Thoughts about DRM

[ChristianSt]

So, partly because of some comments in the recent Kindle thread, I wanted to voice my thoughts on DRM, and to see how other people think about it.

First: What is DRM?
DRM is short for "Digital Rights Management" and stands for any technique used to limit access to digital purchased stuff. An example for this would be Amazon Kindle or Origin from EA.


I personally loath DRM. If I'm not forced to, I will not buy anything containing DRM (which basically means that for entertainment I do not buy any stuff with DRM).
If I buy something I want to use it the way I like to, and not the way someone forces me to use it. If I buy a dead tree version of a book, I want (and can) read it however I like: I can read it without any strings attached to it. If I buy an eBook from Amazon I'm forced to use some sort of Kindle App (or to do some legally possible bad things). Although it wouldn't be a fundamental technical problem to sell eBooks in a way I could use them with any eBook-Reader/App I want.

The most jarring thing about DRM to me is that different industries use it or don't use:


Music: The whole music industry seems to have dropped DRM. There are some streaming services which might use DRM, but from what I know it is pretty hard to buy a music file with DRM. [I still don't buy popular music digital, but that is because I prefer to have my music in lossless formats.]
Books: The big vendors use DRM. From what I hear it isn't really intrusive or hard to break, but it still is DRM. Though luckily they are smaller publisher/platforms that sell DRM-free books.
Games: Basically the same as eBooks. There are some platforms selling DRM-free games, and I have the feeling that this is getting better (thanks to sites like HumbleBundle, Desura or GOG).
Video: This seems to be even worse than Books/Games. On top of that living outside the US I couldn't even use the popular streaming platforms even if I wanted to. (Yes, there are equivalent platforms in Germany, but they aren't better, and I'm not sure if they would have all the content I want anyway.)


From all I know and see DRM doesn't do anything useful: It doesn't stop piracy from what I hear in any way. It seems that it is possible to make a business without using DRM (Music, some publishers in other industries), yet some publisher insist on using it.

Why do they spend money on making their product worse by attaching strings to it? I could see the argument if it would stop piracy, but it doesn't help in doing so. (At least from what I hear.)

So what do my fellow Playgrounders think about it? And is there anything realistic/practical thing that I (as a costumer) can do about it? [I know about Defective by Design (http://www.defectivebydesign.org/), but honestly I don't have the feeling that I really can do anything to fight DRM :smallfrown:]

[JeenLeen]

First, I think you wrote 'privacy' when you went to write 'piracy' (pirate-ing files).

I don't like DRM because I'm afraid of losing access to my purchase due to forgetting a login/passcode, changing computers, or systems updating. I also generally dislike non-physical media for this purpose; I don't like eBooks, and I prefer to have a physical disc when playing a video game (though I'll take a DRM-clean .exe file over DRM, if possible.)
But, to a degree, I'm willing to put up with it. For example, I've started using Steam for some gaming.

Emotionally, I feel like if it takes nothing to produce an extra unit (besides perhaps a little electricity for file transfer), then it shouldn't cost anything to procure an extra unit.

On the other hand, I thought it did help stop piracy, which I can see as reasoning for it. On the emotional level, my freshman econ justifies DRM to me as the producer needs some incentive to create new products.

[ChristianSt]

Stupid typo is just stupid... :smallsigh:


How gives DRM an incentive to produce new content? I can't follow that argumentation.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think there is a difference between "DRM stops all piracy" (which it doesn't) and "DRM stops a lot of piracy" (which...I haven't done research into). It would seem that DRM (to use the really wide term) is at times a low-annoyance barrier which makes things a bit hairier to pirate. So it does act as a filter of sorts.

But at the same time, there's some companies who are so paranoid that they've developed really intrusive forms of DRM, like always-online requirements or even rootkits.

Personally, I don't mind having to use a proprietary app for media, with the exception of music, because I can get music from a lot of sources (CDs, various stores, downloading legitimately free MP3s from places) but I get eBooks or games from a far smaller amount of places. Actually, movies too--I don't like digital downloads of movies with their own proprietary apps.

But Steam, I'm okay with, because it's a service and because it's not that much of a pain. I don't even have to interface with it (except for logging on) to play a game. I can just launch Steam and then launch the game from a shortcut. So it's no different from games I install via CD or GOG.com...also, unlike with music, I don't make playlists of games to play, one after the other. I jump in for one game.

eBooks are give-or-take. The only practical wrinkle for DRM there is remembering which service one of my eBooks is on.

But always-online DRM checks? Not a fan. Nothing more intrusive than "use this app to install and manage your stuff".

[Deadline]

How gives DRM an incentive to produce new content? I can't follow that argumentation.

It doesn't. And more importantly, DRM was not designed to prevent or stop piracy. It is entirely designed to punish/bilk legitimate users of the content.

You're a law-abiding citizen, and you purchase a DRM laden DVD. But you know what? In addition to watching the DVD at home, you'd like to be able to bring a laptop with several movies with you on the road. Sure, you can bring several DVD discs with you, but it would be so much easier to just rip the DVD content and store it on your hard-drive. That would let you keep several movies, with no possibility of damage or loss. And hey, you've paid for the content, so you should be good to go, right?

Well, no. Now you need to pay for the convenience of experiencing the content you paid for in different ways. Because innovation and creating new content are both expensive, but selling you the same product multiple times because you are "restricted" from fiddling with it? That's cheap, easy, and a good way to make serious money off of law-abiding suckers people.

Meanwhile, the pirates are experiencing said content in any way they choose, free of charge, with DRM having been absolutely no obstacle.

Right now, the best thing you can do about DRM is either not buy DRM laden products, or buy the product and get a pirated copy to do with as you please. I know that latter idea grates (if you're not a pirate), but that's pretty much the state of things.

[ChristianSt]

Personally, I don't mind having to use a proprietary app for media, with the exception of music, because I can get music from a lot of sources (CDs, various stores, downloading legitimately free MP3s from places) but I get eBooks or games from a far smaller amount of places. Actually, movies too--I don't like digital downloads of movies with their own proprietary apps.

But Steam, I'm okay with, because it's a service and because it's not that much of a pain. I don't even have to interface with it (except for logging on) to play a game. I can just launch Steam and then launch the game from a shortcut. So it's no different from games I install via CD or GOG.com...also, unlike with music, I don't make playlists of games to play, one after the other. I jump in for one game.

But I'm not okay with that.

Just to make an analogue example: If I go into a bookstore I buy I new book. The store owner says "This book is printed with invisible ink. Here is a special reading lamp to make it visible."
I don't think anyone would buy books in this bookstore. Yet in the digital world many people seem to be perfectly fine with that practice.

If I want to buy an eBook on Amazon, I want to buy an eBook. I don't want to be forced to use whatever reader they want me to use with it. Using some type of proprietary apps also makes it possible that your platform you want to use just isn't support. For example last time I buyed MP3 from Amazon I had a really hard time to even download them. I needed to download each song separately, because that was the only way to get them through the Web Cloud Player. (I don't know if other versions would have been worked better, but since they don't have a Linux Player, I couldn't try that out.)
Would it be really hard to just offer a direct download like of a zipped archive of the whole album like Bandcamp?

I would perfectly fine with Steam if it would just allow the option to get DRM-free downloads of purchased games. From all what I hear Steam seems to be a nice way to get and manage games. But why do they force me to start Steam every time I want to launch a game? (Yes I know there is some kind of offline feature, but it still requires to install Steam on the platform I want to play on and from what I hear it sometimes is really messed up/not working.)

[Elder Tsofu]

Just to make an analogue example: If I go into a bookstore I buy I new book. The store owner says "This book is printed with invisible ink. Here is a special reading lamp to make it visible."
I don't think anyone would buy books in this bookstore. Yet in the digital world many people seem to be perfectly fine with that practice.

Generally book-stores don't print their own books, so they couldn't really change the ink even if they wanted to. I'd say that it is a bit unfair to stop going to them due to one publishers decision, if they are faultless in other respects.

***

I get my things DRM-free if I can, if it isn't much more expensive more inconvenient - because a drm on a digital product is just an other thing that can break/fail rendering the product useless. Back in 2006 when I was more inexperienced I got burned on some music that apparently had drm, the store went under and with them the drm-unlocking mechanism. It made me stop buying digital music for, I think, 5 years.

Steam is a different deal to me, when I buy there I fully know that I buy a licence until Valve goes under or they decide to revoke it. In exchange I get very low prices and convenience.
I find it a better drm than a lot of things I've come across on games, since the store is so large now that it is just a convenient service people are more or less expected to have - and they'll probably survive longer than I want to play most of their games.

But I still get drm-free if I can, because I prefer having the last word on when I want to use my digital products.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

It doesn't. And more importantly, DRM was not designed to prevent or stop piracy. It is entirely designed to punish/bilk legitimate users of the content.

*citation required*

Otherwise, you're committing the intentional fallacy: attributing an intent, usually malignant, to an entity, based on circumstantial evidence. I don't think you can say "DRM was deliberately designed to screw over consumers". That's a pretty out-there assertion.


I would perfectly fine with Steam if it would just allow the option to get DRM-free downloads of purchased games. From all what I hear Steam seems to be a nice way to get and manage games. But why do they force me to start Steam every time I want to launch a game? (Yes I know there is some kind of offline feature, but it still requires to install Steam on the platform I want to play on and from what I hear it sometimes is really messed up/not working.)
You should probably try Steam so that you can at least say "I had a go at it". Pick up some dirt-cheap games during the Summer Sale (for $10, you can get a good handful of 'em) and give it a shot.

The pricing alone is the biggest reason that Steam is worth it, to me.

[Deadline]

*citation required*

Otherwise, you're committing the intentional fallacy: attributing an intent, usually malignant, to an entity, based on circumstantial evidence. I don't think you can say "DRM was deliberately designed to screw over consumers". That's a pretty out-there assertion.

I'm ... not sure how you came to this conclusion. Would a quick Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management) quote work? If not, here's an op-ed piece on ZDNet (http://www.zdnet.com/google-engineer-drm-has-nothing-to-do-with-piracy-7000012886/) or a piece here (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Piracy-Can-t-Be-Stopped-and-DRM-Punishes-Legal-Gamers-Meat-Boy-Dev-Says-339038.shtml). I don't have hard data at my fingertips at the moment, and won't have the time to dig for a while.


With First-generation DRM software, the intent is to control copying; With Second-generation DRM, the intent is to control executing, viewing, copying, printing and altering of works or devices.

Given that DRM has been around for years and has had absolutely no impact on piracy (http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/10941270_15#page-1), we're either looking at a situation where companies who have a responsibility to make money hand over fist for their shareholders are either hopelessly incompetent (which I admit is a possibility (http://torrentfreak.com/what-piracy-removing-drm-boosts-music-sales-by-10-percent-131130/), but approaches the very unlikely when taken as a whole), or pursuing a legitimate business model. If it is the latter, and DRM has no noticeable effect on piracy, what business model are they pursuing that makes them money?

It's possible I'm attributing malice to a situation that stupidity covers quite adequately, but neither of those things speaks well of DRM. The fact that it hasn't gone away yet in this age of rapid change is odd, to say the least.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Your primary claim was "It is entirely designed to punish/bilk legitimate users of the content."

I didn't see anything which would objectively, concretely demonstrate that, aside from people's speculations. Even that Op-ED doesn't claim that. It says that DRM is a way to manage and control content.

[shawnhcorey]

I stopped listening to DRM music long ago. And, since Youtube has all sorts of free, original, and non-pirated videos, why would you want anything to do with DRM?

[ChristianSt]

You should probably try Steam so that you can at least say "I had a go at it". Pick up some dirt-cheap games during the Summer Sale (for $10, you can get a good handful of 'em) and give it a shot.

The pricing alone is the biggest reason that Steam is worth it, to me.

And how would that help me in getting what I want (a DRM-free game)? I would just be another costumer saying I'm fine with temporary access to stuff I paid for.

For the record: I did try Steam (though not to buy a game). I wasn't impressed with it in any way. IIRC I failed to download UGC for a game I had outside of Steam...

[Tyndmyr]

I think there is a difference between "DRM stops all piracy" (which it doesn't) and "DRM stops a lot of piracy" (which...I haven't done research into). It would seem that DRM (to use the really wide term) is at times a low-annoyance barrier which makes things a bit hairier to pirate. So it does act as a filter of sorts.

This seems unlikely. I mean, you crack it once, and thanks to the internet, everyone can just copy the cracked version. So, the difference between "everyone can crack this" and "only one person can crack this" seems fairly slim.

I'm not really a pirate sorta person myself, but I find it obnoxious when it gets in the way of me using things. So, I just don't buy those games. I don't pirate them or anything, I just ignore them, because I get games and entertainment to be amused, not be frustrated. That's it.

[Deadline]

Your primary claim was "It is entirely designed to punish/bilk legitimate users of the content."

I didn't see anything which would objectively, concretely demonstrate that, aside from people's speculations. Even that Op-ED doesn't claim that. It says that DRM is a way to manage and control content.

Yes, and if it doesn't stop piracy, what purpose does managing and controlling that content serve? And who has their content managed and controlled? (It may be worth noting that in the case of the Witcher 2 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnyegriffiths/2012/05/18/the-truth-is-it-doesnt-work-cd-projekt-on-drm/), which had both a DRM version available, and a DRM-free version up on GOG.com, the DRM copy was the one which was pirated, not the DRM-free version).

If your argument is that it wasn't initially designed to restrict legitimate users, then I agree. But now?

And yes, I made a provocative statement (intentionally). Don't get hung up on it.

[JeenLeen]

Stupid typo is just stupid... :smallsigh:


How gives DRM an incentive to produce new content? I can't follow that argumentation.

Sorry for a late reply.
If a product is pirated too much, the producer doesn't get income from selling it (or at least enough to justify continuing that as their revenue stream.) Thus, the producer doesn't have an incentive to create more similar products.
The 'classic' example in the textbooks I read was medicine. It costs a lot of money to make new medicine, but once you have the correct chemical compound figured out, it's relatively cheap to make more of it. Whether it's designing a new drug, writing a book, creating a game, etc., the main effort/cost comes in creating the first product. Making duplicates is easy. Laws keep drugs from going generic for x many years so that companies have a financial incentive to make new drugs. If anyone could make generics once a drug is produced, it wouldn't be cost effective to keep researching new cures. (I'm sure the actual case is more complicated, but this is the textbook interpretation.)

This assumes that DRM does prevent enough theft/data-copying to make it viable.
(I'm not sure if I worded the above very well or not, but I hope it relayed the point well enough.)

[CarpeGuitarrem]

And yes, I made a provocative statement (intentionally). Don't get hung up on it.
A provocative and false statement. That's my issue there. No, DRM was not and is not designed to punish users and screw them over. That doesn't make any sense from a business perspective. I challenge you to name one company that uses "screw over our customers" as a marketing and profit strategy.

Look, DRM is a serious subject, but discussing it won't go anywhere when hyperbole is the rule of the day.

[ChristianSt]

Sorry for a late reply.
If a product is pirated too much, the producer doesn't get income from selling it (or at least enough to justify continuing that as their revenue stream.) Thus, the producer doesn't have an incentive to create more similar products.
The 'classic' example in the textbooks I read was medicine. It costs a lot of money to make new medicine, but once you have the correct chemical compound figured out, it's relatively cheap to make more of it. Whether it's designing a new drug, writing a book, creating a game, etc., the main effort/cost comes in creating the first product. Making duplicates is easy. Laws keep drugs from going generic for x many years so that companies have a financial incentive to make new drugs. If anyone could make generics once a drug is produced, it wouldn't be cost effective to keep researching new cures. (I'm sure the actual case is more complicated, but this is the textbook interpretation.)

This assumes that DRM does prevent enough theft/data-copying to make it viable.
(I'm not sure if I worded the above very well or not, but I hope it relayed the point well enough.)

As Deadline has posted there is no real data to back the claim "DRM prevents piracy (or a reasonable amount of it)". He even shared a link that DRM-free products can even reduce the amount of piracy.


So I think doing a good product that sells good (i.e. making profit) incentives the making of new products.

Which personally think DRM prevents to a degree:


It requires to sell more stuff to make the same amount of profit (since DRM costs money)
It reduces sales from potential buyers, either because the DRM truly backfires or because of people that don't want to deal with DRM.


There are things I would instantly buy if there would be a DRM-free version to buy. But since there isn't, I just don't buy it. So the DRM actually prevented the content creator from getting another costumer.


(And I don't think the drug example is a valid comparison, because it limits not the costumer/content creator relation, but the content creator/content creator relation.)


