EA's Gibeau: 'DRM is a failed dead-end strategy'

[mindcycle]

SimCity was brought crashing down at launch by its always-online requirement, this we know. However, EA Labels president Frank Gibeau has sworn blind that the requirement was a result of the designers' MMO visions, not a DRM mandate handed down to Maxis from EA. He's ragged on DRM a fair bit too, decrying it as "not a viable strategy for the gaming business." Honest.

Gibeau insisted, "At no point in time did anybody say 'you must make this online.'" He added, "You don't build an MMO because you're thinking of DRM--you're building a massively multiplayer experience, that's what you're building."

The EA veteran railed against DRM pretty hard, saying "DRM is a failed dead-end strategy; it's not a viable strategy for the gaming business. So what we tried to do creatively is build an online service in the SimCity universe and that's what we sought to achieve. For the folks who have conspiracy theories about evil suits at EA forcing DRM down the throats of Maxis, that's not the case at all."

It's certainly a change of tune from 2008, when complaints over activation limits in Spore and Crysis Warhead lead Gibeau to declare DRM "essential to the economic structure we use to fund our games."

Call me skeptic but I don't buy this at all. I mean, comeon EA dude, you work for EA.. why would anyone believe a single word you say?

Read the rest here:
http://www.shacknews.com/article/78444/eas-gibeau-drm-is-a-failed-dead-end-strategy

 

[shortylickens]

They'll come up with something else, call it anything but DRM, and it will stick suck. And people will continue to pirate.

 

[postmortemIA]

Call me skeptic but I don't buy this at all. I mean, comeon EA dude, you work for EA.. why would anyone believe a single word you say?

Read the rest here:
http://www.shacknews.com/article/78444/eas-gibeau-drm-is-a-failed-dead-end-strategy

He'll say anything to make his company look better.

Truth is, big & popular games have to have some features that make paid copy of game more worthy than pirated one.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Looks like the rats are jumping ship in a loose sense.

 

[TY-1]

EA needs to take a page from Ubisoft. Ubisoft got a whole lot of hate when they started requiring always-on connections because of DRM and in the end it didn't help them as many customers with legitimate copies still pirated the games just so they could play without having to have the always-on connection. Ubisoft learned from this and since the release of AC3 have stopped implementing the always-on connection DRM.

 

[smackababy]

He'll say anything to make his company look better.

Truth is, big & popular games have to have some features that make paid copy of game more worthy than pirated one.

The sad part is, he is dead on about why DRM doesn't work whether he knows it or not. Giving players some sort of online persistence, that makes the game better not worse, is a great way to combat piracy. Sure it won't stop all of it, but the majority of players won't want to miss out on that feature, so they will pay for it. CoD of an excellent example of this. It isn't pirated very much because people enjoy the multiplayer experience that a legitimate copy offers. I am not advocating shoving multiplayer into every game, just that making the experience better for paying customers is what really combats piracy.

 

[BrightCandle]

Its essential however that always online isn't the only way to play a game. You do not want to force people into playing multiplayer, that isn't right and it sets you company up with a collision course over DRM. Its at odds with what the grand majority of your customers want, which is why its a really bad idea.

If they haven't realised it yet good games that work sell well. Crappy rehash done to death games do not sell well. DRM seems to have a negative impact in the long term (you get away with it for one game when it fails) that eventually you will change or go out of business. EA seems stubborn enough that it wants to go out of business, as does Ubisoft. But we will see they well both realise that forcing this rubbish on their customers which means they can't play a product they bought isn't good for anybody.

 

[acheron]

I don't doubt that he thinks DRM is pointless, but since it's EA, I'm sure they'll keep doing always-online games so that they can have microtransactions.

 

[pathos]

If you are forcing people online specfically to combat piracy, wouldn't you still call that drm? I mean, I don't really know, or care, what specfically falls under the technical definition of "digital rights management", but if it amounts to the same thing, I don't parcticularly see a reason to call it something else.

This just seems to me to be a ploy by ea to get away from the term "drm" (since most gamers find it offensive now) while still actually employing it.

And I personally find this method of drm the most odious yet.

Heck, bring back the days of disc checks, and using those password wheels, please

 

[Chocu1a]

There will always, ALWAYS, be a way to circumvent DRM. It only hurts the legitimate buyers when it backfires.

 

[shortylickens]

I don't doubt that he thinks DRM is pointless, but since it's EA, I'm sure they'll keep doing always-online games so that they can have microtransactions.

Thats the new DRM.

You pay 10 dollars for the base game which can be sold ad infinitum, but the majority of content is in DLC which is only linked to your account and has to be purchased each and every time.

