Which is the bigger problem? Piracy or DRM?

[direkiller]

DRM is the bigger problem. It usually punishes the people who actually pay for the game, and make it better in comparison for the pirates, thus giving people more incentive to pirate.

I've heard this defense thrown up by a friend of mine who pirates but you have to remember that DRM is there for a reason (usually because people have been pirating the game).

Picture this, if everyone who ever pirated in the world suddenly stopped, I can guarentee you that you'd see DRM and other such measures disappearing pretty quickly (it just simply wouldn't be nessercary, why waste time, money and effort on something that will never be used). If we suddenly saw a disappearance of DRM, however, I doubt that pirates would suddenly have a revalation and go legitimate.

This is a proverbial arms race between attackers (pirates) and defenders (DRM and anti-piracy measures), if your concern is really about getting rid of these silly and unessercary security measures then start showing that you can be trusted (trying to 'beat the system' rarely works).

It's no defense. Piracy is, and has always been, something I dislike.

However, I say that the DRM measure does very little to actually stop pirates.

DRM stops day 0 and day 1 piracy where the publisher makes most of there sales
As soon as the game is craked game sales drop

so yes DRM dose work

Then why don't they drop the DRM after day 0 and day 1?

first off Day 0 is before the launch date

and because the longer they delay the cracks the more people will just give up and buy the game

You really believe that? Do you really believe there are people sitting at home thinking: "If I can't pirate this game on launch day then I will go out and buy it"?

Nope, pirates are going to wait and normal customers aren't gonna care (till the DRM stops them from playing).

Alot of games are cracked before release and of the ones that aren't, it's only a few days or a weeks. Pirates are willing to wait.

So does the DRM stop pirates? No!

http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html skip to page 8 read the rest
to put it bluntly your wrong

 

[Yureina]

Piracy does not affect me because I don't do it and I am not losing out on games (for now). DRM on the other hand annoys me, even if I have taken a liking to Steam. So... DRM gets my vote.

 

[Snotnarok]

DRM causes piracy, nuff said really.

 

[direkiller]

DRM is the bigger problem. It usually punishes the people who actually pay for the game, and make it better in comparison for the pirates, thus giving people more incentive to pirate.

I've heard this defense thrown up by a friend of mine who pirates but you have to remember that DRM is there for a reason (usually because people have been pirating the game).

Picture this, if everyone who ever pirated in the world suddenly stopped, I can guarentee you that you'd see DRM and other such measures disappearing pretty quickly (it just simply wouldn't be nessercary, why waste time, money and effort on something that will never be used). If we suddenly saw a disappearance of DRM, however, I doubt that pirates would suddenly have a revalation and go legitimate.

This is a proverbial arms race between attackers (pirates) and defenders (DRM and anti-piracy measures), if your concern is really about getting rid of these silly and unessercary security measures then start showing that you can be trusted (trying to 'beat the system' rarely works).

It's no defense. Piracy is, and has always been, something I dislike.

However, I say that the DRM measure does very little to actually stop pirates.

DRM stops day 0 and day 1 piracy where the publisher makes most of there sales
As soon as the game is craked game sales drop

so yes DRM dose work

Then why don't they drop the DRM after day 0 and day 1?

first off Day 0 is before the launch date

and because the longer they delay the cracks the more people will just give up and buy the game

You really believe that? Do you really believe there are people sitting at home thinking: "If I can't pirate this game on launch day then I will go out and buy it"?

Nope, pirates are going to wait and normal customers aren't gonna care (till the DRM stops them from playing).

Alot of games are cracked before release and of the ones that aren't, it's only a few days or a weeks. Pirates are willing to wait.

So does the DRM stop pirates? No!

http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html skip to page 8 read the rest
to put it bluntly your wrong

I am not reading all that but do tell how one article proves me bluntly wrong?

because it provides proof of what im saying. You mind posting some for yours seeing you said im wrong without backing it up.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

Error: OP's question does not make sense at all.

