The DRM Effect

[Biscuitui]

File me under "don't care".

While I purchase some games (eg TF2, which, coincidentally, I've pirated as well since buying it) most are downloaded, tried, and ditched.
If it's a game I will continue playing, I'll pay. Otherwise, I'll have my disk space back tyvm.

Bioshock is still hiding on my hard drive somewhere, waiting for a day when I'm tired of the legit purchased and free legal downloads I'm playing.

 

[Arbre]

First off, to the author: great piece. Very well written.

I wonder...Im sure everyone got at least one copied game, now or in the past. Has there ever been a moment wher you tried to copy a game or download it illegally, and it was such a hassle that you thought 'nah fuck that, I'll buy it'.

I can tell you, I never had such a moment. Actually, I had it the way around.

Same here--it's always been the other way around for me too.

Exact. What makes the PC such a piracy friendly machine is that it contains all you need to grab an illegal version of a game.

- The internet on PC.
- The CD/DVD image reader on PC.
- The CD/DVD burner on PC.
- No need to burn a copy, especially if you're a fan of portable mini HDDs.

On consoles, it's different. It's a bit harder to get piracy rolling.
You may have to modify the hardware of the console, or at least need to use some devices to launch burnt CD/DVDs, and you do have to burn your copy for starters.

The sad thing is that it's so easy to get an illegal copy of a game on the PC, the more restrictive and punitive the measures are, the more people will become even more lazy and grab illegal copies.

Until the point where you get beyond the "acceptable protection" threshold, and you start to use DRMs which are a hassle. Then they become so problematic that people are really put off, some pissed by being treated as criminals without faulting, you generate an outroar, and these people are now even more entitled to grab illegal copies because playing the legal version is really bothersome, and basically, as a publisher, you realize that you haven't helped yourself the slightest.

I think if you want to get more games sold in the classic retail system (leaving aside Steam or others like Garage Games's new portal, plus all the other older ones), you have to give the consumer some power, and ease their lives, show them that piracy is even harder.

Ultimately, buying a game is extremely simple. But the price is the problem.
Or maybe we're reaching a point where classic retail has shown its limits in the light of the democratization of new technologies.

Or maybe the internet providers will have to strictly police the internet habits of their customers. Ugly, isn't it? Especially since it's not their job, and people will move to providers which don't act as the next gestapo (Godwin's Law +1).

 

[Cousin_IT]

I dislike how both Spore & Mass Effects developers champion the invasive & restrictive nature of SecuROM DRM because "you dont need your disc anymore." I for one am not inclined to lose discs, at least not within the time it takes for me to grow permanently bored of the game. Besides, even if I dont need the disc to play, I still need it to install & so losing the disc is still just as inconvienient in the longterm. Besides you dont need the disc for Company of heros either & you dont see it demanding weekly internet acess for a 3rd party system to stop itself throwing a tantrum & limiting you to 3installs before you have to beg the publisher to let you install it again.

 

[VMerken]

Until the point where you get beyond the "acceptable protection" threshold, and you start to use DRMs which are a hassle. Then they become so problematic that people are really put off, some pissed by being treated as criminals without faulting, you generate an outroar, and these people are now even more entitled to grab illegal copies because playing the legal version is really bothersome, and basically, as a publisher, you realize that you haven't helped yourself the slightest.

[...]

Ultimately, buying a game is extremely simple. But the price is the problem.
Or maybe we're reaching a point where classic retail has shown its limits in the light of the democratization of new technologies.

It's not just the fact that this type of DRM has passed some type of "convenience treshold". The DRM scheme also effectively changes the product you are buying.

In the "old days", you paid a non-trivial price (60 Euros, say) for a physical "Disc" which contained the entire game. For as long as that "Disc" was in working order, you could install the game on any PC and play.

Now, you're supposed to pay the same 60 Euros for a "Disc" containing DRM which - even if your "Disc" still works perfectly fine - may at some point prohibit you from playing. Because you had the gall to reinstall it three times, for example. Or the "Disc" might not even contain the entire game at all, because the publisher removed the .exe (as was done in Bioshock).

