So Who Is DRM For Anyway?

[Lightknight]

Point of fact, I did not say that I was okay with registration codes. Please re-read your question, and my answer.

I've already conceded that I can come up with various counterpoints to support my argument, but I have no desire to. DRM is odious, and attaching it to entertainment software should be a defunct practice. Again, thanks to Mr. Young for (hopefully) providing additional pressure to end the practice.

You said you make exceptions for some types like that which are minimally invasive. If you are ok with those enough to make exceptions then why would you deem something you'd likely never even be aware of as somehow worse?

ETA: After a very cursory search, it appears that two pirate groups have already cracked Hardline. I haven't done any other research, and I don't know how the cracks function, so I don't know their time frame or the quality of the work, but this reinforces the point in the article.

Cracking the basic game is not the same as successfully mass distributing it.

The entire crux is whether or not this impacts mass distribution. Of course the game is just as easily cracked as any other.

But again, maybe this kind of DRM isn't what it was pitched to me as. But think about it, if the server looks at your hardware and compares it to hardware already used by that license, how would cracking the software help?

From reading some comments on some of the sites you may be frequenting, I'm seeing other people saying that the double drm is uncrackable.

I'll do some more research now.

EDIT: Ugh, it does include just switching out the video card. They didn't do it as smartly as they could have then since the HDD is the only relevant component where license installation is concerned.

EDIT EDIT: Interesting, it appears that this was actually in place to allow Battlefield to hardware ban cheaters. There is a HDWID Spoofing workaround that allows them to keep cheating but it still triggers the lockout for 24 hours after their fifth install.

I haven't seen a solution to the 24 hours thing.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Was Anno 2070's full mode ever fully piratable? They seem to have used a similar DRM there but where the offline mode is available it doesn't look like the online mode was ever solved.

 

[Lightknight]

Oh well, I guess I don't want to click on several links that should include the information I need. I'm certainly not going to try to download a pirated copy or some such nonsense.

I'll have to wait for someone more knowledgeable to chime in.

 

[Kstarler]

Do you also refuse to buy games that have you enter a registration key?

First, the answer to your question is yes.

Just to clarify the point of fact, I do not condone any type of DRM, even down to registration keys. I can see where the point may have been muddled, as I should have indicated the answer was to your final question. Admittedly, this has not always been my stance, but within the last couple of years, it is accurate.

Regarding Anno 2070, I have no idea. If there is an always online component to it, then I would assume it's similar to Diablo III, where part of the code is stored on the server. While I will concede that holding part of the game code on an online server is an effective DRM tool, I would hope we can agree that this particular form of DRM is even worse than Origin or a hardware restriction, in that it directly harms paying customers by adding server latency and connectivity issues to a game with an entirely single player component.

Also, I want to clarify for anyone else reading this, I do not support and I do not condone piracy. If you like a game and want to see more like it, support the developers and buy it. But, don't forget to gripe about the parts you don't like after the purchase, like the DRM or bugs. Jim Sterling's advice on this (I forget when he gave it, but it seems like it was a while ago) was largely correct. Even EA didn't want to end up at the top of the Worst Company in America list a third time in a row.

 

[Veylon]

From reading some comments on some of the sites you may be frequenting, I'm seeing other people saying that the double drm is uncrackable.

Client-Server DRM is only uncrackable (and that, only theoretically) in the context of online gaming. Unless there is some key piece of the game that can now and forever be kept from the clients, the game is crackable. Any piece that goes to the clients can be captured and hacked. If the whole game ever goes to the clients - even piecemeal - the whole game is crackable. Only in online gaming that requires a server can pieces be kept from the clients. To crack the game fully then requires hackers to fabricate the missing pieces.

But think about it, if the server looks at your hardware and compares it to hardware already used by that license, how would cracking the software help?

