Eh, I don't really believe Blizzard's bs that D3 is a multiplayer game, its exactly like D1 and D2, you're just forced to play it online. It is DRM, and its pretty awesome for Blizzard, sucks for us though.
I've seen enough to say that I don't believe DRM works with most games or media in general. Virtually every DVD/Blueray you get will have anti-pirating measures on it, but you can download virtually every DVD/Blueray you want. Replace DVD/Blueray with video game or music CD, and nothing changes.
DRM isn't going to stop piracy, and in my opinion does a rather pitiful job of even slowing it down. IMHO, I believe that it just fans the fire, because as I noted before, it punishes the paying consumer more than it halts pirates. Better to reward the paying customer through convenience and good customer relations. There are countless methods to combat piracy without resorting to DRM shenanigans. A really awesome method would be to provide incentives for being a loyal customer, even if it's just small store credits put towards DLC, early bird opportunities, and so forth. A really sick awesome method for getting people to purchase from an online marketplace backed by gaming companies would be to allow repeat customers to join Alpha and Beta playtests, or offer gift-card points (say 10% of a purchase goes to store credit, so if you've purchased five $20 games over the year, you can toss a $10 gift card to a friend or something).
I just feel like people are focusing too much on the scary shadow of piracy, instead of realizing that there's just a tree with lots of branches. It looks scary, and you could run away from it...or you could build a tree house and rule the yard.
Don't misunderstand. I'm not advocating piracy. I am saying that instead of discouraging it, most DRM I've seen actively encourages it. I'm saying that instead of trying to quench the unquenchable flame, roast marshmellows and sell smores. Don't punish customers, treat them. Be good to them. Drop the DRM nonsense (it has never worked, even some of the most sophisticated DRM protections have been defeated time and time again). Put that kind of energy into serving your customer and building good PR with your target audience and you might make some money (I realize that good customer relations is an idea that seems absolutely ALIEN to entertainment companies today, but let's be real here).
See, unlike piracy which does have some positive qualities that can be argued, DRM simply doesn't work, which means that to me it has no positive qualities that can be applied. It only serves to challenge code junkies to crack it all the more, and annoy the customer that you could be developing good PR with. The smoother and more appealing you can make the installation and service of your product, the more likely that they will continue to make purchases and urge others to make purchases.
For now, however, I'm going to go make a shopping list at GoG.com...
I do not think it can be said that DRM actively encourages piracy in the aggregate but there are no numbers from which to draw a conclusion either way. However, I do believe it's reasonable to believe that DRM protects profits in some cases as opposed to no cases. The reason is because those who refuse to pay money for software under any circumstances will pirate regardless of the presence of DRM and hence can't be considered lost sales. Those who pirate exclusively because of the presence of DRM and would otherwise purchase the product CAN be considered lost sales, but this number is comparatively smaller to those who pirate everything. Hence, this is the number that must be measured against the number of people who can't afford to purchase or refuse to because of DRM and DO NOT pirate. Those are the people who DRM prevents from pirating. In an AAA title, I don't think there can be much doubt that DRM deters some people from purchasing and I can't think that there are more moral people out there who refuse to buy a game than there are immoral people who would pirate if they could, but for whatever reason, can't get hold of a pirated or cracked version, thus the DRM protected a sale. In that respect, DRM does protect profits so it has worked.
Now, this idea that somehow piracy encourages profits... not a chance. If that were the case, it would make sense for all games like this to be released for free or very cheap and somehow that would make money. It's unlikely this is the case because there's a minimum price the developer or publisher has calculated here that they believe will guarantee profits, and they sell as close to that price as possible. For BG:EE it's $19.99 but even at those numbers, we're not talking about a lot of money in the aggregate here compared to a AAA title. If they removed the very inobtrusive DRM and allowed anyone to copy the game, I can't see how they'd make enough to generate a profit in the aggregate. No question even in this thread, there would be people who would pay for one copy but then share it with others. No, piracy does not attract enough paid sales to make it worth a company's while.
I do, however, believe in the model that has developed where the game is given away for free but premium features are available through microtransactions, in-game currency, or in-app purchases. This solves the problem of DRM and allows players to pay as much or as little as they want for as much or as little of the game experience they want. It's a very successful model and actually opens up the industry for more competition. Plus, you get a whole range of customers who pay quite a bit more than the expected set retail price, and then some who get it for free or only spend a little. It's intriguing and appears to be quite a good model for future growth.
Am I the only one here who has actually played Baldur's Gate? You see, I seem to remember that you had to have your CD in your pc *every* time you wanted to play the game. Honestly, that's a lot more obtrusive than a *one time* activation, even when that requires an internet connection.
I don't like DRM either, to the point that I stopped playing Battle.net 2.0 games altogether. But come on, be honest for a second: not only is this unobtrusive DRM, it's actually an improvement of the original game.
On the subject of the CD-key thing, you're wrong. You only needed the CD to load data if you didn't do a full-install, and the game actually tells you that loading times will be significantly longer without doing a full-install. If you have done a full install as is recommended, the only time that you need the disk is when you are starting the game, and you can use the same disk to play on a multiplayer LAN, and you can use a backup disk as well. Seriously, there are no CD protections on BG I or II, so I typically use a dummy copy to avoid scratching the original.
Those who actively loaded material from the CD while playing would notice no protections because you needed the disk in the drive to load area files anyway.
================================================================= "Now, this idea that somehow piracy encourages profits... not a chance. If that were the case, it would make sense for all games like this to be released for free or very cheap and somehow that would make money. It's unlikely this is the case because there's a minimum price the developer or publisher has calculated here that they believe will guarantee profits, and they sell as close to that price as possible. For BG:EE it's $19.99 but even at those numbers, we're not talking about a lot of money in the aggregate here compared to a AAA title. If they removed the very inobtrusive DRM and allowed anyone to copy the game, I can't see how they'd make enough to generate a profit in the aggregate. No question even in this thread, there would be people who would pay for one copy but then share it with others. No, piracy does not attract enough paid sales to make it worth a company's while."
Which isn't what I said. I said that as far as I am concerned, the more intrusive the DRM -- without incentives -- the more it makes piracy attractive. You do not want to make piracy more attractive than an actual purchase. Want to know why Steam is so successful in the face of piracy, despite being full of DRM by its very nature? It makes it more convenient than piracy, and serves the consumer.
When I say that piracy isn't going away and gave examples of how in some cases piracy produced sales at a later time, or noted that free availability increased coverage and thus potential consumer base, I wasn't saying that piracy is by its nature profitable. I'm saying it's like the weather. You can't stop the weather, so you adapt to it. Build good PR with your consumer base, and capitalize on what you know piracy can inadvertently do for you.
This is becoming a difficult discussion because we are imprinting expectations on each other, instead of being realistic here. It's like discussing marijuana in a sense. Some people look at the costs and expenses of fighting marijuana, and locking people up for possession, and the drain on tax dollars; versus making it like alcohol or cigarettes and regulating, taxing, and controlling it. Opponents immediately assume that proponents of treating it like alcohol are pot-heads or just want to overrun the nation with marijuana use; whereas most of them are just looking at things realistically and looking to create the best outcome out of a situation most would considered troubled.
