Well no need for that, I like spiritualiter salsa remarks, even biting ones, also I'm kind of amused by harsh and blunt ones, like "...ugh, you pirate, you thief, you bad, me good, me no like you, me smash you, smash you to goo" by INT 3 / WiS 3 / CHA 1 Half-Orc Paladin wannabes, those guys that never go beyond skin deep pose no real threat to me, even make me feel sympathetic with their cases, try to see their point (I have certain difficulties but I try nonetheless)...
The thing is that those are the kind of people that used to burn witches in the dark ages... ...
-Sir Good Knight: And what do you burn apart from witches?
-Angry Villager1: More Witches... -Angry Villager2: Yes a witch, burn her... -Angry Villager3: Eh... erm... ah... wood?
-Sir Good Knight: So... why do witches burn?
-Angry Villager3: Eh... erm... because... ahh... they are made of wood...
That was not a spiritualiter salsa remark, that was not sarcastic, not funny at all, you really said nothing.
And can you stop that already, how old are you, like 11, less?
I need no sorry excuses if I want to pirate some software, I have a consciensce that I choose to be ever watchful for my actions, I take full responsibility for what I do, who gave you the right to think that I need an audience to justify my way of conducting my self in society, oh I forgot you are this BG EE Forum self appointed prosecutor character, some kind of Witch Hunter Police, well you take d&d all too seriously amigo...
@nizhidrhamannit If you really did take full responsibility for what you do you'd actually pay for the software that you pirate. That's responsibility.
I dread that we're going in circles, like poor Frodo & Sam in the wastes of Emyn Muil, only we have no Golum available to help us get away, so I rest my case.
YOU WiN, I bow humbly before the one that vanquished me in a fair fight...
@Tanthalas You are being a little black and white while refusing an obvious olive branch being extended. This thread has been very civil and offers differing points of view. No one has the market on morality cornered. You've made your feelings very clear on how you feel about pirates in several posts without presenting any new arguments. Niz was trying to lighten the mood and reach out. Can't we all just get along?
Bah, I'm itching to say this, what can I do, I'm an offspring of philosophers and warrior poets, I love debates.
Forget about this whole software piracy thing, for most part you're right and I'm wrong, try to understand my way of thinking, in regards of conscience.
I mean you chose Anomen's and I chose Drizzt's picture in the personal profile, you're Lawfull Neutral, I'm Chaotic Good that much is pretty obvious, no need for a vivid imagination to get the picture...
I have neither love nor respect for the law, I just abide as long as I live in an organized society, but between me and you the law is like rubber, shrinks and expands, just depends on the power of the one who upholds it or uses it, they can distort it, bring it to their desirable measures, with no chance whatsoever for such thing to happen for the weak.
Let's see for instance the case of a young unemployed single mother who has a baby child on the brink of starvation, she invades a bakery and steals some bread, the baker apprehends her and calls the police. Well exaggerating a bit but try to see my point please, I intervene, give the baker a nice smackin'and make a successful getaway right in time before the cops arrive with the mother and child along with the food and the... money from the unfortunate baker's wallet.
He'll survive, he won't be any less poorer than yesterday, and maybe deep down in his soul he might feel relieved when he's all alone in bed that same night with his conscience. I give the money to the mother along with my blessing, and with absolutely no guilt at all I march on to the next endeavor...
And you may laugh all you want, just try to see a different perspective in such matters...
I hate to watch this argument, just buy the game if you want it. Perhaps I am being ignorant but I can't see anything to suggest that there is anything more complicated being discussed?
@Moomintroll You are missing the point of what I am saying. I want to buy this product and encourage a better product next time. If we just buy and stay silent, how would the developers even know DRM was an issue for us?
@Tanthalas Of course there is a difference in scale between the examples. But a difference in degree doesn't change the validity of the argument. There are grey areas in life. Not everything is so black and white. But I do think the piracy thing has been beaten to death. The subject at hand is DRM. And although it has been beaten pretty badly as well, this is the DRM thread at least!
Ok, then there was a circular argument about anti piracy measures being the reason for piracy, or have I misunderstood that? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm trying to understand.
@Moomintroll The piracy thing was brought forth as an alternative to supporting the DRM. It was a side issue that took over the thread for a while. It should probably be left alone. But this is the internet and it is a long day at work...
