DRM and Piracy: The Vicious Circle

[SnareSpectre]

Purplerat, don't worry - I didn't take it personally. But I disagree with your absolute statements; the point of my post was to tell you that I did in fact buy that game because I liked it. Sure I get the addition of the multiplayer, but I already played the pirated copy with a friend on a Hamachi network, and will probably continue to do that anyway and not bother too much with the actual multiplayer.

My big thing is this, although I know a ton of people disagree: with piracy not being an option, I would pay for the same amount of games I pay for now, if not less. If I did not have access to torrent sites, I would look at new games and wish I could play them, but still not buy them until the prices went down. I would instead play games I already own. I saw Rob post earlier that without piracy, pirates would essentially "need their fix" of games so they would pay for them anyway, but that is not the case in my situation. Heck, God of War was my favorite PS2 game and I so desperately wanted God of War 2 when it came out, but I waited OVER A YEAR to purchase it for $20 because I didn't want to pay the $50 price tag. And no, I don't have a chipped PS2, so I couldn't pirate it for that.

My point is, there's a difference from pirate to pirate. I bought Titan Quest because I WOULD have otherwise bought it, with the knowledge that it was as good as I think it is. And purplerat, as a business major I don't believe it's solely the company's responsibility to make users pay for games (or for any product), but rather the company's obligation to create good customers relationships that profit both supplier and consumer in the long run. That does include making good games that customers enjoy, i.e. Blizzard. One can buy one of their games knowing it will be well worth the money. The customer is certainly not always right, but the business that acts like they are trumps the business that does not in the long run, and makes a heck of a lot more profit.

 

[purplerat]

Consoles are DRM machines but that has nothing to do with not playing each other's games. They simply require the disk to be in the drive and often the disks are designed in such a way that standard CD burning programs cannot duplicate it easily. That is all the DRM that is involved with them.

My point is DRM is not just one thing. It's an entire theory, idea or whatever you want to call it. And no you can not play a friends Playstation game without them reliquishing ownership of it for at least some time. That's completely different from making copies. And the DRM of consoles goes beyond just not being able to copy games. The fact that you cannot play a console game without buying a specific pieced of hardware from the sole company that owns the rights to that hardware is definitly DRM. Why do you think these companies are willing to sell their systems at such a loss? Because doing so sets up a very lucrative content management system where they have enormous control.

As far as not being responsilbe for supporting companies, I specifically said COMPANIES. There's a difference between a for profit corporation and a charity. These companies are in business to make money, plain and simple. It's really not the customers job to do that for them.
Asking pirates to stop downloading games is laughable. So why then is there such offense to developers making their games less piratable. Certainaly some methods are objectable, but others really work both for the consumers and for the sellers. What we need to do with this conversation is get past the idea that DRM is this horrible entity which will destroy all man kind. Some people really talk about DRM as if it's some sort of human rights offense. What we need to be discussing is what works and what doesn't. Game companies know this and that's why they are shifting more and more to these successful forms of DRM like consoles, MMOs and digital distribution.

 

[razor512]

This has to be the most upsetting and frustrating argument for me to read/hear in piracy discussions. The old "make a good game and people will buy because only crappy/average games get pirated."

Yeah, sure. Absolutely. Grant Theft Auto 4 sucked. And my goodness, Call of Duty 4 was just terrible. Totally not worth the $60 price tag. I mean, they must be bad games that aren't worth the money, because those two titles all are over the torrents.

Halo 3 was a good game, but would you spend $1000 for it?

good doesn't equate to priceless and that anything can be charged.

a Honda civic is a good car, but would you spend a million dollars for it?

while there are many good games, the public may not deem them worthy for a $60 price tag

everything has a price, but gaming seems to have taken a standard to the 50-60 dollar pricing no matter how bad the game is

also on any system popular games that are deemed good by the public sell more than crappy games deemed crappy by the public, it all has to do with the target market

there will always be a portion of the target market who will pirate the game no matter what, the companies goal should be to keep that number from increasing


look in other countries where the governments are corrupt and rich company owners cause the people to suffer. in those countries, there has always been a portion of people who stole what they wanted but if you watched the news, you will see that that rate has gone up hundreds of times over due to the price of rice and other main foods going up 10-20 times higher than normal

those people wouldn't normally steal but the market pushed them to steal

while i know theres a difference between food and games, it still fall in the category everything has a price, would you want 3 people to buy your game at $60 or would you want 300 people to buy your game at $20

the production cost of the games are less than a dollar and software has 0 mass production cost



