Anti piracy in PC games?

[Mutant1988]

You can blame the Pirates all you wish, but this is something that has existed for ages, long before they even came up with the concept of a CD key. Hell, even before there was such a thing as CDs (back in the cartridge days, there were still pirates, though it was admittedly harder). The fact is, the devs use piracy as an excuse to implement features that serve the developer's purpose and not the customer, and the publishers demand DRM because they don't fully understand how the mechanics fully play out.

I don't. But they make for a very convenient excuse. Especially with their obviously self-justifying rhetoric. The way so many of them phrase their support of "piracy" robs them of any sympathy in my eyes.

If your life truly is shit enough to warrant pirating games, then you have bigger issues. That also needs to be addressed. But piracy is not the solution to a dysfunctional society.

And I don't think it's a productive way forward for the games industry either.

I know very well why companies like EA has been using their own dedicated servers for years. That's why I don't buy their games (Nor pirate them). It is primarily about micro-managing the audience so that they will buy the sequel once support ceases for the previous product. Which it will, since the player counts drop drastically as maintenance, server counts and bandwidth is decreased.

I want to see better attitudes and better rhetoric against consumer hostile practises and not have the discussion undermined by people who do nothing but come across as selfish.

Thus the oft heard vote with your wallets. Stop buying from companies that utilize shitty DRM that eats SSDs, causes crashes, and/or otherwise prevents you from being able to play the game you paid their asking price for.

You do know that talking about issues doesn't prohibit me from acting against them, right?

I have no plans to buy any Ubisoft, EA or Starbreeze product in the perceivable future. Nor do I buy any individual game which employ practises I disagree with (Or if I do, I buy them later for the price I think they are worth). I'm not all talk, if that's what you want to insinuate.

I think a digital marketplace that allows me to purchase any product from any region, with a price adjusted to my currency and national cost of living would solve a lot of issues. Or at least make me a lot happier customer.

A reduction of the time a work is protected by copyright would also fix a lot of issues, especially if it's legally mandated that protection should be disabled at a certain time or that it's 100% legal for anyone to do so. Or hell, not have any such protection in the first place.

I want people to be paid for the work they do. I'm not incredibly keen on people coasting by on the successes of their grandfathers fathers.

Mind, that is in regards to my stance on media conservation. To effectively archive and make accessible content needs to be legal (And possible) to distribute. That's not an argument in favour of piracy, but in favour of media preservation. The more copies in circulation, the less likely it is that the work disappears completely.

That it enables piracy is just an unfortunate side effect and I think the only means to address that is to improve the attitudes towards creators.

 

[sanquin]

I believe the physical copies are. Or at least mine were when I bought them. I have both of them right here, DRM free.

Thats right because you bought them that way everybody else did. Hmm lets looks at steam and finds both witcher 1 and 2 in my library.[/quote]

Then buy the physical copy... It's your own fault for buying the steam one, knowing full well how steam is a form of DRM, while a physical copy was also an option.

 

[sanquin]

Incorrect. Or maybe I do not know how the world works. Can you clarify something - let's say you have an apple and remove it - you're left with no apples, yes? However, how would you remove an apple from nothing...how does that work? Because the DRM was removed from the Witcher 1 [http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/1.5_patch]. If there was no DRM before, how would that be possible?

And further, if there wasn't any DRM, why do the DEVELOPERS of all people, claim there was

Okay, fine, so there was DRM and it was removed. Still not the point I was making.

 

[DoPo]

Incorrect. Or maybe I do not know how the world works. Can you clarify something - let's say you have an apple and remove it - you're left with no apples, yes? However, how would you remove an apple from nothing...how does that work? Because the DRM was removed from the Witcher 1 [http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/1.5_patch]. If there was no DRM before, how would that be possible?

And further, if there wasn't any DRM, why do the DEVELOPERS of all people, claim there was

Okay, fine, so there was DRM and it was removed. Still not the point I was making.

Your point was that there was never DRM. Which is what I disagreed with.

