Which is the bigger problem? Piracy or DRM?

[RhombusHatesYou]

The one thing most Publishers AREN'T interested in are games that will become Cult Classics if most of the sales come from bargain bins years after the games release... and certainly not if most of the people lauding the game never owned a legitimate copy in the first place.

Cult classics are a good source if exploited properly, and we can trust someone we know is talented to do that right. Will he find a publisher ? It's too early to say he really cannot, time will tell.

I'm not saying he won't find a publisher. In fact, I'm fairly confident that he will eventually find one.

My point is that a property that was more popular with downloads and in the bargain bins than it was on the shelves isn't going to look as attractive a proposition to a publisher as a property that can't keep up with demand in its first week or two of release.

 

[Delusibeta]

(and a quote from a publisher)

What publisher?
I point to my edited post, specifically: The R4 was released in 2007. Why does Nintendo complain about it in 2009/2010?

2K Games' Martin Slater was who the quote was from http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183311.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=morenews&tag=morenews;title;2

(chips take longer to circulate then torrents simply because of accessibility)
and because that's when amazon and eBay stoped letting the chip be sold on there webpages

Doesn't really explain why they blamed the R4 for a fall in sales that happened "in recent months". I remain convinced that was Nintendo blaming piracy for a planning failure.

As for that quote, yes it was 2K, but they seem to have moved on to Steamworks, one of the easiest to crack DRMs out there. The quote now rings hollow in hindsight.

I could go on pointing out the flaws in your argument, but frankly I can't be bothered.

what flaws you said a bunch of made up stuff about a graph i posted
then went on to hypothetical mumbo jumbo

if that's what you believe(that sales go up when there is no DRM).seeing that's a big argument for drm free games the statistic for that should be out there.

You need number to back up what your saying and to counter mine(the burden of proof is on you).

The problem is that there is no comparative data: no-one releases a DRM free and a DRM'd version of the same game. Certainly, there's little in the way of sales statistics. Of course, I could point out as many successful DRM-free indie games, but then there's little to compare to. (Can you think of any game like World of Goo?) I could point out that the likes of The Witcher and the X series would probably have less long term sales, had they not patched out the DRM. And, of course, there's the continued existence of GOG. The problem is that none of it is proof, much like none of your examples is proof.

There are no solid statistics either way. Deal with it.

 

[Dastardly]

Ah, yes, 'how can you demonstrate...' etc. Well see, here's the thing, the burden of proof is on the accusing party (in this case the Publisher accusing customers of doing shady shit) in most Western nations.

Besides, now with digital content delivery they don't have to be such pricks about things like that, with Steam being a prime example.

To the first parts of your post, I won't dispute Australian law with you--you know it better than I do. I will say that the problem for these companies comes mostly with PC games, because the hacked programs are then made available to people in countries where that law does not (and thus should not) protect them.

But for the quoted portion, you're half right. The burden of proof is on the accuser in criminal matters. Civil matters follow the weight of evidence, whichever way that may lean. And when it comes to piracy prevention no crime has been committed yet. It's still a civil matter when it's the discussion of what should/shouldn't be refunded.

In such cases, things tend to favor the status quo because it is the opposing party that has to get the ball rolling. The company creates the product and the policy. If you don't like the policy, you can choose not to buy it... or you can challenge it, but realize you're attacking an already-established defensive position. They, at this point, have the ability to go, "Well, why should we change it? How can you guarantee it won't be detrimental?"

When it comes to criminal cases, meaning someone has been accused of actually pirating something, they need to bring the proof and show that it was downloaded/copied/seeded/whatever. Until that point, though, the burden of proof is shared.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

Piracy. Blaming someone else for your misbehavior is the hight of immaturity.

That statement applies to DRM more than it does piracy. While some people might get into piracy because they're sick of DRM, it's a small percentage of over-all piracy. Meanwhile 100% of DRM practices blames piracy for its existence.

Edit: Mind you, if you feel piracy is a bigger problem, then feel free. Just make sure you use a reason that isn't more applicable to the side you're supporting.

how is DRM misbehaviour? It's people trying to protect their incomes, which is fair enough as far as I'm concerned. Most people don't have a problem with the idea of DRM in my experience (although there are a scarily large number who do), they have a problem with its execution. That doesn't make it misbehaviour just badly designed. That's why I like steam, no hard copy CD keys (which I lose with worrying frequency), can download onto any computer with your account, games are often on offer (sometimes soon after release date) and you can talk in game. The latter needs to be done by more people its an excellent feature (could do with some messenger systems merging, why can't I talk to my MSN friends in game?)

