DRM is excellent/evil! I love/hate DRM!

[FullAuto]

Serious DRM in Spore.

 

Going a bit too far here, surely? They really love to try to combat piracy.

[Gimli]

Two more games for me to not get. Oh wait, I haven't gotten almost anything new in what - 3 years?

[FullAuto]

I don't understand it at all. Punishing legitimate consumers for piracy. If there's anything guaranteed to annoy people into pirating a game, it's things like this.

[Space Voyager]

I don't understand it at all. Punishing legitimate consumers for piracy. If there's anything guaranteed to annoy people into pirating a game, it's things like this.

What punishing of legitimate consumers?

 

I do think that they may soon find out that ANY protection can be broken. I hope they didn't waste too much money on it...

[Kret]

In the end, this only contributes into releasing a patch that changes the check frequency so it is only performed the first time after installation which simply add up to extra costs added to the loss of sales from the piracy they try (and eventually fail) to prevent.

[FullAuto]

What punishing of legitimate consumers?

 

Starforce, MSN Music, Bioshock, Sony CDs, et al. The limiting of legit users' rights in the vain hopes of dissuading pirates.

[Matri]

I hope they didn't waste too much money on it...

 

How else can they "prove" that piracy is costing them "millions"?

[Strong Bob]

Where is the punishment? It's merely a form of protection.

 

To be honest, the only "punishment" I've observed is that this information is not listed on the box. When I bought Battlefield 2051, I had no idea that it was primarily an online game until I opened the box. I think that is even worse than requiring an occasional check.

 

Here's a good question... Does anyone have any numbers on how many people are genuinely dissuaded from purchasing DRM games? Or primarily online games in general? I don't mean how many of 'you' are dissuaded. I mean actual sales losses compared to games without such a protective feature.

 

Keep in mind, more than the average PC gamer tends to have a stable internet connection, making this DRM option not even remotely a problem for the majority. So why do people truly have such a problem?

[FullAuto]

How else can they "prove" that piracy is costing them "millions"?

 

Matri, you're forgetting the fact that the companies know exactly how many times their games have been pirated, and are able to calculate their losses from said activities to the nearest penny.

 

 

Hang on...

[Knan]

Mass Effect & Spore surely should have enough PR that they don't need to stoop to this "any publicity is good publicity" level...

[Strong Bob]

Matri, you're forgetting the fact that the companies know exactly how many times their games have been pirated, and are able to calculate their losses from said activities to the nearest penny.

 

 

Hang on...

Perhaps that is what this is for?

 

All things considered, I would say that it doesn't take much to to at least estimate a minimum loss. An employee at a game design company just needs to see how many seeders there are for a torrent of his own game (Which can sometimes be a very large number...) to get some approximation.

 

I know photoshop literally could not be used until you recieved a password you paid for. This could be cracked with a false password, of course. But in the end, tons and tons of people registered their product online and continue to use it. But do you know how much Adobe actually made? I don't, but I can be sure that it wasn't as much as they expected.

 

Mass Effect & Spore surely should have enough PR that they don't need to stoop to this "any publicity is good publicity" level...

 

Did you read the post? It's about copy protection, not publicity. They made this decision to rake in the money, not to broadcast an ad.

 

I think I will ask again.

 

1- Where is the punishment to legit buyers of this merchandise? All you need is the internet, and if you don't have it, there are lots of games you cannot play... None of which even have anything to do with copy protection.

 

2- Does anyone have any numbers of sales lost due to intense copy protection measures? I'm genuinely curious, because even Bioshock's stupid form of protection yielded decent sales.

[Azrael Strife]

Copy protection is very much pointless, I am still not sure about what the publishers are trying to achieve, because it sure as heck is not going to reduce piracy

 

I would like to know, however, how effective was Stardock's (I think it was Stardock) policy on not using a copy protection for Galactic Civilizations II, did their sales perform below expectations?

[Gimli]

1- Where is the punishment to legit buyers of this merchandise? All you need is the internet, and if you don't have it, there are lots of games you cannot play... None of which even have anything to do with copy protection.

 

2- Does anyone have any numbers of sales lost due to intense copy protection measures? I'm genuinely curious, because even Bioshock's stupid form of protection yielded decent sales.

 

1 - Every year I go on a vacation for a month or two. Which means the game won't be able to check on the internet. Think about that a little.

