I deem to be filthy, that some people actually have a problem with this and think I am desecrating their art. I've got news for those people.. it's not art.. it's crap. The reason I am editing it out is because it is crap and it smells. If they don't want me tinkering with their movie, they maybe should think about cleaning the crap off the bottom of the shoes before they try to get it into my house.
What I've described isn't censorship at all in my opinion.
Censorship is when a government tries to suppress information that could lead to people becoming more empowered. Censorship is when a government tries to deliberately cripple people in order to maintain power over them. Censorship's goal is to stifle growth.
I think that saying video games never teach people that violent principles are acceptable is as irresponsible as saying video games always teach people that violent principles are acceptable.
I think video games do present a message, even if it's as something as obvious as "Spending countless hours playing this MMORPG is definitely worth your time!" I think that violent video games present a message that at best says violence may be necessary in certain situations, and at worst says that acting on violent principles produces happiness.
I personally have little sympathy for video game companies who produce games that teach us that "violence makes you happy" and then hide behind the "It's your parents' responsibility to teach you that what we're teaching you is a lie!" Every person is accountable for what they strive to teach other people.
Our physical bodies are clearly gifts given to us. They know how to reproduce. Our minds don't know how to reproduce without using our bodies' built-in reproductive functions. Therefore, something more advanced than us must have created our bodies, therefore, our bodies are gifts given to us.
I visit slashdot because I am interested in various software developments such as free software, linux, open source, cool projects, clever hacks, etc, etc ...
I discovered a while ago that the news items of this site seem to have a rather biased politcal agenda motivating them which I will list here:
- censorship must be blindly opposed in every form
- extreme paranoia about privacy is encouraged
- people who steal music/movies/software are viewed in a very sympathetic light
Basically, if you want to get moderated up around here, you simply have to post a strong message promoting one of those 3 opinions. If you post anything that disagrees with those 3 points, you will be moderated down as a troll or as flamebait, even if you had no intention of trying to stir up negative reactions.
It's really pretty sad that users who think of themselves as "anti censorship" try to make differing opinions "go away" as quickly as they can...
When bad things happen to people, they tend to remember God and be humble. When times are prosperous, people tend to forget God and become prideful. Wouldn't it be nice if we could always remember God during prosperous times?