@Treyolen I meant no disrespect in my post, and I'm sorry if I offended you in anyway.
I injected a bit of humor in to my post but evidently you don't like that so I'll be completely serious here. I think your point of view is completely valid, D3 does provide some services that are not inclusive of DRM, however it is, in my opinion, very clearly a form of DRM. It is a way to control when you can and can not play the game, similar to uPlay, my saves are stored on the server. My post was not completely laced with sarcasm, I did mentioned several facts in the post, including the limitations imposed on the user by the D3 system. Either way I think we just have different views on what is and is not DRM and I'm okay with that.
@Lediath Your apology is certainly accepted and I apologize in turn if I was too defensive. Don't misunderstand my position. I think what D3 does is worse than DRM. But like I said, I don't care because I wrote Blizzard off years ago. Once upon a time you could blindly buy any Blizzard or Bioware title sight unseen and be assured of a great experience. Those days are far behind us because of EA and Activision.
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.
To what facts are you referring? The supposed facts which back up your argument, which basically says, "I'm right, you're wrong, everybody knows it, and I don't need to prove it."
As for your final statement, I think Diablo III proves it completely wrong. Some people WILL pay a lot of money for titles which have heavy DRM. They just don't care.
I see no reason to continue this discussion with those who've already decided not to purchase this game. What purpose does it serve to argue when the decision re: DRM has already been made and it's created a lost sale? We already know that this situation occurs so no new information is being uncovered.
@Vortican The reason to continue this conversation is that the game hasn't been released yet! I'm sure this topic will die when we get our hands on the game and lose ourselves for a few months. But on a serious note, there are relevant points being made and if that helps inform a portion of the customer base that can only be a good thing. I agree that D3 proves that MANY customers will swallow any amount of control to play a new game. I'm hopeful that a vocal minority can help push back against that level of acceptance. That is my purpose here. To kill time until release day and to encourage a few more people to speak up against the erosion of consumer rights.
I don't think that having to activate a game upon installation is "erosion of consumer rights". Like I've mentioned before, the problem I have with these "I won't accept any kind of DRM" arguments is that they basically mean that only the consumer has rights and the companies producing software have no rights at all to protect their products.
I agree with Tanthalas on the point of DRM. The consumers' rights are in the choices that we make. When I chose to buy D3, I gave up some of those rights be reading and signing their EULA, same thing when I chose to use steam and itunes. I think a more appropriate way of stating it is that we are speaking up against the erosion of choice rather than rights. The publisher and the devs usually make the decisions on what kind of protection they would like on their software, those are their rights as providers of a product and/or service.
All in all, I think BGEE's implementation of DRM is a pretty safe choice from the consumer standpoint. It requires no seperate client or software, one time authentication during each install and IIRC a promised patch for a completely DRM free setup system should the Beamdog servers ever go down permenantly.
IMO that's giving up a very small "choice" to install without authentication, for pretty much free reign to do as we please after the initial setup.
@Tanthalas I don't care about a corporation's rights. Corporations have lobbyists, lawyers, and security departments to look after their own rights. They don't need me to champion their cause. I care about consumers who have very little representation in any form. And this form of DRM is an erosion of consumer rights. Erosion by definition is a gradual and subtle thing that goes unnoticed until too late.
I'm not calling Beamdog evil or refusing to accept their DRM. I've stated repeatedly that I bought the game. I am trying to encourage others to push for even less DRM. You have been dismissive of any arguments because you feel this level of DRM doesn't affect you. It does bother some of us and we can envision a very plausible scenario where it stops us from installing the game in the future. We are discussing the issue from that standpoint.
I think what Tanthalas is concerned about is some of the rhetoric (not necessarily from you) calling for people to not buy the game at all if it has DRM. If people listen to that rhetoric, it's damaging to Beamdog, who are relying on the success of this game to justify the next one.
Yes, you don't care about a corporation's rights and that's the problem with a lot of people today, they don't understand that their rights stop where the rights of the next guy start.
I'm dismissive of the DRM being applied to BGEE because I find it to be reasonable. I understand that companies have the right to try and protect their software.