The only thing I personally see is that DRM is some try to build a "walled garden" to prevent people from going to other services (which is probably even bad for costumers, since a service can get worse, yet still force people to stay, because they would have to deal with two services). But even then I'm not really sure that is a reasonable approach, because it also goes somewhat in the other direction: if there is a non-walled alternative, why should I use the more restrictive one?

[Seerow]

And yes, I made a provocative statement (intentionally). Don't get hung up on it.


The issue is that this data doesn't actually provide intent. It doesn't matter that DRM does not prevent piracy. For CarpeGuitarrem's position to be incorrect, you need to prove that the intent behind implementing DRM has nothing to do with piracy; as opposed to an industry struggling but failing to prevent piracy, and being slow to admit that they are doing more harm than good.

There's plenty of evidence out there that DRM doesn't do what it's supposed to. What there is less evidence for is that what it's "supposed" to do has been a lie all along (or even that that's what the intent has shifted to over time), and the only reason for implementing it is to screw over paying customers, rather than trying to stop piracy as advertised. It seems to me far more likely that we're looking at the results of big corporate execs ignoring the data and deciding they just need to double down and make their DRMs better to make it work.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Honestly, I'm fine with Steam. I've been playing Arkham City recently, bought the GotY edition back when it was in a Humble Bundle. I forget what else was in that bundle, or what I payed, but I'm fairly certain that I've always paid five bucks. I've gotten over thirty hours out of that game so far and I still have plenty of content (I might actually go for 100% completion). Could Humble Bundle exist without Steam? Probably. But I still definitely got my money's worth. That game costs thirty bucks on Steam normally, it'd go down to fifteen or ten when on sale.

I also got Crusader Kings II with all DLC that was out at the time for twenty bucks, or 75% off the normal price (and I did check GamersGaate first; I don't think they had all the DLCs, and they definitely didn't put them all in a single bundle purchase).

Steam also has a screenshot system, which is good because I have no idea how to take screenshots normally without MSPaint. It has Steam Workshop. Game devs can make their games to use it as a multiplayer system. And the sales, that's the big one. I haven't had any problems with offline mode, although I don't use it that often. Sure, it's a hassle to boot it up every day, but it's a service, not just bloatware.

Steam has problems, of course. Its download queue doesn't work properly, and its monopoly is growing, but it has incredible sales. Buy Steam-only games on sale, buy from GoG instead (and maybe check GamersGate to see if they sell a version without Steam on it) whenever possible.

[Mando Knight]

For the record: I did try Steam (though not to buy a game). I wasn't impressed with it in any way. IIRC I failed to download UGC for a game I had outside of Steam...

Yeah, if you tried to get Steam to give you Steam content for a Not-Steam version of a game... it generally doesn't work, since Steam doesn't attempt to tell the difference between a legit Not-Steam version and a not-legit Not-Steam version, thus forcing you to buy the Steam version. Which is fine if you buy all your games in a manner that's compatible with getting them on/through Steam (such as through a Humble Bundle), but frustrating if you bought, say, a DVD copy of a game and it came to Steam with extra features a year after you bought it.

At least Steam supports mods, unlike the now-pretty-much-defunct GFWL. So long as those mods are appropriate for the game you're playing... it won't let you play Team Fortress 2 with a modded Minigun that deals 500 damage per hit with no falloff, but it will let you install UGC such as variant UIs, maps, and game modes.

[Deadline]

A provocative and false statement. That's my issue there. No, DRM was not and is not designed to punish users and screw them over. That doesn't make any sense from a business perspective. I challenge you to name one company that uses "screw over our customers" as a marketing and profit strategy.

Already addressed my comment, and I stand by my last post. While it may not have been initially designed for the purpose I stated, it is being used for it now. DRM does not affect piracy (with the possible exception of increasing it). So in order for it to still be about preventing piracy years later, when numerous sources have shown that it doesn't work, we either have to assume utter stupidity, or realize that there might be another reason for its continued existence. If your argument is that I can't claim the intent I did without those corporations openly admitting that it is why they do it, I don't think I can argue with that kind of self deception.

Any company where making money is the bottom line will shake out in that challenge, by the way. If your argument is that those companies aren't twirling their mustaches and cackling madly while draining their customers of their cash, then I agree with you, because that's ridiculous. I'm just saying that they really don't give a damn about you, just your money. And they will do everything they can think of to get at it (there's some pretty shady stuff that marketers do to sell you products).

But if you honestly think that a significant path to profit doesn't lie down the road of "grab all you can and only act like you give a damn about the customer when you get caught", then I don't know what to tell you aside from "you might be a bit naive about the subject". That, or you are an objectivist who truly believes that particular philosophy will work in the real world, in which case "you are definitely naive about the subject".

Go check out EA's marketing strategy, or Verizon, or just about any large and successful corporation. Shady business practices are almost a requirement for success.

Now, it does appear that some companies are starting to ditch DRM, but I'll ask you straight up. Do you think they are doing it because they care about their customers and really want to give back to the community, or do you think they are doing it because they want to look like they care in an effort to snag market share from the big boys who can treat you like dirt and still collect massive profits?

Hint: If your answer didn't have anything to do with a profit driven motivation, you are almost certainly wrong.


Look, DRM is a serious subject, but discussing it won't go anywhere when hyperbole is the rule of the day.

Ignoring everything I've posted in favor of crowing about one statement made several posts ago (which I already copped to being deliberate hyperbole) also isn't going to go anywhere, but here we are all the same.


The issue is that this data doesn't actually provide intent. It doesn't matter that DRM does not prevent piracy. For CarpeGuitarrem's position to be incorrect, you need to prove that the intent behind implementing DRM has nothing to do with piracy; as opposed to an industry struggling but failing to prevent piracy, and being slow to admit that they are doing more harm than good.

I've already stated (twice now) that stupidity is a possible reason for why DRM is still around.

Edit - For the record, I'm generally a fan of Steam. I'm more than willing to accept limitations on my ability to use a product if that limited product is then cheaper than the full version. I generally don't purchase games over the 25$ price point for this reason. I also prefer to pick up my games from GOG if I can, because I'd prefer a DRM free version over a gimped one that may contain a rootkit (even if the DRM-Free version was more expensive).

[Reverent-One]

Ignoring everything I've posted in favor of crowing about one statement made several posts ago (which I already copped to being deliberate hyperbole) also isn't going to go anywhere, but here we are all the same.

Gee, it's almost like making wildly inaccurate statements to support your argument isn't a good debating practice. I'm glad we've learned something in this thread, hopefully we all remember it for the future. :smalltongue:

[Hiro Protagonest]

DRM does not affect piracy (with the possible exception of increasing it).

Actually, since Diablo III's loot tables were entirely serverside, pirates weren't able to crack it. So it does work if done right (as opposed to SimCity 2013, which was cracked fairly quickly).

[Deadline]

Actually, since Diablo III's loot tables were entirely serverside, pirates weren't able to crack it. So it does work if done right (as opposed to SimCity 2013, which was cracked fairly quickly).

Does the MMO model count as DRM? I didn't think it did. But I've been wrong before.


Gee, it's almost like making wildly inaccurate statements to support your argument isn't a good debating practice. I'm glad we've learned something in this thread, hopefully we all remember it for the future. :smalltongue:

It's truly astounding how we can all fantastically miss the point in order to focus on what is truly important (https://xkcd.com/386/). But hey, no such thing as bad press, amiright? :smalltongue:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Does the MMO model count as DRM? I didn't think it did. But I've been wrong before.

Except D3 wasn't an MMO. It was a single-player game, with optional co-op, that is pay-up-front, and required an online connection.

I'm pretty sure that gamers think of anything that requires you to be online as DRM, although MMOs are the exception.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Does the MMO model count as DRM? I didn't think it did. But I've been wrong before.
...you know? I think it does count, now that I think about it. All MMOs I know of require a separate client to install/run. (Okay, except Runescape. But. Well.) For instance. Blizzard has the Battle.Net launcher for its online games. You don't use the launcher, you can't play the game.

That might actually qualify. I hadn't considered that.

[ChristianSt]

Generally book-stores don't print their own books, so they couldn't really change the ink even if they wanted to. I'd say that it is a bit unfair to stop going to them due to one publishers decision, if they are faultless in other respects.

Yet Amazon basically does exactly this: even if the original publisher doesn't use DRM, Amazon still uses invisible ink in the version they sell (their DRM)



@MMO: I think any normal MMO can be seen as using DRM, though some/most(?) are subscription based, and with that I can understand the need of such technologies much better. (Also it would be rather odd to complain about a multiplayer online game to require you to be online)

@Diablo III: I can't really say much about it, but I heard some bad press about the DRM used there. Especially if it forces people to be online for single player... Yes it doesn't seem to be as bad as with SimCity, though that is mostly because the system seems to work better.

[erikun]

I think that I am generally fine with DRM, as long as it is not too invasive and it gives me some benefit. And that's really the key point of it all. Steam feels okay because it allows you to play because it allows you to play the same game on different computers after just a download. Most other DRM feels like a problem because it specifically restricts how you would normally play the game, such as requiring entering a registration key or refusing to allow you to install a CD onto multiple computers.

My biggest concern with stuff like Steam isn't the DRM aspect, but the lack of ownership. When I buy something, I buy it, which means I own it and it can't be taken from me. When I "buy" something such as from Steam, I'm more like renting it. Yes, it's a great deal for a rental, but it means that it could simply go away if, say, the company goes out of business.

I've basically ignored digital books for this very reason. Why would I buy a small book-like device that can become broken and cannot be replaced if the company goes away, when I could just buy the book and not have these issues?


You're a law-abiding citizen, and you purchase a DRM laden DVD. But you know what? In addition to watching the DVD at home, you'd like to be able to bring a laptop with several movies with you on the road. Sure, you can bring several DVD discs with you, but it would be so much easier to just rip the DVD content and store it on your hard-drive. That would let you keep several movies, with no possibility of damage or loss. And hey, you've paid for the content, so you should be good to go, right?

Well, no. Now you need to pay for the convenience of experiencing the content you paid for in different ways. Because innovation and creating new content are both expensive, but selling you the same product multiple times because you are "restricted" from fiddling with it? That's cheap, easy, and a good way to make serious money off of law-abiding suckers people.
This, I feel, is kind of a weak argument against DRM. I mean, just try applying it to a printed book. Is not getting a free digital download after buying a book some form or DRM? Is printing words on a piece of paper some form of manipulative copyright protction?

No, of course not. I'm simply only buying a specific product - a paperback book in this case, or maybe a DVD. Purchasing this one product from the company does not oblidge the company to provide me with numerous other methods of reading the book. That wasn't what I bought, and wasn't what I paid for.

Now, there are some companies who do try to provide digital downloads of movies alongside the physical DVD copy. The big problem with those has more to do with downloading the company's software and visiting the company's website to get the movie - awkwardness with how the DRM is implemented. Which, yes, is a problem, just not the same as the one mentioned above.


@MMO: I think any normal MMO can be seen as using DRM, though some/most(?) are subscription based, and with that I can understand the need of such technologies much better. (Also it would be rather odd to complain about a multiplayer online game to require you to be online)
Note that there are online multiplayer games that don't require a company server to run. They use peer-to-peer connections, like seen in Neverwinter Nights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_Nights). Still, the MMO design is kind of impossible to reproduce without some sort of server software available somewhere. I suppose it could be called DRM, although as noted with the book exampel above, it kind of brings up the question of if it counts as DRM when the "restriction" is pretty much necessary to fundamentally function.

[Grif]

@MMO: I think any normal MMO can be seen as using DRM, though some/most(?) are subscription based, and with that I can understand the need of such technologies much better. (Also it would be rather odd to complain about a multiplayer online game to require you to be online)


If by definition you need to be online in order to play the game, then it should not be conflated with DRM, since the online experience is what you'd expect from such a game. That doesn't mean it does not have DRM, but rather the online portion shouldn't be considered as one.

[Leecros]

(It may be worth noting that in the case of the Witcher 2 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnyegriffiths/2012/05/18/the-truth-is-it-doesnt-work-cd-projekt-on-drm/), which had both a DRM version available, and a DRM-free version up on GOG.com, the DRM copy was the one which was pirated, not the DRM-free version).


after a quick google search and another search of popular piracy sites, i can say that this statement is false. Both the DRM copy and the DRM-free copy have been and can be pirated.

[Alcibiades]

And how would that help me in getting what I want (a DRM-free game)? I would just be another costumer saying I'm fine with temporary access to stuff I paid for.

For the record: I did try Steam (though not to buy a game). I wasn't impressed with it in any way. IIRC I failed to download UGC for a game I had outside of Steam...

I look at Steam as 'renting a game'. I don't expect Steam to offer me their service indefinitely, so I'll eventually lose access to it. (I'm aware there's rumors that Valve wants to offer a 'solution' were they ever to go bankrupt, but until I see anything concrete I'm not assuming it's real)
On the other hand, paying <2$ for renting a 10-hour game isn't too bad in my eyes. To each his own, though.



@Diablo III: I can't really say much about it, but I heard some bad press about the DRM used there. Especially if it forces people to be online for single player... Yes it doesn't seem to be as bad as with SimCity, though that is mostly because the system seems to work better.

Diablo 3's launch was the poster child for 'bad DRM ruining people's gaming experience' until Simcity managed to completely outdo it.

It's also not true that the DRM on Diablo prevented a crack, it was cracked within a month of release. I remember it quite clearly because Chinese friends of mine got it before it legally came out in China because it had to go through the censors there.

[ChristianSt]

I think that I am generally fine with DRM, as long as it is not too invasive and it gives me some benefit. And that's really the key point of it all. Steam feels okay because it allows you to play because it allows you to play the same game on different computers after just a download. Most other DRM feels like a problem because it specifically restricts how you would normally play the game, such as requiring entering a registration key or refusing to allow you to install a CD onto multiple computers.

While a certain system using DRM might provide a great service, I don't see any fundamental problem in offering the same service without DRM.

Heck if it wouldn't be possible without DRM, it shouldn't be that hard to give the option for a DRM-free download for people who care about it.



To the Steam/Rental thing: I'm fine with such service existing. But imo it is a problem when certain things are only available in such rental systems. I wouldn't even mind to pay a bit more (though Steam doesn't really present itself as rental service) to get the proper thing, but it is just impossible legally for some things.

In the last 2-3 years I switched nearly complete to reading novels in eBook form. I learned that it has some nice benefits (library space, better organization of my library, I can take all books with me without problem), yet there exist some books I can't buy digital :smallmad:. (Heck I know at least one book I would buy, where there isn't even a print version of it :smallfurious:). I didn't buy a dead tree version for the last 2 years or so. Yet I think I will be in the near (or not so near) future be forced to buy one again, because I would like to read the next ASOIAF, too...

But I would just find it much easier if I had the option to just buy it digital. And it is even more troublesome on stuff where another option doesn't really exists.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

To the Steam/Rental thing: I'm fine with such service existing. But imo it is a problem when certain things are only available in such rental systems. I wouldn't even mind to pay a bit more (though Steam doesn't really present itself as rental service) to get the proper thing, but it is just impossible legally for some things.

(The bit about the rental service is mentioned in the terms. :smallsmile: )

I think it's fairly safe to say that if a game can't be found outside of Steam, it probably wouldn't exist without Steam. The way that they've managed to bring together a community ecosystem acts as massive publicity for games, and it paved the way for other online distribution services. (Most importantly, it generally just works. You install a game and play it.)

After Stardock, which doesn't seem to have gone very many places, it was Steam that brought digital distribution to the forefront in 2004. From there, it exploded. I'd venture to say that digital distribution came about because Steam succeeded. And digital distribution means that you can distribute games without having to produce physical media, which means that it costs the same to distribute 1 or 100,000 copies.

That means you can afford to license smaller titles and older titles. It opened the gates to an easy marketplace for obscure, indie, and out-of-print games. So I think that's the tradeoff made.

[Deadline]

No, of course not. I'm simply only buying a specific product - a paperback book in this case, or maybe a DVD. Purchasing this one product from the company does not oblidge the company to provide me with numerous other methods of reading the book. That wasn't what I bought, and wasn't what I paid for.

It was the first example that popped into my head. There was a better book-style analogy upthread. Second, it used to be that when you bought a product, it was yours to do with as you pleased. Sure, if it came with a warranty you could void that warranty when you tinkered with it, but you could tinker with it without being considered a criminal. Think of it in a different way. You are a legal consumer of many music CDs. You bought them, and have enjoyed them considerably. You'd like to load your music collection onto a device that will hold all of your music while you go jogging. You can do this from a technology standpoint - it's actually trivial to pull CD audio tracks and convert them to, say, mp3 format. But you are a criminal for doing so, unless you buy an approved device and re-purchase all of your music.

