AAA titles and indie games compared to movies. I can work with that with a statistic I love.
Avatar vs District 9. Two movies released in the second half of 2009.
There is no question that Avatar is the highest grossing movie of all time, and the most profitable when counting actual dollars. Star Wars may be higher if you count all the movies, and all the licensed games and toys.
IMHO, Avatar is a AAA movie, and District 9 is a high quality indie. To me, Avatar was a tech demo retelling a story we have seen a number of times before. I thought the movie was OK. IMHO, District 9 was a far better movie, and is one of my top 5 favorite movies of all time. But my personal opinion of each movie doesn't really matter for the point.
Avatar cost $500,000,000 and grossed 2,782,275,172 worldwide. District 9 cost $30,000,000 and grossed 210,819,611 worldwide.
To me, here is the fun part. Avatar made 5.57 times what it cost. District 9 made 7.03 time what is cost.
Just to keep on topic with DRM. The blu ray of District 9 had been cracked, but I own it. Plus I saw it in the theater twice.
@Jalister Thanks for the numbers! If you were an investor which one would you prefer? I would take the much smaller risk for a better return number. This type of investment can be made without the heavyweights entrenched in the DRM school of thought. Kickstarter could probably fund this type of release. Beamdog is a developer releasing District 9 level games. Leave the Avatar releases to Activision/EA along with their DRM.
@Treyolen I'm a little biased because of how much I like District 9. However, 30 million is a much safer risk, especially for a smaller studio. There are less dollars to lose, and less people to rely on to pull their weight. I would hate to spend 200 million on the flop that was Superman. I'd go for the lower dollar investment, unless there was 0 doubt the big one would succeed.
The other thing I like about indie game developers, and movies like District 9, they have room to break away from the mainstream. I find the indie developers much more entertaining today since they can give us unique games, and hopefully no DRM.
The way it's going, AAA will mean a short single player game, a lot of purchasable DLC, with multiplayer thrown in, and a real money market to buy things for the multiplayer game. It will allow them to say, it's not DRM, it's just needed for the online component. That or free to play with micro-transactions.
Treyolen and Jalister, you guys make a good point on profitability but I am thinking in terms of economies of scale. If we presume that all these companies want to be more successful and expand into bigger entities, to take advantage of the broader range of resources they have access to as they get larger, it appears that in smaller companies, it is possible to make money using no DRM. However, that advantage appears to diminish as the studios getting bigger. To use Jalister's example on the movies, while the smaller budget film was more profitable in terms of proportional investment, the higher budget title gained more raw dollars for their investors. In the end, that's what it's about; what makes the most money. I'm just theorizing that in a smaller studio, DRM-free makes sense, but once it reaches a certain size, it reaches the conclusion that DRM is necessary to protect their profits. I will defer to those in the know (you know, people actually working in the industry and dealing with these issues every day) to the judgment of whether DRM does anyone any good for its cost. I see little evidence to support the belief that DRM doesn't do any good at all and pisses off more customers than its worth. If Jalister's prediction is true, would it not be an even looser interpretation of a DRM requirement, if it only applied to the multiplayer component? Especially when additional money is involved for in-game transactions, DRM may provide other functions than just to secure the IP itself.
@vortican - DRM does provide another function, and I believe it's the primary function. It prevents the reselling of used games. It's not just game companies that want to prevent reselling/transferring of licenses. Digital media outlets like Steam and iTunes do not allow the transferring of one account to another person. I recently read an article that Bruce Willis is considering litigation against Apple because he was specifically told that he cannot leave his iTunes account to his daughters in his will.
I don't have specific numbers, but Google around. The bigger the game, the more it is pirated, no matter the budget or DRM on it. I would also guess that Avatar was pirated a lot more than District 9, but at the same time killed it in total dollars made. That is what publishers need to look at. How much money are they making on a game, not how much money are they losing on a game. That is how CD Projekt Red sees it. They know not every pirated copy is a lost sale. In the end they are happy because they have had a great number of sales.
I do agree that piracy is theft, but digital piracy is still different. When a physical item is stolen, the resources that went into it are lost and cannot be sold to someone else. When a virtual item is stolen, the resources are still there to sell to a paying customer. If the thief wasn't going to buy it anyway, then technically the distributor lost nothing. That in no way means piracy is acceptable, it just means that piracy "may" not be hurting the seller as much as they believe.
Is the 4.5 million pirated copies really equal to 4.5 million lost sales for the Witcher 2? How many of those are people wanting to demo before purchasing? How many are those that downloaded it just because they could, and may never play it? How many downloaded it because they bought it on Steam or media, and wanted a DRM free version? How many downloaded it because they are too poor to buy it? How many downloaded it because they wanted to steal it? How many downloaded it because they feel entitled? How many downloaded it to stick it to the corporations? How many downloaded because they could have bought it, but just didn't feel like spending the money? Some of those questions equal lost money, and some of them don't. Granted downloading for any reason is technically wrong, but then I don't see anything wrong with wanting a cracked version of a game you paid for. A lot of small laptops today don't have CD-ROM drives, so a CD check is a problem. Travel a lot by plain, train, areas where you don't have internet or have unreliable internet. Online activation is unacceptable in those cases.
I believe even Diablo 3 has a cracked version in the wild now. I don't think its fully complete, but that is how Assassins Creed 2 started. First it was just getting the basics working, then they worked on getting all the pieces that the Ubisoft servers were providing together.
Even MMOs have been cracked in a way. World of Warcraft has multiple server emulators out in the wild now. Granted they are not 100% of what a Blizzard's WoW is, but they are advanced enough to provide a full experience and a lot of people are playing on them. There is the wonderful Battle.net emulator that works perfectly for StarCraft, Warcraft 3, Diablo and Diablo 2. The nice thing about the Battle.net server is that Blizzard doesn't lose money on the game as long as people buy the game, which I've stated I'm waiting for two friends to buy before I fire one up. I don't know how much Blizzard loses on the WoW emulator, since it's probable that people playing on the emulators may no longer be paying a monthly subscription.
I just had to send my laptop -- which is my primary computer -- in for repairs yesterday. I won't have it back by the time BGEE is launched. Now, I do have an old desktop that could probably run BGEE, however, I'm having issues getting it connected to the internet. I could easily download the installation file for BGEE on my girlfriend's computer and transfer it to the desktop using my external hard drive, but because of Beamdog's bogus DRM, I have no way of installing it.
The problem with my laptop is a huge inconvenience and is frustrating enough by itself. It's cost me a lot of time and money and it means that I won't have access to my primary computer for up to several weeks. And now, to top it off, I might not even be able to play a game that I've already paid for when it launches thanks to Beamdog's bogus DRM scheme even though I have another computer capable of running it.
This is exactly what the anti-DRM folks have been talking about in this thread. DRM is nothing more than an inconvenience to the customer.
Thanks a lot, Beamdog.
I definitely won't be buying any more games from you until you completely scrap your DRM.
