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.
Unfortunately online DRM is still common place. It can go one of two ways. Either more people accept it, and it continues on its current path, or as more people run into problems with it, maybe enough people will be boycotting and speaking out against it that it will need to go away. In many of the forums I browse, I believe more and more people are staying away from Ubisoft due to the number of people that have had problems with their DRM. Check the PC reviews on Amazon for several different DRM plagued games, you'll see many have one star reviews due to DRM. Just to name a few...
Spore - 1.5 PC Chronicles of Riddick Dark Athena - 1.5 PC - 4.0 consoles Assassins Creed 2 - 2.0 PC - 4.5 consoles
I've seen many people state that they don't even care if Ubisoft left the PC platform due to all the various garbage DRM schemes they have used.
One person has already spoken out that the minimal DRM that BGEE is using is going to cause him a problem at launch. Yes, his computer broke, it's his problem. But then again, why should he not be able to play his game on another computer if he paid for it? Right or not, as soon as DRM negatively affects someone, the risk of the consumer never trusting DRM again is high.
I have not been negatively affected by it yet, and I intend not to. I actually have a spare computer that I keep all my Steam purchases up to date on. If Steam ever vanishes, I will have everything download. I figure Steam was so popular, and so many of those people have huge game libraries, someone will most likely step in and find a way to unlock all that content.
After running in beta for two years, GOG decided it was time to drop their beta tag. During the switch, they shut down the content servers, and posted a message about they can't continue to operate the way they had. Many people freaked out thinking GOG shutdown without warning. Many cried about how their game libraries were lost, and GOG doesn't even use DRM. I was sad at the idea they might be closed, but I was not worried about my content. As I said, I maintain my data. I had everything I purchased downloaded and backed up. Obviously they did not close, they were just transitioning, and they are doing better than ever.
Recently Ubisoft had to move some of their servers. They stated it would not affect game play. That entire weekend many people complained about not being able to play their games due to online activation. Now that was solely the responsibility of the distributor. It wasn't a broken computer or a problem with someone's internet. Yes, it was only a weekend... but why should someone not be able to play something they purchased because of a problem with DRM? That would be like saying that the Honda dealership had to shutdown for the weekend to do inventory, so everyone that bought their car from them would not be able to drive their cars for that entire weekend.
And as it has been repeatably said in this thread, and all over the internet, DRM does not work.
I trust most people, but I still lock my door at night. I still lock my car when I go to the grocery store. I still keep my computer password-protected.
Do I think people are going to steal my car/television/documents? No. Is it still worth taking the precaution? Yes.
Do I get upset when other people lock their doors? No.
When you buy a car, the choice to use a key to turn it on is not voluntary; it's required. Partly this protects the consumer once they buy the car. But mostly it prevents car thieves from stealing the car right off the lot. By your logic, I shouldn't trust the auto industry to maintain my car because their use of a key is implicitly distrustful of me.
When you go to the bank, if you want to access your money, you have to enter your PIN. Until you do that, it's the bank's money. By your logic, I shouldn't trust my bank to protect my money because their use of a PIN is implicitly distrustful of me.
When you use your Debit card at a grocery or department store, you have to enter your PIN there as well. Until you do that, you can't pay for anything. By your logic, I shouldn't trust grocery stores because they require me to connect to a remote server in order to pay for things with my own money.
I'm not saying there's not a disconnect there. Anything can be seen through a lens of cynicism. I think what separates you and me is that I'm willing to put my trust in a company until they provide me with a reason not to trust them. If Trent Oster says he'll release a patch to get rid of the activation requirement in the event that Beamdog ever has to permanently shut down their servers, I choose to believe him.
It's not ironic. Ironic would be if I put that trust in him, and then a month later he did the exact opposite of what he said he would do. If right after the release Trent shuts down the servers making it so no one can activate their installations, then that will be proper irony, and you can say you told me so or whatever.
Until that happens, I'm a consumer choosing to trust a developer I believe in.
When you buy a car, the choice to use a key to turn it on is not voluntary; it's required. Partly this protects the consumer once they buy the car. But mostly it prevents car thieves from stealing the car right off the lot. By your logic, I shouldn't trust the auto industry to maintain my car because their use of a key is implicitly distrustful of me.
Wow, someone really has the wool pulled over their eyes. The car key is there to protect "me", so my car isn't stolen. DRM is to protect "them". If the car manufacturer or dealer goes under, I still have my key, and my car will still work. Plus I can copy my key, unless it's a newer car with a chip, which again is meant to protect me. My car key doesn't have to connect to some server somewhere in order for my car to start. The key is not provided because the manufacturer doesn't trust me, it's provided so the "I" can trust my car won't be stolen.
When you go to the bank, if you want to access your money, you have to enter your PIN. Until you do that, it's the bank's money. By your logic, I shouldn't trust my bank to protect my money because their use of a PIN is implicitly distrustful of me.
The PIN is to protect "me". If I lose, or someone steals, my credit/debit card, that PIN protects me by preventing someone else from withdrawing my money. I still believe that banks don't trust us though.
When you use your Debit card at a grocery or department store, you have to enter your PIN there as well. Until you do that, you can't pay for anything. By your logic, I shouldn't trust grocery stores because they require me to connect to a remote server in order to pay for things with my own money.
Again, the PIN is to protect me. Plus at the store you have the option of using cash, with no online verification. There is no choice when buying from Beamdog, Steam, Origin, etc. The only choice is buy digital, or buy physical which acts the same as the digital.
There is one choice we always have though, spend the money or don't spend the money. In some cases we are lucky enough to have a choice by choosing a different distributor.
It's not as different as you think. But my point was that you're choosing to trust somebody else despite a system of distrust. I don't take kindly to being belittled for trusting a developer, thank you very much. :P
No, it was more at the idea that I'm somehow wrong or ignorant because I've made a conscious choice to trust Beamdog, rather than assume they're going to stab me in the back. Calling that choice ironic is what irritated me (although your "that was spectacular" remark didn't help).
Anyway, that's it for me today. I'll check back tomorrow, but unfortunately I've got work to do this afternoon and a deadline that's fast approaching.
@Aosaw - Then I apologize, I simply meant that statement was great, but it was not intended to be targeted specifically at you. I just got a kick out of the irony angle.
@Aosaw Like other parties you are making this personal. I stand by my statement that your trust of a system that doesn't trust you is ironic. If you think this is an indictment of your intelligence or belittles you in any way I apologize. But that doesn't change the fact that it was an ironic statement. Trust should be a two way street.
All of your examples feature procedures in place to manage the customer's rights. We're discussing a mechanism specifically created to manage the developer's rights after they have already received their money. This is not the same thing at all without even considering that each of your examples features a limited resource instead of a digital copy.
And no one is saying that Beamdog will stab anyone anyplace. But the future is uncertain and you have no way of knowing if Trent will even be with the company in the future. Any decision they make will be profit motivated. They won't take things as personally as you have above. And if the dollars and cents tell them to shut the server down without a patch, that is exactly what will happen regardless of any promise on a web forum. The point of this thread is to try and convince them that the dollars and cents tell them right now to ditch DRM entirely.
I'm taking it personally because it's personal. Whether you admit it or not, your post was patronizing, and you intended it to poke fun at the choice that I and many others have made for ourselves. "You do realize that's incredibly ironic, don't you?" is a lot like saying, "You do realize that what you just said is really stupid, don't you?"
Folks are gonna take that personally, because it's an insult to their intelligence. Irony is when someone says "The bible says that X, which means it must be wrong", while ignoring that the bible also says Y.
Saying, "I acknowledge that this system is flawed, but I choose to trust it until such time as the system becomes corrupt," is not ironic. It's an informed decision. Based on everything that I have heard from Trent, I have decided to trust him at his word; that he meant what he said and he intends to follow through with it.
Meanwhile, based on everything that you have heard from Trent, you've decided that he didn't mean what he said and has no intention of following through.
Somehow, this makes my position "ironic".
This thread should be about convincing them to do away with their DRM. But more often than not, it's a lot of you telling people who don't agree with you that their ideas are stupid and wrong. That's why people take it personally, @Treyolen. It's not the specific issue; it's the rhetoric you use to discuss it.
This is, incidentally, why I suggested about ten pages ago that the thread had outlived its usefulness because everyone was repeating the same thing over and over again.
EDIT: One last thing, and then I'm done for at least a day or two.
Maybe instead of complaining about the system that's currently in place, maybe you could offer some kind of an alternative way for developers to protect their rights. Because you're right; DRM doesn't work as well as it should. Pirates are still getting access to things they didn't pay for, and they're receiving no repercussions for it. How would YOU solve this problem, in a way that doesn't infringe on consumers rights?
