Can someone please explain again how "DRM free" helps fight piracy?

[CousinGilgamesh]

I hear a lot about how DRM encourages piracy by punishing the honest buyer (with annoying firewall messages, etc.) and that one great way to fight piracy is to get rid of DRM. It seems more frequent that people are advertising that their software is DRM free. Isn't advertising DRM free just like telling your potential customers that it is easily available on torrent?

I agree that DRM is annoying, but I'm still not convinced that it does more harm than good. but then again my experience with DRM is limited in scope.
Can someone explain to me a little more clearly why removing DRM and advertising software as DRM free helps to fight piracy?

Of if I have the story twisted around, feel free to enlighten me.

[papillon]

Isn't advertising DRM free just like telling your potential customers that it is easily available on torrent?


For the most part, your game is easily available on torrent anyway. :)

[Backov]

I hear a lot about how DRM encourages piracy by punishing the honest buyer (with annoying firewall messages, etc.) and that one great way to fight piracy is to get rid of DRM. It seems more frequent that people are advertising that their software is DRM free. Isn't advertising DRM free just like telling your potential customers that it is easily available on torrent?

What Papillon said.

Plus, saying it's DRM free is also saying:

"This won't screw up your computer."
"This won't suddenly become unplayable when we go out of business."
"We don't think you're a thief."

Among other things.

[Applewood]

The others have said it, but here's it looked at from another angle.

I won't pay a cent to anybody if I have to get their permission later to use "it" whatever "it" might be. Especially something as trivial as a game.

[CousinGilgamesh]

yeah, but aren't there ways of doing DRM that won't be that invasive and have such serious repercussions for the honest customers? There's got to be a better way than just not protecting your software at all and hoping people are nice.

[Backov]

yeah, but aren't there ways of doing DRM that won't be that invasive and have such serious repercussions for the honest customers? There's got to be a better way than just not protecting your software at all and hoping people are nice.

There is no way to protect your software.

[Andrej Vojtas]

By the way what is considered DRM free?

I know some people consider a serial key associated with a user to be DRM free. There is no online activation, no dialing home, no counting of number of installs, no serial key associated with a specific set of hardware, no fear of the activation server disappearing once the company is out of business.

Or does DRM free for the average consumer mean an absolutely clean install, with no personalization whatsoever?

[Jack Norton]

DRM Free AFAIK means you get a download link of the full installer and with it you don't need any serial etc.
I prefer that system too over serials, they're too much of a pain. Also as papillon said your game will be pirated anyway unless you use some server-side logic etc.

[GBC]

One thing we'll be seeing more and more are games that are both sold (digitally and at retail) and additional optional microtransactions. In that way, a portion of pirates will be monetized even if they didn't buy the game in the shop. Naturally, game designers should be careful not to make microtransactions mandatory and not to tie central content to them, as not to piss off people that bought the game. They should be secondary or accessory to the main game.

The Sims 3 is one of the first AAA games that contains such a system, as far as I know.

[zoombapup]

I see absolutely nothing wrong in having an online component that provides extra content to users which is completely optional, but which requires registration to use.

In that way, the basic game is "DRM free", but to really enjoy the game to its fullest extent, requires that you have paid for the game.

Then the issue is, how much content is considered "basic" and how much "premium" or "additional".

I kind of like the idea of microtransactions, I've seen it work very well with a group of gamer friends when we were regularly playing Realms of Pangaya. So it clearly does work. It is also a way to monetize that doesnt cripple non payers. But obviously it doesnt work for all games.

[Applewood]

I actually forgot my main point when I posted last... :s

The point of DRM free is not about stopping pirates, it's about doing all you can to get honest people to part with their money.

(Which in my opinion should be the only thing you worry about. Regardless of how badly people here think piracy affects them, the number of pirates in the world is statistically insignificant when compared to the *potential* legit customers out there. You "just" need to reach them.)

[luggage]

I actually forgot my main point when I posted last... :s

The point of DRM free is not about stopping pirates, it's about doing all you can to get honest people to part with their money.

(Which in my opinion should be the only thing you worry about. Regardless of how badly people here think piracy affects them, the number of pirates in the world is statistically insignificant when compared to the *potential* legit customers out there. You "just" need to reach them.)

Well said.

[JarkkoL]

There seem to be two schools of thought, one who believes pirates are also potential customers when taken away means to pirate and one who doesn't. I'm in the former, which makes me think DRM isn't useless as long as it doesn't cause too much trouble to legit customers defeating the purpose. There are always some noisy rebel warriors who think all type of DRM is evil and bad, but I think you can have highly protective DRM implementation (i.e. which pays you several months of pirate-free time) which doesn't cause more trouble to legit customers past one time on-line registration. I'm sure there will always be gruntled customers who think even that's too much, but I believe they are in neglible minority and all customers are not good for your business anyway.

[Applewood]

There seem to be two schools of thought, one who believes pirates are also potential customers when taken away means to pirate and one who doesn'tYeah, I see that. And I can also see why you come to that conclusion, but personally I think it's a crock.

But regardless, it's still a waste of resources driven more by a sense of righteousness than hard business sense.

I mean, let's say you're right. So which audience do you think you should spend time on:

a) The percentage of a small percentage who might buy your game if they couldn't get it dishonestly

or

b) The other six billion people

[Jamie W]

I see absolutely nothing wrong in having an online component that provides extra content to users which is completely optional, but which requires registration to use.

In that way, the basic game is "DRM free", but to really enjoy the game to its fullest extent, requires that you have paid for the game.

Then the issue is, how much content is considered "basic" and how much "premium" or "additional".

I kind of like the idea of microtransactions, I've seen it work very well with a group of gamer friends when we were regularly playing Realms of Pangaya. So it clearly does work. It is also a way to monetize that doesnt cripple non payers. But obviously it doesnt work for all games.

My thinking is also very much along these these lines, and this is I think, a very good way to address the issue..

Having the basic core content of the game, such that it can be pirated. Also, having a significant online (download extra content, community interaction) that is available, if you check out as a valid customer etc.

It's also possible to make the basic core aspect of the game, act as a kinda advert for the online functionality; so the pirated copy of your game acts like an advert.

[JarkkoL]

I think it's quite the opposite. Developers who disregard pirates as potential customers are not driven by hard business sense. I wish that people who are prone to pirate your games given that option were only tiny fraction out of six billion people, but unfortunately I think they are the vast majority you should think how to get money from.

[JGOware]

I mean, let's say you're right. So which audience do you think you should spend time on:

a) The percentage of a small percentage who might buy your game if they couldn't get it dishonestly

or

b) The other six billion people

Agreed.

"I wish that people who are prone to pirate your games given that option were only tiny fraction out of six billion people, but unfortunately I think they are the vast majority you should think how to get money from."

That kind of thinking will drive a developer nuts, to the point of spending alot of time and resources on something that will ultimately be a waste of time and resources.

[JarkkoL]

Or just plug-in a DRM solution which doesn't require much time or resources.

[Applewood]

Yep, you can do that. Maybe all the backbedroom guys can take over the DRM space whilst all the big outfits are binning the idea for some apparently strange and random bad business decision.

[Gary Preston]

The others have said it, but here's it looked at from another angle.

I won't pay a cent to anybody if I have to get their permission later to use "it" whatever "it" might be. Especially something as trivial as a game.

You expect to be able to use content you've paid for in the future :confused: Only reason I'm typing this here rather than out in my car is that the Citroen DRM servers are down atm and unable to authenticate whether I really am the registered owner of the vehicle. Hopefully they'll be back online before my hair cut appointment.

Speaking of access to content in the future:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/big-content-ridiculous-to-expect-drmed-music-to-work-forever.ars


When Wal-Mart announced in 2008 that it was pulling down the DRM servers...


Metalitz (again) strongly opposes any exemption that would allow users to legally strip DRM from content if a store goes dark and takes down its authentication servers.


"Wal-Mart's latest actions provide ample evidence that the issue of DRM abandonware is not a hypothetical concern and that the market cannot be counted on to provide consumers with an adequate remedy," he wrote.

and Wal-Mart are not the only company to do this. That's a company that is still a viable business too, not one in administration (which is another concern with regards to on-line authentication).

Companies should be required to create and keep in escrow, patches that will remove all DRM from their products should they go into administration and fail to come out of the process with new funding or a new owner capable of keeping the DRM servers ticking.

[Jack Norton]

There's a big contraddiction here:
People like tolik & co. saying that everything will be online/microtransaction very soon, and others that don't want to be unable to play a game in a few years with DRM that require online authentication.
What about those online / MMO games then? Since many go bankrupt (just search for "MMO shut-down", a recent illustrious example is Matrix Online), those customers should be ultrapissed as well? After all MMO is based on those online DRM (there's also the community thing and extras, but the online DRM is there).

It's either one, or the other...

