Early last week I wrote an article for my student newspaper, to be featured in the weekly issue that Friday. The article was for the Tech section of the paper and was based around the recent DRM issue relating to Ubisoft's plans for it's future PC releases. Those few users who are in Leeds may have seen the article (though I doubt it), and I did promise certain people in the various Ubisoft threads that I would post the article online. So, here you are, in all it's glory (this is an unedited version, the copy of the article that appeared in the newspaper was slightly edited by the associate editor).
The point of me posting this article on the site now is because quite simply, this is a burning issue that affects all gamers to some extent. So what are your thoughts? Does DRM really work, and is it really worth the hassle for legitimate consumers? Or does DRM ultimately do more harm than good to the gaming industry?
EDIT: When reading, bear in mind that this article was written for a layman's audience, who aren't necessarily aware of concepts such as DRM and the like. Which explains the explanations of all the technical jargon that we gamers understand perfectly.
Early last week, the video game industry was rocked by news of the latest DRM scheme to come from French game developer Ubisoft. DRM, or Digital Rights Management, is a term that refers to various methods of preventing illegal downloading and piracy of video games and other software. Usually, this involves some form of check to make sure that the game being played is a legitimately bought copy, rather than an illegal download. DRM is nothing new. Ever since the internet first started to become popular, video games released on PC have been subject to illegal download and filesharing, leading to measures being put in place to prevent piracy. One of the earliest forms of DRM relates to activating an installed game before it can be played, usually done by inputting a verification code released with the game itself. This was hardly foolproof, however, as it was easy for pirates to create false codes with copied games that were indistinguishable from the real thing. These codes would be recognised as genuine despite actually being fake, so pirates were able to completely bypass any DRM used by developers.
Ubisoft?s scheme is somewhat different. It relies on having any game being played connected to the internet at all times. This doesn?t seem to bad t first glance. However, Ubisoft has also stated that the connection must remain constant, and that if either the PC that is running the game, or Ubisoft?s own internet servers, drop a connection, then the game will immediately shut down. The company has justified this by claiming that most gamers will always be connected to the internet anyway when playing games. However, the company has come under fire from gamers and people within the gaming industry for it?s approach to DRM schemes.
A common argument against Ubisoft?s planned restrictions is that the scheme will apply even to PC games that are single player, such as the recent Assassin?s Creed 2. In addition, Ubisoft is notorious among developers for it?s constant server failures, resulting in extremely poor management of online gaming. There exists a very high chance that gamers under the new DRM will constantly find their games interrupted by poor internet connection through Ubisoft?s own servers.
The approach towards piracy that Ubisoft has adopted is dubious at best. The entire reasoning behind DRM is that it helps prevent piracy, yet technology such as this only serves to hinder legitimate customers. PC gamers have already begun to protest against Ubisoft?s DRM technology, with an online petition in full swing. Googling ?Ubisoft DRM petition? yields some rather surprising opinions towards the developer. Looking at the comments on one of the various petitions to have sprung up regarding Ubisoft, it would appear that many gamers are planning to boycott future Ubisoft releases, including the upcoming PC release of Assassin?s Creed 2. But more shocking is the fact that many more, it seems, plan to pirate future Ubisoft games in a bid to enjoy the product without any of the hassle of DRM. This goes completely against the point of what Ubisoft is doing. DRM is meant to prevent piracy, whereas in this case, it seems to be doing more to promote it.
Which raises the question, does DRM actually work? It has long been a staple of all forms of electronic media, but more so in gaming than anywhere else. As each new DRM technology has come and gone, pirates have managed to find ways of cracking the system and getting past the protection. Piracy has always been rampant, so developers have been forced to come up with new and ever changing ways to outwit the pirates. But recently, DRM has been progressing to the point that most gamers find it more of a hindrance than a help. Ubisoft?s plans would appear to be the final nail in the coffin, with gamers threatening to pirate the developer?s games anyway. Other developers have tried other approaches. For example, with last year?s release of Batman: Arkham Asylum, gamers who illegally downloaded the game were ?rewarded? with a main character who was unable to use any of the special moves in the game, including ones that were vital to the game?s completion. Only legitimate users, therefore, were able to play the game all the way through.