I think the dematerialization of the video game goes hand in hand with the dematerialization of money : The privatization of our privacy by traceability (blue card / IP) and confiscation of any possible action ...
@Tanthalas All corporate rights stop at my own front door as far as I'm concerned. After I give you my money to purchase your product you don't have any rights to manage my property. We live in a time where digital distribution blurs the lines of ownership. I understand that and am trying to help define those lines in a way I find acceptable. I think my arguments have been respectful and productive. You seem to disagree.
Again, you are advocating for the corporations along with their armies of lobbyists and publicists. I respect your decision to do that for them. This seems a little bit like supporting Goliath to me. I believe in what David is trying to do and would rather lend my support to David. Your side will probably win. And Steam will probably play a huge role in that victory. But David does win every once in a while.
@Treyolen You're just demonizing corporations and basically saying "its ok if they have no rights, they're evil".
If you want to go after companies that actually use very bad forms of DRM, go ahead, but a small company like Beamdog using a very mild form of DRM? Sorry, I can't really support that.
@Tanthalas I think that last statement sums up our disagreement. In my mind, buying a product and actively contributing ideas on ways to improve the product and the overall experience do not equal going after them. And I'm not demonizing anyone or saying they have no rights. I'm limiting their rights in my home over my possessions that I paid for with my money. There is a difference.
I'm not asking for your support. But I would appreciate it if you quit misrepresenting my arguments and motives. I'm a paying customer making my opinions known on a forum that seems to be built for this very purpose.
@Treyolen@Tanthalas can you both agree that you have different views of what is and is not okay regarding DRM?
Treyolen thinks that DRM is just flat out wrong because "corporate rights stop at my own front door". Tanthalas thinks that mild DRM is fine.
This is not taking into consideration the corportation in question (be it big small good evil) or the product itself. I don't think arguing about why these views are valid is going to change either side's opinion. Best to just let the rest of the board sort it out for themselves
@Tanthalas Point taken. Let me correct it. Your position seems a little bit like supporting Andre the Giant in a fantasy wrestling match with Stacy Kiebler to me. I believe in what Stacy is trying to do and would rather lend my support to Stacy. Your side will probably win. But everyone will have more fun if my side wins.
There is no good/evil or moral/immoral angle to that comparison that I know of myself. Just good clean American fun.
@Lediath You're probably right. But I do feel as if my only exchanges with Tanthalas have been replies to him calling me out. I feel as if he is misrepresenting my arguments. I like the Beamdog guys. I want them to succeed and want to participate in the community in a positive way. Stating my case for less DRM moving forward seems positive to me. He keeps injecting loaded language like "evil" and "demonizing" and implying that I don't care about the rights of others. Those are not my arguments and I don't want them to be misconstrued.
- me mentioning "evil" and "demonizing" was a direct response to your comparison to David and Goliath. Not to mention that in these kinds of arguments when people start mentioning corporations and companies they ignore that they're made of people too.
- When you take a complete anti-DRM stance you are denying software companies the right to protect their work. Piracy exists and that's why DRM exists. A balance between consumer rights and company rights with regards to the implementation of DRM is possible, but your stance doesn't really help in getting us there.
@Tanthalas Goliath was not used as an example because of his alignment but because of his class and attack bonus attributes. I've already acknowledged the point and changed the combatants. I'm not sure what else you would like me to do regarding that issue. Do you think Andre the Giant was a bad guy? I'm sure I can find another example if it will help. I just happen to like Stacy Kiebler...
My stance is based on the premise that software companies don't need to protect their work. Therefore DRM serves no legitimate purpose. This is where the debate should focus. I'm proposing that there are enough honest paying customers to net more profits for a product without DRM. You seem to disagree. I respect your disagreement but seem to receive no respect in return. This is not "my" stance. I just happen to be the one on this particular forum advocating it.
@Vortican The reason to continue this conversation is that the game hasn't been released yet! I'm sure this topic will die when we get our hands on the game and lose ourselves for a few months. But on a serious note, there are relevant points being made and if that helps inform a portion of the customer base that can only be a good thing. I agree that D3 proves that MANY customers will swallow any amount of control to play a new game. I'm hopeful that a vocal minority can help push back against that level of acceptance. That is my purpose here. To kill time until release day and to encourage a few more people to speak up against the erosion of consumer rights.
