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.'"

Comments

Someone failed statistics

[AKAImBatman]

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.

Re:Someone failed statistics

[flitty]

His numbers may be off, but I think the idea is generally right, even if DRM is stupid, most people don't care/know about what spying techniques companies use or put on your computer. Most people don't know in 10 years some games will no longer work due to authentication servers going down.

The main problem with his thesis though, is that the smaller percentage (up to about 40-50% of gamers though, not .2%) are the ones who care about it. They are also the ones who are knowledgeable enough to Know how to use a torrent and how to navigate the pirate webs. So, you put dumb DRM schemes in a game, they WILL utilize the Torrent instead of purchasing the full game. I can't tell you how many CD-cracks i've used on Valid games i've bought because of a scratched cd not authenticating or annoying authentication. Yes, most people don't know what DRM scheme you are using on the latest SIMS expansion, so why intrude on these people?

DRM doesn't do what they think it does. It encourages Piracy (by making valid copies less than their pirated versions) and spies on people who have no intent on pirating your game anyway or breaking any DRM.

Re:Someone failed statistics

[Ailure]

The computer upgrade treadmill have actually slowed down, compared to like, the end of the 90's. I remember back then, if your computer was older than two years it most likely wouldn't be able to run the newest games. That doesn't feel like the case anymore.

Most games produced today should run fine on a average (non-budget) computer from 2005 (and perhaps even older than that), even if not with the prettiest graphics.

Re:Someone failed statistics

[CannonballHead]

I almost agree. And by the way, that was a very long post for being first, I was impressed.

Regarding the difference in something like PC Gamer magazine. I never used to get the magazine but I saw ones occasionally. It's true, I used to go "whoa, I can't wait to see that game." Now it's more like, if anything, "That looks like it has really good graphics." That's about it. There were games that I played way back when (and I'm still young) that I loved because of the game mechanics, the story, the graphics, etc., all combined, and could not wait until I could play the next one in the series. Examples that come to mind are Baldur's Gate (I completely fell in love with it - and I first played it from the library, which had a copy!) and Monkey Island (the first Monkey Island is amazing). Another series that started out great was Age of Empires, IMO, and even something like the original Red Alert.

But now, not being a FPS fan in the first place... the games coming out are usually pretty generically boring. They basically all appeal to two things: amazing graphics and more impressive violence. I have played a few recent games that I actually liked - Crysis was pretty cool, as was World in Conflict; in fact, World in Conflict was really cool and surprisingly impacting as far as thinking about real life.

What am I saying... I'm saying that ingenuity in developing games seems to be lost. Re-hash the same things that seem to work (bigger and better graphics, more violence) and hope it sells enough to pay to produce the next one.

Time is a huge issue now for me as well, I barely play any games at all. Married, graduate school, working full time and music as my main hobby... games are not big in my life. But I play some small things still. I am playing Avernum 5, a small shareware game (which I bought) made by Jeff Vogel. It's completely story-driven, it's even in 2D, but the series has a history of story-driven adventure/RPG that I first found in Exile II back in 1995 or something.

With regard to consoles, I actually still resist having one... mainly because I don't think the games there are really any better, just "easier" to get going. Plug it in and boom. But the same problem with the games themselves exist.

As for not caring about DRM, I don't care about DRM either, because I don't play enough games to care, and those that DO play enough games to not care probably don't care eithre because they constantly play games and spend all their money and gaming computers...

Re:Someone failed statistics

[moderatorrater]

I would also guess that you're going to get a disproportionately high number of people who care about these issues in the hardcore gamer crowd than in the general population. When you're dealing with people who want to squeeze every last frame out of their rig, adding DLL's whose only purpose is to police your CD drive is just this side of legal.

In other words, their target audience coincides nicely with people who are going to care about this issue.

Re:Someone failed statistics

[TheRaven64]

It wasn't just games. Until around 2000, I was upgrading my PC every six months. A few months ago, the hard drive in my main machine died and I was back using my 1.5GHz G4 PowerBook until it was fixed. Aside from flash, the only way I could tell it was slower than my Core 2 Duo was looking at the CPU graph in activity monitor and seeing it using 60-80% of the CPU instead of 5-20%. In terms of user experience, for everyday work, a machine with only slightly better specs than the desktop I had in 2001 is perfectly adequate.

Before 2000, I wasn't upgrading because new things required a faster computer, I was upgrading because everything required a faster computer, and we just got used to waiting for things. After CPUs hit around 1GHz, the hardware was fast enough, and I was only upgrading because I wanted something more portable (I still do - an OMAP3530-based machine ideally).

Re:Someone failed statistics

[Frantix]

While I don't support EA or DRM (and refuse to buy Warhead for that reason) I have been soaking up everything I can on the situation and have one correction to your statement... EA has clarified that they will release a patch to remove activation in the event that they take down an authentication server. Obviously this can be taken as a "we'll see" mentality but I thought I would post that they've addressed activation.

