Poll: DRM - A necessary evil?

[ResonanceSD]

Who the fuck came up with the concept that DRM, at its core, is the spawn of Satan and wants to munch on babies while it steals your games?

People who want their piracy to be as easy as possible

People who have computers so terrible that they actually notice steam running?

And why in Hastur's name did people believe them?

Well, it's either A or B.

 

[lapan]

However, is it necessary - I'd say yes. For the reasons stated - stop random pirates and stop zero day releases. No DRM just doesn't make much sense. Well, aside from some good publicity, it's not achieving anything, really. No DRM doesn't reduce piracy by any significant portion. At least I haven't seen any evidence for that.

And games without DRM (Humble Indie Bundle) get pirated anyway, so what's the point of playing nice with pirates?

Any games with DRM get pirated any way, so what's the point in inconveniencing normal Users?

I'm okay with any kind of copy protection DRM. Where DRM isn't okay for me is those cases where it gives you limited Installs and has to be activated with every hardware change. At that point it stops being about pirates and intends to cut into our right to resell our property (I know, the gaming industry doesn't consider games our property). not to mention the troubles it gives even to those who never intend to resell but just were unlucky with installs or upgraded their pcs.

 

[Akimoto]

The only people inconvenienced by DRM are people who bought the game.

Amen.

There are some ok DRM for me personally but ultimately I strongly feel it's easier to cry the biggest, baddest wolf and flesh out the strongest DRM ever. Partly why we get such intrusive DRM (here's looking at you Anno)that spoils it for paying customers.

 

[mad825]

DRM for single-player is pointless...However for mutiplayer I understand but a simple key-code system would do it nicely.

 

[lacktheknack]

Explain CD Projekt.

Anyways, I support the No DRM movement, because common DRM is literally not a barrier anymore. There's an entire website that deals in comprehensive cracks of every single program in existence. Cracking games has never been easier. It's the security equivalent of installing an unlocked door.

So I just start pumping money into companies that don't use it. See: CD Projekt.

 

[Beryl77]

I don't mind if companies want to stop people from coping games by putting simply the game files on a dvd and nothing more is required to make a working copy of the game. I can understand that but most things beyond that seem unnecessary to me.
DRM won't stop people who know what they're doing and in most cases a game gets cracked within 24 hours after the release. It basically only needs one person to crack it and then it will spread through the whole net and everyone else who doesn't know how to do it, can download it. Stronger DRM doesn't make it harder for pirates, it only makes it harder for customers. Of course, always online DRM and limited numbers of installations can go to hell. That's not fighting piracy, that's fighting your customers.

Well, I doubt that they put all this effort to really combat piracy because they can see how useless their DRM is. I'm pretty sure they're not so delusional to not realise that. It's obvious at this point that DRM is about fighting second hand sales and not really pirates. Fighting pirates is more of an excuse.
Many companies love to use things like Steam or Origin because they effectively stop second hand sales. Once you buy a game, it's tied to your account. Sure you can sell your account but that happens too rarely to really care about.

 

[lacktheknack]

However, is it necessary - I'd say yes. For the reasons stated - stop random pirates and stop zero day releases. No DRM just doesn't make much sense. Well, aside from some good publicity, it's not achieving anything, really. No DRM doesn't reduce piracy by any significant portion. At least I haven't seen any evidence for that.

And games without DRM (Humble Indie Bundle) get pirated anyway, so what's the point of playing nice with pirates?

None, really. That's why I don't get why some people would think that no DRM is somehow inherently better.

No DRM makes some people more likely to buy the game but at the expense of some other people getting easier access to it. All in all, it's not going to make a massive amount of profits. No copy protection at all is fighting piracy about as hard as hard as going "Pretty please with cherry on top".

Because DRM does not reduce the ability of pirates to steal it at all. Yeah Humble Indie Bundle got pirated. So did Mass Effect 3 which requires origin. So has DRM free witcher 2. So has every Call of Duty game. So has every insanely irrationally DRMed Ubisoft game. Because guess what, breaking DRM is really easy, and once its broken the game can be distributed freely VIA torrents, p2p file sending, or various download services. Sorry to burst your bubble, but every single game that has garnered sufficient interest can be pirated, has been pirated, or will be pirated.