@Moomintroll The DRM is there to stop piracy. It does not stop piracy. It does encumber the paying customers. My reason for posting here is to promote the thinking that DRM is a bad idea that should be abandoned in future releases. At a point above it was put forward that pirating the game is an ironic way of protesting the mechanism that is supposed to stop piracy. Then much hilarity ensued while clashing ideologies over theft, infringement, and morality battled post by post.
I just want to get rid of DRM and get some killer new IE games for the next ten years!
I think the misconception about DRM is that some people think it is like a security lock, kind of like locking the door to a store so no one will break in and steal. However, time and again, evidence seems to prove that DRM is nothing like that at all, no matter how complex or how simple the system is. When it doesn't stop piracy, it doesn't stop piracy. It's all or nothing here, and evidence seems to point to nothing.
If I wanted to pirate a game today (just theoretically speaking, I don't intend to), if the game is in high demand, chances are, I would be able to do it pretty easily whether the game has DRM or not, so long as there is sufficient demand for such game. I also would not have to put up with the various safeguards that are a part of DRM compared to say, the paid version. This is the irony of DRM in general as some of us have been discussing over the past several days. The thing that DRM seems to be good at, in retrospect, is to, as Treyolen mentioned, encumber the paying customer.
This is not to say that companies should not protect their products, they should, but they should use an approach that is at least logical. If I were in charge of a digital product, my approach to the issue would probably to strip the DRM, add value to the product somehow (perhaps include loyalty programs, contests and deals, or some gimmick that would wow the customer and give them more incentive to buy my product), and go from there. The most I would want to do is perhaps have the customer enter a code of some sort that corresponds to a say, their e-mail, to unlock the product offline (similar to a CD-key) and that would be all there is to it. No internet checks, no persistent connections, no spyware, and a guarantee that the customer can use the product as long as the customer can retain it. As a customer, what would you say to that?
There are two problems I see with that approach, Sylonce.
The first is that you assume that DRM does nothing at all, but realistically, it's got to stop at least some pirates. If not, companies wouldn't bother with it. I think companies are willing to accept that they can't stop every pirate. If someone is dedicated enough (or bored and somewhat knowledgeable), they will find a way to break copyright protection. However, for every cracker there are thousands of clueless people who just want to play games, and copy the disc from their buddy (or their download file) and install it only to find out that "Hey, it won't play!" Those people then have a choice: not play the game or buy it. Some will choose not to purchase it for whatever reason (the reason isn't so important) and some will buy it. I agree with you that the relative demand for the product determines how easy or hard it is to get a cracked version. If it's not a popular product, nobody's going to bother cracking it.
Your proposal has merit and I think that enhancing value to entice people to pay is the general direction that games are going with in-game purchases, additional content, and game currency being traded for less restrictive DRM. Hell, some games are totally free and if you want to pay to buy stuff in the game, you can and get a more complete experience. This approach is quite popular now and these companies have got to be making money on this.
Secondly, You seem to indicate that you prefer CD-checks or access codes rather than internet-based activation. I don't see how this is any less intrusive than a one-time internet based activation on install that Beamdog has implemented. That's what puzzles me about this argument. If a one-time install activation is considered a burden, isn't a keycode a burden as well? What if you lose it? I definitely agree that it's preferable to put the onus on the CUSTOMER rather than the COMPANY to unlock the software. If you lose your CD or your code, you have only yourself to blame. In exchange, the company doesn't have to maintain activation servers and you're not dependent on them but nothing's going to satisfy the "all DRM is bad" crowd. We're past the point where companies are going to ignore pirates completely; they're just going to accept a certain level of piracy and have to balance their need for protection with how much they want to encumber their customers. Personally, I haven't played anything with persistent internet connection or anything like that, so my experiences haven't been terrible with activation.
I can't believe anyone's complaining about this kind of DRM. BG1 had a disc check on every game start in 1998. Installing the game required swapping discs in and out about 6 times (7 with ToTSC) Broke/had problems with/didn't have a CD-ROM reader? Sorry, you can't play! Broke/lost/scratched your disks? Buy the game again!
