I still don't know anything about Guild Wars. Copy/pasting what you already said does not illuminate your point for me at all. Are you trying to say that Guild Wars has DRM like D3's?
But if I go with your logic I guess I can just say:
That said, you still haven't shown that not including DRM in D3 would have been worth it to Blizzard.
No, you can't. You're ignoring the idea of the burden of proof. Spending money on something that is not necessary and inconveniences your customers when you have no idea whether or not it works is crazy. It's also a bad business decision.
Don't you think its strange that although the people that play MMORPGs are a minority, MMORPGs like Guild Wars actually have high sales?
At one point World of Warcraft had 12 million subscribers, and may be around 9 million now. I would not call that a minority.
Also Guild Wars is an online only game, which negates the point of DRM free. I would not expect a game that requires live servers to require authentication. In that case, the login protects me also, and not just the company. Where many have a problem with Diablo 3 having DRM is that Diablo 1 and 2 allowed for offline play and even online play without Battle.net servers. Diablo 2 has even had its CD check removed in an update. The DRM problem came about when Blizzard stated they would not allow offline play of any kind, even the single player. They denied it was for DRM reasons, then later admitted to it.
Mass Effect 3 is in the same boat as Diablo 3. ME3 does have an online component, which I would expect to have to log into. Unfortunately the single player part requires login also. Since ME1 and ME2 were only single player, it's not unreasonable to believe the many that claim to only want the single player part of the game and not require a login. Many believe the multiplayer was tacked on just to have an excuse to tie ME3 to Origin.
Not even an online component necessarily requires authentication either. It could be possible to play games like Left 4 Dead, Killing Floor, and even Mass Effect 3 (but EA wanted microtransactions) using private run servers. Those servers could be public or restricted to friends only. This can take all the load of the publishers servers, but instead they use it as DRM.
@Tanthalas I'm not implying that you are insulting Trent at all. Just the opposite. I think it amusing that he seems to agree with our side and yet your increasingly venomous posts are all aimed at us. Why not aim some of that condescension and derision at him since he appears to share the same belief that you find so offensive. I think you should hold to your convictions and add him into your cross hairs. That or be an impartial moderator. Can you imagine Rusty the Bailiff going all postal on the People's Court. After reading here for a while I sure can!
@Aosaw I appreciate the comment above. And I am sincere in saying that I was not trying to be insulting before. Maybe a little smart alecky, but not offensive. I think we agree more than we disagree and I very much like the way you frame the argument. Hope there are no hard feelings.
@Treyolen Certainly, no hard feelings. To be honest, I was a little (edit: a LOT) stressed the other day because I was fighting a writing deadline at the same time.
And I do think we agree more than we disagree. We both agree that DRM is a fundamentally flawed system, at least in its current implementation. I think the conversation would be better served to finding feasible alternatives (like the water-mark idea you mentioned before), rather than try to tear each other apart regarding whether or not we think developers or consumers should have more or less rights than one another.
If, however, the majority of lost sales are because of an "all or nothing" mentality, that gamers just don't like having their rights restricted in any way and it has nothing to do with Uplay or Steam's implementation of it, then you've got the foundation for an argument against DRM.
The mainstream mentality seems to be: licensing that clamps down on fair use and the DRM that enforces it is unwanted. You don't see anyone arguing about their right to reverse engineer a game... they just want to play what they payed for. Whether the Internet is down, whether they had to wipe their computer because of malware/viruses and reinstall, or whether it's 10 years from now and they just get an itch to play or show their kids the games they played growing up. In this regard it is all or nothing. Meaning you get my money or nothing. People who pay don't want surreptitious controls on how many times they can install or play or how long their copy is good for. I think most people are tolerant of DRM forms that don't restrict the above rights.
No, you can't. You're ignoring the idea of the burden of proof. Spending money on something that is not necessary and inconveniences your customers when you have no idea whether or not it works is crazy. It's also a bad business decision.
