DRM 'Worst Thing' In Video Game Industry

[Via]

DRM is the second-worse thing in the video game industry.

The worst thing is all the thieves who make companies want to implement DRM in the first place.

These companies aren't stupid. No matter how many talking points they spout they know for a fact that they can't control hard-core piracy.

Gradual elimination of the second hand market has always been the true driving force behind DRM. Why else do you think companies are so willing to allow their products to be sold so cheaply through steam and other services, sometimes as soon as weeks after release? It's a sacrifice they're all willing to make in the name of large scale DRM implementation.

Any money in their pockets, even if it's five or ten dollars, is better than allowing a customer to re-sell or give their game away.

 

[BrightCandle]

I think another driving force has been a desire to release games that weren't tested very well and could be fixed after release, without having to deal with refunds. Go back 10 years and you could return games that didn't work on your system but nowadays with the DRM in place no retailers allow it and the introduction of digital distribution has only made that worse. So now they have a mugged audience that can't get a refund for a broken product it allows them to release earlier and in a worse state and never get the game in a fully working state. That reduces the outlay on quality and they know they wont get returns now because its impossible.

All of it however has eroded the reputation of these businesses, EA is not doing well and neither is Ubisoft. I think Blizzard will find on its next game that their reputation has taken a big hit as well. Its shortsighted but still the tactic many big game companies are pursuing to their own detriment.

But as customer experience gets worse eventually the legal system will be used by the populace at large and the industry will become regulated. It can pursue this strategy only for so long before eventually it tips over enough people that they find themselves required to behave differently. Germany is already doing things to product customers and it looks like other European countries will go there as well, because its a product and people should be getting product rights on what they buy, which includes a provision that its free from defects.

 

[lagokc]

That may be their official policy though I have purchased software from B+M stores years ago and opened the box to find no CDs in the box. I was given a refund without questions asked (they had no copies left). No doubt some people do lie about this to get free software, but sometimes there is a legitimate defect in the product and a "no returns under any circumstances even if we just sold you an empty box" policy is something you shouldn't accept from an ebay retailer much less Steam.

 

[jaqie]

DRM is awful. I totally agree there. I buy games, that means paying for them. Then I get cracks for them so I can play them how I want, off of my hard drive offline without a disc in the drive. Some people call what I do piracy, but when I paid for the game and it's sitting right here beside me, I call BS.

A lot of my games lately have been coming from the software section of the local computer goodwill. They sell most of them for $2, some for more. I make sure the cd key and the cds are there, beyond that I don't care. Then I try installing from the disc, if it's too scratched I download a copy and install it. if it has copy protection that prevents me from playing or makes me have the disc in I circumvent it. I bought the game, I am going to play it.

I also buy from steam - including the new xcom enemy unknown. I paid $60 for it with the addon pack, and it was worth every penny. If I am ever unable to play it for whatever reason, I will get a cracked version. I bought the game, I can play it, to hell with anyone or any system that tries to say otherwise.

I was given (won) a BF3 key from a LAN party I attended some 6 months or so ago. Trying to get it working was a nightmare. I finally gave up on the game after I couldn't even play though the singleplayer with my own keybindings (which I have to do because of arthritis and other problems) and it couldn't even handle that. I would have been irate if I had paid for it - but as it is, I just gave the origin account to my roommate who enjoys it once in a while when it will let her log in.

 

[KaOTiK]

Steam's no refund policy also extends to defective games. If a game is completely broken and will not run they still keep your money. I've never seen a retailer do that.

Actually when a game is truly broken and/or does not have the features listed on its store page on Steam, they will refund you. The latest case of mass refunds was with The War Z.

 

[Stringjam]

This is also sidestepping the fact that only scum would ever pirate software based on such a logical fallacy.

I agree. People who pirate have absolutely no idea how much labor, blood, and tears go into creating some of this stuff. I'm sure their logical fallacies extend to all other parts of their lives as well, as self-centered individuals who look for nothing more in life than to take from the producers of this world and give nothing in return.

If you pirate PC games, you aren't a real PC Gamer, you're f*$&#ng garbage.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

I play the latest games by piratingstealing them....

