# Ryukouki Discusses! Digital Rights Management



## Ryukouki (Feb 20, 2014)

​'Tis a joyous time on GBATemp, with our team welcoming new blood, and with the community wanting to hit the big dance on a raffle. What better way to celebrate than with a written work from one of your reporters? Today's topic of discussion is about digital rights management. I am going to cover what this concept is, and what occasions where DRM is encouraged and discouraged, and asking for user input at the end.​​[prebreak]Continue reading[/prebreak]​​What is Digital Rights Management?​To put it simply, DRM is technology that attempts to control what you can and cannot do with the stuff you have purchased. The term came about with the passing of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or as we affectionately call it, the DMCA. Ever look for some anime to watch on Google? Scroll down, the DMCA has restricted access to some of the search results! We as gamers like to call it copyright protection. With the movement to cloud gaming, while it offers other opportunities to enjoy media, at the same time it could be argued that the methods of accessing said media are often given other restrictions.​​Examples of DRM​We can look at _Diablo III. _The franchise has always been a single player game that can be played offline. With the release of _Diablo III_, however, the franchise went in a different direction and made the user constantly stay online. As a result, the flood of users at launch attempting to get online resulted in the infamous Error 37, which was an error that resulted from many players trying to access the game at once. A single player game that requires constant online interaction just did not bode well for this title.​​There is also the Steam gaming platform, where people tend to look at as being an example of DRM being done well. The system enforces an always online infrastructure but in the process does cloud updating, consolidating all available systems in one location, and modding for games in one easy to build area. Most call this an idea of DRM being done well enough so it benefits the customer. Look at the massive successes of the Humble Indie Bundle.​​Another example? Look at SimCity that EA recently published, with DRM prevalent in forcing the player to be constantly online. Both the media and consumer base lashed out at EA Games, demanding their head and the removal of the always-online requirement. EA ended up acquiescing. It still did not stop the initial splurge of negative feedback that hit Amazon so hard the game had to be removed from the store temporarily.​​A fourth example could be the old days of anti-piracy on Nintendo DS titles, mechanisms that prevent player advancement if a pirated copy is detected. I could go into many more examples but that would probably bore you to death and I am not here to do that (though some of you may disagree).​​Arguing About DRM​*Arguing Against DRM*​​Looking at DRM, we as consumers are usually against such an idea. We see DRM as a hindrance. We purchase the media, we should theoretically "own it," correct? In this day and age, "owning" something is an incorrect term and instead, we are paying for the right to "access" a piece of media, or renting it. When one buys music on the iTunes store, they don't own the music. It is not a possession that you can bequeath on others after you die. Look at Bruce Willis, there were rumors he wanted to fight Apple in court over the rights to bequeath his music collection to his children once he passed away. Please don't die anytime soon, Mr. Willis.​​According to an article from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a lot of times the legitimate consumer does not know that they have bought a license. I quote their piece with:​​

> First, most people have no idea that all they bought was a license. After all, the button they clicked on the Amazon site said "Buy," not "Rent." Little do they know that Amazon has the right to (for example) remotely delete books from their library, without notice, at Amazon’s whim. Or that the holiday special they were planning to see might suddently become "unavailable."


​That is something that worries me. When I purchase something, I should be able to say that it is mine, technically. The thing is, people are paying to access it, and don't really want to resort to only using it. They want to explore the media in different contexts. With rights and management, though, it is shoehorning itself into hardware now, with companies restricting the user's ability to "tinker" or modify the item. Doing so will void a warranty.​​The EFF piece I linked above declared that the end result shows the user is crippled. We as consumers are consumed by fear and instead of donating these items for reuse, we let them dust and die, at the same time shutting out repair facilities and third-party service centers. With DRM, there is just no suitable reason as a consumer to endorse it. There are some cases where people are actually supportive of digital rights management, though. At this point, is what I have said fair? Are my claims valid? Do we as consumers need to support the idea of DRM?​​*Arguments Supporting DRM*​​People that tend to support DRM are the developers. I see where they are arguing from; they spend their lives dedicating themselves to a piece of media, often creating whole worlds and stories that are incredibly immersive; and often times getting hit by entitled gamers crying that the game was not the way they wanted it. I'm not going to go into that idea again, don't worry. I'll leave this here if you are interested. I know a few indie developers in real life who make a game that has moderate success, but then they lose out on the profits gained as people start downloading the .APK files that appear on the internet. I see the viewpoint on why they support DRM; they want to see their hard work go to fruition, and we as consumers cannot deny that possibility. It's a definite gray area again. On one hand I completely abhor DRM, but on the other hand, I have to accept that for some people, DRM is completely necessary.​​I opened a discussion on the True Gaming subreddit, and asked the community to find instances where DRM might actually be beneficial, or encouraged, and a lot of people brought up the Steam gaming platform as a very solid model that DRM could be based around; management, ease of access, and cloud updating all in one packaged interface. That is what the subreddit community was interested in arguing; I myself cannot verify the validity of these claims quite yet and will conduct a bit more research into the matter. When I was going through the comments, it seemed split down the middle. Other comments involved saying that DRM could be justifiable in the instance that the developer wishes to see it happen. It is their product, and they should be able to see fit.​​Ryu, Where Do You Stand?​That is a good question. I like writing articles where the issue is not clearly black or white, but a a shade or fifty of gray. DRM is a love-hate relationship. On one hand, I see DRM as a model that needs to be abolished for a lot of different things, like hardware tinkering, forcing players to play online constantly, restricting access to certain portions of the media. All DRM does is hinder those who want to access the content, pirate or not. We all know how easy it is to find a crack or a bypass somewhere; there are many locations where copies of games are uploaded with the necessary crack to play it without paying a dime, while still being able to utilize the full features of the media.​​But, on the other hand, I have to acquiesce and acknowledge that DRM is justifiable mainly because it is the developer's byproduct. They put their own hard time into it, and they deserve the fruits of their labor, which comes in the form of venomous gaming communities and excess complaints. As a consumer, what right do I have to ask to ask them to change their ways with their software? Do I have that right as a consumer? Do you? What about in mass protest?​​And You, Where Do You Stand?​Just tuning in? You missed out. But I do not blame you, this was a long piece. I'll sum it briefly. I argued that DRM is both justifiable (from a dev standpoint) yet reprehensible (in the consumer standpoint). Can you merge the two together and create instances where DRM would benefit the consumer and the developer simultaneously? How do you feel about DRM as a whole? Do you agree with my claims? Do you disagree with my claims? Do you have more information that could be added? Shoot me your feedback below! Keep it clean though!​​And hmm... food for future thought. I'm thinking of discussing censorship next!  Stay tuned to the portal for that!​​


----------



## xxNathanxx (Feb 21, 2014)

http://www.geeksunleashed.me/2012/09/02/interview-amelia-andersdotter/


----------



## DinohScene (Feb 21, 2014)

As long as the DRM doesn't force me to have an always on connection (shitty internet here)
I'm fine with it.