I actually have provided reasonable evidence of DRM working to increase sales, but since it doesn't serve your views you choose to ignore it.
@Tanthalas I'm not implying that you are insulting Trent at all. Just the opposite. I think it amusing that he seems to agree with our side and yet your increasingly venomous posts are all aimed at us. Why not aim some of that condescension and derision at him since he appears to share the same belief that you find so offensive. I think you should hold to your convictions and add him into your cross hairs. That or be an impartial moderator. Can you imagine Rusty the Bailiff going all postal on the People's Court. After reading here for a while I sure can!
Actually, you were implying exactly that. Not to mention that I'm allowed to not share Trent's opinion.
Also, I'm sorry, but being an impartial moderator doesn't equate to me not being able to express my opinion, which is apparently what you'd prefer. If I weren't being impartial this topic would have been closed weeks ago and yet here we are.
I would agree with Rekwind. If a form of DRM was invented that never ever impacted me as a paying customer, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't even mind being tracked in an unobtrusive manner. But that invention doesn't exist and I reject the current crop of solutions. I've mentioned a few compromises I would be happy to live with. If Beamdog comes up with a better idea I will be all ears. But the solution they have now is unacceptable. I made an exception for the love of the game, but that doesn't mean I don't want them to do better. And as a consumer I demand it. They can meet that demand and continue to earn my money or refuse my demand and not earn my money.
If I weren't being impartial this topic would have been closed weeks ago and yet here we are.
Just to repeat, I appreciate that this thread has been allowed to continue, and the people in it have maintained a mature attitude. At least for the most part.
So then can we agree that the problem is not DRM, but rather the implementation of said DRM?
If we can, as a consumer base and as an industry, find a solution that both protects the developer's products and also the consumer's rights, so that it is called DRM (Digital Rights Management) but behaves in a way that doesn't remind us of Diablo III, isn't that the best solution for everyone?
Let's shift the focus from shouting and multi-quoting at each other, toward brainstorming a solution that will meet everyone's needs.
As I see it, there are a few solutions with minimal impact on the consumer:
1) One-time authentication at the time of installation. For a digital product received from the internet, it is reasonable to expect the consumer to have access to the internet when they install the game, since most instances of the game will have been installed immediately after download. (Worries about server shut-down can be alleviated by a contractual agreement on the part of the developer to release a patch that will eliminate the need for authentication, should the servers ever need to be shut down permanently). Additionally, after a sufficient length of time--five years sounds good--the authentication servers will be shut down (thus activating aforementioned clause regarding a patch that eliminates this requirement). By that time, the company will have made sufficient profits from the game to fund their next project, and anything above and beyond that is "gravy", as it were.
2) Water-mark the installation files. In other words, when you download the game, it is automatically authenticated to only install on that computer. This means you can back up your copy on a disk, but you can only ever install that copy on the one computer. This does not prevent you from downloading multiple copies, should you ever buy a new computer; this does, however, mean that you can download the game once, back it up, and never connect to the internet again.
3) Physical media. Instead of buying a digital copy of the game, you can buy it in physical form. The physical media, which in this scenario is a USB stick (because USB sticks are cool), has a one-time authentication built into it, acting as a kind of mini-server. You can install the game as many times on as many computers as you like, but the game can only be installed while the USB stick is present.
There are definite problems with 1 and 2. For one thing, if you water-mark the installation files, you can't use your back-up to install on a new computer that you also own. If your internet goes out and your computer breaks (sorry @_Q_!), you're SOL even if you have a back-up and a second computer.
Authenticating the install creates a similar problem; if you're attempting to install from a back-up at a time when the servers happen to be down for maintenance, or when your internet isn't working, you're also kind of stuck.
As I see it, "create a product that people will want to pay for" isn't a sufficient solution, because it doesn't help everybody. Not every developer creates a product that everyone will want to buy, and that shouldn't mean that their product shouldn't be somehow protected.
The best solution remains the physical media. So what remains for us is to figure out a way to fix the problems with the other two concepts. Anyone have any ideas?
