Anti piracy in PC games?

[DoPo]

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.

Actually, you can have DRM free games on Steam. Bindings of Isaac is one - you basically buy it through Steam and download it from there but you don't need Steam to run it. It very loosely uses Steam just for achievements and only if Steam is running at the same time as BoI. In effect, it's not really much different than if you get the game through GOG as there you'll also pay GOG and download it from them.

I don't know if the Witcher is employing the DRM of Steam or not but just saying - it doesn't need to. Steam could be (and is, by few) used for distribution only.

 

[Mutant1988]

Actually, you can have DRM free games on Steam. Bindings of Isaac is one - you basically buy it through Steam and download it from there but you don't need Steam to run it. It very loosely uses Steam just for achievements and only if Steam is running at the same time as BoI. In effect, it's not really much different than if you get the game through GOG as there you'll also pay GOG and download it from them.

I don't know if the Witcher is employing the DRM of Steam or not but just saying - it doesn't need to. Steam could be (and is, by few) used for distribution only.

Ah, cool. I actually didn't know that. I figured the offline mode was as close as you could get to a Steam without active DRM. That's nice to hear anyway, that creators have the option not to use the Steam license authentication to start games (Or make to work offline).

So then that shoots down the idea that Steam is a DRM in and of itself. It's not then, because using the DRM part of it appears to be voluntary.

The point I was making is still valid though - You can claim to be against DRM and still release on a platform with DRM, as long as people are given the option to use the marketplace without it.

To not do that would be economical suicide. And that's great, if you never want another Witcher game.

Principles and ideals are great - But they need to be adapted to reality. Especially in economics. If people simply don't use marketplaces without DRM, then you would be a fool to release only on such a marketplace. Your good intentions will just disappear along with the company.

 

[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.

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.

If a clothing company says its anti sweatshop labour but 80% of products are made in sweatshop then they are not anti sweatshop. If 80% of products are sold with DRM then you are not anti drm.

Actually, you can have DRM free games on Steam. Bindings of Isaac is one - you basically buy it through Steam and download it from there but you don't need Steam to run it. It very loosely uses Steam just for achievements and only if Steam is running at the same time as BoI. In effect, it's not really much different than if you get the game through GOG as there you'll also pay GOG and download it from them.

I don't know if the Witcher is employing the DRM of Steam or not but just saying - it doesn't need to. Steam could be (and is, by few) used for distribution only.

There is a key sever on the steam version, I know because I got failed to contact key sever error on it when I bought it in a sale

 

[MonsterCrit]

Do you think more PC games should employ anti piracy measures so that it discourages people from pirating PC games? I don't mean DRM anti piracy but more like Sims 4 and Game Developer Tycoon like where your in game progress is hampered if a pirated copy is detected.It would be for the better if all PC games had this form of anti piracy measure which would only affect pirates instead of DRM which only mostly affects genuine buyers.
So instead of stuffing every PC game with DRM software more games should use this funny way to stop pirates as this measure cannot be countered i suppose and this will hopefully lead to more PC game sales and discourage piracy.

Yeah That sounds good in theory but those tricks... only work until they're found. Then they are just as easily patched out. The antipiracy measures aren't any more effective than DRM... but it does allow for some metrics by the publisher and a good laugh. Metrics since they will invariably assume it is a bug and post on the forums or support about it so it gives them a tangible idea of how many pirates are out there.

Digital retailers like steam I think have the best form of DRM. The steam client and service is in itself a drm platform but one that does not bog down your system and actually confers some benefits to the users, I mean them steam sales brah, them daily deals. I do not regret having my steam client up and running in my system tray constantly. Origin likely works in a similar manner.

 

[Mutant1988]

If a clothing company says its anti sweatshop labour but 80% of products are made in sweatshop then they are not anti sweatshop. If 80% of products are sold with DRM then you are not anti drm.

Exploitation of labour is not comparable to a "voluntary" end user usage restriction of an entertainment product.

I also ask you to prove that paying CD Projekt Red for their games contribute to DRM being more common place.

Because if that's the case, it's because end users chose to support DRM themselves. They could always buy from the non-DRM marketplace.

 

[Albino Boo]

If a clothing company says its anti sweatshop labour but 80% of products are made in sweatshop then they are not anti sweatshop. If 80% of products are sold with DRM then you are not anti drm.

Exploitation of labour is not comparable to a "voluntary" end user usage restriction of an entertainment product.

I also ask you to prove that paying CD Projekt Red for their games contribute to DRM being more common place.

Because if that's the case, it's because end users chose to support DRM themselves. They could always buy from the non-DRM marketplace.

