Which is the bigger problem? Piracy or DRM?

[Jeysejak]

This is just all one big vicious circle that's just going to get worse and worse. There will always be pirates, and there will always be people trying to stop pirates.

Unless the two side magically decide to stop fighting each other, but i really, really, REALLY doubt that. That's less likly to happen then world peace, because even with world peace i'd bet that there would be pirates, and people who are trying to stop pirates.

IT WILL NOT END.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

You're sidestepping the point, you're creating a duplicate of the data. In your case, only one copy exists, when you're at your friends. When you borrow the comic from your friend, he has to ask you one day "hey, can I have those back?" yet if you downloaded them, there would now be two copies.

However, I am still able to read/play both of these products pretty much anytime I want to; both without having paid for them. If I decide on some random day that I want to re-read The Walking Dead, I can just ask my brother to borrow his copies of them again (after-all, it isn't as-if he reads them 24/7). Likewise, if I want to play Limbo again and I'm at my friends house, I can ask him if I can play something and he's usually willing, so-long he isn't in the middle of something. So while it's granted that only one copy still exists, I am still fairly unrestricted in how often I'm able to experience either of them.

Now, here's my main point though. The biggest misconception about the whole Piracy/DRM thing is that DRM is meant to combat online piracy. It isn't. The DRM that was placed on games like Batman: Arkham Asylum or Bioshock don't do a single thing against online piracy because the publishers know full-well that there are hackers out there who will just work-around SecuROM and online activations, then post their results on the torrents. It's just like you could forge the CD Keys back in the 90s. You wanna know why those are there; private sharing. Think about it, DRM was born back when the internet was just an idea. You think that some company back in the 80's was worried about people downloading a copy of the game from a medium that didn't even exist yet?

So yeah, really the only form of piracy that companies are trying to prevent with DRM is the kind from 10 years ago when you and your friends were passing around copied CDs of the latest release. After-all, anyone can download a cracked version of the game from a torrent, but how many people privately sharing the game will know how to program a way around SecuROM? So the reality is that DRM lately has done nothing more than push pirating from a private level and forcing it to a grander scale; online. The problem with this is that many forms of DRM don't allow you to do just the kind of thing that you admitted were okay up above. I can't loan my Bioshock CD to a friend because that will eat-up one of my activations (nevermind that they removed the limit by now, many games still have them). Granted that there's ways to restore activations, but now we're back to this being a hassle for the paying consumer when I could have just pointed my friend towards some torrent and not had to deal with it.

At this point DRM is nothing more than a big e-peen contest between the publishers and the (real) hackers. Who can create the uncrackable DRM? Who can crack the latest DRM faster? As long as coders can keep convincing the stock holders that piracy is a problem (which it honestly isn't), the contest will be an on-going battle.

The worse thing is things that people don't even really notice. You know how you wanted to download the latest multiplayer game on Xbox Live so you could play some split-screen with your friend, only to learn that it was online or lan only? Yeah, isn't that a *****. So not only does DRM prevent me from being able to share my games in a way that even you admit is okay, but now consoles are telling you that you can't play your multiplayer games unless EVERYONE you want to play with has also bought it. My friends and I went from being able to have 16-player LAN-fests back on the first Xbox, and they were a blast. These days though we can only get 8-player games going with the same number of systems. Even worse is that when we don't have a massive lan set-up we sometimes can't even do 2-player games. Console players like to brag that they don't have to deal with DRM? This is true; but they have to deal with something far worse. Console games are constantly having features striped-down and only restored when everyone buys their own console. You wanted to do 2-player Virtual On back on the Dreamcast? 1 system, 2 controllers, 1 game, on one TV. XBLA? 2 systems, 2 games, 2 TVs. Any why? Because Microsoft doesn't want you to be able to share your game with anyone. At all.

*Ahem* Sorry, that turned into more of a rant than I was expecting. ^_^;; Anyway, my point still stands; anti-consumer measures are by far and wide the worse problems than the dealings of a few petty thieves who don't even matter in the grand scheme of things.

Piracy can be a problem even if it is morally right (which is all subjective), and DRM can also be a problem even if it's the right course for publishers to take.