 

2 - Yes, but Bioshock was hyped to no end. Also, you should have been around the 2K forums for the first month or so after its release and seen all the negative feedback on Securom. The forums were swarming with people angry at 2K. Unfortunately these copy protection schemes do not always work properly so yes, the legit user gets hurt. Securom was used by 2K Games (publisher) for Serious Sam 2 and I remember well that some people threatened to sue Croteam (developer) over it. I had to ask them what the issue was and I was told that Securom had problems with newer hard drives. The solution was to send the log and .exe of the game to the Securom people (which by the way is somehow connected to Sony, I forget how exactly). Then they would inspect it and send back a fixed .exe back to the customer who bought the game legitimately. Granted this was a small number of people at the time, but from what I can tell, that was not the case with Bioshock.

 

Edit: Stardock's games sell well, because Stardock understands the market, i.e. they are not making yet another game in a genre that is already crowded with the same type of games.

[Matri]

1- Where is the punishment to legit buyers of this merchandise? All you need is the internet, and if you don't have it, there are lots of games you cannot play... None of which even have anything to do with copy protection.

 

Again, taking Mass Effect as the example: It is a singleplayer-only game. No multiplayer components. All content is stored locally on your harddisk, which it can easily access. But it won't. Because you don't have an internet connection.

 

Real life example of this? Getting a car. Fully certified, everything in working order, full tank of gas, keys in your hand...

 

... And not being able to drive it on the road because you don't have FAA clearance.

 

And in case this isn't still fresh in everyone's minds: MSN Music DRM authentication server to be shut off.

[FullAuto]

I think I will ask again.

 

1- Where is the punishment to legit buyers of this merchandise?

 

Then I will repeat myself. Starforce, MSN Music, Bioshock, Sony CDs, et al. The limiting of legit users' rights in the vain hopes of dissuading pirates.

 

All you need is the internet, and if you don't have it, there are lots of games you cannot play... None of which even have anything to do with copy protection.

 

Because some of them are online-only games. Spore, Mass Effect, etc, are not, yet you won't be able to play them if they don't have the internet.

 

All things considered, I would say that it doesn't take much to to at least estimate a minimum loss. An employee at a game design company just needs to see how many seeders there are for a torrent of his own game (Which can sometimes be a very large number...) to get some approximation.

 

I know photoshop literally could not be used until you recieved a password you paid for. This could be cracked with a false password, of course. But in the end, tons and tons of people registered their product online and continue to use it. But do you know how much Adobe actually made? I don't, but I can be sure that it wasn't as much as they expected.

 

The simple fact is, they haven't got a clue how much they lose through piracy. Nobody does. They don't know how much it's costing them. They don't know if the cost is more or less than that of the DRM they're using. They can estimate all they like, they have no way of knowing whether that estimate is accurate or not. How many people then don't buy the game because of the DRM? Again, they don't know. How many people who pirate the game would have bought it if it wasn't available to pirate? Again, they don't know.

 

There is no way to empirically quantify the problem. They can't tell how a game might have sold with or without DRM/piracy/name-an-unlikely-factor-of-your-choice, they can only record how a game actually sells.

[Knan]

Did you read the post? It's about copy protection, not publicity. They made this decision to rake in the money, not to broadcast an ad.

 

Yes, I did. And this is just so boneheaded that it will go away. Quickly. Quietly. Soon after release, since they don't have time to change it now. Illegitimately at first, then legitimately.

 

Self-disabling software that do not need the internet for any legitimate reason? Probably lawsuit fodder as well in the us.

[FullAuto]

DRM toned down.

 

10-day reauthentication gone, 3-install limit still there.

[Matri]

So what instead? A one-time online authentication (and additional checks whenever you add new downloadable content), and no need to have the disc in the drive after that. Blimey - it

[FullAuto]

I'm quite cynical enough to believe that this was done on purpose, to give the impression that "Okay, we're listening to our consumers." so that those who protested will feel that they have won and will shut up about DRM altogether.

 

Or there could be an actual human being working at EA.

 

I don't know which is more likely.

[Strong Bob]

QUOTE

1 - Every year I go on a vacation for a month or two. Which means the game won't be able to check on the internet. Think about that a little.

 

 

So you're playing video games offline for a month or two in that time? Makes sense I suppose. But the game can be restored easily with just a moment of internet connection, aye? That is what was mentioned before... And that is how Bioware's Neverwinter Nights modules work.

 

QUOTE

Because some of them are online-only games. Spore, Mass Effect, etc, are not, yet you won't be able to play them if they don't have the internet.

 

 

But so long as you're informed of the internet connection requirement beforehand, I do not see the problem here.

 

Now... I happen to know that there is a policy for software, that it cannot be returned once it is opened, at least not at full price. This means after opening the box, your product is severely devalued. But if you're properly informed from a note somewhere on the box, you're agreeing beforehand to regular DRM checks. This is not hindering anyone's rights because it was agreed to beforehand.