[Applewood]

What about those online / MMO games then? Since many go bankrupt ..., those customers should be ultrapissed as well?It'd certainly piss me off, but at least it's an obvious risk you take before spending money on a game like that.

There should be no inherent risk of me not being able to play my single-player scrabble game though!

[Jack Norton]

Obvious risk? :rolleyes:
I don't think so... Then MMO players don't care to be able to play their game in 2-3 years, while someone buying a singleplayer game yes ? Exactly why?

Explain how a singleplayer game that does a check DAILY (taking 5s) is Hell on Earth, while a MMO downloading 50Gb of patches weekly is Heaven on Earth?? Something is missing here...

[Applewood]

Are you reading what I say and inverting the gist of it just so you have someone to argue with?


Obvious risk?Yes! Anyone who expects an MMO to definitely still be alive and well in 2 years is imho a complete penis.


while someone buying a singleplayer game yes ? I'll need that again in English, sorry.


Explain how a singleplayer game that does a check DAILY (taking 5s) is Hell on Earth,When that server is down or the company is out of business. Like what games companies do a lot of. Or maybe my own connection is down. Or maybe I want to play on my laptop that doesn't have a connection at the beach.


while a MMO downloading 50Gb of patches weekly is Heaven on Earth??Nowt in my post about this at all, but yeah sounds like a nightmare. Another reason I won't play em.


Something is missing here... Yep, there sure is

[zoombapup]

Actually, theyre not. They're abandoning PC development instead.

The issue is different for bigger developers I think. But there's no doubt that at least perceptually the PC platform is seen as one rife with piracy.

[Jack Norton]

Yes! Anyone who expects an MMO to definitely still be alive and well in 2 years is imho a complete penis.
LOL someone will be offended by that sentence... (not me).

I'm not arguing just to argue, I only ask normal questions. If you're so upset, I'm sorry for you, wasn't my intention (you get upset easily btw!).

It's only that I get a bit tired to hear:
"Future is MMO, microtransaction, free to play!"
AND
"Online validation? If I want to play on the beach!! If company goes bankrupt!"

To me those two things seems to go on opposite directions, that's all.
My last post here on this argument, don't worry!

[Gary Preston]

Obvious risk? :rolleyes:
I don't think so... Then MMO players don't care to be able to play their game in 2-3 years, while someone buying a singleplayer game yes ? Exactly why?

Explain how a singleplayer game that does a check DAILY (taking 5s) is Hell on Earth, while a MMO downloading 50Gb of patches weekly is Heaven on Earth?? Something is missing here...

It's the fact that a SP game would be perfectly playable without DRM, yet with DRM you may lose access to that game.

With an MMO, even with 0 DRM you will lose access to the game the moment the game servers close, thus having DRM on an MMO isn't the key factor in how long a game remains playable.

That's why (I at least) accept DRM on an MMO but not on other games. (To clarify, Off-line DRM is fine, but on-line DRM for an off-line game is not)

It's like people who are buying MP3 music. When the DRM servers close they lose access to their music. Music that would have otherwise played perfectly fine on their future players if it hadn't been for DRM. That is like an SP game with DRM.

Currently customers are very ignorant of the implications of (certain forms of) DRM, but I expect that will change in coming years as more and more people are bitten by it.

[Applewood]

I'm not arguing just to argue, I only ask normal questions. If you're so upset, I'm sorry for you, wasn't my intention (you get upset easily btw!).Only when people twist my words (either intentionally or by accident)



It's only that I get a bit tired to hear:
"Future is MMO, microtransaction, free to play!"
AND
"Online validation? If I want to play on the beach!! If company goes bankrupt!"I agree about the former, its a crock. Not everyone wants to play only MMO's and whilst demand is there for other games, it will be serviced. Certainly by the indie crowd.

You probably see my example a lot because its a big in-yer-face valid reason for people to hate DRM. It's a cliche because it's accurate

[Jack Norton]

Ok understood what you mean now :)

Speaking on bad DRM, I think the securom stuff is much worse. I bought Bioshock now for 12 eur, and still have insane troubles making it work because somehow the DVD was slightly scratched and my drive not always read it correctly (takes 2-3 attempts to have the game startup!).
Those kind of stuff makes me want to look for a No-CD crack! :rolleyes:

[cliffski]

Gamers may demand no microtransactions and no DRM and singleplayer games, but they also demand that thepiratebay guys be left alone and that rapidshare be allowed to continue anonymous hosting.
These things are all incompatible.

Ultimately, we are businesspeople, we have to be, or we don't eat.
Gamers act like our options are:

1) Make drm-free, cheap games with no ads or microtransactions and no online component and no anti-piracy measures
or
2) nothing

The real options are

1) Make games that you can make money from, either by ads, micro-transactions or using DRM to enforce purchase or
2) Property Development / Sheep-rearing / database-programming / website-development...

If the twin attacks of piracy + people refusing to accept the measures to counteract it means that I can't pay the bills by making games, I'll do something else for a living. regrettable, but a sad reality of life.

Gamers argue like we are duty bound by edict from Gowron to make games entirely on terms dictated by angry internet men. They should direct some of the anger at the pirates, not the people who make games.

[Applewood]

And I wouldn't berate you for doing so. The key point is that you paid your money for the game. If you need a hax0r to make it work as ordered, that's hardly your fault!

[Over00]

I rarely buy games (don't have much free time for that) but when I do, it's usually because I have 2-3 hours in front of me and really don't feel like working on my own project.

So basically I want to play now and the faster it is for me to start playing the more chance there is I'll buy your game.

That's why I like Steam. Click, Click, Play. If I have to start worrying about things just to get the game started then it's too bad but that might be enough for me to just look at something else instead.

Anyway, Flash and Photoshop have some kind of protection? Don't tell me that every single flash games we see have been built with legit copies... If they can't protect these softwares, I'm not sure it's really worth all the efforts for an independent game developer. Will it really make more money in your pocket?

Just food for thought

[JarkkoL]

Online validation doesn't have to happen daily either, but only once when you buy the game or install it on a new system, so you could play the game just fine without internet connection once you have done the initial registration. If someone has a problem with such a validation scheme, it would be silly to make a business decision just to please such a minority of gruntled zero tolerance customers.

Actually, theyre not. They're abandoning PC development instead.
That's my experience as well, or they delay the PC release for few months to take advantage of the peak sales on consoles.

[Applewood]

Actually, theyre not. They're abandoning PC development instead.The bigger companies aren't abandoning it, they were never on it in the first place. Those are can be bothered pushing a PC version usually do so because the developers develop on PC most of the time and the build is ready to go so why not.


Online validation doesn't have to happen daily either, but only once when you buy the game or install it on a new system,Yes it does. It's easy enough for a cracker to remove the online validation, but its childs-play to remove a registry entry or whatever. Certainly trivial enough that it's not accomplishing anything. But this argument's seriously old now.



Gamers argue like we are duty bound by edict from Gowron to make games entirely on terms dictated by angry internet menThat goes both ways. Most developers seem to expect gamers to buy their games because they made them and need to sell them. Truly, if you can't sell enough games to people on their terms then the alternative is as you posted before - property development or something. You can't make em buy.

[JarkkoL]

Yes it does. It's easy enough for a cracker to remove the online validation, but its childs-play to remove a registry entry or whatever.
So, lets say there were a robust DRM solution which would require only one time initial registration, would you find it tolerable? ;)

[Applewood]

I'm sure some would find it more tolerable, but not me.

I find this whole suibject to be like one of those lies that if repeated long enough become true. What I mean by this is that so many people are arguing over the detail that the bigger picture is lost.

imo we shouldn't be having this conversation at all. If I buy some coffee mugs from B&Q, I take them out the bag, rinse em out once and then poor some coffee in. I don't have to activate them first and certainly not each time I put the kettle on.

At no point do I want to concern myself with how many mugs have been shoplifted from B&Q. It's their problem to worry about that shit and if they start making it hard to buy them from B&Q whilst trying to stop shoplifters, I'll just go get them from Homebase instead. If they all put the price up to balance their losses, I'll redecide if its a price I'm willing to pay.

If every manufacturer stops making coffee mugs because of shoplifting, then I guess I'll have to stop drinking coffee. But who is the biggest loser here, me or B&Q ?

Seriously, before you make a decision to add DRM or not, you at least need to consider that you have no divine right to sell stuff to people. It's for you to decide if DRM will make you a net win or loss, though it seems to me that better analysts than us have decided its a losing play. I for one won't buy your game if I need to do more than just buy it to be able to use it.

[cliffski]

fair enough.
But if you have the right money in a clothes shop, do you just leave it on the counter and walk out?
I doubt it, because a huge alarm will go off, and the security guard will drag you to the till to have your security tag removed from your clothing.

Nobody bats an eyelid at that because we know that if they dont do it, loads of chavvy kdis will steal all the clothes.
A bit like selling games.
My fave game right now is Anno 1404. Apparently it uses 'tages' which does some sort of DRM check thing. I haven't even noticed. Like 99.9% of gamers, my machine is always on-line anyway.
I suppose I could just give up gaming out of spite, but seeing as though the DRM on that game is entirely invisible to me, why would I do that?