same thing happens in second life, (in SL 297 lindens = 1 US dollar users are allowed to create their own items in the game and write their own code for those objects

some users make items like avatars, and weapons. in SL theres 0 production cost as it is all digital and user accounts are free

but here is a common thing that happens, SL has it's own piracy, but not like the real life ones, you have groups of skilled programmers join, they then buy 1 overpriced item, then build their own to look just like it, then write their own code to make it work the exact same way. but instead of charging l$4000-5000 linden for the items like some jerks usually do, the clone item the other programmer did will sell for l$100-200

and those sellers will generally make hundreds of dollars a month from selling them, eventually they will get reported and linden labs will ban their accounts for stealing IP but thats not before those people make a few thousand dollars (the original makers of the items barely make $200 from their items)

 

[infornography42]

Game companies know this and that's why they are shifting more and more to these successful forms of DRM like consoles, MMOs and digital distribution.

Except for EA who is just shifty.

I see very little difference between a pirate buying a game that they tried first and someone buying a book of webcomics. In both cases the consumer had already consumed the product and they were merely paying for a physical copy for the purpose of encouraging the maker of said content to make more like that. I fail to see why you can't understand this concept. Hell based on how you are acting paying for games at all should be foolish and stupid because downloading a pirated copy gives you more power over the content and costs nothing.

 

[infornography42]

I do think Video games would make more money at a cheaper price point, but the argument that games are not worth the price is just absurd. The market responds quickly to set the price to where it is reasonable. Within 1 year of release a game will be anywhere from $5 to $55 depending on how popular it is. Hell I remember seeing Daikatana in discount bins 2 for $5 within 6 months of release.

If you think the game isn't worth the price, then wait. If the price does not drop quickly then maybe you were wrong about how much the game was worth and should give it a shot.

 

[purplerat]

And purplerat, as a business major I don't believe it's solely the company's responsibility to make users pay for games (or for any product), but rather the company's obligation to create good customers relationships that profit both supplier and consumer in the long run. That does include making good games that customers enjoy

I didn't mean that their only responsability is to make people pay, I meant that the burden to get people to actually pay for their products is solely on them. Of course they also need to make a desirable product and good customer service if they want to be successful. I'm not saying piracy is right, but there is no reasonable expectation that they will stop unless forced to do so.

Now I've heard you justification for piracy many times before and it just doesn't work. On an individual level, game by game, what games you buy or don't really makes no difference to the companies you think you are supporting. In your entire lifetime the difference between whether you paid for all of your games or not is insignificant to a muti-billion dollar. industry. So on that level the idea that buying a game supports the developer is kind of a mute point.
But on a large scale level your system is devastating to the gaming industry. If everybody did what you do even the largest companies would all fold. That's because no industry can rely on 100% customer satisfaction to succeed. Every product ever made was sold with the expectation that some % of consumers would buy it but just not be happy with it. 100% satisfaction is impossible and trying to achieve it will always end in failure. But that is what your system expects, 100% customer satisfaction. Nobody would ever buy a game that isn't exactly what they want AND at the price that they want to pay. Even assuming that everytime somebody was 100% happy with both the game and the price that system is still doomed to fail. Then factor in the normal corruption of people who may very well love a game and feel it's worth the price but still not pay just because they don't have to. You can come up with whatever justification you want but it just doesn't work.

 

[razor512]

I do think Video games would make more money at a cheaper price point, but the argument that games are not worth the price is just absurd. The market responds quickly to set the price to where it is reasonable. Within 1 year of release a game will be anywhere from $5 to $55 depending on how popular it is. Hell I remember seeing Daikatana in discount bins 2 for $5 within 6 months of release.

If you think the game isn't worth the price, then wait. If the price does not drop quickly then maybe you were wrong about how much the game was worth and should give it a shot.

I don't think the breaks are worth how much toyota charges but does that mean I should drive a few month with out them and hope the price goes down?

the problem is that many people think games shouldn't cost that much in the first place

based on your pricing method that you posted, all items, food, water, electricity, etc should cost a trillion dollars per unit, then gradually lower the price over a few months because if people find the price too high, they can just wait a few months


the problem with many games is that people don't want to wait, or cant wait.

