Square Enix Says DRM Is Here To Stay

[xaszatm]

Really, I always thought the better way to deal with piracy was to do what Earthbound or Spyro did. Make the game accessible to everyone, but if it detected you playing a pirated copy, introduce bugs upon bugs to the game. And even if the fixed those bugs, new bugs took its place. Since piracy is all about shortening time and money, most people will eventually just buy the game.

No, this is a horrible idea. The problems with DRM usually come in when there are false positives - if a certain set of conditions are not met, the software assumes you are a pirate and locks you out. This passive aggressive crap just means that users don't know if they have been tagged as a pirate and their game just gets ruined. They can't fix it because they don't know why their game is broken. The only reason to do this over normal lockout DRM is that there is very little bad PR because most people don't realize the DRM has backfired. It is an extremely anti-consumer practice meant to minimize bad PR at the expense of ignorant consumers.

...Okay, could you give me some examples of those false positives? And what would you suggest as an alternative. I, mean, besides no DRM because it looks like we aren't going to have that anymore for most companies.

 

[sXeth]

Eh, nothing new here. The question is more do they grasp the concept between DRM, and obsessive and intrusive policing of customers, and violating consumer rights. You can do DRM well enough without managing to block out legitimate, violating first-sale rights, or the really dumb "one copy on one system" thing where if someone's basement floods or their house gets hit by lightning and wrecks their XB/PS/Wii, you've now further ruined their day by effectively stealing several digital items from them.

 

[WeepingAngels]

They already crossed a few lines.

- Chrono Trigger on mobile actually downloads certain parts of the game when you reach certain checkpoints. Your mobile game requires you to be tied to a connection.
- Final Fantasy 4, 5 and 6 on mobile require an internet connection to start the games.
- I think Final Fantasy VII and VIII on PC require an internet connection to start the games, despite being on Steam.

That's just off the top of my head. I can't tell you how infuriating it is to be out and about with my tablet and not be able to start or continue a Square Enix game. Online social games have an excuse for needing a connection, SNES ports do not! Try to imagine the shitstorm if you couldn't play your DS version of Chrono Trigger without an internet connection.

Maybe you could reconsider grilling SE.

I can't speak about Chrono Trigger or Final Fantasy IV-VI, but Final Fantasy VII and VIII do NOT require an internet connection unless you're starting it for the first time or want to use cloud saves. I'm getting really tired of so many people not understanding this.

Honestly, Square Enix's statement isn't as bad as it seems. As long as they don't do anything that's more intrusive than Steam, it's perfectly acceptable.

Oh I see, they patched out the mandatory cloud saving that was causing so many problems. Here's a link.

...the biggest feature added to this updated version was cloud saving. While this sounds like a nice addition at first glance, many users (myself included) quickly found it to be a poorly implemented pain in the ass. To start the game, it would pull the save file from the cloud and temporarily save it to your computer while you were playing. Whenever you saved, it would update that file and then upload a copy of it. When you closed the game, it would automatically delete your local copy. Aside from making it impossible to play the game offline, this presented another major problem: it didn't work half the time. - See more at: http://www.gamnesia.com/news/final-fantasy-vii-pc-update-no-more-annoying-cloud-saves#.U08BsvldXuM

On another note: Do Pub Club members not have to do the captcha shit? I mean, do bots pay $20 a year?

 

[WeepingAngels]

Really, I always thought the better way to deal with piracy was to do what Earthbound or Spyro did. Make the game accessible to everyone, but if it detected you playing a pirated copy, introduce bugs upon bugs to the game. And even if the fixed those bugs, new bugs took its place. Since piracy is all about shortening time and money, most people will eventually just buy the game.

No, this is a horrible idea. The problems with DRM usually come in when there are false positives - if a certain set of conditions are not met, the software assumes you are a pirate and locks you out. This passive aggressive crap just means that users don't know if they have been tagged as a pirate and their game just gets ruined. They can't fix it because they don't know why their game is broken. The only reason to do this over normal lockout DRM is that there is very little bad PR because most people don't realize the DRM has backfired. It is an extremely anti-consumer practice meant to minimize bad PR at the expense of ignorant consumers.

...Okay, could you give me some examples of those false positives? And what would you suggest as an alternative. I, mean, besides no DRM because it looks like we aren't going to have that anymore for most companies.

