"This DRM is Orwellian!"

[ArmorKingBaneGief]

Hi. Now, I don't game on the PC, but from everything I've read about 'DRM', it really is a loathsome, disgusting thing that shouldn't exist. It's wrong, it's shady, it's useless, it's garbage. Great, I'm with you guys 100% so far.

But I notice a lot of people, when discussing the ever-classy EA studios, or Blizzard, or any of the big corporate machines that handle making video games, they're inevitably called 'Orwellian', and by extension, DRM is compared to the novel 1984, written by George Orwell. Here's where you guys lose me:

The novel 1984 depicts an oppressive government, denying its citizens everything but paltry tasteless rations, oppressing them without mercy and gleefully torturing them until they look like Holocaust survivors when they disobey and rebel. I understand why DRM and said government might look similar on the surface, they're both "oppressing" its people, each are stupid yet almost certainly ran iron-fistedly by people who are shrewdly intelligent in all the wrong ways, and I'm going to go ahead and guess that both are to some degree, immoral. But you know why it bothers me when the two are compared?

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.)

 

[Pink Gregory]

Some gamers have no perspective, and have a tendency towards emotive language.

What else is new?

 

[Esotera]

The CCTV cameras and forced exercise regime in 1984 didn't kill anyone, but they infringed on your freedom to do what you like, and were generally very obstructive to living your life. In that sense the DRM is Orwellian as it automatically assumes you've done something wrong and need to be monitored.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

One of these situations truly is Orwellian. Can you guess which one?

DRM. Definitely the DRM. Darn those scumbags!

I know what you mean, though, it is a bit silly. It's kind of like when people invoke Godwin's Law over petty little things. That happens a lot with DRM, too.

Still, I don't think it's really harmful. I'm sure most people are aware that it isn't quite as bad as the world in 1984, but it's a convenient little shorthand for "I think this is shitty and oppressive." The first most people think of when you say "Orwellian" is surveillance.

 

[Dryk]

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

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

The CCTV cameras and forced exercise regime in 1984 didn't kill anyone, but they infringed on your freedom to do what you like, and were generally very obstructive to living your life. In that sense the DRM is Orwellian as it automatically assumes you've done something wrong and need to be monitored.

Nah, the constant surveillance for and quelling of "subversive" thoughts did that. 1984 is not about how bad it is to put people through hops to get what they want, it is about the danger of a totalitarian society which frowns upon individuality and free thought and relies on ideological brainwashing and removal of those that don't adhere to the ideology.

Playing a game with a DRM is totally optional. Nothing about what Big Brother commanded in 1984 was optional. Until Valve forces me to install Steam and has me answer the question "Who is your God and Savior?" with "Gabe Newell" every morning there is absolutely no basis for calling DRM Orwellian.

 

[Aeshi]

Yeah, well "GAMES THAT I CAN'T RUN (but probably bought anyway despite knowing I can't run them) IS EVIL THEY CAME FOR THE JEWS IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH (I'm hoping if I parrot enough shitty poetry/movie quotes it'll somehow become an intelligent thing to do.)" doesn't sound as noble.

 

[Doom972]

This is the first mention of DRM being Orwellian I've seen.
The always-online DRM means that you can't play the game unless you have a constant connection to one of the publisher's servers.
That kind of DRM is constant surveillance to make sure that all players are legitimate players. While the surveillance in 1984 actually helped the regime keep control, this DRM doesn't prevent pirates from playing modified versions that don't require the server connection.

So it seems similar in its basic premise, but useless.

 

[The Selkie]

I've never heard DRM referred to as Orwellian and in my opinion it's a pretty weak comparison to draw, but not for the reasons you've listed. The defining feature of 1984 isn't the oppression of it's people - that happens all over the world and has done for years, the defining feature is the use of technology to monitor every aspect of peoples lives. Orwewllian has become shorthand for having technology become intrusive in our lives against our will (most evidently in the form of telescreens) which is why it's so popular in the arguments against CCTV etc.

Basically, I agree that it's not Orwellian (not that I've ever heard it described as such) but not for the reasons you gave.