Piracy is much the same. It's not going away. It has existed pretty much forever. You can either run from it or learn from it. I'm advocating in all cases company-consumer relations, and making piracy less attractive compared to making an actual purchase. In today's digital world, it is possible to bring costs down, service up, and build strong loyalties. Gamers today often feel that game companies are faceless, soulless, heartless industry monsters who don't care about customers and only exist to cheat them out of every last dime. Is it true? Not always (EA kind of sucks these days, but I know all game makers aren't like that), but some feel like it is. I think this is where indie and small time game companies have a chance to leverage themselves into the mix.
Exactly! Major labels will use DRM and get away with it due to inertia. Smaller developers absolutely have an opportunity here to differentiate themselves in a very positive way. Support the product well and respect the community and the goodwill fostered may very well pay far more dividends than control mechanisms. I believe that it would and I will note that those crazy cats over at the Humble Bundle have announced a new one today. How are they making it without DRM? They engender goodwill, that's how!
Now, this idea that somehow piracy encourages profits... not a chance. If that were the case, it would make sense for all games like this to be released for free or very cheap and somehow that would make money. It's unlikely this is the case because there's a minimum price the developer or publisher has calculated here that they believe will guarantee profits, and they sell as close to that price as possible. For BG:EE it's $19.99 but even at those numbers, we're not talking about a lot of money in the aggregate here compared to a AAA title. If they removed the very inobtrusive DRM and allowed anyone to copy the game, I can't see how they'd make enough to generate a profit in the aggregate. No question even in this thread, there would be people who would pay for one copy but then share it with others. No, piracy does not attract enough paid sales to make it worth a company's while.
*COUGH* You are provably incorrect sir.
Microsoft sells a new version of their Operating System to employees of Microsoft in their Microsoft Employee store in Redmond for $5. You read that right, $5 for a full, official license for MS Windows.
Microsoft announced WORLD WIDE a policy that third world countries would pay that same $5 for a MS Windows License (this was back a few years ago).
They sell full, retail, professional copies of their Office Suite for $10 to corporate buyers. My most recent copy of MS Office 2010 Professional (includes the ENTIRE SUITE) was $10 downloaded from MS...legally.
MS has known about piracy of their operating systems since MS Windows 3.11 (which, btw, shipped with NO on disk protection for installation). You can literally disk copy the 3 MS Windows 3.11 disks to standard 3.5" floppy disks and install the MS Operating system without any protection at all. Same with ALL versions of DOS. There were no online serial number checks for Windows 95 or 98, and I don't believe they were there in 2000 Either. The windows 95 and 98 serial numbers were so small (12? Characters I believe?) that tech support specialists used to simply memorize ONE license key and install the same copy / disk of Win 95 on ALL COMPUTERS they supported, understanding that there was no difference between copies.
To suggest that MS took precautions to copy protect (prior to Windows XP) ANY of their operating systems would be to suggest wrongly. And even Copy Protection on Win XP and Win 7 is limited at best (there's about a million serial number generators that will create a Win 7 serial number that will properly authenticate to MS).
Why would they not do this? Market share. Simply enough, if you can get enough people (even without the $100 a pop that MS charges for their OS) to install your new OS on their computers, you maintain market domination. You can then produce a piece of software, sell it for a 500% profit (assuming the $5 cost is the REAL cost of the software, which I'm sure it is) to those who will pay for it, and STILL have the understanding that you are maintaining market dominance even if those who aren't paying for it are still installing it.
It's a GENIUS move by MS NOT to copy protect (or over copy protect) their OS product. It's their BUSINESS users that make MS their money, not the home market, and how better to encourage your business users to upgrade to the new version of the OS than to, in essence, sell or give away that same OS for those business users to use at home.
And for those who DON'T make enough or can't find room in their pocket books to go down to the store and buy the latest copy of Windows 8? No problem, just pirate it...MS really doesn't care.
Sometime ago I bought Command and Conquer (Tiberium Twilight) from Best Buy. Now I knew (as it advertised it on the box) that an internet connection was needed to play (even the single player campaign).
Since I was a fan of that series, I happily plunked down my cash, installed the game, set up my account, and begin playing. So far so good. About 3/4 through my first mission, my internet connection "hiccupped" which promptly caused the game to stop everything it was doing and dump me back to the main menu with the nasty message that I had lost connection. After re-booting my router, I found that all my progress had been lost. That's when I realized the game wanted a 24/7 connection to the internet FOR SINGLE PLAYER!
I promptly deleted the game from my hard drive, and took the game back to Best Buy for a refund. Best Buy (of course) was not going to give me back my money since I had already opened the box. So I did the next best thing. I handed the game to the CS rep and told them to throw that game in the trash. Then (while standing in front of them) called my credit card company and disputed the charges! Since I've been a long (long) time customer with that particular credit card company, they quickly reversed the charges no problem.
Now I don't have an issue with a company validating the copy I purchased, but in some cases, it just goes a little too far.
First, Ashiel, I'm honored! Truly honored! Just don't make him a half-ling out of spite please?
To continue a second, the Link between DRM and Piracy is a weird one. Yes, DRM does cause piracy, and in some ways, piracy does in fact make DRM obsolete from the get go...
But we (myself included) are all talking about absolutes here. Not ALL DRM is defeated by Piracy, not ALL piracy is stopped by DRM. I've made my points for this project so let me talk in broader scale about DRM and Piracy.
For those of us technically competent enough to understand the details of what DRM Does and how DRM is avoided (and that seems to be the majority of people on this thread), it makes sense to say that DRM is useless because it is always defeated by code hackers that can get around pretty much every check that is possible to make pretty much any DRM obsolete. But we forget that not everyone is as technically competent as those of us having this discussion on this board.
A correlative story: I used to play EQ. I also used to use a program called ShowEQ to, in essence, cheat. (Throw whatever hate at me you want, that was 20 years ago). At one point during Planes of Power, in it's ever ongoing battle with the ShowEQ developers, Sony changed the ENTIRE way that EQ sent mob and zone data down to the client...in almost every way shape or form, it PERMANENTLY broke ShowEQ's ability to parse the zone and show you what was there. As always happens technically, a developer with a good understanding of the internals of both ShowEQ and the EQ Client developed a memory resident application that would re-gather the missing data and appropriately parse/send the needed data to the ShowEQ client.
There were 2 problems with this memory resident application:
1) It was a memory resident application and Sony was well known for executing subroutines on user's computers to check for memory resident applications to check for cheating.
2) It was a technically difficult application to get working on your computer as it required slight modifications to the source code and then re-compiling for your system directly...this wasn't a "drop it in place and install it" kind of daemon.
Sony never put checks in place to check for this applet, even though it was well known to be out there, and they never tried to re-structure the data stream again to make the applet not work.
