Square Enix Says DRM Is Here To Stay

[Schadrach]

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.

He is wrong, because there is no such thing as "a platform where they're able to limit improper use of their products". It simply can't be done. This is the information era, you are not capable of sending out digital information to computer owners, and effectively stop them from re-using and copying and editing said information.

DRM just doesn't work, on a conceptual level, because ultimately, to put DRM on a file that you expect to distribute to your audience, means that you have to ship them a product locked away in a locked chest so they can't take it out and share it with others, but then send a key with the chest so they can access what they just bought. At which point they can share it as well anyways.

Steam is not optimal, it's just a less harmful degree to which they can waste their efforts. Every steam game is out there on piratebay along with the toughest and the lightest DRM games. DRM doesn't work.

The thing is that DRM doesn't have to work in the long term, or even the medium term, for it to achieve what they want. It just has to outlast the initial burst of sales when a new game comes out for it to "prevent losses".

Read: So long as it takes a few weeks to crack it, it was successful.

 

[Alterego-X]

The thing is that DRM doesn't have to work in the long term, or even the medium term, for it to achieve what they want. It just has to outlast the initial burst of sales when a new game comes out for it to "prevent losses".

Read: So long as it takes a few weeks to crack it, it was successful.

And usually it's not weeks, it's hours.

There are a handful of games that managed to delay piracy by weeks, like Diablo 3, or Sim City. The ones with the most intrusive "always online DRMs", that is really not a DRM any more, but a whole enforced online multiplayer mode, that forcibly makes the game dependent on server-side. They might have avoided a few weeks' piracy, but with enough harm to their product and enough backlash that they couldn't dare to pull off the same thing again.

And even if they would manage to attach an online multiplayer to every game, that trick only works with gaming itself, not with any other passive medium, so you are left with one medium that is locked down versus all others that aren't, which would drastically decerease interest in gaming.

 

[Mangod]

The owner of the IP did lose something, but he lost something of which he has an unlimited supply.

The counter-argument to that would be that, even if the supply is unlimited, the demand isn't, and for each pirated product, the creator/publisher has lost a customer. And, as you said, since you can't be certain if a person would have bought something or not if s/he couldn't pirate it, well, that's the sticking point, isn't it?

Can we be certain that the creator/publisher have lost a sale because of piracy? Can we be certain that they haven't?

 

[Atmos Duality]

The owner of the IP did lose something, but he lost something of which he has an unlimited supply.

The counter-argument to that would be that, even if the supply is unlimited, the demand isn't, and for each pirated product, the creator/publisher has lost a customer. And, as you said, since you can't be certain if a person would have bought something or not if s/he couldn't pirate it, well, that's the sticking point, isn't it?

Can we be certain that the creator/publisher have lost a sale because of piracy? Can we be certain that they haven't?

^This is a more useful approach than the overdone shame-tactic of "PIRACY IS THEFT"*.

We can never be absolutely certain what the specific effects of piracy are, because different consumers occupy different parts of the Supply-Demand curve, and we don't know what the true curve looks like at any given time; that is, they have different thresholds of interest and willingness to pay or if they were even in the original market to begin with.

In short, the fear is that software piracy is changing that curve to devalue the games on average.
Which is the absolute opposite direction the suits want, to say the least.

DRM is designed to slow, if not prevent that change.

But since DRM is effectively a cost to the consumer, it too is changing the demand curve (for, I hope, obvious reasons).
For the same reasons as piracy, we also don't know how specifically.

So this whole issue of Piracy vs DRM is in this ugly state of flux.
Pirates have largely got what they wanted for the longest time, while producers keep experimenting to find something that makes them happy.

Unfortunately, the direction of that experimentation is leaning more and more towards to a push for absolute obnoxiousness with only the threat of a consumer walk-out (read: crash) preventing them from going forward with it (as we saw with the pre-180 Xbone).

(*in regards to that old chestnut: Piracy is not theft, it will never be theft because it cannot be theft. Equating the two for some sort of "shame tactic" proves nothing but one's ignorance of the subject. While piracy can never be theft, it most certainly does have consequences.)

