This past week there’s been quite a flurry in the news regarding DRM in games. What is DRM? Why are so many people upset? Is their concern warranted, or are they all worked up over nothing? In discussions in our forums, I’ve often said it isn’t my ax to grind, but as a gamer, I do have a settled opinion on it. For those who may be unfamiliar with what DRM actually is, I’ll start with that.
DRM stands for Digital Rights Management, and is the latest tool in the publishers’ toolbox to control the consumer’s use of their content. Imagine, if you will, that when cassette tapes were the preferred method of song delivery in the 80s, record companies had the ability to manufacture tapes in such a way that once they had been played on one cassette player, they couldn’t be played on any other. Imagine further that cassettes could have been manufactured so that if you recorded a song from one to another to create a “mixed tape,” the resulting recording would be garbled and unusable, or that both cassettes would be irretrievably ruined. In today’s digital age, DRM allows content developers to do both of these things with digital media.
The landscape created by DRM technology is really a new frontier where the idea of product ownership takes on a whole new meaning. No longer can a consumer do whatever he or she likes with media purchases and, in some extreme cases, with the device they use for media playback. There is a shroud of secrecy by DRM creators about exactly how their product works, and this secrecy is seen as necessary to ensure the integrity of their products.
DRM opponents often say that DRM effectively reduces media purchases to rentals. With DRM limitations upon how many devices the media can be played on, their point is easy to elucidate. If you were to buy a DVD for $19.99 that would only let you play it on two or three specific DVD players, they argue, what happens when those players break down, and the DVD publisher goes out of business? You then have a $19.99 drink coaster. Your initial purchase wasn’t a purchase at all, they say, just a purchase to use the material for a limited time. This is one of the basic points DRM opponents use in arguing against DRM for virtually every media format.
In the world of DRM and gaming, there are other problems gamers cite. Hardcore gamers are notoriously finicky when it comes to hardware and software configuration, where they are known for purchasing bleeding-edge hardware on a regular basis in an attempt to squeeze every last drop of performance possible from their gaming machines. Many gaming aficionados spend as much time tweaking their machines as they do playing games on them, and some spend thousands of dollars per year in hardware purchases to remain on that bleeding edge. Since the Sony BMG rootkit debacle, DRM software has garnered a bad reputation with gamers for adversely affecting system performance and stability.
In the latest DRM front, gaming consumers have pitted themselves against gaming publisher Electronic Arts over the DRM software bundled with the recently released title Spore. The gamers allege that SecuROM, the DRM solution protecting this game, installed itself as part of the game installation without full disclosure, and furthermore, that this software is installed with privileges above even the computer-owner themselves. They further allege that this software causes conflicts that interfere with normal computer operation, and can’t be uninstalled due to SecuROM’s elevated privileges and lack of uninstaller. Whether these allegations are completely true remains to be seen, but if they are, it’s easy to see why gamers who’ve installed Spore may be a little upset: they feel that they’ve unknowingly installed troublesome software that has more control over their computers than they have. Speaking as a gamer, I tailor my systems to run only what I want them to run to optimize performance. When gaming, I want all my system resources brought to bear on one thing: running my game.
While I personally feel that DRM is doomed to market failure because it attempts to sell a product there is no popular demand for in the consumer market, I can understand why publishers want to protect their investments. Software, music and movie piracy is rampant, and literally millions of dollars are slipping through publishers’ fingers every year through file-sharing networks like Bittorrent. Is content restriction the answer to the problem? The fact that Spore is now one of the most downloaded pirated video games of all time suggests that it is not. Consumers everywhere have reacted very strongly against the perceived DRM threat, and many have boycotted the game, engaged in PR battles against the publisher, or downloaded DRM-free versions of the software from file-sharing networks. To me, this suggests that DRM isn’t the answer.
As an alternative, I would suggest methods similar to those employed by MMO developers. MMOs don’t need DRM for two reasons: the content of the games is exclusively server-side, and much of the game involves the social interaction between the players themselves. In an MMO, a gamer has to have a legitimate license to play because the gamer *must* authenticate with the publisher to interact with the game’s content. Because of this fact, there is virtually no demand for pirated MMO software. While for stand-alone single player titles this wouldn’t be completely feasible, I feel that publishers could combine this with a play taken from Microsoft’s anti-piracy effort, the Windows Genuine Advantage program.
