It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
de99ial: I disagree. Its like the car companies would make a satelitte verification system because people steal cars. Thieves were since people are and they will be. Protection systems should hit on them not in legal buyers. DRM is stupid becasue it cause problems for legal customers - not thieves. They will not have those kind of problems.
So DRM is just a sh*t.
avatar
Npl: Uhhh... stealing cars is a bit different than just grabbing some files while residing in your own 4 walls, dont you think?
If you want a car analogy, DRM would be the police controlling your papers. Even if you own the car you arent allowed to use it unless you have insurance and a driver-license, both which can be controlled or rewoked at any time. Pesky Car DRM, you cant even run over people without losing the right to drive your own car!!!
Good protection systems are hard to on an open plattform like the PC.

Yes stealing the car is different but if You could without any cost copy a car from f.e. Your uncle - would You buy it?
We going offtopic here. DRM is like a satelitte verification - if You driving You can, but if Your girlfriend goes by whell - car wont start. This is DRM like are.
avatar
de99ial: BZZt WRONG!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
Quote:
The term generally doesn't refer to other forms of copy protection which can be circumvented without modifying the file or device, such as serial numbers or keyfiles. It can also refer to restrictions associated with specific instances of digital works or devices.
avatar
Gundato: Because if wiki says it, it must be true :p
Seriously, the term is a catch-all. It tends to be used to refer to things like activation models and the like because people prefer to say they hate all DRM.
Using the blurb you yourself copied: "it can also refer to restrictions associated with specific instances of digital works or devices". What do serials and disc-checks restrict? :p

Yeah right - first we wrote that some term is not referint to sth and next line say it is? Sorry - this dont work like that. DRM refer to many restrictions but NOT cdkeys and cd veryfication. Definition is clear.
Not only a wiki says what is it
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june01/iannella/06iannella.html
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm
avatar
de99ial: Yes stealing the car is different but if You could without any cost copy a car from f.e. Your uncle - would You buy it?

I fail to see the point in using an analogy that has absolutely no bearing on reality.
You cannot compare a digital format with a physical product in that sense. It just cannot be done.
avatar
de99ial: BZZt WRONG!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
Quote:
The term generally doesn't refer to other forms of copy protection which can be circumvented without modifying the file or device, such as serial numbers or keyfiles. It can also refer to restrictions associated with specific instances of digital works or devices.
avatar
Gundato: Because if wiki says it, it must be true :p
Seriously, the term is a catch-all. It tends to be used to refer to things like activation models and the like because people prefer to say they hate all DRM.
Using the blurb you yourself copied: "it can also refer to restrictions associated with specific instances of digital works or devices". What do serials and disc-checks restrict? :p

Gundalo is 100% right here. DRM used to just mean things like activation models, now it generally refers to all forms of copy protection used on digital media, including things like disk checks.
This is one of the most boring and useless arguments over a definition I've ever seen.
avatar
de99ial: But what if i want to install the game on computer without internet acess?

Then you're either limited to installing games that don't require online activation, finding the files / registry entries created after activation and backing those up... or removing the DRM through a less legal means.
avatar
de99ial: ... I just decide not to buy and not to play with those games (some titles are really hard to resist - but i swear to myself).
What do You think about it?

I think you will have a lot more time for yourself. Which is a good thing. Fill that extra time with some other DRM-free hobby ;)
avatar
cogadh: Wow, we haven't had this discussion before now...
DRM itself as a concept is not bad, its the execution of that concept that can be bad. There is nothing inherently wrong with a company protecting its property, but when that "protection" interferes with the legitimate customers rights or ability to use a product, but does nothing to stop the illegitimate user of a product, then it becomes bad. The problem is, there are no protections out there that can stop the illegitimate use of a product, but there are plenty of them that will restrict legitimate customers. Disk checks, serial keys, etc. are all relatively non-invasive forms of DRM and they really don't do anything that will interfere with your gameplay, but at the same time, they are probably the easiest form of DRM to crack, hence why the publishers have moved on to more invasive forms of DRM, like the latest form of SecuROM and Ubisoft's "DRM that is not DRM". The problem is, even these forms of DRM are easy to crack; maybe slightly harder that cracking a serial code, but still easy enough that a game can be cracked within 24 hours of its release date (24 hours before or after release date, that is).
The only truly effective "DRM" is to create products that the people are willing and happy to pay for and to sell those products at a reasonable price. GOG has already figured this out, slowly the publishers (well, some of them) are also starting to figure this out, eventually all of them will get it or they will lose business, as I'm sure Ubisoft is soon to learn.