"My computer broke and my internet doesn't work. It's YOUR fault!"
...
Here's an idea: have you tried contacting their customer service? There might be a way to authenticate the game over the phone or something, or they might be able to figure out a way to make it work for your situation. They might not be able to do anything, but at least you can give it a shot. It sucks that your laptop is having issues, and that your back-up computer is having problems connecting to the internet. I agree that it's a problem, specifically because of situations like this.
But problems with your computer are problems with your computer. I doubt Beamdog broke your computer and your internet. (If they did, that's just rotten of them, but let's be realistic, eh?) I doubt Beamdog was thinking, "I've got a good way to get this bloke to not be able to play our game. His computer's going to break down in a few weeks; how about we require internet authentication at the time of installation? That'll really get his goat!"
You're also very lucky, incidentally, that you have a back-up computer at all. Think about all the people who just have the one computer, who couldn't play the game even if it didn't have DRM. I doubt those people feel disenfranchised by Beamdog for requiring a computer. Think about all those people whose video cards stop working; do they get up in arms whenever a new game comes out that requires a video card to run?
Now, I get it; believe me, I get it. You want to play the game the day it comes out. But just because there's an obstacle in the way of that doesn't mean you should blame everyone else.
Here's an idea: have you tried contacting their customer service? There might be a way to authenticate the game over the phone or something, or they might be able to figure out a way to make it work for your situation. They might not be able to do anything, but at least you can give it a shot.
I doubt Beamdog was thinking, "I've got a good way to get this bloke to not be able to play our game. His computer's going to break down in a few weeks; how about we require internet authentication at the time of installation? That'll really get his goat!"
That's irrelevant. Regardless of their intent, the outcome is still the same. They included DRM and a paying customer has been inconvenienced as a result.
Think about all those people whose video cards stop working; do they get up in arms whenever a new game comes out that requires a video card to run?
This is also irrelevant. A computer is a necessary requirement to play any computer game at all. (Why do you think they're called computer games?) But an internet connection is not necessary for playing a single-player game unless the developer deliberately includes DRM. If I wanted to, I could still install the original version of Baldur's Gate from my CDs more than 10 years later with no online activation to get in my way.
If I planned on playing multiplayer with some friends, I'd agree that this is my problem and has nothing to do with Beamdog. But this is a single-player game. There's no reason that I should EVER need the internet to play (with the exception, of course, of downloading it.)
Now, I get it; believe me, I get it. You want to play the game the day it comes out. But just because there's an obstacle in the way of that doesn't mean you should blame everyone else.
I'm blaming Beamdog because it really is, in fact, their fault. They chose to include their DRM, not me.
All I'm saying is, getting suddenly angry and spiteful at the developers because your computer broke is a misplacement of responsibility. I agree that it's inconvenient for an offline game to require you to connect to the internet. But for a product that requires the internet to acquire it in the first place, it's generally not too much to expect that you have internet access while installing it. This situation is an exception, and it's awful to have to deal with, but you can't blame the developer for something that you're having to deal with independent of them.
The rest of it--whether or not it's right, whether or not it's providing a service that the consumer likes, whether or not the developer has a right to protect their product (I would argue that they do; some people would disagree)--has already been discussed at length.
If there were a physical copy of the game being sold in stores, I would feel very differently about this. You can use copy protection in physical media that you can't necessarily use with digital media, and you can "authenticate" a game with a serial key or just a CD check once at installation. You can't do that with a piece of downloaded software; and until they figure out how to do that--
IDEA!
Check the downloader once at the time of download. You can download as many times as you like, but each installer can only be used once.
That way, you can download the installer, transfer it to a computer that doesn't have internet, and install it at your leisure. You can't copy the installer, but you can always download a new one.
Now all you need to do is figure out how to prevent copying the installer files...
But this would solve the problem. Because the whole point of DRM is that it acts as a small measure of protection against the illegal copying of digital media, specifically that media which is distributed solely over the internet. Some companies take it a step further, which is why it has such a bad reputation in general, and require you to be online the entire time you play, or require checks every time you start it up or save or what-have-you. But the concept of DRM as a thing isn't meant to inconvenience the player; it's to protect the product of the developer. If you want to get rid of DRM, you have to find something to replace it with. "Good will and the honor system" isn't enough.
All I'm saying is, getting suddenly angry and spiteful at the developers because your computer broke is a misplacement of responsibility.
I'm not mad at the developers because my computer broke. I'm mad at them because I have a computer that works perfectly fine (with the exception of its inability to connect to the internet, of course) and I can't play a game they sold me on it because of their bogus DRM.
This situation is an exception, and it's awful to have to deal with, but you can't blame the developer for something that you're having to deal with independent of them.
If you think the developer isn't responsible for the DRM they deliberately included in the game, then I think you and I have very different definitions of responsibility.
Here's an idea: have you tried contacting their customer service? There might be a way to authenticate the game over the phone or something, or they might be able to figure out a way to make it work for your situation. They might not be able to do anything, but at least you can give it a shot.
So now I have to inconvenience myself even more?
That's the point of customer service and customer support. If you have a problem with a product, you call someone to help you resolve it. In this case, you're calling Beamdog for a problem that isn't the result of their product, but is interfering with your ability to use it. Is it their obligation to help you? No. But they're good people; they'll be more than happy to at least try and help.
Now, I get it; believe me, I get it. You want to play the game the day it comes out. But just because there's an obstacle in the way of that doesn't mean you should blame everyone else.
I'm blaming Beamdog because it really is, in fact, their fault. They chose to include their DRM, not me.
What you're blaming them for is your inability to connect to their servers, which is the fault of your computer, not Beamdog. Let's be clear: Beamdog is contractually obligated, at least in the short term, to require an authentication at the time of installation. They've taken all possible measures to ensure that this authentication does not interfere with your gameplay experience while still remaining within the bounds of their contract.
You didn't like the DRM before. And I don't think many people would disagree with you that DRM in general is an inconvenience. But what has shifted your stance from "This is really inconvenient" to "it's all their fault and I'm never buying their product again until they get rid of DRM completely" (I believe the exact words you used were "Thanks a lot, Beamdog") is not some deep serious thought about what DRM is in general, but rather the personal effect that this has had on you; not because of what Beamdog has done, but because of what your computer has decided to do. It's the limitations of your own hardware that are causing you to get so angry at someone who has done nothing except protect their software.
I gave you a suggestion to try and communicate with them, to see if there's a way to authenticate your software without a connection, and you refused to use it. So from where I'm sitting, you being all angry and indignant? Not really the fault of the developer.
You didn't like the DRM before. And I don't think many people would disagree with you that DRM in general is an inconvenience. But what has shifted your stance from "This is really inconvenient" to "it's all their fault and I'm never buying their product again until they get rid of DRM completely" (I believe the exact words you used were "Thanks a lot, Beamdog") is not some deep serious thought about what DRM is in general, but rather the personal effect that this has had on you; not because of what Beamdog has done, but because of what your computer has decided to do.
