@ST4TICStriker - The Witcher 2 (single player game) is estimated at around 4,000,000 also. However, it was not the DRM free version that was pirated first, it was the DRM version that was first released. Also, the DRM version is still the most pirated version of Witcher 2.
@Aosaw Saving locally and backing up to the cloud in a manner that allows cross platform saves would be a perfect example of adding real value for paying customers without DRM. Forcing the customer to use cloud saving would be an oppressive use of DRM. I'll be amazed if cloud save is forced on us in any way. But very impressed indeed if it is an option for us. This feature alone would be worth the price of the game and eliminate many potential pirates if offered.
How does this, in your mind, eliminate potential pirates?
Not just the most pirated game of 2011, it was made available by pirates a month early. That's not the only game to be leaked a month early.
Two points, Jalister. First, the first sentence of the hothardware.com article:
"When an advance copy of Crysis 2 leaked to the Internet a full month before the game's scheduled release, Crytek and Electronic Arts (EA) were understandably miffed and, as it turns out, justified in their fears of mass piracy." - emphasis mine.
Second, when piracy like this happens, it's not only illegal file-sharing, it's blatant theft (of an unreleased product). Incidents like this must be an inside job, or a penetration into a network, which enabled a leak.
I see nothing impressive about the fact that DRM-protected games seem to be pirated in greater numbers than non-DRM games for reasons I've already explained. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all (and sometimes, we know to be true) to find that people pirate these games just to stick it to the companies for their inclusion of DRM. As long as crackers and those who support them continue to use it as a justification for piracy, stronger DRM will be needed. These guys aren't supporting a no-DRM experience out of principle; these are the types that belief they have a RIGHT to share freely.
@vortican - Do you mean stronger DRM like Ubisoft's always connected DRM? Yeah, that worked really well for them. They received a lot of negative reviews and customer problems due to it, and then they end up saying they are still experiencing a 90+% piracy rate.
And here, a game that was not leaked a month early, that had nasty DRM, and was cracked and pirated on the first day.
Spore - 1.7 million times for most pirated game of 2008. I'm sure that number has increased since then.
Also, I do see some significance between a DRM version being pirated more than a DRM free one. It lends to the argument that some people pirate just to avoid or get rid of DRM. I make no claims as to how many are just trying to avoid DRM.
@vortican - Do you mean stronger DRM like Ubisoft's always connected DRM? Yeah, that worked really well for them. They received a lot of negative reviews and customer problems due to it, and then they end up saying they are still experiencing a 90+% piracy rate.
And here, a game that was not leaked a month early, that had nasty DRM, and was cracked and pirated on the first day.
Spore - 1.7 million times for most pirated game of 2008. I'm sure that number has increased since then.
Also, I do see some significance between a DRM version being pirated more than a DRM free one. It lends to the argument that some people pirate just to avoid or get rid of DRM. I make no claims as to how many are just trying to avoid DRM.
It is a proven fact that games with DRM are pirated more then games without, however the real question still remains unanswered.
If ALL games went without DRM would Piracy decease?
(I genuinely want to hear your, and others, opinion on this. I belive piracy would Increase but perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way)
@ST4TICStriker - Maybe piracy would increase, maybe it would decrease. Maybe the better games would sell more copiers, and the inferior games would be pirated more. It's hard to say. Many of us that fight for DRM free aren't doing it because of piracy. We are fighting for DRM because we, the paying customers, want a better product. Why should I have to jump through hoops to play a game I paid for, while the pirate gets a trouble free experience? I heard and read many stories about pirated versions have been better than paid for versions.
There are many variables to this topic, does DRM reduce/increase piracy, how many pirated copies are actually lost sales, is inconveniencing the paying customer worth it try reducing piracy, etc?
I think the DRM free crowd believes that not all pirated games are a lost sale. Many people pirate because they refuse to pay for games, or to try out a game before buying, or to crack their paid for version, etc. None of the reason legitimately justify piracy, but there are degrees, and some do justify their reason for piracy. DRM is not going to positively affect that.
Some companies don't consider piracy because pirates are not paying customers. CD Projekt Red is one such company. They would rather make all the customers that have paid them money have a trouble free experience, than spend energy trying to stop piracy while troubling their customers. The Humble Bundle also strives to give customers the best experience. I've posted some other links of companies that have had success DRM free, or have had enough sales that they don't even consider the piracy.