 

I will back up anyone that buys the product and there is virtually no information on the box, or anywhere clearly enough indicating the necessity for internet connection. Because THEN you're stooping down to subterfuge, which I feel is not right.

 

Granted, it's a pain in the ass. And it certainly will not yield money from an individual without internet. But it's not a punishment if you bought the product with full knowledge of it.

 

QUOTE

Also, you should have been around the 2K forums for the first month or so after its release and seen all the negative feedback on Securom. The forums were swarming with people angry at 2K.

 

 

You mean just like the thousands of users that got pissed off at the developers for Dawn of War for changing one of their races too much? I don't tend to trust the numbers I see on a forum. It's difficult to tell whether it's a mature individual with a genuine problem, a frustrated 12-year old that wants to blow off some steam, or just some schmoe that really wasn't involved but feels nice getting behind the picket line.

 

But I see where you are coming from. People were pissed because they felt they weren't getting what they paid for. But that example you made seems more like a design flaw rather than an intentional feature. They put forth the effort to fix it, now, didn't they?

 

QUOTE

Real life example of this? Getting a car. Fully certified, everything in working order, full tank of gas, keys in your hand...

 

 

Um... In reality you need to have a license to drive your car. This license needs to be renewed periodically to make sure you are fit to drive. The DRM system does this very same thing, to make sure you are a legit buyer. Very few, if any, protests the licensing of drivers. I believe your example is quite flawed...

 

However I do see the point you're trying to make. You feel that because you have everything otherwise, you should be able to play the game. Because that's how it has been for many many years prior and you don't like the idea of needing a whole new line in the list of system requirements that seems redundant to honest buyers.

 

QUOTE

The simple fact is, they haven't got a clue how much they lose through piracy. Nobody does. They don't know how much it's costing them. They don't know if the cost is more or less than that of the DRM they're using.

 

 

I will admit freely that exact numbers are uncertain. You simply cannot track every download every on the internet pertaining to one single piece of software, which can be renamed and zipped/rarred/torrented in so many ways that it would be nigh impossible to know what the hell is even being downloaded.

 

But the real fact of the matter is that PC gaming sales have dropped dramatically lately. Curiously enough, around the time piracy had become more prominent. And like I said already, it's easy to get a decent idea how much you're losing at a minimum... Some downloading can be tracked by very light effort. (For example, I am personally aware that the Transformers movie score has been downloaded at least 500 separate times. With a CD that costs 10 - 15 USD apiece, that is 5000 - 7500 USD lost in sales. And that is just from my own, very small, window of awareness.) How much did this DRM cost anyways? Does it really cost so many thousands to install a DRM feature on a game of any kind?

 

So then if not this, what recommendation would you have to dissuade piracy? Increase penalties for the violation? Resort to older, and substantially less effective, tactics like taking phrases from the game's manual? Or a different path entirely that is not thought of?

 

Here's an interesting tidbit that this has got me thinking about... Everyone remember Ultima Online? One of the first games with a monthly play fee? Yeah, there was an uproar of similar magnitude there, there was even a threat of a lawsuit. Because online games were new at the time, people reasoned they shouldn't have to pay constantly if they didn't play often. They were angry because gradually, the system requirements marked on the box were breached as the game was updated and improved through the auto-update feature that helped to improve and maintain the game for everyone. Things got even worse when the policy was in place where, if you lost a lot of experience or gold because someone else hacked you, you would not get any of it back. Then there was EA's reputedly garbage tech support which offered the strangest solutions to tech problems.

 

But guess what? Despite this uproar about 10 years ago, none of that changed. These are all still strong running features in MMO games that have been accepted and are not even considered a bad thing anymore. Perhaps that's just what these new copy protection features are... A mere change in the way gaming is done that nobody is comfortable with yet. It just needs to be refined more before it will yield the positive reaction MMOs do today.

[Matri]

Um... In reality you need to have a license to drive your car. This license needs to be renewed periodically to make sure you are fit to drive. The DRM system does this very same thing, to make sure you are a legit buyer. Very few, if any, protests the licensing of drivers. I believe your example is quite flawed...

 

Not at all. I would protest having the police chain your car until they can check the legitimacy of your driving license, at which point they will then release it. And I believe you will protest this too. Especially if they keep coming back every 10 days.

 

However I do see the point you're trying to make. You feel that because you have everything otherwise, you should be able to play the game. Because that's how it has been for many many years prior and you don't like the idea of needing a whole new line in the list of system requirements that seems redundant to honest buyers.