Please don't patronize me. I was already completely anti-DRM before this experience. I can proudly say that I haven't bought a game with DRM in years. When BGEE was announced, I figured I'd make one exception to the rule because I'm a huge fan of the original BG. The reason I'm so mad in this particular case is that I made this one exception and will probably end up not even being able to play the game at launch.
@_Q_ This is just one example of many that illustrate why DRM is bad. I think your best solution will be to get a refund for the purchase that you can't use. Once you get your computer back you can purchase the game again at that point if you're still interested.
Myself, I would just go get a crack so I could actually play the game that I already paid for once. But the pirate police on here will probably tell you that is evil incarnate and that I'm a terrible person for even suggesting that the pirates offer a more convenient solution for you then the developer you paid.
@Aosaw I don't have time to read everything right now, bit _Q_ has just learned first hand why online activation sucks. There is no reason why someone should rely on having internet to play an offline, single player game.
One argument I have read about pirated media is that the pirated media is a better product. Think about that for a second. Pirated games do not require any kind of online activation. So they will work whether you have internet or not, or they will work after activation servers go down. I posted a link to purchased vs pirated DVD comparison. With purchased DVDs you have to wait through commercials, unskippable sections, two warnings about not pirating (even though you paid for the movie), to finally reach the menu so you can start the movie. With a pirated movie, you just double click the file and your movie starts. Again, I'm not saying it's right, but there is an understandable logic to pirated being better than purchased in some cases.
That's where GOG does it right. They provide an option that is better than the pirated version, except for costing money. You get the game, PDF manual, reference cards, and a lot of times extras like maps, soundtracks, wallpapers, avatars, books, etc. Plus, updates are posted on your game page with a notice that something has been added. Plus the main reason they drew me in as a customer while they were still in beta, DRM free. GOG trusts me.
So maybe _Q_ shouldn't be mad at Beamdog, but he does have the right to be mad, and it sounds like he will make his choice with his wallet.
@_Q_ - Sorry to hear you won't be able to play this at launch. But know I won't be playing either.
@_Q_ This is just one example of many that illustrate why DRM is bad. I think your best solution will be to get a refund for the purchase that you can't use. Once you get your computer back you can purchase the game again at that point if you're still interested.
I don't plan on asking for a refund. There's a part of me that really wants to just to drive the point home, but I really want to play this BGEE badly. I've already been waiting to play the game for months, this just means I might have to wait an extra week or two.
Beamdog probably will get a email from me in the near future, however.
Actually, the "pirate police" has offered a very good suggestion. I kind of take offense that you're refusing to even consider it.
Yes, I get it. I can contact their customer service. I understand that. I might even do it.
But you seem to be missing the more fundamental point that I shouldn't have to contact their customer service in the first place.
You've said before that DRM is necessary to "protect" the software, yet you've offered no proof. The only thing the DRM seems to be protecting the game from is paying customers who want to play it.
@Aosaw Your suggestion to call them is fine and I wouldn't argue against it. But I don't think it will do him any good. If they can just give him a code to enter in then he could in turn just post that code online. The existence of DRM in the first place strongly suggests that the developer doesn't trust the user. Why would they trust him to possess such a tool? I don't think the DRM was designed with such an easy option. But a call can't possibly hurt. In the meantime, I don't think suggesting other options in any way diminishes your advice.
@Aosaw: You mentioned earlier that I should not blame Beamdog for the DRM because it was required by the copyright holders of the original Baldur's Gate. This might be true, but Beamdog is not innocent in this either. I just did some quick research and found out that Beamdog openly advertises the fact that will allow developers to include DRM in their games. In fact, the website says "We manage the process of getting your content protected [i.e., setting up the DRM] and into the store, ready for consumption by our ever-growing user base" (Source: http://www.beamdog.com/about/distribution).
So maybe the copyright holders did insist on including DRM on BGEE, but I have a hard time believing Beamdog pleaded for the right to make BGEE DRM-free. It's obvious Beamdog is a pro-DRM company and I do not want to support a company that is pro-DRM. While I made the exception for Baldur's Gate, I plan on keeping my word when I said I won't buy any more games from them until they eliminate DRM in all their releases.
I think it's more likely that Beamdog fought for the DRM to be as minimal as possible. The rights management that their client uses does a check with the server when you install the game; but because the installation happens at the time of the download (with the Beamdog launcher, at least), this doesn't affect the player's experience at all.
The major difference with BG:EE is that they allow you to copy the downloaded installer to other computers, which allows you to reinstall the game quickly without making you wait for the game to download all over again.
In any case, I don't want to stifle the discussion. I just wanted to dispel any ideas that the DRM in BG:EE was cause for condemning the people who are developing it. The discussion of the merits and fallbacks of DRM in general is a good thing, but let's keep it to discussing DRM, not discussing how much we hate Beamdog.
We are, after all, using their forum to talk about it.
@Aosaw - I for one don't hate Beamdog, and I agree with you about that. Hopefully I have made it clear in my previous posts that my only problem is the use of DRM. Had they not used DRM, I would have most likely been a customer of theirs a long time ago.
@vortican - DRM does provide another function, and I believe it's the primary function. It prevents the reselling of used games. It's not just game companies that want to prevent reselling/transferring of licenses. Digital media outlets like Steam and iTunes do not allow the transferring of one account to another person. I recently read an article that Bruce Willis is considering litigation against Apple because he was specifically told that he cannot leave his iTunes account to his daughters in his will.
Well, Beamdog's DRM wouldn't prevent the reselling of this game. As I understand it, the installation check is agnostic, so it doesn't know and doesn't care where you install it or who installs it. Other DRM obviously isn't, and it does prevent used game sales, but personally, I never viewed reselling digital products as a possibility anyway. Those expecting to have the same flexibility between physical and digital products are expecting too much. They are not the same thing, even if the content is the same. There are inherent limitations to both by design of the kind of thing they are. Perhaps it could be viewed that we sacrifice some of the future recouping of cost in a digital product by the convenience of not having to drive to a store or wait for it to be shipped. I apply this principle every time I buy a game. If it's a game that I might want to resell, I always buy the physical version (and never had a problem selling it, even when it did contain DRM). If it's a game I'm going to keep forever, I buy the digital version. By the way, that Bruce Willis story has been debunked. Even if it were true, that's a legal issue for the courts to sort out and it's clear we haven't progressed far enough in that area to come to definite conclusions yet as to the treatment of digital property.
I don't have specific numbers, but Google around. The bigger the game, the more it is pirated, no matter the budget or DRM on it. I would also guess that Avatar was pirated a lot more than District 9, but at the same time killed it in total dollars made. That is what publishers need to look at. How much money are they making on a game, not how much money are they losing on a game. That is how CD Projekt Red sees it. They know not every pirated copy is a lost sale. In the end they are happy because they have had a great number of sales.