No it isn't. The reason why sweatshop labour is used because its cheaper than non sweatshop labour. You can make exactly the same argument about financial suicide not to using sweatshops that you made about not using steam. Why is one finical suicide ok when the other is not?

 

[Mutant1988]

If a clothing company says its anti sweatshop labour but 80% of products are made in sweatshop then they are not anti sweatshop. If 80% of products are sold with DRM then you are not anti drm.

Exploitation of labour is not comparable to a "voluntary" end user usage restriction of an entertainment product.

I also ask you to prove that paying CD Projekt Red for their games contribute to DRM being more common place.

Because if that's the case, it's because end users chose to support DRM themselves. They could always buy from the non-DRM marketplace.

No it isn't. The reason why sweatshop labour is used because its cheaper than non sweatshop labour. You can make exactly the same argument about financial suicide not to using sweatshops that you made about not using steam. Why is one finical suicide ok when the other is not?

Because one of them relies on the perpetual misery of others (Poverty and lack of education, collapsed economy etc) while the other does not?

And yes, if you buy products from a company that uses sweat shop labour, that's partly your fault that they continue doing so.

But if you are given the option to buy the exact same thing, without sweat shop labour, and you still choose the first - You are a selfish jerk. You were given the option not to and chose not to use it.

The scenario people are presented with the game however is this - Buy the game with DRM (No labour exploitation) or without DRM (Still no labour exploitation).

Again, those two things are not comparable, in any direct sense. Except that both the concept of DRM and the continued use of sweat shops stem from poor attitudes. The "Not giving a shit about anyone but myself" attitudes.

And the customers also have an obligation to care, lest they perpetuate the current state of affairs. Like buying it on Steam and stating that you are just fine with it's DRM. Or buying sweat shop labour products of any sort.

CD Projekt Red obviously give a shit about DRM, because if they didn't they would not offer the option of buying without it.

 

[Albino Boo]

Because one of them relies on the perpetual misery of others (Poverty and lack of education, collapsed economy etc) while the other does not?

And yes, if you buy products from a company that uses sweat shop labour, that's partly your fault that they continue doing so.

But if you are given the option to buy the exact same thing, without sweat shop labour, and you still choose the first - You are a selfish jerk. You were given the option not to and chose not to use it.

The scenario people are presented with the game however is this - Buy the game with DRM (No labour exploitation) or without DRM (Still no labour exploitation).

Again, those two things are not comparable, in any direct sense. Except that both the concept of DRM and the continued use of sweat shops stem from poor attitudes. The "Not giving a shit about anyone but myself" attitudes.

And the customers also have an obligation to care, lest they perpetuate the current state of affairs. Like buying it on Steam and stating that you are just fine with it's DRM. Or buying sweat shop labour products of any sort.

CD Projekt Red obviously give a shit about DRM, because if they didn't they would not offer the option of buying without it.

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


They could put games on steam without drm but don't. They play to gallery by pretending to be against them man while shielding themselves with DRM on 80% of their sales. You can twist and turn as much as you like but it won't change the fact the they have option of no DRM but don't use it on steam.

 

[Mutant1988]

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


They could put games on steam without drm but don't. They play to gallery by pretending to be against them man while shielding themselves with DRM on 80% of their sales. You can twist and turn as much as you like but it won't change the fact the they have option of no DRM but don't use it on steam.

And I think it's the responsibility of the people that care about no DRM to buy the version without it. Because that is the most effective way to enact change.

Them offering the option is more than enough to warrant them publicly expressing a disapproval of DRM.

Because they do provide users with the option. Options are good in this regard and because a version with DRM is one of those options, does not invalidate the one that is.

It's up to customers to dictate what kind of market they are willing to accept. The company still needs money to sustain itself and honestly - It's not a massive moral compromise to have DRM. It's dumb and pointless, but it does not negate being against DRM.

Again, ideals + reality = Compromise.

They could very well do what you suggest and go out of business. Do you think that will make DRM disappear?

And if you can't see a moral distinction between the use of sweat shop labour and digital rights management, then I'm sorry, but I no longer have any desire to speak with you.

In regards to worker exploitation it's not really a matter of whether their business can sustain itself without it or not, as a means to justify it's use. A business model that rely on the misery of others should not exist in the first place. That is why the civilized world abolished slavery.

And why it should abolish sweat shops, which is slavery in everything but name. But I don't see a country like China collapsing any time soon, especially not when western companies are so heavily invested in exploiting it's workers (And the Chinese government happily obliges). You know how we stop that? By demanding oversight into the conditions of workers, by the authority of an independent labour and human rights interest group.