 

[ArmorKingBaneGief]

Good point, bunch of people. But I don't know, it's just tough to not see it as ridiculous, at least initially.

 

[dyre]

Orwellian doesn't refer to the fact that people died (also, IIRC in 1984, there is far less death than in other dystopian settings. The occasional bombing to keep the people scared is all that really happens, aside from the fake war) in 1984. Rather, it refers to the constant monitoring/invasion of privacy and laws against freedom of expression/thought. I guess recently it has been compared to CCTV a lot because the Brits had some kind of CCTV law?

For example, warrantless wiretapping, while not deadly by any means, is Orwellian. Carpet bombing, while deadly, is not Orwellian. Rationing, while present in 1984, is also not Orwellian.

DRM isn't really Orwellian either (maybe a small case could be made for the always-online kind), but then again, I haven't seen many people make the comparison.

Conclusion: thread is a bit of a straw man, as far as I can tell

edit: bleh, nvm

 

[AngryMongoose]

Get me 3 citations of people describing any piece of DRM as "Orwellian." I have yet to see a single instance of this; probably because it doesn't make much sense.

In 1984, people fucking died.

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

 

[Innegativeion]

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

Yeah, exactly... since when did common literary practice become offensive?

Bearing in mind that Owell's is work of fiction, you don't see me creating a thread every time somebody uses the phrases "like a million", "unplayable", or "limitless" in a non-literal fashion.

In 1984, people fucking died.

Couldn't have said it better myself. (Maybe I could have, given enough time to think, but admitting that would make it hyperbole, which is apparently taboo.)

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Hi. Now, I don't game on the PC, but from everything I've read about 'DRM', it really is a loathsome, disgusting thing that shouldn't exist. It's wrong, it's shady, it's useless, it's garbage. Great, I'm with you guys 100% so far.

But I notice a lot of people, when discussing the ever-classy EA studios, or Blizzard, or any of the big corporate machines that handle making video games, they're inevitably called 'Orwellian', and by extension, DRM is compared to the novel 1984, written by George Orwell. Here's where you guys lose me:

My guess is that most of the people using the term "Orwellian" have never actually read the book. Or if they did, they don't remember the book well or at all.

1984 gets known for its "Big Brother" government that is always watching. That is the only thing most people know about the book, so that's what they remember. For a lot of people, "Orwellian" means "always spying on you". And, if looked at from a certain perspective, Always Online DRM is always spying on you. Sort of.

But yeah, I just think it's a term that people misapply. If people were calling the DRM "naziesque" because the Nazis also spied on people, they'd get accused of blowing things way out of proportion.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Let's assume we're talking about Sim City 5, since that's kind of the hot topic at the moment. The always online DRM in that isn't Orwellian. Far from it.

It's got far more in common with Paranoia, in that the seemingly monolithic and all-powerful system is actually utterly self-sabotaging and running on incompetent, ineffectual policies. It's not a dangerous regime, it's a bleak farce that no one who's actually a part of would dare to question, because they know that someone's going to get them long before they could actually change anything.

That's the difference between this DRM and an Orwellian government. In 1984, the government actually had a clue what they were doing.

 

[Vigormortis]

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

Pretty much what I was going to say. Most of the people that use the term "Orwellian" may know what the word stands for, but they have no real comprehension of what it means.

I have to say, however, that I see the term "Draconian" more commonly than I do "Orwellian". Though it's used just as inappropriately.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Now-a-days, we have a gaming industry and culture that encourages and emboldens childish behavior. Causing many gamers to act like childish, entitled, whiny jerks, most of whom will *****, moan, and complain about the most petty and inconsequential things. Worse still, some companies out there even bolster such behavior by actively pitting fans against someone or something.

I mean, consider -

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

Issue: Ending to your favorite game turns out awful.
Gamer Response: Start a fucking riot and attempt to sue the companies involved.

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

Pardon the mini-rant, but the gaming culture of the 21st century just depresses me.