The cracked software can lie to the server about what hardware exists. This is why there is a general principle that no information from a client can ever be trusted. The server must rely on it's own records of log on times and IP addresses for administration. There is no point in checking hardware information for DRM purposes as it requires trusting an inherently untrustworthy source.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Client-Server DRM is only uncrackable (and that, only theoretically) in the context of online gaming. Unless there is some key piece of the game that can now and forever be kept from the clients, the game is crackable. Any piece that goes to the clients can be captured and hacked. If the whole game ever goes to the clients - even piecemeal - the whole game is crackable. Only in online gaming that requires a server can pieces be kept from the clients. To crack the game fully then requires hackers to fabricate the missing pieces.

Which, in the case of a multiplayer centric game like Hardline, is a pretty good deal for the publisher, no? Even if you "just" keep the pirate out of the multiplayer part, you are still preventing them from accessing the most tempting content of the game. If you keep the pirates out of the MP scene you are effectively telling them to either buy the game to really access the main content or be content with the second rate serving that is the single player.

 

[J Tyran]

DRM like that just means I won't buy a game, gaming is mainly my secondary hobby as far as my PC goes. I enjoy fiddling, tinkering and replacing my hardware. I regularly rebuild my machine from the ground up because, well just because.

If a publishers game is going to be an annoying PITA because of that I simply won't buy it.

 

[Lightknight]

From reading some comments on some of the sites you may be frequenting, I'm seeing other people saying that the double drm is uncrackable.

Client-Server DRM is only uncrackable (and that, only theoretically) in the context of online gaming. Unless there is some key piece of the game that can now and forever be kept from the clients, the game is crackable. Any piece that goes to the clients can be captured and hacked. If the whole game ever goes to the clients - even piecemeal - the whole game is crackable. Only in online gaming that requires a server can pieces be kept from the clients. To crack the game fully then requires hackers to fabricate the missing pieces.

Ok, this is what I was thinking was the case.

So, in your eyes, does that mean that this DRM is actually effective at preventing pirates from experiencing the multiplayer aspect of the game?

But think about it, if the server looks at your hardware and compares it to hardware already used by that license, how would cracking the software help?

The cracked software can lie to the server about what hardware exists. This is why there is a general principle that no information from a client can ever be trusted. The server must rely on it's own records of log on times and IP addresses for administration. There is no point in checking hardware information for DRM purposes as it requires trusting an inherently untrustworthy source.

It seems that their 'intention' was to be able to hardware ban cheaters. But they can just switch out one piece of hardware or spoof it and be seen as a different hardware. they can only do it up to 8 times before they start getting the 24 hour timeouts.

Does the ability to spoof hardware really matter? Even if someone created an easy utility for people to spoof a common machine, all you need is 7 knuckleheads that don't know what they're doing going and installing the license on their own machine and suddenly there's a timeout for everyone.

The only workaround I'm thinking about is the ability to generate a unique license for every pirate. Perhaps EA has contingencies in place for that as well (such as a limited scope of licenses that may be difficult to find).

Client-Server DRM is only uncrackable (and that, only theoretically) in the context of online gaming. Unless there is some key piece of the game that can now and forever be kept from the clients, the game is crackable. Any piece that goes to the clients can be captured and hacked. If the whole game ever goes to the clients - even piecemeal - the whole game is crackable. Only in online gaming that requires a server can pieces be kept from the clients. To crack the game fully then requires hackers to fabricate the missing pieces.

Which, in the case of a multiplayer centric game like Hardline, is a pretty good deal for the publisher, no? Even if you "just" keep the pirate out of the multiplayer part, you are still preventing them from accessing the most tempting content of the game. If you keep the pirates out of the MP scene you are effectively telling them to either buy the game to really access the main content or be content with the second rate serving that is the single player.

Exactly, I can't believe I'm saying this but they may have finally figured out a piece of DRM I'm not actually opposed to. Something that does hit pirates, doesn't hit the average consumer at all, and doesn't harm the game.

The DRM also has the added benefit of being able to hardware ban cheaters. They can still reconfigured up to 7 times but after that the cheaters get the additional joys of a 24 hour timeout on their license. So one could argue that it not only doesn't harm the game but improves it.

 

[Lightknight]

DRM like that just means I won't buy a game, gaming is mainly my secondary hobby as far as my PC goes. I enjoy fiddling, tinkering and replacing my hardware. I regularly rebuild my machine from the ground up because, well just because.