Except that it isn't the right course for publishers to take. After-all, what DRM has truly stopped piracy? Assassin's Creed 2 slowed it down a little, but at what cost? Legit customers had slews of problems with the game (probably still do), meanwhile the cracked version is out there. Do you really think Ubisoft still cares though? No. As far as they're concerned it was a victory, it's all about the Day One sales, after-all, and since the DRM wasn't cracked for a week or two, they're convinced that the DRM increased their sales (ironically, it did no better than any-other game on the market at the time).

 

[VondeVon]

I knew a guy who boasted that he had every game ever made or could GET every game that ever came out and said I was a fool to pay for them, except in situations where I could get cool bonus stuff. (And then he said I should return the game and just get a pirated version from him)

Now I'm not against a little Emu-ing. God knows it's a better solution than hauling out the old SNES and hoping it still works. I don't even feel guilty about downloading old Roms, because they're nigh-impossible to buy and the money certainly doesn't go to the original developers.

But if a new game CAN be bought legally... I want to. And I do. I'm one of many people living below the poverty line but I don't use it as an excuse to pirate whatever the hell I want.

 

[Timmibal]

I like how people keep saying "piracy cause DRM, therefore piracy". Yeah, and what if that DRM were actually taking over your computer and preventing you from using it properly just so you can play a verified purchase of a game? Right, let's continue not blaming DRM after it has even gone as far as making your PC nearly unusable. Argh those pirates messing up my PC!

This.

I have never had an issue with cracked copies of games infecting my computer with Malware.

I have had multiple issues involving DRM installing intrusive, irritating, and borderline illegal spyware-equivilants on my system, just to play a game I legally purchased. Programs which they are later dragged over the coals for in the press. I very, very rarely purchase games for the PC for precisely this reason.

This thread demonstrates that I am hardly an outlier in this situation, so it is reasonable to assume that I am not alone in this reaction. Thus, quantitative evidence would suggest that DRM has resulted in higher loss to the company in terms of lost sales than piracy. QED.

that is assuming the developers release a demo....

Very good point. And in Addendum to this point, assuming that the demo is sufficient to provide an adequate cross-section to the game! A teaser trailer or opening cinematic does NOT count as a demo. *looks pointedly at a few obvious developers.*

 

[JaysonM]

I knew a guy who boasted that he had every game ever made or could GET every game that ever came out and said I was a fool to pay for them, except in situations where I could get cool bonus stuff. (And then he said I should return the game and just get a pirated version from him)

Now I'm not against a little Emu-ing. God knows it's a better solution than hauling out the old SNES and hoping it still works. I don't even feel guilty about downloading old Roms, because they're nigh-impossible to buy and the money certainly doesn't go to the original developers.

But if a new game CAN be bought legally... I want to. And I do. I'm one of many people living below the poverty line but I don't use it as an excuse to pirate whatever the hell I want.

I agree with the whole "If I sincerely want the game I'll buy it". DRM doesn't help, people always find a way around it(I don't think I have ever heard of a game which doesn't eventually get cracked), all it does is piss off honest customers.

I don't understand how gaming publishers can't get that through there thick skulls??

 

[veloper]

Piracy is the same as it always was, unaffected by any DRM. Maybe less rampant than it used to be in the old days, due to awareness.
I remember when I was a kid how everybody who played games was a pirate (C64, Amiga, MSX, PC) and you couldn't even BUY games unless you went to the big city. Now games are sold everywhere.
Piracy gets poor kids hooked on gaming and is an investment as such.
You gain real customers by reaching out to potential fans, because fans won't rip you off.

DRM combats used sales and does this very effectively, but at the expense of the customer. Intrusive DRM like online activation Tages and Securom also kills off some first sales, because it angers fans.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

How does your statement not show support for piracy?

Because that statement was a direct response to the quoted text where he states that because it is illegal, it is wrong. My whole Robin Hood analogy wasn't about DRM in specific, but about that sentiment in general. My point isn't that I feel the pirates are in the right, my point is that they aren't in the wrong JUST because they're doing something illegal. If you feel that piracy is wrong, then great; but you need a reason beyond simply "the government said so". After-all, we (I say "we" assuming that you're a US citizen as well) became a country by breaking a great many laws. Is that to say that the United States as its own country is wrong because, at the time, it was illegal for us to have done so?

So I repeat. Just because it is illegal ("it" being anything) does not mean that it is wrong by default.

What law are we blindly following? Piracy is illegal, end of story.

The fact that I didn't even have to edit to put those two statements together humors me.

