Poll: DRM - A necessary evil?

[Smooth Operator]

Well you need to consider how bad things are when the best version of the game is the pirated one...
Like Gabe said there are some major service issues in there.

 

[babinro]

I feel that DRM is a necessary evil.

Pirates should have a barrier to entry that prevents the wider populous from getting on board. I believe that the corporations know what they're doing. They wouldn't spend tons of money on DRM efforts if it only caused them to lose further money from legitimate buyers.

Everyone knows that a game will be pirated either prior to launch or within hours/days of it. DRM isn't designed to prevent the high end pirates. It's designed to place a barrier on those who'd consider it but otherwise shy away because it seems to complicated, or difficult, etc.

I get the impression those companies with no DRM are still worse off in terms of lost sales than those who use it.

I'm sure DRM could be improved to provide less of an impact on the honest consumer.

 

[zumbledum]

DRM only impacts legitimate customers , pirates wont have to deal with it. lost track of the amount of games i bought that i then had to track down a "No cd crack" for.

Its always better to encourage than punish , give people reasons to not pirate rather than reasons to.

 

[Vivi22]

I'm not saying that we can eliminate piracy, especially through DRM, I'm just asking if you guys think that there may be a better way to handle DRM aside from removing it completely. Wouldn't a DRM-free gaming world be subject to much more piracy than it is now? Like it or not, some DRM can be effective - just look at how many people use Steam.

Steams DRM is only effective because they offer a comprehensive service which benefits customers greatly with sales especially, but it's other features as well such as being able to play games on as many computers as you want to load them on. If it weren't such a good consumer experience in every other way, I don't think it would have caught on. Many people are still bothered by the fact that they are still at the mercy of Valve for access to these titles, and if Steam every vanished then the fate of their game is very much up in the air.

So the only option I see for those who don't want to use Steam to deliver their game or who want to compete directly with it is to have no DRM. The majority of companies don't have the resources to try and out-Steam Steam, and the ones that do aren't doing a very good job. So the only reasonable alternative is to offer the best experience possible for the paying consumer, and that means no DRM. It doesn't work anyway so there's no reason to use it on the consumer end.

In fact, the only reason many people still do is because when they have to go looking for investment money or justify their decisions to a board who knows nothing about the industry and it's consumer base, nor of the efficacy of DRM, it's tough to explain to those people why you're not taking steps to protect a product they invested in.

Pirates should have a barrier to entry that prevents the wider populous from getting on board. I believe that the corporations know what they're doing. They wouldn't spend tons of money on DRM efforts if it only caused them to lose further money from legitimate buyers.

Companies absolutely would do that. Try explaining to investors or shareholders, or even executives within the company who don't understand the industry why not trying to prevent piracy is a better business strategy than including DRM. They don't care that it doesn't actually do anything, creates a worse user experience and costs god only knows how much in development/licensing costs. They just want to see that you're trying to protect their investment, the investment of shareholders, or trying to have something they can fall back on as a way of showing they're doing their job, even when it's really just a waste of resources.

And DRM doesn't create a barrier to entry for pirates. Anyone worth their salt is going to crack a game and completely remove the DRM, making it a pretty straightforward matter to install the game, and it's going to be available to millions via torrents. It's not as difficult as people think, and anyone who really doesn't want to pay for the game to the point that they're willing to pirate it is probably going to at least try downloading it first. Hell, the fact that millions are supposedly pirating games like COD is pretty strong evidence that it can't be that difficult.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Its makes it harder to play if you buy it and not really any difference to those who would pirate it.

 

[ElPatron]

WHAT NECESSARY EVIL? It has been proven that DRM does NOT work and it's easily circumvented.

It's not necessary, it's just evil.

It's designed to place a barrier on those who'd consider it but otherwise shy away because it seems to complicated, or difficult, etc

I'm sure DRM could be improved to provide less of an impact on the honest consumer.

Keep drinking the Kool Aid. DRM is designed to have more control on paying customers.

People who crack software are the ones that have to do extra work. Pirates only have to follow the instructions the cracker leaves on each release.