 

See previous rebuttal.

 

But the real fact of the matter is that PC gaming sales have dropped dramatically lately.

 

I can tell you that console ports play a good part in this. We're disgusted by the half-hearted, piss-poor attempts some companies make by just porting code byte-by-byte from the console to the PC. Quite frankly, we're disgusted by the blatant greed shown in these attempts.

 

(For example, I am personally aware that the Transformers movie score has been downloaded at least 500 separate times. With a CD that costs 10 - 15 USD apiece, that is 5000 - 7500 USD lost in sales. And that is just from my own, very small, window of awareness.)

 

Allow me to deconstruct this argument by pointing you to this article: MPAA admits college piracy numbers grossly inflated.

[Bomb Bloke]

The main ligitimate buyers have with DRM is when it fails to work. There have been cases where the only people who have actually been able to play the game were the pirates; for example, Steam has caused all sorts of trouble for paying players.

 

It also doesn't help that many schemes which do work aren't functional in years to come. Take the disc checks of old, they often only function correctly when used with drives produced about that time. Not with older/newer models.

 

Also note that developers typically don't implement copy protection methods. The publishers arrange that, and they usually get third party companies to do it for them. They have to pay a license fee on the DRM software.

 

The main problem with all this is that DRM doesn't work, and won't work so long as users have access to the game data. But unless they make us play games via terminals, that's not gonna happen.

[Gimli]

So you're playing video games offline for a month or two in that time? Makes sense I suppose. But the game can be restored easily with just a moment of internet connection, aye? That is what was mentioned before... And that is how Bioware's Neverwinter Nights modules work.

 

Serve me right for not reading through. But what happens if I install the game, activate it and for whatever reason I lose my connection for a month or two? Not being able to reactivate it, I won't be able to play the game I legally purchased, no?

 

But so long as you're informed of the internet connection requirement beforehand, I do not see the problem here.

 

Neither do I. I simply won't buy the game or in fact any products of the same company and will use every opportunity I get to tell other people not to buy any products of the same company.

 

You mean just like the thousands of users that got pissed off at the developers for Dawn of War for changing one of their races too much? I don't tend to trust the numbers I see on a forum. It's difficult to tell whether it's a mature individual with a genuine problem, a frustrated 12-year old that wants to blow off some steam, or just some schmoe that really wasn't involved but feels nice getting behind the picket line.

 

But I see where you are coming from. People were pissed because they felt they weren't getting what they paid for. But that example you made seems more like a design flaw rather than an intentional feature.

 

It was very much intentional. They knew full well what Securom was going to do. About the numbers on the forum: you're right, but you ignore the fact that the forum was simply a representation of a larger reaction on the rest of the internet.

 

They put forth the effort to fix it, now, didn't they?

 

Yes, after a month or two, and only after the huge backlash that they got. That's the sad thing, that it took something like that to solve a stupid policy.

 

But the real fact of the matter is that PC gaming sales have dropped dramatically lately.

Curiously enough, around the time piracy had become more prominent.

 

Where do you live? Software piracy has been huge here for as long as I can remember. If anything, I see a lot more people buying original games here now, even if there is still a lot of the old mentality left.

 

The main reason for bad sales is certainly not piracy. Which doesn't mean it should be ignored. The main reasons can be any and all of these:

1.) The games are not good enough.

2.) The game costs are getting higher.

3.) We are being hit with the same kinds of games on the PC. How many arcade games from big companies have there been on the PC in the last 5 years? How many fighting games like Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter etc.? How many games like Golden Axe? How many of them were actually good? Now think about the number of FPS games, RTS games and the various types of RPG.

 

So then if not this, what recommendation would you have to dissuade piracy? Increase penalties for the violation? Resort to older, and substantially less effective, tactics like taking phrases from the game's manual? Or a different path entirely that is not thought of?

 

1.) Make better games.

2.) Stop driving the costs up.

3.) Start making more quality games from the genres I mentioned above.

4.) Stop serving us with poor console ports and expecting us to buy them.

5.) Learn something about markets. If you're making a game aimed at an already overcrowded market, chances are, it might not sell enough. Instead, do what Stardock did, aim at a market which is not overcrowded and djust your budget accordingly.

 

Here's an interesting tidbit that this has got me thinking about... Everyone remember Ultima Online? One of the first games with a monthly play fee? Yeah, there was an uproar of similar magnitude there, there was even a threat of a lawsuit. Because online games were new at the time, people reasoned they shouldn't have to pay constantly if they didn't play often. They were angry because gradually, the system requirements marked on the box were breached as the game was updated and improved through the auto-update feature that helped to improve and maintain the game for everyone. Things got even worse when the policy was in place where, if you lost a lot of experience or gold because someone else hacked you, you would not get any of it back. Then there was EA's reputedly garbage tech support which offered the strangest solutions to tech problems.

