I visit a variety of other forums, and DRM has popped up as a topic pretty recently. A small minority of people have claimed that DRM is implemented as the publisher's/developer's attempt to "protect their product" so as to placate investors.
Do you guys think this is the case? If so, do you think there's anything we can really do about it aside from informing people that DRM doesn't actually accomplish very much?
It seems to me that without DRM we might not have many AAA devs left if any. Which might not be the end of the world, at least with some of the crap that gets put out.
I just did some real rough basic math and figured that if you have a team of 250 people each making 60k per year salary and only 1 million people buy the game you could sell it for $15 a copy and still pay everyone. Now if you multiply that times 3-4 years, add operating costs and other overhead (making very general assumptions) and you were able to sell say 10-15 million copies you could still sell the game for $35-40 and possibly make profit.
So is there a need for DRM?
Well i think when games are kept so secretive, with usually no demos before release, and are mostly not allowed time for proper development - then you end up with a lot of pirates "stealing" the game. But as has been said many times - if it's worth buying most people will go buy it. Even the pirates. When games are crapily made, poorly optimized, and loaded with day 1 DLC and nickle-dime item shops - this isn't an insentive for people.
At the same time I observe that there are too many gamers with an "Entitlement" attitude who want a devs hard work for free. Some strongly feel it is their right to have great games for free. I just don't understand this.
I personally don't agree with DRM in games, and I feel like I should own something I have paid for. DRM isn't ownership, it's renting for a flat rate. It's "allowed access." Giving the company the right to revoke your access at any time if they so choose.
So in conclusion.... and I know this is kinda all over the place; DRM needs to go away. IT simply creates a barrier to entry for too many people, and an annoyance for those who are legitimately buying the games. Maybe there are some devs that feel this is "protecting their product," but I think it's probably more that they either have no choice due to the corporate money grabbers, or they have been convinced by those same money grabbers it's for the best. Most devs IMO are artists, and most artists I know just want to share their work with the world - mind you not for free. These guys have families and lives as well and need to be paid for their work.
You can say that there's no DRM in practice (you can download almost any game [excluding multiplayer ones] from torrents and install it easily) and industry is still fine. Games without DRM also sell just fine (Witcher 2, and humble bundle/GoG in general)
So I'd say that DRM is an unnecessary evil. I don't mind when it comes with useful services (Steam), but I hate things like uplay and origin, and I see no reason for them to exist.
DRM is bad for people like me with no employment. I rarely ever get the chance to test out the AAA games that come out now a days (and with most AAA titles being garbage console ports it's kind of hard to want to buy a game when it might end up being broken on your PC. eg The Evil Within) and I rely a lot on pirating to play them before I buy them. Almost every game I've ever enjoyed through pirating I've ended up buying in the future. Now if publishers and developers were releasing demos for their games I wouldn't have to do that but now a days business practices are so malicious that the idea of DRM seems like it's hurting the customer enough to make them lose sales just because poor people like me can't buy games brand new at 60 dollars.
So honestly I do think DRM should go away. Pirating usually helps business more than it will ever harm it.
Here's my thing with DRM, and I may be paranoid, but I feel like it's valid. It locks you into using certain products. We've all spent hundreds on Steam, and if something were to ever happen to Valve, who knows what the fuck would happen to all of our games.
Also people who buy music on shit like iTunes. You can't even access the media you payed for, you have to use some sort of Apple client. Or what if you switch to Android? Say goodbye to all of your shit.
I hate this age of DRM we live in. I love buying things that are 100% DRM free now. I buy music directly from artists, same with games if I can, if not on GoG or the Humble Store. If it's available anywhere else, I'm not buying it on Steam. Wanna play Risk of Rain on the go? Drag the executable on a flash drive and play it on any computer I find. That easy.
I like to kind of, you know, like to actually own the things I purchase. And that goes for anything.
That being said I don't pirate anything. Unless it's music >10 years old, I buy it. Especially software. I'm OCD and pirated shit is usually messy and missing all sorts of metadata or has spammy metadata.