That's my point as well and I believe I stated it in my last post. The larger studios are making a lot more money on their games and they include DRM, so clearly they have calculated that it's worth it to them, and the evidence bears it out. The smaller studios don't seem to care as much, but they're not making anywhere near the same profits as larger studios that do include DRM.
I do agree that piracy is theft, but digital piracy is still different. When a physical item is stolen, the resources that went into it are lost and cannot be sold to someone else. When a virtual item is stolen, the resources are still there to sell to a paying customer. If the thief wasn't going to buy it anyway, then technically the distributor lost nothing. That in no way means piracy is acceptable, it just means that piracy "may" not be hurting the seller as much as they believe.
This is the part I wanted to address because I have an issue with this philosophy. I think it's a mistake to treat digital piracy as losing nothing. That argument has been used to justify it (even by me, years ago) and support piracy ever since it's been possible to copy this stuff. Keep in mind that what you are purchasing with a digital product is not the product itself; it is a license to use it. As long as you pay for it initially, I have no problem with people modifying their software to do whatever they wish, even disable the DRM if they can. If that renders the product unusable, that's their problem. I think studios understand this. However, just because there are no physical resources which are depleted, that does not mean that nothing is lost. I've used the art analogy previously and I absolutely still think it applies. If we view digital products in the same vein as works of art, the WORTH of the product is lessened every time an unauthorized copy is made.
The free-to-play model understands this concept because they give away a license to use the product for free but count on its worth being preserved by voluntary purchases, hoping that people find their offering worthy enough to expend some money on it. Studios choose to price their product based on their estimation of the worth of it. Beamdog figures their total cost involved in producing this work is enough to allow them to recoup that cost and make some money at $19.99. Prices tell us the relative value of something and DRM is used to protect that value. The easier it is to pirate, the less people will want to pay for that item. If an item drops in price quickly, it's clear that the relative worth has decreased (because they can't sell that product at the same price any longer). Piracy may not deplete resources, but it does have an effect. It is just not quantifiable in the same manner as a theft which removes the product from use. That's why it's not criminally charged as a theft; it's a licensing violation.
The argument about a failed internet connection doesn't hold a drop of water in my book. Blaming Beamdog for their requirement to connect to their servers is no different than blaming them for your hard drive failing. Their servers are still there, waiting for you to connect and validate your install. If your hardware doesn't work, that can in no way be blamed on them; doesn't matter what piece of hardware it is. System requirements are clear. If anything on your PC is insufficient, you can't play the game. That's certainly not Beamdog's fault. It's not even the customer's fault. It is what it is and it has absolutely nothing to do with DRM.
There's a subtle subtext of these arguments that disturbs me: nothing's lost in piracy, DRM presumes the company doesn't trust the user, why wouldn't he distribute a crack all over the place... of course companies don't trust users! They've proven they can't be trusted because they crack software, distribute it all over the world, enabling people to use stuff for which they haven't paid, and then people DO. If people didn't pirate (ORDINARY PEOPLE, by the way, people who wouldn't dream of stealing a candy bar from a convenience store), DRM would not be necessary, but they DO. Do you think that companies WANT to go to the expense of maintaining activation servers, finding encryption that is harder to break, enforcing it, legal fees, etc.? Given the choice, any company would prefer not to have to deal with these issues, but the fact that people misuse their stuff has given them no choice. Sure, they can just say, "OK, go ahead, anybody who wants to use my stuff can use it" or they can enforce their licenses. Some companies choose to go free-to-play and that's fine. Others choose not to. You can support whichever you prefer, but pretending that piracy can be justified because of DRM or that customers deserve unfettered access to software because THEY can be trusted and they paid for it doesn't fly with me. No retailer knows whether or not you can be trusted. It's a calculated decision as to how much they trust you (and how much that trust is worth) expressed in the decision to include DRM or not, and what kind to include. I applaud those who push companies not to include DRM and I hope you succeed, but this kind of thread running through a discussion again treads on the silly notion that somehow customers have a right to install software wherever and whenever they want, under any conditions (even broken computers), a right that's indicated nowhere in any of this.
@Vortican The argument that piracy costs nothing was made in regards to people who weren't going to buy the game at any price. Nothing was lost. The only time something is lost is when a customer chooses to pirate INSTEAD of buy. And this game seems targeted to a demographic more inclined to pay for the products they use, in other words older people with disposable income.
No one is saying that piracy isn't a problem. No one is saying that it doesn't hurt people. What we are saying is that treating the paying customers like pirates is not helping at all. The pirated versions don't have DRM so the pirates get treated like paying customers and the paying customers get treated like pirates. This does not seem like a good solution. None of this means that piracy is not a problem.
Do you think drunk driving is a problem? I do. But I don't like the idea of requiring a breathalyzer in every car to start it up. That is what DRM is to me. I believe I read that France was moving forward with this idea in all new cars. This will be far more effective in combating the problem at hand than DRM will ever be and it is still a terrible idea. It treats everyone like a criminal. I do realize that innocent until proven guilty is a concept that exists solely between a citizen and the government, but that doesn't mean I should support a DRM scheme that assumes I'm guilty until it proves me innocent. It's just bad form.
*All opinions stated here are just opinions and should be read as including IMHO and I think.
I love this thread. Thanks to everyone on both sides of the discussion for being a part of it. I am really enjoying it, and appreciate hearing everyone's view on this serious topic. The more I read and the more I write, the stronger my conviction grows towards not buying anything with DRM on it. Thanks to Beamdog and the moderators for allowing this thread to continue as it has. While the DRM will keep me from purchasing now, this thread alone has put Beamdog in a positive light as far as I am concerned, and I one day hope to be one of your customers.
The argument about a failed internet connection doesn't hold a drop of water in my book. Blaming Beamdog for their requirement to connect to their servers is no different than blaming them for your hard drive failing. Their servers are still there, waiting for you to connect and validate your install. If your hardware doesn't work, that can in no way be blamed on them; doesn't matter what piece of hardware it is. System requirements are clear. If anything on your PC is insufficient, you can't play the game. That's certainly not Beamdog's fault. It's not even the customer's fault. It is what it is and it has absolutely nothing to do with DRM.
That is correct, if my hardware fails it's my problem. That is exactly how I want it. I maintain my hardware, my library and my backups. I still have original C64 and Amiga software that I can use today. I paid for it, and as long as I keep up my end, it works. With online activation, I am renting my software. Maybe a better description is leasing without an option to buy. If a publisher decides it's no longer cost effective to keep an activation server online, then my software is no longer worth anything. Even a company as large as EA is known to shutdown servers for a game after only two years due to costs. Granted servers that provide an online component probably require more resources than an activation server, it still makes a point. IMO, anyone that buys an EA game wanting multiplayer better expect their game to be useless in two years.
The argument that piracy costs nothing was made in regards to people who weren't going to buy the game at any price. Nothing was lost. The only time something is lost is when a customer chooses to pirate INSTEAD of buy. And this game seems targeted to a demographic more inclined to pay for the products they use, in other words older people with disposable income.
