Originally posted by: mindcycle
CEO's and shareholders at large game publishers are typically not.
And when it comes to money and protecting their investment, why should they? The publisher shoulders the burden for financing the game, paying for shelf space, and advertising. Why bother with all this if the game is going to be given away for free? If the game is free, you don't need a publisher.
Nothing is stopping dev companies from developing and releasing games for free, or publishing the game themselves. However, in order to get shelf space at big box retailers, you need large sums of money and a good deal of clout. In order to generate interest in your game, you need the money to produce trailers, go to exhibition shows, and pay for TV air time. Most development houses do not have this kind of financial wherewithal. They get a publisher to pay the bills and take care of these outside tasks for them.
In exchange, the publisher gets a piece of the pie. Thus, it behooves the publisher to make sure that every potential sale is converted. Hence, the various DRM schemes.
Now, I am not a fan of intrusive DRM or DRM that may potentially hinder the ability to play a game that was legally purchased. However, the fact that there have been bugs in DRM software before and bad execution as far as informing customers that such DRM is included in the game does not in any way mean that DRM in concept is inherently bad. As long as a publisher is forthright and open about the fact that a game has DRM and as long as the publisher upholds his end of the deal, that a customer can play a game that was legally purchased any time the customer wants to, then I see no problem with it.
Column'. Bioware is one of only a handful of developers that has the clout to tell their publisher where to stick it.
Facebook
Twitter