One thing I do not like about DRM is what Bioshock 1 had, that you had a max of 5 installs per disc.
Things like that is wrong DRM in my point of view.
That and DRM that is practically a rootkit.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Feb 21, 2014)

Examples of good DRM: Steam and Diablo 3. Steam has been mentioned in this article so I won't comment, but in regards to Diablo 3, the whole duping thing is not nearly as bad/even there as opposed to Diablo 3. Considering you could legally sell your duped items for cash, it'd be a huge motivation for hackers to exploit the game and/or its servers. But, because Diablo 3 stayed online, I think it's helped curb that. Whether or not it's worth it, I can't really say. I've never been in a situation where I wanted to play Diablo 3 but have been without internet.

Examples of bad DRM: Sim City, Gateway, and anything Square Enix, EA, or other big companies use. Everyone remembers the whole debacle with Sim City, so I don't really need to say anything more than that EA lied and the always-online architecture wasn't necessary for the game as they made an offline patch later. Everyone also knows about the whole Brickgate thing, so I won't delve into that either. I mentioned EA already, but big companies have been known to use DRM, sometimes to the detriment of the player and their experience. Final Fantasy 7 on the PC (the re-release) requires the player to always be connected to the internet, or at least connected when the launcher starts, I can't remember which. I can understand an online game requiring the player always be connected, but... Final Fantasy 7, seriously?


----------



## Ryukouki (Feb 21, 2014)

xxNathanxx said:


> http://www.geeksunleashed.me/2012/09/02/interview-amelia-andersdotter/


 

Huh, interesting piece.  I will do further research with this in mind.



Pedeadstrian said:


> Examples of good DRM: Steam and Diablo 3. Steam has been mentioned in this article so I won't comment, but in regards to Diablo 3, the whole duping thing is not nearly as bad/even there as opposed to Diablo 3. Considering you could legally sell your duped items for cash, it'd be a huge motivation for hackers to exploit the game and/or its servers. But, because Diablo 3 stayed online, I think it's helped curb that. Whether or not it's worth it, I can't really say. I've never been in a situation where I wanted to play Diablo 3 but have been without internet.
> 
> Examples of bad DRM: Sim City, Gateway, and anything Square Enix, EA, or other big companies use. Everyone remembers the whole debacle with Sim City, so I don't really need to say anything more than that EA lied and the always-online architecture wasn't necessary for the game as they made an offline patch later. Everyone also knows about the whole Brickgate thing, so I won't delve into that either. I mentioned EA already, but big companies have been known to use DRM, sometimes to the detriment of the player and their experience. Final Fantasy 7 on the PC (the re-release) requires the player to always be connected to the internet, or at least connected when the launcher starts, I can't remember which. I can understand an online game requiring the player always be connected, but... Final Fantasy 7, seriously?


 


Oh God, _Final Fantasy VII _would be the last title to throw DRM into.


----------



## Hop2089 (Feb 21, 2014)

I don't like Starforce whatsoever, it can do serious damage to your computer and I especially hate always online for anything but a multiplayer only game, games like Titanfall that are online only can use this, but in games with a single player mode, no because if your net goes down or a lag spike happens, your game is nearly unplayable or useless.


----------



## LEDAHGRIM (Feb 21, 2014)

I can see why it would be necessary for smaller developers like indie groups, The real problems here
is that most developers outside indie and small companies most of the time use DRM the wrong way
or to give themselves unfair advantage over the customer.

Long ago I had a friend who was totally supportive of DRM almost like a politician lol, While I always
just downloaded games and played what I wanted without paying a cent. Then my friend started
telling me that I should support the developers and should buy the games.

Naturally I told him "You're right, But 80 or 90 USD for just one game?... You crazy?", That's just how
overpriced gaming media is over here, Told him that I preferred to use that kind of money on my home
and basic needs like food and payment bills.

Unfortunately he was a one trick pony and started bashing me and labeling me a pirate (I didn't care)
and I told him "If you're going to be like that then we're done here, Old friend.", Plus I always hated
how when I payed for a few pc games on the discount bin I still had to hop trough all those DRM holes...

Not to mention I once even bought a game that required a connection to get validated online once installed
and the servers had been closed along with the company some years prior... That was the last straw for
me and decided to not buy anymore games ever until this DRM scam disappears or significantly improves
instead or worsening even more the gamer experience...

EDIT:
Another tidbit people remembered me about, I totally despise always online DRM on
games that clearly can be played offline or are single player only...


----------



## Vercalos (Feb 21, 2014)

Basically, the only DRM I really take issue with are the ones that limit your installations by a certain amount, or REQUIRE a constant internet connection. I remember buying a game(it wasn't Diablo) off of Steam, and being unable to play it single player, due to the fact that it required a connection to the producer's servers, and their servers were down. Hell, I'll openly admit to pirating certain games simply for little things like not having to have the CD/DVD in my drive to play it.

One case has very little to do with DRM, and I actually ended up pirating the game, because I bought a digital copy, the copy went corrupt, and the site I bought it from was defunct. It was The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, and I bought that one at least three times. First on the 360, then twice or three times for the PC(once as DVD, twice as Digital Download). Finally, I pirated it because I was no longer able to download it form the sites I purchased it at and had issues with the DVD version.

I've been tempted to pirate Diablo III, despite owning a legitimate copy, simply because their servers can be utterly terrible, and if you lose your connection, you cannot play.

...

...


Man this was a directionless rambling post.

<EDIT>
One thing I do like to add is that Steam mostly does it right. So far as I can tell, you don't actually need to be online to play games you bought with Steam. There have been times where my gameplay went uninterrupted, despite my connection fluctuating badly

<EDIT 2>
I suppose my opinion amounts to this:  If your DRM hinders the people who purchased your product more than it hinders those attempting to pirate it, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## LEDAHGRIM (Feb 21, 2014)

^ Basically what I just said


----------



## Ryukouki (Feb 21, 2014)

LEDAHGRIM said:


> ^ Basically what I just said


 

Eh, it's no biggie.  Everyone has the right to speak in here, even if it may be a duplicate opinion.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 21, 2014)

People don't usually realize this, but there isn't such a thing as a fully _"DRM-Free"_ game. We equate _"not having annoying features that check for the game's legality"_ as DRM-Free, but that's not the case. Digital Rights Management has been around since the dawn of computing - games and programs used and still use custom encryption schemes to prevent file modification, some require serial numbers, I'm not sure if people around here will remember it but some real oldies were bundled with code wheels - all sorts of funky stuff. Metal Gear Solid actually used an interesting one - one of the codec numbers was printed on the box and was not available in-game, this impeded progress when you had a pirate copy, at least until you got the code from somewhere _(and the Internet wasn't as widely available then as it is now, so this worked)._

Digital Rights Management is required. Digital or not, intellectual property deserved to be protected. The problem is that DRM can be executed poorly or executed well, in a way that does not annoy lawful owners of software, music or other media. The frontline between protecting intellectual property and lawful use can be pretty blurry at points though - for example, you're entitled to backup your software, but with certain DRM, your backed up copy simply won't work so it's worthless. It's a very delicate balance and every disturbance of it echoes loudly.

