@vortican - Some good points, but history shows anything gets cracked eventually. And once the first of something is cracked, the next is trivial. Maybe there are people that will not see a zero day crack and choose to buy the game, but there is also that group that will wait patiently for a one week or three month crack.
I just found this article while looking for something else. The Witcher 2 was released on physical and digital outlets at the same time. The GOG version was the only DRM free version. Against their expectations, the GOG version was NOT the first version to be pirated, it was the physical version published by Atari with SecuROM. Coincidence, or does it back the point that DRM drives piracy? They also mention that the SecuROM version was cracked within two hours of release. Another point I didn't think of, the cracking groups compete with each other to be the first to crack a game. DRM is a challenge and competition for those groups. I encourage any developer/publisher to communicate with CD Projekt Red/GOG to get a better picture of what it's like to operate DRM free.
As for casually copying of a game. I for one never give copies of my games to my friends, and those are my friends not strangers. I want to run a Diablo 2 server for the small group of us, but I need to wait for them save a few bucks to buy this 10+ year old game, and it's DRM free.
Oh, forgot in an earlier post. GOG is so anti-DRM that they do not require you to use their downloader. All downloads can be done directly from the URL links. The downloader is only provided for those that want to us it for convenience.
I'll say it again, and include IMHO and that I think this is the case. There is more money to be made without DRM. It doesn't work and is a cost center. These companies are actively spending money to alienate customers. They have the right to do this if they insist. But IMHO I believe that they will make more money if they choose not to do this.
Exactly. Can we all please view this problem economically?
Cons of DRM: - Immediately cracked - DRM licensing fees ($) - DRM support and maintenance costs ($) - Court costs to block workarounds of your DRM ($) - Angry customers taking their money elsewhere ($) - Bad PR (DRM is a dirty word) - Pirates will still pirate
Pros of DRM: - Some mitigation of "casual piracy" -- friends passing around a disc
Can anyone here honestly tell me that using DRM makes more money than not using it?
This is not meant to be interpreted as any sort of proof at all. But since polls on the subject are not allowed I thought a helpful link to a poll on a different site may be relevant. This is a site that suspends any accounts that admit to piracy, so I don't think the numbers are biased: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.385498-Poll-Ever-bought-a-game-because-of-drm
Again, please do not think this is intended as proof of anything. Just food for thought.
Piracy has existed since forever. There's no noble reason behind it.
I don't think he said it was noble, but it's a good point. The "scene" as they like to call it race to provide the first reliable crack for a game/application. They base their reputations on being the best. Is it the simple fact of competition, or is it a stand against DRM? I don't know, but it doesn't change the fact that they are doing it.
Piracy has and will exist forever. <- Fixed that for you.
That poll concerns DRM-heavy games, which is no where near what BGEE will have.
Heavy or not, online activation is online activation. I think that is the point those of us that oppose DRM are trying to say. I do appreciate the fact that it is lightweight, installation only online activation, and not the mess of SecuROM or Steam/Origin/GFWL/UPlay. But if it is so relaxed, then why have it at all?
I know you are the moderator, and not Overhaul/Beamdog, so I am not expecting you to speak up for them. I simply quote, and then comment for the general discussion in this thread.
@Tanthalas The morality of piracy is still irrelevant. It is simply a cost of doing business. DRM is IMHO something I think is a drag on the bottom line. IMHO the company would do better without it. Who cares how many people pirate your game if you're making plenty of money. You have to ask yourself, are you in the money business or the DRM business? I think that great games will make great money regardless of piracy IMHO.
Your analysis of those polls is skewed IMHO. He mentions having Steam specifically as a qualifier to the poll. This online authentication is not very far removed from Steam's system. Steam offers an offline mode that does not require a constant connection. IMHO that poll is very relevant and I think it furthers the conversation. Your statement of fact that this game is no where near a heavy DRM is also very subjective. I happen to agree with that conclusion, but not everyone here does and that does not diminish their opinions at all.