 

[Xanadu84]

I think the term is used less as a matter of actual evilness, and more in the sense of astounding intrusiveness into privacy. The demand to be under the watchful eye of authority is just as pervasive on that one small facet of life, its just that in one you can't play a video game, in the other you go to room 101. The spirit is the same, DRM is just used for a infinitely more petty evil. It also doesn't hurt that there is a degree of doublethink involved in believing that DRM actually does anything except inconvenience legitimate consumers. Besides, an orwellian world is comprised of a countless number of invasions of privacy. No single invasion would cause a complete Orwellian nightmare. By its nature, for something to be Orwellian, you need to have eyes on you at every turn on every street corner. DRM is not the whole package, but it can definately feel like ONE of those eyes.

 

[Therumancer]

Hi. Now, I don't game on the PC, but from everything I've read about 'DRM', it really is a loathsome, disgusting thing that shouldn't exist. It's wrong, it's shady, it's useless, it's garbage. Great, I'm with you guys 100% so far.

But I notice a lot of people, when discussing the ever-classy EA studios, or Blizzard, or any of the big corporate machines that handle making video games, they're inevitably called 'Orwellian', and by extension, DRM is compared to the novel 1984, written by George Orwell. Here's where you guys lose me:

The novel 1984 depicts an oppressive government, denying its citizens everything but paltry tasteless rations, oppressing them without mercy and gleefully torturing them until they look like Holocaust survivors when they disobey and rebel. I understand why DRM and said government might look similar on the surface, they're both "oppressing" its people, each are stupid yet almost certainly ran iron-fistedly by people who are shrewdly intelligent in all the wrong ways, and I'm going to go ahead and guess that both are to some degree, immoral. But you know why it bothers me when the two are compared?

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.)

Well, the problem with people talking about "1984" is that 99% of the people do not understand it. There are a couple of key elements that are present in the story that tend to be overlooked in most analysis of it that are very important and present for a reason. Truthfully I've always felt Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" made the point most people try and use for "1984" a bit better.

The key to 1984 is to understand that our hero is actually a member of the goverment trusted with a degree of freedom and actual knowlege, as a member of the so called "Outer Party". In reality for most people existing in that world they are quite happy, albiet kept ignorant of the truth, and dosed periodically with a drug called "Soma". To your average citizen who does not see things from in the middle like our protaganist it might as well BE a Utopia, and understand that for all of the "horrors" we see, "Big Brother" is extremely popular, despite the fact that he might not even exist.

A central question is that for all the horrors, was Winston really right? After all in becoming brainwashed he actually becomes happy, as is most of the population. Does it matter in the end?

This is a question mirrored in a lot of other science fiction, with things like virtual reality being used to create the "illusion". "The Matrix" was like this, and even raised this directly at one point when one of Neo's inner circle betrayed him. Asimov's "Foundation" is a series where the ultimate "solution" is to force everyone into a shared collective "mass mind", where they effectively sacrifice a lot of their free will and humanity in exchange for acting as one organism with the rest of the cosmos, in the paranoid belief that it's the only way humanity could ever compete with another species that theoretically achieved the same thing (a sort of flip side to the end message of "The Matrix" and it's "message").

At any rate the point here is that yes, I tend to agree that "Orwellian" is not the right word. It's a misused referance. For something to be "Orwellian" the majority of people, pretty much everyone not controlling it, would
have to approve and believe it benefitted them somehow. Right now DRM is pretty much tolerated as an evil one must endure if one is to play games, and has no real acceptance beyond that outside of the industry, and an increasing
number of people who outright oppose it.

Personally, I'm very much anti-DRM, and believe the way people have accepted it has paved the way for even more obnoxious things like microtransactions being added to single player games (Dead Space 3) which I have not purchused
as a result, despite loving the IP and having beaten both of the previous games (owning the first one for multiple platforms in fact), which is saying a lot since I'm not generally a "shooter" fan. If things were Orwellian however anyone who isn't a functionary of EA or other software giant would be singing it's praises. In the context of 1984 Winston basically would have worked for their marketing department (as he was in charge of historical re-inventionism). Of course in that hypothetical situation, if they somehow made me happy with it, it can also be argued what the big deal is? Is it oppression if you don't know your being oppressed? That's a deeply philsophical question, the general answer is that it only matters if you realize it, as disturbing as that is.