 

[babinro]

Snip.

I completely agree with you in principle here. Apart from this:

"However, it's hard to deny that sales lost due to piracy is far greater than sales generated."

There's no evidence that a single sale has been lost because of piracy. There's no physical loss, so the idea that someone pirating a copy of a game has caused the distributor to have one less copy to sell to a paying customer is absurd. And the idea that the pirate "would just have paid for it anyway" if he HADN'T pirated it is just unsupportable. Maybe it might be true - sometimes - depending on the person in question - but there's no way to say for sure. The only thing we DO know for sure is that that person chose to pirate the game rather than buying it. Call me crazy but I don't think that's a strong argument for their willingness to shell out the cash anyway.

But that point aside - I agree with your main point, and I think a lot of people would. The reason I think so many people here are "assuming the worst" is because there has to be trust between seller and purchaser during a transaction. A lot of people don't believe that the sellers can be trusted. The sellers, in turn, don't believe that they'll be treated fairly if they don't put this DRM in (and in all fairness, on occasions they've been proven right there). The trust is completely lacking.

Are we, as consumers, being unfair? Maybe. I've had no personal experience with Square Enix myself (except for the recent "Tomb Raider" game? Didn't realise that was theirs but someone mentioned it above?) I've had bad experiences with DRM in the past - most notably with Steam and GFWL - which have made me sceptical of the whole concept.

Honestly I think the Steam model of "one web logon at a time" will probably be the most accepted one. That still depends on an Internet connection, of course, but that's becoming less and less of a problem as the 'net becomes more and more universal. It also involves the least hoop-jumping. As much as I love what GoG and the makers of "The Witcher 2" - which I have a paid-for copy of by the way - are doing, I can't see the big distributors getting behind the model unfortunately.

a pirate is not a customer, is not worth losing legitimate customers over people that probably wouldnt have bought the game anyways

I disagree with these claims solely out of my own life experience.

I've known 3 people in my life who pirate things they would have bought anyways. One of them bought an Xbox 360 and zero games (except Rock Band) because of the ease of piracy for that console. This is someone whose bought consoles and a dozen plus console games EVERY console generation. These are people who can still afford to pay for games.

For them, piracy is quicker, easier, and allows them to gift other people the copy so more people can enjoy it.

Would they have bought 100% of the games they pirated for the 360?
No. Not even close.
Probably only a dozen or more like they did with consoles past.

Why did they buy Rock Band?
You can't pirate the instruments.
Also they couldn't figure out how to pirate the additional weekly songs.
Effective DRM led to a sale.

I have no idea how many pirates lead to legitimate lost revenue for the publisher/developers/etc. For all I know, these people are massive exceptions to the norm. Maybe only 1% of all piracy is a lost sale. However, I doubt that very much.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Can we be certain that the creator/publisher have lost a sale because of piracy? Can we be certain that they haven't?

I have no idea how many pirates lead to legitimate lost revenue for the publisher/developers/etc. For all I know, these people are massive exceptions to the norm. Maybe only 1% of all piracy is a lost sale. However, I doubt that very much.

Unfortunately this kind of thing is impossible to establish. Maybe a better question is: what do the PUBLISHERS expect from "pirates"? They're not interested in marketing games to people who won't pay for them.

As regards the "Rock Band" argument, I completely agree with you, but the takeaway is different for me. The way I see it, you've just given a prime example there of a case where something that helped combat piracy also benefited the CONSUMER. The specialised controller is obvious enough, and something that can only really apply to that particular game; but the regular updates of new content? That's something that most people would perceive as being worth "signing up" for.

The lesson here: anti-piracy measures should benefit both the consumer AND the industry. The problem is when you punish your paying customers with restrictions that the pirates don't have to endure.

 

[Jeroenr]

The owner of the IP did lose something, but he lost something of which he has an unlimited supply.

