DRM 'Worst Thing' In Video Game Industry

[Lonyo]

Common or not, it is a stupid and naive argument. Saying that piracy is not theft because it merely deprives a developer of a sale amounts to an assertion that a software pirate "wouldn't buy a game with DRM, so if they steal the game it doesn't matter because the developer wouldn't have received their money anyway." Does anyone else see how ludicrous that position is? Shit. I can't buy a Ferrari and I wouldn't buy a pinto, but neither of those facts are justification for stealing either car. Oh wait, I analogized to real products again, so my argument is de facto invalid. Let me rephrase. I wouldn't pay for license to nuclear modeling software . . ., but that doesn't justify my downloading and using it without paying for the privilege.

F*ck, if that rationale were to hold any weight, no one would pay for anything! They would just take it and say that the manufacturer/developer/whatever is not harmed because they would not have bought their product anyway.

Sorry to be ornery about this, but as an intellectual property attorney this line of thinking just baffles me. I've seen many stupid arguments in my lifetime, but very few rise to the level of absurdity as the "piracy is not theft" argument raised by some in this thread.

You must be an IP attorney for the people who own the IP, because there are no arguments more absurd than the "You wouldn't steal a car, would you?" when discussing copyright infringement.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[jaqie]

I agree with and have experienced about half of the issues you are listing, Oubadah. It is far from perfect, I am lukewarm on it. I do however think it gives one huge advantage: game security. You never have to worry about losing your games so long as you own the steam account, and can install them to another PC whenever you wish, just so long as you don't try to log into more than one at any one time and play games. I like that a lot and that makes up for a lot of it's draconian issues. I am neutral to slightly favorable to them, but when there is an option I prefer non-steam.

 

[Tweak155]

I've never had any of those problems. Probably helps I don't mod games.

Worst I've had is the Steam servers are down - which does deny you access to games you paid for.

 

[Lonyo]

I agree with and have experienced about half of the issues you are listing, Oubadah. It is far from perfect, I am lukewarm on it. I do however think it gives one huge advantage: game security. You never have to worry about losing your games so long as you own the steam account, and can install them to another PC whenever you wish, just so long as you don't try to log into more than one at any one time and play games. I like that a lot and that makes up for a lot of it's draconian issues. I am neutral to slightly favorable to them, but when there is an option I prefer non-steam.

Most external application online/account based DRM systems are a pain if you use more than one computer. Sure, you might not lose games, but you get logged in and out all the time if you have multiple computers.

I have 3 gaming capable computers, my main one, and HTPC downstairs, and my secondary one which is set up for racing games.
Origin and Steam and the like will force log you out of one when you log in on another, even with you aren't playing any game on any system.

Something like Battle.net is much better because it doesn't really "kick in" until after you are in the game, which is much better. You still have the same lack of control in many aspects over your games, but there are some much nicer aspects such as that one.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[blackened23]

I've never had any of those problems. Probably helps I don't mod games.

Worst I've had is the Steam servers are down - which does deny you access to games you paid for.

Most of these arguments are strawman arguments designed to deflect the fact that they actually pirate. IMO. Pirates will find any lame excuse to justify their actions. You've seen it in this thread.

Like I said. Idiots who pirate should just come out and admit they don't feel like paying. I'd have more respect for honesty in many respects.

 

[ThinClient]

Most of these arguments are strawman arguments designed to deflect the fact that they actually pirate. IMO. Pirates will find any lame excuse to justify their actions. You've seen it in this thread.

Like I said. Idiots who pirate should just come out and admit they don't feel like paying. I'd have more respect for honesty in many respects.

You seem to be obsessed with pirates since you keep bringing it up. Did a pirate kick you when you were a little kid or something?

I've said it in other threads. I used to pirate games because they weren't worth the money at the time but later bought nearly everything I've ever pirated when the price dropped to $10 or $20.

 

[BrightCandle]

I am no pirate, but being a customer I have to advocate for rights that I should have just like any other product I buy. The licence deals we are getting today are almost criminal against the purchaser and that isn't right. DRM is a large part of how these unnecessary restrictions are applied and one of the main causes of being unable to use a product I legally purchased. DRM is an anti feature and it drives away customers, because once you have been bitten by it you will avoid it at any cost in the future. You do so because the DRM ripped you off, you paid money and didn't get the product you bought. How the hell is that fair?!

 

[KaOTiK]

It's pretty short on easy mode when you are 1 shotting everything. And it's not like I stopped to pick up all the voxophones and read every plaque. I pretty much ran through the game.

