Do Publishers really need DRM?

[42]

This is a bit of a rant so apologies in advance for people who pay attention to detail

Publishers are abusing the shit out of DRM, and i think its about time we just dropped the whole concept.
I reckon it's a load of bollocks. I bring this up because i've gotten sick and tired of publisher's pushing all of this DRM bullshit, with Always-On, Online Passes, Secu-ROM, accounts associated with their sites, back in a previous generation, we didn't have to put up with this sort of shit.

But that's the thing, we've past the point of no return, because we all have these DRM crap in place, and to remove it would cost time money, and people have already invested too much money in games they bought through Steam (which is the best example of Good DRM), and other services. I understand piracy is a reason which is reasonable enough for DRM to be their but Publishers have abused the shit out of this.
This mainly applies to PC gaming because with Consoles the only DRM problem we have is the online passes, which makes it tougher for the poorer (i myself being one) gamers as we have to fork out additional money to access a component of a game. This is no rant on PC gaming being better than consoles (vice versa) as that sort of shit is pathetic.

there are several examples, but they have been beaten to death but to list some examples of annoying DRM here goes

Ubisoft: Assassin's Creed Always On
EA: Online Passes and the current stouche with Steam
Capcom: That whole save business on that Resident Evil game

So do you think DRM has become something of a power that Publishers have abused?

 

[MorphingDragon]

Because this:

http://www.illwillpress.com/OWNSHIP22.html

And to please bullshit arse investors who have no fucking clue about the games industry or piracy in general. The publishers are trying to solve a problem oushed by investors and upper management by restricting media rights instead of using psycology.

 

[Zhukov]

No, of course not.

It only affects the people using legit copies. Pirated version have the DRM removed. Thus pirates are utterly unaffected by any DRM measures and are actually enjoyed a slightly superior product. At best it delays the release of pirated version by a week or so. This is not news. We all know this.

That said, DRM isn't going away any time soon.

No publisher is going to stand before their investors and say, "We aren't using any copy protection because it never works."

 

[kasperbbs]

Only good DRM's are the ones that block online play with pirated versions, everything else doesn't work, at best they delay torrenting by a week, most of the time it doesnt take that long. While i dont pirate PC games i just see it as annoyance when i cant play some of my games on my laptop when i have no internet connection.

 

[SuperNova221]

I'm waiting and hoping that some day soon a company will release a game in two versions, one in DRM and one without, and see how much of each is bought. Best near-objective way I can think of that would prove whether or not gamers like being gimped in games that they buy for the sake of making a little bit harder to pirate.

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

Do publishers really need DRM?

Spoiler

 

[yuval152]

[link]http://tinyurl.com/yet9p2j[/link]

Pretty much explains it.

 

[yuval152]

[link]http://tinyurl.com/yet9p2j[/link]

Pretty much explains it.

No it doesn't. Piracy has been around since the days of the floppy disc. Developers know that their game is going to get pirated, likely at the same rate games were pirated the year previous. Developers know that putting more restrictive DRM on their product is likely to make it a bigger target for piracy. Developers know that in the end, DRM hurts nobody except for the legitimate buyer.

So why do they still include DRM? Firstly, to dismantle the used game market. Which is far more accessible to people and because of it has a bigger impact than piracy on their bottom line. And secondly, to please dipshit shareholders who have never played a video game in their life and don't understand the inner workings of the gaming industry.

So basically it's all bullshit. Smoke and mirrors.

so publishers are just being dicks?

 

[k7avenger]

[link]http://tinyurl.com/yet9p2j[/link]

Pretty much explains it.

No it doesn't. Piracy has been around since the days of the floppy disc. Developers know that their game is going to get pirated, likely at the same rate games were pirated the year previous. Developers know that putting more restrictive DRM on their product is likely to make it a bigger target for piracy. Developers know that in the end, DRM hurts nobody except for the legitimate buyer.