I have had a few games (one was Fate) tell me that my disc was a copy when it wasn't. There was no solution. These were Securom games I think.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

Well, you have to at least appreciate his honesty in coming out and just admitting that "our profit is more important than our customers' satisfaction, convenience or enjoyment".

That's where the appreciation ends, though.

 

[FalloutJack]

Oops, there goes one franchise I might have to drop. Pity, since FF7 was my first video game RPG. So, here's a message to all developers regarding DRM, just point-blank to you all:

Standing between me and my games is not a safe place to be. Back the hell off.

 

[DrOswald]

Really, I always thought the better way to deal with piracy was to do what Earthbound or Spyro did. Make the game accessible to everyone, but if it detected you playing a pirated copy, introduce bugs upon bugs to the game. And even if the fixed those bugs, new bugs took its place. Since piracy is all about shortening time and money, most people will eventually just buy the game.

No, this is a horrible idea. The problems with DRM usually come in when there are false positives - if a certain set of conditions are not met, the software assumes you are a pirate and locks you out. This passive aggressive crap just means that users don't know if they have been tagged as a pirate and their game just gets ruined. They can't fix it because they don't know why their game is broken. The only reason to do this over normal lockout DRM is that there is very little bad PR because most people don't realize the DRM has backfired. It is an extremely anti-consumer practice meant to minimize bad PR at the expense of ignorant consumers.

...Okay, could you give me some examples of those false positives? And what would you suggest as an alternative. I, mean, besides no DRM because it looks like we aren't going to have that anymore for most companies.

Anytime DRM locks you out of a game you rightfully own it is a false positive. So every single example of DRM hurting the consumer.

I really don't know what else to tell you. False positives are why everyone hates DRM, because they are afraid that there will someday be a false positive and their game wont work. The "make the game buggy" strategy does nothing to prevent false positives, it only changes the result. That result is still DRM ruins the game, it is just harder to see that this is the case.

The "bug DRM" strategy does not increase security in any way. Once the pirates know it is there it is the exact same thing as normal DRM to them. The real purpose of bug DRM is to avoid bad press or convert it into good press. DRM false positives are a rare occurrence, but they generate a lot of negative press. On the other hand, a very small portion of the user base, say 1%, having a really buggy game experience generates almost no bad press. They don't know it is DRM so they never call foul. They just think they bought a bad game. And then eventually, after the DRM has been cracked, the developer can release a public statement showing how clever they are and everyone is so impressed at how they turned the tables on the pirates.

If we are stuck with DRM I want it up front. I want to know what is going on so I can make an informed decision or solve the problems the DRM is causing. I don't want my shit to just randomly stop working so I have to hunt down why. I don't want developers to be able to hide their draconian DRM and anti-consumer practices.

 

[Sarge034]

The most obvious solution to the problem of DRM is no DRM, but that's not likely to happen any time soon.

I would have thought the most obvious solution would be for people to stop stealing shit, but calling out the cause of the issue and not the symptom isn't the bandwagon opinion...

Anyway, I can at least respect that this guy "understands" the different problems with different types of DRM. It is refreshing to hear something, anything, intelligent coming from a large corporation even if they have no intentions of trying to find a better way.

 

[IamGamer41]

And this will do nothing to stop pirates. There isnt a game out there that isnt cracked or pirated. Fucking morons how do they get into business.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Since a number of companies have abandoned the practice I'm pretty sure they'd disagree with you.

 

[Grabehn]

As much as gamers don't like DRM, game publishers do, for one simple reason: PROFIT, which Sullivan described as "the primary BENEFIT" of DRM. He acknowledged that measuring the effectiveness of copy protection as it relates to sales is difficult, but seemed to suggest that "data available to us through our sales team and various vendors, along with consumer feedback" indicates that it does provide some degree of success in protecting against loss."

Considering how more than once, DRM is the SOLE reason I've known some people to pirate games, yeah, not the best option, the amount of times I heard someone say "I won't fucking buy that game" just because it was on GFWL was just hilarious.

And on the "DRM is here to stay" so is piracy, so unless your DRM is the most non-invasive thing ever, it'll sure stay but people will hate it, or even avoid it anyways.

 

[FalloutJack]

And this will do nothing to stop pirates. There isnt a game out there that isnt cracked or pirated. Fucking morons how do they get into business.

THIS isn't what makes me wonder how they got into business. Not this. Other dirty/stupid practices make me wonder this sort of thing. You can waste your time with your worthless anti-pirate plan that will always fail and still make money. What I want to know is how companies manage it with poor planning, poor PR, bad products, and so on.

