Poll: How much DRM is too much?

[The Almighty Aardvark]

So I was taking a games programming course last week and during one of the lectures about the state of the games industry they discussed DRM. That got me thinking, alongside the article about whether DRM might be getting too tough to beat, just how intrusive does DRM have to be for it to be a potential deal breaker?

I realize that this is a hot topic, and people's opinions range all the way from both extremes on the poll (Although I'm pretty sure everyone has an upper limit on what they can put up with). Beyond just the poll, I'd also like to hear what specific types of DRM bother people and which they're fine with.

Here's an (incomplete) list you can use for reference:
- Always online
- Online authentication at regular intervals
- Purchase valid for X downloads
- Unlimited downloads, but account bound
- Performance hits (minor to major)
- Content locked behind one-time-use key
- Must have disc inserted to play

I'll try to add more as they come up in discussion

For my own opinion, I am fine with DRM within certain restrictions. For one, I want to be able to always be able to have access to the game, no matter how many computers die since I bought it. This rules out limited downloads (unless they have an easy system to have them "removed" from one computer and downloaded to another without counting). Always online is something I can't have, my internet connection drops pretty often, and being torn from the game every time it does is incredibly frustrating. Validation at regular intervals I'm totally okay with, but it'd be nice for the interval to be long enough that if I am lacking internet for a weekend I can still play the games I own.

I can take a decent amount of inconvenience, but the biggest factors are that I want the games to be playable (with only minor hits to performance), and I don't want to lose access to them at a certain point in time. I'm against piracy, and I can totally understand why developers wouldn't want giving them money to be an act of charity as opposed to a prerequisite to being able to play their game.

 

[Nachtwens]

No DRM is acceptable. I bought it, it's my property. And I don't accept restrictions or conditions on my property.

 

[SlumlordThanatos]

No DRM is acceptable. I bought it, it's my property. And I don't accept restrictions or conditions on my property.

Well, in the case of computer games...no, you didn't. According to the Terms of Use for most PC games, you purchased a license for the game. It is not yours to do with as you wish, because it's technically the property of the publisher. They're just letting you use it.

That's why you never find used PC games at Gamestop.

OT: As long as it doesn't affect my playing experience, I really don't care. Copy-protecting your games is perfectly reasonable, provided it doesn't come at the customer's expense. Things like uPlay and SecuROM are, of course, completely unacceptable, but beyond that...if I don't notice it's there, they can DRM the shit out of their games for all I care.

 

[GrumbleGrump]

Only when it does not impact my enjoyment of the product I bought with my motherfucking money. If I'm paying to have a dick forced into my eye I can just go downtown and pay someone for it.

 

[Maximum Bert]

I hate all forms of DRM but I will accept must have disc inserted to play in that I can just put the disc in and play anywhere. But locking things behind accounts and worse just does not go well with me hence why I rarely buy games from Steam or online on consoles.

 

[Cryselle]

For me, my tolerance of it is directly proportional to how much it impacts my ability to play and enjoy the game. I'm generally okay with Steam for a few reasons. A) My internet is usually pretty stable. B) Most games can be played in offline mode if my connection is temporarily bad. C) Steam now has family features that allow my partner and I to share games between ourselves. And D) Steam offers a couple nice features that help to offset it's DRM factor. I didn't mind 'needs disc to play' at the time, because it was rarely a problem for me when that was popular, though I'm not sad to see it go either.

OTOH there have been some really shitty DRMs that /have/ been a problem for me. I don't like SecuROM, uPlay sucks, there have been older games that required authentication servers that no longer exist, and that's annoying as hell. Worst, if your DRM actually degrades the performance of the game itself then I can't begin to express my disdain.

Ultimately for me, I love gaming, and I'm more than willing to pay money in order to get a game. I'm not interested in pirating things, I /want/ my favorite game devs to succeed, be profitable, and make more games I like. But if the DRM is so bad that the pirates are actually delivering a noticably superior product... well... then we have a bit of a problem. I will pay for a game with no DRM, but I'm not paying for a game where I have to constantly fight with the DRM to play.

 

[WeepingAngels]

No DRM is acceptable. I bought it, it's my property. And I don't accept restrictions or conditions on my property.

Well, in the case of computer games...no, you didn't. According to the Terms of Use for most PC games, you purchased a license for the game. It is not yours to do with as you wish, because it's technically the property of the publisher. They're just letting you use it.

That's why you never find used PC games at Gamestop.

Well no see, you do own the copy you bought. You do not own the copyright but you own the copy you bought. You don't see used PC games at Gamestop because they stopped selling them but other game shops do carry used PC games.

I don't understand why people can't seem to draw a distinction between owning a copy of a game/movie/cd and owning the copyright.

 

[Cryselle]

Well no see, you do own the copy you bought. You do not own the copyright but you own the copy you bought. You don't see used PC games at Gamestop because they stopped selling them but other game shops do carry used PC games.

I don't understand why people can't seem to draw a distinction between owning a copy of game/movie/cd and owning the copyright.

Because the actual ownership rules are a little bit complex, and can vary wildly. Easiest example of this is that if you download a song from Amazon, their agreement makes it clear that you are purchasing a license to use the song for personal entertainment. If you download the same song from iTunes, the language /their/ agreement use characterizes the deal as a 'sale', which does make a difference when it comes to the ability to then resell the song if you want to.

And further complicating things, the DMCA (and other laws in other countries) explicitly makes altering software to circumvent access controls illegal, and that applies whether or not you own the software or just a license to use it. So even if it /is/ your property, you still can't actually do 'whatever you want' with it.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

No DRM.

Its a stupid system that punishes people who actually buy the games and rewards piracy.