 

[Admiral Stukov]

They are both bad, piracy beeing the reason that DRM exists to begin with.
The problem is that DRM is often quite unsuccesful in preventing piracy, only delaying a cracked version by a month tops, while still beeing an absolute pain in the arse for legit customers.
So yeah I guess DRM takes the price.

 

[direkiller]

DRM is the bigger problem. It usually punishes the people who actually pay for the game, and make it better in comparison for the pirates, thus giving people more incentive to pirate.

I've heard this defense thrown up by a friend of mine who pirates but you have to remember that DRM is there for a reason (usually because people have been pirating the game).

Picture this, if everyone who ever pirated in the world suddenly stopped, I can guarentee you that you'd see DRM and other such measures disappearing pretty quickly (it just simply wouldn't be nessercary, why waste time, money and effort on something that will never be used). If we suddenly saw a disappearance of DRM, however, I doubt that pirates would suddenly have a revalation and go legitimate.

This is a proverbial arms race between attackers (pirates) and defenders (DRM and anti-piracy measures), if your concern is really about getting rid of these silly and unessercary security measures then start showing that you can be trusted (trying to 'beat the system' rarely works).

It's no defense. Piracy is, and has always been, something I dislike.

However, I say that the DRM measure does very little to actually stop pirates.

DRM stops day 0 and day 1 piracy where the publisher makes most of there sales
As soon as the game is craked game sales drop

so yes DRM dose work

Then why don't they drop the DRM after day 0 and day 1?

first off Day 0 is before the launch date

and because the longer they delay the cracks the more people will just give up and buy the game

You really believe that? Do you really believe there are people sitting at home thinking: "If I can't pirate this game on launch day then I will go out and buy it"?

Nope, pirates are going to wait and normal customers aren't gonna care (till the DRM stops them from playing).

Alot of games are cracked before release and of the ones that aren't, it's only a few days or a weeks. Pirates are willing to wait.

So does the DRM stop pirates? No!

http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html skip to page 8 read the rest
to put it bluntly your wrong

I am not reading all that but do tell how one article proves me bluntly wrong?

because it provides proof of what im saying. You mind posting some for yours seeing you said im wrong without backing it up.

What proof? Someone's opinion?

I am just saying that I have never known anyone nor read anything on the internet that suggests that pirates are willing to buy a game just because it has DRM that isn't cracked before or on launch day.

No, I have no proof because I haven't polled pirates on this issue.

See theres your problem what i have facts backed up with number(if your bother to read).

Back up what you say it makes it so much more compelling

 

[el_kabong]

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I would say piracy is the bigger issue. DRM was created to respond to piracy. In other words, if there was no piracy, developers wouldn't use DRM. Eliminating piracy could eliminate both, so it's the biggest issue.

I've also seen a lot of comments saying things to the effect that piracy allows a "try before you buy" situation, and that lots of pirates will buy their favorite releases.

First, I was a little pirate in my youth. Coming from a low to middle-class background, I really didn't have access to any funds to spend in large quantities on any game, music, or book (mostly rpg in nature) that I wanted or was interested in. However, never in my life have I re-purchased content that I've gotten through shady means. No matter how much I loved the particular media item. So, as a whole, I disagree with this logic.

Second, are we forgetting about demos? Almost every game that I've looked at for purchase had a demo available. You can download them from Steam, if you don't like the idea of hunting through different websites or looking for physical CD demos. If you want to try before you buy, get the demo. It's still free, you'll still get an impression of how the game plays, and you won't be breaking any laws.

Lastly, if you want to get a better impression about how a game plays beyond the demo, go out and get some friends. And, nothing against online friends, but these friends should be people that you have actual physical interaction with (ie - live in your area). I have so many friends and acquaintances who are gamers, it's really easy for me to get my hands on a playable version of almost any game that's been released this year. Each of them have their own tastes, which means a broad variety to choose from. I didn't really want to buy Starcraft II, but wanted to see what the hype was about. Good news, my roommate loves the Starcraft franchise, so I played his copy. Before BioShock was moved to the PS3, I wanted to see what it was like. Again, one of my friends invited me over to play it on his system for an afternoon. Of course, this is a two-way street and I've had to reciprocate by having nights where my friends come over to get drunk and play Little Big Planet (for a while I was one of the few PS3 owners in my circle of friends). Using this methodology, not only do you get access to games you may not want to purchase outright, but there's an added side benefit of making friends.