 

[BrightCandle]

5 years ago if you told people always online DRM was bad for the most part you would get hostility from the grand majority of gamers. Most didn't think it would be a problem and it was all fine. 5 years on and obviously the exact thing that the earlier experts recognised has come to fruition and now many many gamers are very hostile to DRM, especially the always online variety.

But EA are just trying to change the name, in principle they are still pursuing an always online DRM strategy, they just don't want to call it that. Having games be forced online is just another way of pursing always online DRM but trying to hide it as something else.

This time I don't think people are fooled thankfully. I am far happier that everyone sees the issue now and the attempt to change the name, but 5 years ago I felt very afraid for the games industry.

I still think there is going to be a period of about 5-6 years in my gaming history where I wont in the future be able to go back and play a game I loved. I think that is a real shame, but I do hope people can realise that buying these always online DRM games is bad for all of us and we need to vote with our pockets, even if that means we don't get to play the latest sequel of Our most awesome favourite game number 27.

 

[smackababy]

But EA are just trying to change the name, in principle they are still pursuing an always online DRM strategy, they just don't want to call it that. Having games be forced online is just another way of pursing always online DRM but trying to hide it as something else.

But what if they are not just changing the name? What if they make games that are made to be interactive with others and this is a huge benefit to the game? What if the games core fundamentals require one to be online. Similar to WoW. Playing the game offline would make no sense, as it was designed completely around a multiplayer experience. Sure, the online can be viewed as DRM, but it is much more than that.

This idea also has to be done right. Just adding an online "feature" for the sake of it not being DRM that doesn't actually add a lot to the game won't fool anyone.

 

[PowerYoga]

But what if they are not just changing the name? What if they make games that are made to be interactive with others and this is a huge benefit to the game? What if the games core fundamentals require one to be online. Similar to WoW. Playing the game offline would make no sense, as it was designed completely around a multiplayer experience. Sure, the online can be viewed as DRM, but it is much more than that.

This idea also has to be done right. Just adding an online "feature" for the sake of it not being DRM that doesn't actually add a lot to the game won't fool anyone.

what if I am a unicorn and shit rainbows?

EA's online DRM hasn't improved gaming experience at all. In Simcity's case, it made it worse because it was a disguised DRM that didn't need to be there in order for the game to function.

They haven't built ANYTHING that would've been improved by an online presence and they are habitual liars. This is the only industry where the executives can get away with blatantly lying to the customers without a federal inquiry.

 

[mmntech]

I wish they'd stop calling SimCity an MMO because it's not. Hackers already proved definitively that it doesn't need to be online to play it.

Always online is just about as fool proof a DRM method as you can get until some hacker creates a virtual server, which is of course harder to do. Though I ultimately think it's too high a price when you start implementing it for single player games, as it limits where and when the game can be played. Can't take your laptop with you on long bus or plane rides as most still don't have WiFi.

I vote with my wallet personally. I purchase all my games. I didn't buy SimCity or Spore due to their DRM. Heck I even left PC gaming for a few years back when install limits were the latest craze. I don't think a lot of developers like antagonizing their paying customers. The DRM and micro-transactions used today are management decisions IMO. You see it in every large corporation when design teams lose creative control. Drive for consistent quarter over quarter growth over making high quality and innovative products that will pay bigger dividends in the long term.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I wish they'd stop calling SimCity an MMO because it's not. Hackers already proved definitively that it doesn't need to be online to play it.

Always online is just about as fool proof a DRM method as you can get until some hacker creates a virtual server, which is of course harder to do. Though I ultimately think it's too high a price when you start implementing it for single player games, as it limits where and when the game can be played. Can't take your laptop with you on long bus or plane rides as most still don't have WiFi.

I vote with my wallet personally. I purchase all my games. I didn't buy SimCity or Spore due to their DRM. Heck I even left PC gaming for a few years back when install limits were the latest craze. I don't think a lot of developers like antagonizing their paying customers. The DRM and micro-transactions used today are management decisions IMO. You see it in every large corporation when design teams lose creative control. Drive for consistent quarter over quarter growth over making high quality and innovative products that will pay bigger dividends in the long term.

This is the biggest reason companies fail IMO. The way the markets work will not allow a company to just be viable. There has to be growth. At a certain point, growth is gets more difficult. Huge corporations bleed money and when they look at numbers all they care about is that quarterly growth. You then see quality slip as making timelines and not going over budget are more important (in their eyes) than pissing off their customer base. This isn't something that only happens in the gaming industry.