So why do they still include DRM? Firstly, to dismantle the used game market. Which is far more accessible to people and because of it has a bigger impact than piracy on their bottom line. And secondly, to please dipshit shareholders who have never played a video game in their life and don't understand the inner workings of the gaming industry.

So basically it's all bullshit. Smoke and mirrors.

so publishers are just being dicks?

Something like that.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Because this:

http://www.illwillpress.com/OWNSHIP22.html

And to please bullshit arse investors who have no fucking clue about the games industry or piracy in general. The publishers are trying to solve a problem oushed by investors and upper management by restricting media rights instead of using psycology.

Yeah... no. This has less to do with DRM and more with "I'm a Dickhead who hates change".

Digital destribution is not the problem, the problem are pirates. Like you see in the comments of Foamys rant, a lot of dickheads pirate everything and do not realize that they are the reason that the investors want to see new and more DRM ideas. Hey, they invest money in the development of a product and then some selfish assholes take it for free. I would want better protection for my products too.

But these people need to realise (and with these I mean the investors etc) that there is a better way to reduce piracy than DRM. Mostly because there is no DRM that protects the game longer than 1-2 weeks. Demos, more and less biased infos (I'm looking at the reviewer. Sometimes I hate to say that Yahtzee is one of the best REVIEWERS out there because he does not praise games with 15 minute singleplayer and 6 hours scripted waiting), and finally: human prices outside of the US.

But how can we, the little people, show them what we want? Don't buy their stuff. And don't pirate it. So fuckin simple. If I don't like something about a game I simply don't play it.

To keep a long story short: Nope, the devs do not need DRM. They need Demos.

Yeah, no, the problem is "dickhead" companies that don't want to accept that the market has changed and their business model is outdated. They spent the last 10 or 20 years going after piracy, and now that they've realized it's doing nothing for their bottom line, they're going after the used market, too. I have a feeling when that doesn't improve their situation, they'll either find something else to lie about, or just go out of business with a whimper. Heck, pirates don't have to deal with the restrictions that these companies put on their digital copies -- only paying customers. When your business model is designed in such a way that the people who are willing to give you money get screwed, while the people who try to screw you get away with a better product, your business model is terribly flawed, and it's going to eventually bite you in the butt.

Also, here's an embed of the video that was linked; more people need to see it.

 

[Irridium]

No they don't need it. They think they do(or at least, the investors think they do), but in reality it doesn't do jack shit. At most it'll delay the pirated copy, which again won't do shit since pirates will simply just wait for it to be available.

The only ones who have to suffer under DRM are the paying customers. Pirates don't have to deal with it at all. I've re-iterated this point so many god damn times it's starting to cause actual pain.

And another kicker, the people most hard hit by the DRM, the people with no/bad internet connections... they're the least likely to pirate in the first god damn place. So DRM only hurts the paying customer, and hurts the customer that's least likely to pirate the most.

Pirates will pirate, no matter what. There is NOTHING anyone can do to stop them short of not releasing anything in the first place.

The sooner Publishers/investors get this through their thick, stupid skulls, the sooner they can move on to actually doing something about it. The most they can do is simply reduce piracy, which is a decent goal, and might actually work. But that requires them treating their customers like people instead of potential criminals with fat stacks of cash.

Fat chance of that ever happening.

 

[The Lunatic]

When it works, they might need it.

Until then, it's just a waste of money and a hampering to customers.

 

[Soveru]

DRM does not work and causes more sales to be lost.

2 types of people pirate games

1. The person who hates DRM and refuses to buy the game because of it
2. This person just wants free stuff.

Nothing can be done about the 2nd kind as they will pirate your game no matter what and thus it cannot really be counted as 'lost sales.'

Removing DRM however, wins the 1st type over.

 

[Robert Ewing]

It's only going to effect those who go out and purchase the real thing.

The DRM is designed to stop pirates. But pirates remove it with ease within the first few days of release.

