Building a Better Kind of DRM
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I have a few comments about this. Disclaimer: I pirate software on occasion.
1. Don't Do the Check at Startup
I don't actually have anything to say about this. I agree with everything.
2. Be Sneaky
While probably more effective at deceiving crackers (although if Arkham Asylum really was cracked before it was released, it may not be), it is absolutely imperative that everyone knows that the bad gameplay is due to DRM. Otherwise, you'll get pirates complaining about the game to potential customers.
3. Poison the Pirate Well
A good idea, and certainly preferable to non-free DLC. You probably should disclose where the DRM is, though, so no one confuses a bug for DRM or vice-versa.
4. Don't Forget the Customers
This would be better than current implementations, but it still reeks of the artificial restrictions that people hate about DRM. Stardock's approach is vastly superior, with no CD checks at all, ever. Your approach will screw over the folks who don't like carrying around their CD's after the activation servers are taken down, not to mention people who buy such a game second hand, which will have already been activated.
5. Keep it Simple
I pretty much agree with all this, too.
You'll probably also have problems from the corporate side. Given that DRM doesn't prevent much piracy and interferes with legitimate customers, I suspect modern DRM isn't meant to stop or curb piracy at all. It seems more likely that the goal is to shut down the second-hand game market, a goal your scheme does very little to advance.
1. Don't Do the Check at Startup
I don't actually have anything to say about this. I agree with everything.
2. Be Sneaky
While probably more effective at deceiving crackers (although if Arkham Asylum really was cracked before it was released, it may not be), it is absolutely imperative that everyone knows that the bad gameplay is due to DRM. Otherwise, you'll get pirates complaining about the game to potential customers.
3. Poison the Pirate Well
A good idea, and certainly preferable to non-free DLC. You probably should disclose where the DRM is, though, so no one confuses a bug for DRM or vice-versa.
4. Don't Forget the Customers
This would be better than current implementations, but it still reeks of the artificial restrictions that people hate about DRM. Stardock's approach is vastly superior, with no CD checks at all, ever. Your approach will screw over the folks who don't like carrying around their CD's after the activation servers are taken down, not to mention people who buy such a game second hand, which will have already been activated.
5. Keep it Simple
I pretty much agree with all this, too.
You'll probably also have problems from the corporate side. Given that DRM doesn't prevent much piracy and interferes with legitimate customers, I suspect modern DRM isn't meant to stop or curb piracy at all. It seems more likely that the goal is to shut down the second-hand game market, a goal your scheme does very little to advance.
It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. If DRM is going to exist, and I have little doubt that it will continue to do so, it may as well exist in this form rather than its SecuROM incarnation.
The business sense of the game development industry is open to plenty of critique (some of which I have read), and one of the things least understandable to me is why developers/publishers choose to address an untrustworthy community - namely pirates - as a potential consumer base at the cost of discouraging existing customers. That's what DRM in its current form achieves.
I'm not gonna argue whether DRM should or should not exist, but rather that as long as it does exist: it's better if it will in a form similar to what Shamus suggests. The question of DRM's effectiveness should matter less than the question of how much hindrance it causes to legitimate customers.
The business sense of the game development industry is open to plenty of critique (some of which I have read), and one of the things least understandable to me is why developers/publishers choose to address an untrustworthy community - namely pirates - as a potential consumer base at the cost of discouraging existing customers. That's what DRM in its current form achieves.
I'm not gonna argue whether DRM should or should not exist, but rather that as long as it does exist: it's better if it will in a form similar to what Shamus suggests. The question of DRM's effectiveness should matter less than the question of how much hindrance it causes to legitimate customers.
I just have a image of a Doom style door demanding that you find the red key... now that would be awesome.
This isn't a very good idea. In fact, it defeats itself. If drm is made to be shadowy and hard to spot, then pirates will just naturally assume that the game is a buggy piece of crap, and there are A LOT of pirates. There would be so many complaints filling up the forums and support lines. Of course admins could respond and claim that the game wasn't a piece of crap, but doesn't that reveal the drm in it of itself? And if they don't people will just assume the game is worthless.
If I release a game that's specifically buggy for pirates, I will specifically make a copy and pasted message for the tech support forums that simply reads "It will work properly when you buy the damn game, now go and fuck the cabin boy."
PR was never my strong point, but pirates don't deserve common courtesy, the lousy fucks.
PR was never my strong point, but pirates don't deserve common courtesy, the lousy fucks.
I'm no security expert but it has always seemed obvious to me that checking for a CD or contacting a server at the start of the game will point pirates right where they need to go.
The idea of messing with game mechanics for pirates is novel, I can imagine certain people would take it as a personal challenge to beat the game with the DRM trying to screw them over.
I'm still waiting for a company to sting pirates, there are plenty of ways to do it, and finding where that first leaked file comes from can help bring down the crackers. Its time companies actually started hunting the crackers and I actually hope they are ruthless about it.
The idea of messing with game mechanics for pirates is novel, I can imagine certain people would take it as a personal challenge to beat the game with the DRM trying to screw them over.
