A New, Unpopular Philosophy

Stop me when you’ve heard this before: Gamers are up in arms over the copy protection scheme of a major publisher.

The tumult from the latest skirmish between warring gamers and publishers involves Spore, which limits the number of installs permitted to 3 before the user must contact EA to extend their license. Immediately gamers lined up their rhetorical catapults and fired salvo after salvo of familiar, flaming linguistic ballistics, rolling out all the hits: treating customers like criminals, it doesn’t do anything against piracy, boycott EA and so on.

Call it apathy. Call it selling out. Call it whatever you want, but try as I might, I simply can not find any enthusiasm for bubbling up my once white-hot animus. It’s not just that I don’t necessarily see anything extraordinarily troubling about EA’s security measures; it’s also that I just can’t muster the same gamer-rage that once seemed to come so easily. Feeling victimized by every perceived slight just isn't as appealing to me as it used to be.

Let me stress that I don’t fault those who experience trouble with restrictive DRM for speaking up. I just wonder how many of the people expressing outrage saw fire on the horizon and went running toward it with lighter fluid?

I appreciate the basic sentiment of gamers, misguided as I think it may be. But, when I think about my personal experience with recent anti-piracy efforts, I find it hard to recall it actually causing me any trouble. Oh, it’s not hard to imagine circumstances under which I could be inconvenienced, but when I measure that against the instances in which it actually happened, I come up blank.

I can count on one hand the number of games I’ve actually installed more than three times. So, if I look at how the Spore issue relates to me practically, then I am forced to concede that the likelihood of my having to ever extend my installations is extraordinarily small. And, should I ever have to make that call, I wonder how difficult a process that really is? I once had to do something similar for Windows. The process was painless and lasted a few minutes. So, I ask myself: is this a price I’m willing to pay if EA’s investors feel like the company is making meaningful anti-piracy efforts and by extension is willing to greenlight even more high-budget PC titles?

The more I release myself from the chains of hysterical hypotheticals, the more I find myself not really having a problem with it.

And, I think about the options that EA and other major publishers have. Piracy is a problem that companies can’t choose not to address. Arguments over the number of lost sales any degree of piracy represent or the effectiveness of anti-piracy efforts aren’t really the point. The real issue is that the company would be criminally negligent if it didn't make measurable efforts to protect the multi-million dollar investment they have in Spore.

You’re absolutely right; those who stand the largest likelihood of being inconvenienced are the legitimate consumers — saying nothing of how often that will actually happen or how difficult a problem that is to fix. Just once, though, I wouldn’t mind seeing the hivemind of gamer rage aimed at the people who actually put us in this position, the pirates. How likely that is to happen, I don't know. I suspect that most publishers have lost a good deal of faith on that question, which is perhaps why the PC has become such a diminished platform. Again, I think I’ll choose to not get worked up about things that are beyond my control.

It's not that I’m not trying to flip the blame on the self-labeled victims. I don’t believe that approach is any more productive than bombing EA with negative Amazon.com reviews. Those who want to get in a schoolyard brawl with the publishing giant are welcome to their dirty fights. Maybe they’ll even get the company to back down on Spore, winning a minor skirmish in the losing war against the inevitable. The problem is that gamers don't have much of a track record on the 'being practical about the realities of business' front. Beside the fact that our ability to participate in the industry debate has been completely dilluted as a result of our tacit approval of piracy, there are very few demonstrable instances where concessions to gamers haven't just resulted in further outrage. We aren't known for meeting in the middle.

So, I’m going to reserve what dry fumes of gamer rage I have left for problems that, for me, are actual rather than hypothetical. I’ll save my victimization for when Spore of Mass Effect actually leave me with no access to the content I paid for rather than suffering the many imagined ways such a thing might happen. I suspect that by the time the installation limitation is likely to be an issue, I will have no shortage of options on the table for either extending my license or circumventing EA’s anti-piracy measures.

These days I’m willing to spend hours re-installing my favorite old games. I’ll waste time scouring the internet for updated texture packs, old patches and homemade mods. If my time and $60 is so precious that I can’t accept that corporations have legal obligations to shareholders and a necessary interest in making efforts to limit the theft of their property, then I am comfortable with my choices of supporting different companies or finding a new past time.

That's the whole point. I have a choice. I can either wash myself in the venomous bath of voluntary outrage for a problem I will likely never have, or I can accept that the circumstances of the industry simply do not permit a major publisher the luxury of being lackadaisical with their investment. I can make the industry the villain for trying to protect its property, or I can make the thieves the villain for massive excesses and creating the combative climate. I can be furious about the vague problems of some unknown number of people, or I can realize that for me I will likely buy Spore, install it and play it without incident.

For me, the choice isn’t particularly complicated. It may make me a patsy, a sellout or an apologist. Fair enough, I can’t control those labels, but I can control the fact that while thousands of outraged gamers have signed petitions, fired off angry emails, posted furiously on message boards and drowned Spore with negative reviews, I was having a fun and hassle free experience playing the actual game.

In the immortal words of Miracle Max, “have fun stormin’ da castle.”

Comments

Elysium wrote:
...

