For the past few months, the United States government has been tied up in a faux party-war over the merits of raising the National Debt ceiling and the ways to help fix our deficit problem. Overall, the whole activity has been disastrous. Approval with both parties went down, the US credit score was downgraded, stocks did poorly and people got angry, and rightfully so. The process had demonstrated the slow response time, massive inefficiency and childish tactics of the current political system, which showed that our leaders would rather score imaginary points with voters using extremist ideals and pandering than actually try to solve any problems.
If there is any lesson to be learned, this demonstrated exactly why compromise is so crucial to any debate, as the lack of compromise turned the entire debate into a game of chicken, with both sides running at each-other and finally agreeing to a resolution that didn't solve anything, left everyone angry and severely weakened the image of our country. If we refuse to hear out our opponents then the whole practice turns into people collectively not listening to each other and then complaining that the other side isn't listening to them.
Enter Diablo 3, who in the last few weeks has stirred up a shit-storm on the internet regarding its always on DRM. Now argument can be made for or against it, but the process has shown dramatic similarities to the debt ceiling negotiations in terms of how little compromise has been suggested and how much each side would rather just see the other side give up than actually negotiate. The big players have made their stand, industry leaders support it because that's their side, anti-DRM advocates are opposing it because it's what they stand against, and in the end no progress is being made.
Now, I'm not going to say they are exactly the same, in terms of power over the product the industry vastly out-weighs the consumer, and while the consumer makes up for it by determining ultimate game success, the direct control is one sided. In Washington the sides are a little more even matched. But the message is the same: If we refuse to even attempt compromise over a subject, everybody loses, no progress is made, and we all look like babies for it.
In Washington progress is made generally when the majority party writes a plan and they can convince the minority party to go along with it (I know it's not exact but that's how it tends to play out nowadays). The compromise occurs when they discuss the plan and add/take away parts to make it more palatable to both sides. In the gaming industry progress is made when a company makes a game and the people buy it, it's the same concept. Sometimes fan outcry and petitions can affect how a game is made, but more often than not the game is made how the company wants it, and the consumer responds by giving/not giving them their money. In the gaming world compromise is almost never considered, usually the result is only seen after release, where it's too late to change anything and the result is bad for everyone. Companies lose sales, people have to download cracks, cheating/hacking runs rampant, people lose out on access to features and the process starts over again on the next game.
The fix to this is, of course, to change the nature of the discussion so that consumers have more input during development rather than just the decision of purchase/pirate/pass. You may be thinking "How can consumers affect game development while it's in progress rather than after its released and voting with my wallet?" and the answer is simple, actually start thinking about compromising rather than going for the extreme view. With every gaming controversy whether it be yearly sequels, reboots, taboo subject matter/cop-outs on taboo subject matter or the aforementioned DRM there always seems to be a knee-jerk slough of boycott threads and forum posts without any organization, thought or even intent. I'm guessing most people buy the games anyway, and companies noticed this, so they don't take the threads seriously. Many people say the fix to this is to get better leadership and organization, but that's like saying the way to get better at cooking is to be a better cook. No, the real fix is to actually suggest compromises and agree over reasonable fixes that solve problems for everybody, rather than stick to your far corner and hope you can outlast the other side. Companies will see it as a more credible proposal when we aren't entrenched as far away as possible, and with time they may see benefit in looking into our ideas to increase their profitability
The knee-jerk is also usually stuffed with mischaracterizations of both sides as an attempt to win points by being the lesser of two evils, and the process is incredibly self destructive. If anti-DRM advocates keep characterizing industry leaders as bloated, greedy and evil, then the industry leaders feel more justified in responding without any respect for said advocates and treating them as borderline criminals only interested in pirating games from them. Both sides feel like they need to do this because the other side already is, but we can stop the process. Treat each other with respect and problems get solved faster, we avoid destructive standoffs and we all look better for it.