The MPAA is another organization that doesn't get it. Now they want two unskippable FBI warnings on all purchased DVD and BD movies. Again, why does the paying customer have to put up with this, especially when pirated copies don't have any warnings, unskippable ads, and slow menus to trudge through first? For me, the MPAA has reduced my movie spending, not increased it, and I'm not pirating movies.
If ALL games went without DRM would Piracy decease?
An added note, it may not decrease piracy, but they would have had an additional sale from me.
The question I would really like answered is how many people decided to buy BGEE because installation activation is being used, and they believe they wouldn't be able to pirate it?
I've said it before, companies need to look at number of copies sold, not number of copies pirated.
Avatar grossed $2,782,275,172 and was pirated over 21 millions times by 2011. Batman and Transformes also have huge profits and huge piracy rates. What would you care about, the 21 millions copies, or the 2.2 billion dollars profit?
I agree with Jalister. Who cares if piracy decreases if sales increase? Would you really rather have less money in your bank account but have the smug satisfaction of knowing you beat those dirty pirates? Or would you rather make more money and know that some unkind people were also enjoying your labor? I know I would choose the money every time.
@Vortican One of my main points is that pirates usually offer a better product than the developer if DRM is used. Cloud saving options are just one idea that reverses this trend. I believe that if you offer a better product/service you will increase sales in spite of illegal downloading options. And I don't think this is an outrageous claim.
@Treyolen - This thread and the Kickstarter projects I am following are my favorite places right now. Oh, and GOG on Tuesday, every other Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
If ALL games went without DRM would Piracy decease?
An added note, it may not decrease piracy, but they would have had an additional sale from me.
The question I would really like answered is how many people decided to buy BGEE because installation activation is being used, and they believe they wouldn't be able to pirate it?
I've said it before, companies need to look at number of copies sold, not number of copies pirated.
hmmmm.....Your points are very interesting.
I will say though, People (including me) have pirated games simply because a pirate version was available.
DMR does not prevent people creating pirate (Cracked) versions. Thus DMR does not stop people Pirating games because they can?
Your suggestions of "official" versions offering more (DLC, Cloud saves, faster patchs) seems to be the only logical solution. however if there is no DMR at all, pirate versions would be able to access all these benefits that are meant to be encouraging people to buy the "official" version.
Which means that DMR is needed....but DMR inconveniences paying customers and makes them pirate...
I'm confused and not sure what I'm meant to be discussion anymore
If you're going to have DRM, make it tied to a service that the game provides that requires an internet connection anyway (such as cloud saves, for example).
Install-activation DRM can also work, as long as you provide some alternate means for people to activate their installations (physical media, unique install keys, etc.), and you also have to plan for the inevitable scenario where the authentication servers will no longer be maintained (i.e. people still have to be able to play the game they purchased).
Digitally distributed games need to cost less overall, and there needs to be a physical incentive to purchasing a physical copy of the game for full price. (This is the one that's going to be most effective at increasing sales and reducing piracy, apart from "make a quality product", which should be a given anyway.)
Anything outside of those three solutions is going to be doing more harm than good. Always-on DRM ruins the gaming experience for any player whose internet cuts out.
@ST4TICStriker The idea is that there enough people with scruples that will pay for a high quality product to make a DRM free product more profitable. Most of the people I know that pirate are broke anyway. They aren't very high quality people, that's why they steal. They couldn't buy very many games if they wanted to because they don't have any money. So who cares if they pirate. They are not lost sales. Developers shouldn't waste their time worrying about people who don't have any money. They have more important things to spend their time on, like shipping.
People with money often have higher standards. By catering to the more affluent demographic the developers should be able to make more money. And as much as these guys love the games, they still do this professionally for the money. Have you seen the runaway train over at Kickstarter right now? Eternity has blown past a million bucks in two days without even starting on the game. The paying public has an appetite for games like this that is not being satisfied. But I do believe that DRM will chase us away. Or at least enough of us to lower profitability.
Digitally distributed games need to cost less overall, and there needs to be a physical incentive to purchasing a physical copy of the game for full price. (This is the one that's going to be most effective at increasing sales and reducing piracy, apart from "make a quality product", which should be a given anyway.)
I don't like the idea of People who buy a box getting more then me
I haven't bought a pc game in a store for years (Don't even have disc drives on my pc anymore) So if bonuses are giving people who buy from stores it would cause a (small) uproar from people who live too far from stores or rely on downloadable services.