One needs only take a cursory look around the web to see DRM is highly unfavorable among the people with the economic power to make or break the companies that use it.
@Tanthalas The polls are about DRM. We all know that there are varying degrees of DRM. The Escapist is not going to run polls specific to one small publishers DRM scheme. But those polls have very relevant data concerning DRM in general. I understand that you don't want to hear anything contrary to your argument. But that does not diminish the value of other polls. You know, you could always start a poll on this site with the exact wording you require. It is convenient that you refuse both outside polls and any attempt at an inside poll.
I'm done discussing these points with the bailiff. I think the jurors see the value of those polls and I think they agree based on previous posts from Beamdog. I just want them to step up efforts to remove DRM entirely moving forward. You know, so they can make more money.
I understand that you don't want to hear anything contrary to your argument.
*rolls eyes*
I understand that you don't want to hear anything contrary to your argument but there are people (probability the vast majority) that don't have a problem with reasonable DRM in their products.
As for polls, well, like I've said before, it would be the same as if we made a poll asking people if they want games for free.
Honestly, I think @Tanthalas closed the poll less because it's subversive, and more because it's a thread that duplicates the function of this one. Having two of the same discussion is bad forum etiquette.
Would it be possible to add a poll to this thread? My concern is that we shouldn't be posting threads all over the place when one thread will get the job done.
Use the following options:
"I dislike DRM, but the authentication used for BG:EE is acceptable to me." "I dislike DRM in all its forms, even the form used for BG:EE." "I really don't care about DRM; I care more about the game." "I like DRM! Let's have more of that, please!"
I predict that the votes would be more or less split down the middle between the first two options, with a smaller number of votes for the third one, and several ironic votes for "more DRM".
Honestly, no one likes DRM. The question is, how does the developer protect the product it created in a way that does not interfere with the player's ability to use it?
I say drop the poll argument. In order to get an accurate result it would have to be properly worded, with enough options to cover all choices, and be posted in a place that will get enough votes to give meaningful results. So many times I see polls that only 40 people voted on, and that poll gets taken seriously.
If Beamdog/Overhaul want a poll, they will post one. I think the comments in this thread are enough food for thought.
I can say in my circle of friends/gamers, if I asked 10 about their stance on DRM, 7 will say they won't buy games with DRM. That doesn't mean 70% of gamers won't buy a game with DRM.
I don't want my games for free, only DRM free. I always believe in supporting the developers and performers that provide entertainment that I want. Then again, some of my favorite music albums are legitimately free, and many open source games are great too. I have an entire drive dedicated to the free and open source games, videos, music, comics etc. that I enjoy.
@Jalister Haha, no need for popcorn, I'm done arguing with Tanthalas. But here is another idea. Think of the Humble Bundles as a weighted poll asking the question Tanthalas accuses the poll here of asking. The Humble Bundle allows you to purchase for a penny, effectively casting a vote for free games. But they consistently make large amounts of revenue. I'm sure many will dismiss that as a biased poll for a multitude of reasons. But I ask, why do people consistently pay several dollars there for something without DRM that is distributed by torrent with a legal option to pay only a penny? That almost sounds like a poll!
@Treyolen - Humble Bundle. They get it too. I've gotten them all since the second bundle. Silly me didn't see the value, or maybe trust the bundle that came from nowhere. I generally pay more than the average also. I went well over the average for the Frozenbyte bundle, since I like what they do. I also tripled my amount during the Introversion bundle because they listened to their Linux customers and managed to scramble a publishing deal to get their games on Desura for bundle purchasers. Introversion stated it was the fastest distribution deal they ever had to do.
@Jalister Great statistics at that link. Amazing to see total revenue skyrocket even higher with each bundle. $5.1 million for the 5th bundle! Go figure, they net tons of business by not treating their customers like criminals. Their model is truly the future.
My point with the Humble Bundle isn't that it is a good thing. Of course it is My point is that it is virtually a poll with lots of data presented to help inform a community. Those guys are doing a service in addition to offering cool games at a great price.