Both sides have merits, companies want to avoid people pirating the game so they can get more funding to make better games and consumers want freedom from intrusive programs. If we admit that a better solution for everyone can be reached, then we are already starting to work for that solution.
Now, for discussion, I wanted to get a thread of ideas by gamers as to how DRM and similar systems can be implemented in ways that are fair to both consumers and producers. I don't want people taking extremist views like "No DRM ever for anything" because that does nothing to solve the problem, it only exacerbates it. I have a few ideas myself, mostly pertaining to the always on DRM sort like in Diablo 3.
First: Blizzard: A plead that between now and release you find the time in include an offline mode that is kept separate from the multiplayer modes. I know it's annoying to have to create a new character just for online, but more choice is better than none, as long as you make it clear when you create the character what mode you are on.
Okay now to my rules about Always On:
1. Kinda obvious, make sure the game is worth playing in the first place. DRM is to protect both the consumer and the producer, but without a quality product it only annoys everyone. Just make sure that you spend time making sure the game is amazing before you focus on the DRM aspect.
2. If we have to remain connected to servers to play make sure you invest lots of time and money in ensuring they stay up. And always keep a contingency plan for if the servers need to shut down for good, so we don't get locked out forever.
3. Make sure the DRM is doing more than just averting piracy. Make sure that no workarounds exist to game the system into cheating in multiplayer or messing up the economy and rendering the protection moot.
4. Only use Always On DRM for games with significant multiplayer aspect to justify the connection. This ties to number 3 in that the consumer needs to be getting something out of the system as well, and with single player we don't get much.
5. Ensure that the connection to the servers and accounts needed to play is quick and painless. Its should be easier than checking your email, and if your good enough we should barely notice it.
6. Be honest. If a game includes always on DRM the consumer needs to be aware of it. This may scrape the border of consumer fraud, and everyone wants to avoid that. If you have DRM, tell us, its always better than the reaction when people get serious problems from hidden software or games they simply cannot run.
7. Try to be more precise with the DRM rather than broad. If you could find a way to detect fraudulent character builds or auctions without imposing always on for everyone it would be much appreciated. Simply put, always be pursuing ways to punish the violators rather than pursuing ways to monitor everyone.
So, what do you think?
If there is any lesson to be learned, this demonstrated exactly why compromise is so crucial to any debate, as the lack of compromise turned the entire debate into a game of chicken, with both sides running at each-other and finally agreeing to a resolution that didn't solve anything, left everyone angry and severely weakened the image of our country. If we refuse to hear out our opponents then the whole practice turns into people collectively not listening to each other and then complaining that the other side isn't listening to them.
Enter Diablo 3, who in the last few weeks has stirred up a shit-storm on the internet regarding its always on DRM. Now argument can be made for or against it, but the process has shown dramatic similarities to the debt ceiling negotiations in terms of how little compromise has been suggested and how much each side would rather just see the other side give up than actually negotiate. The big players have made their stand, industry leaders support it because that's their side, anti-DRM advocates are opposing it because it's what they stand against, and in the end no progress is being made.
Now, I'm not going to say they are exactly the same, in terms of power over the product the industry vastly out-weighs the consumer, and while the consumer makes up for it by determining ultimate game success, the direct control is one sided. In Washington the sides are a little more even matched. But the message is the same: If we refuse to even attempt compromise over a subject, everybody loses, no progress is made, and we all look like babies for it.
In Washington progress is made generally when the majority party writes a plan and they can convince the minority party to go along with it (I know it's not exact but that's how it tends to play out nowadays). The compromise occurs when they discuss the plan and add/take away parts to make it more palatable to both sides. In the gaming industry progress is made when a company makes a game and the people buy it, it's the same concept. Sometimes fan outcry and petitions can affect how a game is made, but more often than not the game is made how the company wants it, and the consumer responds by giving/not giving them their money. In the gaming world compromise is almost never considered, usually the result is only seen after release, where it's too late to change anything and the result is bad for everyone. Companies lose sales, people have to download cracks, cheating/hacking runs rampant, people lose out on access to features and the process starts over again on the next game.
