"This DRM is Orwellian!"

[FEichinger]

Let's look at what "Orwellian" means, shall we? (Using the bullet list from Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian] here, for simplicity's sake)

- Invasion of privacy
- State control of daily life
- Forced family-disintegration
- Adoration of State Leaders
- Embrace inconsistent concepts
- Revision of history in favor of state
- Euphemisms to avoid controversy

Since people love these games, heck, the games mostly aren't objectively bad, it's just that people don't like the implications of what's around them, we will now ignore the choice of not buying/playing them. Playing them is a desired status and as such ideally is the status quo.

Now let's look at what happens when we apply the Orwellian criteria to this setting, where the status quo is "You are playing this game." The company releasing it becomes the "state", as in the superior force.

The company invades your privacy, as it forces something onto you that you do not want anywhere near you.
The company controls you playing the game by having the DRM in-between you and you playing the game.
Does it disintegrate the family - the community in this scenario? Well, I wouldn't necessarily say so, but there is definitely a hint of splitting the community with all of this.
The company does ask you to blindly adore it and its executives. If you don't essentially worship it, you may well run into a situation where they say "nope, gonna get banned for speaking up". I wouldn't say this has happened yet, but DRM makes it possible at the very least.
The company asks you to embrace inconsistent concepts. It blatantly lies to you to convince you that "DRM is needed for multiplayer", while it's very well possible to make it optional, for example.
The company revises history by censoring its resources on the topics, controlling journalists and faking reviews. Again: While this hasn't largely happened, the company could well blacklist journos and pay for review scores. This, however, is not related to DRM.
And finally "Digital Rights Management" is a euphemism for "Controlling Your Gaming Habits" - "DRM" means "We want our stuff to be safe from pirates!" while it more or less ends up as "We think you are all pirates, so we're gonna make sure you don't do anything we don't like!"

So, while it definitely doesn't fully fulfill the Orwellian criteria yet, and probably never will - and is largely based on speculation - there is definitely grounds for this. I personally have never seen the use of "Orwellian" in reference to DRM, but it's not entirely baseless. I wouldn't use it myself either, it's simply intrusive and shouldn't be invested in (read: Seriously boycott the fuck out of it, throw a tantrum, and they will listen) and, quite frankly, all this whole "Orwellian DRM" thing is is a hyperbole. But again: It's not a baseless hyperbole. It actually got quite a base.

everyone has their personal nitpicks but to most people orwellian doesnt mean anything more than invasion of privacy as the term has evolved beyond the specific uses you have described

I'm sorry, but no. Flat out no. No.

I get terms like "geek", "nerd" - hell, "*****", "gay" and "****" evolving. Heck, I even get "literally" now almost entirely meaning "figuratively" thanks to people not giving a shit. Oh, on that note also: "shit" and "fuck".

But "Orwellian" is named after this scenario, for god's sake. It refers to a situation similar to the one Orwell imagined with 1984, not to "invasion of privacy" overall and on its own. This is not only a disservice to Orwell, but it is also blatantly ignorant.

 

[Atmos Duality]

It's called "hyperbole" and the DRM situation isn't the only case in which it's used.

And that was the only thing that needed to be said.
But I suppose the Lilly-Literals couldn't make catty analysis if we simply acknowledged the obvious and moved on.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Yeah. Fictional people. Real people are getting genuinely irritated by DRM. We aren't comparing to Cultural Revolution China or invoking Goodwin here.

People are indeed invoking Godwin's Law. We had someone pull out the "First they came..." poem in a previous thread about DRM, and I'm sure you know the genesis of that.

We've had people compare the stand against DRM to Rosa Parks.

We've had people say the fight against DRM was "their generation's war".

I realize it's not everyone, but (for some reason) this is clearly an emotional issue for some people, and their first order of business when discussing it is to start smashing the hyperbole button with both fists and never stop.

I actually have a fairly negative reaction to DRM, despite the fact being always online really doesn't affect me in the slightest (save for those times when they can't keep their servers up...EA I am looking in your direction), but I have an even stronger negative reaction to unchecked hyperbole and stupidity. It makes me want to buy every DRM ridden game ever made, and write long, floral letters to publishers about the merits of DRM, just to piss these people off. Which is not a sensible reaction, but a good barometer of how fucking ridiculous I find it to have people comparing the anti-piracy measures on video games to events that resulted in the deaths of millions of people.

The gaming community likes to fancy itself as a collection of nerds and closet intellectuals. They can start demonstrating it by coming up with some better analogies, and developing a sense of perspective.

How many more great video game developers are we going to lose before we, as gamers, start standing up to companies like Electronic Arts and demanding respect from them?

Simply not purchasing something is not "Taking a stand". I don't buy Pepsi. I don't like it. That doesn't mean I've "taken a stand" against Pepsi. It just means I exercised my rights as a consumer to not buy a product I didn't want. I also don't browbeat my friends and neighbors to not buy Pepsi due to their disgusting predilection for making a soft drink I dislike the taste of. I just don't buy it. I ignore Pepsi, and Pepsi ignores me.