Note that I only indicated it was useless to continue the discussion with those who have already decided not to purchase the game. Clearly, the existence of any DRM prevents them from making a purchase, as some have already admitted to this in the thread. My point is that they're already a lost cause, as it were, because they view any kind of DRM as completely unacceptable and they will not spend money on any product which contains it. For those folks, it's either a black or white issue. For yourself, who've already purchased it in spite of the DRM, it's clearly a different animal. I think your efforts to encourage less DRM overall are noteworthy and I certainly support your intention. I just don't think it's productive to engage anyone who has a closed mind to the issue.
However, I do disagree with your view that consumers' rights are being eroded by DRM. Consumers have the most rights of all in any business transaction! They're the purchasers, so they vote with their dollars, and they determine which companies stay in business and which do not. In that sense, consumers always have all the power in the relationships where they are not forced to make purchases. They can demand the price they are willing to pay, the terms under which they will make a purchase, the quality of the product, and demand guarantees. Businesses can't do any of those things and if they don't satisfy enough customers, they go out of business.
I think the fundamental problem with your contention that corporate rights end at your door because you bought something and want free exercise to use it is the nature of digital items. These aren't books or shoes which can clearly be bought and the rights to use them transferred to you exclusively. A software product can be replicated infinitely and therefore publishers and content creators have designed mechanisms by which to limit their works, just like artists destroyed molds of their sculptures (I've used this comparison before). What you're buying when you make a software purchase is not the software itself; it is merely a license. Hence, corporate rights do not end at your door unless you negotiate a special license, or buy the actual product itself and all the rights to it. The market has mechanisms to do this and if you think about it, has rather ingeniously developed this model to protect both the right of consumers to use and enjoy products while at the same time offering protection for the creator of those works to prevent their work from being usurped. As long as the state doesn't get involved in these matters, the trend is to generally end up at implicit agreements which best benefit both parties involved: the consumer and corporation. Both sides get most of what they want, but for absolutists, who refuse to buy products which include any type of protection at all, they will find that their selections of product are quite limited.
Therefore, I don't think that your argument that corporate rights end at your door can be validated in the sense that you as one individual don't have the resources necessary to purchase the IP in such a way that would guarantee you unrestricted use. Your aim to convince companies that implementing DRM actually hurts them is not evidenced by the facts, but I think while the discussion is useful enough that it supports companies like Stardock and others which employ no DRM, I do not think it is likely that a majority of companies would follow that model, nor should they. There are consequences beyond financial concerns which led companies to employ protection and they will not be addressed if companies voluntarily give up that protection. I don't think that you can claim the entitlement that you have claimed here.
@Vortican I liked most of that post up to the entitlement part. And I agree with a lot of it. Let me counter with a few points.
- When discussing games it is important to note the demographic often includes large portions of customers under 18. These are the people we don't allow in the voting polls because they don't always use sound judgment and/or logic. They may have lots of power in a transaction, but they don't often have lots of willpower, experience, and/or understanding of the real terms. I'll use D3 as an example. Most users don't seem to understand the terms of that product. I don't think many of them would care even if they did believe it was a violation of their rights. And many don't have enough life experience to appreciate the tradeoff they are making. I think EA/Activision actively exploit this imbalance.
- The digital world does change many preconceptions of ownership without a doubt. And I do agree that absolutists on either side are bound to be disappointed. But in this early stage of the digital age we are still negotiating the terms of that ownership. In a negotiation you don't start out asking for what you will settle for in the end. You demand the moon and sit down to reasonably bargain to a position everyone can live with. This negotiation is far from over and I am asking for everything. I know I won't get it. But if we start with some DRM is ok then we end up compromising on more DRM is necessary.
- I also agree that a DRM free product is not feasible on many projects. A brand new AAA release with all the fixins' represents a significantly higher risk to a developer. We're not talking about that here. And I'm not over at the D3 forums advocating software freedom. We're talking about an old release that has already recouped its original sunk costs. Beamdog has done real work here, but not on the scale of a AAA console release. I think in this situation where a no DRM product would net MORE profit. There will never be an objective study of this problem. Anecdotal evidence will be the only source for the foreseeable future. But I see what others are doing successfully and I think Beamdog would be wise to try and follow their lead. I'm here encouraging them to advocate this in their ongoing negotiations.