if theres a good multiplayer game out, not worth $60 but still good if you don't get into it early then you will never enjoy the game as it will just become frustrating, it will be like when you get into a MMO late

many of the people are level 75 while you and a group of people are level 20-30 and you cant seem to level any higher because the second you step out of a safe zone, a level 75 does a high powered AOE magic attack that instantly kills you

or you get level 75's with invisibility powers, then they will follow your group to a area where you can do level grinding and after spending 10 minutes running there, the level 75 jerk does a AOE and kills you what sucks more is you each time you die, you loose all your items and it takes 5 minutes before you are able to use any powers again

based on what I describes, i'm sure many people know which game I am talking about, it starts with a S.

at that point the game is more of a frustration than a enjoyment

so you can wait but the quality will go down, especially with many games especially for consoles pushing users more and more towards multiplayer gaming

this is a extreme example but it happens with all multiplayer games

this pushes users to pirate along with the drm and the overpricing

 

[robwright]

Razor, please don't take the following comments personally. I just feel that your views on the subject matter are diametrically opposed to mine and pretty much represented everything that drives me crazy about the position of defending/qualifying piracy.

Halo 3 was a good game, but would you spend $1000 for it?

good doesn't equate to priceless and that anything can be charged.

a Honda civic is a good car, but would you spend a million dollars for it?

while there are many good games, the public may not deem them worthy for a $60 price tag

everything has a price, but gaming seems to have taken a standard to the 50-60 dollar pricing no matter how bad the game is

Um, Halo 3 wasn't $1,000. I'm not sure what you're trying to point out here.

If the public doesn't think a game is worthy of purchase, then I humbly suggest that it's probably not worth playing either. So don't pirate it. Also, to your point about the standard price tag, in the U.S. top selling games do stay at the $50-60 price tag in retail for longer than most games (i.e., Halo 3 is still around 55-60 almost a year after release), but you can still get other, older games, especially for the PC, that are at the $19.99 price tag. So my advice is, be patient on new titles and look for older gems that you might of missed.

look in other countries where the governments are corrupt and rich company owners cause the people to suffer. in those countries, there has always been a portion of people who stole what they wanted but if you watched the news, you will see that that rate has gone up hundreds of times over due to the price of rice and other main foods going up 10-20 times higher than normal

those people wouldn't normally steal but the market pushed them to steal

No matter how many times I read or hear this type of statement, I am still utterly flabbergasted and wonder how we as a culture have come to portray software pirates as modern-day Robin Hoods that are somehow battling an evil corporate entity. Guys, games are not a necessity. They are not food, water or shelter. I know that's an obvious statement, but my goodness, can we please stop with these analogies? It's reality check time.

while i know theres a difference between food and games, it still fall in the category everything has a price, would you want 3 people to buy your game at $60 or would you want 300 people to buy your game at $20

the production cost of the games are less than a dollar and software has 0 mass production cost

I'm confused. Do you think games are cheap to make? Most major releases, whether they're packaged in a physical disc or sold electronically (or both), cost tens of millions of dollars to make. Big titles can cost as much as $50 or $60 million. So if a game sells a million copies at $50-60, that's great, right? Wrong. Even a platinum hit doesn't make all that much profit. For a lot of developers, every sale counts. I've read a lot of comments about Crytek's Cevat Yerli when he said Crytek would move away from PC exclusives because of piracy. Some people fumed because they felt he was being greedy -- after all, Crysis sold over a million copies, so what's the big deal if a few hundred thousand pirates copies are floating around in the Web? Well, with today's game budgets, some titles need to sell a million copies just to try to break even. That's the reality of the business.

Razor's comments aside....

Just once, just one time, I want someone to write a unaplogetic defense of piracy with no claim to moral high ground, no government corruption analogies, no woe-as-me personal economics, no piracy-isn't-stealing ethos, no DRM-forced-me-to-do-it crap, or any other muddled arguments. I just want someone to come clean and say "I pirate because I can, even though I have the money to pay for the games, and I don't care about the consequences. Yeah, it's hurting the PC game biz, and I could give a crap because I just want free games." Just one person. Please. I know you're out there, somewhere....

 

[purplerat]

I see very little difference between a pirate buying a game that they tried first and someone buying a book of webcomics. In both cases the consumer had already consumed the product and they were merely paying for a physical copy for the purpose of encouraging the maker of said content to make more like that. I fail to see why you can't understand this concept. Hell based on how you are acting paying for games at all should be foolish and stupid because downloading a pirated copy gives you more power over the content and costs nothing.