I was kinda waiting for this, and I understand the sentiment ... but give me a break. I think the biggest problem is the total lack of perspective in the debate. That EA has implemented a 3 installation scheme is about as far from real "atrocity" as we can get.

I know this seems a bit like I'm beating up on your reply, but I hear this thing expressed too often and usually with a lot more hysteria. So, I'm kind of responding to that. The extreme and victimized rhetoric doesn't float with me, and reinforces my position that at best both sides have become so entrenched in their sense of entitlement that I doubt seriously that there is a middle ground left. So, while I do involve myself in the atrocities of relevance, I don't feel bad about scratching reasonable DRM decisions off the list.

1st off, don't worry and just react - I know too well what I quoted there, hence the first line above it, (heck your piece nearly screamed for someone to call it, I think) but I do think there's still the issue of not acting at all, and just spending the money and letting big companies get away with something you may not agree with on a fundamental level. I don't think anyone likes DRM, not even the bigwigs at EA (popular pick, I know, but it's a short name and prime example), Activision or Ubisoft, but I don't think that's any justification for potentially screwing lots of people over this way. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I hear the gas tanks on Pintos explode like the 4th of July when rear ended, but mine hasn't exploded yet, so let's all just hush up and let Ford do what it needs to do. It'd be irresponsible of them to spend all that money to do a recall, after all.

So, fatalities as a result of clearly illegal malfeasance is the same as transparent DRM for an entertainment platform?

Not that it's the same, but when and where to draw the line? WHY draw a line somewhere in between in the first place if you can respond to a situation you feel is unjust, even if it's a Luxury Problem? (capitalised because it is)
Now it's on Spore, if you don't let them know it's not appreciated, it's going to be on everything because they think we don't mind. But there's no effective official channel, so this will have to do.

It's easy to be lazy about stuff like this. If I were just as lazy about it I may not reply here at all.
That doesn't help the discussion though, and nobody will get any better from it, because the problem will remain.
Not that I've got the hubris to think this debate is going to find a solution to this right here, but still....

I don't know of english variations on it ATM (I'm sure there are), but there's a dutch saying that translates to 'to remain silent is to agree'.
In that case I'd rather have people kicking and screaming in a virtual setting, so at least they'll know people don't like it. It's not like it really takes that much of an effort anyway.

Most of my normal points have been made already so i won't retread that ground. I think it's an interesting article though i do take issue with a stance you seem to place on our (gamers') heads:

Just once, though, I wouldn’t mind seeing the hivemind of gamer rage aimed at the people who actually put us in this position, the pirates. How likely that is to happen, I don't know. I suspect that most publishers have lost a good deal of faith on that question, which is perhaps why the PC has become such a diminished platform.
Here's a question: what have gamers done to curb or even appear to curb piracy? Do you really think that there will be less DRM as long as gamers tacitly approve of piracy?

You're implying that we condone and allow pirating to occur - as if we have some sort of collusion or control over the circumstances. We do not and never have done. Each person is an individual, some people pirate their whole lives, others never do. Blaming and complaining about an entity like EA is completely different to being able to address a destabilised, non-singular entity such as a hive of pirates... if it was then there would be no problem - they would already be in jail.
As a person i have no power over other people. I have no more power over you and your opinion than i do over a pirate's. What do you expect from this question? I believe its assumptions to be fallacious.

DRM is the equivalent of indirect loss of life in a military campaign - and yes i'm using more extreme examples as a way of helping to relate the two positions... not because i'm trying (or the people above) to spew rhetoric. We know that a person's life is not equal to a sale of a game or a broken DRM implementation or whatever and i would hope that you know that too. It's to give an example to something that people can relate to because there is nothing like DRM that isn't extreme to compare it to. It simply doesn't exist in the legal and normal everyday lives of people.

Again, I think I’ll choose to not get worked up about things that are beyond my control.

I guess i quoted this to turn it back on itself and the quotes above... to show that we have no power or control over piracy - less even than the publishers. It is not our problem to deal with because, being loyal, non-pirating customers we cannot effect its presence to any great degree and if we cannot complain or campaign against the implementation of DRM (which doesn't affect people who use a pirated game) then we cannot affect the companies who are causing 'civilian casualties' in 'the war on piracy'.

[edit] - wow this thread's moving fast... or i'm posting slowly

Elysium wrote:
That a problem hasn't affected you yet doesn't make it any less wrong and people waiting until they can't activate Spore in a couple of years when EA takes down the servers because Spore 2 is coming out (theoretical situation but not without precedent) is what will allow them to cement an anti-consumer system like this in place rather than having it stopped before it gets too wide spread.

But there are already workarounds? Is it really unreasonable not to be worried about having easy access to some kind of work around in the future?

So you're part of the problem then? As are the publishers. You and they are condoning piracy by buying/selling games that require the use of the results of piracy further down the line. In fact you expect to be able to rely on that output as a means of circumventing the DRM.

Elysium wrote:

Here's a question: what have gamers done to curb or even appear to curb piracy?

Thank God there are people like you writing about issues like this, Mr. Sands.