 

[Doom972]

Anti-piracy measures sound great on paper but they never prevent piracy - they postpone it by a few months at best. There is always a way to remove those measures, and then these measures only affect legitimate customers and sometimes even make the pirated version superior.

Gabe Newel has the right idea - piracy is a service problem. A lot of People are willing to pay as long as the acquisition method is more comfortable than piracy - which is what digital distribution platforms do these days.

 

[Entitled]

I consider your fireworks display off base because 1: The ones offering the fire works intend for it to be seen by everyone that can see it.

Yes, in real life it is, because we are accustomed to the fact that everyone has the ability to see it anyways.

If until the last 20 years ago, you would have needed to buy special goggles to see them, and those would have been sold by pyrotechnicians for a profit, until a technological improvement made them obselete, then you can bet that there would be a continuing desperate expectation from pyrotechnicians to somehow lock down the sky.

That's where media is now. For centuries, books and tapes and discs were scarce, and it was easy to add a price tag to them and shut down mass bootlegging. Copyright was a PRACTICAL arrangement for letting artists profit.

Then suddenly, file-sharing became easily available, and instead of artists intending for everyone to see their works, chose to brand it as piracy, and pretend that they can stop it.

2: They do not own the night sky to in any way restrict who looks at it or not. 3: Their livelihood very likely doesn't rely on the fireworks being seen by only some people (The ones presumably paying for it).

In the analogy, the fireworks itself stands for the game, the night sky stands for the Internet, the public channel through which it can be accessed.

When you say things like "distributing copyrighted material intended for sale is enabling people to have things they do not deserve to have", you make it sound like it's a specific bit of material that is being controlled by copyright, but really what the copyright owner controls, is a part of the public's ability to receive and impart information with each other.

3: Their livelihood very likely doesn't rely on the fireworks being seen by only some people (The ones presumably paying for it).

No, they are likely contracted by a corporation that benefits from it in some way, (like in Disneyland), they are hired by the government (4th of July), or put together from an informal sharing or resources by the audience members who can afford it (ad hoc New Years eve fireworks).

But in either case, this is just another example of them being better prepared for the reality of it, and trying to succeed with that in mind.

TLDR, what I'm saying is not that the games industry works like the fireworks pyrotechnicians industry, or that it's members currentl think the same way, but that putting a video game on the Internet is in practice similar to a fireworks display in the night sky, so the industry should get used to that fact.

There used to be a difference between public performance, and limited availability products. With the internet as an infinite printing press, you can either accept that every performance that you release to the public will be distributed through the WHOLE public, or you can try to censor the channels of public communication and fail at it.

I don't. But they make for a very convenient excuse. Especially with their obviously self-justifying rhetoric. The way so many of them phrase their support of "piracy" robs them of any sympathy in my eyes.

The problem with that, is that it has little to do with accurate views about the reality of matters.

Sometimes the right anser *is* the one that happens to benefit the speaker. As C. S. Lewis said in an example, during debating with a communist:

The Professor has his own explanation... he thinks that I am unconsciously motivated by the fact that I ?stand to lose by social change?. And indeed it would be hard for me to welcome a change which might well consign me to a concentration camp. I might add that it would likewise be easy for the Professor to welcome a change which might place him in the highest rank of an omnicompetent oligarchy. That is why the motive game is so uninteresting. Each side can go on playing ad nauseam, but when all the mud has been flung every man?s views still remain to be considered on their merits. I decline the motive game and resume the discussion.

Oh, maybe pirates have never created anything in their lives, and they would benefit from freeloading. Or maybe copyright apologists can't face the reality that they can't control file-sharing, and they would self-servingly try to do so as long as possible.

Maybe pirates are risking prison and high fines, for a more free future, and maybe copyright holders just want to feed their families.

Motives can be attached to anything, the facts are what they are anyways. Copying digital data would be a form of communication even if pirates were all greedy scum, and copyrights would desperately try to maintain a censorship regime beyond it's feasibility, even if all copyright holders had hearts of gold.