To summarize, yes, DRM is justifiable, but at the same time it cannot infringe upon your rights as an owner. If you have a license for a given piece of software, there's no reason why you should only be able to install it a couple times or only be able to play it when you're Online. DRM can't get in the way of actually using the software, it shouldn't be an inconvenience, it should be a device that protects content from unlawful use only.


----------



## grossaffe (Feb 21, 2014)

_


Foxi4 said:



			People don't usually realize this, but there isn't such a thing as a fully "DRM-Free" game or any other kind of media. We equate "not having annoying features that check for the game's legality" as DRM-Free, but that's not the case. Digital Rights Management has been around since the dawn of computing - games and programs used and still use custom encryption schemes to prevent file modification, some require serial numbers, I'm not sure if people around here will remember it but some real oldies were bundled with code wheels - all sorts of funky stuff. Metal Gear Solid actually used an interesting one - one of the codec numbers was printed on the box and was not available in-game, this impeded progress when you had a pirate copy, at least until you got the code from somewhere (and the Internet wasn't as widely available then as it is now, so this worked).

Click to expand...

_ 
I never had code wheels, but I do remember games with code grids (5.25" floppy games).  And then there was Star Trek 25th Anniversary and Judgment Rites that had a Star Map that you needed to navigate to mission locations; going to the wrong star would result in a battle with Klingons, Romulans, or Elasi Pirates.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 21, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> I never had code wheels, but I do remember games with code grids (5.25" floppy games). And then there was Star Trek 25th Anniversary and Judgment Rites that had a Star Map that you needed to navigate to mission locations; going to the wrong star would result in a battle with Klingons, Romulans, or Elasi Pirates.


That's what I'm talking about! That Star Trek one actually _enhances_ the game more than anything since you have a physical peripheral that you actively use to play the game and any pirated copy is useless without it. You can have zillion quadrillion backup copies of the game if you so deem fit, but only the person who has that map can effectively play, great stuff! Of course in the age of the Internet someone would immediately scan that sort of thing and bundle it with the release, but as times change, so does the DRM.


----------



## Hop2089 (Feb 21, 2014)

I remember the feelies all too well, it's usually some book or pamphlet and you always had to type in a code or a word from the manual to start the game.  The worst DRM of old is lenslok, while I haven't had a game with this, I heard the horror stories over the years especially when the wrong lens was shipped with the game.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 21, 2014)

Hop2089 said:


> I remember the feelies all too well, it's usually some book or pamphlet and you always had to type in a code or a word from the manual to start the game. The worst DRM of old is lenslok, while I haven't had a game with this, I heard the horror stories over the years especially when the wrong lens was shipped with the game.


That's fascinating, I've never heard about that one - good stuff right there, for the books!


----------



## LEDAHGRIM (Feb 21, 2014)

This may be DRM unrelated, But last week I remember wanting to play Ragnarok online 2, Then after
download and installation I had to create an account called "users" to even get the installer working
then I had to set permission for said group to access the install directory since by default I had no
right to enter the folder...

All ended in pure nerd rage and a broken bird statue decoration on my room... So I was like "This is pure
madness... Worse that DRM!".


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 21, 2014)

LEDAHGRIM said:


> This may be DRM unrelated, But last week I remember wanting to play Ragnarok online 2, Then after
> download and installation I had to create an account called "users" to even get the installer working
> then I had to set permission for said group to access the install directory since by default I had no
> right to enter the folder...
> ...


Not DRM-related indeed, rather _"poorly programmed, oh my god, why didn't you use a standard installer framework, please stahp"_ kind of an affair.


----------



## Gahars (Feb 21, 2014)

DRM is absolutely justified. I appreciate what CD Projekt Red's been doing, but that's not realistic for every developer out there. Plus, you can't really blame devs for not wanting people to take their shit without paying.

Shitty DRM, on the other hand, isn't, especially in this day and age.

You bring up Steam, and there's a good lesson to be learned there. Pirates can download a game and start playing it immediately. When you're selling your product, that's what you have to compete with. Sure, super restrictive DRM might block some pirates in the short term, but they're a resilient, patient bunch. It's not a game you can win in the long run. Valve realized, "If you can't beat them, make them join you." Steam is both DRM and a service, and it's effective while being incredibly more convenient and versatile than what piracy has to offer. They treat their customers with respect and people have responded in kind; Steam continues to grow every year and it shows no sign of stopping.

In the wrong hands, DRM is an obstacle. In the right hands, though, it can be an opportunity.


----------



## LEDAHGRIM (Feb 21, 2014)

I remember the case where the pokemon games for DS starting with Heart Gold and Soul Silver had a no exp
DRM, Then a emulator was updated that corrected that and I was like "Isn't an emulator just supposed to emulate
and not to break DRM?".


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 21, 2014)

If DRM is done right, then I have no problem, but then I think back to when Chaos Theory used the infamous Starforce DRM which is a rootkit of sorts and created numerous instabilities. The problem is the game didn't work on Windows 7 and the user was asked to update Starforce to work with Windows 7. The patch never worked and the user was stuck in an endless loop. I felt that I, a legit user, should not have to suffer such restrictions in a game I legally obtained. With that said, I admit that I cracked the my legally obtained game to work with Windows 7 with a DRM removal patch. Legit users often suffer from poorly implemented DRM.


----------



## Clarky (Feb 21, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> *Metal Gear Solid actually used an interesting one - one of the codec numbers was printed on the box and was not available in-game, this impeded progress when you had a pirate copy*


 
That is easy to bypass, call Campbell several times and Meryl's frequency will be added to your list  Policenauts used a similar system but with symbols only found in the instruction manual.

Anywho DRM, I don't mind it if it isn't too intrusive, eg, the Steam example again, but even with Steam there are a few games which has you signing into Steam to only sign into another service, one game that comes to mind is GTA4 where you had to sign into GFWL and Rockstar Social club if you wanted to use the multiplayer. Then again I recall when the wife bought Sims Medevil for herself on Steam and it wouldn't launch due to the Securom on it, had to resort to a no cd crack in the end from a pirate group so she could play a game she paid money for from EA.


----------



## Vercalos (Feb 21, 2014)

clarky said:


> That is easy to bypass, call Campbell several times and Meryl's frequency will be added to your list  Policenauts used a similar system but with symbols only found in the instruction manual.
> 
> Anywho DRM, I don't mind it if it isn't too intrusive, eg, the Steam example again, but even with Steam there are a few games which has you signing into Steam to only sign into another service, one game that comes to mind is GTA4 where you had to sign into GFWL and Rockstar Social club if you wanted to use the multiplayer. Then again I recall when the wife bought Sims Medevil for herself on Steam and it wouldn't launch due to the Securom on it, had to resort to a no cd crack in the end from a pirate group so she could play a game she paid money for from EA.


