Comments

3/12/2009

Perhaps Mr. Newell has a greater interest in online gaming rather than old fashioned packaged goods software. Piracy poses less of a threat to MMOG and the new gaming paradigm.

a

3/14/2009

Can you source your "broad-based study"?

What kind of games are not implementing DRM software these days?

What is the total cost for the game developer to implement DRM?

Munden

3/14/2009

I'm taking a class in stats and wish to challenge your assertion that DRM yielded a "13% gain (in sales) from stopping piracy with proper software protection." What is your control group in this case? "Combined industry growth," presumably composed of titles with and without DRM? How can you disentangle the confounding variable of the *quality* of these games vs. whether or not DRM was implemented?

Presumably, the most popular titles would also have the heaviest DRM implementation. Garbage titles (which wouldn't sell well regardless) would spend less protecting their work.

If you had games of similar quality (not sure how you would do this...different Call of Duty iterations perhaps?), 1/2 with DRM and 1/2 without...and STILL saw that increase *in the same time period* (to account for other confounding variables), then perhaps your assertion (that DRM --> +13% sales) may have some merit.

Ricky

3/15/2009

I would like to know your stance on the substantial amount of legitimate consumers who have bought a fully legitimate retail copy from a legitimate retail B&M (i.e. Best Buy, Fry's, etc.) and the DRM is literally restricting them from installing or playing their perfectly legit copy. While it obviously does not affect sales, since the person has already bought the game, what good is that DRM scheme when it is preventing an honest consumer from enjoying their purchase?

And to what obligation does the developer have to fix this problem if the consumer decides to confront them about it? What can the consumer do if they do find themselves in a position where they are essentially being accused of being a thief despite having a receipt in hand?

Do you feel that in any way, that aspect of DRM could negatively impact sales, and in turn, promote piracy, if a pirated copy would actually work whereas the DRM'ed copy from the store does not?

Z

3/15/2009

For DRM to not be the intrusive and consumer abusive technology it is today, implementers would have to change their thinking about who they are trying to protect.

By definition, DRM protects the income of the company first, with the law abiding consumer's quiet enjoyment coming in a distant second. Was the customer rightful place as the central focus restored, we would not have the limiting activation mechanics or dubious rootkit-like copy protection schemes that remind you that the whole fiasco is avoided with pirated software.

The term "competitive advantage" might initially seem like it would inject sanity into the problem, but it's a study of the company's relationship with competitors, and again, not actually about the consumer.

Demonising the "pirates" as morally devoid thieves who slink around trying looking for things to pilfer sure makes a nice sugar coating for the DRM pill, but here we are again completely forgetting the consumer.

Anonynous

3/15/2009

I agree with your comments above. That said, I notice that Aladdin is yet another DRM company. The last thing I want as an end user is having to have a new DRM program piggyback on each game I buy. I already have Steam, and SecuROM on my system (I would prefer neither!). Do I also need Impluse, Starforce, Aladdin, etc. NO! I can see a future where trying to get a game to run on a computer is a nightmare, not just because of the game's DRM, but because the game's DRM SW conflicts with all of the other DRM programs clogging up the computer.

I think you are finally starting to see a large movement of people that actually consider the type of DRM a new game utilizes before they make their game buying decisions. I know I am.

Brent

3/15/2009

You are a habitual liar. Your study is useless and untrustworthy. A copy protection producer will never
ruin his business and admit, that copy protection is useless and unnecessary.

Your study is self promotion. Only an independent study deserves a sort of trust and not a study about the effect of copy protection made the producer. Your study does not meet academic requirements and has no significance.

DRM is a crime and sheer waste. Stardock is successfull withput copy protection and Ubisoft abandoned copy protection.

People like you live on the criminal act of piracy, you have no reason to fight against piracy and to tell the truth about copy protection. The fear of piracy lines your pockets. You make yourself out to be a honorable
hero of the war against piracy, but you are only a charlatan, a blinder and a parasite.