FTFY.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Not to mention that no matter how unobtrusive it is, you're still essentially renting software and you don't actually own anything. Valve can remove your games at any time, as witnessed by the Orange Box fiasco where legitimate purchases were retroactively disabled, in some cases months after their purchase.

CD Projekt RED has it right, and their GoG.com is the only example of digital distribution done right. Among other things, with GoG you actually own your games, unlike other online distribution (including Steam) where you just rent them.

Very few retailers/distributors sell software. Rather, they sell software licenses. Thus, one does not "rent" a game, but rather pays for a single person paid up license to it. If you don't believe me, read the end user license agreement (EULA) that comes with just about every piece of software. If you don't like the terms, don't buy a license.

GOG is a nice service, no question. But the reason it sells DRM free software is because it is selling games that have comparatively low commercial value (primarily due to age) than a brand new off the shelf game. I'm also willing to bet that they have proven that their business model allows for developers to milk more revenue off of an old product, where the developer likely has recouped its investment and every new sale (with DRM or not) leads to pure profit.

In the case of a newly released game, the economics for the developer are quite different. At release, many developers have spent millions if not tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to produce a game. Therefore when the game is released, every single sale is important. Indeed, developers of newly released games need every sale to "count," because each one puts a little dent in recouping the massive investment they have put into developing the game. That is why piracy irks developers to no end, and why many of them feel DRM is necessary, at least at the outset. Even if it doesn't prevent all piracy, it surely prevents some of it.

Lets put it another way. Say you run a business in which you manufacture custom motorcycles. So that you have something to show potential customers, you build ten custom bikes, at a cost of $10,000 each. So, before you have a single sale, you are $100,000 in the hole, simply so you can show product to customers. You open your business and start to sell bikes. Everyone loves them, and your bikes get a reputation for being great. Then a stranger comes in off the street sits on one of the bikes in the showroom, and drives off. You never see the bike again. Your $10,000 investment of time and money in that bike is gone. And the person who stole it gets to enjoy it for nothing.

That ain't right, is it? Of course not! And I doubt anyone who pirates software would think so either. Funny thing is, software pirates are doing the exact same thing that the person who took the bike did, i.e., stealing product. Yet somehow they feel justified because the developer "deserved" it, or the product cost more than they though it was worth.

Returning to the hypothetical. After the bike theft, you are pretty pissed, particularly because as a business owner, you don't have the luxury of giving away $10,000 bikes when you are $100,000 in the hole. You decide to install a fancy anti theft system on all new bikes. The anti theft system uses biometric authentication to verify a rider's identity with a remote server prior to freeing the ignition. Consumers complain a little about the system, but sales are very strong and no bikes are being stolen.

Question, is what you did as a business owner to protect your product "wrong" or "bad?"

 

[BrightCandle]

There is a difference between taking a copy, it didn't deprive the original seller of the cost of manufacture, it only potentially lost them a sale. This gets debated endlessly but pirating is quite different to stealing, not least because its not criminal in most countries it comes under civil law.

That said when it comes to DRM I can guarantee that having it looses you sales. It might ultimately trade off well and result in more overall sales, we don't know because we don't have good sales data. What we do know is that many customers will no longer buy DRMed games having been burnt on previous sales, this is one of those effects that progressively destroys your business because while you might stop pirates you are also stopping legitimate customers. All DRM is flawed, it always annoys a customer somewhere and the worse it is the more the reputation is hurt. Eventually day by day customers are being trained that DRM is evil and they want no part in it.

6 years ago there was a discussion on always online DRM that ubisoft was just about to introduce. At the time 95% of the respondents didn't care, it wasn't an issue for them. Now when you mention Sim City 95% of them care deeply. The industry trained them to hate DRM, it trained them as loyal customers to stop buying a product that was broken at sale. Often you are better off with the cracked version or waiting months until they finally patch away the broken parts of the technology. Today any company that ignores that basic behavior they trained into their customers over the last 5 years is finding itself in decline.