Do feel free to exercise your rights as a consumer to not buy things you don't want. If you feel the need to romanticize it as "taking a stand", however, I'm going to quietly comb you into the same pile with all the other excitable lads who have so little drama in their lives they feel the need to frame their dislike of a software publisher's business practices as a heroic struggle.

 

[DoPo]

snip

Then pray tell what would YOU consider 'taking a stand' against something you dislike be?

I can't speak about him, but if you ask me, it'd be something that actually helps the cause you're taking a stand for. Let's assume you don't like always online DRM - not buying a game that has one doesn't tell the publisher anything, however if you actually contact them, that would be more of an accomplishment. If a hundred people don't buy the game the publisher still wouldn't get any idea something is happening. If thousands of people don't buy it, then, at most, the publisher will notice a decrease in sales. A decrease they can blame on anything they like, including the developers for not making a game people want. However if thousands of people contact them and say exactly what they find wrong with the game, then that's steering events in the direction your stand favours.

 

[Tom_green_day]

Gamers overreacting? Hell, that's a new one.
However you do realise George Orwell wrote a paper about DRM games? It's worth giving a shot.
When I'm tired I'm not as witty with my sarcasm. I just sound stupid.
EDIT: Apparently the always-on DRM is to stop piracy. I applaud that. I hate piracy, and will not go off on a tangent, but if it turns out this reduces piracy on games then I'd be fine with them doing it on other games too. In fact, there are some games that have had always-on DRM for a long time and people don't really care. TF2, I'm thinking of you.

 

[The_Lost_King]

I've never heard DRM called Orwellian. I have heard it called Draconian, is that similar?

 

[nexus]

Yet another instance where people try to encourage others to look at the micro instead of the macro. "Just focus on this one thing guys, and you'll see it's not what you think it is!" When you pull back and look at the landscape that is Corporate ownership, "intellectual property", the melding of corporate and state (aka Fascism), then it becomes more of an issue.

I'll tell you what.. Very simple rule here. If a developer or publisher actively releases games that portray nothing other than modern war propaganda, then I will consider them as part of "the state". The same is expected as such if Iran were to make a video game condemning the west.

People give more of a shit about how you use such terms rather than their real-world implications. When all else fails, and you are powerless against your perceived oppressors, then you go ahead and get pissy over semantics arguments with fellow peoples.

Myopic world view bullshit. /semirant

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Just for once I'd like to see someone use the word 'Orwellian' to mean anything other than 'police state'. Orwell was a fantastic writer who made some very astute points across years of fiction and essays: if you read 'Politics and the English Language', for instance, you'll notice he predicted the rise of bureaucratic weasel words and postmodernist jargon. But of course, if someone says: 'This paper is positively Orwellian,' I can only assume they aren't referencing how it draws its vocabulary from the centre of the Ladder of Abstraction.

 

[DoPo]

there are some games that have had always-on DRM for a long time and people don't really care. TF2, I'm thinking of you.

Do not confuse online games with always online DRM. Team Fortress 2 is an online game because you need to play it with other people. Well, actually that's not correct for a while now, since you can play offline against bots.

snip

Then pray tell what would YOU consider 'taking a stand' against something you dislike be?

I can't speak about him, but if you ask me, it'd be something that actually helps the cause you're taking a stand for. Let's assume you don't like always online DRM - not buying a game that has one doesn't tell the publisher anything, however if you actually contact them, that would be more of an accomplishment. If a hundred people don't buy the game the publisher still wouldn't get any idea something is happening. If thousands of people don't buy it, then, at most, the publisher will notice a decrease in sales. A decrease they can blame on anything they like, including the developers for not making a game people want. However if thousands of people contact them and say exactly what they find wrong with the game, then that's steering events in the direction your stand favours.

Using Sim city as our example here as its topical.

Complain about the stuff on their public forum? The topic gets locked and buried or deleted. Send them a private email? They just ignore it and say "Thousands of people play and enjoy the online connectivity of SimCIty!" (Almost direct Lucy scumbag Bradshaw quote) Buy it and complain and you get mocked by fellow gamers.

Issue: Always-Online DRM for games that should have offline options.
Gamer Response: ***** and moan about it, but still buy the damn game.

Yeah. These are certainly the responses of level-headed, mature people.

Dont buy it and complain and you are told "well you just dont get it!" or "You didnt spend any money on it you have no right to judge!" (I am too lazy to look up our local EA rep Thrikeens posts on the subject)

So really, there is no way to win, some kiddo will always find a way to belittle your decision or it will be flat out ignored.

But not buying a game and claiming "I take a stand" makes no sense. It's just like BloatedGuppy's situation with Pepsi. I don't have a car, does that mean I've taken a stance against them? I also don't buy yoghurt, have I taken a stance against that? There are lots of things I don't buy but that means absolutely nothing in the long run.

Unless you actually do something you aren't "taking a stance" - not buying a product is avoiding it at best, nothing more, but it could be less. What exactly do you hope would happen if you don't do anything? Somebody would come and say "Hey, that random person didn't buy our product, gee, we'll just make it more suitable for them because we can read minds" - is that it? I don't see people tripping over to improve cars and yoghurt to exactly my tastes and needs, so I'm willing to guess they won't do it. And I don't actually expect them to do it, either.

