Saints Row Publisher Not Interested In Uplay-Style DRM

[Andy Chalk]

Saints Row Publisher Not Interested In Uplay-Style DRM

The CEO of Saints Row publisher Deep Silver says the only effective way to fight piracy is to ignore piracy.

Ask around and most people will tell you that the biggest problem with the PC as a gaming platform, at least in the eyes of major publishers, is piracy. It's absolutely rampant, orders of magnitude worse than consoles, and costs publishers bazillions of dollars in lost revenue every year. But Dr. Klemens Kundratitz, CEO of Saints Row IV and Metro: Last Light publisher Deep Silver, sees the matter a little differently.

Kundratitz told Penny Arcade that the PC remains a priority for the publisher, citing the Metro franchise as "first and foremost a PC brand. In the first iteration, it was launched on Xbox 360 and PC, but it is at its heart a PC product." And while console sales for Metro: Last Light were greater, he said the PC "has a very decent share" of the total and also enjoys a "very active and committed community."

Yet while piracy is a problem, Deep Silver isn't looking to tie its games down to a proprietary DRM system like Origin or Uplay. "Uplay is not the way we want to approach things, definitely. I think we just need to make sure that the games we publish are worth the money, and certainly there is always this piracy situation that any publisher has. No publisher can tackle [piracy], really," he said. "In a business plan, we typically ignore it. It's not something that is new, it's something that has been part of our business for decades. As a publisher you just live with it, yes?"

Source: Penny Arcade [http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/saints-row-publisher-not-interested-in-uplay-drm-their-strategy-ignore-pira]


Permalink

 

[Glaice]

Good, Uplay is a plague on several decent and good games (IE Far Cry 3/Blood Dragon/etc) that should be removed from it. Also not focusing on piracy could be a good idea for them and focus on DLC and fixing up their game instead.

 

[Andy Shandy]

While I definitely don't disagree with what they are saying, and I think Deep Silver are a good publisher, I do have to wonder if anything in particular prompted this.

Statement just seemed to come completely out of the blue, is all.

 

[Erttheking]

Ok Deep Silver, you're doing a very good job of convincing me that Ranger Hardcore mode as DLC really was baggage that you got from THQ. I know you had the whole season pass thing, but it was for pretty cheap DLC and overall pretty good DLC, so I'll allow it. Keep up the good work.

 

[Cecilo]

While I definitely don't disagree with what they are saying, and I think Deep Silver are a good publisher, I do have to wonder if anything in particular prompted this.

Statement just seemed to come completely out of the blue, is all.

Well the people who were interviewing them asked if they were interested in using any form of DRM, and they said no. What prompted the person who asked, to ask, I can't give you that, sadly.

 

[Andy Shandy]

While I definitely don't disagree with what they are saying, and I think Deep Silver are a good publisher, I do have to wonder if anything in particular prompted this.

Statement just seemed to come completely out of the blue, is all.

Well the people who were interviewing them asked if they were interested in using any form of DRM, and they said no. What prompted the person who asked, to ask, I can't give you that, sadly.

Ah well that makes sense (at least on the answer from Deep Silver anyway) then. Cheers

 

[GoaThief]

Kundratitz told Penny Arcade that the PC remains a priority for the publisher, citing the Metro franchise as "first and foremost a PC brand. In the first iteration, it was launched on Xbox 360 and PC, but it is at its heart a PC product."

The developers (4A) don't seem to agree Metro is a PC product - it was designed from the ground up with consoles in mind.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-inside-metro-last-light

I'll take his word over the marketing department / publisher any day who only jumped on it after THQ folded and absolutely had no say in the development process anyway.

 

[JenSeven]

Thank you Deep Silver. Good move and nice to see a "big" publisher say that.
I will forgive you for Ride To Hell because of this.

Keep on doing good!

 

[Lt. Rocky]

Ballsy statement to hear from a publisher. Let's hope it proves beneficial for them.

 

[james.sponge]

What a sensible approach. Now if only UbiSoft and EA had the same views.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

I disagree. The best way to deal with pirates is to program your games to call out pirates when they use a pirated game (possibly by uploading a rigged 'pirated' copy to the torrents before the actual pirates crack it), either only cosmetically or an obvious "this isn't a bug in the program code, it's a bug in your moral code trolololol" alteration.