There's absolutely nothing you can do to stop it, so you have two choices:

1) Spend months developing software to stop pirates, that will invariably be broken and bypassed day one of your release. And subsequently every person who steals it will have removed your extra cumbersome software while your actual customers will not.

2) Have no DRM, and say whatever happens, happens: we don't endorse or like piracy but we have no way to stop it.

The effects of which are

1)a. Your customers have a diminished experience(depending on what DRM you used.)
b. Pirates get a better experience from your game.
c. Piracy statistically is not reduced at all.
d. People are less likely to support your company(perhaps negligible.)
e. You waste a bunch of money developing something that didn't work at all

2)a. Your game gets stolen just as much as a DRM protected game.
b. There is no chance of reduced experience for your customers
c. Your company will not take any heat from anti-DRM people, if anything they will like you more. I personally believe Louis CK is awesome, and CD Projekt Red is one of the best developers around.
d. You wasted no money.

Obviously you didn't read my first comment. Go back and do it. Now, go and look at your front door, especially the lock. I'll wait.

Are you back? Good, now get whatever tools appropriate and remove the lock. It doesn't serve any purpose. Any lock you put there would be useless. Anybody who wants to can bypass it will, it's not a big deal. I have a set of lockpicks myself, bought them from Amazon. Anybody can buy them and it doesn't take a genius to operate them. But any other lock you put is equally useless at stopping every single person from accessing your home. So why have it in the first place? Go and remove it right now to save yourself the headache.

Oh, let me address those effects you mentioned:
1. a) unobtrusive DRM. Look it up.
b) unobtrusive DRM. Look it up.
c) statistically, I want data to back that claim up.
d) it's because of ignorance
e) or you use one readily available. It's the 21st century people, we don't need to reinvent the wheel every fucking time we reach for our car keys.

2. a) only perhaps more because there is nothing to actually stop Joe Random from making free gifts to 10 of his friends. And for that matter any paying customer. A 10 to 1 ration in favour of piracy isn't good, you know.
b) unobtrusive fucking DRM. Look it up, goddamn it. Seriously, how hard is it as a concept that people constantly live in denial of it?
c) good. Now go and shout "Pretty please with cherry on top!" from somewhere high. It is possible you just reduced piracy. Or you might have not.
d) only in wasted sales, you know. But oh wait, you're sure to cover those with the mountains of cash you save by not including copy protection.

Who the fuck came up with the concept that DRM, at its core, is the spawn of Satan and wants to munch on babies while it steals your games? And why in Hastur's name did people believe them?

Unobtrusive DRM: Ineffective. I have a major pirate for a friend who just cracks his stuff left and right. He's not paid for software in years. The only game that gave him trouble was Assassin's Creed 2, the poster child of intrusive DRM.

So if there's amazing non-intrusive DRM that is effective at stopping pirates, then where the heck is it?

Also, your front-door-lock analogy is bad. To pick a lock, you need to 1. get lock picks, 2. have some level of skill, 3. go to the correct location, 4. not get caught, and 5. remain unsupported by everyone unless you're in a gang.

For piracy, you 1. download the game/crack combo, 2. install and follow the included instructions. It's difficult to get caught, you have safety in numbers, and require some skill in reading.

 

[zefiris]

The only people inconvenienced by DRM are people who bought the game.

Exactly.

DRM is not effective against piracy, and only harms legitimate users.

It is done to control users, nothing more.

Are you back? Good, now get whatever tools appropriate and remove the lock. It doesn't serve any purpose. Any lock you put there would be useless. Anybody who wants to can bypass it will, it's not a big deal. I have a set of lockpicks myself, bought them from Amazon. Anybody can buy them and it doesn't take a genius to operate them. But any other lock you put is equally useless at stopping every single person from accessing your home. So why have it in the first place? Go and remove it right now to save yourself the headache.

Stupid comparison. Door locks aren't causing me trouble, aren't huge security risks, and don't transmit my personal data to the company that made them.

Who the fuck came up with the concept that DRM, at its core, is the spawn of Satan

Nobody. People just have years of experience with DRM, noticed that it's terrible for consumers, and dealt accordingly.