The DRM defenders never answer my question when I ask how these guys manage to make money with this army of pirates out to get them? In what way does this not demonstrate a profitable market for non-DRM games? And in what way is the data available there not directly applicable to the conversation here?
Humble Bundle does other things right. All bundle games are supported on Windows, Mac, Linux, and for some bundles Android. You get all versions when purchased. Which is great for me since I use Windows, Linux, and eventually Android. They now include soundtracks for each of the games in the bundle, that's a newer feature.
They also are starting to publish games outside the bundle. If you buy Trine 2 from the developer, it goes through the Humble Store. Just like the bundles, I get DRM free versions, I have the Windows, Mac and Linux versions. Since I got the collector's edition, I also have my soundtrack there. I also have Steam and Desura keys on the same download page. Truly a great deal. The DRM free Windows version is not there yet, but it will be sometime in 2012. This was stated at launch, so the buyer was informed.
Legend of Grimrock also used the Humble Store, and they provided a pre-order package, the game DRM for Windows, and a Steam key.
A nice feature not everyone may know. You can link all you Humble Bundle and Humble Store purchases to one login account. From there you can access each bundle individually, or you can see all your games on one download page.
The DRM defenders never answer my question when I ask how these guys manage to make money with this army of pirates out to get them? In what way does this not demonstrate a profitable market for non-DRM games? And in what way is the data available there not directly applicable to the conversation here?
The question isn't whether you can make money off of DRM-free games, the real question is whether DRM increases the profits you can make out of a game.
@Tanthalas I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that myself. IMHO I think that there is more money to be made without DRM. I think GOG and the Humble Bundles demonstrate this well. And I think the data presented at the Humble Bundle sites help illustrate the point.
The question isn't whether you can make money off of DRM-free games, the real question is whether DRM increases the profits you can make out of a game.
In my little world of one, yes. DRM free will increase profits. I would have pre-ordered if DRM free.
Frozenbyte has received two purchases of Shadowgrounds and Trine (disk and humble bundle) for being DRM free. I did not buy Shadowgrounds Survivor on disk because it required Steam. I will probably buy Trine eventually on GOG, just to have it on my shelf. I tripled my payment to the Introversion bundle for being DRM free and supporting the Linux crowd so well. Legend of Grimrock received TWO pre-orders from me just so I could support their offering DRM free on GOG at launch, and adding DRM free to their version at the Humble Store just before launch. I did not give a version away, I kept both. I bought Torchlight on disk originally, because it was the only DRM version. I've since also purchased it on GOG since it was added there, so that's two for them also.
And probably the best statistic in my little world of one. Purchases from me... Beamdog - 0 GOG - 95
Please, no one take this as me criticizing Beamdog in anyway. I really can't say anything positive or negative about them, since I have never purchased from them. When Beamdog launched, I found out they use a DRM system, so I never looked further. Other digital distributors are treated the same way. Heck, my first Gamers Gate purchase was only a few months ago because I believed everything there had DRM. When they offered the first Indie Fort bundle, I was intrigued enough to research that not all titles there use DRM. I won't count all the games in each bundle since the bundles were so cheap. So let me add them to my statistic...
Gamer Gate - 9 + 2 bundles
I'm not self centered enough to think that I matter enough that I can change a companies stance all on my own. I simply hope to add one more number to the pool of legitimate customers that want DRM free, and will purchase because of that.
While I'm an advocate for "DRM-free," really, a game that sells for $4.00 is quite a steal.... I paid for a latte at Starbucks today for a touch more than that, and that only gave me enjoyment for about 30 minutes.
I'm going to be honest here and ask what is wrong with you guys?
"WTF? I have to connect to the internet once to activate my game on each installation? **** no!".
I know that some DRM is a royal pain in the ass, but this one is practically non-existent.