In summation, I don't want to come off as on a high horse about piracy. As I stated above, in my youth I did a bit of it. But, using the avenues I talked about, I've weened myself off of my reliance on pirating media to the point where I haven't done it in a few years. At the end of the day, piracy is stealing. If the manufacturer wanted to give their property away for free, they would provide an avenue for it (the internet's been really good about that for unknown producers to get exposure). Piracy doesn't only hurt the developer and publisher by not giving them the funds in the first place, but hurts gamers in general. The reason is that big losses (theft in this case) lead to the necessity for loss prevention. Both the losses and attempted prevention of them drive the cost of making a product up. You complain about games being too expensive? Pirating is only expanding the problem. The more piracy is allowed to thrive, the less likely we'll be able to see reasonable prices in the retail market for people who want to purchase the game legally. Alternatively, the prices may remain the same, but the funds can be allocated to an aspect of the company that's going to improve the process, resulting in better gaming experiences. I'm not saying that money is needed to make a good game. But, companies with more funds will be more likely to use those funds polishing existing systems and probably will take more chances with ambitious products.

 

[mikespoff]

It's not a useful comparison for a question of "which is worse"?

Piracy causes problems for the game developers, but many versions of DRM don't solve those problems: they just create different problems for the customers.

Rudimentary DRM like online activation (which you can disable so that you can re-install the game on a different computer) or basic disk-checking is understandable: it means that you don't have someone buying the game and then installing it on all his friends' computers as well. But DRM point of Ubisoft (with AC2) or even limited installs (like Mass Effect 1) is just hurting sales and alienating your paying customers.

 

[direkiller]

DRM is the bigger problem. It usually punishes the people who actually pay for the game, and make it better in comparison for the pirates, thus giving people more incentive to pirate.

I've heard this defense thrown up by a friend of mine who pirates but you have to remember that DRM is there for a reason (usually because people have been pirating the game).

Picture this, if everyone who ever pirated in the world suddenly stopped, I can guarentee you that you'd see DRM and other such measures disappearing pretty quickly (it just simply wouldn't be nessercary, why waste time, money and effort on something that will never be used). If we suddenly saw a disappearance of DRM, however, I doubt that pirates would suddenly have a revalation and go legitimate.

This is a proverbial arms race between attackers (pirates) and defenders (DRM and anti-piracy measures), if your concern is really about getting rid of these silly and unessercary security measures then start showing that you can be trusted (trying to 'beat the system' rarely works).

It's no defense. Piracy is, and has always been, something I dislike.

However, I say that the DRM measure does very little to actually stop pirates.

DRM stops day 0 and day 1 piracy where the publisher makes most of there sales
As soon as the game is craked game sales drop

so yes DRM dose work

Then why don't they drop the DRM after day 0 and day 1?

first off Day 0 is before the launch date

and because the longer they delay the cracks the more people will just give up and buy the game

You really believe that? Do you really believe there are people sitting at home thinking: "If I can't pirate this game on launch day then I will go out and buy it"?

Nope, pirates are going to wait and normal customers aren't gonna care (till the DRM stops them from playing).

Alot of games are cracked before release and of the ones that aren't, it's only a few days or a weeks. Pirates are willing to wait.

So does the DRM stop pirates? No!

http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html skip to page 8 read the rest
to put it bluntly your wrong

I am not reading all that but do tell how one article proves me bluntly wrong?

because it provides proof of what im saying. You mind posting some for yours seeing you said im wrong without backing it up.

What proof? Someone's opinion?

I am just saying that I have never known anyone nor read anything on the internet that suggests that pirates are willing to buy a game just because it has DRM that isn't cracked before or on launch day.

No, I have no proof because I haven't polled pirates on this issue.