This was always fascinating to me from a social perspective. First, ShowEQ was technically difficult to use and setup: Requiring a Linux PC attached to a HUB (Not a switch) to obtain data, and being distributed in source only methods, actually getting ShowEQ to run and properly display data on your network was not trivial. Then, following that, getting the applet properly setup and working and connected to your ShowEQ installation was difficult as well. And to top that off ridicule was the order of the day on the ShowEQ forums...ask for help and you were about as likely to get made fun of and told off in some of the most creative of ways known to man than you were to get ANY questions answered at all.
The answer to my social question of "why allow this" was easy to figure out looking at it: Sony didn't need or want to stop the 10% of ShowEQ users who were capable of getting the system running...they had already stopped the 90% of people from simply being able to download an application and run it.
ALMOST counted for enough to make the Sony devs and management happy...the last 10% simply didn't matter.
It's the EXACT SAME with DRM. If you can download a bittorent client, open a hole in your firewall on the various bittorent ports, go out and find a bittorent indexing site, find, on that site, the tracker you require, initiate the download and actually obtain the software (Sometimes the largest challenge of any bittorent download you do), NOT obtain a virus WITH the software (another of the larger challenges you run into) and then can manage to figure out how to get the software both installed and properly patched so that you really ARE past the DRM, I assume most manufacturers are ok with that.
Just like with ShowEQ, the more and more draconian the DRM, the more hurdles you have to jump through. Eventually, with draconian enough DRM you don't stop piracy, but you do stop many of the less competent computer users from being capable of using the pirated copies of the software. In other words, while the piracy has made the DRM invalid, in doing so it's made itself so complected (in SOME cases) that it's it's own protection against use.
No electronic media company is nieve enough to believe that their DRM will stop 100% of piracy...that's not what DRM is there for. I will AGAIN liken it to locking your car in the parking lot or the door to your house at night.
If someone REALLY wants to steal your TV or your GPS unit, they're going to be able to do it. What gets stopped is the "opportunity thief" who's walking by your car, sees your cool GPS and checks the door, just in case it happens to be unlocked.
The argument that "DRM IS USELESS" because piracy can get around it, isn't a full argument since not everyone can obtain a pirated copy of the game. Conversely the argument that "DRM IS NECESSARY" also isn't a full argument because GoG.com and other sites of that nature have proven this isn't the case in at least some scenarios.
I'm all for taking a stance against DRM, but starting with the premise that it has no usefulness at all to a company because it can be cracked doesn't get the corporation to see eye to eye with you. In any debate, the first order of business is to find common ground with the person you are arguing with. This gives you some place to move forward from that they are going to acknowledge and understand. Starting with the premise that DRM IS USELESS isn't putting you on eye level with corporate bean counters and executives who feel DRM is the only reason they're making ANY money at ALL.
It is an easy step for us to release a DRM free version if we are ever forced to shut down. We will follow through and ensure our purchasers have the rights they paid for.
-Trent
Does that include the Mac App Store version too? I know for a fact that it is possible to distribute MAS apps that are DRM-free and that don't require you to authorize the app with your Apple ID if you were to move it to a new computer using a thumb drive or external hard drive.
I can't believe this thread has gone on this long...
Piracy is wrong and illegal, it hurts the industry. Implementation of DRM to help blunt piracy is at the discretion of the dev/pub. Consumers vote w/ their wallets; don't like the DRM? don't buy the product.
I really don't see what there is to discuss, everyone has their own thresholds regarding DRM. Myself, I don't buy games that require online connection for single player games (uPlay), but am fine w/ most other stuff. Others will *only* purchase stuff if it is absolutely DRM free, or don't care about DRM at all one way or the other.
The original games have a CD check and yet there was no problem with the game when it was released. Never heard any outcries of DRM SUX!!! at the time. No CD? Couldn't play. I still play my original boxed copies and have to have the CD in the CD tray and it doesn't bother me.
First, Ashiel, I'm honored! Truly honored! Just don't make him a half-ling out of spite please?
Heh, if I was going to make him/her a halfling, it would be purely out of a desire to powergame. That +5 to all saving throws is sweet indeed. More likely, however, I would roll a Fighter/Mage/Thief, or Fighter/Mage/Cleric if soloing, and/or something else if playing in a group.
Also, I'll agree that some DRM might mildly reduce pirating, but I still don't think it works. The reason for this is you don't need everyone to be technical savvy. You only need to know one person who is technically savvy. These days, it's almost harder to find someone who couldn't handle the technical aspect of it than people who could. Our world has rapidly advanced into a technical one, and I know more people that can pirate anything they want than those who don't, and everyone I know, knows someone who could get them a pirated copy of anything they wanted even if they are technically savvy enough to get it themselves.
So in essence, today, the DRM is very ineffective. You quite literally have the same scale of problem as back in the 70s and 80s when you could just have one guy in the group buy a new music cassette and making copies for your friends, only the argument hinges on the idea that everything will be fine because nobody will know how to make a copy of the cassette, which is to say, laughable.
I've had in my possession backups of purchased products for convenience purposes, and I've never once gotten a virus from downloading backups of the games I own. As I noted before, I use backups of my original BG I & II disks to play and install my games, to keep the originals from getting scratched. I have backups of games such as BG I + TOSC, BG II + ToB, Nox, NWN Diamond (I actually have NWN Gold + HotU, NWN Platinum, and NWN Diamond in Hardcopy...), Oregon Trail, etc. It's also neither complicated, nor time consuming.
So I don't think that DRM protections are very useful for deterring people, based on ignorance or aptitude. If I didn't know how to download these things, I'd have ten other friends who did, and it only takes 1 person to teach countless people, if you're too thick to learn yourself.
I know a 60+ year old woman who has lots of video game roms and emulators on her computer. She didn't know herself about how they worked initially, or where to get them, but a friend of hers passed them on and wrote her some instructions. Now she plays Donkey Kong Country with her grandchildren on their laptop. Meanwhile, I know another woman who is around 70-80 (not sure exactly), but she plays super mario brothers on her PC and she doesn't know a lot about computers at all.
So...pretty much the same deal as the old cassette players. You only need ONE guy or gal with a cassette recorder, and the whole dorm can be loaded with bootleg cassette tapes. Same situation, different day.
But yeah, once again, thanks. You convinced me. I'm currently putting aside some money to buy BG:EE. I do want to support this (and Torchlight II), and I will do so. I still may bootleg a copy of it as a backup, since like others I've expressed my concern over server-validations and the longevity of my games; but I want this project to have my money. I think that's a worthwhile thing. Now I just need to scrape together about $60 to purchase a few copies with (times are a bit tight these days).
But yeah, once again, thanks. You convinced me. I'm currently putting aside some money to buy BG:EE. I do want to support this (and Torchlight II), and I will do so. I still may bootleg a copy of it as a backup, since like others I've expressed my concern over server-validations and the longevity of my games; but I want this project to have my money. I think that's a worthwhile thing. Now I just need to scrape together about $60 to purchase a few copies with (times are a bit tight these days).
Incredible... I never thought I'd see the day. I'm being completely serious here, I've never read of a single instance where someone's views on DRM were changed based on discussion. My previous post about now this thread is gone on too long is obviously wrong.