Yeah. The Metal Gear Solid thing is more of a 4th wall joke than DRM.


----------



## AngryGeek416 (Feb 21, 2014)

DRM sucks in every form, Period.


----------



## Ryukouki (Feb 21, 2014)

AngryGeek416 said:


> DRM sucks in every form, Period.


 

Would you say the same as a game developer trying to get your name out there?


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Feb 21, 2014)

Vercalos said:


> I've been tempted to pirate Diablo III, despite owning a legitimate copy, simply because their servers can be utterly terrible, and if you lose your connection, you cannot play.


It's impossible to pirate Diablo III, unless you mean the PS3 version. And honestly, aside from game and expansion launches, I've rarely ever had a problem with Blizzard's servers, and I've been playing their games for almost 8 years now.


----------



## drobb (Feb 21, 2014)

im all for drm when its beneficial and not restrictive.  or when it requires an always on connection.  I live in an area that only has access to satellite internet (beyond dial up) and I don't know how many people have experienced that, but its horrible. its slow compared to other forms of access and we have a daily bandwidth restriction. 250mb. daily. but everyone knows that drm really isn't going to stop the people that don't want to pay for something.


----------



## calmwaters (Feb 21, 2014)

You made the software/hardware: you can do whatever you want with it. But withholding it from the market is a dick move. I mean, seriously, how would you feel if *insert game you want to play* was released but was made unavailable to you? That's a crappy use of the DMCA. It's almost like region locking; you can't play it because it's unavailable in your country.

But I'm going to bring Youtube into this as an example. Lots of music artists and television networks host their work on there and we like it. But they've grown incredibly sensitive about other people showing those videos on their channels. It is because of this that lots of of videos have had copyright claims slapped on them or have been privatized: to ensure the only money the artist receives is from his channel. And this is where people have a problem: I should know; I'm one of them. I hated the VEVO channels and the official artists channels because of all the ads they had; I preferred to watch them without ads. So this meant that I watched them on the channels of regular Youtubers. Now the normal users never made any money from the videos, but the artists convinced themselves they were losing money because people weren't watching the videos on their channel. 

It's a dick move to remove content from other people's channels just so people will watch it on your own. I would be fine if someone took a video I uploaded to my channel and put it in their own. It's not hurting anybody: but, it is nice to give credit to the person, just in case they turn out to be a great dick and report you for not giving them credit.

Anyway, this is about digital media: games, videos, e-books - all fall under the same rules I mentioned in my last thought. Follow this, and the ones who still restrict their content will be exposed for the dicks they are. Now pirating comes into place when the dicks won't change their behaviour: in this case, the people are tired of not having this content and subsequently pirate it. It is becoming increasingly popular to do this too, which is alarming. Piracy is stealing, and everyone's parents taught their children that stealing is bad. So people who are aware that their content is being pirated should wonder if it's their fault or that the people doing this are just dicks.*

I refer you to two examples, both of which involve Sony (go figure). Anyway, the first one was when the PSN was hacked. What good did that do people? Nothing nice; they did it because they could. Now the next one is about the remote play on the PSVita. Now what good did that do to the people? It let them play their PS3 games on the go, which is what Sony had said would happen in the first place.

I also like using this example for actual piracy: the Spanish empire began to crumble because the English ships would steal their treasures. The big burly Spanish ships were no match for the English sloops and would crash into the rocks in the English Channel when trying to get their treasure back. The king of Spain was naturally livid and demanded that Elizabeth turn the pirates over so they could be hung. But she said no and instead knighted the pirate and his crew. And that is how England became a world power. Now, if you really want to have fun, you can take this story and give it a modern twist by comparing it to our modern piracy practices. Peace, love, and thanks for reading these long blocks of text.

*I'm stuck on this word; bear with me.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 21, 2014)

Hmm...again a poll with a yes/no answer where my answer (and IMO the correct answer) lies in the middle.

I've read in this thread already that DRM is okay if it doesn't put too much restrictions on the end user, and I agree to that wholeheartedly. What I don't read as much, though, is that DRM had their share of evolution as well, just as well as other parts of the gameplay.

I had a few of those games with wheels (monkey island), codes you had to look up (early D&D games, SSF2T) or starforce-based games. They worked, all right...to motivate everyone to start pirating. Honestly...when I bought super street fighter 2 turbo, it came on 8 disks, and the 2nd had a reading error. I took it back to the store, but because the disk worked on their station (must've been something with my drive not being 100% quality) I didn't get my money back. Result: I just copied that one disk from someone else. Moreover, the game started with asking a question from the manual. This page, this line, this word. Since the font wasn't that big and there was no indication whether topic titles where included, I was thrown out of my own game more than once...until I discovered that it only asked 20 words in total. I'm fucking sure that EVERYONE who bought that game legitimately quickly created their own list (with just the page number and the word) so they didn't had to look through different pages anymore.
The thing developers really couldn't grasp at first was that these "don't pirate games!!!" messages directly give the opposite impression ("hey! you can pirate this? COOL!!!  ").

Serial keys came later. And while they weren't very successful to stop anyone wanting to pirate, they had the advantage of not being too intrusive and gave you a sense of entitlement. For example: I've used quite some key generators in my time (well...if they weren't ridden with virusses, that is), but when I bought a game, I NEVER lended my serial to anyone. And this was before I even had internet.

I remember the online controversy when bioshock required to you have an internet connection, even though it was a single player game. Okay, I could see why the "only this many installs" part was perceived annoying, but I never bothered with that (as with SSF2T earlier: if the game would nag to me that I had used the key too many times, I'd just shrug and illegally download it from the internet).

When we look at evolution of games over the years, I think the thread of pirates is what also caused some trends. Games (even console games) are now subpar if they DON'T have multiplayer. And patches, expansions and DLC...I doubt they're just invented to counter pirates, but I'm sure it was one of the things that must've come up on every powerpointpresentation on a game-in-progress as to "why to further work on a game after it's finished".

I also remember reading an article with a creator of sins of a solar empire, an RTS game that was popular yet had little to no DRM in it (which was VERY controversial at that time...almost to the point where it was like selling corn flakes without a box). The interviewee pointed out that "pirates don't count". For one thing, people are going to pirate it no matter what you do, and most of these guys are never going to purchase the game in the first place. So why bother spending time and effort on something that mostly just harasses the far larger amount of people that DID bought your game legitimately.
(note: if anyone can find that article, I'd be gratefull...but I couldn't find it in an earlier discussion where it was brought up, so...  ).