So today there's - no physical media therefore no requirement to carry something around to install or play the game (although you can put the installer on a DVD if you so please) - unlimited downloads of the game therefore no concern of ever having to buy it again - no validity check whatsoever on startup - but a one-time check on installation that briefly requires internet accessARRRGH! Bittorent, deliver us from evil!!!
The way the Launcher will work is it will have to authenticate any new machine you wish to install it to. For BGEE, if we ever had to shut down Beamdog completely, we'd patch the game to remove any checks before we took the auth server down.
There are two problems I see with that approach, Sylonce.
The first is that you assume that DRM does nothing at all, but realistically, it's got to stop at least some pirates. If not, companies wouldn't bother with it.[...]
If a game is available cracked, how does DRM stop anything? Companies do this because they either don't understand pirates or they have to make an excuse for their shareholders that they are doing something to protect their investment. It only takes one cracker, just -one-, to make a game available and DRM will be there for naught. Those thousands of clueless people will just buy the game, sure, and I suppose it makes it a little more difficult for someone to just copy a disc from his buddy. However, in this day and age, I think everybody who has ever used the internet knows that one can easily download stuff online for free, illegally, and it takes about one google search to figure out how. Even my father, who is completely computer inept, knows this fact. If a person wants an illicit copy of a game for free, it may not be so easy to copy from a buddy, but with an internet connection, it's almost just as easy if not easier.
Furthermore, if we assume DRM does stop at least some pirates, it would have to be more pirates than the customers lost, which I highly doubt is the case. If anyone can point me to a statistical chart that proves otherwise, I might be more convinced.
Secondly, You seem to indicate that you prefer CD-checks or access codes rather than internet-based activation. I don't see how this is any less intrusive than a one-time internet based activation on install that Beamdog has implemented. That's what puzzles me about this argument. If a one-time install activation is considered a burden, isn't a keycode a burden as well? What if you lose it? I definitely agree that it's preferable to put the onus on the CUSTOMER rather than the COMPANY to unlock the software. If you lose your CD or your code, you have only yourself to blame. In exchange, the company doesn't have to maintain activation servers and you're not dependent on them but nothing's going to satisfy the "all DRM is bad" crowd. We're past the point where companies are going to ignore pirates completely; they're just going to accept a certain level of piracy and have to balance their need for protection with how much they want to encumber their customers. Personally, I haven't played anything with persistent internet connection or anything like that, so my experiences haven't been terrible with activation.
Access codes isn't any more work than putting a cd in the drive to install it. Online authentication, and in this case, BG:EE, requires both your internet connection to be working as well as the DRM server to work in order to authenticate. That can be HUGE for someone who does not readily have an internet connection, and would often mean that a company would receive LESS sales from such people. What if I lose the disc? Well, I'll just take care of it better.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going hysterical over Beamdog's DRM, I'm mostly standing up to a principle here that DRM is for the most part useless and is grudgingly accepted. It's not me I'm talking about here (heck, I've already bought the game), it's the DRM I'm talking about. There is no balancing act here, and if there is, it is in favor of the pirates. There is a business concept call 'value-added,' and DRM adds no value to the customer whatsoever.
Granted, activation is nothing like persistent internet connection, but in the end, it's still a silly concept. I'm not complaining (it's never really bothered me either, except when activation is limited), I'm criticizing.
Those thousands of clueless people will just buy the game, sure, and I suppose it makes it a little more difficult for someone to just copy a disc from his buddy.
Just like there are thousands of Nates who will copy a game just because they can, there are also those who could afford to buy the game but don't because they're cheap, and also those who once they realize they can't use a copy, will assume that the only other option is to buy one. Believe me, there are plenty of people even more clueless than your father, who barely know how to turn a computer on and will make a purchase when they try to run that copy that their neighborhood kid gave them. There are still going to be lots of people pirating, but there are still some who won't go to the trouble.
Furthermore, if we assume DRM does stop at least some pirates, it would have to be more pirates than the customers lost, which I highly doubt is the case. If anyone can point me to a statistical chart that proves otherwise, I might be more convinced.
I wish there were such a study, but I don't believe there is. We've already agreed that many pirates aren't going to be considered lost customers because they'll never buy a game. DRM merely has to convert the people who would pirate but can't figure out how into paying customers. I agree there's a quantifiable number there that makes it cost effective, but I have no idea what that number is. Obviously, the companies believe it prevents more losses than it puts off customers.