The counter-argument to that would be that, even if the supply is unlimited, the demand isn't, and for each pirated product, the creator/publisher has lost a customer. And, as you said, since you can't be certain if a person would have bought something or not if s/he couldn't pirate it, well, that's the sticking point, isn't it?

Can we be certain that the creator/publisher have lost a sale because of piracy? Can we be certain that they haven't?

^This is a more useful approach than the overdone shame-tactic of "PIRACY IS THEFT"*.

We can never be absolutely certain what the specific effects of piracy are, because different consumers occupy different parts of the Supply-Demand curve, and we don't know what the true curve looks like at any given time; that is, they have different thresholds of interest and willingness to pay or if they were even in the original market to begin with.

In short, the fear is that software piracy is changing that curve to devalue the games on average.
Which is the absolute opposite direction the suits want, to say the least.

DRM is designed to slow, if not prevent that change.

But since DRM is effectively a cost to the consumer, it too is changing the demand curve (for, I hope, obvious reasons).
For the same reasons as piracy, we also don't know how specifically.

So this whole issue of Piracy vs DRM is in this ugly state of flux.
Pirates have largely got what they wanted for the longest time, while producers keep experimenting to find something that makes them happy.

Unfortunately, the direction of that experimentation is leaning more and more towards to a push for absolute obnoxiousness with only the threat of a consumer walk-out (read: crash) preventing them from going forward with it (as we saw with the pre-180 Xbone).

(*in regards to that old chestnut: Piracy is not theft, it will never be theft because it cannot be theft. Equating the two for some sort of "shame tactic" proves nothing but one's ignorance of the subject. While piracy can never be theft, it most certainly does have consequences.)

"It most certainly does have consequences."

That was kind of my point, but the theft vs copyright infringement debate really distract from this. (In general, not just this thread)

The piracy is theft shame-tactic may be overdone, the opposite is also true.
The Piracy is not theft argument is often used to ease ones own conscience.(missing the point above)

I've seen this happen too.
Until recently it was in dutch law legal to download (not upload) audio and video for home use.
Some people i know not only didn't have moral objections. but saw it as a basic right.

This law has been altered. (or in this case differently interpreted)

Technology develops faster than law, but they are catching up.

for example, now a days taking someones epic weapon in WOW can be considered theft(at least in some places).
But at first, as far as the law was concerned nothing was really lost because it didn't really excised.
Now things like bit-coins benefit from this update.

I do see the differences in the 2 laws, but i also see a lot of similarities as well.
So i hope laws will get a bit more clear on these subjects.


On the Subject of DRM.

I understand there is a desire and even a need to use them.
But it's its a uphill battle at best.
Games companies have a (small) team working 8 hours a day making the DRM.(ok 16h, its a game company)
But after release, there are a dozen teams working around the clock disabling the DRM.
So they can't win this.

But not using DRM won't solve the problem either, so i can't really say i have the solution for that one.

 

[Atmos Duality]

On the Subject of DRM.

I understand there is a desire and even a need to use them.
But it's its a uphill battle at best.
Games companies have a (small) team working 8 hours a day making the DRM.(ok 16h, its a game company)
But after release, there are a dozen teams working around the clock disabling the DRM.
So they can't win this.

But not using DRM won't solve the problem either, so i can't really say i have the solution for that one.

There is no solution.
Piracy, illicit or otherwise, is a market force.
And the only "absolute fixes" for piracy are at least as harmful as piracy itself.

 

[Eve Charm]

all I'll say is if they want to try anything more then "this game will be steam only" on a game that isn't Multi-player only they are shooting themselves in the foot and screw them I don't need their pc games. It took a while and a lot of sales before people finally warmed up to steam and there are still tons of people that won't buy games that they have to use U-play or origin for.

 

[Strazdas]

The FairLight release is listed at NFOhump with a date 2007-09-29. It says so even inside their own nfo. Which is exactly what my memory told me, the first "kind-of-working" crack for the game was more than a couple of weeks after the release.
As of the intrusiveness of the protection, I stand corrected. I remember now the issue with the remaining spyware even after the uninstall of the game and the issue with the double activation and the limited number of machines one could activate it.