(I should point out my arguments are based on the murky legal waters of IP law in the United States, other countries may have significantly different laws).

And again I will reiterate, I don't have a problem with a company "renting" a product to me, or paying a subscription fee, because I know exactly what I'm getting into. Of course, I won't pay EA $70 to "rent" the latest game. If you are going to charge me for a limited product, that cost should be less than the cost of an unrestricted product.


Note that there are online multiplayer games that don't require a company server to run. They use peer-to-peer connections, like seen in Neverwinter Nights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_Nights). Still, the MMO design is kind of impossible to reproduce without some sort of server software available somewhere. I suppose it could be called DRM, although as noted with the book exampel above, it kind of brings up the question of if it counts as DRM when the "restriction" is pretty much necessary to fundamentally function.

Agreed. This isn't really an example of DRM, to my mind. All parties know what they are getting into, and agree to pay a regular fee for a regular service (keeping the servers up and running). You could pirate said games, but the cost of standing up a server and keeping it running would defeat the point.

Diablo 3 had ... problems with their implementation. My understanding is that the official reasoning given for required server connection had to do with the auction house (because it involved real money), and to a lesser extent, fairness (not concerns of piracy). These are not the sorts of concerns that are all that relevant to a single player game, which is why I tossed the MMO moniker on it. There was also a pretty severe backlash against it, before EA trumped them.


after a quick google search and another search of popular piracy sites, i can say that this statement is false. Both the DRM copy and the DRM-free copy have been and can be pirated.

That link was quite literally pulled from a quick search on whether or not DRM works (and was one of the first links). I didn't fully vet it. It looks like the article is from early 2012. Do you know if the information was correct at the time the article ran, or is it just wrong now (which, barring the ability to see the future, the author could not have known).

It also wasn't my standpoint that DRM free games won't or don't get pirated. I brought it up because according to that article, when they made both versions available at the same time, the DRM copy was the one that was most pirated.


After Stardock, which doesn't seem to have gone very many places, it was Steam that brought digital distribution to the forefront in 2004. From there, it exploded. I'd venture to say that digital distribution came about because Steam succeeded. And digital distribution means that you can distribute games without having to produce physical media, which means that it costs the same to distribute 1 or 100,000 copies.

I could have sworn that Stardock was the company whose initial anti-piracy "offering" was little more than an incredibly invasive rootkit, but I'm coming up empty on my search, so it must have been another company with a similar name.

But I definitely agree with you on the utility of Steam. It's a pretty solid platform, and they offer a great price point for their products (for the most part, there are still $60-$70 games on Steam, and thus I avoid them).

[Elder Tsofu]

Yet Amazon basically does exactly this: even if the original publisher doesn't use DRM, Amazon still uses invisible ink in the version they sell (their DRM).

They use invisible ink in the printed books that they sell? I'd like to see some proof of that please.

[Douglas]

I could have sworn that Stardock was the company whose initial anti-piracy "offering" was little more than an incredibly invasive rootkit, but I'm coming up empty on my search, so it must have been another company with a similar name.
That was Sony. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal)

[Deadline]

That was Sony. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal)

No, I know about the Sony one. The one I'm thinking of was a smaller company that did something similar (albeit in slightly less spectacular fashion than Sony). Star ... something. *shrug* I'm sure I'll remember it a few weeks after this thread has died. :smalltongue:

[Kariccia]

StarForce? That's the only drm I know of that starts with "Star."

[erikun]

Yet Amazon basically does exactly this: even if the original publisher doesn't use DRM, Amazon still uses invisible ink in the version they sell (their DRM)
They use invisible ink in the printed books that they sell? I'd like to see some proof of that please.
I think the implication was that books sold on Amazon's Kindle Fire use DRM on all digital books, even if the original publisher does not want DRM. The idea is that it would be similar to distributor only published books in invisible ink, despite what the author or original publisher would want - not that there are physical books being printed by Amazon with some sort of invisible ink.

[Douglas]

StarForce? That's the only drm I know of that starts with "Star."
I don't recall a rootkit being involved in that one, but it did get some infamy for anecdotal accounts of checking the physical CD in such a way and with such a frequency that it physically broke disks.

[Elder Tsofu]

I think the implication was that books sold on Amazon's Kindle Fire use DRM on all digital books, even if the original publisher does not want DRM. The idea is that it would be similar to distributor only published books in invisible ink, despite what the author or original publisher would want - not that there are physical books being printed by Amazon with some sort of invisible ink.

But we're not talking digital, we're talking physical books here - as per his quite bad example. The bookshop would still not be able to control if their books were printed in invisible ink or not - so it would be quite rude to stop shopping there for actions outside their control. :smallsmile:

***

Regardless of that, physical books already use their type of DRM - it is called being a book. They are quite tedious to read in any other than the chosen container format, without special equipment and time to crack the spine/encryption that is...

[ChristianSt]

But we're not talking digital, we're talking physical books here - as per his quite bad example. The bookshop would still not be able to control if their books were printed in invisible ink or not - so it would be quite rude to stop shopping there for actions outside their control. :smallsmile:

***

Regardless of that, physical books already use their type of DRM - it is called being a book. They are quite tedious to read in any other than the chosen container format, without special equipment and time to crack the spine/encryption that is...

It was an comparison what DRM would be if applied to physical books. If you think that I'm talking otherwise about physical books than you read my posts wrong.

I know that such a thing would be ridiculous for physical books. Yet basically exactly this is used for eBooks. (Though the reading lamp for the invisible ink is called "Kindle (App)")

***

And though it would be more work to sell an exclusive printed book with invisible ink instead of a regular version, there is nothing that prevents a bookshop from doing so, baring the publisher is OK with that. Even right now there are different versions of books available (hardcopy/softcopy/international versions...). It would be no problem to make an invisible ink version and distribute it through certain bookstores.

Yet I think no bookstore would do such a ridiculous thing (other than maybe as a gimmick), because clearly that would just be stupid.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I know that such a thing would be ridiculous for physical books. Yet basically exactly this is used for eBooks. (Though the reading lamp for the invisible ink is called "Kindle (App)")


I'm honestly still thinking through the issue itself, but I think there's a problem with this analogy: it ignores the digital nature of eBooks. Would it be ridiculous to print books in proprietary invisible ink if anyone could load up a book into an ubiquitous Gutenburg 9000 machine and instantly (with no expense except a small bit of electricity) get a perfect copy of it? I think that's a much fairer analogy to eBooks.

DRM is fallout, I think, of the struggle to understand digital media. Technology is advancing very fast, and companies are trying to play catchup. They need a way to monetize content like before, and they also need a way to protect the authors' ownership of the work. Authors get paid too, after all.

I think that what they've found is the following: most consumers are perfectly happy using a proprietary app (especially one keyed into an exclusive device) to access their eBooks, and that's making fairly good money, so there's no real reason to figure out how to allow unrestricted use of files without overhauling the business model.

[ChristianSt]

I'm honestly still thinking through the issue itself, but I think there's a problem with this analogy: it ignores the digital nature of eBooks. Would it be ridiculous to print books in proprietary invisible ink if anyone could load up a book into an ubiquitous Gutenburg 9000 machine and instantly (with no expense except a small bit of electricity) get a perfect copy of it? I think that's a much fairer analogy to eBooks.

DRM is fallout, I think, of the struggle to understand digital media. Technology is advancing very fast, and companies are trying to play catchup. They need a way to monetize content like before, and they also need a way to protect the authors' ownership of the work. Authors get paid too, after all.

I think that what they've found is the following: most consumers are perfectly happy using a proprietary app (especially one keyed into an exclusive device) to access their eBooks, and that's making fairly good money, so there's no real reason to figure out how to allow unrestricted use of files without overhauling the business model.


If it only would reduce the number of illegal activities, then yes. I would understand it. But from all I have heard DRM has zero impact on piracy.

Instead it makes it more difficult to use a certain thing. It just adds random restrictions to it. I would like to give money to the author. But because of restrictive DRM I'm sometimes not able to do so. Because I don't want to pay for something I can't have the way I want to. Before anyone comes that if I want a certain thing in a certain version that doesn't exists, than it is my fault. Maybe. But the ironic thing is, that it wouldn't be a problem to deliver the same thing DRM-free. DRM is something that needs to be actively added to something.


The worst part about it, from what I hear it shouldn't be really hard to circumvent most of those DRM-techniques. But if I would do so, I would enter potential legal grey (or possible just straight illegal) areas, I don't want to enter. (Also it doesn't make the service better if I need to invest more times to get the thing I want to work.)


The music industry (at least to me) seems healthy after dropping DRM (in fact there was a article posted in this thread that even said the sales of older titles increased through dropping DRM).
Why can't other industries (like eBook, Games, Video) not just do the same?


To your scenario with the Gutenburg 9000: I would stop buying print books.

[Deadline]

DRM is fallout, I think, of the struggle to understand digital media. Technology is advancing very fast, and companies are trying to play catchup. They need a way to monetize content like before, and they also need a way to protect the authors' ownership of the work. Authors get paid too, after all.

They already have a way to monetize content, it's pretty much unchanged. They just want to keep their existing cost model and profit structure. The costs to distribute content are much reduced with digital media, which means that the profit margin on an individual sale is lower for the distributor/publisher. This is seen as a bad thing by such companies (and possibly may be, if the increased ease of access doesn't result in enough extra sales to make up the difference). Things like DRM and hard control schemes "protect against piracy" and also conveniently increase the distribution costs, meaning more money in the publisher's pocket.

You know the really scary thing for publishers? The knowledge that the content producers can now distribute their products straight to the consumer easily and profitably, skipping the middle man entirely. And honestly, maybe it's time for that to happen.

[Hiro Protagonest]

You know the really scary thing for publishers? The knowledge that the content producers can now distribute their products straight to the consumer easily and profitably, skipping the middle man entirely. And honestly, maybe it's time for that to happen.

That's scary for retailers, not publishers. Unless you're suggesting the creators take the publishers' money and then don't follow through on their deal, which would be illegal.

[Deadline]

That's scary for retailers, not publishers. Unless you're suggesting the creators take the publishers' money and then don't follow through on their deal, which would be illegal.

Nope, I'm suggesting that the content creators don't need publishers in their current form anymore (I'm talking specifically about purely digital content here). Although now that you mention it, they don't really need retailers in their current form either, although some retailers and publishers are adapting with the technology. Those in that industry who can adapt their business model to still provide a valuable service to the content creator and end consumer are going to be the ones who ultimately survive, but we are still in a place where the middle-men have enough power and influence to keep afloat for now. The more tech-savvy the content creators get, the more we will see that old model change. We already have seen it change with the likes of services like Steam and Netflix. You offer a service or distribution model that customers like, charge a reduced fee for the limited product, and the content creator still gets their chunk of change from every sale. It's just that now, under those services, you rely on volume of sales and cheap distribution to fuel your profits. And relying on volume of sale means that if you don't create content that people want to buy, you are going to wind up going out of business (so, at least to some extent, this model drives innovation as well).

I'd be very curious to hear what the creators of digital content who lurk upon these forums think of working with publishers who haven't embraced these models. Because paying "production costs" and "distribution fees" etc. sounds an awful lot like paying protection money because you are worried that your creation might get pirated (which it will, regardless of how much DRM you layer on it, but there is no evidence to suggest that impacts sales).

[Gnoman]

Nope, I'm suggesting that the content creators don't need publishers in their current form anymore (I'm talking specifically about purely digital content here).

That's simply not true. Publishers do a LOT more than simply slapping your content on a disk and casting it to the store, although that is an extremely valuable function and one that isn't going to be going away anytime soon due to physical limitations of data networks that are growing increasingly expensive to increase. Even ignoring situations such as ebooks, where the publisher middleman actually manufactures the hardware that is needed to view the content in the way most people prefer to, the publisher provides a certain degree of quality control (often critical for beginning authors, very small independent software developers, and novice musicians that don't know how to be objectively critical of their own work, however earnestly they try to be), pass the appearance of quality control on to the consumer (very important, as people tend to be a LOT more comfortable buying a work that a genuine publisher thought was good enough to sell, particularly if they've dealt with vanity presses and self-published works in the past), and also provide a convenient marketplace for people to find the work in the first place, be it through constant sales, selling a large number of products that attract similar interest, or simply being a one-stop-shop for all your media needs.

Just as an example, of the 108 games in my Steam Library, I would have bought maybe thirty of them if they were not linked to Steam, as most of them were bought during large franchise sales, or else were obscure games I'd never heard of, and probably would never have heard of, in the first place. Notably, the latter category covers about 35-40% of my entire play time (In reality, this percentage is higher in practical terms, as Fallout NV and Skyrim both have huge playtimes, skewing the average). Likewise, I'd never have bough Harpoon 3 or Eagle Day to Bombing The Reich if I hadn't happened to hear that Matrix Games had patched versions of the classic Gary Grigsby's War In Russia and Gary Grigsby's Pacific War available for free.

[Deadline]

That's simply not true. Publishers do a LOT more than simply slapping your content on a disk and casting it to the store, although that is an extremely valuable function and one that isn't going to be going away anytime soon due to physical limitations of data networks that are growing increasingly expensive to increase. Even ignoring situations such as ebooks, where the publisher middleman actually manufactures the hardware that is needed to view the content in the way most people prefer to,

I disagree almost entirely with this. First off, I made it quite clear that I'm referring to purely digital media (not physical copies, which includes things on disk). In regards to eBooks, I strongly question the assertion that the current model is the "preferred way" people want to experience the content (and the hardware is not "needed" at all, it's there as a control mechanism on the distribution, not as a convenience to the user). Just look at what others have posted in this very thread about the irritation and inconvenience that this model has caused.


the publisher provides a certain degree of quality control (often critical for beginning authors, very small independent software developers, and novice musicians that don't know how to be objectively critical of their own work, however earnestly they try to be), pass the appearance of quality control on to the consumer (very important, as people tend to be a LOT more comfortable buying a work that a genuine publisher thought was good enough to sell, particularly if they've dealt with vanity presses and self-published works in the past),

Advertising and editing/quality control can be valuable, but can also be achieved without a publisher. Is it the convenience of having that all rolled into one package that draws content creators? Because there is a premium to be paid for that convenience (publishers run a business after all). I can certainly understand the desire to shove money at someone and say, "just get it done and sell my product". Is it really that common though?


Just as an example, of the 108 games in my Steam Library, I would have bought maybe thirty of them if they were not linked to Steam, as most of them were bought during large franchise sales, or else were obscure games I'd never heard of, and probably would never have heard of, in the first place. Notably, the latter category covers about 35-40% of my entire play time (In reality, this percentage is higher in practical terms, as Fallout NV and Skyrim both have huge playtimes, skewing the average). Likewise, I'd never have bough Harpoon 3 or Eagle Day to Bombing The Reich if I hadn't happened to hear that Matrix Games had patched versions of the classic Gary Grigsby's War In Russia and Gary Grigsby's Pacific War available for free.

I'm pretty certain I mentioned that the Steam model is the new way to be successful with digital content, did I not? If so, what exactly did I say that you are arguing with here?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I'm pretty certain I mentioned that the Steam model is the new way to be successful with digital content, did I not? If so, what exactly did I say that you are arguing with here?
I think it's part of the argument that publishers in a digital scheme still do a lot.

[Ravens_cry]

If I do own a single player media, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect it to keep working as long as I have the machinery to run it. I own games in physical media that are over 20 years old. They play, they work and they are fun. Many of the companies that made them do not exist. Heck, Origin is now the brand name of a competitor for Steam. No way they'd support an over score old space shooter ( I hesitate to call the Wing Commander series 'sims' of anything) so long after anyone paid them a wooden nickel for it.
We read books that are over 20 years old, we watch films, listen to music, see plays, admire paintings and sculpture of far greater legacy, why should this medium be ephemeral? Is nothing this medium creates worth preserving? Is our history not worth remembering?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Hmm? What does that have to do with DRM? (And, there are digital distribution sites that make older games available for play on newer systems, so that you don't have to keep around your Windows 95 machine to play some of your games.)

[Ravens_cry]

Hmm? What does that have to do with DRM? (And, there are digital distribution sites that make older games available for play on newer systems, so that you don't have to keep around your Windows 95 machine to play some of your games.)
Always on DRM means that when they pull the servers, the game goes too, unless the publisher is kind enough to release the server code beforehand, which has happened very, very rarely.
'Machinery to run it' includes things like DOSBox and other emulators.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Okay. This is about all DRM, though, not just the most ridiculous stuff. I believe that Valve has gone on record as saying that they'll provide a solution if they ever shut down Steam. (And you could already prep for that by taking Steam into Offline Mode--no connection required.)