The answer to this question is "not a Goddamned thing". If anything, stories like this make it clear where the allegiance of most 'net-savvy gamers lies on the subject of piracy. When it comes to any form of electronic entertainment-- whether it's music, movies, or games-- check any of the the well-known sites around the Web, and most will take the position that the only proper response to piracy is for the product providers to offer better products. It's natural for consumers to want better products, but people who are currently paying zero dollars for these products are going to continue paying zero dollars for them whenever possible, regardless of any improvements made to the products. Meanwhile, on the rare occasion that a well-known piracy site gets shut down by copyright holders, you'll be hard-pressed to find a gaming site where the news is warmly received.

DRM schemes can and should be much more elegant than what we're seeing with Spore; and if that's the only issue under discussion, I suspect we'd all be in agreement here. But the furor over Spore's DRM isn't just about the activation limit-- it's that the DRM exists at all. This is the highest-profile PC game release in years, so it's no surprise that while this same DRM scheme has been used for other titles in the past, this was the case in which the unrest came to a head. And whereas I was opposed to strict DRM in the past, years of piracy cheerleading from gaming communities all over the Web have convinced me of its necessity.

Elysium wrote:

But there are already workarounds? Is it really unreasonable not to be worried about having easy access to some kind of work around in the future?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean here. If you mean that there's workarounds to potential future DRM issues in the forms of cracks, that doesn't work. I shouldn't have to go and find something the publisher has declared illegal to get around their protection schemes. If you mean that you can call EA to get extra licenses, what's to stop them from ceasing support for Spore after a period of time? There's certainly an EA related argument to be made there.

Elysium wrote:

Every major publisher is exploring its own anti-piracy options. That they aren't doing the exact same thing isn't really the point, is it?

Umm...yeah it is. If a publisher uses a disc check, I can still put that disc in a PC in a few years and play the game. I don't have to hope that they didn't take the servers down or that if they did, that they were kind enough to spend the money to release a patch to remove the DRM (remember, it's irresponsible to investors to spend money they don't have to.) Disc check DRM doesn't bother me. A product having DRM at all doesn't bother me. It's the DRM that can prevent me from playing the product I bought when and how I want and tying me to the permissions of a publisher who's best interests include ending support for a game as soon as possible to save money.

Elysium wrote:

Well, that's actually every bit as difficult to quantify as the traditional debate over how much piracy affects lost sales. Is it really so unreasonable to think that piracy of Spore would be higher if it were easier to engage in?

It can't be easier to engage in than it is already. You can run a Google search for Spore torrents and be downloading a full cracked version of the game in minutes. And this is with the SecuROM activation DRM in place. Nothing's changed except legitimate customers are frustrated. Any 15 year old who has even a passing interest in computers knows how to do this. I fix their computers, I see it every day.

Elysium wrote:

I argue that feeling like you're being treated like a criminal is a choice. DRM, for me, is a little like having to go through the metal detector at the airport. It's a hassle, annoying, and clearly the result of the illegal actions of others, but I recognize why it's necessary.

I consider this argument of the same level as the one about exploding gas tanks that you dismissed. That I have to be scanned at an airport to ensure that someone isn't carrying a bomb that could kill us all (as unlikely as that is) pales in comparison to copying a game.

When I worked at Best Buy, every employee (including ones who'd been there for years) were required to have their jackets and bags searched by Loss Prevention before being able to leave the store for breaks, lunch or at the end of the day. I found that to be incredibly insulting. I went along with it because I needed my job but I made a point of mentioning it to other employees who went "Yeah, that's kind of bullsh*t." I understand that in retail, most theft comes from employees but the "You're guilty until proven innocent" mentality of what they were doing wasn't justified by that fact in my opinion. In my time there, 3 employees were caught with stolen product and arrested. Guess what? Not one of those arrests was made from the LP search because those who were stealing knew how to avoid it. That's my point with DRM like this. Don't treat me like a thief until I actually steal something and in particular, with methods that the actual thieves can avoid without even trying. If companies like EA are given an inch on this issue, I guarantee you it will become several miles in short order. And like others have said, as a consumer it isn't my job to figure out how to end piracy. I buy all my games and deplore those who don't, I am not part of the problem.

Errrrr......I am not a lawyer, but the one thing that concerns me most about the editorial is really more of a point of fact than anything. Specifically, how are we arriving at the conclusion that companies have any form of legal obligation to shareholders to pursue DRM as a method of protecting copyrighted material? I've seen this argument offered elsewhere, and it puzzled me there too. Company directors have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to maximize the value of the company, but I wasn't under the impression that they could be held legally liable for potentially damaging decisions made without malice. I think that's an important point to consider, because if anybody ever DID perform an exhaustive study determining precisely how much value DRM and copy protection yield for a company and it so happened that no available solution was cost effective at its price point as compared to the null option (in other words, all available DRM costs more in licensing/development and sales influence than it gains), this claim would imply that the company would still be obligated to pursue some option, regardless of evidence. Can a lawyer speak to this point? I'm honestly curious to know.

