So Who Is DRM For Anyway?

[Hairless Mammoth]

Yes, DRM isn't there to appease the shareholders. It's there to appease the tech illiterate businessmen who foolishly fear lower profits and their shareholders rarely complaining of lower profits over their customers commonly lashing out against anti-consumer DRM[footnote]Regrettably, there are people who still buy things with horrible DRM schemes, like always online single player or absolute limited installs, lowering the effectiveness of the voices arguing against that sort of DRM.[/footnote] and to keep the pirates busy cracking the DRM for the first few weeks while the majority of the revenue is being made. [small]DRM is still generally evil, though.[/small]

This 8 install DRM, though, really could only affect the typical user if an error occurs and s/he is hit with a false positive, or they really do try installing Hardline on 8 PCs. As Shamus points out, it's a stupid form of DRM who's only real effects are wasting EA's time and money to implement and generating more bad press. They should have had the foresight to see at least a few out there would use Hardline as a benchmark and the internet would blow the effects of this particular DRM out of proportion.

EA should have just relied on Origin's built in DRM, just like Ubisoft should just rely on Origin's and Steam's, instead of tacking on Uplay to games on the other services. Ubi lost me as a customer for that years ago.

 

[Kingjackl]

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.

 

[Darkness665]

EA finally chucked John Riccitiello, he of the 'would only greenlight multiplayer games' and project $10. Their recent debacles shows clearly he wasn't the only problem at EA. Being wrong is deeply embedded within the culture of EA.

Time for an up to date EA Motto!

EA, where the customer is always a crook. It was them or us.

 

[EndlessSporadic]

I want to point out that hypothetical reports are terrible and confusing for stupid people like me. Be clear and direct with your points.

 

[JET1971]

I have a legal digital download of FarCry 2 that I managed to go through the amount of install they had and 1 of them was because the server I was trying to revoke on didn't do it. So I went ahead and downloaded a DRM free pirate version of the software I owned. I promptly emailed Ubisoft telling them that 2 of the torrent download counts were mine and was because of the DRM. For me I believe that if the DRM can make the game unplayable and you did buy it then grabbing a DRM free version off a torrent site and telling the publisher that you did it is not piracy and drives home a message that the DRM used is unacceptable especially when it was a digital download from their server where they can see that it was the same IP for each download and every login on the forums that directly related to each install.

Now they have Origin and Uplay so there is NO valid reason for limited installs or other ridiculous DRM bullshit

When they stopped using the limited install DRM for FC2 I was given the fortunes pack DLC for free and my account was never banned even though I used my email that was used when registering.

 

[loa]

The reason I was driven to steam was because I got burned by a boxed copy of spore and thought platforms like steam would not have additional layers of DRM on top of them since that makes no sense but nope.
How is hard to remove shit that buries itself into the guts of your computer without ever asking for permission still not illegal?
It should at least be fully disclosed what type of DRM a publisher thinks their game needs on top of the steamworks or origin ones I already know of so I can't accidentally step on that landmine.

 

[Gunner 51]

I think the main reason why new games with bad DRM issues not selling very well is simply a case of the chickens coming home to roost.

It all comes down to short sighted money grabbing. The only people who want DRM are the bean counters at the top who don't really understand that games are a different medium. Though when one dwells upon the issue, I think I can understand why they do this.

The suits have got to realise that DRM not only doesn't work but it ultimately cheeses off the people who ultimately buy the games. Happy customers provide more money than any share-holders.

Look back to 1995 and a little game called Doom - that stonking game made money for ages after it was out because there was little DRM, little hype, the customers were happy and the devs at Id software let them mod the game and were generally all around lovely to their fans - securing their loyalty. (Even after the odd turkey like Rage was released...)

Fast foward to today, games are ultimately getting more and more bland, hyped as if they were the second coming of Christ, the devlopers are told to act more like salesmen toward the public by their masters.

