Slashdot Mirror
Game Distribution and the 'Idiocy' of DRM
In light of the increased focus on the DRM controversy in recent days, Ars Technica did an interview with execs from CD Projekt's Good Old Games about where the problems are with current DRM implementation. "For me, the idiocy of those protection solutions shows how far from reality and from customers a lot of executives at big companies can be. You don't have to be a genius to check the internet and see all the pros and cons of those actions." Penny Arcade is also running a three-part series on DRM from game journalists Brian Crecente and Chris Remo. Crecente talks about how some companies are making progress in developing acceptable DRM, and some aren't. Remo recommends against a trend of overreaction to minor gripes.
Is crack it.
I saw a good quote from a games company's enlightened Chief Executive recently -
"DRM can encourage the best customers to behave slightly better. It will never address the masses of non-customers downloading your product."
Why the others haven't understood this I don't know. And note the 'DRM can encourage...'. I'd say I'm a good customer (I spend a bunch anyway), but I'm increasingly drawn to warez, because they - and I can't believe I'm writing this - are less likely to screw my gaming PC. What is the world coming to?
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
DRM takes control of the product away from the consumer and put it in the hands of the media owner. When you buy any DRM-encumbered media, you don't control that media. The way you use that media is determined by the content owner. Don't have an HDCP-compatible monitor? Well, I guess you can't view these discs in HD the way they were intended. Don't have a fairplay-compatible MP3 player? Tough, you can't listen to the music you bought and paid for. The hilarious thing is that every single DRM scheme ever invented has been circumvented by pirates, and only legitimate, law-abiding consumers have to put up with this. Why buy media which is just going to impede your efforts to use it, when you can download it and play it any damn way you want to?
"I don't like to download illegally, I really would prefer to pay"
Then why not buy the box and download and play the pirated version of the game? That puts the money in the correct pockets, but you still get the version of the game you want.
Because if you do that you send the signal you accept DRM. Do that, and we'll never be rid of it.
Talk about false dichotomy.
It'd be like "Either I can rape my kids, or have no children". Guess what? There's a third, and very palatable answer. We'll let YOU figure that out, if you are mentally able.
Yeah, that's the problem. It's why they don't give a shit in the first place - they've already got your money, so why improve or even care?
There is no such thing as "acceptable DRM". By it's very existence, a non-DRM'd game will always be more acceptable than one which has added bloatware in the form of DRM attached to it.
I've always bought my games. I often download pirated games to try out, but if I like them, I almost always buy them. There are a few exceptions where I've never gotten around to buying a copy, but they are far outweighed by the number of games that I've paid for and never played, still sitting on my shelf in their shrinkwrapping.
However, a few years ago, I was so furious with the music industry selling me a useless CD that I couldn't play that I vowed never to buy another music item again. I have a whole basement full of CDs, but none of them are dated after 2005!
With the bad experience I had with Bioshock, I'm very tempted to do the same thing with games. I certainly won't buy Spore even though I'm a fan of Will Wright's games, solely because of the awful DRM. I've tolerated having to use No-CD crack up until now but if things keep getting worse, I'll stop buying games altogether and I'd encourage others to do the same.
The idea that DRM can be moderate seems fairly sensible on the surface(some DRM schemes are more restrictive than others, therefore the less restrictive ones must be moderate, and everybody knows that moderation is good!); but in a more important way, it is nonsense.
A DRM system consists of a locked box and a key. In order to be effective, the system must simultaneously know the key, while preventing the user from knowing it. This means that the DRM system must deny the user access to some or all of his own system. There is absolutely nothing "moderate" about being locked out of parts of your own memory space. In this sense, all effective DRM systems are absolute. If DRM is working, it isn't your computer, period. Some DRM systems are more indulgent than others about what and how they restrict; but that isn't the same thing as moderation.
Note: there are some DRM systems that don't control the user in this way, and might be said to be genuinely moderate; but none of them are effective. Further note: my opposition to DRM is no more an endorsement of piracy than my opposition to mass surveillance is an endorsement of murder.
We all have accepted DRM to a POINT. Having to have a DVD in a DVD drive to play a game was a annoying, BUT it was something I was willing to put up with because it still felt like I owned the game. However, this new DRM which REQUIRES online activation AND limits instillation's on how many PC's I can play on has crossed a threshold which many of US will not accept. The game stops feeling like property we own and feels like a rental/lease.