[JarkkoL]

Heh, I was just about to post the same cloth store analogy, but you beat me to it, cliffski ;)

[Gary Preston]

Gamers may demand no microtransactions and no DRM and singleplayer games, but they also demand that thepiratebay guys be left alone and that rapidshare be allowed to continue anonymous hosting.
These things are all incompatible.


Don't mix gamers and pirates into the same barrel.

Gamers who purchase games should be allowed to avoid games with microtransactions and demand games don't have certain DRM and not buy games that do (which is what I do).

Using the above as an excuse to piracy is not a valid excuse and certainly a position I won't defend.

Anonymous hosting on rapidshare (and others) wouldn't be a problem if rapidshare made it clear in T&C that your anonymity will not be retained should you post anything illegal or that infringes copyright. The same should apply to other services such as usenet.



If the twin attacks of piracy + people refusing to accept the measures to counteract it means that I can't pay the bills by making games, I'll do something else for a living. regrettable, but a sad reality of life.


Your methods to counteract it, are they actually stopping people pirating your game?

I don't mean the takedown requests and making it hard for people to actually find the pirated game on-line, or the uploading of demos as the full game torrent etc... those are perfectly valid tactics that everyone should consider.

I mean are your DRM measures that affect your legitimate customers such as on-line authentication working? Or is the game still been pirated.

If not, then are you not damaging your business by pushing away customers who would have purchased your game but now will not because of the on-line authentication?

[cliffski]

I don't use any DRM.
But I may well make games that are heavily online-integrated in future. Or change business entirely. Hoping a few nice people decide generously to pay you is not a business model.

[Applewood]

But if you have the right money in a clothes shop, do you just leave it on the counter and walk out?
I doubt it, because a huge alarm will go off, and the security guard will drag you to the till to have your security tag removed from your clothing.
I've no problem with those thingies either. I'm not advocating DRM removal on principal, but on operation/impact.

A metal detector manages to keep the price down whilst not requiring me to do anything special. And once I leave the store, I can still wear my new trendy shirt all summer long even if the shop chain gets credit-crunched next week.

And that's my/the key point.

(btw, I bought a copy of D2 a while back and whilst I was happy with the game, I was seriously pissed about needing to activate it. I didn't complain because it was my fault for going straight to the buy link without checking. Even though you got my money, you should consider me a missed customer. Not sure that'll keep you up all night, but it seems relevant given the conversation)

[Gary Preston]

fair enough.
But if you have the right money in a clothes shop, do you just leave it on the counter and walk out?
I doubt it, because a huge alarm will go off, and the security guard will drag you to the till to have your security tag removed from your clothing.

Nobody bats an eyelid at that because we know that if they dont do it, loads of chavvy kdis will steal all the clothes.
A bit like selling games.
My fave game right now is Anno 1404. Apparently it uses 'tages' which does some sort of DRM check thing. I haven't even noticed. Like 99.9% of gamers, my machine is always on-line anyway.
I suppose I could just give up gaming out of spite, but seeing as though the DRM on that game is entirely invisible to me, why would I do that?

Once you've left the store you no longer have to worry about the protection though.

Where as with games we buy, leave the store, then have to deal with protection every time we "wear the item". I couldn't care less if a store goes bust after buying my £15 pair of jeans. I've got them and can continue to wear them, but with many games, if the company goes bust, there goes my game access too.

All those people who bought music wrapped in DRM thought it was invisible to them too, until the stores closed their DRM servers. Now it isn't invisible and they realise they're going to lose access to all the music they thought they'd purchased.

[Gary Preston]

I don't use any DRM.
But I may well make games that are heavily online-integrated in future. Or change business entirely. Hoping a few nice people decide generously to pay you is not a business model.

Heavy on-line integration is a different issue.

IF the integration provides added features to the players, then using that as a subtle form of DRM isn't really a problem. There's no way the gamers would get the same level of experience offline (making those features optional, but irresistible is a way to get gamers to want to go through the extra checks which for the most part will be transparent anyway)

If however, it's just moving parts of a game to the server for no reason other than a form of DRM, then again I wouldn't buy the game.

For example, if your game provides on-line stats, ladders, leagues, downloadable content, user sharing of content all of which are added extras if you create an account (which can involve authenticating the users purchase), then to me there's no issue with that. If your company folds you lose access to those services, but that loss isn't because of DRM, just a fact of business.

[cliffski]

If you would rather sit in a corner and play with a cup and ball because you phear that a $30 game might not work in 2 years time, then fine. Keep your money :D
Meanwhile, Anno 1404 is awesome.

I don't see why it is such a religious crusade with people. Just don't buy them if you feel so 'violated' by a 1 second web check on startup. Anno 1404s check is so quick I can't even read what it says.

[JarkkoL]

FWIW, I would advice against use of DRM implementation which requires you to go on-line every time you play to validate the authenticity of your application, and in fact I just recently did on another forum for few reasons listed here as well. I was speaking of DRM which requires only initial on-line registration which "signs" the game for your PC, which I find perfectly acceptable for DRM.

[Applewood]

If you would rather sit in a corner and play with a cup and ball because you phear that a $30 game might not work in 2 years time, then fine. Keep your money Running out of steam now, but I'll just say that whilst I noticed the smiley, this is as often as not the option I actually do take.


I don't see why it is such a religious crusade with peopleYou only really need to know that it is, and try to assertain how many. The justification people might make when asked doesn't change anything to you as a vendor.

How many people you turn away vs how many pirates you now sell to is for your own calculation, just don't forget that as a customer I get to make my own mind up.

[Gary Preston]

If you would rather sit in a corner and play with a cup and ball because you phear that a $30 game might not work in 2 years time, then fine. Keep your money :D
Meanwhile, Anno 1404 is awesome.

I don't see why it is such a religious crusade with people. Just don't buy them if you feel so 'violated' by a 1 second web check on startup. Anno 1404s check is so quick I can't even read what it says.

It's not a religious crusade, just a matter of choice. I disagree with games doing on-line auth and do not like the idea I'll lose access to them at some arbitrary time in the future.

So I do the only thing I can, I don't buy them (ok I also complain about it on-line, in the hope it'll make a difference, but ultimately knowing that's not going to make a blind bit of difference beyond making me feel better ;)

There are still enough games out there that I do want to play that do not use on-line auth. So it isn't really a case of giving up gaming, just been a little more selective.

Most games I buy now are for the 360 and most of the PC games I would have bought for the PC I've avoided due to the DRM.

I guess Applewood hit the key point here. It's not a question of whether those who "keep their money" are right or wrong, more a question of how many are doing it and will those number rise in the future as companies do close their doors and those who are not quite as aware of the tech involved realise the implications. Of course we may just be and remain to be the minority, in which case from a business pov, it doesn't matter if you use on-line auth or not.

[Jack Norton]

The Witcher who used online activation (and a really NASTY DRM that was reverting user to broken games if they failed the check) still sold over 1M copies.
So obviously isn't a big issue for many people, IF the game is good :)
It's also true that:
- they have only recently removed their DRM completely
- was easy to find cracked version anyway

[Gary Preston]

The Witcher who used online activation (and a really NASTY DRM that was reverting user to broken games if they failed the check) still sold over 1M copies.
So obviously isn't a big issue for many people, IF the game is good :)
It's also true that:
- they have only recently removed their DRM completely
- was easy to find cracked version anyway

Any idea what their reason for removing the DRM completely was?

A guess would be they either lost a lot of customers due to it, or had a lot of customers complain when they realised what they were buying along with the game? But it'd be interesting to know the real reason.

[JarkkoL]

For Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, we had Starforce, which is cursed by many and the game yet has sold over 2M copies and there wasn't a crack the game for over 400 days (apparently the world record).

[Jack Norton]

Any idea what their reason for removing the DRM completely was?

Not sure, but their DRM was really nuts. Reverting a working game to a sort of demo if the game thought it might be pirated? I know only one more person that could do that! he's british and loves java.

[Bad Sector]

For the clothes store analogy: my father has a clothes store and doesn't have such kind of "DRM" in the clothes. In fact he has a ...stand (i'm not sure if this is the right word - its a thing where t-shits are hanged) outside of the store with a little cheaper t-shits. Anyone in theory can grab one and run away and actually this happened a few times at the past. My father just moved the stand to a position he can see from within the store. He still gets a steal every four months or so, but he doesn't really care since the income from the sells is much greater (and all these years he has managed to gain the reputation of having very high quality clothes, which is why he has much less problems than other clothes shopes in the island).

As for software DRM. If it has a company like Valve behind it, behaves like Steam, works like Steam, has "added value" like Steam and is crackable like Steam in the case that Steam goes down, i don't mind it :-)

Otherwise, no thanks :-)

EDIT: also, i want to add that i don't really buy many games but most of the games i've bought are games i play repeatedly and for more than 2 years. If Quake didn't work after 1999 i would really be pissed :-).

