@Salomonkane I don't understand what you are trying to say. To answer one of your questions (what will happen to my hard copy) I will treasure it! whether or not I will continue to play it depends on how this new venture turns out.
Honestly, this isn't really what I would consider DRM. DRM requires you to be connected to the internet while playing. It takes your copy of the software, and validates it every time you start it up, or continuously while the software is in use. Does BG:EE do that? No.
What BG:EE does is validate the installer, to verify that the person who is installing the game is someone who purchased the game. If you only ever install the game once, it will only validate once. It's a bit like entering a product key, except that you can enter the same key as many times as you want, and instead of entering a key you log in to your Beamdog account. So it's actually a lot simpler and more convenient than entering a product key.
The side-effect is that you can't just give copies of the game to everyone you know. Or, scratch that. You can; you just have to be in the room when they install it. But it keeps the game within the scope of "my friends", rather than "everyone on the internet". With any digitally distributed product, you have to have some form of validation. GoG does it at purchase and download; Steam does it at purchase, download, startup; Uplay does it at purchase, login, download, install, startup, shut-down, and once or twice per minute during play (and sometimes even when you're not playing); Beamdog does it at purchase and installation.
The unfortunate result, for the moment, is that you can't validate your installation without an internet connection. But I suspect that, if you contacted Beamdog, they could probably find a way to validate your copy without a connection (some companies have a phone service, for example).
DRM restricts the way in which you can use the product, because you can't use the product without a connection. BG:EE doesn't restrict your use of the product; it restricts your (secondary) acquirement of the product. Which is to say, each time you install the game after the first, you have to validate it.
I imagine that if/when a boxed edition is released, it will not have this same validation, because the installation is taking place in direct correspondence with physical media (either a USB stick or a DVD) that was received as part of a purchase.
However, it is unfortunately not possible to own a DRM-free version of BG:EE. Since the DRM on BG:EE is very light and I really want to play the game, purchasing it is a no-brainer for me. It's fine if you find DRM a deal-breaker regardless of its heavyness, but it really does not justify pirating the game. The devs have spent countless hours of work on it, and they need to make a living out of it. How would you like it if your boss didn't pay you for your work, or your customers didn't pay you for your product?
I found a very simple way of handling things. There are several games out there where the DRM is exceptionally draconian.
I realized, a long time ago, that I had the ability to live in both worlds at the same time: Properly paying the developers while not giving in to their draconian methods of DRM.
The answer is simple: Buy a copy of the game, then download the cracked/pirated version of it.
I'm a software developer by trade and by hobby so I hate advocating piracy, however, in some cases where DRM is a hindrance to play, I completely understand the reason for it...
But that shouldn't stop you from paying the developer...even though you are using a pirated copy of the game.
Pre-Order your copy of BG:EE, then, once released, pirate away. You can smile knowing that you've helped the development staff and a company that has broken it's back to bring you one of the best games in the last Decade back to your computer, while still not "bending over to the man."
If you are taking a stand against DRM, as an open source developer, I applaud you, take a stand, and don't buy the game...but don't pirate it either. Pay for it and play it how you want to, or don't pay for it and DON'T PLAY IT.
If you have problems with the DRM method (see below) affecting you adversely I appreciate your difficulty, see above for your solution. Buy the game then download a cracked version that doesn't enforce DRM.
"I don't have an Internet connection on my gaming PC, I can't handle this DRM"
Really? I mean seriously, really? How did you get your operating system installed then? Are you only running games that run on Linux? (Every other desktop OS requires some kind of Internet connection at the point of install to activate the license). How are you even considering this a usable PC? I heard you call it your "gaming PC" but I can't imagine what games you're actually playing on it since EVERYTHING in the last 5 years + has required an Internet connection AT MINIMUM at the time of install.
You sure this isn't just "I don't want DRM so I can give this away to my friends so we can pool our mom's 2 dollars each and buy a single copy that we can install on all 10 of our machines?"
Lastly, regarding the whole GoG, etc. Look at what games are being provided by GoG DRM Free...in the majority of cases, these are games that went EOL a LONG time ago. Were it not for GoG these games would be producing 0 revenue for the production company / rights holders, so why not release them without DRM? Do you see Skyrim or Diablo III on GoG? (D3 is a bad example since it's required online play). Of course not. And you never will, because without DRM the company producing the software cannot guarantee the revenue THEY ARE DUE for production of the software.
BG:EE is new development, doesn't matter that it's a 15 year old game, it's still NEW DEVELOPMENT, it's a re-release of an old game. Thus the production company needs to be paid for their time and effort, and that means DRM is required.
And it IS required...because human nature is not, by and large, generous enough to guarantee that if I gave you a copy of my game that you wouldn't give it to someone else.
Pirates don't use high horses, they use boats. Everybody knows this
If the DRM is that non-existent than why implement it at all? It is a method of control. They should not require any control over MY purchase. Plenty of very successful distributions have moved away from DRM. I think Beamdog should be one of them. I would normally vote with my wallet and just buy from GOG. But I'm torn on this issue because I LOVE the underlying concept of what these guys are doing and want to vote with my wallet to support them. But the DRM issue is real and should at the least be thoroughly discussed. This is a lot more important than "release on Steam or else" threads.
What part of "If there isn't DRM, there wouldn't be a production of the game" did you not get when you read that comment? Did you need that explained to you?
As part of the terms between the rights holder and the production company, DRM is required to be part of the game. That's the end of the discussion right there. It's not possible for this game to be available for you to play it without DRM as part of the final package. The developer has done whatever they can to reduce/eliminate that DRM as best they can, but at the end of the day DRM MUST BE THERE for this game to hit store shelves.
@Illydth You're asking me what part of your quote I don't understand after I've stated several times that I understand that the ship has already sailed on this release. My reason for this discussion is to influence future releases of this game and its sequels. What part of that do you not understand?
I'll ask a question again that I posted earlier. If this forum isn't the appropriate place to discus the manner in which the game is released, can you tell me where that place is located? What should we discus here on the forums BEFORE the game is released? The gameplay? The graphics? The quality of the new material? I would really like to know what topics are appropriate.
DRM is a consumer rights issue. I find it amazing that so many are upset when someone argues for their rights online. I don't think I've been disrespectful to anyone. And I have not promoted piracy. I have just said that the piracy issue isn't completely black and white. But I paid for my copy of BG:EE.
DRM is a consumer rights issue. I find it amazing that so many are upset when someone argues for their rights online. I don't think I've been disrespectful to anyone. And I have not promoted piracy. I have just said that the piracy issue isn't completely black and white. But I paid for my copy of BG:EE.
I certainly understand your desire to communicate your wishes to the developer, but I would point out that the only rights consumers have is what is agreed to in the purchase contract and the right to receive that for which you paid; to not be defrauded. It's not any consumer's right to dictate to a developer that which they produce or to guarantee certain elements of their product. You can certainly demand those things, but there's no guarantee you will get them. In this case, everyone here is aware of the installation validation, so nobody has any expectation of getting a product that does not include it. Nobody is entitled to a game without it. It would be nice if DRM-free became an industry standard, but that is not the same thing as a right. It's important to understand the difference.
Can not find it's a shame that we are referred to us : players, a sense of guilt over our destestation of DRM ? While for some of us we have multiple copies (ie, licenses) of this game ? In contrast, Multinationals are putting pressure on a Small Label, and want to put DRM Architecture with a "fait accompli", When the whole community : players and modders, translators, moderators, testers, fixers etc., etc., been solicited to BG.EE. ... for free ... as a volunteer ! That is to say some are poised to succeed (with false flag) to privatize : Community Fans, Modding and Restrict our Rights ... ! And re-selling it (lol) even under conditions (re-lol) ... Frankly after the greatest swindle of rock'n'roll, we are witnessing the greatest swindle of the video game business ?
My question of what don't you understand (the general you, not the Treyolen you, I'm not trying to single you out Trey), goes beyond this release of BG:EE. You say your topic is to discuss the influence on future releases, so is my comment.
Apologies in advance for the TL;DR but I feel it's necessary to prove my point and make my case.
Your opinion, my opinion (and by the way, I agree with you about DRM, totally and completely) and anyone else's opinion on these boards or anywhere else is immaterial about how and whether DRM is implemented in this or any other BG game by this development studio.
The development studio does NOT own the license to this product. To obtain the license to this product they had to agree to DRM. To continue to produce this product they will continue to have to agree to DRM. To produce future products under the same license they will continue to have to agree to DRM. The development studio does not have an opinion nor choice in this matter. Nor do they have the capability (read money) to make their own choices in this matter.
Look, all non-mega corp development studio's start with an idea.
In this case, that idea is Baulders Gate III. However, new development, such as making a brand new BG Game, costs money...ALOT of money. Money that, generally, most developers starting a project like this DO NOT HAVE (Generally you're talking in the millions of dollars).