Re:Someone failed statistics

[Beardo the Bearded]

Like you, I was once a computer gamer. I remember having a Hercules graphics card (like EGA, but in monochrome). Test Drive 3 was the first game I played with a sound card. I remember DOS boot disks. Before that, I had to write my own games - demos used to be pages of code in magazines. "Looks like fun? Code it up and give it a try." So I've been a PC gamer for a long time -- long before it was cool.

I played a lot of UO (admittedly, on a POL server.) I met a few friends on there - one even sent me a baby blanket when my daughter was born. We moved to NWN, and there was talk about moving to NWN2. I played a LOT of NWN, but I was never interested in spending hundreds of dollars upgrading my system just to play another game.

I decided that I wasn't going to bother fucking around every year or every release with a new video card or a new stick of RAM, or removing programs to play a game, &etc. Why spend $300 on a new card to play a $60 game when that same game will be ported to a console and is guaranteed to work?

I got a Wii last year. My wife and daughter both play it. Yes, it's a big DRM dongle that plays only the Wii titles. That's fine, because I knew that when I bought it. But you know what? It's going to work. I can buy any Wii title, put it in, and know that I can play it. Some games are crap, which is why I get them out from the library first. You can't do that with a PC game.

In fact, I got rid of my Windows install completely. My home machine runs Ubuntu, and I don't game with it at all anymore.

Have fun, PC game industry. You made it such a pain in the ass to play games on the PC that you've lost a lot of people.

Re:Someone failed statistics

[mcgrew]

I used to read PC Gamer regularly

I had a subscription for over five years, then they got bought out and the pages shrunk, the number of pages was cut by more than half, and the advertising quadrupled.

And the writing started sucking. They lost all the old reviewers and used the hacks from the rag that bought them out. It started sucking and I let my subscription lapse. My oldest daughter subscribes to a different game mag now, like you I got away from gaming. The industry got too stupid and greedy.

Lackluster games. The majority of games felt like regurgitated first person shooters

I was an avid Quake and Quake II player, but how many FPSes do you need? Especially since you have a virtually unlimited number of characters (skins) and levels?

I still play Road Rash (PC version from 1995). I'd still play Screamer and Screamer 2 if they'd still run on my PC, and again, how many racing games do you need?

-- Technological problems

I'd just bought a new video card and motherboard when Doom 3 came out. It wouldn't run. WTF is wrong with the morons making these games??? We're not all John Carmak or Lars Ulrich, some of us work for a living.

-- Time. As I got older, I simply had fewer hours in the day to game.

As illogical as this sounds, it's true. Games cut into my drinking and woman chasing time. I'll add one more to your list:

--Cost. I simply don't have sixty or seventy bucks to blow on a game, expecially one that may not run on my computer, is encumbered by Dumb Restrictions on Media, and is likely a flashy but uninspiring piece of shit. Produce fun games that run on a modest machine and price them at ten bucks each and you'll make a lot more money.

Crackheads are too stupid to understand that, unfortunately.

Even if the stats are true...

[onion2k]

Let's assume the statistics are actually correct. 0.2% don't want DRM, 99.8% don't care, and 0% are in favour. That should be enough of a message to realise it shouldn't be included. Especially when that 0.2% can damage the reputation of the game by giving shocking reviews all over the internet.

Re:Even if the stats are true...

[Ethanol-fueled]

TFS:

"...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.

Re:Even if the stats are true...

[Znork]

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.

Re:Even if the stats are true...

[Sancho]

Online activation kills the second-hand market, and that's what they're largely going for.

CD-based copy protection kills the casual copying market, which may well generate more sales. In fact, I don't doubt one bit that making it difficult to copy the CD means that fewer people will pirate the game--the question is whether or not the licensing costs (of the copy protection) are justified compared to the extra sales generated and the perception of the company. If copy protection ever gets too intrusive, the latter may be what kills it.

because

[tritonman]

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.

Re:because

[Zephiris]

Just because you buy, it doesn't guarantee that the DRM won't bite you in the ass. Just ask SPORE users, perhaps?

I recently bought an EA game...oh, the horror. Mercenaries 2: World in Flames. On more than one occasion, it would spaz out and refuse to let me merely start the game because the online authorization servers were feeling paranoid, and more than once (separate issue), the game's "DRM service" wouldn't start correctly, kept throwing a braindead error message and refusing to even allow the game to attempt to authenticate online.

There's something inherently perverse about a game that will only allow you to the main menu...if it can verify that your copy is retail valid, and won't allow "internet is disconnected" play at all. Unfortunately (or fortunately for pirates), that's what EA does with virtually everything now. A few games were patched to have a '3 day' grace period. Huzzah.

Mind, that's the first game I dared to buy since Unreal Tournament in 1999. It's not very satisfying to pay $50-60 for a game, only to have constant crashes, graphical issues, NO patches, buggy multiplayer, etc and so on, especially when you might finally have a computer that works better than the minimum requirements (and cost impossibly little).