This is the sort of DRM that works. Pirates are the ones who should, in theory, be punished, while rewarding legitimate gamers. Instead, we are seeing a complete reversal. DRM has long been cited as necessary in the fight against piracy, but with schemes like this, is it really any wonder that so many gamers turn to illegal downloads in the first place?
[small]Dated 26/02/2010
Source: http://www.leedsstudent.org/
[/small]
Ubisoft?s scheme is somewhat different. It relies on having any game being played connected to the internet at all times. This doesn?t seem to bad t first glance. However, Ubisoft has also stated that the connection must remain constant, and that if either the PC that is running the game, or Ubisoft?s own internet servers, drop a connection, then the game will immediately shut down. The company has justified this by claiming that most gamers will always be connected to the internet anyway when playing games. However, the company has come under fire from gamers and people within the gaming industry for it?s approach to DRM schemes.
A common argument against Ubisoft?s planned restrictions is that the scheme will apply even to PC games that are single player, such as the recent Assassin?s Creed 2. In addition, Ubisoft is notorious among developers for it?s constant server failures, resulting in extremely poor management of online gaming. There exists a very high chance that gamers under the new DRM will constantly find their games interrupted by poor internet connection through Ubisoft?s own servers.
The approach towards piracy that Ubisoft has adopted is dubious at best. The entire reasoning behind DRM is that it helps prevent piracy, yet technology such as this only serves to hinder legitimate customers. PC gamers have already begun to protest against Ubisoft?s DRM technology, with an online petition in full swing. Googling ?Ubisoft DRM petition? yields some rather surprising opinions towards the developer. Looking at the comments on one of the various petitions to have sprung up regarding Ubisoft, it would appear that many gamers are planning to boycott future Ubisoft releases, including the upcoming PC release of Assassin?s Creed 2. But more shocking is the fact that many more, it seems, plan to pirate future Ubisoft games in a bid to enjoy the product without any of the hassle of DRM. This goes completely against the point of what Ubisoft is doing. DRM is meant to prevent piracy, whereas in this case, it seems to be doing more to promote it.
Which raises the question, does DRM actually work? It has long been a staple of all forms of electronic media, but more so in gaming than anywhere else. As each new DRM technology has come and gone, pirates have managed to find ways of cracking the system and getting past the protection. Piracy has always been rampant, so developers have been forced to come up with new and ever changing ways to outwit the pirates. But recently, DRM has been progressing to the point that most gamers find it more of a hindrance than a help. Ubisoft?s plans would appear to be the final nail in the coffin, with gamers threatening to pirate the developer?s games anyway. Other developers have tried other approaches. For example, with last year?s release of Batman: Arkham Asylum, gamers who illegally downloaded the game were ?rewarded? with a main character who was unable to use any of the special moves in the game, including ones that were vital to the game?s completion. Only legitimate users, therefore, were able to play the game all the way through.
This is the sort of DRM that works. Pirates are the ones who should, in theory, be punished, while rewarding legitimate gamers. Instead, we are seeing a complete reversal. DRM has long been cited as necessary in the fight against piracy, but with schemes like this, is it really any wonder that so many gamers turn to illegal downloads in the first place?
[small]Dated 26/02/2010
Source: http://www.leedsstudent.org/
[/small]
The point of me posting this article on the site now is because quite simply, this is a burning issue that affects all gamers to some extent. So what are your thoughts? Does DRM really work, and is it really worth the hassle for legitimate consumers? Or does DRM ultimately do more harm than good to the gaming industry?
EDIT: When reading, bear in mind that this article was written for a layman's audience, who aren't necessarily aware of concepts such as DRM and the like. Which explains the explanations of all the technical jargon that we gamers understand perfectly.