I agree with You - it is good said.
You got beer from me ;)
avatar
de99ial: I fail to see the point in using an analogy that has absolutely no bearing on reality.
You cannot compare a digital format with a physical product in that sense. It just cannot be done.
avatar
Gremmi: I agree - thats why i said we going offtopic here. The topic is about DRM not piracy.
Dond misunderstand me - im not pirate and i think it is a bad thing.
Like i said before - when im buying a legal copy im doing that not for using cracks. When i buy f.e. book i like keep it on na shelf and back to it when id like it. Not when autor will give me permission.
About term "DRM" - i disagree about throwing all kind of anti-piracy technology to this term, although i sick of pintless argue about that so lets make it clear.
DRM in meaning latest version of them.
Is it OK with You?
Post edited February 22, 2010 by de99ial
avatar
cogadh: Wow, we haven't had this discussion before now...
DRM itself as a concept is not bad, its the execution of that concept that can be bad. There is nothing inherently wrong with a company protecting its property, but when that "protection" interferes with the legitimate customers rights or ability to use a product, but does nothing to stop the illegitimate user of a product, then it becomes bad. The problem is, there are no protections out there that can stop the illegitimate use of a product, but there are plenty of them that will restrict legitimate customers. Disk checks, serial keys, etc. are all relatively non-invasive forms of DRM and they really don't do anything that will interfere with your gameplay, but at the same time, they are probably the easiest form of DRM to crack, hence why the publishers have moved on to more invasive forms of DRM, like the latest form of SecuROM and Ubisoft's "DRM that is not DRM". The problem is, even these forms of DRM are easy to crack; maybe slightly harder that cracking a serial code, but still easy enough that a game can be cracked within 24 hours of its release date (24 hours before or after release date, that is).
The only truly effective "DRM" is to create products that the people are willing and happy to pay for and to sell those products at a reasonable price. GOG has already figured this out, slowly the publishers (well, some of them) are also starting to figure this out, eventually all of them will get it or they will lose business, as I'm sure Ubisoft is soon to learn.

While I mostly agree with you, I feel the need to just append/restate the following:
DRM is not meant to stop piracy. It is meant to minimize it. Pretty much any DRM will stop "the idiots" from pirating, forcing them to buy. Beyond that, it is a matter of balancing between stopping piracy and not hurting the user.
GoG has a good model, but that model might not work so well for a new release. People are more likely to put down 7 or 10 bucks for some shiny than they are to put down 50 or 60 bucks. So to go with the "give them shinies that make them want to buy it" angle, you need a lot more to sway the same potential pirate.
So yeah, it is just a matter of finding a balance. Enough DRM to stop potential pirates, but not enough to stop potential buyers.
avatar
cogadh: Wow, we haven't had this discussion before now...
DRM itself as a concept is not bad, its the execution of that concept that can be bad. There is nothing inherently wrong with a company protecting its property, but when that "protection" interferes with the legitimate customers rights or ability to use a product, but does nothing to stop the illegitimate user of a product, then it becomes bad. The problem is, there are no protections out there that can stop the illegitimate use of a product, but there are plenty of them that will restrict legitimate customers. Disk checks, serial keys, etc. are all relatively non-invasive forms of DRM and they really don't do anything that will interfere with your gameplay, but at the same time, they are probably the easiest form of DRM to crack, hence why the publishers have moved on to more invasive forms of DRM, like the latest form of SecuROM and Ubisoft's "DRM that is not DRM". The problem is, even these forms of DRM are easy to crack; maybe slightly harder that cracking a serial code, but still easy enough that a game can be cracked within 24 hours of its release date (24 hours before or after release date, that is).
The only truly effective "DRM" is to create products that the people are willing and happy to pay for and to sell those products at a reasonable price. GOG has already figured this out, slowly the publishers (well, some of them) are also starting to figure this out, eventually all of them will get it or they will lose business, as I'm sure Ubisoft is soon to learn.
avatar
Gundato: While I mostly agree with you, I feel the need to just append/restate the following:
DRM is not meant to stop piracy. It is meant to minimize it. Pretty much any DRM will stop "the idiots" from pirating, forcing them to buy. Beyond that, it is a matter of balancing between stopping piracy and not hurting the user.
GoG has a good model, but that model might not work so well for a new release. People are more likely to put down 7 or 10 bucks for some shiny than they are to put down 50 or 60 bucks. So to go with the "give them shinies that make them want to buy it" angle, you need a lot more to sway the same potential pirate.
So yeah, it is just a matter of finding a balance. Enough DRM to stop potential pirates, but not enough to stop potential buyers.