There is also FLAME release on 22nd of august. But it may be that the site is reporting incorrect upload date, i dont know as i havent actually downloaded the game illegaly and only looking at what the torrent site says.

i went to NFOhump (site i didnt knew about before, so thanks) It does not link to actual illegal files, so i wonder if links to that site would be permitted here, as it does not actually allow you any illegal download (or if it does i didnt find any such there).
either way, that site lists that a release was out for Xbox as far back as 15th of august (pre-release leak?). looks like PCs only got a working crack at 31st though, altrough i never heard about IND but it does not list as nuked. But you do seem to have a point here and i stand corrected, since i played a legal copy i didnt follow the pirated ones cracking so closely.

Why are people so hung up on this difference?

Ok, you do just make a copy and leave the original.
But because of this people seem to think it's a victim less crime. (or as not a crime at all)
It is not.
The owner of the IP did lose something, but he lost something of which he has an unlimited supply.

You can argue that you wouldn't have bought it otherwise, but you just cant honestly know that.

But in the end, it are different sides of the same coin.

because there is a large difference. so large in fact that one is tried in criminal court and another in administrative. the weight of the crime is vastly different. This is like if you were to mix up murderers and people who had a bar fight. yes, both are harming another, they are not the same crime though.

In some cases it is victimless crime, in some it is not. It is a crime, because in oder to be a crime it needs to be described so by law. that in itself says nothing about it though. It is a crime for women to wear pants in france for example. that law is still technically in effect, its just that noone bothers enforcing it for obvious reasons.

steam is nowhere near that bad, plus you are talking about the bad stuff, even if you ignore all the social features of steam, theres the cheap games and workshop, not to mention many small developers have found a lot of success thanks to steam

steam is not as bad as GFWL, sure, but it has its flaws. and it does not always work either.

It does satisfy both conditions because you will have gained the CD and as the IP owner I would have lost the profits from that "sale". Let's stop beating around the bush to justify piracy or to make it seem like less of a crime. You do something illegal to get a thing without paying for it. And for that fucking stupid argument of "I wouldn't have bought it anyway so there was no loss of profits", I will never buy a Lamborghini so it's alright for me to go steal one. No loss of sale profits, right?

if i were to pirate a game, a publisher would have lost aboslutely nothing in that. equating it to lost sale is same as if i were to place a turn on sale for 1000 dollars and somone gave a turd away for free so i sue him for making me loose sales. piracy is a crime, but piracy is not theft. You are trying to mix two different crimes who have two different causes and meaning into one to make it look more "Scary" when it does not need that.

No, its not alright for you to steal a lamborghini. if you were to spawn a copy out of air for no cost for the manufacturer, it wouldnt be theft though.

Any theft under $1000.00 (USD) can be tried in civil court to recoup the damages and tried in criminal court for the act of theft. The reason all the pirates you see getting arrested go to criminal court is because they all pirate/distribute on a large scale easily crossing the $1000.00 mark. If you're gonna try to school me it would help to know what you are talking about.

Except that no pirate was ever tried in court. Only people owning distribution sites and in few rare cases distributors themselves. there is no precedent in whole world of a download being tried. Oh, and they dont all go to criminal court either.

Intellectual property is the category name for all intangible commodities. Including, but not limited to, written works, catch phrases, and invention ideas. Intellectual property laws are the category name for all applicable laws dealing with intellectual property. Copyrights, trademarks, and patents are the rules set up for their particular sections.

Otherwise known as monopoly on thought, which has no legal grounds.

Would removing the crime not remove the need for DRM which was the crime? I think that was my point... DRM is akin to locks on doors, if I didn't have to worry about people breaking in I wouldn't need a lock.

removing copyright infrongement would remove the need for DRM. removing theft - would not. because your removing a different crime.

DRM is NOT akin to lock on doors. DRM is akin to having to call a company to open a door for you every time you want to enter. you dont own the keys in DRM.

Really? MS and Sony aren't the industry leading juggernauts on the console side? The WiiU has backwards compatibility, which is the main gripe of those wanting/owning PS4s and Xbones, but they still can't hold a candle to PS4 or Xbone sales. Who else is there then, the Ouya? That's a funny joke.

MS and SOny are not the leading jugernauts in gaming. That is because consoles are not leading jugernauts. In fact, consoles are the least profitable side of gaming. mobile gaming is where the money is at, which is why so many developers are opening mobile studios. EA and other big names financial reports they are earning more from PC than Console sales. gaming is larger than consoles.

People pirate games despite ultra cheap/convenient delivery systems (Steam) or when money going 100% to charity/devs (humblebundle). At one time, relatively early in The Witcher 2's lifecycle, it had been pirated over 5 million times despite absolutely no DRM, positive fan and critical reviews, and aggressive pricing through Steam.

Even when a company does everything right...they lose.

However, it's hard to deny that sales lost due to piracy is far greater than sales generated. Companies aren't so stupid that they'd continue these practices which people hate just so they can have higher expenses and lower sales.

Wrong multiple times here.
Steam convinience and cheap sales have proven to change a lot of pirates into legitimate users, as well as humble bundles did. the internet is full of stories of pirates turned legitimate costumers.
You are wrong about the witcher too. The witcher 2 at the begining of its lifecycle had a horrible DRM that made half of the people that bought it not able to play it. it was one of the most reched DRMs out there, so bad in fact that they have a free expansion as a sorry for our shitty DRM thing.
Secondly, the 5m numbers are false as well. the most pirated game that year - Crysis 2, only got pirated at 4.6million. Witcher 2 did not even reach the top 10.

There is aboslutely no data on sales lost due to piracy. therefore nothing can be claimed or denied. There is data of pirates being more eager to buy more products (altrough the surveys were done about movie industry, but i believe it would also apply to gaming industry as well).
Stupid practices that people hate and raise their expenses? hello, thats the decription of DRM.

DRM: Ruining gaming since the 1980's.

Yeah, I'm surprised people don't realize that DRM has been around for a long time. It's gone digital, and maybe has become a lot more inconvenient for legitimate customers if done poorly (hello, Starforce!), but it's not like DRM is a new thing. I don't get why people claim DRM is universally a bad thing when there have been entire video game systems with built-in DRM technology that were wildly successful and popular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNES#Regional_lockout

just because it has been around for long does not mean its automatically good or that we cannot get rid of it. for example: slavery, racism, sexism.

For them, piracy is quicker, easier, and allows them to gift other people the copy so more people can enjoy it.

and right here is your answer all along. the reason Steam is loved for being DRM is because it is quicker and easier than piracy. this is the way to get legitimate costumers, not by treating your legitimate costumers like criminals.

 

[Monsterfurby]

so, DRM is fine as long as it does not exist?

Nope, never said that, but I'll say that strawman you built there is quite uncanny.

Steam is an example of well-implemented DRM. The DRM-part of it is only a segment of a larger offering that has actual added value. UPlay is an example of badly implemented DRM, as its added value is practically zero and it interferes with the gameplay experience. Yes, market share does play a role as do hard to pinpoint things like usability - but no one ever said that "well done" was something you could summarily describe with broad strokes.

Maybe that illustrates my point a bit better.

 

[Sarge034]

if i were to pirate a game, a publisher would have lost aboslutely nothing in that. equating it to lost sale is same as if i were to place a turn on sale for 1000 dollars and somone gave a turd away for free so i sue him for making me loose sales. piracy is a crime, but piracy is not theft. You are trying to mix two different crimes who have two different causes and meaning into one to make it look more "Scary" when it does not need that.

No, its not alright for you to steal a lamborghini. if you were to spawn a copy out of air for no cost for the manufacturer, it wouldnt be theft though.

I'm not trying to make anything out to be "more scary". I'm calling it what it is. You are getting their product for free through illegal means. You are stealing their game.

