Which is the bigger problem? Piracy or DRM?

[Yopaz]

Piracy;

DRM can be a pain.

Piracy can bankrupt a company.

Agreed.

DRM is really annoying, like Ubisoft's version of it where you need a stable internet connection and Ubisoft's servers have to be stable too.
It's something so terrible that it makes me consider not buying the game at all, but wait, there's more to it. Why would Ubisoft sabotage for themselves by making that?

Piracy! Piracy is the reason for DRM and is thus worse than DRM.

Edit:

DRM is the bigger problem, Starcraft 2 is a shining example of that.

Easy Piracy, as it causes DRM.

The publishers being misguided as to thinking that DRM will actually increase their sales in any shape or form is what causes DRM.

So they're misguided that piracy reduces their sales and that DRM reduces piracy? DRM isn't made to boost their sales, it's meant to make it harder to copy so it's an attempt to not reduce sales. Most pirates don't buy a game they've downloaded. The last time I tried to download a game that was DRM protected it gave me so much trouble I ended up buying it. Since I haven't pirated...

 

[EvilMaggot]

the problem is DRM... there wouldnt be piracy if that shitty DRM... i got alot friends that download games instead of buying them because then they dont have to be online all the time (ubisoft im looking at you) so its better for piracy

 

[Sonic Doctor]

See, the Robin Hood analogy (despite it not being my intent to compare it directly to the DRM debate) actually parallels quite well when you look at it from the perspective of someone who feels that games are being over-priced for what they provide.

Even looking at it from that perspective, the analogy doesn't work. The item that "Robin Hood"(Pirate #1) is stealing and giving to the people(Pirate #2), is a game that isn't theirs.

If they can't pay the price, doesn't matter what content is in the game, tough. They will just have to go without. Gaming is a privilege, not a right.

The game that the publisher made, is their property, they sell it to people for them to use. If a person can't afford to pay full price, there are other legal ways to get it like rental(concerning console piracy), with PC, the person will just have to do without. That is life.

You don't consider the DRM placed on Assassin's Creed 2 to be too much? What about limited installs? What about the fact that many games which you purchase today you won't be able to purchase tomorrow when the authenticator servers are pulled offline? You don't consider any of that to be too much? Granted that none of that is legally mandated to be on every game that's published, but that the companies would do it in the first place.

Game pirates are not Robin Hood, the analogy doesn't fit. Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor because it was the rich that were taxing the poor so much that they couldn't live off of what they had left. So he got back the money that was wrongly taken and gave it back to the poor.

If anything the hackers would be Robin Hood, and the pirates would be the poor peasants.

If people want that kind of DRM to stop, they are just going to have to find a way to do away with piracy, people that play games they got from pirates, are just encouraging the practice. Piracy needs to be stamped out in any way possible.

Have you noticed how every user on here that posts that they pirate games and other products gets a probation or worse. The reason being is that piracy is wrong plain and simple and saying such things is showing support for it.

If we find a way to stop piracy, then there will be no need for DRM. It doesn't matter what is brought to the table, piracy is what created the DRM problem.

Also with your addition to your analogy, you are now saying that the hackers are Robin Hood and the pirates are the peasants. The problem with that is you just replace one pirate with the label of "hacker". The "hacker" is just as much a pirate as the people that copy the file from him. They are both doing wrong, stealing from the publisher. The hackers may or may not have paid for their copies, but they are stealing still from the publisher. What they are doing is basically, going to the store, buying one copy, then stealing thousands more and handing them out to people.

That is lost sales to the company. You might argue that, they probably wouldn't have bought the game in the first place. That doesn't matter; it is just as likely that they would have come up with the money and just came to the decision to take a chance and buy the game. So it is lost sales for the company.

 

[big_shaq12]

Piracy, How is this even a question?

40% of all consumer internet bandwidth is used to "share" files.
Source: http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-dominates-internet-traffic-070901/

Games without DRM like say world of goo a great indie game have piracy rates of around 90%.
Source: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/11/acrying-shame-world-of-goo-piracy-rate-near-90.ars

So to recap Piracy steals money from great developers and is a massive drain on the finite bandwidth of the internet.