Nijhazer wrote:

Meanwhile, on the rare occasion that a well-known piracy site gets shut down by copyright holders, you'll be hard-pressed to find a gaming site where the news is warmly received.
And whereas I was opposed to strict DRM in the past, years of piracy cheerleading from gaming communities all over the Web have convinced me of its necessity.

That's funny because i don't have the same experience. Any time a 'warez' or torrent site/aggregator is shut down the news is reported by media outlets (including gaming oriented ones) in an unbiased way. I've never seen a story about how freedom is being curtailed and piracy is great - never. As to which communities you've been invovled with, neither here or the three or four other communities i've spent a lot of time with have ever condoned piracy - in fact most Code of Conducts state that links to pirated content or sites will be shut down and the offending user banned. Thus the users on those sites tend to be ones that do not like piracy (beyond using .exe cracks to avoid having a CD/DVD in the drive all the time) and will not welcome pirates.

If you go to the pirates cove, don't be surprised when the pirates show up for dinner.

[edit]

Nijhazer wrote:

If anything, stories like this make it clear where the allegiance of most 'net-savvy gamers lies on the subject of piracy.

Most net-savvy gamers' allegiances lie with their best interests. Not with the best interests of a publisher or a band of pirate code-breakers. It's when and where those interests converge that is important.

When it comes to any form of electronic entertainment-- whether it's music, movies, or games-- check any of the the well-known sites around the Web, and most will take the position that the only proper response to piracy is for the product providers to offer better products.

A 'better product' does not necessarily imply that more content or added features need be applied. Removing what the consumer considers harsh restrictions also fulfils that term.

I think the major issue with DRM for me (apart from the inconvenience and the fact that I regularly reformat my computers for efficiency and to purge any crap that slipped by security) is the fact that if provider went bust (admittedly unlikely) or otherwise removed support, I would own something that, through no fault of my own, I couldn't use (though the point about circumvention is sound for games, that does not apply to everything after all).

As for the piracy issue itself -- that's the consequence of the internet in a world of self-interested agents. Nothing is going to change, and the consequences of free flowing information go far beyond piracy anyway. My point is, the market has become, in at least one aspect, far harsher and that fact is irreversible.

Of course in all fairness, this applies to consumers as well -- if the use of this kind of DRM has no negative impact on the bottom line, then companies like EA will use it again, and the industry will become harsher on consumers that don't fit the ideal of the 'standard consumer' (ie, someone who say, regularly installs and uninstalls stuff, and replays games rather than playing them once and then trading them in).

I think I'll stop there -- from a purely dispassionate point of view, these kind of social market forces are actually quite interesting...

[Edit] And while I was typing an entire second page was created which pretty much covered all of the above. Oh well.

I bought it on Direct2Drive, and was playing it an hour and a half later. I'm not even sure I really need the tin-foil hat I wear to protect myself from SecruRom.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I do understand why EA is following this path, but I do wish that they went the way 2k did with Bioshock and allow you to reclaim an installation when uninstalling the game.

This is the /only/ problem I have the Spore's DRM scheme. Mostly because I'm lazy & anti-social, and resent having to dig up the number for & wait on hold with a companies tech support.

As has been said before in the forum thread by Certis, and I did not see one comment on this in Elysium's piece, the 3 copy limit was not implemented to stop pirates. It is to stop casual passing around of games, and the secondary sales market. Now the EULA that people blindly click as they install their latest may state that your license is non transferrable, but no one reads them anyway. And their enforceablitiy has been suspect. But a 3 copy limit does stop the secondary market in PC's.

There will not be true outrage until this happens in the console market, when somehow a piece of software is forever linked to the first machine you play it on.

Here is my two problems with draconian copy protections.

That companies are not upfront about what they are doing always and often do not disclose it till you are at the EULA accept screen if at all. Even if they do disclose it at that point what are my options? I can decline but good luck getting your money back.

I am not a fan of a protection scheme that does not allow for me to uninstall all of it when I am done.

I am OK with the idea that I am not the owner of the software and that I have to jump through hoops and wear scuba gear to play. When I am done with a game though it should be off my PC.

I know DRM isn't the only thing that does this but it bugs me to no end that I have so little control what it really being installed on my PC and if I do decide to decline to accept the terms I have about 0 recourse.

Elysium wrote:

I can count on one hand the number of games I’ve actually installed more than three times.

As a PC game collector and common retro-gamer, I can't help but think that your viewpoint is affected by what I see as either a "new shiny!" attitude or you just have such a big hard drive that you never need to uninstall anything.

Just a few games I like to go back and play every couple of years:
Starcon 2
Max Paynes (1 & 2)
Total Annihilation
Dungeon Keepers (1 & 2)
Fallouts (1 & 2 & Tactics)
Homeworld (1 & Cataclysm & 2)
Baldur's Gates (1 & 2 & expansions)
Master of Orion 2
Silent Storms (1 & 2)
Descents (so many)

So yeah, it bothers me to think that I might be buying a game I can't replay a few years down the road.

Elysium wrote:

But there are already workarounds?

Like what? Cracked versions? It doesn't seem fair to criticize gamers for not stamping out piracy and then expect them to rely on it to play games they own.