That said I buy all my hand held games from stores, even buy apple cards from Shops, so if you feel like giving bonuses to those go ahead
"Treyolen said: @ST4TICStriker The idea is that there enough people with scruples that will pay for a high quality product to make a DRM free product more profitable. Most of the people I know that pirate are broke anyway. They aren't very high quality people, that's why they steal. They couldn't buy very many games if they wanted to because they don't have any money. So who cares if they pirate. They are not lost sales. Developers shouldn't waste their time worrying about people who don't have any money. They have more important things to spend their time on, like shipping.
People with money often have higher standards. By catering to the more affluent demographic the developers should be able to make more money. And as much as these guys love the games, they still do this professionally for the money. Have you seen the runaway train over at Kickstarter right now? Eternity has blown past a million bucks in two days without even starting on the game. The paying public has an appetite for games like this that is not being satisfied. But I do believe that DRM will chase us away. Or at least enough of us to lower profitability."
@Treyolen I'm not sure that would be a sustainable business model. Not all games can offer Patchs or DLC or Online Servers so for those games the difference between "Pirate" and "Official" versions would be negligible, meaning people who have money will be getting the same service as people who steal. It kinda undermines the whole system.
Also what you're suggesting brings the whole "Poor people shouldn't play games argument into play" and that's something I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.
But I see your point and while I may not agree with it 100% I do see the merit in such a system. Though in my personal experience the people I know who pirate games can defiantly afford to pay for them, So maybe my view on the subject is a little jaded.
EDIT: Two posts have become one!
....................I have no Idea how to use this forum.
Many people pirate because they refuse to pay for games, or to try out a game before buying, or to crack their paid for version, etc. None of the reason legitimately justify piracy, but there are degrees, and some do justify their reason for piracy.
More than anything, I think piracy is a product of our "Time of Troubles." (but without Bhaal spreading his seed across the land)
The depressed economy is an unavoidable part of why more and more people pirate. Groups like the RIAA and MPAA talk about how piracy hurts the economy, but the average person frankly doesn't care and can't relate. The average person is trying to survive, and entertainment/escapism is a natural part of survival. So if it comes down to getting a movie legitimately for $20 they can download for free or getting 10 cans of SPAM for $20.. I imagine there's really no question. Especially when most of these people have no fear of the consequences of pirating, which is typically a toothless DMCA letter from their ISP telling them to please stop.
People don't have the money to put gas in their cars to go eat out and watch a movie in the theater. Instead they warm up a can of beans and watch pirated movies on their laptop. This is the new consumer.
Digitally distributed games need to cost less overall, and there needs to be a physical incentive to purchasing a physical copy of the game for full price. (This is the one that's going to be most effective at increasing sales and reducing piracy, apart from "make a quality product", which should be a given anyway.)
I don't like the idea of People who buy a box getting more then me
I haven't bought a pc game in a store for years (Don't even have disc drives on my pc anymore) So if bonuses are giving people who buy from stores it would cause a (small) uproar from people who live too far from stores or rely on downloadable services.
That said I buy all my hand held games from stores, even buy apple cards from Shops, so if you feel like giving bonuses to those go ahead
Actually, I was referring more to things like physical maps, large manuals, and other "goodies" that you couldn't distribute with a digital copy because they're actual physical items. And they add to the cost of the game--so a digital version costs $20, but a physical version costs $40 and comes with a map, a nice manual, and maybe a soundtrack CD.
Those little extras act as an incentive for people to invest in a physical copy, while the reduced price for the digital edition encourages more people to buy the game that would otherwise not have considered it worthwhile.
Just so my position is understood better, while I am against DRM, I don't mind some specific methods of control. I'll try to explain.
A single player only game should have no DRM, and no checks beyond either an installation key or media check. That media check cannot use rootkit like drivers to work, like SecuROM or Starforce for example. I'm also not against needing a license file, provided that license file is something I create at the time of purchase and can keep indefinitely. That license needs to be tied to me as the owner, and not to my computer's hardware fingerprint. No DRM is preferred, followed by installation key.
Single player games with a multiplayer component. The single player content is the same as above. The multiplayer depends on how it works. If the multiplayer is strictly LAN, internet IP, and P2P without a server hosted by the publisher, then there should be nothing more than an installation key. The key can be used to prevent any two players from joining the same game with the same key. This would reduce the simplicity in two friends sharing one key to play together.
Multiplayer hosted by a publisher (with or without single player). Since the multiplayer is hosted by the publisher, it is within reason to expect the servers will not be there forever. Using a DRM system there, while not preferred by me, is understandable. Maintaining the servers cost the publisher continued money, and nobody should be able to ride for free. Free riders actually cost the publisher to lose money, whether the pirate would have paid or not, and the extra load on the servers can negatively affect paying customers. I believe Demigod suffered from so many pirates accessing their game servers, customers were affected badly.