@vortican - @Treyolen sums it up well. Maybe I should add that there is probably a loss in another situation, but that situation is unstoppable. When someone pirates a game using a P2P method, they add to the resource pool making it easier for others to pirate. But that still does not change the fact that the loss occurs when someone decides to pirate instead of purchase.
The pirated versions don't have DRM so the pirates get treated like paying customers and the paying customers get treated like pirates.
I just had to quote this Treyolen.
I'm not sure if it's still true today, but does anyone realize/know that many of the major scene crackers state with every release they make that if you like the game buy it, support the game makers so that they can continue to make great games. Maybe those are just empty words, or maybe they are sincere. If they are sincere, then maybe they really are just doing it for the challenge, or to provide quality demos, or maybe even to provide the better DRM free version to people. Again, I'm not saying this makes it right, I'm just trying to be open minded and see all the perspectives.
I'll say it again, treat your paying customers well, because those are "your customers". The pirates are not, and trying to combat them is not working, and is negatively affecting "your customers". At the risk of sounding like a broken record GOG, CDPR and Frozenbyte understand that treating the customer well gets them more customers. Frozenbyte has actually treated me so well, that I don't want to say what they did because I don't want others to try taking advantage. In my business word of mouth is our best advertisement. It may not be the same in digital distribution, but I am quick to recommend GOG, CDPR, Frozenbyte and Introversion to anyone. I think I actually beat people over the head with a GOG stick sometimes. The fans of Steam and GOG are a passionate bunch. Those that love Steam have theirs reasons, and those that love GOG have their reasons. They offer things in different ways, but each does it well. I hear people say "no Steam version, not buying it". I hear people say "I'll wait for the GOG release". I never hear comments like that about any other distributor. Look at DotEmu, they provide all their games DRM free also, and they can't compete with GOG. GOG works hard to offer so much more than just DRM free.
BGEE is an exception to my next comment, since I don't think BGEE will be sold through any other channel. I think any game on Beamdog is sold through other channels also. Most likely every one of those games is cracked and available somewhere on the internet. If someone wants to pirate it, it's already available, so why continue to keep DRM on it? This isn't the day of dial up modems and BBSs. If Bob wants to copy a game for his friend Joe, it's not hard to find out how. Between Google and all the available sources available today, anyone can figure out how to do it in minutes, if not seconds. Provide a product the customer wants, and treat that customer well, and you will have customers.
I will continue to keep an eye on the success of BGEE. I would like to see the reviews and what other players think of it. I hope it does well (but believe it could do better DRM free). The day the online activation is dropped, or is made available on GOG, I'll be there.
Actually, I think this game would do great to publish through GOG. The Infinity Engine games have been some of the top sellers on GOG.
We've reached a point where the arguments you're making, I don't disagree with; it's just a matter of perspective. I'd just like to respond to this:
If a publisher decides it's no longer cost effective to keep an activation server online, then my software is no longer worth anything. Even a company as large as EA is known to shutdown servers for a game after only two years due to costs. Granted servers that provide an online component probably require more resources than an activation server, it still makes a point. IMO, anyone that buys an EA game wanting multiplayer better expect their game to be useless in two years.
The bolded part is important. When you activate your game, you're not accessing a server's database to download a patch to unlock the content. You're pinging a server to confirm that you are the person who paid for the software. This kind of activity is the sort of thing that wouldn't be shut down unless Beamdog shuts down altogether. Trent has also said more than a few times that if they were ever forced to shut down their activation servers, they would release a patch that removed the activation requirement for installation.
Now, you can believe him or not believe him; that part's up to you. But as far as concerns about the server's longevity due to cost, I think it's a non-issue. As long as the servers are online, you only have to ping them once at installation; which means the greater obstacle, at least in this case, is losing your internet connection (which is a very real obstacle), or Beamdog losing theirs (which is somewhat less likely, on the whole).
To be honest, I think the better way to prevent piracy would be to only release games with physical media (DVDs, USB sticks, etc.) and require that the physical media be present at the time of installation. Unfortunately, that's a market that is quickly fading; only AAA titles tend to get released as physical copies, which is sad. But as an alternative to DRM, I would say that the best way to protect the developer's rights without infringing on the consumer's is to not include a server at all.
The primary difference between pirated software and consumer-purchased software, ten years ago, was that when you bought the game, you got the box, the manual, the disc(s), and any extra goodies that came with it. It was an actual physical product you were acquiring, which is something a pirated copy can't duplicate. Today, there is no remarkable difference between pirated and unpirated software except that the purchased software will still be eligible for updates and patches (because it can connect to the server to receive them).
That's the difference from ten years ago to now. It's a huge problem, not least because gamers love the physical product. It's hard to justify $60 for a game that you can't hold in your hands; I know that I will never pay that much money for a digital copy, because in my opinion anything above thirty dollars should give me something to remind me that it's there. I think fewer people would pirate software if it came in a box. But boxed editions aren't nearly as cost-efficient as digital editions.
When you activate your game, you're not accessing a server's database to download a patch to unlock the content. You're pinging a server to confirm that you are the person who paid for the software. This kind of activity is the sort of thing that wouldn't be shut down unless Beamdog shuts down altogether. Trent has also said more than a few times that if they were ever forced to shut down their activation servers, they would release a patch that removed the activation requirement for installation.
It's more than just a ping. The installer would at least send a key, which would need to be queried in a customer database. What about privacy? What other data is mined? Likely they would also increment a field holding number of activations for some possible future use... such as DRM terms change, and this software goes from unlimited activations to 3 per machine. Trent is a good guy, but let's face it, it's his word on a forum vs. what could be some future contractual obligation.
You are doing a little more than just pinging the server though. In order for online activation to work, there needs to be some sort of database in place to verify that you are a legitimate owner. Many games with an online component do nothing more that match making, and the games are actually hosted on one of the players computers. That lies somewhere between online activation and hosting games. As long as a game is for sale though, you are most likely safe from an activation server being turned off.
Trent has also said more than a few times that if they were ever forced to shut down their activation servers, they would release a patch that removed the activation requirement for installation.
There are many scenarios in which they may have to shutdown the servers and not be able to release such a patch. While I appreciate the statement is most likely sincere, and the intention true, it can not be 100% guaranteed that they can deliver such a patch. Unfortunately companies go out of business and get bought out all the time. Look at Impulse. It was Stardock's, and now it's been sold to Gamestop. I almost used it when it was owned by Stardock. Now that it's in Gamestop's hands, I wouldn't touch it and I am glad I have no games on that system. The market is competitive, and things can change so fast these days. There has been at least one digital music outlet that used DRM that chose to shutdown that part of their business (the company is still in business), and everyone lost access to their music libraries. That company is Walmart. A quick Google shows that people may have been able to save their music if they jumped through enough hoops, but since it's Walmart I don't want to spend any more time reading about them.