[Ravens_cry]

Okay. This is about all DRM, though, not just the most ridiculous stuff. I believe that Valve has gone on record as saying that they'll provide a solution if they ever shut down Steam. (And you could already prep for that by taking Steam into Offline Mode--no connection required.)

Well ALL DRM includes things like code wheels, dongles, and manuals where you have to type in the twenty third word of the second chapter on page 147 of the manual/novel, and the 'most ridiculous stuff' is becoming more and more prevalent.

[warty goblin]

Is nothing this medium creates worth preserving? Is our history not worth remembering?
I'm pretty content with 'not really' and 'why bother' on those questions.


Okay. This is about all DRM, though, not just the most ridiculous stuff. I believe that Valve has gone on record as saying that they'll provide a solution if they ever shut down Steam. (And you could already prep for that by taking Steam into Offline Mode--no connection required.)
I've used Steam in offline mode for extended periods of time - upwards of several months. It doesn't work well for that; games one by one need to update or verify or something, fail, and become unplayable. Unless things have massively improved since then (this was about eighteen months ago now), I'd be very surprised if you had much of a playable collection left after a year or so in offline mode.

[Ravens_cry]

I'm pretty content with 'not really' and 'why bother' on those questions.

Well, I can't help but find that terribly sad.

[warty goblin]

Well, I can't help but find that terribly sad.

Suit yourself, folks are free to find meaning wherever they may. Personally, although I've found a good deal of amusement in various games over the years, I've found passingly few of them that really make me think harder about something, or feel with greater acuity than I did before, or learn something new. You know, the sorts of things a person might consider passing on to their kids, thinking they might find the same experience. I've found a lot of books that do that, a large number of plays, a fair number of movies, and maybe three videogames. And frankly I suspect that number may overestimate the true number by 50 - 100%.

Mostly I've found lots of ways to set things on fire while Advancing My Character, looking badass at all times, and murdering the virtual face off of everything that annoys me. I don't see anything wrong with this to be sure, but I don't see a whole lot that's worth handing on to my (at this point hypothetical) children. Nor, unless the world's tastes shift massively, do I think that any of these things will be short supply in the nearish future. They may look different, will probably be on whatever the next minutely different iteration of the cellphone is, and probably loaded to the gills with Karma Points and Micro-Transactions and Achievements and who knows what else, but they'll be doing exactly the same thing.

The overwhelming majority of videogames strike me as the direct equivalent of old pulp novels and magazines of decades previous. They're rote service of genre tropes (often exactly the same genre tropes for that matter) and nothing more. Some are quite good for what they are, some are really terrible. Almost all are almost entirely forgotten, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. In forty odd years, I'll bet that DRM or no, almost all modern videogames will be almost entirely forgotten as well, along with all the games we now regard as 'classics'. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that either. This cultural amnesia is what lets the next generation create the bits of disposable pulp fluff that excite them, rather than being slaved to their parents' tastes. I'd lay good money that nobody here wants to read a bit of 1970s pulp called Space Vikings - I suspect I'm the only person in this thread who even knows it exists - and I don't see what makes the videogames of today any more interesting to kids forty years hence.

So unless it's a tragedy that we aren't all reading the disposable genre fluff of our parents and grandparents (when was the last time you read a western?), I see nothing tragic about the consignment of today's videogames to the dustbin of history. And I even like a lot of old pulp novels, but I hardly think it a tragedy that Leigh Brackett's more or less unknown these days. I'm certainly not going to inflict Age of Wonders or Caesar III or The Witcher on any hypothetical offspring of mine, just because I enjoyed them in my youth. They'll have their generations' stuff to enjoy and invent.

[valadil]

I too am in the hate DRM, but okay with Steam for unknown reasons boat.

I think it's because of price. When I get an eBook, its price is usually 80-90% of the price of a book. For that price I'm not willing to give up my rights.

When I buy a game on Steam, it's usually five bucks. That's little enough that resell isn't really worth the trouble. Or if I lose access to my Steam account, rebuying the game doesn't seem like a big deal.

On the surface, that logic should apply to music, but it doesn't. First off, I want my music on all my devices. Games rarely leave my gaming PC. Second, music gets way more reuse than games. Most games get played once and then they're done. There's little value to me in keeping a collection of games. But once I add something to my music collection I expect to have it for years. I can stand to make a second purchase of a favorite game, but rebuying the bulk of my music would be terribly costly.

[erikun]

The overwhelming majority of videogames strike me as the direct equivalent of old pulp novels and magazines of decades previous. They're rote service of genre tropes (often exactly the same genre tropes for that matter) and nothing more. Some are quite good for what they are, some are really terrible. Almost all are almost entirely forgotten, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I don't think that books are really much better now than they were in the 70's or even back in the 40's. The vast majority of books today are likely to be forgotten by future generations as well. I'm not just talking about Twilight or 50 Shades of Gray, but also Harry Potter or Brandon Sanderson or pretty much anything else popular today. I mean, we've seen more books discussion the cultural relevance of The Simpsons than we have Harry Potter, despite it being very good and extremely newsworthy at getting kids to read when it came out.

That said, yes. Basically all video games are forgettable. You can see this just by asking people for their "best older video games" and making a comparison to newer ones. I think that there are video games that are memorable and have the potential to still be remembered/played in the future - Tetris is still going to be playable and catchy, although maybe forgotten. I seriously doubt, though, that any of the moderm FPSs or RPGs or MMOs are going to be anything other than a history note, and frequently not even that.

[warty goblin]

I don't think that books are really much better now than they were in the 70's or even back in the 40's. The vast majority of books today are likely to be forgotten by future generations as well. I'm not just talking about Twilight or 50 Shades of Gray, but also Harry Potter or Brandon Sanderson or pretty much anything else popular today. I mean, we've seen more books discussion the cultural relevance of The Simpsons than we have Harry Potter, despite it being very good and extremely newsworthy at getting kids to read when it came out.

Naturally. Believe me, the universal quality and memorability of the written word modern or otherwise is not the hill I'm dying on today. Most of 'em are forgettable, most of 'em have always been forgettable, and most will continue being forgettable. Which is completely fine and dandy with me; I'm not going to get all maudlin over the transient memorability of most of my reading list. However of the things I do find memorable, most of them are books. Music's a close second probably.


That said, yes. Basically all video games are forgettable. You can see this just by asking people for their "best older video games" and making a comparison to newer ones. I think that there are video games that are memorable and have the potential to still be remembered/played in the future - Tetris is still going to be playable and catchy, although maybe forgotten. I seriously doubt, though, that any of the moderm FPSs or RPGs or MMOs are going to be anything other than a history note, and frequently not even that.
As is often the case, this is a far more succinct expression of the point I was trying to make. Videogames are lots of fun if that's what you're into, and can make a person go 'cool' a lot, but aren't classics for the ages. Since I decided long ago that the 'games are art and the great new medium of our time' folks are all sorts of self-deluded, I don't even have to pretend otherwise. It's remarkably liberating to admit the trashy is, in fact, trashy. Leaves me free to enjoy it in all its trashy, tawdry and temporary splendor.

[Hiro Protagonest]

That said, yes. Basically all video games are forgettable. You can see this just by asking people for their "best older video games" and making a comparison to newer ones. I think that there are video games that are memorable and have the potential to still be remembered/played in the future - Tetris is still going to be playable and catchy, although maybe forgotten. I seriously doubt, though, that any of the moderm FPSs or RPGs or MMOs are going to be anything other than a history note, and frequently not even that.

Eh, for RPGs, I think Bravely Default will be remembered for some innovations. Personally I liked Dragon Quest IX a lot, and it had some innovation with putting something similar to the Paper Mario's random encounter system into a traditional JRPG, but I don't know how much that will be remembered. But those are still using the standard turn-based model, and we really should get away from that.

As for FPS, Planetside 2 (this is also MMO) is basically an up-gunned version of the first one (although for now it has less continents, only three, and while there are plans for more, SOE is split between adding more features and trying to create an environment for a competitive e-sport), with higher continent population cap, planes that actually feel like planes (with VTOL), and good graphics. Arma 3 is innovating with a five-stance system, with a stance in between standing and crouching (for when that cover of yours you want to shoot over of is just a bit too high for crouching), and one between crouching and prone.

They won't be timeless like Tetris, of course, but people still remember - and still play (sometimes modded, sometimes not) - X-COM, Jagged Alliance 2, Age of Wonders, Marathon, and Commandos.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I've used Steam in offline mode for extended periods of time - upwards of several months. It doesn't work well for that; games one by one need to update or verify or something, fail, and become unplayable. Unless things have massively improved since then (this was about eighteen months ago now), I'd be very surprised if you had much of a playable collection left after a year or so in offline mode.
...huh. You know, I hadn't tried.

Apparently, this is a bit of an issue (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/05/valve-fixing-steam-offline-to-run-indefinitely/) that will eventually get fixed.

[Hiro Protagonest]

As is often the case, this is a far more succinct expression of the point I was trying to make. Videogames are lots of fun if that's what you're into, and can make a person go 'cool' a lot, but aren't classics for the ages. Since I decided long ago that the 'games are art and the great new medium of our time' folks are all sorts of self-deluded, I don't even have to pretend otherwise. It's remarkably liberating to admit the trashy is, in fact, trashy. Leaves me free to enjoy it in all its trashy, tawdry and temporary splendor.

Oi, just because games can be the fun, forgettable things you want doesn't mean there can't also be games with more meaning to them.

[Ravens_cry]

Forgettable or forgotten? 90% of everything is junk, and video games as an artistic medium are still maturing, but games are a very special medium.
When in less interactive they say 'show, don't tell' games we are learning have a different rule. 'Do, don't show'.
Some games, yes, even very old ones, can tell a poignant story, even without the use of more traditional narrative devices, like words. Two words: Missile Command (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQJA5YjvHDU). Other games make more use of traditional techniques, but still craft meaningful experiences.
And that's just it, games can affect a game in a special and unique way because you experience a game more than other media. You are involved so much more. This poses special challenges, yet it can also have special rewards. A character isn't just someone who matters to the other characters and the player vicariously, the player also can care because how it affects them personally. The events portrayed so much more because of their potential weight and heft.
We don't read games, we don't watch games, we play games. Moreover, there is always lessons to be learned even from the bad or really old games, even if it's a lesson on what not to do, what mechanics work and what ones don't, some little trick or idea that can spark engagement and joy. Forgetting the past means losing those lessons, those moments, those joys, those heartbreaks.
Even if this is the 'pulp era' of video games, there is much to be learned and much joy to be had in those old games.
I see no reason they should be forgot.

[warty goblin]

Oi, just because games can be the fun, forgettable things you want doesn't mean there can't also be games with more meaning to them.
I don't want games to be fun and forgettable. I don't want them to be not fun and forgettable either. I really don't care one way or the other. I call them fun and forgettable because that's all they've managed to be, and I'm not going to pretend they're something else so I can feel super-great about them as triumphs of meaning. And I do this, because I find the arguments to the contrary extraordinarily unconvincing.

Like, say, these.

Forgettable or forgotten? 90% of everything is junk, and video games as an artistic medium are still maturing, but games are a very special medium.
When in less interactive they say 'show, don't tell' games we are learning have a different rule. 'Do, don't show'.
Some games, yes, even very old ones, can tell a poignant story, even without the use of more traditional narrative devices, like words. Two words: Missile Command (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQJA5YjvHDU). Other games make more use of traditional techniques, but still craft meaningful experiences.
Funny, I find games tend to be at their worst in terms of providing something of emotional interest when they're about the do. Oh they may do well for ten or even fifteen minutes on first exposure. But then the whole thing collapses into a transparently obvious constrained input/output problem wrapped up in some stuff to make it cool. When it comes to emotion, I'm pretty sure empathy is a more powerful building block than interactivity. I've read Patrick Shaw Steward's Achilles in the Trench (http://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2010/feb/01/poetry-classics) so many times I know it off by heart, and it still rips me up every time. It's rare I even notice the emotional content of a game mechanic after half an hour.

And that's just it, games can affect a game in a special and unique way because you experience a game more than other media. You are involved so much more. This poses special challenges, yet it can also have special rewards. A character isn't just someone who matters to the other characters and the player vicariously, the player also can care because how it affects them personally. The events portrayed so much more because of their potential weight and heft.

Not been my experience. It's not that I'm an unfeeling guy - I frequently get all weepy-eyed about books and movies and poems and music - it's that games make me feel very, very little. For a long time I honestly believed that any year now the games that would make me feel just as much as Achilles in the Trench - or more through the power of interactivity- would appear. But those games never have appeared, and there weren't any that really made me feel that much in the first place. Which suggests strongly that believing all those marvelous things about interactivity and the great new art form and so on was just wishful thinking. So I stopped.

Now if a game comes along that does make me sniffle like I've got hay fever, I'll happily admit I was wrong. I have nothing invested in being wrong about the relative emotional worthlessness of games. I'm merely no longer invested in the converse because I'm not going to pretend the evidence in front me is something it isn't, and I'm not going to keep believing in something for which I see no support.


We don't read games, we don't watch games, we play games. Moreover, there is always lessons to be learned even from the bad or really old games, even if it's a lesson on what not to do, what mechanics work and what ones don't, some little trick or idea that can spark engagement and joy. Forgetting the past means losing those lessons, those moments, those joys, those heartbreaks.
Even if this is the 'pulp era' of video games, there is much to be learned and much joy to be had in those old games.
I see no reason they should be forgot.
In which case nothing should ever be forgotten, and nobody has time to do anything new, because the volume of stuff to remember is frankly prohibitive beyond reason.

Or we just admit that the cultural ephemera of games is worth no more than the not particularly valuable cultural ephemera of every previous generation of nerd crap.

[Ravens_cry]

Now that's just a strawman, warty goblin. No single person remembers every piece of other artistic medium, yet we have whole institutions dedicated to remembering and preserving them, because as a society we have decided that, despite their age and changes in fashion, technique and technology, they still have things to tell us, satisfaction to be had from them. Even if you have yet to experience feeling from a video game does not mean others have not. I remember being right choked up when Glottis and Manny Calavera had to part ways. Just because you find little satisfaction in old video games, does not mean others do not. The healthy and diverse emulator community is more than proof of that.

[warty goblin]

Now that's just a strawman, warty goblin. No single person remembers every piece of other artistic medium, yet we have whole institutions dedicated to remembering and preserving them, because as a society we have decided that, despite their age and changes in fashion, technique and technology, they still have things to tell us, satisfaction to be had from them. Even if you have yet to experience feeling from a video game does not mean others have not. I remember being right choked up when Glottis and Manny Calavera had to part ways. Just because you find little satisfaction in old video games, does not mean others do not. The healthy and diverse emulator community is more than proof of that.

I never claimed nothing was worth remembering, or would be remembered. I do deny that everything is worth remembering though, and I have a very hard time figuring out how your last post isn't a call for universal remembrance. Normally I'd say I was misinterpreting, but that does seem to be the word-for-word meaning of your last sentence.

I also find it unlikely that videogames are going to, or have produced, much if anything that will be passed along to future generations to any significant degree. This is entirely my thinking, but I have a pretty easy time imagining introducing my hypothetical offspring to Tolkien or Watership Down or Homer or Shakespeare or Stanislaw Lem or Emily Dickinson. I remember my parents introducing me to some of those, and still have the copy of Time Enough for Love my Dad bought for me because he liked it when he was my age. I doubt that particular mass market paperback will survive long enough to make it into the hands of any children of mine, but I'd happily buy my child a new copy when they're fourteen or so. But the videogames I played when I was that age? I'm just not seeing it. Not that I'd have a problem with my kids playing games - that would be an act of towering hypocrisy on my part - but I can't really figure setting them down with Pharaoh, or them having any interest in it. And I don't see anything sad, tragic or unfortunate about that. Now maybe I've got this all wrong, and Warty Jr. won't be able to wait to play old 2D city builders and will find them deeply meaningful in a way I never did, but I'd be pretty surprised.


(I don't find little satisfaction in old videogames, I still fire up Pharaoh from time to time. I don't find them any more interesting than modern games however, or tremendously different. It's also not entirely fair to say I've never felt anything playing a videogame, but I've also gotten the feelsies from the end of The Reavers of Skaith, and if Eric John Stark wandering around punching fishmen is a timeless classic, I'll eat my hat.)

