A perspective on DRM

[KimB]

From the always entertaining Randall Munroe:

I don't think I'd ever quite thought of it this way, but it seems to me that this just goes to show how the use of DRM has likely only acted to increase the frequency of piracy. I sincerely hope that makers of all sorts of digitally-distributed data products wise up to the kinds of behavior they're encouraging.

I'm seriously worried that the few DRM-locked games I have today (largely due to my move to Italy) will be lost at some unspecified point in the future. Makes me not want to buy another DRM-locked game ever again.

 

[pcchen]

I don't like DRM either. The problem is, what's the alternative?

It's easier for musics to be DRM-free. Actually, currently the most prevailing music distribution form (CD) is essentially DRM-free. Even with those stupid schemes, it's still easy to rip musics from a CD, and it's actually not illegal (at least in most part of the world). DRM-free music also works because it's relatively cheap.

However, for games/applications/video it's much harder. They retail for higher price (mostly because the number of sales is normally less than music, and they probably also cost more to make), so it's really difficult to convince a developer that they can make the same amount of (or even more) money by going DRM-free.

I think, the only way to "prove" DRM-free is workable, is to have an important hit game (or more games) to be released DRM-free, while has similar sales to other hit games with DRM. Otherwise, it's impossible to have any definite conclusion.

 

[_xxx_]

The alternative is very easy, just leave DRM out. Duh.

 

[V3]

DRM should be like patent or copyright, they should expired after 5 years or so. They should make laws protecting consumer rights from restrictive DRM.

 

[vazel]

Get your music on CD which is still an awesome format. It's a stamped disc that will physically last you most of if not all your lifetime(so far in the 30 years that optical media has existed it has had only a minority of problems due to disc rot and oxidation) and the music on it is uncompressed with loads of programs that will compress it to whatever format you want for easier portability.

Now videogames that call home, that is bullshit and I will never ever buy them.

 

[KimB]

I don't like DRM either. The problem is, what's the alternative?

It's easier for musics to be DRM-free. Actually, currently the most prevailing music distribution form (CD) is essentially DRM-free. Even with those stupid schemes, it's still easy to rip musics from a CD, and it's actually not illegal (at least in most part of the world). DRM-free music also works because it's relatively cheap.

However, for games/applications/video it's much harder. They retail for higher price (mostly because the number of sales is normally less than music, and they probably also cost more to make), so it's really difficult to convince a developer that they can make the same amount of (or even more) money by going DRM-free.

I think, the only way to "prove" DRM-free is workable, is to have an important hit game (or more games) to be released DRM-free, while has similar sales to other hit games with DRM. Otherwise, it's impossible to have any definite conclusion.

Well, I think DRM-free is perfectly workable. The answer is simply for companies to tailor their products for the people that actually buy the products.

Stardock really has the right take on this: piracy doesn't matter. People that pirate products are completely irrelevant to the market. They place no strain whatsoever on companies' bottom lines (except, of course for those that buy/sell pirated products: but there the law needs to step in). But neither do they have any say in what products are produced. If the companies making these products merely pay no attention to the pirates, and just pay attention to the people that pay for their stuff, then the market will solve the problem on its own.

 

[Moffell]

I find it most amusing that I always rush to the store to pick up a stardock game while I wait for the longest time to buy some DRM infested software that mess up my computer.

Take World in conflict for example, great game from Massive with very entertaining multiplay but it fubared my comp so bad..... I'm never buying a game with Sierra as publisher again. When pirated software is less damaging to your computer something is way way wrong.

 

[Davros]

I bought gt-legends and had to wait nearly 2 years before i could install it (wont have starforce on my pc)

 

[KimB]

The games I have right now that are DRM-locked are Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Spore. I'm seriously thinking of grabbing some pirated copies of these games to make certain that I don't have to worry about EA causing my DRM license to expire in a couple of years.

 

[Davros]

I absolutely support your actions, you cant trust publishers
e.a didnt think twice about shutting down motorcity online as soon as it stopped being profitable

If anyone thinks publishers care about gamers, read the eula of your favourite game before replying...

 

[pcchen]

The alternative is very easy, just leave DRM out. Duh.

How about you invest real money into making a real game without any DRM (no CD checks, no internet registration, freely transfer, etc.)? Then let's see how it ends up?
It's very easy to say "all DRM is evil! Game publishers should respect their customers!" when you are not a victim of rampant piracy.

Well, I think DRM-free is perfectly workable. The answer is simply for companies to tailor their products for the people that actually buy the products.

Stardock really has the right take on this: piracy doesn't matter. People that pirate products are completely irrelevant to the market. They place no strain whatsoever on companies' bottom lines (except, of course for those that buy/sell pirated products: but there the law needs to step in). But neither do they have any say in what products are produced. If the companies making these products merely pay no attention to the pirates, and just pay attention to the people that pay for their stuff, then the market will solve the problem on its own.

