Has digital distribution renders the bulk of DRM naysayer's arguments moot?

[Sho'Nuff]

Well, has it?

The primary argument I hear from most people who hate DRM in any form is that the end user has the right to make fair use copies of their software, e.g., backup copies.

With the advent of Digital Distribution, it would seem that much of that argument is now moot. Steam, for example, allows the purchasers of products distributed over the steam platform to be re-downloaded at no charge. Hence, it would seem that no personal backup copy is required or necessary.

Having removed the primary argument against DRM, the remaining arguments appear purely idealogical. E.g., "I own [X}, therefore I should be able to do anything I want with [X]." Disregarding the fact that most EULA's expressly limit the scope of the license issued to the end user, what else could a legitimate user want to do with software, other than use it? Am I missing something? Are there people out there printing source code and using it as toilet paper (I would buy that TP if it were available, BTW)?

Not that I a DRM advocate. But seeing as how society is demonstrably not capable of policing itself, I can understand why a publisher sees the need to protect its intellectual property.

 

[Terzo]

I get a different impression of primary arguments from my browsing here. The two things that come to mind are
1. DRM punishes the customer, where as a pirated copy will often evade the DRM restrictions(especially with Ubisoft's recent online verification going down)
2. Especially in the case of digital distribution, the customer's (Fair Use? I don't remember the term) right to resell the software is taken away. I should note the recent thread about Impulse and GOO though, which would allow second hand sales of digitally distributed games.

 

[KaOTiK]

You didn't touch on the most hated forms of DRM so far. Activation limits, requires an internet connection at all times, root kits, and DRM software that can mess up your computer or wont let you play a game you bought cause of other software you have on your PC. Oh, and lets not forget, resell rights.

 

[sgaliger]

Sure. The bigger problem with piracy or "sharing" or whatever they are calling it these days is that for PC gamers in general, they are shooting themselves in the foot. What are the current so-far un-cracked platforms. Xbox 360 and PS3. Especially with XB live and the PSN, their DRM is air-tight. Consequently, developers are putting their money into those platforms and leaving the PC platform behind. Just about every "big" release in the last 2-3 years has been a port, and sales-wise, the consoles leave the PC market in the dust. It really cracks me up to see all these big arguments about whether Fermi or ATI is better, when the fact of the matter is, no games are coming that will even come close to their capabilities, and none are likely to come because the PC market doesn't justify the stand-alone development budget required to make use of the hardware.

Flame me if you want, but our intrepid "file sharers" are destroying the PC as a unique and better platform. So I happily support DRM since it is the only thing that will enable the PC games to be anything other than slightly gussied-up ports of console games with 4 yr old technology.

 

[mindcycle]

The primary argument I hear from most people who hate DRM in any form is that the end use has the right to make fair use copies of their software, e.g., backup copies.

DRM is discussed here quite frequently and this isn't the primary argument by a long shot. It's not even a close second.

1. DRM punishes the customer, where as a pirated copy will often evade the DRM restrictions(especially with Ubisoft's recent online verification going down)
2. Especially in the case of digital distribution, the customer's (Fair Use? I don't remember the term) right to resell the software is taken away. I should note the recent thread about Impulse and GOO though, which would allow second hand sales of digitally distributed games.

Terzo pretty much sums up what I was going to say. My main argument against DRM is that it only affects legit customers. Publishers should be providing customers with greater incentives to purchase games, not additional roadblocks.

Solutions like Steam DO offer some pretty great incentives like patches, a user community, the ability to easily download your games, no discs, etc.. They have yet to address first sale rights though. However, I just recently posted a thread about StarDock's new DD solution, Reactor, which allows users the ability to resell DD content. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2058916 It could potentially offer the best of both worlds.

 

[coloumb]

Man..we need a DRM sticky.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

I recently ran out of GFWL activations for DoW2 and now I have to call and bitch so I can get a new key (and if I run out of activations again I'm SOL?), so I am going to say no.

I don't mind steam DRM though.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Sure. The bigger problem with piracy or "sharing" or whatever they are calling it these days is that for PC gamers in general, they are shooting themselves in the foot. What are the current so-far un-cracked platforms. Xbox 360 and PS3. Especially with XB live and the PSN, their DRM is air-tight. Consequently, developers are putting their money into those platforms and leaving the PC platform behind. Just about every "big" release in the last 2-3 years has been a port, and sales-wise, the consoles leave the PC market in the dust. It really cracks me up to see all these big arguments about whether Fermi or ATI is better, when the fact of the matter is, no games are coming that will even come close to their capabilities, and none are likely to come because the PC market doesn't justify the stand-alone development budget required to make use of the hardware.

