Obsidian dev: not buying from Atari = death of CRPGs

[gromit]

Honestly, though, at least I understand the nature of the context enough to realize that I may be missing some.

Is that supposed to imply that your understanding is somehow richer and more nuanced than my simpleton's understanding?

Nope, it was meant to imply that I do not and cannot follow all the board rumblings and fanbase drama, which move about twice the speed of the rest of the web, and cede this point gladly. Granted, I missed that second "the" on attempt number one.

That said, taking the original dev(?) statement as a "threat" and specifically decrying a game you stopped caring about a year ago, make me wonder if you haven't spent too much time in the midst of that context, so to speak. When not filtering what is nothing more than some guy trying to be that outwitty, "gotcha!" kind of clever while making a bid for financial solvency through anger / "not-anger" at both this game and general disdain for nearly an entire industry (this I sadly share,) and your simpleton's understanding (heh, sorry) should be more than adequate, as there really is nothing rich and nuanced about the original statement itself.

As for anyone who "decides to exit the market" because of anti-DRM sentiment, they're probably just waiting for an excuse to leave these not-quite-verdant pastures, clearly have no passion for the platform / its unique nature and audience, and as a lone entity are most likely completely worthy of being written off by those with who do. But shit rolls downhill, not up, and "decides to exit the market" would be a really gentle way of putting it for a start-up in a niche of a niche. This is all in the same league of threat as "if you pull that plug, so help me god, I'll stop breathing!"

This thread is clearly no longer about the specific circumstances of this very extreme scenario, which is all that really interested me, and is now one of our regularly scheduled industry-hate circlejerks. I haven't got much love left for it, and plenty of hate for DRM, but these sentiments are so common here, and born out of such plain logic that they're just not particularly interesting to discuss, but "hear hear" and I am honestly with you all in rabbling. But Ossian themselves I couldn't join in the beating of (though they're not getting any of my money) as, like I said, I wasn't there to get pissed off at them through the delays, but moreso if anti-DRM purchasing power has enough mass to do anything at this point, these are the kinds of studios who CAN'T just shrug it off and go to console, and frankly don't have the pull to do much about the decision (I won't deny they put themselves in the original position that led to this one.) Yet if those boycotting really did care about the games / continued operation of Ossian (specifically) until this announcement, what a bunch of vindictive motherfuckers they are to double-screw them on top of Atari's initial shafting. The only people worth proving the point to are not yet in a position where they get affected by this and have to care, and I agree, fuck them in funny places with novel objects.

 

[Kogorn]

The thing that bothers me most is that game publishers have this conception that the harder you make the DRM the fewer incidents of piracy you have, which is completely false. The people I know who pirate to make things available for people do so because they enjoy the challenge of "cracking" the game, and then showing how foolish spending the money on DRM was. I don't have the links anymore, but there were several posts on the atari forums where people linked articles about how pointless spending the money on it is. There's evidence on both sides of course, but would you rather waste money or lose money from piracy? The former is YOUR fault that you can get screwed for and the latter is just fate, since it's just going to happen anyway. The fate route seems better to me.

That being said, I do think its unfair to fault publishers like Ossian for DRM fiascos. I think Ossian is just as pissed as everyone else about this because, while Atari paid them for the development, they aren't getting any royalties until the module actually starts selling. I don't think they forsaw the problems that new DRM software development would bring.

Lastly, at the very least, if game publishers want to improve the situation at least a little bit, they can stop using that SecurRom crap. I can't even count the number of people I know where that's screwed up their system.

 

[MLMarkland]

If "big" companies think they can make more cash in console market, all I can say is "good luck guys, but you won't be missed much".
There are lots of indie, semi-indie, or any other kind of game developers who would be delighted if didn't have to compete with current big guys, and if these big guys had packed up and left, they would grow, and finally would take the position which EA or Atari abandoned in their pursuit of more $$$. We can only hope that they would be smarter, but if not - not much loss, 'cause they too would be replaced with someone else.
Recent history shows, that it didn't have to be Black Isle to make outstanding cRPG and it certainly wouldn't have to be Obsidian to make another one.

I think some definitions regarding the structure of the game industry would be useful.

Obsidian is an independent developer. Publishers generally finance the development of games by developers, sometimes independent, sometimes subsidiary (first party, second party, third party are also phrases used in the game business to connote the various relations, though the usage can vary).

Independent developers do not, as a rule, self-finance projects; think of it like film production companies in relation to big movie studios and film finance entities. There are certainly exceptions, an independent developer might find so much financial success with a certain project that they are able to self-finance future projects.