 

[DragonWright]

"The key to effective DRM, Sullivan explained, is that it can't come between the player and the game"

But, that's what DRM is. That's how it works.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

DRM may be here to stay, but there will also always be honest opponents of it, some of whom release their own commercial titles without it. Keep the filth of always on single-player and spyware ridden rootkits and SecureROM away from my electronics and I'll judge your games based on their true merits instead of just ignoring them. Well all know Square needs to start making good games again and DRM from hell will hurt their efforts.

And if any publisher puts their game on Steam, then they got decent DRM provided for it. They need to stop adding SecureRom, GFWL codes, CD keys for brand new games, their own client program requirements, and any other thing that ruins the experience.

Really, I always thought the better way to deal with piracy was to do what Earthbound or Spyro did. Make the game accessible to everyone, but if it detected you playing a pirated copy, introduce bugs upon bugs to the game. And even if the fixed those bugs, new bugs took its place. Since piracy is all about shortening time and money, most people will eventually just buy the game.

No, this is a horrible idea. The problems with DRM usually come in when there are false positives - if a certain set of conditions are not met, the software assumes you are a pirate and locks you out. This passive aggressive crap just means that users don't know if they have been tagged as a pirate and their game just gets ruined. They can't fix it because they don't know why their game is broken. The only reason to do this over normal lockout DRM is that there is very little bad PR because most people don't realize the DRM has backfired. It is an extremely anti-consumer practice meant to minimize bad PR at the expense of ignorant consumers.

I was about to say this. Some old copies of of Earthbound have glitched and went into pirate mode. That's on a game that almost never saw a Virtual Console release and not a faithful unedited one either. I think Mother 3 has similar flaws, and there's fan translations online that defeated the DRM anyway. There's also the fact that a disc could be scratched or data corrupted at just the right point to ruin the game for someone. If a legit player doesn't know exactly what is going on, they wont know to re-download it if they got it online, probably an easy fix otherwise.

Then there's the fact the this was just to buy time for the games original first few weeks on sale, when the most profits and sales are generated. The idea was to defeat the pirates long enough for most to give up so the sales didn't have to compete with the idea a free copy was a download away. After a while, pirates will find all bugs from the first set and all the bugs after every fix. The honest consumer won't know about this, but a patient slacker will soon get his free game even if he waits over a year for it.

 

[xaszatm]

Anytime DRM locks you out of a game you rightfully own it is a false positive. So every single example of DRM hurting the consumer.

I really don't know what else to tell you. False positives are why everyone hates DRM, because they are afraid that there will someday be a false positive and their game wont work. The "make the game buggy" strategy does nothing to prevent false positives, it only changes the result. That result is still DRM ruins the game, it is just harder to see that this is the case.

The "bug DRM" strategy does not increase security in any way. Once the pirates know it is there it is the exact same thing as normal DRM to them. The real purpose of bug DRM is to avoid bad press or convert it into good press. DRM false positives are a rare occurrence, but they generate a lot of negative press. On the other hand, a very small portion of the user base, say 1%, having a really buggy game experience generates almost no bad press. They don't know it is DRM so they never call foul. They just think they bought a bad game. And then eventually, after the DRM has been cracked, the developer can release a public statement showing how clever they are and everyone is so impressed at how they turned the tables on the pirates.

If we are stuck with DRM I want it up front. I want to know what is going on so I can make an informed decision or solve the problems the DRM is causing. I don't want my shit to just randomly stop working so I have to hunt down why. I don't want developers to be able to hide their draconian DRM and anti-consumer practices.

Okay, I want to say this now, before this conversation continues that I am not a fan of DRM. I think the entire practice is a waste of time and effort and that a good game will sell well with or without it. A good game will cause people who were thinking about pirating it buy it instead. The rest of the people who pirate it are the people who pirate everything anyways.

That being said, I've never heard of false positives being the reason behind disliking DRM. I thought that DRM was universally disliked because not only was it ineffective, but DRM treated the consumers like they were criminals and wasted the consumer's time. If there is too much hassle to play the game, most people will either ignore said game, or pirate it if they really want to play the game.

Now, "Bug" DRM instead tries to make it so people who pirate are the ones who have too much hassle. While it is true that once a person finds the bug, it can be fixed, but once again, people don't like waiting. If it is taking a while for pirates to break a game, they will either lose interest or just buy the game. Spyro and Earthbound took years to figure out AND both told you right away that you were using a pirated copy so if you had a false positive, you would know. In addition, most good games with "bug" DRM had a very small percentage of said false positives. So I'd rather have "bug" DRM than "upfront" DRM because the former doesn't waste my time if I buy it. Though, of course, I'd rather have no "bug" DRM at all.