What is too much about laws against piracy? Nothing.

You don't consider the DRM placed on Assassin's Creed 2 to be too much? What about limited installs? What about the fact that many games which you purchase today you won't be able to purchase tomorrow when the authenticator servers are pulled offline? You don't consider any of that to be too much? Granted that none of that is legally mandated to be on every game that's published, but that the companies would do it in the first place.

Game pirates are not Robin Hood, the analogy doesn't fit. Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor because it was the rich that were taxing the poor so much that they couldn't live off of what they had left. So he got back the money that was wrongly taken and gave it back to the poor.

If anything the hackers would be Robin Hood, and the pirates would be the poor peasants.

Game companies aren't the nasty rich king that is taking the money of the peasants.

That all depends on who you ask. Many anti-DRM arguments talk about the fact that games are getting more expensive while providing less content.

Pirates are thieves that think they deserve something, or think it is their right to have something, but in reality, they deserve squat and the have no rights when it comes to the situation.

I'm sure Prince John says much the same thing about Mr. Hood.

See, the Robin Hood analogy (despite it not being my intent to compare it directly to the DRM debate) actually parallels quite well when you look at it from the perspective of someone who feels that games are being over-priced for what they provide. And I'll reiterate that I personally am not in support of piracy; my stance on piracy is my own. I'm simply throwing thoughts and ideas out there. After-all, how can we have any discussion if it's all just "DRM is worse" and "Piracy is worse"?

 

[Aeshi]

DRM wouldn't exist if it wasn't for pirates.

So Pirates are definitely the larger of two evils.

 

[thedeathscythe]

-snip-

Wow, wall of text, ahaha. I skimmed it and I can kind of see that we kind of think alike, and here and there we sort of differ. I know what you mean though, but I'd like to kind of put in that I've always felt DRM was never meant to stop piracy, so much as it was to slow piracy. I read somewhere that this guy said that if they could slow piracy of their game by a month, then their first month sales were in and then they didn't care if someone cracked their game. I mean, they did, but as long as it's after that first month, their biggest sales have happened and it's the best judge of how well it sold. It's like when the dam breaks and you try and slow the current to save the village. You're not trying to stop the current, just slow it long enough that the villagers escape.

Certain DRM isn't the right course to take, think about Blizzard? Super easy to crack, you can find private servers and stuff, but in the end, millions of people end up paying for it. I'm not sure how many play on private servers, easily the hundreds of thousands, it could even equal 7 figures, but that game doesn't have huge DRM, but enough to make little Johnny at home decide it's not worth the hassle and he'd rather just pay for it. It's also not intrusive, little Johnny never says "this damn DRM is preventing me from playing!". That's the kind of DRM I like, although it's almost pointless; I guess they gotta put some form of protection on the game so that it's not like you can Copy+Paste the game and then BAM, you've pirated it. It needs a bit of protection.

I never said that console DRM was better. We all know you can mod xbox's (although the consequences are more apparent there, with console bands, and such). I'm just saying that for the PC gaming that I do take part in, DRM isn't even visible to me, yet I know it's there. I could find my way around it and yet I find myself just buying the game. I do prefer to console game, and for PS3 especially, piracy has long been combated but it's more of slow the current kind of deal, I think.

The main difference between Ubisofts DRM and let's say ps3's is that it's not intrusive. Ubisofts is notorious for being very...finicky and in the end, a headache. While DRM on the ps3 has never even bothered me. Well, that's a lie, it has, and in the exact same scenario as you. We were lanning and one persons game wasn't updated so he had to update it, which took an hour because it wasn't just updated one, but probably about 500 times. So I have had a couple issues, but all in all, that's just something you have to expect. I mean, it's kind of his fault, he played the game once and never touched it again, which is why it wasn't updated.

All in all man, I think we kind of see it the same way, while a few points differ. In the end though, my personal opinion lies with piracy being a problem simply because DRM hasn't bother me more than a few instances. I could understand why someone may choose DRM, though.

 

[JaysonM]

The only thing I support about DRM is that it stops pirating from becoming the norm

 

[viranimus]

easily. DRM.

Lets be clear. DRM measures do NOT stop piracy. All it does is adversely effects those who have paid for a game. So if it does not do what it is intended to, then what is the purpose of it? To have the freedom to lock you out of a game? To plan obsolecence in order to ensure you repurchase the game when you get a nostalgia kick?