Why is all of that important?

1) Folks should work hard to distinguish developers (the people who make games) from publishers (the people who finance, own and distribute games).

2) I want to correct the misnomer that is being repeated in this thread that developers are somehow going to "abandon PC game development" because of low sales -- that's a vast oversimplification of the dynamics in the game industry and counter to what I think most individual game developers want.

I think lots and lots of individual designers, producers, programmers and artists would rather make games solely for the PC.

Why?

Well, for one thing you can do whatever the hell you want with a PC. Need more RAM? Not a problem. Need to push 4 million faces of rendered geometry? Sure. You need to use the hard drive? Sure. Put the whole game on the hard drive. Etc. Would I rather design something for a mouse+keyboard or a xbox360 controller? That's a no-brainer. The list goes on and on.

The limitations of console development are challenging and frustrating.

At the same time, those limitations help standardize things. Make a game of the PC and you are pretty much guaranteed that 1-3% of the players will have progression breaking hardware or software issues, and you've got to support an extraordinary range of configurations.

There are pros and cons to both platforms.

That's getting onto a tangent, so to get back to the main point, the question that is really being posed by this thead, at the macro level is:

Do you want there to be a hard-edged recession in the PC games industry characterized by the flight of the old guard from the market which opens up the market to the potential of resurgance in the form of independent development; or do you want to soften the edges and maintain a less segmented industry. Just like console vs. PC development, there are pros and cons to both sides. Nothing is absolute except nothing and everything.

 

[ushdugery]

Do you want there to be a hard-edged recession in the PC games industry characterized by the flight of the old guard from the market which opens up the market to the potential of resurgance in the form of independent development; or do you want to soften the edges and maintain a less segmented industry. Just like console vs. PC development, there are pros and cons to both sides. Nothing is absolute except nothing and everything.

I think everyone was aware of that from the starting post and being the codex most of the people arguing have pointed out with their wideranging and multifaceted viewpoints (in what I interpret) as the former. The point still stands that it is ridiculous for a forum moderator to say that if you don't by games from my publisher (for whatever reason it may be) that the cRPG Industry will die.[/quote]

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Has anyone thought that maybe Atari's DRM isn't such faggotry as EA's?

 

[MLMarkland]

I think everyone was aware of that from the starting post and being the codex most of the people arguing have pointed out with their wideranging and multifaceted viewpoints (in what I interpret) as the former. The point still stands that it is ridiculous for a forum moderator to say that if you don't by games from my publisher (for whatever reason it may be) that the cRPG Industry will die.

[/quote]

See now look, that's just not accurate at all and its these kind of inaccuracies that motivated me to join the thread.

Rob McGinnis is an assistant producer at Obsidian Entertainment and he helps manage the Storm of Zehir expansion pack.

He is not a Bioware forum moderator, except to the extent that everybody that works on Neverwinter Nights franchise games has moderator-level rights on those NWN forums on the Bioware site.

He is not affiliated with Ossian Studios, the makers of the Mysteries of Westgate adventure pack. They are an entirely different company. Rob gets absolutely nothing if Mysteries of Westgate sells well.

Atari's DRM is rarely onerous like some other publishers. MoW is more onerous than normal Atari, but it's a digital download product -- it's no more onerous than Steam.

 

[aboyd]

Is that supposed to imply that your understanding is somehow richer and more nuanced than my simpleton's understanding?

Nope, it was meant to imply that I do not and cannot follow all the board rumblings and fanbase drama, which move about twice the speed of the rest of the web, and cede this point gladly. Granted, I missed that second "the" on attempt number one.

That said, taking the original dev(?) statement as a "threat" and specifically decrying a game you stopped caring about a year ago, make me wonder if you haven't spent too much time in the midst of that context, so to speak.

That's why I asked what your statement implied. Because of your misunderstanding. Nowhere have I said that I stopped caring about the game a year ago. A quick search of my posting history would have shown you my support of MoW for the entire past year -- I posted support in the announcement thread, was active and interested in the interview thread, and other threads. I've followed it for quite a while, and been in the "midst of that context" apparently far longer than you, by your own admission.

And so while I appreciate that you're trying to be objective (is that it? is that the goal?), I kinda don't appreciate that you make wrong assumptions about me that you could have verified/corrected with a simple search. I kinda also don't appreciate that you frame it as you did -- a negative characterization, yet a wrong one that puts the onus on me to correct.

