PC Gaming: Could The Industry Survive Without DRM?

[Tayh]

Of course we could. Any dev who puts their game on GOG.com runs that 'risk'. Gabe Newell put it best: "Piracy is an issue of service".

Sorry, I'm a bit disinclined to heed anything said by the man responsible for the largest drm-platform and distribution monopoly in the entire game industry.

 

[Prince of Ales]

Just reiterating here, but I think the main point is that DRM doesn't stop piracy. DRM hurts the legitimate users much more than it does the pirates.

If there was a perfect, omnipotent piracy protection system that didn't harm legitimate users, then it'd be a very different story. But fact of the matter is, they're hurting us, the gamers, for basically no reason at all.

 

[Joccaren]

Simply put, it would be fine. Things would actually be better than they are now.
Think about it for a few seconds. There are very, very few games that within 6 months of release aren't pirated and cracked. There are even a few that are ready after a week or two.
The only major players in consideration here are the people like we find here, who'll think about their purchases and buy things to stay in line with their rights, or because they're willing to wait rather than play now. Most other people will simply see the advertising, and buy it.
You have a number of conscientious consumers who will look out for the company, and a number more who will buy it, rather than just ignore it, because they don't see it having some crap like GFWL [Which is an instant 'don't touch this game' for me].
So, your sales will remain about constant, or go up.

Piracy will continue, but it won't be as prominent, as you'll have made it easier to get into your game. Yes, people will still pirate the shit out of it. You can spend a fortune on principal trying and failing to stop them, or you could just let them do it, and save yourself a lot of money on DRM - another fact that shows the creators better off financially if they didn't use DRM.

Overall, DRM is a flawed practice. It doesn't work, and its an act that attacks people. It makes it inconvenient for your true users to use your product, and the pirates will take it as a challenge as you're trying to stop them.
A better practice would be to constantly update your game with new, exciting and interesting content for free, for legitimate copies of the game [Minor DRM, nothing intrusive. A CD key and online registration is it]. What this means is that legit players are rewarded, constantly getting new content easily, whilst its likely that pirates will need to re-download the entire game to install these patches, which is inconvenient and many won't bother. It becomes a war of convenience, like it is currently, but you're the more convenient option. This means you'll win the war, whereas presently piracy is a appealing option for many as its free, and more convenient than playing a number of games legitimately.

 

[Rozalia1]

The economic benefits are discussed all over. Here's another one:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090119/1943093458.shtml

Basically, people who pirate buy more, and get more content, and the producers of said content don't really lose out. This equals a net benefit to the economy.

"The study concludes that the effects are strongly positive because consumers get to enjoy desirable content and also get to keep their cash to buy other things. Because the consumers save much more money than the producers lose, the net economic effects are positive".

That is what was said. Its "positive" because the consumer keeps their money while getting whatever they pirate which is considered a bigger boon to the economy than the company getting it. No mention of whatever else you're pushing.
Seems to be one of those "people should pay no tax and get no benefits, its better for the economy" type deals, if you look at it from their angle than perhaps so...but the whole story isn't that simple.

 

[chikusho]

The economic benefits are discussed all over. Here's another one:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090119/1943093458.shtml

Basically, people who pirate buy more, and get more content, and the producers of said content don't really lose out. This equals a net benefit to the economy.

"The study concludes that the effects are strongly positive because consumers get to enjoy desirable content and also get to keep their cash to buy other things. Because the consumers save much more money than the producers lose, the net economic effects are positive".

That is what was said. Its "positive" because the consumer keeps their money while getting whatever they pirate which is considered a bigger boon to the economy than the company getting it. No mention of whatever else you're pushing.
Seems to be one of those "people should pay no tax and get no benefits, its better for the economy" type deals, if you look at it from their angle than perhaps so...but the whole story isn't that simple.

Exactly. Consumers keep their money (while consuming legal content for the same or an increased amount) and content producers do not lose money they would have otherwise received.

Here are some other choice quotes from the links you glossed over:

"A new study by researchers at the London School of Economics suggests the music and movie industries have been exaggerating the impact digital file sharing has had on their bottom line and found that for some creative industries, copyright infringement might actually be helping boost revenues."
"Entertainment industries are beginning to realize that the sharing of films and music online generates marketing benefits and sales boosts that often offset the losses in revenue from illegal sharing of content, the authors say."

"The Top 20% Infringers also spent significantly more across all content types on average than either the Bottom 80% Infringers or the non-infringing consumers (£168 vs. £105 vs. £54 over the six month period covered)1."
"Generally, the data from the survey showed that as people consumed more infringed files they also consumed more legal files, and spent more on legal content."