DRM & the Rest Of The World, End of the Game ... ?
@Tanthalas "I don't see how posting unrelated issues is supposed to strengthen your argument. "
DRM actually are one link in the chain, from a insane economic model : Which includes: DLC, Prices & Contents depending of the Support, Dematerialization and DRM. If one were to oppose: your neo-realism, cynicism; we could say that this topic is the genesis of a battle, the mother of battles, the Armageddon ... Where people play the negotiation of license fees for other IE games, And so the Future of our Entertainment . Then, Vae Victis . But as nature abhors a vacuum, On my side I hope that there will be enough space for : Companies associated to multinationals, Because: it must be that everyone eats ... But mostly for those sponsored by the fans ... Because they are my preference .
In all cases regarding ethics : “cannot be two skies.” : ) .
@Treyolen keeping in mind that almost all games require some form of DRM (save GOG), can you provide a suggested form of DRM for the series going forward? I can't think of anything that is less intrusive than to have a one time check for each clean install.
@Lediath I disagree that all games require DRM and believe this particular series is a great example of a product that would do well without. It could join the Stardock titles that you mentioned and all of the titles released under the various Humble bundles.
But if DRM is insisted upon by certain stakeholders than I could think of a few ideas:
How about the current model with the change that the promised patch is released immediately to a third party like the EFF or even a bank of some sort in an escrow. If the servers become unavailable at any time the third party would then release the patch. This would put everyone's mind at ease as the patch would already exist in a legitimate form that would be made available at some point.
I could live with a digital watermark being included in each download. This would make each installer traceable back to the source in case of misuse.
A more radical idea would be to imprint the billing address used for purchase into the installation screen of each file. This would personalize the file for the purchaser like a digital engraving, discourage sharing since very few will want to share their address with pirates, and offer the accountability of the watermark.
These are just a few ideas off the top of my head. Smarter people with more of a vested interest may be able to come up with better ideas. This is indeed a very useful question and advances the discourse nicely. I still believe that value added customer service is the answer with ongoing DLC, cool extras available to registered customers, and nice forums a better alternative to any form of DRM.
@Treyolen The watermarking is a good idea if you can 1) detect misuse 2) penalize it 3) prevent from removing it 4) using an algorithm hard to decipher. Detecting misuse in the current form of BGEE is near impossible, in my opinion. It's mostly doable with game that requires internet to play, like WarIII, SCII... The 3) point is also important, otherwise it kinda sucks. The 4) is basic cryptology, but you have to be certain one cannot yield an possible watermark easily. That condition can NOT be fullfilled with the modern cryptography algorithm of watermarking under the assumption that pirates have potentially access to a lot of confirmed watermark (their own, or copies). Plus, once "cracked", the watermarking is as good as done.
Your last idea is a bit weird xD If you tampers in such way, it may as well be easily concealable. Let me rephrase it. You download the core game + a subtle modification to engrave your personnal data. Well, another modification may appear to just put a black square over it. Pirates are sometimes good programmers.
There are no ideal solutions yet to the problem of "light but secured" DRM. But I think your initial proposal is still the best compromise to the current situation. Then again, I'd rather have beamdog working on the game than on such a patch right now
But if DRM is insisted upon by certain stakeholders than I could think of a few ideas:
A more radical idea would be to imprint the billing address used for purchase into the installation screen of each file. This would personalize the file for the purchaser like a digital engraving, discourage sharing since very few will want to share their address with pirates, and offer the accountability of the watermark.
I couldn't think of a worse idea. This is exactly the same scheme that Blizzard currently has with one game per person. As of today, I can go to a PC games shop, buy a game, play it and then sell it. What you're advocating is a no resell market for second hand games.
What if I want to share the game with a friend? Or give it away as a gift? Can't do it.
These are just a few ideas off the top of my head. Smarter people with more of a vested interest may be able to come up with better ideas. This is indeed a very useful question and advances the discourse nicely. I still believe that value added customer service is the answer with ongoing DLC, cool extras available to registered customers, and nice forums a better alternative to any form of DRM.