[Deadline]

I am a gamer through and through, but there are only a handful of games I can think of that really had an emotional impact on me:

Planescape: Torment
The Last of Us
Some of the Final Fantasy series (2 and 6, specifically)
2/3 of the Xenosaga series (1 and 3)

These are all games that I will, at some point (when they are old enough), introduce my children to. There are also a host of other games I'll introduce them to, but those won't be due to the emotional impact, it will be due to fun, cultural experience, and mechanics that provoke thought and strategy. It's worth noting that emotional impact isn't the only thing worth remembering, but YMMV.

@warty goblin: You made a mention a post or two ago about not finding emotional content in a game mechanic. I'm assuming you meant story? If not, could you explain why you feel the game's mechanic should be the vehicle for carrying emotional content?

[warty goblin]

@warty goblin: You made a mention a post or two ago about not finding emotional content in a game mechanic. I'm assuming you meant story? If not, could you explain why you feel the game's mechanic should be the vehicle for carrying emotional content?

There are a few reasons why I chose to consider game mechanics as emotional carriers.

Firstly because if I only consider story, games are simply a crappy-looking movie bloated to the gills with completely irrelevant baggage - namely all the plotless combats, inventory managements, etc that make up the majority of a typical game's duration. Even something as condensed and 'cinematic' as Call of Duty singlerplayer has an enormous amount of time that is spent in basically meaningless fights sandwiched between the bits that are actually important to the narrative. For an RPG, the story signal/noise ratio is even worse. Which isn't to say that games can't have good stories - although I think my comparison to pulp novels is relevant here in terms of the sorts of stories games actually tell, and why they tell them - merely that they are poor vehicles for delivering those stories if that's all you're after. Considering mechanics is, in short, giving games a substantial benefit of the doubt.

Secondly I talk about mechanics because I've spent years reading people extol the coming mechanic driven narrative Rapture. Since the enthusiast press seems overrun by folks selling the line that clicking a conversation option makes for a more emotionally moving dialog than reading or watching it, I think it's a fair point to address. On several years' reflection, I find it a load of self-congratulatory BS wrapped up in faux-populism and simultaneous low grade elitism, all built around a core of complete nonsense. The overwhelming majority of the time the game mechanics are actively obfuscating the narrative, or at best are an irrelevant sideshow. Even when they do line up, does anybody really notice the mechanics in terms of emotion after twenty minutes? Far from being an unprecedented advantage, I think the truth is that interaction is, on net, a disadvantage in terms of producing an interesting and meaningful narrative. If nothing else, one would have thought that in all those thousands of years of stories being performed live, somebody would have thought to ask the audience what they thought should happen next if it's such a brilliant notion.

[ChristianSt]

It might be that video games offer nothing of value to be conserved (though I don't think so).

But even so, why should we put stuff into something that makes it deliberately harder to archive something?


It would be like trying to find a special paper to publish print books, that turns unreadable after 2 years. Which just sounds horrible dumb.

[Ravens_cry]

It would be like trying to find a special paper to publish print books, that turns unreadable after 2 years. Which just sounds horrible dumb.
Shh, don't give them ideas!:smalleek:

[veti]

If it only would reduce the number of illegal activities, then yes. I would understand it. But from all I have heard DRM has zero impact on piracy.

This is another of those hyperbolic claims that really doesn't help the debate.

For the record, I dislike DRM. I've had bad experiences with SecuROM in the past. I've personally lobbied parliament about it, and successfully got the law changed in my country to make it legal for consumers to circumvent certain types of DRM.

You can say it has little impact on piracy. You can say it has negative impact on sales - that's a separate assertion that's sometimes argued, although I've never seen any actual evidence to support it. But to say it "has zero impact on piracy" is just - not supportable.

I remember how my friends and I traded games in the 1980s. Back then, copying a floppy disc was trivial, so publishers came up with all sorts of other paraphernalia to "protect" their games. When you started the game, you'd have to enter a word from a random page in the manual, or a code from a magic code wheel provided with the original game, or some such. The original SimCity (1989) came with a sheet of codes printed in brown-on-brown, to make it unphotocopyable. And it did make a difference - I'm pretty sure I'd have ripped a few copies of SimCity without it.

All that nonsense has disappeared now, and DRM is what's replaced it. Yes it's faulty, incredibly annoying to law-abiding customers, horribly abused by publishers (who are, as a class, the scum of the earth) and not effective against serious pirates. But that word "serious" is important - it is reasonably effective against casual pirates, and that's a large, large market segment. It's like putting a cheap little padlock on your luggage - it won't actually delay a professional thief for more than about 3 seconds, but J Random Opportunist is more likely to go for the next bag, which doesn't have one.

Edit: I also think there's a rich irony in Deadline linking to this page (http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/10941270_15#page-1) to prove that DRM has "had absolutely no impact on piracy".

[Ravens_cry]

The thing is though, the professional thief can unlock your bike, take it for a joyride and leave it for the next Random Dude already unlocked. The torrents that can be found online usually have already being cracked, making it perfectly easy for Random Dude to take it and use it. Worse, the lack of all the fuss and bother of DRM can make the hacked copies a MORE enjoyable experience for the end user, to the point where some people who legally purchased games will then download a pirated version so they don't have to deal with all the DRM <expletive redacted/>. And cracking doesn't take long. A month is an incredibly long time in this field, with a spirit of competition among crackers to see who can hack the latest games the fastest. Days is quite common indeed, even for some of the most invasive, annoying and down right petulant forms of DRM.

[veti]

The thing is though, the professional thief can unlock your bike, take it for a joyride and leave it for the next Random Dude already unlocked. The torrents that can be found online usually have already being cracked, making it perfectly easy for Random Dude to take it and use it.

True, but a lot of consumers just don't use torrents. Maybe they're nervous that the crackers will have put unwanted payloads in the file (has been known). Maybe they're not comfortable with the whole conspiratorial/deliberately-criminal/underground 'feel' of the torrent community. Maybe they just don't know how. They might accept a pirated disc as a gift from someone they know and trust, but downloading executable content to your PC from an unknown source from people who positively revel in being criminals - that's a very different thing. Whatever their reasons, there are a lot of people in that category.

[Deadline]

You can say it has little impact on piracy. You can say it has negative impact on sales - that's a separate assertion that's sometimes argued, although I've never seen any actual evidence to support it. But to say it "has zero impact on piracy" is just - not supportable.

Proving a negative, and all that? Very well, do you have a source that DRM prevents or reduces piracy? Keep in mind that pirating digital media is as easy as clicking a link, so your claims that it somehow prevents "casual piracy" are questionable to me.


Edit: I also think there's a rich irony in Deadline linking to this page (http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/10941270_15#page-1) to prove that DRM has "had absolutely no impact on piracy".

Odd, that link doesn't go to the page that I read. Ah! The link I took from google put me right through to the contents of the "Look Inside" button. Here's the text I was referring to:


Piracy of digital content is considered a serious problem by content companies. Digital Rights Management is considered a potential solution to this problem. In this paper we study to what degree DRM can live up to this expectation. We conclude that given the current and foreseeable state of technology the content protection features of DRM are not effective at combating piracy.

The key problem is that if even a small fraction of users are able to transform content from a protected to an unprotected form, then illegitimate distribution networks are likely to make that content available ubiquitously.

And


The most effective way for interested parties to defeat piracy may be to compete with it.

The same information can be found here (http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2003/HPL-2003-110.pdf).

Basically, if you make it cheap and easy to use your content in a variety of different ways, you compete with the (sometimes superior, at least in terms of flexible usage) pirated product.

There's also this (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111007113944.htm).

[Deadline]

There are a few reasons why I chose to consider game mechanics as emotional carriers.

Firstly because if I only consider story, games are simply a crappy-looking movie bloated to the gills with completely irrelevant baggage - namely all the plotless combats, inventory managements, etc that make up the majority of a typical game's duration. Even something as condensed and 'cinematic' as Call of Duty singlerplayer has an enormous amount of time that is spent in basically meaningless fights sandwiched between the bits that are actually important to the narrative. For an RPG, the story signal/noise ratio is even worse. Which isn't to say that games can't have good stories - although I think my comparison to pulp novels is relevant here in terms of the sorts of stories games actually tell, and why they tell them - merely that they are poor vehicles for delivering those stories if that's all you're after. Considering mechanics is, in short, giving games a substantial benefit of the doubt.

Games are nothing more than a new medium to use to tell stories, much like painting, poetry, novels, etc. To say that the mechanics of a game must carry the emotional content is equivalent to saying that the structure of a poem must carry the emotional content. Or the choice of paint for a painting. All of those things can have an impact (sometimes significantly so) on the end product, but I do think it's odd that you choose to strip out one piece of a medium and assign all of the weight and importance to it. If that were the case, why not say that classic novels and poems are not worth remembering, because they are poor vehicles for delivering stories? After all, a single painting can convey emotional content more efficiently than a book.

For an example of game mechanics aiding in storytelling, I'll refer you to the Fatal Frame series of games.

For what I'd consider a really poor example of game mechanics in storytelling, check out Heavy Rain. The story was good, but it would have been better with more of a game and less of a "press buttons to continue" aspect. There was a lot of potential in that game, and I did enjoy the playthrough that I had, but it's one of the games I think of when I think of mechanics getting in the way. The multiple paths for the narrative, and the level of engagement I got even from the limited interactivity that was available to me were excellent though.

Think of it this way. One might get a significant emotional impact from reading a story, but their experience is decidedly different than the one had by an actor in a play (who experiences that emotional impact in a more interactive way). Why is one so much better than the other in your mind?


Secondly I talk about mechanics because I've spent years reading people extol the coming mechanic driven narrative Rapture. Since the enthusiast press seems overrun by folks selling the line that clicking a conversation option makes for a more emotionally moving dialog than reading or watching it, I think it's a fair point to address.

I think the truth is that interaction is, on net, a disadvantage in terms of producing an interesting and meaningful narrative. If nothing else, one would have thought that in all those thousands of years of stories being performed live, somebody would have thought to ask the audience what they thought should happen next if it's such a brilliant notion.

I think this is where I disagree with you the most. I think finding new ways of interacting and experiencing content is awesome, and can be done well. Interactivity seems to be one of those things that hasn't been done all that well in the majority of cases, but the same could be said of any other format (what's the signal-to-noise ratio with books; classics vs. pulp stories and such?)

I've also been to a play where what you described actually happened, and it was fantastic. I also attended a play that was much more interactive than just sitting there and viewing it. The emotional impact of the performance (in this case, fear) was one that I don't think I could have gotten from a novel, poem, painting, or mundane performance. It's one of my more treasured memories of the theater.

On a more silly note, interaction is the one thing that has made some truly awful stories much more bearable, as is the case with the Rocky Horror Picture Show. :smallwink:

[Ravens_cry]

True, but a lot of consumers just don't use torrents. Maybe they're nervous that the crackers will have put unwanted payloads in the file (has been known). Maybe they're not comfortable with the whole conspiratorial/deliberately-criminal/underground 'feel' of the torrent community. Maybe they just don't know how. They might accept a pirated disc as a gift from someone they know and trust, but downloading executable content to your PC from an unknown source from people who positively revel in being criminals - that's a very different thing. Whatever their reasons, there are a lot of people in that category.
A highly doubt those form the majority, or even a very significant part of piracy compared to online downloading. The first requires you to know someone who has the game already, while the latter just means using an online search engine and a torrent downloading software. This isn't the ' Don't Copy that Floppy' era.

[maximus25]

DRM is like a baker baking a delicious cake, then filling it with glass and razor wire so people don't want to steal it.


It's doing its job, poorly because people can just pick the glass and razor wire out, but it also discourages people from buying it, because then they have to pick the glass and razor wire out.

[Hiro Protagonest]

DRM is like a baker baking a delicious cake, then filling it with glass and razor wire so people don't want to steal it.


It's doing its job, poorly because people can just pick the glass and razor wire out, but it also discourages people from buying it, because then they have to pick the glass and razor wire out.

No, it's more like a normal cake in a vault. But the baker didn't write the combination for the lock anywhere, so if he dies or just forgets about it you can't get it out without safecracking tools, and there's no police coming to do it legally. For some particularly annoying types there's also an electric lock that you have a keycard for but won't work whenever the power's out (equivalent to internet down).

[erikun]

True, but a lot of consumers just don't use torrents. Maybe they're nervous that the crackers will have put unwanted payloads in the file (has been known). Maybe they're not comfortable with the whole conspiratorial/deliberately-criminal/underground 'feel' of the torrent community. Maybe they just don't know how. They might accept a pirated disc as a gift from someone they know and trust, but downloading executable content to your PC from an unknown source from people who positively revel in being criminals - that's a very different thing. Whatever their reasons, there are a lot of people in that category.
The obvious issue, though, is that this has little relation to DRM. These people would not be pirating the game and would be buying it from distributors anyways, because the same concerns apply if the game has been DRM-cracked or not.


Funny, I find games tend to be at their worst in terms of providing something of emotional interest when they're about the do. Oh they may do well for ten or even fifteen minutes on first exposure. But then the whole thing collapses into a transparently obvious constrained input/output problem wrapped up in some stuff to make it cool. When it comes to emotion, I'm pretty sure empathy is a more powerful building block than interactivity. I've read Patrick Shaw Steward's Achilles in the Trench (http://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2010/feb/01/poetry-classics) so many times I know it off by heart, and it still rips me up every time. It's rare I even notice the emotional content of a game mechanic after half an hour.
I've had games that made me tear up. Perhaps more importantly, I've had games where I felt like saying "How is this a happy ending? That's a terrible way to finish things!" I would not have felt so strongly against an ending if I wasn't somewhat invested into it up to that point.

That said, I do agree with you. The vast majority of games are absolutely terrible at building up an emotional investment. The biggest offender are typically RPGs, which would give a great emotional connection if they didn't universally spend dozens of hours walking in overworlds and through caves between sparse bits of characterization. I've found some visual novels to be better at this, with my recommendations being Time Hollow (DS), Ghost Trick (DS), and 999: 9 Hours 9 Doors 9 Persons (DS). However, even with making that recommendation, I remember the large number of visual novels which really are lengthy, boring, and poorly written. (And 999 is more of a horror than strongly character-driven story.)

[Jayngfet]

Generally speaking, DRM is kind of a moot point anyway. The stuff people mostly pirate are the ones that sell really well anyway, because surprise surprise, popular stuff moves units.

I mean for a recent film example, look at Frozen. The HD version was out like a month before the Blu-Rays released, easily. But it was still doing top ten in theaters even with that and the discs out. Hell, when those discs launched they moved more than three million copies in one day despite it being so easy to pirate I can guarantee every single one of my friends probably saw it half a dozen times on their monitors. This obviously didn't stop it from taking it's spot as one of the highest grossing films ever and basically selling out all the tie-in stuff, most of which was also up for free online if it was books or comics.

In the case of how it works, it's also kinda dumb since it really does shut you out more than it helps. I've had to torrent copies of stuff I already bought, just because the bought copies didn't work right. I own about four different copies of Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, but getting them to function properly is so much of a hassle sometimes I can't even play the DLC I already bought three times. Or the reverse, since an error with Steam means I now own two identical versions of the same game. Or with Origin, which somehow did the same thing for another game. Just keeping track of how many of what I own has become a nightmare. Or if I want to run through the Mass Effect trilogy. Which means I need to fire up an extra program just to read the save files from one game I bought from steam to use it in another game I also bought from steam. Then when I'm done that I need to download Origin and screw around with that, and Origin is just so inconvenient as a product DRM aside it's never something I'd voluntarily subscribe to. Not to mention the Byzantine labyrinth that is trying to buy Bioware DLC.

I mean pirating an AAA game is hard, but if it's that hard and I wasn't willing to buy it anyway I'm basically still not gonna buy it. I just write it off for a year or two until it's either cheap used or on a steam sale. Video games are an extreme example in most cases, true, but it shows just how ridiculous the concept of DRM has gotten.

[ChristianSt]

This is another of those hyperbolic claims that really doesn't help the debate.

For the record, I dislike DRM. I've had bad experiences with SecuROM in the past. I've personally lobbied parliament about it, and successfully got the law changed in my country to make it legal for consumers to circumvent certain types of DRM.

You can say it has little impact on piracy. You can say it has negative impact on sales - that's a separate assertion that's sometimes argued, although I've never seen any actual evidence to support it. But to say it "has zero impact on piracy" is just - not supportable.