If you can install a PC game, you can pirate one. DRM is ineffective and only punishes the consumer. Develop a kind of DRM that doesn't piss off the consumer? That's a catch-22, it's impossible to restrict who is playing but at the same time let people play with no restrictions.

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

Steam is the only kind of DRM I am willing to use.

Any other kind enforces silly things (watch Jim Sterling's "Accountability" episode) or just prevents you from playing.

Me and a friend bought Grand Theft Auto IV and we wanted to play online. Rockstar Games apparently couldn't validate my Social Club account, but it seems like Take 2 are the ones who actually run the helpline.

I said "fuck this" because the game forced me to have Games for Windows, Social Club AND SecuROM.

And a lot more games enforce a policy of "limited installs". They don't hurt pirates, but every time you change a graphics board it counts as a "spent" installation.

DRM is bad. Period.

 

[zehydra]

This subject is common, especially here at the escapist. I know there's not much controversy among gamers, as in, most of us really hate it, but piracy is still an issue that we can't ignore. Is DRM really all that bad? The way some companies use it now is no doubt backwards and harmful... but I know a huge amount of gamers use Steam and don't complain, even though it uses DRM. Does that mean that it can be used correctly?

It is easy to get angry at some of the worst DRM strategies out there and dismiss it all as the doings of Evil Corporations, but you have to remember that they're doing it in protection from a legitimate threat: piracy. What's your honest, educated opinion on the matter? Is it justified as it is, or is there a way to improve it? Perhaps it should be done away with altogether?

You cannot eliminate piracy. Because to do so you would have to change either the nature of computers or human nature. Good luck trying to change either.

Likewise, you cannot eliminate murder. Doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying, no?

 

[barbzilla]

Anything more than CD-Keys is a waste of time and money in my opinion. The more advanced and aggravating the DRM, the more you punish your customers and drive them off. The CD-Key is enough to keep Joe average from giving it to his friends, but doesn't cause any further issues past the initial install (well the poorly printed horrible font having cd-key codes they use are a pain to read, but I digress).

So many larger developers are taking a NO OBTRUSIVE DRM stance that it is now getting harder to defend these annoying DRMs than it is to defend legit piracy (by legit piracy, I mean no other available option to buy game: IE not sold in your country or DRM prevents use in your country, or game is no longer sold at all). I am not advocating piracy by a long shot, as I am effected by lost sales in my business.

The fact remains that anything past simple copy protection is a waste of time, money, and other resources. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. By including obtrusive DRM you are hurting your sales (proven, even it not by much) and not truly deterring pirates determined to get the game for free in any real fashion.

 

[Atmos Duality]

"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.

You can never offer a better deal than "Functionally identical, but for free". Ever.
So the matter becomes a question of character and personal conviction.

You're asking criminals to stop being criminals for the sake of something criminals do not necessarily believe in or care about.

 

[DoPo]

Right, people read this very carefully:

Yes, DRM (actual working one!) is not about stopping piracy. Claiming so is going to mark you as insane no matter you you're pro or against DRM. The statement "DRM is trying to stop piracy" is insane and one has to be insane to claim it. It is trying to reduce piracy. And it's reducing it by making it a non-zero effort.

Of course, copy protection is going to be breached. What do you people think it happens? Somebody stares at a screen at slams his first on the keyboard until a copy protection emerges? And that somebody is obviously mentally challenged because he is incapable of grasping the pattern his last ten thousand failed attempts hint at? No, there are actual people, who, take my word for it, understand what they are doing and are capable of thought, learning and reasoning. And these people, believe it or not, do not imagine themselves single handedly vanquishing all the pirates.

Why do people claim "DRM is trying to stop piracy"? And then why do they go "but if doesn't stop it, it's useless"? That's a perfect example of the Nirvana fallacy "Oh if it doesn't work 100%, then obviously it doesn't work!" You can see the error here (if you don't, don't bother to come back).