 

[blackened23]

This isn't about arguing semantics on stealing a physical object or digital items.

What this is about -- you're not entitled to something you didn't pay for. The fact that some in society view entertainment as an entitlement, a right - is sad. I'm certainly not a fan of big corporations such as EA but the little guys who actually make the game do not make a lot of money and to talk openly about pirating their product is a slap in the face.

I go to two other forums where various developers also participate in the discussions, it's a great thing - it allows two way dialog between the creators and the people who enjoy their work. When someone strolls in and basically states that "Hey i pirated your stuff", it's a complete prick move. Period. On those two forums, it results in the ban of the user who made the statement. I know AT is different - AT isn't the same as other discussion forums, but what lonyo said was a prick move. If you pirate keep it to yourself. Furthermore, I don't feel like getting caught up in a debate about what is and what isn't stealing. That argument is so old and so tiring, it's beyond cliche at this point. Give it a rest. Just argue the merits of what is, and isn't, good DRM. Having bad DRM doesn't entitle you to take something for free - when I don't agree with a business practice, I vote with my wallet. I also don't pirate something that I really hate, I find that entire concept confusing. If you don't agree with the DRM in use on a particular product, don't buy it. That's precisely what I do with SecuROM games and *most* GFWL games. I only buy steamworks games for the most part, because I find the DRM non intrusive. I suggest others do the same.

 

[Terzo]

I definitely disagree there. I personally dislike Steam and I've had more problems with it than any other form of DRM, ranging from broken offline mode to ignoring my auto-patching and cloud settings (i.e. turn it off but it still does it). Not to mention that their "customer support" is as bad as EA's.

The only reason this crap was initially accepted was because it was tied to Half-Life 2, a game everyone wanted. Now people have just become numb to it. Is it any wonder EA pulled the same stunt with Origin/BF3?

Not to mention that no matter how unobtrusive it is, you're still essentially renting software and you don't actually own anything. Valve can remove your games at any time, as witnessed by the Orange Box fiasco where legitimate purchases were retroactively disabled, in some cases months after their purchase.

CD Projekt RED has it right, and their GoG.com is the only example of digital distribution done right. Among other things, with GoG you actually own your games, unlike other online distribution (including Steam) where you just rent them.

I always give props to GoG.com whenever possible because of their fantastic consumer-friendly service and policies. Heck, they even fix games before releasing them to make sure customers can actually run them. Contrast this to Steam releasing games in the past that didn't even run on modern OSes.

This essentially summed up my reaction after reading the first few posts. The bolded especially expresses my thoughts. Well stated.

Lets put it another way. Say you run a business in which you manufacture custom motorcycles. So that you have something to show potential customers, you build ten custom bikes, at a cost of $10,000 each. So, before you have a single sale, you are $100,000 in the hole, simply so you can show product to customers. You open your business and start to sell bikes. Everyone loves them, and your bikes get a reputation for being great. Then a stranger comes in off the street sits on one of the bikes in the showroom, and drives off. You never see the bike again. Your $10,000 investment of time and money in that bike is gone. And the person who stole it gets to enjoy it for nothing.

Returning to the hypothetical. After the bike theft, you are pretty pissed, particularly because as a business owner, you don't have the luxury of giving away $10,000 bikes when you are $100,000 in the hole. You decide to install a fancy anti theft system on all new bikes. The anti theft system uses biometric authentication to verify a rider's identity with a remote server prior to freeing the ignition. Consumers complain a little about the system, but sales are very strong and no bikes are being stolen.

Question, is what you did as a business owner to protect your product "wrong" or "bad?"

I'm not going to argue in defense of piracy (it's certainly wrong, regardless of how you want to define it), but just based on past arguments I've followed there's one hole in your analogy.

The person in your situation doesn't come in and ride one of your $10,000 bikes out of the showroom. The person comes in, makes a copy of the bike, and rides the copy out of the show room. You have not lost $10,000, what you've lost is a potential sale. That person may or may not have purchased the bike if they weren't able to copy it, but it's not like you now only have 9 bikes in your showroom.