Access codes isn't any more work than putting a cd in the drive to install it. Online authentication, and in this case, BG:EE, requires both your internet connection to be working as well as the DRM server to work in order to authenticate. That can be HUGE for someone who does not readily have an internet connection, and would often mean that a company would receive LESS sales from such people. What if I lose the disc? Well, I'll just take care of it better.
Realistically, if people don't readily have an internet connection aren't going to be the people who buy these games either. They're probably not going to use their computer much either. Those aren't Beamdog's customers (or anyone's customers these days, almost all software has an internet interface). So, DRM isn't going to affect them because they're not going to be able to take advantage of well... anything. It's also a pretty rare phenomenon for most people to have their internet go out. Unless you have a pretty crappy provider or an outage in our area which is rare for most folks, it pretty much always works. What are the chances you happen to want to install it at a time when your internet is not available? I'd think that is an exceedingly rare circumstance which I'm sure Beamdog thought about when they agreed with this very generous DRM.
There is a business concept call 'value-added,' and DRM adds no value to the customer whatsoever.
True, but it may be of value to the business. My point in mentioned Daverian before is that $19.99 is already an insane value for this title. This obviously isn't about value to almost everyone here because they've already paid for the game. DRM is merely an annoyance. We all have to live with those little annoyances in life.
@Vortican You bring up points very close to my own. These developers believe DRM makes them more money than it costs them. I wish to convince them otherwise. Just because they believe it doesn't make it so. A phone company called Verizon once thought the iPhone wouldn't make them more money than it cost them to carry. They were wrong. Companies make wrong decisions all the time. I believe supporting DRM is one of these wrong decisions and want to make rational arguments against it in places that the appropriate parties can read.
You also mention the issue of computer literacy and its impact on piracy. We're talking about a fourteen year old cult classic. I think most people interested in this particular game are going to skew to the computer literate side of the equation. That's why I think DRM is especially inappropriate for this title. I believe the PC users will be mostly computer savvy old school gamers who are more than capable of pirating but will support these guys out of a sincere desire to see them continue. Why punish this group of all groups? The iPad and Android ports will serve the computer challenged segment of the population.
Alright, you make some valid points regarding the nates who pirate because they can and those who don't have a clue on piracy. You also make a valid point about those who don't readily have a connection. I won't dwell on the latter point, though I do consider that it is still an opportunity cost to some degree, especially when considering groups such as those serving the armed forces who happen to be gamers (which I actually see a lot on other gaming communities), as well as others living in more remote areas.
In regards to availability and the crack, I normally use this logic:
Say there are two identical products... games, let's say. One has DRM embedded into it, and one does not. They are both available, the DRM version is available from the legitimate distributor, and the DRM free version is available from some torrent site. Which is the better product? The most logical choice would be the DRM-free version. The only motivation to buy the version with DRM embedded in it comes down to personal morals and how much the individual fears the law for pirating in the first place.
When it comes to being an "annoyance," I think that term is relative. It becomes relative for the individual customer. That annoyance also depends on the type of DRM. Let's think of Spore for just one moment. That game came out offering only 3 activations I believe--meaning, if you reinstall it more than 3 times, you're going to have to go through various steps to get it going again. Yeah, for some, it may be a simple annoyance, but I don't think I can say the same, personally, with a straight face. That, and your long-term use of the product depends on the longevity of the DRM server. I don't know about you, but I've lost access to digital products I've bought online before because of DRM. It sucks, because you lose access to a product you paid for with a flick of a finger and it becomes a sunk cost.
Now, I recognize that the DRM offered by Beamdog is very generous. I'm not too bothered by it either. This one, in particular, is, as you say, just a small annoyance. If, however, tomorrow they announced that they will not release the game with DRM, I'm sure a lot of people including myself will go "hell yeah." I think we both agree that DRM adds no value to the customer. Does DRM actually add value to the company though? I dunno. I think the companies who include it certainly believe it does, but I'm skeptical as to whether it actually does in practice.
