Actually Elite Dangerous pissed me off way more than Diablo could - mostly because by the time D3 got out I lost faith in Blizzard anyway, so it didn't really catch me by surprise.

I'm not dismissing anything. I clearly pointed out that such concerns are legit and possible. But just by skimming through this thread it's obvious, how many act as if their concerns = facts. And that's simply not true.

Facts vs indicate, will be and highly probable. Yes that's opinion, not fact. Repeating it still doesn't make it fact.
And yes you're entitled to your opinion. I still wait for facts though.

Still find it unlikely to happen. This isn't a decision you just do on the fly and the paid mods as well as the refunds happened just recently.
On the other hand, they certainly aren't in a worse position then EA or Ubisoft was, so it is possible.

What I don't fear is the impact on the modding scene. If they even dare to make their client mandatory for mods, the shitstorm will overwhelm any PR attempt to justify it and make the paid mods debacle look like child's play. Not to mention that they could have done so with Steamworks already and made it just an option.

A lease is a contractual arrangement between two parties. It can be organized in many different ways and it doesn't have to have a strict termination date or a fixed "rent".

Edit:
Have you read the terms of agreement for most of these services. It might not be a lease, but it's a bit similar. Most of the game delivery platforms have something like this in the TOS:
*) You don't own the games, you pay the license to play them
*) You can play the game as long as you have the client installed
*) Your account can be terminated at any time
*) the service can be terminated at any time

So, it might not be a lease, but it's similar. Although it's more similar to subscription.

Anyways, it's your money. You can spend it however you want. Just, it's not bad idea to read the Terms of Service. It has a form of contract and it's probably acceptable as one in the most countries.

If you want "just to play a game", play it. You can ignore my post(s) in this topic completely (that means not downvoting too :P).

Don't try to back-peddle now. Accusing people of being "drama queens" or going on "witch burnings" as you put it hardly qualifies you as accepting people's concern as legitimate.

You keep repeating this pablum about "facts," when what you're really describing is probability vs possibility. The facts bear out people's concern as a probability not your vapid, posturing skepticism.

Is it possible Bethesda.net is not DRM? Yes.

Is it probable? No.

Why?

The facts:

1) There is no precedent. There is no major platform launch by a major publisher that hasn't been DRM (Battle.net, Origin, Uplay, etc.)

2) Bethesda supports DRM on their games via Steam.

3) Bethesda has removed their games from GoG (once they finalized the rights on older titles) and keeps their games available only through Steam. This is a move away from consumer choice.

4) Bethesda themselves in releasing this news pressed the idea that this will be a major part of all of their releases moving forward stating Bethesda.net "will be integrated" (i.e. not optional) in future releases. From the original article I linked (not that you bothered to probably read it) Pete Hines went on to state the platform will be “the heart of all our games going forward”

So all of this begs the question, which facts are you relying on to warrant your skepticism and provide the probability (not possibility) Bethesda.net isn't DRM? You certainly can't say it won't be required. We know it will and that's reason enough for many people to be upset.

I suppose you could dogmatically hold onto that thin possibility Bethesada.net may not be DRM, after all one can hold onto all sorts of irrational possibilities. It's possible there are unicorns. We've all heard of them right? There's no evidence to say they don't exist. Of course there's no evidence to say they do. And this is the position you find yourself in by propagating a flaccid belief that it's possible Bethesda.net is not DRM. All the facts point to the contrary.

... but throwing concerns around in a way that makes them look like "it has to be this way" is legitimate facts now? Sry, not in my book. Yes, this is over dramatization and exaggeration.
However nowhere denied I the possibility of an DRM-option or -requirement, so I don't see me back-peddle.

I made two points why such a platform makes sense: SnapMap and F4 mods on console. None of it automatically triggers DRM for me, but that may be just me.

I'll reply with your own quote which reads: "You keep repeating this pablum about "facts," when what you're really describing is probability vs possibility."

The facts are at this point unknown, no matter how much you throw on the probability or possibility scale. But if you're running a trial based on circumstantial evidence, stop claiming facts - because they aren't.

@Siannah,

Well Said.

Meh. I don't want to install yet another client for playing my Fallout 4... >_>

are you serious? it was terribly said by a well known beth fangirl

You are indeed back-peddling and trying to have it both ways. You claim to take people's concerns seriously while at the same time insulting the very people with the concerns.