The game industry seriously needs a wakeup call.
Why would anyone spend $60 on a new (even non-AAA) game now, if they can spend $60 and get a nice hardware-accelerated MPEG-2/4/AVC based TV tuner, or a 32GB usb key? Or another 4GB of low-latency DDR2-800 RAM? Or, if you EBay, a high-end video or sound card for half the normal price?

For a triple-A, "I'll BE able to play this for 10 years if I want to", well supported with patches (when does this happen anymore?), utterly life-changing game...$60 is perhaps worth it.

For a crappy half-assed game where they shut down the DRM and multiplay servers after six months... $60 is a grevious offense to the PC gaming public.

Piracy isn't happening in record numbers because they're producing -quality- games, and nor does it eat into their figures even 10% as much as they claim. Most people who would only care about trying it, burning it into the ground, and getting bored with it after 2-3 days...often 2-3 days after they finish the game (that's not a typo).

If the quality of games were higher, they'd see higher returns on investment, less piracy. DRM is like putting up a gaudy neon sign: "steal this game because we KNOW it's so crappy that no one would legitimately buy it".

The more complex or aggressive the DRM, the worse the game is. Anyone remember Starforce? Can anyone name a single _good_ Starforce game? The new versions of SecuROM (anyone else remember when it was JUST a CD check?) are quickly flying straight towards that point of no return.

Re:because

[Jabbrwokk]

I'm still a PC gamer. I made the decision this year to upgrade my PC one more time rather than buy an XBox 360 and I don't regret it. I can play Half-Life 2 (Episode 2), Titan Quest and Civ IV: Colonization, all great games that are not found anywhere else but the PC.

However, and take note of this, any lurking EA PR flacks, I have made the conscious decision to not buy several games with Securom and other irritating DRM (Bioshock, for example) because of the last time a game with it (Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory) left a bunch of crap lurking in my system that caused my DVD burner to just halt or fail for no reason when I was burning backup discs of my family photos and documents.

That's intrusive, irritating and unacceptable, EA. If you're going to put crap like that in your games, the installer must clearly state everything that is being installed on my system.

That said, I know Titan Quest has Securom but there are ways to remove it that don't require visiting dodgy Russian websites.

Re:because

[Aladrin]

I disagree about the price of software. Let's look at other forms of entertainment:

DVD Movies: 2 hours (repeatable), $15+ ($60 for bluray new releases!)
Theatre Movies: 2 hours, $7+ per person.
Games: 20+hours (highly variable and repeatable), $60 (Some games are less than that, but many are more. Call it an 'average'.)
Bowling: 1 hour, $10 per person.

DVDs are $7.50 per hour if you only do them once. Theatre Movies are $3.50 per hour. Games are $3/hour if you only play for 20 hours. Bowling is $10 per hour.

I dunno, seems games are a pretty good deal. Add in the fact that the best games have entertained me for 200+ hours, and some get thousands, and they are an even better deal.

Things are worth what you are willing to pay for them. Judging software against hardware isn't a fair comparison, either. Without the software for the hardware, it's worthless to most people. And vice versa.

I protested and...

[pigiron]

I'm on FIOS not cabal!

Obligatory...

[Reverend528]

Most people don't even know what DRM is, so why should they care about it?

Re:Obligatory...

[enderjsv]

1st install - don't know, don't care 2nd install - don't know, don't care 3rd install - don't know, don't care 4th install - "Hey Ma! What's the number to Geek Squad. This here game be broken."

I, for one,

[PhetusPolice]

care. I'm expecting 499 other people to say they don't care.

Because they don't know.

[AvitarX]

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.

They wish

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Keep hammering!

[snarfies]

Sounds like they're getting nervous, keep the 1-star reviews coming!

Red Alert 3 (upcoming):
http://www.amazon.com/Command-Conquer-Red-Alert-Premier-Pc/dp/B001F6HJIY/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1224087512&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.com/Command-Conquer-Red-Alert-3-Pc/dp/B0016BVY7U/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1224087512&sr=8-1

Far Cry 2 (upcoming):
http://www.amazon.com/Far-Cry-2-Pc/dp/B000X9FV5M/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1224087659&sr=8-2

Spore:
http://www.amazon.com/Spore-Mac/dp/B000FKBCX4/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1224087603&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Spore-Galactic-Pc/dp/B001AYEGXM/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1224087603&sr=8-2

Crysis Warhead:
http://www.amazon.com/Crysis-Warhead-Pc/dp/B001ATHKVC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1224087659&sr=8-1

Re:Keep hammering!

[DaveV1.0]

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.

Re:Keep hammering!

[meringuoid]

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.

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?

Re:Keep hammering!

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Where the hell were Jews mentioned? Mod parent -1, Delusional.

My Spore DRM woes

[spun]

I've been playing Spore quite a bit until this weekend, when it simply stopped showing any graphics whatsoever after updating my video drivers. Rolling back to the old drivers didn't help. So I tried reinstalling, and the game would simply crash.

After much futzing around and unhelpful EA support people basically reprinting their FAQ for me, page by page, I figured out the problem. I had patched Spore and uninstalled. But the DRM is never uininstalled, it lurks around forever. When I reinstalled the unpatched version from the CD, it was not what the DRM expected, and it crashed.