@Aosaw I'm all for all three of these with the caveat that the patch be released to a third party at launch in the case of number one. 38 Studios went out of business overnight and they didn't honor multiple contractual commitments. They didn't renege because they are mean or evil or spiteful. They reneged because stuff happens. And when stuff happens I don't want to be the one left out in the cold as a consumer.
Amazon would be a natural fit to serve as a third party holding company for things of this nature. I'm sure Chase bank would be happy to offer the service and they seem to have full US government backing There could even be an industry consortium set up with this purpose in mind. Someone would be happy to fill this need if developers were on board. I don't care about temporary outages. The chances of me wanting to install during an outage are tiny and within reason. But those servers will go offline at some point. The only question is when. If the patch is already built and released the question is moot.
This isn't an ideological battle for me and there is definitely room to compromise. I said it before and I'll say it again. In the digital age consumers are still negotiating with content providers on what is acceptable. You don't open a negotiation asking for what you will settle for in the end. You ask for the sun, the moon, and the stars and work your way to the middle ground. I want Trent to be our Scott Boras!
How about this: The right to release the patch is the developer's, unless the developer is unable to release it, in which case that right falls to a third party.
So if after five years, the developer decides they can take the risk and release the patch, they don't have to go to their third party to do it, but if the unthinkable were to happen, the third party will still be there to handle it.
And if that third party disappears, it's the developer's responsibility to locate another third party.
Any level of DRM that will prevent me from moving my installation to another computer, or installing it after a company has disappeared or stopped maintaining the server that my installation has to check into is insufficient to me.
Something else that concerns me is specific to a game like BGEE. I really get into RPGs, and I have kept every game save for any RPG I like. I can load my old Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 saves anytime and relive playing my characters. I still have my game saves from my C64 and Amiga days for games like Bard's Tale 1 2 3, Wizardry 1 2 3 8 , and Ultima 3 4 5 and 6 to name some. There was serious time put into those games, and I like knowing I can reminisce anytime I decide to.
Also, I don't think that is what water-marking is. I've known water-marking to be a mechanism to make an individual copy of something identifiable to the purchaser. An example might be your name is permanently displayed on the menu screen of the game. Or maybe it's imbedded somewhere in the code where the publisher can check copies that do appear on the internet. I don't give my purchases away, so water-marking on that level would not bother me. That might bother someone that likes to sell their games though.
If a publisher wants to use DRM, then they should spend the time and money to find one that works. Then I will decide if it's one I can live with. I still don't think they should waste time and money on it though, because anything they can think of can be cracked. Unless it's an online only game like Diablo 3 or Guild Wars 2. Even then, server emulators are out for Ultima Online, Everquest, World of Warcraft, original Battle.net, Lineage, Lineage 2, Star Wars Galaxies, and StarCraft 2 to name some of the well developed ones. Even Everquest 2, Matrix Online, City of Heroes, Guild Wars 1, and Diablo 3 have server emulators in the works.
Anonymous took down GoDaddy yesterday. Someone caused the Playstation Network to shutdown for over a month. Skidrow cracked Assassins Creed 2. I forgot who cracked PS3. I believe Slysoft cracked BD+. People are smart. If there is a great enough desire to crack it, it will get cracked.
Do you know what won't get cracked? DRM free. Even a water-mark can get blurred over. Any kind of activation can get removed, even one that is one-time tied to your computer. Rootkit like media checks from Starforce and SecuROM were cracked. You could make a game require you to enter your social security number everytime you start it, and that could get removed from the game.
If someone feels you deserve money, they will pay you.
@Jalister Then the patching idea would work well for you, yes? Because it creates a legal provision where, in the event that the servers are no longer maintained or the developer goes out of business, a patch will be released that removes the need for the authentication.
Until that happens, you only need to log into your account when you install the game; the only time it will affect you is if you lose your internet connection at the moment when you're trying to install it.
