DRM Petition

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: erwos
Ask Stardock how it went for them - all they got was a heap of piracy on zero-day. That is to say, there is a fair bit of incentive to ramp up the DRM, not ramp it down.

Brad Wardell has already publicly stated that piracy is not to blame for the server issues experienced with Demigod.

But here?s the thing: While piracy is annoying, you can?t blame piracy for this problem. Let?s face it, there?s plenty of data out there about how many pirated games are being played. We should have looked at that. ...
... But had we looked at what other publishers have said, we would have known that it?s not unusual for there to be hundreds of thousands of warez copies in use. And if we had, we could have simply had the retail version not have any HTTP calls in it and instead just had an update button on the main menu to check for updates and voila, problem solved.

The second misconception is the argument that because Demigod?s retail version is heavily pirated that it costs massive sales. But that, again, puts the blame on the wrong parties.

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/n.../Demigod-Status-Update

Stardock isn't going to ramp up DRM since that will do nothing but piss off their customers and clearly wasn't the root cause of the problem.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: erwos
Some thoughts about your "demands":
1. Reasonable, might happen if the FTC gets complaints.
2. Reasonable, might take a lawsuit against a software publisher.
3. Never going to happen, and how would you enforce such a thing anyways? If they're in bankruptcy, the company is in the hands of the court. Pulling such a stunt might even be illegal.
4. Never going to happen. If they post info about a tool, but then it never comes out, they open themselves to legal liability.
5. Reasonable, might take a lawsuit against a software publisher.

The real problem you have, though, is that you've got all wants and no gives. What are you planning on offering up for your cheaper, DRM-lite games? Less piracy? Ask Stardock how it went for them - all they got was a heap of piracy on zero-day. That is to say, there is a fair bit of incentive to ramp up the DRM, not ramp it down.

I feel that points 3 and 4 could be addressed by a company that is closing down or being sold. For example, they could force the company buying them out to respect existing clients and in the event of closing down they could release tools to do away with the need for online connection prior to their disappearance. However, the points are deliberately vague to allow the companies room to manoeuvre. It is more a question of intention rather than practical application. I am not offering suggestions as to how they choose to implement these demands, I am simply giving voice to concerns expressed by many users. Think of that adidas slogan: impossible is nothing. With regards to point four, our intention is to make the companies open themselves up to a "legal liability", or, if you will, a legally enforceable commitment to their clients. If we are dreaming or making unrealistic demands, they are dreams and demands that nevertheless give expression to very real and legitimate concerns.

In his post above, mindcycle has already addressed the issue of Stardock, a company that has publicly stated that they do not feel that increased DRM would translate into increased sales or reduced piracy figures.

I disagree that we are not making any concessions or giving anything:

1) Our money.

2) Our willingness to accept DRM that does nothing to improve our experience of the game and, some might argue, nothing to combat piracy. DRM has also, intentionally or otherwse, had a dramatic impact on the second-hand sales market. Moreover, certain forms of DRM have adversely affected other software and hardware on users' systems. Therefore, many gamers would see acceptance of DRM as a significant concession.

The petition represents an attempt to succintly express my own concerns and the concerns expressed by other forum users in relation to various forms of DRM. If we accept the premise that DRM is in fact necessary, we should at least have some input into the manner in which it is used; we should at least try to ensure that the war on piracy causes the least possible harm to legitimate customers. Think of the petition as an attempt to reduce cases of friendly fire and collateral damage.

In any event, your criticisms are duly noted.

 

[Red Irish]

Almost 50 signatures in 3/4 days. Thank you for confirming that, whilst I may be mad, at the very least, I am not alone. Please continue to sign and post.

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: erwos
Ask Stardock how it went for them - all they got was a heap of piracy on zero-day. That is to say, there is a fair bit of incentive to ramp up the DRM, not ramp it down.

Brad Wardell has already publicly stated that piracy is not to blame for the server issues experienced with Demigod.