And then steam...I must admit I was put off by the first reactions to it ("a STEAMing pile of ..."). And why would I buy something online when I could just get it for free online anyway? An online friend once said that online games where like sex:_ you can pay for it if you're in a hurry, but if you look around a bit and know what you're doing, it's not that hard to get it for free._ 

Steam proved us wrong, though. For one thing, it's easy accessible, not intrusive, often updated and pretty reliable (though it can be embarrassing if you want to play a game that has DRM from itself, so that you have to start steam to start the game and then have to join windows for live or uplay).

As for online availability...hmm...There really should be a law that when you release a (singleplayer) game that relies on your own servers to play at all, you aren't allowed to stop hosting those servers before you release a patch that lets people play said game offline without issues. But other than that...I can't blame them.
But what I DO can blame them for is taking a concept that works perfectly offline and then comes up with reasons why it should be online ("but diablo 3 NEEDS always multiplayer because otherwise rare items would simply be hacked". "but simcity NEEDS always online because...<whatever the reason>"*). Those are bullshit reasons and flat out bad marketing. Sorry, but either a game is an MMO or it isn't. There is no middle ground.

*I think starcraft 2 has sort of a LAN option now, but it still requires an internet connection to start, so when hosting a LAN this is one of the things to really keep in mind.


But all in all...I voted "yes" on this poll. The thing with piracy is that it is so common now that I fear it's undermining the entire industry (though admitted, the AAA-industry needs to think a bit if they REALLY want to keep pumping millions of dollars into realistic graphics). Not so much the actual piracy of newer releases but more the idea of "I can get it cheaper if I want to" that's been going around. We've been so spoiled with price reductions, humble bundles, old games we have missed, decent freeware and so on that everyone has so much of a backlog that I'm sometimes amazed that there are still people who buy games on release day. The industry needs THOSE sales to stay in business and we as a group are less and less inclined to buy it from them (we're too busy drowning in games we already have).




Pedeadstrian said:


> It's impossible to pirate Diablo III, unless you mean the PS3 version. And honestly, aside from game and expansion launches, I've rarely ever had a problem with Blizzard's servers, and I've been playing their games for almost 8 years now.


Try playing a game on launch day. 

EDIT: sorry...didn't read your post close enough.


----------



## Qtis (Feb 21, 2014)

LEDAHGRIM said:


> I remember the case where the pokemon games for DS starting with Heart Gold and Soul Silver had a no exp
> DRM, Then a emulator was updated that corrected that and I was like "Isn't an emulator just supposed to emulate
> and not to break DRM?".


The difference with emulation is that the emulator tries to mimic all inputs and outputs just like the original hardware. In your case, the emulator wasn't coded to compensate the required inputs to play the game correctly (also known as anti-piracy checks, which are a bit different compared to DRM).

But alas, I do know some cool ways of going with anti-piracy: settlers 3 had iron smelters make pigs


----------



## Vercalos (Feb 21, 2014)

Taleweaver said:


> (note: if anyone can find that article, I'd be gratefull...but I couldn't find it in an earlier discussion where it was brought up, so...  )


I think I found the article
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/sins_of_a_solar_empire/


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Feb 21, 2014)

Taleweaver said:


> Try playing a game on launch day.





Pedeadstrian said:


> It's impossible to pirate Diablo III, unless you mean the PS3 version. And honestly, *aside from game and expansion launches*, I've rarely ever had a problem with Blizzard's servers, and I've been playing their games for almost 8 years now.


----------



## Vercalos (Feb 21, 2014)

And regarding my issues with Diablo III, there are issues I have with my carrier and worse, my router, so every time my computer disconnects, it interrupts my play of Diablo III.  I gave up on it some time in the desert region of the game...


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 21, 2014)

@Pedae



Vercalos said:


> I think I found the article
> http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/sins_of_a_solar_empire/


Sorry, but while it discusses the same topic (and is thus interesting), it isn't the article I've read earlier. 
(I wish I had more to go on, but if I had more info, I would've googled it myself. all I can say is that it was from when the game was still pretty new.


----------



## Lancia (Feb 21, 2014)

If i were earning my life with software programming i would like to have my work protected or il fell robbed. BUT as a customer il love to have not only acces but the choice of what i do with my purchase. Take the ps3 for exemple when they removed OtherOS on it a lot of poeple resolve to piracy to still enjoy the feature. Capcom Resident Evil on 3DS save was permanent too prevent used sell but piracy take care of it again. I dont want to promote piracy but when its help again what i think is abuse of developper and dont hurt them financialy its good.

Again remember one thing if the developer dont do money they wont continue to develop game. Make a game cost money and i dont know a lot of poeple that can live out of nothing. that what we call Capitalism

Sry for my bad english not my primary language.


----------



## Arras (Feb 21, 2014)

There are many forms of DRM, some good, many bad. Online DRM for the sake of having online DRM is really really bad but if a game requires an internet connection and actually has a good reason for it, that's fine as long as it actually works as intended (so no stupid server outages like Diablo and Simcity). The "you can only install this game X times" is one of the worst types of DRM imo. Really any type of DRM that does not inconvenience the user unneccesarily, NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES, is good DRM.



Lancia said:


> If i were earning my life with software programming i would like to have my work protected or il fell robbed. BUT as a customer il love to have not only acces but the choice of what i do with my purchase. Take the ps3 for exemple when they removed OtherOS on it a lot of poeple resolve to piracy to still enjoy the feature. Capcom Resident Evil on 3DS save was permanent too prevent used sell but piracy take care of it again. I dont want to promote piracy but when its help again what i think is abuse of developper and dont hurt them financialy its good.
> 
> Again remember one thing if the developer dont do money they wont continue to develop game. Make a game cost money and i dont know a lot of poeple that can live out of nothing. that what we call Capitalism
> 
> Sry for my bad english not my primary language.


OtherOS and save file deletion are not piracy. Piracy = copying a game that you do not own through unofficial means, basically.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Feb 21, 2014)

As long as I can play XYZ whenever I want without any interruptions, then DRM is fine with me.


----------



## Lancia (Feb 21, 2014)

> OtherOS and save file deletion are not piracy. Piracy = copying a game that you do not own through unofficial means, basically.


 
i tought piracy was make software or hardware do what their not supposed to do but this is another thread. Hacking,piracy, etc... all dont have much diffenrence for me.


----------



## Black-Ice (Feb 21, 2014)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> As long as I can play XYZ


Silly Tahm.
Pokemon Z isnt released yet


----------



## ProtoKun7 (Feb 21, 2014)

Lancia said:


> i tought piracy was make software or hardware do what their not supposed to do but this is another thread. Hacking,piracy, etc... all dont have much diffenrence for me.


 
No, that's modification.