The difference is pretty clear. They are two very different business models. Game companies expect that in order to play their games people will pay for them. Web comics, I'm not really all that familar but I assume dispense their content for free in hopes that it will generate further revenue. It's a pretty big difference and each industry is built upon it's respective model so you can't just interchange various aspects and say if it works for one it works for the other. How well would Web comics sell if they had the same model as consoles? Where not only did you have to always pay but you also had to have a special piece of hardware to view them. If that machine boke you could not view your comics until you got another one. But it works for consoles, why not comics?
As far as it being foolish to pirate a game then buy it's not the paying for it that's silly, it's the fact that you've already gone through whatever to get the pirated copy then you go out and but it. I buy my game for several reasons. Piracy has too many drawbacks and is just not worth it to me. Paying on average $35 for a game is much more worthwhile than dealing with torrents and all that crap. But if for some reason I was to take what is for me the less desirable route to getting a game in the first place it's stupid to then go out and pay on top of that.

 

[SnareSpectre]

*Sigh.* I'm not justifying piracy in general, I'm explaining why I do it. You're right about my decisions not making a dent at all in a "multi-billion dollar" industry, but that's where we have to look at it - on an individual basis. A company's profits in this particular case are based on the accumulation of SnareSpectres or purplerats all over the country/planet. And that accumulation includes MILLIONS of us. What I do affects particular companies just as much as what you do, and just as much as what anyone else does. I am important to game manufacturers or any other business that sells on a personal basis, as is everyone else out there (target market) who will potentially buy a product.

In other words, what you are apparently claiming in the last post,

So on that level the idea that buying a game supports the developer is kind of a mute point.

is not AT ALL the opinion of developers out there. How can I support a developer better than to buy the game? I know Iron Lore is sort of an anomaly here, but in most cases this holds true...it's not a moot point at all. If what I do individually doesn't hurt the gaming industry, why is there so much disagreement here in why I do it? I'm sure the writers here at Tom's Games realize that the individual definitely matters.

I would agree that on a large scale my "system" may be devastating to the gaming industry, but not because I pirate games - rather because I don't buy many games. I buy games that are either the cream of the crop, or wait until they hit the budget bin so I can afford them. Game companies make money off the guys who drop $50 on every new game out there they're interested in, or maybe where movie-based games are concerned the parents of little children who don't know what a good game is. I think ultimately we'll stay in disagreement simply because you believe that there is no way piracy helps the industry at all, while I believe that although piracy is very detrimental to it, I realize that in some isolated cases there is some good that comes out of it. Understand, though, that the key word here is "some;" again, I'm not advocating piracy at all, because I know most people who partake in it abuse it (just read the comments of some impatient, greedy gamers left on torrent sites, waiting for their favorite ripper/cracker to bring them the next illegally copied release), but I can understand both sides.

 

[daveloft]

This is really tough debate and I can understand both sides frustration.

But the fact of the matter is piracy will never stop and most anti piracy measures do not work. So gaming publishers need to find another solution. Expecting the public to change out of the fear of worse DRM is ridiculous.

Anyone who says the DRM used in games like Bioshock and Mass Effect isn't a big deal is obviously not a power user. Let me guess you have never formatted your computer.

I'm totally ok with DRM that does not get in the way of me enjoying a product I purchased or with a service that offers enough benefits to outway the downsides (like Steam).

I have 3 computers with XP and one also has Vista and I like to have my game available in all 4 instances. I have my main machine in the office with Vista and Xp which I use to play most of the time, but sometimes I also want to play on my media system in the living room. With basic copy protection like a cd check, this works great. Steam works wonderfully in this setup as well.

With the limited activations like Bioshock it just doesn't work for me. I ended up cracking the game to get to work for my setup and that's just ridiculous. So I will not buy Mass Effect and I will not buy Spore because of the use of DRM. I'm not condoning piracy, but I fully understand why someone would turn to piracy.

Anyone taking the hard line against piracy is most likely a hypocrite. Ever shared that new cd you got with someone, copied something off of television without written consent, made a copy of something you rented, shared your cable with your neighbor , shared your internet connection with another household. Someone out their views all of this as stealing.

I have bought a tonne of games and pirated many as well. When I was in college I pirated much more often and mainly due to not having much money. Today if I do pirate its mainly to check out a game I'm not convinced to buy or does not offer a good value. And yes I have bought a game after pirating it. I know I'm probably in the minority in this, but it is true. If I really like the game I will buy it.