DRM, is sometimes annoying.

Huh,

I'm having trouble deciding.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

the problem is DRM... there wouldnt be piracy if that shitty DRM... i got alot friends that download games instead of buying them because then they dont have to be online all the time (ubisoft im looking at you) so its better for piracy

This mentality makes no sense to me. It is like saying the illness that a person caught wouldn't be around if the experimental drug created to stop it hadn't been created.

The illness(piracy) came first, stealing has been around before video and computer games. (DRM) is an experimental drug created to fight the illness. In some cases, this new drug makes the illness worse, but in this case not because of the drug, but because the people are misusing the drug.

These friends you speak of, need to learn how to just cope. Being pirates by downloading pirated games, they are supporting the thing that the DRM is trying to stop. This will create stronger DRM. It is a vicious cycle. If they learn to cope with this DRM and not pirate, and we get other people to follow suit, we will see DRM become less and less of a problem.

We have to weed out the wrong doers. One thing I think would be awesome, if we could all band together, find some honest computer experts that can hack these hackers/pirates that copy games for people that want them for free, and destroy their ability to do such things. We also need to stop sites that allow torrents of pirated games to be downloaded.

Besides, these friends of yours, if they don't like the DRM, guess what, they don't have to buy it. Along with that, they don't have to play it. They don't have a right to play those games they downloaded wrongly for free. If they want to play it, pay it, or don't play at all.

 

[Woodsey]

DRM is the bigger problem. It usually punishes the people who actually pay for the game, and make it better in comparison for the pirates, thus giving people more incentive to pirate.

It wouldn't be implemented in the first place if piracy wasn't there.

Therefore, pirates.

 

[veloper]

Lets be clear. DRM measures do NOT stop piracy. All it does is adversely effects those who have paid for a game. So if it does not do what it is intended to, then what is the purpose of it?

It's purpose it to kill used sales (piracy is merely the excuse).
Unlike consoles, there is no used market for PC games anymore, so it is succesful in this regard.

To have the freedom to lock you out of a game? To plan obsolecence in order to ensure you repurchase the game when you get a nostalgia kick?

And possibly this is planned too in the long run.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I read something fairly relevant recently, Peter Serafinowicz, actor and comedian. (He had his own sketch show on BBC and played the grumpy flatmate in 'Shaun of the Dead', and voiced Darth Maul in the Star Wars prequels.)

http://gizmodo.com/5539417/why-i-steal-movies-even-ones-im-in

He essentially says that he loses money to piracy but still pirates things himself.

Partly because of the stupid DRMs in place that stop him using things he's already paid for, he even says he'll maybe get letters from his own lawyers about downloading his own material

He says, along with a lot of other stuff:

" "Ownership" is starting to change its meaning. If you buy a movie from iTunes you "own" the right to watch it on certain devices within certain constraints. When you "own" a DVD, you have the right to watch it whenever and wherever you want. However: you must watch ten minutes of promos, trailers and anti-piracy threats. I'll take the download, please."

"But often you can't do it legally: I recently wanted to show my son Disney's classic Jungle Book and intended to get it on iTunes. Unfortunately, it is currently incarcerated within The Disney Vault. So I'm afraid I simply DL'ed a pixel-clear pirate copy which arrived in seconds. My moral justification for this? I once bought the VHS. It's your own vault, Disney!"

I'm in agreement when he says, if you try to give these companies money, but they seem to be doing all they can to avoid letting your money get to them, then I'm off to the torrents.

Personally I'd like to see all games companies drop all DRM for a year (of course Steam and other digital distributors can carry on with their services, but no hiding extra stuff inside.) Just to see if sales go up, when people know they can just click and own a game without restrictions, without having to be online, without being concerned about where and when they install it, etc.

If sales went down, ok, maybe the piracy is a genuine problem. I think most of us are in agreement that a paid for original purchase should never be worse than a pirated copy.