 

[TheMigrantSoldier]

As others have said, depends on my ability to play it. Steam and, begrudgingly, Origin are pretty unintrusive. Even when I'm offline, I can play most of the time. The only thing that irked me was the inability to share games in the same house, which Steam rectified with family sharing. Then you have garbage DRM which is completely unintuitive and makes choosing your game a chore, like uPlay.

There's also how much I hate jumping through DRM loops just to play one friggin' game, like Far Cry 3. (Thanks again, Ubisoft)

That all being said, if there is a DRM-free copy of a game on Humble bundle or GOG, I'll go with that, even if I have to spend a few extra bucks. The convenience and ease of downloading on different machines is worth it.

 

[NPC009]

I'm fine with basic Steam DRM. My internet connection is pretty reliable, and it's extremely unlikely I'll be without it for more than half a day. I'm also getting something out of Steam myself (community features are fun/useful), so it evens out for me.

Never had much of a problem with having to insert the disc to play, but that's probably because I play singleplayer games 99% of the time. I can imagine it's a real annoyance for people who want to play local multiplayer without having to buy several copies.

 

[Kajin]

Steam DRM is more or less the gold standard. It's mostly unintrusive, though I can understand why people think even that much is too much.

Personally I miss the days when the only DRM that existed were the CD Keys on the disc case.

 

[Hagi]

I'm not completely against DRM. In a perfect world we wouldn't have it but I can't blame developers and publishers for building in a few safe-guards to attempt to ensure legitimate purchases.

Steam has DRM. I've never been unable to play a game in steam due to it or had my save files messed up somehow. I don't know the totality of the DRM here, might be there's parts I don't know about I wouldn't agree with but in my experience so far I'm completely fine with Steam's DRM.

Other DRM not so much. Once bought the newest settlers game out of nostalgia for the old games. At first I couldn't play it at all and even once I could I kept losing save files because they weren't kept locally. I've not bought another Ubisoft game since and will probably never do so again. When DRM stops me from getting what I paid for then it's a problem, even if it doesn't stop me outright.

 

[Nachtwens]

Well, in the case of computer games...no, you didn't. According to the Terms of Use for most PC games, you purchased a license for the game. It is not yours to do with as you wish, because it's technically the property of the publisher. They're just letting you use it.

That's why you never find used PC games at Gamestop.

License my ass. I paid for the copy, it's mine to do as I wish. The only thing the publisher owns is the copyright and nothing else. If a game I desperately want to play has such preposterous terms and DRM, I will look for alternative ways of obtaining it. And I don't think I'm the only one.

And maybe Gamestop doesn't sell used games anymore, over here in The Netherlands a lot of (if not all) video game stores still sell them

 

[Bat Vader]

While I hate DRM and tolerate Steam DRM I believe more publishers and developers need to look at CD Projket Red. The best type of DRM is no DRM. CD Projekt Red has shown that treating the customer right and making good games is a great way to ensure people buy your game instead of pirate it. Granted there will always be people that pirate games but whenever someone does admit to pirating a Witcher game many people will chastise that person for doing so.

 

[Tayh]

If any DRM keeps me, unnecessarily (from a customers viewpoint), from my game for more than one second, then it's unacceptable.
I want to click the icon on my desktop and then go directly to my game. Anything else is just annoying me and making me look for a fixed exe.
steam/valve can just go die in a fire for all I care.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Well no see, you do own the copy you bought. You do not own the copyright but you own the copy you bought. You don't see used PC games at Gamestop because they stopped selling them but other game shops do carry used PC games.

I don't understand why people can't seem to draw a distinction between owning a copy of game/movie/cd and owning the copyright.

Because the actual ownership rules are a little bit complex, and can vary wildly. Easiest example of this is that if you download a song from Amazon, their agreement makes it clear that you are purchasing a license to use the song for personal entertainment. If you download the same song from iTunes, the language /their/ agreement use characterizes the deal as a 'sale', which does make a difference when it comes to the ability to then resell the song if you want to.

And further complicating things, the DMCA (and other laws in other countries) explicitly makes altering software to circumvent access controls illegal, and that applies whether or not you own the software or just a license to use it. So even if it /is/ your property, you still can't actually do 'whatever you want' with it.

This has nothing to do with what I said but let's run with what you said. I own my car but I can't do whatever I want with it, I must operate the car within the law. I cannot legally drive on the sidewalks nor can I run down a pedestrian. Owning something does not mean that you are allowed to do anything with it that you like. I own my house, I can't use it to run an illegal business nor can I burn it down at will.

People who own a physical copy of a game are breaking no law when they sell it. The thing that prevents you from selling digital games is the platform owner, not the law. The idea that Gamestop "can't by force of law" sell PC games is wrong.

 

[sneakypenguin]

I'd like to see a scaled system IE the first 90 days you must launch the game online or hourly checkins or something. For me no DRM is kinda dumb on the developers side. I really struggle to buy games when legit 1 click installs with no downside are availible. (Witcher1-3) Hmmm 59.99 or click this .exe....

 

[K12]

Steam's DRM is minor and I feel like I'm getting something out of it, there's a transaction there rather than just an imposition.

No DRM is ever better of course.

Basically if DRM ever keeps me from playing a game that I've paid for longer than a couple of seconds the first time I play it then it's too much.

If I've bought a game then I have the right to play it for as long as I like whenever I like. If I have to wait for your servers to come back online, or I get locked out if my internet goes down or if I can't play it at all a couple of PC builds down the line then you are stealing from me.

 

[Scarim Coral]

The fact that Diablo 3 launch day was a failure cos of that especially when the game itself is a single player game (multiplayers I can get needing online) is pretty much a no for me.

At least with Steam can still let you play your single player game when it's offline due to internet problem etc (or which single player games on that need Steam online but game doesn't need online stuff).