And the last turn of the screw comes in the form of being told to add DRM as a final "Fick dich" to anyone who wants to buy the game by making them essentially surrender their rights as a consumer because they had the temerity to buy and own the game as opposed to pay for the permission to play the publisher's game. (Which is how the publishers see things...)

All this isn't truly the fault of the developer, but publishers who want to act like control freaks who wield all the power. But all they're doing is cutting off their own noses to spite their faces and acting like spoiled children who take their frustrations out on their toys when called out on their behavior.

But all that's just my two penneth worth.

 

[Gezzer]

This whole question is at the heart of what's wrong with EA, or any big company.

Companies as they grow develop more and more momentum. When they're young they don't develop much and it runs out quickly if there isn't lots of energy being introduced. That's one of the reasons small promising companies disappear, they just couldn't maintain the momentum. But as they grow and develop a larger and larger "management" hierarchy the energy needed to maintain the momentum becomes less and less. What was once a lean efficient enterprise out of necessity, eventually becomes a lumbering giant. That is some what top heavy due to middle managers needing to justify and protect their power base., Also prone to mishaps, due to the "too many chiefs not enough indians" rule. But due to it's enormous built up momentum it can take the hit from their mistakes and keep upright and mobile. For their survivability this is a good thing. But it also means due to the momentum that they aren't very flexible, nor quick to react to outside events. And all the chiefs and sub chiefs don't want to put their necks in a noose by actually thinking outside the box. So the same mistakes just keep being made. This is also why Valve is such a great company, no hierarchy system.

All this makes it almost like EA (and many other large companies) is living in their own little world, that is responsive to their rules and logic, no matter how much the reverse is proven to them. Over and over again they chant the proven mantras. DRM works. In game microtransactions work. F2P lets us deliver compelling experiences. Selling buggy unfinished games work. Selling skinner boxes as games work. Etc. And the sad thing is there are just enough people falling for the BS that they have data to back up these falsehoods. Or least the experts advising the CEO, CFO, and CTO have enough. And every now and then they actually make a game like the last Dragon Age that give the beleaguered believers a bit of hope that all the stupidity is done with. But EA's built up momentum won't allow it to be.

Oh and and I actually have stopped buying EA products. After the Simcity reboot, or as I call it, lets reboot Simcity to be a Sims clone, and BF3 or CoD wannabe, and total proof Quicktime events aren't gameplay and SUCK sweaty balls, I said no more. Does mean I missed out on Dragon Age, but I'm staying strong.

 

[gamegod25]

My theory on what happened:

Dev 1: So ... there's this left over money in the budget. What should we use it on?
Dev 2: DRM?
Dev 3: Really? On top of Origin? That's what we're going to spend the money on?
Dev 1: Sure. If we don't use it, our budget for the sequel won't be as big!

Pretty sure the devs have no say on the issue, it's one of likely many items mandated by the publisher in order to get the funding.

 

[heroicbob]

i just really hate the multiple levels of drm i mean they have origin that should be enough

its the same as when i try to play any ubisoft game on steam and it launches uplay on top of it

 

[schmulki]

A bunch of garbage

I absolutely love this reply. It's nothing but a load of garbage ignoring 905 of what was said while trying to be on the highest of horses possible, while trying to claim I'm on a high horse about something. Bravo random internet person, bravo.

 

[Lightknight]

Ok, no one responded the first time I pointed this out. So I'll try again:

1. This DRM would impact almost NO legitimate customer. You have to install it on 8 machines in a short amount of time. Once locked, it is a timed lock so eventually you will be able to install it on more machines.

2. This would only impact mass distributions of the same copy.

3. Because it tracks the computer hardware and is checked by the server rather than the software, this may actually be an effective two-factor authentication that finally actually works. In order for someone to trick the system they'd have to go through major hoops like ghosting the same hardware right down to the MAC or generating a new viable license with every distributed copy. These are major hurdles for people and aren't as simple as just cracking the Software. The fact that the software doing the verification is on the server side makes all the difference.