When did I talk about their server issues? You're missing my point. That is to say, a company did all of the stuff that the OP was talking about, and it did not appear to financially benefit them in any way. Indeed, there was no substantial decrease in piracy at all, it outstripped their own (perhaps poorly-researched) expectations. With results like that, taking the OP's advice might look somewhat like financial suicide to many software makers.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: erwos

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: erwos
Ask Stardock how it went for them - all they got was a heap of piracy on zero-day. That is to say, there is a fair bit of incentive to ramp up the DRM, not ramp it down.

Brad Wardell has already publicly stated that piracy is not to blame for the server issues experienced with Demigod.

When did I talk about their server issues? You're missing my point. That is to say, a company did all of the stuff that the OP was talking about, and it did not appear to financially benefit them in any way. Indeed, there was no substantial decrease in piracy at all, it outstripped their own (perhaps poorly-researched) expectations. With results like that, taking the OP's advice might look somewhat like financial suicide to many software makers.

Your post is addressed directly to mindcycle, and I am sure that he will respond. However, I feel obliged to draw your attention to the fact that decreased piracy rates do not necessarily translate into more sales and increased profits.

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: erwos

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: erwos
Ask Stardock how it went for them - all they got was a heap of piracy on zero-day. That is to say, there is a fair bit of incentive to ramp up the DRM, not ramp it down.

Brad Wardell has already publicly stated that piracy is not to blame for the server issues experienced with Demigod.

When did I talk about their server issues? You're missing my point. That is to say, a company did all of the stuff that the OP was talking about, and it did not appear to financially benefit them in any way. Indeed, there was no substantial decrease in piracy at all, it outstripped their own (perhaps poorly-researched) expectations. With results like that, taking the OP's advice might look somewhat like financial suicide to many software makers.

Your post is addressed directly to mindcycle, and I am sure that he will respond. However, I feel obliged to draw your attention to the fact that decreased piracy rates do not necessarily translate into more sales and increased profits.

No, they don't. But I feel like the correlation between piracy and lost sales is a heck of a lot more likely than some sort of supposed correlation between piracy and _gained_ sales.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: erwos

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: erwos

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: erwos
Ask Stardock how it went for them - all they got was a heap of piracy on zero-day. That is to say, there is a fair bit of incentive to ramp up the DRM, not ramp it down.

Brad Wardell has already publicly stated that piracy is not to blame for the server issues experienced with Demigod.

When did I talk about their server issues? You're missing my point. That is to say, a company did all of the stuff that the OP was talking about, and it did not appear to financially benefit them in any way. Indeed, there was no substantial decrease in piracy at all, it outstripped their own (perhaps poorly-researched) expectations. With results like that, taking the OP's advice might look somewhat like financial suicide to many software makers.

Your post is addressed directly to mindcycle, and I am sure that he will respond. However, I feel obliged to draw your attention to the fact that decreased piracy rates do not necessarily translate into more sales and increased profits.

No, they don't. But I feel like the correlation between piracy and lost sales is a heck of a lot more likely than some sort of supposed correlation between piracy and _gained_ sales.

The companies state that DRM is concerned with preventing piracy. The petition does not demand or request that they refrain from using DRM. If DRM proves ineffective against piracy, the companies will have to look for other methods of prevention. I was at no point arguing that piracy results in gained sales (please do not put words in my mouth); however, DRM, rightly or wrongly, can result in lost sales, whereby, if you allow input from the customers with regards to the use of DRM, this may bring about a situation where we see more sales, happier customers and happier companies.

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I was at no point arguing that piracy results in gained sales (please do not put words in my mouth);

I never said you said that. It is, however, an excuse many pirates use.

however, DRM, rightly or wrongly, can result in lost sales, whereby, if you allow input from the customers with regards to the use of DRM, this may bring about a situation where we see more sales, happier customers and happier companies.

I would love to hear about some sort of instance where DRM caused a measurable sales drop of any kind. I don't mean "OMG some people on the Internets said they boycotted it", I mean "the publisher stated they lost sales because of DRM".

