A History of Copy Protection

GamerGirll1138 writes to tell us Next-gen has an amusing walk down memory lane with their history of copy protection. There have been some crazy schemes over the years to ensure that you paid for your software, everything from super-secret decoder rings to ridiculous document checks. "With bandwidth expanding and more and more games publishers exploring digital distribution, there's little doubt that we're entering a new phase in the history of copy protection and those who would defeat it. What's more, the demand for games as a chosen form of entertainment has never been higher. All this considered, it's impossible to believe that the cat-and-mouse game of piracy and copy protection will not reach new levels of intensity, with new technologies deployed on each side, and that some of them will surely create new hurdles for even those who simply wish to purchase and play the newest games. Ah, for the heady days of the code wheel."

Comments

I have no issues with copy protection if...

[Kneo24]

it doesn't treat me like some criminal. I don't want my software to stop working because I had no internet access, and I now have to go out of my way and call technical support. I don't want my software to install root-kits on my PC because it thinks I might be a pirate. I don't want copy protection to be less useful than the pirated version. And so on and so forth.

Re:I have no issues with copy protection if...

[dhavleak]

I don't feel for the publishers at all. Their software is an infinite good.. it doesn't make sense to charge for copies when it costs a penny to press a disk and costs a hundredth of that to offer it for download.

Strongly disagreed

It doesn't matter that it takes 1 cent to press a disk. How much did it cost to make the software, and how many disks did you sell? If your development cost was 10 million dollars, and you sold 10 million copies, you would have to charge at least $10 per disk to break even -- simple math.

It doesn't matter that it's an infinite good either, and that at $10 per copy, every sale after 10 million is profits. They are still entitled to think that they are providing you with a product/service that is worth at least $10 and that is what they ask you to pay them for it. Easy example is a $50 game that you spend one month playing for about an hour a day -- it's not an unreasonable price to ask -- if a customer isn't willing to pay that price, they shouldn't buy the game. If consumers show a trend of "getting the game by hook or by crook", then the publisher will add copy-protections.

It's really that simple -- it comes down to simple human nature. As long as there exists theft / shrink / infringement (whatever you wanna call it), there will be copy-protection. It's up to the govt./courts to step in and define our (consumer's) rights clearly to make sure our rights don't get trampled on by these copy-protection mechanisms.

The ultimate copy protection:

[nurb432]

Quality product at a reasonable price.

The real problem

[willyhill]

The submission touches on the real problem, that this epic battle between companies and the freeriders eventually ends up affecting normal people more than really preventing copying. I have friends who are avid gamers but actually end up pirating the games they buy because it's too difficult to deal with the copy protection crap.

On the other hand I think this will eventually reach a breaking point and these normal people (who are the paying customers) will stop putting up with said crap. That will be an interesting development for sure.