DBC14 PC Version 1.14

[Alberts]

people want to have their cake and eat it, have a game that is continually supported and improved, but not have the developer protect their IP. that is beyond childish.

i am 100% serious that @BigAntStudios should roll out tomorrow a mandatory v1.15 for PC that removes the DRM and strips the game back to as per v1.00 and then let people decide to purchase the improvements and DRM or stick with the "out of the box" version. you can't have both, as things stand future DBC versions won't come to PC. people need to be confronted with the reality of that. You have literally had it too good.

I have supported Big Ant from the start, bought the game twice, and I will not be asking for a refund over this, but I do wish to make careful note that some may be affected by this that may not know their rights in Australia. For that reason I feel it is important to make note of them on here, and note my displeasure about how this change was rolled out. A solution to piracy needs to be found for them to be comfortable with the PC release, but the real key here is how it was done, and the fact that this is an after the fact, unadvertised change that can render the game unplayable.

What a pathetic and petty suggestion there though. That would be a great way for Big Ant to never be trusted again, just kicking their paying customers in the teeth for good measure. You know why they, nor any self respecting business would do that? Because hurting those who have actually paid tends to sink businesses, particularly in fragile markets such as the cricket gaming market.

It's also worth noting that as the game was for v1.00 I could have asked for a refund*. Not to mentioned that Big Ant actually talked on here about the changes they planned, including ones that are yet to be implemented. If people had bought the game due to those 'promised' features, from my understanding of the relevant Australian laws, they would be entitled to ask for a refund as well, but let's not get too into that whole can of worms. Big Ant have been absolutely outstanding with their support for the game, the only issue here was the new DRM being added after the fact, and how it was introduced.

We all want what's best for the series, and if that means further DRM for future PC versions, then I will stand by them on that.

Edit: *I also want to carefully note that the problem I had with v1.00 was fixed promptly by Big Ant, as they have done with most issues. They have done spectacularly well for the most part, the key really is that I'm worried that there are going to be people that have their games rendered unplayable, don't speak out to Big Ant because they don't think they have the right, then go on to bad mouth them and never buy from them again because of it. I've seen it happen before, and they don't deserve such a response.

It's also worth adding that for anyone who has an issue, message @BigAntStudios, and talk with them about it. I'm sure they'll find a good solution.

 

[grkrama]

so can we have a new thread for v1.14

 

[blockerdave]

We all want what's best for the series, and if that means further DRM for future PC versions, then I will stand by them on that.

you know, unequivocally that Ross has stated that current sales mean that there will not be any future PC versions of the series. this DRM is an attempt to change that, and you're quibbling over how it was introduced - that is ridiculous.

there will be no future PC versions unless this DRM works. it is that simple. anything else is irrelevant and quibbling over "how it was introduced" is ridiculous. it came as an update.

again, you want the support and improvements but you don't want Big Ant to protect their IP "this time". that is so childish, so illogical and so ridiculous whatever stage your mind reaches after boggling is where my mind goes trying to contemplate that reasoning.

 

[zimrahil]

All I know is Ross used to be a lawyer so shoud know what he is doing

 

[blockerdave]

All I know is Ross used to be a lawyer so shoud know what he is doing

i'm sure he doesn't know as much as Anne Robinson... sorry Alberts

 

[grkrama]

If people had bought the game due to those 'promised' features, from my understanding of the relevant Australian laws, they would be entitled to ask for a refund as well,

I think the conversation will be better if we stick to I myself and me instead of mass representing for people and being a pole bearer.

Anyone having a gripe will take it up.

If you are cool with it, no point in carrying the cross for assumed people.

 

[AnkitC]

Some sort of DRM is absolutely necessary especially considering the ratio of pirates to real buyers of this game.

But can't the DRM be done in a way similar to what we do in Android apps, where the check is done just the first time(i.e just the one time in this case) instead of checking every time.

I understand pirates might be able to break it(will obviously depend on how it's coded), so on top of that put a check for whether the executable is modified or not(I do a signature check in case of my android apps).