If a publishers game is going to be an annoying PITA because of that I simply won't buy it.

That would certainly hit you then.

How frequently would you switch out a piece of hardware on your gaming machine? I upgrade mine fairly regularly but no more than three times a year at most. Technology moves quickly but it doesn't move that quickly for me to waste money needlessly on products that are only marginally better.

 

[CaitSeith]

DRM is for the shareholders. The industry have been on a witch-hunt against piracy, blaming their financial troubles on it whether it actually had any considerable effect on profit margins or not. By now it has been ingrained into people's heads that piracy is bad for business. DRM, on the surface, is for combating piracy. It doesn't work, but the investors and shareholders don't necessarily know this. All they "know" is that the eeeeeeeeevil software pirates are lurking outside, and that they want to "steal" their games and destroy their dividends. They want the company to do something about it, and so the company slaps DRM onto their games. It doesn't stop pirates, but the shareholders "think" that it stops them, and therefore they invest more and the company stays afloat and can pay dividends. At the end of the day, DRM is the placebo of the gaming industry.

However the article stated that the DRM for this game wasn't disclosed until it failed. It concludes that the shareholders didn't know about it.

 

[Lightknight]

DRM is for the shareholders. The industry have been on a witch-hunt against piracy, blaming their financial troubles on it whether it actually had any considerable effect on profit margins or not. By now it has been ingrained into people's heads that piracy is bad for business. DRM, on the surface, is for combating piracy. It doesn't work, but the investors and shareholders don't necessarily know this. All they "know" is that the eeeeeeeeevil software pirates are lurking outside, and that they want to "steal" their games and destroy their dividends. They want the company to do something about it, and so the company slaps DRM onto their games. It doesn't stop pirates, but the shareholders "think" that it stops them, and therefore they invest more and the company stays afloat and can pay dividends. At the end of the day, DRM is the placebo of the gaming industry.

However the article stated that the DRM for this game wasn't disclosed until it failed. It concludes that the shareholders didn't know about it.

False, if DRM prevents the game from being cracked at launch (and it does, sometimes takes several weeks or months depending on the quality of it to crack ), then it should improve revenue in the first few weeks by encouraging the pirates that are willing to pay for games in order to not wait for them. The biggest bulk of sales for a game happens in those first few weeks. For example:

Here's 360 version of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 [http://www.vgchartz.com/game/44606/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3/Global/]. To date, it has sold 14.5 million units. It was launched in 2011 and the first 11.8 million units were sold in the first 10 weeks.

The only two weeks it sold into the millions were the first two weeks (6.7 million and then 1.1 million). The last four out of the ten weeks were all within the 11 million mark. The subsequent approximately 182 weeks (just 3.5 years times 52 weeks) averaged just 15k units per week. To put that in perspective, adding 10 weeks (192 total) and the total units sold shoots up to an average of 76k units per week.

So sales drop off RAPIDLY and delaying pirates by just a few weeks can make a non-trivial difference because people WILL pay for convenience in the form of time and ease.

So shareholders don't need to know about the DRM as long as it has a positive impact on revenue.

Let's face it, revenue (that exceeds costs) and clear vision are the only things that really gets shareholders happy.

 

[Alek The Great]

Exactly, I can't believe I'm saying this but they may have finally figured out a piece of DRM I'm not actually opposed to. Something that does hit pirates, doesn't hit the average consumer at all, and doesn't harm the game.

The DRM also has the added benefit of being able to hardware ban cheaters. They can still reconfigured up to 7 times but after that the cheaters get the additional joys of a 24 hour timeout on their license. So one could argue that it not only doesn't harm the game but improves it.

There is a downside to client-server DRM and that is that people can't host their own games and, once official servers are taken down, the multiplayer experience is absolutely dead as well. So many multiplayer games can't be archived for this reason which only hurts the art-form as we might not be able to preserve particularly good examples of online experiences (not implying that Hardline is one of those, I haven't played it myself).

 

[Lightknight]

Exactly, I can't believe I'm saying this but they may have finally figured out a piece of DRM I'm not actually opposed to. Something that does hit pirates, doesn't hit the average consumer at all, and doesn't harm the game.