EA provides no way to download the patch without running the game, but I found the patch file on gamershell.com. Patching the game let it run without graphics again, and I switched to windowed mode (good like finding the key combo for that in the printed manual or help files) and checked out the graphics settings, uhhh, 170Hz refrsh rate, WTF? Setting it back to 75Hz allowed the game to run once again in full screen mode.

To reiterate: if you patch the game, uninstall, and reinstall the unpatched version, IT WILL NOT WORK, and the only component I can think of that would cause this is the DRM. Thanks EA, for making your paying customers prefer the pirated versions of your programs.

Re:My Spore DRM woes

[joeytmann]

you may want to check out ftp://largedownloads.ea.com/pub/ for patches. I didn't look for patches for Spore, but they should be in there somewhere.

Re:My Spore DRM woes

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Sounds like you would have been better off just ripping the game off... that's what you get for being a legitimate, paying customer these days.

EA Then and Now

[mfh]

Too true. (98.2% of our CURRENT customers love us. LOL)

EA Before:
"Hey Gamers, buy our wicked game because it's totally fun to play!!!"

EA Later:
"Hey Gamers, buy our new game because it has newer technology, better lighting, and it produces 100% more warm fuzzies than its predecessor!"

EA Now:
"Hey Gamers, bend over."

Re:EA Then and Now

[electrictroy]

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.

Re:EA Then and Now

[SanityInAnarchy]

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.

Re:EA Then and Now

[evilkasper]

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.

Re:EA Then and Now

[knight24k]

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.

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.

Re:EA Then and Now

[Nerdposeur]

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.

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.

Re:EA Then and Now

[BlackSnake112]

I have set up a few people with a ghost image of their computer so that they can go back to a clean working computer. This way if the game DRM screws up their machine they can get it working again. It works but no one should have to go that far to play computer games. This is on a computer that ONLY plays games. No surfing, no email, games only. So far only single video card setups, so the whole sli/crossfire thing is not an issue.

It is like the game companies do not want you to have more then one game or more then game company's software on your computer. Stick with all company ABC's game your fine. Put company ABC and company abc123's games on and you have issues.

Re:EA Then and Now

[Alzheimers]

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.

Re:EA Then and Now

[amohat]

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.

Re:EA Then and Now

[somersault]

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 :)

Re:EA Then and Now

[somersault]

Ever since I started using laptops I have always used NoCD cracks, which can be used to circumvent DRM, but I just wanted them to not have to have the flippin disk in the drive whenever I felt like playing. It's bearable having a pile of gaming disks next to your desktop, but nobody these days wants to carry around their whole gaming collection with their laptop - not to mention that it's a waste of power spinning up a disk just to authenticate, and you risk damaging it in some makes of drive if you're using the laptop on a relatively unstable surface like.. a lap.

Likewise, nobody wants to have a multitude of DRM rootkits gradually making their machine more and more sluggish as they install games over the years. We all know that DRM is only a hassle for the paying customers - it really makes no sense.

Re:EA Then and Now

[Sj0]

Hey, it's their business.

If they're so confident that we're a small contingent, they can continue to release broken games, and I'll continue to buy games from other companies that don't limit the number of times we're allowed to install the games we paid for with (non-trivial amounts of) money.

Re:EA Then and Now

[Starcub]

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.

Re:EA Then and Now

[3vi1]

Not that I advocate such things, but it makes me wonder what kind of epiphany the public would have if there were to be a massive DDoS attack against the authentication servers of these companies.

Re:EA Then and Now

[SanityInAnarchy]

potential customers will actually take their money and walk away.

I would guess most gamers aren't quite like me -- DRM wasn't really an issue until Spore.

But I am deadly serious.

If anyone wants to start a petition, I'll sign.

It might even be interesting to put some money into escrow, to show how much we are actually ready to spend -- but escrow is a lot trickier than a simple petition.

DRM is self-defeating.

[wvmarle]

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.

Re:DRM is self-defeating.

[hedwards]

Nice trolling, people who pirate software anyways don't see any difference. In fact they see a great advantage to doing it since they don't have to put up with the bullshit. Games are frequently cracked before they're officially released, and individuals that are willing to go that route often times can get the game earlier because of it.

Games not on Wii

[tepples]

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?

Re:Games not on Wii

[rufty_tufty]

Well I'm not the OP but I don't do PC gaming just console(Xbox 360 or Wii):

"For example, a lot of indie games are PC exclusives because the developer isn't a big enough company for a WiiWare license."

Unfortunately in that case I can't play it, (unless they do a Linux version). I'm sure there's some gold out there, but the signal to noise ratio has IME not been worth it.

Frankly I see computer games as being for fun and not as another job - hearing what people go through to get games running on a PC sounds far too much like the bits of my job that I hate to pay for the privilege of doing it.

Re:Games not on Wii

[LordNimon]

XNA lets you develop and publish games on the Xbox 360 for $100/year.