 

[Mutant1988]

*Snip*

I wonder when you will figure out that I'm anti-restriction. Hell, I thought the very first post I made where I dismissed DRM as an effective means to fight piracy would have tipped you off.

My moral sentiments do not change reality. Nor have I claimed it will. Nor do I think it will.

But I think that pirates using these trite excuses for their piracy are doing everyone a disfavour. Anti-corporate consumer advocates and corporate stooges alike.

In fact, making copyright law less restrictive would be one of the first things I would change, were I in the position to do so. Indefinite copyright is NOT good for media preservation.

As for availability, I'd love it if the digital market wasn't handicapped by the retail market, in having to appease retailers with terrible practises like pre-orders and exclusive DLC, as well as have to factor them into the pricing as to not "unfairly" out-compete the physical market.

I'm all for free flow of information. But I'm also in favour of people being paid for the work they do and that people should consider that the "right" thing to do. Even if you can't pay, the idea is that you should want to.

You seem to misunderstand a very basic thing here - I'm anti DRM and anti aggressive copyright enforcement. I'm firmly a consumer advocate.

But that doesn't mean that I also can't be anti stupid excuses for piracy and the public expression of such.

You're the only one here that keeps insisting that I'm picking a side here. That I'm against the free flow of information because I object to piracy.

I'm not.

Oh, maybe pirates have never created anything in their lives, and they would benefit from freeloading. Or maybe copyright apologists can't face the reality that they can't control file-sharing, and they would self-servingly try to do so as long as possible.

I see that I'm not the only one having issues with phrasing my messages in an accusational manner.

I'm not a copyright apologist. I'm a advocate of actually paying for things you use. Not just when you feel like it.

That's different from excusing terrible business practises that only hurt end users and the preservation of media.

And another thing in regards to the "inevitability" of piracy. Just because you can do something doesn't make it a good idea to do it.

Or at least, it's a terrible idea to try to justify it as something else than self gratification. At least that would be an relatable motive, more so than the moon logic "freedom" narrative you seem keen to promote.

 

[Bat Vader]

Anti piracy is either too invasive, or doesn't work. On the other hand, I do have a nice example of a company that specifically didn't put anti piracy on their game because they believed in customer loyalty. And it worked, because they made good enough games that they sold well enough for not one, but two sequels. The series I'm talking about is The Witcher.

Same old nonsense, 80% of the witcher sales are on steam which is a drm platform, buy hey why bother with facts.

Just because you say that doesn't necessarily make it true. If you want people to believe what you say you need to post factual evidence. I bought The Witcher 2: Collector's Edition when it came out which went DRM free a week after release.

Edit:

Spoiler

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/05/the-witcher-2-patch-removes-drm-improves-framerate/

 

[faefrost]

Using things without paying for them, without showing the most basic and direct form of respect for the creators, is despicable.

Doing so is essentially saying "I like your stuff, but not enough to let you be successful or even be able to survive making it".

Devil's Advocate Form Activate!

When one borrows a book from a library (or even borrows it from a friend), they are using it without paying for it. You can even borrow games from some libraries (my old one, for example). Similarly, if you buy it second hand, none of your money will go to the creator or publisher.

It's also worth noting that in the music world, at least, the artist will receive only a fraction of the money from direct sales: often 10% or less. This doesn't counter your argument, of course, as the artist still makes money, but it's worth remembering that the money paid to show respect to an artist is almost entirely going to a publisher.

.

One flaw with your "Devil's Advocacy". Libraries do not simply loan out and recirculate retail books. They buy "Library Editions". Essentially they are paying well above market value for the single book, in order to purchase a "multi user" license. So a &12.99 retail hardcover may cost a library $50. This is why the lost book fees at libraries are so expensive. And yes, before anyone jumps all over me, there are some exceptions to this licensing for libraries. Typically involving out of print items and some types of periodicals.

