Not Related to AP per say; Why does everyone hate DRM?

[Walsingham]

If I can go back to an earlier point. The suggestion - I think from Tigs - was that causal gamers don't object to DRM. My furious reaction to this is that casual gamers aren't pirating!

 

A further point. Using DRM costs the company money. They have to comission or license it, and they have to maintain servers to cope with it. If it does not reduce piracy - and it would appear that it doesn't - then it is a parasite on my favourite industry.

[Gorgon]

I can cope with using steam, which is really like turning a big leaf for me. I will never buy anything that requires active internet to play.

 

 

Also what's a 'casual gamer'. I don't know how do do anything at less than 100% capacity, if I can't muster that I don't do it at all - which is usually what happens.

[Nemo0071]

If I can go back to an earlier point. The suggestion - I think from Tigs - was that causal gamers don't object to DRM. My furious reaction to this is that casual gamers aren't pirating!

Well I guess they do, just not as much as "t3h hardc0r3s" who feels the need to dl every game out there. And even these so-called hardcores wouldn't pay for all (any) of those games if they had to, like it says in the article in that other thread. Which makes the pirating done by actual pir4t3s all the more irrelavent to DRM's argument about preventing piracy. Whut?

 

Using DRM costs the company money. They have to comission or license it, and they have to maintain servers to cope with it. If it does not reduce piracy - and it would appear that it doesn't - then it is a parasite on my favourite industry.

So all in all what everyone says is, they're spending money to lose customers, and with them, money.

 

Ok, I'm no finance expert but it sounds just plain stupid.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Nemo0071

[Baeus]

Lots of reasons that people object to it, but my personal one is that given the wide variety of computer + hardware + OS + program + dohickey combinations, DRM can have plenty of unintended consequences for the buyer.

 

Personally, I used to laugh at anti-drm complaints, couldn't see the big deal... until I bought Spore. After I installed it, I couldn't right click any file in Windows anymore. Right clicking just did nothing, no list of options, no nothing. It took a lot of searcing on the internet, and some messing with my registry (and I'm not someone who has a sufficent understanding of computers to be entirely happy about doing that) before I could put in a workaround to SecureRom to get windows working properly again. Just installing this game with its DRM crippled my computer.

 

So yeah, personally, I like to whine about DRM now, and am quite happy to sympathise with people who find their game won't work because the DRM doesn't like their hardware, or some program they installed years ago.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Baeus

[Nemo0071]

until I bought Spore.

I heard that Spore had one of the most annoying (for whatever reason) DRM schemes. It was true then (DRM for a game messing with Windows right-click? wtf?).

 

Then again, I guess it's a possibility with all kinds of intrusive DRM out there. It simply may not "like" your rig. Heh.

[Morgoth]

I like it how Bioware does it. Just a mere disc check, and then something like Cerberus that encourages you to buy the game when it comes out, to fully enjoy all the free DLC.

 

Steam is good too, but I only use it for cheap sales.

[LostStraw]

Using DRM costs the company money. They have to comission or license it, and they have to maintain servers to cope with it. If it does not reduce piracy - and it would appear that it doesn't - then it is a parasite on my favourite industry.

So all in all what everyone says is, they're spending money to lose customers, and with them, money.

 

Ok, I'm no finance expert but it sounds just plain stupid.

Is that true though? I've heard many people preach about it and there have been some articles here and there conjecturing that the DRM costs more than it saves but there are obviously enough bean counters at game companies doing cost benefit analysis that come to the opposite conclusion. So is there any good evidence that DRM loses the companies more money than it saves or is it mostly assumptions by internet folks who want it to be true?

[Purkake]

Oh look, a DRM thread, I predict civil discourse and intelligent exchange of ideas

 

I just wanted to chime in on the Steam vs other online DRM solutions. The reason I have a certain dislike for all the online DRMs, but still love Steam is that, while Steam did have a lot of problems in the beginning, it actually works now and also has an offline mode if you don't want to maintain a constant connection. My main problem with most of the other online DRM solutions is that they usually don't work for 1-2 weeks after the game is out. You'd think they would have fixed it in the 2 years that it's been in use, but it keeps happening all the time.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Purkake

[Lady Evenstar]

I'm fine with disc checks. I'm less fine, but still willing to buy, games that require a one-time online authentication. If you want to requre online play the benefit *to me* of being online needs to outweigh the inconvenience. So far only WoW has managed to pass this hurdle. Part of the appeal of single-player games is being able to play when and where I like. There are games I might buy, regardless, I can't be sure since nothing I've really, really wanted has been published with what I consider to be overly restrictive DRM, but there are definitely otherwise "might buy" games that I definitely wouldn't buy if I didn't like the DRM.

 

I expect to buy FO:NV. I wouldn't buy it if it required me constantly to be online.

[Oerwinde]

I like how Paradox does it. No DRM, but in order to get access to tech support or post in certain sections of the official forums you need to register your game's cd key. Or Stardock, where you need to authenticate your game in order to get patches.

[Walsingham]

Oh look, a DRM thread, I predict civil discourse and intelligent exchange of ideas

 

It's been pretty good so far, hasn't it?

[Nepenthe]

I like it how Bioware does it. Just a mere disc check, and then something like Cerberus that encourages you to buy the game when it comes out, to fully enjoy all the free DLC.

 

Me too, I think it's a brilliant scheme, which I heartily approve of.

 

Not sure how involved the online checks related to the DLC were, I've heard some conflicting info.

[HoonDing]

The first Drakensang had the following DRM: a missing quest NPC if the game was pirated, making it impossible to continue. The sequel, River of Time, uses something similar (making it possible to revive characters that fell in battle). It also caused pirates to flood the forum and whine about a buggy game, which was hilarious.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Well if the DRM were tripped in a legal game then that would be a buggy mess...