Re:Games not on Wii

[AKAImBatman]

What do you do when you want to play a game that isn't on the consoles?

I don't. I'd love to play Little Big Planet, but I'm not going to invest in a PS3 to do it. So I just don't play.

For example, a lot of indie games are PC exclusives because the developer isn't a big enough company for a WiiWare license.

In the past I did purchase a few indie games. Especially the kick-ass Puppy Games titles. That being said, you need something absolutely incredible to overcome my current ambivalence of PC gaming. I simply don't care enough to endure the pain and anguish of PC gaming. Even though AAA games like Halo, Mass Effect, and Spore COULD be played on my PC, I. SIMPLY. DON'T. CARE.

Crazy, isn't it?

What's even better is that if I wait long enough, the great indie games will reach the WiiWare service. Defend Your Castle, World of Goo, Cave Story, Lost Winds, and other incredible titles are at my finger tips. All it takes is a credit/debit card and a bit of Wii Remote clicking.

Even good games from small companies?

Any game that did not reach its target audience is not being pirated, either. There have been good games throughout history that received a cult following ex post facto, but no one paid them any heed when they were released. If there is a healthy pirate market for the game, there is a healthy consumer market for it. Pure and simple.

Re:Games not on Wii

[vux984]

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.

WiiWare licenses apparently cost under ~3k. I can see that killing a solo-hobby-developer, but any entity big enough to call itself a small business can afford this.

That said, I have never played an indie game that needed beta drivers, had crazy drm, or was otherwise particularly difficult to install and get running, so if the OP wanted to play one, it would probably be a no-brainer to just buy it and play it.

Re:Games not on Wii

[Toll_Free]

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?

What do I do when a game I want isn't on a console? I go outside and play.

I go climb a rock.
I go ride a motorcycle (not recently, wrecked one)
I go find something else to do.

I don't let the gaming industry play my life out for me. If a game looks killer, but it isn't available on one of my platforms, I just ignore it. Pure and simple.

Doesn't cost me anything, lost over 100 pounds since thinking this way, etc., etc., etc.

Good games from small companies still sell and are played.

Your logic would mean the Commodore (all variants) are dead, and NOTHING is released for them at all, right?

--Toll_Free

Re:Games not on Wii

[digitig]

What do you do if you want to play a game that's only for a console you don't have? Either you don't play it, or you buy the console. It's got to be a damn good game to justify the cost of a console, and it would have to be a damn good game for the gp to try to run it on Windows. I'm with him: there's enough fun to be had on my Wii and PS2 that I don't see the need to upgrade to anything higher tech just for the sake of slightly more photorealistic graphics with same-ol' same-ol' gameplay.

Re:Games not on Wii

[snowraver1]

I agree 100%. I bought my xbox a year ago and havn't played a game on the PC since. When I buy a game I just want to sit and play it. I don't want to muck with settings.

I have no problem with copy protection on the xbox. It works. I put in the game, and the game plays, always.

Re:Games not on Wii

[eudaemon]

I've never understood this particular attack against the Wii. The Wii shares plenty of titles
with the other consoles that adults play.

Then again the only person I know who says this regularly really just wants everyone to play
the XBOX 360 with him because he has no social life, no friends and nothing better to do.

Re:Games not on Wii

[vecctor]

Frankly I see computer games as being for fun and not as another job - hearing what people go through to get games running on a PC sounds far too much like the bits of my job that I hate to pay for the privilege of doing it.

The reason you hear about the people that have problems is because they come on the internet to explain their problem and get help. You don't hear much from the people for which it "just worked".

The greater array of hardware can cause issues, but it may not be as widespread as it appears.

The most tweaking I have to do on a modern game is choose a resolution and quality, and most games have a function to estimate how high to put the settings. Having this choice is more complicated, I suppose, but that is a feature, not a bug, because the game scales. If you get nicer hardware or you come back to play it years later, you can make it look nicer.

If the game is old, there can be some issues (sometimes have to load up an emulator), but I can't put my SNES carts into the Wii either - so no real difference.

Re:Games not on Wii

[joeman3429]

that's like saying it's weird that adults read Harry Potter books even though they're young adult books.

End the racism against children

Re:Games not on Wii

[Nursie]

"The reason you hear about the people that have problems is because they come on the internet to explain their problem and get help. You don't hear much from the people for which it "just worked"."

No, it's not. It's because people have problems, and in console land they just don't.

I'm another person that moved off the PC to consoles, as much due to social reasons as anything (playing with friends on the TV is just nicer), but I recently purchased spore. It wanted to install a patch after a while because a lot of people had problems getting it to run at all. The patch broke my install.

Sod that, I'm going back to my easer, cheaper consoles.

Re:Games not on Wii

[Spatial]

It works. I put in the game, and the game plays, always.

That might be true if they'd just fix the diabolically bad hardware. I might even buy one. I hear the latest models have a 10% failure rate. Pretty good, coming down from around 35%...

Re:Games not on Wii

[vux984]

but as i understand it, they can prevent titles from launching if they're 'below par' or even contain questionable content..