We've reached a turning point with DRM. It is no longer just DRM. It is a marketing tool. Always online games bring with them the easier possibility of microtransactions which EA has said that's what they want to concentrate on. Sim City may not be an MMO right now, but suppose their plan was to release a $20 DLC that made it an MMO style game? In this case, it would make sense to do what they did. I'm not saying that was the plan, but if they were smart, it was. Having an online always game not only helps with piracy (for arguments sake), it also allows for never ending marketing to the end user. Every time you load up that game you are hit with DOWNLOAD THE LATEST NEW HAT! etc etc.

It's brilliant from a business standpoint and is practically a never ending supply of free advertising and potential income. The downside is, at this point, it's thought of as DRM, and if you have majorly stupid snafus like the Sim City launch (and just about every other online only game launch), they risk losing the customer base anyway.

 

[smackababy]

what if I am a unicorn and shit rainbows?

EA's online DRM hasn't improved gaming experience at all. In Simcity's case, it made it worse because it was a disguised DRM that didn't need to be there in order for the game to function.

They haven't built ANYTHING that would've been improved by an online presence and they are habitual liars. This is the only industry where the executives can get away with blatantly lying to the customers without a federal inquiry.

Sure SimCity is a bad example of how to use online functionality is awful. But games exist that prove this model can work. Look at Call of Duty. Nobody bothers pirating it because the multiplayer is what most people enjoy in the game. WoW has free servers that emulate Blizzard's own, but the vast majority of players don't want to go through the hassle (which is probably quite low) to set it up and have an inferior experience.

Am I saying that EA can do this effectively? No. I am just saying the way to "defeat" piracy is there. Companies just have to find ways to harness good game design that uses online functionality.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Sure SimCity is a bad example of how to use online functionality is awful. But games exist that prove this model can work. Look at Call of Duty. Nobody bothers pirating it because the multiplayer is what most people enjoy in the game. WoW has free servers that emulate Blizzard's own, but the vast majority of players don't want to go through the hassle (which is probably quite low) to set it up and have an inferior experience.

Am I saying that EA can do this effectively? No. I am just saying the way to "defeat" piracy is there. Companies just have to find ways to harness good game design that uses online functionality.

In saying that, you've just limited the scope of game types to 2. Online MP shooters and MMO's. Honestly, I wouldn't game in a world where that was my only option.

Forcing MP into single player games only waters down the full experience, because for the most part, companies can't do both and create a good game. They tend to only do one or the other well. There are a few exceptions, but very few.

 

[smackababy]

In saying that, you've just limited the scope of game types to 2. Online MP shooters and MMO's. Honestly, I wouldn't game in a world where that was my only option.

Forcing MP into single player games only waters down the full experience, because for the most part, companies can't do both and create a good game. They tend to only do one or the other well. There are a few exceptions, but very few.

No, they don't have to be MMOs or MP shooters. If you can make a rich single player game that has a fantastic online co-op. I am sure there is some idea where a server can generate the random content in a single player game that can enhancing it immensely. Maybe a game whose online component adapts the AI to strategies of players around the world by collecting and analyzing their gameplay.

Dark Souls / Demon's Souls has moved into the direction that online play can be an integral part of a single player game but isn't quite there yet. Playing online lets you not only have co-op with summons, but also invasions. The message system, where players can be helpful or deceitful, is also a great step in making playing online a better option than playing offline.

 

[Aikouka]

I think that Always Online DRM is really just a mixed bag. The biggest issue for the consumer is typically at launch, because it's not really feasible for the developer to implement a server infrastructure that can handle the launch load. Why? Because after a week or two, that load normally drops off considerably to what they're actually expecting. The post-launch load isn't that easy to gauge either, because you have to guesstimate how many copies you will sell. There's a lot of hate on pre-ordering these days, but honestly... pre-ordering for an online-based game is possibly a helpful thing. The company knows that they need to at least be able to handle the number of pre-orders, but they don't know how many prospective customers have pre-ordered.

I wish they'd stop calling SimCity an MMO because it's not. Hackers already proved definitively that it doesn't need to be online to play it.

I actually wonder if they intended it to have far more online capability than it does, but they ended up realizing that it would have been too difficult or rather too time consuming. It seems like they were pushing toward having a more social-based SimCity, which based on the prevalence of sites like Facebook, that doesn't sound like a terrible idea (given core mechanics are similar).

 

[ImpulsE69]

No, they don't have to be MMOs or MP shooters. If you can make a rich single player game that has a fantastic online co-op. I am sure there is some idea where a server can generate the random content in a single player game that can enhancing it immensely. Maybe a game whose online component adapts the AI to strategies of players around the world by collecting and analyzing their gameplay.

