azxcvbnm321 :
Gigosaga, how easy is it for ordinary people to break DRM without the pirated crack? I'm thinking it's nearly impossible for a regular Joe. That means he has to go online and go through the entire process of installing a PtP software program, then finding that game and downloading it. He has to spend a lot of time to just install and figure out how to use PtP networks, and then time to download the cracked game, assuming it works. There are plenty of cracks that don't work. He also has to take the risk that he is not downloading a virus that will screw up his system.
So is it effective in preventing average people from pirating? Yes we'll never be able to stop a determined pirate, but if you make it hard enough for ordinary people, then they won't pirate and will buy the game instead. If you make it easy as just copying a CD, then even ordinary people will be tempted into pirating, but if you make it difficult to pirate, then people won't bother with the hassle and will buy the game, especially if they think pirating is wrong to begin with. This is what DRM is designed to do. Pirates will always keep on pirating, just like car thieves will steal cars instead of buying them. The purpose of DRM is to make it difficult enough for ordinary people to pirate that they just go and buy the game instead. Do you think DRM does that well? Is there anything the industry can do to make it harder for average people to pirate?
I believe you misunderstood my comment on the how easy it is to use a pirated version of a game on a PC vs console - since that is my only comment regarding difficulty and have some how spun one small comment into an issue of how effective DRM is against the average person to crack as a means for justification for it being there. But on the subject since you are talking about it...
As you pointed out the average PC probably does not know how to break any serious form of DRM themselves. They need somebody who is knowledgeable who has already broken them many times to do it for them. These people are more than willing to do so and often have made releases for cracks on the soon after the game's release, sometimes even prior. You make a large assumption, that I would have to argue is the complete opposite of reality, that finding and acquiring cracked versions of a DRM protected game is difficult and even more so than unprotected content. One of the main reasons for the greater focus on DRM in this new age is the fact it is very easy to find these things and they are accessible to even young teens or even younger. Really anybody with the knowledge that there are pirated copies available and desire to acquire them with much less effort than it took you to make your post. P2P programs do not take much time to learn to use, it is mostly intuitive - most even automatically do everything for you outside of finding and downloading what you want magically on it's own. Even if it were difficult to acquire even after being broken to any preventative level, it would not change the core issue of if the DRM is effective. How easy is it? Well, ask a company like EA how many copies of their game were pirated and they'd likely tell you millions and that's why it's a top concern for them. Under your argument and belief, these millions (even 10s of millions since it's likely not the exact same people who pirate every game) of people are all tech savvy extraordinary people. There are certainly many people I would say can not accomplish said task, but this is largely due to their personal laziness and lack of putting for any effort (not that it takes much) - these are the same people who cannot do much of anything for themselves though because they are unwilling to try. If it were isolated to some exclusive elite circle of super geeks, there would be less effort put in DRM and/or their method of correcting the issue would be different.
You seem to associate DRM effectiveness are being part of method/time it takes to acquire. This is a falsehood, especially as the DRM has nothing to do with it. For these numberous people pirating games, the time to download the game and/or crack is obviously not a problem for them, so I see little point in your bringing it up when you do not make a connection with it. Most anti-DRM legit users point to other download-to-own systems like Steam as a model for the right way to do it in fact - so these apparently ordinary people who buy the game are willing to wait for it to download, yet some pirate getting it for free is not going to want to spend the time to download it? How exactly does DRM make the download process slower? It does not. DRM is there to prevent a product from being copied. Once it is cracked, it has failed.
Now I believe any code or form of DRM is crackable, it's simply a matter of time. Current DRM is also a failure in this aspect as it is not strong enough to delay a crack for a month, let alone even days. Cracked versions of a game are often available the same day as the release. If you believe some hacker is spending endless hours reading code to break this stuff, you're wrong. They did invest time in breaking it, this is true, but at this point, they have made simple applications to help break the DRM quickly with little additional effort. I'm not involved in doing this so this is an assumption on my part based on human nature and the nature of any intelligent person to make things as easy as it can be for themselves. Even simple examples like the "Copy & Paste" function demonstrate people want to put in the least effort and get the most results. It's common sense. I only make this argument since you are talking about preventing ordinary people from being tempted to pirate - surely a month delay in a free release would help encourage more people to buy a game - under your beliefs.
So to firmly answer your questions:
1) "How easy is it for ordinary people to break DRM without the pirated crack?"