The problem is, as I said before, creating a product that people want to buy, then selling at a reasonable price. 50 to 60 bucks is not a reasonable price for any game, new or otherwise, especially in the current economy. With games at those prices, "the idiots" are far more likely to find out about and resort to casual piracy than they would if games were priced in the 20 to 40 dollar range. As long as game companies continue to push out crappy games at unreasonable prices, then saddle them with invasive DRM, people are going to find ways to pirate them. Make better games and drop the prices, not only will they sell more, but that DRM that is just there to stop the casual pirate is no longer necessary.
avatar
Gundato: GoG has a good model, but that model might not work so well for a new release.

GOG only works because of its focus on games that publishers don't expect to make money on anymore. If it wasn't for that there wouldn't be a GOG.
avatar
Gundato: While I mostly agree with you, I feel the need to just append/restate the following:
DRM is not meant to stop piracy. It is meant to minimize it. Pretty much any DRM will stop "the idiots" from pirating, forcing them to buy. Beyond that, it is a matter of balancing between stopping piracy and not hurting the user.
GoG has a good model, but that model might not work so well for a new release. People are more likely to put down 7 or 10 bucks for some shiny than they are to put down 50 or 60 bucks. So to go with the "give them shinies that make them want to buy it" angle, you need a lot more to sway the same potential pirate.
So yeah, it is just a matter of finding a balance. Enough DRM to stop potential pirates, but not enough to stop potential buyers.
avatar
cogadh: The problem is, as I said before, creating a product that people want to buy, then selling at a reasonable price. 50 to 60 bucks is not a reasonable price for any game, new or otherwise, especially in the current economy. With games at those prices, "the idiots" are far more likely to find out about and resort to casual piracy than they would if games were priced in the 20 to 40 dollar range. As long as game companies continue to push out crappy games at unreasonable prices, then saddle them with invasive DRM, people are going to find ways to pirate them. Make better games and drop the prices, not only will they sell more, but that DRM that is just there to stop the casual pirate is no longer necessary.