My first purchase on Steam ever was Left 4 Dead. I knew I was buying an online only game, and it looked awesome. So I finally took a chance on Steam. I know it could go away at anytime, but I hope it lasts. What I really hope though, is if Valve ever decides to close down the L4D servers, they will put in a mechanism to allow us to still play with private servers. We can already run dedicated servers now, it's just tied through Steam.
Hopefully this shows I'm not a DRM free I want everything for free monster. I'm reasonable, at least in my own point of view. I'd like publishers to be reasonable too.
You guys are exactly right. Providing paying customers with services that pirates don't have access to is a great way for devs to earn money in spite of piracy. Back in the day when I used to play Blizzard games like Warcraft II and III, Starcraft, and Diablo II, I played with friends all the time over Battle.net. It rubbed me the wrong way that I needed a CD key just to play single player or play LAN and TCP/IP multiplayer, but I was totally fine with access to Battle.Net requiring a unique CD key. I consider Battle.Net to be a pretty valuable service (at least it was when I used to use it; I don't know what it's like nowadays) and it was definitely one of the reasons I bought so many Blizzard games.
@_Q_ - Battle.net used to be great, it was an optional service that had its advantages, but we didn't have to use it. With StarCraft 2 and Diablo 3, Battle.net is no longer optional. Even playing either game single player requires using Battle.net. Also LAN play was not included in those two new games.
Battle.net is another great example of a service that can be an awesome added feature when optional but an oppressive use of DRM when required. Diablo is a game with expectations so high I do understand why they think DRM is necessary. I'll never play it because of the DRM, but I do understand. BG:EE is not in the same boat and I think DRM is counterproductive to the profit of this game.
Like many things in life, DRM is not black and white. It probably does make sense for some releases. But it definitely does not make sense for lots of releases. I think this is one of the ones where it does not make sense. Bear in mind that the DRM scheme of Diablo is working wonders for the marketing of Torchlight 2. When a competitor uses your DRM as a marketing mechanism you may have gone too far.
Torchlight 2 advertises offline single player, lan, and moddability. All features lacking in Diablo 3. I love this little mention too "no item sales". The auction house is the biggest turn off to Diablo 3 for me, well that and the DRM.
Tuesday is off to a great start, GOG just released Warlords Battlecry 1 today. That's one of my favorite games ever.
To stay on topic though, GOG also released a fourth Prince of Persia game today. Along with Splinter Cell, Assassins Creed, and the many other title, that's 38 Ubisoft games. That must mean Ubisoft is happy with their DRM free sales on GOG.
It must blow some people's minds to see a DRM loving company like Ubi embrace a non-DRM distribution model. It does seem to call their argument that DRM is absolutely necessary into question.
It must blow some people's minds to see a DRM loving company like Ubi embrace a non-DRM distribution model. It does seem to call their argument that DRM is absolutely necessary into question.
Yeah, I just realized Warlords Battlecry 1 is published by Ubisoft, after I just purchased it. Looks like they were able to get some money out of me, by releasing DRM free. I may even purchase some of the Prince of Persia games at some point on a sale.
Comments
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/03/21/crytek-defends-crysis-2-drm/1
http://hothardware.com/News/Crysis-2-Tops-List-of-Most-Pirated-Games-of-2011/
Not just the most pirated game of 2011, it was made available by pirates a month early. That's not the only game to be leaked a month early.
I wonder what's the pirate rate of single player vs Multiplayer games?
"When an advance copy of Crysis 2 leaked to the Internet a full month before the game's scheduled release, Crytek and Electronic Arts (EA) were understandably miffed and, as it turns out, justified in their fears of mass piracy." - emphasis mine.
Second, when piracy like this happens, it's not only illegal file-sharing, it's blatant theft (of an unreleased product). Incidents like this must be an inside job, or a penetration into a network, which enabled a leak.
I see nothing impressive about the fact that DRM-protected games seem to be pirated in greater numbers than non-DRM games for reasons I've already explained. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all (and sometimes, we know to be true) to find that people pirate these games just to stick it to the companies for their inclusion of DRM. As long as crackers and those who support them continue to use it as a justification for piracy, stronger DRM will be needed. These guys aren't supporting a no-DRM experience out of principle; these are the types that belief they have a RIGHT to share freely.