I for example simply don't buy games with such DRM anymore. As simple as that. No Dragon Age 3 for me, no ToR for me, no Mass Effect 3 for me.

So what? There's enough games not made by idiotic developers. DRM to me means "I don't want you to buy my game". And I gladly take a company up on this and play games from sane developers instead.

 

[chadachada123]

See, if DRM actually stopped piracy in ANY way, shape, or form, then those companies would have a leg to stand on for having retarded shit like "always-online certification" and shit.

But since DRM does absolutely nothing to stop piracy at all, and pirates are left with a BETTER version than people that buy it legally...it's absolutely ineffective. I'm lucky that I don't game much on PC, because the stuff PC gamers have to deal with is insane.

 

[infohippie]

Obviously you didn't read my first comment. Go back and do it. Now, go and look at your front door, especially the lock. I'll wait.

Are you back? Good, now get whatever tools appropriate and remove the lock. It doesn't serve any purpose. Any lock you put there would be useless. Anybody who wants to can bypass it will, it's not a big deal. I have a set of lockpicks myself, bought them from Amazon. Anybody can buy them and it doesn't take a genius to operate them. But any other lock you put is equally useless at stopping every single person from accessing your home. So why have it in the first place? Go and remove it right now to save yourself the headache.

That is not a valid comparison. A better comparison would be if every house had the exact same lock and if someone, somewhere manages to pick that lock, all locks of that type throughout the world became unlocked and could not be re-locked. That's DRM. All it takes is one cracking group to break the DRM on a game and then the cracked copy can be distributed far and wide as though it never had any DRM in the first place. While your paying customers still have to deal with whatever terms the DRM enforces.

 

[Indecipherable]

but piracy is still an issue that we can't ignore.

Seriously, do you honestly believe that? Piracy has in no way caused anything bad to happen. Pirates purchase more games than the rest of you, piracy has only increased monetary gain, and a pirated copy is not equal to a lost sale.

Seriously, drop the whole piracy thing. It is getting old with all the inane arguments about how it is damaging the industry.

I don't necessarily disagree with the entirety of that, but it's just your opinion.

 

[Racecarlock]

Wouldn't a DRM-free gaming world be subject to much more piracy than it is now?

Actually, no. See, back when there was way less DRM, most people just bought the games legally and played them. Yes, piracy existed, but most people didn't bother with it. Until the companies found out. And apparently, companies absolutely love piracy considering how much they encourage it. You can't fucking play single player games from certain companies on PC if your internet goes down. And it does go down. Contrary to popular belief, internet is not yet everywhere, nor is the connectivity 100%. So basically, if one pirates the product with all the DRM ripped out, they get the better product and don't have to wait for the net to return.

You see what this is? They're making the official product worse than the pirated product. This does not discourage piracy, this does not stop piracy. All it does is make more consumers angry and dissatisfied, and when that happens, a percentage of those people then go online for cracks. Because the company is so afraid of every potential customer becoming a criminal, that they treat them like they already committed a crime. So naturally, because the pirates do not in fact treat them like criminals, the consumers head to them to crack the games because without the cracks they can't play the fucking game they paid 60 damn dollars for.

Not to mention DRM never actually stops pirates. They always crack it within at most a month. I don't want more people to pirate, but the publishers certainly aren't helping lower their piracy numbers. Sometimes, it's like they want to be pirated. I still don't, because I can find awesome freeware just about everywhere, but when you piss off consumers, they bite.

 

[devilofthemist]

snip

Read again what he wrote. You obviously did not understand his point. You yourself actually gave an argument in his favor with your example of your buddy there.

"it doesn't allow the games to simply be copy pasted, so if Joe Random buys a new shiny game, he doesn't go and give free copies to all his buddies thus making his buddies not buy the game."

Yes. To pirate a game people will need more than just one guy in their area who bought it and copypastes it, they need guys who crack it / upload installers. It takes Joe Average more time to get the game = investors are happy and the developer can making games.

Seriously, do you honestly believe that? Piracy has in no way caused anything bad to happen. Pirates purchase more games than the rest of you, piracy has only increased monetary gain, and a pirated copy is not equal to a lost sale.

Seriously, drop the whole piracy thing. It is getting old with all the inane arguments about how it is damaging the industry.