The everything or nothing policy that you demand does not work in reality and you are incredibly naive to believe it could.

If you want to change the industry, do your part and buy the version without DRM and tell all your friends to buy it too. The more people that chose that option, the more likely Steam are to change their policies.

 

[Albino Boo]

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


They could put games on steam without drm but don't. They play to gallery by pretending to be against them man while shielding themselves with DRM on 80% of their sales. You can twist and turn as much as you like but it won't change the fact the they have option of no DRM but don't use it on steam.

And I think it's the responsibility of the people that care about no DRM to buy the version without it. Because that is the most effective way to enact change.

Them offering the option is more than enough to warrant them publicly expressing a disapproval of DRM.

Because they do provide users with the option. Options are good in this regard and because a version with DRM is one of those options, does not invalidate the one that is.

It's up to customers to dictate what kind of market they are willing to accept. The company still needs money to sustain itself and honestly - It's not a massive moral compromise to have DRM. It's dumb and pointless, but it does not negate being against DRM.

Again, ideals + reality = Compromise.

They could very well do what you suggest and go out of business. Do you think that will make DRM disappear?

And if you can't see a moral distinction between the use of sweat shop labour and digital rights management, then I'm sorry, but I no longer have any desire to speak with you.

In regards to worker exploitation it's not really a matter of whether their business can sustain itself without it or not, as a means to justify it's use. A business model that rely on the misery of others should not exist in the first place. That is why the civilized world abolished slavery.

And why it should abolish sweat shops, which is slavery in everything but name. But I don't see a country like China collapsing any time soon, especially not when western companies are so heavily invested in exploiting it's workers (And the Chinese government happily obliges). You know how we stop that? By demanding oversight into the conditions of workers, by the authority of an independent labour and human rights interest group.

The everything or nothing policy that you demand does not work in reality and you are incredibly naive to believe it could.

If you want to change the industry, do your part and buy the version without DRM and tell all your friends to buy it too. The more people that chose that option, the more likely Steam are to change their policies.

They have the option of not using DRM on steam but don't use it. If they are so anti DRM why do they use DRM on steam?

 

[Mutant1988]

They have the option of not using DRM on steam but don't use it. If they are so anti DRM why do they use DRM on steam?

Presumably because it's mandated by their investors or publisher. You know, the ones that stand to lose millions if the game fails to sell (Likely when it's not on Steam) or get pirated (Arguable how much of a loss that entails, but I bet a lot of investors frown upon the very concept)?

They still provide consumers with the ability to chose what business model to support. If people want DRM, they will get DRM.

CD Projekt Red can't change the industry without the support of customers.

 

[Albino Boo]

They have the option of not using DRM on steam but don't use it. If they are so anti DRM why do they use DRM on steam?

Presumably because it's mandated by their investors or publisher. You know, the ones that stand to lose millions if the game fails to sell (Likely when it's not on Steam) or get pirated (Arguable how much of a loss that entails, but I bet a lot of investors frown upon the very concept)?

They still provide consumers with the ability to chose what business model to support. If people want DRM, they will get DRM.

CD Projekt Red can't change the industry without the support of customers.

So why would investor not insist on a universal drm release? It doesn't make sense.

I refer you to this

http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/cd-projekt-red-waves-goodbye-to-drm/1100-4783/

Giant Bomb: Can you talk about why CD Projekt RED chose to use DRM in the past? Ideally, what did you hope to achieve?

Marcin Iwinski: With The Witcher 1 it was not our choice, as it was a development deal and we had Atari as a publisher. That said, I should admit that at that time we just followed the ?industry standard? and did not consider DRM-free to be a cause worth dying for.

GB: Steam is a form of DRM, but consumers are okay with that. Why do you think that is?

Iwinski: It?s easy to use and it works--and those are usually the greatest weaknesses of any DRM system. It definitely makes a huge difference that Valve is a gamer-centric company--they really care about gamers, which is a rarity.Still, I believe more freedom should come with the content you buy. I would feel much safer if I could download all my games and play them off-line without running a client application first, without accessing the Internet. What if the servers go down? What if for some unforeseen legal reasons some content has to be removed from the cloud? Do I really own it, like I own discs I buy in the store, or not? These were actually among the main reasons why we started GOG.com.

Note the past tense when referring to Atari. So they clearly think that Steam DRM is ok and in their own words.

 

[Mutant1988]

So why would investor not insist on a universal drm release? It doesn't make sense.

Presumably because the developers stated the optional DRM release as a condition to work on it at all. They probably didn't want to have it DRM free at all, but they can't just up and replace a development team.