I think ongoing DLC is the bane of PC games today. Especially first day release DLC. In the past, you had the complete game and usually one expansion pack that enhanced the main game. Today, you have incomplete games, with same day release DLC or small DLC packs that are more cosmetic than value added.
@Treyolen@Metal_hurlant HAHA I have the exact opposite view to Metal regarding future content. I think ongoing DLC is a fantastic way of enticing early adopters and garnering a long time fan base. As an example: I know there is a lot of controversy over the Borderlands 2 mecromancer DLC, but I think that's an extremely smart way to reward early adopters and incentivise day1 sales and warding piracy.
Of all the ideas presented by Trey, I think that is the one I prefer. The third party release for patch has it's own problems regarding leaks and unnecessary pressure and leverage against beamdog, I think a simple contract for a promised release will be fine. As for the water mark I agree with Metal on this one, I don't think it's a very good idea, especially when dealing with second hand sales (although real life friends is less of a problem hehe). Another issue is that it restricts against third party payment methods. IIRC, paypal, google wallet, or the like, simply make the payment for you and charge you later, without revealing your payment information to the party being paid. In the proposed watermark case, the consumer would be forced to use a form of payment that reveals their information.
Again, of all the suggestions that have been put forth, I still think Beamdog's way of implementing BGEE is completely reasonable, and one of the better ways of doing things. They have come out and said that support for the game will continue after release, so that's further incentive already.
Preference for types of DRM is always going to be a touchy subject, and I don't think Metal and I will convince Trey anymore than he will convince us. Beamdog seems to have found a decent middle ground and I'm content with their solution (although I'm buying on itunes anyway... so really I'm content w/ apple's solution haha).
@Metal_Hurlant I did say the last idea was radical and just off the top of my head. I also agreed that it was a compromise. But why would it stop you from gifting the game or sharing with a friend? Who would you want to give a gift to or call a friend that you would be scared to know your address? All of my friends already know my address. It was more a proof of concept than a real alternative. The idea was to brainstorm and throw a few things against the wall.
@Medillen I agree that anything can be circumvented. The current DRM will be circumvented as well. It seems counterproductive to hold alternative ideas to a higher standard that the current one. If you believe DRM is necessary at all than it follows that you use a "locks keep honest people honest" philosophy. The alternatives I mentioned would be sufficient to fulfill the same criteria. Pirates are gonna pirate and haters are gonna hate no matter what is done to stop them.
@Lediath I'm not sure how a leak would be a problem. If a financial institution was used as the escrow agent and the patch leaked, the insurance payout or subsequent settlement would probably end up more profitable than the entire game. Have you seen the damages awarded in some of the piracy suits? Banks have deep pockets. That's why they are so well suited to hold things in escrow.
And DLC is a wonderful thing if done right. I am leery of day one DLC unless it is from a developer that I have a high regard for beforehand. Beamdog would be a company that day one DLC would not bother me. I would buy it and every subsequent DLC until they prove different. My only problem with DLC for BG:EE is that it might delay BG2:EE and then PS:T further. I'd rather get those all done as well as IWD before releasing plenty of sweet DLC for all of them.
Comments
I injected a bit of humor in to my post but evidently you don't like that so I'll be completely serious here. I think your point of view is completely valid, D3 does provide some services that are not inclusive of DRM, however it is, in my opinion, very clearly a form of DRM. It is a way to control when you can and can not play the game, similar to uPlay, my saves are stored on the server. My post was not completely laced with sarcasm, I did mentioned several facts in the post, including the limitations imposed on the user by the D3 system. Either way I think we just have different views on what is and is not DRM and I'm okay with that.
Consumer Rights
Second Hand Market
Right to resell (or not) BG.EE.
"We will follow through and ensure our purchasers have the rights they paid for."
-Trent
@Trent,
Well,
We have the right, in case, to resell BG.EE. ?
How ?
T.Y.
As for your final statement, I think Diablo III proves it completely wrong. Some people WILL pay a lot of money for titles which have heavy DRM. They just don't care.