Maybe the patch gets released, let's say because they are going out of business. What if you miss getting the patch between the period it was offered, and the servers go away forever?
None of this is aimed directly at Beamdog or BGEE, it's towards any online activation system.
I think they keep track of the number of activations so that you don't try to give your Beamdog account to an entire college campus of thirty-thousand students. It's more of a situation where if your account has been used to activate thousands of installations over the course of a month, they might contact you to say that your account might have been compromised and to consider changing your password.
The installer will likely send a code that's tied to your buyer account with Beamdog. It's the equivalent of logging in (which is probably all that would be required). While it's not as minimal as a ping, it's not that much more intensive on the server side.
If Atari wanted to renegotiate their contract for BG:EE, they'd have to renegotiate it themselves. The current contract doesn't say anything about limiting installations, and I would imagine that was intentional. If they have to change it for future projects, it won't affect BG:EE (and based on the spirited discussion here, I don't think Trent would go for something that limiting, either).
@Aosaw Most of what you are saying is speculation. You cannot predict the future. If you can, please tell me when I'll receive that pre-order badge I was also promised. What if Trent gets hit by a bus tomorrow? In this transaction we the customer assume ALL of the risk inherent in DRM. We rely on the goodwill of future stakeholders to ensure our continued use of our purchase in several very plausible scenarios. This is not a good way to do business. Why not release the patch to an escrow as I recommended previously? Or, just scrap the DRM entirely of course...
*All opinions stated here are just opinions and should be read as including IMHO and I think.
That's true, it is speculation. As I said, I'm choosing to trust Trent and the rest of the team to do right by us. They haven't given me any reason not to trust them, and until they do I intend to go on trusting them as I do now.
At the same time, the point I was making wasn't that DRM is a good thing or a nice feature, but rather that the chances of it becoming an obstacle to the majority of consumers are somewhat smaller than I think you're assuming they are.
Comments
Avatar vs District 9. Two movies released in the second half of 2009.
There is no question that Avatar is the highest grossing movie of all time, and the most profitable when counting actual dollars. Star Wars may be higher if you count all the movies, and all the licensed games and toys.
IMHO, Avatar is a AAA movie, and District 9 is a high quality indie. To me, Avatar was a tech demo retelling a story we have seen a number of times before. I thought the movie was OK. IMHO, District 9 was a far better movie, and is one of my top 5 favorite movies of all time. But my personal opinion of each movie doesn't really matter for the point.
Avatar cost $500,000,000 and grossed 2,782,275,172 worldwide.
District 9 cost $30,000,000 and grossed 210,819,611 worldwide.
To me, here is the fun part.
Avatar made 5.57 times what it cost.
District 9 made 7.03 time what is cost.
Just to keep on topic with DRM. The blu ray of District 9 had been cracked, but I own it. Plus I saw it in the theater twice.
The other thing I like about indie game developers, and movies like District 9, they have room to break away from the mainstream. I find the indie developers much more entertaining today since they can give us unique games, and hopefully no DRM.
The way it's going, AAA will mean a short single player game, a lot of purchasable DLC, with multiplayer thrown in, and a real money market to buy things for the multiplayer game. It will allow them to say, it's not DRM, it's just needed for the online component. That or free to play with micro-transactions.
I don't have specific numbers, but Google around. The bigger the game, the more it is pirated, no matter the budget or DRM on it. I would also guess that Avatar was pirated a lot more than District 9, but at the same time killed it in total dollars made. That is what publishers need to look at. How much money are they making on a game, not how much money are they losing on a game. That is how CD Projekt Red sees it. They know not every pirated copy is a lost sale. In the end they are happy because they have had a great number of sales.
I do agree that piracy is theft, but digital piracy is still different. When a physical item is stolen, the resources that went into it are lost and cannot be sold to someone else. When a virtual item is stolen, the resources are still there to sell to a paying customer. If the thief wasn't going to buy it anyway, then technically the distributor lost nothing. That in no way means piracy is acceptable, it just means that piracy "may" not be hurting the seller as much as they believe.
Is the 4.5 million pirated copies really equal to 4.5 million lost sales for the Witcher 2? How many of those are people wanting to demo before purchasing? How many are those that downloaded it just because they could, and may never play it? How many downloaded it because they bought it on Steam or media, and wanted a DRM free version? How many downloaded it because they are too poor to buy it? How many downloaded it because they wanted to steal it? How many downloaded it because they feel entitled? How many downloaded it to stick it to the corporations? How many downloaded because they could have bought it, but just didn't feel like spending the money? Some of those questions equal lost money, and some of them don't. Granted downloading for any reason is technically wrong, but then I don't see anything wrong with wanting a cracked version of a game you paid for. A lot of small laptops today don't have CD-ROM drives, so a CD check is a problem. Travel a lot by plain, train, areas where you don't have internet or have unreliable internet. Online activation is unacceptable in those cases.
I believe even Diablo 3 has a cracked version in the wild now. I don't think its fully complete, but that is how Assassins Creed 2 started. First it was just getting the basics working, then they worked on getting all the pieces that the Ubisoft servers were providing together.
Even MMOs have been cracked in a way. World of Warcraft has multiple server emulators out in the wild now. Granted they are not 100% of what a Blizzard's WoW is, but they are advanced enough to provide a full experience and a lot of people are playing on them. There is the wonderful Battle.net emulator that works perfectly for StarCraft, Warcraft 3, Diablo and Diablo 2. The nice thing about the Battle.net server is that Blizzard doesn't lose money on the game as long as people buy the game, which I've stated I'm waiting for two friends to buy before I fire one up. I don't know how much Blizzard loses on the WoW emulator, since it's probable that people playing on the emulators may no longer be paying a monthly subscription.
I just had to send my laptop -- which is my primary computer -- in for repairs yesterday. I won't have it back by the time BGEE is launched. Now, I do have an old desktop that could probably run BGEE, however, I'm having issues getting it connected to the internet. I could easily download the installation file for BGEE on my girlfriend's computer and transfer it to the desktop using my external hard drive, but because of Beamdog's bogus DRM, I have no way of installing it.
The problem with my laptop is a huge inconvenience and is frustrating enough by itself. It's cost me a lot of time and money and it means that I won't have access to my primary computer for up to several weeks. And now, to top it off, I might not even be able to play a game that I've already paid for when it launches thanks to Beamdog's bogus DRM scheme even though I have another computer capable of running it.
This is exactly what the anti-DRM folks have been talking about in this thread. DRM is nothing more than an inconvenience to the customer.
Thanks a lot, Beamdog.
I definitely won't be buying any more games from you until you completely scrap your DRM.
...
Here's an idea: have you tried contacting their customer service? There might be a way to authenticate the game over the phone or something, or they might be able to figure out a way to make it work for your situation. They might not be able to do anything, but at least you can give it a shot. It sucks that your laptop is having issues, and that your back-up computer is having problems connecting to the internet. I agree that it's a problem, specifically because of situations like this.