 

But guess what? Despite this uproar about 10 years ago, none of that changed. These are all still strong running features in MMO games that have been accepted and are not even considered a bad thing anymore. Perhaps that's just what these new copy protection features are... A mere change in the way gaming is done that nobody is comfortable with yet. It just needs to be refined more before it will yield the positive reaction MMOs do today.

 

True, but I don't play MMOs so I don't care about them. There are legitimate reasons for monthly fees, that being server maintenance and adding features etc. But did any of those things reflect on games which weren't MMOs? Do I have to pay monthly fees for them? Unfortunately, if we had allowed Bioware/EA to go through with this, then other publishers would get the same idea.

[Bomb Bloke]

... I won't be able to play the game I legally purchased, no?

There's a bit of a quibble on the wording here...

 

When you "buy" a game, what you're really paying for is a copy of the game and a license to use it. The license can read however the publishers wish, but one thing they typically make clear is that you don't "own" the game.

 

On the flip side of this coin, legally you have to have access to this license prior to agreeing to it. For example, if you buy a game only to find the license is in the box, then if you open that box the software sellers are obliged to accept it back and provide a refund if you decide not to agree (though they seldom like to admit it). This is because it's the seller's responsibility to provide the customer with a visible license.

 

It's interesting to note that if you can get a game to install and run on your computer without reading and accepting the license agreement, then you're not bound by it. But if you do accept, then if that license revokes your right to play the game, then you have to live with that.

 

Of course, as you mentioned Gimli, the solution in that case is to just not buy the game.

 

How many arcade games from big companies have there been on the PC in the last 5 years? How many fighting games like Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter etc.? How many games like Golden Axe? How many of them were actually good?

Arcade games really don't work that well on the PC any more. Take Metal Slug, for example. Awesome graphics, sound and gameplay, but... you can clear any title in the series within about an hour.

 

Sure, people'd be willing to pay a few bucks for Metal Slug, but nothing like the standard PC game rate. Hence why arcade games are more commonly seen in the arcades, or sometimes on a console.

[FullAuto]

But the real fact of the matter is that PC gaming sales have dropped dramatically lately.

Curiously enough, around the time piracy had become more prominent.

 

Correlation does not imply causation. As for piracy becoming more prominent, while it has certainly propagated over the internet, my personal view (which may not be an accurate view of piracy as a whole, I don't claim to be omnipotent unlike some) is that piracy has decreased. In the Commodore/Amiga days, I owned more than a thousand games, about which 5-10% were legal copies I had bought, the rest were pirated copies. Because it was so easy, the first thing people did, before even playing the game, was knock off a copy for your friend(s). While PC game piracy is certainly still around, and if anything it's even easier (you don't even have to do anything yourself apart from download the game), I don't think it's as popular as it once was. Certainly, when I look around at the game collections of my friends, pirated copies are in a minority. But like I say, I don't claim to know if this can be extrapolated to the whole PC market. Unlike companies who scream piracy is killing them even though they have no idea of how much money it is actually costing them.

 

As for falling PC sales, look at stiffer competition from consoles (a market that has grown considerably in size, IIRC), the constant costs of gaming on the PC (latest graphics cards, more RAM, faster processors), the lack of innovation in and rising costs of the games themselves as development budgets keep increasing.

 

(For example, I am personally aware that the Transformers movie score has been downloaded at least 500 separate times. With a CD that costs 10 - 15 USD apiece, that is 5000 - 7500 USD lost in sales. And that is just from my own, very small, window of awareness.)

 

Right, let's assume for the sake of argument you could accurately track the amount of people who pirate the game. How many, of those people, would have bought the game if it had not been available to pirate? So you have no way of knowing how many sales pirating has actually cost you to begin with even if you know exactly how many people pirated the game. How many of those people pirated the game because of the DRM? How many people, outside of the ones who pirated it, didn't buy the game because of the DRM? Of course, a certain amount of online complaints are just those frustrated kids, but not all of them. Some people are serious, and again, there's no way to know the real numbers. Could be just a few. Could be quite a big chunk of the potential audience.

 

So you've got the cost of the DRM itself, then the cost of the authentication servers, then the staff for the tech help, then the cost of the sales lost by using DRM. I don't have a clue how much this is, just like they have no clue how much piracy is costing them.