|
With all of the rants going around about DRM I thought that I'd put my 2 cents in, while trying to resolve the problem instead of complain about it. I know that some publishers like Ubisoft have been under the gun with their online-restricted DRM, and rightfully so. They executed it poorly, but their plan was half right.
I personally feel that DRM will hurt the business overall, but it is a necessary evil. I hate the need for DRM and I wish that everyone would pay for an honest copy of their game, but we all know that this would not happen. Let's not even pretend that humanity is inherently good and honest. If there was a link to, "skip payment and download here", would you keep looking for the "pay here" link? Though it is not this obvious for most software, the openess of the web makes it just about that easy.
I feel that having a fair and balanced DRM will help to qwell the more outspoken trolls and keep most honest buyers happy. Below are a set of guidelines that I feel might bring out a fair DRM system.
1. Don't hijack the customers PC with processes and software dongles. Most of their systems are starved for resourses without the need for yet another background processes.
2. Only require online access during installation, and upon startup of the game. Periodic drops during gameplay should not effect your experience.
3. If online access is not available upon startup, still let them play the game. If online access is available, flag the game as "not genuine" if the the key was invalidated. This could kick the player out immediately, or harass them by disabling the save game option. Of course they should be notified upon startup that they are playing an illegal copy, just in case that 1:1M chance that they have a legal, but corrupt install. You could be evil and siphon "gold/resources/XP" from their inventory every minute that they choose to play their pirate copy. If you can beat the final boss with a level 1 character and no armor, you are welcome to pirate the game.
Alternate 3. If online access is not available
upon startup, still let them play the game, but with a "trialware" type
of feature list.
4. If you have to create a persistent online account, have something that make's it worth using. Sure, global saves are nice, and persistent user settings might be cool too. Ideally have it tie into all aspects of the game and even the company; let a single user account access the forums and store game data and stats and even tie into twitter, facebook, youtube, etc. Make it worth the effort of creating yet ANOTHER online account; like we don't have enough of these already.
In 10 years, everyone will probably have 9G wireless broadband hotspots emitting from
their front pockets, and the argument of not having an internet
connection is dwindling. I wish the old standby of "Enter CD Key Here:" was enough, but it is too easy a fix to hack around these local-only serial key checkers. It's obvious that server side validation is going to become a growing solution. My only request is that it not be a ball and chain to my experience.
|
I appreciate why DRM is considered important. I don't like piracy, and I never pirate anything. Anything that could stop a given product being pirated is (in theory) a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
However, regardless of the authentication method (cd keys vs. online authentication) there remains the simple fact that that DRM has never prevented a product ending up on the Pirate Bay (and it's ilk). As such, all you can really use DRM for is to prevent casual piracy.
It's not difficult to go to websites such as Game Copy World and procure a no-dvd crack for games. It's just as easy to get a fixed .exe that cuts out the online authentication, too. Therefore, what's wrong with the humble DVD-key / disc check, since both are easily worked around for the individual that's determined to do so?
I also generally have a problem with relying on data being available on the Internet for future-proofing reasons. If the authentication servers are ever taken down, companies tend to state they'd release a patch that removes this protection feature. However, you then have to rely on the patch being continually available on file servers, which is just as bad. Disc checks and CD-keys work and are largely future-proof (Secure-ROM's foibles notwithstanding). Why go to the time and expense for anything else when it'll make no difference?
Of course, I'm not really an expert on these matters, so feel free to correct my ignorance.
http://forums.xbox.com/31614918/ShowPost.aspx
As far as my 2 cents is concerned, I really dislike DRM and avoid it as much as possible. I especially dislike any online checks on my single player games as I'm usually playing those when I go on trips or am otherwise away from a reliable connection. I'm willing to reluctantly submit to an online activation (like Steam), but any additional online checks after that are a deal breaker. I should point out that I am somewhat sympathetic to DRM releases to secure the first couple months of sales as long as a DRM light version is released afterwards.
In years of following this topic, I've never once seen anybody make a reasonable counter to this statement. I'm not sure if I've even seen anyone try: they just pretend it was never posted. Until people start trying to counter that point or bring up other considerations, I would say that we already know what the right solution to DRM is, and any discussion except the fine points of implementation is just skirting around the point.
I'm not the first to have said so, but Steam is really the gold standard in that it's a DRM solution that most people are already willing to accept. Sure, there are some hassles involved, but you're given features that add value to the product in compensation: steam cloud, user community, no need for CDs, install on multiple machines, easy access to game servers, updates, and community, etc. Steam does a good job of making products "better than free" with added immediacy, convenience, community, and on occasion additional free content!
Of course, if the unacknowledged true purpose of DRM is to circumvent resale (as I believe) then you have a much harder time convincing society of the need for DRM. Which is why they keep dressing it up as anti-piracy when all evidence shows it fails epically at that task.