 

[Fox12]

Has DRM ever - EVER - prevented a game from being pirated?

In fact, aren't the most pirated games of all time those WITH DRM?

What does DRM truly accomplish, besides wasting developer resources, getting in the way of legitimate customers, and making fans angry?

DRM isn't really about piracy. It's about controlling the market. Not just in video games either, this is common practice.

 

[grigjd3]

So long as we're making craptacular games, we'll be using DRM.

 

[Strazdas]

so much herasy.....

He acknowledged that measuring the effectiveness of copy protection as it relates to sales is difficult, but seemed to suggest that "data available to us through our sales team and various vendors, along with consumer feedback" indicates that it does provide some degree of success in protecting against loss.

What loss? You projected "6 million copies sold" and then sold 4 millions is not a loss. potential sales is not income, therefore there can be no loss from it. if your running a company - learn basic economics.

The key to effective DRM, Sullivan explained, is that it can't come between the player and the game,

Name me a single DRM that does not? you cant, because there isnt one.

The most obvious solution to the problem of DRM is no DRM, but that's not likely to happen any time soon. "I think DRM will be essential for the foreseeable future," Sullivan said. "So long as we're concerned about things like data privacy, account sharing and hacking, we'll need some form of DRM."

What is this i dont even....
DRM has NOTHING to do with data privacy, account sharing or hacking. Its SOLE purpose is to make sure your copy is a legal one. It has completely failed at this, as pirates can play every non-MMO and even many MMO games illegally. What you want here is SECURITY, not DRM.

Jesus, when did developers start to actively hate us? Like, I know the console manufacturers have loathed us for years, but when developers get in on the action, it really starts to worry me.

the day they realized that were still going to buy their products anyway.

Suyre, we'd all love if everyone went GoG's no DRM route but the fact that GoG's entire library is up on the torrent sites... yeah... kinda proves the point. DRM can't stop determined pirates, but good DRM combined with sensible pricing makes it far more cost effective to simply buy the game than to spend the time pirating, patching, repatching, etc.

erm. Entire steam library is also on torrent sites. you have made aboslutely no point here. DRM stops nothing. in fact, it encourages piracy, beuse piracy becomes easier than legal purchase thanks to DRM shenanigans. You clearly dont know how pirating games work, which is fine you probably never pirated any. but then dont talk what pirates have to do if you dont actually know.

He's not wrong, company's are generally unwilling to invest in platforms where they're unable to limit improper use of their products. A DRM solution that's not horribly obnoxious (probably a Steam-like solution)is optimal.

but DRM does not limit imporper use of their products. hence, DRM does not work. At all. anyone that wants to pirate a game, does so anyway. DRM does not stop it. The best example of DRM ever working was GTA4. it worked for a whole week to finally crack that half million dollar security by few kids with too much time. no, DRM developement is a loss to the company. one they are blind to. And i picked gta 4 not without reason, it is the game that had arguibly the best DRM ever, since it took the longest time to make it work properly (note, properly, you could play without saves on day one for example) a whole week - the record of DRM working time.

It simply can't be done.

There is one way. That way is game streaming. Like the OnLive service. the game is not actually on your computer. It streams it to you like a video and you send the commands back. of course, its not a solution we will actually utilize because laws of physics, but its at least theoretically possible.

You sure about that? CD Projekt RED is known for it's "consumer friendly" stance on DRM, refusing to use it on games like The Witcher 2, which went on to be the most heavily-pirated game the year it came out.

The WItcher 2 had horrible DRM at launch, that actually prevented half of the buyers form actually playing it, but they took it out once they saw how it failed and actually released a free expansion to everyone as a "sorry" gift. Also it does not matter how heavily it was pirated, they made enough money to make Witcher 3.

 

[Strazdas]

Well you can never stop a determined thief but you know prevention is the hardest thing to prove. Since one must prove that X would have happened without prevention. That said. You'll have a harder time with pirating steam games than GoG games. That's been my experience.

Keep in mind I always said good DRM, is not unreasonably unrestrictive or intrusive. Which is why I hold steam as a good example. No codes, no disk swapping. I just double click, the steam check happens in the back ground or I get a window asking me if I want to play in offline mode. I say yes and I'm playing my game. I mean really, it's as painless as DRM gets.