I disagree...If the company is bought for it's assets while going out of business they can't release a DRM free version. The buyer of the game/company will kill that idea in a hurry. Also, I never trust a company will follow through on "hope and change". If it's not part of the license agreement, in print when I buy that they'll do this, words aren't worth much I'm afraid. If there was a death sentence attached to a company lying, and the person was killed for breaking it? Sure I'd buy then. Unfortunately, nothing will happen if they're wrong. I'll buy when the game hits gog.com & Not before based on Trent Oster's comments etc. The only protection I'll live with is a key (to allow online etc) like gog. I'm assuming they'll sell on gog eventually. I can wait. I already own two copies over the year anyway...LOL. Admittedly this would be fun with friends hence owning a key is a good idea. Keys don't affect my play, my future play etc if servers or a company goes belly up. Despite wanting badly to play Diablo3...I don't own it I can completely go without if necessary and never give them my money. Make me enter my purchased key to get the download, but not to "start download", meaning some wrapper is checking me out, thus depending on a server again, and again etc...
A quick look at Diablo3's user ratings on metacritic should have taught them this is a bad idea. None of those people will be bit again and this is a remake and even a re-purchase for a lot of us. I don't think Diablo4 will get pre-orders next time We all know now Of course, I just assumed you'd be screwed and still have my money A few of my pre-order friends were mighty surprised though...LOL. When they beat it in ~13-15hrs they were awfully peeved too...ROFL. Maybe I'll get D3 when it's $20 on gog if they ever release it there
What's with the stupid forum box changing on me so I can't see what I'm typing? I change the size of the box and the first letter I type changes it back. If any words after this are misspelled screw it, I'm tired of typing blind and fixing stuff. DRM on my reply box? LOL.
Steam has been the cause of many OS installs I've done for customers...Mostly in the old days but, those days were enough to make me NEVER install that garbage and tell everyone I know it is evil (I say the same to customers about origin etc). Then again I should thank them for a good $1500-2000 in labor over the years. That's not a lot of installs at $35-45 to be sure but I'm talking me alone fixing their lovely DRM for customers etc. I promote buying from gog.com too Usually in the same sentence to a customer...LOL
The "who's making more money" is clearly the wrong direction to take if you're arguing for a DRM-free experience. The major studios producing AAA games almost always use DRM and make much more money than GoG and studios that go DRM-free. If anything, that flies in the face of the industry lobbying groups that insist piracy is killing the industry. It's not. However, it also lends no support at all to the theory that studios would make more money being DRM free. Unless some years from now, studios who support DRM-free experiences become the major players (and we can pinpoint DRM-free as the reason), the evidence supports the conclusion that DRM-free doesn't increase sales significantly. Humble Indie bundles make good money, but they don't make Amigo money. There's no evidence at all even to suggest that titles from DRM-free companies make more money because they're DRM-free. CD Projekt Red sees it the way some here on the forums do, but they also produced kickass games! That's why people bought them.
The number of buyers who only buy DRM-free simply isn't large enough that studios are going to cater to them, and with good reason. If a studio expects to sell millions of copies of a game at $59.99, they're not going to give a rat's ass about spending a couple million bucks to employ DRM.
I think there's truth to the view that crackers don't crack because they hate DRM; they do it for the fun, just like hackers who hack just to see if they can, and a small minority of them try to do actual damage and cause trouble. Unfortunately, the ones that do give all of them a bad rap. These are the guys that the studios ought to hate, not the pirates. The people who pirate couldn't pirate if the crackers weren't doing what they're doing, so DRM logically can't ever succeed in the end unless through some technical innovation makes cracking much more difficult.
However, the same is true for developers. The studios may want to protect their investment any way they can, but the people who created the game can't give it away for free and they feel pride in what they've created, so I suspect that they don't want to see it stolen any more than the studio. Just like for the crackers who make it possible to steal their game, the artists who created it don't want to see their work ripped off out of pride.