So DRM is useless at the task in was invented to perform. And only causes problems for people who actually go out and buy the game. It's almost an incentive to pirate the game. If you have a game with a stranglehold DRM that literally chokes your entire game play experience. You may as well just download a crack to get rid of that bloody DRM.

 

[Soveru]

Publishers should also look at making good games to increase sales instead.
Look at Sins of a solar empire. No DRM and still commercially successfully

 

[Wintermoot]

yes the DRM is annoying I,m actually considering pirating my already bought steam games so I can run them on my laptop without looking for a WIFI first DRM is a ***** and I wonder why we can,t return to the you-need-a-cd-to play format,

 

[Hannah Bailey]

To play Devil's advocate, doesn't the online-only DRM (Ubisoft, Diablo 3) prevent piracy to a decent amount? Sure it angers a few customers, but the masses still buy the game, and even if the DRM is cracked in a month or so (IIRC, Assassin's Creed DRM took a few months to fully crack, and if the game is missing chunks of important data and can't get it without authenticating with the server, that makes it really tough for pirates to hack), that's still a month where a lot of casual pirates give up and buy the product, and it's those early days that are the most important sales wise. And the further we go, the rarer dial-up and lack of Internet access will become, so I guess major publishers will be willing to lose those few customers to gain the causal piracy market.

 

[Stall]

Dude, we've always had to put up with DRM. Saying we didn't have to "last generation" is just pure ignorance. DRM has always existed in some for or another. So I'm sorry, but you are just wrong. Go look it up: it hasn't always been called DRM, but it has always existed. Honestly... it's more user friendly now than ever!

And no, DRM is fine. It has never inconvenienced me. You never trust your customer, and video game companies understand this. It's a sound business practice. DRM is just one of those things that is "cool to hate".

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

To play Devil's advocate, doesn't the online-only DRM (Ubisoft, Diablo 3) prevent piracy to a decent amount? Sure it angers a few customers, but the masses still buy the game, and even if the DRM is cracked in a month or so (IIRC, Assassin's Creed DRM took a few months to fully crack, and if the game is missing chunks of important data and can't get it without authenticating with the server, that makes it really tough for pirates to hack), that's still a month where a lot of casual pirates give up and buy the product, and it's those early days that are the most important sales wise. And the further we go, the rarer dial-up and lack of Internet access will become, so I guess major publishers will be willing to lose those few customers to gain the causal piracy market.

The answer is no, it's not a deterrent at all. Even in the case of AC2, the month in which people were trying to crack it showed no change in sales over what would be expected if the game had been cracked on day one. The pirates were willing to wait for a working copy. Generally speaking, DRM is cracked before the game is even released. Ubisoft's DRM in particular was set up so that once it had been cracked for one game, it was cracked for all of them -- so that month only applied to one game, and the rest were business as usual. As for Diablo 3, it will be cracked, there will be offline single player, and there will be mods and private servers. But only for pirates and the paying customers who go out of their way to download a crack; the rest of them will get an inferior product to the one the pirates enjoy. If all of that is true of WoW (maybe minus the inferior product part; MMOs are one of the very few game types that the service model actually applies to), something that one would think would be impossible to pirate, it's going to be true of Diablo.

 

[FalloutJack]

No, of course not.

It only affects the people using legit copies. Pirated version have the DRM removed. Thus pirates are utterly unaffected by any DRM measures and are actually enjoyed a slightly superior product. At best it delays the release of pirated version by a week or so. This is not news. We all know this.

That said, DRM isn't going away any time soon.

No publisher is going to stand before their investors and say, "We aren't using any copy protection because it never works."

Arrr! I be noticin' that thar be little in what you call logic ta' be found in business, Jim Lad. The only way they CAN go that'd work is precisely what ya say they won't. An' until they do, they be bailing an ocean out of their pants without anywhere ta' put the water!