I see no reason to continue this discussion with those who've already decided not to purchase this game. What purpose does it serve to argue when the decision re: DRM has already been made and it's created a lost sale? We already know that this situation occurs so no new information is being uncovered.
I don't think that having to activate a game upon installation is "erosion of consumer rights". Like I've mentioned before, the problem I have with these "I won't accept any kind of DRM" arguments is that they basically mean that only the consumer has rights and the companies producing software have no rights at all to protect their products.
All in all, I think BGEE's implementation of DRM is a pretty safe choice from the consumer standpoint. It requires no seperate client or software, one time authentication during each install and IIRC a promised patch for a completely DRM free setup system should the Beamdog servers ever go down permenantly.
IMO that's giving up a very small "choice" to install without authentication, for pretty much free reign to do as we please after the initial setup.
I'm not calling Beamdog evil or refusing to accept their DRM. I've stated repeatedly that I bought the game. I am trying to encourage others to push for even less DRM. You have been dismissive of any arguments because you feel this level of DRM doesn't affect you. It does bother some of us and we can envision a very plausible scenario where it stops us from installing the game in the future. We are discussing the issue from that standpoint.
Yes, you don't care about a corporation's rights and that's the problem with a lot of people today, they don't understand that their rights stop where the rights of the next guy start.
I'm dismissive of the DRM being applied to BGEE because I find it to be reasonable. I understand that companies have the right to try and protect their software.
Privacy Policy
Rights vs Justice
@Tanthalas
"a lot of people today, they don't understand that their rights stop where the rights of the next guy start"
By cons : People understand very well that today in the facts we can observe a 2-speed justice system,
Here is an another recent example :
S.E.C. and Justice Dept. End Mortgage Investigations Into Goldman
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/goldman-says-sec-has-ended-mortgage-investigation/
I think the dematerialization of the video game goes hand in hand with the dematerialization of money :
The privatization of our privacy by traceability (blue card / IP) and confiscation of any possible action ...
About :
Discourse on Voluntary Servitude
I don't see how posting unrelated issues is supposed to strengthen your argument.
Again, you are advocating for the corporations along with their armies of lobbyists and publicists. I respect your decision to do that for them. This seems a little bit like supporting Goliath to me. I believe in what David is trying to do and would rather lend my support to David. Your side will probably win. And Steam will probably play a huge role in that victory. But David does win every once in a while.
You're just demonizing corporations and basically saying "its ok if they have no rights, they're evil".
If you want to go after companies that actually use very bad forms of DRM, go ahead, but a small company like Beamdog using a very mild form of DRM? Sorry, I can't really support that.
I'm not asking for your support. But I would appreciate it if you quit misrepresenting my arguments and motives. I'm a paying customer making my opinions known on a forum that seems to be built for this very purpose.
Treyolen thinks that DRM is just flat out wrong because "corporate rights stop at my own front door".
Tanthalas thinks that mild DRM is fine.
This is not taking into consideration the corportation in question (be it big small good evil) or the product itself. I don't think arguing about why these views are valid is going to change either side's opinion. Best to just let the rest of the board sort it out for themselves
How is it a misinterpretation of your argument? You're comparing them to Goliath, the bad guy in that story.
There is no good/evil or moral/immoral angle to that comparison that I know of myself. Just good clean American fun.
@Lediath You're probably right. But I do feel as if my only exchanges with Tanthalas have been replies to him calling me out. I feel as if he is misrepresenting my arguments. I like the Beamdog guys. I want them to succeed and want to participate in the community in a positive way. Stating my case for less DRM moving forward seems positive to me. He keeps injecting loaded language like "evil" and "demonizing" and implying that I don't care about the rights of others. Those are not my arguments and I don't want them to be misconstrued.
I wanted to ignore this topic, but:
- me mentioning "evil" and "demonizing" was a direct response to your comparison to David and Goliath. Not to mention that in these kinds of arguments when people start mentioning corporations and companies they ignore that they're made of people too.
- When you take a complete anti-DRM stance you are denying software companies the right to protect their work. Piracy exists and that's why DRM exists. A balance between consumer rights and company rights with regards to the implementation of DRM is possible, but your stance doesn't really help in getting us there.