What it boils down to is this: if you give gamers incentive to NOT pirate, such as added exclusive content and access to game patches only available after you authenticate your software as genuine with their download servers, fewer people would be willing to steal the game itself. How such a scheme would be implemented is beyond the scope of this post, but I feel that such tactics would be difficult for DRM detractors to argue with. If there is an appealing element of your game that can only be accessed by people with legitimate software, you’ve just created a demand for that genuine software. People react positively to positive reinforcement. Creating added demand for your product rather than pushing out an added feature there is no demand for is the answer, I believe.
So, fellow gamers, would you agree? Would you react better to anti-piracy measures like those I described above? I know I would.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:47 am
DRM certainly isn’t the answer.
It’s a disgrace that an illegally downloaded copy is easier to work with than a legitimately purchased copy.
Limited installs catches me straight away. I dual and triple boot my main systems. Generally any game I buy is installed far more than the 4/5 times - Under XP and Vista on my desktop, under XP on my laptop and finally I generally like to mess around with games under Wine in conjunction with Linux also.
Most PC gamers are hardware enthusiasts - listen to two of them talk and it’s almost always about the actual hardware in addition to games also.
On this note they frequently swap parts in and out of their systems, frequently re-install their OS etc. The sort of recent limited installs coupled with activation goes against everything a PC gamer chooses the PC as their favoured platform in the first place.
One such solution to DRM is simple - buy the game and download a crack that’ll remove the DRM and let you play without the CD.
I have been setting up my games for about the last two years in this manner, mainly because I don’t like messing with CDs all the time and I also need to use no-CD cracks about 90% of the time for Wine.
For this reason DRM has never been a problem for me. The last game I did this with was Mass Effect and installed it around 7 times no problems.
Anyway DRM is something that has to go. It’s doesn’t do the consumer any favours, nor does it do the developer any favours.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:53 am
Speaking as a gamer, I personally see your point.
As I said in the blog, though I can understand why publishers want to protect their products, I feel the methods they employ to do so do more harm than good, and don’t resonate very well with their target audience. You’ve demonstrated why it doesn’t very well!
October 1st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
First off, great post. Very informative. And I think you’ve got a great idea with offering incentives over restrictions. By nature, gamers are interested in “the win.” This can be in the form of points, but it can also be in the form of getting something first, getting something exclusive or getting something the average Joe doesn’t have. That’s why we’ll stand in line for hours before a store opening, register our games and pay an extra $20 for that special edition in the fancy case. mfinnan101’s “solution” is definitely a way to bypass the frustrations PC gamers see in DRM, but I don’t think it’s the ultimate answer. I would love to see your suggestion fully developed into a plan that gives gamers a little extra while still protecting rights.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Thanks for dropping by! I’ve been a fan of your blog since I discovered it, and for everyone that reads this, I highly recommend checking out Kate’s blog (click on the link in her name above, “The Game Dame”).
I think you hit the nail on the head. Gamers are interested in getting ahead of their peers, and being “elite” or “uber”. If game companies play to that to protect their product rather than provide disincentives to owning a legitimate copy of their work in the form of Draconian DRM packages, everybody ends up winning.
Mfinnan’s solution also has the downside to being “illegal” under current laws. It’s illegal to bypass a game’s copywrite protection in most countries, even if you own a legitimate license to the game. In the US, it’s the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and most other developed nations have adopted similar legislation. That’s right, mfinnan, even no-CD cracks are against the law to possess.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Hmmm… “illegal” is kind of a loose term these days, illegal to rip cds, illegal to rip dvds etc….
The attitude I have always taken is that if I buy a legitimate copy I should be allowed to do whatever I want it, drawing the line with giving the game to others etc.
Every game I’ve installed in the last 2 years I have set up to play without the cd, be it using an ISO in conjunction along with a virtual drive or a no CD crack. It has also in some cases ironically fixed annoying bugs that were present when I used the CD to play the game. One such example was that of C&C Zero Hour. It kept blue screening on me, but a crack sorted all that out.
I also need to use them when it comes to gaming under Linux, so on that note all Linux gamers (including myself) are breaking the law all time…
The main reason I do this is convenience. When I’m off to a LAN game I don’t want to have to haul along 4/5 cds with me.
Anyway back on the whole subject of DRM…
I always site “Sins of a Solar Empire” as an example. It contained no DRM whatsoever and sold fantastically. Now I suppose you could argue the fact that it was an RTS and that a different genre game might have faired different, but I personally don’t think that would have been the case.
What is completely uncalled for is are things like Crytek blaming piracy for all it’s woes and stating riduculus claims to the effect that 1 in every 15 copy of Crysis out there is legit.