[papillon]

But if you have the right money in a clothes shop, do you just leave it on the counter and walk out?
I doubt it, because a huge alarm will go off, and the security guard will drag you to the till to have your security tag removed from your clothing.
Nobody bats an eyelid at that because we know that if they dont do it, loads of chavvy kdis will steal all the clothes.


Some people do behave like that in stores, just not most of them. :)

The primary reason for not allowing people to just leave money on a counter, or so I've heard from store personnel, is that they need to mark exactly what item was sold for inventory control. There are plenty of stores with self-checkout, trusting you to scan your stuff properly.

Of course, some people cheat and try to rip them off. Some people try to rip cashiers off too - plenty of people working checkout will have stories of people swapping labels on items to try and make something expensive ring up cheap.

It's a balancing act. Theft tags are often extremely unreliable and some stores won't even bother looking to see why you set an alarm off if you did set it off. Lots of stores don't have them at all. But the small reminders of SOME stores having tags and alarms and these things going off SOMETIMES helps make people feel like there's a secure system in place, without actually causing them huge amounts of aggravation.

Keeping all the stock in locked cages and searching every customer coming and going may cut down on theft, but it pisses the customers off and they stop coming.

Similarly, most people don't care that much about DRM as long as it doesn't get in their way. If it Just Works, and especially if it comes with some benefit (like account-based systems where you can redownload and reinstall your game), and if the company seems reliable... most people's objections vanish.

[hddnobjcttmmngmntmtch3rlz]

Unprotected builds of casual games are available on the torrents before they even come out. Sometimes even beta versions.

One thing I can say is that this doesn't happen to our titles.

[princec]

Every time a thread on DRM comes up I have to switch on my automated Threadbot and reply with my canned AI:

I've got DRM on all my games and I'm proud to have it. Without DRM the full versions of my games would have been all over the internet in no time. As it was, they were only cracked when they were put in Reflexive's easily haxx0red wrapper. And even then they were actual cracks which to my mind is considerably more illegal than simply sharing full version install files in many jurisdictions.

The license I offer to customers is very simple and very lenient. They can install the game on a computer. They can also install the game on other family computers and even install it on friends computers. Once installed, the game remains installed forever, whether it's offline or online from then on, except in the case where they ask for a refund, at which point, any game launched online will deregister itself and become a demo once more.

If the customer buys a whole new computer, we graciously allow them to install the game on that computer too. We allow this any number of times, right up until the point we go bust, at which point all installed copies of the games remain installed forever, but the game will no longer be easily available for reinstallation on new hardware. We do not sell licenses to perpetually install the game forever. We sell a license to install the game on one machine. We just allow for the fact that people usually have more than one machine.

I think it's about as fair as you can feasibly get. You don't even have to remember registration keys either.

In the case of us going bust in 10 years (totally likely, I admit) - that's the end of the line for new installations. We'll probably release a tool for moving registrations around. But if we don't: ask yourself how many of your 10 year old games actually run at all. Almost none of the old games I've got run properly any more. A massive disappointment. And can I get support for any of them to make them run? Can I fuck. Because they were designed to run on the machine I bought it for, not some newfangled omni-cognent neutron wrangler that I bought 10 years in the future.

Cas :)

[Bad Sector]

But if we don't: ask yourself how many of your 10 year old games actually run at all.

Actually, all of them - and in fact some older than 10 years also run, especially DOS games thanks to DOSBox. Some work right out of the box (Quake 3), some want a little massage (Unreal) and some need a community fix aided with some hex editing in the executable and praying to voodoo gods (System Shock 2). But they work and the last part about SS2 shows that many people do care about their older games being playable to the extent they go and patch them themselves (i know i would do it too, btw).

Also personally i am a fan of forward compatibility (and had a lengthy rant about the topic in a magazine column some time ago which had some positive responses) and trying to make sure as much as possible (by using proper programming methods, not abusing the APIs and not relying on ad-hoc experiments for using some hardware features, especially when it comes to graphics) that my code will run in future hardware.

[luggage]

It won't be 10 years though really. One day you'll be selling games, the next you won't. So for some players it'll be within a couple of days of purchasing.

If you'd be releasing a tool then I guess it doesn't really matter. But how many companies would just go "sod it, makes no difference to me" and just flick the servers off on their way out.

[papillon]

I don't worry too much about "ten years from now" as I expect bored hackers to find their way around anyone's DRM by then.

The biggest problem that I personally encounter is people with rather shaky-looking businesses... people who're releasing their first game, or new entrants in a particular niche that is LITTERED with the corpses of collapsed companies, or companies with a terrible track record for bugs and removing products from sale, or online activation servers that keep going down... people whose DRM says "I'm desperate; if I can't get all potential pirates to buy, I'm going bust" all over it.

If I think there's a good chance of the game collapsing within TWO years, which may be before I've even finished it, then I'm going to feel pretty awkward about paying for the DRMed copy.

Also, anyone with hard install limits is a problem. Sure, if my account appears to be trying to install the game ten times a day, putting a hold on and contacting me to find out what's up is reasonable. But if I move to another computer six months after purchase, I should not have to fill out a questionnaire and a bunch of begging in order to reinstall. :)

[Backov]

Here's the absolute best DRM you can possibly have, that will guarantee that no one will pirate your game in any significant way:

Make a really shitty game.

If you do anything other than that, your game will be cracked and distributed. Especially if you go to the other extreme, ie - make a really good game, or a really hyped game. Then you're going to get copied. So don't do that. Wouldn't want to give people something to copy.

The best DRM money can buy just inconveniences everyone - the pirates still get their game, maybe a bit slower than usual. The legitimate users do as well, but are inconvenienced and may not even bother.

[papillon]

If you make a really shitty game and release it on the portals, they'll pirate it anyway, just because it's there. :)

[Jack Norton]

Well to the OP questions:
"Can someone please explain again how "DRM free" helps fight piracy?"
I think we can all agree that doesn't matter at all. Pirates won't buy your game because is DRM free or anything, more like the opposite, pirate will buy because they can't find a pirate copy.
As I posted elsewhere I estimate a noticeable percentage (even around 10% for some games) of my sales to people who TRIED first to find a cracked copy, then gave up (I know since I track the URL they come from and is usually a google search with gamename+crack/full).
Not saying they are used to pirate, but still they tried :)

[PoV]

"Can someone please explain again how "DRM free" helps fight piracy?"
Sure. It's like a fight where the one party starts the fight by raising the surrender flag. Even if no blood was shed, at least you showed up to the fight. ;)

That doesn't make it bad though... just awkward. Like you gotta then play buddy buddy with the pirate, and do what you can to convince them to send you a few bucks.

[Bad Sector]

Here's the absolute best DRM you can possibly have, that will guarantee that no one will pirate your game in any significant way:

Make a really shitty game.

I can confirm that this works perfectly :-P

[Columbo]

I'm getting to the stage on my first game where I'm thinking about what to do regarding DRM or not. There's two approaches I'm considering - zero DRM (separate demo and full-game builds) or 'light' DRM (demo version can be unlocked - once unlocked once, internet connection not required - similar to Cas's approach).

Balancing them up I think the factors to consider are:

1. Which is bigger - lost sales through casual piracy under zero DRM or lost sales due to alienating honest customers through DRM. I'd imagine the size of the latter group depends on how generous your DRM is - Cas's approach sounds pretty reasonable to me, but there's still going to be some people who won't touch any DRM.
2. Which is more hassle - It may seem like having no DRM is much easier than having DRM, but by having the demo and full version of the game being one and the same, it means I'd only have to have one 'release' configuration of the game and means I don't have to come up with any complicated system to distribute patches when I make fixes or updates (people can just download the demo again.
3. Which will cost more money - Bandwidth costs money. If your demo version can be much smaller than your full version then keeping them separate can reduce the download requirements. If (like me) they're going to be a similar size, then you can save a little bandwidth by removing the requirement for people to download a new version when they purchase.

It looks to me like each of these factors is pretty finely balanced (but I'd be interested if anyone thinks otherwise). I'm leaning toward the light DRM approach at the moment (but may change my mind).

Regarding what happens to validation servers if I shut the company down - I figure if that happens I'll just release all my old games as freeware. Obviously, this won't satisfy the anti-DRM folk (they have no reason to trust me), but morally it makes me more comfortable about using DRM.

[princec]

1. Which is bigger - lost sales through casual piracy under zero DRM or lost sales due to alienating honest customers through DRM. I'd imagine the size of the latter group depends on how generous your DRM is - Cas's approach sounds pretty reasonable to me, but there's still going to be some people who won't touch any DRM.

See Steam. Applewood may be vocally cantankerous about DRM but he will have to accept he's a tiny minority of real consumers.