Here is another thought on this. Just to stir the pot and make conversation.
I think it is reasonable logic to say that DRM is a product of laziness.
Let me expand on that a bit. Consumers over the past few decades, since gaming has been a thing, have become lazier and lazier in general, and more "Entitled." We want things faster, easier, and a lot of the time for free or as cheap as possible. Obviously, this does not apply to everyone.
Programs like steam and itunes are nice for the convenience. Yes you can buy games and music DRM free these days, and I'd say DO IT. Support the artists and developers directly. Stop supporting the corporate money grabbers, because the more we ask and beg for convenience, the more freedom we give away to the corporations controlling the developers and the record companies.
I just realized I sound like a tinfoil hat anti-establishment nut-ball. But you all get my point I hope.
What I'm saying simply is - we kind of let it happen because of our demands on the industry. So now it's time for us to all "vote with our wallets" and our time and bandwidth. Don't just not buy games with DRM, don't even play them at all. Don't torrent them. Don't borrow them. Just don't give them the time of day. Because even bad press is good press.
Personally I'd be willing to go back to the days of having a disk - although these days maybe not a disk but maybe a flash drive in a case, or a DVD style case with a card inside with a download link. Not a perfect solution by any means but at least i have something physical that is MINE.
Unnecessary. All DRM accomplishes is the placebo effect of feeling secure for investors and discourages the honest buyer. If companies would, oh I don't know... release a competent demo of their games or hell, some form of demo at all then I'd feel more compelled to buy. No bullshit disabling offline play due to always-on, signing in to unlock features that shouldn't be locked in the first place, gimping features for the sake of DRM.
Bit of a tangent, but here's an example. The latest smash bros actually had a demo. No, seriously. The saddest part about this is that demos for AAA titles alone are practically unheard of. AAA titles like this (and to a greater degree IP's such as mario, legend of zelda, halo, GTA, etc.) feel as if they don't need a demo because their 'brand' already has enough trust, rep, and 'inherent value' therefore demos are above them. Bull fucking shit. That's no guarantee that this year's sequel or new entry in the franchise is going to be decent at best. And how cinematic games have become over the years makes demos that are accessible and readily available (shouldn't have to drive x miles to go to y place to try out the demo, or enroll for z promotion to gain access to demo, all that needs to be required is visit a console's online store or steam) even more important. But yeah, story for another day.
Pirates gonna pirate. DRM or not. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing for testing performance on your pc, getting a feel for features of the game that aren't in demos, no demo available, if the game has been off market for years and re-releases aren't up to scratch of the original (looking at you virtual console), Not available in your market so you pirate instead of jumping through unreasonable hoops, previously owned the game, the list goes on.
I mean it works .... As it has been said above "Pirates gonna pirate" ... Based off of my own personal experence that statement applies to a niche of people ... I'm not going to lie ... if the last SimCity and Battlefield 4 didn't have DRM I would've pirated both of those games. Both of those games were filled with problems at launch practically making them Alpha versions of the game. I had seen plenty of reviews/game play videos and I knew that when they worked they were fun to play. Now in saying that I only purchased them (albeit on sale later on) because SimCity had that always online thing and Battlefield 4 multiplier (the part I wanted to play) wouldn't have worked without me paying. So take that as you will but the system works.
Carl Hinkel nailed it. It's a symbiosis. Consumers are willing to buy DRM, day one DLC, and in-game purchases, each of which are a direct result of consumers not wanting to pay in the traditional way. Consumers asked for "free stuff delivered to my door" and got exactly what they asked for -- except it's the Devil's version.
Consumers want free stuff sold to them in advertising to make their decision process as easy as possible. Vendors want to extract as much money as possible from people who prefer to pay nothing.
Personally I think there are some deeper issues tied up in this, having to do with cheapskate behavior (our inability to resist the cheaper option), network effects, and graphics over substance. We are behaving in ways that appear to be irrational from an individual point of view.