Helpful Tip: "Don't protect yourself at all" is the wrong answer.
@Aosaw Irony does not equal stupidity. There is an entire song dedicated to the subject of irony and I don't recall stupid being mentioned even once in the song. I have also never used the word stupid until you interjected it into the conversation. I've also offered a few different ideas on compromises that would work. You just haven't noticed them apparently. They included an escrow solution, embedding data, and watermarking. I'm not just complaining regardless of how you wish to portray me.
I've said repeatedly that I think Trent probably does mean what he says. I also think they meant it when they said we would all get badges for preordering. Stuff happens. Sometimes things change and we can't control the changes. No one is calling the man into question. I bet he's a swell guy. But he may not even be the man making the decision when the time comes.
This isn't a personal attack and I don't believe I've made any personal attacks. Your statement was in my opinion ironic. Not because it was stupid. Not because you're stupid. It was ironic because it stated a level of trust in an entity that only uses the mechanism at hand because it doesn't trust you. Maybe we see irony in a different light.
@Aosaw Like other parties you are making this personal. I stand by my statement that your trust of a system that doesn't trust you is ironic. If you think this is an indictment of your intelligence or belittles you in any way I apologize. But that doesn't change the fact that it was an ironic statement. Trust should be a two way street.
All of your examples feature procedures in place to manage the customer's rights. We're discussing a mechanism specifically created to manage the developer's rights after they have already received their money. This is not the same thing at all without even considering that each of your examples features a limited resource instead of a digital copy.
The liability issue is not as simple as you're making it out to be. Protections of the sort Aosaw described do not merely protect the car owner or the bank or the consumer's rights. Having a PIN to safeguard your accounts also protects the bank from liability should someone attempt to hold THEM liable for a compromised account. They can say, "Hey, the dude gave his PIN to his drunk girlfriend and she cleaned out his account! It's not our fault!" It also protects them from the accusations that a bank employee was responsible by issuing themselves their own debit card in a consumer's name, for example. Yes, this security mechanism does protect a consumer's rights as well, but it also protects the business' rights.
As for a developer's rights, I think you guys are still missing the fact that a license is not the same as complete ownership. Even those boxed versions we bought 20 years ago still had EULAs which spelled out our rights and nowhere in most of them (if any) was a guarantee in perpetuity that the software would be ours to use. The owner of the IP can revoke that right AT ANY TIME and probably for very broad reasons. This imaginary right you want to have to install it anywhere, anytime, and any way you want has never existed. Not even the GNU or Creative Commons licenses give you that ability. There are always, and have always been restrictions on your use of software programs.
In a discussion of physical vs. digital, which you seem to insist makes a difference in the way we treat these properties, the argument is that the physical removal of resources validates the need for a restriction of licensing rights because otherwise, the crime of removing that property is theft. In a digital world, it's claimed again and again that "nothing is lost" because digital property can be copied indefinitely and without depletion of physical resources. I find it kind of silly to think that somehow because PHYSICAL resources are not removed from use of another, that somehow creates a positive argument for granting the right of unlimited copying of digital works. I see no reason it should. Anyway, it's up to the content creator and owner to decide that, and even when we fork over $59.99 (or $19.99), we're NOT the owner of those works. As was pointed out yesterday, we're basically renting the software, and that's how it's always been. Sorry if that little dose of reality is unpalatable to everyone here, but it's the way digital content creators protect the integrity of their work. Unless they want to give it to the world, which is a noble thing to do, creators want to protect their vision, and deserve as much compensation as they can get in the marketplace for their efforts, which means they have to prevent unauthorized copying. DRM is simply a natural extension of that.
Now, it might be an equally laudable goal to try and entice creators to be noble and let their products out there without restrictions, but it's certainly not something you or I or anyone DESERVES simply by being a paying customer. I still see this sense of entitlement or deprivation in an argument which does along the lines of, "What if the activation servers go down?! I can't use the product I paid for!" Well, you didn't pay for a product. You paid for a license. If the activation server goes down, your license is terminated because the company chose not to renew it. It's not even personal any longer; they just chose not to support that product any longer. It's actually quite magnanimous of Trent Oster to state that they've considered this and will offer a way for you to keep the license if something happens. Whether you trust that this will happen or not should factor into your decision, but please do not be confused about for what you are paying.
FYI, I understand the forthcoming repetition of "the purpose of the thread is to convince developers not to employ DRM" but that is not true. The original question was whether DRM was included which led to a discussion about whether an installation check qualifies. I think that demanding a totally unobtrusive experience or less innocuous methods (which have proven to be easily circumvented) may actually reduce the number of studios producing high-quality games in the long run. If the public refuses to allow studios to protect their copyrighted works, what incentive do they have to produce them? This kind of approach actually encourages piracy even further were it to occur on a large scale. I think what we've got is a good balance and certainly BG:EE's method will satisfy all but the most intractable customers.
@Vortican You raise several points. I'll try to address a few of them. First, this thread may have changed topics very slightly. But try to open a new discussion regarding DRM in any form and see what happens. Don't even think about including a poll. For better or worse this is the thread we have to discus any aspects of DRM and I think the question of whether or not it has DRM was answered right away. The topic evolved some time ago. It has definitely made for a more interesting conversation at the very least
You are correct that they have the right to put any license terms they want into the EULA. They could even make a term that says you can only wear red shirts with "I Love Trent" badges if you want to play. They would have about the same chance of enforcing that provision as they do of enforcing DRM on the pirate crowd. The point is that as a consumer I DEMAND these entitlements in order to spend my money. It would be different if there were no outlets willing to meet this demand. But there are more games available that meet this requirement than I have time to play. So the point is that this is a lucrative market that Beamdog would be better off serving.
The incentive they have to produce games is money. You can ignore the very profitable non-DRM distributors if you want. But they still exist. Non-DRM is probably not suitable for all games. I understand that. The games that aren't compatible with it are the games I don't want to play. But I think BG:EE is tailor made to the non-DRM crowd of older more affluent buyers that will support a quality release.
I am not confused about what I am paying for in the least. That is why I am here posting. I want a license with better terms. I want a license that does not have any control mechanism on it. And I'm more than willing to pay for that license.
This imaginary right you want to have to install it anywhere, anytime, and any way you want has never existed. Not even the GNU or Creative Commons licenses give you that ability. There are always, and have always been restrictions on your use of software programs.
The GNU and most of the CC licenses are very liberal, and I have yet to read something that states software protected by said licenses can't be installed anywhere or at any time. Often, the only requirement is to share the source code or acknowledge the original authors -- whatever else you do with the work is fair game. That's the whole point behind them. Right from the preamble of the GPLv2: "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users."
Also, EULAs 20 years ago were much different than today's. They basically restricted your right to freely distribute or modify the content, but not your right to install and use it.
You continue to see a rose-colored world in which DRM adequately protects digital works. Unfortunately, DRM does no such thing. It's defective by design, and only serves to shift the balance of trust in the content creator's favor.
Practically speaking, if I'm a content creator and I know (a) DRM doesn't work, (b) my audience will hate me for using it, and (c) I stand to lose money on it.. why would I use it? It serves no valid purpose.
Treyolen, I'm not ignoring those profitable non-DRM distributors. In fact, I've mentioned them several times, most recently in the vein of perhaps one of the reasons they are the smaller portion of the market is that they choose not to employ DRM. Besides, what would be the point of a license with no control mechanism? The entire purpose of the license is control, and rightfully so. Content creators have a right to control their works. I hope you are willing to pay more for an open license (or no license at all) because you'd likely have to pay MUCH more if fewer participants in the market chose not to employ DRM. It's very likely they would be raising their prices or participants would drop out.
Reekwind, my point in invoking the GNU and CC licenses was, although they are very liberal, none of them deliver an unconditional experience. Isn't ironic that a user license which purports to guarantee free usage of a product even exists? It's kind of like that freedom of speech thing we Americans supposedly have, except for those restrictions like when you're around the President. Then, you have to be in a free speech "zone" or whatever. The point is that the absence of a license or a license which guarantees you can do anything you want to do with a digital work is not only a fantasy, but can be quite destructive as well. I agree with your point that older EULAs did not mess with your right to install and use the products, but I believe that was mostly due to technical limitations. They couldn't do anything to stop you. Now, content owners actually have the means to do so to a limited degree, and no, DRM is not perfect, but business is not about trust. As was pointed out earlier by someone else, if businesses and customers trusted each other completely, stores wouldn't have locks on their doors or security tags or security guards or loss prevention departments. They'd just have a tip jar.