As is generally the case, BGIII was likely pitched to several development shops (the Blizzard's and Bioware's of the world) and, probably at least in part due to the age of the franchise as well as the lack of popularity of D&D in general at this point in time, was likely shot down as not profitable enough for a major production company to back the development costs.
The development studio in this case has chosen to kill 2 birds with 1 stone to solve this problem.
1) They remake an old game with great popularity to bring the franchise back into the public eye...thereby removing the objection of the larger studios that the franchise is old and dead and not profitable.
2) They make some money for themselves to assist with the development cost of future versions of the software.
To remake the old game, however, requires them to obtain the rights to make something within the franchise...you can't simply go out and produce a game or write a story about the Forgotten Realms and not expect to get sued. This, again, causes some concern as there's really only two ways to obtain rights like this:
1) Buy the rights from the stakeholders...generally, again, this is a sum of money in the millions for a franchise like BG (if it would even be for sale, which, given it's ties to D&D and the largest campaign setting of D&D means it probably wouldn't).
2) License the rights to the franchise.
So the development studio has gone to the major players with a stake in the rights to the Baulders Gate franchise (Atari, WotC/Hasbro, etc.) and asked what it would take to license the rights to re-make the original BG.
Now, this is a smart move, because it's actually in the best interest of the stake holders to agree to the re-production...assuming they're not putting up a metric boat load of cash to do so. From the right's holders's perspective, this is a dead Franchise...it's out on GoG for Christ's sakes so it isn't generating MUCH revenue for the company at this point.
HOWEVER, the stake holders are putting up SOME money for this development (the development studio needs paid somehow), and they still own the rights, so they get to dictate the terms under which the product gets produced. You'll note, through other reading on this site, that the development studio has VERY LITTLE creative control over this project...there were restrictive rules on how much of the story the dev studio could change/modify, and restrictions on other parts as well...
One of those restrictions is "There must be DRM".
Here's why your conversation and comments make no difference.
Atari and the other powers that be wrote off this franchise a LONG time ago. While I'm sure there's some financial outlay for BG:EE, at the end of the day it's a writeoff expense to the license holder...they're not putting up significant cash for the development effort. They don't CARE whether this is a success or a failure (they certainly have a PREFERENCE for success, as that means making more money off of what used to be a dead franchise, but none of their bottom lines rely upon this remake being successful).
Arguing with the Development Studio about including DRM is like spitting into the wind. They can't do a thing about it...either they include DRM or don't produce the game.
Arguing with the License Holders about including DRM is like spitting into the wind...they don't care if you don't buy the game, they're not holding their breaths that ANYONE will buy this game. If the game flops because you don't buy it due to DRM Atari says "We told you so" and moves on with life.
The entire conversation of whether or not to include DRM is a MOOT POINT because:
* without it, there is no game...and thus no dream. * no one on this board or reading this board has ANY ABILITY to do ANYTHING about the DRM in this (or any future) product(s).
Unless you are offering the developers enough money to BUY OUT the license to BG, no one here has any ability to do anything about your complaint (for this or any future games)...even if they want to.
The ONLY people you hurt by not buying this game is the Development Studio (in that they don't prove the franchise is popular enough to make a new game within it) and yourselves since you'll never SEE a BG3.
Most software developers would love NOTHING MORE than to see DRM removed from the terminology of the computer industry FOREVER. However that will never happen, because people have proven that if they have the opportunity to steal something, they will...and despite your argument that "there will be a pirated version out there, so DRM does you no good", it does. Just like locking your car door in a parking lot stops the guy wandering by who happens to see your GPS on the dash from opening your door and stealing it, so does DRM stop the barely computer literate gamer (and that's a lot of them) from dropping their download onto a USB drive and walking it over to their friends house.
Until there's another way for a distributor, like Atari or BioWare, to guarantee sales with a minimum of losses due to theft, there will be DRM, and it will get worse and worse for the consumer as time goes on because every time one scheme is broken a new, tougher scheme (which will require more hoops for the properly paid end user to jump through) will be developed.
To me, patronizing developers who use EASY and NON INTRUSIVE DRM solutions should be a high priority...as high a priority as NOT patronizing development companies that use DRM. If we accept DRM in it's less intrusive forms and start policing ourselves as consumers, 10 years from now maybe we won't all have to have 100% online connections to simply boot our computers.
And to bring this back around full circle...I, personally, would like to see BG3. I realize the developers need money to produce a game like BG3 and I realize the only way they'll get that cash is through my purchase of the remade software of BG and BG2...
I don't like DRM, but I see the publisher's thought that it's a necessity. Regardless of my personal beliefs on the matter, I also realize that in this case, arguing the need or non-need of DRM is useless because there's no choice in the matter. The only choice I have in the matter is to buy the game and support a potential BG3, or not buy the game and thus kill any hope of ever seeing a new release of this much beloved series...and probably any hope of a remake of the rest of this series and others (like Planescape:Torment) in the process...
I chose to support this idea and this dream that the development studio has, despite the license holder's insistence that DRM be included...I realize it's out of the development studio's hands and not their fault that the DRM is included. I choose to purchase this game, instead of pirate it...even if, eventually down the line, a pirated version of the game is installed on my system...because I believe in the dream of the development company: That of producing a new version of my beloved series.
@Vortican I respectfully disagree with your assessment of rights. The First Sale doctrine has been upheld several times in the court of law including a recent ruling against Oracle. This is a consumer right and only one of many. Corporations are trying hard to find work arounds to these issues but we aren't quite to the point where we just have to accept whatever they are kind enough to offer.
I don't think I've "dictated" anything to anybody. I've just attempted to make the argument that there is more money to be made without DRM than there is with DRM. If I've made demands they were unintentional. I try to avoid using loaded language like that when trying to persuade anyone of everything. Terms like that invite emotion into what should be rational discussion. I think there has been enough emotion in this thread IMHO.
At the end of the day, I think the developer should ask themselves this: what does it really accomplish? ... Without a clear answer, the existence of even a near non-existent DRM should be put to question.
Clearest Answer Possible: The actual ability to produce BG:EE and it's future versions.
A DRM free product is clearly better for the customer. And I believe it is better for the developer as well.
And JUST so we're clear Trey: You're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT here.
A DRM Free BG:EE would be better for the consumer. A DRM Free BG:EE would be better for the developer.
A DRM Free BG:EE Is NOT better for the rights holder who has little to no stake in the development or production of this title and is ONLY worried about the revenue.
That's why holding DRM against this development studio isn't going to work. There are places and studios to take a stand against...this isn't the time or the place to do so.
@Illydth With statements like "You're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT here" I think you're coming around!
I do maintain that no DRM would be better for WotC/Atari as I feel it would engender more good will and lead directly to higher revenue. I also believe that this release is not the place to take a stand. But if this release is extremely successful than Beamdog will have significantly more leverage in the negotiations for BG2 and that may be the appropriate time. If that contract has already been signed, and it is very possible, than BG3 or IWD or Planescape will be the time to take a stand.
If we don't discus the issue now, how will Beamdog know this is an important issue to their customers? They definitely won't bother taking a stand if this subject never gets any time. Again, I support Beamdog. I've paid Beamdog. I would like Beamdog to continue. But I would like them to make DRM removal an issue.
In this instance, it has nothing to do with being cheap. It has everything to do with the person NOT going to purchase the game anyway. AFTER the person made their mind up to not purchase, they pirated. No loss of sales to the publisher occurred. This individual does not want a product with DRM, and therefore would have never purchased it anyway.
GAAAHHHHH!!!!
If you want to play the game, pay money for it. Install what you want, crack what you want, avoid whatever you want, but if you wish to use a product you pay for that product.
Anything else is theft. It is NOT ok, even in protest, to steal another person's work.
If you wish to protest DRM, do not buy DRM enabled products. I back you. If you wish to play this or another DRM Protected game, buy the game. I back you. If you buy the game and are worried about an aspect of the DRM (such as the comment here that 10 years from now the server that authenticates the game may go away), then crack the DRM protected game. I back you.
DO NOT PIRATE THE GAME because you don't like DRM. THAT is theft, not protest. That is not "voting with your wallet." It is theft. It is not "no loss of sales", it's theft.
If you play the game you are a sale. If there was no other option other than to either purchase the game or not play the game, and you're playing the game, then you were a sale. If, instead of purchasing the game, you get a free version of that game, it is theft...that is a lost sale.
This is not a "grey" area for discussion.
It is not an acceptable protest, morally or in any other form, to PLAY a game you have not paid for.
Do not buy it, Buy it, or Buy it and Pirate it. Any of the three of these options are morally (if not legally) acceptable.
Play it without paying for it is NOT morally acceptable.
@Illydth With statements like "You're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT here" I think you're coming around!