Publishers have had their panties in a wad over how much profit they are loosing due to piracy. It is well known that one defeated pirate does NOT equal one sale. So they are complaining about loosing hypothetical money, all they while spending real money hand over fist in developing new DRM techniques? Yeah ok.

DRM and it would take a blind man not to see it.

 

[Fanboy]

Piracy will always be the greater problem, but DRM is the fixable problem. Publishers continue to harm honest consumers with DRM while pirates sit back and laugh, unaffected. Piracy has been around since video games existed, and will most likely continue to be around no matter what kind of tech is used to prevent it. Even so, publishers continue to implement stronger and more intrusive DRM to games, even though according to them piracy numbers are rising regardless. So why would they continue to implement a system that affects only the consumer and does nothing to decrease piracy? A simple disk check or serial is enough to stop casual pirates, but even then most people nowadays are tech savvy enough to circumvent that too.

I blame pirates for being selfish jerks who harm the video game industry, but I solely blame the game industry for DRM which harms the consumer. So even though piracy is the greater problem, it is not my problem; DRM, on the other hand, certainly is.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

Wow, wall of text, ahaha. I skimmed it and I can kind of see that we kind of think alike, and here and there we sort of differ. I know what you mean though, but I'd like to kind of put in that I've always felt DRM was never meant to stop piracy, so much as it was to slow piracy. I read somewhere that this guy said that if they could slow piracy of their game by a month, then their first month sales were in and then they didn't care if someone cracked their game. I mean, they did, but as long as it's after that first month, their biggest sales have happened and it's the best judge of how well it sold. It's like when the dam breaks and you try and slow the current to save the village. You're not trying to stop the current, just slow it long enough that the villagers escape.

Which is all well-and-good, but the problem is when said DRM goes too far. Inconveniencing the customer so that you can make your early sales report look better is just flat wrong, especially when you make no efforts to remove the DRM after that timeline has passed and treat it with a "I don't care if it's cracked at this point" attitude. Things like that are why I play SCreed 2 on my friend's Xbox rather than buying my own copy for my PC to along-side the first one. And things like THAT are why I'm not convinced that DRM helps their sales at all. For every pirate that buys the game because the DRM isn't cracked yet, how many customers did they lose to their harsh DRM? Even if it's 1:1 then they've broken even on sales. They could have saved money by not programming the DRM and still made the same sales.

Certain DRM isn't the right course to take, think about Blizzard? Super easy to crack, you can find private servers and stuff, but in the end, millions of people end up paying for it. I'm not sure how many play on private servers, easily the hundreds of thousands, it could even equal 7 figures, but that game doesn't have huge DRM, but enough to make little Johnny at home decide it's not worth the hassle and he'd rather just pay for it. It's also not intrusive, little Johnny never says "this damn DRM is preventing me from playing!". That's the kind of DRM I like, although it's almost pointless; I guess they gotta put some form of protection on the game so that it's not like you can Copy+Paste the game and then BAM, you've pirated it. It needs a bit of protection.

I agree entirely. My posts might make it seem like I'm in support of the pirates and/or pirate myself, but my Steam account speaks otherwise. Heck, I fucking love Steam. I guess I can get that some people hate it, but I love it. It would take something drastic to get me to second-guess Steam. Sure it's DRM, but it's just so fucking convenient that I don't care. I especially love when games are fully integrated into Steam, such that when you meet someone on a server you know it's their Steam account you're seeing, you can add them to your friends list right there from the in-game UI. It's basically X-box Live only without an added fee for the Gold content. And the 12-year-olds. Fewer 12-year-olds on Steam (though sadly that's not to say that the community is necessarily more mature).

I never said that console DRM was better.

Heh heh... yeah, like I said, my post turned into more of a rant than I expected it to. The console stuff was just aftermath. Still, consoles don't really have DRM outside of modded Xboxes being banned. The thing that pisses me off about consoles is the things that they do that might as well be DRM; like forcing you to buy 2 consoles and lanning them together because it's the only way to do 2-player games. It's not like the consoles can't handle it, it's just that it's a way to force you to have to buy an extra 360 for something that used to be freely available on just one console.

All in all man, I think we kind of see it the same way, while a few points differ. In the end though, my personal opinion lies with piracy being a problem simply because DRM hasn't bother me more than a few instances. I could understand why someone may choose DRM, though.