As for your biometric scanner, I wouldn't define it as wrong. However, the company damn well better make sure their scanners and servers work 100% of the time. You can be sure customers are going to be pissed when the biometric scanner incorrectly reads the owner as a thief, or the remote server fails and no one is able to ride their purchased bikes. To add insult to injury, there are some people who are still able to bypass your authentication system, allowing them to ride their replicas while paying customers are locked out of their purchases. Then again, EA keeps pulling this shit and people still buy their games, so maybe having a false negative every now and then isn't an issue.

DRM may prevent piracy, but how many of those who pirated the game will now buy it? And, how many people who would've bought it become lost sales due to the DRM? Personally, I generally avoid buying games that require steam, battlenet, origin, whatever. I think the last such game I bought was left for dead 2, only because my friends wanted to play it together.

And I know I'm not the only one. Many people here have stated they will not purchase anything through origin, even passing games like Mass Effect 3. So there are sales being lost. Who knows if the prevention of piracy is making up for these.

Honestly, though, I don't think the majority of consumers feel so strongly, and as long as people buy their games companies will continue using DRM. However, companies like CDProjekt will recognize and cater to the interests of the "hardcore" gamers.

 

[jaqie]

As if to highlight this argument, I actually just bought starcraft II from the local computer goodwill store (there is one here that deals exclusively in computer hardware and software donated to them)... and sure enough the key was already used and it is not letting me play.

I paid for the game, the key, the disc, even the box came with it. I have a receipt, the disc, the box, the key, and no play. I am going to find a way to play it because I paid for the damn thing, damn the DRM. I personally don't care for online play so that makes it easier.

 

[KaOTiK]

As if to highlight this argument, I actually just bought starcraft II from the local computer goodwill store (there is one here that deals exclusively in computer hardware and software donated to them)... and sure enough the key was already used and it is not letting me play.

I paid for the game, the key, the disc, even the box came with it. I have a receipt, the disc, the box, the key, and no play. I am going to find a way to play it because I paid for the damn thing, damn the DRM. I personally don't care for online play so that makes it easier.

You can try contacting Blizzard as well. They will usually want a picture of the key and possibly the receipt as well.

This is one of the major reasons why Gamestop stopped taking trade ins on PC games because keys are bound to accounts now in most cases.

 

[blackened23]

As if to highlight this argument, I actually just bought starcraft II from the local computer goodwill store (there is one here that deals exclusively in computer hardware and software donated to them)... and sure enough the key was already used and it is not letting me play.

I paid for the game, the key, the disc, even the box came with it. I have a receipt, the disc, the box, the key, and no play. I am going to find a way to play it because I paid for the damn thing, damn the DRM. I personally don't care for online play so that makes it easier.

If you contact blizzard they will have you covered. Just fax them a copy of the receipt and box and you'll be good to go with a new key.

 

[TallBill]

I just built a new PC and have no internet for like 3-4 weeks. Stores don't really sell many games anymore and 90% of the few that they have require an internet connection.

 

[wirednuts]

i think the best anti-piracy measure is to make the online multiplayer part of the game GOOD. so that people actually want to use it. those fps games that people only play online have no problems with drm because you cant pirate a game when you need other people to play with you.

 

[ThinClient]

FTFY.

False. Piracy is not theft.

 

[blackened23]

False. Piracy is not theft.

Not this tired, old, cliche and stupid argument again. This is highly irrelevant, for reasons i've already stated. Argue what is and isn't good DRM. Not this.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I'm going to just steal someones games they paid for. :whiste:

 

[jaqie]

If you contact blizzard they will have you covered. Just fax them a copy of the receipt and box and you'll be good to go with a new key.

So I am treated as if I stole the game by them when I purchased it outright, when people getting cracked games can just game right after downloading it. I think you missed my point.

 

[blackened23]

So I am treated as if I stole the game by them when I purchased it outright, when people getting cracked games can just game right after downloading it. I think you missed my point.

You bought it used. What do you expect man? Have you bought a blizzard game in like, the past 8 years?