Ineffective DRM does not affect the need for it. You are assuming that DRM in general causes a loss of revenue for the publisher, but that hasn't been demonstrated on a large scale yet. This is not the same argument that the absence of DRM can increase sales on a large scale either, which also hasn't been proven, but the fact that the major companies ALL use DRM demonstrates a consensus within the industry that a balanced approach (some protection with the knowledge that it doesn't prevent every pirate nor mitigate every lost sale) works best for everyone. I'm the most freedom-loving person you'll find but this has very little to do with freedom and a lot more with choice. I fully expect Treyolen, yourself, and anyone else who finds even the most inobtrusive DRM offensive to choose to factor that into your decision to buy every piece of software you encounter. However, a market without controls on software by private individuals is not a market in which I wish to participate and I doubt many content creators would ever choose to do so.
The owner of the IP can revoke that right AT ANY TIME and probably for very broad reasons.
If Trent Reznor decided to revoke my rights for the NIN CDs I purchased, he will have to come pry them from my cold, dead hands. Same with my copy of Speedball 2 for the Amiga 500. I know I don't "own" the music or software. I can't redistribute, or duplicate and sell, or alter the work and claim it my own. However, I think most people feel they do own there music/software in then sense that the copy is theirs, they have the expectation of the right to be able to use it, back it up, and in some cases shift it to other media (CD to MP3 for example). The first time a company revokes my right to use something I purchased is the last time the company will ever see a dollar from me. I will make an exception to online games, since those resources are much more expensive to maintain. I know that I will not be able to officially play Left 4 Dead forever (without an emulator), but I do expect to be able to play the single player part of Mass Effect 3 even after the multiplayer portion is shutdown. I may be right or wrong, but that is my expectation, and I will purchase based on that.
I find it kind of silly to think that somehow because PHYSICAL resources are not removed from use of another, that somehow creates a positive argument for granting the right of unlimited copying of digital works.
I never said it was positive. It's just a numerical fact that if someone wasn't going to pay for digital media no matter what, then technically that money was not lost. I know I have said that does not make it right. Money is lost when someone that would have paid it for chose not to because they could pirate it. I for one don't play a game if I don't think it's worth paying for. I wish that people would not pirate at all. I would prefer that if a game didn't sell well it was because it was bad, overpriced, or DRM. If a game didn't sell, and the piracy numbers were very low or nonexistent, then the developers and publishers might actually take a look at the real reason their game isn't selling. I do hate piracy. It's not fun knowing I paid money for something so many others are playing for free. Or knowing that developers are losing money. Or knowing that bad sales are automatically blamed on piracy. Ubisoft seems to unintelligent to know that their treatment of its customers is helping to drive piracy.
"What if the activation servers go down?! I can't use the product I paid for!" Well, you didn't pay for a product. You paid for a license. If the activation server goes down, your license is terminated because the company chose not to renew it.
That is why I will not support online activation with my money. In the very rare exception that I do, I make sure it's a loss I am OK with. 80% off, I might be in. Unless it's Origin, Ubisoft, GFWL, Impulse, or many others that I will not sign into for even $1 or free.
which means they have to prevent unauthorized copying. DRM is simply a natural extension of that.
But it doesn't prevent unauthorized copying. What is does prevent is reselling. What it does prevent is the paying customer from having a better product than the pirate. If DRM worked, I might have a different perspective. It's similar with gun control, you can take the legal guns away from the good people, but the bad people will still have guns. Unless you can make it truly work, only the honest people get hurt.
AntiDRM is not new to me. This is something I have thought about and worked with for years. I have used it, dealt with it, read about, avoided it, and discussed it plenty of times. "IMHO" DRM penalizes the paying customer, and provides that paying customer with an inferior product. It may be my opinion, but I'm not the only one with that opinion.
I'm willing to agree to a license with controls on distribution, reverse engineering, modification, selling, etc. But not use. For a content creator to tell me my copy essentially has an expiration date is just unreasonable. Yes, it is their right to do so. But it is not in their best interest, because it is not in their audience's best interest.
"Software piracy has been on the rise, but enforcing harsh software license terms across the market through a regulatory device such as UCITA is not an appropriate market solution. As demonstrated by the “Spore” episode, regulation of the current software market would achieve nothing. Consumers would simply refuse to buy products with harsh license terms, forcing producers to redraft their licenses with more favorable terms. This behavior is a sign of a healthy market rather than one that has failed and needs to be regulated."
The gist is that consumers can and should exercise their market power to shift harsh license terms back to a middle ground that benefits both them and the producers.
It mentions Spore, but there are countless other episodes where DRM has failed consumers. We don't have hard numbers on revenue loss, but we do have numerous ripples of anti-DRM sentiment in gaming history. @Jalister has been great at telling us that history throughout this thread.
Maybe not only based on trust, but trust is a factor. When I buy food for my child, I'm trusting the store, shipper, and manufacturer. If something breaks that trust, they lose me as a customer.
What business is based on is customer satisfaction. In every job I have had, that is what matters. Retail, restaurant, nightclub, and IT. With construction and manufacturing I didn't deal directly with the customer, but it was still my job to provide a working product for the customer. Providing the paying customer with best perceived value, service and experience is what mattered. If the customer is not happy, I did not do my job.
It seems that it's only in the virtual industry that it's OK to inconvenience the customer, and to tell them what they can and cannot do, or even take the product away all together. It does inconvenience the customer, I see it all the time. Maintaining license for a bunch of programs and computers. Making sure if one computer dies, you know exactly which licenses were with the computer (Windows, Office, and several other programs). One vendor actually charges a service fee to free up a license that was on a crashed computer, which should be a very simple process. A virus breaking Windows activation, and the customer having to not only pay for the cleaning, but fixing activation. Something a pirate never has to worry about. Pirates even get Windows updates. Broken computer, viruses, bad internet... it doesn't matter.
A system that is meant to stop piracy but doesn't, is nothing more that a tool to inconvenience the customer. Money is wasted on implementing and supporting it. I would rather see that money put back into the game, or used to reduce the cost of the game, or used to provide some nice extras like the soundtrack. Ubisoft with their draconian DRM has had over 80% piracy rates, according to Ubisoft. If their draconian DRM was that worthless, why bother with a light weight DRM model?
Kickstarter is a neat example. The most successful of the Kickstarter game projects have all committed to a DRM free version due to popular demand. Shadowrun Returns, Wasteland 2, Double Fine Adventure and Carmageddon Reincarnation to may a few. Each one has raised a 7 digit pledge. That's just in pledges over a 30 day period. Most of these were nothing more than an idea with concept art during the kickstarter. I am anxious to see how many sales they get when the games are released. I have pledged to three of the ones listed. I have also pledged to many of the smaller ones that I really want to see, many of which are DRM free. Ravaged is an exception since it's multiplayer only, like Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor.
Treyolen is correct, many have proven DRM free can work. As long as their is a choice, I know who I am going to support.
The owner of the IP can revoke that right AT ANY TIME and probably for very broad reasons.
If Trent Reznor decided to revoke my rights for the NIN CDs I purchased, he will have to come pry them from my cold, dead hands. Same with my copy of Speedball 2 for the Amiga 500. I know I don't "own" the music or software. I can't redistribute, or duplicate and sell, or alter the work and claim it my own. However, I think most people feel they do own there music/software in then sense that the copy is theirs, they have the expectation of the right to be able to use it, back it up, and in some cases shift it to other media (CD to MP3 for example). The first time a company revokes my right to use something I purchased is the last time the company will ever see a dollar from me.
What people feel is irrelevant. What they tolerate or that with which they are in agreement by virtue of committing to honor a license when purchasing a protected work is all that matters. If a license has an "all rights reserved" clause in it, then no "additional" right, such as the ability to shift your music purchases to another media, can be inferred. You seem to intimate that whatever a license doesn't specifically prohibit, it allows. That's the opposite of how these licenses must be read. You are granted certain specific rights, and nothing else, so your fight must proceed not from reasserting rights you expect you have, but to negotiating with content creators to get you those rights. After all, isn't the claim that they should already have these rights one of the primary motivations of crackers and pirates? It's an important distinction. A license which allows everything and prohibits nothing would would totally destroy the NATURAL rights of any content creator to legally protect themselves.
But it doesn't prevent unauthorized copying. What is does prevent is reselling. What it does prevent is the paying customer from having a better product than the pirate. If DRM worked, I might have a different perspective. It's similar with gun control, you can take the legal guns away from the good people, but the bad people will still have guns. Unless you can make it truly work, only the honest people get hurt.
