Jimquisition: Piracy - Trying To Kill It Makes It Stronger

[mjc0961]

The simple reason they don't do more stuff like steam is look what happened with origin as soon as it was announced everyone came out and said they hated it and would never use it and just pirate EA games so I can see why publishers would be put off this kind of service.

The difference is, Origin didn't need to exist. Steam exists already.

Well that's not really a valid argument because why is there more than one supermarket chain in the world, why is there more than one car manufacturer in the world, why is more than one video game retailer in the world because it provides choice without it you get a monopoly and that is always a bad thing.

This doesn't have anything to do with monopolies or anything. People hate Origin because EA said "no more games on Steam, come to Origin if you want them". That pisses people off. People like Steam, and suddenly telling them "Nope!" for whatever reason EA had, valid reason or not, doesn't make people like you or your new service.

Then to top it off, Origin isn't offering any other services like Steam does. Origin, you buy the games and then it runs in the background offering you no benefit. Steam, you buy the games and then it runs in the background offering you an easily accessible web browser if you get stuck in the game, friends list, chatting, and other features similar to what you can get on Xbox Live or PSN. It makes Steam worth having in the background, whereas Origin is just sitting there making sure you didn't steal the game. And as a store, Origin also stinks, as Shamus Young pointed out recently [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/9359-Dear-Origin-You-Stink].

People hate Origin because it does it wrong in a world where Valve has been showing everyone how to do it right for years. Things might have been different if Origin was actually good when it launched. Even if EA manages to bring it on par with Steam, they're still going to be fighting an uphill battle to get customers because their first impression was terrible.

 

[Ninedeus]

Wait....I like Jeff Dunham.

I agree with the other stuff though, anti-piracy measures actually ruin the experience of playing the game. They would rather sacrifice their consumers to fight piracy. What I don't understand is how they cannot see the trend, sure new games may hold off being pirated for a few days, or even weeks but they will find a way to work around whatever barriers were setup while those that legally bought they're games will still have to jump through hoops when they long have been deemed useless.

One exception I can recall of this is X3, initially they had shitty DRM but after it became useless, the developers removed it via patches through the game. But it took maybe a year before this happened but at least they did.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Good points Jim. Reading this in conjunction with Shamus Young's Experienced Points provides an insight into how the industry could be more convenient. There are certainly enough services out there, they just don't seem to get the exposure. That and they're mainly constricted to the PC market. The sooner consoles start offering competatively priced digital downloads the better.

The simple reason they don't do more stuff like steam is look what happened with origin as soon as it was announced everyone came out and said they hated it and would never use it and just pirate EA games so I can see why publishers would be put off this kind of service.

The difference is, Origin didn't need to exist. Steam exists already.

Well that's not really a valid argument because why is there more than one supermarket chain in the world, why is there more than one car manufacturer in the world, why is more than one video game retailer in the world because it provides choice without it you get a monopoly and that is always a bad thing.

The difference being that Supermarkets try and compete with each other for customers. Steam is a supermarket that sells games from a variety of publishers and developers, Origin sells EA games. It's like Heinz opening up a shop and then promptly pulling all of their stock off the shelves in other supermarkets. Suddenly you have to make an extra trip (installing and making an account on Origin) to get the Heinz product you wanted.

Not to menion Origin's pricing seems to directly reflect the prices of boxed retail copies.

 

[Pandabearparade]

That's why I get really annoyed whenever somebody gets up on their righteous horse and says, "It's the companies' fault!"

NO. IT. ISN'T.

Yes. It. Is.

See, the pirate doesn't have any obligation to the customer, because he's not providing a service. The company is providing a service, and it isn't my problem if other people pirate games.