Unless you actually do something that pushes things in your favour, how do you expect them to change at all?

 

[Sandjube]

I've never even seen someone call anything Orwellian in my life, so....

I have heard people call DRM Draconian, however. many, many times. Mostly on this forum.

 

[Zealous]

Well I'd assume that the majority of them are using figurative language. You know, that thing where you don't actually mean what you say, it's just exaggerated for effect.

Either that or they're just idiots. DRM may be a shitty way to not get people to pirate games, it may be intrusive and in some cases have the capability to remove your ownership of a product you paid for, but yes, it's not on the same level as a police state that brainwashes an entire population and blatantly lies to them about the outside world (NORTH KOREA COUGH COUGH) in a dystopian future.

Captcha: "Swag on". Oh no! They got Captcha, run! Save yourselves!

 

[Olas]

In defense of OP I don't think Orwellian necessarily means 1984/police state/big brother but could just be any kind of general denial of freedom or truth no matter how small or mundane in accordance with George's fears and beliefs.

That being said, DRM isn't like censorship. The truth isn't being withheld it's just being made more complicated to get access to.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

DRM, as of right now, gets in the way of playing video games. In 1984, people fucking died. DRM causes frustration and possibly crying for some people. But in 1984, the main character becomes a starving skeleton whose teeth are easily pulled out near the end of his life. One situation is bad, but the other situation is 1984. One of these situations truly is Orwellian. Can you guess which one?

(btw, sorry if this doesn't fit in gaming discussion. I wasn't sure if this would go in off-topic, since it deals specifically with gaming, just not about any specific games.)

Totally agree with you, when I saw the title and thought you were pushing that idea my immediate thought was "well that's distasteful and short sighted". Anybody who thinks Orwellian is a good adjective to describe DRM needs to get a better grip with the English language.

The term "Orwellian" refers to the popular culture version of 1984, which doesn't include most of the things you mentioned.

Sorry but no it doesn't, could go into detail on what it does refer to but it's referencing "George Orwell" and his works as a whole it's just it's often linked with 1984. Orwellian attitudes could be used to describe a number of the themes explored in his works.

I've never heard DRM called Orwellian. I have heard it called Draconian, is that similar?

So when referring to DRM they are fairly similar, some people just seem to get butthurt over the use of Orwellian because they think people are referring to 1984 in its entirety.

Not really for me it feel's like someone is slamming my head against the wall with sheer disdain, as people who use word's like Orwellian to describe the restraints they feel DRM places upon them are part of the blind pop culture you see everywhere these days, misusing language in a vain attempt to sound knowledgeable. Taking a very complex term (in terms of the scope that is covers) and applying it to something so trivial, it's literally how ignorance is spread. It's also the kind of misuse witch has led to the reason why if you ask the average person what "Orwellian" infers they will just say "oppressive" and perhaps mention 1984.

I don't even agree with all the views George Orwell held and thus had such a strong effect upon his works (although I can sympathize why some where so extreme as he grew up on the back end of an era where there were still true empires with terrifying power). But the social themes he explored and the subject area's he explored for the most part are questions every individual should ask themselves at some point and think about, perhaps then we wouldn't have such bland "we're pretty much all the same politicians" and such blatant greed and corruption in sectors like banking. Not enough people take social responsibility for whats going on around them and are happy just to plod through life. So diminishing a word that SHOULD carry very strong connotations and meaning to describe DRM is just totally idiocy in my opinion.

On another quick note, Draconian doesn't really makes sense either, isn't it meant to describe cruel or overly harsh punishment? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/draconian?s=t

Seriously get out and read some books people, rather than just looking things up on wikipedia.

 

[n00beffect]

'It's simplicity itself, Watson!' No really it's simple - DRM is the first world equivalent of the Holocaust, to some people. Okay... That sounded, terrible, firstly because the Holocaust DID happen in the first world, and secondly... ugh, let me elaborate.

You know how you (probably) have that one friend, who's (probably) white, and bitches about everything? And that one time that same friend broke his keyboard out of sheer rage, 'cause he was pissed at you/someone else for beating him at some game or whatever, and then he went on to cry for an hour that his mommy never loved him, even though said mommy has to be in rittalin now in order to remain marginally sane because of that same friend of yours and his 'outstanding' character? Remember that one, single, singular occasion when that friend couldn't get the console/pc/whatever he's into (which is probably everything shiny and sparkly)he wanted, and he went on to claim the world was over for him forever, and 'ever and ever' and how everything was unfair and/or against him? Well, guess what - he meant it. People like that exist and they are spoiled, idiotic simpletons with the brain capacity of a fucking thread-worm, so they haven't even the slightest iota of an idea what 'Orwellian' means or what it refers to. They heard it somewhere in a review they happen to fall upon, or on some forum and now to them 'Orwellian' means bad, and nasty.

These people and their little, insignificant quibbles are called first world problems and, in my opinion, shouldn't even have their opinion registered as human activity, but rather as the strange sounds made by a new, devolved breed of animals. Hey! What could be some interesting name for this new breed?