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: erwos

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I was at no point arguing that piracy results in gained sales (please do not put words in my mouth);

I never said you said that. It is, however, an excuse many pirates use.

however, DRM, rightly or wrongly, can result in lost sales, whereby, if you allow input from the customers with regards to the use of DRM, this may bring about a situation where we see more sales, happier customers and happier companies.

I would love to hear about some sort of instance where DRM caused a measurable sales drop of any kind. I don't mean "OMG some people on the Internets said they boycotted it", I mean "the publisher stated they lost sales because of DRM".

Point one: thanks for clarifying. Whatever excuses pirates wish to use is of no concern to me.

Point two: How could they possibly measure this? I can point you to developers who state that they refuse to use DRM as they feel it would adversely affect their sales. However, if you refuse to accept evidence in the form of "some people people on the Internet said they boycotted it", there is very little evidence I can provide (on an Internet forum). So technically, you have limited my options to respond to such an extent that there is little point in responding. Personally I feel that the backlash against various forms of DRM on the Internet is too overwhelming to ignore and I feel that it would be foolish to think that people do not boycott games as a result of DRM.

In any event, how does this petition in any way promote piracy? Why would signing this petition further the cause of the pirate?

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: erwos
But I feel like the correlation between piracy and lost sales is a heck of a lot more likely than some sort of supposed correlation between piracy and _gained_ sales.

Pirates legally purchase ten times more music than people who never download illegally, according to a recent study. In a 2006 report mentioned in that article, the CRIA blamed lower sales on not just piracy, but consumer apathy regarding what's being offered. They even went so far as to say:

Our members realize that everyone has a responsibility to manage [illegal digital downloading] not as a threat, but as an opportunity, and to emerge with a healthier business overall.

Humorously, EMI, one of the members of the CRIA on whose behalf the 2006 report was filed, was one of the first labels to dismiss this new report from Norway.

Anyway, there is a sane argument to be made that some pirates account for a valuable segment of legit sales. Perhaps these findings don't translate directly to the PC video game industry, but the idea is not as ridiculous as you propose.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Petitions don't work. The only voice that companies hear is the sound of money. Vote with your wallet. Don't buy DRMed games. Don't pirate the games either to help their argument. Simply avoid the games on general principal.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: erwos

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: erwos
Ask Stardock how it went for them - all they got was a heap of piracy on zero-day. That is to say, there is a fair bit of incentive to ramp up the DRM, not ramp it down.

Brad Wardell has already publicly stated that piracy is not to blame for the server issues experienced with Demigod.

When did I talk about their server issues? You're missing my point. That is to say, a company did all of the stuff that the OP was talking about, and it did not appear to financially benefit them in any way. Indeed, there was no substantial decrease in piracy at all, it outstripped their own (perhaps poorly-researched) expectations. With results like that, taking the OP's advice might look somewhat like financial suicide to many software makers.

Ok, I see your point, but I also quoted his response to the number of pirated copies.

Brad Wardell: The second misconception is the argument that because Demigod?s retail version is heavily pirated that it costs massive sales. But that, again, puts the blame on the wrong parties.

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/n.../Demigod-Status-Update

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Petitions don't work. The only voice that companies hear is the sound of money. Vote with your wallet. Don't buy DRMed games. Don't pirate the games either to help their argument. Simply avoid the games on general principal.

Unfortunately, you may be right and we may be forced to vote with our wallets in order to be heard. However, we should at least explore other possibilities before we throw in the towel. After all, anyone boycotting a game as a result of DRM never gets to enjoy that game and, for their part, the companies loose a potential customer: nobody wins. Perhaps we can reach a compromise wherein the companies maintain DRM whilst addressing the main concerns expressed by their clients and potential clients. It's worth a try and I hope you signed.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Petitions don't work. The only voice that companies hear is the sound of money. Vote with your wallet. Don't buy DRMed games. Don't pirate the games either to help their argument. Simply avoid the games on general principal.