First you deride and dismiss these people with concerns as drama-queens, witch burners, and shit throwers. Then you go on in your later post to characterizing them as presenting their concerns about DRM as facts - which is not true. This is a clear manipulation on your part. Their concerns/positions are clearly informed by facts. Conflating the order benefits your characterizations and dismissal.

It is also worth noting how you steer clear of addressing the known requirement (fact) that Bethesda.net will be pushed on users of future Bethesda titles. DRM or not this in itself is a lot to rage about. Avoiding this doesn't support your claim of empathy or neutrality.

At this point it is unimportant if you concede to this. Any reasonable person reading the thread will understand it.

Which moves us to the next point of how seriously you take the concern of DRM. You admit it's possible but chastise anyone's concern because as you put it "the facts are...unknown." Which is to say you don't take it seriously at all. DRM is the probable outcome of the facts we do know and the ones that are consciously absent.

As was already posted, which you conveniently ignored:

To remove agency from Zenimax - to pretend the absence of Bethesda.net being announced as DRM (or not) is simply an "unknown" - is both naive and gullible.

Many facts are known (they were even listed for you in easy to follow bullet form) you are simply unwilling to address them and instead continue repeating the same fallacy.

A lack of definitive proof is not proof in itself. Thus my prior example of unicorns. You are making an appeal to ignorance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

This is the fallacy you are repeatedly committing by propagating your inept, and lazy argument that nothing proves Bethesda.net is DRM. Nothing at this point may prove it, there are many facts that support it.

On the other hand there is nothing that either proves or even supports the idea that Bethesda.net isn't DRM.

Hmm now that you say it, I checked it a bit more carefully and yeah......................

Should have made a bit of digging myself before I reply...

Failing to see that your "probable" labels it automatically as "not fact" is exactly what I'm pointing out. Nothing more, nothing less.

Right, it isn't. Though you fail to see this as double edged.

Again, where did I disagree that it's not a possibility? I didn't - no matter how you interpret it. Points supporting concerns still don't make it facts.

Actually, the being reasonable and not jumping to conclussions part was what made me post in the first place - a clear mistake of me. Sry, won't happen again.

A platform for paid mods makes sense for Bethesda since their incompetence as developers forces them to rely on the modding community to make their games playable.

You've come back to pollute the thread with more of your incompetence? Well lets look at these half baked rebuttals that don't even qualify as complete sentences never mind a cogent thought or argument.

This is disingenuous, quite simply a lie.

You're still using an appeal to ignorance and obviously don't care to inform yourself or admit what that means.

The lack of definitive proof says nothing about reality. In the absence of definitive proof (either way) we are left with evidence. That evidence suggests the reality is Bethesda.net is DRM. There is no evidence to support the contrary. Something you obviously close your eyes to when committing the fallacy in the first place.

You have consistently reiterated that people are jumping the gun without a definitive proof of DRM. Your snide implication is that your position of only valuing the "facts" (what you mean is definitive proof) is superior to others reacting to just the evidence. You characterized them as drama-queens, shit-throwers, witch burners etc. Talk about "over dramatization and exaggeration."

But your position of "just the facts" (again terminology - you mean proof) is dishonest since you don't have a proof to the contrary - all things then being equal - all you have left is the evidence to draw on, and those "facts" don't support your position of disengaged apathetic concern. Which is why, post after post, you don't engage with them. So not only is your concern about proof (i.e. appeal to ignorance) fallacious but the "facts" you then go on to ignore is self-serving.

In other words you're not only making a bad argument, you're lying about the argument you're making.

I'm not going to piece together your fragment of a thought here, but it seems you might finally be catching onto what makes a fallacy a fallacy. If you had bothered to inform yourself of what others criticize you for you might be able to avoid this kind of dreck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

I've already responded to most of this trash at the top.

In addition - stop misusing and abusing the word "facts." You're looking for proof. Use the correct terminology if you want to continue this charade that you have something worth saying. There are plenty of facts, your lazy position doesn't benefit from them and so you simply ignore "the facts" while waiting for definitive proof. Which we've already gone over is a fallacy. Further possibility is not probability you should have learned the difference by now. You're either engaging in a red-herring here or showing us more of your incompetence.

Nothing you've posted has engaged in reason - nor what is reasonable - I doubt we have much to look forward to from you other than the smugness you've left above.

You know something? I've just had another vision of the future: There are some people in this forum that are going to have A LOT of fun with you. And I'm not talking about myself here.

Yawn.