I do maintain that no DRM would be better for WotC/Atari as I feel it would engender more good will and lead directly to higher revenue. I also believe that this release is not the place to take a stand. But if this release is extremely successful than Beamdog will have significantly more leverage in the negotiations for BG2 and that may be the appropriate time. If that contract has already been signed, and it is very possible, than BG3 or IWD or Planescape will be the time to take a stand.
If we don't discus the issue now, how will Beamdog know this is an important issue to their customers? They definitely won't bother taking a stand if this subject never gets any time. Again, I support Beamdog. I've paid Beamdog. I would like Beamdog to continue. But I would like them to make DRM removal an issue.
If your position is: I get Beamdog can't do anything about DRM in BG:EE, I'm with you. If your position is: I wish DRM wasn't here, but since they can't do anything about it, I support the Developer. I'm with you. If your position is: I want Beamdog to know I don't like DRM in my software. I'm with you.
If your position is: If Beamdog doesn't do something about DRM in it's software I won't support them...
I very much am NOT with you. Beamdog has no voice in the matter, and so long as they don't own the rights to BG, they never will. Regardless of how well the software does, the answer will always be: "If you want to produce a game of this genera, you'll accept our terms."
Regarding DRM in general, the arguments for it's removal from the industry are weak. I hate DRM, I've said that many times in this thread, but I also understand business and reality enough to know no one has yet made a valid argument for it's removal.
There are 2 main arguments that always come up against DRM:
1) It doesn't stop Piracy. 2) It generates more good will if you release your software DRM Free to the public.
The DRM argument always brings distributors like GoG.com into the discussion. However, if you look at what is being distributed by GoG, it's software that people and the gaming industry have long since left behind that gets distributed by GoG, not the most recent new thing.
Diablo III didn't get distributed in a DRM Free Method. Mass Effect 3 didn't get distributed in a DRM Free Method. Skyrim didn't get distributed in a DRM Free Method.
Are we all blinded by our hatred of DRM enough to think that, hassle being equal, given the option to get your friend's copy of the game and paying $60 to Gamestop for your own copy, a whole slew of people wouldn't just pool their money among their 10 closest friends and load a DRM free copy on everyone's machine?
GoG doesn't show hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of loss through piracy because the games it distributes DRM free are already either owned by most of those who will ever play it or aren't known about by most gamers.
When you only get hundreds of downloads, it's hard to show any real significance in piracy: even total number of DOWNLOADS you get from GOG are within the margin of error of total sales estimates....let alone the amount of people pirating those games.
That would be a VAST difference if you were talking about a new hot release. Look at the numbers. If you're talking 20% Piracy among the 400 copies of a game downloaded from gog, that's 80 copies of the game at $10 a copy...$800 of loss due to piracy. 4000 copies downloaded? Ok, $8000 dollars.
Now look at Skyrim...3.4 Million Retail Sales (in the first 2 days only) @ $60 a sale. 20% piracy rate on this would be 680,000 copies of the game @ $60 each = 40.8 Million Dollars.
$800 ! = $40.8M
That is why the DRM argument fails. We're not even going to mention that the impitus to pirate a game at $7.99 or even $14 is a heck of alot less than the impitus to pirate a game Retailing at $60...so your piracy rate would be A LOT higher with a game released at retail than several years after the product has stopped selling copies.
"Good Will" Doesn't make up for $40.8 mlllion dollars.
@Illydth I'm not trying to be confrontational, but how do you know all of these things for a fact? You know with absolute certainty that DRM is and will always be a direct requirement? How? Were you in the negotiations?
My understanding is that the D&D franchise is not on strong ground at all and depending on the results of D&D Next may be on its way to being sold. If ownership changes how do you know the DRM position of that party may not change? Even if it doesn't change, we're talking about a company that has released everything under the OGL and then scrapped that altogether for the next edition. How do you know which way the wind will blow at WotC when the time comes?
If this project sells a million copies and Beamdog gets most of the credit, and I think they would, Atari would have to be more amenable to Beamdog's terms. That would end the whole "dead franchise" argument because dead franchises don't move units in the seven figures. With all of the distribution channels this is going to hit I think that number is possible. It isn't probable, but I do think it can happen. That would change so much of the dynamic between the players that your absolute declarations become questionable at best.
No one knows the future. And this is all in the spirit of supporting Beamdog and helping them make the best product possible. The easiest thing to do would be for me to quit typing and pirate the game. I've chosen to try and make my feelings known to the developer and pre-order the game on PC. I'm sure I'll buy it in the app store as well. And I'll buy it from GOG if it ever becomes available. This isn't an attack. I'm not attacking any poster or developer or IP rights holder. I'm arguing the case that DRM is bad for business and challenging the idea that DRM is a necessary evil. It's just lawful evil.
@Vortican I respectfully disagree with your assessment of rights. The First Sale doctrine has been upheld several times in the court of law including a recent ruling against Oracle. This is a consumer right and only one of many. Corporations are trying hard to find work arounds to these issues but we aren't quite to the point where we just have to accept whatever they are kind enough to offer.
I don't think I've "dictated" anything to anybody. I've just attempted to make the argument that there is more money to be made without DRM than there is with DRM. If I've made demands they were unintentional. I try to avoid using loaded language like that when trying to persuade anyone of everything. Terms like that invite emotion into what should be rational discussion. I think there has been enough emotion in this thread IMHO.
I don't see how the first sale doctrine applies here. It's not that you're asking for the right to distribute or copy this property; you're asking for the right to install it unimpeded by DRM. There's no legal or natural right to be able to do that. That's not to say that there couldn't be if a legislature decided to outlaw certain types of DRM, etc. but that's also not been what you've argued. It still seems to me that you believe you're entitled to a DRM-free experience somehow, but perhaps I've misread you. I think we all agree that DRM-free is the way to go, but there's no entitlement to that.
I also disagree with those who say it's pointless to argue in favor of a no-DRM policy. Several game studios recognize that consumers don't want DRM and have pledged not to include it in their games. Although I agree with Illydth that in this case, the decision has been made and not likely to be reversed, I'd also point out that Beamdog doesn't have to include DRM on any future titles if they're not licensed. Anything they create themselves, they would make the decision on whether or not DRM would be included, so in that way, it is certainly worth it to voice your concerns over DRM and ask for it not to be included.
I'm bored and this is an interesting discussion, so I continue.
Oh, I have no crystal ball. You're very possibly right from a "what could happen" perspective. There's every possibility that WotC could sell the rights to D&D to someone else and that that someone else could be all about No DRM and drop it from any contract from Beamdog.
There's also the possibility that Beamdog sells 7 figures of this game across the various distributions and tells Atari where it can stick it's contract for the next version...
We're going back and forth between specifics (this game) and Generics (DRM in general) in our discussion, so let me see if I can try to focus a bit better.
For this game, I agree, there's a possibility that should something change hands or the game go off like a firecracker (And I sure hope it does) that your comments about DRM may be ABLE to be taken into account and changed in a future version of the software.
So, I'll come eye to eye with you that there is a POSSIBILITY (I see it as small, but hopefully it's not) that beamdog will have some potential at some point in the future to remove the DRM portion of the contract.
And I'll come right back again and state at this point, they won't WANT to remove the DRM from the software. By the point they have the sales and numbers to SUPPORT removing DRM, the removal OF DRM will cost them too much in sales.
This is what I meant by the GOG example being a weak argument.
When you're selling 4000 copies of a piece of software and you have 20% piracy, you're looking at maybe a 16K loss in sales...while 16K of 80K is a large chunk of change, 80K is not a statistic that any game production company like Atari even sees (let alone the 16K in lost sales due to piracy)...that's pocket change. They don't CARE if the game is pirated or not, there's not enough money in it for them to put effort or worry into how many copies are sold or not sold due to DRM or no DRM. It's easier to maintain DRM in the software than it is to worry about ephemeral statistics about whether "good will" is better than DRM. As one of my bosses/co-workers said here when we were talking about restructuring the entire network: "No one ever got fired for recommending Cisco." No one in the game industry every got fired for recommending DRM in a piece of software as a protection against loss of sales.
In this low sales conversation, Atari continues to require DRM in it's product (unless beamdog has some statistics that can explicitly show how much money Atari lost by requiring the DRM, which they can't do) because the software industry thinks that some deterrent produces more sales than no deterrent. We gamers and software developers have no statistics otherwise because none of us have ever had the guts or the backing to release a NEW piece of software without DRM in the last 10 years to show that piracy isn't a huge concern. However the industry has a HELL of a lot of data, dating all the way back to the electronic music industry 20 years ago, what happens when you have NO controls over your electronic media. Software has been coming out in a copy protected format for at least 20 years, possibly going on 30 at this point...human nature hasn't changed since then. The corporate exec logic is that If it was needed 30 years ago, it's still needed (probably more so) now...and it's really hard to argue with that by doing a quick bittorrent search for video games.