I don't mind steam. Having my library of games all in one place is convenient and it hasn't ever caused me to be unable to play a game I've purchased. I don't want multiple clients though which pretty much makes ubisoft and ea games a no go for me. Its a shame because I wouldn't mind giving dragon age inquisition a go.
DRM is useless and if anything it hurts the industry as a whole. You do not need millions to make a good AAA game, but you do need millions to advertise a half finished, not really innovative game you make every other year with the least amount of effort as the next big title that you *must* buy. The only country that ever tried to analyse the issue (Switzerland) ended up legalizing piracy since they found that it does not decrease the amount of money spent on the industry. It might shift which publisher takes the money (because people end up buying only stuff they actually like), but economy-wise it does not hurt the industry.
Let just think about the categories of people that pirate games that are the ¨argument¨ for DRM policies.
1. People that do not have the money to pay. Piracy or not these people will not contribute to the profitability of the game, unless money fell from the sky to them. They might buy the game in the future though if they could pirate it before and their economics improve in the future. I know a lot of people do that (and I am one of them) that do this to support a studio that makes games they enjoy.
2. People that want to buy a game but do not want to do it before trying it, usually because of bad previous practices of the developer/publisher that made them feel scammed. These people will buy the game and contribute to its profits if they game is good enough and to their liking which is the reason why a game should sell and not marketing that tries to make people buy a game no matter what state the game is in. A quality product has nothing to fear from this group and might even lose part its sales if DRM prevents them from trying the game, as many of this group will just not buy the game, despite whether the game is good or not, if they cannot try it before hand.
3. People that have they money but just pirate games all the time and never feel that games are worth it to spend money on. These guys DRM or not will never contribute on sales anyway.
4. People that if the game is for free they will pick it up for free and only buy it if they cannot play it otherwise as they fell no obligation to support a product they like no matter who makes it (big or indie studio). These might the the only category that hurt profitability and (although this is a personal opinion) i really do not think they are that numerous to be such a problem. I actually think that what ever income it is gained by them using DRM (even if it was perfect and could never be cracked) would be balanced out by the income loss by the previous categories that DRM might actually prevent them from eventually spending money on the game.
So what does DRM do besides helping big studios make money out of products that do not really worth their money, since this is actually easier than trying to make a polished, well thought off game?
To placate the investors is exactly the reason. Do we need it absolutely not.
They way I see it is investors are people who went to businesss school, yes I know this is changing, and are taught the old archaic traditions of business. As such they demand a level of secruity on their investment.
The problem is that in many cases these investors, especially in the games industry, don't understand the field they are investing. They see only potential returns.
So the security they demand is equally as out of line as their views.
The simple and proven fact is that DRM does not stop pirates, it only hurts the paying customer. Games and companies that have made a point of outright avoiding DRM do just fine, GOG and Humble Bundle for an example.
I put it down to idiocy at this stage. I more than a few cases, which is more than there should ever be, I have set about having to remove the DRM my self just to play games I paid for. There is no way thus has ever helped a businesses image or ever will. It has chiefly turned me off both EA and Ubisoft.
I think that DRM is a complete failure regarding piracy. It never worked against pirates and it probably never will.
What it does well is "trap you" in an ecosystem (Steam, ITunes, Origin, Ubiwhatever etc) and it does that wonderfully for the investors.
As far as I'm concerned, it has to be VERY convenient for me to just deal with it. For example I don't mind Steam because it's been good to me. Low prices, convenience and it gets out of the way.
I didn't mind ITunes when I had an iDevice back in the day but now I do because I'm on Android so I don't use ITunes anymore and I'm quite happy I didn't purchase a lot of music on there.
It's been said lots of times but it's kind of worth repeating, most normal users don't get anything in return due to hard DRM.
But well managed DRM like Steam, have not only had success with users but are fairly in the background, you trade owning the game for lots of convinces, so it's one thing that's always been brought up about convince vs freedom. And of course GoG is a good example of pretty much no DRM and lots of extras too.
Necessary evil? No. And most of the time it back fires