As far as what's possible--have you ever heard of a speed run? There's one for every game. Check out youtube for some speedrun world records. Even games you think are 100 hour+ can be beaten in a few hours.

I'm very well aware of what a speed run is. They more often than not use some type of exploit in the games engine as well. Needless to say speed runs don't happen till much much further down the line when the ins and outs of the game are known very well and are the very rare exception for a game play run, and they never happen on a first play through.

You would have been better off watching someone elses entire play through then rushing through the game like you did.

 

[blackened23]

I've said it in other threads. I used to pirate games because they weren't worth the money at the time but later bought nearly everything I've ever pirated when the price dropped to $10 or $20.

Yeah, I apologize - I suppose I am being too brash. Here's my thing: I totally do not get how some people consider entertainment to be a "right". It isn't. If you have any sort of issue with the DRM in question, why bother? Just vote with your wallet. I assure you that pirating won't help the cause, so to speak, at all - piracy is easily monitored so what's the obvious conclusion when companies see this stuff? It doesn't help the cause. Be vocal. Don't buy. Vote with your wallet. Etc. Even more amusing was the admitted pirate who stated he specifically seeks steamworks games for pirating. I think this person is a jerk-off, because openly discussing piracy acts is a jerk move. Developers come to this forum, stating such things is disrespectful. On other forums, it would result in a ban but the rules here are different obviously.

Aside from that, as much as i'm sympathetic to the old days of no DRM, it's just not going to change unfortunately. Piracy has increased exponentially due to increases in bandwidth availability so you may as well just get used to it. As I said, look for DRM methods which are non-intrusive and allow you to play offline. Why not constructive comments on what YOU would like to see change in steam. As far as I can tell now, there are only extremists in this thread: the admitted pirates and those who want 100% no DRM. I assure, 100% no DRM *will* *not* *happen*. You can argue until you're blue in the face about consumer rights, yet this isn't something that will happen (no DRM) on a large scale. Yeah - so constructive thoughts on how to improve steam? What do you think?

That's what my opinion boils down to. I think an interesting argument is discussing what is and isn't good DRM - because it isn't going away. Steam is that DRM that's fantastic in my opinion, and MOST gamers feel the same way; I frequent many gaming websites and for the large part, people love it. Anyway, How this thread became about piracy, i'm not sure - but I suppose i'm guilty of contributing to that as well. Again, I think discussing how various DRM methods can be improved would be a much more interesting and compelling read - rather than pages of back and forth about piracy. I'll state that I never buy SecuROM games, and I never buy GFWL games. I think they're beyond saving. But steam as I mentioned is ideal for me because of the sales, ease of use, non-intrusiveness, and convenience (being able to download games as much as you want, etc). What do you think?

 

[blastingcap]

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?"

For the record, I don't pirate PC games, but your analogy is so bad that I have to comment. A stolen motorcycle means you can't sell it--it's gone. With digital, the original copy remains and can be sold. In reality, piracy is exaggerated as a problem if you look only at downloads, because as articles over the years have pointed out (as well as Stardock's CEO), not every download is a lost sale at full price. There are some people who download a lot of stuff but never actually play it (whether games, films, or whatever... we all know a hoarder who doesn't have enough years in his/her life to actually watch all the films he pirates). There are some who would not have purchased the game AT ALL so they aren't exactly a lost sale either, though if they do something brazen like call customer support and thus cost the company something, they are a net drag. There are some who buy games but also download the cracked version because they don't like the DRM (convenience, compatibility, etc.). There are some who wouldn't have bought the game at full price but at a reduced price, so the cost of that piracy is less than you might think.

 

[Anteaus]

I think some of you overthink this. It is a simple comparison between tangible and intangible objects. Some of you are comparing software to physical objects, but this can't be done because they are intrinsically different in how they are perceived.

Decades ago the government with the help of various people (such as Bill Gates) realized that software didn't exist in the physical sense, yet in order for businesses to control their product they needed to define the legal existence of software. That is where the "license" came from. Economies such as ours can't survive without limited monopoly (such as patent/copyright) and unless software was provided legal cover there was no way to prevent copycats from just taking something you spend money to develop, changing the name, and releasing it as their own. Some would say it shouldn't be that way, but unless people only want the government to develop software, there needed to be a financial incentive to do it, much like the pharmaceutical industry gets a monopoly on their formulas for a period of time after development before they are forced to allow third parties to produce similar products. This is to allow them to recoup R&D.