Unfortunately, you may be right and we may be forced to vote with our wallets in order to be heard. However, we should at least explore other possibilities before we throw in the towel. After all, anyone boycotting a game as a result of DRM never gets to enjoy that game and, for their part, the companies loose a potential customer: nobody wins. Perhaps we can reach a compromise wherein the companies maintain DRM whilst addressing the main concerns expressed by their clients and potential clients. It's worth a try and I hope you signed.

If they have no repercusions to having DRM, then why would they remove it? Of course the only way to get someone to stop doing what they are doing is to convince them it is in their best interest. Removing DRM may increase their sales, but only if people who dislike DRM actually avoid buying games that contain DRM. Going out and pirating the game is just going to make it more likely that the company will use harsher DRM in the future.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Petitions don't work. The only voice that companies hear is the sound of money. Vote with your wallet. Don't buy DRMed games. Don't pirate the games either to help their argument. Simply avoid the games on general principal.

Unfortunately, you may be right and we may be forced to vote with our wallets in order to be heard. However, we should at least explore other possibilities before we throw in the towel. After all, anyone boycotting a game as a result of DRM never gets to enjoy that game and, for their part, the companies loose a potential customer: nobody wins. Perhaps we can reach a compromise wherein the companies maintain DRM whilst addressing the main concerns expressed by their clients and potential clients. It's worth a try and I hope you signed.

If they have no repercusions to having DRM, then why would they remove it? Of course the only way to get someone to stop doing what they are doing is to convince them it is in their best interest. Removing DRM may increase their sales, but only if people who dislike DRM actually avoid buying games that contain DRM. Going out and pirating the game is just going to make it more likely that the company will use harsher DRM in the future.

I agree, the petition in no way advocates piracy.

 

[Red Irish]

Hi folks,

a number of points today:

1) I have created the following e-mail account: gamersanandtech@yahoo.com

2) I have used the e-mail account to send the following letter to Atari's North American division, Ubisoft's Public Relations department in North America, EA's customer service department and Valve:


Dear Sir or Madam,

on behalf of a number of users of the Anandtech forums, I would like to draw your attention to a petition that is currently available for signing on the aforementioned web site:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2295486&enterthread=y

(Anandtech > Forums > PC Gaming > DRM Petition)

The petition, formulated as a series of demands and requests addressed to companies employing DRM on games, gives expression to the concerns of many users. You are undoubtedly aware that DRM often provokes a negative reaction amongst the gaming community, and, whilst employed to protect your products against piracy, it is often responsible for a loss of sales and criticism of a product, where potential customers are unwilling to accept a certain form of DRM or feel that DRM is eroding their rights or adversely affecting other aspects of their systems. Therefore, we believe that the issue requires input from the gaming community and we have drawn up the petition with this objective in mind.

The petition, posted less than a week ago, has already been signed by fifty users and I feel that we can safely assume that, at the very least, a large portion of the signatories are made up of your customers or potential customers. With this in mind, we believe that your company should be afforded the opportunity of responding to the concerns and issues raised in the petition. Please understand that we do not expect you to make any immediate decisions with regards to the demands or requests; however, we do feel that, at this stage, you should provide a statement outlining your initial response to each of the points and the petition itself. The petition, as posted on the Anandtech forum, is as follows:

Petition Addressed to the Companies Employing DRM on Games

We, the users of the Anandtech forum, as a collective body, hereby undersign the following petition:

Demands

1) Information relating to the type of DRM employed on a given game must be made public, both on the packaging of any physical copies of the game and on the company?s web site.

2) Efforts must be made to ensure that DRM does not negatively interact with other software or hardware employed by the customer. We should never be forced to uninstall other applications in order to play the game in question. Any negative interactions with other components within our systems or software installed on our systems must be addressed by the company employing the DRM in question.