Stardock is not really DRM-free. It's light DRM, but not DRM free. To be DRM-free, you can't do CD check nor internet check.

Actually Stardock is quite good IMHO. The solution is not DRM-free, but light DRM. The problem here is how light.

 

[Frank]

Stardock really has the right take on this: piracy doesn't matter. People that pirate products are completely irrelevant to the market. They place no strain whatsoever on companies' bottom lines (except, of course for those that buy/sell pirated products: but there the law needs to step in). But neither do they have any say in what products are produced. If the companies making these products merely pay no attention to the pirates, and just pay attention to the people that pay for their stuff, then the market will solve the problem on its own.

I totally agree. Buy it if you actually use it (so you don't feel like a criminal), and/or would like a follow-up.

 

[Frank]

How about you invest real money into making a real game without any DRM (no CD checks, no internet registration, freely transfer, etc.)? Then let's see how it ends up?
It's very easy to say "all DRM is evil! Game publishers should respect their customers!" when you are not a victim of rampant piracy.

How do they know? It works like this: the management dreams up an expected sales figure, everything they sell less than that is classified as being piracy. So, more expected sales against less actual sales is equal to booming piracy. No matter if it's just some stupid game nobody likes or buys.

Seriously. All the official figures are like that. Look it up.

 

[KimB]

I totally agree. Buy it if you actually use it (so you don't feel like a criminal), and/or would like a follow-up.

Well, the problem is that in buying these products I'm still supporting the use of DRM. That's what really is eating me.

But what seems to happen is that I buy the game, try it out, and then afterwards don't want to play it any more because I'm sick of the DRM. It's a completely non-effective desire, and obtaining a DRM-free version of said games is mostly just to make it so that I am no longer revolted by the prospect of playing them. Well, that in addition to my worries of losing access to the games in question.

Well, the next time a big AAA title is released DRM-free (or nearly so), as long as it's any good at all, I'm going to jump all over it. The only real answer to the DRM problem, after all, is to focus your game-purchasing money on games that don't have it.

 

[Davros]

H
Seriously. All the official figures are like that. Look it up.

Oh I beleive you.....

 

[_xxx_]

How about you invest real money into making a real game without any DRM (no CD checks, no internet registration, freely transfer, etc.)? Then let's see how it ends up?

Already been done and the games did well too.

It's very easy to say "all DRM is evil! Game publishers should respect their customers!" when you are not a victim of rampant piracy.

DRM is useless and stupid. It never did the job nor will it ever, all it does is producing problems for buying customers.

I'm not pirating games or music or whatever, but I will never buy anything with DRM. Thus I had much more cash for my guitars and more time for my music since DRM is out there. Making my own music is way more fun anyway and there are very few games which even qualify as "worth trying" nowadays.

 

[pcchen]

Already been done and the games did well too.

Good for you. Unfortunately, although we don't make games, our customers are even worse than most gamers. We still don't use those crazy DRM schemes... but that doesn't make our applications less pirated.

I know most people here are honest people. I too don't pirate games nor applications. And I hate DRM too. However, at least to me this is still an unsolved problem. Games, applications, musics, and video are still heavily pirated, DRM or not. There still need to be some way to solve this problem, and apparently for now those publishers think DRM is the most effective solution.

As I said, to persuade those publishers that the opposite is true, we need an example, like a big hit game can actually sell for millions without any DRM scheme from the start. Then we'll have a genuine case against DRM.

 

[_xxx_]

Ehm, I just told you about games doing exactly that. Check out the gaming forum, Sins of the solar Empire sold like half a million copies without DRM.

 

[pcchen]

Ehm, I just told you about games doing exactly that. Check out the gaming forum, Sins of the solar Empire sold like half a million copies without DRM.

First, as I said before, Stardock != DRM-free.
Second, Sins of the solar empire is not really a "big hit game" with half a million copies. Heck, Spore was called a "failure" for selling like what? More than a million in a month?

 

[pcchen]

DRM should be like patent or copyright, they should expired after 5 years or so. They should make laws protecting consumer rights from restrictive DRM.

To do this, there need to be a law which is probably very hard to enforce. For example, you can create an universal DRM system, where the keys are generated for each game, and invalidated after 5 years. Then the games using the key will no longer need DRM server. Or, there can be a escrow service, where they keep a DRM-free version, and publish it after 5 years. However, these are quite costly and have other problems.

Basically, ideally there should be no DRM. However, the question here is how to solve piracy issue, to make sure everyone (including developers and publishers) can get a reasonable profit from their creations, while the customers can have their fair use right. Otherwise, either we'll only see smaller projects (because the projected sales won't be able to support large projects) or PC games will be abandoned in favor of those DRM-ed consoles.