I'm glad to see there are flexible people on the internet
Now, this idea that somehow piracy encourages profits... not a chance. If that were the case, it would make sense for all games like this to be released for free or very cheap and somehow that would make money. It's unlikely this is the case because there's a minimum price the developer or publisher has calculated here that they believe will guarantee profits, and they sell as close to that price as possible. For BG:EE it's $19.99 but even at those numbers, we're not talking about a lot of money in the aggregate here compared to a AAA title. If they removed the very inobtrusive DRM and allowed anyone to copy the game, I can't see how they'd make enough to generate a profit in the aggregate. No question even in this thread, there would be people who would pay for one copy but then share it with others. No, piracy does not attract enough paid sales to make it worth a company's while.
*COUGH* You are provably incorrect sir.
Microsoft sells a new version of their Operating System to employees of Microsoft in their Microsoft Employee store in Redmond for $5. You read that right, $5 for a full, official license for MS Windows.
Microsoft announced WORLD WIDE a policy that third world countries would pay that same $5 for a MS Windows License (this was back a few years ago).
They sell full, retail, professional copies of their Office Suite for $10 to corporate buyers. My most recent copy of MS Office 2010 Professional (includes the ENTIRE SUITE) was $10 downloaded from MS...legally.
There are a few problems I have with your argument in this case.
First, let's note that in one case, we're talking about a AAA developer that is (or was) the largest software company in the world which writes the operating system used on most computers on the planet, and in another, a much smaller indie developer company revising a 15 year-old game created for a tiny subset of gamers. I do agree that Microsoft sells their software cheap or free to those who can generate the most market share, notably the large hardware manufacturers making PCs who preinstall it. It IS about market share, but that's not the case for Beamdog. They need to make a profit so they can continue to produce products and stay in business. Even if Windows 8 is a piece of shit, everyone out there is still running Windows (some other version). They don't lose either way, even if they give away their product, not to mention that they have tons of other products making them money. It is not a fair comparison to use the example of a company like this to compare their reasons for using DRM against a company like Beamdog and whomever holds the license to the BG products. They are different animals. Even EA is not as huge of a company as Microsoft and can not afford to give away their products or let people pirate them just to gain market share. They sell games, not operating systems. People don't NEED games to run a computer. It's all about economies of scale.
MS has known about piracy of their operating systems since MS Windows 3.11 (which, btw, shipped with NO on disk protection for installation). You can literally disk copy the 3 MS Windows 3.11 disks to standard 3.5" floppy disks and install the MS Operating system without any protection at all. Same with ALL versions of DOS. There were no online serial number checks for Windows 95 or 98, and I don't believe they were there in 2000 Either. The windows 95 and 98 serial numbers were so small (12? Characters I believe?) that tech support specialists used to simply memorize ONE license key and install the same copy / disk of Win 95 on ALL COMPUTERS they supported, understanding that there was no difference between copies.
To suggest that MS took precautions to copy protect (prior to Windows XP) ANY of their operating systems would be to suggest wrongly. And even Copy Protection on Win XP and Win 7 is limited at best (there's about a million serial number generators that will create a Win 7 serial number that will properly authenticate to MS).
And for those who DON'T make enough or can't find room in their pocket books to go down to the store and buy the latest copy of Windows 8? No problem, just pirate it...MS really doesn't care.
I vividly remember pirating Microsoft Office on 30 floppy disks the night before a move to another state. Let's also remember that at that time, there were other important factors that must be considered.
There was a much smaller number of computers in use at the workplace, and consequently much fewer users of their product, but they were charging more for it because there was also a lot more competition (WordPerfect, etc.) Even with the advent of Windows 3.11, as you pointed out, Microsoft was interested in market share, not people ripping them off because the number of people who knew how to do that was far less, and it was much more difficult then. Piracy simply wasn't as big of a concern. Now, if your argument is that Microsoft still doesn't care about piracy, then why would they introduce DRM-like features into Windows at all? They could have kept shipping it with no copy protection to get it on more computers if, as we both agree, their objective was to gain market dominance. It doesn't make sense, not to mention that when product activation came along, it wasn't just about having a CD key and staffing call centers. Now, they have activation servers, people to monitor them, maintain them, infrastructure to facilitate it, software to make it all work. It seems to me that if Microsoft really didn't care at all about piracy, they wouldn't set themselves up for all this effort to protect their products. What about all the piracy in China, where you can walk down the street and buy a pirated copy of Windows for $5? Microsoft still gets involved in it with authorities there.
No, I understand that there is a conscious decision to sell cheaply or give their product away to maintain market share, but the notion that Microsoft doesn't care about copy protection is far-fetched and can't be reconciled with Microsoft's actions, in my view. Furthermore, this has no application to a company like Beamdog which must protect its profits because it can't afford to give away software. To compare a huge company's decision to institute DRM to a smaller company's decision to do so isn't an applicable comparison. The two companies have vastly different issues and interests to consider. That's not to say that all of it isn't futile to end piracy; it clearly won't do that, but the decision is balanced with how many sales it does preserve, and how many pirates it does stop. For a smaller company, that number is always going to be more important than to a huge behemoth like Microsoft.
But yeah, once again, thanks. You convinced me. I'm currently putting aside some money to buy BG:EE. I do want to support this (and Torchlight II), and I will do so. I still may bootleg a copy of it as a backup, since like others I've expressed my concern over server-validations and the longevity of my games; but I want this project to have my money. I think that's a worthwhile thing. Now I just need to scrape together about $60 to purchase a few copies with (times are a bit tight these days).
Incredible... I never thought I'd see the day. I'm being completely serious here, I've never read of a single instance where someone's views on DRM were changed based on discussion. My previous post about now this thread is gone on too long is obviously wrong.
I'm glad to see there are flexible people on the internet
I consider having a persuadable mind to be a sign of Intelligence. Any fool can bury their head in the sand and hum loudly, but a rational person reasons. Good points were made, and even though I dislike and disagree with DRM in most forms (especially anything requiring internet validation), the points tipped the scale. It serves more to support this, and press for even less DRM next time. There is too much good to be had in supporting this project. It seems clear that strong fan/consumer support is present, and if anything deserves support on that merit alone. There are too many EAs in the world who treat their customers like money-bleeding morons. I'm thankful this isn't one of those cases. (>_>)
I think that CD-check levels of DRM are pretty much all that the industry needs. Anything beyond that is just paranoia. But for online-distributed products like BG:EE and a lot of other games, that means authenticating the installation over the internet.
So if you have to have DRM, I think this is the best example of its implementation. Naturally the ideal situation would be that you could play and install the game without ever touching the server, but if a server has to be involved, you have to admit that this is pretty unobtrusive.
It has been shown time after time that DRMs do NOTHING to prevent piracy (which is supposedly the intended purpose) nor are there any benefits for the buyer! If there are, list them! As I cannot fathom how needing an internet connection to install this game benefits me in any form or fashion. Especially a DRM such as this, will be pirated within the hour of release; So why have the DRM?! Tell me, for I must be missing something so huge and significant that it warrants applying a DRM to a game released in 1998.