Same is true of games for Microsoft Xbox, Sony Playstation, and Apple ipod/iphone products, not to mention most platforms of yesterday from the Nokia ngage to the Sega Dreamcast to the Atari and Intellivision. (Although 'legal ways around' the licensing system existed for some of the really old platforms, leading to piles of unauthorized shovelware.)

Its also true if you want your 'cellphone game' available on the Verizon / Sprint / Telus / Bell / AT&T / etc / application store.

Yeah getting Nintendo licensing is more "exclusive" than some of these but they ALL have final say on whether your title sees the light of day.

If you want freedom, develop for the PC. This has always been true.

getting a license isn't necessarily just a price, it's also entering into a contract with nintendo. perhaps part of the reason why nintendo had to go after different market segments with the wii to be successful with a console.

Which console was unsuccessful for Nintendo?

Re:Games not on Wii

[andi75]

> I have no problem with copy protection on the xbox. It works. I put in the game, and the game plays, always.

Unless your 3-year old gets his hands on the games. Seriously, do you expect me to lock everything in a safe? He'd know the combination after watching me open it twice anyway...

Re:Games not on Wii

[Haeleth]

Unfortunately in that case I can't play it, (unless they do a Linux version).

Wine is really getting quite good these days. You still certainly can't expect a game to work in it, but it's at the stage now where it's usually worth a try, particularly for indie titles that are probably going to be concentrating on fun gameplay rather than pushing technical boundaries.

Ric Romero Reporting

[Deadplant]

In other news, 99.8% of gamers are playing pirated versions of their games.

Re:Ric Romero Reporting

[Ceseuron]

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.

Well I always felt the numbers were inflated

[Shivetya]

on the side claiming to be adversely affected by DRM.

I put a lot of them down; and I mean a large percentage; to those just hopping on the band wagon. The "got to get my two cents in and feel as if I belong" crowd. Cost them nothing to claim to be part of the aggrieved party. It wasn't like they were going to buy it anyway but now they can claim offense which lets them continue feeling put down by the system/man/the other guy/etc.

My wallet thanks EA and DRM

[time$lice]

EA has literally saved me hundreds of dollars thanks to their absurd DRM approach. Instead of buying BioShock, Spore, Mass Effect, etc, I've been able to pocket all that cash. It basically boils down to this: No one tells me how many times I can install something on my computer! How many times a year do I reinstall my OS? No one takes control of my computer and shuts down programs I'm using! Get a clue EA.

Liar

[Rinisari]

Population as of 16:26 GMT (EST+5) Oct 15, 2008 according to census.gov

• U.S. 305,418,292
• World 6,730,303,140

Assuming everyone in the world is a gamer, it would take 13,460,606 people worldwide speaking out against this to prove that statistic to be incorrect.

Assuming the same for the U.S., it would take 610,836 people speaking out against DRM to prove that incorrectly.

I'm sure that a significantly powered site spread to Slashdot, Digg, Reddit, Stumbleupon, and Facebook would probably demonstrate 610,836 people against DRM with no duplicates.

It would be even easier if we assumed that only 50% of the US plays video games. Only 305,418 people would have to sign it. That's probably how many people visit Slashdot a week.

Re:Liar

[ikkonoishi]

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.

They might not care now...

[anomnomnomymous]

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.

Look at the audience

[faloi]

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!"

Re:Look at the audience

[n dot l]

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!"

Well, yeah, but still, this seems like a bad time to present obviously made-up statistics to investors. I mean, wouldn't they be a bit sensitive about that sort of thing these days? Eh, maybe not, I don't know how Wall Street really works...

You don't need more that 3 installs for Spore

[tnk1]

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.

Re:You don't need more that 3 installs for Spore

[loftwyr]

I don't understand your problem. Spore is great! you can play a simple game of eat or be eaten or any one of four Real Time Strategy games.

You just have to sit though a boring and irrelevant link movie between RTS levels. Just because we were all told that it would be one big game that let you evolve through levels and learn skills and stuff, doesn't mean that's what they have to release. In Spore, if you click the right area or kill a monster, you win that skill! Great!

They just have to hype the game enough to get more sales than it cost to make the game.

Almost completely off-topic.

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

My DVD drive hasn't worked in a week and half, despite repeated tweaks and reinstalls. While mucking around on my drive last night, I found a directory called SecurROM. No frigging idea where it came from. I don't know if this is just a coincidence or what, but if I delete that directory and my drive suddenly starts working again then I'm going to do two things. First, I'm going to torrent a copy of Spore. Second, I'm going to track down an EA executive and punch him in the cock just as hard as I can.

Re:Almost completely off-topic.

[Bloodoflethe]

I wouldn't quite do that. Just deleting the directory doesn't completely remove the program and you may be setting yourself up for big fail.

Supposedly this link should help out: SecuROM Uninstaller.

Re:Almost completely off-topic.

[The Angry Mick]

The cock punching, though. That's still good . . .

Re:Almost completely off-topic.