Non-value-added components on a product is a very touchy thing. On a product that requires persistent internet connection, for instance, would you not agree that it could prove to be a little more than an annoyance? In Ubisoft's case, it certainly sapped their goodwill, that's for sure, and the pirates ended up laughing because they didn't have to deal with that crap. Personally, I think it's better to remove all nuisances and try to sell a product through value, which is more pro-active, than to sell a product that contains a gimmick in reaction to a pirate threat and also has a chance of reducing the customer count. Convince a pirate to buy rather than leave room for a customer to resort to piracy. There is only so much DRM can control--those who don't know the technology enough to pirate, and well, that's as much as I can think of so far.
Say there are two identical products... games, let's say. One has DRM embedded into it, and one does not. They are both available, the DRM version is available from the legitimate distributor, and the DRM free version is available from some torrent site. Which is the better product? The most logical choice would be the DRM-free version. The only motivation to buy the version with DRM embedded in it comes down to personal morals and how much the individual fears the law for pirating in the first place.
Honestly, I think that the overwhelming majority that would pirate the DRM-free version, would pirate the game anyway if it didn't have DRM.
@Vortican You bring up points very close to my own. These developers believe DRM makes them more money than it costs them. I wish to convince them otherwise. Just because they believe it doesn't make it so. A phone company called Verizon once thought the iPhone wouldn't make them more money than it cost them to carry. They were wrong. Companies make wrong decisions all the time. I believe supporting DRM is one of these wrong decisions and want to make rational arguments against it in places that the appropriate parties can read.
You also mention the issue of computer literacy and its impact on piracy. We're talking about a fourteen year old cult classic. I think most people interested in this particular game are going to skew to the computer literate side of the equation. That's why I think DRM is especially inappropriate for this title. I believe the PC users will be mostly computer savvy old school gamers who are more than capable of pirating but will support these guys out of a sincere desire to see them continue. Why punish this group of all groups? The iPad and Android ports will serve the computer challenged segment of the population.
Your point about the demographics crystallizes a very important consideration that Beamdog might not have considered. I think in this case, your logic is irrefutable. The segment of gamers who are the vast majority of purchasers of this game already bought the original and consider this simply a refresh. For them, they're going to pay for it anyway. I don't see that Beamdog has much to lose in the way of sales if they don't include DRM. While we were discussing DRM in very general terms, I think you've hit upon a very crucial argument in your favor. I can't find a hole in it.
Say there are two identical products... games, let's say. One has DRM embedded into it, and one does not. They are both available, the DRM version is available from the legitimate distributor, and the DRM free version is available from some torrent site. Which is the better product? The most logical choice would be the DRM-free version. The only motivation to buy the version with DRM embedded in it comes down to personal morals and how much the individual fears the law for pirating in the first place.
Honestly, I think that the overwhelming majority that would pirate the DRM-free version, would pirate the game anyway if it didn't have DRM.
Majority yes. But those are lost causes unless you can convince them otherwise. Which is the point.
Comments
The thing is that those are the kind of people that used to burn witches in the dark ages...
...
-Sir Good Knight: And what do you burn apart from witches?
-Angry Villager1: More Witches...
-Angry Villager2: Yes a witch, burn her...
-Angry Villager3: Eh... erm... ah... wood?
-Sir Good Knight: So... why do witches burn?
-Angry Villager3: Eh... erm... because... ahh... they are made of wood...
Yes, obviously people that don't agree with you using DRM as an excuse for piracy are also the type of people who would go on witch-hunts.
And can you stop that already, how old are you, like 11, less?
I need no sorry excuses if I want to pirate some software, I have a consciensce that I choose to be ever watchful for my actions, I take full responsibility for what I do, who gave you the right to think that I need an audience to justify my way of conducting my self in society, oh I forgot you are this BG EE Forum self appointed prosecutor character, some kind of Witch Hunter Police, well you take d&d all too seriously amigo...
I guess you don't laugh a lot do you?
If you really did take full responsibility for what you do you'd actually pay for the software that you pirate. That's responsibility.
YOU WiN, I bow humbly before the one that vanquished me in a fair fight...
Like I pointed out several pages ago: It doesn't help that his "lighten the mood and reach out" comments also contain veiled insults.
Bah, I'm itching to say this, what can I do, I'm an offspring of philosophers and warrior poets, I love debates.
Forget about this whole software piracy thing, for most part you're right and I'm wrong, try to understand my way of thinking, in regards of conscience.