I can't help it, DRM bothers me. Call it irrational, and you'd prolly be right. Maybe it doesn't bother you, but it does bother me, for a myriad of reasons that have been discussed many times (sense of ownership being one). To put it simply, I don't like it. It's not about arguing for the sake of arguing, or discussing hypothetical situations where DRM causes the death of kittens. It's simpler than that, the inconvenient DRM pushed Spore under the "must buy" threshold for me. I suppose that for someone who expected much from Spore, the DRM is not much of an issue, but when you're undecided about it and look at other games it just comes down to value.

An interesting thing that nobody has commented on is the slow move of mp3 services away from DRM. iTunes has started doing it in the form of iTunes Plus and so does Amazon with there Amazon MP3 service. I think this speaks to how much of an impact on regular consumers DRM has been having. There is no question that pirating has an impact on sales, it would be foolish to think otherwise, however I also think it's foolish to question paying customers about how they're helping curb piracy. Aren't they helping curb it by buying the software? How else is a paying customer to go about this?

There is a lot of talk about how the anti-piracy methods are supposed to stop 'casual' pirating, but I think that's a big load of sh*t, if it was to stop casual pirating they'd have left it at CD checks and Serial Keys. The fact that DRM is escalating so severely is that the publishing companies want to combat the non-casual pirating, and this is a zero sum game. It'll get to the point where they will simply reverse engineer the servers that the game connects to to validate the key. It's happened to things like Ultima Online, Blizzard.Net, all of these services have been reverse engineered and you can access them without having to connect to official servers. Heck I think there was even a pirate volume activation setup to activate vista licenses.

My take on this is different, in that I think the consumer is doing EA a service, by telling them flatout that the DRM scheme, as currently implemented, is factoring into their buying decisions. EA can take that information and do with it what they want, but if the uproar is loud enough, it is essentially free polling for them of their potential customer base concerns. Their are simple tweaks to it, that would achieve their same purpose and not put-off their customer base. I.e. what if an activation usage or hardware 'dna' imprint is only remembered for 6 months, etc.

I feel no outrage about the DRM, but it has reduced my sense of purchase. And no pirating involved, but this type of DRM scheme and its impact becomes more worrisome as you have more users under your roof. Meaning, if you have a family, things are going to happen, systems are going to crash, computers are going to get upgraded over time for school, different software priorities will take place. Suddenly 3 installs is a real limit, something that you may need to hoard. And of course, there is always the potential for problems. What if your system doesnt like some patch or expansion that is later released and now you need to reinstall the game to get it working again. No luck for you, that's activation #2.

Unless the EA Customer Service is much better over a call to say, Microsoft's 18004MYXBOX, the notion that when needed "You can call and request another activation" is ultimately going to be a hassle, hoop jumping, time-wasting and hair pulling experience.

The consumer gets one chance to speak in unison, and that is upon release. After that, their voice becomes that of the one, instead of the many, so I think it is valid for the criticisms to happen en-masse upon release, regardless of whether they have run into the issue yet or not.

This is just another example of where software is not targeting families, but instead user licenses. EA/Microsoft and Sony all want each end-user under a roof to result in multiple purchases of the same software.

Gaming used to be simple. You buy a game, your family enjoys it. No worries about account or install limitations on what you bought. The only company that seems to remember that is Nintendo and I think the consumer recognizes it partially as evidenced by the Wii's success. It is the one system where gaming, and multiple family users really aren't in danger of full/half/no access to a game purchase. Maybe this is the cost of trying to graduate from the label of videogame to electronic entertainment, that some of the unburdened fun and innocence is lost along the way.

I dont consider you a sellout, patsy or apologist, but maybe just a bit limited in your perspective on this one. I seem to remember you defending the severity of XBOX DRM also at one point on a podcast, but if that's a false memory of my failing mind... I'm old compared to most of you whippersnappers... I apologize.

Duoae wrote:

If you go to the pirates cove, don't be surprised when the pirates show up for dinner.

Then you can add Engadget, 1Up.com, the Something Awful Forums, NeoGAF, and the entire TWiT podcast network to your "pirates' cove". Universally, stories about pirate rings being shut down are met with scorn and disdain; "Why bother?", they say, followed by a recommendation for another site where pirated content can be found.

Duoae wrote:

Most net-savvy gamers' allegiances lie with their best interests. Not with the best interests of a publisher or a band of pirate code-breakers. It's when and where those interests converge that is important.

Yes; and as I've said, most of these folks are primarily interested in price. There is no price lower than zero. Personally, I'm more interested in getting more great games, which can't happen if developers can't get a sufficient return on their investment. But I've been in the minority on that in other areas of the entertainment industry before, and it won't surprise me at all if the same is true for gaming.

A 'better product' does not necessarily imply that more content or added features need be applied. Removing what the consumer considers harsh restrictions also fulfils that term.

What a surprise that your idea of a better way to prevent piracy is to stop trying to prevent it.

At this point it really doesnt matter anymore. Publishers have got it in their head that the PC market isnt worth the investment and thus are looking for excuses to exit it stage left.