 

[Yopaz]

[
So the only problem is the existence of DRM, and removing all DRM would remove the existence of piracy or at least stifle it immensely?
The flaw in the argument is that some developers have actually tried releasing DRM free games...and lo and behold the piracy rate is still laughably high. Take a look at the Witcher 2, hey we love the PC and want to support it as much as we can so we'll make it DRM free! And it gets pirated no differently than other games.
The same with something like indie bundles, hey this money is going to charity, we have DRM free versions and we offer multiple places to redeem keys if you so desire...it still gets pirated in large numbers and you have a slew of people paying only a single cent for it.

I don't think it really is a clear cut case that Jim is presenting it to be, it isn't just this case of one providing a wholesale better experience/convenience. I think it tends to be more of a case of people are just going to pirate because it isn't going to cost them anything to do it.
I mean it is hard to argue something like oh look netflix gives me such a great service...but at the same time backslap ubisoft for having to be always online. For both you have to be online, netflix doesn't allow you to download a bunch of stuff and watch it offline at your leisure (unless I'm missing some feature of netflix). Yes one is more of a rental service and the other something you own, but the point is that you can't on the one hand praise a service that requires you to be constantly online and bash another for requiring the same thing.

You are right. Removing DRM doesn't remove piracy. However there is a group of people in the world who doesn't want to pay for games DRM or not. There are a different group that is willing to pay for games DRM or not and there's a group that boycotts games because of DRM.
Do you disagree that if you could get the group that boycotts a game because of its DRM the sales number might increase? Do you disagree that a DRM that makes it impossible for a few to play and install games generates annoyance and maybe even hate for a company?
What I was trying to say is that the only ones who get problems with DRM are the honest customers. Do you honestly think that the actual customers deserves to have these problems while pirates get out the easy way?

Now we don't have Netflix here, so I can't speak for that, but I am quite familiar with the music service Spotify. You get to listen to music for free, but you have to listen to some advertisement every few songs where the money from the ads are used to pay for the service and the song licenses. If you find a song you like you can purchase it and download it and add it to your portable media player. If you get tired of advertisement you can buy a subscription. If you want to listen to music while not being connected you can get a better subscription and get to use an offline mode and you can use it on your smartphone. Everyone I know who used to download music stopped because that was so much more convenient.

What we need to realize is that piracy wont stop and DRM just makes it hard for the person who actually buys it, not the pirates and that's not fair.

You make a good point and I'm not sure how to counter it. As I said, it was only a thought experiment.
But answer me this, what happens if you want to play a Ubisoft game or Diablo 3 and don't have a stable internet connection? Why should your only option be to pirate, why can't the publishers give you another option, but for a small convenience charge? I understand why my version doesn't really work, but can't we figure one out?

I know I would be willing to pay a convenience charge for my games. I use Steam even though I can get it cheaper from retail most of the time even with Steam sales because I like having my games collected in one place. Honestly I like the idea of a one time online activation made simple. It's easy for pirates to bypass it, but it's just slightly inconvenient for the honest customer. The sad thing is that those who are behind cracking games are quite smart even though I know several pirates who aren't. I think that fighting piracy is a lost cause and that we should fight it in a way that doesn't alienate those who actually are honest.

 

[GeorgW]

I wonder what would happen if a game were to be released, and you had the choice of paying extra for a DRM free version. Say, a $10 convenience fee. No codes no nothing, just the game ready to play. Sure it'd be easier to pirate, but it's already easy. I'd love for them to just remove the DRM, everyone hates it anyway, and for good reason. But we all know that won't happen, so why not this idea?

Making a DRM free copy would mean that those who upload games in the first place would have a lot easier job doing so while all the honest customers would have to pay for it, either in cash or frustration.

But the people that upload do it within days of release(your own words), I doubt it's much of a hassle anyway. And the honest consumers wouldn't have to pay a cent more for the same product they buy now, they just have the option to pay to skip DRM. I'm sure plenty of people would do it, and if they do maybe publishers will rethink DRM.