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 21, 2014)

If the DRM isn't invasive and doesn't make a legit user suffer unnecessary by forcing constant internet connection, or doesn't use unreliable servers, I see nothing wrong, like Steam, which has an offline mode too if your connection goes down. My connection goes down quite frequently due to me living in student housing and capped at 5 mbps, I can't under any circumstances, rely on games that require constant internet connections. If I do get a game that requires it, I'll just find a patch to crack the DRM. I don't care if X company doesn't like me doing it. Tough. I bought the game, I'm supporting X developer by buying it, I shouldn't suffer because of what pirates do


----------



## Nightwish (Feb 21, 2014)

DRM only stops your own customers from owning, accessing and modding (to varying degrees, obviously), pirates usually don't care. In fact, if your game is going to make me jump through online hoops to play, I'll just head to the bay of pirates.
And, of course, it just kills retro gaming, good luck playing any of it ten years from now.


----------



## SS4 (Feb 21, 2014)

As a consumer I have the choice of not paying for something that includes invasive DRM. If everyone does the same instead of complaining the companies will have to change their view otherwise they will go bankrupt . . .Once youve paid you basically enabled them and agreed with their philosophy so its too late . . .


----------



## tbgtbg (Feb 21, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> I never had code wheels, but I do remember games with code grids (5.25" floppy games).  And then there was Star Trek 25th Anniversary and Judgment Rites that had a Star Map that you needed to navigate to mission locations; going to the wrong star would result in a battle with Klingons, Romulans, or Elasi Pirates.


Stuff like that isn't DRM, it's copy protection. They're similar, and related, but not the same thing.

In general, copy protection doesn't impact legitimate copies, the actual game itself will run so long as its legit, though you might have problems if you lose the codewheel or whatever, but that's on you. Whereas with DRM you have stuff like limited installs or calling "home" and if the game, legit even, doesn't get permission from big brother, it won't run. Server's down? No game for you!


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Feb 22, 2014)

My take on DRM is that it's fine depending on how well it is implemented. 

Used as a stick to beat customers with is a big no no. 

Used to keep some one from installing the same game on 30 computers or copying a game for every one they know. Yes that too is fine, companies do deserve to be paid for the work they put in on these games. (Not going into quality issues here, that is what reviews are for. To help customers decide if X is worth Y.) 

Myself I never have had an issue with DRM in anyway, I never had a game tell me "You have reached the maximum installs!!!" 

But I have avoided some games because of reading "Game X was unplayable at launch because of DRM!!!" so that might be part of the reason I have never had an issue. 

I am avoiding talking about digital downloads because anyone who buys that stuff should know that your essentially paying for a long term rental.


Anyway that's my take on this issue.


----------



## Kayot (Feb 22, 2014)

DRM is a slippery slope


----------



## Deleted member 319809 (Feb 22, 2014)

In the piece I see that the two viewpoints regarding DRM are diametrically opposed.

On one side, you have the developer, who screams "It's my content, I can do whatever I want with it! You can't tell me not to put DRM, the dirty pirates* are going to bankrupt my company!"

On the other side, you have the consumer, who screams "What the fuck? Always-online and remotely disabled licenses? Can't even resell my used games if they're shitty / I don't play them anymore, and can't even transfer the game to a family member for him or her to try!"

They both scream. They both OMG HAVE RIGHTS!!1, which are mutually exclusive. They are incompatible.

The developer's copyright (recognised in many countries) is directly at odds with all consumer rights in all jurisdictions -- those consumer rights exist to shift the balance away from being totally in favour of the copyright holder and give a purchaser control over his or her possessions. Given that it is easy to make copies of digital content, copyright holders have had a dilemma. Either:

they spend time and money *continuously* to find and nuke all unauthorised copies, which there can be many more waves of while trying to take the original wave down; -or-
they spend time and money *once* to create a system that attempts to preclude the possibility that a consumer could even do anything they don't want the consumer to do.
The game developer has been granted a temporary monopoly on their work by the government in the form of copyright, and this arrangement entails allowing the consumer to do certain things with the work. But some game developers have converted this temporary monopoly into a "right to make money" on the work, instead.

The consumer's rights of resale and exclusive transfer (USA) are directly at odds with the creator's desire to restrict installation counts and game transfers. Each resold game is however-many dollars less in the game developer's coffers because the game developer is not the sole supplier of the game anymore and cannot extract money from each transaction made with the game. So the game developer makes DRM to tie down a single copy to a single PC and require more purchases for more PCs, or uses DRM to tie down a single copy to a single account. However, without resale, transfer or rental, the consumer will feel cheated if he or she is stuck with a shitty game, or one which provides only 2 or 3 hours of gameplay, and has been denied all recourse by DRM. Of course, you can't temporarily transfer a Steam game to a family member or friend to try out, either.

There is also the issue of server-based DRM (always online). Expecting to buy a single-player game, a purchaser then launches and plays the game, only to find out that his or her flaky Internet connection is causing the DRM to halt the game every few hours, or minutes. He or she cannot play the game while bored, on a road trip, business trip etc. where there is no Internet access. The user's expectations are broken (but technically they impinge on none of the user's rights). Years later, when the game developer decides that the DRM server costs more to operate than the revenue it brings in, and shuts it down, all legal owners of the game are unable to play. Before shutting down the DRM servers, game developers that are still in business (not bankrupt) do not publish patches to allow owners to continue playing, for fear of losing control over their work, despite their own finding that the game is not profitable anymore (!), so owners cannot continue to play their purchased games.

And then there is the right to create a backup copy for personal purposes and to guard against damaged media (many countries, including Canada and the USA). Developers have had their work copied illegitimately more than legitimately, so they have stopped trusting all users with this right. The logical consequence in the developers' mind is that, since the user should not have the right, then they are entitled to take measures to prevent all copying so as to retain the money they think they have the right to receive. However, the consumer is then faced with discs that he or she must rebuy as they become scratched and unreadable. He or she has the right to make a backup copy for exactly this purpose, but cannot exercise that right.

All of that, because the game developers assert that the protections offered to them by copyright law is not enough, and that therefore it's _*impossible for them*_ to do something other than take matters into their own hands and put the balance completely in their favour to regain the money they report having lost.

And then the game developers code their games, assuming that the consumer has already accepted not having the rights because the game developer says they shouldn't have them, so the code ends up saying you don't have the rights, even though the law says you do.


----------



## total_split (Feb 22, 2014)

The problem with boycotting invasive DRM games with the goal of making the publishers change their stance is just playing in their favour.  They will see less copies sold, blame piracy, and then increase future DRM anti-piracy efforts.


----------



## Kayot (Feb 22, 2014)

I remember arguing on Hellgate: Londons forums that locking multiplayer to online only servers would lead to the game being unplayable should the servers come down or the company go bankrupt. I was told (quite rudely) by many users that my fears were unfounded and that I was trolling. I was then banned by the lead dev team from the forums. Turns out that the lead developer had a serous problem with pirates and my banning was part of an ongoing example to the people. I wasn't allow to respond to their claims that I was a pirate, which was true, though I hadn't posted anything that would imply such. My topic was then placed into a section akin to "Cooking with Stupid" and for the while I lurked on the forums, it was referenced in a negative light and an ongoing campaign claimed that if they did go out of business or have to shutdown their servers, that they would release a patch to "fix" the problem.