Today I am more likely to buy games if:

1. They are available on Steam
2. DRM is not obtrusive
3. The game is of high quality
4. The game is well supported with updates and free content
5. The game is not expensive
6. The company releases tools so the community can create their own content for the game

There is a lot of money to be made in PC gaming. Blizzard and Valve of proof of that. It's just a really tough market to succeed and far to often piracy is blamed for any publishers failure to do well. But it's understandably hard to do business on the PC. PC gamers don't buy crappy games by the millions like they do on the console (Kane & Lynch). We are also still playing 10 year old games (Counter Strike). Let's not forget about all the free games and mods available to us as well.

Game publishers need to find a new business model. I'm looking forward to Battlefield Heroes and Quake Live. This is based off of a very popular Asian business model. Piracy is even worse over there and instead of crying like little babies they just found a way to make it work. Who is going to pirate a game when the game is free. Micro transactions and add revenue pays the bills.

I also think they need to work on making multilayer games the norm. There is no reason you cant have a very single player game (scripted events and epic story) done in a massively multiplayer world. Give the single player game away for free but offer enough incentives to get people to buy it to get the full experience of the game online.

I also think breaking the game up into chunks could help as well, obviously this will only work with digital distribution. I will use Call of Duty 4 as an example. It's a great game and well worth the $50, but some people don't play multiplayer, some don't play single player, some just never finish the game. Release the game for free with the prologue of single player levels and a few multiplayer levels. Charge $10 per chapter in the single player campaign and charge $20 - $30 for the multiplayer content.

Also why don't developers take advantage of the pc hardware more, so many people have multiple displays, why not take advantage of it in games. You can also do a lot of cool wii like stuff just using a web cam. Take advantage of the unique capabilities of the pc and offer something you cant get on the console.

They also need to bring back split screen gaming, I play console like games on my media system connected to my television and would love to be able to play the latest racing game with my wife without having to buy two copies and use two computers to do so.

I really think most publishers are just greedy, lazy and just plain out of touch. I hope they die off, leaving the good publishers to prosper on the PC. With the advent of digital distribution, the future of PC gaming is going to be in the indie developers hand. You don't have to spend millions to make a great game. Looking forward to the future of PC gaming, which will be around long after the Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360.

 

[SnareSpectre]

Just once, just one time, I want someone to write a unaplogetic defense of piracy with no claim to moral high ground, no government corruption analogies, no woe-as-me personal economics, no piracy-isn't-stealing ethos, no DRM-forced-me-to-do-it crap, or any other muddled arguments. I just want someone to come clean and say "I pirate because I can, even though I have the money to pay for the games, and I don't care about the consequences. Yeah, it's hurting the PC game biz, and I could give a crap because I just want free games." Just one person. Please. I know you're out there, somewhere....

I can't quite do that, but I can come close...and it's what I've been trying to get across apparently to no avail. I would say it's impossible to "defend" piracy without putting in some of those reasons you mentioned, because otherwise there'd be no reason to defend it. There is a moral that all of us share...I believe everyone has a general concept of right and wrong...otherwise we wouldn't debate over this topic at all. So here's the best I can do:

I don't claim to have a moral high ground by pirating software...I think it'd be funny if someone claimed they were MORE morally inclined by doing so. I don't think piracy "sticks it to the man" or a corrupt government, and I think those analogies don't really apply in this debate. I don't have a lot of money, but that's not my argument for piracy...I don't feel sorry for myself; I'm just in a stage of my life where money isn't readily available - I'm in college just so it will be for me in the future. I don't think piracy is "stealing," per se, but it IS copyright infringement and IS against the law, and yet I still do it. DRM has never been a reason for what I do, and never will be. I'm not too concerned about what it would do to my system, except for the few horror stories I've heard about BioShock and old Starforce games.

I do pirate because I can, although I don't have money for games (although if I did I might just keep doing it), but here's the sticky part...I do care about the consequences. It's just that I believe the consequences of my piracy are actually good rather than bad for both me and the companies whose games I pirate. On the large scale, however, I believe piracy could potentially bring PC gaming to its knees if it's as bad as developers claim it is. Free games are great, but everyone knows you enjoy games you pay for so much more.

I know that's not the answer you're looking for word-for-word, Rob, but I'm fully aware that some consider what I do to be immoral or against the law (in this case, I know it's against the law, or at least pretty sure it is if there's not some loophole out there). Bottom line is, though...none of these discussions about piracy amount to anything, so I still wonder why we have them instead of talking about other, more entertaining things.