2. Which is more hassle - It may seem like having no DRM is much easier than having DRM, but by having the demo and full version of the game being one and the same, it means I'd only have to have one 'release' configuration of the game and means I don't have to come up with any complicated system to distribute patches when I make fixes or updates (people can just download the demo again.)
It's actually more hassle to maintain two separate builds. But then, it's even further hassle maintaining your DRM server.

3. Which will cost more money - Bandwidth costs money.Basically - no it doesn't. Maybe 10 years ago it did. Now you can have all you could possibly hope to eat for the price of a takeaway curry every month. Don't worry about bandwidth.

So really the factors aren't that balanced. The only real issue that you will encounter - that I've encountered - is keeping that DRM server live 24/7. It inevitably goes wrong now and again for one reason or another. (Fortunately it's always trivial to spot and fix).

Cas :)

[Bad Sector]

See Steam. Applewood may be vocally cantankerous about DRM but he will have to accept he's a tiny minority of real consumers.

Actually i agree with Applewood on the aspect of online DRM. However Steam is a special case and is why i mentioned it above. It has a big company with a good track record and has shown many times at the past that they're gamer friendly behind it. It has good network support (i use it for years and the service was down only once and in the meanwhile i could play in "offline mode" so i wasn't affected by this). And of course it provides great value for their client by not only having a bunch of features that add to the game (the Steam overlay for *every* game adds an in-game web browser! How genius is that?) and build a community (adding groups, IM, server list for MP games) but also keep everything in one place (games and tools list) and provide an always there to use e-shop with a shitload of games ranging from casual to hardcore games.

This is why Steam's DRM is acceptable, not because its DRM. Saying that Steam is simply a DRM system is like saying that Windows is a Notepad launcher.

And the bottom line is, if you can't offer what Steam offers and back it like Valve, then simply don't do it. Even Stardock -which is in a much better position than every other person here- doesn't have DRM on Impulse and fails to provide an experience as good as Steam (however they have the best results from everyone else who tried).

[Deva]

Anyone know how GOG.com (http://www.gog.com) is doing profit-wise? I'd buy more games from them if I didn't have a lot of what they offer in my library already. No DRM and excellent prices have meant instant sales from me, even if, in theory, it's easy to just copy the game from someone else. There are honest consumers out there who appreciate it when a company makes an effort to give them what they want, and who want to support that kind of business model. (And judging from GOG's forums, I know I'm not the only one who thinks this way.) It would be nice if more companies followed their lead, both anti-DRM and price-wise. The typical Portal casual game, which I buy a good number of too, now has it half right, but if they went DRM-free that would be an added bonus. ;)

[Columbo]

Cheers for the reply, Cas.

"See Steam. Applewood may be vocally cantankerous about DRM but he will have to accept he's a tiny minority of real consumers." - I agree that group is probably pretty small, but I'd imagine the increase in actual sales from preventing (very) casual piracy with DRM is also pretty small.

"It's actually more hassle to maintain two separate builds. But then, it's even further hassle maintaining your DRM server." - Yeah - that's what I was getting at. With DRM I only need one build and releasing patches is simple, but implementing and administering the DRM could be a pain. Out of interest - how do people manage patches/updates when they go down the zero-DRM route? Do you send out e-mails with personalised download URLs or something?

"Don't worry about bandwidth" - Useful to know - I've only just started looking at hosting options so haven't really got a handle on the costs involved.

[Bad Sector]

Anyone know how GOG.com (http://www.gog.com) is doing profit-wise? I'd buy more games from them if I didn't have a lot of what they offer in my library already.

I know they got some dollars from me :-P. I bought some games from them (some i didn't had - like Shogo - and some others i just wanted to have the ability to redownload everywhere - like Duke Nukem 3D).


But! Stop comparing yourselves with portals! Unless you plan to make a portal which will include (much) more games than yours, the environments do not match.

[Deva]

My fave game right now is Anno 1404.

I had to do a bit of searching until I discovered that this game is called "Dawn of Discovery (http://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Discovery-Pc/dp/B001VJBYZY/)" here in the States. According to reviewers, it has an online activation system with a 3-install limit, which makes it a non-sale for me. Too bad, because this is the type of game I usually really enjoy.

Pirates get the convenient non-DRM version, and honest paying consumers have to put up with a limited "Spored" version. I just don't get it.

[cliffski]

According to reviewers, it has an online activation system with a 3-install limit, which makes it a non-sale for me. Too bad, because this is the type of game I usually really enjoy.


you are planning to format your PC three times in the time you will play the game?
You are missing out on the best game of the year so far, because of this.
Personally I haven't reinstalled a windows installation since Windows 98.

[Deva]

you are planning to format your PC three times in the time you will play the game?
You are missing out on the best game of the year so far, because of this.
Personally I haven't reinstalled a windows installation since Windows 98.

I'll probably never drive an Indy race car around a racetrack either, and I imagine that would be a great deal of fun. But I'll survive without doing that, and I'll survive without this game. It's basically a couple of things. One, 6 months down the road I may buy another PC I want to install it on. So that's install #2. Then I might get a new laptop for travel and want to install it on that. Install #3. Hard drive crashes, hardware changes, or other things all may require another install. Or wanting to play for nostalgia's sake 5 years from now, when who knows if the online activation system will still be around... if I haven't gone over my install limit by then, anyway. Why so much hassle and worry just to play a game? Which leads me to the second reason I wouldn't buy it. It's the principle of the thing. I don't see why there should be any sort of install limit, so I'm not going to vote with my dollars and let them think that I believe what they're doing is okay.

What it comes down to is, why the limits on installs? It only hurts honest customers. Pirates will get a superior, non-limited version. So DRM has no effect. It never has. Those who will buy, will buy. Those who pirate will find ways to do that. And those who despise DRMs with limited activations will just save their money and skip the experience completely. So publishers lose from pirates, and also lose a percentage of buyers who would have otherwise bought their game if the DRM wasn't so restrictive.

I hate to think that this may be an attempt to kill off the PC market and encourage people to move to consoles. Less hassle. Less piracy. Easier to write for a standardized platform. That would be great for publishers. But not so good for gamers who still prefer PCs.

[Maupin]

Ten years from now everyone still playing the game will probably be using a pirated version anyway since the legal copies stopped working when the company folded/dropped support, etc. ;)

Anyway, I agree with Deva.

I don't mind a tiny bit of copy protection to keep honest customers honest... but when the pirates are delivering a more user-friendly experience to your customers IMHO it's time to rethink your strategy. As has been mentioned countless times, all offline games are going to be pirated and released on file-sharing networks, whether they annoy the customer with restrictions or not.

[Bad Sector]

Ten years from now everyone still playing the game will probably be using a pirated version anyway since the legal copies stopped working when the company folded/dropped support, etc. ;)

If they have any kind of sanity left, they would provide downloadable versions anyway. Digital distribution is the future (and present - these days i prefer to buy online games instead of going to some store and going through the hassle of keeping DVDs around - not to mention that games provided in DVDs are going to need the DVD to work... bah, just let me download the game and play it. I want to play the damned BioShock and i can't because i forgot my DVD in Athens. If i had purchased it via Steam i would be able to download it in a few minutes -24mbit connection and all- and play it right now. I'm thinking to re-buy it actually just to have it in my Steam account :-/).

[cliffski]

meh.

The game is excellent.
I have 3 PC's in the house, I only installed anno 1404 on one of them.
Nevertheless, I lived. and if I really ahd some compulsion to install it on all 3, I still could.

I also dont get why you people are always reformatting your PCs. This isn't 1990. A looked-after windows install doesnt need re-doing every year let alone every few months.

[Deva]

meh. The game is excellent. I have 3 PC's in the house, I only installed anno 1404 on one of them. Nevertheless, I lived. and if I really ahd some compulsion to install it on all 3, I still could.

Well Cliff, it's really great that you're happy with the game. I don't think anyone said anything negative about the game itself... in fact I'd buy it in a heartbeat if GOG was selling it with no DRM. (And maybe they will in 5 years... I'll be sure to snap it up then.) ;)


I also dont get why you people are always reformatting your PCs. This isn't 1990. A looked-after windows install doesnt need re-doing every year let alone every few months.

Hmm? I must have missed the person who is always reformatting their PC. I still have a first generation Windows 95 P133 after all, that to this day I've never had to reformat. As I said, it's the principle of the matter... I'd probably be okay with 3 installs too, but I'd rather not be limited to that. Not at all. I dislike immensely this trend for some game companies to limit how many times I can install something, and think that it would be quite a nightmare if the hundreds of games I've purchased over the years all required online activation in the event that a system I installed them on failed. I can see quite a few problems cropping up if that did indeed happen.

[papillon]

I also dont get why you people are always reformatting your PCs.