See theres your problem what i have facts backed up with number(if your bother to read).

Back up what you say it makes it so much more compelling

It's interesting that you don't just state your facts (instead of expecting me to read all that) and leave a link.

Wanna do that now?

Yes i expect you to read 3 pages before you go off spouting crap.

However here is the basics:

From StarForce (a DRM company)
The purpose of copy protection is not making the game uncrackable - it is impossible. The main purpose is to delay the release of the cracked version. Maximum sales rate usually takes place in the first month(s) after the game release. If the game is not cracked in that period of time, then the copy protection works well.



The argument that removing DRM will result in a net increase in sales has no basis in fact based on the evidence at hand. Not only does gaming history show that unprotected games simply lead to more piracy, recent history also demonstrates clearly that simply removing DRM is not the answer to piracy. As we saw in the Scale of Piracy section, many popular games which have no intrusive DRM, such as Assassin's Creed, Crysis, Call of Duty 4 and World of Goo, also have some of the highest piracy rates in 2008. Indeed as I write this, the new Prince of Persia game was released yesterday for PC (December 10, 2008) with absolutely no DRM protection, and a quick look at torrents shows that the pirated version is available, and on two popular torrent links alone there are over 23,000 people downloading the game within the first 24 hours. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear: DRM does not cause piracy, piracy results in DRM.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

DRM is the bigger problem. It usually punishes the people who actually pay for the game, and make it better in comparison for the pirates, thus giving people more incentive to pirate.

I've heard this defense thrown up by a friend of mine who pirates but you have to remember that DRM is there for a reason (usually because people have been pirating the game).

Picture this, if everyone who ever pirated in the world suddenly stopped, I can guarentee you that you'd see DRM and other such measures disappearing pretty quickly (it just simply wouldn't be nessercary, why waste time, money and effort on something that will never be used). If we suddenly saw a disappearance of DRM, however, I doubt that pirates would suddenly have a revalation and go legitimate.

This is a proverbial arms race between attackers (pirates) and defenders (DRM and anti-piracy measures), if your concern is really about getting rid of these silly and unessercary security measures then start showing that you can be trusted (trying to 'beat the system' rarely works).

It's no defense. Piracy is, and has always been, something I dislike.

However, I say that the DRM measure does very little to actually stop pirates.

DRM stops day 0 and day 1 piracy where the publisher makes most of there sales
As soon as the game is craked game sales drop

so yes DRM dose work

Then why don't they drop the DRM after day 0 and day 1?

first off Day 0 is before the launch date

and because the longer they delay the cracks the more people will just give up and buy the game

You really believe that? Do you really believe there are people sitting at home thinking: "If I can't pirate this game on launch day then I will go out and buy it"?

Nope, pirates are going to wait and normal customers aren't gonna care (till the DRM stops them from playing).

Alot of games are cracked before release and of the ones that aren't, it's only a few days or a weeks. Pirates are willing to wait.

So does the DRM stop pirates? No!

http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html skip to page 8 read the rest
to put it bluntly your wrong

I am not reading all that but do tell how one article proves me bluntly wrong?

because it provides proof of what im saying. You mind posting some for yours seeing you said im wrong without backing it up.

What proof? Someone's opinion?

I am just saying that I have never known anyone nor read anything on the internet that suggests that pirates are willing to buy a game just because it has DRM that isn't cracked before or on launch day.

No, I have no proof because I haven't polled pirates on this issue.

See theres your problem what i have facts backed up with number(if your bother to read).

Back up what you say it makes it so much more compelling

It's interesting that you don't just state your facts (instead of expecting me to read all that) and leave a link.

Wanna do that now?

Yes i expect you to read 3 pages before you go off spouting crap.

However here is the basics:

From StarForce (a DRM company)
The purpose of copy protection is not making the game uncrackable - it is impossible. The main purpose is to delay the release of the cracked version. Maximum sales rate usually takes place in the first month(s) after the game release. If the game is not cracked in that period of time, then the copy protection works well.