Examples that come to mind include the characters of Alan Wake suddenly sporting eye-patches, an invincible pink scorpion that follows you EVERYWHERE on Serious Sam 3, or (my personal favorite because of the delicious irony) how on Game Dev Tycoon you'd end up having your profits drop like a stone from, you guessed it, pirates stealing the game you worked so hard on.

And then there's the Spyro 2 game that had an entire host of "fuck you's" one after the other so that it took two whole months for there to be a fully cracked version of the game.

 

[A-D.]

I disagree. The best way to deal with pirates is to program your games to call out pirates when they use a pirated game (possibly by uploading a rigged 'pirated' copy to the torrents before the actual pirates crack it), either only cosmetically or an obvious "this isn't a bug in the program code, it's a bug in your moral code trolololol" alteration.

Examples that come to mind include the characters of Alan Wake suddenly sporting eye-patches, an invincible pink scorpion that follows you EVERYWHERE on Serious Sam 3, or (my personal favorite because of the delicious irony) how on Game Dev Tycoon you'd end up having your profits drop like a stone from, you guessed it, pirates stealing the game you worked so hard on.

And then there's the Spyro 2 game that had an entire host of "fuck you's" one after the other so that it took two whole months for there to be a fully cracked version of the game.

Right, because Piracy means you lose money, rather than not gain any money. Simple equation right now, if you make a game for 100 bucks in capital, and sell it for 10 bucks per copy, you only need to sell 10 copies to break even, right? Now if you sell 5 copies and another 5 get pirated, what happens? You only make 50 bucks, you do NOT gain 50 and then lose 50 just because of pirates. At least the eye-patch and invincible pink scorpion were tongue-in-cheek and in fact, with the scorpion have evolved into a futile goal of beating it. At least bring logic when you make such "injoke measures".

Also, its been proven that such "anti-piracy" measures can backfire, Titan Quest anyone?

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

Snip

Right, because Piracy means you lose money, rather than not gain any money. Simple equation right now, if you make a game for 100 bucks in capital, and sell it for 10 bucks per copy, you only need to sell 10 copies to break even, right? Now if you sell 5 copies and another 5 get pirated, what happens? You only make 50 bucks, you do NOT gain 50 and then lose 50 just because of pirates. At least the eye-patch and invincible pink scorpion were tongue-in-cheek and in fact, with the scorpion have evolved into a futile goal of beating it. At least bring logic when you make such "injoke measures".

I honestly have no idea why you're blathering on about stats and sales and whatnot. That has absolutely nothing to do with my comment, which was about what traps the developers should leave for pirated versions of their game, not why piracy is bad.

You didn't even make any sort of point. "Piracy means you don't get sales, rather than actively lose money?" Oh. I SEE. And that's supposed to be good, is it?

If you pirate a game and it turns out that the developers left you a little unpleasant surprise, you have no right to complain, because you got what you paid for. End of story. I don't care about your arguments about how piracy are or aren't a loss of sales or whatever, because that's completely irrelevant to what I was saying.

Also, its been proven that such "anti-piracy" measures can backfire, Titan Quest anyone?

I have to agree here, that was a horrible 'trap' that just convinced people that the actual game was broken and not worth buying, hence the "an OBVIOUS alteration to the code". But then again, in the mentioned Spyro game, the exact same thing pretty much happened, except that a fairy would politely tell you "you're a dirty thief and nasty shit is gonna happen soon toodles!" not long after you started playing. Plus, if your gun suddenly starts shooting chickens (such as in the pirated version of Crysis Warhead), you'd have to be a moron not to read between the lines and realize that it maaaaaay just be intentional, right?

 

[A-D.]

Snip

Right, because Piracy means you lose money, rather than not gain any money. Simple equation right now, if you make a game for 100 bucks in capital, and sell it for 10 bucks per copy, you only need to sell 10 copies to break even, right? Now if you sell 5 copies and another 5 get pirated, what happens? You only make 50 bucks, you do NOT gain 50 and then lose 50 just because of pirates. At least the eye-patch and invincible pink scorpion were tongue-in-cheek and in fact, with the scorpion have evolved into a futile goal of beating it. At least bring logic when you make such "injoke measures".

