DescentBB

While in Best Buy I looked at the Spore packaging. Nothing on the box to say you are install limited, so the average schmuck is going to buy it and not realize that 3 times and he's out.

This is really a three-fold issue for me.

- The type of game
- The restrictions placed on me as a consumer via the copy protection method used
- The level of trust I have with the company in control of it

Steam is not all that different from DRM in terms of the risk that you take as a consumer. If Steam became unavailable, then because you have no physical media, getting a game reinstalled would be difficult at best. There are ways around it, but the level of effort required by you to resolve the issue at that point is similar. If it's a single-player game, I'm MORE inclined to want physical disks, because I may find myself wanting to play it years later and/or may not have an internet connection at the time. Conversely, an internet-based multiplayer game that's well received is likely to have enough community support that there's going to be alternative means of getting that game running again. In many cases, the company that made the game often provides a patch later that removes copyright restrictions.. or, even better, offers the game up to the community as open source.

I've spent years dealing with (and in my younger days, actively hacking) games. This pastime goes all the way back to Commodore 64 days, both software-based and dongle-based. These days, anything worth playing, I purchase, primarily because I want to see game companies rewarded for their efforts - especially when they meet or exceed my expectations. But there are exceptions to that rule, and those exceptions are based on trust, not game quality or the method of copy protection. Sony and EA, I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw. Steam? No problem. Here, have some of my money.

Copy protection does, more often than not, nothing more than offer up hackers the challenges they crave, and paying consumers the frustration they expect. But they have to at least make the attempt, because the extra effort insures a bit more revenue that they can make use of for the next game (assuming the company isn't run poorly and all those profits are gobbled up by shareholders). But companies like Sony and EA, imho, are a bit too big for their britches. Methods like DRM confirm this. You are not going to dictate to me how often I can install something on the same machine. Serial #'s confirming that the same purchase isn't running on 3 different machines on my LAN, I can understand. But dictating the number of times I can install a game on the same gaming rig? That's a bit too much for me to stomach. And as with all things, these days, my only voice for insuring that they understand how I truly feel on the matter is via my purchasing powers.

No dinero for you. Sorry, Charlie.

It appears that word has reached the distributors ears:

\" Video game maker Electronic Arts has loosened copyright protection for the newest release of its game Spore.

Released earlier in the month, the game received a flurry of complaints about a restriction that meant the game could only be registered to three computers.

That restriction has now been raised to five computers, which the company says should account for all legitimate uses. \"

Tho the last line demonstrates a certain imperial mindset.

Here's a fun fact: DRM works. Spore currently has an estimated sales:piracy ratio of 2:1. Compare and contrast with Crysis, which has little to no DRM, has an estimated ratio of about 1:15.
Incidentally, Crysis Warhead, with the same DRM as Spore, is selling remarkably well too!

... *resisting urge to quote my last couple of posts above* ...

Wow, Tiger, think before you post. How can you possibly say the DRM works, when both games have been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times? The ratio difference is completely irrelevant. If DRM worked, the ratio would be 1:0, don't you think...?

Aside; No one plays Crysis, everyone downloaded it as a system benchmark. (\"But can it play Crysis?\" is a common joke) Barring that, Crysis is more popular than Spore, hence the more downloads.

I noticed that Bioshock now has 'unlimited' the number of times that you can reinstall the game. However, that still doesn't address the problem of when the company either loses interest in supporting the game or maintaining the registration link on the web, not letting it go to rot in the ether.

Another gripe I've found in several forums is the most recent version of SecuROM (7), that people are now equating to Starforce for damaging Optical Drives. The Bioshock SecuROM discussion lead to this thread:

http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/sh ... p?t=605340

...yes, Crysis does have copy-protection. It's just the rather annoying \"you must have the CD in the drive to play\" type. Crysis Warhead basically has the same thing as Spore, I understand. I wasn't sufficiently deterred from the latter as it was cheap and I wanted something to run MW:LL with...

P.S. I'd also like to point out that, IF those figures are even true, you also have to consider: Audience. Crysis was aimed at the \"hardcore\" crowd, who are more likely to download pirated versions. Spore is mostly aimed at casual computer game players, who less frequently do that.

Actuaslly this whole system EA just uses is really sad, right. Howeve rit's just a pure consequence of the system you (not me ) all used for years.
When you normally \"buy\" a software, you do not buy, you just \"buy the license to use it\". EA is doing nothing else than to make the rules harder.
You do not own that software, you just have the right to use it. Same is with Windows... If they do not want you to use it, you will soon use something else (if you stay on the legal ways).

In fact this whole system has nothing to do with pleasing the needs anymore...

This is not a physical object we're talking about, though. I assumed that was the reason for the need for \"licensing\" rather than your typical ownership. Is that not true?

Oh, it's definitely about the almighty dollar.

