Poll: DRM and the complainers

[Shellsh0cker]

What they all said. I wouldn't like feeling like I was only renting a game that I distinctly remembered buying. DRM obviously doesn't stop piracy (if it did, this discussion would be decidedly different, I think), all it does is hurt the legitimate users.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

We're just telling them that they are doing it wrong...

 

[Anton P. Nym]

So many objections to DRM are so massively overblown, based on some weird ideology that I frankly don't understand, that they drown out the legitimate complaints about bad/busted DRM schemes. That the titles get pirated anyway gets seen as justification for pro-DRM types to DRM harder, and anti-DRM types to whine louder or pirate moar. It's a vicious cycle.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about it and I think I'm going to ignore future threads whining about DRM for the sake of my own blood pressure.

-- Steve

 

[gigastrike]

The DRM is the 3 install limit that they put on Spore in order to prevent piracy. It failed.

I never thought it was a big deal. I never encountered any problems with it and it seems the only people being hurt by it is EA.

 

[Theo Samaritan]

DRM...

Officially: Data Rights Manager/Management
Unofficially: Destroyer of Rightful Minds
Definitely Retarded Missfire

The list goes on!

And for some of you, who may think otherwise, DRM is NOT only the Spore incident. Spore's DRM just made a lot of people talk about it.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Funnily enough I was reading the Wikipedia article on perverse incentives that mentions this very issue.

I am in favour of DRM in principle, as I believe that developers and publishers deserve to be fairly paid for their work. What I object to is the heavy handed methods that some publishers are resorting to, which actually makes a pirated version not only preferable, but superior to the retail product.

Article which makes this case really well here:-

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/user-friendly

I particularly like this paragraph:-

There will always be a core of people who can't or won't pay for things, and who will go to incredible lengths and inconvenience themselves awfully just in order to get stuff for free. However, it's a stupid and useless dogma to claim that all piracy happens because of that impulse. The reality is that when pirates are offering a better user experience than you are, your business model is broken - and rather than punishing your loyal customers, or whinging to national governments in the hope that they'll cover your backside with unpopular, civil liberties infringing legislation, you need to fix your business model. Or find a new job.

 

[awmperry]

Given that I'm working towards a literary career - screenwriting, novels, whatever takes my fancy - I'm very keen on strong copyright protection. I don't want someone to take my stories and sell them as their own, and if I release an ebook I don't want someone to send it off to all their friends without me getting my cut for the work I've put in.

However, I also take responsibility for the quality of my work, and I try to make sure that the work I produce is of a standard that there can be no reasonable objection to paying for it. In other words, I don't want my readers to feel ripped off.

And that's the point; you wouldn't buy a car without taking it for a test drive, and if you buy a toaster that turns out to in fact be a kettle you take it back for a refund. But the games industry won't allow those, and now we're even seeing high-profile games released without demos. That, in conjunction with the all-too-frequent incidence of really shoddy games design and buggy releases, could make cynical people suspect that maybe, just maybe, DRM and no-return policies are more to let companies get away with poor design and unfair business practices than ethically protecting their work.

DRM is harmful and worse than useless. I see no justification, legal or moral, for the sort of copy protection measures that are becoming common. Companies should have sufficient confidence in their products that they can stand up and say "We believe this game is as good as it can be. Give it a go; if you find it's rubbish, bring it back and tell us why."

In fact, I wrote a little blog post on the matter a few weeks ago. See what you think: http://awmperry.livejournal.com/31852.html

 

[fix-the-spade]

Does anyone else feel like we over reacted about the DRM issues?

No, DRM is bad, very bad when poorly implemented.
Valve do DRM right. It's called STEAM and it works very well. Most other DRM systems are just plain wrong, rather than provide any kind of incentive they just criminalise legitamate users. As is repeatedly proven none of the systems actually work in their intended manner either.

Plus you occasionally get DRM related gems such as Battlefield 2142 refusing to work on my machine because it "can't verify itself," Haven't bought a single EA game since then.

Having paid £40+ for the privilege of this software, registering it and entering that enormous key on install. It then goes and adds a piece of malicious software to my pc, because I 'might' be a software pirate. This is completely self defeating as pirated versions of game simply do away with the DRM.
I on the other hand have paid good money only to be told bareface that I am a criminal for having the audacity to try and play the game.

I can understand DRM, it hurts to have your hardwork ripped off, the trouble is the heavy handed, short sighted and ineffective way most companies try to implement it.

 

[incal11]

I agree with most of what is said on these forums about piracy but ...
I have a hard time seeing steam as a truly good thing ; because of the need to make an account , the need to be online when installing , being allowed to install only once.
How is it better than DRMs ?

I refuse to put my head in a shackle because it has "steam" written on it.
Maybe steam is really a step in the right direction , but it's not going far enough for me.

 

[fix-the-spade]

I have a hard time seeing steam as a good evolution ; because of the need to make an account , the need to be online when installing , being allowed to install only once.
How is it better than DRMs ?

Steam is good DRM because:
i)You have infinite installs to your account on any machine anywhere in the world. Believe me I've tested it.
ii)It also auto updates games, including new content, for free.
iii)It tells you if a driver is out of date and where to go to get it updated, with links
iv)It does that before you start playing the game, rather than just crashing EA style.
v)Social networking.
vi) It very rarely causes crashes or damage to your PC, nor does it ask for CD keys, registering software or any other irritating ways of 'proving' you paid for the game.