 

[Rozalia1]

Exactly. Consumers keep their money (while consuming legal content for the same or an increased amount) and content producers do not lose money they would have otherwise received.

Here are some other choice quotes from the links you glossed over:

"A new study by researchers at the London School of Economics suggests the music and movie industries have been exaggerating the impact digital file sharing has had on their bottom line and found that for some creative industries, copyright infringement might actually be helping boost revenues."
"Entertainment industries are beginning to realize that the sharing of films and music online generates marketing benefits and sales boosts that often offset the losses in revenue from illegal sharing of content, the authors say."

Actually it very clearly says they lose the money just that the economic benefit of the person not paying is higher than them paying the company overall. Its like the example I used if that is what you're going which unless you're a Tory, Republican, or whatever equivalent I don't think you'd agree with.

Music and movie related so dismissed.

Music and movie related so dismissed.

"The Top 20% Infringers also spent significantly more across all content types on average than either the Bottom 80% Infringers or the non-infringing consumers (£168 vs. £105 vs. £54 over the six month period covered)1."
"Generally, the data from the survey showed that as people consumed more infringed files they also consumed more legal files, and spent more on legal content."

Would be stronger if you actually got me the source instead of linking to a site that will obviously interpret things their way and leave out any potential failings. Secondly even if it can be proven it'd be irrelevant as the law ain't going to change, and measures are always going to be pushed.

 

[chikusho]

Exactly. Consumers keep their money (while consuming legal content for the same or an increased amount) and content producers do not lose money they would have otherwise received.

Here are some other choice quotes from the links you glossed over:

"A new study by researchers at the London School of Economics suggests the music and movie industries have been exaggerating the impact digital file sharing has had on their bottom line and found that for some creative industries, copyright infringement might actually be helping boost revenues."
"Entertainment industries are beginning to realize that the sharing of films and music online generates marketing benefits and sales boosts that often offset the losses in revenue from illegal sharing of content, the authors say."

Actually it very clearly says they lose the money just that the economic benefit of the person not paying is higher than them paying the company overall. Its like the example I used if that is what you're going which unless you're a Tory, Republican, or whatever equivalent I don't think you'd agree with.

So I see we have different interpretation of that article then.

Also, I'm surprised you didn't even blink at the fact that pirates are 9 times more likely to buy digital games than non pirates (as an addition to the fact that gamers who pirates buy more games more often than non pirates). That should be an extremely relevant statistic to you, since you don't think consumer behaviors between games and other types of media are related.

 

[Rozalia1]

So I see we have different interpretation of that article then.

Also, I'm surprised you didn't even blink at the fact that pirates are 9 times more likely to buy digital games than non pirates (as an addition to the fact that gamers who pirates buy more games more often than non pirates). That should be an extremely relevant statistic to you, since you don't think consumer behaviors between games and other types of media are related.

"The study concludes that the effects are strongly positive because consumers get to enjoy desirable content and also get to keep their cash to buy other things. Because the consumers save much more money than the producers lose, the net economic effects are positive".

What other way is there to interpret that? "Things" is the word used which more likely translates to food, petrol, electric, internet, and other such things. Than it clearly says that the producers lose the money the consumers save... so run it by me how you see that quote.

Also, I'm surprised you didn't even blink at the fact that pirates are 9 times more likely to buy digital games than non pirates (as an addition to the fact that gamers who pirates buy more games more often than non pirates). That should be an extremely relevant statistic to you, since you don't think consumer behaviors between games and other types of media are related.

Why wouldn't I? That is a tiny extract from a report of over 100 pages, what are the other details? I run into those sort of findings all the time you see so you'll need more than a graph and some sound bites. What are the levels of piracy for example for those recorded as pirates? Is it a single music track/album whatever? Is it hundreds of movies? Doesn't say.
Additionally in regards to spending more is it counting all the media? If a pirate pirated all his music, but didn't his games than obviously he'd spend more than he pirates. No details on that seemingly.

 

[chikusho]

"The study concludes that the effects are strongly positive because consumers get to enjoy desirable content and also get to keep their cash to buy other things. Because the consumers save much more money than the producers lose, the net economic effects are positive".

What other way is there to interpret that? "Things" is the word used which more likely translates to food, petrol, electric, internet, and other such things. Than it clearly says that the producers lose the money the consumers save... so run it by me how you see that quote.

Well, if consumers gain content, and producers don't really lose money, that's a win for everyone, right?
Things, can in this case also mean purchasing ancillary things to the product downloaded, like concert tickets or merchandize for example.

