Posted January 08, 2023
How would you feel about some games being released on GOG with DRM *if* the publisher and store page CLEARLY STATED that all DRM would be removed, and the game FULLY playable offline, by a specific date (say, 6 months after launch)?
I’m not even sure about this myself, but I was thinking about this and thought that there could be several reasons why this could be a good thing.
First, though, a few reasons why this might be a BAD idea;
1. It could normalize the inclusion of DRM on GOG.
Even if the publisher and GOG commit to removing DRM by a specific date, we could then see some games initially released with DRM that otherwise wouldn’t have had it at all. There might also be legitimate fears that this would be just a first-step towards some titles being released with permanent DRM.
2. It sends mixed messages; dampening GOG’s reputation for committing to DRM-free games.
Even if we all benefitted with more games and less DRM in the long-term, GOG’s reputation is a delicate one (the Hitman launch being an obvious recent example). If they introduced time-limited DRM, it would almost certainly alienate some people. It would also require us to trust that GOG would remain true to this overall objective.
On the other hand, I think there are also some interesting ways in which this could be a really GOOD policy;
1. More games might come to GOG (on day 1 of launch, or otherwise).
GOG suffers from a ‘sloppy seconds’ problem, where some publishers are reluctant to release a game on a DRM-free platform. If those games ever do make their way onto GOG after several years, there’s a high likelihood that interest in that game will have significantly waned or that people will have already purchased the game elsewhere – so potential sales on GOG are significantly reduced.
Companies like Denuvo often state that the initial launch window of a title is when a game is most likely to be pirated (admittedly, this claim is often made in an attempt to save face shortly after their DRM has been circumvented) – so publishers might feel more willing to release a game with time-limited DRM than without DRM at all.
2. More potential revenue for GOG.
This would benefit both the company, continued development of the platform and its long-term stability.
3. An opportunity to show publishers that offline and DRM-free is something that we value.
I would value the opportunity to demonstrate to a publisher that I was willing to buy their product if they committed to removing all DRM and retaining complete offline-play (where applicable) by a fixed and publicly-declared date.
4. Normalizes the removal of DRM.
Currently, DRM is only occasionally removed from a title (and sometimes added to it after launch). As far as I’m aware, removal of DRM is rarely planned significantly in advance and possibly never committed to in a publicly-declared roadmap.
If publicly-declared removal of DRM by a specific date became normal (and games launched with this information clearly visible), it could become a much more desirable strategy than to simply retain DRM indefinitely – and certainly better for public perception.
What do you think? Crazy-talk? Or is there a universe in which you could ever envisage something like this being worthwhile?
Are there any DRM-stricken games you would have bought (on day 1 or otherwise) if you trusted that the DRM would be permanently removed 6 months after release?
I’m not even sure about this myself, but I was thinking about this and thought that there could be several reasons why this could be a good thing.
First, though, a few reasons why this might be a BAD idea;
1. It could normalize the inclusion of DRM on GOG.
Even if the publisher and GOG commit to removing DRM by a specific date, we could then see some games initially released with DRM that otherwise wouldn’t have had it at all. There might also be legitimate fears that this would be just a first-step towards some titles being released with permanent DRM.
2. It sends mixed messages; dampening GOG’s reputation for committing to DRM-free games.
Even if we all benefitted with more games and less DRM in the long-term, GOG’s reputation is a delicate one (the Hitman launch being an obvious recent example). If they introduced time-limited DRM, it would almost certainly alienate some people. It would also require us to trust that GOG would remain true to this overall objective.
On the other hand, I think there are also some interesting ways in which this could be a really GOOD policy;
1. More games might come to GOG (on day 1 of launch, or otherwise).
GOG suffers from a ‘sloppy seconds’ problem, where some publishers are reluctant to release a game on a DRM-free platform. If those games ever do make their way onto GOG after several years, there’s a high likelihood that interest in that game will have significantly waned or that people will have already purchased the game elsewhere – so potential sales on GOG are significantly reduced.
Companies like Denuvo often state that the initial launch window of a title is when a game is most likely to be pirated (admittedly, this claim is often made in an attempt to save face shortly after their DRM has been circumvented) – so publishers might feel more willing to release a game with time-limited DRM than without DRM at all.
2. More potential revenue for GOG.
This would benefit both the company, continued development of the platform and its long-term stability.
3. An opportunity to show publishers that offline and DRM-free is something that we value.
I would value the opportunity to demonstrate to a publisher that I was willing to buy their product if they committed to removing all DRM and retaining complete offline-play (where applicable) by a fixed and publicly-declared date.
4. Normalizes the removal of DRM.
Currently, DRM is only occasionally removed from a title (and sometimes added to it after launch). As far as I’m aware, removal of DRM is rarely planned significantly in advance and possibly never committed to in a publicly-declared roadmap.
If publicly-declared removal of DRM by a specific date became normal (and games launched with this information clearly visible), it could become a much more desirable strategy than to simply retain DRM indefinitely – and certainly better for public perception.
What do you think? Crazy-talk? Or is there a universe in which you could ever envisage something like this being worthwhile?
Are there any DRM-stricken games you would have bought (on day 1 or otherwise) if you trusted that the DRM would be permanently removed 6 months after release?