In a gaming medium the equivalent to traditional Libraries will be Streaming Services. Things like Playstation Now (I think it's called?) or any "Netflix Like" service for gaming where you pay a flat subscription price to access a catalog of games. The games streamed by that service are purchased and licensed specifically for multi users.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I'm sorry, but it's a false destinction.

These amusing anti-piracy measures still rely on the very same things and systems that make DRM such a dubious concept.
To function, you need to be able to tell 'legitimate' customers apart from 'pirates'

And there is no way to do that that is reliable, not in any way intrusive, and never potentially annoying to legitimate customers.

It's pretty much not possible to do, short of 'seeding' a broken copy deliberately, but that will only work until someone realises it's broken, and then simply leaks the real thing...

 

[Chemical123]

I am against any direct measures against piracy. I am only for treating piracy as competition and thus providing a better service than a shady torrent site. To be fair it is hard to beat the price of nothing but on the other hand it is fairly easy to beat pirate sites on reliability, safety, customer support and etc.

Piracy has benefited the consumer greatly. Thanks to piracy PC game sellers provide better service and better pricing than on any other platform. I can buy pretty much any PC game DAY 1 with 20-25% discount thanks to sites like greenmangaming. I live in a region where piracy is rampant and as a result steam decreased their prices so I get pretty much all games at a 30-50% discount(GTAV is 40 usd for me, Cities Skyline 18 usd and so on). However, console digital stores offer no such discount and their prices decrease very slowly and their sales are pathetic (compare and contrast to Steam sales).

Now something that benefits the consumer and hurts the developers would be bad in the long run since that would mean less developers and less games. However, the games that have been hurt the worst by piracy are usually the ones that punish the paying customer. As a result, the pirated copy would provide better pricing and better service.

Finally, piracy is impossible to stop without massive investment of resources, violation of rights and privacy. So instead of focusing on anti-piracy measures, focus on making the game good, reliable and easily accessible.

 

[Albino Boo]

Anti piracy is either too invasive, or doesn't work. On the other hand, I do have a nice example of a company that specifically didn't put anti piracy on their game because they believed in customer loyalty. And it worked, because they made good enough games that they sold well enough for not one, but two sequels. The series I'm talking about is The Witcher.

Same old nonsense, 80% of the witcher sales are on steam which is a drm platform, buy hey why bother with facts.

Just because you say that doesn't necessarily make it true. If you want people to believe what you say you need to post factual evidence. I bought The Witcher 2: Collector's Edition when it came out which went DRM free a week after release.

Edit:

Spoiler

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/05/the-witcher-2-patch-removes-drm-improves-framerate/

http://www.pcgamer.com/gog-release-witcher-2-sales-stats-steam-dominates-all-competitors-combined/

I believe the physical copies are. Or at least mine were when I bought them. I have both of them right here, DRM free.

Thats right because you bought them that way everybody else did. Hmm lets looks at steam and finds both witcher 1 and 2 in my library.

Then buy the physical copy... It's your own fault for buying the steam one, knowing full well how steam is a form of DRM, while a physical copy was also an option.[/quote]

No I dont give a damn about DRM and neither does CD project. They strike a public pose about no DRM and then sell the vast majority of their games on a platform with in built DRM. IF they really cared they wouldn't use steam.

 

[DoPo]

And there is no way to do that that is reliable, not in any way intrusive, and never potentially annoying to legitimate customers.

Well there is - you ship your product with a gnome equipped with a knife, who is ordered to stab pirates. It's just not easy to pull off: gnomish knives cost an arm and a leg. Literally. And it turns out one legged gnomes aren't that good at chasing pirates and stabbing them.

 

[CrystalShadow]

And there is no way to do that that is reliable, not in any way intrusive, and never potentially annoying to legitimate customers.

Well there is - you ship your product with a gnome equipped with a knife, who is ordered to stab pirates. It's just not easy to pull off: gnomish knives cost an arm and a leg. Literally. And it turns out one legged gnomes aren't that good at chasing pirates and stabbing them.

Ahaha... Well, that was a good one.