So with this in mind, look at the lock comparison again. Several people said it's the wrong comparison. However, none of them actually claimed that the locks are needed. Because the comparison wasn't trying to be a perfect portrayal of how DRM works, it is to illustrate the principle method behind it, namely, if the security mechanism can be bypassed, why bother having it? So instead of trying to claim "No, but it's like you open ALLL the locks" and other nonsense, explain to me what is the point to have a mechanism that wouldn't stop people from wandering in your house. And somebody said the lock isn't an inconvenience to normal user - so you have never lost/forgot your keys? Maybe you haven't (I haven't in quite a while - 15 years or so), however it is an extra effort to keep track of your keys and otherwise ensure that you are able to go in. That is more inconvenient than not having to do it, no?

And finally, I am absolutely astonished at the number of people who apparently don't understand piracy or DRM. When they claim that piracy is not bad. Oh, and lucky for me, somebody mentioned Stardock. Well, I confess, I don't know much about them aside that they made Demigod. And I don't even know much about this game aside from these things: it is a DotA clone of some sort. At launch time, they expected 50k people at peak times (so, not always, and they expected those to come in a few weeks or a month), so they stress tested the service for 50k people and it was fine. At launch time, they got 120 000 connections. Imagine that. Out of these, around 18k were legitimate [http://forums.stardock.com/346815]. Read this again: there were five times as much pirates as normal people, who hopped on to give the game a spin. 100k pirates - that's twice the amount of the peak users expected, isn't it? Yes, it is and it crashed their servers! Affecting normal paying customers as well. Oh no, piracy caused no harm, didn't it. OF COURSE IT DID! There were 18k people who didn't play and the pirates went back with the expectations that the game was buggy (server crashed, they were booted out, etc), so a number of them decided not to buy the game, they might have otherwise paid for.

There, piracy is an issue. Oh, it's just one example, is it? The Witcher 2 sold a million copies while an estimated 4.5 million were illegally downloaded. That's the CD Projekt people so praise and swear by when it comes to no DRM. Thy made a good game, people liked, it didn't have any DRM (eventually) and it was made by a small and friendly studio. The formula for success yielded 80% piracy rate. And they hated it [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-29-the-witcher-2-pirated-4-5-million-times-reckons-cd-projekt]. Want more? The friggin Linux Game Publishing added copy protection to their games. Linux - the word associated with the opposite of copy protection. They didn't have it at first, but were forced to, because of the high number of piracy. And they fucking hated that, too - adding the DRM, I mean (also, the piracy). They also suffered from an estimated 80% piracy rate (One in 5-6 copies was legit [http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=lgp_copy_protection&num=1]).

Sure, it doesn't concern you doesn't it - just some nobodies twirling their moustache and fantasising about fucking their customers in the ass with DRM. Oh wait, actually they just don't want to be broke. Of course, they are still getting money from their legitimate sales and million copies should still give the devs some money. But let's say, just a hypothetical scenario, that you had a game that sold reasonably well, didn't inconvenience your paying customers with DRM, also pirates don't inconvenience the same customers (Demigod style). That's a reasonable situation, isn't it - never mind the "lost sales" bullshit (it is quite bullshit anyway) there is money for the developer, the customers are happy (DRM-wise and the game is decent at least). Piracy doesn't hamper this in any way...except, again, I'm continuing the thought experiment, let's say that a pirate has issue with his cracked copy and asks for support from the devs. And the devs oblige. And then another pirate decides they need support. And another one. And the devs still oblige - they are now actively losing money, as these people did not pay a dime but tech support still costs resources to the devs, also it takes away resources to help legitimate customers. Oh, shit, did I say that's fictional? That was one hell of a typo, I meant what happens with games all the time. For example, Fallout 3. Pete Hines of Bethesda has gone and said "The amount of money we spend supporting people who didn't pay us for the game in the first place?it's f--ing ludicrous [http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/10/13/bethesda-deals-with-pirates/]" (I can only assume that he didn't actually say "f--ing" - it's probably a typo, how do you pronounce it - "ef dash dash ing"?).