So far, I don't see a sea change in the model of digital sales. Free-to-play is great, but there's yet to be a huge free-to-play game; they all start out as purchase or subscription models and then convert to free-to-play later, so the big studios get their money out of the first customers and then keep the residuals coming with free-to-play and microtransactions, but note that not a single AAA title has been produced with this model (of which I know). I could be talking out of my ass on that point as I don't keep that close an eye on the industry, but I suspect it's the case. Smaller studios can get away with free-to-play initially because they haven't made a huge investment, so they don't need to make a huge profit, and they attract more casual gamers, not people who have 100+ games in their collection. Likewise, the polls on this issue are conducted and answered by people who are hardcore gamers for the most part, so naturally they would object the most to DRM. I don't believe they can tell us anything about the broader industry mechanics. In the end, the parents who buy a game for their kids don't give a damn about DRM, and neither do the majority of gamers who just want to play. Since those are the folks who pay most of the money to studios and publishers, which enable them to continue producing titles, there's no incentive not to include DRM as long as it's relatively unobtrusive. That's why UBI backtracked; theirs was ridiculous.
In the end, it seems to me that the economics favors DRM.
@Vortican Your talking a great deal about AAA titles. This is not a AAA title. I turned my back on that gaming scene years ago and never looked back. This is not a game that many parents will be buying for their kids. This is a game that parents will be buying for themselves. The market for this game will be a lot closer to the Humble Bundle scope than the next Madden release. No one is saying that DRM free will magically make the game more money than Assassin's Creed. But it can make it a higher percentage return.
The Dark Knight was an amazingly profitable movie that basically printed money. But that doesn't mean that it was as profitable percentage wise as the first Saw. These were different types of investments that both made the principles very happy. BG:EE is more Saw than Dark Knight.
Oh, please add IMHO and I think to any applicable statement above.
Comments
I just found this article while looking for something else. The Witcher 2 was released on physical and digital outlets at the same time. The GOG version was the only DRM free version. Against their expectations, the GOG version was NOT the first version to be pirated, it was the physical version published by Atari with SecuROM. Coincidence, or does it back the point that DRM drives piracy? They also mention that the SecuROM version was cracked within two hours of release. Another point I didn't think of, the cracking groups compete with each other to be the first to crack a game. DRM is a challenge and competition for those groups. I encourage any developer/publisher to communicate with CD Projekt Red/GOG to get a better picture of what it's like to operate DRM free.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnyegriffiths/2012/05/18/the-truth-is-it-doesnt-work-cd-projekt-on-drm/
As for casually copying of a game. I for one never give copies of my games to my friends, and those are my friends not strangers. I want to run a Diablo 2 server for the small group of us, but I need to wait for them save a few bucks to buy this 10+ year old game, and it's DRM free.
Oh, forgot in an earlier post. GOG is so anti-DRM that they do not require you to use their downloader. All downloads can be done directly from the URL links. The downloader is only provided for those that want to us it for convenience.
Cons of DRM:
- Immediately cracked
- DRM licensing fees ($)
- DRM support and maintenance costs ($)
- Court costs to block workarounds of your DRM ($)
- Angry customers taking their money elsewhere ($)
- Bad PR (DRM is a dirty word)
- Pirates will still pirate
Pros of DRM:
- Some mitigation of "casual piracy" -- friends passing around a disc
Can anyone here honestly tell me that using DRM makes more money than not using it?
Again, please do not think this is intended as proof of anything. Just food for thought.
Piracy has and will exist forever. <- Fixed that for you.
That poll concerns DRM-heavy games, which is no where near what BGEE will have.
I know you are the moderator, and not Overhaul/Beamdog, so I am not expecting you to speak up for them. I simply quote, and then comment for the general discussion in this thread.
Your analysis of those polls is skewed IMHO. He mentions having Steam specifically as a qualifier to the poll. This online authentication is not very far removed from Steam's system. Steam offers an offline mode that does not require a constant connection. IMHO that poll is very relevant and I think it furthers the conversation. Your statement of fact that this game is no where near a heavy DRM is also very subjective. I happen to agree with that conclusion, but not everyone here does and that does not diminish their opinions at all.