That’s not only wrong, it’s misleading and creates an impression that the majority of gamers out there are pirates.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
While I agree that what you’re doing isn’t wrong, according to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, any measures taken to circumvent DRM or any access control in any way is a crime, whether or not a copyright violation has taken place.
What does this mean? It means that even if you hold a legitimate license to the digital media in question, as soon as you take measures to circumvent its access controls, be it a no-CD crack for convenience, download a DRM free copy of a game you purchased so you don’t have to install SecuROM, or convert that track you got from iTunes into a DRM free format using the analog hole, you’ve committed a criminal act.
So yes, Linux gamers may be “breaking the law” CONSTANTLY, even if what they are doing seems to be necessary.
While I agree with your sentiments, I have to point out to people who may read this that although your “solution” is elegant and maybe needed, but it would appear that they’d be in violation of Federal Law by following your example.
Scary, eh?
October 1st, 2008 at 4:48 pm
When you said “if you give gamers incentive to NOT pirate, such as added exclusive content and access to game patches only available after you authenticate your software as genuine with their download servers …..”, the last four words [with their download servers] essentially puts it right back to square one in my opinion.
Where’s the difference between DRM that requires online “registration” (with the publisher’s server) yet restricts you to 2 to 5 reinstalls and your suggested method that still requires game publisher server contact to access patches to correct game code issues and therefore game playability. Either way, should the publisher/developer go belly up - read server(s) shutdown, you still end up with a $40 or $50 coaster as a result.
Oh for the days when just having to type in the product key info on the sleeve plus leave a CD in the drive was sufficent and game patches could be downloaded from multiple sources other than the publisher.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Point taken John.
I’m going to have to agree with VCraig about the servers putting things back to square 1.
Take me for instance, my internet access is pretty limited, so when I get a game that *requires* online interaction of any manner to play I’m caught straight away..
October 1st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I do see where you’re coming from, but I think *requires* is a word I never meant to imply. Nowhere in my idea would these things be *required* in order to play the game.
What I was trying to imply, is that publishers should really think about “value adds” requiring online authentication of license, like additional exclusive content or upgrades.
That’s the real difference: that it’s additional value above the core product which adds incentive for people to buy genuine software. The core product would still be usable without it, and without restrictions, but people would *want* that extra above and beyond content.
For people with crummy connections, they could provide the content in an alternative manner to people who’ve authenticated online but can’t download the content. Microsoft did it with SP2. I don’t see why gaming developers couldn’t do it with their software also.
For patches, it could be written into the EULA that in the event the company closes its doors, the patch content could be legally hosted by third parties. Would that solve the conundrum for you?
Thanks for your input! You’ve brought up some great points!
October 1st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Fantastic post, I don’t think I’ve seen the issue of how to avoid using DRM looked at from this angle before. As other commentors have said, it’s ALL about being able to play the game, get the high score, the fastest time, the biggest gun, the most awards. A large number of very successful games, such as Call of Duty 4, for example, have a ranking system built into the game itself, and this seems to be a very popular feature.
I think the extra content idea is on the right track. There will always be people who dedicate their time and energy to cracking security, be it DRM or a corporate firewall. It’s kind of like the little Dutch boy trying to plug all the holes in the seawall with his fingers: it’s just not going to work, and you look kind of silly to even try.
The general public, by and large, HATES to be be inconvenienced, and that’s largely what DRM does: it causes problems, makes enjoying something you played to RELAX into a stressful situation, and generally is “teh suck” (spelling intentional).
I don’t mind Steam, but then, I have a fairly fast internet connection. Punkbuster with COD4 was a huge pain in the butt, and if it hadn’t been for a friend wanting me to play on a server, I would’ve seen about getting my money back for the game. I’m glad I didn’t, but the hassle of getting Punkbuster to work was incredibly frustrating.
To media companies, gaming companies, and others who use it, I say this:
GET RID OF DRM FOREVER! FIND ANOTHER WAY! EAT THE LOSS! REMEMBER THE CUSTOMER!
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 am
DaveFM-
Thanks for dropping by!
Funny thing I noticed on the drive home last night: Spore didn’t really *need* DRM. There was already an online component in the way content from other users is incorporated into your single-player experience. All they really had to do was make it so that portion of the game wasn’t available unless it was verified that you had a valid license key.
Kind of reminds me of Battle.net and Starcraft/Diablo. Those games had built-in copyright protection in that you couldn’t access battle.net to play with random people unless you had a valid CD key. No DRM necessary, and those games were hardly pirated at all. There just never was a big demand.