Oh fuck, it seems like piracy has some drawbacks. But still, why bother stop it, it's not really hurting the industry that much...except it makes developers want to develop for consoles because the drastically lower piracy there. The PC gaming is slowly winking out of existence because of it. Sure people complain we're getting shitty console ports but we're getting them partly because there is so little money in developing for a PC. You make a game for a console, it sells well and then you make a shitty console port - doesn't cost you much, you're getting your money's worth out of it (the sales would cover the port and distribution) and you don't get bothered about the game being pirated because you're not suffering heavy losses from that (unlike if you actually take time and effort to make the PC version more of a PC version).

There - that's what happens when somebody says "Pirates would win anyway".

Oh, and to the person who decides to say anything in the line of "consoles are better" or "PC sucks anyway" (I know there would be at least one. Whether they actually type it or not), I want to tell you something, buddy: FUCK! YOU! I have a PC, OK? And I'm happy with it. Also, I simply can't afford a console.

Now back to what I was speaking about - if people claim piracy isn't a huge issue, they are OK with all of this. There is more. If you're intelligent enough you can find out more or ever work it out, I don't feel the need to type everything here. "Piracy doesn't cause issues" is either ignorance, or being totally OK with issues. The latter of which means that you're lying as you understand there are issues in the first place.

EDIT: Damn, forgot to add a disclaimer and I know people would immediately misunderstand me. So here it goes: read my first comment. There that's my stance on DRM. I am not saying I want Ubisoft to slowly rape me with theirs (although, I haven't actually had a huge problem so far, that doesn't mean I think it's made of fluffy bunnies and rainbows), I'm saying that it has to be right. DRM has proven time and time again to not be the spawn of Satan. Only you don't know it's there. And that distinguishes good DRM from bad.

 

[MammothBlade]

Some sort of copy-protection is necessary. If publishers didn't protect their games at all, people would think it was perfectly legal and ok to copy them. And they would have little grounds to prosecute if people did pirate their games. So it has to be at least hard to make illegal copies of a game.

There needs to be a copy protection system which doesn't infringe upon the privacy or experience of legitimate users. Serial codes would work quite well if there were a way to prevent key generators from working. Give each game copy a unique serial which has to be authorised online, with a limited amount of authorisations at any one time, which can be redeemed whenever the game is uninstalled from a computer. I know EA tried something like that, and it wasn't too bad once they allowed users to redeem authorisation codes. It's preferable to the sorts of invasive or annoying DRM that require a constant internet connection and effectively reward piracy.

 

[DoPo]

"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.

You can never offer a better deal than "Functionally identical, but for free". Ever.
So the matter becomes a question of character and personal conviction.

You're asking criminals to stop being criminals for the sake of something criminals do not necessarily believe in or care about.

It has proven to work with Steam. Also, there are ways to encourage a legitimate copy - access to multiplayer, access to more content, less issues. Take for example, constantly releasing updates for the game, say every week or two. It's improving it and it does it for free, pirates will need to crack each new version. It's doable, but it's slightly better to have that done automatically for you, isn't it?

Also, access to online multiplayer. Sure, warez servers exist, but if you've seen the official ones, you know the community has it's share of douchebags and idiots. Warez servers tend to be composed mainly of the same douchebags and idiots. It would be better to not deal with them all the time, and just pay 10-20 bucks for the convenience (you can totally wait for a sale or second hand). In the case of the illegal WoW servers, those things used to be buggy as hell. Heck, the first versions of the emu+db released were pretty much just a sandbox to run around. The experience would never compare to the real thing. Pirated servers simply don't have the resources to run the same thing and the manpower to keep it as interesting as the real one (scripted events and other stuff).

It is possible to reduce piracy, don't delude yourself.

 

[Unsilenced]

This subject is common, especially here at the escapist. I know there's not much controversy among gamers, as in, most of us really hate it, but piracy is still an issue that we can't ignore. Is DRM really all that bad? The way some companies use it now is no doubt backwards and harmful... but I know a huge amount of gamers use Steam and don't complain, even though it uses DRM. Does that mean that it can be used correctly?

It is easy to get angry at some of the worst DRM strategies out there and dismiss it all as the doings of Evil Corporations, but you have to remember that they're doing it in protection from a legitimate threat: piracy. What's your honest, educated opinion on the matter? Is it justified as it is, or is there a way to improve it? Perhaps it should be done away with altogether?