DRM-Boykott

3/15/2009

John, that's your opinion and I respect it. But speaking as someone who was burnt hard by Sony's Securom and lost a whole hard drive worth of personal artwork to the Securom uninstall utility I can tell that I will avoid DRM till the day I die. You can call me unreasonable, but I don't really care. I'm the consumer, you want my money. If you want my money you need to sell me a product that I am willing to load on my PC. If it has a rootkit on it. I don't want it. If I can't run Visual Studio at the same time with your "ham fisted" attempt at DRM then I won't buy it.

You can make all the great arguments you want about DRM, but at the end of the day, I think you'd rather have my money from the sale of one of your games rather than another rabid forum poster going for your jugular because your DRM pissed me, a paying customer, off to the point of not buying it.

Good luck though, I hope you can figure out the "balance" between fun and draconian security measures.

Trent

3/15/2009

DRM is perceived as a annoyance by this end user and the trend is becoming worse with limited activation. I will actively seek an alternative DRM controlled disks when available.

Bioshock has a limited number of installs? How can this be fair to a legitimate purchaser. Copying for backup purposes, out the window (for games that require disks inserted to play, thus increasing wear/handling). DRM servers shut down, thus making your legitimately purchased music unaccessible. Sony and rootkits?

At least for games, Gabe "noob" Newell's Steam distribution system eliminates the disk/SecuROM related headaches and has become my preferred method of obtaining them.

I've never, nor would I ever purchase down-loadable DRM controlled music. The corrupt, price fixing music industry can keep it.

Industry wide, the pendulum has swung too far to the side of the developer/publisher. There must be a fair balance between fair use and protection. ANY DRM that prevents or hinders an end user from using a legitimately purchased product disrupts that balance and is intolerable. Alienate your customers and they will retaliate.

prg

3/16/2009

The only good DRM is the one that doesn't limit the end-user. Too bad the broadly used SecuROM is a bad example. Gabe Newell has a good point when he said that people pirate games because pirates get better service (no limits, quick downloads).

And you're more targeted on software DRM while Gabe is talking about DRM in games. And gamers are a lot more aware of the pirating scene, thus intrusive DRM will easily drive them to pirate games.

Clavus

3/16/2009

I specifically avoid games that cripple my ability to play with DRM. Ever since I had a CD book stolen from me at a lan party, and not being able to replace my game discs for a library of software titles that cost me voer $500 to purchase originally. I decided that if a game maker is going to make me jump through hoops to allow me to use the "license" I purchased, then to hell with them. Ease or use and convinced rules out PERIOD, if you think crippling a customer's ability to use your software, then I am not purchasing it.

Steadman

3/16/2009

I've been burned by DRM from both Codemasters and THQ. Guess what?! Codemasters will never get any money from me, they gave me run around and only way I could solve my problem was to go and snag NO-CD exe file. Was that legal to do? You tell me. Is it legal for them to lock me out of purchased game right off the bat without any recourse?

Reason why I could not play Overlord? I have DVD+R in my computer. Isn't that lovely? I was judged guilty without any proof on their part by purchasing game from a store. THQ was better as they have had released a patch to address the issue, and that is why they still enjoy my support.

Now Valve system is not without flaws. In case of Dawn of War2. I need 2 online accounts before I can play the game. In future I will avoid games like that. There is no need to be logged into Valve and Games for Windows in order to play offline RTS game.

In general software like that should be avoided like plague. When software developers are held liable for any damages they can incur on someone's machine (for example Sony SecuRom misuse) then we can talk about restrictive DRM.

Daniel

3/16/2009

Intersting, although you really need to backup your study because there are plenty of other dev around here saying otherwise from their own experience. GN is certainly is an excellent position to collect data on the matter ; OTOH he aslo has something to sell. His quote certainly did a great job to make him look cool to gamers, promote his stuff (both his game and his shop) and look smart as what he says does make sense. Which doesn't me it is true.

My guess is that the study that will prove effeciency or inefficiency of DRM isn't born yet, and probably nevery will. As pointed out by other, (commercial) quality interfere and more significatively, without evaluating what kind of titles has DRM and what kind doesn't, you prove nothing or little.