The water-mark you describe probably makes more sense from a user's perspective, although I don't know how effective it would be for preventing illegal copies being distributed.
The goal, here, isn't to create a solution that stops all piracy dead in its tracks. Hackers will be hackers, after all, and at some point you have to accept the reality of a situation. The goal is to create a solution that stops a portion of piracy, or slows down its onset, without disrupting the user's experience with the game.
At least we're back to productive brainstorming! I think I understand your third party idea, but I'm not sure it would work. Depending on the DRM used they may need access to the source code. I think most developers would rather trust a bank with a patch than another software house with their source code. Software companies are also a volatile group because of the speed at which the industry moves. Introducing a throwback to the 20th century, a bank, is a more grounding approach.
I'm not saying this is the only solution by any stretch. But I think it is a compromise that serves all parties. A good deal is often one where everyone feels like they came away with something and everyone feels like they gave up something.
I didn't necessarily mean a software company. I just mean that if Overhaul decides to release the patch themselves, they shouldn't have to go through Chase to do it. A voluntary release should be within the rights of the developer.
At the same time, if the bank goes out of business, the patch will need to be handled by someone else. If Chase is bought by another bank, there should be some sort of renegotiation wherein Overhaul can take the patch to another bank or keep it with Chase's new owner.
@Aosaw - The patching idea could work, if I trusted all parties in the solution. It would be a new idea, and I would treat it as such. I can say this, even with the patch idea, I would be unlikely to pay full price for a game that still required DRM. I may not wait until it's gone down in price and on a 75% off Steam sale, but I would still probably wait until it's either dropped to 50% of the original retail price, or went on a 50% off sale.
Using BGEE as an example. I would have pre-ordered already if it didn't have DRM. I might buy it for $10 if they used your patch idea. I might buy it for $5 in its current state or on Steam. I would buy it if it were included in one of the popular indie bundles in its current DRM state, though at a minimum. I wouldn't accept it for free if it used Origin, GFWL or Uplay.
(I'll add this here) I would buy it the second I saw it on GOG, even for $20.
I almost always wait for a sale, but some things that show up on GOG I buy regardless of price to show my support for what has been accomplished.
What about a physical copy? That's including a USB stick, the three manuals, and probably a map of the Sword Coast. Assuming that the only authentication this required was that the stick was plugged in at the time of installation (a local authentication server, if you will), how much would you be willing to pay?
For me, I'd be willing to pay $30 or $40 for a physical copy. But that's largely because I'm of the belief that a digital copy should cost less in general (being digital and therefore intangible). For my money, anything released in digital form should start with a 50% price reduction. So if the physical copy is $30, then the digital copy should be $15. If the physical copy is $40, then the digital copy should be $20.
@Aosaw Make that bad boy a legitimate limited edition with all the fixin's and I'd throw down a hundred easy. But I'd want a nice art book and a cloth map among other things. But a run of the mill DVD case release would only get an extra ten spot out of me.
Oh, a basic DVD case wouldn't even hold the manuals. So for the basic physical edition, you're looking at a real "box". That's part of why I'm bumping my acceptable price to double the digital price.
For a limited edition...well, that's another story. I know plenty of people would be willing to throw in a Benjamin for that; but then you're also looking at increased production costs, and it's not necessarily a good analog for what we're talking about here.
What I'm trying to gauge is where the line is in general, so that we can come up with a solution that could be applied to other games as well, and not just BG:EE.
There is a problem with the patch idea though. That only protects a company willfully shutting down, or going completely out of business. Plenty of times a company gets bought out by another company for their assets. In that scenario, the patch couldn't be legally released, and nothing is requiring the new company to stick to it. If Beamdog ever became bEAmdog, you can bet that patch would never see the light of day.
Companies like EA have swallowed up some of the best developers to never be seen again. How sad is it that EA named their store Origin?
@Aosaw - I don't like the USB idea if the game is tied to the USB. Those things break, and a backup would not be possible. Shadowrun Returns offered a USB during their kickstarter, but the game is DRM free on it.