You cannot eliminate piracy. Because to do so you would have to change either the nature of computers or human nature. Good luck trying to change either.

Likewise, you cannot eliminate murder. Doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying, no?

Your comparison is invalid. There are effective means of lowering homicide rates.

A better statement would be that we cannot eliminate murder by slamming our faces into our keyboards and yelling "DEEEDLEEEDLLEEEDLLEEEEDLEEE!!!" at the top of our lungs.


Some basic DRM to prevent just anyone from ripping it off is good, but once you get beyond "please insert disk to play," you're only dicking your own customers.

Most modern DRM is like putting 30 locks on a wooden door to keep out someone who has a brick of high explosives. If you're trying to get in properly, the locks are clumsy as fuck and get in your way. If you're using the C4, once the door is gone it's gone, and it will never inconvenience you again.

 

[DEAD34345]

I'm not saying that we can eliminate piracy, especially through DRM, I'm just asking if you guys think that there may be a better way to handle DRM aside from removing it completely. Wouldn't a DRM-free gaming world be subject to much more piracy than it is now? Like it or not, some DRM can be effective - just look at how many people use Steam.

That argument doesn't make sense, people use Steam because it is convenient, not because they can't pirate Steam games. I don't think there's a single Steam game out there that hasn't been cracked, so it isn't effective DRM at all.

OT: No, DRM in its current form it has no effect whatsoever on piracy, and a great negative effect on paying customers. I cannot comprehend why it even still exists.

 

[viranimus]

It should never exist. The sole purpose for its existence is to combat piracy, and it never has nor never will accomplish that purpose.

If its something that cannot accomplish what it is designed and intended to do, then it has no reason to exist.

The only purpose it serves is to act like piracy cops tracking down speeders. Its not like they catch even a fraction of people doing it. But by their very presence it most and average people from either speeding excessively or speeding at all. If your attempts at trying to thwart piracy simply consist of scaring people straight, surely that can be accomplished more effectively than only punishing legitimate customers.

Basically publishers KNOW they cant do anything about piracy technologically. But if they do nothing it will it will grow rampant. So they do something that the largest portion of the population will see and complain about thus maximizing its public exposure and acting as an effective reminder that pirating software is against the law. It really has nothing to do with its intended purpose compared to its practical effect.

I truly wish the general public understood how easily manipulated they are.

 

[veloper]

Right, people read this very carefully:

Yes, DRM (actual working one!) is not about stopping piracy. Claiming so is going to mark you as insane no matter you you're pro or against DRM. The statement "DRM is trying to stop piracy" is insane and one has to be insane to claim it. It is trying to reduce piracy. And it's reducing it by making it a non-zero effort.

Of course, copy protection is going to be breached. What do you people think it happens? Somebody stares at a screen at slams his first on the keyboard until a copy protection emerges? And that somebody is obviously mentally challenged because he is incapable of grasping the pattern his last ten thousand failed attempts hint at? No, there are actual people, who, take my word for it, understand what they are doing and are capable of thought, learning and reasoning. And these people, believe it or not, do not imagine themselves single handedly vanquishing all the pirates.

Why do people claim "DRM is trying to stop piracy"? And then why do they go "but if doesn't stop it, it's useless"? That's a perfect example of the Nirvana fallacy "Oh if it doesn't work 100%, then obviously it doesn't work!" You can see the error here (if you don't, don't bother to come back).

The error here is the 100% suggestion. It's more like "Oh it doesn't work at all! 0% effectiveness".

Pirates never deal with DRM.
They get a cracked version. Crackers crack for the interesting challenge it is and the prestige they gain in their scene, so there's no stopping them either. Harder = better.

The only thing DRM does is kill off used sales and it does that very effectively. That's it real purpose. Even basic less intrusive DRM will do that though, so the extra hassle imposed is still pointless.
A waste of a long wall of text. Pirates remain completely unaffected by any DRM measure. Their game versions come without any.

 

[Atmos Duality]

It has proven to work with Steam.

And it's proven that people will pirate something that costs a penny; offered via Steam no less.

It is possible to reduce piracy, don't delude yourself.

