Can You Fight DRM With Patience?
As modern DRM schemes get more annoying and invasive, the common wisdom is to vote with your wallet and avoid supporting developers and publishers who include such schemes with their games. Or, if you simply must play it, wait a while until outcry and complaints have caused the DRM restrictions to be loosened. But will any of that make game creators rethink their stance? An article at CNet argues that gamers are, in general, an impatient bunch, and that trait combined with the nature of the games industry means that progress fighting DRM will be slow or nonexistent. Quoting:
"Increasingly so, the joke seems to be on the customers who end up buying this software when it first comes out. A simple look back at some controversial titles has shown us that after the initial sales come, the publisher later removes the vast majority of the DRM, leaving gamers to enjoy the software with fewer restrictions. ... Still, [waiting until later to purchase the game] isn't a good long-term solution. Early sales are often one of the big quantifiers in whether a studio will start working on a sequel, and if everyone were to wait to buy games once they hit the bargain price, publishers would simply stop making PC versions. There's also no promise that the really heavy bits of DRM will be stripped out at a later date, except for the fact that most publishers are unlikely to want to maintain the cost of running the activation, and/or online verification servers for older software."
How does waiting for a publisher to loosen DRM equate to fighting DRM?
Gandhi and King taught non-violent resistance, but you can win against human beings. You can't win against a profit motive.
Games have become such huge business surrounded by such huge marketing hype that the games companies can now basically do what they like.
They don't care about the "intelligent gamers" who sit on the fence for a while after a game is released, read reviews & see what problems there are before they think about buying it - they're interested in the fanbois and the screaming kids who force their parents to queue up at midnight on release day, ultimately it's about how many copies are sold in the first couple of weeks.
Screaming kids don't care about DRM and fanbois will find a way of rationalising the inconvenience of DRM into something that is good.
I'm still disgusted with myself that even though Fallout 3 is one of the best and most absorbing games I have ever played, I still put up with having to insert my game DVD into the drive every time I play it, even though I log into Windows Live each time and have already purchased some of the DLC.
With that said, I waited about a year after release before I bought it and even then the game was suffering from some fairly bad crashes due to bugs in it.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Hold on a second: Is that summary supposed to tell me "go buy the DRM infested crap or else publishers will stop making PC games"? How about NOT infesting it with "you are a criminal and if not, prove it" DRM that makes me NOT want to buy the game? I want the game at release. Hell, who doesn't? I also do not mind paying 50 bucks for it. Or 60, now that the Euro is getting weaker too. But I DO mind the infection of my machine with something of dubious quality that gives me no net benefit whatsoever. I'm not gonna bend over and pray they use a little lube this time.
And now I get told "if you don't bend over, they'll stop making games for you". Are you fuckin' kiddin' me? Make games that I want to buy and I'll buy them! Stardock is a good example. I don't care if they cost 20 bucks or 60 (ok, a bit, but it's certainly no showstopper for me), I'm not waiting for games to get to the bargain bin. I'm waiting for a game that doesn't ram stuff up my ass that I dunno where it's been before.
Prime example, R.U.S.E. It sure looked like a good candidate for my next RTS. I liked the beta. But, Ubi, sorry, no deal. Take out your "stay online to play single player" copy protection, I'll buy. Leave it in, I will not.
It is that easy.
So please don't try to guilt-trip me with the notion that if we don't swallow that crap they'll stop making games for PC gamers. If anyone is to blame for that, it's the idea that gamers are criminals. Unless they can prove themselves innocent.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If a game comes with DRM that you don't like, you really mustn't buy it. If you do, it rewards Ubisoft or EA or whoever, and the DRM scheme will either be used again or made worse!
Pirating the game sends the same message. The publishers do have some idea of the numbers of peopls who are copying their games, and if there are many more than expected, then the DRM scheme will be made worse!
Therefore, it's very important to check the "Requirements" for a game before you buy, even if your PC will clearly be capable of running it. Respectable stores like Steam will warn you about the types of DRM used by the game in clear terms, and you can decide whether it's too much. This information isn't in large text in the centre of the screen as it should be ("Warning: SecuROM", "Danger - Game Published By Ubisoft") but it's there, and these days you must always check for it.
Can you fight DRM with patience? Well, yes or no, it's your only option. Voting with your wallet is your only way to discourage this sort of thing. Eventually the price will be lowered and (maybe) the DRM will be removed to pick up extra sales. Then you win.
You're an immobile computer, remember?
Anyone remember Chess? Go? Cribbage? Bridge? Risk? Tabletop D&D? Monopoly for chrissakes? How about Mancala? Reversi? Pente? Dominoes? Darts? How about a friggin game of billiards/pool? Gin-Rummy anyone?
Oh right, the lack of DRM is what killed those games :P