I unfortunately bought one game with this crap DRM on it(spore) and regret it. I cannot shake the feeling that they will shut down the activation servers like walmart is going to do and the game(s) that people have bought with this DRM will be screwed over. Some people have said that they(EA) will release a patch that will fix the DRM if they did that. I say, why would they? If they are bought out, go out of business, or just decide to shut them off, what incentive will they have to release a patch for this? None, that's how much.
This has nothing to do with stopping pirates, this is about stopping resales(which is illegal). They are starting with PC users because they are a smaller test group, but their goal is to get similar DRM set up in consoles so you cannot resale your console games.
To quote someone...
"Modern DRM isn't about stopping piracy. It's about stopping the game from being resold at used games stores so EA doesn't have to compete against their own games with the average customer."
As much as I hate to say it, Spore is still hitting record sales figures.
The DRM has obviously enraged a lot of us here, and I have no doubt that has cost them some sales. But I don't think "we" (meaning those who understand how much DRM can cripple a game) are the demographic that is going to make or break the game. This is a mass market game, and practically all the reviews I've seen (even here on slashdot!) ignore the DRM issue. Practically all the people I've talked to about the game have no idea what I'm talking about when I tell them about the DRM, and are in for a very nasty time the third time they need to reformat their system, or reinstall the game for whatever reason.
EA made a calculated decision here, knowing that they would lose some of our support, but if the casual gamer (let's face it, the target Spore demographic) gives up on trying to install his friend's game and buys his own copy, that's a win for EA. If a few years down the track he hits hit three install limit, what's he going to do? Buy another copy, probably. Even if he doesn't, EA has the original sale and has lost nothing. The fact that the pirates have a far superior product is amusing and ironic, but irrelevant to EA's bottom line.
Until the reviewers take their jobs seriously and start actually pointing out serious fundamental flaws in the game, companies like EA can be confident that they have made the right decision.
"DRM can encourage the best customers to behave slightly better. It will never address the masses of non-customers downloading your product."
Seriously, WTH is that supposed to mean? By better it means, not loaning it to your brother, it means not being able to sell it. All perfectly reasonable things.
DRM definitely does encourage customers to visit the pirate sites to get proper usability back by downloading cracks (AKA no cd cracks). Eventually you are going to lose a number of customers who get fed up and cut out the middle man (the producer) and start with the cracked version. After all you trained them for years this is where you get the full value product.
iTunes songs are 99 cents. That is 200% more than what "market competitor selling downloads of the same content?
iTunes movies are 2.99 to 4.99. That is 200% more than what "market competitor selling downloads of the same content?
iTunes mobile software is mostly $1-10. Most mobile software for other platforms is $15-$50.
Apple's DRM isn't designed to reform thieves. It's designed to create a market. You can't stop thieves, but you can create a functional market that leaves the thieves to steal elsewhere. Or are you suggesting that because there is shoplifting, we can't have retail stores?
The iPhone Store Impending Disaster Myth
"What are your basis for saying that loaning the game to your brother or selling it are perfectly reasonable things to do? Not that I necessarily disagree, but I'd like to know how you justify it."
Much like I can loan/sell Books/CDs/Movies. I think first someone has to justify why games are some special type of copyright material that can't be loaned/sold.
Just because publishers would like it to be so, doesn't make it so. They are attempting to end first sale doctrine exception of copyright by build walls to stop it, that doesn't mean they have the right to stop it.
You own a physical copy of a game. You can do what you want with that copy so long as it falls within the bounds of what copyright allows. Copyright only covers, well, copying. Selling the game or loaning it to somebody isn't covered by the law, and is therefore allowed.
There's a popular misconception that you do not own media, but merely license it. This simply isn't true. When you buy a game in a box you own that box and its contents. The only thing you don't own is the right to make a copy of the contents in a way that is covered by copyright law.
And that is why loaning and selling a game are perfectly reasonable.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
No, YOU missed the fact. Those millions of illegally acquired pieces of software AREN'T customers. They will NEVER be your customer.
Instead of focusing on consumers that aren't paying you focus on the ones THAT ARE!!