 

[razor512]

Just once, just one time, I want someone to write a unaplogetic defense of piracy with no claim to moral high ground, no government corruption analogies, no woe-as-me personal economics, no piracy-isn't-stealing ethos, no DRM-forced-me-to-do-it crap, or any other muddled arguments. I just want someone to come clean and say "I pirate because I can, even though I have the money to pay for the games, and I don't care about the consequences. Yeah, it's hurting the PC game biz, and I could give a crap because I just want free games." Just one person. Please. I know you're out there, somewhere....

with out those then piracy is just plain stealing

the problem is that piracy no matter how you look it, it is a bad thing, but drm and the gaming company business practices are also bad and pirates are just choosing the lesser of 2 evils

i know you hate analogies but there the only way to explain things like digital piracy as it is such a unique problem



piracy is also dangerous, when was the last time you say a criminal rob a bank then share all that money with the people in their community? (it has only happened in fictional stories)

pirates are not giving free games out of the goodness of their heart, they have something to gain from it
piracy is a major risk and any person still sane will weigh their options


back in the early 1900's the country banned alcohol, a short while later, speakeasies popped up all over the place the governments solution to the problem (since speakeasies caused a huge increase in organized crime and gang violence in which innocent people were caught in between, they legalized alcohol again, and every speakeasy went out of business and crime went down)
it is human nature to hate restrictions so adding additional restrictions will always lead to some kind of backlash

the key to reducing piracy is to not punish innocent people for the problems of pirates, thats like a random person on the street pour soda on you, then you head to your friends house and beat him or her up for that random persons crime

and there is a such thing as a acceptable limit people like freedom and never want to loose it but there are acceptible limits,

all laws are a limitation of our freedom, and there are acceptable losses like you loose your right to run me over with a car, and i loose that same right, everyone is happy

there over 70 thousand laws in america, and most of them no one complains about because they are a acceptable loss of freedom that makes everyone happy, but then there laws like gun control

outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns

outlaw apples and only outlaws will have them

a loss of freedom becomes unacceptable when only 1 side suffers the loss while the other side gains more power from it
all violent shootings in American history have happened in gun free zones look back at news archives ranging back to the 1800's


this is why it is under constant debate because because only 1 side lost power, the other side gained power, all school shootings could be prevented is all teachers were required to have a gun, if every home was required to have one, there will be no armed robberies as criminals hate a level playing field (you never saw someone rob a bank using their fists, why, because everyone has one, you punch me, i can punch you, or you run in to a bank threatening to punch everyone if they don't give all of their money, then good luck winning a fist fight against 50 other people



the only laws and limitations that have been debated have been ones where only 1 side suffers while the other is not effected

and with the current state of DRM, the legit people suffer from severely limited items while the pirates have limitless possibilities with their crap

 

[craigdolphin]

I don't think I've ever defended pirates. My point in posting here is that I'm not a pirate, and I strenuously object to DRM. One early poster made the comment that only pirates would object to DRM and that got me highly peeved.

But I do think it's also a bit rich to suggest that game devs have the moral high ground when it comes to DRM. They don't. The new gen DRM, as expressed in Mass Effect, is not about stopping pirates: it's about limiting consumer rights and trying to milk customers for extra cash.

EA is using DRM to violate my legal rights (doctrine of first sale), without notification on the box. If that's the moral high ground, then surely the pirates, guilty of breaching the same copyright act, can also claim moral high ground?

'DRM made me do it' as an excuse? Though I would never have suggested such a defense, it has some truth to it. If you buy legally purchased a game, and cannot get it to work because of the DRM, then I think there IS a morally acceptable imperative to crack the DRM to get what you've legally purchased. According to game devs, that's still piracy.

Heck, even the game devs stole the work of pirates (even if not protected by copyright law, it's no less a theft of IP) to get their games to work for their customers because of a flaw in their DRM. (Ubisoft, Rainbow 6 Vegas) until it got pointed out and they substituted their own patch instead.

Now none of this should, in any way be construed as a defense of cracking to AVOID paying. But DRM is a fatally flawed concept: it only punishes the honest punters. Until game devs and article writers acknowledge that reality, there will be no moving past the issue of piracy.

As for the moral high ground, it seems to me that the pirates and game devs both occupy equally repellent low roads. The high ground belongs to the paying customers who are on the receiving end of the current DRM escalation.

 

[purplerat]

Razor, I'm not sure why you are talking about laws at all. This issue really has nothing legallity or laws. It's pretty much agreed on both sides that piracy is a form of copyright infringement and that there is no real good way of going after the common software pirate.
The issue is that game companies are taking it upon themselves to protect their own products. The products they created and are selling. Why shouldn't they have the right to do that?