As for physical media, I love and prefer physical media. However it can't have rootkit DRM on it.
If it's in the game's EULA, any company that buys the developer is bound by law to follow that same agreement. If the servers are ever shut down permanently, even if those servers are now owned by another company, the patch will be released.
That's where the "third party" comes in. If Chase sees that Beamdog is being bought out by Square-Enix, that doesn't change Chase's contract. If Square-Enix shuts down the authentication servers, Chase is still bound to release the patch.
Interesting ideas, but #2 and #3 trample quite a bit on fair use:
2) Watermark prevents installation on new or backup computer. 3) A user can't make a backup of the USB stick.
Here's a straightforward solution: Build it into the software. How about the installer lets the user proceed to install if the Internet is reachable but it fails to receive a response from the activation servers? It would need to do a bit of checking to make sure the user hasn't edited their hosts file to work around it, and even then it wouldn't be foolproof.. but I think the burden of working around it would be enough to alleviate any casual piracy.
EULAs protect the publisher, not the consumer. Plus there is a lot of uncertainty to how legally binding they are. Violating a EULA is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. And now many EULAs are denying your right to participate in a class action lawsuit, further protecting the publisher.
I also don't think a EULA has to automatically carry over to the next buyer. Hellgate London was bought and re-released by another company. Nothing carried over as far as consumer ownership. The product you bought is now worthless. I know, I own the limited edition. Thank goodness I wasn't one of the poor bastards that bought a lifetime subscription.
@Jalister what if the game's installation files can be copied from the USB, but the stick has to be present for the authentication? And then if the stick is ever disabled (damn magnets), you can still authenticate from Beamdog's servers (until the patch is released), as long as you register your copy.
That way you can still back up your copy, and the copy protection is still in effect, and your bases are still more or less covered.
...They could even sell USB "authentication" sticks to allow players to authenticate without connecting to the servers. Make it custom-molded in the style of the game, price it at $10, and it becomes a collector's item as well as a convenience tool.
Interesting ideas, but #2 and #3 trample quite a bit on fair use:
2) Watermark prevents installation on new or backup computer. 3) A user can't make a backup of the USB stick.
Here's a straightforward solution: Build it into the software. How about the installer lets the user proceed to install if the Internet is reachable but it fails to receive a response from the activation servers? It would need to do a bit of checking to make sure the user hasn't edited their hosts file to work around it, and even then it wouldn't be foolproof.. but I think the burden of working around it would be enough to alleviate any casual piracy.
I would worry about this specifically for the reasons you stated; it's really easy for the user to alter the host file to trick it into thinking you're online but not connecting to the server.
I agree that the #2 solution isn't exactly a "good" solution. The concern you have with #3 is somewhat addressed by my post above (allow them to copy the installation files, and just use the stick as the authentication).
The "escrow" idea has a lot of merit but the argument by those who oppose any type of DRM has been that if their internet is down at the time they wish to install the game, they would not be able to do so. I don't see a lot of compromise on that issue here.
The USB authentication is basically a dongle, which were used back in the day with certain high-priced and sensitive software that required a lot of security because they accessed private data. I don't see that model working because if you have many developers using it, are you going to want to have 10 USB sticks to keep track of and plug in whenever you install your game?
Windows product activation schemas have the capability to identify a specific computer and tie software to it. I'm sure it would be possible to develop an installer which can disable itself automatically after installing and re-enable itself after uninstalling, which would prevent it from being installed in more than one place. This would likely be much more difficult to crack than a product key and it would not require an internet connection. Even if the installer is copied to another computer and tries to run, it would know that it's already been installed and refuse to do so. Then all the developer has to do is restrict a second download unless it can be verified that the first installation has been removed. That does require an internet connection (in cases where the computer crashed or something) Granted this does not work for physical copies but there might be ways around that as well.
what if the game's installation files can be copied from the USB, but the stick has to be present for the authentication? And then if the stick is ever disabled (damn magnets), you can still authenticate from Beamdog's servers (until the patch is released), as long as you register your copy.