I remember how my friends and I traded games in the 1980s. Back then, copying a floppy disc was trivial, so publishers came up with all sorts of other paraphernalia to "protect" their games. When you started the game, you'd have to enter a word from a random page in the manual, or a code from a magic code wheel provided with the original game, or some such. The original SimCity (1989) came with a sheet of codes printed in brown-on-brown, to make it unphotocopyable. And it did make a difference - I'm pretty sure I'd have ripped a few copies of SimCity without it.

All that nonsense has disappeared now, and DRM is what's replaced it. Yes it's faulty, incredibly annoying to law-abiding customers, horribly abused by publishers (who are, as a class, the scum of the earth) and not effective against serious pirates. But that word "serious" is important - it is reasonably effective against casual pirates, and that's a large, large market segment. It's like putting a cheap little padlock on your luggage - it won't actually delay a professional thief for more than about 3 seconds, but J Random Opportunist is more likely to go for the next bag, which doesn't have one.

Edit: I also think there's a rich irony in Deadline linking to this page (http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/10941270_15#page-1) to prove that DRM has "had absolutely no impact on piracy".

Ok. I concede to the fact that "DRM has zero impact on piracy" is not something I can sell as truth.

How about this: "DRM has some impact on the hard to measure and maybe even irrelevant number of piracy"?
Because honestly, I don't really think that piracy is that much of a problem. (Though that is only my guess. And I'm not here to say that piracy is a good thing and anyone should do it. I'm strongly against pirating something.)
Imo most people who pirate something wouldn't (or couldn't) buy the non-pirated version anyway. As some people in this thread said even paying costumers turned to a pirated version. Both of these categories are not a lost sale.
Piracy is only really relevant if it generates lost sales through people that would buy it legally if the non-pirated version did not exist.
On the other hand piracy enables some sort of advertisement/word of mouth spreading which even mitigates this damage in increasing more sales.

Because the interesting metric is "number of sales" not "least amount of piracy". It might be that piracy/sales relate in some way, but I haven't seen any real numbers on that (also as pointed out: it is basically impossible to prevent piracy without the most ridiculous DRM-schemes).

DRM prevents maybe some sort of piracy (but as pointed out it does generally not achieve it) but also makes the product worse.

There is nice comic illustrating the effect: Oatmeal - I tried to watch Game of Thrones and that is what happened (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones). (I would probably buy the Game of Thrones series if I could to it easily and DRM-free. But since this not a option I will not do it. But I'm not going to pirate anything, I'm just not going to buy it. So DRM successfully lost at least one sale. And even if I would pirate it, it could maybe even be beneficial, because I could talk about how great this series is, maybe causing other peoples to buy it.)

There is also articles focusing on PC games, illustrating a "four currency model", which imo showcases the problems caused by DRM: Part I (http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LarsDoucet/20120222/91144/Piracy_and_the_four_currencies.php), Part II (http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LarsDoucet/20120228/163145/Piracy_and_the_four_currencies_part_2.php).

[Deadline]

Ok. I concede to the fact that "DRM has zero impact on piracy" is not something I can sell as truth.

I guess what you choose to do is up to you, but no one has been able to show that DRM provides any measurable decrease in piracy. And again, there have been a few studies that show that in some cases, DRM actually increases it (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/10/drm-piracy-incentive). At best, if it is really complicated it might delay the pirating of the game (if you want to pirate it, you may have to wait a few days for someone to crack it), but take a tour of any torrent site on day 1 of the game's release and you'll usually be able to find it.

A much more interesting comment that you made is:


"DRM has some impact on the hard to measure and maybe even irrelevant number of piracy"

The first part of that is easily dismissable. Many industries have claimed repeatedly that piracy was killing their business. The music industry was the worst offender. They've been crowing about piracy costing them billions for the last several years. A claim they made, by the way, with no evidence (their sales have been experiencing a solid increase every year).

The second part is the interesting bit, is the piracy relevant. I struggle to find a single example that suggests it is.

And for reference, since we've been talking about it quite a bit, here's a pretty decent explanation of DRM (http://computer.howstuffworks.com/drm.htm/printable) on howstuffworks.

[Jayngfet]

is the piracy relevant[/B]. I struggle to find a single example that suggests it is.

Well, I'm googling around. The most pirated movies are basically all financially successful anyway. The most consistently pirated films are either always financially successful at both box office and home video anyway, or else didn't have that wide of a release and nobody had the option to see it legally anyway. Likewise, every single game that makes a spot on the most pirated list tends to be financially successful anyway. Even then, those works all wound up topping the list of purchases and the most pirated ones still go on to break sales records anyway, even though piracy is only getting easier.

So generally speaking, piracy has to be a negligible factor for the ones who are campaigning hardest to stop it.

Meanwhile, DRM and related practices have probably prevented more purchases from me than allowed. I wanted to get a legitimate copy of Game Dev Tycoon from steam when it was on sale a while ago. But steam decided thanks to a bug that it wouldn't take my money or steam credits. So the sale ended before the issue was resolved and I don't have the time or money anymore to buy it.

[endoperez]

I'm a game developer, and here's my 2 cents on why DRM was made and what it's for. This is mostly aimed at page 1.

Game DRM CAN'T stop people from pirating the game ... Eventually. It doesn't need to.

Most games get most of their sales immediately after release. That's when the marketing is still going on and forums and your friends are talking about the game. If you can't pirate the game then, you have to buy it to play it. That's what it's for. Other stuff is a bonus, obviously, but preventing Day 0, day 1 piracy is a big part of using DRM.

My opinion is largely based on this large but aging article: www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html

[Jayngfet]

I'm a game developer, and here's my 2 cents on why DRM was made and what it's for. This is mostly aimed at page 1.

Game DRM CAN'T stop people from pirating the game ... Eventually. It doesn't need to.

Most games get most of their sales immediately after release. That's when the marketing is still going on and forums and your friends are talking about the game. If you can't pirate the game then, you have to buy it to play it. That's what it's for. Other stuff is a bonus, obviously, but preventing Day 0, day 1 piracy is a big part of using DRM.

My opinion is largely based on this large but aging article: www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html

True enough, but at the same time I know for a fact that plenty of people still have workarounds. Even then, while that's a vaild issue, the bigger issue is how obtrusive and needless the worst examples are.

I mean look at EA's Origin, which I love to keep harping on. Spyware allegations aside, it's a clunky, inelegant piece of software with a clunky, inelegant overly that hogs up way more Bandwidth than it should, and has terrible aesthetics and no real function other than to be DRM.

I harp on Steam too, but Steam is kind of more than just DRM. It makes buying games convenient, it's got a chat function that's good enough to be my main way to IM people, it's got collectables that you can actually use for more than just filling up a counter, and generally is more of a program that happens to have DRM than DRM with programs tacked on. Uplay is somewhere in the middle, being too obtrusive and redundant even by DRM standards(especially if you're already running a game off Steam), but it's not totally useless. I mean if nothing else, being able to get costumes without spending actual money is always enough of a bonus that I don't mind.

Make no mistake, I love games and I have no problem with DRM, IN THEORY. If all it amounts to is punching a code into a program I was using anyway, then no big deal. If it locks me out of something I already bought, stops me from even buying it, makes the product unusable, or generally just lessens the whole experience, that's where the problem begins. If I buy something on day 1 and the DRM is the issue, then I'm likley to just wait for the pirated version next time, or wait 6-8 months for it to get sorted out and the price to drop.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Eh, I hear Origin is better now (never had interest in any Origin-only games), about the same level as Steam, but I haven't heard anything good about U-Play.

[warty goblin]

Eh, I hear Origin is better now (never had interest in any Origin-only games), about the same level as Steam, but I haven't heard anything good about U-Play.

I tolerate all of them, and frankly from my point of view they're all pretty much interchangeable. They're all clunky negative-value propositions, although UPlay at least as the grace to not advertise to me whenever I want to play something. UPlay also has the advantage of letting me cancel an auto-update and play a game anyway, as, I believe, does Origin. In terms of interface, Origin I think comes out ahead of Steam, which still looks like somebody took a dump on my screen. Origin also has the advantage of a download queue that understands the meaning of the word 'queue'.


(Last I checked, Origin's Terms of Service were somewhat less vile than Valve's as well.)

[Jayngfet]

I find Steams interface to be much more convenient and intuitive than Uplay or Origins by a country mile.

I mean as an obvious example, say there's a cutscene I've already seen that's unskippable. In Steam, I hit two buttons close enough together to be pushed in one smooth motion. The browser launches and automatically plugs in google. While the NPC's drone on I can search around GITP for a bit and respond to threads until the gameplay starts up again. In Origin, the cutscene pauses automatically so no such luck. Then when I hunt down the browser key I get thrown into the browser on a blank page. So I have to fumble around the address bar with no auto complete, taking an extra couple of seconds every time I start the browser. Not to mention that, like Uplay, the two keys I need to hit are much farther apart, resulting in a much more awkward hand gesture.

It's only a difference of about five seconds of my time, maybe a few minutes for a long cutscene, but it adds up. Combine that with worse chat functions and basically everything else being second rate, and no wonder I prefer Steam. The only reason Uplay doesn't rate lower for me is because I can use the steam overlay instead for most games, whereas EA insists on keeping exclusives and ransoming off things that make the process of giving them money and using the end product inferior. Uplay is kinda stupid, but the process effectively reduces it into a service to cash in bonus points for a costume or wallpaper. Since you get those with gameplay instead of arbitrary metrics, it basically removes most of the day to day flaws and gives me a reason to not completely detest it.

I mean don't get me wrong, if I could have those costumes and bonus packs right out I wouldn't hesitate, since the less crap on my computer the better, but it's a milder crap.

[warty goblin]

I think I only ever used the Steam overlay during the brief period when it was necessary to open the thing whenever Duke Nukem Forever was loading, or the level would freeze.

But really, as I said before, for my usage all three represent essentially equal amounts of anti-worth. I don't do multiplayer, don't chat with people online but once in a blue moon, and never in game since I don't have gaming friends, and just want to sit down and play a game on occasion. My needs in terms of gaming clients are completely met by having shortcut icons on the desktop. Being able to easily find patches is nice too I guess, but I also appreciate being able to easily choose when to update since my internet is crappy and sometimes I like the unpatched version of a game better. Which is just a long way of saying GoG is so the way to go.

[Jayngfet]

In which case, your complaints are entirely legitimate and I won't fault you for them. Steam works for me, but it's not a universal god-program. I find it's the most convenient thing to use when you log a stupid huge amount of time in multiplayer, want to check the workshop or nexus if your mods are working as advertised, or have a friends list long enough that you can expect to have conversations online regularly mid-game.

Steam is ideal for my specific situation and everything else winds up being second rate for the places I find myself. I still wind up with a major issue every few months, but it's usually something I can get resolved after a bit, or else would have as bad or worse a time with if I was using Origin or Uplay as my main things.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm a game developer, and here's my 2 cents on why DRM was made and what it's for. This is mostly aimed at page 1.

Game DRM CAN'T stop people from pirating the game ... Eventually. It doesn't need to.

Most games get most of their sales immediately after release. That's when the marketing is still going on and forums and your friends are talking about the game. If you can't pirate the game then, you have to buy it to play it. That's what it's for. Other stuff is a bonus, obviously, but preventing Day 0, day 1 piracy is a big part of using DRM.

My opinion is largely based on this large but aging article: www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html

The sheer quantity of zero day(or earlier) cracks that exist and have existed for ages indicates that this is a sketchy justification at best. The easiest to pirate games are the new and the popular...everyone is passing that stuff around. Sometimes, though, the obscure and forgotten can be hard to locate either with cash or piracy.

After all, the pirates only have to get lucky once, while the DRM has to be successful every time, and a LOT of people will be screwing with it right away. Plus, most of the common DRM schemes are pretty well known, so hacks are often just waiting for release or leak.

Edit: And then there are people like me. I don't pirate(anymore), and haven't for a while. Still, I *hate* dealing with obnoxious or intrusive DRM. Games that mention this are just not purchased. I don't pirate them. Why? There are far more games available than I have time to play. I play games to have fun, and dealing with rootkits and the like sounds too much like work.

[Jayngfet]

Edit: And then there are people like me. I don't pirate(anymore), and haven't for a while. Still, I *hate* dealing with obnoxious or intrusive DRM. Games that mention this are just not purchased. I don't pirate them. Why? There are far more games available than I have time to play. I play games to have fun, and dealing with rootkits and the like sounds too much like work.

This is really the only deterrent that's reliable when dealing with piracy. You have to make it faster and easier to just do it legitimately than to pirate. I mean that's kind of how Netflix makes money after all: It only takes about ten minutes to torrent a movie, less if it's popular, more if it's obscure. However, it only takes a few seconds to punch it into the search bar and have it streaming onto your monitor right off.

A lot of companies don't really get this. I mean if I need to install some older Adobe programs on a new computer, getting it from the actual site is a pain if it's not the latest version sometimes. It's something I still bought legitimately, but the torrent is just plain faster and easier to use than the downloads provided, often several times faster. I'll just punch in my actual product key at the end and save myself that much time.

DRM, especially when it's slow and obtrusive, probably hurts more than it helps. If I'm interested enough to pirate, I'm usually interested enough to buy. But making me jump through arbitrary hoops makes me not want to buy, or even pirate. It just makes me want to drop the game entirely and pick up something that's less stupid.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I mean as an obvious example, say there's a cutscene I've already seen that's unskippable. In Steam, I hit two buttons close enough together to be pushed in one smooth motion. The browser launches and automatically plugs in google. While the NPC's drone on I can search around GITP for a bit and respond to threads until the gameplay starts up again.

...You know, I never realized you can use the Steam overlay to get to sites other than Steam. Now I wish that I had bought Jagged Alliance 2 on Steam because I love alt-tabbing but I can't alt-tab out of that.

[thubby]

why would I pay money for a product that assumes I am a criminal? better still, why on earth would i install software that i know for a fact compromises the security of my machine? (seriously, it's already been exploited repeatedly)

is there any concrete evidence that DRM actually improves sales? I can't think of any instance where someone decided to buy a game for want of the ability to get it elsewhere.

[Deadline]

is there any concrete evidence that DRM actually improves sales? I can't think of any instance where someone decided to buy a game for want of the ability to get it elsewhere.

Nope. There have been a couple studies that show the opposite though.

[Grif]

...You know, I never realized you can use the Steam overlay to get to sites other than Steam. Now I wish that I had bought Jagged Alliance 2 on Steam because I love alt-tabbing but I can't alt-tab out of that.

I'll note that even Steam overlay doesn't necessarily work with older programs.

[Ravens_cry]

Sometimes, I think DRM is more for the investors, a way of saying 'See, we're doing something, give us your money!' Games have gotten so expensive to make that there's pretty much no way to make a current game without buckets of money that reach Hollywood levels, which means you need outside money.

[Deadline]

Sometimes, I think DRM is more for the investors, a way of saying 'See, we're doing something, give us your money!' Games have gotten so expensive to make that there's pretty much no way to make a current game without buckets of money that reach Hollywood levels, which means you need outside money.

I ... I can't tell if you are being serious here. Do you really believe that games require that kind of funding?

[Hiro Protagonest]

I ... I can't tell if you are being serious here. Do you really believe that games require that kind of funding?

AAA definitely does. Tomb Raider 2013 was considered a failure for revenue.

As for indies, well, Steam is just too ubiquitous. Your options are Steam, mobile, or underselling.

[Ravens_cry]

I ... I can't tell if you are being serious here. Do you really believe that games require that kind of funding?

Not sure if they require it, but Triple A games certainly cost that much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop) to make, and it gets worse once you add marketing.

[Frozen_Feet]

It would be like trying to find a special paper to publish print books, that turns unreadable after 2 years. Which just sounds horrible dumb.

Uh huh.

You realize that the pulp magazines and novels, to which computer games have been compared to in this thread, were exactly this?

Basically, they were printed on cheapest possible paper and intended to be thrown away after reading, both in order to keep customers buying new magazines & books and out of recognition that the stories weren't precisely high art.

The comic industry (in Japan and elsewhere) has worked, and to extent still works, on similar principles.

[ChristianSt]

Uh huh.

You realize that the pulp magazines and novels, to which computer games have been compared to in this thread, were exactly this?

Basically, they were printed on cheapest possible paper and intended to be thrown away after reading, both in order to keep customers buying new magazines & books and out of recognition that the stories weren't precisely high art.

The comic industry (in Japan and elsewhere) has worked, and to extent still works, on similar principles.
(Emphasis mine)

Basically you said it yourself: "cheapest". Probably the most useful reason is/was to achieve a low price. Still it is probably possible to archive these if you treat them carefully.