 

[razor512]

Razor, I'm not sure why you are talking about laws at all. This issue really has nothing legallity or laws. It's pretty much agreed on both sides that piracy is a form of copyright infringement and that there is no real good way of going after the common software pirate.
The issue is that game companies are taking it upon themselves to protect their own products. The products they created and are selling. Why shouldn't they have the right to do that?

they have every right to do that

but when their methods don't work, aka making a unlevel playing field where the criminals have a better product will only push people to pirate


there thousands of laws, but why are laws like gun control so highly debated, just like how piracy it, it is because like the gun control law, it is currently only keeping guns out of the hands of innocent people while criminals get their guns and use that power to take advantage, aka having shootouts at gun free zones like schools, malls and other places like that

in drm, the legal innocent people are suffering more than the pirates so it is up for heavy debate because the pirate are getting a better product

no one likes any practices that punish innocent people more than criminals

 

[robwright]

Anyone taking the hard line against piracy is most likely a hypocrite. Ever shared that new cd you got with someone, copied something off of television without written consent, made a copy of something you rented, shared your cable with your neighbor , shared your internet connection with another household. Someone out their views all of this as stealing.

I take a hardline against piracy, and no, I have NEVER pirated a game or illegally downloaded a song or a movie. Not once. I believe in copyright protection and the artists/developers rights to create a product and make money.

Good grief, Daveloft. Are you really going to compare a 1:1 relationship -- me lending a DVD/CD to a friend -- to me cracking Call of Duty 4 and uploading it to a torrent site and allowing thousands upon thousands of people to download it?

BTW, I think it's sad that so many people are complaining about greedy, money-grubbing publishers yet at the same time are pirating content they're too cheap to buy. Unreal.

@SnareSpectre
Thanks. At least you'r honest, though you're deluding yourself a little by choosing to believe that piracy is helping game developers. And I'd urge you, if you really believe the consequences are damaging, to stop pirating PC games.

@Razor512
You're absolutely killing me. This is not a political debate.

 

[craigdolphin]

they have every right to do that

I agree only insofar as their actions do not infringe on my rights as a consumer under the law.

Ordinarily, law enforcement is the responsibility of legally authorized authorities such as the police, FBI, etc, and regulatory agencies. The usual label for someone taking law enforcement into their own hands is 'vigilante'.

Piracy is a crime. The response to it should be through the usual lawn enforcement channels. DRM is, stripped of all the baloney, nothing more than simple vigilantism and violates the rights of innocent paying customers.

Worst of all, I am quite convinced that the stated justification for DRM no longer has any bearing on the real motivation of game developers like EA. And the fact that the anti-piracy angle is still being parrotted mindlessly on gaming sites, without regard for the obvious fact that it simply doesn't WORK, just boggles my mind.

 

[purplerat]

DRM is, stripped of all the baloney, nothing more than simple vigilantism and violates the rights of innocent paying customers.

Between that and somehow a reference to school shootings this is why it's so hard to discuss this issue. Rather than look at models like Steam and WoW and how they benifit both the gamer and the companies we have to hear aobut how somehow everybodies rights are being violated. You literally can't even put the three letters D R M too close together without getting a violent reaction. The truth is that it's a practical solution to a real issue. Not every implementation is going to be great and some are just plain bad, but I bet most people railing against it do not even realize how often it's used without it ever bothering them. The consoles are a perfect example of where people are so blind to whats going on that they will vehemently argue that it's not even there. This whole debate really needs to shift from "what's worse: DRM or piracy" to "what kind of DRM is acceptable/effective".

 

[craigdolphin]

Between that and somehow a reference to school shootings this is why it's so hard to discuss this issue. Rather than look at models like Steam and WoW and how they benifit both the gamer and the companies we have to hear aobut how somehow everybodies rights are being violated. You literally can't even put the three letters D R M too close together without getting a violent reaction.

Ah, so because you don't care about your legal rights you think it is therefore unimportant to all of us huh?

That's equivalent to me saying 'I don't care that EA's copyright is being violated by the pirates, so I don't think piracy is bad'.

This whole debate really needs to shift from "what's worse: DRM or piracy" to "what kind of DRM is acceptable/effective".

And here I absolutely agree with you. I've given my thoughts on what is and isn't acceptable to me directly to EA, and reposted it here after someone challenged anti-DRM posters to put forward some ideas.

Hopefully you'll note in my previous posts I was talking about how it is this new generation of DRM that violates my rights. I had no problem with the original disk check approach. I perhaps ought to have modified the sentence you quoted with the word 'new'.