Many pirates have tried their hands at pirating my app and they still haven't managed to break my DRM.

I hope @BigAntStudios takes this as a suggestion.

 

[Alberts]

you know, unequivocally that Ross has stated that current sales mean that there will not be any future PC versions of the series. this DRM is an attempt to change that, and you're quibbling over how it was introduced - that is ridiculous.

there will be no future PC versions unless this DRM works. it is that simple. anything else is irrelevant and quibbling over "how it was introduced" is ridiculous. it came as an update.

again, you want the support and improvements but you don't want Big Ant to protect their IP "this time". that is so childish, so illogical and so ridiculous whatever stage your mind reaches after boggling is where my mind goes trying to contemplate that reasoning.

I don't want them to annoy a fraction of their paying customers and scare them off. For every person who comes on here to complain that their game has been rendered useless, there will be others who say nothing and just hope it starts working again. Those are the ones who'll blacklist and badmouth them. The key lesson learned in the industry through steam was that you have to worth with your community and hurting even the smallest fraction of them can have massive ripple effects. I'm sure Big Ant know this, and I'm sure they're making a calculated risk in the way they've introduced the DRM. I just wished that they'd talked with their community about it more, and made sure we knew it was coming first. Had it been in and publicised from the start, there would be no issues to answer here.

All I know is Ross used to be a lawyer so shoud know what he is doing

I'm certain he does, and being in the industry I'm sure he knows his consumer law back to front.[DOUBLEPOST=1411236465][/DOUBLEPOST]

Some sort of DRM is absolutely necessary especially considering the ratio of pirates to real buyers of this game.

But can't the DRM be done in a way similar to what we do in Android apps, where the check is done just the first time(i.e just the one time in this case) instead of checking every time.

I understand pirates might be able to break it(will obviously depend on how it's coded), so on top of that put a check for whether the executable is modified or not(I do a signature check in case of my android apps).

Many pirates have tried their hands at pirating my app and they still haven't managed to break my DRM.

I hope @BigAntStudios takes this as a suggestion.

The problem with a one time setup is that it can be worked around, and it makes it easier to break the DRM. If it "stops checking" after the first time, then there's a mechanism to use to have it never check in the first place.

DRM is an arms race, and if the pirates are really in for the fight, it doesn't matter what they come up with. The key is slowing them, and hoping to convince some of the pirates to buy the game in the meantime.

 

[Owl]

you know, unequivocally that Ross has stated that current sales mean that there will not be any future PC versions of the series. this DRM is an attempt to change that, and you're quibbling over how it was introduced - that is ridiculous.

there will be no future PC versions unless this DRM works. it is that simple. anything else is irrelevant and quibbling over "how it was introduced" is ridiculous. it came as an update.

again, you want the support and improvements but you don't want Big Ant to protect their IP "this time". that is so childish, so illogical and so ridiculous whatever stage your mind reaches after boggling is where my mind goes trying to contemplate that reasoning.

I think you're misreading what he, I and some other people are saying.

We are accepting of the DRM and the reasons for it. It just is kinda sucky.

Alberts is only mentioning that this could be conceived as breach of Australian Consumer law. It just means that people have grounds for a refund as it wasn't advertised as such. He isn't suggesting people we seek a refund, just stating they are entitled to (if they so desire) under law. Big Ant also says they would take refunds which is in line with Australian Consumer Law.

 

[blockerdave]

I don't want them to annoy a fraction of their paying customers and scare them off. For every person who comes on here to complain that their game has been rendered useless, there will be others who say nothing and just hope it starts working again. Those are the ones who'll blacklist and badmouth them. The key lesson learned in the industry through steam was that you have to worth with your community and hurting even the smallest fraction of them can have massive ripple effects. I'm sure Big Ant know this, and I'm sure they're making a calculated risk in the way they've introduced the DRM. I just wished that they'd talked with their community about it more, and made sure we knew it was coming first. Had it been in and publicised from the start, there would be no issues to answer here.

there is no issue to answer full stop. the game needs DRM to be viable, so they introduces DRM. end of story.