First of all, it's true that DRM prevents reselling but it's also untrue that it doesn't prevent unauthorized copying. It absolutely does, at least some of it. Many people who buy games have absolutely no clue where to go to find pirated copies or cracks and they really don't care about DRM. Unfortunately, you're in the minority who appears to care very much about it. From that perspective, DRM absolutely works for those companies who choose to employ it. Sadly, companies have to go to a lot of expense to prevent and limit large numbers of would-be thieves who try to excuse their behavior with "well if you'd just remove that DRM, I wouldn't pirate your software." That's along with those who justify themselves with, "well if you'd just lower your prices, I wouldn't pirate your software", and the "well if you'd just provide a demo", or "well if you'd make decent games" crowd. I'm thankful for the rise of the free-to-play model, which gets around most of this and still allows companies to remain profitable but DRM still has an important function and does work to limit piracy to a certain extent. Whether or not that extent is more or less profitability than they would have if they didn't use DRM is questionable.
I don't find gun control a fair comparison. Software licenses aren't imposed on you by the government; they're a product of negotiation between the merchant and the consumer. Yes, there will always be pirates, but they aren't enforcing some natural right such as self-defense. Violating the law by owning a prohibited gun could be justified in my mind because 1) The US Constitution gives us an unfettered right to do so, and if I purchased it in accordance with the merchant's terms of sale, I haven't violated my agreement with him either. Honest people aren't hurt at all by DRM unless it's excessively harsh and screws up their computers like UBI's model did. They hurt themselves by thinking they are entitled to rights which they are not. They may choose to not purchase and play certain games because of DRM but that is their choice. That's the beauty of capitalism and a free marketplace; the constant negotiating eventually creates a scenario that everyone can tolerate (except extremists who either want all the power or people who want everything for free; neither will be satisfied).
I'm willing to agree to a license with controls on distribution, reverse engineering, modification, selling, etc. But not use. For a content creator to tell me my copy essentially has an expiration date is just unreasonable. Yes, it is their right to do so. But it is not in their best interest, because it is not in their audience's best interest.
"Software piracy has been on the rise, but enforcing harsh software license terms across the market through a regulatory device such as UCITA is not an appropriate market solution. As demonstrated by the “Spore” episode, regulation of the current software market would achieve nothing. Consumers would simply refuse to buy products with harsh license terms, forcing producers to redraft their licenses with more favorable terms. This behavior is a sign of a healthy market rather than one that has failed and needs to be regulated."
The gist is that consumers can and should exercise their market power to shift harsh license terms back to a middle ground that benefits both them and the producers.
It mentions Spore, but there are countless other episodes where DRM has failed consumers. We don't have hard numbers on revenue loss, but we do have numerous ripples of anti-DRM sentiment in gaming history. @Jalister has been great at telling us that history throughout this thread.
First off, this article was especially relevant to the discussion and thanks so much for citing it. Second, it does give some hard numbers on revenue loss, indicating a global piracy level of 38%, $47B in software piracy, and a 33% loss of revenue. Those are astoundingly large numbers, yet you advocate companies doing absolutely nothing to curb the unauthorized use of their products and expect those numbers would what, decrease? That defies common sense. By the way, controls on modification could very well prevent modding, which is thriving in the PC industry and producing new business and revenue opportunities for everyone. That kind of innovation should not be stifled in my opinion and I think obviously, the business community for the most part has embraced it.
The other thing I will write about this article, and I didn't even have to read all of it to agree with most of it, is that the point here is that we don't need GOVERNMENT managed licensing, which always causes more problems than it prevents. The article is very respectful and defensive of the inherent market mechanisms which sort these things out favorably to all parties concerned. Indeed, this is a very healthy marketplace of ideas and technologies, but as the article points out, we need better DRM technologies that are less intrusive but do a better job of protecting the properties for the creators. I don't see how that can possibly be done without limitations on use. After all, we're talking about preventing people who haven't paid for it from using it. That itself defines a limitation on use that's the very core of this issue. Anti-DRM advocates want more trust from businesses but how can we expect that when businesses correctly point out that users of their products have obviously abused that trust for years? It doesn't have to be harsh, but it needs to be there.
Thanks again for that article. It really encapsulated the issue perfectly.
Second, it does give some hard numbers on revenue loss, indicating a global piracy level of 38%, $47B in software piracy, and a 33% loss of revenue. Those are astoundingly large numbers, yet you advocate companies doing absolutely nothing to curb the unauthorized use of their products and expect those numbers would what, decrease?
The article was from 2009. Since then, surveys have shown a constant rise in revenue loss due to piracy, coming in last year at $59B. Estimates are now putting the global piracy rate at 50%. Has DRM worked?
DRM is worse than doing nothing because of its farcical ineffectiveness. Consumers are turned away by the strict licensing terms regarding use and the companies are shelling out money to license the DRM and support it. DRM only causes the revenue loss figures to grow as consumers either don't spend or convert to piracy. If DRM worked by both preventing piracy and not shortchanging consumers, and the numbers showed it, I might come to your side.
First off, this article was especially relevant to the discussion and thanks so much for citing it.
I agree, it's a great article. It also argues that for DRM to be effective, there has to be a distinction between consumer and thief, which is not currently possible. Software companies need to reciprocate the trust their customers put in them, and right now, the only way to do that is to relax the DRM.
It also makes a great point about how, prior to the rise of the Internet, the software industry served a faceless market and could get away with whatever licensing terms they wished. Now, consumers can form a collective voice and challenge those terms en masse, bolstered by the video game media and sites like Amazon and Metacritic.
Let me ask the question a different way. Do you believe in the concept of Public Domain? I believe good games are a form of art, like books, movies, paintings, poetry, etc. Would the world be a better place if Shakespear had used DRM and all of his works were still protected? Imagine a world where schools didn't get to use great literature from the ages because it still had rights being managed. No Poe, no Dickens, no Chaucer, no Da Vinci, I could go on and on. That is what DRM is about. Permanent control forever. This flies in the face of centuries of common law. Great art is supposed to enrich the creator and then enrich civilization. I don't think that Madden 2013 is the next MacBeth, but value is in the eye of the beholder. Just because it's digital doesn't mean that it should be exempt from age old expectations.
And courts have held up many consumer rights not included in the original license. The First Sale Doctrine has been fought many times and has held up so far. We have the right to own backups, even if we no longer have the right to create the backup. Lemon laws were forced on certain industries against their will. The IP creators don't get to dictate everything no matter how many lobbyists they buy.
And no one is saying do nothing to combat piracy. You are putting words in our mouths. You create value for your customer through customer service and ongoing support. DRM is the opposite. DRM is bad and there is more money to be made for this type of release without it.
Let me ask the question a different way. Do you believe in the concept of Public Domain? I believe good games are a form of art, like books, movies, paintings, poetry, etc. Would the world be a better place if Shakespear had used DRM and all of his works were still protected? Imagine a world where schools didn't get to use great literature from the ages because it still had rights being managed. No Poe, no Dickens, no Chaucer, no Da Vinci, I could go on and on. That is what DRM is about. Permanent control forever. This flies in the face of centuries of common law. Great art is supposed to enrich the creator and then enrich civilization. I don't think that Madden 2013 is the next MacBeth, but value is in the eye of the beholder. Just because it's digital doesn't mean that it should be exempt from age old expectations.
Are you really trying to compare centuries old works of art that the original creator can't benefit from anymore to current day products? /sigh
And no one is saying do nothing to combat piracy. You are putting words in our mouths. You create value for your customer through customer service and ongoing support. DRM is the opposite. DRM is bad and there is more money to be made for this type of release without it.
Of course you're not saying to not combat piracy, you just keep pretending that the issue doesn't exist.
@Tanthalas I know piracy exists. I just don't care. People who weren't going to buy anyways are irrelevant to the conversation. They weren't going to buy anyway. It hurts the pride that they get to play for free, but get over it. The only people that matter to a seller are potential buyers.
And yes, I am comparing works of art to works of art regardless of age. I agree that the quality of this product isn't nearly as high. But it really is bad form to point this out on their own website. I would of expected the moderator to be more complimentary of the product. /sigh
The argument is getting circular and you continue to dismiss any points made by the other side. Good for you and your staunch loyalty to Beamdog. But I think you do them a disservice by your attitude on the subject. The tide is turning against DRM in this arena. AAA title will always have DRM, but the twenty dollar new game market is a different animal and the jury is still out. Your side may win, but if I was a shareholder I wouldn't want to bet the future of the company on it without at least exploring the alternative.
