Martek on 19/12/2008 at 01:14
Quote Posted by Chade
Intentionally dense?
I took the meaning to be "if you don't have something that works while not punishing your honest customers then quit hurling shit at them in the meanwhile".
Odd how over the years more and more of those "customers" seem to be embracing having shit hurled at them. Weird world...
Martek
Chade on 19/12/2008 at 01:25
Except that there is no technology that works in a completely transparant way on the horizon. Therefore that would be an idiotic response. Phatose isn't asking what can be done in ten years time.
Realistically, the game publishers will continue experimenting untill they find something that works for them and that consumers will accept. What we have seen so far are just the initial attempts.
Zygoptera on 19/12/2008 at 01:36
What I think dethtoll is trying to say, in his inimitable style, is that it is actually worse to use DRM which, potentially at least, greatly inconveniences legitimate users (and certainly generates bad will, tech support hassles, costs more money) but still doesn't work than technologies which doesn't work but inconveniences (and is disliked by) fewer people. In some perfect world where 'perfect' DRM existed there would not be complaints from legitimate consumers because it would not inconvenience them, and, hence, problem solved, in that perfect world.
I do think that the primary thing to take out of the original article is the evidence that the activation based DRM, far from working, has now become as crackable and piratable as a simple disk check. Looking at the figures he provides you come away with the inescapable conclusion that the piracy rate of activation based FC2 is twice that of F3 on a per sale basis- and the two titles are as directly comparable as you could hope for (released within a week of each other, both AAA, both multiplatform sequels of PC games, both marketed extensively, both pirated on x360 prior to release etc).
Chade on 19/12/2008 at 02:10
Well, we have already seen game publishers start to scale back the restrictions on their DRM products. I don't think anyone is arguing that game publishers shouldn't at least fine tune the existing slate of DRM products at their disposal.
I interpreted Dethtoll as saying publishers should do nothing untill they have a product which barely inconvieniences the user at all. Perhaps he is actually being more reasonable then this. We'll see.
june gloom on 19/12/2008 at 03:02
No shit I am. Obviously developers should take measures to protect themselves. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't always try to find a better way. DRM isn't working. For the time being they should go back to disc checks because even though it's just as easily cracked, it renders moot the argument of the legitimate consumer being hurt by copy protection, which gives the developers, at least, a moral leg to stand on. This should be combined with research towards a truly innovative copy protection that doesn't hurt the consumer while at the same time protecting from piracy.
Though let's be honest, there's no real way to stop piracy completely. Half the reason these things get cracked in the first place is because the crackers like a challenge.
Chade on 19/12/2008 at 03:55
Quote Posted by dethtoll
This should be combined with research towards a truly innovative copy protection that doesn't hurt the consumer while at the same time protecting from piracy.
I think you can be safely assured that this is already going on ... hell, this past year has been one big fumbled experiment. But no publisher is just going to sit there and hope the fairy godmother will show up with a beautifull brand new copy protection algorithm that magically solves all their problems.
If publishers really had exhausted all their options, then it would make sense to go "back to basics". But I imagine they have a lot more things they would like to try out first. Expect a lot more online services rammed down our throats over the next few years ...
june gloom on 19/12/2008 at 05:20
Yes well a man can dream, can't he? :(
Chade on 19/12/2008 at 05:36
True ...
DDL on 19/12/2008 at 11:18
Question is, how much does all the piracy actually hurt sales? As the world of goo experiment seems to suggest, piracy levels are relatively consistent regardless of DRM, so all the effort they're expending on copy protection may in fact be making no difference to the level of piracy they experience.
And ultimately, completely preventing people pirating a game probably won't significantly increase sales: if a game is 80% pirated, the majority of people playing the pirated version are doing so pretty much just because "it's free and they can". If they had to buy it, because the copy protection was that good, they just...wouldn't. So your actual increase in sales would be fairly slight.
And depending on how intrusive the DRM was, you might put off some people who would otherwise buy it, so the two might largely cancel out.
Would companies not just be better off considering the legitimate customers who buy the game (regardless of whether there's a pirate version out there) as 'the customer base' and ignoring the piracy issue?
Testing this would, of course, be a gamble no large games company is going to risk, sadly.
Maybe they need to do more boxed sets with free t-shirts and stuff. Can't burn a new copy of a t-shirt, after all. :)
june gloom on 19/12/2008 at 18:06
As the occasional wearer of the eyepatch and peg-leg myself I have to tell you that I think you're off the mark when you say the majority of pirates do it because they can. Especially in today's economy, a lot of folks simply don't have the money to go around buying every game willy-nilly, and there are a lot of games out there that simply are not worth the $50. It's easier to pirate the game first and find out if you like the game or not. Most notably, all the cracker groups have the same message: if you like the game, SUPPORT THE DEVELOPER AND BUY IT.