Even if such study would occure, I think it could only mesure a state of something that is in the middle of its evolution. DRM are changing ; the recent iteration that authorize limited amount of installation (which IMO will not be a long term issue to users) and the tech issues coming with it (wich IMO is right now a serious one) has less than two years.

Millions of the "casual" gamers that the market targets with so much lust have bought Spore or GTA IV this year and cryed in pain. Forums are full of people searching for cracked version even when they've bought the product, and that tells you something is indeed very wrong.

One thing I give credit for to Gabe Newell is that right or wrong, he express exactly how true customers feel : punished to be honnest. You tell that there is good and bad implementation, I say "who cares" ? When you want a game, you don't choose its DRM, you have to deal with it. When it's bad, well you're screwed. Now you can hope that all of this will normalise in the next years. Maybe. But DRM history proves the other so far. 2008 has certainly been the worst DRM years ever for a lot of gamers.

So until it gets better (if ever) I think it's a big matter to pay attention to the frustrated paying people. I remember when we had all this story about a grandmother who couldn't listen a Madonna CD in her car, or a mother who could'nt listen to Daft Punk on her Mac. I feel THIS damaged the CD market for sure.

So even if it gives you 13% extra on short term (minus the extra costs involved) maybe the long term cost is a very bad deal...

Gregory

3/16/2009

Your comments require basis, post your study, link to some relevant articles - do something to convince us.
Gabe "the noob" backed his statements with DATA - which is what counts.
In my personal experience as a gamer - DRM has done nothing but put me off. From MS latest Microsoft Games for Windows Live, to Rockstars new doo hickie, from all the starforce, secuRom and activation limits imposed on paying customers.
I can tell you, I know people who pirate games, and I can't condone their activity in any way - but boy do they have it easier then me. I have to contact support to get my paid games working because I had to format my PC and forgot to uninstall a game first. I have to try and log in to three different programs to get games to run, and if I forget my new user name (because usually the one you're used to is already taken by someone else), then I have to wait a couple of days to replay something you paid for till customer support validates me and gets back to me.
I hate to break it to you, if you're ignoring the "REALITY" out there - EVERY game out has been pirated excluding MMO's and games with online play.
As a paying customer I can clearly say one thing - I skipped Crysis War Head, I skipped Spore, and I will not buy any game that forces me to "reactivate" my game for each time I play and has an activation limit.
I know you still want to have a job 2morrow, which is why you'd have to justify your companie's software - but you are in essence wasting Game Developers money on rubbish that attacks and affronts their clients and NOTHING MORE.
Regretfully for you - that's the reality.
Maybe some day, some smart corporate fluff will understand that some things just aren't very smart - no matter what chatty PR and contorted surveys say.
That'll be the day DRM dies.
One last thing - the only company that got DRM right is VALVE. Why? because the game is in the DRM client, since steam is a platform and a validator at the same time - it's unobtrusive and makes games easily accessible. It also only runs when YOU activate it.
To sum it all up, I think you need some "noob" to educate you about how DRM is perceived by the end clients - IE THE PAYING CUSTOMERS.

Software Developer

3/16/2009

Interesting rebuttal. My contention is that while the empirical survey data of existing DRM users may show that their revenues are increasing, I would also contend that so is the spending capacity of their audiences.

Every gamer generation grows up, gets jobs, and suddenly is willing to pay for stuff they previously pirated. How long a time frame did the survey cover? One year? What about just adapting to better business models? Producing better games? A straight increase in revenue at the same time as DRM inclusion at best provides correlation.

Causation is less than unproven, it's unsupported. Not to mention the numbers themselves. Industry growth of 6% is that units sold per vendor? Total industry revenue? Plus a 19% increase in revenue for any subgroup of vendors (DRM using ones in this case) means little to nothing without pricing data.

Piracy is about units sold vs units obtained for free. If a company gets a revenue boost of 20% just because they were able to move much of their catalog to digital download (thus removing distribution fees and box overhead) then DRM or not, their revenue goes up.

I'm not saying DRM doesn't help these companies. Just saying that your "empirical" evidence has lead to just as faulty a rebuttal as the claims of the "noob".