Behold, a year and a half later they declared bankruptcy. When I heard that they bit the bullet, I was like, "Ok, where is this patch?". I searched around and found the lead devs blog. In it he/she claimed that HG:L went bankrupt because of piracy! It wasn't the stranglehold on development, the outright refusal to listen to the user base, the online DRM for multiplayer, the aggressive policing of the forums, and the banning of keys for even the slightest slow of mutiny against the dev team. Because of the piracy, they weren't going to release a patch to allow LAN play. How convenient.

I admit I pirated the game. I played it for two days and realized that single player was boring as hell. It would have been fun if I could have lan partied the game with six or more people. Problem is, most of my friends at the time worked in minimum wage jobs. The asking price was $50ish dollars. So we played other games instead.

Now for the part this was leading up to. EVERYONE who supported the DRM and claimed that it was a good idea, that it would protect the dev, that it would keep the game safe from bankruptcy, can't play the game. That means, every person who claimed that I was stupid for bringing up the fact that the online DRM would cripple the legacy of the game is screwed. I can still play Diablo 1 and 2 (not 3 ) on my LAN and they're older then dirt. I can play hundreds of games on LAN out of the box. In another decade I'll still be able to play those games on my LAN and remember them fondly. No one can play HG:L on a LAN. THAT is what DRM is. If commerce was a river, DRM is a dam.

Would HG:L still have bankrupted if piracy didn't exist? Probably.
Would HG:L still have bankrupted if they allowed LAN play? Probably.
Will people still play HG:L in ten years? No.

So much for the afterglow. There will NEVER be a remake either. Why bother with such an obscure and unplayable game?


----------



## Nightwish (Feb 22, 2014)

Nebuleon said:


> The consumer's rights of resale and exclusive transfer (USA) are directly at odds with the creator's desire to restrict installation counts and game transfers. Each resold game is however-many dollars less in the game developer's coffers because the game developer is not the sole supplier of the game anymore and cannot extract money from each transaction made with the game.


I mostly agree with your post. However, just because someone doensn't buy a game doesn't mean they otherwise would have.



Nebuleon said:


> He or she has the right to make a backup copy for exactly this purpose, but cannot exercise that right.
> 
> All of that, because the game developers assert that the protections offered to them by copyright law is not enough, and that therefore it's _*impossible for them*_ to do something other than take matters into their own hands and put the balance completely in their favour to regain the money they report having lost.
> 
> And then the game developers code their games, assuming that the consumer has already accepted not having the rights because the game developer says they shouldn't have them, so the code ends up saying you don't have the rights, even though the law says you do.


As (I think) Lessig put it, they're writing law with their code, which makes no sense whatsoever in a civilized society.


----------



## Mr_Pichu (Feb 22, 2014)

The part about needing to be online to play a game seems to me a feature to insure players are not cheating, hacking, or pirating.  The developer can also receive up to the minute information about gamer progress and the overall popularity of the game.  I would very much prefer to opt out of features like this, but as it stands if the developer offered you the choice, the developer stands to lose a lot of valuable safeguards and telemetry.


----------



## Deleted member 319809 (Feb 22, 2014)

I agree with a server-based game if the server is absolutely necessary, for example in MMOs. There, the server must coordinate activities, and it is the central way to acquire stats about cheating, trades and so on. But I don't agree with it if the server is just grafted onto the game in order to restrict you.

It is inevitable that, when MMO servers die, the MMO dies. But it shouldn't be this way for single-player and optionally multi-player games over a LAN or the Internet.



Kayot said:


> I remember arguing on Hellgate: Londons forums that locking multiplayer to online only servers would lead to the game being unplayable should the servers come down or the company go bankrupt. I was told (quite rudely) by many users that my fears were unfounded and that I was trolling. I was then banned by the lead dev team from the forums. [...]
> 
> Behold, a year and a half later they declared bankruptcy. When I heard that they bit the bullet, I was like, "Ok, where is this patch?". I searched around and found the lead devs blog. In it he/she claimed that HG:L went bankrupt because of piracy! It wasn't the stranglehold on development, the outright refusal to listen to the user base, the online DRM for multiplayer, the aggressive policing of the forums, and the banning of keys for even the slightest slow of mutiny against the dev team. Because of the piracy, they weren't going to release a patch to allow LAN play. How convenient.


That's a very nice example of the DRM server argument. But, from your post, I gather the development team were just assholes, and DRM was a part of it. Because copyright is a temporary monopoly, the copyright should end whenever it's impossible for the company to assert or when the company declares that the protected work is not profitable anymore.



Nightwish said:


> a) I mostly agree with your post. However, just because someone doensn't buy a game doesn't mean they otherwise would have.
> 
> b) As (I think) Lessig put it, they're writing law with their code, which makes no sense whatsoever in a civilized society.


a) I also agree that the lost sales argument is bogus -- ironically because some gamers have skipped some games, like later Assassin's Creeds, _*because*_ of the draconian DRM they contained -- but also because early reviews can dissuade gamers.

Just think of Garry's Incident lately with TotalBiscuit, where TotalBiscuit ripped a game apart then the game developer started asserting that TotalBiscuit *had been given* no rights to use trademarks and copyrighted assets in his video in an attempt to ceonsor the bad review in the game's initial sales stage (... hey, censorship could be another good subject for Ryukouki to discuss in another thread!).

And pirating just might be a way for some people to escape the DRM just long enough to try a game to see if they should buy it. But some others, of course, will just want free stuff.

b) Lawrence Lessig? I am not familiar with that quote of (possibly) his, but it is spot-on. Technical measures are indeed overriding the law "just because they can". They have become a _de facto_ law.


----------



## Ryukouki (Feb 22, 2014)

Nebuleon said:


> Just think of Garry's Incident lately with TotalBiscuit, where TotalBiscuit ripped a game apart then the game developer started asserting that TotalBiscuit *had been given* no rights to use trademarks and copyrighted assets in his video in an attempt to ceonsor the bad review in the game's initial sales stage (... hey, censorship could be another good subject for Ryukouki to discuss in another thread!).