Flame me if you want, but our intrepid "file sharers" are destroying the PC as a unique and better platform. So I happily support DRM since it is the only thing that will enable the PC games to be anything other than slightly gussied-up ports of console games with 4 yr old technology.

According to this article:
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/62729

The world-wide gaming market, including consoles, for 2009 was estimated at $57 billion. PC gaming revenue in 2009 was $13.1 billion, or 23%. Seems like a sizable chunk.

 

[KaOTiK]

Sure. The bigger problem with piracy or "sharing" or whatever they are calling it these days is that for PC gamers in general, they are shooting themselves in the foot. What are the current so-far un-cracked platforms. Xbox 360 and PS3. Especially with XB live and the PSN, their DRM is air-tight. Consequently, developers are putting their money into those platforms and leaving the PC platform behind. Just about every "big" release in the last 2-3 years has been a port, and sales-wise, the consoles leave the PC market in the dust.

This made me laugh, The 360 has a pretty bad piracy problem and is the furthest thing from air tight for DRM, the only console that is pirate free is the PS3.

As for developing on the console first now, sure piracy has a part to due with it but some other large influential reasons are publishers can charge more on the console then the PC and console game sales have becoming very large as gaming has become more main stream. The average joe is an idiot and wouldn't be able to tell you what the specs of their PC is outside of uhh it plays youtube videos great.

Yes, console games are selling better then PC games by far and large, but hell can you blame PC gamers for not buying half the shitty ports that are shoveled out nowadays?

Gaming in the PC realm simply isn't as easy as stick a disc in and play and because of that the average idiot goes to the console side of things. Lets face it, to game on a PC you need at the very least minimal tech knowledge and no needing someone to hold your hand the entire time and that turns away a lot of people.

 

[lupi]

You haven't read many of the threads about steam/impulse have you.

 

[paperfist]

Sure. The bigger problem with piracy or "sharing" or whatever they are calling it these days is that for PC gamers in general, they are shooting themselves in the foot. What are the current so-far un-cracked platforms. Xbox 360 and PS3. Especially with XB live and the PSN, their DRM is air-tight. Consequently, developers are putting their money into those platforms and leaving the PC platform behind. Just about every "big" release in the last 2-3 years has been a port, and sales-wise, the consoles leave the PC market in the dust. It really cracks me up to see all these big arguments about whether Fermi or ATI is better, when the fact of the matter is, no games are coming that will even come close to their capabilities, and none are likely to come because the PC market doesn't justify the stand-alone development budget required to make use of the hardware.

Flame me if you want, but our intrepid "file sharers" are destroying the PC as a unique and better platform. So I happily support DRM since it is the only thing that will enable the PC games to be anything other than slightly gussied-up ports of console games with 4 yr old technology.

I'm not intending to insult console players but do devs really 'put' their money into consoles? The games I've played on the console are pretty limited in their development, if anything devs are putting their money into advertisement. So if you're a dev out to make money it only makes sense to port the PC were your return will be the greatest. No advertising, no licensing, no specialized PC options/gameplay/etc.

 

[mmntech]

Well, has it?

The primary argument I hear from most people who hate DRM in any form is that the end use has the right to make fair use copies of their software, e.g., backup copies.

With the advent of Digital Distribution, it would seem that much of that argument is now moot. Steam, for example, allows the purchasers of products distributed over the steam platform to be re-downloaded at no charge. Hence, it would seem that no personal backup copy is required or necessary.

That may have held true a couple years ago but things have changed since then. The major sticking point today is the install limits and need for constant internet connection to monitor you. We all know what hard drives crash and internet goes down. There are also privacy issues. It really boils down to poor treatment of paying customers.

It's worth noting that Steam does let you make hard copy backups of games. There's even an option in the Steam client that allows you to do it.

 

[CountZero]

Sure. The bigger problem with piracy or "sharing" or whatever they are calling it these days is that for PC gamers in general, they are shooting themselves in the foot. What are the current so-far un-cracked platforms. Xbox 360 and PS3. Especially with XB live and the PSN, their DRM is air-tight. Consequently, developers are putting their money into those platforms and leaving the PC platform behind. Just about every "big" release in the last 2-3 years has been a port, and sales-wise, the consoles leave the PC market in the dust. It really cracks me up to see all these big arguments about whether Fermi or ATI is better, when the fact of the matter is, no games are coming that will even come close to their capabilities, and none are likely to come because the PC market doesn't justify the stand-alone development budget required to make use of the hardware.

Flame me if you want, but our intrepid "file sharers" are destroying the PC as a unique and better platform. So I happily support DRM since it is the only thing that will enable the PC games to be anything other than slightly gussied-up ports of console games with 4 yr old technology.

Pirates are or were rarely going to be customers and customers are not pirates. The problem with the DRM that people complain about is that it treats the customers like pirates and the pirates get the first class treatment of a customer. Its a lose-lose for pc gamers. Buy the game and they assume everyone is ok with the DRM, don't buy and the lost sales are blamed on piracy or general PC platform low sales.