My experience with DRM has actually been more the same, not much of it has bothered me. Here's the thing though; the pirating community has NEVER bothered me. Publishers can fight the pirates all they want; it's their right, after-all. The fact that they do it in a way that hassles me or forces me to avoid a game I would have rather bought because I want to avoid the hassle though? THAT is why I view DRM as the bigger problem.

Another way of putting it: The only reason I know that the piracy scene exists in the first place is because publishers started making their DRM target ME instead of the pirates. People can claim that piracy is the problem because DRM wouldn't be needed without them, but it was the DRM that got me involved, not the pirates.

 

[Yopaz]

Piracy;

DRM can be a pain.

Piracy can bankrupt a company.

Agreed.

DRM is really annoying, like Ubisoft's version of it where you need a stable internet connection and Ubisoft's servers have to be stable too.
It's something so terrible that it makes me consider not buying the game at all, but wait, there's more to it. Why would Ubisoft sabotage for themselves by making that?

Piracy! Piracy is the reason for DRM and is thus worse than DRM.

Edit:

DRM is the bigger problem, Starcraft 2 is a shining example of that.

Easy Piracy, as it causes DRM.

The publishers being misguided as to thinking that DRM will actually increase their sales in any shape or form is what causes DRM.

So they're misguided that piracy reduces their sales and that DRM reduces piracy? DRM isn't made to boost their sales, it's meant to make it harder to copy so it's an attempt to not reduce sales. Most pirates don't buy a game they've downloaded. The last time I tried to download a game that was DRM protected it gave me so much trouble I ended up buying it. Since I haven't pirated...

 

[EvilMaggot]

the problem is DRM... there wouldnt be piracy if that shitty DRM... i got alot friends that download games instead of buying them because then they dont have to be online all the time (ubisoft im looking at you) so its better for piracy

 

[Sonic Doctor]

See, the Robin Hood analogy (despite it not being my intent to compare it directly to the DRM debate) actually parallels quite well when you look at it from the perspective of someone who feels that games are being over-priced for what they provide.

Even looking at it from that perspective, the analogy doesn't work. The item that "Robin Hood"(Pirate #1) is stealing and giving to the people(Pirate #2), is a game that isn't theirs.

If they can't pay the price, doesn't matter what content is in the game, tough. They will just have to go without. Gaming is a privilege, not a right.

The game that the publisher made, is their property, they sell it to people for them to use. If a person can't afford to pay full price, there are other legal ways to get it like rental(concerning console piracy), with PC, the person will just have to do without. That is life.

You don't consider the DRM placed on Assassin's Creed 2 to be too much? What about limited installs? What about the fact that many games which you purchase today you won't be able to purchase tomorrow when the authenticator servers are pulled offline? You don't consider any of that to be too much? Granted that none of that is legally mandated to be on every game that's published, but that the companies would do it in the first place.

Game pirates are not Robin Hood, the analogy doesn't fit. Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor because it was the rich that were taxing the poor so much that they couldn't live off of what they had left. So he got back the money that was wrongly taken and gave it back to the poor.

If anything the hackers would be Robin Hood, and the pirates would be the poor peasants.

If people want that kind of DRM to stop, they are just going to have to find a way to do away with piracy, people that play games they got from pirates, are just encouraging the practice. Piracy needs to be stamped out in any way possible.

Have you noticed how every user on here that posts that they pirate games and other products gets a probation or worse. The reason being is that piracy is wrong plain and simple and saying such things is showing support for it.

If we find a way to stop piracy, then there will be no need for DRM. It doesn't matter what is brought to the table, piracy is what created the DRM problem.

Also with your addition to your analogy, you are now saying that the hackers are Robin Hood and the pirates are the peasants. The problem with that is you just replace one pirate with the label of "hacker". The "hacker" is just as much a pirate as the people that copy the file from him. They are both doing wrong, stealing from the publisher. The hackers may or may not have paid for their copies, but they are stealing still from the publisher. What they are doing is basically, going to the store, buying one copy, then stealing thousands more and handing them out to people.

That is lost sales to the company. You might argue that, they probably wouldn't have bought the game in the first place. That doesn't matter; it is just as likely that they would have come up with the money and just came to the decision to take a chance and buy the game. So it is lost sales for the company.