And here, a game that was not leaked a month early, that had nasty DRM, and was cracked and pirated on the first day.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/drm_is_helping_spore_make_history_as_the_most_pirated_game_ever.php
Spore - 1.7 million times for most pirated game of 2008. I'm sure that number has increased since then.
Also, I do see some significance between a DRM version being pirated more than a DRM free one. It lends to the argument that some people pirate just to avoid or get rid of DRM. I make no claims as to how many are just trying to avoid DRM.
If ALL games went without DRM would Piracy decease?
(I genuinely want to hear your, and others, opinion on this. I belive piracy would Increase but perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way)
There are many variables to this topic, does DRM reduce/increase piracy, how many pirated copies are actually lost sales, is inconveniencing the paying customer worth it try reducing piracy, etc?
I think the DRM free crowd believes that not all pirated games are a lost sale. Many people pirate because they refuse to pay for games, or to try out a game before buying, or to crack their paid for version, etc. None of the reason legitimately justify piracy, but there are degrees, and some do justify their reason for piracy. DRM is not going to positively affect that.
Some companies don't consider piracy because pirates are not paying customers. CD Projekt Red is one such company. They would rather make all the customers that have paid them money have a trouble free experience, than spend energy trying to stop piracy while troubling their customers. The Humble Bundle also strives to give customers the best experience. I've posted some other links of companies that have had success DRM free, or have had enough sales that they don't even consider the piracy.
The MPAA is another organization that doesn't get it. Now they want two unskippable FBI warnings on all purchased DVD and BD movies. Again, why does the paying customer have to put up with this, especially when pirated copies don't have any warnings, unskippable ads, and slow menus to trudge through first? For me, the MPAA has reduced my movie spending, not increased it, and I'm not pirating movies.
Don't even get me started on the RIAA.
The question I would really like answered is how many people decided to buy BGEE because installation activation is being used, and they believe they wouldn't be able to pirate it?
I've said it before, companies need to look at number of copies sold, not number of copies pirated.
Look at this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/avatar-and-the-dark-knight-pirated_n_1008246.html
Avatar grossed $2,782,275,172 and was pirated over 21 millions times by 2011. Batman and Transformes also have huge profits and huge piracy rates. What would you care about, the 21 millions copies, or the 2.2 billion dollars profit?
@Vortican One of my main points is that pirates usually offer a better product than the developer if DRM is used. Cloud saving options are just one idea that reverses this trend. I believe that if you offer a better product/service you will increase sales in spite of illegal downloading options. And I don't think this is an outrageous claim.
I will say though, People (including me) have pirated games simply because a pirate version was available.
DMR does not prevent people creating pirate (Cracked) versions.
Thus DMR does not stop people Pirating games because they can?
Your suggestions of "official" versions offering more (DLC, Cloud saves, faster patchs) seems to be the only logical solution.
however if there is no DMR at all, pirate versions would be able to access all these benefits that are meant to be encouraging people to buy the "official" version.
Which means that DMR is needed....but DMR inconveniences paying customers and makes them pirate...
I'm confused and not sure what I'm meant to be discussion anymore
If you're going to have DRM, make it tied to a service that the game provides that requires an internet connection anyway (such as cloud saves, for example).
Install-activation DRM can also work, as long as you provide some alternate means for people to activate their installations (physical media, unique install keys, etc.), and you also have to plan for the inevitable scenario where the authentication servers will no longer be maintained (i.e. people still have to be able to play the game they purchased).
Digitally distributed games need to cost less overall, and there needs to be a physical incentive to purchasing a physical copy of the game for full price. (This is the one that's going to be most effective at increasing sales and reducing piracy, apart from "make a quality product", which should be a given anyway.)
Anything outside of those three solutions is going to be doing more harm than good. Always-on DRM ruins the gaming experience for any player whose internet cuts out.
People with money often have higher standards. By catering to the more affluent demographic the developers should be able to make more money. And as much as these guys love the games, they still do this professionally for the money. Have you seen the runaway train over at Kickstarter right now? Eternity has blown past a million bucks in two days without even starting on the game. The paying public has an appetite for games like this that is not being satisfied. But I do believe that DRM will chase us away. Or at least enough of us to lower profitability.
I haven't bought a pc game in a store for years (Don't even have disc drives on my pc anymore) So if bonuses are giving people who buy from stores it would cause a (small) uproar from people who live too far from stores or rely on downloadable services.