Ferno, Tiger is right. Note that he pointed to the ratio of purchases to downloads, which is a measure independent from demand. It's an indicator of how well the DRM prevents downloading.

It's apparently true that such aggressive DRM turned away some buyers, but it apparently has turned away a lot of piracy as well.

There is an impact of consumer convenience as well though, which is an influence in the other direction. It's really hit music first, perhaps because of the nature of the market there, but there are some signs of certain developers or publishers recognising its value. I'm not sure there would be such a drive to release games with no DRM or copy-protection, though, because they aren't pushed as hard by competition that makes them nothing (i.e. piracy). Nonetheless I do see more serial/key-based systems now; for most games except arguably MMOs it can't prevent piracy/cracks (nothing can, it's a matter of how difficult it is), but it is enough to discourage a lot of casual copying while not being such a pain in the arse to legitimate customers.

Tigers 2:1 ratio is certainly better than Crysis, but the DRM scheme still fails. For every million copies, 333,333 are pirated. Now the question is, how many sales were lost because of the DRM and how many honest potential buyers got their copy from a pirated non DRM source (I'm assuming a pirated version would not have the DRM on it)?

Blame it on the Democrats. I have blamed them for 50 years and it works pretty well. Political subversion to brain wash us into giving up all our money and redistribute it as they see fit.

If that weren't a joke, I'd consider bringing out the softball bat.

woodchip wrote:Tigers 2:1 ratio is certainly better than Crysis, but the DRM scheme still fails. For every million copies, 333,333 are pirated. Now the question is, how many sales were lost because of the DRM and how many honest potential buyers got their copy from a pirated non DRM source (I'm assuming a pirated version would not have the DRM on it)?

I bought Crysis... but I still used a pirated version instead of the real one. Because the pirated version guarantees no DRM on the system, the legitimate legal version comes with no such promises.

From a developer of Sins of a Solar Empire, a DRM-Free PC Game:

The reason why we don't put CD copy protection on our games isn't because we're nice guys. We do it because the people who actually buy games don't like to mess with it. Our customers make the rules, not the pirates. Pirates don't count. We know our customers could pirate our games if they want but choose to support our efforts. So we return the favor - we make the games they want and deliver them how they want it. This is also known as operating like every other industry outside the PC game industry.

...That's the problem with piracy. What gets made targets people who buy it, not the people who would never buy it in the first place...

When you blame piracy for disappointing sales, you tend to tar the entire market with a broad brush. Piracy isn't evenly distributed in the PC gaming market. And there are far more effective ways of getting people who might buy your product to buy it without inconveniencing them.

Blaming piracy is easy. But it hides other underlying causes. When Sins popped up as the #1 best selling game at retail a couple weeks ago, a game that has no copy protect whatsoever, that should tell you that piracy is not the primary issue.

In the end, the pirates hurt themselves. PC game developers will either slowly migrate to making games that cater to the people who buy PC games or they'll move to platforms where people are more inclined to buy games.

In the meantime, if you want to make profitable PC games, I'd recommend focusing more effort on satisfying the people willing to spend money on your product and less effort on making what others perceive as hot.

tunnelcat wrote:However, that still doesn't address the problem of when the company either loses interest in supporting the game or maintaining the registration link on the web, not letting it go to rot in the ether.

But who would continue an anti-piracy policy on a game that doesn't work anymore? Yes, it's questionably legal, but at that point, literally nobody would care.

Sirius wrote:I'd also like to point out that, IF those figures are even true, you also have to consider: Audience. Crysis was aimed at the "hardcore" crowd, who are more likely to download pirated versions. Spore is mostly aimed at casual computer game players, who less frequently do that.

Valid point. However, Spore is what I'd call a semi-hardcore game: one that's halfway between Wii Sports and Half-Life; in the same sense as Mario games are. A hardcore game having a rate of 20 times more downloads than a semi-hardcore game is due to much more than just audience.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:This is not a physical object we're talking about, though. I assumed that was the reason for the need for "licensing" rather than your typical ownership. Is that not true?

I always thought the 'licensing software' to be something of a red herring.
Think of it like a book: you can buy a book, and you can own the book, nobody would argue with that (except 'government owns it too' guys). You can read the book whenever, however. You can alter the book as you want, presuming it doesn't affect anyone else. However, you are not entitled to scan the book onto a computer and then upload the scans online, despite owning the book.
Software works the exact same way.

@Dakatsu: Yes, Sins of a Solar Empire sold just as much as a game heavily equipped with anti-piracy software. If such things were done more often, then we'd be able to see a link between no anti-piracy and severe anti-piracy, and see that. Except that it's so rarely done because few businesses want to risk doing that kind of an action.
I'm willing to bet that in either case, having light anti-piracy, such as with Crysis, is the worst road to take.