In other words, you're getting much, much less product, yet the publishers are selling it to you at the same price as before. This does NOT compute, at least not in my head. Dear game developers, if you're limiting the product to three installs and add NAGWARE to boot, at least have the decency to adjust the pricing model accordingly.

For example, Mass Effect with three installs = 20 Euros from day one, and each extra install has to be bought/downloaded for 5 Euros extra. Something like that.

At least, that's what I'd expect. But no, the majority is fine with the way things are going, or doesn't really know or understands the situation yet and thus this kind of thing steadily progresses, at which point I think it's time to look for a different hobby altogether.

 

[Cousin_IT]

TBH microsoft should just release a decent working mouse/keyboard combo for the X360 so we can be done with the PC altogether if this is the way PC gaming is going to go (though theres always room for the little guy on the PC which is something harder to say about the consoles)

 

[Arbre]

For example, Mass Effect with three installs = 20 Euros from day one, and each extra install has to be bought/downloaded for 5 Euros extra. Something like that.

You know what? That's something I suggested [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.59954.463985] as well in another thread in General Gaming, but I'm not ultra fond of it.

You have to set up an account with an associated credit card, and if things would go bad, you could't go to the store anymore, you'd have to start engaging some form of procedure with the publisher, via letters, emails and phone calls. :/

Then you'll get one account per major publisher as long as you buy at least one of their games on PC, because I'm sure each publisher would love having his own delivery system.

A load of trouble in perspective. I mean, I want to buy a perfectly complete and finished product, and play it.
The fact that I have to install it is already annoying me these days, and now we would have to go into all that crap to get the right to play a game?

I'm seeing we're going backwards.
Eventually, different versions of a same game could be sold.
One, for those who don't have internet, but then would have to install an anal retentive protection system (and even then, since it would be cut from the internet, I don't see how it would be efficient against piracy).
Another, for those who have internet, where your game would check up, like every six days, your game validation, etc., and allow you to play.

In the end, all this police state sucks.
This cannot get any better.

TBH microsoft should just release a decent working mouse/keyboard combo for the X360 so we can be done with the PC altogether if this is the way PC gaming is going to go (though theres always room for the little guy on the PC which is something harder to say about the consoles)

This would solve some problems, and likely diminish a part of the hardcore market on the PC, and I'm sure many would be happy to ditch the level of customisation enabled on a PC, to gain in ease and pleasure.
Now, I'm talking about customisation, but more and more games have servers lock vars values based upon what console gamers would be allowed to play with.
The PC has already turned into "casual game" machine by excellence, where it's easier to get small games on your PC than on your console, but where you're spared the trouble of protections and tiring installations.

Now, finding a way to play with a mouse and a keyboard in front of your telly, in a sofa? Why not.
I suppose it would require something like that [http://www.aerialearth.com/documents/284/284.jpg] first.
Maybe that's how the Wii Fit's board is supposed to be used?

 

[Alan Au]

Just as a point of clarification, EA is based in Redwood City, CA.

Redmond, WA is the land of Microsoft and Nintendo of America, which is kind of like the land of milk and honey, but digital and more expensive.

- Alan

 

[bkd69]

I think the right answer is to go ahead and buy the game, but install the cracked download. Aside from all the advantages - developers get paid, no hassle for you, the purchaser - they'll also eventually have to have that meeting where they try to figure out why they've sold 40 million copies, but have had only 30,000 install checkins. I think that sends a *much* clearer signal than simply not buying the game altogether.

And you know, if their DRM is so good, why not just release at as shareware, and call it a nag system? Microsoft came real close to doing that with XP validation.

 

[Sibren]

My problem with all these systems like DRM and also Steam is that you need internet to activate the game. What are you supposed to do if you don't have internet? I find it quite annoying that in order to play a single player game, one needs the internet to do so. Especially because this is not clear at all when buying the game, plus I wonder whether it actually is included in the minimal requirements sections.