My stance is based on the premise that software companies don't need to protect their work. Therefore DRM serves no legitimate purpose. This is where the debate should focus. I'm proposing that there are enough honest paying customers to net more profits for a product without DRM. You seem to disagree. I respect your disagreement but seem to receive no respect in return. This is not "my" stance. I just happen to be the one on this particular forum advocating it.
However, I do disagree with your view that consumers' rights are being eroded by DRM. Consumers have the most rights of all in any business transaction! They're the purchasers, so they vote with their dollars, and they determine which companies stay in business and which do not. In that sense, consumers always have all the power in the relationships where they are not forced to make purchases. They can demand the price they are willing to pay, the terms under which they will make a purchase, the quality of the product, and demand guarantees. Businesses can't do any of those things and if they don't satisfy enough customers, they go out of business.
I think the fundamental problem with your contention that corporate rights end at your door because you bought something and want free exercise to use it is the nature of digital items. These aren't books or shoes which can clearly be bought and the rights to use them transferred to you exclusively. A software product can be replicated infinitely and therefore publishers and content creators have designed mechanisms by which to limit their works, just like artists destroyed molds of their sculptures (I've used this comparison before). What you're buying when you make a software purchase is not the software itself; it is merely a license. Hence, corporate rights do not end at your door unless you negotiate a special license, or buy the actual product itself and all the rights to it. The market has mechanisms to do this and if you think about it, has rather ingeniously developed this model to protect both the right of consumers to use and enjoy products while at the same time offering protection for the creator of those works to prevent their work from being usurped. As long as the state doesn't get involved in these matters, the trend is to generally end up at implicit agreements which best benefit both parties involved: the consumer and corporation. Both sides get most of what they want, but for absolutists, who refuse to buy products which include any type of protection at all, they will find that their selections of product are quite limited.
Therefore, I don't think that your argument that corporate rights end at your door can be validated in the sense that you as one individual don't have the resources necessary to purchase the IP in such a way that would guarantee you unrestricted use. Your aim to convince companies that implementing DRM actually hurts them is not evidenced by the facts, but I think while the discussion is useful enough that it supports companies like Stardock and others which employ no DRM, I do not think it is likely that a majority of companies would follow that model, nor should they. There are consequences beyond financial concerns which led companies to employ protection and they will not be addressed if companies voluntarily give up that protection. I don't think that you can claim the entitlement that you have claimed here.
- When discussing games it is important to note the demographic often includes large portions of customers under 18. These are the people we don't allow in the voting polls because they don't always use sound judgment and/or logic. They may have lots of power in a transaction, but they don't often have lots of willpower, experience, and/or understanding of the real terms. I'll use D3 as an example. Most users don't seem to understand the terms of that product. I don't think many of them would care even if they did believe it was a violation of their rights. And many don't have enough life experience to appreciate the tradeoff they are making. I think EA/Activision actively exploit this imbalance.
- The digital world does change many preconceptions of ownership without a doubt. And I do agree that absolutists on either side are bound to be disappointed. But in this early stage of the digital age we are still negotiating the terms of that ownership. In a negotiation you don't start out asking for what you will settle for in the end. You demand the moon and sit down to reasonably bargain to a position everyone can live with. This negotiation is far from over and I am asking for everything. I know I won't get it. But if we start with some DRM is ok then we end up compromising on more DRM is necessary.
- I also agree that a DRM free product is not feasible on many projects. A brand new AAA release with all the fixins' represents a significantly higher risk to a developer. We're not talking about that here. And I'm not over at the D3 forums advocating software freedom. We're talking about an old release that has already recouped its original sunk costs. Beamdog has done real work here, but not on the scale of a AAA console release. I think in this situation where a no DRM product would net MORE profit. There will never be an objective study of this problem. Anecdotal evidence will be the only source for the foreseeable future. But I see what others are doing successfully and I think Beamdog would be wise to try and follow their lead. I'm here encouraging them to advocate this in their ongoing negotiations.
@Tanthalas
"I don't see how posting unrelated issues is supposed to strengthen your argument. "
DRM actually are one link in the chain, from a insane economic model :
Which includes:
DLC, Prices & Contents depending of the Support, Dematerialization and DRM.