With only eight days to go I think Aosaw had the right idea to retire from the fray. I apologize to anyone I may have offended during the discourse. That was not my intent, so I guess it was ironic if I did it anyway I fully intend to enjoy the game in eight days and forget this forum and several other parts of my life exist!
No need to disappear, Treyolen. Although some of these arguments appear repetitive, I believe that we've still had some important information introduced even on this page of the thread.
As for the works of art being in the public domain, I think it's a valid point to make (and I made it myself earlier as well). However, it's important to remember that those works didn't initially exist in the public domain, and were protected works when they were originally written. Clearly, the argument for protection was around even then and to your credit, people WANTED copies to be made so their works were distributed because there was no easy mechanism to do so. Of course, with the introduction of tech to quickly copy works, entire new industries were created and the laws which were created to protect IP were enacted to fairly compensate the owners. It was a change that was not evil, but necessary.
DRM is not forever. Companies are moving from traditional models to free-to-play, or letting old games move into abandonware, just as works of art move from protected to the public domain. What you're advocating is total freedom from day one, but only for the consumer, nothing for the content creator. How else is an owner to combat piracy if not by limiting use of their product? Are they supposed to just trust that people won't pirate because they're good people? That their sales will increase because of honest folks supporting them? I believe piracy figures have risen because more products are being sold and file-sharing has become more available, while methods of cracking have become simpler. The industry is under pressure from customers to loosen up DRM but they still need ways of protecting their product.
I'll acknowledge your point about legal entities upholding rights which aren't present in contracts, but that's a step backwards, not a step forward. As soon as legal authorities intervene, the marketplace mechanisms which sort this out in favor of a settlement that is acceptable to everyone are undermined. Pretty soon, everyone says, "there oughta be a law" and this issue is taken out of our hands and ceded to the government. That's the worst possible outcome.
Reekwind, if the numbers showed that no DRM produces more sales and less piracy, I might come to your side as well, although I would still believe that studios have the right to insist on DRM. So far, all we have are isolated incidents of DRM-free being profitable for some small firms, while we have decades of evidence showing that DRM or DRM-like measures prevent at least some piracy.
So far, all we have are isolated incidents of DRM-free being profitable for some small firms, while we have decades of evidence showing that DRM or DRM-like measures prevent at least some piracy.
I wanted to post this earlier today, but due to unforeseen events on the internet, many websites were not available for a while today. Through no fault of my computer or internet, and no fault on Beamdog's part, I could not reach their site. Good thing I didn't have to authenticate an online activation today.
The numbers below are the estimated number of times a game was pirated. I've pirated none of the below, and I own Portal 2 (PS3/Steam), Mass Effect 2 (PC), StarCraft 2, and Alan Wake (PC/GOG).
2011 Crysis 2 - 3,920,000 Call of Duty MW3 - 3,650,000 Battlefield 3 - 3,510,000 Portal 2 - 3,240,000 Gears of War 3 (XBox 360) - 890,000 Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Wii) - 1,280,000
2010 Call of Duty: Black Ops - 4,270,000 Battlefield: Bad Company 2 - 3,960,000 Mafia 2 - 3,550,000 Mass Effect 2 - 3,240,000 Starcraft II - 3,120,000 (isn't this one online only?) Dante’s Inferno (XBox 360) - 1,280,000 Alan Wake (XBox 360) - 1,140,000
2009 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - 4,100,000 The Sims 3 - 3,200,000 Prototype - 2,350,000 Call of Duty: MW2 (XBox 360) - 970,000 New Super Mario Bros. (Wii) - 1,150,000
Yep, I see it now. DRM is preventing piracy. So I'm dealing with DRM in a game while 3,000,000 plus are not. Even the consoles have high levels of piracy, and it's actually a bit more work to pirate on a console. And if you believe not many know about how to download a game, I think you are wrong. Each generation gets more technically inclined. They are in school where that information can flow quickly, plus they have the internet. When I was a kid, I learned about it from my friends in school and through BBSs on slow dial up modems. I couldn't even imagine how it would have been if we had the power of the internet.
I know The Witcher 2 was also heavily pirated, and to remind everyone, it was the DRM version that was pirated first, not the DRM free version. This doesn't bother me personally, because at least I know I have a product equal to or even better than the pirated version. It does bother me that CDPR did not get money for those pirated copies, but it was pirated regardless of DRM. CDPR cared about me as a customer, and provided me a great product.
Take a look at the Assassins Creed article, they make a point to mention the challenge of breaking AC2. The following game was broken much more quickly.
And yes, I am comparing works of art to works of art regardless of age. I agree that the quality of this product isn't nearly as high. But it really is bad form to point this out on their own website. I would of expected the moderator to be more complimentary of the product. /sigh
I see you completely ignored the point I was making.
Jalister, again you miss the point. Nobody has denied that piracy is rampant. The point is that DRM is certainly preventing some of the losses and I have yet to hear from anyone in this thread who makes a coherent argument that having no DRM at all would do anything but cause piracy to increase. You folks may be OK with that since it benefits the consumer, but I doubt the businesses who absorb those losses would be. While I agree that file-sharing has become easier and that younger gamers are more and more technically adept, the market has also shifted to capture many more older gamers, people who weren't gaming at all 10 or 15 years ago. Many of these people have money and don't need to pirate, don't care to, don't know how, or have no time to bother figuring that out. Of course, we don't have accurate numbers on any of this, but I'm just providing some information that may relate to the discussion.
I am not willing to wade in to this debate as much like politics and religion piracy is divisive, but I will add a few points.
First off I am anti DRM. I crack all my games, and refuse to use Origin,GFWL, or any other online DRM platform. I have Steam installed as it is my primary retail portal for games, but all my Steam games are cracked and not tethered to my Steam account. I will not be locked out of a game I have paid for due to a failure outside of my control (interenet outages, server failures, or any other technical issue that may happen).
I strongly believe that game producers/developers deserve to be paid for their products, and no one has the right to download/install/play their products without paying for them.
DRM doesnt work. If it did Piracy would have decreased. It hasnt. DRM doesnt work. If it did companies with the most Draconian DRM policies would have less games pirated than their competitors. They dont.
GOG has no DRM at all and is EXTREMELY successful. The Witcher 2 is DRM free and is one of the most commercially successful RPGs to ever be produced.
Ubisoft has recently announced that they no longer will be using their extreme online DRM anymore, and while they didnt give an actual reason apart from "we listened to our customers" its safe to say if it was working they would be keeping it. All it did was alienate many of their customers.
Piracy is only a concern when looked at in isolation. Frictional (makers of Amnesia: Dark Decent) recently said “It has been over a year since we even thought about piracy. With sales as good as above we cannot really see this as an issue worth more than two lines in this post, so screw it.”
Truth is that some people will ALWAYS pirate, and some will never. Some will Pirate a bit and buy some others. People like me will pirate a game ONLY if I am unsure of its quality and it has no demo. If I like a game I have pirated I buy it. If I dont I delete it. Most of my friends are like this. We are all in our 30's and will buy what we like.
Until recently I refused to support Ubisoft at all (I have not played Assassins Creed or its sequels) due to their attitude towards DRM, although I was gifted a copy of Heroes VI which I cracked immediately to avoid the awful uPlay. I am willing to see what the future holds in light of recent announcements so I might finally get to experience ACII.
I understand the thinking around DRM from a Developers/Publishers perspective, but if your policies inconvenience your paying customers then its the wrong approach imo.
The previous car lock example given by Aosaw is interesting, but incorrect as it doesnt illustrate how DRM affects the end user. Using the car analogy in respect to DRM the equivalent system would require the car owner to call the manufacturer every time they wished to drive their car. Not only that but the phone they used would have to be in their system as well, so if for instance your phone was broken and you called using a friends phone you would be unable to use your car until you had gone through an ID process and been verified as the "äuthorised" driver. If you were stuck with no phone then the car would be unable to be driven at all, and if the contact center was closed, or busy you would be forced to wait until it was able to take your call before you could drive the car that you own. Therein lies the issue. Until DRM is invisible and causes zero issues to users it is unacceptable imo.
The point is that DRM is certainly preventing some of the losses and I have yet to hear from anyone in this thread who makes a coherent argument that having no DRM at all would do anything but cause piracy to increase.
The irony of that is your side has put forth almost no evidence to show that DRM has prevented some losses, nor whether it was worth the cost. What we have put forth are figures showing piracy grows massively every year despite DRM, the hundreds of thousands in DRM licensing fees (more when there is DRM at both software and hardware layers, i.e., GFWL + SecuROM) plus support and legal costs, polls and media articles that illustrate widespread consumer outrage at DRM, and statistics showing the remarkable financial success of DRM-free vendors, some small (Humble Bundle), some large (GOG, CD Projekt RED).
