- Jul 23, 2011
Even if DRM does not actually guarantee the extra sales that companies try to justify it with, having more control is always better, even if it costs you a little on your bottom line.
True, I wonder if someone can bug the EFF into compiling some data.Res Plus said:
And stupid shareholders are, in turn, spawned by the erroneous notion that piracy kills the industry outright. If them dirty pirate scum so much as touch my invested I.P., my moneytubes will vanish out of the Interflux! LOCK MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DOWN NOW!RhombusHatesYou said:This is actually close to the reason I've heard from corporate and IP lawyers when I've discussed DRM.Shamus Young said:3. Publishers know that DRM doesn't work, but they put it there to appease stupid shareholders.
In their opinion DRM exists to protect publishers from the possibility of opportunistic stakeholders litigating against the publishers for not taking 'all reasonable measures' to protect their stake/property/so on. This is corporations protecting themselves from the exact same thing most of them would do if the situation was reversed. Doesn't matter that DRM doesn't work and that everyone knows it doesn't work as long as DRM is legally considered a 'reasonable measure' for protecting the interests IP/authorware/3rd party utilities/so on rightholders.
They're essentially protecting themselves from the same arsehole logic that insurance companies use to say that your flood coverage only covers things damaged directly by water and not, say, the 18 wheeler that a flash flood tossed into your house.
Well, telling everyone in a mass group of people to change their behavior to solve an issue really isn't a solution. Getting devs and publishers to stop is a lot more feasible. Of course the shareholders are just as stupid as the masses, and they are the ones with the real power. Really, the only practical thing is to just stop buying games that have unacceptable DRM in it. It won't do much, but at least you won't have to deal with or tolerate the problems DRM adds. There's thousands of games from over the decades that you can return to without DRM if you really run out of modern games to play due to limiting yourself.shirkbot said:Well that's lovely, but then what do you actually propose we do about it? The information is out there, how do we spread it? Because the way I see it we need to either convince more people to actually pay attention to DRM, or try to convince devs to never go on the stock market so they never have to deal with investors that have no idea what they're talking about. There must be something we can do, even if it's small, because things have to start somewhere.Zachary Amaranth said:-snip-
These companies have known for a long time that strict DRM does not significantly impact sales in developed markets like North America. They know that their games are cracked and available to pirate typically within days of release. For many developers and publishers it is a matter of CYA, the shareholders are concerned about piracy, the management is concerned about piracy, so the rank and file have to say they are doing something and the easiest way to do that is to stick some DRM on top of your game.Ben Halstead said:Shamus, I agree with most of your article, but have to question your point 1. You are likely correct that there was no large increase in sales, but you have used an assumption based on the absence of released information as "proof" that the 95% sales bit is wrong.
The best you can really do is say that publishers should now have the data to finally prove/disprove the 95% sales justification, and challenge them do do so. I myself would be interested to see any response from a direct inquiry to EA on this point.
It would be great if this spelled the death of DRM, but I somehow doubt it'll be this easy.