If one were to oppose: your neo-realism, cynicism; we could say that this topic is the genesis of a battle, the mother of battles, the Armageddon ...
Where people play the negotiation of license fees for other IE games,
And so the Future of our Entertainment .
Then, Vae Victis .
But as nature abhors a vacuum,
On my side I hope that there will be enough space for :
Companies associated to multinationals,
Because: it must be that everyone eats ...
But mostly for those sponsored by the fans ...
Because they are my preference .
In all cases regarding ethics : “cannot be two skies.” : ) .
But if DRM is insisted upon by certain stakeholders than I could think of a few ideas:
How about the current model with the change that the promised patch is released immediately to a third party like the EFF or even a bank of some sort in an escrow. If the servers become unavailable at any time the third party would then release the patch. This would put everyone's mind at ease as the patch would already exist in a legitimate form that would be made available at some point.
I could live with a digital watermark being included in each download. This would make each installer traceable back to the source in case of misuse.
A more radical idea would be to imprint the billing address used for purchase into the installation screen of each file. This would personalize the file for the purchaser like a digital engraving, discourage sharing since very few will want to share their address with pirates, and offer the accountability of the watermark.
These are just a few ideas off the top of my head. Smarter people with more of a vested interest may be able to come up with better ideas. This is indeed a very useful question and advances the discourse nicely. I still believe that value added customer service is the answer with ongoing DLC, cool extras available to registered customers, and nice forums a better alternative to any form of DRM.
Your last idea is a bit weird xD If you tampers in such way, it may as well be easily concealable. Let me rephrase it. You download the core game + a subtle modification to engrave your personnal data. Well, another modification may appear to just put a black square over it. Pirates are sometimes good programmers.
There are no ideal solutions yet to the problem of "light but secured" DRM. But I think your initial proposal is still the best compromise to the current situation. Then again, I'd rather have beamdog working on the game than on such a patch right now
What if I want to share the game with a friend? Or give it away as a gift? Can't do it.
I think ongoing DLC is the bane of PC games today. Especially first day release DLC. In the past, you had the complete game and usually one expansion pack that enhanced the main game. Today, you have incomplete games, with same day release DLC or small DLC packs that are more cosmetic than value added.
Of all the ideas presented by Trey, I think that is the one I prefer. The third party release for patch has it's own problems regarding leaks and unnecessary pressure and leverage against beamdog, I think a simple contract for a promised release will be fine. As for the water mark I agree with Metal on this one, I don't think it's a very good idea, especially when dealing with second hand sales (although real life friends is less of a problem hehe). Another issue is that it restricts against third party payment methods. IIRC, paypal, google wallet, or the like, simply make the payment for you and charge you later, without revealing your payment information to the party being paid. In the proposed watermark case, the consumer would be forced to use a form of payment that reveals their information.
Again, of all the suggestions that have been put forth, I still think Beamdog's way of implementing BGEE is completely reasonable, and one of the better ways of doing things. They have come out and said that support for the game will continue after release, so that's further incentive already.
Preference for types of DRM is always going to be a touchy subject, and I don't think Metal and I will convince Trey anymore than he will convince us. Beamdog seems to have found a decent middle ground and I'm content with their solution (although I'm buying on itunes anyway... so really I'm content w/ apple's solution haha).
@Medillen I agree that anything can be circumvented. The current DRM will be circumvented as well. It seems counterproductive to hold alternative ideas to a higher standard that the current one. If you believe DRM is necessary at all than it follows that you use a "locks keep honest people honest" philosophy. The alternatives I mentioned would be sufficient to fulfill the same criteria. Pirates are gonna pirate and haters are gonna hate no matter what is done to stop them.
And DLC is a wonderful thing if done right. I am leery of day one DLC unless it is from a developer that I have a high regard for beforehand. Beamdog would be a company that day one DLC would not bother me. I would buy it and every subsequent DLC until they prove different. My only problem with DLC for BG:EE is that it might delay BG2:EE and then PS:T further. I'd rather get those all done as well as IWD before releasing plenty of sweet DLC for all of them.