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
This is somewhat old news, somewhat off topic, but still worth reading.
Thoughts on Music — Steve Jobs — February 6, 2007
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:27 am
This is such a great article/blog entry!
The bottom line is DRM dosen’t work, and “activation” DRM should be illegal. I’ve purchased literally hundreds of PC games over the years, and spent thousands upon thousands on PC hardware…until recently.
Starting around 2004, there have been an increasing number of games I’ve had to skip because I refuse to “buy” games (or movies, etc.) with “activation” DRM. I was drooling over Half Life 2-and had to skip it. Bought Doom 3 and other games instead, even though I wanted to play Half Life 2 more (to this day I still haven’t). I was drooling over Space Rangers 2, and actually bought and then returned it, after learning it had Starforce DRM (which at least wasn’t “activation”)-thankfully I learned that before I opened the box.
More recently it’s gotten even worse-I no longer bother reading PC previews. Nor do I any longer pre-order PC games. Why? I have no idea ahead of time if the game will have “activation” DRM. I have to investigate every single game ahead of time to figure out if I can buy it. I waited 6 months for Mass Effect on PC. Would have bought it on day one-but it requires “activation”, so instead I bought the (otherwise inferior) 360 version. In that case I had another alternative-but a different publisher got the money from my purchase. Had to skip the Steam-infected Dark Messiah of Might and Magic and Lost Planet too.
I’ve been looking forward to Spore (like everyone else) for YEARS. But as soon as I heard it had “activation”, I quit reading previews and just put it out of my mind. I have not and will not bother reading a single review for it. Why bother? EA won’t sell it to me.
I’ve heard Spore has sold over 1 million copies. But how many more would it have sold if it lacked “activation” DRM, or any DRM at all? As always, DRM did NOTHING to prevent people who were going to steal it from stealing it. The ONLY thing “activation” DRM does is prevent legitimate customers like me from GIVING THE PUBLISHER MONEY.
Yes, I could “buy” the game and search for some crack to it. But I refuse to do that for two reasons. 1) It’s illegal under the DMCA. And 2) I refuse to support a product that treats me like a criminal, that requires me to BREAK THE LAW just to be able to use the product that I PAID MONEY FOR. That’s insane, and I will not support such products.
Publishers, if your goal is simply to publish games for pirates, than by all means, continue using “activation”, and watch your sales dry up.
If you want my money, you’re going to have to be willing to *sell* me your product.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:05 am
@Michael-
I really think it’s pretty on-topic, tbh. And a great read, as well. Thanks for sharing!
@Andrew-
Great comment! I was just discussing this very thing with a colleague here at Dell. I was expressing to him that I changed my mind about purchasing several games after I learned what their DRM components actually did, and that many other gamers felt as strongly, if not more so, than I did. You provide an excellent example here!
Thank you for sharing!
October 4th, 2008 at 11:53 am
it is ironic that DRM can turn legitimate customers into criminals
when they try to improve the product with a crack solution.
i envision a world with prisons full of customers who fixed the product,
while the pirates roam free.
in addition to DRM, the gaming companies can effectively reduce sales
by threatening their customers with heavy jail time and massive fines.
gaming companies can easily track their customer purchases. they should
wait a few months, and then sieze the customer computers to check
for the illegal crack solution.
the DRM gaming companies could market this with a “STOP THE CUSTOMER” campaign.
maybe even have parades with floats …
October 4th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
DRM is a major reason I won’t buy a game or product, eventually it becomes such a hassle that I wish I wouldn’t have bought the product. Just my opinion.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Considering that both of you are perfect examples of mature gamers, I’d have to say your opinions matter. They MUST matter: they’re opinions shared by no small portion of the mature gaming population. Gamers are also usually in the know in their circle of friends when it comes to computers and software, and are often the people their friends call upon to get good advice about their computers.
It’s obvious to me that our opinions can affect the bottom lines of companies that use intrusive DRM solutions for their product. I know that if I don’t like a product because I feel their anti-piracy solution steps over the line, there are many others who look to me for advice about that game, and will easily steer clear of software I inform them is problematic.
Keep that in mind, people. What you think DOES matter.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
What do you guys think about watermarking? It makes me a little nervous, and also it should be illegal in that it prevents you from reselling something, which you can and should have the legal right to do…but that said, I’m a LOT more comfortable with it than with activation DRM where the product is worthless when the activation server is disabled, or if you don’t have internet access (or go over the limit for activations, etc.)