DRM is misbehavior when the publishers start punishing their paying customers with highly restrictive DRM that the pirates can just ignore. Mind you, I love Steam; I've said it a couple times on this very topic. The first time someone pointed out that I should hate Steam if I'm so anti-DRM, my first instinct was to snap back by saying Steam isn't DRM; but that's when it hit me. It wasn't that Steam isn't DRM, it's that it provides so many services that you forget there's DRM buried in there somewhere; that and the fact that it's highly unrestricted DRM in the first place, so even without all those extra features I still probably wouldn't mind Steam.

The problem is when the DRM becomes blatantly noticeable to the paying consumer. The fight against piracy is purely the publisher's fight, so dragging us into a battle that isn't ours to fight just because they can't think of any better way to fight it? Yeah, I'd say that falls under misbehavior; though admittedly that term sounds a little silly in the context.

 

[lacktheknack]

Piracy is a worse problem than DRM, except in Ubisoft's case.

 

[direkiller]

(and a quote from a publisher)

What publisher?
I point to my edited post, specifically: The R4 was released in 2007. Why does Nintendo complain about it in 2009/2010?

2K Games' Martin Slater was who the quote was from http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183311.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=morenews&tag=morenews;title;2

(chips take longer to circulate then torrents simply because of accessibility)
and because that's when amazon and eBay stoped letting the chip be sold on there webpages

Doesn't really explain why they blamed the R4 for a fall in sales that happened "in recent months". I remain convinced that was Nintendo blaming piracy for a planning failure.

As for that quote, yes it was 2K, but they seem to have moved on to Steamworks, one of the easiest to crack DRMs out there. The quote now rings hollow in hindsight.

I could go on pointing out the flaws in your argument, but frankly I can't be bothered.

what flaws you said a bunch of made up stuff about a graph i posted
then went on to hypothetical mumbo jumbo

if that's what you believe(that sales go up when there is no DRM).seeing that's a big argument for drm free games the statistic for that should be out there.

You need number to back up what your saying and to counter mine(the burden of proof is on you).

The problem is that there is no comparative data: no-one releases a DRM free and a DRM'd version of the same game. Certainly, there's little in the way of sales statistics. Of course, I could point out as many successful DRM-free indie games, but then there's little to compare to. (Can you think of any game like World of Goo?) I could point out that the likes of The Witcher and the X series would probably have less long term sales, had they not patched out the DRM. And, of course, there's the continued existence of GOG. The problem is that none of it is proof, much like none of your examples is proof.

There are no solid statistics either way. Deal with it.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/87450-World-of-Goo-Experiences-90-Percent-Piracy-Rate
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/machinarium-suffers-95-piracy-rate-offers-5-amnesty-sale.ars
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100576-Who-Would-Pirate-the-One-Cent-Humble-Indie-Bundle
(indi games are heavy pirated i don't recommend going down that road)

Ubisoft desired to go with DRM after POP was heavy pirated. Despite all the stink about there intrusive DRM they are still using DRM. If it makes them more money to not have the DRM then why are they still using it? Simple it must effect there bottom line in a positive manner.

 

[Jesus Phish]

Piracy caused DRM. Therefore it's the worse of the two.

 

[Zer_]

I'd like to add a post from a thread lost to my memory, a long, long time ago.

This is not my own work, and I only know the guy who wrote it as "-M"

It's not about game piracy only, but rather about piracy as a whole.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The issue is not that it isn't theft. The issue is that technology has democratized consumption, and the companies at the heart of the issue have failed to react, adapt, and cater to these new consumption methods in an effective way.
Media companies are adamant about retaining their control over the consumption habits of customers, and desire to direct the path of the industry themselves.

The fact of the matter is that piracy, theft or not, DOES serve a functional purpose for consumers aside from simply taking shit they want without paying.
The ability to try before you buy, as it were (which, as evidenced by the consumption patterns of pirates, is a pretty common pattern of behavior), allows customers to identify and expose themselves to more media, and to more knowledgably direct their money towards artists and content creators that they feel have earned it. The democratization of media allows consumers to identify products they don't like, preventing them from wasting money, and allowing them to spend that money on products they do.

Legal Consumption in this manner isn't inherently costing media companies money. More simply it's made consurmers much more avid, efficient consumers of media, and has granted us a much greater ability to direct industry trends.

Under the old model of content distribution, media finding and exploration present HUGE financial obstacles to consumers. This is what generated the pop superstar back in the 50's and 60's. With those obstacles being torn down, the industry has seen a huge surge of indie artists, and unknowns getting significant exposure. The industry is seeing fewer big, easily bankable stars, but the tradeoff is thousands upon thousands of niche markets, scrambling for more.