My point is that you guys are arguing the semantics of theft without understanding how the law works. First of all, it isn't theft because you can't steal an intangible object. How do you know? First of all if you "steal" software, you can't be arrested for a crime. Copying software is a civil violation. Legally, the act is called "copyright infringement", not theft. Basically, piracy is more corrected described as "using someone else's property without permission", thus the term license. You're drivers license gives you permission to drive, and without it you would be using public roads without the permission of the government.

For web sites that distribute unlicensed software, the government can step in and sue on behalf of the companies and shut down the web sites and make them pay, but no one goes to jail. Sean Parker is still running around doing his thing.

The long and short of it is that you shouldn't analyze piracy in real world terms, because it doesn't exist. It exists purely in law for the purpose of protecting software developers' interest. Whether people think it's "right or wrong" really doesn't matter because it is a cut and dry issue.

I'm not arguing the ethics of it, only describing how it works.

Without copyright law and those who obey it, the gaming industry as we know it could not exist. Fortunately it has survived in spite of piracy, but as the ability to copy software became easier it would have eventually hurt everyone. Its a "good with the bad" thing.

 

[Aikouka]

- If I modify certain game files, I find that on occasion Steam will prevent me from playing a game ("Game is not ready at this time") until I verify game cache, allowing it to unmodify whatever I've done.

I've modified game files in the past, and it did nothing to affect the game. That includes something like the example that you gave as the original Borderlands didn't allow you to skip the intro videos either.

- ...Certain settings like 'do not automatically update...' have a habit of reverting to their defaults for no apparent reason.

I think this is more of a fault of Steam than the previous one. The previous one is really on the developer for releasing awful patches. I haven't had too much trouble with settings changing, but I have seen it in the past. Fortunately, I don't have much of a need to change any of them.

- Offline Mode: Nice in theory, but if the user has chosen to put Steam into Offline Mode, they probably have a good reason. So why does it hound you with an annoying "Go Online?" prompt every time you try to launch a Steam game after a restart?

Well, that sounds like more of an annoyance than anything. As a developer, I would just add one of those checkboxes that says "Don't show me this warning again...".

- DLC: Once you activate it, you have to jump through hoops to get rid of it if you decide you don't like it.

I think that's just another fault of the developer. I've never had the desire to remove a DLC in the past, and theoretically, you should never want to! That's something that you most likely paid for, and for it to be crap, you should be irate at the developer! Although, it might be nice for Steam to create an advanced functionality that let you select what to download/install via a checkbox setup.

- Steam "Buildbot" trying to install various packages and drivers, no matter how antiquated

Just modify the text file that tells it what to install... it's right in the game directory.

I have two Steam accounts with exactly the same games on them for this reason. So much for the convenience of one account.

Same, but I definitely don't have all of the same games... that'd be pricey! Heh

 

[Elixer]

I agree here

Steam may offer a certain degree of convenience for novice PC users, but for those who want to have full control over what's going on on their computer it's just bad news. I have plenty of Steam gripes, here are a few:

- If I modify certain game files, I find that on occasion Steam will prevent me from playing a game ("Game is not ready at this time") until I verify game cache, allowing it to unmodify whatever I've done. For example, I hate sitting through intro trailers, so in most games where there isn't a command line to skip them, I simply rename the files. I did this with Metro 2033, and eventually Steam spat "Game is not ready at this time". I had to 'verify game cache', so that it could re-download the damned videos that I renamed before I could play again.

- Automated patch installation: Oh how convenient! Never have to bother finding patches again. Always have your game updated to the latest version! Except that the 'latest version' isn't always the best version, and of course Steam doesn't discriminate. Skyrim being a perfect example, half the patches so far have broken as much as they've fixed. "Well why don't you just use Steam's 'do not automatically update...' option?". Well I do, but there are a couple of problems with that: A) Steam will override this option whenever they want (as seen with Skyrim [second patch?]) and B)...

- ...Certain settings like 'do not automatically update...' have a habit of reverting to their defaults for no apparent reason.

- Offline Mode: Nice in theory, but if the user has chosen to put Steam into Offline Mode, they probably have a good reason. So why does it hound you with an annoying "Go Online?" prompt every time you try to launch a Steam game after a restart? Oh that's right, because they make the arrogant assumption that everyone is going to have their worthless piece of software running 24/7, even when not in direct use. MS Office instates similar services, assuming that everyone wants something that they'll rarely use running 24/7, and we call that 'bloatware'. If Steam is set to Offline Mode, not running and I launch a Steam game, I want it launch silently and then shut itself down again silently with the game. I don't want to deal with UACesque prompts.

