Why do software companies get away with it?

[Not Lord Atkin]

So there's this one thing that's been on my mind lately. With a combination of ruthless competition and relentless public pressure against DRM and similar anti-piracy measures in the games industry, we've come to the point when game companies are forced to take a more consumer-friendly approach than ever. DRM is now offically a condemned practice, with even the likes of EA calling it a dead end. Yeah, sure, they keep trying to pull new kind of bullshit all the time but they rarely actually get away with it like they used to.

So my question is... why does this only apply to games? why don't all software manufacturers feel forced to change their stance against the consumer?

Take Adobe for instance. At a $1000 price tag, Photoshop is just about the most ridiculously overpriced piece of software in existence. I sincerely doubt that it costs much to make - adobe is essentially rereleasing and repackaging the same thing every year, tweaking the UI here and adding a feature there. So of course, their shit gets pirated a lot - to which they respond by adding layers upon layers of DRM, rather than, say, lowering the price. And it's the bad kind of DRM too. Installation limits, series of endless codes, internet registration, all that crap piled together. Yet there is little to no fussed kicked up about it. Adobe can pretty much do whatever they want to.

So why do you think that is? Discuss.

 

[Doclector]

Maybe it's simple been that way so long, with ridiculous software prices at least, that companies think "Why? Why should they all the sudden have a problem with this?"

Which is, to be fair, a good question from their point of view, but irrelevant. They know they're doing wrong, they know they've been getting away with it, and now they should know well enough that they need to fix this shit.

 

[DoPo]

First of all, "I sincerely doubt that it costs much to make" is just plain wrong. The price to make software is about 50% for the development and as much for support. Roughly. Point is, it's not like making a car or a lamp - when you have it, it's the final product you offer.

Second, you don't sell software for what would cover your costs. You sell software for what people would buy it. Same as other products - supply and demand and all that.

With that said, yeah, it's a lot of money. I guess they sell it for that much because they can. Yeah, as simple as that. If the price was reduced to "only" $500, I doubt they'd make twice as much sales, even if it's $100, it's really unlikely Adobe would have money just pouring in nonstop. Basically, most of the people who would pay $100 for it are the ones who would also pay $1000 - it's businesses that mostly pay the software licenses, as they are easy to monitor and are indeed expected to have everything legit. So yeah, Adobe are charging that much because they can get away with it, they are just milking the people willing to pay.

As for why software companies as a whole get away with it...it's because a lot of gamers have a really distorted view of DRM, I suppose. It probably helps that the view is based on a lot of shitty and underhanded implementations that really abuse the role of the technology. DRM itself is neutral, but it can be "used for evil" which is when it gets in the way - it's a bit more common with games than just other software and digital products. Well...or not, but it's definitely easier to come accrossfor the simple fact that it's just a lot of DRM types concentrated in video games and an average gamer would be in touch with a lot of them, while they just won't use as much software, so the DRM schemes are more dispersed outside of gaming.

 

[Gatx]

My theory is that software like Microsoft Office, Photoshop, Premiere, etc. are used most often by "normal" people and professionals in various areas. In the case of professionals the company pays for presumably, so no chance for the consumer to worry about it there, and as for "normal" people using it in their own time, they're just not knowledgeable enough about it to have an opinion. A lot of people who have Xbox's but aren't self-described gamers didn't care or even know about the Xbone's DRM (I talked to a person who occasionally plays games like Assassin's Creed and various sports titles, and their take away from E3 was the the PS3 aesthetically looked dumb).

 

[Esotera]

You've underestimated how much it costs to make software - for a new version of Adobe it will probably cost at least a few million to develop, test, document, and then support for its lifecycle. Programmers are expensive and good ones even more so!

And most software that is sold for profit does have some form of DRM if you have to enter a license key, it's just not as obnoxious as always-on so less people are aware of it.

 

[Naeras]

Photoshop DRM doesn't openly hamper your ability to use the product the same way a lot of game DRM does. It doesn't require you to always be connected to the internet, it doesn't install spyware on your computer, it doesn't require any computer resources.

 

[MetalMagpie]

Software costs a lot to make. It's also a damn awkward product to sell, because it can be copied easily and doesn't "wear out". It doesn't fit particularly well with traditional sales models, so software companies have to experiment with different ways of making money.

One strategy is to use heavy DRM technology and a high sale price. Another is to offer the base software for free, then use microtransactions. The software product I work on as a programmer is sold under the SaaS model (Software as a Service). Which means the client pays us a sizeable subscription each month, and in return they get to use our software (which runs on our servers where we have complete control over it).

Different strategies work better in different markets, and the "best" strategy for each market is likely to change over time.

 

[Greg White]

If you think photoshop is expensive, then you ain't seen nothing.

Microsoft has imaging software for networks that allows zero touch imaging and runs somewhere around $20,000.

Expensive stuff, but damn is it worth it if you have more than 50 computers on a network and less that 10 people that know how to do computer updates.

 

[MrTwo]

It's pretty damn overpriced, I agree, and I would answer simply "because they can".

But interestingly, someone I know developed software for managing sound and lighting systems for events and stuff, and they said they essentially need to price it high (it was around $300) because otherwise people think its bad. If a business is going to buy it, they want it to be professional and a $50 or $100 piece of software might be shoddy. It's just adhering to the status quo, which is undoubtedly set by MS and Adobe and the like.

 

[Mister K]

Because !YOU! are buying it. Instead of boycoting overpriced, consumer-unfriendly soft and/or downloading freeware analogs, !YOU! are still buying it.

And you know what? If people are oh so damn foolsh that they buy overpriced things that get half of it's price because of the brand, that they buy things that limit consumers freedom and WORSHIP you for it (heh, Apple...), you must be saint, or a moron, or saint moron to NOT milk those idiots till the very last cent.