And lastly it drives paying customers like me away from the products. Never going to buy a scam like Ubisoft's DRM. Likewise for C&C.
But aside from that, the idea of the article isn't horrible. As long as offline gamers
(military, travel, rural america) can play the games they paid for, without malware/spyware being installed secretly and without notification on the box, then I can live with it.
A shame that Ubisoft, 2K, and some divisions of EA, are still so gullible that they swallow whatever the DRM vendors pour down their throats.
Unfortunately if that's the truth of the matter then Bioware is already onto what is more likely to be a better solution. Their Cerberus network is currently filled with free goodies, and only seems to be getting more and more chockers. Not to mention any paid for DLC they release on top of the Cerberus cost (if not bought originally), means that on many resales they're likely to make a buck or two.
This stuff is completely optional, places a small burden on the player (DLC download), and is unobtrusive. Much more effective than DRM is at dealing with resale.
The Ideal Copy Protection or The DRM That Works
http://emsai.net/journal/?post=Rescator20100220030119
I'd also like to point out that people should not confuse DRM with Copy Protection,
copy protection is supposed to prevent people copying, but we all see how well that is working out.
DRM controls how you use your legit copy, as the pirates do not have to deal with the DRM at all.
Which is why the things in my proposal is so vital, and why I applaud what BioWare is doing with the Cerberus Network.
Value Added is the only way to discourage piracy and instead encourage brand and product loyalty and attract more customers and keep existing customers involved and active.
The thing with piracy is that there is no harm done. There is a very high chance that the people that pirate your game would never have bought the game. A perfect DRM will not bring in more sales.
The real problem are services, such as tech support or online servers. These cost money to operate and if non paying users use them a real harm is done. But in those cases you can implement the "DRM" by validating user accounts or product key against a white list or black list and deny access. This is absolutely no pain to the user.
Haling Problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
"[Value Added] means that the value of a legit copy should outweigh that of a non-legit copy so much so, that a pirate would seriously consider buying it"
I've been wondering lately if bringing the old concept of "shareware" style business models in the same vien as Doom or Quake would have an impact on piracy. If I, as the consumer, have already downloaded, played and enjoyed a good chunk of the full game (i.e. significantly more than a demo) then I'm in the position of being grateful for the freebie and I've "bought-in" to the game as a whole. Therefore, I'm much more likely to buy the full-priced game to get the rest of the content as I'm likely to feel well-treated by the publisher/developer.
Add in a really easy, fast download mechanism (should help draw in "curious" gamers) and this could be a great way to play on the "try before buying" and convienience mentality that drives some would-be pirates.
Granted, it's not exactly Value Added per se, but it runs on the same principle of treating the consumer to gain a sale rather than punishing them with DRM.
I buy games as entertainment, that means I expect to be entertained. I'm too old and too grumpy to bother with faffing around like I did in the 1980s with getting things to just start up. I do not want to have a need to get someone's blessing to start my own copy of the game up, and I especially do not want to end up being told I can't start my own games because my internet is down at that time, their internet is down, they're being DDoSed, or they've just said "you know what, fuck it, we're not going to keep supporting that 'old game' anymore" (cue EA's definition of "old games" as anything older than a few months).
I'd bought 50-100 games during 2007 and first half 2008, and probably similar numbers in the years prior to that (although I can't be arsed to go check), but that plummeted the instant games such as Spore came out. Why? Because all of a sudden, I feel I'm treated more like a criminal than I would've if I were to pirate the same game. I am *very* good at making sure I only buy games where they haven't put DRM (or even overly strenuous copy protection, but that's less of a problem as systems such as starforce aren't as common anymore), and I think I've bought less than 5 games over the last 2 years. That means I've moved back to a medium which provides a lot more value for money, hour-wise. I.e. books.
Congratulations, games publishers. You're losing sales by reducing the values of your games by reducing the entertainment value of said game and increasing the frustration levels, in addition to piracy. That's definitely the way to go.
I agree with Andy Ross regarding added value. I think services like Steam are closer to the answer -- they often add so much value to a game it's hard to play otherwise if you're genuinely interested in the game. I've also noticed developers adding a lot of free fixes and content to games (Borderlands is a great example), which a pirate will miss out on as they can't download updates without invalidating their install.
Also, in this respect consoles have proven a good solution. The PS3 is a tough nut to crack, let's face it.
Steam comes with so many extras that, unless you're using it for one sole single-player game, benefits out-weight the DRM cost.
I'll make a short list of what I remember (and enjoy), please feel free to correct/complete me: Non-intrusive offline play, automated updates, cloud based save games, cheaper game prices (Torchlight is 75% off this weekend), light weight and easy to use game manager software, simple backups, ability to download games on any machines you own, achievements, friends and social communities...
Any many of these capabilities are easily accessible to developers though their API.
(It felt like a sales pitch, but I'm that enthusiastic about their service).