But problems with your computer are problems with your computer. I doubt Beamdog broke your computer and your internet. (If they did, that's just rotten of them, but let's be realistic, eh?) I doubt Beamdog was thinking, "I've got a good way to get this bloke to not be able to play our game. His computer's going to break down in a few weeks; how about we require internet authentication at the time of installation? That'll really get his goat!"
You're also very lucky, incidentally, that you have a back-up computer at all. Think about all the people who just have the one computer, who couldn't play the game even if it didn't have DRM. I doubt those people feel disenfranchised by Beamdog for requiring a computer. Think about all those people whose video cards stop working; do they get up in arms whenever a new game comes out that requires a video card to run?
Now, I get it; believe me, I get it. You want to play the game the day it comes out. But just because there's an obstacle in the way of that doesn't mean you should blame everyone else.
If I planned on playing multiplayer with some friends, I'd agree that this is my problem and has nothing to do with Beamdog. But this is a single-player game. There's no reason that I should EVER need the internet to play (with the exception, of course, of downloading it.) I'm blaming Beamdog because it really is, in fact, their fault. They chose to include their DRM, not me.
The rest of it--whether or not it's right, whether or not it's providing a service that the consumer likes, whether or not the developer has a right to protect their product (I would argue that they do; some people would disagree)--has already been discussed at length.
If there were a physical copy of the game being sold in stores, I would feel very differently about this. You can use copy protection in physical media that you can't necessarily use with digital media, and you can "authenticate" a game with a serial key or just a CD check once at installation. You can't do that with a piece of downloaded software; and until they figure out how to do that--
IDEA!
Check the downloader once at the time of download. You can download as many times as you like, but each installer can only be used once.
That way, you can download the installer, transfer it to a computer that doesn't have internet, and install it at your leisure. You can't copy the installer, but you can always download a new one.
Now all you need to do is figure out how to prevent copying the installer files...
But this would solve the problem. Because the whole point of DRM is that it acts as a small measure of protection against the illegal copying of digital media, specifically that media which is distributed solely over the internet. Some companies take it a step further, which is why it has such a bad reputation in general, and require you to be online the entire time you play, or require checks every time you start it up or save or what-have-you. But the concept of DRM as a thing isn't meant to inconvenience the player; it's to protect the product of the developer. If you want to get rid of DRM, you have to find something to replace it with. "Good will and the honor system" isn't enough.
You didn't like the DRM before. And I don't think many people would disagree with you that DRM in general is an inconvenience. But what has shifted your stance from "This is really inconvenient" to "it's all their fault and I'm never buying their product again until they get rid of DRM completely" (I believe the exact words you used were "Thanks a lot, Beamdog") is not some deep serious thought about what DRM is in general, but rather the personal effect that this has had on you; not because of what Beamdog has done, but because of what your computer has decided to do. It's the limitations of your own hardware that are causing you to get so angry at someone who has done nothing except protect their software.
I gave you a suggestion to try and communicate with them, to see if there's a way to authenticate your software without a connection, and you refused to use it. So from where I'm sitting, you being all angry and indignant? Not really the fault of the developer.
Myself, I would just go get a crack so I could actually play the game that I already paid for once. But the pirate police on here will probably tell you that is evil incarnate and that I'm a terrible person for even suggesting that the pirates offer a more convenient solution for you then the developer you paid.
One argument I have read about pirated media is that the pirated media is a better product. Think about that for a second. Pirated games do not require any kind of online activation. So they will work whether you have internet or not, or they will work after activation servers go down. I posted a link to purchased vs pirated DVD comparison. With purchased DVDs you have to wait through commercials, unskippable sections, two warnings about not pirating (even though you paid for the movie), to finally reach the menu so you can start the movie. With a pirated movie, you just double click the file and your movie starts. Again, I'm not saying it's right, but there is an understandable logic to pirated being better than purchased in some cases.
That's where GOG does it right. They provide an option that is better than the pirated version, except for costing money. You get the game, PDF manual, reference cards, and a lot of times extras like maps, soundtracks, wallpapers, avatars, books, etc. Plus, updates are posted on your game page with a notice that something has been added. Plus the main reason they drew me in as a customer while they were still in beta, DRM free. GOG trusts me.
So maybe _Q_ shouldn't be mad at Beamdog, but he does have the right to be mad, and it sounds like he will make his choice with his wallet.
@_Q_ - Sorry to hear you won't be able to play this at launch. But know I won't be playing either.
Beamdog probably will get a email from me in the near future, however. Yes, I get it. I can contact their customer service. I understand that. I might even do it.
But you seem to be missing the more fundamental point that I shouldn't have to contact their customer service in the first place.
You've said before that DRM is necessary to "protect" the software, yet you've offered no proof. The only thing the DRM seems to be protecting the game from is paying customers who want to play it.
So maybe the copyright holders did insist on including DRM on BGEE, but I have a hard time believing Beamdog pleaded for the right to make BGEE DRM-free. It's obvious Beamdog is a pro-DRM company and I do not want to support a company that is pro-DRM. While I made the exception for Baldur's Gate, I plan on keeping my word when I said I won't buy any more games from them until they eliminate DRM in all their releases.
The major difference with BG:EE is that they allow you to copy the downloaded installer to other computers, which allows you to reinstall the game quickly without making you wait for the game to download all over again.
In any case, I don't want to stifle the discussion. I just wanted to dispel any ideas that the DRM in BG:EE was cause for condemning the people who are developing it. The discussion of the merits and fallbacks of DRM in general is a good thing, but let's keep it to discussing DRM, not discussing how much we hate Beamdog.
We are, after all, using their forum to talk about it.
The free-to-play model understands this concept because they give away a license to use the product for free but count on its worth being preserved by voluntary purchases, hoping that people find their offering worthy enough to expend some money on it. Studios choose to price their product based on their estimation of the worth of it. Beamdog figures their total cost involved in producing this work is enough to allow them to recoup that cost and make some money at $19.99. Prices tell us the relative value of something and DRM is used to protect that value. The easier it is to pirate, the less people will want to pay for that item. If an item drops in price quickly, it's clear that the relative worth has decreased (because they can't sell that product at the same price any longer). Piracy may not deplete resources, but it does have an effect. It is just not quantifiable in the same manner as a theft which removes the product from use. That's why it's not criminally charged as a theft; it's a licensing violation.
The argument about a failed internet connection doesn't hold a drop of water in my book. Blaming Beamdog for their requirement to connect to their servers is no different than blaming them for your hard drive failing. Their servers are still there, waiting for you to connect and validate your install. If your hardware doesn't work, that can in no way be blamed on them; doesn't matter what piece of hardware it is. System requirements are clear. If anything on your PC is insufficient, you can't play the game. That's certainly not Beamdog's fault. It's not even the customer's fault. It is what it is and it has absolutely nothing to do with DRM.