[brkello]

You might be a girl and not know this...but it would hurt him more if you aimed for the balls. You got the right general area though.

Re:We need a t-shirt...

[AlgorithMan]

And we need better math education...

Re:Don't mess with "the other 0.2 percent"!

[Todd Knarr]

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.

Alternate headline:

[Peet42]

"0.2% of Gamers are too stupid to operate BitTorrent!"

s/gamers/developers

[Anonymous Coward]

s/gamers/developers

Re:s/gamers/developers

[spazdor]

s/developers/developers\ndevelopers\ndevelopers\ndevelopers

Most people wouldn't notice...

[C10H14N2]

...if their game stopped working after six months, much less six years or a decade or more.

That part of the anti-DRM argument, though philosophically valid and justified, isn't really going to get much attention in the 12-25yo market that makes up probably the same 99.8% of their revenue--and always has. Not to mention, with all the online components of games, people are pretty used to the idea of "server goes down, game dies" not to mention the idea of paying for it more than once and the obvious fact that it is eventually just going to go away.

I'd like to share an experience I had.

[Anonymous Coward]

I must be one of those who care able DRM. I recently bought Mass Effect, before I was aware of its draconian DRM policy.

I started the installer, and when the End User License Agreement came up I decided to read through it.

In the end, I decided I couldn't agree to their end user license agreement. I tried to take the game back to the store. Unfortunately, the clerk behind the counter refused to allow me to return the game because it was open software. I told her that I couldn't read the license agreement until I had already purchased (and opened) the software. She was polite but unsympathetic to my plight. I asked her to get me her manager. She returned (without her manager) and said her manager told her she cannot accept open software.

I told her that should would then have to go get her manager because I need to know who it is who is refusing my legitimate refund. I explained that when this went to court, I would need his name and position in the store. She returned (again without her manager). She proceeded to hand me a business card with her manager's name on it, and a phone number for the company's customer support number.

Not being one to give in too easily, I sat down on the bench by the refund counter and called the customer support number. The man on the phone was also rather polite as I explained the situation. He looked up the receipt number, and through checking my credit card (I'm guessing) explained to me that I had quite a purchase history at their store and very few returns. He saw no reason why the store couldn't handle the refund and asked me to hand my phone to the sales representative.

The sales representative balked, and claimed, "I don't want to get into the middle of this." and wouldn't take my phone to talk to the service rep. I asked her to get her manager.

She left and returned (again, without her manager) and explained to me that her manager refused to talk to me because I threatened litigation. So, I explained this detail to the person from customer support with whom I was still conversing with on the phone. The customer support person chuckled, and said he could do the refund through the corporate channels, but unfortunately it would take a couple weeks for the processing to go through. I said that was unfortunate but acceptable. I asked him if I should hand the game to the lady at the customer service desk. Then the guy said, "No, that won't be necessary. Just take the game home with you, don't tell them what we have done for you, and consider it a gift from us."

Sure enough, 2 weeks later I got a gift card for the exact amount of the game + tax. I'd be a little disappointed about being refunded in store credit versus a return credit on my credit card but I do tend to buy a lot from this particular store so I decided to let it go.

I'd like to comment the only downside to this is that it is unlikely EA will every find out about my dissatisfaction with their EULA and DRM. Chances are the company ate the cost themselves, and they will never find out about it.

In the end, I was happy with the result from the company. I decided to install the game, since I have less of an issue with DRM and Freeware.

For the record, Mass Effect kicks some serious ass. I'm actually glad I got to keep the game.

And what you don't know can't hurt you... right?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm guessing 99.8% of people whose computers are in botnets also don't care because they don't know.

Exactly. I'm guessing 99.8% of people whose computers are in botnets also don't care because they don't know. This does not make botnets a good thing, nor mean that those people would be happy if they discovered they couldn't use their Internet any more because the ISP cut them off.

One need only look at the response to recent attempts to close down some music DRM authentication servers to see that when people are informed about their purchases and the limitations concerned, they most certainly do not support DRM. It's just that most people assume when they buy a track that they've bought it and can keep it. I bet most people who buy games assume that having done so, they can play it forever, too.

Re:Good games sell, but sell enough?

[AKAImBatman]

Your post sounds perfectly reasonable and solid on the outset. Too bad it's complete nonsense.

On the matter of Thief, here is the Looking Glass post-mortem.

Looking Glass died because a series of problems compounded each other into a financially lethal situation. No single factor is to blame. No single person or entity killed Looking Glass. No one problem was enough, on its own, to kill the company. Nonetheless, the problems were deadly when combined.

Interestingly, you'll find that piracy isn't even mention. Piracy did not kill Looking Glass studios. Difficult financials did, same as Origin, Westwood, and a multitude of other classic studios.

And take "world of goo", an awesome game, that (like mine) ships totally DRM-free. It's pirated to oblivion, and they are no doubt losing tons of sales.

"No doubt" is not a real-world metric. In fact, 2D Boy EXPLICITLY shipped with no DRM on the honor system. So far, it has not hurt them. And with the recent release on the Nintendo Wii, 2D Boy is flying high with the first 10/10 review from WiiWare World.