The argument that removing DRM will result in a net increase in sales has no basis in fact based on the evidence at hand. Not only does gaming history show that unprotected games simply lead to more piracy, recent history also demonstrates clearly that simply removing DRM is not the answer to piracy. As we saw in the Scale of Piracy section, many popular games which have no intrusive DRM, such as Assassin's Creed, Crysis, Call of Duty 4 and World of Goo, also have some of the highest piracy rates in 2008. Indeed as I write this, the new Prince of Persia game was released yesterday for PC (December 10, 2008) with absolutely no DRM protection, and a quick look at torrents shows that the pirated version is available, and on two popular torrent links alone there are over 23,000 people downloading the game within the first 24 hours. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear: DRM does not cause piracy, piracy results in DRM.

1) You are using Starforce (A DRM company) to make your argument that DRM is needed. LOL. Look up conflict of interest. What next, you're gonna say that since BioWare thinks Dragon Age is a great game, it must be so.

2) You didn't prove that pirates will run out and buy a game if the DRM isn't cracked on day 0 or day 1. What were you trying to prove?

You managed to prove that Starforce (A DRM company) supports DRM. Fantastic!

5 points for you for burning the posters "proof"

 

[direkiller]

DRM is the bigger problem. It usually punishes the people who actually pay for the game, and make it better in comparison for the pirates, thus giving people more incentive to pirate.

I've heard this defense thrown up by a friend of mine who pirates but you have to remember that DRM is there for a reason (usually because people have been pirating the game).

Picture this, if everyone who ever pirated in the world suddenly stopped, I can guarentee you that you'd see DRM and other such measures disappearing pretty quickly (it just simply wouldn't be nessercary, why waste time, money and effort on something that will never be used). If we suddenly saw a disappearance of DRM, however, I doubt that pirates would suddenly have a revalation and go legitimate.

This is a proverbial arms race between attackers (pirates) and defenders (DRM and anti-piracy measures), if your concern is really about getting rid of these silly and unessercary security measures then start showing that you can be trusted (trying to 'beat the system' rarely works).

It's no defense. Piracy is, and has always been, something I dislike.

However, I say that the DRM measure does very little to actually stop pirates.

DRM stops day 0 and day 1 piracy where the publisher makes most of there sales
As soon as the game is craked game sales drop

so yes DRM dose work

Then why don't they drop the DRM after day 0 and day 1?

first off Day 0 is before the launch date

and because the longer they delay the cracks the more people will just give up and buy the game

You really believe that? Do you really believe there are people sitting at home thinking: "If I can't pirate this game on launch day then I will go out and buy it"?

Nope, pirates are going to wait and normal customers aren't gonna care (till the DRM stops them from playing).

Alot of games are cracked before release and of the ones that aren't, it's only a few days or a weeks. Pirates are willing to wait.

So does the DRM stop pirates? No!

http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html skip to page 8 read the rest
to put it bluntly your wrong

I am not reading all that but do tell how one article proves me bluntly wrong?

because it provides proof of what im saying. You mind posting some for yours seeing you said im wrong without backing it up.

What proof? Someone's opinion?

I am just saying that I have never known anyone nor read anything on the internet that suggests that pirates are willing to buy a game just because it has DRM that isn't cracked before or on launch day.

No, I have no proof because I haven't polled pirates on this issue.

See theres your problem what i have facts backed up with number(if your bother to read).

Back up what you say it makes it so much more compelling

It's interesting that you don't just state your facts (instead of expecting me to read all that) and leave a link.

Wanna do that now?

Yes i expect you to read 3 pages before you go off spouting crap.

However here is the basics:

From StarForce (a DRM company)
The purpose of copy protection is not making the game uncrackable - it is impossible. The main purpose is to delay the release of the cracked version. Maximum sales rate usually takes place in the first month(s) after the game release. If the game is not cracked in that period of time, then the copy protection works well.