Excessive or "draconian" DRM is here to stay and will probably get worse. The fact we still get any content period on the PC is probably all the "good" we will see on this platform anytime soon.

My guess the PC market is 12-36 months from ceasing to exist on the mainstream and go to a web (steam) driven marketplace only. The days of purchasing a box, PC exclusive titles or for heavens sake going to a PC game store are over.

Yipee.... thanks Consoles and Pirates

My hobby of 20 years is about 1-3 years away from ending.

Good read.

"Feeling victimized by every perceived slight just isn't as appealing to me as it used to be."

Exactly.

Thanks for providing the rest of us a voice on this subject.

You know, I've tackled the attitude towards piracy apologists before but I generally get ignored so I'm not sure why I'm bothering now.

I don't steal games so I'm not sure how I

1. Am responsible for stopping/deterring piracy
2. Deserve to be treated like a criminal

You know what I've always loved about gaming? Shared experiences. I like being able to hand off a disc to someone and let them try a game. If they like it I hope they'll buy their own copy. I can still do that with most console games (X-Box Live Arcade obviously doesn't work so well in the example).

If the current DRM scheme is an attempt to stop "casual piracy" (I love how the justification for DRM is a series of constantly moving goalposts) then what you're really doing is killing viral marketing. You're attempting to invalidate Fair Use and Right of First Purchase. In other words, DRM is stepping all over consumer rights. These are not stemming from a sense of entitlement but from a fair expectation of consumers to be able to use products they've purchased. Also, this kills sells through what used to be a very effective viral marketing tool. It's like companies have suddenly become obsessed with the idea that someone might play their game without giving them money for it. "Oh no! Johnny lent his disk to a buddy! We don't believe our game is worthwhile enough that he'll get his own copy!" Hey, maybe the person borrowing a game will decide to never buy it, but they might never have tried it at all if not for their friend. It's a lot of maybes, but all these companies are doing is eliminating the maybes. Impact on sales, zero.

I'm ok with it though, the PC game market has been stagnating for awhile and this is just one more nail in the coffin. Piracy continues to get blamed for the loss of PC sales, but I think the continual degradation of the PC gaming experience is what really kills the market.

See, in order to get me to spend money you have to convince me your product is worth paying for. I won't steal it because if I thought it was worth playing then I'll assign a value to it. Granted, that value might be $5 if the product looks crappy enough, but I'll still give something for your efforts. DRM doesn't make a game worth playing. My experience with Starforce is bad enough that I will never buy another game that uses it. Why would it since Starforce stops me from playing a game I paid for. What good is that? DRM, to me, represents a potential loss of my money for a game I cannot play. I just won't even take the chance. The message these companies send, EA or otherwise, is that they want me to gamble with my money. If I win, I get to use the product I paid for. If I lose, hours lost talking to tech support and possibly no game that I purchased legitimately.

It's happened before, and it will happen again. That's fine, I'll just stick to consoles. Yeah, there's DRM on the consoles to, but at least I have confidence that the games I purchase will actually run. This should not be a novel concept.

What a surprise that your idea of a better way to prevent piracy is to stop trying to prevent it.

Aside from the casual piracy argument, which is by no means the largest avenue of piracy that may be costing publishers and developers profits, can you point to any situation that DRM like this has truly prevented piracy?

Preventing casual piracy is almost a non-issue anymore, as many people who are likely to play PC games are likely to know where to get pirated copies. Plus, piracy is getting easier, not harder. DRM isn't even a snag in the works. It's more likely now that casual pirates will be able to find and get pirated games than it ever has been.

If you ask a casual pirate, "If you couldn't just copy this game right out or borrow it from a friend, would you buy it?" I don't think it's very likely that their answer will be "Yes." Casual piracy or lending of games is a practice usually done when someone isn't willing to buy the game in the first place and think they can get a free try. It's not 100% of the time, granted, but preventing casual piracy is not going to generate very many sales, and certainly not enough to cover the cost of buying, implementing, coding, maintaining and supporting the DRM employed.

You can't operate under the assumption that pirated copy == lost sale like the publisher does. Because it doesn't. Preventing casual piracy is not gaining them much. Attempting to prevent widespread piracy is not only failing entirely, but also driving away paying customers due to unattractive, deliberately defective, software.

Botswana wrote:

I don't steal games so I'm not sure how I

1. Am responsible for stopping/deterring piracy
2. Deserve to be treated like a criminal

You speak great wisdom, sir.

When Valve goes belly up in say 15 years, does that mean I won't be able to play any of their games anymore?

verzechuan wrote:
How many of these actual broader market consumers will ever run into trouble, and if they do how many of them will be inconvenienced with more than a swift phone call?

The reason to make a stink now is that when those problems do occur it will be years from now when no one is going to pay attention to the problem. If, 7 years from now, i have an issue with the DRM on software, what are the chances of getting it resolved? After the first couple years software companies have no real incentive to support a product..

My name is wickbroke, and I heartily approve this message. I predict that I would install at least double the allowed 3 times, and it may never be installed simultaneously on two computers. I detailed this in the 'other thread'. I may wish to reinstall in 10, 15, hell, even 20 years. Can I still get my code reset?