Do I look like a poodle? I'm not jumping through hoops.
Comments
Also Guild Wars is an online only game, which negates the point of DRM free. I would not expect a game that requires live servers to require authentication. In that case, the login protects me also, and not just the company. Where many have a problem with Diablo 3 having DRM is that Diablo 1 and 2 allowed for offline play and even online play without Battle.net servers. Diablo 2 has even had its CD check removed in an update. The DRM problem came about when Blizzard stated they would not allow offline play of any kind, even the single player. They denied it was for DRM reasons, then later admitted to it.
Mass Effect 3 is in the same boat as Diablo 3. ME3 does have an online component, which I would expect to have to log into. Unfortunately the single player part requires login also. Since ME1 and ME2 were only single player, it's not unreasonable to believe the many that claim to only want the single player part of the game and not require a login. Many believe the multiplayer was tacked on just to have an excuse to tie ME3 to Origin.
Not even an online component necessarily requires authentication either. It could be possible to play games like Left 4 Dead, Killing Floor, and even Mass Effect 3 (but EA wanted microtransactions) using private run servers. Those servers could be public or restricted to friends only. This can take all the load of the publishers servers, but instead they use it as DRM.
@Aosaw I appreciate the comment above. And I am sincere in saying that I was not trying to be insulting before. Maybe a little smart alecky, but not offensive. I think we agree more than we disagree and I very much like the way you frame the argument. Hope there are no hard feelings.
And I do think we agree more than we disagree. We both agree that DRM is a fundamentally flawed system, at least in its current implementation. I think the conversation would be better served to finding feasible alternatives (like the water-mark idea you mentioned before), rather than try to tear each other apart regarding whether or not we think developers or consumers should have more or less rights than one another.
Also, I'm sorry, but being an impartial moderator doesn't equate to me not being able to express my opinion, which is apparently what you'd prefer. If I weren't being impartial this topic would have been closed weeks ago and yet here we are.
If we can, as a consumer base and as an industry, find a solution that both protects the developer's products and also the consumer's rights, so that it is called DRM (Digital Rights Management) but behaves in a way that doesn't remind us of Diablo III, isn't that the best solution for everyone?
Let's shift the focus from shouting and multi-quoting at each other, toward brainstorming a solution that will meet everyone's needs.
As I see it, there are a few solutions with minimal impact on the consumer:
1) One-time authentication at the time of installation. For a digital product received from the internet, it is reasonable to expect the consumer to have access to the internet when they install the game, since most instances of the game will have been installed immediately after download. (Worries about server shut-down can be alleviated by a contractual agreement on the part of the developer to release a patch that will eliminate the need for authentication, should the servers ever need to be shut down permanently). Additionally, after a sufficient length of time--five years sounds good--the authentication servers will be shut down (thus activating aforementioned clause regarding a patch that eliminates this requirement). By that time, the company will have made sufficient profits from the game to fund their next project, and anything above and beyond that is "gravy", as it were.
2) Water-mark the installation files. In other words, when you download the game, it is automatically authenticated to only install on that computer. This means you can back up your copy on a disk, but you can only ever install that copy on the one computer. This does not prevent you from downloading multiple copies, should you ever buy a new computer; this does, however, mean that you can download the game once, back it up, and never connect to the internet again.
3) Physical media. Instead of buying a digital copy of the game, you can buy it in physical form. The physical media, which in this scenario is a USB stick (because USB sticks are cool), has a one-time authentication built into it, acting as a kind of mini-server. You can install the game as many times on as many computers as you like, but the game can only be installed while the USB stick is present.
There are definite problems with 1 and 2. For one thing, if you water-mark the installation files, you can't use your back-up to install on a new computer that you also own. If your internet goes out and your computer breaks (sorry @_Q_!), you're SOL even if you have a back-up and a second computer.