The discussion changes dramatically if you're now talking about 7 figures of game sales. Selling 1M copies at 20$ a copy = 20M, a 20% loss of that 20M due to piracy is 400K in sales...that's a MUCH larger and MUCH more significant number.
In THIS discussion Atari and then even BeamDog themselves want to keep the DRM in the software because they can't AFFORD to lose 400K to piracy...much better to cut that 20% number down to 10% (the other 10% are folks who wouldn't have pirated the game if it was trouble to do so or required something more difficult than asking their next door neighbor to bring over their USB key) and lose only 200K (picking up an additional 200K in sales).
It's not that I can't see a situation where BeamDog COULD remove DRM from their product, it's that I don't believe non-protected popular software won't be pirated in numbers such that it becomes unfeasible to un-protect that software. (What was that?? A quadruple negative?)
Lets try that again, my point here is that at no point is removal of DRM a feasible possibility in this situation....either BeamDog doesn't sell enough copies for Atari to allow them to remove the DRM, or they sell too many copies at which point removing the DRM ends up costing them a heck of alot in the long run to those who pirate.
The crux of my argument is that in popular software DRM saves more sales than people who refuse to buy the product due to DRM (the Locking the door to your car in a parking lot argument). In less popular software it doesn't matter whether there's DRM or not because the financial statistics don't matter to anyone. It's easier to go with the "include DRM" argument because you have 30 years of software history to back you up.
GoG works because it doesn't sell popular games. GoG doesn't sell popular games because no manufacturer or game producer with an OUNCE of intelligence (or less than a metric ton of gullibility) would ever put a popular game up for download without protecting it's content from theft.
The only proven solution to the removal of piracy (see the music industry) is to reduce the price of the item the consumer wants and make it available in an easy enough method that it is less trouble for the consumer to pay the cost of the item than it is to try to find and pirate that same item. While that works for a $0.99 song that costs in the thousands of dollars to produce and maybe in the 10s of thousands of dollars to publish, you can't produce a game like Skyrim for $5 a copy. At 60 or even $30 a copy it will ALWAYS be worth the time and effort to go out and pirate a copy than it will be to drive down to GameStop and buy the copy, or download it from an online retailer.
And thus until you've gotten all the legal sales you can out of a product, game producers and publishers will continue to require DRM in their software.
Let me say this. Express your opinion all you want that you don't like DRM. I encourage everyone to do so.
And let me do so now: I hate DRM. I'd love to see no DRM in this product, in any future products by this company, and in any other products produced by any of these developers.
I strongly support a DRM Free marketplace, and I strongly support anyone who chooses to legally protest DRM in any electronic media purchase.
I will financially back any good product that is DRM free and I will always have a critical eye toward any product that includes DRM for whether that DRM makes it not worth my money.
If any of my comments above stated that I didn't feel you had the right or the reason to express your dislike of DRM, you have my apologies, I fully support anyone and everyone expressing this displeasure.
That said, in a case like this, where I feel standing up against DRM hurts the developer more than those forcing DRM down my throat, I will bite the bullet and step back and support the development effort.
Perhaps I am caving to "the man", but I'd prefer a market place with hated DRM and good entertaining products that I can buy than a marketplace with nothing I'm interested in that's free of DRM.
I leave the argument and fight for no DRM to those with more focus and drive than I. I just have a hard time dying on this hill against THIS DRM scheme...and since I also purchased Diablo III, I guess my opinions on anti DRM have very little weight behind them.
@Illydth The Witcher is a fairly popular game. The sequel is closing in on two million sales. It is developed by the owners of GoG and released there DRM free. What is your criteria for a popular/successful game? The Humble bundles are VERY successful and always DRM free. Sins of a Solar Empire is DRM free and sold over half a million. These are just examples off the top of my head. I did have to look up the sales numbers though I'd love to know what the sales numbers are for the just released Legend of Grimrock that has no DRM.
DRM is not necessary. Execs are figuring this out. Smaller developers can definitely help push this agenda. Low risk projects like this one are the perfect place to experiment. I don't expect them to take a leap of faith on the next gazillion dollar AAA release. But a fourteen year old remake where they have nothing to lose is a great place to see what happens.
I would say that BG:EE isn't exactly a "low-risk" project. They have to make sure that they meet their projected revenues, in order to maintain a budget for the next game.
If this project does exceedingly well, then they could probably experiment with things like that. But until then, I think they'll be better served by going with what makes the most immediate sense.
And in this case, the validation they're using is just about as unobtrusive as you could reasonably hope for, without getting rid of it altogether.
@Aosaw When I say "low-risk" I'm referring to Atari and WotC. They have virtually zero investment here. They are the ones who have dictated most of the terms of distribution from what the community has been told. The total amount of money invested by all parties in this venture probably doesn't warrant a single line item on the profit and loss statements of either Atari or WotC. The Witcher 2 and SoaSE both represent significantly higher risk while still going DRM free. And getting rid of it altogether is absolutely the point of this thread.
Even if i didn't have a computer I was going to buy the game just to support the devs (BG saga is the best rpg ever created, at least for me), but now i won't be doing it until there is no type of DRM. Sticking to vanilla BG 1 and 2 for now Hopefuly DRM is removed in the future.
Is this DRM enforced by the publisher? if so, is there any way to support the developers WITHOUT giving money to the publisher? Thanks.
And BGEE can be installed on multiple PCs and played concurrently offline. You cannot do that with the disc version. So while they do not present the same risk, BGEE's system also presents advantages. And I think you're really exaggerating the risk of BGEE becoming unplayable to force your point, we might as well start arguing about broken CD's.
Besides, you're ignoring the real point of my post. @Daverian was saying that he had no problem in bypassing the DRM of the CD version of the game, but then he suddenly has a problem in buying BGEE and bypassing its DRM. That's why I called his argument BS.
Um, I don't know what you're talking about. My brother and I were playing BG II multiplayer with a single disk just a few days ago. Same with out other IE games. We put the disk in, the game loads up, we remove the disk, stick it in the other PC, game loads up, we play. The games have been full-installed so the CD is only needed on start up.
I've been playing BG since BG I, and it's one of my favorite games ever. I still play it today. I have all my disks backed up (there are no CD protections on my BG disks), and I have the originals ferreted away and use clones to start the game up. I am still playing this game. My much younger brother has been finding the joy of these games as well. I have been so amazingly psyched for this release, and yet this DRM thing has given me the first pause to consider if I actually want to get it. I was excited about the $20 price tag, because I could spend $60 (the cost of a typical game) and grab a copy for my brother, a friend of mine, and I as gifts. However, I'm strongly against DRM on both principle and practice, and the idea of having to connect to some server somewhere every time I want to install my game? Ugh, gross. Screw that.
This has indeed greatly influenced my outlook on making a purchase. It has taken me from "Holy crap, I can't wait, let me throw money at you" to "Um, I'll think about it...". Perhaps I am just tired of the DRM BS (and it is BS, because it NEVER stops pirates, and only punishes consumers). I mean, how many pirates do you think will be required to authenticate their copies? None. How many consumers will have to take up the extra step? All of them (unless they purchase the game AND pirate it, requiring another step and a deterrent to actually paying for a retail copy unless it is specifically to support the company).
I didn't know about GoG.com until this thread, but I will likely be using it greatly in the future, and sharing it with some of my friends. We were talking about getting a big LAN game of Neverwinter Nights going soon, but he said someone threw away his game. NWN Diamond seems to be $10 (9.99) up there, which means we could each chip in a bit of cash and grab enough copies for all of us to run some LAN games immediately. Heck yeah. Gotta do it now! ^_^
But yes, I think I might just continue playing my current copies of BG Tutu/BG II until this DRM nonsense is overcome. If only to show that while I wish to support the folks behind BG:EE, I do not wish to support DRM shenanigans in any way. I will honestly say that I will consider purchasing it, but that this alone has taken me from "Guaranteed Purchase" to "Possible but hesitant purchase".
I don't consider the one-authentification-per-install as an heavy DRM.
Actually, I don't even consider it DRM at all. It's more like a digital copy available only on the cloud.
There are several things I don't get on this forum. Some people whine about steam release, which is REALLY DRM heavy. Others whine about BGEE having DRM at all.
You better realize now, DRM is never gonna disappear. It's a reality. And it will certainly never be removed from BGEE unless BeamDog goes crushed by the gaming industries (which I really don't want). I consider this behavior of avoiding any DRM as futile attempts to change the world. Just live with it. The Dev have already heard our pleas to have no DRM at all. Guess what, it's not possible, so they made it the lighter possible. And I'm very grateful for that because this solution is the closest we can get in any modern game from DRM free experience.