 

EDIT:

I'm not saying that was the case but a similar thing was done with ARMA II and it had some issues with its Fade DRM system going off when the person was using a legal copy.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Purkake]

The first Drakensang had the following DRM: a missing quest NPC if the game was pirated, making it impossible to continue. The sequel, River of Time, uses something similar (making it possible to revive characters that fell in battle). It also caused pirates to flood the forum and whine about a buggy game, which was hilarious.

Wasn't so funny when Iron Lore did it with Titan Quest...

[Oner]

I liked Settlers 3's pig forging blacksmiths.

[Thorton_AP]

Didn't that result in a huge ****storm of people declaring the game a buggy mess, when it was really just pirates that suffered from the "bug."

[Oner]

It did. Or so I heard.

[Purkake]

And then Iron Lore went under.

 

Good stuff...

[ltolman]

and I'm sure I wouldnt be buying a game either if it had to have a constant connection and I lived somewhere that the connection was horrible or that I couldnt afford it. Let alone I guess activate it. Then again you need an active connection just to activate your operating system so I guess in my case; lets say in 2 months time I have no money, and then my hard drive crashes, I have to install the OS but guess what; 30 days later I cannot use much of the computer because I cannot get it activated. At any rate, in cases like needing an internet connection I too would be upset.

 

Lets look at this from a different perspective though........the good news is that at least companies arent issuing a DRM on a product you already own months down the road. Lets say for instance; A HA; Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion; Bethesda. Lets be thankful that they arent issuing out a DRM on that game even though we've had it for years..............lol does that make sense? Thankfully these people issue the DRM stats up front before you ever buy it and thankfully they dont ever change once you do own the game

[Nemo0071]

Using DRM costs the company money. They have to comission or license it, and they have to maintain servers to cope with it. If it does not reduce piracy - and it would appear that it doesn't - then it is a parasite on my favourite industry.

So all in all what everyone says is, they're spending money to lose customers, and with them, money.

 

Ok, I'm no finance expert but it sounds just plain stupid.

Is that true though? I've heard many people preach about it and there have been some articles here and there conjecturing that the DRM costs more than it saves but there are obviously enough bean counters at game companies doing cost benefit analysis that come to the opposite conclusion. So is there any good evidence that DRM loses the companies more money than it saves or is it mostly assumptions by internet folks who want it to be true?

 

Maybe so. Maybe the benefit really outweights the cost. Or, maybe they're simply crying out "Look, we're trying to prevent piracy! We do care!" so they won't lose the casual (uninformed) gamer (buyer) to piracy. To clarify:

 

- Casual Gamer: Give me a good reason why I should buy your product when it's available for free on the internet.

- Publisher: Because piracy is illegal.

- CG: Then what do you have to show for it? I mean, what separates a legitimate customer from a sucker who pays for something that is available for free? If it's illegal, what are you doing to stop it?

 

Obviously, at the official (business) level, the suits can't simply say "Nothing. We made a good product. We trust our customers. We believe they'll do the right thing." etc. So they say:

 

- P: We have DRM to make the bad guys go away.

- CG: Cool! You do care!..

 

 

I know it's pretty blunt, but that's just how I feel about it. It's not like I have any inside knowledge on the whole DRM vs. Piracy deal.

[Nemo0071]

I like it how Bioware does it. Just a mere disc check, and then something like Cerberus that encourages you to buy the game when it comes out, to fully enjoy all the free DLC.

 

Steam is good too, but I only use it for cheap sales.

One of the reasons I'm starting to like the Steam approach (even though I'm a guy with a really unstable internet connection) is I find disc checks annoying. I usually play more than one (or two, or three...) games simultaneously, and I don't like ejecting the disc, putting it back to the box, taking out the other one from the drawer... etc. just because I want to play that other game today. But of course it's only a matter of preference.

 

I've seen a middle ground for this in Battlefield: Bad Company 2. It allows you to activate online after installation and play without the disc and without internet connection (the single player campaign, obviously). It also allows you to install / play via the good old disc-check method without connection.

 

If it was actually a single player game (definitely not worth your $$$ if you're not buying it specifically for the multiplayer), and didn't for some reason limit the online activation to a maximum of 10 times (I know it's a lot, but still), it would be an example for one of the best DRM schemes we could hope for, imo.

[Tigranes]

What Steam tries to do is good, I just find it unnecessary. I don't want all the integrated bullcrap, the logins and friend chats and autopatching and all that. There should be an option for a very stripped down access to Steam games - or even better, for games to not be Steam-compulsory (ETW, Civ5, etc). It's happening because Steam does do a good job generally and is so successful, but I don't want it to become a monolith and take over and force everyone to go on it.

[Nemo0071]

There should be an option for a very stripped down access to Steam games

Options are always good.

 

 

I don't want it to become a monolith

Didn't even need to read further. I see your point.

[Magister Lajciak]

I like it how Bioware does it. Just a mere disc check, and then something like Cerberus that encourages you to buy the game when it comes out, to fully enjoy all the free DLC.

 

Me too, I think it's a brilliant scheme, which I heartily approve of.

 

I also approve of the current BioWare way.

 

Not sure how involved the online checks related to the DLC were, I've heard some conflicting info.

 

The DLC does require online authentication, but it does no break my no-online DRM rule, as I simply don't purchase/download the DLC. Dragon Age is a good enough game on its own - the DLC might enhance it further, but I can do without. Now if the DLC were something essential to the game or deliberately taken out of the game to turn it into DLC that would be a different matter, but BioWare games are high quality even on their own, so that concern doesn't apply there at the moment.