Authenticating the install creates a similar problem; if you're attempting to install from a back-up at a time when the servers happen to be down for maintenance, or when your internet isn't working, you're also kind of stuck.
As I see it, "create a product that people will want to pay for" isn't a sufficient solution, because it doesn't help everybody. Not every developer creates a product that everyone will want to buy, and that shouldn't mean that their product shouldn't be somehow protected.
The best solution remains the physical media. So what remains for us is to figure out a way to fix the problems with the other two concepts. Anyone have any ideas?
Amazon would be a natural fit to serve as a third party holding company for things of this nature. I'm sure Chase bank would be happy to offer the service and they seem to have full US government backing
This isn't an ideological battle for me and there is definitely room to compromise. I said it before and I'll say it again. In the digital age consumers are still negotiating with content providers on what is acceptable. You don't open a negotiation asking for what you will settle for in the end. You ask for the sun, the moon, and the stars and work your way to the middle ground. I want Trent to be our Scott Boras!
So if after five years, the developer decides they can take the risk and release the patch, they don't have to go to their third party to do it, but if the unthinkable were to happen, the third party will still be there to handle it.
And if that third party disappears, it's the developer's responsibility to locate another third party.
Something else that concerns me is specific to a game like BGEE. I really get into RPGs, and I have kept every game save for any RPG I like. I can load my old Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 saves anytime and relive playing my characters. I still have my game saves from my C64 and Amiga days for games like Bard's Tale 1 2 3, Wizardry 1 2 3 8 , and Ultima 3 4 5 and 6 to name some. There was serious time put into those games, and I like knowing I can reminisce anytime I decide to.
Also, I don't think that is what water-marking is. I've known water-marking to be a mechanism to make an individual copy of something identifiable to the purchaser. An example might be your name is permanently displayed on the menu screen of the game. Or maybe it's imbedded somewhere in the code where the publisher can check copies that do appear on the internet. I don't give my purchases away, so water-marking on that level would not bother me. That might bother someone that likes to sell their games though.
If a publisher wants to use DRM, then they should spend the time and money to find one that works. Then I will decide if it's one I can live with. I still don't think they should waste time and money on it though, because anything they can think of can be cracked. Unless it's an online only game like Diablo 3 or Guild Wars 2. Even then, server emulators are out for Ultima Online, Everquest, World of Warcraft, original Battle.net, Lineage, Lineage 2, Star Wars Galaxies, and StarCraft 2 to name some of the well developed ones. Even Everquest 2, Matrix Online, City of Heroes, Guild Wars 1, and Diablo 3 have server emulators in the works.
Anonymous took down GoDaddy yesterday. Someone caused the Playstation Network to shutdown for over a month. Skidrow cracked Assassins Creed 2. I forgot who cracked PS3. I believe Slysoft cracked BD+. People are smart. If there is a great enough desire to crack it, it will get cracked.
Do you know what won't get cracked? DRM free. Even a water-mark can get blurred over. Any kind of activation can get removed, even one that is one-time tied to your computer. Rootkit like media checks from Starforce and SecuROM were cracked. You could make a game require you to enter your social security number everytime you start it, and that could get removed from the game.
If someone feels you deserve money, they will pay you.
Until that happens, you only need to log into your account when you install the game; the only time it will affect you is if you lose your internet connection at the moment when you're trying to install it.
The water-mark you describe probably makes more sense from a user's perspective, although I don't know how effective it would be for preventing illegal copies being distributed.
The goal, here, isn't to create a solution that stops all piracy dead in its tracks. Hackers will be hackers, after all, and at some point you have to accept the reality of a situation. The goal is to create a solution that stops a portion of piracy, or slows down its onset, without disrupting the user's experience with the game.
I'm not saying this is the only solution by any stretch. But I think it is a compromise that serves all parties. A good deal is often one where everyone feels like they came away with something and everyone feels like they gave up something.