Yes, gnomes are pretty effective, but so hard to use...

 

[Bat Vader]

Anti piracy is either too invasive, or doesn't work. On the other hand, I do have a nice example of a company that specifically didn't put anti piracy on their game because they believed in customer loyalty. And it worked, because they made good enough games that they sold well enough for not one, but two sequels. The series I'm talking about is The Witcher.

Same old nonsense, 80% of the witcher sales are on steam which is a drm platform, buy hey why bother with facts.

Just because you say that doesn't necessarily make it true. If you want people to believe what you say you need to post factual evidence. I bought The Witcher 2: Collector's Edition when it came out which went DRM free a week after release.

Edit:

Spoiler

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/05/the-witcher-2-patch-removes-drm-improves-framerate/

http://www.pcgamer.com/gog-release-witcher-2-sales-stats-steam-dominates-all-competitors-combined/

I believe the physical copies are. Or at least mine were when I bought them. I have both of them right here, DRM free.

Thats right because you bought them that way everybody else did. Hmm lets looks at steam and finds both witcher 1 and 2 in my library.

Then buy the physical copy... It's your own fault for buying the steam one, knowing full well how steam is a form of DRM, while a physical copy was also an option.

No I dont give a damn about DRM and neither does CD project. They strike a public pose about no DRM and then sell the vast majority of their games on a platform with in built DRM. IF they really cared they wouldn't use steam.[/quote]You can't say that they don't care about DRM just because they release their games on Steam. They are still a company and they still need to make money. Ignoring the biggest digital distribution platform out there would just be foolish. If they truly didn't care about DRM they wouldn't have patched out the DRM in the physical copies of The Witcher 2 nor would they have a digital storefront that sells DRM-Free games.

 

[Albino Boo]

You can't say that they don't care about DRM just because they release their games on Steam. They are still a company and they still need to make money. Ignoring the biggest digital distribution platform out there would just be foolish. If they truly didn't care about DRM they wouldn't have patched out the DRM in the physical copies of The Witcher 2 nor would they have a digital storefront that sells DRM-Free games.

Hypocrisy
noun: a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude


You cant have it both ways. If you say no to DRM then you say no steam. They make all these statements about DRM while the vast majority of their sales comes with DRM.

 

[Bat Vader]

You can't say that they don't care about DRM just because they release their games on Steam. They are still a company and they still need to make money. Ignoring the biggest digital distribution platform out there would just be foolish. If they truly didn't care about DRM they wouldn't have patched out the DRM in the physical copies of The Witcher 2 nor would they have a digital storefront that sells DRM-Free games.

Hypocrisy
noun: a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude


You cant have it both ways. If you say no to DRM then you say no steam. They make all these statements about DRM while the vast majority of their sales comes with DRM.

No need to be rude. If you would rather patronize and be hostile towards me instead of having a civil debate then I am through debating with you. FYI: I know what hypocrisy means.

 

[sanquin]

No I dont give a damn about DRM and neither does CD project. They strike a public pose about no DRM and then sell the vast majority of their games on a platform with in built DRM. IF they really cared they wouldn't use steam.

Are you that naive? If you want your game to reach a wide market, you almost NEED to be on steam these days. I know people who stopped buying games anywhere else, because you can get them on steam anyway right? And I've also seen plenty of people complain online that certain games weren't available on steam. These days, it would be stupid to not release a game on steam. Once again, that's why the physical copy is there. It's the customers' fault for insisting on buying the digital version off of steam when they can order the physical copy without steam as well. If they care about such a thing that is.

So, fine, let me slightly change my argument so it holds up in your court of law, your honour. The witcher 2's physical copies only had DRM for a very short time, yet even after that they still sold plenty of copies. So my point still stands. A game doesn't need DRM to prevent piracy. (And an addition A game needs to be good to (partially) prevent piracy.

 

[Albino Boo]

No I dont give a damn about DRM and neither does CD project. They strike a public pose about no DRM and then sell the vast majority of their games on a platform with in built DRM. IF they really cared they wouldn't use steam.