I mean just because locks don't prevent breakins doesn't mean you leave your door unlocked at night. and once you've invested a couple 100 thousand in a game you'd look pretty irresponsible if you didn't at least put some sort of lock on it.

if by a harder time you mean the auto installer pasting a cracked steamapi.dll into the folder then yes, it takes a whole 10 ms longer, such big deterrant!

There is no such thing as "good DRM". DRM by its essense is bad. Steam use codes, it just hides them from the user. Steam does not always work either. A situation i was in recently was i come back from work. turn on the PC, "steam failed to connect to server", steam games dont work. i had non-steam games so i played those, but if i was one of the impatient people that must play this game today i would probably have turned to less legal means to play the game i legally bought.

The thing is, locks do prevent breakins from amateurs. DRM does not. its a broken analogy.

Not only is it not cheaper for publishers (because it's a physical product that has to be made, rather than just data in the Interwebs), but it's too easy to photocopy it and render it completely useless. And if your argument is "useless = just as effective as any other DRM haw haw", then sadly you're wrong. Diablo 3's always online DRM stinks and it's a pain to use it when your internet's having a strop, but it's worked. D3 has proved a nightmare for pirates.

Its not cheaper, but its as effective, that is to say, not effective at all. photocopying is actually HARD WORK compared to cracking other games. and no, D3 is not an example you can use, since it was both a) cracked and b) is an online-only game. you dont expect to pirate TESO the same way you dont expect to pirate D3 (you can actually pirate WOW and play on cracked servers though, with D3 noone bothered since the game is arse).

The thing I'm struck by is the fact that, in the console world, we've had DRM for years. Decades, even. Outside of a few CD-based consoles that came out before CD burning was a thing, most systems have disc-checks that ensure you aren't playing a illegitimate copy of the game. And before that, carts themselves proved their own sort of barrier to copying effectively. DRM has existed, does exist, and as that rep said, will continue to exist. That this is even considered a controversial statement now seems... contrived? An overreaction? Dunno.

No. Just because something existed for decades does not mean it should continue to do so. For example: slavery, sexism, homophobia.

Nothing bad with DRM, as long as it isn't to intrusive and annoying. The problem is, those DRMs are easier to crack and therefore less effective.

Well my my, you have to share this DRM that isnt intrusive and annoying and is even effective. since there is no real world examples.

With the mobile FF4, 5 and 6 games: Once you start the game with a connection you can start it 10 more times without having an internet connection. 10 times is a good amount. I tend to leave my current game of choice launched, so 10 launches would probably take several weeks to use up, and the chance of none of those launches having an available connection seems almost impossible.

I connect my phone to internet once per month. The "my currently active game" gets launched twice a day or once a day depending on the day of the week. i play it when i am traveling. this means that i would be fucked royally if i wanted to play FF mobile.

Well Simcity and Diablo 3 didn't get pirated (at least, as far as I know, there are some rumored offline/server emulation hacks but they are said to be very unstable). On the other hand, the always-online DRM used on those games was so horrible it scared away paying customers, which probably hurt the companies more than they gained by stopping the pirates (most pirates just don't pay for games, period, and are perfectly content with just skipping the one game that doesn't work).

Diably 3 has a cracked version. i cannot speak for its popularity though, and i heard its buggy.
SimCity had a cracked offline version quite quickly after the game launch, and the day the ofline patch came out it also had a re-released crached copy. judging from them download numbers the site i saw it on reports it was popular.

Id also like to tacke another myth you brought up here. Quite the contrary, studies show that most pirates are the best costumers, since they are likely the people who are heavily invested in the industry and thus start paying when they can afford it. there are exceptions of course, but exceptions are not rules.

I have had a few games (one was Fate) tell me that my disc was a copy when it wasn't. There was no solution. These were Securom games I think.

securom was awfully broken in its disc detection. once a developer after a long back and forth of emails with him gave me the crack to circumvent the securom as he could not give me a solution. that was circla 2005 or so so obviuosly i got no idea where that email is now (i made a screenshot, but it could be one of the pictures i lost when my HDD crashed, eithe way no idea where it is).

I would have thought the most obvious solution would be for people to stop stealing shit, but calling out the cause of the issue and not the symptom isn't the bandwagon opinion...

People stopppign stealing stuff is good, but how is this related to the topic at hand?