So light, I don't really see where there are any inconvenience at all. @Ashiel I don't get your point at all. You don't plan to install your game every day, do you ? BGEE is small. At most, you install it once per month if you play heavily modded and screw some things up. I know that I won't need lots of installation. One per pc I own and I'll ever own.
I do a fair amount of tinkering with my games, and I occasionally do fresh installs to sort out any bugs, or if I want to try a remix of the great mod content without going back through and manually removing each of the patches/mods I want to adjust.
Regardless as to the why, it is the fact that DRM gives me pause. That is the only thing that matters in this discussion. I went from a guaranteed sale to an unsure one. That is all the matters is the bottom line. To me, I want a product that I won't have to worry about being unable to install if my internet is down (I mean hell, I often get a hankering to play these such games when my ISP is being goofy), or if a company folds, or is bought out, or explodes for all I know. I mean, how popular do you think this game would be if you couldn't install it after Black Isle folded?
Also, I don't buy into your defeatist attitude, nor do I care about your lecture concerning industry standards being rigid and impossible to change. The entirety of history -- which repeats itself -- proves that sort of thinking to be false. A tsunami is very many drops of water moving in one direction. A drop of water might not move much, but a lot of them might wash away the status quo dam.
See, I'm torn. I actually want to support the developers because of what they are doing, but I don't want to support any of this DRM-BS. I'm out NOTHING for not purchasing a copy of this game, because as it turns out I have perfectly good non-DRM copies of BG I + TOTSC, BG II + ToB, and a plethora of excellent expanded content from the community that kept these games alive all this time to even allow such a venture to be a consideration. Finally, like others pointed out, if I really wanted to I could just pirate the game (but in doing so, the company gets no support). So all that considered, what would motivate me -- a potential customer -- to purchase this game?
Support. What kinds of support? Who's support? Well it goes both ways. 1: To support the developers. I want them to succeed with this. Me supporting them. 2: To be supported with a game with fewer bugs and better OS functionality. Them supporting me. 3: To support the community that has kept the game going. All of us supporting each other. 4: To support the series. Increased coverage -- by any means -- that can expand audience of a great game series.
But it comes weighed against principles of sheer hatred against DRM. DRM is anti-support. It weighs heavily on my decisions. I would rather not, in most cases, support products with DRM great or small. Most of the time I'm more than happy to voice my thoughts as to where companies can stick their DRM; especially in light of open source movements and the benefits of even giving away your products in some forms (since we like discussing Wizards of the Coast, we could point out their #1 competitor right now is Paizo Publishing who has made more or less everything mechanical they've published available on their website for free, and sell products through good service and PR with consumers).
However, because of the 4 listed reasons above, I'm still considering purchasing the game. I just want to voice out to whomever can read it: be it the developers, the producers, or the community, that the DRM turned me from a sure customer into an unsure customer and what that means. And just so we're clear, I am well aware of how to pirate stuff, and yet I was still not only ready to shell out my hard earned $ for this game, but I was looking at the $20 launch price and immediately my mind was going over incentives for purchasing multiple copies for myself, my brother, and a friend of mine.
You're free to make of it what you will. Whether you understand or not is irrelevant to me. What is relevant to me, and to those behind products that I would purchase is my money. My reasons only begin and end to matter with my dollar.
I didn't know about GoG.com until this thread, but I will likely be using it greatly in the future, and sharing it with some of my friends.
At least one good thing came out of this thread!
The backlash against DRM is growing and a community is forming up. The question at hand is whether or not the parties involved want the patronage of that community. I would like to try and convince them that this is the most profitable avenue available to them.
I don't consider the one-authentification-per-install as an heavy DRM.
Actually, I don't even consider it DRM at all. It's more like a digital copy available only on the cloud.
There are several things I don't get on this forum. Some people whine about steam release, which is REALLY DRM heavy. Others whine about BGEE having DRM at all.
You better realize now, DRM is never gonna disappear. It's a reality. And it will certainly never be removed from BGEE unless BeamDog goes crushed by the gaming industries (which I really don't want). I consider this behavior of avoiding any DRM as futile attempts to change the world. Just live with it. The Dev have already heard our pleas to have no DRM at all. Guess what, it's not possible, so they made it the lighter possible. And I'm very grateful for that because this solution is the closest we can get in any modern game from DRM free experience.
So light, I don't really see where there are any inconvenience at all. @Ashiel I don't get your point at all. You don't plan to install your game every day, do you ? BGEE is small. At most, you install it once per month if you play heavily modded and screw some things up. I know that I won't need lots of installation. One per pc I own and I'll ever own.
Exactly , this scheme better than Steam . I also hate Steam :S
Comments
What BG:EE does is validate the installer, to verify that the person who is installing the game is someone who purchased the game. If you only ever install the game once, it will only validate once. It's a bit like entering a product key, except that you can enter the same key as many times as you want, and instead of entering a key you log in to your Beamdog account. So it's actually a lot simpler and more convenient than entering a product key.
The side-effect is that you can't just give copies of the game to everyone you know. Or, scratch that. You can; you just have to be in the room when they install it. But it keeps the game within the scope of "my friends", rather than "everyone on the internet". With any digitally distributed product, you have to have some form of validation. GoG does it at purchase and download; Steam does it at purchase, download, startup; Uplay does it at purchase, login, download, install, startup, shut-down, and once or twice per minute during play (and sometimes even when you're not playing); Beamdog does it at purchase and installation.
The unfortunate result, for the moment, is that you can't validate your installation without an internet connection. But I suspect that, if you contacted Beamdog, they could probably find a way to validate your copy without a connection (some companies have a phone service, for example).
DRM restricts the way in which you can use the product, because you can't use the product without a connection. BG:EE doesn't restrict your use of the product; it restricts your (secondary) acquirement of the product. Which is to say, each time you install the game after the first, you have to validate it.
I imagine that if/when a boxed edition is released, it will not have this same validation, because the installation is taking place in direct correspondence with physical media (either a USB stick or a DVD) that was received as part of a purchase.
I realized, a long time ago, that I had the ability to live in both worlds at the same time: Properly paying the developers while not giving in to their draconian methods of DRM.
The answer is simple: Buy a copy of the game, then download the cracked/pirated version of it.
I'm a software developer by trade and by hobby so I hate advocating piracy, however, in some cases where DRM is a hindrance to play, I completely understand the reason for it...
But that shouldn't stop you from paying the developer...even though you are using a pirated copy of the game.
Pre-Order your copy of BG:EE, then, once released, pirate away. You can smile knowing that you've helped the development staff and a company that has broken it's back to bring you one of the best games in the last Decade back to your computer, while still not "bending over to the man."
If you are taking a stand against DRM, as an open source developer, I applaud you, take a stand, and don't buy the game...but don't pirate it either. Pay for it and play it how you want to, or don't pay for it and DON'T PLAY IT.
If you have problems with the DRM method (see below) affecting you adversely I appreciate your difficulty, see above for your solution. Buy the game then download a cracked version that doesn't enforce DRM.
"I don't have an Internet connection on my gaming PC, I can't handle this DRM"
Really? I mean seriously, really? How did you get your operating system installed then? Are you only running games that run on Linux? (Every other desktop OS requires some kind of Internet connection at the point of install to activate the license). How are you even considering this a usable PC? I heard you call it your "gaming PC" but I can't imagine what games you're actually playing on it since EVERYTHING in the last 5 years + has required an Internet connection AT MINIMUM at the time of install.
You sure this isn't just "I don't want DRM so I can give this away to my friends so we can pool our mom's 2 dollars each and buy a single copy that we can install on all 10 of our machines?"
Lastly, regarding the whole GoG, etc. Look at what games are being provided by GoG DRM Free...in the majority of cases, these are games that went EOL a LONG time ago. Were it not for GoG these games would be producing 0 revenue for the production company / rights holders, so why not release them without DRM? Do you see Skyrim or Diablo III on GoG? (D3 is a bad example since it's required online play). Of course not. And you never will, because without DRM the company producing the software cannot guarantee the revenue THEY ARE DUE for production of the software.
BG:EE is new development, doesn't matter that it's a 15 year old game, it's still NEW DEVELOPMENT, it's a re-release of an old game. Thus the production company needs to be paid for their time and effort, and that means DRM is required.
And it IS required...because human nature is not, by and large, generous enough to guarantee that if I gave you a copy of my game that you wouldn't give it to someone else.
--Doug
As part of the terms between the rights holder and the production company, DRM is required to be part of the game. That's the end of the discussion right there. It's not possible for this game to be available for you to play it without DRM as part of the final package. The developer has done whatever they can to reduce/eliminate that DRM as best they can, but at the end of the day DRM MUST BE THERE for this game to hit store shelves.
--Doug
I'll ask a question again that I posted earlier. If this forum isn't the appropriate place to discus the manner in which the game is released, can you tell me where that place is located? What should we discus here on the forums BEFORE the game is released? The gameplay? The graphics? The quality of the new material? I would really like to know what topics are appropriate.