The industry needs to work at monetizing and catering to this new breath of taste, and they need to bereak down the barries of media exploration. Understand that people want to know what they're spending their money on before that money is spent, and the industry needs to find ways of providing that access to information in a low-investment way.
It's not impossible to rebuild an industry model around consumer need. But the way to curb piracy, and wrap these people into the fold is decidedly not to call them all criminals and sue them into the dark ages.

It's also not to cling vehemently to a distribution model that was born there.
A person who pirates 1000 CDs, but buys 100 of their favorites is doing a great deal more to support the industry than a person who bought 5 or 6 nickelback records, and Big Shiny Tunes 3.

It's also worthy of note - in the old model it's up to the industry to find, identify, and build fanbases for artists. Under the new model, we do that for them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Written by " -M " a long time ago, don't remember where)

This post wins the thread, right there on the first page.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Ah, yes, 'how can you demonstrate...' etc. Well see, here's the thing, the burden of proof is on the accusing party (in this case the Publisher accusing customers of doing shady shit) in most Western nations.

Besides, now with digital content delivery they don't have to be such pricks about things like that, with Steam being a prime example.

To the first parts of your post, I won't dispute Australian law with you--you know it better than I do. I will say that the problem for these companies comes mostly with PC games, because the hacked programs are then made available to people in countries where that law does not (and thus should not) protect them.

Actually, when it comes to unauthorised reproduction of software Australian law is pretty vicious. How many other Western nations have jailtime on the books on a per offence basis for copyright violation?

But for the quoted portion, you're half right. The burden of proof is on the accuser in criminal matters. Civil matters follow the weight of evidence, whichever way that may lean. And when it comes to piracy prevention no crime has been committed yet. It's still a civil matter when it's the discussion of what should/shouldn't be refunded.

Yeah, sorry about that. However the person(s) bringing suit do have to have some basis for doing so. Yes, the burden of proof in a civil matter is shared but they can't just start pulling accusations out of their arses. They have to bring something to the table in most countries to even get their case heard.

In such cases, things tend to favor the status quo because it is the opposing party that has to get the ball rolling. The company creates the product and the policy. If you don't like the policy, you can choose not to buy it... or you can challenge it, but realize you're attacking an already-established defensive position. They, at this point, have the ability to go, "Well, why should we change it? How can you guarantee it won't be detrimental?"

If a company in the original example was blowing off contractual obligations by claiming everyone was a pirate they'd get crucified in court if they didn't have at least some solid foundation for claiming such.

When it comes to criminal cases, meaning someone has been accused of actually pirating something, they need to bring the proof and show that it was downloaded/copied/seeded/whatever. Until that point, though, the burden of proof is shared.

Very few places have copyright violations as criminal law.

 

[Dys]

If we were to sum up both piracy and DRM as sins, DRM would be stupidity and piracy greed[footnote]Of course, not so much greed for those who have bought the game and then pirate so as to avoid DRM.[/footnote].

I think that greed is more forgivable than stupidity. It's human nature to want more, to take everything you can for as little as you can, sure it's immoral, but the natural opposite, guilt, somewhat counters it. Stupidity, on the other hand, only really serves to hurt. There's not really any excuse for it, especially not on the grand scheme of things, it seems that in this cycle of piracy causing DRM and DRM causing piracy, that DRM is where someone has ample opportunity to be sensible and act without the 'greed vs guilt' emotional influence and actually be smart, however they blatantly choose not too.

 

[Timmibal]

Piracy caused DRM. Therefore it's the worse of the two.

I question that assumption. Piracy seems to be naught more than a convenient scapegoat. DRM does not stop piracy, nor even truly measurably slow it. (Again, I call bullshit on that 0 day sale stat.) In fact, its implementation seems to be purely focused around preventing resale through serial numbers attatched to accounts. (EA/Bioware, Ubisoft, Blizzard/Activision et al.)

So, whipping Occams Razor out...

DRM does not stop piracy.
DRM does affect resale.
DRM affects how the customer uses the product.
DRM dictates the conditions of the EULA beyond the control of the end-user.

Therefore,

DRM is not designed to stop piracy
DRM is designed to control how, where, and when you utilize a product you have paid for.

Publishers are lying through their teeth, and you're looking like the star of a certain movie starring two girls and a beverage holder.

 

[hermes]

Piracy.
THE END

 

[Junkle]

I shall try not to rant.

I would begin with this. Piracy causeD DRM. That was a long time past, however. They now feed off of each other. Piracy causes worse DRM, and people pirate because DRM is bad.