Every blizzard game has a key tied to the account which requires activation due to blizzard games being primarily multiplayer focused. As much is stated on their box and this has been the case for nearly a decade - If you bought a used game intentionally while knowing this fact, i'm not sure I find any sympathy. No offense, someone buying a used blizzard game is nearly willful ignorance. Despite this, blizzard will cover you regardless of how questionable your used purchase is. They're a good company. They will cover questionable purchases by end-users and give you a good key.

 

[jaqie]

You bought it used. What do you expect man?

I'm not a man.

Have you bought a blizzard game in like, the past 8 years? I honestly don't have sympathy since you bought it used.

Yes, I have two cata accounts. What does used matter? That's the point here.

Every blizzard game has a key tied to the account which requires activation due to blizzard games being primarily multiplayer focused. As much is stated on their box and this has been the case for nearly a decade - If you bought a used game intentionally while knowing this fact, no sympathy, none. That is willful ignorance. Despite this stupidity, blizzard will cover you regardless of how questionable your used purchase is. They're a good company. They will cover questionable purchases by end-users and give you a good key.

OK. I bought a car used. I expect it to work, I don't expect the onboard computers to phone home every time I put the key in to see if I stole the car, nor do I expect it to force me to enter a keycode to prove I paid for it. I expect it to run and work, and I am within my rights to do this. The software in the car should work nomatter who buys it used and how many times it is resold. I am not willfully ignorant in expecting the car I bought used to work including the software on the onboard computer, I am within my rights, I am within prudent thought to do so. A computer game and the software on the car's computer are equatable enough to this that I am going to ignore anyone who says otherwise. Calling me stupid and willfully ignorant is simply trolling, whether you will admit to it or not. I did not have a questionable purchase, I purchased the entire thing, from a reputable seller, used instead of new.

 

[blackened23]

I'm not a man.

Thanks for the clarification, that's completely relevant here in reference to a figure of speech.

OK. I bought a car used. I expect it to work, I don't expect the onboard computers to phone home every time I put the key in to see if I stole the car, nor do I expect it to force me to enter a keycode to prove I paid for it. I expect it to run and work, and I am within my rights to do this. The software in the car should work nomatter who buys it used and how many times it is resold. I am not willfully ignorant in expecting the car I bought used to work including the software on the onboard computer, I am within my rights, I am within prudent thought to do so. A computer game and the software on the car's computer are equatable enough to this that I am going to ignore anyone who says otherwise. Calling me stupid and willfully ignorant is simply trolling, whether you will admit to it or not. I did not have a questionable purchase, I purchased the entire thing, from a reputable seller, used instead of new.

The car analogy isn't a good one because with games, you buy a license. That obviously isn't the case with cars. The requirements are stated on the box and blizzard has operated in this manner for a decade. I'm stating this in general terms, not as an attack - when the box states the requirements, and anyone ignores it (assuming they can read), that buyer is being completely and willfully ignorant and they get what they get. Period. A non functional game. Despite this, like I said, blizzard will cover you. Apparently they dont' care.

Anyway, I like how this has veered from DRM to piracy to used games. The main theme I keep coming back to is if you don't like a certain type of DRM, vote with your wallet. That's precisely what I do when I avoid GFWL and SecuROM games. I completely agree with many users here that some types of DRM are obnoxious, but where I disagree is how some suggest that piracy is the best way of dealing with such things. IMO, send a message to the companies giving you draconian DRM. Never buy their stuff.

 

[jaqie]

what stated on the box am I ignoring? I read it before purchasing. All it said is that it requires an active internet connection, and a pc of certain specs.

 

[KaOTiK]

So I am treated as if I stole the game by them when I purchased it outright, when people getting cracked games can just game right after downloading it. I think you missed my point.

Actually, no you are not being treated like a thief. They need verification that what you tell them is true. They treat keys that are activated on their service as people who purchase them, they don't know if the key was stolen in some fashion (be it someone copying the key down or a keygen). You provide proof that you purchased the game and your copy doesn't work then they can go and deactivate the illegitimate key.

On a side note, since you know how Blizzard works with keys, you didn't really expect a second hand copy of the game to actually work did you?