 

[Arbre]

I think the right answer is to go ahead and buy the game, but install the cracked download. Aside from all the advantages - developers get paid, no hassle for you, the purchaser - they'll also eventually have to have that meeting where they try to figure out why they've sold 40 million copies, but have had only 30,000 install checkins. I think that sends a *much* clearer signal than simply not buying the game altogether.

And you know, if their DRM is so good, why not just release at as shareware, and call it a nag system? Microsoft came real close to doing that with XP validation.

Buying the game and installing the illegal copy only solves one problem, but brings many more, and doesn't make the task easier at all.
It's even more absurd, in a way, because you're getting two versions of the same game, and the one you install won't let you play on all servers.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

I'm about to buy a new laptop which I never intend to put on the Internet. Does that mean that I can't play many of the modern games? No single player PC game should depend on an Internet connection. Come to that, PC games (and a lot of other software too) should look at consoles as a model: once you put in the cartridge or rev up the DVD, you're ready to play. This might not always be possible with "installed" games, but it should still be a one-click process. Finally, games might need a licence, but they sure as hell shouldn't need a privacy policy.

And the earth will have collided with the sun by the time all that comes true...

 

[Gilgamesh999]

Why do PC game developer keep hating their constituents? The only thing this does is alienate the people who actually bought the goddamned thing. Never in my 20 years of PC gaming has an anti-piracy measure actually kept anyone I knew from pirating a game. This won't, either. All it'll do is piss us off until every last one of us buys a PS3. What? They've got an equally onerous DRM scheme, too? Fuck.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Surely DRM is similar to a pirate going to a torrent site, seeing the game they want, then a pop up says 'hey, we just need to install this exe on your system, then you can download the game!'

If a pirate wouldn't do that to get the game for free, how do they think doing this to paying customers is going to affect sales?

The big problem is keeping customers in the dark about what they're doing, and customers not feeling they can trust what they're told about these things being added to their computers.

The Orange box' yes that example again' I bought and I not only paid for it, but I'm quite happy with Steam on my system, I'm not sure why, but I dont feel like Steam are out to scan my system then kick my door down if find an old half life 1 no cd patch on my system.

Steam is the future to me, the only concern I have is that if Steam goes out of business, do we all lose all the games we've bought? There's the 'backup' option, but won't we need to connect to the servers? I know its a tiny risk, but its there.

However I'm all for it, and I think it's great that steam are promoting old old games for like $5, patched and fixed so they're playable on todays pc.

 

[Blayze]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/07/18/ubisoft-having-a-crack/

Nice to see someone at Ubisoft deciding "This DRM we've used is too difficult to work around ourselves, let's just steal a no-CD crack".

the only concern I have is that if Steam goes out of business, do we all lose all the games we've bought?

I've seen - on a few occasions - references made on the SteamPowered forums to a quote from someone at Valve who essentially said "If Steam goes belly-up, we'll release an update that lets people play the games they've bought."

Edit: Looks like it could be worse than I thought on the Ubisoft front.

http://digg.com/pc_games/Ubisoft_issue_NO_CD_Crack_as_Official_Patch_for_R6_Vegas_2

"First they stole the community made SADS (stand-alone-dedicated-server) patch that took the community *months* to make and called it their "official Ubisoft SADS patch" (Vegas 1) . Then they deleted all forum evidence that the community made it themselves."

 

[Veylon]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/07/18/ubisoft-having-a-crack/

the only concern I have is that if Steam goes out of business, do we all lose all the games we've bought?

I've seen - on a few occasions - references made on the SteamPowered forums to a quote from someone at Valve who essentially said "If Steam goes belly-up, we'll release an update that lets people play the games they've bought."

If they go belly-up, and are presumably bought out, would it make economic sense to be wasting time and money on such a thing? This is a problem for any game that requires online activation. I can install Total Annihilation right now, even though Cavedog is long gone. Ditto for X-Com, Warcraft II, Heroes of Might and Magic III, etc. If EA goes down, I can't install, say, Mass Effect or Bioshock, at least not legally.