I wont go back on my word that most DRM is cracked within days of release, Modern Warfare 3 was uploaded before its release. However what you fail to see with this point is that DRM is just a false security in these days of piracy. If they were to release a copy without DRM and one with they actually show us all that they know DRM wont stop piracy, yet they punish honest customers who aren't willing to shell out for the DRM free version. This shows us and the pirates that they know they are fighting a losing battle in this and that they actually give up on the battle and try to squeeze us for more money. DRM on the budget version punishes a honest customer. A higher cost DRM free awards the wealthy and makes piracy a lot easier than it already was.

You make a good point and I'm not sure how to counter it. As I said, it was only a thought experiment.
But answer me this, what happens if you want to play a Ubisoft game or Diablo 3 and don't have a stable internet connection? Why should your only option be to pirate, why can't the publishers give you another option, but for a small convenience charge? I understand why my version doesn't really work, but can't we figure one out?

well you also have the option to play other games, especially in the case of D3 where T2 is a really high quality contender without the drm nonsense (and cheaper)

Simply not buying it is always an option, but isn't that worse for everyone (except the competition)? The gamer doesn't get the game they want and the publisher loses a sale. That's not exactly a solution.

You make a good point and I'm not sure how to counter it. As I said, it was only a thought experiment.
But answer me this, what happens if you want to play a Ubisoft game or Diablo 3 and don't have a stable internet connection? Why should your only option be to pirate, why can't the publishers give you another option, but for a small convenience charge? I understand why my version doesn't really work, but can't we figure one out?

I know I would be willing to pay a convenience charge for my games. I use Steam even though I can get it cheaper from retail most of the time even with Steam sales because I like having my games collected in one place. Honestly I like the idea of a one time online activation made simple. It's easy for pirates to bypass it, but it's just slightly inconvenient for the honest customer. The sad thing is that those who are behind cracking games are quite smart even though I know several pirates who aren't. I think that fighting piracy is a lost cause and that we should fight it in a way that doesn't alienate those who actually are honest.

I agree. It's just sad how publishers never listen to the costumers. And people pirating humble bundles and the Witcher 2 isn't exactly helping our case either.

 

[Darkmantle]

I've never pirated a game I could easily get legally.

 

[getoffmycloud]

The simple reason they don't do more stuff like steam is look what happened with origin as soon as it was announced everyone came out and said they hated it and would never use it and just pirate EA games so I can see why publishers would be put off this kind of service.

The difference is, Origin didn't need to exist. Steam exists already.

Well that's not really a valid argument because why is there more than one supermarket chain in the world, why is there more than one car manufacturer in the world, why is more than one video game retailer in the world because it provides choice without it you get a monopoly and that is always a bad thing.

This doesn't have anything to do with monopolies or anything. People hate Origin because EA said "no more games on Steam, come to Origin if you want them". That pisses people off. People like Steam, and suddenly telling them "Nope!" for whatever reason EA had, valid reason or not, doesn't make people like you or your new service.

Then to top it off, Origin isn't offering any other services like Steam does. Origin, you buy the games and then it runs in the background offering you no benefit. Steam, you buy the games and then it runs in the background offering you an easily accessible web browser if you get stuck in the game, friends list, chatting, and other features similar to what you can get on Xbox Live or PSN. It makes Steam worth having in the background, whereas Origin is just sitting there making sure you didn't steal the game. And as a store, Origin also stinks, as Shamus Young pointed out recently [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/9359-Dear-Origin-You-Stink].

People hate Origin because it does it wrong in a world where Valve has been showing everyone how to do it right for years. Things might have been different if Origin was actually good when it launched. Even if EA manages to bring it on par with Steam, they're still going to be fighting an uphill battle to get customers because their first impression was terrible.

I do agree that origin is a bit shit but my point is the moment they announced origin people already decided it was shit and didn't give it a chance for all they knew at that point it could have turned up with a massive library of games at half the price of steam. And how is having EA games only on an EA service different from Valve having there games only available through steam?