DRM, no matter how big or small, is still DRM. It's a sucker-punch to the gut for loyal paying customers.
IndyJ, I could give you real-world personal examples of how DRM does prevent piracy, especially for small businesses, but that would mean giving out too much personal information on the web, and I doubt it would convince anyone here of their opinions. Not that it's my intention to try to do so anyway, but it's flatly incorrect to say that it does nothing to prevent piracy. DRM certainly does prevent some piracy. Perhaps not on a large scale, but it cannot be seriously argued that it does not prevent any piracy at all. The fact that it is subsequently defeated and a cracked version is released swiftly and is easily acquired does not negate this fact.
The only questions with which we need to concern ourselves are these (in my view):
How much DRM is acceptable to us as consumers? Is it worth it on the part of content creators? Is there any other way to achieve the desired effect?
How one answers those questions will determine how one engages in their relationships with content creators and distributors.
You know what is inconvenient? Great devs closing up shop because their game gets stolen and they don't get paid. I'm okay with light weight DRM, but that probably comes from doing support in the software industry and see what piracy can do to small shops. I've read all the rationales and arguments, but all you have to is search for torrents of all the GoG.com titles to see that shipping DRM free at really reasonable prices only reduces piracy for some people.
I'm sorry, but I am not buying this game with any DRM installed and I know of a lot of other people who will not either. That is direct loss of sales to the company. So in this case they have already lost sales due to DRM.
vortican, bobsageek; if you're not even bothered to look up facts, then I am not interested in continuing this discussion.
Whether you like it or not, piracy will happen and DRM does very little to prevent it. Any DRM and heavy prices is no way to attract customers.
@Indyj technically there is no DRM installed. You just need authentification FOR installation. Once installed, you are FREE to play as you want. Isn't that great ? It has even less DRM then the initial BG which needed CD to play (let's face it, that was a heavier DRM then the proposed one)
@Tanthalas D3 is not DRM. That is a client based game that must have a server to function. It happens to give DRM like control, but it is not in and of itself DRM. It's also a AAA title. People keep talking about these AAA titles and DRM. This is not a AAA title. I don't care what EA and Activision do with their games. I don't play them on computer. BG:EE is a different animal altogether and does not need DRM. I still contend that it would be more profitable without DRM.
I would disagree. I do believe this is a AAA title, it was AAA many years ago and just because it's older doesn't revoke it's title.
The issue with DRM is that if it's done badly it'll stop purchases and promote piracy of the game. If done correctly and goes fairly unnoticed it will still have people pirating it but hopefully the sales will not be lost.
I'm sorry, but I am not buying this game with any DRM installed and I know of a lot of other people who will not either. That is direct loss of sales to the company. So in this case they have already lost sales due to DRM.
vortican, bobsageek; if you're not even bothered to look up facts, then I am not interested in continuing this discussion.
Whether you like it or not, piracy will happen and DRM does very little to prevent it. Any DRM and heavy prices is no way to attract customers.
D3 is not DRM. That is a client based game that must have a server to function. It happens to give DRM like control, but it is not in and of itself DRM. It's also a AAA title. People keep talking about these AAA titles and DRM. This is not a AAA title. I don't care what EA and Activision do with their games. I don't play them on computer. BG:EE is a different animal altogether and does not need DRM. I still contend that it would be more profitable without DRM.
Not sure if this is trolling or serious... anyone thinking that D3 is not DRM has some massive blinders on haha. Please look at the model for D2 as an example of a good way of implementing a coop ARPG. D2 offers up both an offline mode as well as an online mode. D3 gutted the offline mode in order to provide "security and a safe environment" for gamers *two thumbs up*
It's DRM, and a form of cash flow for the company after initial sales by using the real money auction house. Diablo 3 is not an MMO, it just a coop monster stomp, there is really no need for a perpetual online connection. The way I view D3 is to think about the most intrusive DRM that you can possibly create, and then "double it" hehehe.
You can't install, much less play D3 if you don't have internet. If their servers go down/are busy/have massive lag, you can't play D3. All progression stored on blizzard servers, meaning hacking attempts will be centralized as well. Modding is an impossibility, and is considered a bannable offense.
That's not DRM? wow... I wonder what your definition of DRM is.
@IndyJ No one ever said DRM eliminates piracy, but it does reduce it (and at the very least slows it down so devs can recoup more sales during those very important first 90 days of relase). I've read the same articles you have, most of them are filled with anecdotes like yours with very little to support them beyond emotional appeal for consumers rights while completely ignoring the developers rights to be fairly paid for their work. The difference between you and I is I work in the software industry and I've seen how adding a simple serial # check at least slowed down the pirates and drove more sales.
And the very light nature of this DRM, essentially the same level as a CD check, is not harmful to customers or the experience. Feel free to stick to your guns and take this supposed moral highground, truly it's your loss. The truth is the vast majority of customers don't care about DRM, do what it takes to activate their game and move on.
@Lediath Ok, I'll bite. Even though in the process of calling me the troll you used such levels of condescension and sarcasm. D3 is not DRM. It is a new breed of games that is far worse and threatening to the games industry, but it is not DRM. I wrote off Blizzard as a lost cause years ago for their terrible practices. But calling those practices something it is not does not help further a worthy cause.
D3 is a client for a cloud based service. The fact that they have chosen to charge full price for the client doesn't change the nature of the product. They don't need to manage the rights of these clients because they already control the server. This has tons of benefits to them. They can patch half the game on their end without bothering users. If you read the "BG:EE on Steam" forums this alone seems to offer huge value to many customers. They can easily add content without bothering users. They can easily mine for data. You already mentioned the real money auction house. The benefits to the company are amazing. But it is a HUGE step back for customers.
As bad as all of that is, it is not DRM. DRM is a control mechanism on programs that I purchased to install on my machine, like BG:EE. Blizzard is not offering a version of D3 that I can install on my machine. D3 is installed on their servers and they sell clients. Do you think Gmail is DRM since you must be connected to their servers? Cloud based services are very cool and are here to stay. I just don't want them anywhere near my games.
Both this and DRM should be fought tooth and nail. But confusing the two and saying they are the same marginalizes our arguments and can lead our audience to dismiss us. I'm sure you will disagree with my points, but do try and recognize the lack of sarcasm or disrespect.
Comments
Eh, I don't really believe Blizzard's bs that D3 is a multiplayer game, its exactly like D1 and D2, you're just forced to play it online. It is DRM, and its pretty awesome for Blizzard, sucks for us though.
DRM isn't going to stop piracy, and in my opinion does a rather pitiful job of even slowing it down. IMHO, I believe that it just fans the fire, because as I noted before, it punishes the paying consumer more than it halts pirates. Better to reward the paying customer through convenience and good customer relations. There are countless methods to combat piracy without resorting to DRM shenanigans. A really awesome method would be to provide incentives for being a loyal customer, even if it's just small store credits put towards DLC, early bird opportunities, and so forth. A really sick awesome method for getting people to purchase from an online marketplace backed by gaming companies would be to allow repeat customers to join Alpha and Beta playtests, or offer gift-card points (say 10% of a purchase goes to store credit, so if you've purchased five $20 games over the year, you can toss a $10 gift card to a friend or something).