Are you that naive? If you want your game to reach a wide market, you almost NEED to be on steam these days. I know people who stopped buying games anywhere else, because you can get them on steam anyway right? And I've also seen plenty of people complain online that certain games weren't available on steam. These days, it would be stupid to not release a game on steam. Once again, that's why the physical copy is there. It's the customers' fault for insisting on buying the digital version off of steam when they can order the physical copy without steam as well. If they care about such a thing that is.

So, fine, let me slightly change my argument so it holds up in your court of law, your honour. The witcher 2's physical copies only had DRM for a very short time, yet even after that they still sold plenty of copies. So my point still stands. A game doesn't need DRM to prevent piracy. (And an addition A game needs to be good to (partially) prevent piracy.

You cant have it both ways. You cannot say you are anti drm when 80% of your sales have drm.

 

[Mutant1988]

One flaw with your "Devil's Advocacy". Libraries do not simply loan out and recirculate retail books. They buy "Library Editions". Essentially they are paying well above market value for the single book, in order to purchase a "multi user" license. So a &12.99 retail hardcover may cost a library $50. This is why the lost book fees at libraries are so expensive. And yes, before anyone jumps all over me, there are some exceptions to this licensing for libraries. Typically involving out of print items and some types of periodicals.

In a gaming medium the equivalent to traditional Libraries will be Streaming Services. Things like Playstation Now (I think it's called?) or any "Netflix Like" service for gaming where you pay a flat subscription price to access a catalog of games. The games streamed by that service are purchased and licensed specifically for multi users.

I'm fairly certain that I pay taxes for the availability of libraries (And many other things). I'm perfectly fine with that, as am I with a premium for a multi-use license. That means that the creator of the work is paid for the service they do society.

Because libraries is a social tool, meant to promote education and culture, and not a means to get things for free.

Me, I'd rather personally own books, but I can't afford all of them nor do I have anywhere to store them. Been thinking about buying some kind of tablet with E-reader functionality, then buy all the books and comics I want to read.

No I dont give a damn about DRM and neither does CD project. They strike a public pose about no DRM and then sell the vast majority of their games on a platform with in built DRM. IF they really cared they wouldn't use steam.

A company will not commit financial suicide in the name of principle. It can't do that and stay a company. But that's not even relevant, because they don't impose the DRM on the product - The market place does.

And they need to distribute on this market place because it's the single most popular digital market place in the world. If they didn't, they would not make the money spent on development back, even less make a profit out of it.

So yes, you can be anti-DRM and still distribute through a platform with DRM. It's the choice of the consumer whether to use the DRM free platforms (Which exist), or the DRM included platform.

You are given a choice. If you want it on Steam, that's on you. If you want it without DRM, then you can get it without DRM.

So, fine, let me slightly change my argument so it holds up in your court of law, your honour. The witcher 2's physical copies only had DRM for a very short time, yet even after that they still sold plenty of copies. So my point still stands. A game doesn't need DRM to prevent piracy. (And an addition A game needs to be good to (partially) prevent piracy.

They can still claim to be anti-DRM, based on them actually revising their policy on it. Just because it had it once doesn't mean that it needs to keep it.

And it didn't. A company can change, just the same as any person can.

I'll add to what prevents piracy:

* More respectful attitudes by users towards creators - That being what I've been arguing about all this time. People should not take creators for granted.

* More convenient means to distribute and charge for products - Probably the single most important thing of all.

* Making sure that any product that people are willing to pay for is available in their market (Digital allows real time price adjustment - Use it!) - I would love this and it would effectively put a permanent end to my own bad habits.

* Lots and lots of good PR - Post release updates and responding to the community (Which is not saying you should do everything they tell you to) does improve sales.

* Making features incredibly inconvenient for pirates - This is not something I recommend however. Do not put feature server side when it can be done locally, because you only hurt the ability to keep the game playable in the future. It's a real shame that the industry is adopting this principle far more than any other (For the purpose of profit).