I wonder what numbers could be for the opposite, how many refuse to buy games when there are no DRM? Like Steam only users. :P

Say that to all the people who bought multiplayer games because they needed a valid serial for that. As a teen I was surrounded by lots and lots of people who were playing Counter-Strike in clans. They all used pirated copies until some version came along that basically required a valid serial. At least for multiplayer games DRM has been proven to work quite well.

And let's face it: some amount of individuals has been forced into buying a game due to its DRM. I especially remember many friends buying original games when Starforce came along and there weren't working cracks for some games in weeks or even months. Some cracks only worked by removing any optical drives from the system which was quite a tedious task that some people weren't willing to do. There's been some cracks for The Sims 2 and Assassin's Creed that ran the game without the disc but damaged the gameplay itself - just recently a friend of mine bought Assassin's Creed 1 because her cracked version was unplayable at some point.

There's no doubt that DRM can have the desired effect, it can also have a negative effect if it's too restrictive. But with scenarios that prove both effects it's just naive to call either idea stupid. Either side has to resort to "what if" stories to prove their point. Ultimately there's no definite answer as to what is more effective and it gets down to ideologies. I'm glad that some companies stick to a DRM-free philosophy but being as honest as I am I can't blame companies for believing in the positive effects of DRM.

I don't known how it is in yours but in several countries (In France for sure, not 100% sure for my own country) you are responsible of your Internet access and what is done with it, if you don't protect it "adequately" and somebody does something illegal with it, you are the one who is going to be in trouble. That's why nowadays a lot of router come with WPA pre-configured.

Also over here public Internet access are usually very limited, you cannot use P2P and several other similar protocol, you have a capped per user bandwidth, etc... so it's very unlikely someone could use public access to download a full game.

This thread is like a gunfight where you can't tell who's shooting at you and who's shooting with you.

The only safe solution is to not shoot at all!

Seriously, though... I was on board the "death to DRM and its supporters!" train for awhile, but the amount of fanatical rhetoric I've seen on this site since then has made me sick of the whole subject. And when a homeschooled Bible-college-educated Christian is sick of your fanatical rhetoric, you know something's fucked up :P

I think everyone here has already made up their mind on the subject

That is a horrible idea. Putting content creators on welfare would be bad for the content and the creators, not to mention an extra few levels of bureaucracy making the system inefficient and concentrating control with a small group who would inevitably not reflect the opinions or values of the majority of gamers.

The Canadian government gives out various arts grants, some of which undoubtedly go to deserving artists who's work is a benefit to society. Quite a bit of money goes to artists who's work is seen by very few people, though, or which is crap... and some of it is literally crap.
There are provincial and municipal governments who spend a percentage of any public works project on art, so you can end up with a highway underpass with some very, very expensive fish in tiles on the walls, which people can see out of the corners of their eyes for 3 seconds going through the tunnel.

I don't think Swen Vincke was trying to make that claim. In general, people play bad games less than good games, and quit sooner, so a 'pay as you go' type model could be fairer to gamers and reward good game developers more. A straight purchase model doesn't necessarily reward a short but brilliant game more than a crappy but addictive game, either, and Skinner-box type design has been around for awhile.

.
I remember (vaguely) a few years ago reading about an add-on for a game (which used DRM) significantly outselling the game itself (which did not have any DRM, and was required to play the add-on). Based on the actual sales of the original game, the add-on almost didn't get made (the developers' passion overruled financial concerns about whether they could break even based on the expected sales).

Interesting case. Would love to know which game it was.

Me too, but I don't recall any more than what I posted (and I'm not sure if it was a second or third hand account of what happened).

The talk about contracts kind of makes me sick. There has to be an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration in the transaction for the contract to hold up. Once the payment (consideration) is made for the offer, that's it. An EULA that is not handled prior to the acceptance and consideration is not part of the offer. I don't consider it a contract or a license while an EULA tries to be both. Even if it is a contract, it is modifying the offer after the acceptance and consideration has already been completed. This is why I don't bother with an EULA. I consider them null and void because they are trying to modify the offer after payment. DRM used in this way is null and void. Clicking a button is not a signature either.

Even if all this shit could somehow pass as a contract, it is still a contract made under duress because it is threatening to not install and also not offering a refund if you disagree to terms that were not presented in the offer until after acceptance and consideration. Now, if I disagree I could just forget about trying to make the product work and just pirate it, but that's money down the drain. Why the hell would I even bother paying for the product in the first place then? Surely I will be much less inclined to do so in the future after getting burned.

Someone with expertise in contract law could elaborate further, but it's not difficult to understand, IMO. These so-called contracts that come with a boxed game enforced with DRM are a fucking joke.

If what I speculated is true, then these people have good enough access to the internet to be able to download large files. So if that's the case, I wonder why they didn't just buy the game from Steam or GOG instead of the boxed version? Hmmm ;)

As for admitting such things here, you won't get banned like some other places. Just don't post links.

Withuout DRM = Buy
With DRM = Rental

This. And while people will want to get into the "you didn't own games in the 90s either" argument, what you did own was the right to play and install them as you wished, even with CD activation keys.

The good thing about this whole DRM discussion is that I'm not on the side of missing out great games.

Will I lose all my access in 2045? Quite possibly. Did I had an absolutely awesome time till then? Hell yeah!

If the internet dies tomorrow I still don't regret a single purchase I have made, because while others were worrying about their access to games, I was playing them.

And that is where a potential compromise could start: Effective DRM in the beginning up to two years after release including streaming and whatsorever and then always releasing a DRM free version for a competitive price so users can have a hell of a time without worrying anything.

This means pirates cannot have it in the beginning and when they can have it, everybody else already played it and it's so cheap they can buy it too.

If the world would be like this I would be totally happy.

You seem to see the whole issue very black and white. As my vast library of Steam games demonstrates, preferring DRM-free gaming does not mean missing out on newer great games.

Heck, if new games appeared only as a streaming service, I wouldn't be surprised I'd play them there (quite much depending on pricing etc.), _even though_ I much rather play the local downloaded versions that have as few umbilical cords to the publisher as possible (hopefully none).

Oh and just to demonstrate how incoherent your argument is, since you are a PC-only gamer who refuses to play console games, you are missing out lots of great console-only games. How does that make you feel? :) Or, could it actually be that you simply don't care you miss out many great games, as long as you feel you have enough good stuff to play, even when you are making some restricting gaming platform choices?