"Does DRM influence your purchase of a game?"
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=357624
"DRM - A necessary evil?"
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.371187-Poll-DRM-A-necessary-evil?page=3
"UBI DRM, will you buy the games"
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2052122
"DRM poll: How do you deal with it" (eBooks)
http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31139
One needs only take a cursory look around the web to see DRM is highly unfavorable among the people with the economic power to make or break the companies that use it.
I'm done discussing these points with the bailiff. I think the jurors see the value of those polls and I think they agree based on previous posts from Beamdog. I just want them to step up efforts to remove DRM entirely moving forward. You know, so they can make more money.
I understand that you don't want to hear anything contrary to your argument but there are people (probability the vast majority) that don't have a problem with reasonable DRM in their products.
As for polls, well, like I've said before, it would be the same as if we made a poll asking people if they want games for free.
Would it be possible to add a poll to this thread? My concern is that we shouldn't be posting threads all over the place when one thread will get the job done.
Use the following options:
"I dislike DRM, but the authentication used for BG:EE is acceptable to me."
"I dislike DRM in all its forms, even the form used for BG:EE."
"I really don't care about DRM; I care more about the game."
"I like DRM! Let's have more of that, please!"
I predict that the votes would be more or less split down the middle between the first two options, with a smaller number of votes for the third one, and several ironic votes for "more DRM".
Honestly, no one likes DRM. The question is, how does the developer protect the product it created in a way that does not interfere with the player's ability to use it?
If Beamdog/Overhaul want a poll, they will post one. I think the comments in this thread are enough food for thought.
I can say in my circle of friends/gamers, if I asked 10 about their stance on DRM, 7 will say they won't buy games with DRM. That doesn't mean 70% of gamers won't buy a game with DRM.
I don't want my games for free, only DRM free. I always believe in supporting the developers and performers that provide entertainment that I want. Then again, some of my favorite music albums are legitimately free, and many open source games are great too. I have an entire drive dedicated to the free and open source games, videos, music, comics etc. that I enjoy.
http://cheesetalks.twolofbees.com/humble/ <- Great $ info on the bundles.
The DRM defenders never answer my question when I ask how these guys manage to make money with this army of pirates out to get them? In what way does this not demonstrate a profitable market for non-DRM games? And in what way is the data available there not directly applicable to the conversation here?
They also are starting to publish games outside the bundle. If you buy Trine 2 from the developer, it goes through the Humble Store. Just like the bundles, I get DRM free versions, I have the Windows, Mac and Linux versions. Since I got the collector's edition, I also have my soundtrack there. I also have Steam and Desura keys on the same download page. Truly a great deal. The DRM free Windows version is not there yet, but it will be sometime in 2012. This was stated at launch, so the buyer was informed.
Legend of Grimrock also used the Humble Store, and they provided a pre-order package, the game DRM for Windows, and a Steam key.
A nice feature not everyone may know. You can link all you Humble Bundle and Humble Store purchases to one login account. From there you can access each bundle individually, or you can see all your games on one download page.
Frozenbyte has received two purchases of Shadowgrounds and Trine (disk and humble bundle) for being DRM free. I did not buy Shadowgrounds Survivor on disk because it required Steam. I will probably buy Trine eventually on GOG, just to have it on my shelf. I tripled my payment to the Introversion bundle for being DRM free and supporting the Linux crowd so well. Legend of Grimrock received TWO pre-orders from me just so I could support their offering DRM free on GOG at launch, and adding DRM free to their version at the Humble Store just before launch. I did not give a version away, I kept both. I bought Torchlight on disk originally, because it was the only DRM version. I've since also purchased it on GOG since it was added there, so that's two for them also.
And probably the best statistic in my little world of one. Purchases from me...