You missed my point. I never said that it wasn't possible to reduce piracy.
I'm examining the motivations to choose to pirate or not.

By objective reasoning, piracy is a low-risk, high gain option. It's very close to getting something for nothing; the chances of getting caught are tiny and your average game will function similarly if not identically.

In the absence of ethics and personal conviction, that's a pretty compelling reason to take the piracy option when available. And pardon my presumptions, but I'm going to assume that most criminals do not really maintain strong ethics while plying their trade.

Or to use a pithy quote: "If crime didn't pay, there would be very few criminals".

Whether you care about the developer and their continued business or not, or having some sort of sense of "fairness" are personal convictions; they're subjective.

Do not presume you can EVER say the motivations for opting not to pirate are entirely objective. In fact, that is what DRM attempts to achieve: creating objective reasons to not pirate, and it's been proven that DRM has a very poor track record in maintaining that.

 

[ThePS1Fan]

DRM is restrictive to paying customers. It doesn't really help against piracy. People pay for simplicity and convenience, that's why Steam is so popular. A large library in one place with good prices and from a trust able source. There will be no way to eliminate piracy but the best way to reduce it is to make your games easier to buy than pirate. DRM does the opposite.

 

[DoPo]

It should never exist. The sole purpose for its existence is to combat piracy, and it never has nor never will accomplish that purpose.

On the contrary. It does what it should do quite efficiently.

I truly wish the general public understood how easily manipulated they are.

For example by claiming "We won't be using DRM, give us your money"? Yeah, some people seem to buy ()he-he "buy") that quite a lot, judging from some comments here. Not enough, though.

The error here is the 100% suggestion. It's more like "Oh it doesn't work at all! 0% effectiveness".

Well, no DRM doesn't work either. Let's stop doing that.

Pirates never deal with DRM.
They get a cracked version. Crackers crack for the interesting challenge it is and the prestige they gain in their scene, so there's no stopping them either. Harder = better.

Read what I write, damn it. I'm not going to spend every post retyping what I've typed before.

But let me bring something new - for a long time have scene groups have put some variation of "If you like this game - buy it" in their NFOs. RELOADED, DEViANCE, iMMERSiON and SKiDROW come immediately to mind. Listen to those guys, if not me. I may not know enough about the scene, but they sure do.

A waste of a long wall of text. Pirates remain completely unaffected by any DRM measure. Their game versions come without any.

Hence what I said about copy protection. Thank you for not acknowledging it.

It has proven to work with Steam.

And it's proven that people will pirate something that costs a penny; offered via Steam no less.

It is possible to reduce piracy, don't delude yourself.

You missed my point. I never said that it wasn't possible to reduce piracy.
I'm examining the motivations to choose to pirate or not.

Except when I pointed out that in fact you can offer a better deal than piracy. Which you believed before.

Do not presume you can EVER say the motivations for opting not to pirate are entirely objective. In fact, that is what DRM attempts to achieve: creating objective reasons to not pirate, and it's been proven that DRM has a very poor track record in maintaining that.

Where did I bring up objective reasons? I gave reasons you might want to consider not pirating. You said "piracy the same but free" I said, "piracy not the same, and paid can be better". Whether one pursues the non-free path is up to them, I'm just saying that there are differences. At the very least people should be able to recognise the tragedy of the commons that follows from piracy. Objectively, that is a good reason to not pirate, is it not? I mean, you recognise that objectively that is going to affect people and you negatively, correct? So there - a single reason that is objective.

 

[AdmiralMemo]

DRM in its current form is useless. However, I believe an actually useful DRM could be developed somehow in the future to combat piracy.

The key problem with piracy is that computers are able to create exact copies of things. Without that issue, piracy wouldn't be as loudly-complained about, as there'd be the justification of "Well, if they wanted the REAL thing, they'd have to buy it." Also, really, there are so many people who pirate stuff that would very much settle for inferior copies, because it'd be good enough for them. There are plenty of people who watch cheap-o copies of videos that are filmed in a movie theater, just because it's cheaper.

Anyway, if there's any talk about piracy, you've got to watch this: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/piracy