I own multiple computers. Sometimes, I upgrade my computer, or buy another one, and have to transfer things onto the new system. If I'm very unlucky, bits go bad and have to be replaced, which can qualify as a 'new install' under some DRM. I'm *still* finding games and programs on my current machine that need fixing from the last transfer. Figuring out exactly what credit card I bought a casual game on two years ago in order to get it working again took a while. I own several bits of downloadable software that I have had to re-enable more than five times.

Sometimes I travel to other locations where I get a freshly-wiped computer for my personal use for the month that I'm there, but I don't think that applies for most people. My husband used to be in the habit of reinstalling Windows every year or so without doing a reformat, under some idea this made it more stable. That probably doesn't apply to most people either.

As a game seller, I've had my share of emails from people with catastrophic hardware failure who need a new installer for their new system. Stuff happens.

There is no way I will buy from anyone with a hard limit on installs.

[Jack Norton]

I agree, limits on installs is no sense. Is much better even a daily/weekly online check in the background, taking 5s, that nobody will even notice (not even those with a ISDN).
Throw in a few achievements there and there, and nobody will ever complain about that DRM! ;)
Since everyone is happy with steam, it means it works (not for me since they keep charging europeans more, but that's another problem).

[princec]

I've got a soft limit of 3 on registration count. Really I should probably set it to 1 for security purposes. (If you don't know already - there are no activation codes in my DRM - you just use your email address). When someone comes up against the limit they get an email telling them to contact us (and we get the same email so we know it's happening).

Right now I just manually reset the count back because I get so few requests to do so - maybe 1 a month. But I could easily automate the system simply by sending an email that had a link to a reset function. Then I could set the reg limit to 1 and avoid the security hole that we've got.

Must get around to it.

Cas :)

[Deva]

I agree, limits on installs is no sense.

My pet peeve with this new trend of install limits is that it isn't like the old days, where you just went and bought a game, knowing that the worst that the copy protection did was a simple CD check. Now before buying a game, I have to put in a bit of time researching the DRM it uses and if install limits are being used. It makes the whole process of buying the latest, greatest PC game much more of a headache than it used to be, and I find myself having to pass on certain games I may have really enjoyed because of it. :(

If anything, CD checks are still all that is really needed. This quest to try and stop piracy completely using ever more complex and restrictive means is futile. Stopping casual disk copying is all that need be worried about. Hardcore pirates will get your game no matter what you do. (And always with less restrictions than honest customers get.) If that's not encouragement for some who may not have otherwise considered turning to piracy, I don't know what is.

[JarkkoL]

I find it hard to believe that the limit is truly hard, as in where a simple email "Me needz mor coppies!" wouldn't reset your install count. I have thought of simple accumulation strategy, where you start at ~5 installs and get a new install per week or so, back up to ~5. That should keep such emails to minimum. The only motivation is to avoid people spreading your account details in the net.

[cliffski]

. I still have a first generation Windows 95 P133 after all, that to this day I've never had to reformat. As I said, it's the principle of the matter...

I'm sure a lot of people are enjoying their principles on this topic. I'm enjoying the game. I just don't get it. Not buying the game will not encourage ubisoft to use no DRM next time.

It is not viable to make AAA games without some copyright protection. Too many potential buyers are thieves. It's actually that simple.

[Deva]

I find it hard to believe that the limit is truly hard, as in where a simple email "Me needz mor coppies!" wouldn't reset your install count.

I've read from some users that they were able to request an additional install after they went over their limit. But imagine if every game you ever bought required you to do this. And then imagine that some of those companies will go out of business, leaving you with no one to contact for that additional install when needed. I'm still able to play Master of Magic on an old DOS 486 I own, but if it had this sort of DRM, I think I'd be out of luck at this point.

Anyway, it's just an added hassle that paying customers shouldn't have to be put through. Especially when it doesn't stop piracy, and in fact may actually encourage it, since the pirates know they have a "superior version" that has no limits on installations, and hence, no potential installation issues to face down the road.

[Deva]

I'm sure a lot of people are enjoying their principles on this topic. I'm enjoying the game. I just don't get it. Not buying the game will not encourage ubisoft to use no DRM next time. It is not viable to make AAA games without some copyright protection. Too many potential buyers are thieves. It's actually that simple.

The 3-install DRM doesn't stop piracy though, so what's the point? A simple CD check in the drive works just as well and doesn't cause any potential grief down the road for paying customers. There will be the same number of "thieves" no matter what DRM is implemented.

I'm glad you're enjoying the game. I don't have a problem with the fact that you don't seem to mind the 3-install limit. But what I don't get is how you seem to have a problem with those of us who do. Just read the forums at Amazon, there are a lot of people who don't like it. (And it's not the pirates who are complaining, since they can already download it.) If the companies choose to ignore customers who are more than willing to pay, but will just skip the game due to the DRM, they do so at their own peril.

[Bad Sector]

It makes the whole process of buying the latest, greatest PC game much more of a headache than it used to be, and I find myself having to pass on certain games I may have really enjoyed because of it. :(

Well i wouldn't think much about downloading a crack in this case. I'm not buying games because it is what "the law" says (there are many stupid laws, especially here in Greece - in fact technically here it is illegal to play games :-P). I'm buying as my moral thank you for the developer. So if i buy the game and later crack it for my own convenience, the developers gets the money and i don't get any hassle. From a practical point of view i won't even have any problem since i would have exhausted my installations long after a crack has been made.

On the other hand i don't like the idea of limiting installs. However if i don't buy a game, i'm sure the publisher won't notice it (so why not pirate it? you might ask - well, to feel good with myself, that's why). So for all is worth, i would just end not playing a game i might like :-P. So unless there is an organized boycott on some game (or publisher) about following bad methods (such as install limits), i would just go and buy anything i want to play. Of course i think that such an organized act is impossible.


I also dont get why you people are always reformatting your PCs. This isn't 1990. A looked-after windows install doesnt need re-doing every year let alone every few months.

My Vista installation is very well configured and optimized and i'm sure it beats XP in similar hardware when it comes to performance. However i don't really try to keep it clean and i have a lot of garbage around i don't need. Everything i download i keep it in the downloads folder which is a mess since it has everything one can imagine. A lot of software that i never use (sometimes when i'm bored i surf sites such as download.com, freshmeat.net or sourceforge.net and download random stuff that look interesting). A lot of indie games and demos which i download from this forum, TIGSource and other places. Also i like to upload videos on my YouTube account and my server (mostly) from screencasts i make from my stuff or other things i do - this needs a bunch of intermediate video formats which usually i keep around (because i forget to delete them). Then i write articles for a magazine and i keep these things all over the place (the latest one is in my desktop - which also is a mess btw).

Basically my computer becomes a total chaos just a few days after its installation. To clean this mess i need much more hours and its much more boring than just backing up what i need, doing a format and reinstalling Windows.

I had Vista give me a BSoD only once and only because my hardware was overheating badly. Vista is far more stable than Windows XP is and the performance hardly goes down, especially if you try to keep it fast (although i don't try to keep my computer organized, i do try to keep it fast by defragging and making sure only what i really need is running at the background).

So, here you have my reasons for reinstalling Windows. Although i must admit that my current Windows installation is many months older than what i usually keep it. Mostly because my DVD drive is broken and i'm afraid to install Vista using a virtual machine from Linux (even if the opposite works :-P).

[papillon]

I find it hard to believe that the limit is truly hard, as in where a simple email "Me needz mor coppies!" wouldn't reset your install count.


Some companies will reset your install count if you ask (and they're still around). Others will bitch you out, give you ONE more install, and tell you that you'd BETTER not screw it up this time cause you're not getting any more help. :)



I'm sure a lot of people are enjoying their principles on this topic. I'm enjoying the game. I just don't get it. Not buying the game will not encourage ubisoft to use no DRM next time.


Simply not buying the game won't encourage them to do differently. Not buying the game, bitching up a huge storm about it, AND (important part here) BUYING games that don't use DRM, does encourage companies to do it that way. If enough people do it.

If DRM-free games are clearly enjoying better sales and less angry customers than DRM-heavy games, of course companies opinions would change. If DRM-heavy games get some whiners but still sell just as well or better as the DRM-free ones, then it only affects people with principles. Like me. :)

Lack of DRMs and wrappers and junk is one thing indie sites have over portals - I do have customers who know they can get it cheaper on a portal but buy it from me at full price in order to get the hassle-free install.

[JarkkoL]

And then imagine that some of those companies will go out of business, leaving you with no one to contact for that additional install when needed.
I really don't care if my game doesn't work after few years. I pay 10 euros to see a 2h movie, so if my 20 euro indie game doesn't work after couple of years, who cares?

Edit: Just to clear it up, with "my game" I mean games I bought, not what I might be selling. Of course I would like to make sure that the games I sell would work longer (:

Especially when it doesn't stop piracy
That't the fallacy many people have that DRM is supposed to stop piracy. It's not. It's supposed to delay piratism so that you have time to reap more profit from your work.