I just feel like people are focusing too much on the scary shadow of piracy, instead of realizing that there's just a tree with lots of branches. It looks scary, and you could run away from it...or you could build a tree house and rule the yard.
See, unlike piracy which does have some positive qualities that can be argued, DRM simply doesn't work, which means that to me it has no positive qualities that can be applied. It only serves to challenge code junkies to crack it all the more, and annoy the customer that you could be developing good PR with. The smoother and more appealing you can make the installation and service of your product, the more likely that they will continue to make purchases and urge others to make purchases.
For now, however, I'm going to go make a shopping list at GoG.com...
Now, this idea that somehow piracy encourages profits... not a chance. If that were the case, it would make sense for all games like this to be released for free or very cheap and somehow that would make money. It's unlikely this is the case because there's a minimum price the developer or publisher has calculated here that they believe will guarantee profits, and they sell as close to that price as possible. For BG:EE it's $19.99 but even at those numbers, we're not talking about a lot of money in the aggregate here compared to a AAA title. If they removed the very inobtrusive DRM and allowed anyone to copy the game, I can't see how they'd make enough to generate a profit in the aggregate. No question even in this thread, there would be people who would pay for one copy but then share it with others. No, piracy does not attract enough paid sales to make it worth a company's while.
I do, however, believe in the model that has developed where the game is given away for free but premium features are available through microtransactions, in-game currency, or in-app purchases. This solves the problem of DRM and allows players to pay as much or as little as they want for as much or as little of the game experience they want. It's a very successful model and actually opens up the industry for more competition. Plus, you get a whole range of customers who pay quite a bit more than the expected set retail price, and then some who get it for free or only spend a little. It's intriguing and appears to be quite a good model for future growth.
You see, I seem to remember that you had to have your CD in your pc *every* time you wanted to play the game.
Honestly, that's a lot more obtrusive than a *one time* activation, even when that requires an internet connection.
I don't like DRM either, to the point that I stopped playing Battle.net 2.0 games altogether. But come on, be honest for a second: not only is this unobtrusive DRM, it's actually an improvement of the original game.
Those who actively loaded material from the CD while playing would notice no protections because you needed the disk in the drive to load area files anyway.
=================================================================
"Now, this idea that somehow piracy encourages profits... not a chance. If that were the case, it would make sense for all games like this to be released for free or very cheap and somehow that would make money. It's unlikely this is the case because there's a minimum price the developer or publisher has calculated here that they believe will guarantee profits, and they sell as close to that price as possible. For BG:EE it's $19.99 but even at those numbers, we're not talking about a lot of money in the aggregate here compared to a AAA title. If they removed the very inobtrusive DRM and allowed anyone to copy the game, I can't see how they'd make enough to generate a profit in the aggregate. No question even in this thread, there would be people who would pay for one copy but then share it with others. No, piracy does not attract enough paid sales to make it worth a company's while."
Which isn't what I said. I said that as far as I am concerned, the more intrusive the DRM -- without incentives -- the more it makes piracy attractive. You do not want to make piracy more attractive than an actual purchase. Want to know why Steam is so successful in the face of piracy, despite being full of DRM by its very nature? It makes it more convenient than piracy, and serves the consumer.
When I say that piracy isn't going away and gave examples of how in some cases piracy produced sales at a later time, or noted that free availability increased coverage and thus potential consumer base, I wasn't saying that piracy is by its nature profitable. I'm saying it's like the weather. You can't stop the weather, so you adapt to it. Build good PR with your consumer base, and capitalize on what you know piracy can inadvertently do for you.
This is becoming a difficult discussion because we are imprinting expectations on each other, instead of being realistic here. It's like discussing marijuana in a sense. Some people look at the costs and expenses of fighting marijuana, and locking people up for possession, and the drain on tax dollars; versus making it like alcohol or cigarettes and regulating, taxing, and controlling it. Opponents immediately assume that proponents of treating it like alcohol are pot-heads or just want to overrun the nation with marijuana use; whereas most of them are just looking at things realistically and looking to create the best outcome out of a situation most would considered troubled.
Piracy is much the same. It's not going away. It has existed pretty much forever. You can either run from it or learn from it. I'm advocating in all cases company-consumer relations, and making piracy less attractive compared to making an actual purchase. In today's digital world, it is possible to bring costs down, service up, and build strong loyalties. Gamers today often feel that game companies are faceless, soulless, heartless industry monsters who don't care about customers and only exist to cheat them out of every last dime. Is it true? Not always (EA kind of sucks these days, but I know all game makers aren't like that), but some feel like it is. I think this is where indie and small time game companies have a chance to leverage themselves into the mix.
Microsoft sells a new version of their Operating System to employees of Microsoft in their Microsoft Employee store in Redmond for $5. You read that right, $5 for a full, official license for MS Windows.
Microsoft announced WORLD WIDE a policy that third world countries would pay that same $5 for a MS Windows License (this was back a few years ago).
They sell full, retail, professional copies of their Office Suite for $10 to corporate buyers. My most recent copy of MS Office 2010 Professional (includes the ENTIRE SUITE) was $10 downloaded from MS...legally.
MS has known about piracy of their operating systems since MS Windows 3.11 (which, btw, shipped with NO on disk protection for installation). You can literally disk copy the 3 MS Windows 3.11 disks to standard 3.5" floppy disks and install the MS Operating system without any protection at all. Same with ALL versions of DOS. There were no online serial number checks for Windows 95 or 98, and I don't believe they were there in 2000 Either. The windows 95 and 98 serial numbers were so small (12? Characters I believe?) that tech support specialists used to simply memorize ONE license key and install the same copy / disk of Win 95 on ALL COMPUTERS they supported, understanding that there was no difference between copies.
To suggest that MS took precautions to copy protect (prior to Windows XP) ANY of their operating systems would be to suggest wrongly. And even Copy Protection on Win XP and Win 7 is limited at best (there's about a million serial number generators that will create a Win 7 serial number that will properly authenticate to MS).
Why would they not do this? Market share. Simply enough, if you can get enough people (even without the $100 a pop that MS charges for their OS) to install your new OS on their computers, you maintain market domination. You can then produce a piece of software, sell it for a 500% profit (assuming the $5 cost is the REAL cost of the software, which I'm sure it is) to those who will pay for it, and STILL have the understanding that you are maintaining market dominance even if those who aren't paying for it are still installing it.
It's a GENIUS move by MS NOT to copy protect (or over copy protect) their OS product. It's their BUSINESS users that make MS their money, not the home market, and how better to encourage your business users to upgrade to the new version of the OS than to, in essence, sell or give away that same OS for those business users to use at home.
And for those who DON'T make enough or can't find room in their pocket books to go down to the store and buy the latest copy of Windows 8? No problem, just pirate it...MS really doesn't care.