Beamdog - 0
GOG - 95
Please, no one take this as me criticizing Beamdog in anyway. I really can't say anything positive or negative about them, since I have never purchased from them. When Beamdog launched, I found out they use a DRM system, so I never looked further. Other digital distributors are treated the same way. Heck, my first Gamers Gate purchase was only a few months ago because I believed everything there had DRM. When they offered the first Indie Fort bundle, I was intrigued enough to research that not all titles there use DRM. I won't count all the games in each bundle since the bundles were so cheap. So let me add them to my statistic...
Gamer Gate - 9 + 2 bundles
I'm not self centered enough to think that I matter enough that I can change a companies stance all on my own. I simply hope to add one more number to the pool of legitimate customers that want DRM free, and will purchase because of that.
http://www.shacknews.com/article/75660/weekend-pc-digital-deals-trine-to-please-you
Games for 80% off, $4.99, and $4.00. Seriously, DRM on a game that sells for $4.00?
Hopefully Bioshock shows up on GOG sometime in the next year.
I disagree...If the company is bought for it's assets while going out of business they can't release a DRM free version. The buyer of the game/company will kill that idea in a hurry. Also, I never trust a company will follow through on "hope and change".
A quick look at Diablo3's user ratings on metacritic should have taught them this is a bad idea. None of those people will be bit again and this is a remake and even a re-purchase for a lot of us. I don't think Diablo4 will get pre-orders next time
What's with the stupid forum box changing on me so I can't see what I'm typing? I change the size of the box and the first letter I type changes it back. If any words after this are misspelled screw it, I'm tired of typing blind and fixing stuff.
The number of buyers who only buy DRM-free simply isn't large enough that studios are going to cater to them, and with good reason. If a studio expects to sell millions of copies of a game at $59.99, they're not going to give a rat's ass about spending a couple million bucks to employ DRM.
I think there's truth to the view that crackers don't crack because they hate DRM; they do it for the fun, just like hackers who hack just to see if they can, and a small minority of them try to do actual damage and cause trouble. Unfortunately, the ones that do give all of them a bad rap. These are the guys that the studios ought to hate, not the pirates. The people who pirate couldn't pirate if the crackers weren't doing what they're doing, so DRM logically can't ever succeed in the end unless through some technical innovation makes cracking much more difficult.
However, the same is true for developers. The studios may want to protect their investment any way they can, but the people who created the game can't give it away for free and they feel pride in what they've created, so I suspect that they don't want to see it stolen any more than the studio. Just like for the crackers who make it possible to steal their game, the artists who created it don't want to see their work ripped off out of pride.
So far, I don't see a sea change in the model of digital sales. Free-to-play is great, but there's yet to be a huge free-to-play game; they all start out as purchase or subscription models and then convert to free-to-play later, so the big studios get their money out of the first customers and then keep the residuals coming with free-to-play and microtransactions, but note that not a single AAA title has been produced with this model (of which I know). I could be talking out of my ass on that point as I don't keep that close an eye on the industry, but I suspect it's the case. Smaller studios can get away with free-to-play initially because they haven't made a huge investment, so they don't need to make a huge profit, and they attract more casual gamers, not people who have 100+ games in their collection. Likewise, the polls on this issue are conducted and answered by people who are hardcore gamers for the most part, so naturally they would object the most to DRM. I don't believe they can tell us anything about the broader industry mechanics. In the end, the parents who buy a game for their kids don't give a damn about DRM, and neither do the majority of gamers who just want to play. Since those are the folks who pay most of the money to studios and publishers, which enable them to continue producing titles, there's no incentive not to include DRM as long as it's relatively unobtrusive. That's why UBI backtracked; theirs was ridiculous.
In the end, it seems to me that the economics favors DRM.
The Dark Knight was an amazingly profitable movie that basically printed money. But that doesn't mean that it was as profitable percentage wise as the first Saw. These were different types of investments that both made the principles very happy. BG:EE is more Saw than Dark Knight.
Oh, please add IMHO and I think to any applicable statement above.