(Although, I do reserve the right to crack drm on a legally purchased copy of a game if the DRM is faulty and won't allow me to play the game I paid for. I've never had to do that, mind you, but I know there are many folks who have been in that position.)

In my store analogy, I was pointing out the unusual severity of the new 'security' apparatus, not the need for some kind of store security at all.

The point I'm making is that pc game devs have stepped over the line from reasonable, to draconian in their implementation of DRM. (Yes, 'draconian' Mr Author 😉) Rather than simply defending their rights, they're now actively violating the rights of the paying customers. You may not care about that, but I certainly do.

NB: Incidentally, I don't see any benefits to STEAM. I tried it with HL2, and being on dialup, I was unable to play it until it finished downloading updates (several days of DLing on dialup). Only then would it let me switch to offline mode and play the dang game. I vowed there and then never to buy another game that says steam anywhere on the box.

As for WOW, that's an inherantly online game so online activations make sense. There's a world of difference between that an a single player CRPG like Mass Effect where the only reason to go online is the DRM system.

EDIT:

The truth is that it's a practical solution to a real issue

If that were true, it would stop piracy. It doesn't, therefore I disagree with you on that point.

 

[infornography42]

Steam sucks for dialup. But then, dialup just sucks regardless.

Just because a method does not completely stop piracy does not mean it is impractical or ineffective. This sounds like the same arguments used to shoot down alternative energy ideas. Just because one thing cannot be used to completely replace all of our energy needs we shouldn't do anything. Alleviating the problem is a worthwhile endeavor and Steam does benefit the end user, if they have broadband.

 

[infornography42]

Oh, and Rob, as for Crytek crying over 1 million sales.

If you overextend your development, target a small percentage of a niche market, and produce an overhyped game, that is the fault of your business model, not the market.

There are plenty of top tier titles that get away with not spending that much on development and they still do very well and often significantly better. In other markets, if a company overspends on a project they don't blame the consumers.

 

[purplerat]

Actually Steams DRM seems pretty effective to me and it has some great benifits. While I can't take my Steam games and just hand them out to friends like candy, I can install the same game on all of my PCs and play them all at once as long as no more than one is playing online. I can even have LAN games with only one copy. If I buy a game which only requires the disk to be in the drive I can not do this.
With WoW the DRM goes WAY beyond just online activations. Like I said before I really do not think most people really grasp the full reign of DRM. With WoW all you ever buy are some disks with install files. Everything else is completely owned by Blizzard. You simply rent time on their servers and they fully reserve the right to end that contract anytime they want - and Blizzard certainly has a history of doing exactly that. You could go out and spend $60 on the game and expansion, drop another $15 for a months subscription and they can turn you off for good the very next day, and there's nothing you could do about it. Is there really a more restrictive form of DRM than that?

 

[infornography42]

MMOs are obviously the most restrictive DRM but they are also nearly 100% effective and completely up front about the requirements of the software. Sure there are some people who have hacked server software that you can connect to, but it isn't complete and fails to be anywhere near as fun.

 

[daveloft]

I take a hardline against piracy, and no, I have NEVER pirated a game or illegally downloaded a song or a movie. Not once. I believe in copyright protection and the artists/developers rights to create a product and make money.

Good grief, Daveloft. Are you really going to compare a 1:1 relationship -- me lending a DVD/CD to a friend -- to me cracking Call of Duty 4 and uploading it to a torrent site and allowing thousands upon thousands of people to download it?

BTW, I think it's sad that so many people are complaining about greedy, money-grubbing publishers yet at the same time are pirating content they're too cheap to buy. Unreal.

No I wasnt comparing 1:1 sharing a cd with the actual process of cracking the game, just sharing the game. That would be the equivalent of making copies of the cd and selling on the street. But it is still stealing. I have never meet anyone that has not stolen something. Not a single friend, co-worker, school mate, no one. I don't believe anyone that says they never have stolen anything. Everyone has different levels and justification to what they steal.

Yes there are some people who just steal everything, but I don't know anyone like that either. Why is everything so black and white with you people. Everyone I know buys some and steals some. I just think with better prices, better use of DRM, better products and better benefits for purchasing a product more people will make that purchase.

Yes piracy is an issue, but it always has been and DRM has been proven time and time again, that it does not work. I'm just asking for the developers and publishers to find another solution. Stronger DRM hurts sales and pushes more to steal. Again I'm not saying it's right or justifiable, it's just how it is. What I'm saying is it's up to the publishers to find a better solution to fit their customers needs. How can you argue against that?