--Doug
Since I was a fan of that series, I happily plunked down my cash, installed the game, set up my account, and begin playing. So far so good. About 3/4 through my first mission, my internet connection "hiccupped" which promptly caused the game to stop everything it was doing and dump me back to the main menu with the nasty message that I had lost connection. After re-booting my router, I found that all my progress had been lost. That's when I realized the game wanted a 24/7 connection to the internet FOR SINGLE PLAYER!
I promptly deleted the game from my hard drive, and took the game back to Best Buy for a refund. Best Buy (of course) was not going to give me back my money since I had already opened the box. So I did the next best thing. I handed the game to the CS rep and told them to throw that game in the trash. Then (while standing in front of them) called my credit card company and disputed the charges! Since I've been a long (long) time customer with that particular credit card company, they quickly reversed the charges no problem.
Now I don't have an issue with a company validating the copy I purchased, but in some cases, it just goes a little too far.
To continue a second, the Link between DRM and Piracy is a weird one. Yes, DRM does cause piracy, and in some ways, piracy does in fact make DRM obsolete from the get go...
But we (myself included) are all talking about absolutes here. Not ALL DRM is defeated by Piracy, not ALL piracy is stopped by DRM. I've made my points for this project so let me talk in broader scale about DRM and Piracy.
For those of us technically competent enough to understand the details of what DRM Does and how DRM is avoided (and that seems to be the majority of people on this thread), it makes sense to say that DRM is useless because it is always defeated by code hackers that can get around pretty much every check that is possible to make pretty much any DRM obsolete. But we forget that not everyone is as technically competent as those of us having this discussion on this board.
A correlative story: I used to play EQ. I also used to use a program called ShowEQ to, in essence, cheat. (Throw whatever hate at me you want, that was 20 years ago). At one point during Planes of Power, in it's ever ongoing battle with the ShowEQ developers, Sony changed the ENTIRE way that EQ sent mob and zone data down to the client...in almost every way shape or form, it PERMANENTLY broke ShowEQ's ability to parse the zone and show you what was there. As always happens technically, a developer with a good understanding of the internals of both ShowEQ and the EQ Client developed a memory resident application that would re-gather the missing data and appropriately parse/send the needed data to the ShowEQ client.
There were 2 problems with this memory resident application:
1) It was a memory resident application and Sony was well known for executing subroutines on user's computers to check for memory resident applications to check for cheating.
2) It was a technically difficult application to get working on your computer as it required slight modifications to the source code and then re-compiling for your system directly...this wasn't a "drop it in place and install it" kind of daemon.
Sony never put checks in place to check for this applet, even though it was well known to be out there, and they never tried to re-structure the data stream again to make the applet not work.
This was always fascinating to me from a social perspective. First, ShowEQ was technically difficult to use and setup: Requiring a Linux PC attached to a HUB (Not a switch) to obtain data, and being distributed in source only methods, actually getting ShowEQ to run and properly display data on your network was not trivial. Then, following that, getting the applet properly setup and working and connected to your ShowEQ installation was difficult as well. And to top that off ridicule was the order of the day on the ShowEQ forums...ask for help and you were about as likely to get made fun of and told off in some of the most creative of ways known to man than you were to get ANY questions answered at all.
The answer to my social question of "why allow this" was easy to figure out looking at it: Sony didn't need or want to stop the 10% of ShowEQ users who were capable of getting the system running...they had already stopped the 90% of people from simply being able to download an application and run it.
ALMOST counted for enough to make the Sony devs and management happy...the last 10% simply didn't matter.
It's the EXACT SAME with DRM. If you can download a bittorent client, open a hole in your firewall on the various bittorent ports, go out and find a bittorent indexing site, find, on that site, the tracker you require, initiate the download and actually obtain the software (Sometimes the largest challenge of any bittorent download you do), NOT obtain a virus WITH the software (another of the larger challenges you run into) and then can manage to figure out how to get the software both installed and properly patched so that you really ARE past the DRM, I assume most manufacturers are ok with that.
Just like with ShowEQ, the more and more draconian the DRM, the more hurdles you have to jump through. Eventually, with draconian enough DRM you don't stop piracy, but you do stop many of the less competent computer users from being capable of using the pirated copies of the software. In other words, while the piracy has made the DRM invalid, in doing so it's made itself so complected (in SOME cases) that it's it's own protection against use.
No electronic media company is nieve enough to believe that their DRM will stop 100% of piracy...that's not what DRM is there for. I will AGAIN liken it to locking your car in the parking lot or the door to your house at night.
If someone REALLY wants to steal your TV or your GPS unit, they're going to be able to do it. What gets stopped is the "opportunity thief" who's walking by your car, sees your cool GPS and checks the door, just in case it happens to be unlocked.
The argument that "DRM IS USELESS" because piracy can get around it, isn't a full argument since not everyone can obtain a pirated copy of the game. Conversely the argument that "DRM IS NECESSARY" also isn't a full argument because GoG.com and other sites of that nature have proven this isn't the case in at least some scenarios.
I'm all for taking a stance against DRM, but starting with the premise that it has no usefulness at all to a company because it can be cracked doesn't get the corporation to see eye to eye with you. In any debate, the first order of business is to find common ground with the person you are arguing with. This gives you some place to move forward from that they are going to acknowledge and understand. Starting with the premise that DRM IS USELESS isn't putting you on eye level with corporate bean counters and executives who feel DRM is the only reason they're making ANY money at ALL.
--Doug
Piracy is wrong and illegal, it hurts the industry.
Implementation of DRM to help blunt piracy is at the discretion of the dev/pub.
Consumers vote w/ their wallets; don't like the DRM? don't buy the product.
I really don't see what there is to discuss, everyone has their own thresholds regarding DRM. Myself, I don't buy games that require online connection for single player games (uPlay), but am fine w/ most other stuff. Others will *only* purchase stuff if it is absolutely DRM free, or don't care about DRM at all one way or the other.
Also, I'll agree that some DRM might mildly reduce pirating, but I still don't think it works. The reason for this is you don't need everyone to be technical savvy. You only need to know one person who is technically savvy. These days, it's almost harder to find someone who couldn't handle the technical aspect of it than people who could. Our world has rapidly advanced into a technical one, and I know more people that can pirate anything they want than those who don't, and everyone I know, knows someone who could get them a pirated copy of anything they wanted even if they are technically savvy enough to get it themselves.
So in essence, today, the DRM is very ineffective. You quite literally have the same scale of problem as back in the 70s and 80s when you could just have one guy in the group buy a new music cassette and making copies for your friends, only the argument hinges on the idea that everything will be fine because nobody will know how to make a copy of the cassette, which is to say, laughable.
I've had in my possession backups of purchased products for convenience purposes, and I've never once gotten a virus from downloading backups of the games I own. As I noted before, I use backups of my original BG I & II disks to play and install my games, to keep the originals from getting scratched. I have backups of games such as BG I + TOSC, BG II + ToB, Nox, NWN Diamond (I actually have NWN Gold + HotU, NWN Platinum, and NWN Diamond in Hardcopy...), Oregon Trail, etc. It's also neither complicated, nor time consuming.