I mean, if you're going to insult me, could you at least be accurate and not sloppy? And you know, be right?

 

[Shannow]

Haven't read the whole thread, but Mark made a point onto which I'd like to latch:

Here's what it does translate to: "If you don't buy bananas, it's less likely people will sell bananas." Whether protesting the pesticides used on the bananas or having the bananas is more important to you is a personal choice; the phenomenon I am describing (and Rob was originally alluding to) is just plain old microeconomics.

In the gaming industry it is true, because devs and publishers react irrational when their games are pirated. In any other industry they'd listen to their customers. You can buy bananas without pesticides. They are more expensive, people have less money, everything gets dearer and still the market for "bio" products is booming (at least here in Germany).

EDIT: @DemonKing: While we differ on our perception of how intrusive and aggravating DRM nowadays is, I want you to consider this: Spore was cracked the same day it was released. Probably every major title is cracked within a week of release. Will this lead to less DRM because it proved to be rather ineffectual or to more intrusive DRM? We will probably aggree that DRM will be further developed. Perhaps so far that you also get problems with it? Think about it.

@Naked Ninja: Who is the idiot? The ones not buying a product because it doesn't meet their expectations/requirements or publishers closing their eyes to all the negative buzz that their DRM-schemes create?

They aren't mindreaders.

Maybe they should be forum readers then? The Amazon censoring fiasco as well as the "we will break your legally purchased game if you don't stop complaining" fiasco show that the information is out there. Hell, even this thread is based off another forum discussion. You can disaggree and say that sales lost due to DRM are smaller than the ones gained by DRM but you can't pretend that the decision-makers have no possibility of "knowing" about the conflict.

@Mark: You've already backpedaled a bit but I'd like you to consider:
There are three markets for video games:
1 PC
2 Console
3 PC and console

The second and third being probably the largest. If devs move to the third and focus on the second, which seems to be what you were implying, not all from the first will move with them. So you have an undersupplied market and two with increased competition. Do you really think that the dev studio is sure to make more money that way? And yes, I'm talking in general, not specific to Ossian.

 

[trais]

If "big" companies think they can make more cash in console market, all I can say is "good luck guys, but you won't be missed much".
There are lots of indie, semi-indie, or any other kind of game developers who would be delighted if didn't have to compete with current big guys, and if these big guys had packed up and left, they would grow, and finally would take the position which EA or Atari abandoned in their pursuit of more $$$. We can only hope that they would be smarter, but if not - not much loss, 'cause they too would be replaced with someone else.
Recent history shows, that it didn't have to be Black Isle to make outstanding cRPG and it certainly wouldn't have to be Obsidian to make another one.

(...)
Why is all of that important?

1) Folks should work hard to distinguish developers (the people who make games) from publishers (the people who finance, own and distribute games).

I understand that Obsidian is a developer and Atari is a publisher, and I oversimplified, but the mechanism is still the same.
If publisher decides to move, you (Obsidian) can either go with him and that's the situation I've wrote about, or can stay and find new publisher, but that doesn't change anything from consumer point of view (which is btw the only important point of view here). You are still making games we like.

2) I want to correct the misnomer that is being repeated in this thread that developers are somehow going to "abandon PC game development" because of low sales -- that's a vast oversimplification of the dynamics in the game industry and counter to what I think most individual game developers want.

Oh yes, there's a third option I didn't mention: you can change focus and make "console games" and then port them to PC to tap both markets, but then don't bitch about PC gamers not wanting to buy your games. And ffs, don't blame your low sales on piracy and force on us any stupid and broken by design DRM as a remedy. Because it's not gonna work and it will only make you look stupid.

 

[tunguska]

Money spent on DRM: >0
Pissed off customers: >0
Pirates stopped: 0

Very well put. This really speaks to the core of the problem. DRM reduces the value of the game and the more intrusive it is the more it is reduced. It doesn't stop the pirates. What it does do is convert more people into pirates. And pirating software is like an addiction. Once you start it is hard to stop. If I'm going to rent a game I sure as hell am not going to pay $50 or more.

Also, I think any publisher which threatens that they are going to go exclusively to consoles is bluffing/lying. Why? Because a simple port from a console is *much* less expensive than the development of the content itself. Especially if the code is written with that in mind. And more than enough people are going to buy it to justify the expense of the port. Is any company, especially a publicly traded one really going to take action merely out of spite even if it means the loss of an opportunity to make money? I don't think so. And I can't help but notice that 99% of games that released today are already[/] written primarily with consoles in mind. That horse is out of the barn already. What they are threatening has already taken place.