This is certainly not the only reason. When going through these arguments, both sides make sweeping generalizations. One of the problems with generalizations is that on the whole, they may be true, but the real reasons for each are often lost in the ensuing argument in which people nit-pick apart anything and everything said by the opposite side.

Next. The people who blindly assume pirates make me want to punch something. I also find it amusing that when referencing a statistic about piracy bandwidth, the reference is from a TORRENT SITE. Next time, try finding an unbiased source.

Piracy causes lost sales. There is no debate to this. There are certain ameliorating circumstances, however. Some people pirate because they don't have enough money. The counter is that games are a privilege, not a right. All right, that makes senses. Next, the idea that if they have a computer good enough to play the games they pirate along with the internet connection, they're able to afford the games they pirate. Another sweeping generalization. Take me for example. I have a fairly nice computer, and am living in dorm for college. I get internet for free, and I bought my computer after taking a job over the summer. Student loans and such are now hammering me, and I can no longer afford games. I have bought very few recently. I could just pirate them, over my free internet, and then play them on the computer I bought. Instead, I limit myself. I've been playing a lot of minecraft recently, instead.

Hmm. Alright, onto the next topic. The industry needs to adapt. It is certainly not doing this currently. It is instead holding onto as much as possible, when there are much easier and faster ways to get the games they are publishing. Steam is a step in the right direction, as shown by its popularity. It's not perfect by any means.

One of the main problems with DRM is the huge amounts of crossfire. Innocent consumer gets beaten left and right with increasingly draconian DRM measures, while pirates laugh gleefully and enjoy their DRM-free product. When it is easier, faster, and better to pirate a game, something has gone horrendously wrong.

LIttle note here. I hate analogies. They are useful for making a point. In this case, there are 2 problems. A. No analogy quite fits here. and B. Everyone ignores the point of the better analogies and finds the smallest details that don't work. And then they freak out about that.
Also, I'm ranting, aren't I. Ah well.

In mildly related news, I've had horrendous luck with DRM. Assassin's Creed 2 and Spore were both games I bought, and both gave me troubles. I ended up finding a way around AS2's DRM, which made life so much easier, especially cause my internet dropped out regularly.
Spore just drove me insane. This was around the time my wireless decided to simply give out. That was an exciting series of calls to get it sorted out.

This is turning into a text wall...
Alright, I'll stop now. Start deconstructing my arguments. I'll continue it later. I have a paper to write.

 

[Junkle]

Hells, double post.
Sorry.

 

[Weaver]

From a consumer standpoint, DRM is worse.

 

[Souplex]

Piracy hurts developers, which in turn hurts gamers.
DRM hurts PC gamers, so very few people are actually affected.

 

[XT inc]

Neither I blame it all on the bloody content providers. My video piracy halted as soon as netflix came to Canada.

The only way to watch things beforehand was to buy the whole thing, rent it, or sit in front of your tv and watch something at an inconvenient time with commercials and censorship abound. Now for 8 bucks a month, I can get most of the stuff I want and I am not stealing it out of need. Providers for games should find ways to make it so good for gamers, that they will give up their money. I defy you to not lose money on steam deals. Okay you dont want to buy it at 39.99 you are about to pirate it but wuzzle blam for 2 days only that game is like 5-10 bucks.

 

[Jesus Phish]

Piracy caused DRM. Therefore it's the worse of the two.

I question that assumption. Piracy seems to be naught more than a convenient scapegoat. DRM does not stop piracy, nor even truly measurably slow it. (Again, I call bullshit on that 0 day sale stat.) In fact, its implementation seems to be purely focused around preventing resale through serial numbers attatched to accounts. (EA/Bioware, Ubisoft, Blizzard/Activision et al.)

So, whipping Occams Razor out...

DRM does not stop piracy.
DRM does affect resale.
DRM affects how the customer uses the product.
DRM dictates the conditions of the EULA beyond the control of the end-user.

Therefore,

DRM is not designed to stop piracy
DRM is designed to control how, where, and when you utilize a product you have paid for.

Publishers are lying through their teeth, and you're looking like the star of a certain movie starring two girls and a beverage holder.

Where ever you managed to read me saying that DRM stopped piracy in the few words I said, I would love to know.

I know DRM doesnt stop piracy. If it did, pirates wouldnt still be an issue and we wouldnt have fiasco's like Ubisoft and AC2. However, because of piracy, DRM was created.

And before you look at JUST games, why not look at the music industry, which introduced DRM long before "Project $10". They didnt do that to "control" how you listened to what was on the cd, they did it in a vein attempt to stop losing money.