Why wouldn't I? That is a tiny extract from a report of over 100 pages, what are the other details? I run into those sort of findings all the time you see so you'll need more than a graph. What are the levels of piracy for example for those recorded as pirates? Is it a single music track/album whatever? Is it hundreds of movies? Doesn't say.
Additionally in regards to spending more is it counting all the media? If a pirate pirated all his music, but didn't his games than obviously he'd spend more than he pirates. No details on that seemingly.

I've linked you to a lot of studies by now, many of which you haven't commented on. And frankly I don't have the time to hunt down everything for you. If you think these studies are a load of crap, that's fine. But if you ever want to get deeper into the piracy increases sales thing, here's a good place to start.
https://wiki.laquadrature.net/Studies_on_file_sharing#Economical_effects_of_filesharing

 

[Rozalia1]

Well, if consumers gain content, and producers don't really lose money, that's a win for everyone, right?
Things, can in this case also mean purchasing ancillary things to the product downloaded, like concert tickets or merchandize for example.

It bloody says the opposite to what you're saying. Its there, I've highlighted it.

I've linked you to a lot of studies by now, many of which you haven't commented on. And frankly I don't have the time to hunt down everything for you. If you think these studies are a load of crap, that's fine. But if you ever want to get deeper into the piracy increases sales thing, here's a good place to start.
https://wiki.laquadrature.net/Studies_on_file_sharing#Economical_effects_of_filesharing

They have the same running themes. As for hunting things down I believe the original study is in one of those links as I recall seeing it, its dutch all 100+ pages of it apparently. Now burden isn't on me so I'm not going to fish through that, but I'll look at anything you point to.

 

[K-lusive]

Also why do people continue to hate Origins? Its just Steam for EA. Yeah it sucks to have multiple distrubition platforms but its gotten a lot better than when it first came out.

Because it's unwanted software being pushed through people's (my) throat. Same goes for Steam, which has also 'gotten a lot better than when it first came out', but it's still stuff you need to download, install, register for, launch and have running while it is not the game you bought. Origin and Uplay being specific to EA / Ubisoft makes it worse than Steam, sure, but that doesn't make Steam less bloatware-y and this kind of DRM any less unwanted. To me, in any case.

 

[chikusho]

I've linked you to a lot of studies by now, many of which you haven't commented on. And frankly I don't have the time to hunt down everything for you. If you think these studies are a load of crap, that's fine. But if you ever want to get deeper into the piracy increases sales thing, here's a good place to start.
https://wiki.laquadrature.net/Studies_on_file_sharing#Economical_effects_of_filesharing

They have the same running themes. As for hunting things down I believe the original study is in one of those links as I recall seeing it, its dutch all 100+ pages of it apparently. Now burden isn't on me so I'm not going to fish through that, but I'll look at anything you point to.[/quote]

I'd say that 20 plus studies coming to similar conclusions would be fairly reliable.
Burden? You've yet to prove why it would be harmful. I'm not trying to prove anything to you, I'm just relaying what the studies on the subject say. You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary, other than "I don't believe it" and "it isn't relevant. And considering you've ignored more than half of the links I've posted, I think I'll jump off right here.

 

[sageoftruth]

My go-to method for making wise purchases lately has been TotalBiscuit's "First Impressions", which despite the name, aren't him going in blind, but rather going in after he has played it long enough to give a decent summary about it while he's playing it in front of us. Even if you don't agree with his opinions on it, the game footage won't lie there, since it's honest start-to-finish footage without the jumping around from best part to best part that some reviews can do.
Of course, you may want to check out first impression videos where the player actually DOES go in blind. Would make his comments far less well-thought-out, but is better for showing you the game from the start. After all, a game won't be any good if you lose interest at the beginning before it gets to the good parts.
Together, I think both of them could present a pretty thorough synopsis of what the game is like before you buy it.

Ugh...TB. Used to love him, but he metamorphosed into a really unlikeable individual sometime back when he started SC2 casting.

SC2? As in Starcraft 2? I must have missed that one. What do you mean by "casting"?

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I'd say yes since all but the multiplayer only games can be cracked. And most are cracked within weeks of release.
Even things such as Diablo 3 have been cracked and have spoofed servers so that people can play but only with other pirates. If anything it works more to protect early sales and as a deterrent rather than actually preventing piracy.
With that said, they shouldn't remove it. If nothing else it shows that they are taking steps to remove piracy.

 

[VladG]

Of course it can. For one thing, DRM doesn't actually do anything other than screw over the paying consumer. Codes, DRM platforms, always-on internet checks, reduced performance.. Pirates don't have to deal with any of that shit. Back when Ubisoft shit the bed with their servers and their games were unplayable for a few days? Not a problem for pirates, they could play just fine.