The DRM also has the added benefit of being able to hardware ban cheaters. They can still reconfigured up to 7 times but after that the cheaters get the additional joys of a 24 hour timeout on their license. So one could argue that it not only doesn't harm the game but improves it.

There is a downside to client-server DRM and that is that people can't host their own games and, once official servers are taken down, the multiplayer experience is absolutely dead as well. So many multiplayer games can't be archived for this reason which only hurts the art-form as we might not be able to preserve particularly good examples of online experiences (not implying that Hardline is one of those, I haven't played it myself).

This is true with a lot of modern online games that don't even use client-server DRM. It's a general nature of multiplayer games.

At least some companies go back and change how it's done. Rise of Nations just ultimately resolved that issue for example.

But I'm not sure a game that gets a new release every year really matters all that much for posterity. Especially not if LAN parties and single player modes still exist.

So your argument is more against server farms than any kind of DRM.

 

[Veylon]

So, in your eyes, does that mean that this DRM is actually effective at preventing pirates from experiencing the multiplayer aspect of the game?

I don't want to say that it is, as I don't know the implementation in any depth, but the theory is sound.

It seems that their 'intention' was to be able to hardware ban cheaters. But they can just switch out one piece of hardware or spoof it and be seen as a different hardware. they can only do it up to 8 times before they start getting the 24 hour timeouts.

Does the ability to spoof hardware really matter? Even if someone created an easy utility for people to spoof a common machine, all you need is 7 knuckleheads that don't know what they're doing going and installing the license on their own machine and suddenly there's a timeout for everyone.

Well, let's think about this.

The client wants to connect. It claims to be being used by PLAYERID. The server wants to know what it's hardware situation is. The client sends back HWID. The server already has an IP address from the client that may or may not be accurate and records of previous log-on attempts. The server has to make a call about whether to allow or not allow the client to log on. By what logic can such a call be made?

The HWID is easy to spoof; there simply needs to be a 1:1 database between PLAYERIDs and HWIDs. Supply the HWID along with the PLAYERID - no different than a password, really - and you're in! The HWID is effectively worthless as DRM.

The first obvious sign of hacking is if a PLAYERID is already logged on and another PLAYERID attempts to log on from a different IP address. In this case, the second one could by denied.

Maybe a red flag is raised for this PLAYERID. Garner enough red flags and a real live human gets summoned to administer punishment or else the system automatically bans the player for a length of time.

Under this system, any number of people could spoof it provided that no two of them are using the same PLAYERID at the same time. Of course, this would depend on a considerable amount of organization between the hackers on the fly and the trust for people using accounts to not lock them by changing the password.

So you're basically right, the "knuckleheads" are what are liable to bring down this type of hacking. The pirate community needs to purchase enough legitimate accounts in order for their system to work. They could, say, have a dozen PLAYERID/HWID identities that are checked out by their users and then returned after the gaming session is over to avoid duplicate log-ons that would tip off the company. But the level of discipline necessary to make it work isn't likely to exist and so the organizational advantage lies with the company.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

So shareholders don't need to know about the DRM as long as it has a positive impact on revenue.

Let's face it, revenue (that exceeds costs) and clear vision are the only things that really gets shareholders happy.

What do you mean by "clear vision"?

 

[J Tyran]

DRM like that just means I won't buy a game, gaming is mainly my secondary hobby as far as my PC goes. I enjoy fiddling, tinkering and replacing my hardware. I regularly rebuild my machine from the ground up because, well just because.

If a publishers game is going to be an annoying PITA because of that I simply won't buy it.

That would certainly hit you then.

How frequently would you switch out a piece of hardware on your gaming machine? I upgrade mine fairly regularly but no more than three times a year at most. Technology moves quickly but it doesn't move that quickly for me to waste money needlessly on products that are only marginally better.

Components get swapped out once or twice a year, then you have the fiddling about and failed OCs and tweaks needing re-installs which sometimes convince this kind of DRM that its a new machine. I just built this:- http://imgur.com/a/xgIaS to replace my Ivy Bridge machine, I will change the GPU towards the end of the year as well.

