Slashdot Mirror
99.8% of Gamers Don't Care About DRM, Says EA
arcticstoat writes "If you thought that EA might have been humbled by the massive Internet backlash against its use of SecuROM in its recent games, then you'd be wrong. Speaking at the Dow Jones/Nielsen Media and Money Conference, EA's CEO John Riccitiello claimed that the whole issue had been blown out of all proportion. 'We implemented a form of DRM and it's something that 99.8 per cent of users wouldn't notice,' claimed Riccitiello, 'but for the other 0.2 percent, it became an issue and a number of them launched a cabal online to protest against it.'"
If you query the number of gamers you have left, of course you're going to get a 99.8% figure. (Though honestly, that exact figure sounds like bullshit to me. Did you know that 85.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot?) The question is, how many customers have you already lost where DRM was a contributing factor? Of those customers, how many can identify DRM as the problem rather than stating "the game doesn't work"?
I almost guarantee that any study EA has done resulting in these figures was flawed. Based on his statements however, I don't think EA has done that research. Riccitiello pulled that number out of thin air. Even if EA did research that suggests that only 0.2% of users should have a problem, there's a huge gap between theory and practice.
I'm an example of a PC gamer lost by the industry. I used to read PC Gamer regularly, wait for the awesome new titles coming out, and get lost in the worlds of these games. Eventually I stopped and gave up on the industry. If you're interesting in why, here are the key points:
-- Lackluster games. The majority of games felt like regurgitated first person shooters. They were all the same with new skins. Hardly an interesting market.
-- Technological problems. There's nothing more irritating than purchasing a game or getting a game as a gift, then not being able to run it. At least two of those instances were clearly DRM problems. The games would not even start. No error, no reason, just fail. Tech support then explains some BS about having a CD Burner. Because, you know, those are so uncommon in computers. (This guy explains it WAY better than I can.) Not to mention the video card driver treadmill. Having problems with that game? Oh, well you need to update to Super Destructo Detonation Drivers version 34120123.1239213213 release 8231 patch -0123 revision B. It will make your system super-unstable, but your games will kick ass!
-- Time. As I got older, I simply had fewer hours in the day to game. I no longer have the time nor the patience to work around the previous two problem. So I just stopped buying PC games. Nowhere was there a concious decision of "screw them", it was simply, "This does not interest me anymore".
These days I have a console that lets me get the maximum amount of enjoyment out of the least possible time investment. Life is so much better than when PC games clogged my system's arteries.
In closing, I'd like to say this: History has shown that good games sell. Period, end of story. Piracy has always been and always will be a scapegoat for the real problem of poor quality merchandise. Implementing draconian anti-piracy measures will only drive away the few customers you have left.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Because either 99.8% of gamers actually buy the games they play or 99.8% of gamers are confident in their russian software cracks websites.
"...EA's CEO John Riccitiello claimed that the whole issue had been blown out of all proportion. 'We implemented a form of DRM and it's something that 99.8 per cent of users wouldn't notice,' claimed Riccitiello, 'but for the other 0.2 percent, it became an issue and a number of them launched a cabal online to protest against it.'"
His numbers are hyperbole, of course more gamers don't like it but they know that they don't have a choice if they want to stay legit.
"If you thought that EA might have been humbled by the massive Internet backlash against its use of SecuROM in its recent games, then you'd be wrong."
I hate to say that he's right about a relatively small "cabal" comment- bombing Amazon. Not that the reaction wasn't huge, but when half of the comments are obvious dupes then the complainers lose credibility - they're seen as being a handful of crybabies who are threw a collective tantrum and they make the rest of the anti-DRM crowd look bad. Wait for the cracks or don't buy the damn game. It's not your dealer's fault that you're addicted to crack. They can adulterate their product as they choose as there's still obvious demand for it.
Most people don't even know what DRM is, so why should they care about it?
Badass Resumes
If gamers knew that installing a game had a chance of damaging their CD Burner, or causing crashes in non-game activities, requiring a system reformat I bet they would care. As it is, they blame "computers" and do not care.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Now while I am one of the first who will tell you that personal experience doesn't equal empirical evidence, it isn't worthless in this case:
100% of the gamers I know (including me), which is quite a few, care about DRM. None of them like the "3 activations only" crap. Now it is always possible that I happen to belong to a really, really outside group, but not likely based on their BS statistics. If what they claim is true, you'd think at least one of the people I know, and more like everyone except me, would be perfectly ok with it. That they aren't says that EA's statistics are BS.