[cliffski]

The 3-install DRM doesn't stop piracy though
Yes it does. It stops casual piracy. I can't copy the game for my friends.



Just read the forums at Amazon, there are a lot of people who don't like it.

There is a tiny, trivial, hilariously inconsequential trickle of people who spend their whole life trawling the web to complain about it. Ninety percent of the DRMSUXX! comments on amazon are from people who haven't even heard of the game, but followed the link from digg.com or slashdot to complain about it.

DRM stops casual piracy. This is why people use it. Also this 'it inconveniences the legit buyer' stuff is massively overblown. 99% of legit buyers don't even notice it.

Remind me how much of a dismal and bitter failure Bioshock was because it used securom?
hint: bioshock 2 and bioshock:the movie are in the works.

[Deva]

I really don't care if my game doesn't work after few years. I pay 10 euros to see a 2h movie, so if my 20 euro indie game doesn't work after couple of years, who cares?

Well, nothing lasts forever, (including any of us), but I hope games I purchase, just like music CDs or DVDs, might last more than a couple of years. I know what you mean though, I had dinner with 2 other people last night and it came to $126. And now it's gone. Some things are like that. Other things you buy (homes, cars, dogs, coffee cups, and even games) I hope will last much longer.


That't the fallacy many people have that DRM is supposed to stop piracy. It's not. It's supposed to delay piratism so that you have time to reap more profit from your work.

Yeah, but most games are pirated on or even before their release date. *shrug* But in general, it looks like you agreed with my statement, so that's cool. ;)

[Jack Norton]

Remind me how much of a dismal and bitter failure Bioshock was because it used securom?
hint: bioshock 2 and bioshock:the movie are in the works.
Yeah that's true. Not saying I agree on 3 limit install or anything, but saying that using that kind of DRMs damages greatly the sales is a big lie. If you have just a decent game people will buy it.
Pirates won't buy it even if has no DRM and cost $0.99...! and it's also true about the complaint. Most of those complainers don't have even a vague idea of what they're talking about.

[JarkkoL]

Yeah, but most games are pirated on or even before their release date. *shrug* But in general, it looks like you agreed with my statement, so that's cool. ;)
Ok, well I never claimed DRM is supposed to stop piratism but just delay it. It's huge success for DRM if it lasts without a crack for half a year, since most profits (at least when speaking of AAA games) are made during that time. If DRM of a game is cracked within couple of days of the release, it's not much of a use, but not all DRM suck like that ;)

[Deva]

Yes it does. It stops casual piracy. I can't copy the game for my friends.

Yes, and disk checks help stop casual piracy also. But in the case of hardcore pirates, it was said that Spore got pirated more than any other game due to the DRM. So why did EA go to all the trouble?


There is a tiny, trivial, hilariously inconsequential trickle of people who spend their whole life trawling the web to complain about it.

Careful Cliff, your bias is showing.


DRM stops casual piracy. This is why people use it.

And again, I'm okay with disk checks. That's really all that is needed.


Also this 'it inconveniences the legit buyer' stuff is massively overblown. 99% of legit buyers don't even notice it.

And 99% of all polls are way off by at least 94%. (I did a poll on that once.)


Remind me how much of a dismal and bitter failure Bioshock was because it used securom?

Cool, we get it, you love install-limited DRMs. But just because you do, doesn't mean everyone does. And I have a feeling that as more new gamers become aware of the issue, more will feel the same.

[papillon]

Remind me how much of a dismal and bitter failure Bioshock was because it used securom?


.... Well, that *is* the reason I didn't buy it, and bitched about it on my blog, and iirc they eventually knuckled to the massive anger and adjusted the install limits...

Launch sales are crucial. At the moment, companies see the balance of probability being that it's better to have the DRM in place so that it will take a bit of extra time before the game is cracked and out there, thus getting the maximum sales up front. (Which doesn't work very well when games are cracked pre-launch!) If it's cracked a few months in, they figure it doesn't matter much anymore, the important window has passed.

However, there are a growing number of people who hang back from buying games at launch because of restrictive DRM, either existing or feared (waiting for reviews to find out if the game will even RUN!). If the DRM is turned down a few months in, which has happened a few times lately, that may already be too late... for many prospective players, the interest in the game has worn off during the waiting period and they no longer feel like bothering to buy it.

If and when that category outweighs the first category, policies may shift.

[cliffski]

Yes, and disk checks help stop casual piracy also. But in the case of hardcore pirates, it was said that Spore got pirated more than any other game due to the DRM.

Wow. hardcore pirates have accurate stats? cool. And they would never lie right?


Careful Cliff, your bias is showing.


Bias? You mean I make games for a living and need to pay bills? God I'm so biased and evil!

[Bad Sector]

.... Well, that *is* the reason I didn't buy it, and bitched about it on my blog, and iirc they eventually knuckled to the massive anger and adjusted the install limits...

And later they removed it. Also BioShock was a multiplatform (PC and consoles) title, which skews a bit the DRM impact.


And again, I'm okay with disk checks. That's really all that is needed.

Personally i'm not ok with disk checks either. I might have a faulty DVD drive (like i had the last three months - yes i know i can buy a new one and is ass-cheap, thank you, i actually did and the wiring inside my machine prevents me from installing it without rewiring *everything* so at the moment i just have the drive unconnected until i *really* need it and spend an entire afternoon rebuilding my computer, something that i liked a decade ago but i find very boring these days -- and thank god this isn't my laptop DVD which is somewhat impossible to replace). Or i might be away (laptop) from my desktop for a while (it isn't uncommon for some -me- to be away for more than a month). Or i just do want to keep the DVD in good condition (i hoped that people will eventually add a protective shell in BluRay like in minidiscs (http://www.minidisc.org/minidisc_s.gif), but nooo they had to make them as vulnerable as CDs and DVDs).

And i want to make backup copies because DVDs *do* get damaged (incidentally i'm also entitled by law to be able to do so, but as i said earlier nobody cares enough about what the law says).

This is why i prefer digital distribution to DVDs, etc: i don't need disk checks, i can have the games *right now* (well the "now" part depends on my connection, but its usually faster than going to some store), i don't need to carry disks around and all i need to make sure i won't lost the games is to write the files i downloaded to a bunch of backup media.

[luggage]

Disc checks are ok and quite reasonable. I mean, if you're going to take the position they're not because you might have a wonky drive then I don't see how you can think online distribution is good because you might not have a network connection.

If I buy something on CD, then I'd expect to have something that can read that CD when I play it.

I don't like the idea that a company like EA dictate to me how often I can reinstall windows on my own PC. That's something that should entirely be my decision.

And it still doesn't get away from the fact that the only people who suffer with DRM are the people who buy it. Sure, a lot of people might not ever notice it but some people will. The pirates definitely don't.

And then there's the cultural loss.

[Deva]

Bias? You mean I make games for a living and need to pay bills? God I'm so biased and evil!

Well, I don't know about that. Okay, maybe a little evil. But the bigger problem seems to be your seeming intolerance and lack of any sort of empathy or understanding of why people might think differently than you on this matter. And how the people who do are labeled a "tiny, trivial, hilariously inconsequential trickle of people who spend their whole life trawling the web to complain about it." I really don't see how DRMs that limit the number of installs is a good thing. There are other ways to protect software without those limitations.

[Deva]

This is why i prefer digital distribution to DVDs, etc: i don't need disk checks, i can have the games *right now*

I like digital distribution, especially when it is DRM free, as it is from GOG. But disk checks I can live with, since I also own consoles, and you have to have the disk in the drive to be able to play those too. So no biggie in that regard. I've gotten used to the whole disk has to be in the drive thingy.

[Bad Sector]

I mean, if you're going to take the position they're not because you might have a wonky drive then I don't see how you can think online distribution is good because you might not have a network connection.

Because its possible (actually more likely than the DVD case) that i do not have a network connection *after* i bought the game :-P

[princec]

Well, I don't know about that. Okay, maybe a little evil. But the bigger problem seems to be your seeming intolerance and lack of any sort of empathy or understanding of why people might think differently than you on this matter. And how the people who do are labeled a "tiny, trivial, hilariously inconsequential trickle of people who spend their whole life trawling the web to complain about it." I really don't see how DRMs that limit the number of installs is a good thing. There are other ways to protect software without those limitations.

Cliff's thinking is like a businessman's thinking, which is why he talks about this stuff on the forum. He doesn't have to have any empathy beyond knowing the unemotional facts. As Cliff is miraculously too polite to out-and-out say it: he doesn't give a crap what you personally think, and neither do I. You are in the minority as far as actual customers are concerned (as is papillon, and we're all friends). It's all very well whining about it but at the end of the day the numbers say that with DRM, you make more money.

Personally I hate DRM as most companies have implemented it. Apple ruined iTunes by encrypting all of their stupid music, and now I can only play the few albums I bought through iTunes on a few machines I own. I stopped buying their music as soon as I realised this. Microsoft have a particularly onerous and restrictive Windows activation system (pretty pointless too, seeing as it's virtually impossible to buy a PC without it anyway).