The problem is that content providers never ask themselves the question "what makes people want to buy our stuff?" and instead choose to focus on making any form of copying as painful as possible.

Exactly. Merely making a fun game just means we want to play it. It doesn't mean we actually want to buy it. Fighting with your own customers is not generally a good idea, but severely reducing the value of the purchase (into rental category) is even worse.

For the most part DRM protests seem like a lot of hot air over nothing to me...unless you are regularly upgrading your computer/reinstalling Windows *and* you play the same game over and over again, the "draconian" DRM will have absolutely no effect on you...and even if you are in such a boat you can usually email customer support and they will let you install again.

Gamers do have a habit of upgrading their hardware on regular basis as tech improves. So your strawman doesn't work. And as far as emailing/begging the company, they may not be around anymore when that happens or they may choose to stop supporting the DRM system at some point in time. That is the most profitable (in the short run) course for them to take, and most companies tend to be pretty predictable when it comes to the decision of whether to make more profit or less profit. Also I refuse to beg for the chance to conitinue to play a game that I bought. Especially when pirates don't have to beg. It's not just a matter of practical issues. It is also a matter of principle. I am not going to be raped or ripped off if I can help it.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Money spent on DRM: >0
Pissed off customers: >0
Pirates stopped: 0

Very well put. This really speaks to the core of the problem. DRM reduces the value of the game and the more intrusive it is the more it is reduced. It doesn't stop the pirates. What it does do is convert more people into pirates. And pirating software is like an addiction. Once you start it is hard to stop. If I'm going to rent a game I sure as hell am not going to pay $50 or more.

Ditto.

The only thing left to add would be that the best way to increase the sales is to make good games, which is something I think Obsidian has done fairly well persistently, even delivering one great game.

Also, another vote for releasing on both a console and a PC, since while I prefer using my PC to play, I don't like the cost of keeping it viable.

EDIT: Not to mention that in the American business model the shareholders are the ones with the most influence (which is one of the reasons for the recent dumbfuckery). And they probably believe that "X less pirates = X more customers", that DRM raises the bar to pirate a game (lol) and that bad sales are because of piracy. And so they demand the executives to go out there and fight those mean pirates.

 

[DraQ]

@thread:
Failure of multiplatform developement.

 

[lefthandblack]

Also I refuse to beg for the chance to conitinue to play a game that I bought. Especially when pirates don't have to beg. It's not just a matter of practical issues. It is also a matter of principle. I am not going to be raped or ripped off if I can help it. [/i]

This.

If publishers/developers are going to leave the PC for consoles if we don't pay good
money for the privilege of being bent-over and abused like a crackwhore, then I say
good-fucking-riddance. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

I haven't bought a music cd from a big-label band since 2002 and I don't pirate music
either. There are plenty of independent artists for me to support, and I'm sure that
the same will hold true for PC gaming. Just as independent musicians came to the
realization that they didn't need Sony/Atlantic/Etc. in order to be successful,
independent and/or consumer friendly publishers and developers will fill any void left
by the big names taking their toys and going home. Sure, well have fewer games to
choose from, but 90% of what is being sold now is either buggy SHIT, unfinished SHIT,
just SHIT, or a combination of SHIT. Now you want to add a dose of PISS (DRM) to go
on top of your SHIT.

So please, by all means, take your SHIT and go home.

 

[Ausir]

Actually as far as I know the Black Isle name was intended to be put on FOOL. If that's no longer the case, they had a change of heart for some reason.

Maybe they will when the game is officially announced. For now they're using "Interplay Development Team".

 

[Darth Roxor]

You know what's the problem with DRM? The publishers probably never think IT might be the problem bugging their customers.

As in:

The game sells bad: OMG PIRACY HURT THE AWESOMEST GAME EVAR, BAD DRM, NOW WE NEED MOAR DRM TO KEEP THE PESKY PIRATES AWAY

The game sells well: GUD DRM KEPT THE PIRATEZ AWAY FROM THE AWESOMEST GAME EVAR!

so in conclusion, whatever you do, DRM stays. Why? Because if the game sells well, there's no need to take away the DRM, because it 'served its purpose in stopping teh evil pirates', while if it sells bad, it's always because of the 'piracy problem' and not because it was just plain fucking bad or the DRM was so intrusive even the honest people decided to wash their hands from it, and thus, the 'piracy' problem needs to be fought with even greater amounts of even more assholish DRM. The devs/publishers, especially the molochs like EA will never take it into mind that their products may have been flawed.