Except that no pirate was ever tried in court. Only people owning distribution sites and in few rare cases distributors themselves. there is no precedent in whole world of a download being tried. Oh, and they dont all go to criminal court either.

I will repeat myself. The reason all the pirates you see getting arrested go to criminal court is because they all pirate/distribute on a large scale easily crossing the $1000.00 mark.

Otherwise known as monopoly on thought, which has no legal grounds.

We've already established that you don't even know what a monopoly is so I have no intentions of doing this dance again.

DRM is NOT akin to lock on doors. DRM is akin to having to call a company to open a door for you every time you want to enter. you dont own the keys in DRM.

So you say DRM is not like a lock on a door and then say it's like a lock on a door you have to call someone else to open for you... So which is it? DRM is security for digital media just like physical locks are security for physical items. Remove the need for the lock and you don't have to lock things up any more.

MS and SOny are not the leading jugernauts in gaming. That is because consoles are not leading jugernauts. In fact, consoles are the least profitable side of gaming. mobile gaming is where the money is at, which is why so many developers are opening mobile studios. EA and other big names financial reports they are earning more from PC than Console sales. gaming is larger than consoles.

Well, lets run with your assessment then. MS would instate these policies on the 360, Xbone, their mobile aps, and their PCs. Sony would implement their policies on the PS3, PS4, Vita, PSP, and their mobile aps. Nintendo couldn't get ahead when the Xbone went draconian so that effectively means the entire console market falls to these practices. Nintendo would probably be able to retain control of the handheld market, though they may choose to implement similar policies. On the PC side of things EA, Valve, and Ubisoft would gladly buy into a system that increases the control over the end user. So who does this leave to defend against it, GOG? For the time being they could fight it but a time will come when games would be required to run the now standard draconian DRM so they would be unplayable on unofficial servers. Oh look, PC gaming has been defeated. You see how large companies can throw their weight around, or otherwise know as "be an industry leader"?

 

[Blitsie]

At one time, relatively early in The Witcher 2's lifecycle, it had been pirated over 5 million times despite absolutely no DRM, positive fan and critical reviews, and aggressive pricing through Steam.

Even when a company does everything right...they lose.

But did they really lose? CD Projekt RED is practically one of the most, if not the most respected company in PC gaming right now, not only because they make damn fine games, but also exactly because of their anti-DRM views and sticking to it regardless of what happens, they may not be raking in big bucks like EA or Activision\Blizzard, but compared to most companies, they have it pretty good.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Steam is an example of well-implemented DRM. The DRM-part of it is only a segment of a larger offering that has actual added value. UPlay is an example of badly implemented DRM, as its added value is practically zero and it interferes with the gameplay experience.

I don't necessarily agree with the Steam example (although I guess it must work ok since I still use it). But I do agree with your main point here. The best anti-piracy measures benefit the consumer as well as the company.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

There is no solution.
Piracy, illicit or otherwise, is a market force.
And the only "absolute fixes" for piracy are at least as harmful as piracy itself.

Wouldn't say that there's no solution... When companies make their products more convenient to obtain online, piracy rates drop. That's been proven time and time again. The one thing that has been proven about digital piracy is that it's often done for convenience rather than financial gain.

The "solution" for piracy is to make it obsolete, by offering your product in a convenient enough way that the incentive to pirate media becomes less than the perceived risk in doing so. Companies have done it successfully before. Using draconian DRM measures instead just risks alienating the people who'd buy your product in the first place.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Oh good that means I can keep my money and still play the game. Hows that working for you eh Square/Ubi(then again the last Ubi game I played was AC 2)?

 

[mrdude2010]

Good thing most of Square Enix's recent games suck, so I'm not even missing anything. Seriously though, I can see having a CD key with limited activations or something along those lines, but any time you're forced to make sacrifices elsewhere, like not being able to play without a steady internet connection, you're going to be stepping on a lot of gamers' toes.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Wouldn't say that there's no solution... When companies make their products more convenient to obtain online, piracy rates drop. That's been proven time and time again.