I honestly have no idea why you're blathering on about stats and sales and whatnot. That has absolutely nothing to do with my comment, which was about what traps the developers should leave for pirated versions of their game, not why piracy is bad.

You didn't even make any sort of point. "Piracy means you don't get sales, rather than actively lose money?" Oh. I SEE. And that's supposed to be good, is it?

If you pirate a game and it turns out that the developers left you a little unpleasant surprise, you have no right to complain, because you got what you paid for. End of story. I don't care about your arguments about how piracy are or aren't a loss of sales or whatever, because that's completely irrelevant to what I was saying.

Also, its been proven that such "anti-piracy" measures can backfire, Titan Quest anyone?

I have to agree here, that was a horrible 'trap' that just convinced people that the actual game was broken and not worth buying, hence the "an OBVIOUS alteration to the code". But then again, in the mentioned Spyro game, the exact same thing pretty much happened, except that a fairy would politely tell you "you're a dirty thief and nasty shit is gonna happen soon toodles!" not long after you started playing. Plus, if your gun suddenly starts shooting chickens (such as in the pirated version of Crysis Warhead), you'd have to be a moron not to read between the lines and realize that it maaaaaay just be intentional, right?

Yes, because "obvious" anti-piracy measures along the lines of illogical thinking that piracy actually makes you lose money, rather than not gain any additional money was not the obvious point i was making. If you include methods like that, for one they have to be obvious and logical, in case of Titan Quest it wasnt and people thought it was a bug and then word-of-mouth did the rest, plus the developers accusing basicly everyone of being a pirate didnt help them either.

So yes, obviously you arent interested because you fail to grasp the simple correlation of events there. If you include them, there is a chance it backfires, either badly or in a good way, for example the pink scorpion in serious sam 3 has been actually popular that people who have bought the game pirated it anyway just so they could try and kill it.

Which means, its best to leave them out entirely, it would be a much better idea to create a "early end" in the gamecode when you pirate it, granted that might be really hard to code, but think of it as a really long demo, so you play and eventually the game just ends, maybe with a "seems you had fun, why not buy it?" screen at the end of it. At least its a better alternative than beating potential customers over the head with "piracy is bad, mkay" bollocks.

In short, Deep Silver taking the high road and just ignoring piracy and focusing on making good games (well..SOME good games) is a much better idea than coding in new "traps" or "fuck you" measures, or another DRM tool you have to use.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Well, it about time a publisher finally figured that out.

Fun Fact: The enemy most publishers are trying to fight isn't so much piracy as much as used game sales and Gamestop.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

Yes, because "obvious" anti-piracy measures along the lines of illogical thinking that piracy actually makes you lose money, rather than not gain any additional money was not the obvious point i was making. If you include methods like that, for one they have to be obvious and logical, in case of Titan Quest it wasnt and people thought it was a bug and then word-of-mouth did the rest, plus the developers accusing basicly everyone of being a pirate didnt help them either.

So yes, obviously you arent interested because you fail to grasp the simple correlation of events there. If you include them, there is a chance it backfires, either badly or in a good way, for example the pink scorpion in serious sam 3 has been actually popular that people who have bought the game pirated it anyway just so they could try and kill it.

Which means, its best to leave them out entirely, it would be a much better idea to create a "early end" in the gamecode when you pirate it, granted that might be really hard to code, but think of it as a really long demo, so you play and eventually the game just ends, maybe with a "seems you had fun, why not buy it?" screen at the end of it. At least its a better alternative than beating potential customers over the head with "piracy is bad, mkay" bollocks.

In short, Deep Silver taking the high road and just ignoring piracy and focusing on making good games (well..SOME good games) is a much better idea than coding in new "traps" or "fuck you" measures, or another DRM tool you have to use.

I have to say, I like the idea of a game stopping halfway 'through' and asking the pirate to actually buy the game. It would certainly kill the "There's no demo or said demo isn't good enough, therefore I have to pirate it to see if it's worth my money" argument. On the other hand, they may just decide it's not worth paying for a game they've already gone halfway through, ESPECIALLY if you don't let them transfer their save file to the legitimate version. But it's impossible to tell how many people will do that I suppose, just as impossible to tell how many pirates would have bought the game if they couldn't have gotten it for free, I suppose, so let's not go down discussing that. Regardless, the idea certainly has promise.