So there are two chances this year for this kind of DRM to shit the bed, more if I get around to buying an M.2 drive as well.

 

[Lightknight]

It seems that their 'intention' was to be able to hardware ban cheaters. But they can just switch out one piece of hardware or spoof it and be seen as a different hardware. they can only do it up to 8 times before they start getting the 24 hour timeouts.

Does the ability to spoof hardware really matter? Even if someone created an easy utility for people to spoof a common machine, all you need is 7 knuckleheads that don't know what they're doing going and installing the license on their own machine and suddenly there's a timeout for everyone.

---SNIP---

So you're basically right, the "knuckleheads" are what are liable to bring down this type of hacking. The pirate community needs to purchase enough legitimate accounts in order for their system to work. They could, say, have a dozen PLAYERID/HWID identities that are checked out by their users and then returned after the gaming session is over to avoid duplicate log-ons that would tip off the company. But the level of discipline necessary to make it work isn't likely to exist and so the organizational advantage lies with the company.

Exactly, it isn't strictly impossible but requires an amount of coordination and discipline that the internet just hasn't proven capable of providing. I can see it working on small cases like we discussed but this effectively kills mass distribution which means this DRM is surprisingly effective if that's how it works.

snip

So shareholders don't need to know about the DRM as long as it has a positive impact on revenue.

Let's face it, revenue (that exceeds costs) and clear vision are the only things that really gets shareholders happy.

What do you mean by "clear vision"?

The reason companies keep hosting these "press releases" and "shareholder meetings" is to show the shareholders and potential investors that they have clear goals in mind with positive expected results. Investors steer away pretty hard from aimless companies. Basically, the two ways to encourage investment is to show legitimate blueprints for success and then to demonstrate actual success.

 

[Lightknight]

DRM like that just means I won't buy a game, gaming is mainly my secondary hobby as far as my PC goes. I enjoy fiddling, tinkering and replacing my hardware. I regularly rebuild my machine from the ground up because, well just because.

If a publishers game is going to be an annoying PITA because of that I simply won't buy it.

That would certainly hit you then.

How frequently would you switch out a piece of hardware on your gaming machine? I upgrade mine fairly regularly but no more than three times a year at most. Technology moves quickly but it doesn't move that quickly for me to waste money needlessly on products that are only marginally better.

Components get swapped out once or twice a year, then you have the fiddling about and failed OCs and tweaks needing re-installs which sometimes convince this kind of DRM that its a new machine. I just built this:- http://imgur.com/a/xgIaS to replace my Ivy Bridge machine, I will change the GPU towards the end of the year as well.

So there are two chances this year for this kind of DRM to shit the bed, more if I get around to buying an M.2 drive as well.

That's one sexy machine.

I really don't notice enough of a performance difference in switching out my old Ivy Bridge CPU to make it worth it. I got a high end i7 at the time even though the i5 was a much better value for the buck. It's the GPU I find far more worth upgrading. However, even then my specs are so far above ultra settings that I haven't been able to justify upgrades this year. I'd expected the console generation to usher in a new age but it hasn't been that noticeable yet.

Anyways, if you only upgrade twice a year then you shouldn't ever see this. Do you really think you'd play hardline for four years?

The only thing I'd be concerned with is the fiddling about bit you mentioned. Now that you know this you can be sure not to log into the game during the fiddling but do you really think you'd hit 8 different configurations in a single year even? Not only that but it's timed so by the second time you get around to upgrades it may have reverted back to zero AND this ends up only being an inconvenience of 24 hours if you do really hit that number some time. So even the rare bird that changes their hardware 8 times in a short amount of time wouldn't be out of luck.

You stand to miss far more days to these kinds of games with the host servers being down than anything else.

 

[J Tyran]

DRM like that just means I won't buy a game, gaming is mainly my secondary hobby as far as my PC goes. I enjoy fiddling, tinkering and replacing my hardware. I regularly rebuild my machine from the ground up because, well just because.

If a publishers game is going to be an annoying PITA because of that I simply won't buy it.

That would certainly hit you then.