At the same time, if the bank goes out of business, the patch will need to be handled by someone else. If Chase is bought by another bank, there should be some sort of renegotiation wherein Overhaul can take the patch to another bank or keep it with Chase's new owner.
Using BGEE as an example.
I would have pre-ordered already if it didn't have DRM.
I might buy it for $10 if they used your patch idea.
I might buy it for $5 in its current state or on Steam.
I would buy it if it were included in one of the popular indie bundles in its current DRM state, though at a minimum.
I wouldn't accept it for free if it used Origin, GFWL or Uplay.
(I'll add this here)
I would buy it the second I saw it on GOG, even for $20.
I almost always wait for a sale, but some things that show up on GOG I buy regardless of price to show my support for what has been accomplished.
For me, I'd be willing to pay $30 or $40 for a physical copy. But that's largely because I'm of the belief that a digital copy should cost less in general (being digital and therefore intangible). For my money, anything released in digital form should start with a 50% price reduction. So if the physical copy is $30, then the digital copy should be $15. If the physical copy is $40, then the digital copy should be $20.
For a limited edition...well, that's another story. I know plenty of people would be willing to throw in a Benjamin for that; but then you're also looking at increased production costs, and it's not necessarily a good analog for what we're talking about here.
What I'm trying to gauge is where the line is in general, so that we can come up with a solution that could be applied to other games as well, and not just BG:EE.
Companies like EA have swallowed up some of the best developers to never be seen again. How sad is it that EA named their store Origin?
As for physical media, I love and prefer physical media. However it can't have rootkit DRM on it.
That's where the "third party" comes in. If Chase sees that Beamdog is being bought out by Square-Enix, that doesn't change Chase's contract. If Square-Enix shuts down the authentication servers, Chase is still bound to release the patch.
Interesting ideas, but #2 and #3 trample quite a bit on fair use:
2) Watermark prevents installation on new or backup computer.
3) A user can't make a backup of the USB stick.
Here's a straightforward solution: Build it into the software. How about the installer lets the user proceed to install if the Internet is reachable but it fails to receive a response from the activation servers? It would need to do a bit of checking to make sure the user hasn't edited their hosts file to work around it, and even then it wouldn't be foolproof.. but I think the burden of working around it would be enough to alleviate any casual piracy.
I also don't think a EULA has to automatically carry over to the next buyer. Hellgate London was bought and re-released by another company. Nothing carried over as far as consumer ownership. The product you bought is now worthless. I know, I own the limited edition. Thank goodness I wasn't one of the poor bastards that bought a lifetime subscription.
That way you can still back up your copy, and the copy protection is still in effect, and your bases are still more or less covered.
...They could even sell USB "authentication" sticks to allow players to authenticate without connecting to the servers. Make it custom-molded in the style of the game, price it at $10, and it becomes a collector's item as well as a convenience tool.
I agree that the #2 solution isn't exactly a "good" solution. The concern you have with #3 is somewhat addressed by my post above (allow them to copy the installation files, and just use the stick as the authentication).
The USB authentication is basically a dongle, which were used back in the day with certain high-priced and sensitive software that required a lot of security because they accessed private data. I don't see that model working because if you have many developers using it, are you going to want to have 10 USB sticks to keep track of and plug in whenever you install your game?
Windows product activation schemas have the capability to identify a specific computer and tie software to it. I'm sure it would be possible to develop an installer which can disable itself automatically after installing and re-enable itself after uninstalling, which would prevent it from being installed in more than one place. This would likely be much more difficult to crack than a product key and it would not require an internet connection. Even if the installer is copied to another computer and tries to run, it would know that it's already been installed and refuse to do so. Then all the developer has to do is restrict a second download unless it can be verified that the first installation has been removed. That does require an internet connection (in cases where the computer crashed or something) Granted this does not work for physical copies but there might be ways around that as well.
EULA - end-user license agreement.
Not corporation license agreement, not mutual license agreement. They are telling you what you can do and can't do, nothing about what they will do.