It is difficult for ordinary people to break [modern] DRM we are discussing without the pirated crack. However, their ability to do so or not is not relevant. They do not need to break it, somebody else broke it and make it available. This is effectively the same thing as an ordinary person breaking it as it allows them to bypass it and use said product.
2) "So is it effective in preventing average people from pirating?"
No, it is not effective in preventing the average person from pirating.
3) "Do you think DRM does that well?" (The above.)
No, I do not think DRM discourages people from pirating and encourages them to make a purchase instead. As you said, there will always be pirates and DRM won't discourage them from pirating a game if it is crackable. A good game encourages people to purchase because they believe your product is valuable to them. For those people lingering between these two realms, there are many answers and those depend on their reason for pirating. Regardless of which, I still believe it is better to invest in making a good game to encourage people to make a purchase vs bad DRM to discourage them from pirating. Heck, I have even make game purchases knowing they would be bad at times based on the fact I believed in the idea the developer had (take Hellgate: London as an example) in trying to make something great.
4) "Is there anything the industry can do to make it harder for average people to pirate?"
Yes, there are methods that make it harder to pirate for the average person. See fore mentioned account based methods like Steam. Steam is not full proof, just like everything else but it provides a solid level of protection and on top of that Steam has made proper efforts to make their protection scheme reasonable for consumers (see things like Offline Mode). It's not perfect but as of now, is really the only openly used method besides DRM for non-MMO games.
To be clear, I fully believe in the developer's and publisher's rights to protect their content, however, I also believe this must be reasonable and should not come at the cost of consumer rights. This is particularly an issue as many have pointed out, none of these companies really state in any form on their product (and often also not in the EULA) that these limitations exist. There are certain limitations that are perhaps without question such has not making a million copies and selling them, but others really do need to be spelled out clearly. This is for their legal benefit as much as it is the consumer. In our law suit happy society where people can win because they were stupid, it is best because "coffee is hot" and apparently you shouldn't let small children put plastic bags over their heads, they were meant to be toys. For the consumer, being informed there is a limitation on the number of installations you have is an important right. My personal concerns if a game should be playable/installable years after the purchase is of secondary concern and is of my preference to be able to do so for the duration I own the product and falls more under "good faith" and "fair play" type practices. In my opinion DRM is no more effective than the old school "CD-Check" method and just like companies are often no longer including CD-Checks in many games allowing users to play without swapping disc, or the extra loading delay it causes, DRM should be removed. It 100% absolutely does not meet it's intended goal. My opinion of DRM would be different if it worked, even just to a measurable degree in preventing pirating of the game.
Once again though, I must mention that few anti-DRM people are concerned that DRM is being used, but rather how it is being implemented and the restrictions being placed on legit users. This root-kit stuff doesn't fly with me, but I could forgive it if when I uninstalled a game the DRM was removed as part of the uninstall (I am not talking about being refunded an "installation" # here, the DRM itself remains on your computer, you need a 3rd party application to remove it in most cases). I would also be less concerned with these types of DRM if any of these advertised systems these companies are pooping out of their moth were true, such as these systems that will "refund" an installation if you uninstall the game, even though this method is still not very ideal, at least then I know I could play a game I purchased rightfully for the rest of my life if I desire as long as I properly uninstall it. Further, just so you know, phoning into EA or the likely, as of the release date of Spore, if you somehow used all your installations on accident due to some major failures would have resulted in nothing. At the time of release they did not even have a method or even policies in place to handle such a situation. This is clear if you read EA's responses to the DRM backlash - they are just now making that a possibility. Basically, all their practices are simply poor. If they took actions with their consumers in mind, there would be few problems to talk about and certainly none worth not buying a game you want to play.
As for the intended reading and purpose of my comment on difficulty to use pirated copies of a game on a PC vs Console... On the PC, you really have to do little special after acquiring the cracked game, if anything at all. Usually, it amounts to copying some file and overwriting another. Consoles generally require more technical work to be done, even though simple, pose more risk to the average ordinary person because they often include some of the following: opening your console up, fireware/bios flashing, and mod chip installations. Most of which seem scary to the average ordinary person.
Every post I make is an epic one in terms of the Internet as I am not an e-kiddy. Don't make me do it!
😛
- but I'd rather not chance killing it to protect corporate interest.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram