It might be worthwhile to look at this as "A step in the right direction". Showing support for a game that uses a very minimal form of authentication is a way of saying, "This is better than a lot of other forms of authentication". They could require you to authenticate every time you save, or every time you pause, or every time you cast a spell. They could require you to be online the entire time you play the game.
Instead, they require you to hit their servers once (just once) when you install the game. They've stated before that they're working to make mod management much simpler, which means that you won't have to do fresh installs once a week to fix things; you'll be able to just add and remove mods as needed.
Granted, I would much prefer a physical copy to a digital one, but they're still working on negotiating that. I would bet that a physical copy wouldn't require online authentication.
But again, there's a difference between DRM, which restricts your usage of a product once installed, and authentication, which confirms your ownership of a product before installation.
In a world where digital media can be transferred to millions of people in a matter of days, it's important to protect the rights and revenue of the developer. Authenticating your copy of a piece of software is the only way the developer can ensure that their product is being purchased, not stolen, specifically because the product is not physical, and can be duplicated as simply as dragging it from your desktop to a flash drive.
Authentication still allows you to lend the game to a friend. Authentication still allows you and your friend to both play the game simultaneously (albeit not with each other in a multiplayer session). Authentication still allows you to download and install the game as many times as you want.
And authentication also tells the developers some really valuable information about how often their product is being installed. If you install the game fourteen times in a year, that tells the developer that you're sitting down to play the game at least fourteen different times, perhaps in different locations or perhaps reinstalling the game at the same location. Perhaps you're sharing it with friends. All of that is good, and it shows the developer how popular their game is in an easily quantifiable manner that also doesn't intrude on your ability to use the product as designed.
Don't get me wrong; I don't like the kind of intrusive DRM found in a lot of games, that create cracks in your computer's security or prevent you from playing the game once it's installed on your computer just because the servers went down or you lost your internet connection. But that's not what's happening here.
Looking back, CD-keys were also DRM in a sense... Some measure of DRM has always been present since the start of the gaming industry (maybe not the very first era, with floppy disk, but kids nowadays don't even know about that). I really agree with @Aosaw post, he really said nicely what I had in mind.
I think a lot of people are opposed to DRM because of its connotations, but the DRM everyone thinks of is really the worst kind of DRM. Keeping track of who's using your software is unique to digital media (music, movies, and software), but because of the transient nature of the medium, it has to be there in some form. The method Beamdog uses is an example of DRM handled correctly: it authenticates your ownership of the material before it allows you to install the game, and then it doesn't care what you do with it.
Adobe has worse DRM with their CreativeSuite software.
Looking back, CD-keys were also DRM in a sense... Some measure of DRM has always been present since the start of the gaming industry (maybe not the very first era, with floppy disk, but kids nowadays don't even know about that).
What, don't you remember questions from the manual and codewheels and whatnot?
@Aosaw DRM is not a requirement. Your opinion may be that it is required. But GoG would disagree, including new releases like The Witcher 2 and Legend of Grimrock. Stardock would also disagree with all of their releases. All of the Humble bundle people would also disagree. I'm sure there are more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
Think of DRM as getting kicked in the crotch. Your argument that Beamdog is ok because they don't kick nearly as hard as Adobe seems painful. Wouldn't it be better to just not get kicked in the crotch at all? And since there are vendors willing to sell me a game without kicking me in the crotch the idea doesn't seem crazy at all. I think we should spend more energy asking Beamdog to stop kicking us in the crotch than convincing each other that the kicking is fun and all part of the experience.
I hardly think that all forms of DRM are a kick in the crotch. That's the problem with these arguments, they consider all forms of DRM to be bad when in reality many of them don't even harm the user.
@Tanthalas This is a matter of opinion and one we will have to agree to disagree on. All DRM is bad. It is never good for the honest customer and is always an abridgment of our rights. The extent of the abridgment is secondary to the fact that it exists at all.
And you cannot see into the future. You do not know that an activation server will not affect us in five years. This is speculation that has been constantly repeated as fact.
Sorry, but not all DRM is bad, in fact many DRM is simply inconsequential to the consumer. CD keys? Having to have a CD in your drive to play? Hell, a one-time activation after an installation?
I cannot see into the future, but neither can you, yet your argument that BGEE's DRM is bad hinges on the fact that the servers will go offline and Beamdog will not provide a patch to remove the activation requirements.
@Tanthalas My argument does not hinge on that fact. The servers will go down. That is a certainty. The question there is whether or not the company honors their promise to release a patch.
My argument hinges on the fact that a paying customer shouldn't have to rely on any promise to always have access to the goods they purchased. DRM offers nothing to the consumer. DRM is an entirely one sided arrangement that manages the rights of someone else over the item the consumer purchased. The constant erosion of consumer rights is not inconsequential.
Hang on a bloody minute here. Abridgment of the consumer's rights?
If I make a piece of software, and I agree to sell you the license to install it on your computer, with the provision that you log in when you install that software so that I can confirm your identity, but that other than that I have no problem with you installing the software on the computer of everyone you know (although I'd certainly prefer they buy their own copies), that's not an abridgment of your rights; that's the terms of the purchase.
We can agree to disagree about whether or not the purchase is worth logging in for thirty seconds before installation, but don't turn this into a "We're being cheated" debate. When you make your purchase, you're agreeing to the terms that the distributor has set.
It is an easy step for us to release a DRM free version if we are ever forced to shut down. We will follow through and ensure our purchasers have the rights they paid for.
@Aosaw: Yeah, and the consumer has a right to tell you to shove your license and not buy it because they don't agree with your policy. Some consumers are speaking out because we are tired of DRM in all forms. Perhaps our tolerance of it has been eroded by much harsher DRM in much the same fashion that someone who has been abused by an alcoholic is more likely to hate even moderate drinking.
The entire point is that some of us are considering not purchasing the game because of the DRM aspect, even if to some people it is a small matter. Some other posters smarter than I (such as Treyolen and Sylonce) have pointed out that DRM adds nothing to the product for the legitimate consumer. It only adds a drawback to the legitimate consumer.
Ironically, Valve, who arguably has one of the most invasive DRM programs in the form of Steam actually does the best job of overcoming piracy by providing a better product and better service. As the CEO noted, the problem that the industry faces is that pirates offer a better service than the retailer, and DRM only encourages more piracy to get around those problems.
I know some people who prefer a bootlegged copy of Starcraft II because the cracked copy has features like LAN support that are better than retail. The fact it is also free and easily share-able is icing on the cake. So what is the solution?
Well, like some have pointed out here, DRM adds nothing to the value of the product to the consumer. Many people like Steam because it provides incentives and value to the consumer in exchange for its DRM. Instead of taxing loyal consumers with annoying DRM programs that never work (you only need ONE person to break the protection and then it's all over).
Regardless of the morality behind it, the more DRM you put into a game, the more you're asking to have it pirated. The more incentive that you destroy for the consumer to make a purchase. That is the big problem. Consumers want to be respected. Some of us are tired of putting up with the shoddy business practices of game companies. Simply not buying something is only part of it. If we don't mention why we don't buy it, or why we are hesitant to buy it, then they won't know whether it was out of disinterest or for other reasons such as DRM.
If 300,000 people have the option to purchase a game, and 60,000 buy it, that leaves 240,000 people who did not. Buy WHY didn't they? The best case scenario is that they tell you. Perhaps...
80,000 people didn't buy it because they thought it was too expensive. 40,000 people didn't buy it because they didn't know much about it. 55,000 people didn't buy it because they don't play that genre. 25,000 people didn't buy it because the reviews weren't so hot. 40.000 people didn't buy it because of hatred of DRM.
So much more helpful to a company than simply counting those who didn't buy it. From this, we can see that perhaps lowering the price a bit would have led to an increase in profits by luring at least part of the 80,000 people into making a purchase. Removing DRM could have added 40,000 more purchases. 40,000 people might have been customers if your marketing was better. 55,000 people aren't even worth considering because they wouldn't have purchased the game anyway.
So here I am. Casting my lot into the fire to send a smoke signal. The DRM aspect has made me hesitate on not one but three or four purchases of this game. I figure the company would be served well to know WHY I'm hesitating to purchase it. It's not a matter of consumer vs company or vice versa. I want the company to succeed. The only reason I'm still considering buying it is because of the great good I feel the company is doing, but the DRM is a big wall for me.
So, that's $60-80 that they can know was assured to them if not for DRM. It might influence their decisions and the decisions of their associates and producers in the future to have this knowledge. I am but one person on a forum sharing my reason, but humans are not so individualistic. There is easily 50 more people who share a similar sentiment to virtually anything said on this forum by anyone that will never come and voice their opinions, but will or will not make a purchase based on the same factors. When $60-80 becomes $3,000-4,000, that's something that might be worth looking at.
Incidentally, last I heard, there were 900 pre-orders, which equates to about $16,191 dollars worth of purchased product. Since I was going to purchase around 2-4 copies (we'll average it and say 3 copies), that would have been about $59.97 (I probably won't pre-order, and was pricing based on the $20 cost) in sales to me alone. Not a huge impact, but that's about 0.004% of the amount. Now if there are 50 more people who, like me, would look at the low cost and would buy if not for the DRM nonsense, then assuming the cheaper pre-order price, that would be around $2,698.5 worth of missed revenue. That's more like 0.16-0.17% of the amount.
With each lost sale because of DRM, it will affect the bottom line. These seem like low-end figures, but we're using low-end numbers in the discussion. With a digital product like this, it's possible that you can reach out to countless people (especially if the company offers any sort of affiliate programs, which would allow blogs and the like to quickly advertise their game), and as the numbers grow, so too do the gains and losses.
I'm impressed how this turned into a discussion on morals; if "piracy" is to be reprimanded. Some may say "piracy" actually does alot of good, keeps the name alive, and as long as you get people to trust you, they will spread the word and pull out a few bucks of their pockets. Some people even say BG:EE is just a money scheme...They say people working on BG:EE have no right to charge money on something they had not that much to do with the game in the first place; I don't know what and when and who. I don't get that easily excited one way or another, I don't love and I don't hate it either. This reminds me about a music album I thought I'd like to give it a spin, but the artist was very touchy about "piracy"and about his material playing over YouTube, so I gave up the idea of listening to it, for I had no money for it, and he said not to download it. About BG:EE, I don't see myself paying for it, I spend all the money I see, on books, I don't even care about my wardrobe as much as I care about books. I thought about pre-ordering, but for now is out of reach, I'll surely detest the payment process. Do people involved in this project feel ripped-off by "piracy"? If so, I'd like to know, just so I can keep away from it.
So here I am living honest, living by moral percepts, frugal living, feeling sorrow for my sins, just to find out I was a criminal all this time, I feel like going all Stanly Ipkiss: Somebody stop me!
Looking back, CD-keys were also DRM in a sense... Some measure of DRM has always been present since the start of the gaming industry (maybe not the very first era, with floppy disk, but kids nowadays don't even know about that).
What, don't you remember questions from the manual and codewheels and whatnot?
I do remember some games "hiding" the cd key inside the manual yes xD xD Now THAT was a kick in the crotch. You wanted to play so badly and yet... couldn't...
Never had questions from the manual though, that's reaaaaal mean You have an elven warrior, level 8 with 15 in strengh and 3 stars in swords. What are the chance he hit a gibberling that have 0 of AC with a normal sword ? *hang myself*
It is an easy step for us to release a DRM free version if we are ever forced to shut down. We will follow through and ensure our purchasers have the rights they paid for.
Which I really don't want to happen. But I hope that this meaningful statement will at least calm down some anti-DRM frenzy. If people are against DRM, it is no reason to punish the Devs.
@Ashiel DRM was in contract. So, bottom line, no DRM meant no BGEE. Simple as that.
@Ashiel DRM was in contract. So, bottom line, no DRM meant no BGEE. Simple as that.
Yes, that has been covered for a while now. Somewhere back around page 2-3, I think (definitely before now, the 9th page). That doesn't change that DRM guards don't prevent piracy and only punish the consumer, and that it makes some of us hesitant to purchase a product.
Since you paid enough attention to see that the DRM was in the contract, perhaps you could pay attention enough to the reasons behind my discussing it, as I detailed in my last...I dunno, 3 posts or so?
The thing that really bothers me with how people do not accept any kind of DRM whatsoever (even one that is as light as the one that will be implemented in BGEE) is that they basically have the stance that consumers have all the rights and companies have no right whatsoever to protect their products.
I can see people having problems with heavy DRM, but this simply isn't one of those cases.
Tanthalas, I'm sure you recall that we went over this some pages ago in this thread after I pointed out that under no circumstances does anyone have the right to a DRM-free experience unless the terms of the EULA specifically say they do. I have come to believe that piracy has become so accepted (because it is so easy) and that this generation of users has grown up with it and never delved into the moral or legal implications until recently, that it's much easier for them to make these arguments. It is not only because we are learning the economic realities that piracy has on sales (no, it doesn't destroy companies), but also because they didn't experience in large part the reality of life with what we now call DRM 20 or 25 years ago.
Codewheels and manual checks, those sucked! I remember purchasing software twice because the manual got shredded, and forget about CD-cracks. They didn't exist. You couldn't copy CDs unless you were rich. Sharing software certainly occurred if you were still using floppy disks but man that was a pain in the ass if the product was on 30 disk (like Microsoft Office was at one time). If you were able to get on a BBS or something to get the warez, you're looking at hours, possibly days, of downloading at 1k/sec. In a lot of cases, it was more trouble than it was worth to pirate unless you were dead broke. Even the mega pirates had to work hard at their job to get the sneak stuff from developers and get it disseminated. All of this created this mystical respect for the pirate. Everybody knew it was wrong and very few people were getting rich from computers.
These days, anyone and everyone can be a pirate and software makes a lot of people a lot of money, but this moral area has emerged where people think piracy can be justified if consumers don't get their way. Whether it's because it's so easy to do or because people have some warped view of their rights, I do not know. However, I refuse to accept the notion that a producer of intellectual property has no right to protect their property and that the consumer has the right to be handed the keys to the kingdom, as it were, the ability to reproduce that work unfettered by any measures intended to protect it.
I completely understand the desire to make one's opinion known to the companies with which one does business. We all should do this in order to better our experiences and the products we buy. However, the view that a simple installation verification is comparable to a kick in the crotch seems to me extreme.
It is an easy step for us to release a DRM free version if we are ever forced to shut down. We will follow through and ensure our purchasers have the rights they paid for.
-Trent
Please don't wait a shut down . Make it DRM-free after last patch or enough purchase
The thing that really bothers me with how people do not accept any kind of DRM whatsoever (even one that is as light as the one that will be implemented in BGEE) is that they basically have the stance that consumers have all the rights and companies have no right whatsoever to protect their products.
I can see people having problems with heavy DRM, but this simply isn't one of those cases.
Actually Tan, while I agree with your position, you are incorrect in your perspective here.
"...is that they basically have the stance that consumers have all the rights and companies have no right whatsoever to protect their products"
Consumers do, in fact, have all the rights...the ultimate right of whether or not to purchase the product drives EVERYTHING...at least in many/most cases. Very few people make a habit of producing something for free. That's why Open Source is such a revolution in the computer industry and, frankly, rubs business the wrong way. I make my living in the Open Source community (Linux Systems Administration, Open Source Development, etc.), and I can tell you that when you first pitch any open source product to a corporation they're going to look at you like you have two heads...you get what you pay for is the old addage that survives, regardless of it's incorrectness.
When a corporation produces a product (like Beamdog and BGEE) sales is what drives the motivations of that company...not customer good will, not a cool idea...sales is what matters. The amount of money spent on the product is the linchpin to determination of any future support and attention on that product...whether that product is a toaster, a refrigerator or a piece of software.
You're wrong in that the consumer does, in fact, at least in many cases, have the final say as to whether or not this kind of thing (DRM) continues to exist. If we all refused to buy Diablo III till there was a true single player mode to the game, Blizzard would have turned over and released it.
That's not questionable, it would have happened...but it would require more "stick to your guns" mentality that 90% of the American people have at this point. And that's the entire problem with this DRM argument...both sides are right. The Treyolen's and Ashiel's on the board have a position that DRM is bad for everyone. Their position is that we can change the "DRM is necessary" mentality through the use of our pocket books and our voices...and they're right.
What they don't acknowledge is that changing the DRM discussion requires more than just them and their ideas. While they're more than willing to go without the latest and greatest games or software or whatever because of their WHOLLY APPROPRIATE stance on DRM, they aren't acknowledging that most people aren't. While they're right that a single drop of water moving doesn't affect anything but a gagillion of them moving creates a tidal wave, they don't acknowledge that so far there's been no way to get the gagillion drops to move together on this. People, specifically American people, are too wrapped up in self gratification and instantly getting what they want to "vote with their pocket books". Look at the acceptance of the Patriot Act or the other tens to hundreds of pieces of legislation that have, over the last 10 or so years, eroded even the basic foundations of American civil liberties and rights...we walk through our airports and are technologically stripped naked daily, or manhandled and fondled, simply for the right to get on an airplane. All of our actions on the Internet are tracked and parsed through intermediary servers and indexed by our own governments in the name of "security". Our privacy is non-existant, our country cares more about marketing companies than any individual right to live their lives as they feel like, and all under the watchful eye of big brother.
And you think you're going to be able to get a bunch of self centered gamers to get together and devoid themselves of the latest entertainment simply for the chance to possibly change DRM?
The difference between a defeatist and a realist is reality. A defeatist believes something that is possible cannot be done, while a realist understands the difference between possible and impossible.
The reason this discussion will rage on for decades more is that the only way to tell the difference between the defeatist and the realist is once something thought impossible actually happens. Till anyone can prove that they can get enough of the gamer population together to take a stance against DRM, not just with words but with actions, I call people suggesting that DRM is here to stay realists. 6.3 Million copies of Diablo III sold in the first week tell me my stance is dead on.
We'll see what my stance is in another 10 - 20 years.
--Doug
p.s. Of note: This project is different. Not purchasing BGEE due to DRM doesn't get you anywhere because the licenseholder already doesn't care whether this product succeeds or dies. Look at the numbers above...if anyone thinks $20K is anything more than loose change in the couch for Atari they're kidding themselves. Not purchasing the product only gives Atari the ability to nix the future products that might come out...it's not going to change their stance on DRM. Wait till Atari's next big release (like that'll ever come) before you pull out the "Down with DRM" flag.
Not purchasing BGEE because you think BeamDog has any say in this matter at all, or that because of some $20K in sales you feel they're going to have some say in their next contract discussion isn't doing you or this community of Baulder's Gate enthusiasts any good.
If you look at Atari's corporate revenue, they reported 41M Euro Revenue as of a 9 month review 2010-2011 (That's the last revenue statement I could find on their website) down from 94M Euro in the same period 2009-2010.
Just for comparison, the $20K you're talking about at this point is 0.0004878 of revenue, or 0.04% (NOT 4%, 4 100th's of a percent, or 4/10,000th's of a whole number). Your voice isn't loud enough, the project isn't big enough.
Those of you taking a stance have taken a stance on the wrong project. Go back and play D3.
I feel like I haven't made this point several times so I'll try again. I'm arguing for Beamdog to include the DRM issue in FUTURE negotiations. I am aware of the insistence of DRM in the original contract. I am not trying to go back in time and change things Terminator style. I am asking that our rights as a consumer be considered moving forward with FUTURE releases of BG:EE, BG2:EE, IWD, PST.
And I don't dispute that corporations have the right to release locked down server side authenticated traps for their customer base. We also have the right to not buy them. I am trying to convince the developers that there is more money to be made selling DRM free. Regardless of all your morality arguments, corporations exist to make money. They serve no other function unless it is a non-profit. There are no non-profit organizations here. The crux of the matter is whether or not a corporation will make more money or less money with DRM. Everything else is irrelevant to them. I am trying to convince them that there is more money to be made without DRM.
This is not a piracy debate. If this was about piracy the name of the thread would at least have the word piracy in it. This is a DRM debate. Piracy is only an issue in so far as it results in a better product for those that pursue that avenue because of DRM. Very few of us are advocating piracy. You don't need to convince us that piracy is not nice. If I wanted to debate piracy I would start a thread on that subject.
No Trey, you have, and as I said I agree with your stance on Beamdog including it in future negotiations, that's why I posted the corporate earnings post.
You don't get to walk into Atari with $20K in hand and say "I just made you 4/100ths of a percentage of your earnings, change my contract you b****es!
Consider our arguments at least somewhat in line with each other. I like your stance, but BeamDog doesn't have the revenue to back it up...
The "no DRM or bust!" conversation is self defeating. "I won't buy the product till you remove DRM....and you can't remove DRM till we get more revenue stream into the product!"
It's a catch 22. I will keep making my same point as well...taking a stance on THIS product is NOT the way to change the way the industry looks at DRM. Pick the next Mass Effect III or Diablo III and get all your friends and relatives and school mates and co-workers not to buy it (good luck) and you might have something.
There's too much going wrong for the DRM haters on this board to use THIS product as your hill to die on.
Let me give you an alternate way to get the industry to back off on DRM.
* Thank BeamDog publicly for the limited DRM in this software, understanding that it could have been much, much worse. * Acknowledge that their choice is the best of the evils they could have chosen. * Purchase this software in droves, get your friends, relatives, and co-workers to buy up as much of this as you can. SUPPORT BEAM DOG. Show Atari that there are people out there who care about these products, that the BG series is still profitable for Atari and that perhaps they might yet be able to make more money on it. * STOP PIRATING ELECTRONIC MEDIA (not just software, the industries communicate with each other...if you pirate music or movies, the software industry will use that as an excuse to keep DRM). The simplest, easiest, most effective way to prove that DRM is unnecessary is to ACTUALLY MAKE DRM UNNECESSARY. * Pick the next major release of the next major title that the next large development company produces (the ones the company is relying on to make their quarterly/yearly earnings so their stock doesn't go into the toilet) and THEN post that you're not buying their product due to DRM...AND THEN FOLLOW THROUGH WITH IT. * Take it in BABY STEPS. Vocally and financially support LIMITED DRM products, show manufacturers that CD Key checks and installation DRM is better and more accepted than "on all the time" DRM methods. Get the draconian DRM methods rolled back FIRST...prove them to be unnecessary. If/when you manage to get companies like Blizzard Entertainment and Bioware to be more like BeamDog, THEN you start pushing them to be more like GOG. Don't tell Bioware that if they're not GoG with their next multi-million dollar release you and your 10 friends won't buy the game...they don't care.
To use the tidal wave example, ripples in the ocean have to happen first before that wave can even start to get going. The initial wave is not 100' high and a mile long, it's maybe 2 feet high and 600 yards long. You want to swamp DRM under, start slow and fight against what you CAN fight against. Push publishers to include LESS DRM not NO DRM, then show them your support when they listen.
@Illydth You're thinking that this is occurring in a vacuum. It is not. We're talking about a D&D game during a period where the main IP holder is desperate to court older gamers. You may not be aware of the edition wars raging over on the WotC boards, but they are real. 4th Edition is a dead man walking and D&D Next is looking for all the positive press it can get. Hasbro may have a little clout in these negotiations. I'm not saying they can be brought on board. But Beamdog and Atari are not the only players in this game. I would argue that they may not even be the two most important players. But none of us are privy to the negotiations surrounding this title.
BG:EE is just one small battlefield in an ongoing war against DRM. Progress may or may not be made before BG2:EE. But at least we should make our concerns heard by the powers that be. I bought the game. I supported Beamdog. Contrary to what several posters appear to believe, I am supporting the developer by voicing my concerns. Most companies would kill to have a passionate user actively contributing feedback in a respectful way.
If they want to silence me they know how they can do it. Just send me my copy of the game early and you won't hear from me for at least a month or two
"The thing that really bothers me with how people do not accept any kind of DRM whatsoever (even one that is as light as the one that will be implemented in BGEE) is that they basically have the stance that consumers have all the rights and companies have no right whatsoever to protect their products.
I can see people having problems with heavy DRM, but this simply isn't one of those cases."
Because DRM doesn't work. It just doesn't. Do you think that if I wanted to play Starcraft II with a friend of mine, that being unable to install my copy on his PC and play with him is really going to slow me down? No. It really won't. Someone will have already cracked it. You could download the DVD iso for Wrath of the Lich King BEFORE IT WAS ON SALE.
Let me put this another way. When you see something doesn't work, then you don't keep doing it. That's the definition of insanity. You see that your DRM only creates annoyances or uncertainty for your paying consumers, so the logical thing to do is stop. BG:EE would be a perfect choice of an awesome game for a laptop with no internet connection (and yes, I know many people who have laptops but no wireless internet to use with it, and they use them primarily for portable media purposes), but the DRM means no installing it on that PC unless they make a trip to someone who has a wireless connection. Even this very light form of DRM has been noted as an inconvenience at least, and threat of product at worst (because honestly we gamers have been burned in the past, and a loose promise that the DRM will be removed if the company goes the way of Black Isle does not do anything to assure us).
Punishing consumers is not a good way to "protect" your product. There is evidence that actually accepting that products are not going to be protected will serve you better, and instead of fighting the current you can surf on it. A great example would be Paizo Publishing vs Wizards of the Coast.
Wizards of the Coast sold pdf versions of their material books, but said that in an effort to avoid piracy, they were no longer going to offer pdf copies of their books (now making the only way to acquire pdf copies of your books would now be to pirate them). Did it stop or slow down piracy? Not at all. You easily pickup virtually every D&D book available in pirated format, and frankly some people want those pdfs because of the convenience of being able to carry your books on your laptop or handheld device to your games (instead of lugging around 30 lbs. of manuals). Wizards of the Coast strived to abolish the Open Game License they created, and after the Expanded Psionics Handbook, virtually nothing new became part of the D&D System Reference Document.
Fast forward to their #1 competitor, a smaller company, who has in the past year outdone Wizards of the Coast the industry giant in hobby games. How did they crush them? Better customer service. Wider coverage. They literally post all their rulebooks online for you to get for FREE. No joke. Google "Pathfinder Reference Document" and you'll get sent to their own website (or the d20pfsrd.com) where you will find most everything they have published available for use. They sell pdfs, periodically update them with errata (you can re-download them at no charge), the pdfs are less than the material copies, and getting the material copy from their online store nets you the pdf for free.
Now exactly what can we learn from this?
1: Pirating is not going away. People will always pirate. Ironically, pirating is also a leading force in innovation, but that's a conversation for another day. 2: Alienating customers in an object to stop the unstoppable force of piracy is just stupid, and encourages piracy. 3: Providing solid customer service garners loyal customers, and focusing more on the money to be made rather than the money that might be lost provides better results for both consumer and provider. 4: Having some of your product floating around for free can actually end up making you more money than not. As much as it scrapes the sensibilities of some people, having your work given away or even pirated can end up making you more money, and in some cases function as advertisements.
I have a few real life examples. Pirating IS involved in some of these, so I'm not going to call out names. I will just refer to them as "friend #".
Friend #1: I have a friend who has become a rather dedicated fan of Warcraft. He has purchased quite a good bit of Blizzard merchandise, and has went out and gotten an official World of Warcraft retail account. But what led him to this? Piracy and emulators. He never expressed interest in playing WoW, until a couple of his friends who literally couldn't afford to pay for retail asked him to join the private server that they were playing on. So he was given a pirated version of WoW, and he played it on emulated servers. During this time, he became a fan, and then migrated to retail and has purchased each expansion and pays them for retail server service every month loyally. The availability increased popularity and coverage.
Friend #2: I have another friend who was interested in playing D&D/Pathfinder, but had little disposable income and felt that he wouldn't be able to explore the hobby because the books are quite expensive and he wouldn't be able to get them. I pointed him to the free online system reference documents, and he became a fan and makes small purchases when money permits. But it created a ripple effect as well. You see, when he became involved, that opened the door for several of his friends and family members to become involved, and now his brother's friend owns almost every D&D 3.x book published in hardcopy (and is working on Pathfinder) because he introduced him to D&D through this grapevine effect. The availability created increased popularity and coverage.
Friend #3: I have another friend who had never played Baldur's Gate. Or even heard of it (it hurts me to say that) even. He only played console games. I suggested Baldur's Gate to him, and introduced him to him. He got a pirated copy of Baldur's Gate I & II complete with manuals, CD art, and box art. He loved it, and has been babbling about BG:EE to me every time I see him. So, as a matter of fact, his interest and inevitable purchase of this exact game here is due to the availability of the software.
There are lots of other people who have found and discovered Baldur's Gate through torrenting copies of the game (which came with patches and such bundled in with them) that will go on to purchase copies of BG:EE. Part of the lure of downloading BG in that manner was the fact you can't find copies of BG I & II and their expansions without trolling the internet and looking for second hand dealers, amazon, or similar things (I for one had never heard of GoG.com, so now I can recommend it to people as a great alternative to pirating some great hard to find games).
Perhaps it is stuff like this that makes me less concerned about the issue of piracy and more concerned about the issues of service, and the sustainability of intellectual properties and great products. I'm concerned about a company's bottom line, but also about the consumer, and I do not believe that those are opposed, or even that piracy or freedom marketing is detrimental to the media industries.
What upsets me about DRM is that since it doesn't work it places companies in a position where it is often more convenient to pirate something than it is to actually purchase and use your product. You don't want to make pirating stuff more convenient than purchasing. I mean, we're on the cutting edge where you can purchase a game, download it from some high speed servers, and then be playing it in the next hour without even driving to town to buy it. Without all the DRM, it's more convenient than fishing through some torrent sites looking for some good packages for what you want and then hoping for seeders and such. Hence, I think DRM is counter-intuitive. It's like trying to put out a fire by dousing it in gasoline. It's kind of the worst way to prevent piracy.
All of that said...I believe Illydth makes some very good points. Having listened and examined his/her points in detail, considered them, I agree. I will assuredly purchase at least two copies of BG:EE for my brother and I, and possibly a copy for a friend of mine who is interested, and maybe his brother. Illydth's explanations have tipped the scale of my worries, and ironically the fact I could pirate a cracked copy if the authentication servers go down in a few years actually makes me more comfortable buying it now. Having read the improvements has been icing on the cake, and I want to support this more and more.
So while I was hesitant to purchase due to DRM, piracy has comforted my heart that I won't get screwed down the road for purchasing now, and a well made argument by Illydth set my worries and concerns aside. Thank you Illydth. I'll name my first BG:EE character after you. (^_^)
Just because piracy still exists that doesn't mean that DRM doesn't work. You don't need DRM to be pirate free forever to say that it has worked, even a DRM that is only functional in the first month is already a DRM that has worked.
And then when you see something like D3... Yeah, DRM worked wonders with that one.
DRM like the one in D3, that's the kind of stuff that we should be worried about.
@Tanthalas D3 is not DRM. That is a client based game that must have a server to function. It happens to give DRM like control, but it is not in and of itself DRM. It's also a AAA title. People keep talking about these AAA titles and DRM. This is not a AAA title. I don't care what EA and Activision do with their games. I don't play them on computer. BG:EE is a different animal altogether and does not need DRM. I still contend that it would be more profitable without DRM.
Comments
Instead, they require you to hit their servers once (just once) when you install the game. They've stated before that they're working to make mod management much simpler, which means that you won't have to do fresh installs once a week to fix things; you'll be able to just add and remove mods as needed.
Granted, I would much prefer a physical copy to a digital one, but they're still working on negotiating that. I would bet that a physical copy wouldn't require online authentication.
But again, there's a difference between DRM, which restricts your usage of a product once installed, and authentication, which confirms your ownership of a product before installation.
In a world where digital media can be transferred to millions of people in a matter of days, it's important to protect the rights and revenue of the developer. Authenticating your copy of a piece of software is the only way the developer can ensure that their product is being purchased, not stolen, specifically because the product is not physical, and can be duplicated as simply as dragging it from your desktop to a flash drive.
Authentication still allows you to lend the game to a friend. Authentication still allows you and your friend to both play the game simultaneously (albeit not with each other in a multiplayer session). Authentication still allows you to download and install the game as many times as you want.
And authentication also tells the developers some really valuable information about how often their product is being installed. If you install the game fourteen times in a year, that tells the developer that you're sitting down to play the game at least fourteen different times, perhaps in different locations or perhaps reinstalling the game at the same location. Perhaps you're sharing it with friends. All of that is good, and it shows the developer how popular their game is in an easily quantifiable manner that also doesn't intrude on your ability to use the product as designed.
Don't get me wrong; I don't like the kind of intrusive DRM found in a lot of games, that create cracks in your computer's security or prevent you from playing the game once it's installed on your computer just because the servers went down or you lost your internet connection. But that's not what's happening here.
Adobe has worse DRM with their CreativeSuite software.
Think of DRM as getting kicked in the crotch. Your argument that Beamdog is ok because they don't kick nearly as hard as Adobe seems painful. Wouldn't it be better to just not get kicked in the crotch at all? And since there are vendors willing to sell me a game without kicking me in the crotch the idea doesn't seem crazy at all. I think we should spend more energy asking Beamdog to stop kicking us in the crotch than convincing each other that the kicking is fun and all part of the experience.
I hardly think that all forms of DRM are a kick in the crotch. That's the problem with these arguments, they consider all forms of DRM to be bad when in reality many of them don't even harm the user.
And you cannot see into the future. You do not know that an activation server will not affect us in five years. This is speculation that has been constantly repeated as fact.
Sorry, but not all DRM is bad, in fact many DRM is simply inconsequential to the consumer. CD keys? Having to have a CD in your drive to play? Hell, a one-time activation after an installation?
I cannot see into the future, but neither can you, yet your argument that BGEE's DRM is bad hinges on the fact that the servers will go offline and Beamdog will not provide a patch to remove the activation requirements.
My argument hinges on the fact that a paying customer shouldn't have to rely on any promise to always have access to the goods they purchased. DRM offers nothing to the consumer. DRM is an entirely one sided arrangement that manages the rights of someone else over the item the consumer purchased. The constant erosion of consumer rights is not inconsequential.
If I make a piece of software, and I agree to sell you the license to install it on your computer, with the provision that you log in when you install that software so that I can confirm your identity, but that other than that I have no problem with you installing the software on the computer of everyone you know (although I'd certainly prefer they buy their own copies), that's not an abridgment of your rights; that's the terms of the purchase.
We can agree to disagree about whether or not the purchase is worth logging in for thirty seconds before installation, but don't turn this into a "We're being cheated" debate. When you make your purchase, you're agreeing to the terms that the distributor has set.
-Trent
The entire point is that some of us are considering not purchasing the game because of the DRM aspect, even if to some people it is a small matter. Some other posters smarter than I (such as Treyolen and Sylonce) have pointed out that DRM adds nothing to the product for the legitimate consumer. It only adds a drawback to the legitimate consumer.
Ironically, Valve, who arguably has one of the most invasive DRM programs in the form of Steam actually does the best job of overcoming piracy by providing a better product and better service. As the CEO noted, the problem that the industry faces is that pirates offer a better service than the retailer, and DRM only encourages more piracy to get around those problems.
I know some people who prefer a bootlegged copy of Starcraft II because the cracked copy has features like LAN support that are better than retail. The fact it is also free and easily share-able is icing on the cake. So what is the solution?
Well, like some have pointed out here, DRM adds nothing to the value of the product to the consumer. Many people like Steam because it provides incentives and value to the consumer in exchange for its DRM. Instead of taxing loyal consumers with annoying DRM programs that never work (you only need ONE person to break the protection and then it's all over).
Regardless of the morality behind it, the more DRM you put into a game, the more you're asking to have it pirated. The more incentive that you destroy for the consumer to make a purchase. That is the big problem. Consumers want to be respected. Some of us are tired of putting up with the shoddy business practices of game companies. Simply not buying something is only part of it. If we don't mention why we don't buy it, or why we are hesitant to buy it, then they won't know whether it was out of disinterest or for other reasons such as DRM.
If 300,000 people have the option to purchase a game, and 60,000 buy it, that leaves 240,000 people who did not. Buy WHY didn't they? The best case scenario is that they tell you. Perhaps...
80,000 people didn't buy it because they thought it was too expensive.
40,000 people didn't buy it because they didn't know much about it.
55,000 people didn't buy it because they don't play that genre.
25,000 people didn't buy it because the reviews weren't so hot.
40.000 people didn't buy it because of hatred of DRM.
So much more helpful to a company than simply counting those who didn't buy it. From this, we can see that perhaps lowering the price a bit would have led to an increase in profits by luring at least part of the 80,000 people into making a purchase. Removing DRM could have added 40,000 more purchases. 40,000 people might have been customers if your marketing was better. 55,000 people aren't even worth considering because they wouldn't have purchased the game anyway.
So here I am. Casting my lot into the fire to send a smoke signal. The DRM aspect has made me hesitate on not one but three or four purchases of this game. I figure the company would be served well to know WHY I'm hesitating to purchase it. It's not a matter of consumer vs company or vice versa. I want the company to succeed. The only reason I'm still considering buying it is because of the great good I feel the company is doing, but the DRM is a big wall for me.
So, that's $60-80 that they can know was assured to them if not for DRM. It might influence their decisions and the decisions of their associates and producers in the future to have this knowledge. I am but one person on a forum sharing my reason, but humans are not so individualistic. There is easily 50 more people who share a similar sentiment to virtually anything said on this forum by anyone that will never come and voice their opinions, but will or will not make a purchase based on the same factors. When $60-80 becomes $3,000-4,000, that's something that might be worth looking at.
I discuss, because I care.
With each lost sale because of DRM, it will affect the bottom line. These seem like low-end figures, but we're using low-end numbers in the discussion. With a digital product like this, it's possible that you can reach out to countless people (especially if the company offers any sort of affiliate programs, which would allow blogs and the like to quickly advertise their game), and as the numbers grow, so too do the gains and losses.
So here I am living honest, living by moral percepts, frugal living, feeling sorrow for my sins, just to find out I was a criminal all this time, I feel like going all Stanly Ipkiss: Somebody stop me!
Are Irenicus' experiments actually soul piracy?
Edit: Can't say I care much about the DRM.
Never had questions from the manual though, that's reaaaaal mean
@Ashiel DRM was in contract. So, bottom line, no DRM meant no BGEE. Simple as that.
Since you paid enough attention to see that the DRM was in the contract, perhaps you could pay attention enough to the reasons behind my discussing it, as I detailed in my last...I dunno, 3 posts or so?
The thing that really bothers me with how people do not accept any kind of DRM whatsoever (even one that is as light as the one that will be implemented in BGEE) is that they basically have the stance that consumers have all the rights and companies have no right whatsoever to protect their products.
I can see people having problems with heavy DRM, but this simply isn't one of those cases.
Codewheels and manual checks, those sucked! I remember purchasing software twice because the manual got shredded, and forget about CD-cracks. They didn't exist. You couldn't copy CDs unless you were rich. Sharing software certainly occurred if you were still using floppy disks but man that was a pain in the ass if the product was on 30 disk (like Microsoft Office was at one time). If you were able to get on a BBS or something to get the warez, you're looking at hours, possibly days, of downloading at 1k/sec. In a lot of cases, it was more trouble than it was worth to pirate unless you were dead broke. Even the mega pirates had to work hard at their job to get the sneak stuff from developers and get it disseminated. All of this created this mystical respect for the pirate. Everybody knew it was wrong and very few people were getting rich from computers.
These days, anyone and everyone can be a pirate and software makes a lot of people a lot of money, but this moral area has emerged where people think piracy can be justified if consumers don't get their way. Whether it's because it's so easy to do or because people have some warped view of their rights, I do not know. However, I refuse to accept the notion that a producer of intellectual property has no right to protect their property and that the consumer has the right to be handed the keys to the kingdom, as it were, the ability to reproduce that work unfettered by any measures intended to protect it.
I completely understand the desire to make one's opinion known to the companies with which one does business. We all should do this in order to better our experiences and the products we buy. However, the view that a simple installation verification is comparable to a kick in the crotch seems to me extreme.
"...is that they basically have the stance that consumers have all the rights and companies have no right whatsoever to protect their products"
Consumers do, in fact, have all the rights...the ultimate right of whether or not to purchase the product drives EVERYTHING...at least in many/most cases. Very few people make a habit of producing something for free. That's why Open Source is such a revolution in the computer industry and, frankly, rubs business the wrong way. I make my living in the Open Source community (Linux Systems Administration, Open Source Development, etc.), and I can tell you that when you first pitch any open source product to a corporation they're going to look at you like you have two heads...you get what you pay for is the old addage that survives, regardless of it's incorrectness.
When a corporation produces a product (like Beamdog and BGEE) sales is what drives the motivations of that company...not customer good will, not a cool idea...sales is what matters. The amount of money spent on the product is the linchpin to determination of any future support and attention on that product...whether that product is a toaster, a refrigerator or a piece of software.
You're wrong in that the consumer does, in fact, at least in many cases, have the final say as to whether or not this kind of thing (DRM) continues to exist. If we all refused to buy Diablo III till there was a true single player mode to the game, Blizzard would have turned over and released it.
That's not questionable, it would have happened...but it would require more "stick to your guns" mentality that 90% of the American people have at this point. And that's the entire problem with this DRM argument...both sides are right. The Treyolen's and Ashiel's on the board have a position that DRM is bad for everyone. Their position is that we can change the "DRM is necessary" mentality through the use of our pocket books and our voices...and they're right.
What they don't acknowledge is that changing the DRM discussion requires more than just them and their ideas. While they're more than willing to go without the latest and greatest games or software or whatever because of their WHOLLY APPROPRIATE stance on DRM, they aren't acknowledging that most people aren't. While they're right that a single drop of water moving doesn't affect anything but a gagillion of them moving creates a tidal wave, they don't acknowledge that so far there's been no way to get the gagillion drops to move together on this. People, specifically American people, are too wrapped up in self gratification and instantly getting what they want to "vote with their pocket books". Look at the acceptance of the Patriot Act or the other tens to hundreds of pieces of legislation that have, over the last 10 or so years, eroded even the basic foundations of American civil liberties and rights...we walk through our airports and are technologically stripped naked daily, or manhandled and fondled, simply for the right to get on an airplane. All of our actions on the Internet are tracked and parsed through intermediary servers and indexed by our own governments in the name of "security". Our privacy is non-existant, our country cares more about marketing companies than any individual right to live their lives as they feel like, and all under the watchful eye of big brother.
And you think you're going to be able to get a bunch of self centered gamers to get together and devoid themselves of the latest entertainment simply for the chance to possibly change DRM?
The difference between a defeatist and a realist is reality. A defeatist believes something that is possible cannot be done, while a realist understands the difference between possible and impossible.
The reason this discussion will rage on for decades more is that the only way to tell the difference between the defeatist and the realist is once something thought impossible actually happens. Till anyone can prove that they can get enough of the gamer population together to take a stance against DRM, not just with words but with actions, I call people suggesting that DRM is here to stay realists. 6.3 Million copies of Diablo III sold in the first week tell me my stance is dead on.
We'll see what my stance is in another 10 - 20 years.
--Doug
p.s. Of note: This project is different. Not purchasing BGEE due to DRM doesn't get you anywhere because the licenseholder already doesn't care whether this product succeeds or dies. Look at the numbers above...if anyone thinks $20K is anything more than loose change in the couch for Atari they're kidding themselves. Not purchasing the product only gives Atari the ability to nix the future products that might come out...it's not going to change their stance on DRM. Wait till Atari's next big release (like that'll ever come) before you pull out the "Down with DRM" flag.
Not purchasing BGEE because you think BeamDog has any say in this matter at all, or that because of some $20K in sales you feel they're going to have some say in their next contract discussion isn't doing you or this community of Baulder's Gate enthusiasts any good.
Just for comparison, the $20K you're talking about at this point is 0.0004878 of revenue, or 0.04% (NOT 4%, 4 100th's of a percent, or 4/10,000th's of a whole number). Your voice isn't loud enough, the project isn't big enough.
Those of you taking a stance have taken a stance on the wrong project. Go back and play D3.
I get your point of view, but I still think its skimming over the rights of companies to protect their products.
Its one thing to have all gamers unite against DRM, its a whole other story to convince people to stop pirating software.
And I don't dispute that corporations have the right to release locked down server side authenticated traps for their customer base. We also have the right to not buy them. I am trying to convince the developers that there is more money to be made selling DRM free. Regardless of all your morality arguments, corporations exist to make money. They serve no other function unless it is a non-profit. There are no non-profit organizations here. The crux of the matter is whether or not a corporation will make more money or less money with DRM. Everything else is irrelevant to them. I am trying to convince them that there is more money to be made without DRM.
This is not a piracy debate. If this was about piracy the name of the thread would at least have the word piracy in it. This is a DRM debate. Piracy is only an issue in so far as it results in a better product for those that pursue that avenue because of DRM. Very few of us are advocating piracy. You don't need to convince us that piracy is not nice. If I wanted to debate piracy I would start a thread on that subject.
The crux of the argument is if companies would actually make more money with software that didn't contain DRM, and that's a really big if.
I can see that being possible with BGEE, but I also see complaining about the current DRM to be borderline ridiculous.
You don't get to walk into Atari with $20K in hand and say "I just made you 4/100ths of a percentage of your earnings, change my contract you b****es!
Consider our arguments at least somewhat in line with each other. I like your stance, but BeamDog doesn't have the revenue to back it up...
The "no DRM or bust!" conversation is self defeating. "I won't buy the product till you remove DRM....and you can't remove DRM till we get more revenue stream into the product!"
It's a catch 22. I will keep making my same point as well...taking a stance on THIS product is NOT the way to change the way the industry looks at DRM. Pick the next Mass Effect III or Diablo III and get all your friends and relatives and school mates and co-workers not to buy it (good luck) and you might have something.
There's too much going wrong for the DRM haters on this board to use THIS product as your hill to die on.
Let me give you an alternate way to get the industry to back off on DRM.
* Thank BeamDog publicly for the limited DRM in this software, understanding that it could have been much, much worse.
* Acknowledge that their choice is the best of the evils they could have chosen.
* Purchase this software in droves, get your friends, relatives, and co-workers to buy up as much of this as you can. SUPPORT BEAM DOG. Show Atari that there are people out there who care about these products, that the BG series is still profitable for Atari and that perhaps they might yet be able to make more money on it.
* STOP PIRATING ELECTRONIC MEDIA (not just software, the industries communicate with each other...if you pirate music or movies, the software industry will use that as an excuse to keep DRM). The simplest, easiest, most effective way to prove that DRM is unnecessary is to ACTUALLY MAKE DRM UNNECESSARY.
* Pick the next major release of the next major title that the next large development company produces (the ones the company is relying on to make their quarterly/yearly earnings so their stock doesn't go into the toilet) and THEN post that you're not buying their product due to DRM...AND THEN FOLLOW THROUGH WITH IT.
* Take it in BABY STEPS. Vocally and financially support LIMITED DRM products, show manufacturers that CD Key checks and installation DRM is better and more accepted than "on all the time" DRM methods. Get the draconian DRM methods rolled back FIRST...prove them to be unnecessary. If/when you manage to get companies like Blizzard Entertainment and Bioware to be more like BeamDog, THEN you start pushing them to be more like GOG. Don't tell Bioware that if they're not GoG with their next multi-million dollar release you and your 10 friends won't buy the game...they don't care.
To use the tidal wave example, ripples in the ocean have to happen first before that wave can even start to get going. The initial wave is not 100' high and a mile long, it's maybe 2 feet high and 600 yards long. You want to swamp DRM under, start slow and fight against what you CAN fight against. Push publishers to include LESS DRM not NO DRM, then show them your support when they listen.
--Doug
BG:EE is just one small battlefield in an ongoing war against DRM. Progress may or may not be made before BG2:EE. But at least we should make our concerns heard by the powers that be. I bought the game. I supported Beamdog. Contrary to what several posters appear to believe, I am supporting the developer by voicing my concerns. Most companies would kill to have a passionate user actively contributing feedback in a respectful way.
If they want to silence me they know how they can do it. Just send me my copy of the game early and you won't hear from me for at least a month or two
I can see people having problems with heavy DRM, but this simply isn't one of those cases."
Because DRM doesn't work. It just doesn't. Do you think that if I wanted to play Starcraft II with a friend of mine, that being unable to install my copy on his PC and play with him is really going to slow me down? No. It really won't. Someone will have already cracked it. You could download the DVD iso for Wrath of the Lich King BEFORE IT WAS ON SALE.
Let me put this another way. When you see something doesn't work, then you don't keep doing it. That's the definition of insanity. You see that your DRM only creates annoyances or uncertainty for your paying consumers, so the logical thing to do is stop. BG:EE would be a perfect choice of an awesome game for a laptop with no internet connection (and yes, I know many people who have laptops but no wireless internet to use with it, and they use them primarily for portable media purposes), but the DRM means no installing it on that PC unless they make a trip to someone who has a wireless connection. Even this very light form of DRM has been noted as an inconvenience at least, and threat of product at worst (because honestly we gamers have been burned in the past, and a loose promise that the DRM will be removed if the company goes the way of Black Isle does not do anything to assure us).
Punishing consumers is not a good way to "protect" your product. There is evidence that actually accepting that products are not going to be protected will serve you better, and instead of fighting the current you can surf on it. A great example would be Paizo Publishing vs Wizards of the Coast.
Wizards of the Coast sold pdf versions of their material books, but said that in an effort to avoid piracy, they were no longer going to offer pdf copies of their books (now making the only way to acquire pdf copies of your books would now be to pirate them). Did it stop or slow down piracy? Not at all. You easily pickup virtually every D&D book available in pirated format, and frankly some people want those pdfs because of the convenience of being able to carry your books on your laptop or handheld device to your games (instead of lugging around 30 lbs. of manuals). Wizards of the Coast strived to abolish the Open Game License they created, and after the Expanded Psionics Handbook, virtually nothing new became part of the D&D System Reference Document.
Fast forward to their #1 competitor, a smaller company, who has in the past year outdone Wizards of the Coast the industry giant in hobby games. How did they crush them? Better customer service. Wider coverage. They literally post all their rulebooks online for you to get for FREE. No joke. Google "Pathfinder Reference Document" and you'll get sent to their own website (or the d20pfsrd.com) where you will find most everything they have published available for use. They sell pdfs, periodically update them with errata (you can re-download them at no charge), the pdfs are less than the material copies, and getting the material copy from their online store nets you the pdf for free.
Now exactly what can we learn from this?
1: Pirating is not going away. People will always pirate. Ironically, pirating is also a leading force in innovation, but that's a conversation for another day.
2: Alienating customers in an object to stop the unstoppable force of piracy is just stupid, and encourages piracy.
3: Providing solid customer service garners loyal customers, and focusing more on the money to be made rather than the money that might be lost provides better results for both consumer and provider.
4: Having some of your product floating around for free can actually end up making you more money than not. As much as it scrapes the sensibilities of some people, having your work given away or even pirated can end up making you more money, and in some cases function as advertisements.
I have a few real life examples. Pirating IS involved in some of these, so I'm not going to call out names. I will just refer to them as "friend #".
Friend #1: I have a friend who has become a rather dedicated fan of Warcraft. He has purchased quite a good bit of Blizzard merchandise, and has went out and gotten an official World of Warcraft retail account. But what led him to this? Piracy and emulators. He never expressed interest in playing WoW, until a couple of his friends who literally couldn't afford to pay for retail asked him to join the private server that they were playing on. So he was given a pirated version of WoW, and he played it on emulated servers. During this time, he became a fan, and then migrated to retail and has purchased each expansion and pays them for retail server service every month loyally. The availability increased popularity and coverage.
Friend #2: I have another friend who was interested in playing D&D/Pathfinder, but had little disposable income and felt that he wouldn't be able to explore the hobby because the books are quite expensive and he wouldn't be able to get them. I pointed him to the free online system reference documents, and he became a fan and makes small purchases when money permits. But it created a ripple effect as well. You see, when he became involved, that opened the door for several of his friends and family members to become involved, and now his brother's friend owns almost every D&D 3.x book published in hardcopy (and is working on Pathfinder) because he introduced him to D&D through this grapevine effect. The availability created increased popularity and coverage.
Friend #3: I have another friend who had never played Baldur's Gate. Or even heard of it (it hurts me to say that) even. He only played console games. I suggested Baldur's Gate to him, and introduced him to him. He got a pirated copy of Baldur's Gate I & II complete with manuals, CD art, and box art. He loved it, and has been babbling about BG:EE to me every time I see him. So, as a matter of fact, his interest and inevitable purchase of this exact game here is due to the availability of the software.
There are lots of other people who have found and discovered Baldur's Gate through torrenting copies of the game (which came with patches and such bundled in with them) that will go on to purchase copies of BG:EE. Part of the lure of downloading BG in that manner was the fact you can't find copies of BG I & II and their expansions without trolling the internet and looking for second hand dealers, amazon, or similar things (I for one had never heard of GoG.com, so now I can recommend it to people as a great alternative to pirating some great hard to find games).
Perhaps it is stuff like this that makes me less concerned about the issue of piracy and more concerned about the issues of service, and the sustainability of intellectual properties and great products. I'm concerned about a company's bottom line, but also about the consumer, and I do not believe that those are opposed, or even that piracy or freedom marketing is detrimental to the media industries.
What upsets me about DRM is that since it doesn't work it places companies in a position where it is often more convenient to pirate something than it is to actually purchase and use your product. You don't want to make pirating stuff more convenient than purchasing. I mean, we're on the cutting edge where you can purchase a game, download it from some high speed servers, and then be playing it in the next hour without even driving to town to buy it. Without all the DRM, it's more convenient than fishing through some torrent sites looking for some good packages for what you want and then hoping for seeders and such. Hence, I think DRM is counter-intuitive. It's like trying to put out a fire by dousing it in gasoline. It's kind of the worst way to prevent piracy.
================================================================
All of that said...I believe Illydth makes some very good points. Having listened and examined his/her points in detail, considered them, I agree. I will assuredly purchase at least two copies of BG:EE for my brother and I, and possibly a copy for a friend of mine who is interested, and maybe his brother. Illydth's explanations have tipped the scale of my worries, and ironically the fact I could pirate a cracked copy if the authentication servers go down in a few years actually makes me more comfortable buying it now. Having read the improvements has been icing on the cake, and I want to support this more and more.
So while I was hesitant to purchase due to DRM, piracy has comforted my heart that I won't get screwed down the road for purchasing now, and a well made argument by Illydth set my worries and concerns aside. Thank you Illydth. I'll name my first BG:EE character after you. (^_^)
And then when you see something like D3... Yeah, DRM worked wonders with that one.
DRM like the one in D3, that's the kind of stuff that we should be worried about.