While I can perfectly well believe that most gamers are ok with DRM of some form, I'd bet almost none of them are ok with it when it interferes with their gameplay. Well, that's what these new DRMs are doing. The cause you to not be able to reinstall, they won't work with perfectly legit systems (Civ 4: BTS didn't like my DVD drive, and I don't even have any virtual drive software installed) and so on. Gamers care about that.
If 99.8% of the customers don't have an issue with the DRM (presumably they are not restricted in what they are doing), why have it implemented in the first place?
DRM has the purpose of restricting what one can do with a digital product - be it a game, a song, whatever. If no-one ever runs into those restrictions, it's been a waste of effort. However if the restrictions are tight and many people run into them, they are presumably effective for what the manufacturer wanted, but will result in customers trying to circumvent it as they want to do things they are not allowed to out of the box. Such as making a back-up copy.
So either DRM is a priori ineffective (restrictions so loose no-one notices them, so there is no effect of the DRM) to prevent complaints, or it is effective in restricting people but then will guaranteed result in protests and circumvention, rendering it ineffective after all.
These days I have a [Wii] console that lets me get the maximum amount of enjoyment out of the least possible time investment.
What do you do when you want to play a game that isn't on the consoles? For example, a lot of indie games are PC exclusives because the developer isn't a big enough company for a WiiWare license.
History has shown that good games sell.
Even good games from small companies?
Yes, give them more ammo that you are an irrational, online cabal by posting bad reviews not of the game you have not purchased due to DRM, but of the DRM that caused you to not purchase the game.
Yes, that will help your cause.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
of course more gamers don't like it
Heck, even he himself doesn't like it:
"Riccitiello admitted that he personally doesn't like DRM, as it 'interrupts the user experience.' He also added that 'We would like to get around that. But there is this problem called piracy out there.'"
Of course, for the potential customers who 'would like to get around that', piracy isn't the problem, it's the solution.
Personally I have bought a number of EA games, but since they started using SecuROM they're permanently off the list. I have better things to do with my time and money.
But in ten years time when they want to show their children/spouse/friends/whoever (or play it yourself) that funny game from ten years ago, and are unable to do so because they can't activate it... THEN they'll mind.
EA is just hoping that none of them is getting that knowledge beforehand.
When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?
What do you expect EA would tell a bunch of Wall Street types? "We screwed the pooch and a bunch of people went after us for it" or "everything is fine, we're a great place to send your money!"
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Who needs 3 installs for Spore when you basically can play the game only twice without being bored?
The game was touted with tons of customizable features... few of them having anything to do with game play.
Wow! I can download tons of imaginative designs for buildings and things, and no matter which one I choose, they all do the same thing.
A DRM issue like this is only a problem for a game like StarCraft or Counter-Strike that people will be playing (and reinstalling) for ten years.
That's not to dilute the point that Bad DRM is... bad. It does illustrate the point that most people don't care about DRM, until they actually get bent over by it.
Note he says "that 99.8 per cent of users wouldn't notice", not that they wont care, just that they wont notice. Off course, if they learned that they wont ever be able to resale the thing, or only resale it a limited amount of times, then they would care, should they realize.
But hey, eyes that don't see, heart that does not feel.
Bingo. 99.8% of game buyers don't care about DRM, but that 0.2% that do care tend to be the hard-core gamers. And 75% of the 99.8% ask their hard-core gamer friends for recommendations on new consoles and new games to buy. When what they hear is "Skip the EA games, they're just a nightmare to work with. Go get this other game instead, you'll like it just as much and it'll give you fewer headaches.", well, sales for EA will tend to sort of suck.
That makes the assumption that people willing to play a game for the cost of a download are willing to play it for the price of the title.
Just because I'd pirate and consume content doesn't mean I'd ever buy that content in a piracy free world.
Piracy != Lost Sales
Piracy == Free Advertising
Piracy is not something that hurts the game industry, piracy is something game developers blame when a game flops or the industry is lackluster.
I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out why 98% of gamers out there are playing pirated versions of their games. EA Games is the gaming industry equivalent of the "Dollar Store". Sure there's a few (and I mean FEW) EA titles that are decent but they're lost amidst a sea of mediocre games that EA pushes out regularly. EA Games putting DRM onto any of their titles is like adding Lo-Jack to your grandma's Chevy Chevette. You may feel good knowing that someone won't get away with stealing it, but at some point you'd have to ask yourself who would want to steal it in the first place.