There's a subtle subtext of these arguments that disturbs me: nothing's lost in piracy, DRM presumes the company doesn't trust the user, why wouldn't he distribute a crack all over the place... of course companies don't trust users! They've proven they can't be trusted because they crack software, distribute it all over the world, enabling people to use stuff for which they haven't paid, and then people DO. If people didn't pirate (ORDINARY PEOPLE, by the way, people who wouldn't dream of stealing a candy bar from a convenience store), DRM would not be necessary, but they DO. Do you think that companies WANT to go to the expense of maintaining activation servers, finding encryption that is harder to break, enforcing it, legal fees, etc.? Given the choice, any company would prefer not to have to deal with these issues, but the fact that people misuse their stuff has given them no choice. Sure, they can just say, "OK, go ahead, anybody who wants to use my stuff can use it" or they can enforce their licenses. Some companies choose to go free-to-play and that's fine. Others choose not to. You can support whichever you prefer, but pretending that piracy can be justified because of DRM or that customers deserve unfettered access to software because THEY can be trusted and they paid for it doesn't fly with me. No retailer knows whether or not you can be trusted. It's a calculated decision as to how much they trust you (and how much that trust is worth) expressed in the decision to include DRM or not, and what kind to include. I applaud those who push companies not to include DRM and I hope you succeed, but this kind of thread running through a discussion again treads on the silly notion that somehow customers have a right to install software wherever and whenever they want, under any conditions (even broken computers), a right that's indicated nowhere in any of this.
No one is saying that piracy isn't a problem. No one is saying that it doesn't hurt people. What we are saying is that treating the paying customers like pirates is not helping at all. The pirated versions don't have DRM so the pirates get treated like paying customers and the paying customers get treated like pirates. This does not seem like a good solution. None of this means that piracy is not a problem.
Do you think drunk driving is a problem? I do. But I don't like the idea of requiring a breathalyzer in every car to start it up. That is what DRM is to me. I believe I read that France was moving forward with this idea in all new cars. This will be far more effective in combating the problem at hand than DRM will ever be and it is still a terrible idea. It treats everyone like a criminal. I do realize that innocent until proven guilty is a concept that exists solely between a citizen and the government, but that doesn't mean I should support a DRM scheme that assumes I'm guilty until it proves me innocent. It's just bad form.
*All opinions stated here are just opinions and should be read as including IMHO and I think.
I'm not sure if it's still true today, but does anyone realize/know that many of the major scene crackers state with every release they make that if you like the game buy it, support the game makers so that they can continue to make great games. Maybe those are just empty words, or maybe they are sincere. If they are sincere, then maybe they really are just doing it for the challenge, or to provide quality demos, or maybe even to provide the better DRM free version to people. Again, I'm not saying this makes it right, I'm just trying to be open minded and see all the perspectives.
I'll say it again, treat your paying customers well, because those are "your customers". The pirates are not, and trying to combat them is not working, and is negatively affecting "your customers". At the risk of sounding like a broken record GOG, CDPR and Frozenbyte understand that treating the customer well gets them more customers. Frozenbyte has actually treated me so well, that I don't want to say what they did because I don't want others to try taking advantage. In my business word of mouth is our best advertisement. It may not be the same in digital distribution, but I am quick to recommend GOG, CDPR, Frozenbyte and Introversion to anyone. I think I actually beat people over the head with a GOG stick sometimes. The fans of Steam and GOG are a passionate bunch. Those that love Steam have theirs reasons, and those that love GOG have their reasons. They offer things in different ways, but each does it well. I hear people say "no Steam version, not buying it". I hear people say "I'll wait for the GOG release". I never hear comments like that about any other distributor. Look at DotEmu, they provide all their games DRM free also, and they can't compete with GOG. GOG works hard to offer so much more than just DRM free.
BGEE is an exception to my next comment, since I don't think BGEE will be sold through any other channel. I think any game on Beamdog is sold through other channels also. Most likely every one of those games is cracked and available somewhere on the internet. If someone wants to pirate it, it's already available, so why continue to keep DRM on it? This isn't the day of dial up modems and BBSs. If Bob wants to copy a game for his friend Joe, it's not hard to find out how. Between Google and all the available sources available today, anyone can figure out how to do it in minutes, if not seconds. Provide a product the customer wants, and treat that customer well, and you will have customers.
I will continue to keep an eye on the success of BGEE. I would like to see the reviews and what other players think of it. I hope it does well (but believe it could do better DRM free). The day the online activation is dropped, or is made available on GOG, I'll be there.
Actually, I think this game would do great to publish through GOG. The Infinity Engine games have been some of the top sellers on GOG.
Now, you can believe him or not believe him; that part's up to you. But as far as concerns about the server's longevity due to cost, I think it's a non-issue. As long as the servers are online, you only have to ping them once at installation; which means the greater obstacle, at least in this case, is losing your internet connection (which is a very real obstacle), or Beamdog losing theirs (which is somewhat less likely, on the whole).
To be honest, I think the better way to prevent piracy would be to only release games with physical media (DVDs, USB sticks, etc.) and require that the physical media be present at the time of installation. Unfortunately, that's a market that is quickly fading; only AAA titles tend to get released as physical copies, which is sad. But as an alternative to DRM, I would say that the best way to protect the developer's rights without infringing on the consumer's is to not include a server at all.
The primary difference between pirated software and consumer-purchased software, ten years ago, was that when you bought the game, you got the box, the manual, the disc(s), and any extra goodies that came with it. It was an actual physical product you were acquiring, which is something a pirated copy can't duplicate. Today, there is no remarkable difference between pirated and unpirated software except that the purchased software will still be eligible for updates and patches (because it can connect to the server to receive them).
That's the difference from ten years ago to now. It's a huge problem, not least because gamers love the physical product. It's hard to justify $60 for a game that you can't hold in your hands; I know that I will never pay that much money for a digital copy, because in my opinion anything above thirty dollars should give me something to remind me that it's there. I think fewer people would pirate software if it came in a box. But boxed editions aren't nearly as cost-efficient as digital editions.
Maybe the patch gets released, let's say because they are going out of business. What if you miss getting the patch between the period it was offered, and the servers go away forever?
None of this is aimed directly at Beamdog or BGEE, it's towards any online activation system.
The installer will likely send a code that's tied to your buyer account with Beamdog. It's the equivalent of logging in (which is probably all that would be required). While it's not as minimal as a ping, it's not that much more intensive on the server side.
If Atari wanted to renegotiate their contract for BG:EE, they'd have to renegotiate it themselves. The current contract doesn't say anything about limiting installations, and I would imagine that was intentional. If they have to change it for future projects, it won't affect BG:EE (and based on the spirited discussion here, I don't think Trent would go for something that limiting, either).
*All opinions stated here are just opinions and should be read as including IMHO and I think.
At the same time, the point I was making wasn't that DRM is a good thing or a nice feature, but rather that the chances of it becoming an obstacle to the majority of consumers are somewhat smaller than I think you're assuming they are.