 

[credop]

Pirating always has and always will happen. Unfortunately, it being in the media so much makes it obvious to the regular joe rather than the computer programmer and now it's become more consumer friendly and anyone with google handy can do it.

*Sigh* Well done anti-pirating adverts... well done...

THEN again i also hate the way they can charge me £40.00 for something that cost £4.60 to make on average. Thats of an average selling game and yes that is covering wages of people who made it and coming out equal.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

See, the Robin Hood analogy (despite it not being my intent to compare it directly to the DRM debate) actually parallels quite well when you look at it from the perspective of someone who feels that games are being over-priced for what they provide.

Even looking at it from that perspective, the analogy doesn't work. The item that "Robin Hood"(Pirate #1) is stealing and giving to the people(Pirate #2), is a game that isn't theirs.

Just like the gold which Robin Hood was stealing and giving to the peasants was gold that wasn't theirs? I think you're still stuck in the "it's illegal therefore it's wrong, end of story" mindset.

If they can't pay the price, doesn't matter what content is in the game, tough. They will just have to go without. Gaming is a privilege, not a right.

The game that the publisher made, is their property, they sell it to people for them to use. If a person can't afford to pay full price, there are other legal ways to get it like rental(concerning console piracy), with PC, the person will just have to do without. That is life.

I can't help but get a sort of... "self-entitled" vibe from those two paragraphs, almost as-if they're the exact kind of thing that Prince John would decree to justify his unfair taxes. But really think about it; doesn't it strike you as odd that publishers don't even lower their prices after a set time? They would rather have people pirate a game and make no sale than to lower the price and make a sale at a reduced price. Mind you that they've already broken the profit margin on the game by this point, so it isn't as-if they stand to lose money by underselling, that copy along the manual and jewel case only costs about 25 cents, after-all. Mull that over a little; rather than lowering the price after some set time period, they would seemingly rather someone who can't afford $60 just pirate the game instead. Despite being a business, they claim that $0 is better than $30 or $20.

If people want that kind of DRM to stop, they are just going to have to find a way to do away with piracy, people that play games they got from pirates, are just encouraging the practice. Piracy needs to be stamped out in any way possible.

WHOA!! WHAT!? NO! WRONG! It is NOT my job to fix THEIR problem. Just because a few brats are copying their game does NOT justify them fucking me in the ass. I am the paying customer. The fact that I know of this battle in the first place is bad enough, that I get dragged into the crossfire because the publishers involved me in it? Wrong. Simply wrong. That you would imply that I should try and fix this problem to make the DRM go away? Even worse.

"Piracy needs to be stamped out in any way possible"? Honestly? Are you even listening to yourself at this point? That's the kind of thing that the leader of a group declares when he's finally crossed the line and it's become apparent to the reader or viewer that he's become the villain of the story. Seriously, what does it matter to you if piracy continues or doesn't? You make it sound as-if you have a personal stake in this battle; let me tell you something, you don't. Nor do I. The simple fact that we're even having this discussion means that the publishers took things too far.

Have you noticed how every user on here that posts that they pirate games and other products gets a probation or worse. The reason being is that piracy is wrong plain and simple and saying such things is showing support for it.

Oh please, don't be so desperate as to drag the politics of some web forum into this.

If we find a way to stop piracy, than there will be no need for DRM. It doesn't matter what is brought to the table, piracy is what created the DRM problem.

No, publishers are what created the DRM problem. Publishers were fighting pirates for YEARS without having to drag customers into the fray. Piracy may have made DRM necessary, but publishers took DRM too far.

 

[darkdots]

I already posted this. Where's the delete button?

 

[Zechnophobe]

Without the Light, there would be nothing to cast a shadow. These are two sides of the same coin. Basically, that digital, or non physical goods aren't really quite figured out yet, ethically, or economically. Solve that problem, don't just scourge away the symptoms.

 

[credop]

One more thing. How come pirating is illegal even if i do own the film, but to download emulators it's legal if i use to own? Ridiculous...

 

[darkdots]

Piracy will stop all gaming.
DRM will make EA rich and stop all gaming.

same same.