 

[Alberts]

there is no issue to answer full stop. the game needs DRM to be viable, so they introduces DRM. end of story.

Okay, just to clarify, what are you saying here:

1. That Big Ant, push comes to shove, have categorically not done anything that would give people the ability to ask for a refund under Australian Consumer Law
2. DRM is more important than needing to give a few refunds

 

[MattW]

well itunes makes you pay for stuff upfront and you still don't actually own the music you 'buy' from it.

Well iTunes' music is DRM free, and plays on my Zune just fine .

If tomorrow they retroactively updated the songs with DRM that undid that and restricted me to an internet connected device, then I would rightfully be upset - I bought from them under the understanding that I would be free to play it offline, and that being changed after purchase wouldn't be acceptable to me.

I don't bemoan anyone in the same circumstance being annoyed about the change to how DBC14 operates.

I can fully understand their reasoning - seemingly everyone who has posted about it totally understands that the level of piracy of this game is totally unacceptable, and fully understand the necessity of Big Ant's decision. But it does have a practical impact on those who have done the right thing.

It's not nearly as bad as some DRM - I avoided Sim City until they introduced the offline mode, and then bought it immediately after that patch was announced - hopefully to let my wallet 'vote'. Their issue was that you needed the server there all the time - while DBC is just a once off on launch. I find that okay, as half the time Steam's offline mode screws up anyway. EA in the end were saving me from myself - those tiny cities and dumbed down gameplay made it a bad choice to buy in the end.

You can simultaneously fully understand the need Big Ant have to do something about the sheer volume of piracy of their game killing the viability of the series, and be annoyed with the impact it has on you as a legit player.

I'll just direct that annoyance in hoping that the next torrent the pirates get is the kind that drowns them to death. Especially people who claim to be fans of cricket games, so much so that they'd be a member of a website dedicated to it, but would happily choke the lifeblood out of it by destroying the last chance this community has of getting a PC cricket game.

It's nice that you don't care about other people and all, but personally I think that ticking off the fan base isn't a great way of building a good reputation. You can say what I've said is nonsense, and you can call people idiots, but that doesn't change the facts in the matter. Those who have bought the game in Australia, should they take issue, may well be able to ask for the new DRM to be removed, or for a refund, as at time of purchase it wasn't stated.

I suppose Big Ant could fall back on the EULA you would have carefully read -

2.2 License Control. Licensee acknowledges that the Software may contain code or require devices that detect or prevent unauthorized use of, or disable, the Software.
​

Though given this other clause, I think they'll be a bit flexible if someone genuinely did want a refund over the change

3. SUPPORT SERVICES
Licensor shall have no obligation to support any version of the Software.​

I'm sure Ross takes his lack of obligation very seriously.

Of course consumer law does trump EULAs, given Steam itself already requires online connectivity, despite offering an 'offline' mode, it would be hard to make a legal case on that basis. I doubt it would ever go that far though, Ross seems to have suggested where someone has a genuine grievance over it, a solution would be offered (I don't think someone with 100s of hours would deserve a full refund over it though)

For that reason I feel it is important to make note of them on here, and note my displeasure about how this change was rolled out.

I think about the only reason for the lack of this being signalled earlier would be to prevent the pirates getting a heads up - that a bunch of them might try and go to the update straight away and kill their game, rather than know in advance not to move beyond 1.13.

so can we have a new thread for v1.14

1.14 added DRM to the game, this is an appropriate place to have a discussion.

 

[grkrama]

1.14 added DRM to the game, this is an appropriate place to have a discussion.

think my [HASHTAG]#sarcasm[/HASHTAG] icon was missing there.

 

[Alberts]

Well iTunes' music is DRM free, and plays on my Zune just fine .

If tomorrow they retroactively updated the songs with DRM that undid that and restricted me to an internet connected device, then I would rightfully be upset - I bought from them under the understanding that I would be free to play it offline, and that being changed after purchase wouldn't be acceptable to me.