By implementing stronger and stronger DRM you're wasting resources on nothing, but that's not the real reason DRM is put on disks. It's to stop customers from taking back a shitty game.
Lets look at Spore. You buy Spore, install it and link it to your email address. That copy of spore is now permanently linked to you.
After doing this you realise that Spore is a piece of shit with frequent crashes every 5 minutes, but oh look! You CAN'T refund it because you linked it to yourself. So even though EA have released Spore in the horrible state it is they still make a ton of profit with angry customers not being able to refund.
If you buy a toaster and it doesn't work, you take it back. What makes the gaming industry so fucking special?
I don't particularly agree with loaning it to someone,
"Loaning a game" implies that while the game is loaned out, the original owner can't play it. It's your game - you should be able to damn well decide who to loan it to. If you substitute "book" for "game", it sounds pretty ridiculous.
It's only when "loaning a game" translates to "burn a copy of the game" that you run into trouble. But that's not really "loaning", is it?
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
But the GP was saying why there shouldn't be DRM, and requiring the user to have the disc is a form of DRM. Without that, what he means is he should be able to install the game, and then lend the disc to someone. That person can install the game, and then they can both still play, because without the DRM, it wouldn't require a disc to play. It's less ridiculous if you replace "loaning a book" with "taking a book down to Kinko's to get it copied for free by my friend who works there so he can have a copy, too."
By what name do you wish to be mourned?
For me, if I lent someone my copy of StarCraft, it meant I was no longer able to play the game while my copy was loaned out. And naturally, loaning a console game is truly "loaning" for most people. That's what I was thinking of.
But you're correct, of course. If you're talking about pure digital content that can be completely installed on and run from the hard drive, then there's no such concept as "loaning" the software to someone. It's always a copy. And then the problem gets a bit more nebulous.
Ultimately, though, PC game developers are going to have to face up to a hard truth: they're relying on the good will of their customers to pay for a product that they could, without too much technical difficulty, get for free. This means that developers need to focus two aspects of game development:
a) They must forge a relationship with their customers, so that their customers are enthusiastic about supporting their development efforts with their money. Blizzard and StarDock operate on completely different scales, but both companies have very loyal customers who are willing to part with their money, with the understanding that it will likely go to fund further development of products they enjoy.
b) They can provide online services to enhance the game, and thus provide an incentive for legitimate purchases. Obviously, an MMO is the most extreme example of this, where the entire game takes place online. But matchmaking for online play, quick and easy patches, online bonus content... these are all ways of enhancing the player's experience as well.
The sad thing is, Spore has integrated online content. EA could have simply used the same method Blizzard and Stardock have used successfully - you must have a legitimate CD-Key to connect to online services. Now, they're simply alienating potential customers, and those who were determined to obtain the game without paying would have done so anyway.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
I've said this a few times before, but Steams' subscriber agreement says no such thing. Games on Steam are sold as single payment subscriptions. I don't own the orange box, I subscribe to it!
I'm not really worried about it though, Steam is such a valuable asset that even in the very unlikely event that Valve goes under whoever bought it would keep it running. It is a bit annoying how this'll kill off the second-hand market but I guess in future all the decent old games that today you'd get in second-hand will be available at GOG!
Nick
Your friends don't equal 99%.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Any spore installation (or any other program for that matter) is copied millions of times in the course of normal use on a single computer (regardless of whether money was given to some 3rd party). It is loaded from the hard disk to RAM, occasionally swapped back to disk and vice versa. What makes this copying "OK" and other copying not "OK"?
It's because of stupid semantics arguments like this that barely-readable legalese EULAs crop up. If you know that things get copied back and forth from HDD to RAM, you should also know the difference between copying back and forth to RAM for the purpose of execution or backup and making a separate copy on (semi-)permanent storage to hand the data over to somebody else. Pretending it's all the same is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.
...don't know what DRM is and they don't care. MOST people don't know how to get a cracked copy of a game or even how to install a no cd patch. MOST people pay $49 for a new game at a big box store, bring it home, install it on their computers, then play the game. All this uproar about DRM really isn't warranted for MOST people. So while it's fun and all to sit and preach from our tech-savvy high-horses, we aren't MOST people. Interestingly enough, the DRM employed by these companies keeps MOST people from making easy and illegal copies and giving them to their friends.