So really, it seems to be the first bit of DRM I've ever seen that may actually be doing it right. Non-invasive to likely every legitimate customer and only harmful to mass distributors of the same license (aka Pirates).

Does someone have a real complaint about this? A real problem that isn't just the "spirit of the thing" they're bristling at? Seriously, because I'm scratching my head here and wondering what sort of person would rapidly install the same license more than 8 times within a short time period? Laptop, a couple home computers, a couple friend's? Sure. But 8?

I could easily imagine this being standard DRM in the future and I honestly don't have a problem with it if that's all it does.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Does someone have a real complaint about this? A real problem that isn't just the "spirit of the thing" they're bristling at? Seriously, because I'm scratching my head here and wondering what sort of person would rapidly install the same license more than 8 times within a short time period? Laptop, a couple home computers, a couple friend's? Sure. But 8?

I suppose you could technically reach the limit rather fast if you're idea of fun is swapping out lots of hardware, like your GPU and RAM, and benchmarking, like Shamus briefly broached upon in his column. Though I have no idea who would be installing a game on 2-3 computers and then spend time swapping out the GPU in all of them like 3 times each just to get some benchmarks.

To be honest, I have only been hassled by DRM once (StarForce in the Witcher) and that was because StarForce decided my x48 DVD drive was actually a virtual reader and thus refused to read the DVD. The problem was solved by plugging in a x12 USB DVD Writer, which StarForce accepted without questions (despite the claim that StarForce would block all writers...). Never had any other DRM problems apart from occasional network issues with stuff like DA:Os profile system. So I don't really see the big deal about DRM, considering how rampant piracy is I understand that the suits in the companies feel a need to do something to try and thwart piracy of their products, even if that something is near pointless and pisses of some legitimate customers. As a community, gamers brought DRM upon themselves.

 

[Lightknight]

The big flaw in Shamus' premise is his number one assumption. That Brandon is not a pirate.

See, this DRM (until someone tells me why I'm wrong which is what I'm seeking) directly impacts torrent sites. The moment one license gets downloaded and installed 8 times, its' suddenly unusable.

In throwing #1 in as a given, he automatically disregarded the only reason why the DRM makes sense and it's a huge reason because it makes any given link to a single install file significantly less useful whereas in the past you could have thousands of people download the same file and it would work as long as your reg key worked or whatever.

But keep in mind, I'm not a pirate. So maybe you all know something I don't. Is mass generating unique licenses of the game easy to do and if so, is there a simple way to distribute it to a mass of people that doesn't still result in licenses getting installed 8 times because 8 people installed them at the same time?

Does someone have a real complaint about this? A real problem that isn't just the "spirit of the thing" they're bristling at? Seriously, because I'm scratching my head here and wondering what sort of person would rapidly install the same license more than 8 times within a short time period? Laptop, a couple home computers, a couple friend's? Sure. But 8?

I suppose you could technically reach the limit rather fast if you're idea of fun is swapping out lots of hardware, like your GPU and RAM, and benchmarking, like Shamus briefly broached upon in his column. Though I have no idea who would be installing a game on 2-3 computers and then spend time swapping out the GPU in all of them like 3 times each just to get some benchmarks.

Couple points here:

1. You don't reinstall a game if you swap out RAM or really anything other than the storage where it's otherwise installed. Has anyone verified that slapping the HDD or SSD into 8 different machines triggers this error message or is it only when installing it fresh for the 8th time on new hardware?
2. We actually don't know what they mean by different hardware. As far as we know, it isn't tied to the specs so much as the MAC address or something like that. The smart option would be tied to a unique HDD serial or something like that if there's any sort of unique ID standard for storage devices.
3. Keep in mind that this is also tied to time. Given an infinite amount of time time you should be able to install this game an infinite number of times.

My guess is that this DRM only presented itself when someone tried to distribute a license to pirates and this came up.