As much as I'd like to believe that, the reality is that it hasn't been proven. No conclusive study exists that actually proves it because the nature of the problem makes gathering reliable data difficult if not outright impossible.

 

[Strazdas]

so, DRM is fine as long as it does not exist?

Nope, never said that, but I'll say that strawman you built there is quite uncanny.

Steam is an example of well-implemented DRM. The DRM-part of it is only a segment of a larger offering that has actual added value. UPlay is an example of badly implemented DRM, as its added value is practically zero and it interferes with the gameplay experience. Yes, market share does play a role as do hard to pinpoint things like usability - but no one ever said that "well done" was something you could summarily describe with broad strokes.

Maybe that illustrates my point a bit better.

You said:
DRM if it is not implemented in a way that blocks or hurts the player's experience.

Since it is not posible to implement effective DRM such way, then the logical solution is that DRM is fine as long as it does not exist.

Steam is a well implemented DRM< but it is not one that never "blocks or hurts the player's experience". In fact, right that morning of me typing a message you quote i could not login into steam and thus could not play any of my steam games. that blocked my experience.

I'm not trying to make anything out to be "more scary". I'm calling it what it is. You are getting their product for free through illegal means. You are stealing their game.

you are calling it what it is by using wrong terms and false claims even after being proven by multiple sources to be wrong?

I will repeat myself. The reason all the pirates you see getting arrested go to criminal court is because they all pirate/distribute on a large scale easily crossing the $1000.00 mark.

I can repeat myself too.
Except that no pirate was ever tried in court. Only people owning distribution sites and in few rare cases distributors themselves. there is no precedent in whole world of a download being tried. Oh, and they dont all go to criminal court either.

So you say DRM is not like a lock on a door and then say it's like a lock on a door you have to call someone else to open for you... So which is it? DRM is security for digital media just like physical locks are security for physical items. Remove the need for the lock and you don't have to lock things up any more.

Do you have to call the door company every time you want to unlock a lock? no? then it is not like a lock.
DRM is a security that works differently, therefore using locks is a false analogy.

Well, lets run with your assessment then. MS would instate these policies on the 360, Xbone, their mobile aps, and their PCs. Sony would implement their policies on the PS3, PS4, Vita, PSP, and their mobile aps. Nintendo couldn't get ahead when the Xbone went draconian so that effectively means the entire console market falls to these practices. Nintendo would probably be able to retain control of the handheld market, though they may choose to implement similar policies. On the PC side of things EA, Valve, and Ubisoft would gladly buy into a system that increases the control over the end user. So who does this leave to defend against it, GOG? For the time being they could fight it but a time will come when games would be required to run the now standard draconian DRM so they would be unplayable on unofficial servers. Oh look, PC gaming has been defeated. You see how large companies can throw their weight around, or otherwise know as "be an industry leader"?

Any publisher/developer that does not think draconian DRM is the only answer. which is the majority of PC and mobile market. The way the companies cant throw their weight around was proven with Xbox 180

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Wouldn't say that there's no solution... When companies make their products more convenient to obtain online, piracy rates drop. That's been proven time and time again.

As much as I'd like to believe that, the reality is that it hasn't been proven. No conclusive study exists that actually proves it because the nature of the problem makes gathering reliable data difficult if not outright impossible.

Actually you're wrong on that one. You don't need "studies" as such. What you need is facts and figures from companies who've CHANGED their business model in the real world. There are plenty of those around, and the figures are fairly conclusive. If you make legal access to your content easier and more convenient, piracy rates drop. They don't disappear, but they do go down significantly. Cable TV companies, for example, who've found that making their programmes available online in an easy-to-access format decreases the rate of piracy via peer-to-peer software. Things like that.

Now what you should be asking me here is "do I have any evidence to support that contention, evidence that I can cite in this thread?"... And no, unfortunately I don't. It's been a while since I've read about this issue and I don't have any convenient links to facts and figures on hand. (I did say in a post above that my information was pretty old!) A lot of googling would probably get some, but for now you can take it as a case of "some guy on the Internet said so". Which should always be taken with a dose of scepticism.