Adventure Gamers - Forums

The question is not wether game developers find meaning or not in making their preferred games. Of course, they do.  The question is wether making games can give them enough money to cover the bills because if it doesn’t then they’ll eventually switch to something more rewarding and we won’t get games that we love.

So, before being exalted for his work being enjoyed by everyone, the true artist has to eat. If we only relied on people with the means supporting great artist with donations then we’d get a lot less games. Already Kickstarter, which is kind of based on this idea, is less effective than last year ago and average funding is lower.

I like the fact that some people can make a career out of making game instead of doing it as a hobby but for that to work, it has to be profitable to make games.

Now back on topic, my view on all this doesn’t stop me from being firmly against DRMs as I think they are ineffective in what they’re trying to fight against and harm the customers more than the pirates who just strip them.

Yeah - pirates and crackers will always circumvent DRM, and it does just annoy legal honors.  I don’t like DRM, either.  I understand the need behind it’s creation, but ultimately, I don’t condone it.  Which means you leave yourself on the honor system, and - well - most people just aren’t that honorable.

Bt

Oscar - 28 October 2014 03:37 AM

Maybe I’m wrong but I can’t see much business potential in this:

We know very little about the circumstances under which most cave paintings were produced (this one in particular looks Australian, but I’m speaking more generally), but if they had a religious function, it’s worth pointing out that historically in many societies a priestly caste have controlled access to temples and holy places, and been supported by the offerings of worshipers. Which is simply to say that whether or not it had “business potential”, it’s not inconceivable that the artwork offered material benefits.

Sefir - 28 October 2014 06:25 AM

No one painted for free without being extremely rich (like the Royal ones) and those who did, like Van Gogh, died extremely poor…..

And Van Gogh didn’t paint for free on purpose, he painted for free because he and his brother couldn’t find buyers for his work.  He desperately sought the public approval and sale of his paintings, and his failure to succeed in that area is likely a major factor in his eventual mental breakdown and suicide.  Artists have never been altruists.

Blackthorne - 28 October 2014 08:19 AM

and - well - most people just aren’t that honorable.

I think we are mixing ownership with enjoying art here.

For me personally, I prefer none DRM products over DRM ones, just because from personal experience, DRM has only gotten in the way of playing legitimately bought games. Also, although I believe that Steam is millions of times better than the old DRM products like Starforce, and I do use it regularly (especially for crazy sales and games you can’t find anywhere else), I am still wary about the fact that Valve might not exist one day, and the $$$$s I payed are gone. I know buying games on Steam is like getting a license to play these games, but I do believe that license should exist forever, even when Steam is no more. Otherwise, it just feels more like a long term rental service.

As far as whether piracy affects game sales or not, I think for the most part it does, but I don’t believe that having DRM there (especially on a PC platform), is going to have any difference on the piracy numbers. Crackers are going to crack your game, DRM or not, and you’ll probably just end up pissing off people with crappy DRM. Steam does DRM right IMO, but I’m still wary about the prospect of losing my game library someday.