I refer you to this

http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/cd-projekt-red-waves-goodbye-to-drm/1100-4783/

Giant Bomb: Can you talk about why CD Projekt RED chose to use DRM in the past? Ideally, what did you hope to achieve?

Marcin Iwinski: With The Witcher 1 it was not our choice, as it was a development deal and we had Atari as a publisher. That said, I should admit that at that time we just followed the ?industry standard? and did not consider DRM-free to be a cause worth dying for.

That bit is important. In fact, the single most important thing of all.

A company that can't stay in business can't change the business.

 

[Albino Boo]

So why would investor not insist on a universal drm release? It doesn't make sense.

Presumably because the developers stated the optional DRM release as a condition to work on it at all. They probably didn't want to have it DRM free at all, but they can't just up and replace a development team.

I refer you to this

http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/cd-projekt-red-waves-goodbye-to-drm/1100-4783/

Giant Bomb: Can you talk about why CD Projekt RED chose to use DRM in the past? Ideally, what did you hope to achieve?

Marcin Iwinski: With The Witcher 1 it was not our choice, as it was a development deal and we had Atari as a publisher. That said, I should admit that at that time we just followed the ?industry standard? and did not consider DRM-free to be a cause worth dying for.

That bit is important. In fact, the single most important thing of all.

A company that can't stay in business can't change the business.

Thanks for admitting they don't care about DRM that much. Its almost like they are are saying things for advertising purposes while using DRM. You know because business always tell the 100% truth and never shade things to create an image.

 

[Cecilo]

So why would investor not insist on a universal drm release? It doesn't make sense.

Presumably because the developers stated the optional DRM release as a condition to work on it at all. They probably didn't want to have it DRM free at all, but they can't just up and replace a development team.

I refer you to this

http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/cd-projekt-red-waves-goodbye-to-drm/1100-4783/

Giant Bomb: Can you talk about why CD Projekt RED chose to use DRM in the past? Ideally, what did you hope to achieve?

Marcin Iwinski: With The Witcher 1 it was not our choice, as it was a development deal and we had Atari as a publisher. That said, I should admit that at that time we just followed the ?industry standard? and did not consider DRM-free to be a cause worth dying for.

That bit is important. In fact, the single most important thing of all.

A company that can't stay in business can't change the business.

Thanks for admitting they don't care about DRM that much. Its almost like they are are saying things for advertising purposes while using DRM. You know because business always tell the 100% truth and never shade things to create an image.

They care enough to release an version of their game without DRM (Now in any case). Just because they sell it on steam and steam requires the version have DRM, does not mean they support DRM, anyone who bought that game on steam could have bought it DRM Free from GOG, They chose not to because it is more convient to buy it on steam and have it with the rest of their steam games, than to go to GOG, Sign up there, buy it through there and such.

They could have like the X3 Devs put out a Crack that allowed them to bypass Steam's DRM possibly, but again the people who bought it on Steam clearly do not care that it has DRM, had they they would have bought it from GOG.

The Company itself is anti-DRM, The customers who chose to buy it from Steam, either don't care or aren't inconvenienced enough by Steam's "DRM" to care.

 

[DoPo]

anyone who bought that game on steam could have bought it DRM Free from GOG

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't everybody who bought the game anywhere get a free GOG copy of Witcher 2 (well, unless you buy it from GOG, in the first place, that is).

EDIT: Ah, it's both 1 and 2, actually [http://www.gog.com/witcher/backup]

 

[LordLundar]

Let me tell you a couple of stories one of the type of DRM you're suggesting and one that rejected the notion.

The first story. The game was Titan Quest, developed by Iron Lore Development and published by Nordic games. An interesting game but one that had considerable issues. One such issue was random crashes. This turned out to be intended as was part of a disk check. Slight problem though. It didn't work right. People who had legitimate copies who kept the disks in during play were getting hit by these and because it was an error coded into the game when the user filed a bug report they were met with a "you pirated it, go buy a new copy" from the Customer Service department. Meanwhile patches removing the check hit the net and people who ACTUALLY pirated the game would have said patch and not run into any issues. Iron Lore Entertainment is now gone due to lack of funds due to poor development decisions (Dawn of War: Soulstorm was their last title, regarded as the worst entry in the series and suffered the similar level of crippling bugs that Titan Quest did.) and the former CEO to this day accuses piracy for it.