Yup, piracy did no harm. Never. It did not cost the guys of the Humble Indie Bundle money because of traffic, they did not need to ask those assholes to use at least other sources.

Even IF pirates purchase more games (which is questionable since you gave no source at all), a pirated game is still no revenue for this one IP that they pirate. What does it interest developer x if pirate schmock does buy the game of developer y?

And a pirated copy equals not a lost sale but the average number what a pirated copy equals is not zero either.

-claps- yes you, right there, i like you

 

[lapan]

snip

I'm sure most people understand or even support the concept behind DRM. It only became a really big problem when it stopped being pure copy protection or CD-Keys and went to limited installs and always-on-internet DRM. That was the breaking point for many since it led to real problems actually playing their games and cut down their property rights. I'm sure at least a part of the prated copies of these games were provoked by those DRMs, which kinda defeats their point.

While the actual numbers are problably overexagerated by far, you are right that a pirated copy at least does not equal to zero loss.

 

[lacktheknack]

snip

Read again what he wrote. You obviously did not understand his point. You yourself actually gave an argument in his favor with your example of your buddy there.

"it doesn't allow the games to simply be copy pasted, so if Joe Random buys a new shiny game, he doesn't go and give free copies to all his buddies thus making his buddies not buy the game."

Yes. To pirate a game people will need more than just one guy in their area who bought it and copypastes it, they need guys who crack it / upload installers. It takes Joe Average more time to get the game = investors are happy and the developer can making games.

...Would be a point if games weren't constantly leaked early. Deus Ex: HR was leaked early, Crysis 2 was leaked early, Skyrim was leaked early, Mass Effect 3 was leaked early... need I continue?

Also, don't forget who got to play those leaked editions. (Hint: It was pirates.)

 

[Chairman Miaow]

DRM is like locking your car door. It's not going to stop someone from smashing your window to get into the vehicle but it is a deterrent to those who are less determined to get into your vehicle.

Not really, because all it would take is one of the more determined ones to crack the window, and then leave an infinite number of perfect copies around for the less determined ones.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Obviously you didn't read my first comment. Go back and do it.

Ok done.

Now, go and look at your front door, especially the lock. I'll wait.

I don't have a lock on my front door.

Are you back?

yep

Good, now get whatever tools appropriate and remove the lock.

I can't, there isn't a lock.

It doesn't serve any purpose. Any lock you put there would be useless. Anybody who wants to can bypass it will, it's not a big deal. I have a set of lockpicks myself, bought them from Amazon. Anybody can buy them and it doesn't take a genius to operate them. But any other lock you put is equally useless at stopping every single person from accessing your home.

Yep

So why have it in the first place?

I don't.

Go and remove it right now to save yourself the headache.

I can't, it does not exist.

Didn't you ever watch Michael Moores film scene where he wanders around Canada breaking into people houses by opening their front doors because almost no one puts locks on their doors? Not everyone is as paranoid as you are.

1. a) unobtrusive DRM. Look it up.
b) unobtrusive DRM. Look it up.

I said depending on the type of DRM used. Its ok reading is hard, I forgive you.

c) statistically, I want data to back that claim up.

"Look; at this point in your life cycle your DRM got hacked, right? Now let?s look at the data; did your sales change at all? No, your sales didn?t change one bit. So here?s before and after, here?s where you have DRM that annoys your customers and causes huge numbers of support calls. In theory, you would think that you would see a huge drop off in sales after that got hacked, and instead there was absolutely no difference in sales before or after. You actually probably lost a whole bunch of sales as near as we can tell; here?s how much money you lost by bundling that with your product." -Gabe Newell

Why am I supposed to do your research for you exactly?

Games that had DRM at launch which subsequently removed their DRM(ARMA 1&2, IL2 Dover, the witcher 1&2, Mass Effect,) showed no change in the number of people pirating the game prior and after DRM.

d) it's because of ignorance

Depends on the DRM. There's cases where its quite well founded and you'd be stupid to argue otherwise. Also saying they are ignorant, does not make my claim any less true.

e) or you use one readily available. It's the 21st century people, we don't need to reinvent the wheel every fucking time we reach for our car keys.

You do when they cracked that DRM already. Do you get a new car key when the carjacker has a copy of your key?(oh hey look metaphors cut both ways.)