To win my sale, they must tell me that they will repeal the copy protection after time t. And make t reasonable for both parties!

How great is the threat of piracy after 1 or 2 years?

I don't have a huge problem with the install limit either, mostly because I have yet to see an example of someone getting screwed because of a similar scheme. It doesn't mean it's not going to happen, it just means I'm prepared to shelve my anger until later.

That being said, I agree that DRM is useless and I have no problem with people doing what their doing. Lets face it - "voting with your wallet" isn't that effective when the vast majority of people deciding to purchase the game don't have a clue the problem even exists. The amazon stunt is a way to tell the publisher that their DRM scheme is not welcome among the savvy, alpha-consumers who form the base of your future sales, AND get your story picked up in the media, which will color any future talk of EA DRM schemes. I applaud this wholeheartedly, and would be surprised if EA didn't respond somehow. I think an adequate solution would be to patch out the DRM 1 year down the line, when the game is already in bargain bins.

I don't steal games so I'm not sure how I
1. Am responsible for stopping/deterring piracy
2. Deserve to be treated like a criminal

Gamers can't have it both ways.

We can either be a part of a solution toward ending piracy, OR
we can leave the piracy issue to companies to solve.

You get one vote as a gamer these days, it's you dollar. Unfortunately you don't also get to choose how companies interpret your vote.

Elysium wrote:

We can either be a part of a solution toward ending piracy, OR
we can leave the piracy issue to companies to solve.

I am part of the solution. I don't pirate games and I tell those that try to justify it that they're wrong. What else would you suggest we do to combat the problem beyond hiring PMCs to raid the Pirate Bay's data center or the homes of those we know pirate games? I don't see how accepting invasive and ineffective DRM is contributing to the solution since we've already established it isn't a solution at all.

Elysium wrote:
I don't steal games so I'm not sure how I
1. Am responsible for stopping/deterring piracy
2. Deserve to be treated like a criminal

Gamers can't have it both ways.

We can either be a part of a solution toward ending piracy, OR
we can leave the piracy issue to companies to solve.

You get one vote as a gamer these days, it's you dollar. Unfortunately you don't also get to choose how companies interpret your vote.

We ARE leaving it to companies to solve. We're also telling them that, as consumers of their product, we don't like their solution. Are you implying that DRM is the only "solution" (non-solution is more like it) they can try? Are you also implying that as paying consumers of their products, we don't have the right to say anything about how they choose to fight piracy simply because there are a lot of PC gaming pirates?

I don't pirate games and I tell those that try to justify it that they're wrong.

*ding*

You win. Seriously, you're off the hook. You're part of the solution.

Unfortunately, the industry can't treat people like you one way and every other consumer another way. I suspect if there were more attitudes like yours, we'd be having a different discussion.

Are you implying that DRM is the only "solution" (non-solution is more like it) they can try?

No, but I am saying that gamers aren't being effective or reasonable in their approach. Brad Wardell's approach is good. Frankly most people on this board who engage in healthy debate is good. Unfotunately those are the exceptions, and we are really suffering the repurcussions of that.

I suppose I should get back to my point, which is that I have limited effect on this. I enjoy this debate, but I'm not really able to get worked up either way. I feel like we've gotten so concerned about what may or may not be happening to other people that many gamers have become rhetorically hysterical and not really offering an effective way out. It's just a path to constant argument, frustration and fury.

Every night, after I get home from work, I lock the doors on my car. This means that I have to use a key to unlock and start the car in the morning. If, at some theoretical time in the future, I were to lose the key, then I'd be SOL. Especially if I'm driving my wife's car, as it uses one of those keys with the microchip in it that is required to start the car. New keys for that cost over a hundred bucks.

Now, I cannot point to any specific case of a car not being stolen because the door was locked. Therefore it must be fatuous to continue locking my car every night.

Also, since I require the key to open and operate my car in the morning, am I therefore treating myself like a criminal? Is Honda treating my wife like a car thief because they put a chip in the key that prevents simply copying the key at a hardware store? It must be so. After all, why should I be forced to unlock a product that I legally purchased every single time I wish to use it?

As for the stolen copy == lost sale argument, I don't claim to understand the minds of criminals. It is indeed quite possible that a software thief magically robbed of games to copy would go find something else to pilfer and would never spend money on a game ever again. But I've never been persuaded by the argument that, if something is "impossible" (which usually means "very difficult to do" in this context) then it's better to do nothing. Scientists have been working on cures for various terminal diseases for decades with no success. Maybe we should just give up on trying to save sick people so that everyone who survives will be predisposed to be healthy. After all, you can't guarantee that every person who was cured of a disease won't relapse or die of something else.

As an aside, I fail to see how piracy does not equal theft. In both cases a person is enjoying a company's product without paying for it. That sounds like theft to me. The fact that a game store somewhere doesn't record an inventory reduction is immaterial. Embezzlement and tax evasion don't immediately show that money is missing, but someone is still getting money for nothing. If someone is stealing it, it's theft. Romantic terms like "pirate" merely serve to cloud the issue.