I mean you chose Anomen's and I chose Drizzt's picture in the personal profile, you're Lawfull Neutral, I'm Chaotic Good that much is pretty obvious, no need for a vivid imagination to get the picture...
I have neither love nor respect for the law, I just abide as long as I live in an organized society, but between me and you the law is like rubber, shrinks and expands, just depends on the power of the one who upholds it or uses it, they can distort it, bring it to their desirable measures, with no chance whatsoever for such thing to happen for the weak.
Let's see for instance the case of a young unemployed single mother who has a baby child on the brink of starvation, she invades a bakery and steals some bread, the baker apprehends her and calls the police. Well exaggerating a bit but try to see my point please, I intervene, give the baker a nice smackin'and make a successful getaway right in time before the cops arrive with the mother and child along with the food and the... money from the unfortunate baker's wallet.
He'll survive, he won't be any less poorer than yesterday, and maybe deep down in his soul he might feel relieved when he's all alone in bed that same night with his conscience. I give the money to the mother along with my blessing, and with absolutely no guilt at all I march on to the next endeavor...
And you may laugh all you want, just try to see a different perspective in such matters...
I just want to get rid of DRM and get some killer new IE games for the next ten years!
Oh I agree that there are gray areas in life. But this very specific example certainly isn't one of them.
If I wanted to pirate a game today (just theoretically speaking, I don't intend to), if the game is in high demand, chances are, I would be able to do it pretty easily whether the game has DRM or not, so long as there is sufficient demand for such game. I also would not have to put up with the various safeguards that are a part of DRM compared to say, the paid version. This is the irony of DRM in general as some of us have been discussing over the past several days. The thing that DRM seems to be good at, in retrospect, is to, as Treyolen mentioned, encumber the paying customer.
This is not to say that companies should not protect their products, they should, but they should use an approach that is at least logical. If I were in charge of a digital product, my approach to the issue would probably to strip the DRM, add value to the product somehow (perhaps include loyalty programs, contests and deals, or some gimmick that would wow the customer and give them more incentive to buy my product), and go from there. The most I would want to do is perhaps have the customer enter a code of some sort that corresponds to a say, their e-mail, to unlock the product offline (similar to a CD-key) and that would be all there is to it. No internet checks, no persistent connections, no spyware, and a guarantee that the customer can use the product as long as the customer can retain it. As a customer, what would you say to that?
The first is that you assume that DRM does nothing at all, but realistically, it's got to stop at least some pirates. If not, companies wouldn't bother with it. I think companies are willing to accept that they can't stop every pirate. If someone is dedicated enough (or bored and somewhat knowledgeable), they will find a way to break copyright protection. However, for every cracker there are thousands of clueless people who just want to play games, and copy the disc from their buddy (or their download file) and install it only to find out that "Hey, it won't play!" Those people then have a choice: not play the game or buy it. Some will choose not to purchase it for whatever reason (the reason isn't so important) and some will buy it. I agree with you that the relative demand for the product determines how easy or hard it is to get a cracked version. If it's not a popular product, nobody's going to bother cracking it.
Your proposal has merit and I think that enhancing value to entice people to pay is the general direction that games are going with in-game purchases, additional content, and game currency being traded for less restrictive DRM. Hell, some games are totally free and if you want to pay to buy stuff in the game, you can and get a more complete experience. This approach is quite popular now and these companies have got to be making money on this.
Secondly, You seem to indicate that you prefer CD-checks or access codes rather than internet-based activation. I don't see how this is any less intrusive than a one-time internet based activation on install that Beamdog has implemented. That's what puzzles me about this argument. If a one-time install activation is considered a burden, isn't a keycode a burden as well? What if you lose it? I definitely agree that it's preferable to put the onus on the CUSTOMER rather than the COMPANY to unlock the software. If you lose your CD or your code, you have only yourself to blame. In exchange, the company doesn't have to maintain activation servers and you're not dependent on them but nothing's going to satisfy the "all DRM is bad" crowd. We're past the point where companies are going to ignore pirates completely; they're just going to accept a certain level of piracy and have to balance their need for protection with how much they want to encumber their customers. Personally, I haven't played anything with persistent internet connection or anything like that, so my experiences haven't been terrible with activation.