 

[cystemic]

Everyone is so touchy on this subject. I think that if media didn't cost so much, there would be no piracy or at least it wouldn't be so wide spread. I realize that people need to get paid for their work but what they charge the consumer is pretty outrageous here in Australia: $110-120 for a new ps3 game and I think the same for 360, wii games are slightly cheaper $80. It's ridiculous and they're all high and mighty about people pirating, saying it's wrong and making people who do pay put up with activation BS. Totally unfair is my diagnosis.

 

[Soraryuu]

A few notes to future pro-DRM fighters...

1: Piracy can't be stopped. As have been stated numerous times, there will always be pirates. Therefore all arguments that involve stopping piracy are out.
2: Piracy isn't a big problem. There are hordes of people that buy games, but few gamers that want the game
3: Claiming that pirates think they're entitled to the game. No, they don't. They simply want the game, and are unwilling/unable to pay for it. Yes, it's wrong. However, it isn't very immoral. Which brings me on to my next point...
4: Stealing. Piracy is not stealing. It isn't even half as bad as stealing. With stealing, the victim loses the product. With copying, the victim still has that product. And the "lost sales" part; there aren't many pirates that would have bought the game anyway. The best anology towards piracy is sneaking aboard a plane/train/whatever have you, without paying. That's how immoral piracy is. Do you view such people as sneaks? Yes. But bad people? No.
5: DRM hurts consumers, and decrease the sales a bit, not to mention PR.

This is why it is better not to have DRM than to have DRM. For everyone. I'd really like the ones fighting for DRM to find a flaw in these arguments that isn't plain nitpicking, and come with new, good arguments that puts DRM in a better light. Or even better; come with something that can replace DRM.

(cue this post being ignored and the fight raging on)

 

[Wuvlycuddles]

I have to ask the question: How many pirates would buy a game if they couldn't pirate it?

That said, if there were no pirates who would bother with intrusive DRM.....

But i will have to go with DRM, because the only people it effects are the people buying the game, the pirates always find a way to get around it.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

*Snip*

I'm just going to let this go. I used common sense on the matter refute what you said, you said again the thing I refuted but with different words that said the same, I used again, common sense with some extra ways of describing the common sense, and again you say the same with different words.

You haven't brought anything new to the table to refute what I said.

This will just get nowhere. I know I am right and I feel that what I have said will at least convince some people, and that makes me feel great.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

You haven't brought anything new to the table to refute what I said.

Whatever it takes to help you sleep at night.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

A few notes to future pro-DRM fighters...


4: Stealing. Piracy is not stealing. It isn't even half as bad as stealing. With stealing, the victim loses the product. With copying, the victim still has that product. And the "lost sales" part; there aren't many pirates that would have bought the game anyway. The best anology towards piracy is sneaking aboard a plane/train/whatever have you, without paying. That's how immoral piracy is. Do you view such people as sneaks? Yes. But bad people? No.

I have to say, that's one of the best analogies I've ever seen for piracy, and I've seen a whole bunch of them, what with it being about the most common topic on the escapist forums!

However, sure, planes and trains have to run, but when the companies running them realise people are dodging paying the fares or not buying tickets, they then hire more guards (DRM), or cut back on services (less money means less games get released).

I think DRM is not necessarily a problem, but it needs to be invisible to the consumer and no hassle to them, or the pirated version is a better product, along with being free.

It's maybe highly optimistic of me, too, but if only there was an option on every game's site, to have a 'donate' button. Therefore if you pirated the game, but loved it, but still can't afford to pay for it, you can at least show your appreciation by sending in SOME cash to the people who made it. Of course, there's problems with that plan, mainly being that most pirates wouldn't trust it enough, thinking that if they donated, they could be traced and then nailed for pirating the game in the first place.

I think the fact that the 1 cent indie bundle got pirated tells us part of the problem is just making it easier to pay for things, I can't believe people pirated that because they wanted to save one cent, but because they didn't want to register, and then go thru card details, authentication etc. I didn't get around to getting it, but I know if I'd pirated a charity thing, I'd at least pop a £5 note into a charity collection box next time I was out.