Finally, I'd like to make the point that I am severely turned off by the self-congratulating rhetoric used by critics of DRM. They are standing up for what's right, demanding justice, etc. etc. etc. Hate to break it to you, but you're not Patrick Henry thumping the table demanding "GIVE ME LIBERTY CITY OR GIVE ME DEATH!" or flipping the bird to King George for putting taxes on your teabags. Nobody is putting a gun to your head saying "You will buy Spore and you will like it." If you don't like the DRM, don't buy it. But spare me the highfalutin rhetoric about how you're just standing up for what's right as if you're Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the Universal Serial Bus.

The fact is that a EA using poorly devised DRM is not the equivalent of Ford pushing production of cars with dangerous gas tanks, or with the brownshirts coming for Jews in the night, or even Microsoft pushing XBox 360s out the door in spite of poor production yields (I'll save my gamer rage for that, thank you very much).

If the DRM is enough to keep you from playing Spore, then good for you; you're a principled critic of DRM. But no fair whining about the "sheeple" who bought it in spite of the DRM. They're not single handedly ruining the industry, any more than you're single-handedly saving it.

Good Luck, Mr. Sands. From the looks of this forum, you'll need it. I eagerly await next weeks podcast.

Elysium wrote:

Unfortunately, the industry can't treat people like you one way and every other consumer another way. I suspect if there were more attitudes like yours, we'd be having a different discussion.

I get the conundrum but I think the solution is to treat all gamers the way I want to be treated unless they prove otherwise. Increasingly, private companies are taking a more "guilty until proven innocent" approach like I demonstrated in my Best Buy anecdote. I think it is very wrong to assume people will do bad things until they actually do them. This is why I make the argument about piracy being a cost of doing business. What EA is doing by things like this is not stopping piracy while also losing legitimate customers, a section of whom will tell their friends, a section of whom will tell their friends and so on.

Their alternative to this is to not use this DRM, accept that a certain amount of piracy can not be avoided and keep their legitimate customers happy. Either way the game is going to be pirated in huge amounts so I personally think the choice is obvious. And in spite of piracy, most of the titles developers have been whining about like Crysis still sold well and make substantial profit. As I said in my Best Buy story, when they searched every employee who wanted to leave the store, they created animosity and distrust among the ethical staff while the people who were actually stealing never got caught by that method anyway. It's backwards logic. Pissing off the good people in an vain attempt to get to the bad doesn't work.

You win. Seriously, you're off the hook. You're part of the solution.

Unfortunately, the industry can't treat people like you one way and every other consumer another way. I suspect if there were more attitudes like yours, we'd be having a different discussion.

I think it's more he's part of an idealistic solution, not necessarily THE solution. An end to piracy is the goal, not the solution. There are multiple solutions available. Gamers that pirate for the free game, have no intention to buy, aren't constrained by any particular need to buy, and feel like that because it's available for free they have a right to it, are the problem. The solution for them? Nothing. These folks will always be around. They're the true pirates. They're also likely the vast majority of pirates out there.

The smallest group of pirates are the folks out there who see poorly implemented DRM as an insult to their intelligence, and effective DRM as a challenge. They will continue to crack as long as it is possible, no matter the difficulty, just for bragging rights. A lot of these folks also share the philosophy that if your software is weak on security, you deserve to suffer the consequences of that fully, because otherwise security will never be improved as long as it works for the most part (see the Boston Metro card-hacking debacle). They're the enablers of the whole thing. And they enjoy the cascade that follows their handiwork. The solution for them? Nothing short of arrest and imprisonment. And only the rights-trampling, controversial DMCA can bring about the charges necessary to do so.

In between are the rest, the scofflaws who pirate because they think that DRM is wrong, and to give money to a company that employs it is sending the wrong message, but have no scruples about taking the product they wanted in the first place. They might even think of themselves as protesters. While developers and publishers like these people the least, THEY are the ones they need to be winning over, because THESE are the true lost sales. The solution for them? Offer a product free of DRM, at a reasonable price. Want to win over some of those of the first group in the process? Make the retail package more attractive than free. Offer some, or hell, all, of the bonuses normally reserved for collector's or special editions at the regular retail price. Despite the "common wisdom" of, "You can't compete with free," it's just not true. The music industry is showing that every day. They're still crying about piracy because the first group is still around and has it easier than ever these days, and maybe if it wasn't so easy, they'd make a little more. But you can compete with free. Just offer more than the free package can.

Ultimately, the idea that stopping piracy by simply buying your games and telling pirates they're wrong is not a solution, it's overly idealistic. Pirates already KNOW that piracy isn't right. Most don't care. Some feel like they're fighting against another wrong and injustice. As a gamer, I'm sure I could tell pirates that they're wrong, but like everything else, trying to convince someone of something usually just pisses off the person you're trying to convince, and likely does nothing.

trip1eX wrote:

Good read.

"Feeling victimized by every perceived slight just isn't as appealing to me as it used to be."

Exactly.

Thanks for providing the rest of us a voice on this subject.

I agree with you 100%.

We got your back, chief.