How frequently would you switch out a piece of hardware on your gaming machine? I upgrade mine fairly regularly but no more than three times a year at most. Technology moves quickly but it doesn't move that quickly for me to waste money needlessly on products that are only marginally better.

Components get swapped out once or twice a year, then you have the fiddling about and failed OCs and tweaks needing re-installs which sometimes convince this kind of DRM that its a new machine. I just built this:- http://imgur.com/a/xgIaS to replace my Ivy Bridge machine, I will change the GPU towards the end of the year as well.

So there are two chances this year for this kind of DRM to shit the bed, more if I get around to buying an M.2 drive as well.

That's one sexy machine.

I really don't notice enough of a performance difference in switching out my old Ivy Bridge CPU to make it worth it. I got a high end i7 at the time even though the i5 was a much better value for the buck. It's the GPU I find far more worth upgrading. However, even then my specs are so far above ultra settings that I haven't been able to justify upgrades this year. I'd expected the console generation to usher in a new age but it hasn't been that noticeable yet.

Anyways, if you only upgrade twice a year then you shouldn't ever see this. Do you really think you'd play hardline for four years?

The only thing I'd be concerned with is the fiddling about bit you mentioned. Now that you know this you can be sure not to log into the game during the fiddling but do you really think you'd hit 8 different configurations in a single year even? Not only that but it's timed so by the second time you get around to upgrades it may have reverted back to zero AND this ends up only being an inconvenience of 24 hours if you do really hit that number some time. So even the rare bird that changes their hardware 8 times in a short amount of time wouldn't be out of luck.

You stand to miss far more days to these kinds of games with the host servers being down than anything else.

You're right, the raw performance increase isn't that great although more of the Z97 boards allow turbo boost on all cores simultaneously which is pretty sweet and not something that shows in the raw stats but makes quite a difference straight out of the box as a Devils Canyon chip will run all cores at the same speed as a heavily (not extreme) overclocked i7. I mainly wanted upgrade paths in the future, Ivy Bridge was pretty much done along with the Z77 platform and apart from buying pimped DRAM there was nothing left to upgrade.

My Z97 has SATA Express, M.2 and processors coming out in the future (Broadwell) so I will get another couple of years out of it. I think the main thing this console generation will do to games is a jump in VRAM requirements, all of the extra post processing and other effects eat up more VRAM than we are used too even at lower resolutions.

 

[Blackbird71]

This reminds me of my own situation with Dragon Age Inquisition, where we bought a boxed copy of the game (because fuck downloading it over Australian internet), then found you can only have it installed on one Origin account at a time, meaning we can't play multiplayer and have to kick each other off every time one of us wants to play it. We live under the same roof, these sort of restrictions are just asinine.

If you had bought it for a console, you'd still only be able to play it on one system at a time because there's only one disc, so I don't see how this is so horrible exactly?

It's installed on both computers, no disc required. Not to get all Master Race-y on you, but these aren't the limits of the consoles that apply here. It's the limits of the "one account, one install" DRM that nobody asked for. If this were the old days, we could both have it installed and be able to play it at the same time. At the moment, we have to make do with offline mode, but that means we can't play multiplayer with each other.

What you are proposing, installing the game on two separate computers from one purchased copy and playing both simultaneously, is technically illegal and the very reason such authentication systems exist. You have basically admitted committing a crime on a public forum.

Legality aside, even if these were the days before such online authentication methods as Origin's "one account, one install", you would not likely be able to play both installs together as multiplayer. Before we had online DRM, there were offline methods. One of the more common was entering a key upon installation. For most multiplayer games which used this method, if two copies of the game had the same install key, they could not join each other in multiplayer. Another common tool was the "disc in drive" requirement, for which the game disc had to be in the computer in order for the game to run; clearly you could not have one disc in two computers at the same time. It has been a very, very long time since there were any games which could be installed multiple times from the same disc and then play together (without using hacks/cracks/etc., obviously). Your expectations of being able to engage in multiplayer with two installs from the same hard copy are completely unreasonable, in any time period.

 

[Extragorey]

Another great article, Shamus. DRM needs to go die in a hole with day-one DLC and hard-capped frame rates.