DRM doesn't make the product cheaper. (In fact it probably increases the price, because DRM doesn't implement itself for free.)

[Frozen_Feet]

You disregarded one other reason I noted right after: to get people to buy new magazines. Yes, you can archive pul magazines, but it wasn't easy. The paper quite easily detoriarated beyond legibility. In a sense, it wasn't "worth it" to the common customer, which is incidentally why original copies of pulp magazines (etc.) tend to be damn rare.

A lot of people here worry of what might happen when company cuts support from a game. Well, that might be entirely intentional. Most companies only make money of games when they're relatively fresh, and after that, support may actually be a resource drain. Through not supporting old games, they create incentive for the customer to keep buying new ones.

[ChristianSt]

A lot of people here worry of what might happen when company cuts support from a game. Well, that might be entirely intentional. Most companies only make money of games when they're relatively fresh, and after that, support may actually be a resource drain. Through not supporting old games, they create incentive for the customer to keep buying new ones.

I'm not asking for life-time legacy support of anything. Old system can broke, new hardware can cause problems with old software, etc...


But if they want to have their games a limited lifespan, they should also say that upfront. Which gets even more strange if you consider that a specific game game might be available DRM-free and with DRM, e.g. Games that are sold on GOG/HumbleBundle and Steam simultaneous.


And if they want to artificially limit the lifespan of their games to "force" me to buy new ones, I can only say that it doesn't work for me, because I will not buy the first game at all. So instead of holding to that 1 game (which doesn't sound realistically, given that people also buy multiple of music-CDs and other stuff) I'm buying 0.

[thubby]

You disregarded one other reason I noted right after: to get people to buy new magazines. Yes, you can archive pul magazines, but it wasn't easy. The paper quite easily detoriarated beyond legibility. In a sense, it wasn't "worth it" to the common customer, which is incidentally why original copies of pulp magazines (etc.) tend to be damn rare.

can we get a source on that? I'm well aware they were printed on the cheap, but forcing rebuying as a motive, as opposed to simply reducing production costs, is something I would need evidence for.


A lot of people here worry of what might happen when company cuts support from a game. Well, that might be entirely intentional. Most companies only make money of games when they're relatively fresh, and after that, support may actually be a resource drain. Through not supporting old games, they create incentive for the customer to keep buying new ones.

no one is asking that games continue to be patched or updated. the concern is that once the part on the company's end goes dark, the perfectly functional game dies because the DRM has a fit. without DRM, it's possible (and in fact quite regular) for games no longer being supported to be cared for by their community. i can still run the classic heroes of might and magic games because of it.

there's also no evidence to suggest that killing one game helps another one. halo3 didn't see some giant upswell with the death of the CE servers.

[Hiro Protagonest]

But if they want to have their games a limited lifespan, they should also say that upfront. Which gets even more strange if you consider that a specific game game might be available DRM-free and with DRM, e.g. Games that are sold on GOG/HumbleBundle and Steam simultaneous.

The Steam terms make it pretty clear that you are not buying a game, but paying for a license to use that game on Steam, which may be revoked at any time.

Also, if a game is only available on Steam, the Humble Bundle version will be Steam.

[warty goblin]

The Steam terms make it pretty clear that you are not buying a game, but paying for a license to use that game on Steam, which may be revoked at any time.


At any time, for absolutely any reason. For all the fuss a couple of years back about Origin's 'we can delete your account after two years' deal, nobody ever mentioned that Steam's ToS were absolutely no better.

[ChristianSt]

The Steam terms make it pretty clear that you are not buying a game, but paying for a license to use that game on Steam, which may be revoked at any time.

I know. Because of that I don't give Steam any money, since they don't sell anything I want. (I want to buy a game, not more or less "rent it for an arbitrary long amount of time we don't tell you how long it is")

But as I said multiple times, I think it would be just better to drop DRM. I think the positive sides (increased sales through people who don't buy stuff with DRM) outweigh the negative sides (dropped sales through increased piracy. From what I see DRM normally hasn't really any impact on piracy).


Also, if a game is only available on Steam, the Humble Bundle version will be Steam.

The point is? There are still enough games where you can either buy a DRM-free version on GOG/Humble Bundle or a version with DRM on Steam. (Or with Humble Bundle often even both versions at the same time.

[Tyndmyr]

You disregarded one other reason I noted right after: to get people to buy new magazines. Yes, you can archive pul magazines, but it wasn't easy. The paper quite easily detoriarated beyond legibility. In a sense, it wasn't "worth it" to the common customer, which is incidentally why original copies of pulp magazines (etc.) tend to be damn rare.

A lot of people here worry of what might happen when company cuts support from a game. Well, that might be entirely intentional. Most companies only make money of games when they're relatively fresh, and after that, support may actually be a resource drain. Through not supporting old games, they create incentive for the customer to keep buying new ones.

Assuming that your reaction to "man, I was really enjoying Hellgate London, and now the servers went dark after less than a year" is "I want to give those people more money", I guess it works out.

I did not have this reaction at all.

[Reverent-One]

At any time, for absolutely any reason. For all the fuss a couple of years back about Origin's 'we can delete your account after two years' deal, nobody ever mentioned that Steam's ToS were absolutely no better.

Well, Valve is generally considered more trustworthy than EA, and the fuss about Origin also went into spyware concerns and EA being jerks and pulling their games from other digital avenues than their new proprietary system.

[Deadline]

Not sure if they require it, but Triple A games certainly cost that much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop) to make, and it gets worse once you add marketing.

You appear to be conflating the amount of money necessary to develop a game, and the amount of money that was spent to develop some games. These are not the same. Indeed, the very industry you compared it to is famous for inflating the amount of money spent so that it appears said movies make marginal profits. The practice is called Hollywood Accounting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting). It would not surprise me in the slightest to learn that big game studios do something similar.

Meanwhile, Kickstarter appears to show a different trend (the budgets for pretty sizeable games are nowhere near the costs listed in your link).

[erikun]

You appear to be conflating the amount of money necessary to develop a game, and the amount of money that was spent to develop some games. These are not the same. Indeed, the very industry you compared it to is famous for inflating the amount of money spent so that it appears said movies make marginal profits. The practice is called Hollywood Accounting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting). It would not surprise me in the slightest to learn that big game studios do something similar.

Meanwhile, Kickstarter appears to show a different trend (the budgets for pretty sizeable games are nowhere near the costs listed in your link).
Actually, Hollywood Accounting is something completely different. It is using legal loopholes so that they do not need to pay rights to other companies and individuals off profits on a movie. One of the typical methods of doing so involves having two "studios" in the same company, doing all the work in the first and then releasing it by the second. Then, when a contract is looked at to give money based off profits, the first studio can claim to have taken a net loss because they didn't receive any of the profits.

Of course, this is just an example, but it's the idea of how Hollywood Accounting works. I have never heard of any accusations of Hollywood Accounting in video games, and most AAA titles that "fail" generally have really poor sales.

Also, note that people have been discussing the actual cost of video game, not the potential necessary cost. Yes, there are a lot of AAA games that could be produced at less cost. I'm not sure that they'd really do well with a lesser budget, though - a lot of current AAA games are mostly spectacle anyways, and without their budget in graphics and voice work, I don't think that we'd see many/any of them successful. Perhaps it isn't unreasonable to say that AAA games really do need those large costs, as they probably couldn't sell anything if they lost them (which certainly says something about the quality of most of those games).

[Deadline]

Also, note that people have been discussing the actual cost of video game, not the potential necessary cost.

And again, I question that we are talking about the actual cost. We are certainly talking about the amount of money spent, but I'm not sure sure they are the same thing (if I sold a $1 plate to someone for $5, the actual cost was a $1, the amount spent was $5). Perhaps the difference is irrelevant to Raven's Cry, but taking those numbers and claiming that "games are really expensive to make" seems ... incorrect.

And I'm not sure you are disagreeing with my description of Hollywood Accounting. The end goal of such a practice is to make a movie appear to have made marginal profits, no profits, or even took a loss, yes?

My mention of Hollywood Accounting was to indicate that the budget of a AAA title is not indicative of the amount of money required to make a AAA game (but, like Hollywood movies, it is used to justify ever increasing budgets for future movies).

[CarpeGuitarrem]

And I'm not sure you are disagreeing with my description of Hollywood Accounting. The end goal of such a practice is to make a movie appear to have made marginal profits, no profits, or even took a loss, yes?

For a particular motive: avoiding having to pay out a percentage of the profits to rights holders. Not a lot of AAA games have that motive. What motive would AAA games have to undersell their profit (or overstate their costs)? Not "getting a sequel greenlit", because "negative profits" is a very bad argument for a sequel. :smallwink: Plus, game companies don't have the same greenlighting process that big-budget films have to go through.

Really, though, it sounds like overskepticism here. Trying to find excuses to dispute the hard numbers.

You might want to have a look at the article that provided the sources for most of those figures (http://kotaku.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-a-big-video-game-1501413649).

[Deadline]

Really, though, it sounds like overskepticism here.

I've certainly been guilty of that. :smalltongue:


Trying to find excuses to dispute the hard numbers.

Yes and no. I disagree with the assertion that "games are getting really expensive to make". The evidence provided for the budgets of AAA titles cannot support that argument alone, especially when taking into account the budgets of the bigger titles on Kickstarter. The data conflicts, so I'm trying to reconcile it (i.e. trying to find "excuses"/reasons). Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of shams on Kickstarter, so I can't say with any confidence that the data from there is any good either.

I'll give the article you linked a read when I get the chance. It's blocked by the filter at my workplace.

[endoperez]

Yes and no. I disagree with the assertion that "games are getting really expensive to make". The evidence provided for the budgets of AAA titles cannot support that argument alone, especially when taking into account the budgets of the bigger titles on Kickstarter. The data conflicts, so I'm trying to reconcile it (i.e. trying to find "excuses"/reasons). Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of shams on Kickstarter, so I can't say with any confidence that the data from there is any good either.



“You’ll see lots of triple-A stuff coming out over time. The industry’s changing – this generation it seems like there are about a third of the number of triple-A titles in development across the industry as there was last time around – and each one seems to have about three times the budget of the previous generation. I think we’re heading towards a future where triple-A is the minority.”

edit: forgot to link to the source (www.edge-online.com/features/three-new-epic-games-incoming-as-unreal-engine-looks-to-define-a-new-generation/)

Epic Games are the game and game engine developer who've created the Unreal games and the widely used (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games)Unreal Engine.
The "last time around" he mentions was when Unreal Engine 3 was released in 2006.

[Deadline]

So AAA titles are becoming a rarity? Interesting.

[Ravens_cry]

You appear to be conflating the amount of money necessary to develop a game, and the amount of money that was spent to develop some games. These are not the same. Indeed, the very industry you compared it to is famous for inflating the amount of money spent so that it appears said movies make marginal profits. The practice is called Hollywood Accounting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting). It would not surprise me in the slightest to learn that big game studios do something similar.

Meanwhile, Kickstarter appears to show a different trend (the budgets for pretty sizeable games are nowhere near the costs listed in your link).
Those aren't triple AAA games.
Now, you can make a good graphical quality and aesthetically impressive game with a fraction of the budget if you aren't going the absolute leading edge, something District 9 proved for effects heavy films as well, but for Triple AAA games, a part of the industry that is practically defined by pushing the graphical edge, they are indeed more expensive and getting more so with each generation of consoles and the latest PCs.
The numbers don't lie.
Now, if you step away from the bleeding edge, you can get some amazing results too, as the artists, programmers, and designers learn to use the existing tools better and more efficiently, pulling tricks that they didn't know how before, but the Triple AAA industry keeps throwing away its existing tools for new 'better' tools instead of learning how to use their existing ones more.

[PallElendro]

DRM has killed my ability to play Halo 2 Vista at all, even when the service is being shut down, and I should not be subject to being forced to restrict my games to an account on a single computer or console, as is the case with the Xbox One. I should have the ability to either keep the disc to use as I please, or keep digital downloads DRM-free, because it's getting ridiculous.

This sums it up nicely.https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/t1.0-9/1482837_727542250631746_8687478245023122923_n.jpg

[Ravens_cry]

I don't think it's unfair to want to be rewarded for ones work. Some people release their music for free to drive up publicity for their concerts, or simply because they want to, and that's their choice, but if it's good enough to steal, it's good enough to buy, especially with digital music sales. Albums though are a total rip off.
Still, I honestly don't see the logic in "Well, they're rich, who cares if we steal from them."

[Drumbum42]

I don't think it's unfair to want to be rewarded for ones work. Some people release their music for free to drive up publicity for their concerts, or simply because they want to, and that's their choice, but if it's good enough to steal, it's good enough to buy, especially with digital music sales. Albums though are a total rip off.
Still, I honestly don't see the logic in "Well, they're rich, who cares if we steal from them."

In PallElendro's case it's not really about stealing because you're stealing from rich people. It was about the Expected Service purchased vs the Service received. He wanted to play Halo2, so he purchased Halo2. What he received was Halo2 for 1 computer install. The ToS or EULA is not posted on the box so he could not have known this was the case when he purchased the game. Essentially he thought he got ripped off by the game company, shown by the not really applicable picture.

Worse then that is a game no longer being supported. You wouldn't be able to install the game because the online authentication servers are gone. Your $60 game disk is now a coaster. This has unfortunately happened before. ex: EA guts Westwood in like 2003 and all game/update servers vanish until 2012 when EA starts selling classic C&C games again. Westwood didn't use online CD Key authentication, but if it had, the game would be worthless.

But back to PallElendro's example, the type of DRM he ran into was designed to keep people from Pirating software, but also kept a legal copy from being used. This is a failure of that game's DRM. DRM should never be visible to a user with a legal copy. (At least 50% of DRM fails this unfortunately) But that's just my opinion.

[Ravens_cry]

Oh, I agree. I hate invasive DRM that makes a cracked pirated version a better gaming experience than all the loops and checks the retail version pouts you through, that treats paying customers like criminals. Heck, I remember some games that actually wanted and enabled you to share a limited version with your friends. Warcraft II had this. It's hard to imagine many game companies being that generous now.
What I was talking about the picture in the spoiler.

[ChristianSt]

Yeah, I don't really like that image, too.


Heck, the reason I started this thread was to voice my opinion that I would like to give content creators the money they deserve (and receive good content for it), but because of DRM I'm sometimes (or depending on the type of the content more often) not able* too. :smallfrown:

Especially since I have the feeling that a good amount of DRM comes through the publisher and not necessarily because the content creator wants it.



*[Yes I know technical I would be able to pay for it. But I'm not paying for crippled content.]

[Drumbum42]

Oh, I agree. I hate invasive DRM that makes a cracked pirated version a better gaming experience than all the loops and checks the retail version pouts you through, that treats paying customers like criminals. Heck, I remember some games that actually wanted and enabled you to share a limited version with your friends. Warcraft II had this. It's hard to imagine many game companies being that generous now.
What I was talking about the picture in the spoiler.

Yea, the picture was.... "off topic" lets say. Anyway, Microsoft DRM is why I first moved to Linux/Open and Libre Office. Driving customers away should not be an acceptable side effect of DRM.

[Ravens_cry]

Yea, the picture was.... "off topic" lets say. Anyway, Microsoft DRM is why I first moved to Linux/Open and Libre Office. Driving customers away should not be an acceptable side effect of DRM.
Yes, it was pretty obvious it was 'off topic', and I even agree with the point in the text above the picture. but it still seems odd that you would have said the picture summed up your previous paragraph.

[PallElendro]

Oh, I agree. I hate invasive DRM that makes a cracked pirated version a better gaming experience than all the loops and checks the retail version pouts you through, that treats paying customers like criminals.

Yes.

I just went out and lurked the interwebz for hours before stumbling across a cracked copy. I'm sorry, but it had to be done. It should have been what I paid for in the first place, but I was denied my right. I'm now happily playing Halo 2 as I should have, no thanks to the publishers.

[Lokiare]

Yeah my ISP sent me an email the other day saying I was pirating something. Turns out it was a game with DRM that I legally owned but couldn't install without a cracked version. I sent them a scathing email about privacy and getting sued shortly thereafter.

[Solse]

Yeah my ISP sent me an email the other day saying I was pirating something. Turns out it was a game with DRM that I legally owned but couldn't install without a cracked version. I sent them a scathing email about privacy and getting sued shortly thereafter.

What kind of ISP does that?! I advise switching.

[Reverent-One]

What kind of ISP does that?! I advise switching.