As much as I'd like to believe your post is simply ignorant, I cannot ignore your posting history. All posts on copyright topics, all in favor of stronger copyrights. You are most certainly a shill. The question is, for whom do you shill?

Mod parent -1 Troll.

Re:Good games sell, but sell enough?

[shaitand]

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.

Re:Game logic on single-language platforms?

[daveime]

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 ?

What's really ironic

[Spike15]

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...

Consoles?

[Anachragnome]

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.

Re:Transition from hobby to small business

[PunkOfLinux]

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.

Re:Transition from hobby to small business

[AKAImBatman]

I'm actually in your position. The standard practice for obtaining a WiiWare license appears to be:

1. Create a title that runs on the computer. Even if it's just a demo, it should convince Nintendo that you can create games for their system.

2. OBTAIN COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE! I can't stress this one enough. Even if you get 200 square feet of office space that costs $200/mo., this step is critical to getting Nintendo to trust you. (Nintendo is concerned about secure access to the development kit.)

3. Apply for a WiiWare license. 2D games don't matter. DYC, World of Goo, Mega Man 9, Gradius Rebirth, Cave Story, and many other games have already paved that road for you.

At least, that's the strategy my little cadre expects to pursue. If we can ever finish pulling a team together, that is. Having a part time game designer and part time programmer does us no good if we can't get one of our artist friends to sign up. At least we have some seriously recognized brands lined up.

Anyway, feel free to email me if you need any more info. I'm far from a fountain of information on the process, but I may be able to point you in the right direction.

Re:Game logic on single-language platforms?

[ASBands]

They may claim that, but you can get XNA to run any language that will compile to MSIL, such as VB.NET or IronPython (although the main program has to be a C# XNA game). You can even get C++ working if you compile it with /clr:safe. Beyond that, you can program shaders in Cg, HLSL or your own code if you write a content loader for it (this same idea applies to music, models or any other content). XNA is quite powerful and is expanding to the Zune with the next release.

99.8% of what gamers?

[thetoadwarrior]

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.

Re:Model-view-controller pattern

[tepples]

Okay, to take an extreme example, coding something that will work on both an X-BOX and a DS-Lite.

First I list everything that differs in the specs from two machines available in 2004Q4 through 2005Q3:

• Xbox: 480p that may be subdivided per player, shoulder buttons are analog, 2 analog sticks, more RAM, larger but slower game media, much larger save data area
• Nintendo DS: 192p for each player, hard limit of 2000 triangles per scene, touch-sensitive auxiliary 192p screen with GBA-style graphics

I can see how input has to go through different kinds of processing before it hits the model. I also see six times as many pixels on an Xbox as on a DS, so a model with four to eight times as many vertices and four to eight times as much texture should look OK on the more powerful system, right?

Things need to be tweaked, rearranged, perhaps even omitted altogether depending on the visual display and controllers you have to work with.

Yes, the model would be scaled down, tweaked, rearranged, minor features #defined out, but ideally not completely rewritten by hand in three different languages introducing different defects ("bugs") into each version. I thought hand-translating the entire model per console was supposed to have died after the 16-bit generation: the Saturn, PlayStation, and N64 could all run C, albeit with huge differences in the view.

Re:Good games sell, but sell enough?

[AKAImBatman]

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:

This hasn't even a grain of truth. Thief sold well and, according to Tim Stellmach (Gamespy interview), Looking Glass made millions of dollars from it. If Thief had failed to be a hit, Looking Glass would have died. Instead, Thief kept the company going.

If his post acts like a troll, sounds like a troll, and smells like a troll, it's a troll.

Re:Model-view-controller pattern

[daveime]

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.

Re:Good games sell, but sell enough?

[Sancho]

Interestingly, you'll find that piracy isn't even mention. Piracy did not kill Looking Glass studios. Difficult financials did, same as Origin, Westwood, and a multitude of other classic studios.

Define "difficult financials", please. I think that Origin died not because of any real financial problem, but because EA made some bad decisions. Origin was soled to EA in 1992. Once Ultima Online became such a hit, EA decided that Origin would only focus on online play. This is the bonehead move that did Origin in--the bread and butter of gaming (back then) was not in online play. Even back then, there were several MMO and MMO-like games which tanked. But EA got lucky with Origin's Ultima Online, saw the huge hit it was going to be, and got greedy.

Every post-UO game slated to be produced by Origin was eventually canceled. They were put to work milking the UO cash cow until their death in 2004. It's certainly hard to say for sure whether or not they would have been successful if they'd been allowed to work on other projects (specifically non-online ones), but their track record indicates that, yeah, they probably would have been.

They just got it wrong.

[SharpFang]

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.

Re:Good games sell, but sell enough?

[cliffski]

I don't need any advice from dorks like you. Not everyone who actually believes in copyright is a troll or a shill, but you are clearly so far rammed up your ow ass to see that its pointless to even discuss it.
go torrent some movies to 'stick it to the man' kid.