- DLC: Once you activate it, you have to jump through hoops to get rid of it if you decide you don't like it. Another Skyrim example: Activated the HD texture DLC, which was broken (surprise, surprise), and never patched (surprise, surprise), now every time I install the game, I have to wait for gigabytes of shite that I don't want to download on my slow internet connection, until I go to the trouble of contacting Steam support and waiting a week for them to deactivate the garbage from my account. In retail Oblivion, if I decide I don't like a DLC that I've previously purchased, I don't download or install it, period. Same with the patching point above: When I buy a normal game, *I* choose what version I want to patch to, and I can roll back or forward any time I so desire.

- The other day I tried to install a game in steam, (fresh install of Windows, fresh install of steam) and steam decided out of the blue that the game was already installed and spat some error message. I had to screw around for five minutes figuring out how to fix that.

- Steam "Buildbot" trying to install various packages and drivers, no matter how antiquated - for example, if I install Mafia II, Buildbot tries to install an outdated version of Nvidia PhysX. If a new version exists, Buildbot shits itself and runs EVERY time you launch Mafia so that you're obliged to uninstall your current PhysX drivers, let Buildbot install it's crap, then uninstall that, and then reinstall the new ones again.

- It took Steam this long to finally figure out that people might want the option to install their steam games on more than one drive. Better late than never I guess.

I think steam is one of the most invasive forms of DRM possible. People might argue that it offers a bunch of additional features (voice comms etc.), but I don't want half of them, and whatever Steam can do, there will invariably be a stand alone third part app that does it better. The only significant merit to it that I can think of is disk-free gaming, but that's never been an issue for me anyway. I'd choose retail purchase+crack over Steam headaches any day. I simply cannot understand how it's garnered such a blindly fanatical following.

QFT.

For offline mode, it gets worse, since it randomly "forgets" who you are, which means, that there is no possible way to run a game you purchased, until you have online access again, and, it does remember who you are, so this is 100% BS.
Steam's answer to this is run as administrator, and also disable all your startup programs via msconfig.
Never mind that don't work.

 

[alcoholbob]

I'm very well aware of what a speed run is. They more often than not use some type of exploit in the games engine as well. Needless to say speed runs don't happen till much much further down the line when the ins and outs of the game are known very well and are the very rare exception for a game play run, and they never happen on a first play through.

You would have been better off watching someone elses entire play through then rushing through the game like you did.

But why would I do that if the gameplay makes me queasy? I played the game, saw the important story parts. When a game makes you nauseous, you tend to skip the grinding and just try to rush to the next cutscene.

 

[werepossum]

I see nothing wrong with DRM, as long as it is not intrusive.

Always on is intrusive, steam is not intrusive. The always on requirement is the reason why I will not buy diablo iii.

While steam may be DRM, it also offers a lot of other features.

This

As the above poster stated, DRM itself is not necessarily bad. We all love (I think) steamworks, but that is DRM.

The critical difference is the intrusiveness and hassle factor involved. Valve has made DRM that is convenient and hassle free; this is why many publishers are using steamworks as their DRM of choice. Because customers do not mind it for the most part - but when you get into gamebreaking bugs, servers being down, continual login requirements, that is when DRM becomes annoying.

There are a wide range of DRM types, I think some differentiation should be made here. You can't put GOOD DRM (steamworks) in the same category as garbage such as SecuROM (installation limits, 5 installs per lifetime) or GFWL (extremely buggy and annoying to use!)

and this.

I own the Enhanced Edition of Witcher purchased on Steam, although I've not yet played it. I also lost a CD burner to the SecuRom bug. As long as DRM does not materially damage me, I'm in favor of it as enabling development of the games I want to play. When it destroys my hardware or leads to me being unable to play a game I legally own whilst pirates are free to play their stolen copies, that company needs to go out of business, period.

 

[werepossum]

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.

This is a valid point too. However, companies need to understand that if I can't resell that $60 game if it's a turkey, I'm probably not going to buy it until it is a $20 or $30 game on Steam - at best. By forcing me to eat the entire price of a game, you lower the price I'm willing to pay for that game to something I find acceptable if that game sucks. And of course, if I find that the game sucks before it ever drops in price, then if I pick it up at all it will be for less than $10.

You must be an IP attorney for the people who own the IP, because there are no arguments more absurd than the "You wouldn't steal a car, would you?" when discussing copyright infringement.

Except every argument as to why one should get for free something which for hundreds of people must fund their mortgage, living expenses, and retirement for the development and support period.

 

[ImpulsE69]

This is why I don't mind waiting for games to get cheap on Steam. The way I see it, they don't have the overhead they used to have (because no matter what you say, they used to scream that prices were high because of all the costs involved with distribution and shelf space). Add to the fact I don't have a physical copy, and I can't resell, then I'm not going to pay top dollar for anything but the best. They wanted to enforce the "license" issue, they have to take the pay cut.