Most of them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Alert_System)

[Drumbum42]

Most of them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Alert_System)

Yea, this is the reason I never switched to Verizon, even though they were cheaper and faster. (That and I've heard their customer service is poor) Why should I have to worry about my ISP blocking or throttling my internet for doing perfectly legal things? Bittorrent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bittorrent)? Legal. It is just misused by many people. Accessing a video from my house when I'm on vacation? Legal. But depending on how they're detecting "illegal" traffic this could be flagged. Ya know, because I pay my ISP to hinder my use of said service.

Just like google and youtube, it better to mark EVERYTHING (https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/) as copyright infringing and then make the owners prove their innocence.

/end rant

[Ravens_cry]

Just like google and youtube, it better to mark EVERYTHING (https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/) as copyright infringing and then make the owners prove their innocence.

/end rant
The trouble is I have seen people use that system to censor others, even when the use is clearly Fair Use.
For example, a certain conspiracy theorist from the land down under ("where men blunder", indeed!) has several times reported debunking videos that contained small clips of his videos as part of the debunking process. Whole Youtube channels have being locked, videos blocked and deleted, in this fashion, with the onus to change things on the 'guilty' party, even though the conspiracy theorist is committing perjury.

[Grinner]

Yeah my ISP sent me an email the other day saying I was pirating something. Turns out it was a game with DRM that I legally owned but couldn't install without a cracked version. I sent them a scathing email about privacy and getting sued shortly thereafter.

Assuming you live in the US, I imagine nothing they did was illegal. Remember SOPA? SOPA was basically an extension of the six strikes system put into place a couple years prior. See, when you connect to a BitTorrent network, you broadcast your IP address to everyone in your "swarm". That means a copyright holder can connect to the swarm and look at everyone they're connected to. With that information, they can go to the ISP serving the IP addresses and complain. The six strikes system linked to earlier simply formalizes the process.

[Drumbum42]

Just like google and youtube, it better to mark EVERYTHING as copyright infringing and then make the owners prove their innocence.

The trouble is I have seen people use that system to censor others, even when the use is clearly Fair Use.
For example, a certain conspiracy theorist from the land down under ("where men blunder", indeed!) has several times reported debunking videos that contained small clips of his videos as part of the debunking process. Whole Youtube channels have being locked, videos blocked and deleted, in this fashion, with the onus to change things on the 'guilty' party, even though the conspiracy theorist is committing perjury.

Oh sorry, that last part was sarcastic. Probably should have done /sarcasm or something. Fun fact though, when Copyright Alert System first launched there was a website (http://www.copyrightinformation.org) with the important info that ISP users were meant to read. It made no note of fair use. Like it doesn't exist. Like unicorns. But not like Dragons, because those are real, they're too awesome to not exist.

[noparlpf]

You know, I think DRM could actually increase piracy. No data, but it makes sense. You buy something, realise you can't transfer it when you get a new computer, get angry because you paid for the thing, and decide to pirate the thing so you can use it on your new computer. Not an example of piracy, but a few years ago when I had to reinstall Windows, Microsoft Office stopped working. Said I needed an activation key that I didn't have. Why not just have a working copy of Microsoft Office as part of the OS? But no. So I switched to OpenOffice instead of paying for Microsoft Office again.

[Deadline]

You know, I think DRM could actually increase piracy. No data, but it makes sense. You buy something, realise you can't transfer it when you get a new computer, get angry because you paid for the thing, and decide to pirate the thing so you can use it on your new computer.

I'm fairly certain one of the links I posted earlier in the thread has a study that indicated just that.

At any rate, I'm not in the habit of purchasing products laden with consumer punishing DRM (which is most DRM I've seen). I used to be the sort of person who would buy a product that I liked, and pirate a functioning copy so I could use it, until I just got fed up with the hassle. Every product with DRM that I am or have been interested in is a luxury product. I simply don't need to have it, so making it harder to procure and use means a lost sale from me (and make no mistake, it's a lost sale because of DRM).

[Talya]

Arrr! Avast ye drunken bilge rats! Slacken braces and make ready to sail!

Errr.

Ahem.

DRM does nothing to stop piracy. Nothing at all. At best it presents a fun challenge to a few determined pirates, while frustrating those who possess the legitimate rights to use the protected material. It amazes me how often pirate copies of video games are available BEFORE official release, and two days later when the game is released the buggy DRM is preventing people with legitimate copies from playing it.

[endoperez]

It amazes me how often pirate copies of video games are available BEFORE official release, and two days later when the game is released the buggy DRM is preventing people with legitimate copies from playing it.

And the fact that those copies are available too early is the reason for the DRM. If people can get the game illegally before they can get it legally, they will get it the only way they can. Even if DRM only stops it some of the time, it's WORTH IT.

edit:

http://wccftech.com/thief-leaked-heavily-pirated-release-steam-protection-crack/
"The days immediately following the debut of any title are crucial to its sales figures. Mostly, if the DRM can survive just for a few days, 90% of the early gaming sales are done with. However, if upon release, a user has the choice to go free or cough up, well lets just say we are all human."


There's also this article that claims that releasing even a demo will hurt sales. If that's just the demo, then a pirated version of the full game is unlikely to do any better. And this is by analyzing sales figures, not "assuming all the downloads were paying customers". Games without demos sold more.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/02/11/jesse-schell-releasing-a-game-demo-can-cut-sales-in-half

[TuggyNE]

And the fact that those copies are available too early is the reason for the DRM. If people can get the game illegally before they can get it legally, they will get it the only way they can. Even if DRM only stops it some of the time, it's WORTH IT.

Any argument that takes the form "Even if X stops Y some of the time, it's worth it" — without examining a) the cost of X, b) the impact of Y, and c) the chance it works — is highly dubious. You've given some idea of the impact of Y (some significant fraction of 90% of total sales may be affected, whatever that means), but nothing on the other two. From the rest of the thread, though, we can see that the percentage is pretty low, and the cost is fairly high, both in development and in indirect costs to legitimate users.

Suppose, then, that DRM that lasts for 8 hours saves 20% of gross; that DRM that lasts for 24 hours saves 40%; and that DRM that lasts for 72 hours saves 60% — these are, if anything, rather high estimates. How expensive are these various forms to develop, and how much extra cost do they impose on the users that's not passed on to the producer? If we hypothesize that the first form costs 15% of expected gross to develop and imposes an additional 8% of gross on users (from delays, malfunctions, crippling, server shutdowns, and so on), well, that's not actually a good setup, and your argument is incorrect in that case. If you wish to support that argument, you must actually give some sort of numbers that add up to a net gain; the qualitative analysis so far is just insufficient.

Now, I can see why the companies would implement it, since any user that buys another copy because the first copy only works in limited circumstances is more money in the bank (which offsets a lot of the cost of development and lowered profits from those who don't buy DRM at all), but that's not the same as saying it's actually worthwhile; there is a significant chance of a market failure here, since there's several externalities in play.

[Talya]

I think he even missed that I said most of the time, DRM free pirate copies are available BEFORE launch of the DRM-infested official release.

Meaning that DRM actually does NOT work, most of the time.

The only type of "DRM" that has ever been shown to work at all is by forcing a game to not have any "offline" mode - all games are multiplayer and require connection to a server.

[Coidzor]

You know, I think DRM could actually increase piracy. No data, but it makes sense. You buy something, realise you can't transfer it when you get a new computer, get angry because you paid for the thing, and decide to pirate the thing so you can use it on your new computer. Not an example of piracy, but a few years ago when I had to reinstall Windows, Microsoft Office stopped working. Said I needed an activation key that I didn't have. Why not just have a working copy of Microsoft Office as part of the OS? But no. So I switched to OpenOffice instead of paying for Microsoft Office again.

Yeah, that's definitely an idea that's been put forward. When the pirated product is superior to the legitimate one, piracy is encouraged.

[TuggyNE]

I think he even missed that I said most of the time, DRM free pirate copies are available BEFORE launch of the DRM-infested official release.

Meaning that DRM actually does NOT work, most of the time.

In other words, increasing the minimum investment needed to reach even 20% gross benefit.

[endoperez]

I think he even missed that I said most of the time, DRM free pirate copies are available BEFORE launch of the DRM-infested official release.

If you mean me, then you assumed wrongly.That is included in the definition of zero-day piracy, and I mentioned that quite often...

What I disagree on is the rate. Pre-release piracy doesn't happen always. I don't know exact rates. However, the more draconic means, such as StarForce, have had some great successes.

"Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, released on 28 March 2005, utilizes the StarForce protection method. As unpopular as this protection method was, it worked to protect the game from any piracy for over a year (422 days) before a working crack was released."
http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_8.html

BioShock, Mass Effect and GTA IV were also mentioned as examples. That's an old article, and I know Steam's security stuff has been thoroughly solved these days, so games relying only on Steam won't be protected - but I understand that's after release. A Steam release can't be downloaded from Steam before it's made available - which is on release day in all except most neglectful cases.


I'd love to write a post that answers TuggyNE's long post, but I'd have to research it first, and don't have the time. There's so many variables - the direct cost of implementing DRM, the sales lost due to DRM backslash, increase of support costs due to DRM, possibility of DRM preventing paying customers from accessing the game etc. and that's just the "costs of X"!

The only thing I have to go on ATM is hearsay, such as the articles quoted/mentioned/discussed in the first posts of this thread:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?12597-Ready-steady-go!-Discuss-DRM

'Danaher et al. (2013) collect the dozens of papers from both sides of the argument and conclude that "piracy results in a statistically significant reduction in sales, particularly in emerging digital channels".'

I have no idea if that paper really does say that, if that's taken out of context, etc.

[noparlpf]

What they need to do is anonymously interview pirates to see whether they would actually eventually buy the DRM-protected version, despite the hassle, without the option to pirate a functional version, and whether they personally would pirate things if they could buy functional versions from the get-go.

[endoperez]

What they need to do is anonymously interview pirates to see whether they would actually eventually buy the DRM-protected version, despite the hassle, without the option to pirate a functional version, and whether they personally would pirate things if they could buy functional versions from the get-go.

Interviews do not accurately represent human behaviour.
www.positech.co.uk/talkingtopirates.html
According to that poll, no DRM, low price, product quality and good demo are four features pirates gave that would stop them from pirating.
World of Goo had 80+% piracy rate even though it had all the asked-for features.

If they could get game companies and publishers to give enough data on sales of games and compare those to how long DRM delayed cracked versions, they might be able to get something.

[warty goblin]

Interviews do not accurately represent human behaviour.
www.positech.co.uk/talkingtopirates.html
According to that poll, no DRM, low price, product quality and good demo are four features pirates gave that would stop them from pirating.
World of Goo had 80+% piracy rate even though it had all the asked-for features.

If they could get game companies and publishers to give enough data on sales of games and compare those to how long DRM delayed cracked versions, they might be able to get something.

I hardly think responding to a blog post counts as an interview.

Moving along, a number (even a very large number) of people responding to a blog post does not give any insight into the general population. It can tell you a lot about what the people who responded think, but that's it. Absent a known randomization scheme, you have no way to relate your responses to the population at large. To elaborate, Cliffski points out that 5% of his respondents said they pirate basically just because they can. Is 5% anything like the true population proportion of people who pirate for this reason? I have no idea, and no way of producing a remotely reasonable estimate from that number; and nobody else does either. If I was forced to guess, I would hazard it's a severe under-estimate, since somebody who's going to pirate no matter what has zero incentive to respond to a question about what would get them to not pirate.

[georgie_leech]

I hardly think responding to a blog post counts as an interview.

Moving along, a number (even a very large number) of people responding to a blog post does not give any insight into the general population. It can tell you a lot about what the people who responded think, but that's it. Absent a known randomization scheme, you have no way to relate your responses to the population at large. To elaborate, Cliffski points out that 5% of his respondents said they pirate basically just because they can. Is 5% anything like the true population proportion of people who pirate for this reason? I have no idea, and no way of producing a remotely reasonable estimate from that number; and nobody else does either. If I was forced to guess, I would hazard it's a severe under-estimate, since somebody who's going to pirate no matter what has zero incentive to respond to a question about what would get them to not pirate.

That figure implies that 5% of the population:

Enjoys games
Has seen this blog post
Has a casual disregard for authority such that they would pirate simply because they can
Actually acts on said disregard


I find it hard enough to believe that 5% of the population meets those criteria (especially considering the number of people in the world that lack a stable internet connection), let alone that it's an under-estimation.

[memnarch]

Interviews do not accurately represent human behaviour.
www.positech.co.uk/talkingtopirates.html
According to that poll, no DRM, low price, product quality and good demo are four features pirates gave that would stop them from pirating.
World of Goo had 80+% piracy rate even though it had all the asked-for features.

If they could get game companies and publishers to give enough data on sales of games and compare those to how long DRM delayed cracked versions, they might be able to get something.
The interesting thing is is that in the very same article that number comes from (http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/), they agree with an estimate that preventing 1000 piracy attempts results in only a single additional sale. Do note that they were only able to compare world of goo to ricochet, a game that shipped with DRM and had similar bad piracy rates, so there's not a lot of data available.

[TuggyNE]

The interesting thing is is that in the very same article that number comes from (http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/), they agree with an estimate that preventing 1000 piracy attempts results in only a single additional sale.

That sounds pretty painful, although obviously without knowing how much it costs to prevent those 1000 it's difficult to say how bad exactly. (Starting to see a trend here?)

[Knaight]

That figure implies that 5% of the population:

Enjoys games
Has seen this blog post
Has a casual disregard for authority such that they would pirate simply because they can
Actually acts on said disregard


That figure implies that 5% of the population who pirates games does so just because they can, not that 5% of the total human population does. It implies it through the idea that the respondents to the blog post are a sufficiently large (quite possibly) representative sample (they aren't), which is then extrapolated outward.

[Drascin]

True, but a lot of consumers just don't use torrents. Maybe they're nervous that the crackers will have put unwanted payloads in the file (has been known). Maybe they're not comfortable with the whole conspiratorial/deliberately-criminal/underground 'feel' of the torrent community. Maybe they just don't know how. They might accept a pirated disc as a gift from someone they know and trust, but downloading executable content to your PC from an unknown source from people who positively revel in being criminals - that's a very different thing. Whatever their reasons, there are a lot of people in that category.

Indeed, distrust in random anonymous torrents is a thing, and why known reliable torrent uploaders are quite liked in the sites in question.

In general, though, I've found that people are buying a lot of stuff legit in Steam that normally they'd pirate, lately. A big part of it comes down, I think, to the handiness/cost ratio. Steam is handier than a pirated copy because you can redownload easier and more reliably than a lot of torrent sites (where trying to redownload a game you got three years ago can well see you having to poke around a fair bit to find decent seeds, especially if you want the game in anything other than English), get the updates automatically instead of having to track down each update as it happens, keeps your saved games in a lot of games across computers without needing you to carry them around in a pendrive, all that kind of thing. This wouldn't be enough to get people to drop a full 30-40 dollar game price at all, but a lot of people, even a lot of people I know who have been diehard pirates who had never bought an a non-second-hand original game since the Playstation era, are willing to drop five bucks to have all these conveniences during a Steam sale.

[georgie_leech]

That figure implies that 5% of the population who pirates games does so just because they can, not that 5% of the total human population does. It implies it through the idea that the respondents to the blog post are a sufficiently large (quite possibly) representative sample (they aren't), which is then extrapolated outward.

Ah, I was responding to the idea that it was a general population figure; something in the wording gave me that impression and I was tired. My mistake.

[Gnoman]

Indeed, distrust in random anonymous torrents is a thing, and why known reliable torrent uploaders are quite liked in the sites in question.

In general, though, I've found that people are buying a lot of stuff legit in Steam that normally they'd pirate, lately. A big part of it comes down, I think, to the handiness/cost ratio. Steam is handier than a pirated copy because you can redownload easier and more reliably than a lot of torrent sites (where trying to redownload a game you got three years ago can well see you having to poke around a fair bit to find decent seeds, especially if you want the game in anything other than English), get the updates automatically instead of having to track down each update as it happens, keeps your saved games in a lot of games across computers without needing you to carry them around in a pendrive, all that kind of thing. This wouldn't be enough to get people to drop a full 30-40 dollar game price at all, but a lot of people, even a lot of people I know who have been diehard pirates who had never bought an a non-second-hand original game since the Playstation era, are willing to drop five bucks to have all these conveniences during a Steam sale.

There's also the fact that something like 99.99% of all pirated Steam-only games are version 1.0 (as the cracking team took care of it on launch and moved on, never to touch it again) and are completely unpatchable (because Steam-only games are patched by the steam client, and thus no independent patch installers exist), making the pirated version a vastly inferior product.