Companies aren't rushing to consoles because of piracy its because more people buy games on consoles. And the issue is a positive feedback loop. As more and more PC games become DRM laden console ports more people move to consoles and the impetus to even port a game to the PC just isn't there. The problem isn't piracy its just numbers, if you'll sell 1 million copies on consoles and 100k on PC you have to seriously consider the effort of porting a game over at all let alone going PC exclusive. That doesn't even include the much longer high price tail console games have compared to PC games.

As for rendering the DRM naysayer's arguments moot it only applies to those that complain about making copies which is not the issue most people state. The story with DRM is that it can be completely acceptable if the pros outweigh the cons. Steam is an example where a large number of people believe the pros outweigh the cons. UBIs DRM is an example where a large number of people did not believe the pros outweighed the cons. The arguments against DRM vary person to person.

 

[Lonyo]

That may have held true a couple years ago but things have changed since then. The major sticking point today is the install limits and need for constant internet connection to monitor you. We all know what hard drives crash and internet goes down. There are also privacy issues. It really boils down to poor treatment of paying customers.

It's worth noting that Steam does let you make hard copy backups of games. There's even an option in the Steam client that allows you to do it.

It doesn't allow you to play them without connecting to the internet first.
Equally most games allow you to create a digital copy on your hard drive. It's called installing the game. Many newer games certainly don't require the disc in the drive, or if they do, it's only for "DRM" purposes (disc check).
When I "reinstalled" my EA games after an OS upgrade (they were on their own partition), the reinstall consisted of re-entering the key. Nothing else. Didn't touch the physical disc. I just clicked the .exe in the install folder on my hard drive and the game ran. That's about as much of a backup as copying the disc. I could even burn all those files to a disc or two and have a backup copy of my game available to me.

 

[McWatt]

According to this article:
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/62729

The world-wide gaming market, including consoles, for 2009 was estimated at $57 billion. PC gaming revenue in 2009 was $13.1 billion, or 23%. Seems like a sizable chunk.

As discussed in a thread last week (http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2057476&highlight=), the gaming industry shrunk as a whole in 2009 but the PC gaming industry grew by 19%, an outrageous pace. PC gaming is a huge chunk of the industry and it's growing faster than any other segment.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

I get a different impression of primary arguments from my browsing here. The two things that come to mind are
1. DRM punishes the customer, where as a pirated copy will often evade the DRM restrictions(especially with Ubisoft's recent online verification going down)
2. Especially in the case of digital distribution, the customer's (Fair Use? I don't remember the term) right to resell the software is taken away. I should note the recent thread about Impulse and GOO though, which would allow second hand sales of digitally distributed games.

A thousand times this. Some DRM is not just an annoyance to legitimate customers, but an essential consumer rights violation. I believe you're referring to first sale doctrine.

 

[brxndxn]

DRM can still fuck up your experience on Steam. I purchased X3: Terran Conflict on a Friday night when I finally had a weekend set aside to pretty much just veg out and play computer games. Tages DRM servers were down.. for the entire fucking weekend. It did not allow me to play the game. Tech support refused a refund. I am still bitter about it.

 

[KeithP]

Well, has it?

The primary argument I hear from most people who hate DRM in any form is that the end use has the right to make fair use copies of their software, e.g., backup copies.

With the advent of Digital Distribution, it would seem that much of that argument is now moot. Steam, for example, allows the purchasers of products distributed over the steam platform to be re-downloaded at no charge. Hence, it would seem that no personal backup copy is required or necessary.

Actually, that is not the primary argument. Can you post a link to any DRM thread here on AT where the primary complaint was that people couldn't back up their media?

The purpose of DRM is to reduce piracy according to the manufacturers. However, evidence shows that it simply doesn't do that. Meanwhile, end users have to suffer with additional software that is put on their systems, sometimes without their knowledge or permission, that reduces the stability of their computers and hurts performance.

I can only assume you picked your "primary argument" because you thought you had an idea that refutes it and wanted to start a troll thread on a hot button topic.

-KeithP

 

[shingletingle]

This made me laugh, The 360 has a pretty bad piracy problem and is the furthest thing from air tight for DRM, the only console that is pirate free is the PS3.

As for developing on the console first now, sure piracy has a part to due with it but some other large influential reasons are publishers can charge more on the console then the PC and console game sales have becoming very large as gaming has become more main stream. The average joe is an idiot and wouldn't be able to tell you what the specs of their PC is outside of uhh it plays youtube videos great.

Yes, console games are selling better then PC games by far and large, but hell can you blame PC gamers for not buying half the shitty ports that are shoveled out nowadays?