Steam has done DRM totally right. I can install the games anywhere provided I log in.

I think I've done DRM right. I actually encourage casual piracy. I want friends and family to play the games and not go searching for cracks.

And Cliff removed DRM from all his games. Weird eh? But I don't think it's helped his sales any.

Cas :)

[defanual]

Personally, I don't like DRM when it doesn't work (who does) and I ain't that keen on install limits, but none of these have been a major problem for me, only problems I had is older games not working on new versions of windows and the odd damaged disk. Install limit wise (direct2drive) I've promptly had my dloads counts reset on request / verification.

None of thee above is perfect, but I think some form of DRM is always necessary to keep the honest people honest so to speak (if you intended to make a living / profit from your work) even if it doesn't stop the hardcore super knowledgeable geeks. The challenge is keeping the customer as happy as possible in the process.

Of course, I'm all for a system or method that perfectly restricts only illegal users, doesn't interfere with customers in any way, gets the developer paid and insures the game works forever on any system regardless of server breakdowns, company shutdowns, window upgrades etc...

[Deva]

And Cliff removed DRM from all his games. Weird eh? But I don't think it's helped his sales any.

Cas :)

Yes, I suppose it could be considered kind of weird given his apparent acceptance of Anno's DRM. But that's why I bought Kudos 2 from him earlier this year. Would I have bought it if it had an install limit? I think the answer is pretty clear on that one. So in this case, yes, not having any DRM did help Cliff's sales. I also purchased World of Goo for the same reason. And a few others from GOG. No DRM gives me one more reason to reward the publisher with a sale, as long as the game is worth playing, of course. And both Cliff's, and 2D Boy's are.

That said, I of course also buy a good number of games that contain DRM. They're in the majority, after all, so there's no way around it. But I refuse to buy any that have DRMs that are overly obtrusive, or that have install limits, no matter how great (Anno) the game may be. That's simply my "principled" opinion on the matter, and I'm sticking to it. ;)

[ragdollsoft]

YEAAAH SCREW YOU NO-DRM CROWD!

You just want your torrent available on day zero! You're not fooling us again!

And quit your whining!

Support Software Authors! Stop Free-Riding Parasites! Ask for DRM Protected Software!

Yeaah!

That felt good :)

[JarkkoL]

So in this case, yes, not having any DRM did help Cliff's sales.
I thought this was obvious, but apparently not: What you do doesn't define if removal of DRM helped sales, but what the majority of people do. If removal of DRM made you buy the game, but other 100 people pirate it instead, removal of DRM definately didn't help sales. What people are saying here is that you are in the minority regarding your buying behavior.

[luggage]

I thought this was obvious, but apparently not: What you do doesn't define if removal of DRM helped sales, but what the majority of people do. If removal of DRM made you buy the game, but other 100 people pirate it instead, removal of DRM definately didn't help sales. What people are saying here is that you are in the minority regarding your buying behavior.

But if those 100 were never going to buy the game anyway you're still up one sale. It's all a balancing act.

[JarkkoL]

I said "...but other 100 people pirate it instead [of buying]", i.e. 100 lost sales. There is no point to speak of exact figures because none of us knows how many lost sales there were, if any.

[vjvj]

I said "...but other 100 people pirate it instead [of buying]", i.e. 100 lost sales. There is no point to speak of exact figures because none of us knows how many lost sales there were, if any.

Or, put another way, all it would take is for ONE new pirate* to show up to negate Deva's whopping +1 "increase" in sales.

This is why arguments based on "everyone I know does THIS!" are horseshit, because they fail to account for research data sample size (which, when it comes to piracy, is difficult to come by, anyway).

*Pirate who would have otherwise bought it, of course. They exist... :)

[luggage]

I said "...but other 100 people pirate it instead [of buying]", i.e. 100 lost sales. There is no point to speak of exact figures because none of us knows how many lost sales there were, if any.

So your point is if doing "X" added 1 sale at a cost of 100 sales then it's not worth it. Well that applies to anything really, it's not even a point worth making. But seeing as we don't have measurements on how many additional pirated copies would be made, let alone how many of those would actually result in a lost sale it seems a bit of an odd point to make. Do you factor in bad PR such as what happened with Bioshock and Spore?

You might make more money by removing restrictive DRM, you might not. It all depends on the game, the audience and a whole bunch of other things - I certainly don't think we have anywhere near the data to make a conclusion one way or the other.

[JarkkoL]

I was stating the obvious because it needed to be stated in that context, i.e. even if Deva bought a copy it didn't mean removal of DRM helped sales, it's just silly to claim so.

[luggage]

I was stating the obvious because it needed to be stated in that context, i.e. even if Deva bought a copy it didn't mean removal of DRM helped sales, it's just silly to claim so.

But we don't know if it did or it didn't. I wouldn't say it's silly to claim that it did - Stardock clearly believe that not having restrictive DRM brings a benefit and I certainly wouldn't call those guys silly.


The reason why we don't put CD copy protection on our games isn't because we're nice guys. We do it because the people who actually buy games don't like to mess with it. Our customers make the rules, not the pirates. Pirates don't count. We know our customers could pirate our games if they want but choose to support our efforts. So we return the favor - we make the games they want and deliver them how they want it. This is also known as operating like every other industry outside the PC game industry.


"When the focus of energy is put on customers rather than fighting pirates, you end up with more sales. It seems common sense to me but then again, I'm just an engineer."

This is the kind of attitude that makes me sit up and want to buy their software.

[JarkkoL]

Yes, it's silly to claim it did when you have no freaking clue if it did or not, particularly when you speak of only one sale. Anyway, we digress.

[luggage]

Yes, it's silly to claim it did when you have no freaking clue if it did or not, particularly when you speak of only one sale. Anyway, we digress.

As I said, there's a chance it helped sales, there's a chance it didn't. It's a little brave putting forward either view without a full set of figures. We all agree it's silly to make numbers up.

[JarkkoL]

Well, I didn't make claims on the impact of DRM regarding Cliff's game, so you are barking the wrong tree here :rolleyes: But something that would be truly interesting to see, is a sales chart of an AAA game and how it's affected when a crack for the game is released.

[ragdollsoft]

Putting DRM is a form of respect to your paying customers.

Having your customer buy your stuff and then discovering the whole world got it for free without you even try to do something about it is CERTAINLY going to piss him off BIG TIME.

At least it would piss ME off and ALL OF MY FRIENDS agree with me.

So you better have some serious DRM going on if you want MY monies!

[Deva]

I was stating the obvious because it needed to be stated in that context, i.e. even if Deva bought a copy it didn't mean removal of DRM helped sales, it's just silly to claim so.

First off, I never claimed anything about the lack of DRM helping sales, but in my case, it does give me one more reason to want to reward developers. I still buy games with simple DRM methods, but I avoid those that are more heavy-handed, or have install limits.

In any event, there's nothing "obvious" about what you're saying in your posts. Just a lot of "ifs" and assumptions and conjecture. Pirates will pirate, regardless, DRM or not. People who buy, tend to buy even if they can easily get a copy elsewhere. Then you have people in the middle who may or may not buy, depending on their circumstances. These 3 groups have been around for decades, since games were first released on easily copyable media. Nothing has changed since then. So instead of focusing on those who won't buy, focus on those who will. Make them happy. Don't do install limits or take other extreme DRM measures. This has no affect on pirates, but it does potentially have a negative affect on those who pay for your game. And because of that, it may cause them to pass on your game completely.

[JarkkoL]

First off, I never claimed anything about the lack of DRM helping sales

So in this case, yes, not having any DRM did help Cliff's sales.
So, which one is it?

[Deva]

So, which one is it?

First quote: Meant on a global scale. In other words, that everyone will feel the same as I do and buy instead of pirating, just to reward a developer for releasing a nice DRM-free game and thereby increasing sales.

Second quote: I was referring to my own personal reasons for buying, and that in THIS CASE, yes, not having any DRM was an added plus which encouraged me to buy, which helped Cliff's sales.

Anyway, we're starting to nitpick now, aren't we.

[JarkkoL]

In other words, that everyone will feel the same as I do and buy instead of pirating, just to reward a developer for releasing a nice DRM-free game and thereby increasing sales.
Or they will just go to their closest torrent site instead of buying and download the game for free, since now it's on "discount". Sound like you have a bit rosy picture on how people will behave in general ;)

[Maupin]

Or they will just go to their closest torrent site instead of buying and download the game for free, since now it's on "discount". Sound like you have a bit rosy picture on how people will behave in general ;)

They can already go to their closest torrent site and download DRM-free versions, handily provided by pirates.

[JarkkoL]

Ah, I didn't know the DRM was already cracked, which changes things of course. In that case it's only a good thing to remove DRM if it has already been "expired".

Edit: on the second thought, it might not since it helps casual pirates, but meh.