That said I buy all my hand held games from stores, even buy apple cards from Shops, so if you feel like giving bonuses to those go ahead
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Treyolen said:
@ST4TICStriker The idea is that there enough people with scruples that will pay for a high quality product to make a DRM free product more profitable. Most of the people I know that pirate are broke anyway. They aren't very high quality people, that's why they steal. They couldn't buy very many games if they wanted to because they don't have any money. So who cares if they pirate. They are not lost sales. Developers shouldn't waste their time worrying about people who don't have any money. They have more important things to spend their time on, like shipping.
People with money often have higher standards. By catering to the more affluent demographic the developers should be able to make more money. And as much as these guys love the games, they still do this professionally for the money. Have you seen the runaway train over at Kickstarter right now? Eternity has blown past a million bucks in two days without even starting on the game. The paying public has an appetite for games like this that is not being satisfied. But I do believe that DRM will chase us away. Or at least enough of us to lower profitability."
====================================================================
@Treyolen
I'm not sure that would be a sustainable business model. Not all games can offer Patchs or DLC or Online Servers so for those games the difference between "Pirate" and "Official" versions would be negligible, meaning people who have money will be getting the same service as people who steal. It kinda undermines the whole system.
Also what you're suggesting brings the whole "Poor people shouldn't play games argument into play" and that's something I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.
But I see your point and while I may not agree with it 100% I do see the merit in such a system.
Though in my personal experience the people I know who pirate games can defiantly afford to pay for them, So maybe my view on the subject is a little jaded.
EDIT: Two posts have become one!
....................I have no Idea how to use this forum.
The depressed economy is an unavoidable part of why more and more people pirate. Groups like the RIAA and MPAA talk about how piracy hurts the economy, but the average person frankly doesn't care and can't relate. The average person is trying to survive, and entertainment/escapism is a natural part of survival. So if it comes down to getting a movie legitimately for $20 they can download for free or getting 10 cans of SPAM for $20.. I imagine there's really no question. Especially when most of these people have no fear of the consequences of pirating, which is typically a toothless DMCA letter from their ISP telling them to please stop.
People don't have the money to put gas in their cars to go eat out and watch a movie in the theater. Instead they warm up a can of beans and watch pirated movies on their laptop. This is the new consumer.
Those little extras act as an incentive for people to invest in a physical copy, while the reduced price for the digital edition encourages more people to buy the game that would otherwise not have considered it worthwhile.
A single player only game should have no DRM, and no checks beyond either an installation key or media check. That media check cannot use rootkit like drivers to work, like SecuROM or Starforce for example. I'm also not against needing a license file, provided that license file is something I create at the time of purchase and can keep indefinitely. That license needs to be tied to me as the owner, and not to my computer's hardware fingerprint. No DRM is preferred, followed by installation key.
Single player games with a multiplayer component. The single player content is the same as above. The multiplayer depends on how it works. If the multiplayer is strictly LAN, internet IP, and P2P without a server hosted by the publisher, then there should be nothing more than an installation key. The key can be used to prevent any two players from joining the same game with the same key. This would reduce the simplicity in two friends sharing one key to play together.
Multiplayer hosted by a publisher (with or without single player). Since the multiplayer is hosted by the publisher, it is within reason to expect the servers will not be there forever. Using a DRM system there, while not preferred by me, is understandable. Maintaining the servers cost the publisher continued money, and nobody should be able to ride for free. Free riders actually cost the publisher to lose money, whether the pirate would have paid or not, and the extra load on the servers can negatively affect paying customers. I believe Demigod suffered from so many pirates accessing their game servers, customers were affected badly.
My first purchase on Steam ever was Left 4 Dead. I knew I was buying an online only game, and it looked awesome. So I finally took a chance on Steam. I know it could go away at anytime, but I hope it lasts. What I really hope though, is if Valve ever decides to close down the L4D servers, they will put in a mechanism to allow us to still play with private servers. We can already run dedicated servers now, it's just tied through Steam.
Hopefully this shows I'm not a DRM free I want everything for free monster. I'm reasonable, at least in my own point of view. I'd like publishers to be reasonable too.
Like many things in life, DRM is not black and white. It probably does make sense for some releases. But it definitely does not make sense for lots of releases. I think this is one of the ones where it does not make sense. Bear in mind that the DRM scheme of Diablo is working wonders for the marketing of Torchlight 2. When a competitor uses your DRM as a marketing mechanism you may have gone too far.
To stay on topic though, GOG also released a fourth Prince of Persia game today. Along with Splinter Cell, Assassins Creed, and the many other title, that's 38 Ubisoft games. That must mean Ubisoft is happy with their DRM free sales on GOG.