The point is, in setting out making your game revolving around "how can I make this always online game not seem like we're just doing it for DRM" you've severely limited your creativeness. It can help in some cases, hurt in others. Demon Souls really is a good example, because I absolutely HATE the online portion of that game, and don't play as human because of it. Imagine if every game was like that? At what point will you say..why is this in this game, it makes no sense? It works for Demon Souls, but may not work for other things. Again, helps/hurts just depends.

Do you really need co-op in a point and click adventure game? Do you need co-op in every RPG? Do you need to be online to play through a single player campaign of your favorite RTS?

There is a misconception that everyone has/wants an always on internet being masked as forward thinking. It simply isn't true. People like flexibility and options. When you limit their options, you've just cut down the perceived value of the product. Always online games regardless of the reason is an example of this. If I want to play a game on travels on my laptop, who is to tell me I should have internet? Maybe I'm on a plane? Maybe I'm in the middle of nowhere. The point is, if I want to use it somewhere and I can't, I may decide it's not worth spending the money on the product. That is a lost sale, or maybe I just pirated it because then I can play it at my leisure.

Personally as to Sim City? There is no REASON I would want to play it online. That would be an additional function, not a requirement.

All of this is moot though because there is way too much apathy and laziness give it to me now mentality. Most peoples canned responses to any of the above arguments are "Play something else, move, etc etc." Basically, the companies will win in the end because the general masses can't be bothered to think about the big picture.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I see this discussion differently. Its about development cost & profit. This sim city simply doesn't appear to be worth $60 to a large segment of people. EA wants to restrict sharing & scams by controlling the distribution. If the game was lower cost much of this would disappear. Look at FTL its a wonderful game that was made to sell around $10. I doubt they're super concerned about pirates.

 

[smackababy]

The point is, in setting out making your game revolving around "how can I make this always online game not seem like we're just doing it for DRM" you've severely limited your creativeness. It can help in some cases, hurt in others.

Do you really need co-op in a point and click adventure game? Do you need co-op in every RPG? Do you need to be online to play through a single player campaign of your favorite RTS?

There is a misconception that everyone has/wants an always on internet being masked as forward thinking. It simply isn't true. People like flexibility and options. When you limit their options, you've just cut down the perceived value of the product. Always online games regardless of the reason is an example of this. If I want to play a game on travels on my laptop, who is to tell me I should have internet? Maybe I'm on a plane? Maybe I'm in the middle of nowhere. The point is, if I want to use it somewhere and I can't, I may decide it's not worth spending the money on the product. That is a lost sale, or maybe I just pirated it because then I can play it at my leisure.

Personally as to Sim City? There is no REASON I would want to play it online. That would be an additional function, not a requirement.

All of this is moot though because there is way too much apathy and laziness give it to me now mentality. Most peoples canned responses to any of the above arguments are "Play something else, move, etc etc." Basically, the companies will win in the end because the general masses can't be bothered to think about the big picture.

If you have that kind of thinking going in, then yes you will be very limited. However, the internet has only recently becoming widely available and of high enough quality (speed wise) that true integration into the fundamentals of gameplay as we know it. Forcing the option isn't what I am talking about. Evolving the traditional ideas of gaming is.

In the case of SimCity, if it truly used the online requirement and created the environment of interaction between cities and regions similar to real world cities, it wouldn't be DRM. Sure, if you played without a connection, your city wouldn't have access to certain things and couldn't build things or it took longer to achieve some technologies because of your isolationism, people would be upset. However, if the idea that your city was connected to the internet and could spread information and ideas to other parts of the world allowed technology to be shared and goods to be imported / exported, this would be a great thing.

 

[LeviathanPT]

Took them long enough to figure this out..jeez.

 

[mindcycle]

But what if they are not just changing the name? What if they make games that are made to be interactive with others and this is a huge benefit to the game? What if the games core fundamentals require one to be online. Similar to WoW. Playing the game offline would make no sense, as it was designed completely around a multiplayer experience. Sure, the online can be viewed as DRM, but it is much more than that.

This idea also has to be done right. Just adding an online "feature" for the sake of it not being DRM that doesn't actually add a lot to the game won't fool anyone.

Unfortunately, this didn't happen at all with SimCity as it's clear from the offline hack that almost all of the functionality remained intact in "offline mode". So in that respect, and from pretty much every angle you look at it, they were using the always online "feature" as DRM first and foremost. I don't care what the EA dude says, I see no valid reason there couldn't have been an offline mode in the game. IMO, they we're just trying to force that into the game for their own purposes and not to make the game more enjoyable as a whole.

But, yes, if a company can develop a game like SimCity, or any game for that matter, to hugely benefit from being constantly online, I could see that as a valid selling point. So far though, EA has not developed that game.