While I agree that file-sharing has become easier and that younger gamers are more and more technically adept, the market has also shifted to capture many more older gamers, people who weren't gaming at all 10 or 15 years ago. Many of these people have money and don't need to pirate, don't care to, don't know how, or have no time to bother figuring that out. Of course, we don't have accurate numbers on any of this, but I'm just providing some information that may relate to the discussion.
The global piracy rate is now at 50% or higher (and rising). 50% of the world's population is under 30, and piracy starts in the teen years. Based on that, I think we can deduce that people of all ages are getting involved. And like Jalister has keenly pointed out so many times, pirated products and their distribution systems are often more user-friendly.
Comments
Spore - 1.5 PC
Chronicles of Riddick Dark Athena - 1.5 PC - 4.0 consoles
Assassins Creed 2 - 2.0 PC - 4.5 consoles
I've seen many people state that they don't even care if Ubisoft left the PC platform due to all the various garbage DRM schemes they have used.
One person has already spoken out that the minimal DRM that BGEE is using is going to cause him a problem at launch. Yes, his computer broke, it's his problem. But then again, why should he not be able to play his game on another computer if he paid for it? Right or not, as soon as DRM negatively affects someone, the risk of the consumer never trusting DRM again is high.
I have not been negatively affected by it yet, and I intend not to. I actually have a spare computer that I keep all my Steam purchases up to date on. If Steam ever vanishes, I will have everything download. I figure Steam was so popular, and so many of those people have huge game libraries, someone will most likely step in and find a way to unlock all that content.
After running in beta for two years, GOG decided it was time to drop their beta tag. During the switch, they shut down the content servers, and posted a message about they can't continue to operate the way they had. Many people freaked out thinking GOG shutdown without warning. Many cried about how their game libraries were lost, and GOG doesn't even use DRM. I was sad at the idea they might be closed, but I was not worried about my content. As I said, I maintain my data. I had everything I purchased downloaded and backed up. Obviously they did not close, they were just transitioning, and they are doing better than ever.
Recently Ubisoft had to move some of their servers. They stated it would not affect game play. That entire weekend many people complained about not being able to play their games due to online activation. Now that was solely the responsibility of the distributor. It wasn't a broken computer or a problem with someone's internet. Yes, it was only a weekend... but why should someone not be able to play something they purchased because of a problem with DRM? That would be like saying that the Honda dealership had to shutdown for the weekend to do inventory, so everyone that bought their car from them would not be able to drive their cars for that entire weekend.
And as it has been repeatably said in this thread, and all over the internet, DRM does not work.
Do I think people are going to steal my car/television/documents? No. Is it still worth taking the precaution? Yes.
Do I get upset when other people lock their doors? No.
When you buy a car, the choice to use a key to turn it on is not voluntary; it's required. Partly this protects the consumer once they buy the car. But mostly it prevents car thieves from stealing the car right off the lot. By your logic, I shouldn't trust the auto industry to maintain my car because their use of a key is implicitly distrustful of me.
When you go to the bank, if you want to access your money, you have to enter your PIN. Until you do that, it's the bank's money. By your logic, I shouldn't trust my bank to protect my money because their use of a PIN is implicitly distrustful of me.
When you use your Debit card at a grocery or department store, you have to enter your PIN there as well. Until you do that, you can't pay for anything. By your logic, I shouldn't trust grocery stores because they require me to connect to a remote server in order to pay for things with my own money.
I'm not saying there's not a disconnect there. Anything can be seen through a lens of cynicism. I think what separates you and me is that I'm willing to put my trust in a company until they provide me with a reason not to trust them. If Trent Oster says he'll release a patch to get rid of the activation requirement in the event that Beamdog ever has to permanently shut down their servers, I choose to believe him.
It's not ironic. Ironic would be if I put that trust in him, and then a month later he did the exact opposite of what he said he would do. If right after the release Trent shuts down the servers making it so no one can activate their installations, then that will be proper irony, and you can say you told me so or whatever.
Until that happens, I'm a consumer choosing to trust a developer I believe in.
There is one choice we always have though, spend the money or don't spend the money. In some cases we are lucky enough to have a choice by choosing a different distributor.
Anyway, that's it for me today. I'll check back tomorrow, but unfortunately I've got work to do this afternoon and a deadline that's fast approaching.
All of your examples feature procedures in place to manage the customer's rights. We're discussing a mechanism specifically created to manage the developer's rights after they have already received their money. This is not the same thing at all without even considering that each of your examples features a limited resource instead of a digital copy.
And no one is saying that Beamdog will stab anyone anyplace. But the future is uncertain and you have no way of knowing if Trent will even be with the company in the future. Any decision they make will be profit motivated. They won't take things as personally as you have above. And if the dollars and cents tell them to shut the server down without a patch, that is exactly what will happen regardless of any promise on a web forum. The point of this thread is to try and convince them that the dollars and cents tell them right now to ditch DRM entirely.
Folks are gonna take that personally, because it's an insult to their intelligence. Irony is when someone says "The bible says that X, which means it must be wrong", while ignoring that the bible also says Y.
Saying, "I acknowledge that this system is flawed, but I choose to trust it until such time as the system becomes corrupt," is not ironic. It's an informed decision. Based on everything that I have heard from Trent, I have decided to trust him at his word; that he meant what he said and he intends to follow through with it.
Meanwhile, based on everything that you have heard from Trent, you've decided that he didn't mean what he said and has no intention of following through.
Somehow, this makes my position "ironic".
This thread should be about convincing them to do away with their DRM. But more often than not, it's a lot of you telling people who don't agree with you that their ideas are stupid and wrong. That's why people take it personally, @Treyolen. It's not the specific issue; it's the rhetoric you use to discuss it.
This is, incidentally, why I suggested about ten pages ago that the thread had outlived its usefulness because everyone was repeating the same thing over and over again.
EDIT: One last thing, and then I'm done for at least a day or two.
Maybe instead of complaining about the system that's currently in place, maybe you could offer some kind of an alternative way for developers to protect their rights. Because you're right; DRM doesn't work as well as it should. Pirates are still getting access to things they didn't pay for, and they're receiving no repercussions for it. How would YOU solve this problem, in a way that doesn't infringe on consumers rights?
Helpful Tip: "Don't protect yourself at all" is the wrong answer.
I've said repeatedly that I think Trent probably does mean what he says. I also think they meant it when they said we would all get badges for preordering. Stuff happens. Sometimes things change and we can't control the changes. No one is calling the man into question. I bet he's a swell guy. But he may not even be the man making the decision when the time comes.
This isn't a personal attack and I don't believe I've made any personal attacks. Your statement was in my opinion ironic. Not because it was stupid. Not because you're stupid. It was ironic because it stated a level of trust in an entity that only uses the mechanism at hand because it doesn't trust you. Maybe we see irony in a different light.
As for a developer's rights, I think you guys are still missing the fact that a license is not the same as complete ownership. Even those boxed versions we bought 20 years ago still had EULAs which spelled out our rights and nowhere in most of them (if any) was a guarantee in perpetuity that the software would be ours to use. The owner of the IP can revoke that right AT ANY TIME and probably for very broad reasons. This imaginary right you want to have to install it anywhere, anytime, and any way you want has never existed. Not even the GNU or Creative Commons licenses give you that ability. There are always, and have always been restrictions on your use of software programs.
In a discussion of physical vs. digital, which you seem to insist makes a difference in the way we treat these properties, the argument is that the physical removal of resources validates the need for a restriction of licensing rights because otherwise, the crime of removing that property is theft. In a digital world, it's claimed again and again that "nothing is lost" because digital property can be copied indefinitely and without depletion of physical resources. I find it kind of silly to think that somehow because PHYSICAL resources are not removed from use of another, that somehow creates a positive argument for granting the right of unlimited copying of digital works. I see no reason it should. Anyway, it's up to the content creator and owner to decide that, and even when we fork over $59.99 (or $19.99), we're NOT the owner of those works. As was pointed out yesterday, we're basically renting the software, and that's how it's always been. Sorry if that little dose of reality is unpalatable to everyone here, but it's the way digital content creators protect the integrity of their work. Unless they want to give it to the world, which is a noble thing to do, creators want to protect their vision, and deserve as much compensation as they can get in the marketplace for their efforts, which means they have to prevent unauthorized copying. DRM is simply a natural extension of that.