The fix to this is, of course, to change the nature of the discussion so that consumers have more input during development rather than just the decision of purchase/pirate/pass. You may be thinking "How can consumers affect game development while it's in progress rather than after its released and voting with my wallet?" and the answer is simple, actually start thinking about compromising rather than going for the extreme view. With every gaming controversy whether it be yearly sequels, reboots, taboo subject matter/cop-outs on taboo subject matter or the aforementioned DRM there always seems to be a knee-jerk slough of boycott threads and forum posts without any organization, thought or even intent. I'm guessing most people buy the games anyway, and companies noticed this, so they don't take the threads seriously. Many people say the fix to this is to get better leadership and organization, but that's like saying the way to get better at cooking is to be a better cook. No, the real fix is to actually suggest compromises and agree over reasonable fixes that solve problems for everybody, rather than stick to your far corner and hope you can outlast the other side. Companies will see it as a more credible proposal when we aren't entrenched as far away as possible, and with time they may see benefit in looking into our ideas to increase their profitability
The knee-jerk is also usually stuffed with mischaracterizations of both sides as an attempt to win points by being the lesser of two evils, and the process is incredibly self destructive. If anti-DRM advocates keep characterizing industry leaders as bloated, greedy and evil, then the industry leaders feel more justified in responding without any respect for said advocates and treating them as borderline criminals only interested in pirating games from them. Both sides feel like they need to do this because the other side already is, but we can stop the process. Treat each other with respect and problems get solved faster, we avoid destructive standoffs and we all look better for it.
Both sides have merits, companies want to avoid people pirating the game so they can get more funding to make better games and consumers want freedom from intrusive programs. If we admit that a better solution for everyone can be reached, then we are already starting to work for that solution.
Now, for discussion, I wanted to get a thread of ideas by gamers as to how DRM and similar systems can be implemented in ways that are fair to both consumers and producers. I don't want people taking extremist views like "No DRM ever for anything" because that does nothing to solve the problem, it only exacerbates it. I have a few ideas myself, mostly pertaining to the always on DRM sort like in Diablo 3.
First: Blizzard: A plead that between now and release you find the time in include an offline mode that is kept separate from the multiplayer modes. I know it's annoying to have to create a new character just for online, but more choice is better than none, as long as you make it clear when you create the character what mode you are on.
Okay now to my rules about Always On:
1. Kinda obvious, make sure the game is worth playing in the first place. DRM is to protect both the consumer and the producer, but without a quality product it only annoys everyone. Just make sure that you spend time making sure the game is amazing before you focus on the DRM aspect.
2. If we have to remain connected to servers to play make sure you invest lots of time and money in ensuring they stay up. And always keep a contingency plan for if the servers need to shut down for good, so we don't get locked out forever.
3. Make sure the DRM is doing more than just averting piracy. Make sure that no workarounds exist to game the system into cheating in multiplayer or messing up the economy and rendering the protection moot.
4. Only use Always On DRM for games with significant multiplayer aspect to justify the connection. This ties to number 3 in that the consumer needs to be getting something out of the system as well, and with single player we don't get much.
5. Ensure that the connection to the servers and accounts needed to play is quick and painless. Its should be easier than checking your email, and if your good enough we should barely notice it.
6. Be honest. If a game includes always on DRM the consumer needs to be aware of it. This may scrape the border of consumer fraud, and everyone wants to avoid that. If you have DRM, tell us, its always better than the reaction when people get serious problems from hidden software or games they simply cannot run.
7. Try to be more precise with the DRM rather than broad. If you could find a way to detect fraudulent character builds or auctions without imposing always on for everyone it would be much appreciated. Simply put, always be pursuing ways to punish the violators rather than pursuing ways to monitor everyone.
So, what do you think?