DRM is a consumer rights issue. I find it amazing that so many are upset when someone argues for their rights online. I don't think I've been disrespectful to anyone. And I have not promoted piracy. I have just said that the piracy issue isn't completely black and white. But I paid for my copy of BG:EE.
Rock'n'roll Business,
Can not find it's a shame that we are referred to us : players, a sense of guilt over our destestation of DRM ?
While for some of us we have multiple copies (ie, licenses) of this game ?
In contrast, Multinationals are putting pressure on a Small Label,
and want to put DRM Architecture with a "fait accompli",
When the whole community : players and modders, translators, moderators, testers, fixers etc., etc., been solicited to BG.EE. ...
for free ... as a volunteer !
That is to say some are poised to succeed (with false flag) to privatize :
Community Fans, Modding and Restrict our Rights ... !
And re-selling it (lol) even under conditions (re-lol) ...
Frankly after the greatest swindle of rock'n'roll, we are witnessing the greatest swindle of the video game business ?
Apologies in advance for the TL;DR but I feel it's necessary to prove my point and make my case.
Your opinion, my opinion (and by the way, I agree with you about DRM, totally and completely) and anyone else's opinion on these boards or anywhere else is immaterial about how and whether DRM is implemented in this or any other BG game by this development studio.
The development studio does NOT own the license to this product.
To obtain the license to this product they had to agree to DRM.
To continue to produce this product they will continue to have to agree to DRM.
To produce future products under the same license they will continue to have to agree to DRM.
The development studio does not have an opinion nor choice in this matter. Nor do they have the capability (read money) to make their own choices in this matter.
Look, all non-mega corp development studio's start with an idea.
In this case, that idea is Baulders Gate III. However, new development, such as making a brand new BG Game, costs money...ALOT of money. Money that, generally, most developers starting a project like this DO NOT HAVE (Generally you're talking in the millions of dollars).
As is generally the case, BGIII was likely pitched to several development shops (the Blizzard's and Bioware's of the world) and, probably at least in part due to the age of the franchise as well as the lack of popularity of D&D in general at this point in time, was likely shot down as not profitable enough for a major production company to back the development costs.
The development studio in this case has chosen to kill 2 birds with 1 stone to solve this problem.
1) They remake an old game with great popularity to bring the franchise back into the public eye...thereby removing the objection of the larger studios that the franchise is old and dead and not profitable.
2) They make some money for themselves to assist with the development cost of future versions of the software.
To remake the old game, however, requires them to obtain the rights to make something within the franchise...you can't simply go out and produce a game or write a story about the Forgotten Realms and not expect to get sued. This, again, causes some concern as there's really only two ways to obtain rights like this:
1) Buy the rights from the stakeholders...generally, again, this is a sum of money in the millions for a franchise like BG (if it would even be for sale, which, given it's ties to D&D and the largest campaign setting of D&D means it probably wouldn't).
2) License the rights to the franchise.
So the development studio has gone to the major players with a stake in the rights to the Baulders Gate franchise (Atari, WotC/Hasbro, etc.) and asked what it would take to license the rights to re-make the original BG.
Now, this is a smart move, because it's actually in the best interest of the stake holders to agree to the re-production...assuming they're not putting up a metric boat load of cash to do so. From the right's holders's perspective, this is a dead Franchise...it's out on GoG for Christ's sakes so it isn't generating MUCH revenue for the company at this point.
HOWEVER, the stake holders are putting up SOME money for this development (the development studio needs paid somehow), and they still own the rights, so they get to dictate the terms under which the product gets produced. You'll note, through other reading on this site, that the development studio has VERY LITTLE creative control over this project...there were restrictive rules on how much of the story the dev studio could change/modify, and restrictions on other parts as well...
One of those restrictions is "There must be DRM".
Here's why your conversation and comments make no difference.
Atari and the other powers that be wrote off this franchise a LONG time ago. While I'm sure there's some financial outlay for BG:EE, at the end of the day it's a writeoff expense to the license holder...they're not putting up significant cash for the development effort. They don't CARE whether this is a success or a failure (they certainly have a PREFERENCE for success, as that means making more money off of what used to be a dead franchise, but none of their bottom lines rely upon this remake being successful).
Arguing with the Development Studio about including DRM is like spitting into the wind. They can't do a thing about it...either they include DRM or don't produce the game.
Arguing with the License Holders about including DRM is like spitting into the wind...they don't care if you don't buy the game, they're not holding their breaths that ANYONE will buy this game. If the game flops because you don't buy it due to DRM Atari says "We told you so" and moves on with life.
The entire conversation of whether or not to include DRM is a MOOT POINT because:
* without it, there is no game...and thus no dream.
* no one on this board or reading this board has ANY ABILITY to do ANYTHING about the DRM in this (or any future) product(s).
Unless you are offering the developers enough money to BUY OUT the license to BG, no one here has any ability to do anything about your complaint (for this or any future games)...even if they want to.
The ONLY people you hurt by not buying this game is the Development Studio (in that they don't prove the franchise is popular enough to make a new game within it) and yourselves since you'll never SEE a BG3.
Most software developers would love NOTHING MORE than to see DRM removed from the terminology of the computer industry FOREVER. However that will never happen, because people have proven that if they have the opportunity to steal something, they will...and despite your argument that "there will be a pirated version out there, so DRM does you no good", it does. Just like locking your car door in a parking lot stops the guy wandering by who happens to see your GPS on the dash from opening your door and stealing it, so does DRM stop the barely computer literate gamer (and that's a lot of them) from dropping their download onto a USB drive and walking it over to their friends house.
Until there's another way for a distributor, like Atari or BioWare, to guarantee sales with a minimum of losses due to theft, there will be DRM, and it will get worse and worse for the consumer as time goes on because every time one scheme is broken a new, tougher scheme (which will require more hoops for the properly paid end user to jump through) will be developed.
To me, patronizing developers who use EASY and NON INTRUSIVE DRM solutions should be a high priority...as high a priority as NOT patronizing development companies that use DRM. If we accept DRM in it's less intrusive forms and start policing ourselves as consumers, 10 years from now maybe we won't all have to have 100% online connections to simply boot our computers.
And to bring this back around full circle...I, personally, would like to see BG3. I realize the developers need money to produce a game like BG3 and I realize the only way they'll get that cash is through my purchase of the remade software of BG and BG2...
I don't like DRM, but I see the publisher's thought that it's a necessity. Regardless of my personal beliefs on the matter, I also realize that in this case, arguing the need or non-need of DRM is useless because there's no choice in the matter. The only choice I have in the matter is to buy the game and support a potential BG3, or not buy the game and thus kill any hope of ever seeing a new release of this much beloved series...and probably any hope of a remake of the rest of this series and others (like Planescape:Torment) in the process...
I chose to support this idea and this dream that the development studio has, despite the license holder's insistence that DRM be included...I realize it's out of the development studio's hands and not their fault that the DRM is included. I choose to purchase this game, instead of pirate it...even if, eventually down the line, a pirated version of the game is installed on my system...because I believe in the dream of the development company: That of producing a new version of my beloved series.
And I encourage all of you to realize the same.
I don't think I've "dictated" anything to anybody. I've just attempted to make the argument that there is more money to be made without DRM than there is with DRM. If I've made demands they were unintentional. I try to avoid using loaded language like that when trying to persuade anyone of everything. Terms like that invite emotion into what should be rational discussion. I think there has been enough emotion in this thread IMHO.
A DRM Free BG:EE would be better for the consumer.
A DRM Free BG:EE would be better for the developer.
A DRM Free BG:EE Is NOT better for the rights holder who has little to no stake in the development or production of this title and is ONLY worried about the revenue.
That's why holding DRM against this development studio isn't going to work. There are places and studios to take a stand against...this isn't the time or the place to do so.
I do maintain that no DRM would be better for WotC/Atari as I feel it would engender more good will and lead directly to higher revenue. I also believe that this release is not the place to take a stand. But if this release is extremely successful than Beamdog will have significantly more leverage in the negotiations for BG2 and that may be the appropriate time. If that contract has already been signed, and it is very possible, than BG3 or IWD or Planescape will be the time to take a stand.
If we don't discus the issue now, how will Beamdog know this is an important issue to their customers? They definitely won't bother taking a stand if this subject never gets any time. Again, I support Beamdog. I've paid Beamdog. I would like Beamdog to continue. But I would like them to make DRM removal an issue.
If you want to play the game, pay money for it. Install what you want, crack what you want, avoid whatever you want, but if you wish to use a product you pay for that product.
Anything else is theft. It is NOT ok, even in protest, to steal another person's work.
If you wish to protest DRM, do not buy DRM enabled products. I back you.
If you wish to play this or another DRM Protected game, buy the game. I back you.