Now, it might be an equally laudable goal to try and entice creators to be noble and let their products out there without restrictions, but it's certainly not something you or I or anyone DESERVES simply by being a paying customer. I still see this sense of entitlement or deprivation in an argument which does along the lines of, "What if the activation servers go down?! I can't use the product I paid for!" Well, you didn't pay for a product. You paid for a license. If the activation server goes down, your license is terminated because the company chose not to renew it. It's not even personal any longer; they just chose not to support that product any longer. It's actually quite magnanimous of Trent Oster to state that they've considered this and will offer a way for you to keep the license if something happens. Whether you trust that this will happen or not should factor into your decision, but please do not be confused about for what you are paying.
FYI, I understand the forthcoming repetition of "the purpose of the thread is to convince developers not to employ DRM" but that is not true. The original question was whether DRM was included which led to a discussion about whether an installation check qualifies. I think that demanding a totally unobtrusive experience or less innocuous methods (which have proven to be easily circumvented) may actually reduce the number of studios producing high-quality games in the long run. If the public refuses to allow studios to protect their copyrighted works, what incentive do they have to produce them? This kind of approach actually encourages piracy even further were it to occur on a large scale. I think what we've got is a good balance and certainly BG:EE's method will satisfy all but the most intractable customers.
You are correct that they have the right to put any license terms they want into the EULA. They could even make a term that says you can only wear red shirts with "I Love Trent" badges if you want to play. They would have about the same chance of enforcing that provision as they do of enforcing DRM on the pirate crowd. The point is that as a consumer I DEMAND these entitlements in order to spend my money. It would be different if there were no outlets willing to meet this demand. But there are more games available that meet this requirement than I have time to play. So the point is that this is a lucrative market that Beamdog would be better off serving.
The incentive they have to produce games is money. You can ignore the very profitable non-DRM distributors if you want. But they still exist. Non-DRM is probably not suitable for all games. I understand that. The games that aren't compatible with it are the games I don't want to play. But I think BG:EE is tailor made to the non-DRM crowd of older more affluent buyers that will support a quality release.
I am not confused about what I am paying for in the least. That is why I am here posting. I want a license with better terms. I want a license that does not have any control mechanism on it. And I'm more than willing to pay for that license.
Also, EULAs 20 years ago were much different than today's. They basically restricted your right to freely distribute or modify the content, but not your right to install and use it.
You continue to see a rose-colored world in which DRM adequately protects digital works. Unfortunately, DRM does no such thing. It's defective by design, and only serves to shift the balance of trust in the content creator's favor.
Practically speaking, if I'm a content creator and I know (a) DRM doesn't work, (b) my audience will hate me for using it, and (c) I stand to lose money on it.. why would I use it? It serves no valid purpose.
Reekwind, my point in invoking the GNU and CC licenses was, although they are very liberal, none of them deliver an unconditional experience. Isn't ironic that a user license which purports to guarantee free usage of a product even exists? It's kind of like that freedom of speech thing we Americans supposedly have, except for those restrictions like when you're around the President. Then, you have to be in a free speech "zone" or whatever. The point is that the absence of a license or a license which guarantees you can do anything you want to do with a digital work is not only a fantasy, but can be quite destructive as well. I agree with your point that older EULAs did not mess with your right to install and use the products, but I believe that was mostly due to technical limitations. They couldn't do anything to stop you. Now, content owners actually have the means to do so to a limited degree, and no, DRM is not perfect, but business is not about trust. As was pointed out earlier by someone else, if businesses and customers trusted each other completely, stores wouldn't have locks on their doors or security tags or security guards or loss prevention departments. They'd just have a tip jar.
Ineffective DRM does not affect the need for it. You are assuming that DRM in general causes a loss of revenue for the publisher, but that hasn't been demonstrated on a large scale yet. This is not the same argument that the absence of DRM can increase sales on a large scale either, which also hasn't been proven, but the fact that the major companies ALL use DRM demonstrates a consensus within the industry that a balanced approach (some protection with the knowledge that it doesn't prevent every pirate nor mitigate every lost sale) works best for everyone. I'm the most freedom-loving person you'll find but this has very little to do with freedom and a lot more with choice. I fully expect Treyolen, yourself, and anyone else who finds even the most inobtrusive DRM offensive to choose to factor that into your decision to buy every piece of software you encounter. However, a market without controls on software by private individuals is not a market in which I wish to participate and I doubt many content creators would ever choose to do so.
AntiDRM is not new to me. This is something I have thought about and worked with for years. I have used it, dealt with it, read about, avoided it, and discussed it plenty of times. "IMHO" DRM penalizes the paying customer, and provides that paying customer with an inferior product. It may be my opinion, but I'm not the only one with that opinion.
I'm willing to agree to a license with controls on distribution, reverse engineering, modification, selling, etc. But not use. For a content creator to tell me my copy essentially has an expiration date is just unreasonable. Yes, it is their right to do so. But it is not in their best interest, because it is not in their audience's best interest.
Great article from Duke's Law and Technology Review: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1188&context=dltr
To quote:
"Software piracy has been on the rise, but enforcing harsh software license terms across the market through a regulatory device such as UCITA is not an appropriate market solution. As demonstrated by the “Spore” episode, regulation of the current software market would achieve nothing. Consumers would simply refuse to buy products with harsh license terms, forcing producers to redraft their licenses with more favorable terms. This behavior is a sign of a healthy market rather than one that has failed and needs to be regulated."
The gist is that consumers can and should exercise their market power to shift harsh license terms back to a middle ground that benefits both them and the producers.
It mentions Spore, but there are countless other episodes where DRM has failed consumers. We don't have hard numbers on revenue loss, but we do have numerous ripples of anti-DRM sentiment in gaming history. @Jalister has been great at telling us that history throughout this thread.
What business is based on is customer satisfaction. In every job I have had, that is what matters. Retail, restaurant, nightclub, and IT. With construction and manufacturing I didn't deal directly with the customer, but it was still my job to provide a working product for the customer. Providing the paying customer with best perceived value, service and experience is what mattered. If the customer is not happy, I did not do my job.
It seems that it's only in the virtual industry that it's OK to inconvenience the customer, and to tell them what they can and cannot do, or even take the product away all together. It does inconvenience the customer, I see it all the time. Maintaining license for a bunch of programs and computers. Making sure if one computer dies, you know exactly which licenses were with the computer (Windows, Office, and several other programs). One vendor actually charges a service fee to free up a license that was on a crashed computer, which should be a very simple process. A virus breaking Windows activation, and the customer having to not only pay for the cleaning, but fixing activation. Something a pirate never has to worry about. Pirates even get Windows updates. Broken computer, viruses, bad internet... it doesn't matter.
A system that is meant to stop piracy but doesn't, is nothing more that a tool to inconvenience the customer. Money is wasted on implementing and supporting it. I would rather see that money put back into the game, or used to reduce the cost of the game, or used to provide some nice extras like the soundtrack. Ubisoft with their draconian DRM has had over 80% piracy rates, according to Ubisoft. If their draconian DRM was that worthless, why bother with a light weight DRM model?
Kickstarter is a neat example. The most successful of the Kickstarter game projects have all committed to a DRM free version due to popular demand. Shadowrun Returns, Wasteland 2, Double Fine Adventure and Carmageddon Reincarnation to may a few. Each one has raised a 7 digit pledge. That's just in pledges over a 30 day period. Most of these were nothing more than an idea with concept art during the kickstarter. I am anxious to see how many sales they get when the games are released. I have pledged to three of the ones listed. I have also pledged to many of the smaller ones that I really want to see, many of which are DRM free. Ravaged is an exception since it's multiplayer only, like Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor.
Treyolen is correct, many have proven DRM free can work. As long as their is a choice, I know who I am going to support.
I don't find gun control a fair comparison. Software licenses aren't imposed on you by the government; they're a product of negotiation between the merchant and the consumer. Yes, there will always be pirates, but they aren't enforcing some natural right such as self-defense. Violating the law by owning a prohibited gun could be justified in my mind because 1) The US Constitution gives us an unfettered right to do so, and
The other thing I will write about this article, and I didn't even have to read all of it to agree with most of it, is that the point here is that we don't need GOVERNMENT managed licensing, which always causes more problems than it prevents. The article is very respectful and defensive of the inherent market mechanisms which sort these things out favorably to all parties concerned. Indeed, this is a very healthy marketplace of ideas and technologies, but as the article points out, we need better DRM technologies that are less intrusive but do a better job of protecting the properties for the creators. I don't see how that can possibly be done without limitations on use. After all, we're talking about preventing people who haven't paid for it from using it. That itself defines a limitation on use that's the very core of this issue. Anti-DRM advocates want more trust from businesses but how can we expect that when businesses correctly point out that users of their products have obviously abused that trust for years? It doesn't have to be harsh, but it needs to be there.