In theory I’m also completely fine with a disc check. To me leaving a disc in the drive isn’t that big of a deal. The issue with that though is how it’s implemented. It seems the DRM companies have to install drivers which perform the check. (Increasingly invasive drivers at that.) That causes all sorts of problems. Games may break between versions of an OS, not because of the game, but because the driver that gets installed dosen’t work on the new OS. And increasingly those drivers seem to cause problems with the OS in general. Starforce was infamous for this, but apparently other companies’ solutions are now causing issues too. Plus who wants to be running a piece of software all the time, of unknown function or quality (ie could be a security vulnerability) just because we play games?
If somehow that disc check could be done WITHOUT those drivers…
Perhaps Microsoft could create an API/built in method of doing disc checks in Windows itself? Something standardized, that they guarantee they’ll continue supporting indefinitely in future versions of Windows. That way nothing extra would have to run, companies could just rely on it without having to turn to external solutions, etc. I mean it works on the consoles to stop casual stealing-surely it could be implemented in some reasonable way on PC?
I *do* think more should be done both by the industry, and by us gamers to shame and shun those who steal. It should not be tolerated by any of us. Ultimately that may be the only solution. DRM dosen’t work, and hopefully it will be abandoned-so the industry and those of us that love it will have to try to educate/shame those who steal as best we can.
Fun packaging can continue to help a bit too, as it always has. (I love opening a new game! Love included maps and that sort of thing!)
I’d love to hear all of your comments on my thoughts!
October 7th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Maybe the Pirate’s would do a better job selling the game than the Publishers.
Like Tigerwolf7 said “Publishers, if your goal is simply to publish games for pirates, than by all means, continue using “activation”, and watch your sales dry up”.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
What, I meant to say is:Maybe they should put the Pirate’s in charge of this whole DRM’s crap!
October 8th, 2008 at 10:55 am
@ Andrew-
I don’t think watermarks are such a bad idea, and I’ve never really had a big problem with requiring the CD during game play. Honestly, like you, I feel that disk checking is probably the most rational copyright protection game publishers have ever used.
That being said, I agree that the gaming community could do more to shame the pirates. Funny thing is, as an MMO player, I don’t really know any…
@Blue-
Actually, putting talented software crackers to work coming up with copyright protection is an amazing idea, one that I’ve contemplated myself many times!
October 8th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I really only buy games that I have to buy to play online. I have bought single player games, but if they had DRM I would definitely avoid buying them like the plague.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I buy no game infected with drm.If all gamers will do the same publishers will get the
message and stop this criminal invasion of our computers.
October 14th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
DRM is a really big problem that affect how your computer perform(i.e. stability, installing without consent, superior access right…), like the StarForce protection a while back, which totally f***s up people’s computer.
I personally “believe” that if a “great” game(I like sp over mmo anytime) is out there, I will definitely get it. Because I want to experience that game. That being sad, too much protection would ruin the experience. For example, mass effect, I did use *cough* crack from vitality/reloaded *cough* cause of it’s many bugs with orignal exe.
I am just trying to say that if a game is so good(very high quality as all the games “should” be), poeple would really want to OWN that game. To protect the intellectual property is also important otherwise it will be unfair to those who work hard to make the products.
That being said, from a game designer point of view(just writing up some basic concept as of this moment), my first priority is to make a GOOD game if not GREAT, not necessarily a game that will SALE. However, in today’s world as we see how things go(big publisher EA, Ubisoft, Activision…etc) they are governed by the flow of money. We can’t blame them, it’s capitalism. Since publisher’s are governed by the flow of money and resources from venture capitals(investment/resources), the way studios under them designing the game will also be effected. We have left the era where making GOOD games matter…now it’s the era of games that will bring in money that matter.
I also wonder, how much exactly do intellectual property worth. I mean, new games used to be 40-50 dollars a piece. Nowaday, every new game is 60 or perhaps higher. And software cost xxx-xxxx or even more digits. I really wonder, how much do those coder’s brain cells worth.
For me at least, from a game designer and gameer point of view, all we want is to experience the incredible sensation(whether it be joy, sad, thought provoking, philosophy…) we get from the game, period.
But hey, what can I say, money talks, this is a capitalistic world, we are unlikely to make a difference because we have no money in our pockets. And…those CEOs will continue “guiding” the game industry into the direction as they seem fit.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Here are Far Cry 2 DRM:http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10066846-1.html?tag=mncol;title
They are trying, but not enough