Origin constantly crashing? Or refusing to launch games? Not a problem for pirates, they don't have to install Steam, Uplay, Origin, GFWL, Rockstar Social Club and god knows how many other DRM platforms.

Digital game not available in your region for days or weeks after launch? Not a problem for pirates.

Having to input 3-5 codes on console before you can play the game? Not a problem for pirates.

What's worse, the vast majority of games are cracked within hours of launch (or even earlier) so all that buttfucking consumers take is pointless.

As for the DRM they are using for DA: Inquisition and Lords of The Fallen (which has yet to be cracked as far as I know), there are disturbing reports that it severely impacts performance (especially in the case of LoTF) with some users going so far as to say it's writing anomalous amounts of data on HDDs (which is a big problem for SSDs as it reduces their lifespan)

In fact I'd argue that the only problem pirates have is HDD space .

On the flip side there are companies like CD Projekt who are against DRM. Witcher 2 was heavily pirated at launch, but it also sold a LOT of copies. Because it's a good game. And because the devs are awesome and people want to support consumer friendly companies. And surprise, surprise, it made a ton of profit. Not to mention generated a very positive attitude towards the company which will certainly increase sales for any future projects. Heck, I wasn't a fan of either of the 2 previous Witcher games and I'll still buy the 3rd just because I want to support CD Projekt (and because I have faith it won't be a broken piece of shit like a lot of AAAs seem to be nowadays).

And saying that a game pirated is a lost sale is absurd. In the vast majority of cases it is not. Games are very expensive. And it's always the poorer regions that pirate the most.

 

[VanQ]

I think it would actually be better off. CD Projekt Red doesn't put any DRM in their games and they have have been doing great. This is what happened when someone admitted to pirating the game.

A bit NSFW

Spoiler

People talk shit about /v/, but /v/ has got their priorities straight. Support the devs that deserve it, fuck the rest over only as bad as they've fucked you over.

 

[asdfen]

I'd say yes since all but the multiplayer only games can be cracked. And most are cracked within weeks of release.
Even things such as Diablo 3 have been cracked and have spoofed servers so that people can play but only with other pirates. If anything it works more to protect early sales and as a deterrent rather than actually preventing piracy.
With that said, they shouldn't remove it. If nothing else it shows that they are taking steps to remove piracy.

I am not sure what are you talking about but its impossible to remove piracy making taking steps to remove piracy pointless and actually harmful to the paying customer. If you dont know I will tell you that most of so called DRM is cracked/removed and released before the games actually hit the stores. Great online only games have community servers. MMOs have been reverse engineered ... PS4/X1 will be hacked its just a matter of time.

The only thing so far that DRM did for me is make me avoid all EA PC games as I will never install Origin on my PC and also made me furious when things like one of the Assassin Creeds on PC wouldnt work because it required some bullshit online that wasnt connecting.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Snip

Someone else in the thread explained it better than I can. Ill probably link to them in a second but I'd like to add that even an ineffectual and in some cases counter productive deterrent to pirates I think is better than "Just steal the game. We won't stop you.".
The DRM is very rarely as bad as people make it out to be.

In terms of us buying pc games? Absolutely, 90% of DRM cant stop us from pirating if we want to anyways(Apparently Diablo 3 has been sucessful, but puts off a lot of customers with its horribleness)

But I dont think DRM is really about us, I think its about coming to the shareholders and saying "This is what we are doing to fight piracy and therefore boost sales"

So if our programmers went up to the suits and said "We are doing nothing about piracy because we cant stop it" I suspect a lot of money would be pulled out of the industry by the suits getting cold feet.

 

[laggyteabag]

Yes. The industry did fine without DRM in the past, and it would do fine again if it was removed. Publishers and developers tend to regard piracy as the big bad of the industry, and to some extent it is, but there is still an overwhelming majority of people who legitimately buy these games as opposed to those who pirate games. Hell, even with DRM, it proves to be little more than a small hurdle anyway. No matter how robust or restrictive your DRM is, someone will crack it within the week, and all it ends up doing is punishing those who purchase the game legitimately.

As for the DRM they are using for DA: Inquisition and Lords of The Fallen (which has yet to be cracked as far as I know), there are disturbing reports that it severely impacts performance (especially in the case of LoTF) with some users going so far as to say it's writing anomalous amounts of data on HDDs (which is a big problem for SSDs as it reduces their lifespan)

I believe that this has been debunked, but not before scaring the crap out of me and my poor SSD.