Alpha Protocol PC DRM Explained, Will Be Removed Eventually

[mindcycle]

@s44

So is it fair to say that DRM affects the minority of pirates and the majority of paying customers? While, at the same time decreasing sales due to bad press, and never being 100% effective in stopping piracy because it is always, without exception, cracked.

DRM affects every paying customer unless they download a crack. Which in some cases you have to do nowadays just to be able to play the game.. On the flip side, it affects very few pirates as most will be able to bypass the DRM entirely after downloading the game off a torrent. And you're absolutely right, DRM is never effective at stopping piracy in the long run, so one has to wonder if the additional cost and bad press, let alone lost sales, is really worth it..

Until someone can convince the decision makers at these big publishing companies they're wrong about this, I don't really see a huge change coming anytime soon. It's been general practice to include some form of protection on PC games for so long that i'm sure it's just assumed there has to be something. In fact, I remember a developer posting in one of past DRM threads here who said the forms they send to the pressing facility (for retail discs) will have an area to check off what form of copy protection will be used. They list things like SecuROM, Safedisk, etc.. but there isn't ever a check box for "No DRM".

If I purchase a game from a major publisher nowadays I always take DRM into consideration (and how it might effect me) before purchasing the game. If I believe it will be a huge hassle I won't bother. But in a case like the DRM SEGA is using here, i'll give them the benefit of the doubt and purchase the game (if i'm interested) since I know they are at least acknowledging DRM as a concern and addressing it in some fashion. I'd much rather support that mentality than a company who implements a ridiculous DRM policy and then tells their customer to simply deal with it without listening to any concerns whatsoever. *cough*ubish*t*cough* No thanks.

Whoever pays money to implement DRM is wasting money.

 

[JoshGuru7]

What isn't an assumption however, is that DRM "only" affects legit customers. That's fact.

Do you honestly believe this is a fact?

 

[mindcycle]

Do you honestly believe this is a fact?

Read my next reply as I clarified what I was trying to say. But to answer your question directly, no. There are instances where potential casual pirates will be foiled by DRM as s44 pointed out, so i'll happily admit that statement was the incorrect way of trying to explain the point I was actually trying to make. I'm not perfect, but neither is DRM. lol

 

[JoshGuru7]

Read my next reply as I clarified what I was trying to say. But to answer your question directly, no. There are instances where potential casual pirates will be foiled by DRM as s44 pointed out, so i'll happily admit that statement was the incorrect way of trying to explain the point I was actually trying to make. I'm not perfect, but neither is DRM. lol

I wasn't trying to nitpick your argument there. I've just noticed that the idea that DRM has no effect on piracy is a favorite talking point of many on this forum and it's a thoroughly lazy idea. DRM unquestionably raises the costs (monetary or otherwise) of piracy which is why a simple disc check can be the difference between a pair of friends buying two copies of a game or one copy.

We both agree that DRM also increases costs (monetary or otherwise) for legitimate consumers and thus can be a terrible decision if more people are turned away from a product due to DRM then are encouraged to purchase it legally. The difference is that I think this differs on a case by case basis, and both the negatives and the benefits need to be properly taken into account. Only looking at the negative impact of DRM misses half of the equation and makes it impossible to make a fair statement about the net benefit of DRM for a particular product.

 

[mindcycle]

I wasn't trying to nitpick your argument there. I've just noticed that the idea that DRM has no effect on piracy is a favorite talking point of many on this forum and it's a thoroughly lazy idea. DRM unquestionably raises the costs (monetary or otherwise) of piracy which is why a simple disc check can be the difference between a pair of friends buying two copies of a game or one copy.

It's cool man. The statement I made was pretty much flat out wrong the way I worded it. I'm ok admitting that as I should have clarified what I meant. However, taking casual disc copying pirates out of the equation and looking at people downloading games off the net, i'm going to guess that most people who can successfully download a cracked game will have zero problems installing and playing the game and won't ever have to deal with the DRM. The only way that would not be the case is if they weren't knowledgeable enough to copy the cracked exe to the right spot.

Considering that major publishers are currently freaking out about piracy rates tracked by torrent sites, i'd imagine they are using that data as a scapegoat to include DRM in their releases. Since we (and publishers) can't possibly know the piracy rates for casual disc copying there is no way to legitimately use that as an argument IMO. Because lets not kid ourselves here.. as for disc based protection, even methods that are 5 or 10 years old are going to stop the casual disc copying pirate. These new DRM schemes are specifically trying to stop people downloading games off the net.

We both agree that DRM also increases costs (monetary or otherwise) for legitimate consumers and thus can be a terrible decision if more people are turned away from a product due to DRM then are encouraged to purchase it legally. The difference is that I think this differs on a case by case basis, and both the negatives and the benefits need to be properly taken into account. Only looking at the negative impact of DRM misses half of the equation and makes it impossible to make a fair statement about the net benefit of DRM for a particular product.

I agree with you here. I try to take into account both sides of the story and honestly I can only see DRM being beneficial as a selling point from a publishers perspective to address with their shareholders so they can convince them that they are "doing something" about piracy. In reality it never stops piracy, and while some may say it slows piracy down so more sales can be made, there is no data to back that up whatsoever. I side more with it doing more harm than good and that pirates are going to pirate if it's available and most likely won't buy if it's not. Of course there is no data to back that up either..

If you read the OP, I did commend SEGA for taking their customers into consideration so I don't feel like i'm being one sided. I simply have a strong opinion on the matter, that DRM is essentially worthless in the grand scheme of things and ends up doing more harm than good.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Like it or not, your original copy must offer more quality compared to the pirated ones if you want to entice people to buy it legit. That is why Steam is so successful despite having DRM because it offers a cloud service, game stats, autoupdates and great deals while people get pissed off with Ubifail DRM...Why pay cash to get fvcking punished?