2. a) only perhaps more because there is nothing to actually stop Joe Random from making free gifts to 10 of his friends. And for that matter any paying customer. A 10 to 1 ration in favour of piracy isn't good, you know.

Oh man you're right and what if he makes 10 million copies while hes at it! the totally made up ratio for 10,000,000 to 1 in favor of piracy means that only one copy of any game will ever be sold and is indisputable proof.

Joe Random bought a burner, and then downloaded a software suite for his computer, then he ripped an ISO of the disc, and then burned it to another disc. Because downloading utorrent and then click buttan to download was too hard for Joe Random.

b) unobtrusive fucking DRM. Look it up, goddamn it. Seriously, how hard is it as a concept that people constantly live in denial of it?

Reading comprehension, look it up, goddamnit it. Seriously, how hard is it as a concept to realize that the words "no chance" mean that without DRM it definitely won't happen. But that with DRM there have been dozens of of recorded cases of paying customers getting screwed over and locked out of their games. While DRM Free==0 cases of customers screwed over and DRM>=1 case, my statement is correct.

It is possible you just reduced piracy. Or you might have not.

I thought you were certain that it didn't reduce piracy, that's kind of the basis of your whole argument.

d) only in wasted sales, you know. But oh wait, you're sure to cover those with the mountains of cash you save by not including copy protection.

Nothing has ever linked piracy to lost sales. I know of multiple people who have bought games post trying them out with piracy, who would never have bought the games right out.

http://technoose.com/the-louis-ck-no-drm-experiment-breaks-even/

"I have a profit around $200,000" "This is less than I would have been paid by a large company to simply perform the show and let them sell it to you"

o man, all those lost sales. What will he ever do with his sad fate of having more money than he would have gotten if he put DRM on it.

Who the fuck came up with the concept that DRM, at its core, is the spawn of Satan and wants to munch on babies while it steals your games? And why in Hastur's name did people believe them?

Man you're right I wonder where that idea came from. Maybe from the people who bought products with DRM and then got burned for it

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/4487/article/ubisoft-drm-monitors-computer-hardware-breaks-when-you-change-graphics-cards/
http://www.digital-digest.com/news-62970-DRM-Locks-Out-Legitimate-Gamers-For-4-Days-Pirates-Play-Happily.html
http://gizmodo.com/5429705/massive-drm-fail-kills-avatar-3d-screening
http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2010/03/08/ubisofts-drm-servers-fail-while-gamers-say-we-told-you-so/
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/drm-fail-microsoft-locks-users-out-from-own-documents/6436
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wal-mart_gives_consumers_number_1_reason_why_drm_not_answer.php
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/yahoo_music_store_closing.php
http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/7415/command--conquer-4s-pc-drm-is-fail-admits-eas-jeff-green
http://archive.geekworld.co.za/node/232
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100316/1908348592.shtml
http://www.growingupotaku.com/2011/10/fear-3-drm-fail-captured-live-via.html
http://boingboing.net/2012/04/19/directv-turns-on-drm-breaks-p.html

 

[Krantos]

"Make Piracy the least attractive option"


This has been Stardock's position for YEARS and it seems like UbiSoft is going in the same direction.

This (in my inexpert opinion) is the only way to beat piracy. Virtually every DRM scheme out there right now does the exact opposite. It makes Piracy MORE attractive because then you don't have to deal with the Draconian DRM schemes.

Instead give people a REASON to want to buy the game versus steal it. It's worked for Stardock so far and it will probably work for Ubi.

 

[Deadyawn]

The fact is that DRM in its current form does nothing to prevent piracy. It might mean it takes a bit longer for pirates to get their hands on it but thats it. In the long run all you're doing is inconviniencing your legitimate customers which is in fact more incentive to pirate the game. It's really dumb.

Some forms of DRM like the one that was in arkham asylum (pirated copies couldn't progress beyond a certain point) don't affect legitimate customers and are actually pretty good. If that was the only security feature they used as well as any other non intrusive methods then that would be ok. As it is DRM is stupid and crap and should be ditched.

 

[tobi the good boy]

I've never been inconvenienced by DRM enough to really understand all the bitching that goes on about it.