 

[jboking]

Sounds like a throwback to the last podtoid. It's also entirely correct. Hell, in 2009 Newell said that Pirates are nothing more than underserved customers. The problem is that a lot of developers/publishers see their jobs as just pushing a product instead of providing a service.

 

[Vault Citizen]

Hear that everyone? Jim will fix it.

 

[D0WNT0WN]

The simple reason they don't do more stuff like steam is look what happened with origin as soon as it was announced everyone came out and said they hated it and would never use it and just pirate EA games so I can see why publishers would be put off this kind of service.

The difference is, Origin didn't need to exist. Steam exists already.

There is nothing like some healthy competition to keep the rival services in check.

Imagine a world if piracy didnt exist, Gabe was a tyranical unscrupulous business person and Origin didnt exist. The prices of games on steam would be alot more than they are now. It's called a monopoly and it's a shitty situation for the consumers.

 

[Kapol]

While I honestly don't have any real issue with online passes, I can understand why people do. Many of the other issues listed are some that I agree are really annoying. Having to install games is a giant pain. Especially on a console which, in my opinion, one of the benefits is supposed to be not having to go through that hassle like with PC. One of the worst offenders was DMC4, which had a 7 GB install on the PS3. I only had a 20 gig HD, and it took over an hour to install.

I also agree with the constant firmware updates issue. The problem there isn't only the fact you have to stop playing, but if you don't agree to the ToS, you're SoL. Or if the store isn't available to redeem your key on, then you lead to the problems that one game had on the PS3 when it was released during the Blackout.

The worst offender is easily 'always-on' DRM where you have to stay connected to the internet to play. That's a horrible idea and needs to die.

That said, I don't think making things DRM-free would help too much. Steam is one of the few examples of DRM that works... at least for the most part. I don't like the fact they can revoke access to your entire library. And due to an issue that many users have with a file not being created correctly, offline only works for me when I turn Steam to offline mode while connected to the internet. Which kinda goes against the point of offline mode. Not being able to play offline if you're not connected to the internet to get the file needed to play offline and such. But that's a whole argument I had in another thread I don't care to go back to.

I think Steam is currently the best DRM option they have available. It's mostly non-intrusive and it's flaws, while major in my opinion, aren't deal-breakers. That said, I do think DRM can continue to improve itself.

 

[Elyxard]

Probably one of your best episodes Jim, and I couldn't agree more.

There's nothing worse than seeing a publisher stab themselves in the foot over and over again, especially when you as the customer know better how to run their business better than they do.

I have never not regretted buying an EA game because every time I do I run into the worst kind of bull**** just to play the damn thing (pro-tip, we'd support Origin if you'd give a crap about PR). I never touch a PC Ubisoft game because, well, duh. The sheer level of stubbornness and ignorance of world trends and their own customers is baffling. I am sick of seeing developers being destroyed by the idiotic warpath that these publishers have set themselves out on.

And then they have the nerve to support SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA. A destruction of the internet and our culture just so they don't have to adapt to the modern world. With the amount of effort and money that they put into this global takeover, they could simply listen to the damn customers and start making more money because of it. It's really that simple.

They will always lose this fight, I just hope they don't destroy us all before they do.

 

[Staskala]

Not buying the product is the absolutely appropriate response. I 100% agree with you on that. That in *no* way justifies piracy. You see, in most enterprises, not buying the product means not *having* the product. If a store introduced mandatory, full-on body scans because they had a problem with thievery, nobody would argue in their favor. At the same time, we wouldn't see all these pathetic attempts to excuse the thieves either. Nobody would be saying, "Well, given what they do, I see why people sneak in and steal shit." No, they'd just be saying "Hey, don't shop from those pricks.."

I never said it justifies piracy and I certainly wouldn't argue that piracy is morally or ethically justified in most cases (although from a purely financial point of view piracy seems like a pretty legitimate choice, because why pay for what you can get for free, but whatever). I'm saying that it also doesn't justify the publisher to inconvenience the consumer base with his fight against it. As you've said, no one would argue for either the thief or the store.