If you buy the game and are worried about an aspect of the DRM (such as the comment here that 10 years from now the server that authenticates the game may go away), then crack the DRM protected game. I back you.
DO NOT PIRATE THE GAME because you don't like DRM. THAT is theft, not protest. That is not "voting with your wallet." It is theft. It is not "no loss of sales", it's theft.
If you play the game you are a sale. If there was no other option other than to either purchase the game or not play the game, and you're playing the game, then you were a sale. If, instead of purchasing the game, you get a free version of that game, it is theft...that is a lost sale.
This is not a "grey" area for discussion.
It is not an acceptable protest, morally or in any other form, to PLAY a game you have not paid for.
Do not buy it, Buy it, or Buy it and Pirate it. Any of the three of these options are morally (if not legally) acceptable.
Play it without paying for it is NOT morally acceptable.
If your position is: I wish DRM wasn't here, but since they can't do anything about it, I support the Developer. I'm with you.
If your position is: I want Beamdog to know I don't like DRM in my software. I'm with you.
If your position is: If Beamdog doesn't do something about DRM in it's software I won't support them...
I very much am NOT with you. Beamdog has no voice in the matter, and so long as they don't own the rights to BG, they never will. Regardless of how well the software does, the answer will always be: "If you want to produce a game of this genera, you'll accept our terms."
Regarding DRM in general, the arguments for it's removal from the industry are weak. I hate DRM, I've said that many times in this thread, but I also understand business and reality enough to know no one has yet made a valid argument for it's removal.
There are 2 main arguments that always come up against DRM:
1) It doesn't stop Piracy.
2) It generates more good will if you release your software DRM Free to the public.
The DRM argument always brings distributors like GoG.com into the discussion. However, if you look at what is being distributed by GoG, it's software that people and the gaming industry have long since left behind that gets distributed by GoG, not the most recent new thing.
Diablo III didn't get distributed in a DRM Free Method.
Mass Effect 3 didn't get distributed in a DRM Free Method.
Skyrim didn't get distributed in a DRM Free Method.
Are we all blinded by our hatred of DRM enough to think that, hassle being equal, given the option to get your friend's copy of the game and paying $60 to Gamestop for your own copy, a whole slew of people wouldn't just pool their money among their 10 closest friends and load a DRM free copy on everyone's machine?
GoG doesn't show hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of loss through piracy because the games it distributes DRM free are already either owned by most of those who will ever play it or aren't known about by most gamers.
When you only get hundreds of downloads, it's hard to show any real significance in piracy: even total number of DOWNLOADS you get from GOG are within the margin of error of total sales estimates....let alone the amount of people pirating those games.
That would be a VAST difference if you were talking about a new hot release. Look at the numbers. If you're talking 20% Piracy among the 400 copies of a game downloaded from gog, that's 80 copies of the game at $10 a copy...$800 of loss due to piracy. 4000 copies downloaded? Ok, $8000 dollars.
Now look at Skyrim...3.4 Million Retail Sales (in the first 2 days only) @ $60 a sale. 20% piracy rate on this would be 680,000 copies of the game @ $60 each = 40.8 Million Dollars.
$800 ! = $40.8M
That is why the DRM argument fails. We're not even going to mention that the impitus to pirate a game at $7.99 or even $14 is a heck of alot less than the impitus to pirate a game Retailing at $60...so your piracy rate would be A LOT higher with a game released at retail than several years after the product has stopped selling copies.
"Good Will" Doesn't make up for $40.8 mlllion dollars.
@Illydth I'm not trying to be confrontational, but how do you know all of these things for a fact? You know with absolute certainty that DRM is and will always be a direct requirement? How? Were you in the negotiations?
My understanding is that the D&D franchise is not on strong ground at all and depending on the results of D&D Next may be on its way to being sold. If ownership changes how do you know the DRM position of that party may not change? Even if it doesn't change, we're talking about a company that has released everything under the OGL and then scrapped that altogether for the next edition. How do you know which way the wind will blow at WotC when the time comes?
If this project sells a million copies and Beamdog gets most of the credit, and I think they would, Atari would have to be more amenable to Beamdog's terms. That would end the whole "dead franchise" argument because dead franchises don't move units in the seven figures. With all of the distribution channels this is going to hit I think that number is possible. It isn't probable, but I do think it can happen. That would change so much of the dynamic between the players that your absolute declarations become questionable at best.
No one knows the future. And this is all in the spirit of supporting Beamdog and helping them make the best product possible. The easiest thing to do would be for me to quit typing and pirate the game. I've chosen to try and make my feelings known to the developer and pre-order the game on PC. I'm sure I'll buy it in the app store as well. And I'll buy it from GOG if it ever becomes available. This isn't an attack. I'm not attacking any poster or developer or IP rights holder. I'm arguing the case that DRM is bad for business and challenging the idea that DRM is a necessary evil. It's just lawful evil.
I also disagree with those who say it's pointless to argue in favor of a no-DRM policy. Several game studios recognize that consumers don't want DRM and have pledged not to include it in their games. Although I agree with Illydth that in this case, the decision has been made and not likely to be reversed, I'd also point out that Beamdog doesn't have to include DRM on any future titles if they're not licensed. Anything they create themselves, they would make the decision on whether or not DRM would be included, so in that way, it is certainly worth it to voice your concerns over DRM and ask for it not to be included.
Oh, I have no crystal ball. You're very possibly right from a "what could happen" perspective. There's every possibility that WotC could sell the rights to D&D to someone else and that that someone else could be all about No DRM and drop it from any contract from Beamdog.
There's also the possibility that Beamdog sells 7 figures of this game across the various distributions and tells Atari where it can stick it's contract for the next version...
We're going back and forth between specifics (this game) and Generics (DRM in general) in our discussion, so let me see if I can try to focus a bit better.
For this game, I agree, there's a possibility that should something change hands or the game go off like a firecracker (And I sure hope it does) that your comments about DRM may be ABLE to be taken into account and changed in a future version of the software.
So, I'll come eye to eye with you that there is a POSSIBILITY (I see it as small, but hopefully it's not) that beamdog will have some potential at some point in the future to remove the DRM portion of the contract.
And I'll come right back again and state at this point, they won't WANT to remove the DRM from the software. By the point they have the sales and numbers to SUPPORT removing DRM, the removal OF DRM will cost them too much in sales.
This is what I meant by the GOG example being a weak argument.
When you're selling 4000 copies of a piece of software and you have 20% piracy, you're looking at maybe a 16K loss in sales...while 16K of 80K is a large chunk of change, 80K is not a statistic that any game production company like Atari even sees (let alone the 16K in lost sales due to piracy)...that's pocket change. They don't CARE if the game is pirated or not, there's not enough money in it for them to put effort or worry into how many copies are sold or not sold due to DRM or no DRM. It's easier to maintain DRM in the software than it is to worry about ephemeral statistics about whether "good will" is better than DRM. As one of my bosses/co-workers said here when we were talking about restructuring the entire network: "No one ever got fired for recommending Cisco." No one in the game industry every got fired for recommending DRM in a piece of software as a protection against loss of sales.
In this low sales conversation, Atari continues to require DRM in it's product (unless beamdog has some statistics that can explicitly show how much money Atari lost by requiring the DRM, which they can't do) because the software industry thinks that some deterrent produces more sales than no deterrent. We gamers and software developers have no statistics otherwise because none of us have ever had the guts or the backing to release a NEW piece of software without DRM in the last 10 years to show that piracy isn't a huge concern. However the industry has a HELL of a lot of data, dating all the way back to the electronic music industry 20 years ago, what happens when you have NO controls over your electronic media. Software has been coming out in a copy protected format for at least 20 years, possibly going on 30 at this point...human nature hasn't changed since then. The corporate exec logic is that If it was needed 30 years ago, it's still needed (probably more so) now...and it's really hard to argue with that by doing a quick bittorrent search for video games.
The discussion changes dramatically if you're now talking about 7 figures of game sales. Selling 1M copies at 20$ a copy = 20M, a 20% loss of that 20M due to piracy is 400K in sales...that's a MUCH larger and MUCH more significant number.
In THIS discussion Atari and then even BeamDog themselves want to keep the DRM in the software because they can't AFFORD to lose 400K to piracy...much better to cut that 20% number down to 10% (the other 10% are folks who wouldn't have pirated the game if it was trouble to do so or required something more difficult than asking their next door neighbor to bring over their USB key) and lose only 200K (picking up an additional 200K in sales).
It's not that I can't see a situation where BeamDog COULD remove DRM from their product, it's that I don't believe non-protected popular software won't be pirated in numbers such that it becomes unfeasible to un-protect that software. (What was that?? A quadruple negative?)