So today there's
- no physical media therefore no requirement to carry something around to install or play the game (although you can put the installer on a DVD if you so please)
- unlimited downloads of the game therefore no concern of ever having to buy it again
- no validity check whatsoever on startup
- but a one-time check on installation that briefly requires internet accessARRRGH! Bittorent, deliver us from evil!!!
Gamers these days...
Furthermore, if we assume DRM does stop at least some pirates, it would have to be more pirates than the customers lost, which I highly doubt is the case. If anyone can point me to a statistical chart that proves otherwise, I might be more convinced.
Access codes isn't any more work than putting a cd in the drive to install it. Online authentication, and in this case, BG:EE, requires both your internet connection to be working as well as the DRM server to work in order to authenticate. That can be HUGE for someone who does not readily have an internet connection, and would often mean that a company would receive LESS sales from such people. What if I lose the disc? Well, I'll just take care of it better.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going hysterical over Beamdog's DRM, I'm mostly standing up to a principle here that DRM is for the most part useless and is grudgingly accepted. It's not me I'm talking about here (heck, I've already bought the game), it's the DRM I'm talking about. There is no balancing act here, and if there is, it is in favor of the pirates. There is a business concept call 'value-added,' and DRM adds no value to the customer whatsoever.
Granted, activation is nothing like persistent internet connection, but in the end, it's still a silly concept. I'm not complaining (it's never really bothered me either, except when activation is limited), I'm criticizing.
You also mention the issue of computer literacy and its impact on piracy. We're talking about a fourteen year old cult classic. I think most people interested in this particular game are going to skew to the computer literate side of the equation. That's why I think DRM is especially inappropriate for this title. I believe the PC users will be mostly computer savvy old school gamers who are more than capable of pirating but will support these guys out of a sincere desire to see them continue. Why punish this group of all groups? The iPad and Android ports will serve the computer challenged segment of the population.
Alright, you make some valid points regarding the nates who pirate because they can and those who don't have a clue on piracy. You also make a valid point about those who don't readily have a connection. I won't dwell on the latter point, though I do consider that it is still an opportunity cost to some degree, especially when considering groups such as those serving the armed forces who happen to be gamers (which I actually see a lot on other gaming communities), as well as others living in more remote areas.
In regards to availability and the crack, I normally use this logic:
Say there are two identical products... games, let's say. One has DRM embedded into it, and one does not. They are both available, the DRM version is available from the legitimate distributor, and the DRM free version is available from some torrent site. Which is the better product? The most logical choice would be the DRM-free version. The only motivation to buy the version with DRM embedded in it comes down to personal morals and how much the individual fears the law for pirating in the first place.
When it comes to being an "annoyance," I think that term is relative. It becomes relative for the individual customer. That annoyance also depends on the type of DRM. Let's think of Spore for just one moment. That game came out offering only 3 activations I believe--meaning, if you reinstall it more than 3 times, you're going to have to go through various steps to get it going again. Yeah, for some, it may be a simple annoyance, but I don't think I can say the same, personally, with a straight face. That, and your long-term use of the product depends on the longevity of the DRM server. I don't know about you, but I've lost access to digital products I've bought online before because of DRM. It sucks, because you lose access to a product you paid for with a flick of a finger and it becomes a sunk cost.
Now, I recognize that the DRM offered by Beamdog is very generous. I'm not too bothered by it either. This one, in particular, is, as you say, just a small annoyance. If, however, tomorrow they announced that they will not release the game with DRM, I'm sure a lot of people including myself will go "hell yeah." I think we both agree that DRM adds no value to the customer. Does DRM actually add value to the company though? I dunno. I think the companies who include it certainly believe it does, but I'm skeptical as to whether it actually does in practice.
Non-value-added components on a product is a very touchy thing. On a product that requires persistent internet connection, for instance, would you not agree that it could prove to be a little more than an annoyance? In Ubisoft's case, it certainly sapped their goodwill, that's for sure, and the pirates ended up laughing because they didn't have to deal with that crap. Personally, I think it's better to remove all nuisances and try to sell a product through value, which is more pro-active, than to sell a product that contains a gimmick in reaction to a pirate threat and also has a chance of reducing the customer count. Convince a pirate to buy rather than leave room for a customer to resort to piracy. There is only so much DRM can control--those who don't know the technology enough to pirate, and well, that's as much as I can think of so far.