Yet, the best variant for a company is not raise the prices unreasonably and be on goodterms with the consumer, true. And if you can do it, you must do it.

 

[josemlopes]

Its because they only plan on checking the validation for people that use it professionaly, like companies and freelancers. If you are just going to use photoshop to do some tweaks here or there to a family photo or just a poster to hold in your room (or even just portofolio stuff) they really dont care that you pirate it.

In fact its good that you pirate it and learn how to use it because then when you work go to work on a company and they ask wich software do you know how to use you (and most of your co-workers that did the same) will say Photoshop somewhat forcing the company to buy it unless they want to teach you how to use something that you dont know how to use.

Its a win-win thing here, they get their money from the people that can afford it and you get to use it without much problems during the time that you cant afford it.

If you think photoshop is expensive, then you ain't seen nothing.

Microsoft has imaging software for networks that allows zero touch imaging and runs somewhere around $20,000.

Expensive stuff, but damn is it worth it if you have more than 50 computers on a network and less that 10 people that know how to do computer updates.

And thats the thing, this software is for companies that can afford, say, 50 computers. It makes sense that its expensive since they probably wont sell that many, its basicly a justification for the work that was put into it.

 

[rob_simple]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that no one has ever paid for a copy of Photoshop in the history of forever...

OT: I sort of get what you're saying OP, I think it has to do with the fact gaming is much more mainstream than professional illustration programs. Almost everyone is a gamer of some sort these days, even if it's just playing a game of solitaire every now and then, but how many people do you think regularly use programs like Photoshop?

 

[fix-the-spade]

So why do you think that is? Discuss.

Because retail users aren't the primary customer.

Taking Adobe, their main customers are commercial, they don't buy one copy, they have a contract, they pay $X per year and get Adobe whatever constantly updated for however many users they want. They don't have to bother with CD key checks and wonky log in systems either.

As a single user you are an afterthought, which is why the 'anti piracy' systems built around the software is usually horrible and under developed. Adobe are taking this to it's logical extreme later in the year when CS goes contract only, retail customers are now actively locked out, that's how much they want your business.

 

[Johnny Wishbone]

It's very simple, really. The software industry as we know it today was essentially created by two of the biggest software thieves in history: Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. These two scumbags, Gates especially, knew all the tricks and all the issues surrounding digital properties, and so when they decided to make a buck off it, they knew what to do to put the odds in their favor. Nobody EVER licensed software prior to Microsoft. When you bought a computer from Altair or IBM or whomever, you purchased the software with it as an afterthought. It was your software. Microsoft came up with the idea of retaining full ownership of the software and instead "licensed" it to the purchaser. Once this model was established, they went out an bought up as many politicians as they could afford to make this model totally legal via federal and state statutes. And everyone else who wrote software simply followed in their footsteps.

Today, things are skewed so much in the favor of the software companies, that you as a consumer have basically no rights or ownership of what you purchase. And as another poster said, you have nobody to blame for this but yourselves. You keep buying these products, and you keep voting these scumbag politicians into office (or allowing them to take office by not voting period) who support this crap because they are "lobbied" (bought off) by the software companies instead of working for you like they are supposed to.

 

[Tom_green_day]

I don't like to be the one that says it, but I think fans of gaming like to complain more than fans of photoshop. That's just what I've noticed, at least.

 

[Angie7F]

I have a question though.
Now that Abode stuff is all monthly membership, how will the pirates pirate them?

 

[SinisterGehe]

It is mainly because big program devs like Adobe, prefer to sell company and organization licenses. Which are way cheaper than individual licenses.
Hell at my office we have photoshops and some other random Adobe crap I have no need or interest to touch in my line of work. I am not allowed to disclose the price or term of the deal, but I can tell you, we have the licenses Tax free and really cheap. This is because of the laws in Europe and Finland which make this possible. It benefits client and provider.

These kinds of programs are meant for companies and such. Not for individuals. There are cheaper and free alternatives which function just as well.
Like Pinnacle, OpenOffice, GIMP (There is plugin that turns makes it look like and function like PS6), Blender. You can make professional quality stuff with these.
Like I been trained in use of Photoshop, Zbrush, Maya. But I prefer to use GIMP, Blender, XNormal for my work. And it works just as fine.

Granted some of the expensive licenses have goodies and tools that others don't. But they usually are just shortcuts and workarounds.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

Simple: Because of Monopolies on the software market. Which is actually much worse than -say- a monopoly in telephone, because people have to be trained to use individual products, and certain features and systems used by that software are copyrighted. Thus, it is difficult for any legitimate competitor to emerge.

The answer: Sherman anti-trust them all into little pieces.

 

[Griffolion]

Programmers are expensive and good ones even more so!

Not necessarily. Architects and designers (systems analysts) are expensive. A good programmer will usually get promoted quite quickly to something like this. But anyone with a brain and a keyboard can code to a competent level.

Many companies outsource the implementation to companies in India where a team of 5 or 6 will spend day and night to code what the company has asked them to do. The contract usually comes with a spec sheet and pseudo-code for the whole program. They can do this at a fraction of the cost of what programmers would get hired for over here. At least that's what I'm told by my friend's dad, who is a distinguished (code term for "one of the best") architect at CSC.

Granted, this doesn't necessarily happen with game companies as creativity is intricately tied into the code of the game, plus NDA's would be a nightmare. But speaking from a wider industry whole (especially from the standpoint we are talking about, with Adobe, MS Office, etc), you get this often.

 

[Fappy]

Speaking as someone who works in the software industry you are grossly underestimating the cost of software development. Also, Adobe makes professional software. It is priced for professionals, not everyday consumers. There are tons of cheaper alternatives out there for those that can't foot the bill.