 
You got me!  That's probably next on the hit list.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Feb 23, 2014)

Kayot said:


> I remember arguing on Hellgate: Londons forums that locking multiplayer to online only servers would lead to the game being unplayable should the servers come down or the company go bankrupt. I was told (quite rudely) by many users that my fears were unfounded and that I was trolling. I was then banned by the lead dev team from the forums. Turns out that the lead developer had a serous problem with pirates and my banning was part of an ongoing example to the people. I wasn't allow to respond to their claims that I was a pirate, which was true, though I hadn't posted anything that would imply such. My topic was then placed into a section akin to "Cooking with Stupid" and for the while I lurked on the forums, it was referenced in a negative light and an ongoing campaign claimed that if they did go out of business or have to shutdown their servers, that they would release a patch to "fix" the problem.
> 
> Behold, a year and a half later they declared bankruptcy. When I heard that they bit the bullet, I was like, "Ok, where is this patch?". I searched around and found the lead devs blog. In it he/she claimed that HG:L went bankrupt because of piracy! It wasn't the stranglehold on development, the outright refusal to listen to the user base, the online DRM for multiplayer, the aggressive policing of the forums, and the banning of keys for even the slightest slow of mutiny against the dev team. Because of the piracy, they weren't going to release a patch to allow LAN play. How convenient.
> 
> ...


I don't know if you know this, but... there _is _a Hellgate: London remake. It's called Hellgate: Global, and it sucks. It's pay-2-win, for sure. I was so excited when I heard Hellgate was coming back, but the new one is a big disappointment.


----------



## Originality (Feb 23, 2014)

I'm pro DRM, so long as it's not obstructive to the game. I think devs have every right to implement it, so long as it doesn't stop people being able to play. When a game is blocked due to over active DRM or online servers going down or even something as simple as forgetting your password/PIN (looking at you, Diablo 3), then that DRM has crossed the line and I would rather get a crack in order to gain more unrestricted access to the game I bought.

EDIT: Because it doesn't make sense for pirates to get a better service out of the game than the people who actually bought it (Assassin's Creed...).


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 23, 2014)

total_split said:


> The problem with boycotting invasive DRM games with the goal of making the publishers change their stance is just playing in their favour. They will see less copies sold, blame piracy, and then increase future DRM anti-piracy efforts.


Okay...you've boiled the problem down to a pure black-and-white situation that is just so wrong it is painful. It's like saying a football should actually be called a footcircle because it's not a ball but a circle (with the argument of "I'm seeing it as a circle, therefore it is a circle").

1. If a boycott is done on such a scale that the developers would notice it, then it is all over the internet, and developers notice that too. I've heard a few overly blamers of piracy as well, but never that games openly criticized for having too obtrusive DRM had an EVEN MORE restrictive DRM in a future installment. If you can point me at even a single instance of this theory happening, I will be utterly amazed.
2. saying "playing in their favour" implies that they like to install DRM on their games, and that's just stupid (except perhaps at EA. I mean...jeez). They do it because they perceive piracy as a threat to their income and that this can put a halt to it. Whether that is wrong or right is up for debate, but while pirates defend their stance with themselves not going to buy the game anyway, they are defending their stance with the dreamcast (which flunked sales largely due to piracy).
3. one of the problems of piracy is that it is extremely hard to calculate the impact. And to a marketeer, this is somewhat of a blessing as well. He can pull sales figures right out of his ass and then pull the "piracy" card to prove himself right no matter what. It depends on the company whether they actually believe that, but it's not like every fucking company is doing it. Not even every AAA-one.



Kayot said:


> I remember arguing on Hellgate: Londons forums that locking multiplayer to online only servers would lead to the game being unplayable should the servers come down or the company go bankrupt. I was told (quite rudely) by many users that my fears were unfounded and that I was trolling. I was then banned by the lead dev team from the forums. Turns out that the lead developer had a serous problem with pirates and my banning was part of an ongoing example to the people. I wasn't allow to respond to their claims that I was a pirate, which was true, though I hadn't posted anything that would imply such. My topic was then placed into a section akin to "Cooking with Stupid" and for the while I lurked on the forums, it was referenced in a negative light and an ongoing campaign claimed that if they did go out of business or have to shutdown their servers, that they would release a patch to "fix" the problem.
> 
> Behold, a year and a half later they declared bankruptcy. When I heard that they bit the bullet, I was like, "Ok, where is this patch?". I searched around and found the lead devs blog. In it he/she claimed that HG:L went bankrupt because of piracy! It wasn't the stranglehold on development, the outright refusal to listen to the user base, the online DRM for multiplayer, the aggressive policing of the forums, and the banning of keys for even the slightest slow of mutiny against the dev team. Because of the piracy, they weren't going to release a patch to allow LAN play. How convenient.
> 
> ...


Say...could it have been that the REAL reason they went bankrupt was because the single player was boring as hell and the game was obscure and unplayable (and thus not worth the 60 bucks)? 

I'm not sure if it's your intention, but you're indirectly proving them right. If those guys had spend even more time and effort (and thus money) on a LAN-available multiplayer game, those six friends of you would have pirated it as well since they worked minimum jobs.

Here as well: I think those developers were just convinced that everyone who pirated their game would have otherwise been a customer.

As to why you were banned...I could be wrong (I've only been part of a UT2004 forum), but I think it's because fan reasons. It's a community where the love and devotion of the game is the mutual interest, so criticism is often not handled very well. And I've seen many guys claiming they "lost their serial key" and wanted to play nonetheless. No, they weren't pirates either (how dare we assume so!?). They just lost their serial key. And their manual. And the box. And the shop recipe. And so on. Did you really think we were friendly to those clowns because we couldn't prove he wasn't pirating? If you do...you're wrong. We usually cracked some jokes at his expense until the moderator banned his ass.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Feb 23, 2014)

On the whole Hellgate London thing... The game had a lot of potential to be great, but it fell flat and really was unmemorable. I beat the entire game and I can barely remember what it is about. Something about hell rifts opening up and letting demons pour into our world or something and only some elite group was able to save some people or something. 

Needed a way better story and some more depth, I remember it being compared to Diablo II LOD since some of the same people worked on it? 

It just felt like a generic shooter to me with some light RPG elements tacked in, I will say that Borderlands did take the entire concept to the next level though.


----------



## Mario92 (Feb 25, 2014)

Example of good DRM: Steamworks 
Example of bad DRM: nProtect GameGuard, older SecuROM, GFWL (oh god...)

Usually problem with DRM is that users with pirated copies have better experience. That's why DRM has to be as invicible as possible, this is where Steam is master where user never hits wall with steams own DRM unless game has some direct issue with it, latest example is Hotline Miami but developer included DRM free exe for those having problems. Not only that but steam provides services that pirated version regulaly can't have: automatic patching, online multiplayer, achievements, trading cards, steam overlay so friends know what you play... Little things but they are all positive and of course ability to play offline if game was activated once online.
Then we have something like GFWL which wasn't available everywhere and lots of losing save files because of encrypting, forced logging in for every game session and lots of other problems. GFWL is pretty much gone but now we have uPlay where users have had same kind of problems with not being able to play offline or deletion of save files. It actually had always online requirement which they then removed. 

I personally haven't have major problems with DRM. Most recent example coming to mind is BG&E where DRM isn't compatible with modern machines which makes game lag like hell. In that case I would prefer that dev/publisher would just release patch to remove DRM so legit customers can play it without looking for pirated versions or being forced to buy new DRM-free version from GOG.


----------