Second story and this one's a little more well known, though not by much. Most people are familiar with Stardock Entertainment due to recent events but this is not related to that. No, this goes back a number of years. A Russian company known as Starforce was considered by a number of game publishers to be the king of DRM. For users it was less well received with reports of physical damage to systems relating to the DRM's methods in dealing with optical media burners not uncommon but dismissed by the company in question. Starforce marketing staff approached Stardock upper management with a deal for the latter to utilize the former's DRM system in their games. This offer was flatly rejected with a substantially negative response from Stardock representatives. In retaliation, when the game in question (Galactic Civilizations 2) was released, pirated copies naturally made their way to the torrent sites. One such pirated copy was traced to Starforce offices and was not a "pure copy". It was laced considerably with viruses, trojans, and other unpleasant things. This version was summarily rejected from the community and Stardock had one of their most successful product launches in the company's history. A trend that continued until other issues arisen but had not overly hampered them. The company still stands as a solid developer and though they utilize Steamworks DRM system in recent titles, have maintained a solid consumer relationship and pro-consumer attitude that serves them well.

Now granted to some these two stories might seem like exceptions to the rule but it is indicative that working with your customers and not treating them all like thieves is far more effective than any DRM in existence.

 

[Signa]

Second story and this one's a little more well known, though not by much. Most people are familiar with Stardock Entertainment due to recent events but this is not related to that. No, this goes back a number of years. A Russian company known as Starforce was considered by a number of game publishers to be the king of DRM. For users it was less well received with reports of physical damage to systems relating to the DRM's methods in dealing with optical media burners not uncommon but dismissed by the company in question. Starforce marketing staff approached Stardock upper management with a deal for the latter to utilize the former's DRM system in their games. This offer was flatly rejected with a substantially negative response from Stardock representatives. In retaliation, when the game in question (Galactic Civilizations 2) was released, pirated copies naturally made their way to the torrent sites. One such pirated copy was traced to Starforce offices and was not a "pure copy". It was laced considerably with viruses, trojans, and other unpleasant things. This version was summarily rejected from the community and Stardock had one of their most successful product launches in the company's history. A trend that continued until other issues arisen but had not overly hampered them. The company still stands as a solid developer and though they utilize Steamworks DRM system in recent titles, have maintained a solid consumer relationship and pro-consumer attitude that serves them well.

Man, thanks for reminding me of that. I had forgotten about that story. It's pretty easy to forget that DRM is a big business in of itself.

 

[Silvanus]

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.

True. From consumer's standpoint, however, it's functionally identical for one to borrow that Library Edition or to download a PDF of the text. Each additional reading of that expensive edition still yields no additional revenue.

Plus, some libraries even carry games, and I don't believe those are "library edition" games.

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.

Libraries are free, though, whereas subscriptions to streaming services are not.

Quite. It's the choice of the end user what to do with their copy. But I meant that as a practical statement in regards to the retail exploitation of the used market to line the pockets of retailers rather than creators.

If the copies weren't limited, there would be no second hand market.

I don't agree with this at all.

Even if there were enough copies of a game for everyone on earth, the price would stay the same, because the retailers and publishers would keep it high. And as long as the price is high, people will buy second-hand, because the primary reason for doing so is price.

My point, if I had one, is that the concept of resale does not apply the same way to digital. And without the physical distribution factor, there shouldn't be any obstacle to make everything available for all, in their own marketplace at adjusted prices.

But there is, because it still needs to compete with retail and it's used market. The digital market is limited by the pricing and terms of the retail market.

One might see that as a good thing. If second-hand copies weren't available, publishers would make sure even digital editions cost even more than they do now.

Mind, I think that the matter of poverty needs to be addressed at a societal level, to ensure that people shouldn't "need" to pirate their entertainment. That justification should simply not hold any water in a first world country. It's really sad that it does.

Oh, definitely. That said, it's not only the poverty-stricken who can't readily afford games. Even if you're relatively well off, it's difficult to lose £40 or even £50 if you want to play a game.

Yes, I know. I have a bad habit of phrasing my posts in an accusational manner. I apologize for that, for what that's worth and will try to stop doing so.

No worries.

I think it's important to consider that you do not have a right to have it, at all times. To ask yourself - Could I really not pay for this?

I'm all for everyone playing as many games as possible, but I'm also against the notion of people getting things for nothing (Which might sound ironic, considering that I have an ideology which leans towards socialism).

I don't want people to make excuses for why they pirate, period.

If you think you have a good reason, keep it to yourself. Because trying to paint piracy as the solution to problems is insanity.

Well, I agree there. Piracy is hardly a moral stance. It's just one of convenience.

Out of interest, what do you feel about instances in which the artist actually wants you to pirate their work? A high-profile example is MC Lars. Also, sorry about the delay.

 

[maninahat]

Anything that could serve to piss off pirates, without hampering the legit customers is fine in my book. The sanctimony of some pirates infuriates me.