I agree with EA's assessment (althought 99.8% is rather high, 80% is probably more accurate). MOST people don't care about DRM restrictions... ...until EA, like Wlmart, turns off the servers and makes your $50 game worthless. ...or they try to play the game on their shiny-new Vista or Windows 7 computer, and the OS rejects it.
A lot of people don't realize how bad DRM can be until they get bit on the butt by a non-functioning piece of software or music or video.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
And how many of those dis-joint platforms share the same number of screen resolutions, the same number of sprites, the same screen refresh rates, the same the same the same number of whatevers ???
Sometimes, you just don't NEED to be compatible with everything and the toaster, see what I am saying ?
Most people try to contact the manufacturer by going to the place they set aside for discussions. EA however locks any threads on the subject, and bans the participants if they continue. So the manufacturer in this case is sitting back going "LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! EVERYBODY LOVES ME!"
Not really very constructive.
Is that the only people who ACTUALLY ARE completely unaffected by DRM are the people who are ACTUALLY PIRATING. I've bought games straight-up...any game that I feel is truly ground-breaking I fork out the dough for. Crysis, Oblivion, Thief, are all examples of titles that I felt were good enough to BUY. Ho-Hum titles, I've downloaded, and I must admit that, in the end, I end up applying "pirating" methods to my "legal" games ANYWAY. "Please insert DVD/CD", screw that, I'll just crack it to shit. Maybe game companies should learn from this. I don't think it really matters what kind of protection your put in-place, someone is going to find a way around it. Look at SecuROM and the activation for Windows Vista, the latter was certainly touted as being unbreakable...but...
It was sort of the other way around for me.
I got tired of console games that were buggy/poorly tested etc. and could NOT be patched. I was stuck with the first release version.
PC games at least gave me the aftermarket to fix problems with a game. When I could get inside them, or utilize cracks or whatnot, I began to see more cost value in a PC game. Yeah, I realize that in a perfect world, the games should be perfect on release, but they are not. For that simple reason, I choose to buy a product that at least gives me some latitude in making the fucking thing work to MY liking.
80% is significantly different than 99.8%.
Put another way, I'm sure they can fool themselves into thinking that 0.2% of their customers would've pirated the game if not for DRM.
But if it's 80%, is there really any chance that they'd lose more than 20% of their customers to piracy, if not for DRM?
For that matter, would any business be wise to make a decision that alienates a fucking fifth of their customer base?
EA, I really wanted to buy Mirror's Edge. I was almost considering buying a console for it, so I wouldn't have to deal with the DRM. But with this attitude, I'm sorry, you're not getting a dime of my money, or a minute of my time.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
So?
Some of my favorite games are 2D. Defcon and Uplink come to mind. And Darwinia isn't that taxing.
Dear Introversion,
Can I please work for you?
Really, if you want a good indie game, introversion is *the* place to go.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
I'll agree as much as most people don't care about DRM, but as far as Gamers go it is a fairly big issue for them. The amount of public outcry and people boycotting the game for EA's ridiculous new model of DRM would beg to differ with the statistics. Then again most gamers have a weak will when it comes to games, even if the DRM is heinous most will eventually break down just so they can experience the hype.
That's a load of rubbish. If gamers didn't care then game crack sites wouldn't be so popular. Fewer people would be pirating games and let's face it torrent users aren't some niche market.
I think someone's study was pulled out of their backside.
I will agree up to this point. Gamers breaking down and getting the game. Most gamers I know are completely competent in finding and retrieving torrents. If DRM is too intrusive they *will* go pirate it even if they had intended to buy it. Others will actually buy the game, park in on a shelf and download the torrent. DRM, in some cases, can actually encourage piracy due to the intrusiveness of it. I, personally, will never buy another EA game due to this thinly veiled virus masquerading as DRM. I know other gamers that will pirate it instead because they don't want their game systems compromised. EA apparently doesn't understand the gaming community especially on the PC side. Even the 80% number that some have purposed as more accurate may be a bit high.
If the DRM is not that intrusive (only makes copying the CD difficult but not impossible) then, while I still dislike it, I will deal with it. Otherwise, I will just take a pass.
Exactly. 99.8% of 16-year-olds don't give a rip about cholesterol, either - but someday they will.
People who don't care about DRM now will learn to care when their games/music won't work anymore.