 

[BFG10K]

Oubadah, great post man. I've had most of those issues myself. Here are some more that I've had:

I've recently discovered that if you have another drive with Steam on it (i.e. a backup) and that drive is always powered on, Steam "forgets" your offline credentials every time you reboot, and needs you to connect again. I just replicated again it now:

No "login information stored on this computer", eh? So what happened to the information I provided the last time I rebooted? And the time before that?

Also Steam often jams itself when auto-updating. Then after apparently downloading what it needs it asks you to restart, then proceeds to DOWNLOAD SOME MORE. It actually took them nine years to add a progress box showing that Steam is actually doing something.

I've also had numerous games with obscure issues until their cache is re-verified. A good example is AvP3, which after a Windows reinstall will constantly crash to the desktop after you pull the first switch in the garage unless you re-verify the cache. Also Black Ops has a horrendous start-up time when it's run through Steam, and I've confirmed this problem is fixed when running a crack.

On a related note, I've had numerous instances of games needing to be re-verified for no apparent reason, other than Steam deciding to. As a contrasting example, I've had Quake 3 installed since 2000. It's never been reinstalled and has moved across multiple OSes and file systems, yet it still works fine to this day. Meanwhile, Steam's folder appears to constantly corrupt itself.

Steam is a bandwidth parasite, plain and simple. The interface is also extremely poor and bloated. It's also a central point of failure for all of your games. No other DRM scheme can shut down your entire gaming library like Steam can.

 

[BFG10K]

There are so many publishers using steamworks as the primary DRM? Just out of curiosity, how are you playing the latest titles?

I use Steam if I have no choice, and I crack my Steam games whenever possible. They run so much better without Steam.

Steam now isn't like steam 7 years ago. They improved it substantially. That's why I love valve - they take feedback and improve their products based on it;

That's why it took them nine years to add a progress bar when Steam is updating itself?

Most of these arguments are strawman arguments designed to deflect the fact that they actually pirate. IMO. Pirates will find any lame excuse to justify their actions. You've seen it in this thread.

I never pirate games. I buy them and crack them if they have DRM. I own (not rent) my games, so Uncle Newell & Co. doesn't get to tell me when or where I can play them.

 

[BFG10K]

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.

On GoG's front page they state you own the games you purchase. With other forms of DRM you're just renting. That is, you can keep using the software as long as the DRM allows you to. Kind of like how you can keep living in a house until the landlord decides they want it back.

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.

Fine, then Steam should release all their games of a similar age without any DRM. So why doesn't it? Why is HL2 loaded with Steamworks when it's nine years old?

Not to mention that GoG goes out of its way to price games the same regardless of region. Meanwhile, Steam retroactively and silently disables legitimate CD keys without explanation or refund. If Steam wants to disable those keys for being "out of region" then they need to provide refunds to customers.

The two systems aren't even remotely comparable in terms of customer service and attitude.

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.

Except that GoG has new games too, and there's more and more being released.

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

It certainly is when it cripples legitimate paying customers like myself.

 

[BFG10K]

I've modified game files in the past, and it did nothing to affect the game.

It'll affect it once you have to re-verify the cache for whatever reason. It's only a matter of time before you have to do it.

Just modify the text file that tells it what to install... it's right in the game directory.

The text file will come right back after re-verifying the cache.

 

[styrafoam]

One of the biggest things that i think still needs to be addressed is how DRM is being used as a way to enforce obsolescence. If a company doesn't want to admin some authorization servers anymore, fine. Patch the key check out when you give up on the game rather than give your paying customers a big FU. A new version of whatever game doesn't make the money someone spends suddenly worthless because EA wants you to buy the newest trash they are shoveling.

 

[ImpulsE69]

One of the biggest things that i think still needs to be addressed is how DRM is being used as a way to enforce obsolescence. If a company doesn't want to admin some authorization servers anymore, fine. Patch the key check out when you give up on the game rather than give your paying customers a big FU. A new version of whatever game doesn't make the money someone spends suddenly worthless because EA wants you to buy the newest trash they are shoveling.

I think this is probably my biggest concern. I don't care if it's a "license" or not. They do not have the right to tell me I'm done playing something I paid for.

I think if it were to turn this way, a lawsuit would fix it rather quickly though. I don't think anyone expects servers to stay up forever, but at least if you're shutting them down give people the option to make their own. Of course, that won't happen because OMG they might want to make a new one some day.