The argument that removing DRM will result in a net increase in sales has no basis in fact based on the evidence at hand. Not only does gaming history show that unprotected games simply lead to more piracy, recent history also demonstrates clearly that simply removing DRM is not the answer to piracy. As we saw in the Scale of Piracy section, many popular games which have no intrusive DRM, such as Assassin's Creed, Crysis, Call of Duty 4 and World of Goo, also have some of the highest piracy rates in 2008. Indeed as I write this, the new Prince of Persia game was released yesterday for PC (December 10, 2008) with absolutely no DRM protection, and a quick look at torrents shows that the pirated version is available, and on two popular torrent links alone there are over 23,000 people downloading the game within the first 24 hours. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear: DRM does not cause piracy, piracy results in DRM.

1) You are using Starforce (A DRM company) to make your argument that DRM is needed. LOL. Look up conflict of interest. What next, you're gonna say that since BioWare thinks Dragon Age is a great game, it must be so.

2) You didn't prove that pirates will run out and buy a game if the DRM isn't cracked on day 0 or day 1. What were you trying to prove?

You managed to prove that Starforce (A DRM company) supports DRM. Fantastic!

do you have the attention span of one sentice? READ THE WHOLE THING (the article i linked all 10 pages) it dose have the figures your looking for


Nintendo says they have had a nearly 50% drop in European DS games after a chip for pirating was made available

so sales drop after a crack is made

If the sales drop when the crack is made available to the public that mean people were buying it because a cracked version was not there(else the sale figures would be the same the day before and after the crack). Thus the longer a crack is not there the higher profits for the company. So DRM works.

 

[direkiller]

5 points for you for burning the posters "proof"

he stated that i used a quote from a DRM company(that was stating the reason for DRM was to stop casual pirates)
and then dint read the rest of it

also welcome to the escapist

 

[Popido]

What proof? Someone's opinion?

I am just saying that I have never known anyone nor read anything on the internet that suggests that pirates are willing to buy a game just because it has DRM that isn't cracked before or on launch day.

No, I have no proof because I haven't polled pirates on this issue.

See theres your problem what i have facts backed up with number(if your bother to read).

Back up what you say it makes it so much more compelling

Would be nice if you could point it out though. This guy writes horribly biased text and just keeps on jabbing and jabbing. For example when he compares piracy to "thief breaking into the house", he isnt really trying to make it any easier to understand. And yes he IS biased. Aand he seems to be stating that game downloaded = sale lost.

"StarForce was unpopular" FUCK YEAH IT WAS!! It broke my friends DVD-driver!

But anyway, DRM on release day 0 and 1 sounds good..if you assume that pirates are a group of ungrateful spoiled fanboys. And thats where this statement crashes.

---

Whew. That was a long read. Umm...so, where are the facts that piracy damages gaming industry? He pointed out Demigod, but that game seems to be doing great as far as I can see. Also the problem was that the game was so heavely pirated that servers couldnt stand the player traffic? So it was popular then? If all those pirates had buyed the game how could have that done any difference??

Okay, he keeps pointing out that "Yeah, it's a huge problem. Huge." but yet I dont see any actual facts how it damages and how much it damages gaming industry.

Lets go take a look at google and check if they have less biased stories to tell.
<link=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars>US government finally admits most piracy estimates are bogus
<link=http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/04/14/study-us-piracy-and-counterfeiting-data-unsubstantiated>Study: U.S. Piracy and Counterfeiting Data is Unsubstantiated
Govt Questions RIAA, MPAA Piracy Figures
Also from the last link:

Government Accountability Office says the "illicit nature" of piracy means there is no real way to quantify actual losses, and that some studies have in fact shown piracy to have a "potential positive economic effect."

In conclusion: DRM is butt raping you. /jk ...RIAA & MPAA are.

---

Nintendo says they have had a nearly 50% drop in European DS games after a chip for pirating was made available.

And Nazis blame jews. Whats your point?

oh ye, Im gonna add this here oki.
The 14 Most Ridiculous Lawsuits Filed by the RIAA and the MPAA. Dead vietnam veteran. Homeless person. Grannies and granpops. Another dead person. Single mother. Oh I see, these are the threatful scum we must erase with all cost..