I'm still waiting for a company to sting pirates, there are plenty of ways to do it, and finding where that first leaked file comes from can help bring down the crackers. Its time companies actually started hunting the crackers and I actually hope they are ruthless about it.
So if the DRM makes the game buggy for pirates, what if a legitimate customer has actual bugs?! They may think that the game thinks their version is a pirated copy when it actually isn't. Which may make them think the DRM is just like any other DRM, extremely useless.
Two it may also stop people from reporting bugs, (More so with online games) Because they may think that they might be seen as a pirate and get banned from playing.
Three, what happens if there's a bug that cause the same problems with legit customers as it does with pirates, i.e jumping becomes unresponsive. Wouldn't that be a little difficult to tell whether it's a pirated version or an actual legit problem?!
Two it may also stop people from reporting bugs, (More so with online games) Because they may think that they might be seen as a pirate and get banned from playing.
Three, what happens if there's a bug that cause the same problems with legit customers as it does with pirates, i.e jumping becomes unresponsive. Wouldn't that be a little difficult to tell whether it's a pirated version or an actual legit problem?!
You do not want to make pirated versions of the game broken! If someone who has pirated the game enjoys it, maybe he'll buy it later. If someone who has pirated the game hates it because it's broken, certainly he won't ever buy it.
For someone who wants to pirate a certain game, there are two possible outcomes: He pirates the game, or he doesn't play the game at all. No pirate is going to buy the game JUST BECAUSE there is effective DRM in it. People only buy games when they are convinced it's worth their money. If pirates were convinced of that without playing the game, they wouldn't be pirates.
So this kind of DRM (and in fact any kind of DRM) is not going to increase the amount of sales. It might even decrease the amount of sales, if there are indeed people who would buy the game if they enjoyed the pirated copy. What is the point of DRM if it doesn't actually increase the amount of sales?
For someone who wants to pirate a certain game, there are two possible outcomes: He pirates the game, or he doesn't play the game at all. No pirate is going to buy the game JUST BECAUSE there is effective DRM in it. People only buy games when they are convinced it's worth their money. If pirates were convinced of that without playing the game, they wouldn't be pirates.
So this kind of DRM (and in fact any kind of DRM) is not going to increase the amount of sales. It might even decrease the amount of sales, if there are indeed people who would buy the game if they enjoyed the pirated copy. What is the point of DRM if it doesn't actually increase the amount of sales?
If they pirated a copy you could erase all their save file after it accumulates a certain amount of hours, but it would have to be very carefully done so as not to hurt the honest customers. YOU LISTENING BETHESDA?
Also if the bugs randomly don't work in some of the copies it will make widespread distribution difficult. All we need to do is slow down pirating by creating DRM that takes longer to crack, requires more effort, and become expensive. Pressure people into buying the official copy and discourage pirating, because if it isn't worth the crackers time and money to do it for free than you still have a solid business. If the pirates decided to charge than it suddenly isn't so cheap or reliable.
Also if the bugs randomly don't work in some of the copies it will make widespread distribution difficult. All we need to do is slow down pirating by creating DRM that takes longer to crack, requires more effort, and become expensive. Pressure people into buying the official copy and discourage pirating, because if it isn't worth the crackers time and money to do it for free than you still have a solid business. If the pirates decided to charge than it suddenly isn't so cheap or reliable.
The Sneaky backstabbing DRM in the latest Batman game was certainly awesome, and this idea is a nice evolution on the thought. However, I don't think this will come cheap.
I'm a programmer on this end and I can relate to Developers a bit when creating these million codes of epic win. Yet that is the catch: These are millions of lines of code right there. Now the ideas suggested are simple enough, like making a command not work randomly, but this would require some extra coding to do things like this. This can expand the cost of writing the script for these even further, which adds to expense on both the Publisher and the Gamer. The "check" at the beginning might be handy for Developers because it's a good starting point to make the test on whether this is purchased or not easily, then worry about the code for the game later. Do-able, yes, but something very demanding on Developers.
The complaints on what pirates will make in the forums for these games are debatable. I could see that this could eventually build bad word-of-mouth on the game, but could also be balanced out by reviews or articles on the game (Want an example? Here's something to ponder about [http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/bt/ashens/revs/8171-renegade3]). I think the big issue would be the more complicated coding, which, ironically, is not as simple as Shamus suggests.
I'm a programmer on this end and I can relate to Developers a bit when creating these million codes of epic win. Yet that is the catch: These are millions of lines of code right there. Now the ideas suggested are simple enough, like making a command not work randomly, but this would require some extra coding to do things like this. This can expand the cost of writing the script for these even further, which adds to expense on both the Publisher and the Gamer. The "check" at the beginning might be handy for Developers because it's a good starting point to make the test on whether this is purchased or not easily, then worry about the code for the game later. Do-able, yes, but something very demanding on Developers.
The complaints on what pirates will make in the forums for these games are debatable. I could see that this could eventually build bad word-of-mouth on the game, but could also be balanced out by reviews or articles on the game (Want an example? Here's something to ponder about [http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/bt/ashens/revs/8171-renegade3]). I think the big issue would be the more complicated coding, which, ironically, is not as simple as Shamus suggests.