Gaming in the PC realm simply isn't as easy as stick a disc in and play and because of that the average idiot goes to the console side of things. Lets face it, to game on a PC you need at the very least minimal tech knowledge and no needing someone to hold your hand the entire time and that turns away a lot of people.

Calling people an "idiot" because they aren't familiar with computer parts or terminology is idiotic in itself. Why does that make them an "idiot"? Do they have to have the same hobby as you? Do you know anything about car parts or putting together a car? How about a space shuttle? Do you know how to build or maintain one of those? Are you an idiot if you don't? And yes, I am perfectly able to build and take care of my own computers.

 

[Genx87]

In the right system I say yes it has. Steam for example is a nice balance of DRM and useability. I refuse to buy any game now that isnt available on Steam.

 

[KaOTiK]

Calling people an "idiot" because they aren't familiar with computer parts or terminology is idiotic in itself. Why does that make them an "idiot"? Do they have to have the same hobby as you? Do you know anything about car parts or putting together a car? How about a space shuttle? Do you know how to build or maintain one of those? Are you an idiot if you don't? And yes, I am perfectly able to build and take care of my own computers.

No, I am saying the average person in general isn't very intelligent and when it comes to the field of computer hardware even intelligent people become fools. It doesn't take a PHD to figure out that hey this cable can only be plug in one way to this one object. Places like Geek Squad and the like exist because of these people that can't put the square peg through the square hole.

 

[smackababy]

No, I am saying the average person in general isn't very intelligent and when it comes to the field of computer hardware even intelligent people become fools. It doesn't take a PHD to figure out that hey this cable can only be plug in one way to this one object. Places like Geek Squad and the like exist because of these people that can't put the square peg through the square hole.

That may be a little far fetched due to people generally being afraid of "new" technology. They have this fear of learning to use a new system, thus remain ignorant on such matters. I wouldn't call them idiots (well tbh I would, but I'm an ass), but they sure aren't putting together any space shuttles. I highly doubt those working at NASA couldn't put together a PC.

 

[MStele]

This is where I see the difference. Digital distribution implies a network tether. Standalone distribution implies autonomy. I don't mind DRM as long as it suits that distribution system. In other words, don't sell me a boxed game and then treat it as if its digital distribution, where a network tether is required to use the software.

If you go to the movie theater, there is no expectation that they will allow you to take a copy of the movie home to watch on your own and without permission, however if you buy a dvd there is an expectation that usage won't require a phone call to the production company in order to get permission to use the disc in your player. Games, movies and music all fall under the same legal guidelines for copyright, and thus should be treated equivilent in distribution practices. Far more cds and dvds are copied than games, yet I don't see them requiring network connections to watch movies or listening to music

The funny thing, is that many people who are pro DRM are the same people would be absolutely pissed if their DVD or Blu-ray player REQUIRED a internet connection in order to watch a movie they just purchased at the store. Gamers simply want the same level of autonomy that other mediums share in regards to standalone distribution. This one foot in one foot out BS pisses me off. If games are going to require internet connections for operation, then take them out of the stores and be done with it. Hell, they might even save some money from not having produce a physical product.

 

[TheJTrain]

This is where I see the difference. Digital distribution implies a network tether. Standalone distribution implies autonomy. I don't mind DRM as long as it suits that distribution system. In other words, don't sell me a boxed game and then treat it as if its digital distribution, where a network tether is required to use the software.

If you go to the movie theater, there is no expectation that they will allow you to take a copy of the movie home to watch on your own and without permission, however if you buy a dvd there is an expectation that usage won't require a phone call to the production company in order to get permission to use the disc in your player. Games, movies and music all fall under the same legal guidelines for copyright, and thus should be treated equivilent in distribution practices. Far more cds and dvds are copied than games, yet I don't see them requiring network connections to watch movies or listening to music

The funny thing, is that many people who are pro DRM are the same people would be absolutely pissed if their DVD or Blu-ray player REQUIRED a internet connection in order to watch a movie they just purchased at the store. Gamers simply want the same level of autonomy that other mediums share in regards to standalone distribution. This one foot in one foot out BS pisses me off. If games are going to require internet connections for operation, then take them out of the stores and be done with it. Hell, they might even save some money from not having produce a physical product.

This, this, a thousand times this! Very elegant way of describing what I've been flailing around at saying for years.

I've said before that I don't know anyone who rants about online DRM on a 100% digitally-delivered product and that includes First Sale Doctrine curmudgeons like me. The rants come in on the physical hardcopy off-the-shelf sales. What they CAN'T do (so says the most recent court decisions on the topic) is take what is obviously a SALE of a physical product and then attach unreasonable restrictions on the use of the copyrighted material stored on that product, calling it "licensing". If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, no matter what the EULA says.