Thanks again for that article. It really encapsulated the issue perfectly.
DRM is worse than doing nothing because of its farcical ineffectiveness. Consumers are turned away by the strict licensing terms regarding use and the companies are shelling out money to license the DRM and support it. DRM only causes the revenue loss figures to grow as consumers either don't spend or convert to piracy. If DRM worked by both preventing piracy and not shortchanging consumers, and the numbers showed it, I might come to your side. I agree, it's a great article. It also argues that for DRM to be effective, there has to be a distinction between consumer and thief, which is not currently possible. Software companies need to reciprocate the trust their customers put in them, and right now, the only way to do that is to relax the DRM.
It also makes a great point about how, prior to the rise of the Internet, the software industry served a faceless market and could get away with whatever licensing terms they wished. Now, consumers can form a collective voice and challenge those terms en masse, bolstered by the video game media and sites like Amazon and Metacritic.
And courts have held up many consumer rights not included in the original license. The First Sale Doctrine has been fought many times and has held up so far. We have the right to own backups, even if we no longer have the right to create the backup. Lemon laws were forced on certain industries against their will. The IP creators don't get to dictate everything no matter how many lobbyists they buy.
And no one is saying do nothing to combat piracy. You are putting words in our mouths. You create value for your customer through customer service and ongoing support. DRM is the opposite. DRM is bad and there is more money to be made for this type of release without it.
And yes, I am comparing works of art to works of art regardless of age. I agree that the quality of this product isn't nearly as high. But it really is bad form to point this out on their own website. I would of expected the moderator to be more complimentary of the product. /sigh
The argument is getting circular and you continue to dismiss any points made by the other side. Good for you and your staunch loyalty to Beamdog. But I think you do them a disservice by your attitude on the subject. The tide is turning against DRM in this arena. AAA title will always have DRM, but the twenty dollar new game market is a different animal and the jury is still out. Your side may win, but if I was a shareholder I wouldn't want to bet the future of the company on it without at least exploring the alternative.
With only eight days to go I think Aosaw had the right idea to retire from the fray. I apologize to anyone I may have offended during the discourse. That was not my intent, so I guess it was ironic if I did it anyway
Cheers
As for the works of art being in the public domain, I think it's a valid point to make (and I made it myself earlier as well). However, it's important to remember that those works didn't initially exist in the public domain, and were protected works when they were originally written. Clearly, the argument for protection was around even then and to your credit, people WANTED copies to be made so their works were distributed because there was no easy mechanism to do so. Of course, with the introduction of tech to quickly copy works, entire new industries were created and the laws which were created to protect IP were enacted to fairly compensate the owners. It was a change that was not evil, but necessary.
DRM is not forever. Companies are moving from traditional models to free-to-play, or letting old games move into abandonware, just as works of art move from protected to the public domain. What you're advocating is total freedom from day one, but only for the consumer, nothing for the content creator. How else is an owner to combat piracy if not by limiting use of their product? Are they supposed to just trust that people won't pirate because they're good people? That their sales will increase because of honest folks supporting them? I believe piracy figures have risen because more products are being sold and file-sharing has become more available, while methods of cracking have become simpler. The industry is under pressure from customers to loosen up DRM but they still need ways of protecting their product.
I'll acknowledge your point about legal entities upholding rights which aren't present in contracts, but that's a step backwards, not a step forward. As soon as legal authorities intervene, the marketplace mechanisms which sort this out in favor of a settlement that is acceptable to everyone are undermined. Pretty soon, everyone says, "there oughta be a law" and this issue is taken out of our hands and ceded to the government. That's the worst possible outcome.
Reekwind, if the numbers showed that no DRM produces more sales and less piracy, I might come to your side as well, although I would still believe that studios have the right to insist on DRM. So far, all we have are isolated incidents of DRM-free being profitable for some small firms, while we have decades of evidence showing that DRM or DRM-like measures prevent at least some piracy.
The numbers below are the estimated number of times a game was pirated. I've pirated none of the below, and I own Portal 2 (PS3/Steam), Mass Effect 2 (PC), StarCraft 2, and Alan Wake (PC/GOG).
2011
Crysis 2 - 3,920,000
Call of Duty MW3 - 3,650,000
Battlefield 3 - 3,510,000
Portal 2 - 3,240,000
Gears of War 3 (XBox 360) - 890,000
Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Wii) - 1,280,000
2010
Call of Duty: Black Ops - 4,270,000
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 - 3,960,000
Mafia 2 - 3,550,000
Mass Effect 2 - 3,240,000
Starcraft II - 3,120,000 (isn't this one online only?)
Dante’s Inferno (XBox 360) - 1,280,000
Alan Wake (XBox 360) - 1,140,000
2009
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - 4,100,000
The Sims 3 - 3,200,000
Prototype - 2,350,000
Call of Duty: MW2 (XBox 360) - 970,000
New Super Mario Bros. (Wii) - 1,150,000
Spore - http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/12/spore-drm-piracy-tech-security-cx_ag_mji_0912spore.html
Assassins Creed 2 - http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20003120-248.html
Yep, I see it now. DRM is preventing piracy. So I'm dealing with DRM in a game while 3,000,000 plus are not. Even the consoles have high levels of piracy, and it's actually a bit more work to pirate on a console. And if you believe not many know about how to download a game, I think you are wrong. Each generation gets more technically inclined. They are in school where that information can flow quickly, plus they have the internet. When I was a kid, I learned about it from my friends in school and through BBSs on slow dial up modems. I couldn't even imagine how it would have been if we had the power of the internet.
I know The Witcher 2 was also heavily pirated, and to remind everyone, it was the DRM version that was pirated first, not the DRM free version. This doesn't bother me personally, because at least I know I have a product equal to or even better than the pirated version. It does bother me that CDPR did not get money for those pirated copies, but it was pirated regardless of DRM. CDPR cared about me as a customer, and provided me a great product.
Take a look at the Assassins Creed article, they make a point to mention the challenge of breaking AC2. The following game was broken much more quickly.
First off I am anti DRM. I crack all my games, and refuse to use Origin,GFWL, or any other online DRM platform. I have Steam installed as it is my primary retail portal for games, but all my Steam games are cracked and not tethered to my Steam account. I will not be locked out of a game I have paid for due to a failure outside of my control (interenet outages, server failures, or any other technical issue that may happen).
I strongly believe that game producers/developers deserve to be paid for their products, and no one has the right to download/install/play their products without paying for them.
DRM doesnt work. If it did Piracy would have decreased. It hasnt.
DRM doesnt work. If it did companies with the most Draconian DRM policies would have less games pirated than their competitors. They dont.
GOG has no DRM at all and is EXTREMELY successful. The Witcher 2 is DRM free and is one of the most commercially successful RPGs to ever be produced.
Ubisoft has recently announced that they no longer will be using their extreme online DRM anymore, and while they didnt give an actual reason apart from "we listened to our customers" its safe to say if it was working they would be keeping it. All it did was alienate many of their customers.
Piracy is only a concern when looked at in isolation.
Frictional (makers of Amnesia: Dark Decent) recently said
“It has been over a year since we even thought about piracy. With sales as good as above we cannot really see this as an issue worth more than two lines in this post, so screw it.”
Truth is that some people will ALWAYS pirate, and some will never.
Some will Pirate a bit and buy some others.
People like me will pirate a game ONLY if I am unsure of its quality and it has no demo. If I like a game I have pirated I buy it. If I dont I delete it. Most of my friends are like this. We are all in our 30's and will buy what we like.
Until recently I refused to support Ubisoft at all (I have not played Assassins Creed or its sequels) due to their attitude towards DRM, although I was gifted a copy of Heroes VI which I cracked immediately to avoid the awful uPlay. I am willing to see what the future holds in light of recent announcements so I might finally get to experience ACII.
I understand the thinking around DRM from a Developers/Publishers perspective, but if your policies inconvenience your paying customers then its the wrong approach imo.
The previous car lock example given by Aosaw is interesting, but incorrect as it doesnt illustrate how DRM affects the end user.
Using the car analogy in respect to DRM the equivalent system would require the car owner to call the manufacturer every time they wished to drive their car. Not only that but the phone they used would have to be in their system as well, so if for instance your phone was broken and you called using a friends phone you would be unable to use your car until you had gone through an ID process and been verified as the "äuthorised" driver. If you were stuck with no phone then the car would be unable to be driven at all, and if the contact center was closed, or busy you would be forced to wait until it was able to take your call before you could drive the car that you own.
Therein lies the issue. Until DRM is invisible and causes zero issues to users it is unacceptable imo.