That'll only work as long as they stay under their activation limit. Once they've ghosted and reinstalled the 3-5 allowed times, they're up the creek.
It's ironic that the only ones hurt by DRM are the ones who play by the rules.
Last I checked, spouting outright lies is a key feature of trolling. 2 seconds of research would have found out that Poor sales of Thief did not kill Looking Glass and that 2D Boy has had no serious piracy. In fact, the Looking Glass post-mortem explicitly says:
If his post acts like a troll, sounds like a troll, and smells like a troll, it's a troll.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Suppose I found that my hamburger contains rat turds. I talk to some friends who bought burgers from the same store and find that they found rat turds in their burgers too. I then pay close attention to the announcements regarding other products that store is planning to introduce in the near future - they say they're going to put rat turds in those too.
So to forewarn others, I go to an online review site and write up about these new products 'These contain rat turds'.
Even though I haven't bought those products, I know perfectly well there are rat turds in them, and that's why I haven't bought them. Are the rat turds an irrelevance to an otherwise tasty burger, excellent in parts? Or are they an integral part of the product, sufficient in themselves to ruin it entirely and make it deserve the worst possible review?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Okay ... simple example ... let's take C++ as a reasonable example of a cross platform language.
Something written in C++ can be compiled for x86, RISC, 68000, any flavour of processor opcode you like.
BUT, and this is the big but, someone has to write the compilers to translate C++ into the appropriate machine code operands.
Now all a specific console developer has to worry about is that his code works on his console using his processor ... there's no financial benefit for him to implement a common cross-platform high-level language just so independent developers can write once, deploy many (and potentially rob him of income in "X-BOX Approved Games" etc.
It's just another form of lock-in, same as MS and Apple have been doing for years.
Confusing 'users' with 'customers'.
It's like you sell elk urine as a perfume, and claim 99% of perfume users love the elk urine smell.
Nope.
99% of perfume users hate elk urine smell and don't buy it.
The 0.99% who buy it and love it are weird perverts who feel turned on by the smell.
The remaining 0.01% are clueless morons who didn't know what they are buying.
Yep, from people who -bought- the game, possibly well over 90% don't know and don't care. OTOH the rampaging piracy is in a major part influenced by DRM. If they surveyed -users- and not just -customers- they might come up with a totally different number.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Just a note to readers that when somebody like Sanity says they choose not to be a customer of EA anymore, often enough they are very serious.
Now that GenX is all grown up and GenY have some buying power, now more than ever, potential customers will actually take their money and walk away.
Now that we have made gaming the massive industry that it is, we will absolutely be very picky about spending our time and money. We have no sacred cows, we don't give a fuck about your legacy, and there's plenty of other ways to blow our paper.
Be afraid of us, EA, we can destroy you overnight. We still might, and all the paid press can't help you. Don't change anything and find out.
While I agree with your sentiment and that plenty of people are serious about boycotts, I think you're underestimating the amount of idiots who will buy Madden 2097: The Revenge of Athlete's Foot Expansion, and not give a toss about DRM, either because they are going to get the next iteration of the series next year, or because they are playing on a console. The console games market dwarfs the PC games market, so in the end even if all PC gamers quit EA games, it might not hurt them as much as you think - especially if it just means one less platform to develop for. In fact I've just done a little googling and it seems that EA already decided this year to release their sports lines for consoles only, so it appears that it already is more profitable to focus on the console market, for whatever reason. I hate playing devil's advocate sometimes, but there it is..
Personally I already moved to console gaming this year too, for mostly the same reasons as AKAImBatman outlined above. Despite the fact that I love mouse/keyboard for FPSes, I love the convenience of gaming in my living room - on my HDTV, with no bloated OS, no need to download the latest gaming API, latest drivers or buy the latest hardware - more. It just makes sense to me these days, and best of all it means I can happily use a non windows OS on my laptop without worrying about lack of gaming options :)
which is totally what she said
It's 3 computers, not three re-installations. You only activate once after you install, and you don't even need the DVD in the drive. This isn't that bad of a policy so long as they do what MS does and allow you to re-activate via a call in procedure after your 3 machine limit is reached.
I've only ever needed to call in activation two or three times with all my re-installs of XP.
My biggest problem has always been needing to copy DVD's to my HDD so I could run a virtual drive to keep from having to load the DVD's every time I wanted to play a different game. With EA you no longer need to do this.