I still think you're failing at the "it's not money lost, only sales" argument though. I'm not about to claim that every pirated copy is a lost sale (cue pants-on-head-retarded "G'DURR"), but to claim that ACTUAL lost sales are anything other then lost sales, hence lost money in the bank, is ridiculous in my eyes. I mean, seeing as we're not talking about how piracy increases sales or anything like that here (which I'd otherwise be relatively willing to give merit to), I honestly don't see what you are trying to say, since you're still pretty much saying "piracy = less sales, but it's different because of reasons". If you could have sold fifteen copies of something but you only sell ten because of external sources, that's still less money in the bank whatever way you cut it.

About the chance of the trap 'backfiring' I don't and I will never see what the problem with people pirating a copy of a game that they have already paid for, ESPECIALLY if there's some amusing extra in the pirated version. Now, if someone actually decided not to buy the game because the pirated version actually sounded more appealing (by the developer's actions, not just by stripping out the DRM or other restrictions, mind you), THAT would have been worth mentioning... but I seriously doubt that there are any cases of that happening. I mean, if you're going to argue that piracy isn't lost sales or money or whatever, you can hardly argue that someone getting an altered copy of a game they already own is a bad thing at all either.

And yes. As I said in my first AND second post, they have to be "obvious and logical" so that they aren't assumed to just be bugs in a shitty game. Stop acting like that was your idea

In any case, while I don't think that 'taking the high road' is the best way to deal with pirates (I mean come on, putting pirates in a Game Dev simulator is just too awesome), it certainly isn't a BAD idea, as anything that doesn't end up punishing legitimate users is good in my books. So, good on Deep Silver I suppose?

 

[A-D.]

Le Snip

Actually the point was towards the measure in Game Dev Tycoon. If you pirated it, and the Devs were real clever to put it up on PBay themselves by the way to get more attention and free publicity, you would eventually make minus because of "piracy". But thats not how piracy works, or any economical math. If you have 100 Dollars and make a game with it, which you sell for 10 Dollar per copy, you have to sell 10 copies, to get even, if you sell 11 copies, you make 10 Dollar profit. Easy so far right? Now in the game, it tells you that you lose money because people pirate. Same example, 100 Dollar capital, you make 10 copies because you just want to break even. 5 copies are bought, which nets you 50 Dollar and gets you half of your expenses back. But 10 people are playing, which means you got pirated. But you still have those other 5 Copies sitting in the store on the shelf. Just because the game is played by 100 people, or 1000, does not mean that to simply break even, you have to sell merely 10 copies.

Its not logical that you would lose money because you started with a set budget to begin with, the 100 Dollars, the game has a set price and a set amount, 10 copies for each 10 Dollar, you sell those 10, you are back where you started. Whether only one copy is sold and then copied 100 times, or you sell your 10 copies which then get copied 100 times you will NOT lose money from this, if the intended number sold to recoup the investment, as in your 100 Dollars, no matter how many pirates play your game, you will NOT EVER lose money.

Thats why Game Dev Tycoon is illogical, it basicly goes with the industry bullshit view that piracy is somehow causing them to lose money, when in fact it is their ridiculous budgets, advertising and all that crap. And that its coming from a Indie Dev who by all rights should know better is what is the most embarassing part, i mean EA, Ubisoft? You could at least understand if they did it..but a Indie? Really?


In short, thats why such methods have to be really clever, or you should leave them out completely. Titan Quest proved that word of mouth is a very powerful tool. It might have been a legitimate feature against pirates, but since pirates got the game and thought it was a bug and that information spread, legitimate customers didnt buy it. Conversly Game Dev Tycoon is guilty of a similar transgression, the game or its developers assume the potential customer and/or pirate is an Idiot who fails at basic math. And in my opinion, its better to be save than sorry and just dont do it. Piracy is a service and money problem, either the service sucks, or you dont have the funds. You can wait for the price to go down in case of the money issue, but if you got 3 Install Limits, Starforce DRM, Disk Checks and whatnot...yeah you cant get rid of them without "pirating" essentially. Especially if the EULA/TOS is applicable for you (which it seems to be in the US) which means you arent allowed to remove any DRM, even if said DRM blows up your computer in the next 5 seconds.