And if you lower prices, you lower profit margins.
There are many ways to strike a balance between potential pirates and buyers, and I don't pretend to know anywhere near enough of the statistics to argue for it. But it IS obvious that potential pirates will be forced to buy a game if they can't steal it. And it IS obvious that every potential buyer has a certain threshold at which the price/hassle overrides the want for the game. It is just a matter of striking the balance.
GoG has one balance that may or may not work for new releases. Keep in mind that CD Projekt, in their interviews, basically said that it is focused around how they sold older games in Poland/Eastern Europe. Budget titles sold at lower prices and with better manuals/whatever than the bootleg versions.
It is like you yourself just said: You don't feel that any game is worth 50 bucks. So it would take a lot more shiny to convince you to buy it, rather than pirate it. And, if you are selling retail, your shiny actually costs money.
It is true that to buy a new product it has to be shiny. But from the other side all kind restrictions make that shiny shine less - so for some potential customer it works as a negative factor.
I think it is not a matter a price but balance between price and quality. If the product is good and with good price it will sell. If product is good but costs too much - it wont sell. And bad product even for low price wont sell at all.
Second thing - i disagree with that "if pirate cant steal he will be forced to buy it". When You go to the mall and there are free samples Yopu just take it - without thinking. But when You have to pay for smth You starting to think. Pirates mainly take it because its "for free" - without that free download possibility they will resign NOT buy.
I think that developer are going in bad directions. I think that if developer in moment of release new title would offer various possibilities they would make more money.
F.e. developer release a new shooter. So it give:
1. Download version - for low price. 10 USD for example. But it is one time instalation, full of DRM and other kind restrictions, without box, instructions and other shiny stuff.
2. AND box version - full of stuff, without DRM last version (internet connection not requaried), shiny and awesome looking for 40 USD.
Now each customer may choose between those two possibilities. If he want test, one play only - he buys a download version. Plays and after everything just delete. Developer got the money for cheap version (i think servers and soft for that stuff would be chaper than implementation DRMs). If someone wants a game for collection - he buys a BOX version, with guarantee that it will work after 10 years no matter what (even if DRM servers were disabled). Best thing of that situation is that every one that choose a download may decide for ma BOX after finishing game - if he says "Damn, that thing is great! I want that!"
Making money and user friendly policy.
Right now they choose worst wariant - expensive BOX with shitty DRMs.
Last but not least - i think that even GOG is for money. Not big for once but it has to work for itself. Look - new game is on shop - cost 40 bucks. Then it goes to a cheaper series - 20 bucks. After that it goes to a completely cheap series - 10 bucks, and at end goes to GOG - 5 bucks. On each level developer is making a money. Thats why it is so great.
Why they dont do it?
avatar
de99ial: It is true that to buy a new product it has to be shiny. But from the other side all kind restrictions make that shiny shine less - so for some potential customer it works as a negative factor.
I think it is not a matter a price but balance between price and quality. If the product is good and with good price it will sell. If product is good but costs too much - it wont sell. And bad product even for low price wont sell at all.
Second thing - i disagree with that "if pirate cant steal he will be forced to buy it". When You go to the mall and there are free samples Yopu just take it - without thinking. But when You have to pay for smth You starting to think. Pirates mainly take it because its "for free" - without that free download possibility they will resign NOT buy.
I think that developer are going in bad directions. I think that if developer in moment of release new title would offer various possibilities they would make more money.
F.e. developer release a new shooter. So it give:
1. Download version - for low price. 10 USD for example. But it is one time instalation, full of DRM and other kind restrictions, without box, instructions and other shiny stuff.
2. AND box version - full of stuff, without DRM last version (internet connection not requaried), shiny and awesome looking for 40 USD.
Now each customer may choose between those two possibilities. If he want test, one play only - he buys a download version. Plays and after everything just delete. Developer got the money for cheap version (i think servers and soft for that stuff would be chaper than implementation DRMs). If someone wants a game for collection - he buys a BOX version, with guarantee that it will work after 10 years no matter what (even if DRM servers were disabled). Best thing of that situation is that every one that choose a download may decide for ma BOX after finishing game - if he says "Damn, that thing is great! I want that!"
Making money and user friendly policy.
Right now they choose worst wariant - expensive BOX with shitty DRMs.
Last but not least - i think that even GOG is for money. Not big for once but it has to work for itself. Look - new game is on shop - cost 40 bucks. Then it goes to a cheaper series - 20 bucks. After that it goes to a completely cheap series - 10 bucks, and at end goes to GOG - 5 bucks. On each level developer is making a money. Thats why it is so great.
Why they dont do it?

Actually, I am referring to the potential pirates. The ones on the fence. And DRM actually CAN make people buy. Look at MEPC. That was the first real hurrah for Securom's Activation model, and I think it might still not be properly cracked. People bought the game because they couldn't pirate.
And keep this in mind: too much difference between retail and digital won't end well for the publisher. Look at the PSP-Go, a purely digital distribution platform. Gamestop refuses to stock that, and even threatened to not carry normal PSP stuff (if I recall correctly).
As for your last real point, and I might have misunderstood since it was even more rambling than my stream-of-consciousness stuff, but keep in mind that it is a matter of profit margins:
I don't know the mark-up and the like, but keep in mind that games are rapidly getting larger and larger production costs. So they need to make sales to make back the losses. And even more, they need to make money to finance their next game. They need to make money to support patching (for the devs that do that :p) and to support the master server (the thing that lets MP happen).
If they need to depend on selling games at 20 bucks, that is going to require a hell of a lot more sales.
And even if they could make back their losses by selling at 5 dollars, keep in mind that these are companies. Many of them are publicly traded or are competing for juicy licenses. You want to have economic stability.
Plus, if you minimize your profit margins, you run into a risk of a single bad game killing your company. Or, even more dangerously, a single game that doesn't sell immediately killing your company.
By the time a game reaches the 20 dollar mark (or even GoG), the costs have all been made back and it is just a matter of the publisher printing out a few spares every once in a while. It is a small trickle of cash. It just so happens that a small trickle is better than nothing.
Mass Effect 1 for the PC had a proper crack easily once the problem was found out. I highly doubt it made people go out and buy it. Instead, the pirates simply shrugged and looked for something else to download.
avatar
Gamerkought: Mass Effect 1 for the PC had a proper crack easily once the problem was found out. I highly doubt it made people go out and buy it. Instead, the pirates simply shrugged and looked for something else to download.

I followed it for the first week or so. Lots of people gave up and bought it after they were annoyed by the galaxy map "bug".
And, judging by the problems I see people having on torrent sites today, I suspect said crack(s) still aren't fully functional, or are at least kind of buggy.