3) Where games are sold online, in the manner of Valve?s Steam, the company must issue a legally binding statement wherein they undertake to provide all users with full access to the games they have purchased in the event of the company being sold or closing down. Statements of intention are not sufficient.

4) Where activation limits are imposed, the company must post information relating to the release of any future revoke tools from the outset. Moreover, the company must issue a legally binding statement wherein they undertake to provide all users with revoke tools in the event of the company being sold or closing down. Statements of intention are not sufficient.

5) When a game is uninstalled, all elements of the security must be removed along with the game and no traces should be left on the customer's system. Removal tools, where applicable, must be included along with the game.


Requests

1) Where games are sold online, in the manner of Valve?s Steam, all efforts should be taken to sell such games at a lower price, given that no physical copy exists and resale is prevented. In addition, methods to enable users to sell their rights of access to a given game to another user should be considered.

2) Where subsequent budget releases of older games are issued, the removal of all DRM should be considered.

3) Where activation limits are imposed, they should be removed at a given point subsequent to the initial release of the game, thereby enabling customers to resell their games.

I will inform my fellow forum users that this letter has been sent to you and I will post any response from your company on the corresponding thread. I have full confidence that a company of your standing and importance within the gaming industry will take full advantage of this opportunity to address the concerns and opinions of fifty potential clients.

Yours faithfully,

Red


3) I am done, my sincerest thanks to everyone who participated in this thread in any capacity.

Have a good one.

Update: when sending the letter to EA, I was forced to create an account and link my communication to a specific title. I chose Mass Effect; however, I have no doubt that the letter will be forwarded to the corresponding department within this company. In any event, if anyone has an e-mail address for EA that will allow me to send directly from the yahoo account, I will send the letter again. I was pushed for time, and this is not a criticism of the company's method of enabling customer input, I'm sure that EA can be contacted directly.

Atari were contacted via the following service: http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/sendmessage.php

Once again, if this not the correct addressee, I'm sure they can forward the letter to the corresponding department.

 

[mindcycle]

Thanks for your efforts Red Irish. Hopefully we'll see a response from at least one of them.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Thanks for your efforts Red Irish. Hopefully we'll see a response from at least one of them.

You're welcome. No response from any of the companies yet. I'll let you all know if and when I hear anything.

 

[Red Irish]

Two more signatures: thanks. Still no word from any of the companies.

 

[Red Irish]

Still no response from the companies to the letter sent last Thursday.

The companies are:

EA
Ubisoft
Atari
Valve

 

[Red Irish]

We now have 56 signatories, which translates into 56 customers and/or potential customers.

The companies (Atari, Ubisoft, EA and Valve) have not yet issued any response to the letter (see above).

I think we can run this until the end of the week before assuming that the companies are not going to issue any form of response. On Friday, I will stop providing any daily commentary on the current toll of signatures (i.e. I will stop bumping the thread). However, if the companies fail to respond by the end of the week, I will have something to say, particularly in view of the fact that the number of signatories is rising each day.

 

[BanshhE]

Securom sucks!

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

I hope you didn't register here just to say that.

 

[Red Irish]

EA have replied (I would like to thank EA for acknowledging this thread and this petition):

Hi

Thank you for contacting EA Games. I appreciate the well thought out, logical manner of your message and your petition .

EA firmly believes in the value and use of DRM to protect the hard work and effort our studios put into game creation. While we understand the frustration of many gamers regarding this issue, we also believe that we must protect the effort and time that our developers put in to creating games. For this reason we choose to use digital rights management to protect the artists work and our investment. While there may be future changes to the DRM software we use, there is no publicly available information that we are planning to alter the software at this time.

Again I truly appreciate the time and effort you have put in to your message and the logical points made in the included petition.

With warm regards

GM Dave B
EA Games
Customer Support

 

[NoWhereM]

I am just so honored that someone from EA would deign to reply to our narcissistic, insignificant little petition with such acumen. I think it should be perspicuous to all of us now precisely why EA's DRM contrivance is simply indispensable.

I guess that takes care of that.