 

[MLMarkland]

Oh yes, there's a third option I didn't mention: you can change focus and make "console games" and then port them to PC to tap both markets, but then don't bitch about PC gamers not wanting to buy your games. And ffs, don't blame your low sales on piracy and force on us any stupid and broken by design DRM as a remedy. Because it's not gonna work and it will only make you look stupid.

Whether you port to PC after developing for the console first, or develop for the PC first, you still face the same issue over DRM -- that doesn't really change anything.

Also, I don't understand what you are talking about in regards to "blaming low sales on piracy" and "forcing on you any stupid and broken by design DRM as a remedy" I've not talked about either thing.

I haven't blamed low sales on piracy and I haven't suggested at any single moment that I am supportive of DRM. In fact, I stated the complete opposite multiple times in this thread alone.

I think folks should calm down and recognize that someone can objectively analyze a situation and come up with an answer that people don't personally like without the person analyzing being personally supportive of the individual components of that answer.

@Mark: You've already backpedaled a bit but I'd like you to consider:
There are three markets for video games:
1 PC
2 Console
3 PC and console

I haven't backpedaled at all. I stand by everything I have posted in this thread. I am tired of arguing though, that's for certain.

 

[trais]

Whether you port to PC after developing for the console first, or develop for the PC first, you still face the same issue over DRM -- that doesn't really change anything.

Agreed, but that wasn't the point. Let me clarify.
It's kinda obvious thing, so I assume you agree with me, that "PC crowd" doesn't like "console games" and vice versa, right?
Yet publishers doesn't seem to understand that. It's understood that they want to make as much money as it's possible and then some more, so they would like to sell games that will go well in both markets at once. But it's just not possible. Their games don't sell as well on PC as they planed, so istead of admiting that they fucked up they come out with excuses (most popular one being piracy), and threats that they will stop making games to that platform if people wouldn't buy them. Bearing that in mind, DRM was invented as a tool to stop piracy, but it just happend to not work. Not at all, or even have nagative effect on sales. Yet Atari and others insist on going that way, why? And why developers (eg. Mr McGinnis) doesn't try to convince them they're wrong, instead they repeats their threats?

Also, I don't understand what you are talking about in regards to "blaming low sales on piracy" and "forcing on you any stupid and broken by design DRM as a remedy" I've not talked about either thing.

I haven't blamed low sales on piracy and I haven't suggested at any single moment that I am supportive of DRM. In fact, I stated the complete opposite multiple times in this thread alone.

Well, not you personally, but when I said "you" I mean you as a independent company. And if I understand correctly, Obsidian is planning to patch DRM into NWN2, so you (again, Obsidian) must support it, otherwise you wouldn't do that. Simple.
I can imagine that it may not be your decision, that Atari may have forced you to implement DRM, despite your vehement protest, but then why nobody said in that thread OP had linked?

Anyway, I targeted company representative, not you as human being, so I apologise if you took it personally.

I think folks should calm down and recognize that someone can objectively analyze a situation and come up with an answer that people don't personally like without the person analyzing being personally supportive of the individual components of that answer.

Fair enough, but on my turn I think that people like Rob McGinnis should also STFU and not make any more damage to PC gaming (now that was personal).

 

[MLMarkland]

It's kinda obvious thing, so I assume you agree with me, that "PC crowd" doesn't like "console games" and vice versa, right?

No. That is not an obvious thing and I don't agree with you at all. I like both PC and console games. I generally prefer PC games, but like a lot of console games as well. I think a large portion of the gaming population has played games on both PC and console and likes games on both PC and console.

Well, not you personally, but when I said "you" I mean you as a independent company. And if I understand correctly, Obsidian is planning to patch DRM into NWN2, so you (again, Obsidian) must support it, otherwise you wouldn't do that. Simple.
I can imagine that it may not be your decision, that Atari may have forced you to implement DRM, despite your vehement protest, but then why nobody said in that thread OP had linked?

I think you misunderstand what this thread and discussion is about. Mysteries of Westgate is developed by Ossian Studios, not Obsidian Entertainment. The DRM under discussion in the original thread was DRM for Mysteries of Westgate. This has almost nothing to do with Storm of Zehir, the expansion pack Obsidian Entertainment is creating for NWN2. The confusion is understandable as "Ossian" and "Obsidian" are very similar words and both companies are making something for NWN2.

Anyway, I targeted company representative, not you as human being, so I apologise if you took it personally.