Good article, I think you nailed it on the head about what needs to be done with game piracy. Something that doesn't get into the consumers way of playing a game they paid a good chunk of hard earned money for.
Getting this system to consistently work and not be cracked hours after release is another matter altogether. But this is definitely a step in the right direction.
Getting this system to consistently work and not be cracked hours after release is another matter altogether. But this is definitely a step in the right direction.
Why is DRM still even discussed? It doesn't stop games from being shared (and this "solution" won't either, as explained by most of the previous replies), and it doesn't combat the root of the problem: people who get games via file sharing are, in general, not interested in paying for them.
The idea that all or most file sharers would pay for a game if they couldn't get it free is a myth. But you know what else is a myth? That torrenting a game is just as convenient from downloading it from Steam or getting it from a store. Do you know how long it takes to download an 8GB file from The Pirate Bay? Days. It can take days. And that's if you've done all your port forwarding and encrypting and techno-geekery correctly. And if your ISP doesn't throttle something that looks like P2P traffic.
The reality is that most people who regularly torrent the majority of their games would happily pay for a more hassle-free experience if it cost them less than fifty dollars. Fifty dollars is really freaking expensive. And if you're a really avid gamer who wants to play lots of different games, it can be gargantuanly expensive. The best form of copy protection is a $25 price tag on release day.
The idea that all or most file sharers would pay for a game if they couldn't get it free is a myth. But you know what else is a myth? That torrenting a game is just as convenient from downloading it from Steam or getting it from a store. Do you know how long it takes to download an 8GB file from The Pirate Bay? Days. It can take days. And that's if you've done all your port forwarding and encrypting and techno-geekery correctly. And if your ISP doesn't throttle something that looks like P2P traffic.
The reality is that most people who regularly torrent the majority of their games would happily pay for a more hassle-free experience if it cost them less than fifty dollars. Fifty dollars is really freaking expensive. And if you're a really avid gamer who wants to play lots of different games, it can be gargantuanly expensive. The best form of copy protection is a $25 price tag on release day.
Honestly, I think some forms of DRM are good.
But here's the bad thing: these days they are so over the top measures that still end up hacked within weeks if not days and these measures hurt the real paying customers. Limited installations for example: The pirate actually has a game with better functionality than the customer.
And that kind of DRM ends up doing good to absolutely no-one. The Arkham Asylym version was interesting and the kind of I'd be willing to support. Too bad even that can be hacked and most of the money that went to developing and coding that DRM went down the drain.
Partly I also think the ludicrous prices new games cost are to blame. Yesterday I went to the nearest supermarket and I saw the Spore was still being sold for 44?, only 6? cheaper than the day it came out.
I mean, come on! For 50? I could buy 25 old full-lenght DVD-movies or 3-5 new ones. If one movie lasts for 2h and most games seem to have content for 8-16h (The first time I played Spore I completed it in 4 hours, Fallout 3 in 7 hours), then it means 4-8 movies offers the same amount of entertainment.
So, 50? buys me, say... two new movies (2x 15?) and ten old ones (10 x 2?). That's 24 hours of entertainment, guaranteed to not be riddled with bugs, coding errors and DRM headaches for the same price as a new computer game that most likely will entertain me for less than 15 hours.
So really, I think most games are overpriced and stay overpriced for far too long. Partly due to this I buy at max only 3 brand new games each year and a few from sale bins. That high price accompanied with relative anonymity of the internet and the ease with which pirated copy can be downloaded makes piracy thrive, which in turn has lead to DRM becoming such a headache for both the developers and for the users who have to deal with them.
But here's the bad thing: these days they are so over the top measures that still end up hacked within weeks if not days and these measures hurt the real paying customers. Limited installations for example: The pirate actually has a game with better functionality than the customer.
And that kind of DRM ends up doing good to absolutely no-one. The Arkham Asylym version was interesting and the kind of I'd be willing to support. Too bad even that can be hacked and most of the money that went to developing and coding that DRM went down the drain.
Partly I also think the ludicrous prices new games cost are to blame. Yesterday I went to the nearest supermarket and I saw the Spore was still being sold for 44?, only 6? cheaper than the day it came out.
I mean, come on! For 50? I could buy 25 old full-lenght DVD-movies or 3-5 new ones. If one movie lasts for 2h and most games seem to have content for 8-16h (The first time I played Spore I completed it in 4 hours, Fallout 3 in 7 hours), then it means 4-8 movies offers the same amount of entertainment.
So, 50? buys me, say... two new movies (2x 15?) and ten old ones (10 x 2?). That's 24 hours of entertainment, guaranteed to not be riddled with bugs, coding errors and DRM headaches for the same price as a new computer game that most likely will entertain me for less than 15 hours.
So really, I think most games are overpriced and stay overpriced for far too long. Partly due to this I buy at max only 3 brand new games each year and a few from sale bins. That high price accompanied with relative anonymity of the internet and the ease with which pirated copy can be downloaded makes piracy thrive, which in turn has lead to DRM becoming such a headache for both the developers and for the users who have to deal with them.