To be honest, I have only been hassled by DRM once (StarForce in the Witcher) and that was because StarForce decided my x48 DVD drive was actually a virtual reader and thus refused to read the DVD. The problem was solved by plugging in a x12 USB DVD Writer, which StarForce accepted without questions (despite the claim that StarForce would block all writers...). Never had any other DRM problems apart from occasional network issues with stuff like DA:Os profile system. So I don't really see the big deal about DRM, considering how rampant piracy is I understand that the suits in the companies feel a need to do something to try and thwart piracy of their products, even if that something is near pointless and pisses of some legitimate customers. As a community, gamers brought DRM upon themselves.

Invasive mandatory logins into programs like Origin are a big one for me. Forced logins in single player modes are another.

Stuff like SimCity was a nightmare. It all depends on what games you play.

 

[Kstarler]

Not that it should be any surprise (Mr. Young's articles are almost always spot on and well crafted), but this one was so good that I wanted to chime in with some kudos.

I have a friend that doesn't understand why all of his other gamer friends (myself included) refuse to buy any game that requires a DRM service to be running in the background, or one that has DRM included. It's not because the games aren't good (most of them are), or because we don't have always online internet connections (we do). It's not even because the DRM services are terrible (Steam is pretty good, Origin is getting better, and uPlay... well, there's always an outlier). It's because purchasing these products tells the companies in question that they can get away with tacking these things on, so long as the main product is worth the downside.

Unfortunately, losing four sales (myself and crew) doesn't do anything to substantially hurt the game companies' bottom lines, and even if there are enough of us out there to hurt their sales numbers, the end result is more likely to be a halt in PC production than a change in DRM policy. So, to that end I say, preach on brother Young. Amen and hallelujah. Because the only way the game companies will change is if folks like you keep the pressure on them.

 

[Lightknight]

Not that it should be any surprise (Mr. Young's articles are almost always spot on and well crafted), but this one was so good that I wanted to chime in with some kudos.

I have a friend that doesn't understand why all of his other gamer friends (myself included) refuse to buy any game that requires a DRM service to be running in the background, or one that has DRM included. It's not because the games aren't good (most of them are), or because we don't have always online internet connections (we do). It's not even because the DRM services are terrible (Steam is pretty good, Origin is getting better, and uPlay... well, there's always an outlier). It's because purchasing these products tells the companies in question that they can get away with tacking these things on, so long as the main product is worth the downside.

Unfortunately, losing four sales (myself and crew) doesn't do anything to substantially hurt the game companies' bottom lines, and even if there are enough of us out there to hurt their sales numbers, the end result is more likely to be a halt in PC production than a change in DRM policy. So, to that end I say, preach on brother Young. Amen and hallelujah.

What about DRM (as in the case of Battlefield Hardline) that does not impact a consumer at all and would only impacts the mass redistribution of the game?

Something that legitimately impacts pirates without harming you in any way?

Don't get me wrong, screw EA in general but this is NOT an ant hill worth fighting for. This has got to be the first piece of DRM that actually harms pirates and doesn't harm consumers.

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

 

[Kstarler]

What about DRM (as in the case of Battlefield Hardline) that does not impact a consumer at all and would only impacts the mass redistribution of the game?

Something that legitimately impacts pirates without harming you in any way?

Don't get me wrong, screw EA in general but this is NOT an ant hill worth fighting for. This has got to be the first piece of DRM that actually harms pirates and doesn't harm consumers.

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

First, the answer to your question is yes. Right now, I shop exclusively at GOG.com for my games, or buy directly from independent distributors. I will create an account for a website (Kerbal Space Program springs to mind), but that's as far as I'll go.

Secondly, did you read the article? This form of DRM does NOT prevent any real piracy, and it DOES impact end users that legitimately own the game in a negative way.

 

[Lightknight]

What about DRM (as in the case of Battlefield Hardline) that does not impact a consumer at all and would only impacts the mass redistribution of the game?

Something that legitimately impacts pirates without harming you in any way?

Don't get me wrong, screw EA in general but this is NOT an ant hill worth fighting for. This has got to be the first piece of DRM that actually harms pirates and doesn't harm consumers.

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

First, the answer to your question is yes. Right now, I shop exclusively at GOG.com for my games, or buy directly from independent distributors. I will create an account for a website (Kerbal Space Program springs to mind), but that's as far as I'll go.

That is even more invasive than the DRM that kicked off this thread. You would not see this DRM impact you at all unless you met very specific criteria.

Again, I have never installed a single game requiring Origin. I have not played Mass Effect 3 to this day for that reason. So I understand where you're coming from but this may be one of the first exceptions I've seen.

Secondly, did you read the article? This form of DRM does NOT prevent any real piracy, and it DOES impact end users that legitimately own the game in a negative way.

I did read the article. What I'm specifically saying is that Shamus, someone who is nearly always right in my opinion, appears to be wrong here.

1. One of Shamus' givens is that it does not impact pirates. However, this DRM prevents someone from rapidly installing the same license on 8 different machines. As a mental exercise I implore you to guess why this would specifically impact pirates and the mass distribution of a single license. The brilliance in this is that they implemented a sort of two-factor authentication. The server side knows what your machine should be and you have to have your account. So this isn't something that is just a matter of cracking the code. You'd have to figure out a way to make it so that everyone downloading the pirated copy is getting a unique license. I imagine it's possible but there's nothing in place for that yet and no guarantee that EA doesn't have something in place to limit the number of possible licenses to the approximate number of copies they already have out there. Any failure to do this appropriately would result in a bunch of pirates getting locked out of their game.

So this represents a legitimate hurdle to have to be jumped.

Keep in mind that a lot of DRM is to keep pirates away for the first couple weeks of sales so that anyone wanting to get the game and is too impatient to wait will succumb to the ticking of time and just buy a game even though they usually pirate because piracy has failed to accommodate them in a timely fashion.

2. There is almost no reason why any legitimate consumer would attempt to install the same license 8 times on different machines that doesn't involve distributing the same license to other people.

 

[Kstarler]

The problem with your argument is that it doesn't account for the very first point that is made in the article: your pirate can't be a pirate.

The first thing that a pirate group is going to do is crack the executable so that it doesn't phone home, meaning no license authentication on the official side. From there, it's a simple step to trick the executable into thinking it has authenticated (simple is relative here; I couldn't do it without months, if not years, but I'm no programmer). That kind of cracking happens within hours of a release most of the time. If it does take time, then we're talking days, not weeks. As an example, The Sims 4 was cracked to install in and launch from a dummy Origin account without phoning home before the game was even officially released, thanks to leaked copies and the pre-released character creator. So, in order for this form of DRM to be effective against pirates, it has to be applied to a legitimate, un-cracked copy of the game, as pointed out in the article.

Note: I would provide a source here, but I take it that I ought not be linking to pirate forums, which I do occasionally view for *ahem* legitimate reasons. No, honestly! Also, I wouldn't want to call attention to anyone that doesn't want the kind of attention that a link would bring.

The only people that will be caught by this are outliers that have a legitimate (albeit strange and/or highly unlikely) reason for needing to install the game more than eight times, or people that believe they are buying legitimate copies because they are unaware that the provider is illegitimate. The latter is even less likely than the former in our current digital age, and the former has happened [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/140227-Battlefield-Hardline-Origin-DRM-Will-Lock-You-Out-For-Upgrading-Too-Many-Times], or this article would not exist.

Also, as you point out (and I hate this kind of pedantry, because I do understand your point), that hurdle can be jumped, and quite easily, so the exercise is one in futility that increases the cost of producing the game.

But, all of this is academic, because I really just dislike DRM to the point where I will not support publishers and developers that support the practice. I'm sure I could come up with more logical reasons why I don't want it, but the bottom line is always that I don't want it.