I've said this multiple times in this thread. I am talking about my personal opinions. This has nothing to do with Obsidian.

Fair enough, but on my turn I think that people like Rob McGinnis should also STFU and not make any more damage to PC gaming (now that was personal).

He is not trying to damage PC gaming. He is a fan of PC gaming. He is trying to do the exact opposite of what you are accusing him of.

 

[deuxhero]

I'm still getting MoW for free because Atari ****ed up with advertisement of the gold edition right? Or did they do change there position again (no, then yes, then back to no)?

 

[Starwars]

Last word I heard was that people who bought the Gold edition would still be able to activate a free download of MoW through input of their Reg keys. That was a while back though, no idea if they'll come through on it.

 

[Zomg]

I wonder how much of the installed base for PCs is increased by piracy. I'd be a lot of oeople shell out four times what they'd pay for a console partially because they're gonna pirate every single player game they can find. Probably helps WoW, you should demand a subsidy from 'em, har har.

 

[MLMarkland]

 

[Elwro]

I'd be a lot of oeople shell out four times what they'd pay for a console partially because they're gonna pirate every single player game they can find.

What? At least in my country if you know what you're doing you can build a gaming PC for the price of a next-gen console. Why "four times"?

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I'd be a lot of oeople shell out four times what they'd pay for a console partially because they're gonna pirate every single player game they can find.

What? At least in my country if you know what you're doing you can build a gaming PC for the price of a next-gen console. Why "four times"?

Because most people don't know how and where to shop.

 

[gromit]

a negative characterization... if you're going to insult me

I can't name a single person, alive or dead, who hasn't, at some time, been a little too close to something and lost some perspective for it, if that's the "negative characterization." Apparently you spent even -more- time in anticipation of what became, rather than a released game, this topic, which only makes it easier to start calling for them to be hung. If that's "the insult" that I'm wrong about - thinking you followed a game for less time than you actually did - I hereby sincerely and formally apologize for mixing up "should've been released a year ago" and "stopped caring a while ago" (which, without the benefit of inflection generally reads like a longer one than a shorter one,) and furthermore for not bothering to comb posts for the full "aboyd / MoW" story.

That last one's slightly less sincere, even though I really wasn't trying to offend you, as what I said is what it would be, a bother, and if you are honestly suggesting this is what I should have done, I don't know what to say or in what language. Heh, feel free to take offense to that one if you must - it's pretty snarky, and I proofread it, to boot - but for the record it's me being exasperated, not on the attack.

OK, so: now that I know you held interest until, at the earliest, the evening of July 8th (thank you for being the one person to pull the "search my posts" card to give links) could you please explain to me how, outside of being ideologically compatible at the most base, single-actor level, with the anarchic fantasy of "industry-free gaming," a new studio whose game you wanted three months ago being boycotted while Spore is presumably still jumping off the shelves regardless of a class-action suit, comes within a mile of the point you'd like to? Unless the point is just how when the industry goes down, you want people making games you anticipate to go down first, which is understandable in that it softens the blow. You won't get hurt by those you love if you don't love anyone, or kill them first?

Ossian aren't the ones doing this, though I'm sure we could dig up some ass-kissing PR, essentially typed from a cuecard. I'm going out on a limb here and saying that Atari was their publisher in July, so it's not like you were earlier boycotting them on mere principle of attempting to participate in the industry. They got fucked, fucked, and you now detachedly golf-clap at a tragedy in which, as cleverly pointed out, the only winners are the DRM companies themselves, yet the only real losers are a start-up company, and to a much lesser extent (most likely not the genre-cide arguably implied in the OP quote) the current / former fans of MoW. Others are, through boycott - which when posted as a call to arms drifts out of the realm of not buying something you don't want and into that of vendetta - actively trying to bring the game / studio / publisher down... it happens in that order, and doesn't really ever make it to "publisher," especially not when talking about a first-outing studio making an expansion pack.

This is all that confuses me, and all I object to. Okay, no, I'm also confused by why you picked out my post in the first place for your "Good, I WANT them to," because I was not attempting to perpetuate this "threat," or persuade your decisions with warnings, just saying it's such basic economic sense at the scale in question (i.e., not the entire industry, whose shit you apparently can and do eat when it serves to keep people who entertain you paid, or at least were willing to in July,) as to be terribly obvious, and that the entire situation is kind of sad if you don't have a bone to pick / nerdly vengeance the likes I have not seen since Chucky Cuevas; gee whiz thanks for replying shaking your fist.