The only reason.. the *only* reason.. piracy is as prevalent as it is is because of people like you who turn a blind eye to it and let others get away with it without condemning it. Does DRM suck? Yes. Is it an excuse to pirate? NO. So when we say shit like "Well, I understand why people are doing it," we're the ones who are making excuses for the shit-heads who are actually doing it. Would-be pirate looks around the internet, gets his/her self-righteous "Yeah! I'm fightin' the man, man!" rationalization in place, and goes and gives the companies more reasons to put on DRM.

Oh, I'm not very fond of the "if they offer bad service it's my right to pirate" line of thinking either. But again, the pirate is the publishers problem, not mine. It's not even exclusive to this industry, piracy is a problem everywhere, every company that innovates has to deal with people infringing their copyright. Yet no one would think about nailing cars shut or only selling "licenses to drive them" because otherwise the Chinese/Japanese/French/Americans/Germans/Italians might reverse-engineer it. Which all of them acually do.

You want proof? Smoking. Nothing anybody did could get smoking to decline until people at large started going, "You know what? That's a really gross habit." Societal pressure did a hell of a lot more damage to smoking than anything any company did. And what we, as decent people need to start doing is telling pirates "That's a really shitty thing to be doing."

Will it stop all of them? Of course not. Some people are pricks by nature. But most folks are generally pretty decent and try to avoid doing things that other people think are shitty.

Smoking? You wanna make this personal, eh?! Pressure from society is only worth so much, and unlike smoking piracy actually has many things to offer to the pirate. No one quit smoking because of "that's gross, man" alone, it was because "I was thinking about quitting and having to stand in the cold sucks so now I actually have the incentive to follow through". The pirate goes "It's free, so whatever". I know plenty of people like this and no one would be particularly phased over me giving them shit for pirating.

The thing is, we don't need to stop all of them, we just need to get the numbers low enough that there's less and less justification for the DRM in the first place, because if we're smart, we'll be telling the companies "You know, all this DRM crap is a pretty shitty thing to be doing," at the same time, and trust me, developers *want* to be able to listen. You think they like having to code in circles to try and hamper pirates? Hell no.

So if we stop blaming companies for piracy and start blaming the pirates, if people start thinking, "What if my friends find out I didn't pay for this game?" instead of "I'll show those guys and their DRM.." then that means we win. Companies will be able to spend less resources trying to protect what's theirs, and more on making it the best it can be.

DRM will always be justified from the publisher's perspective. DRM was initially designed to prevent "offline"-piracy, i.e. people lending games to their friends or burning CD's. Considering how little it does against online piracy it's not unreasonable to think that this is still its main purpose. The publisher, in the end, wants complete control in this aspect and if there is a risk that only one guy borrows the game from his friend - a lost sale! - they will keep it around. Guaranteed. From a business perspective there is no reason to remove it until you actually gain more by doing so.
Hence why I argue that communicating "I'll buy your product if your service stops sucking" is the only way to go. If the people who openly communicate this far outweigh the gains of DRM, they will remove it. Everything is a gain/loss calculation after all.

Now, you argue that reducing the number of pirates does just that and yes, that's true, but DRM has so much more to offer to the publisher that even if there wasn't a single online-pirate anymore they'd still keep it around.
And you know what? I still don't see why I should fight their fight. Here I am with my hard-earned 60 bucks which I just have to spend right now. Why should I fulfill quota of converted pirates before I can get a product that doesn't suck? It simply isn't my problem.
How about a choice between "Spend 60$ and get a product that's good, or help us and get an even better product" instead of "60$ for a shitty product, help us and we may or may not produce something that sucks slightly less"? That might get me motivated. You know, positive encouragement and all that. As of right now there is no incentive to bother, because the chances of publishers changing their behavior are abysmal. At least, that's what they communicate. Communication is key, and the video games industry is - for the most part - terrible at it.