Companies can say that they'll fix things if it ever comes to this, but when they're fighting for their lives, are they really going to make the effort that it takes to appease customers whose money they already have? I think not.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I'd be very surprised if Steam didn't already have a patch ready to roll out that fixed the problem of not being able to connect to steam servers, and I imagine it'll be a few k at most.

If Steam are in financial trouble, there may be companies interested in buying them out, in which case they wouldn't want to turn their entire customer base against them, so they could have the patch ready to go if needed.

I don't even know what it is about Steam, but I just trust them with my money and my games, and I know they've had problems, but they've fixed all the ones I've heard.

Also as previously stated, the chance to get hold of old games that I'll never be able to find in a store, for like $5-10, is great, as a brit, where its 2 dollars to a pound, I can buy games for the price of a trip to McD's, go large and add an ice cream and there's a bigger range to choose from.

I don't remember Sims having really heavy DRM tho, and isn't it the biggest selling PC game of all time?

I know when I worked in a music store, no matter how many copies of the expansions we would be sent, we'd generally be sold out on the launch day.

I know if I was still working there, I'd be reading up more on the DRM issues, and warning buyers ' do you have a net connection, do you have any drive image software, etc?' not to turn people against DRM, but purely as a way to guide customers into buying games they can actually play after they've bought them.

I know at one point we had to get dummy sleeves sent out for PC games, whereas before we used to take the discs out and put the cases on display, as people would come in, copy the cd keys and then go download it, and we'd have honest customers returning games because the cd key wouldnt work.

Also, what these big companies STILL don't realise, is they're putting their PC security department of , I dont know, 20-50 'experts' mainly, against THE INTERNET!

The crackers just see these new things as a challenge, its probably quite fun for them to have a new puzzle to beat, and as such, I will be very surprised if there's not a working version of Spore on torrents a day after release.

Of course, Spore has the advantage of being so net centric that most people will buy it anyway, and also, imo, most people WILL buy it instead of pirating it, and the people that pirate it weren't going to spend the money anyways, I'm not saying its right, just that its how it is.

Also, after sales service, patches, updates, etc. IF paying for an original copy was getting you extra content, you'd maybe be more likely to go out and shell out the cash for a real copy of the game.

Look at WOW and TF2, both getting constant updates, (I know you pay monthly for WOW) TF2 having lots of extra stuff added for no extra cash, also the anti cheat thing, I feel keeps the dodgy pirates mainly away from the honest players, and who wants to risk their cd key just to cheat?

 

[Bongo Bill]

I heard somewhere that The Sims 3 will have a similar implementation of SecuROM as Spore. Which is most unfortunate, as it means I can't buy it now.

I can put up with the restrictions. Or, rather, I can evaluate the restrictions on an install as an adult and decide whether I want to put up with them. What I can't agree to is the mechanism by which they're enforced, which is more often than not an irremovable rootkit with side effects throughout the system. And even if they remove the restrictions, how am I supposed to be certain they didn't leave the rootkit? I'd be more inclined to purchase PC games if I could be certain that they were safe, but that's no longer the case. I am petrified of buying games that don't come from a developer and vendor I trust - essentially Valve, Stardock, freeware, and self-published games from people who can't afford to license DRM, these days.

Incidentally, I'm now wondering if there's a website that keeps a listing of the types of copy protection employed on games.

It's even getting to the point that I can't buy a legitimate version and install a crack (if I wanted to - I haven't ever done that, but I was considering it when I first heard about what they'd done to Spore), because the games are so Net-centric these days that they'll probably include a way to check when you connect, or they'll de-crack (and, hence, re-break) themselves by automatic updates, or something. The publishers have learned one lesson: they've managed to make the games so that the pirated version isn't necessarily a superior product. Problem is, they didn't do it by improving their own offering.