So I don't think that DRM protections are very useful for deterring people, based on ignorance or aptitude. If I didn't know how to download these things, I'd have ten other friends who did, and it only takes 1 person to teach countless people, if you're too thick to learn yourself.
I know a 60+ year old woman who has lots of video game roms and emulators on her computer. She didn't know herself about how they worked initially, or where to get them, but a friend of hers passed them on and wrote her some instructions. Now she plays Donkey Kong Country with her grandchildren on their laptop. Meanwhile, I know another woman who is around 70-80 (not sure exactly), but she plays super mario brothers on her PC and she doesn't know a lot about computers at all.
So...pretty much the same deal as the old cassette players. You only need ONE guy or gal with a cassette recorder, and the whole dorm can be loaded with bootleg cassette tapes. Same situation, different day.
But yeah, once again, thanks. You convinced me. I'm currently putting aside some money to buy BG:EE. I do want to support this (and Torchlight II), and I will do so. I still may bootleg a copy of it as a backup, since like others I've expressed my concern over server-validations and the longevity of my games; but I want this project to have my money. I think that's a worthwhile thing. Now I just need to scrape together about $60 to purchase a few copies with (times are a bit tight these days).
I'm glad to see there are flexible people on the internet
There are a few problems I have with your argument in this case.
First, let's note that in one case, we're talking about a AAA developer that is (or was) the largest software company in the world which writes the operating system used on most computers on the planet, and in another, a much smaller indie developer company revising a 15 year-old game created for a tiny subset of gamers. I do agree that Microsoft sells their software cheap or free to those who can generate the most market share, notably the large hardware manufacturers making PCs who preinstall it. It IS about market share, but that's not the case for Beamdog. They need to make a profit so they can continue to produce products and stay in business. Even if Windows 8 is a piece of shit, everyone out there is still running Windows (some other version). They don't lose either way, even if they give away their product, not to mention that they have tons of other products making them money. It is not a fair comparison to use the example of a company like this to compare their reasons for using DRM against a company like Beamdog and whomever holds the license to the BG products. They are different animals. Even EA is not as huge of a company as Microsoft and can not afford to give away their products or let people pirate them just to gain market share. They sell games, not operating systems. People don't NEED games to run a computer. It's all about economies of scale. I vividly remember pirating Microsoft Office on 30 floppy disks the night before a move to another state. Let's also remember that at that time, there were other important factors that must be considered.
There was a much smaller number of computers in use at the workplace, and consequently much fewer users of their product, but they were charging more for it because there was also a lot more competition (WordPerfect, etc.) Even with the advent of Windows 3.11, as you pointed out, Microsoft was interested in market share, not people ripping them off because the number of people who knew how to do that was far less, and it was much more difficult then. Piracy simply wasn't as big of a concern. Now, if your argument is that Microsoft still doesn't care about piracy, then why would they introduce DRM-like features into Windows at all? They could have kept shipping it with no copy protection to get it on more computers if, as we both agree, their objective was to gain market dominance. It doesn't make sense, not to mention that when product activation came along, it wasn't just about having a CD key and staffing call centers. Now, they have activation servers, people to monitor them, maintain them, infrastructure to facilitate it, software to make it all work. It seems to me that if Microsoft really didn't care at all about piracy, they wouldn't set themselves up for all this effort to protect their products. What about all the piracy in China, where you can walk down the street and buy a pirated copy of Windows for $5? Microsoft still gets involved in it with authorities there.
No, I understand that there is a conscious decision to sell cheaply or give their product away to maintain market share, but the notion that Microsoft doesn't care about copy protection is far-fetched and can't be reconciled with Microsoft's actions, in my view. Furthermore, this has no application to a company like Beamdog which must protect its profits because it can't afford to give away software. To compare a huge company's decision to institute DRM to a smaller company's decision to do so isn't an applicable comparison. The two companies have vastly different issues and interests to consider. That's not to say that all of it isn't futile to end piracy; it clearly won't do that, but the decision is balanced with how many sales it does preserve, and how many pirates it does stop. For a smaller company, that number is always going to be more important than to a huge behemoth like Microsoft.
So if you have to have DRM, I think this is the best example of its implementation. Naturally the ideal situation would be that you could play and install the game without ever touching the server, but if a server has to be involved, you have to admit that this is pretty unobtrusive.
DRM, no matter how big or small, is still DRM. It's a sucker-punch to the gut for loyal paying customers.
The only questions with which we need to concern ourselves are these (in my view):
How much DRM is acceptable to us as consumers?
Is it worth it on the part of content creators?
Is there any other way to achieve the desired effect?
How one answers those questions will determine how one engages in their relationships with content creators and distributors.
vortican, bobsageek; if you're not even bothered to look up facts, then I am not interested in continuing this discussion.
Whether you like it or not, piracy will happen and DRM does very little to prevent it. Any DRM and heavy prices is no way to attract customers.
The issue with DRM is that if it's done badly it'll stop purchases and promote piracy of the game. If done correctly and goes fairly unnoticed it will still have people pirating it but hopefully the sales will not be lost.
It's DRM, and a form of cash flow for the company after initial sales by using the real money auction house. Diablo 3 is not an MMO, it just a coop monster stomp, there is really no need for a perpetual online connection. The way I view D3 is to think about the most intrusive DRM that you can possibly create, and then "double it" hehehe.
You can't install, much less play D3 if you don't have internet.
If their servers go down/are busy/have massive lag, you can't play D3.
All progression stored on blizzard servers, meaning hacking attempts will be centralized as well.
Modding is an impossibility, and is considered a bannable offense.
That's not DRM? wow... I wonder what your definition of DRM is.
And the very light nature of this DRM, essentially the same level as a CD check, is not harmful to customers or the experience. Feel free to stick to your guns and take this supposed moral highground, truly it's your loss. The truth is the vast majority of customers don't care about DRM, do what it takes to activate their game and move on.
D3 is a client for a cloud based service. The fact that they have chosen to charge full price for the client doesn't change the nature of the product. They don't need to manage the rights of these clients because they already control the server. This has tons of benefits to them. They can patch half the game on their end without bothering users. If you read the "BG:EE on Steam" forums this alone seems to offer huge value to many customers. They can easily add content without bothering users. They can easily mine for data. You already mentioned the real money auction house. The benefits to the company are amazing. But it is a HUGE step back for customers.
As bad as all of that is, it is not DRM. DRM is a control mechanism on programs that I purchased to install on my machine, like BG:EE. Blizzard is not offering a version of D3 that I can install on my machine. D3 is installed on their servers and they sell clients. Do you think Gmail is DRM since you must be connected to their servers? Cloud based services are very cool and are here to stay. I just don't want them anywhere near my games.
Both this and DRM should be fought tooth and nail. But confusing the two and saying they are the same marginalizes our arguments and can lead our audience to dismiss us. I'm sure you will disagree with my points, but do try and recognize the lack of sarcasm or disrespect.