Lets try that again, my point here is that at no point is removal of DRM a feasible possibility in this situation....either BeamDog doesn't sell enough copies for Atari to allow them to remove the DRM, or they sell too many copies at which point removing the DRM ends up costing them a heck of alot in the long run to those who pirate.
The crux of my argument is that in popular software DRM saves more sales than people who refuse to buy the product due to DRM (the Locking the door to your car in a parking lot argument). In less popular software it doesn't matter whether there's DRM or not because the financial statistics don't matter to anyone. It's easier to go with the "include DRM" argument because you have 30 years of software history to back you up.
GoG works because it doesn't sell popular games. GoG doesn't sell popular games because no manufacturer or game producer with an OUNCE of intelligence (or less than a metric ton of gullibility) would ever put a popular game up for download without protecting it's content from theft.
The only proven solution to the removal of piracy (see the music industry) is to reduce the price of the item the consumer wants and make it available in an easy enough method that it is less trouble for the consumer to pay the cost of the item than it is to try to find and pirate that same item. While that works for a $0.99 song that costs in the thousands of dollars to produce and maybe in the 10s of thousands of dollars to publish, you can't produce a game like Skyrim for $5 a copy. At 60 or even $30 a copy it will ALWAYS be worth the time and effort to go out and pirate a copy than it will be to drive down to GameStop and buy the copy, or download it from an online retailer.
And thus until you've gotten all the legal sales you can out of a product, game producers and publishers will continue to require DRM in their software.
And let me do so now: I hate DRM. I'd love to see no DRM in this product, in any future products by this company, and in any other products produced by any of these developers.
I strongly support a DRM Free marketplace, and I strongly support anyone who chooses to legally protest DRM in any electronic media purchase.
I will financially back any good product that is DRM free and I will always have a critical eye toward any product that includes DRM for whether that DRM makes it not worth my money.
If any of my comments above stated that I didn't feel you had the right or the reason to express your dislike of DRM, you have my apologies, I fully support anyone and everyone expressing this displeasure.
That said, in a case like this, where I feel standing up against DRM hurts the developer more than those forcing DRM down my throat, I will bite the bullet and step back and support the development effort.
Perhaps I am caving to "the man", but I'd prefer a market place with hated DRM and good entertaining products that I can buy than a marketplace with nothing I'm interested in that's free of DRM.
I leave the argument and fight for no DRM to those with more focus and drive than I. I just have a hard time dying on this hill against THIS DRM scheme...and since I also purchased Diablo III, I guess my opinions on anti DRM have very little weight behind them.
DRM is not necessary. Execs are figuring this out. Smaller developers can definitely help push this agenda. Low risk projects like this one are the perfect place to experiment. I don't expect them to take a leap of faith on the next gazillion dollar AAA release. But a fourteen year old remake where they have nothing to lose is a great place to see what happens.
If this project does exceedingly well, then they could probably experiment with things like that. But until then, I think they'll be better served by going with what makes the most immediate sense.
And in this case, the validation they're using is just about as unobtrusive as you could reasonably hope for, without getting rid of it altogether.
Sticking to vanilla BG 1 and 2 for now
Is this DRM enforced by the publisher? if so, is there any way to support the developers WITHOUT giving money to the publisher? Thanks.
I've been playing BG since BG I, and it's one of my favorite games ever. I still play it today. I have all my disks backed up (there are no CD protections on my BG disks), and I have the originals ferreted away and use clones to start the game up. I am still playing this game. My much younger brother has been finding the joy of these games as well. I have been so amazingly psyched for this release, and yet this DRM thing has given me the first pause to consider if I actually want to get it. I was excited about the $20 price tag, because I could spend $60 (the cost of a typical game) and grab a copy for my brother, a friend of mine, and I as gifts. However, I'm strongly against DRM on both principle and practice, and the idea of having to connect to some server somewhere every time I want to install my game? Ugh, gross. Screw that.
This has indeed greatly influenced my outlook on making a purchase. It has taken me from "Holy crap, I can't wait, let me throw money at you" to "Um, I'll think about it...". Perhaps I am just tired of the DRM BS (and it is BS, because it NEVER stops pirates, and only punishes consumers). I mean, how many pirates do you think will be required to authenticate their copies? None. How many consumers will have to take up the extra step? All of them (unless they purchase the game AND pirate it, requiring another step and a deterrent to actually paying for a retail copy unless it is specifically to support the company).
I didn't know about GoG.com until this thread, but I will likely be using it greatly in the future, and sharing it with some of my friends. We were talking about getting a big LAN game of Neverwinter Nights going soon, but he said someone threw away his game. NWN Diamond seems to be $10 (9.99) up there, which means we could each chip in a bit of cash and grab enough copies for all of us to run some LAN games immediately. Heck yeah. Gotta do it now! ^_^
But yes, I think I might just continue playing my current copies of BG Tutu/BG II until this DRM nonsense is overcome. If only to show that while I wish to support the folks behind BG:EE, I do not wish to support DRM shenanigans in any way. I will honestly say that I will consider purchasing it, but that this alone has taken me from "Guaranteed Purchase" to "Possible but hesitant purchase".
Actually, I don't even consider it DRM at all. It's more like a digital copy available only on the cloud.
There are several things I don't get on this forum. Some people whine about steam release, which is REALLY DRM heavy. Others whine about BGEE having DRM at all.
You better realize now, DRM is never gonna disappear. It's a reality. And it will certainly never be removed from BGEE unless BeamDog goes crushed by the gaming industries (which I really don't want). I consider this behavior of avoiding any DRM as futile attempts to change the world. Just live with it. The Dev have already heard our pleas to have no DRM at all. Guess what, it's not possible, so they made it the lighter possible. And I'm very grateful for that because this solution is the closest we can get in any modern game from DRM free experience.
So light, I don't really see where there are any inconvenience at all. @Ashiel I don't get your point at all. You don't plan to install your game every day, do you ? BGEE is small. At most, you install it once per month if you play heavily modded and screw some things up. I know that I won't need lots of installation. One per pc I own and I'll ever own.
Regardless as to the why, it is the fact that DRM gives me pause. That is the only thing that matters in this discussion. I went from a guaranteed sale to an unsure one. That is all the matters is the bottom line. To me, I want a product that I won't have to worry about being unable to install if my internet is down (I mean hell, I often get a hankering to play these such games when my ISP is being goofy), or if a company folds, or is bought out, or explodes for all I know. I mean, how popular do you think this game would be if you couldn't install it after Black Isle folded?
Also, I don't buy into your defeatist attitude, nor do I care about your lecture concerning industry standards being rigid and impossible to change. The entirety of history -- which repeats itself -- proves that sort of thinking to be false. A tsunami is very many drops of water moving in one direction. A drop of water might not move much, but a lot of them might wash away the status quo dam.
See, I'm torn. I actually want to support the developers because of what they are doing, but I don't want to support any of this DRM-BS. I'm out NOTHING for not purchasing a copy of this game, because as it turns out I have perfectly good non-DRM copies of BG I + TOTSC, BG II + ToB, and a plethora of excellent expanded content from the community that kept these games alive all this time to even allow such a venture to be a consideration. Finally, like others pointed out, if I really wanted to I could just pirate the game (but in doing so, the company gets no support). So all that considered, what would motivate me -- a potential customer -- to purchase this game?
Support. What kinds of support? Who's support? Well it goes both ways.
1: To support the developers. I want them to succeed with this. Me supporting them.
2: To be supported with a game with fewer bugs and better OS functionality. Them supporting me.
3: To support the community that has kept the game going. All of us supporting each other.
4: To support the series. Increased coverage -- by any means -- that can expand audience of a great game series.
But it comes weighed against principles of sheer hatred against DRM. DRM is anti-support. It weighs heavily on my decisions. I would rather not, in most cases, support products with DRM great or small. Most of the time I'm more than happy to voice my thoughts as to where companies can stick their DRM; especially in light of open source movements and the benefits of even giving away your products in some forms (since we like discussing Wizards of the Coast, we could point out their #1 competitor right now is Paizo Publishing who has made more or less everything mechanical they've published available on their website for free, and sell products through good service and PR with consumers).
However, because of the 4 listed reasons above, I'm still considering purchasing the game. I just want to voice out to whomever can read it: be it the developers, the producers, or the community, that the DRM turned me from a sure customer into an unsure customer and what that means. And just so we're clear, I am well aware of how to pirate stuff, and yet I was still not only ready to shell out my hard earned $ for this game, but I was looking at the $20 launch price and immediately my mind was going over incentives for purchasing multiple copies for myself, my brother, and a friend of mine.
You're free to make of it what you will. Whether you understand or not is irrelevant to me. What is relevant to me, and to those behind products that I would purchase is my money. My reasons only begin and end to matter with my dollar.
The backlash against DRM is growing and a community is forming up. The question at hand is whether or not the parties involved want the patronage of that community. I would like to try and convince them that this is the most profitable avenue available to them.