I don't bemoan anyone in the same circumstance being annoyed about the change to how DBC14 operates.

I can fully understand their reasoning - seemingly everyone who has posted about it totally understands that the level of piracy of this game is totally unacceptable, and fully understand the necessity of Big Ant's decision. But it does have a practical impact on those who have done the right thing.

It's not nearly as bad as some DRM - I avoided Sim City until they introduced the offline mode, and then bought it immediately after that patch was announced - hopefully to let my wallet 'vote'. Their issue was that you needed the server there all the time - while DBC is just a once off on launch. I find that okay, as half the time Steam's offline mode screws up anyway. EA in the end were saving me from myself - those tiny cities and dumbed down gameplay made it a bad choice to buy in the end.

You can simultaneously fully understand the need Big Ant have to do something about the sheer volume of piracy of their game killing the viability of the series, and be annoyed with the impact it has on you as a legit player.

I'll just direct that annoyance in hoping that the next torrent the pirates get is the kind that drowns them to death. Especially people who claim to be fans of cricket games, so much so that they'd be a member of a website dedicated to it, but would happily choke the lifeblood out of it by destroying the last chance this community has of getting a PC cricket game.


I suppose Big Ant could fall back on the EULA you would have carefully read -

2.2 License Control. Licensee acknowledges that the Software may contain code or require devices that detect or prevent unauthorized use of, or disable, the Software.
​

Though given this other clause, I think they'll be a bit flexible if someone genuinely did want a refund over the change

3. SUPPORT SERVICES
Licensor shall have no obligation to support any version of the Software.​

I'm sure Ross takes his lack of obligation very seriously.

Of course consumer law does trump EULAs, given Steam itself already requires online connectivity, despite offering an 'offline' mode, it would be hard to make a legal case on that basis. I doubt it would ever go that far though, Ross seems to have suggested where someone has a genuine grievance over it, a solution would be offered (I don't think someone with 100s of hours would deserve a full refund over it though)


I think about the only reason for the lack of this being signalled earlier would be to prevent the pirates getting a heads up - that a bunch of them might try and go to the update straight away and kill their game, rather than know in advance not to move beyond 1.13.


1.14 added DRM to the game, this is an appropriate place to have a discussion.

My understanding of Australian law is that EULA agreements don't and cannot overide Australian law, as you point out. They can put whatever they please in there, but if they conflict with the law, the law always comes first.

It's also worth noting that if someone did wake up tomorrow, angry, and went straight to the courts, they'd (as in the angry person) get a huge fine (again, if I recall my law properly) for a frivolous case. The only time you'd actually "go to court" over such a matter is if every other form of discussion between the parties failed. In the first instance people should talk the Big Ant, I'm sure if someone genuinely can't connect consistently and the game is rendered unplayable they'll offer a refund.

As for those with "100s of hours played" not deserving a refund. It's a piece of software, there is no successor software out. It's an reasonable expectation that the game would be playable until the next iteration in the series is released. I don't care if someone has 2,000 hours played, if their game is rendered unusual, and no reasonable solution can be found, they deserve a refund.

 

[Dutch]

My understanding of Australian law is that EULA agreements don't and cannot overide Australian law, as out point out. They can put whatever they please in there, but if they conflict with the law, the law always comes first.

It's also worth noting that if someone did wake up tomorrow, angry, and went straight to the courts, they'd (as in the angry person) get a huge fine (again, if I recall my law properly) for a frivolous case. The only time you'd actually "go to court" over such a matter is if every other form of discussion between the parties failed. In the first instance people should talk the Big Ant, I'm sure if someone genuinely can't connect consistently and the game is rendered unplayable they'll offer a refund.

As for those with "100s of hours played" not deserving a refund. It's a piece of software, there is no successor software out. It's an reasonable expectation that the game would be playable until the next iteration in the series is released. I don't care if someone has 2,000 hours played, if their game is rendered unusual, and no reasonable solution can be found, they deserve a refund.

Never happened when they pulled the servers for Ashes online both 09 and IC10 version..........or a zillion other examples I can think of........