Granted only being allowed one a game per account can grate a little, you can't pass games around between friends either. But other DRM systems don't let you do either anyway so it's forgiven.

the only serious problem with it is it's reliance on the internet when you install and the way it occasionally wants to check back to Steam servers to verify your account. Both of which will bugger you up the bum if you don't have a web connection. But having said that it costs nothing to re verify your games once you do get a web connection, you just need to remember your password. Whereas EA charge money and demand physical proof to get a CD key reset.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

In fact, I wrote a little blog post on the matter a few weeks ago. See what you think: http://awmperry.livejournal.com/31852.html

Have you pitched this to The Escapist? I think this article makes some points which are really important in this whole DRM fiasco.

 

[Mariena]

I won't even bother with the limited installations and all that.. But SecuROM shouldn't be on my computer without my consent. I don't care if it does no harm and I don't care if it helps EA make more profitz. I don't want it on my computer. I did not ask for it to be installed on my computer. Get rid of that crap.

Freaking spyware..

 

[incal11]

I have a hard time seeing steam as a good evolution ; because of the need to make an account , the need to be online when installing , being allowed to install only once.
How is it better than DRMs ?

Steam is good DRM because:
i)You have infinite installs to your account on any machine anywhere in the world. Believe me I've tested it.
ii)It also auto updates games, including new content, for free.
iii)It tells you if a driver is out of date and where to go to get it updated, with links
iv)It does that before you start playing the game, rather than just crashing EA style.
v)Social networking.
vi) It very rarely causes crashes or damage to your PC, nor does it ask for CD keys, registering software or any other irritating ways of 'proving' you paid for the game.

Granted only being allowed one a game per account can grate a little, you can't pass games around between friends either. But other DRM systems don't let you do either anyway so it's forgiven.

the only serious problem with it is it's reliance on the internet when you install and the way it occasionally wants to check back to Steam servers to verify your account. Both of which will bugger you up the bum if you don't have a web connection. But having said that it costs nothing to re verify your games once you do get a web connection, you just need to remember your password. Whereas EA charge money and demand physical proof to get a CD key reset.

I get the point ;
sadly there is no way for me to get over the required internet connection and account (to be regularly verified , eww).

I do not see why I couldn't get update for free , the same way I get noCDs for free; and unlike the majority , it seems , i'm not in a hurry about updates (except updates for critical bugs , I'm not buying unfinished games anyway).

Call me a freak , but social networking isn't my cup of tea; and there's plenty of comunity for games I like outside steam.
I'm savy enough to update my drivers correctly.

I prefer "never crashes" to "very rarely"; though it's reassuring that steam does things better than EA.
sure , it looks like it is a step in the good direction .

Still, it's not there yet in my eyes.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Does anyone else feel like we over reacted about the DRM issues?

No, DRM is bad, very bad.
Valve do DRM right. It's called STEAM and it works very well.

Sorry, I'm calling you on that busted logic.

DRM = Bad, Valve = Good, but Valve = STEAM and STEAM = DRM.

In order for your argument to not contradict itself, either DRM = Bad and STEAM = Bad, or DRM = Good and STEAM = Good. That's the frustrating part of DRM discussions for me... it's impossible to discuss the subject without folks making self-contradictory statements like that.

I think DRM is indeed necessary in some form, because otherwise content creators get hosed, but I also think that it can be done very poorly so that it punishes loyal customers more than it inconveniences the crooked ones. The argument shouldn't be "dump DRM", in my opinion, but "dump bad DRM schemes and use good schemes instead."

-- Steve

 

[Seydaman]

doesnt make me mad seeing as its piss easy to get by them and doesn't pose a threat to pirating

 

[fix-the-spade]

Sorry, I'm calling you on that busted logic.

DRM = Bad, Valve = Good, but Valve = STEAM and STEAM = DRM.

How dare you question the logic of a Yorkshireman!?

Ok, edited slightly to make more sense. Or at least contradict itself less.

No, DRM is bad, very bad when poorly implemented.
Valve do DRM right.

 

[B4D 9R4MM3R]

I have no quarrel with the principles of DRM, but rather in the application and execution of it.

If an illegal product is better than real thing because the real thing treats you like a criminal then people are going to go for the illegal version.

Well, some people will go for the illegal version. Some will still buy legit. Some, like me, will have nothing to do with either.

 

[Liverandbacon]

If DRM doesn't harm my user experience, I don't mind it. However, almost all DRM harms me in one of these ways:
1. Requiring the disk to be in the drive- I like to play on my LAN dammit, and I shouldn't need to buy multiple copies to do so at my own home.
2. If 1 is there, copy protection. If you don't let me play without a disk in the drive, at least let me make a copy so I can play a LAN game.
3. Limited installs. If my computer craps out, I want to be able to reinstall. If I upgrade my computer, I want to be able to reinstall. If I uninstall a game to make space on my hard drive, then want it back, I want to be able to reinstall. If a company tries to stop me from doing this, as much as I'd prefer not to, I'll download a crack.

I'll tolerate only one install being allowed to access the internet at a time, as that doesn't impede LAN games and is a reasonable restriction. However, if I and a few buddies want to play a game together in my own house withing talking distance of one another there is absolutely no reason for a company to restrict me from doing this. Seriously, DRM only bothers legitamate users. All the friends of mine who swallow their morals and become pirates don't have to deal with this crap. It just makes legitamate users like me feel like idiots for paying for a product that has been shot in the legs by its creators.