McLuvin

3/16/2009

John, you may be right (though given the complete lack verifiable data, we just have to take your word for it), but I can promise you that I still haven't bought GTAIV because of the DRM, and htat was a game I originally intended to buy on day 1.

I was going to buy BioShock early on, but when the DRM was announced, I took a pass. I eventually bought it when it was 5 bucks, because the price was so low that it overcame my objection to the DRM (though I still haven't installed it).

I play far fewer games than I once did, but I can promise you I never bought a game until there was a crack to remove the DRM/copy protection. ALWAYS! And the funny thing is, there's always a crack, including for most, if not all of the aforementioned games.

Unless you're going to require an internet connection to play the game, DRM will not work. There's always someone as smart, or smarter than your developers working to break your DRM. Some are motivated by pride. Some because they think all software should be free, and some because they hate DRM. And if you're requiring an internet connection, then it'd seem that Gabe is closer to the mark than all that support plane old DRM.

DRM wouldn't bug me if they didn't require the CD/DVD be in the drive, they put nothing in the registry and all files were contained in the .\name of game dir\ directory tree. In that case, you're not inconveniencing me and I can be certain that there's no side effects that I can't undo, no matter how much or how little I know about computers.

BTW, I won't claim I've never d/l a game. I got the original Wing Commander and the original Links, for example, off of some pirate board.

I then bought every WC expansion, WC2+expansions, WC3, WCIV and WC Prophecy, Privateer 1+2, Strike Commander (never played much though).....all of that from one download.

I bought extra courses for Links, Links 386, Links LS, LInks LS 98 and possibly LS 99 (I know I never bought or played the last version Access released, because the reviews were bad) and I don't recall any releases after MS took over (or maybe that was the one with bad reviews)

So yeah, they lost 40 or 50 bucks (each) on the first game and made several hundred after that. Doesn't make me a right for not buying the originals, but I definitely never would have bought any Links game if I hadn't downloaded it. My guess is the same is true for WC, but it's possible that I might have bought one of the later games.

I don't recall if Links had copy protection (WC1 and WC2 did...I don't think 3/4/5 had any). I'm certain that I removed it on any of them that had it. Did the same with every version of High Heat Baseball (a great game that disappeared when the company was bought out).

I get companies want those who would buy a game to buy it. I want them to buy it too. But if one thing has become abundantly clear over the last 10 years, DRM doesn't work. It failed on DVDs (though people still bought them). It failed on iTunes (since there's always software to strip the DRM, though I still don't understand why anyone would buy lossy audio files, when CD's are frequently about the same price). Blu-Ray has been broken, as was HD-DVD.

I don't know what the solution is, but it's clear that DRM/Copy Protection isn't it.

casey

3/16/2009

The third item you mentioned is the most critical. I find that there is a lot of ignorance about DRM in general, having worked on a couple implementations myself. When people refer to "DRM" as a generic item I generally find that they are reffering to truly botched implementations, such as the infamous Sony Rootkit or SecureROM implementations, not the much less realized and transparent implementations(Fairplay, CSS, AACS) that 99.9% of consumers are either completely unaware of or that in no way impede typical usage scenerios.

My own company has built more than a few DRM systems for our own products, and while sometimes there has been user complaints on a conceptual level, the payoff has generally been well worth it, most of our solutions have been targetted at ending mass duplication in Asia, the fact that a few power users can crack and work around the copy protection is irrelevant to us as they do not represent a major source of sales.

For gaming companies however those power users are often their main market, and as a result increasingly restrictive methods of DRM are unfortunatly required in order to protect profits. Hopefully a balance can be found for this that gives users the ability to easily transfer licenses between PC's(and ultimatly between users as well) while still ensuring that one purchase equals one copy. What I find ironic about all of this is that Gabe's own system, Steam, is arguably among the most draconian approaches, although it adds enough value that users see it as a benefit rather than a drawback. Were other companies to require a system like Steam in markets where there are not methods of adding value they would be roundly criticized.

Thats my observation anyways.

Reflex

3/16/2009

I don't like being treated like a criminal when I buy something. That is what DRM does. It says to your customer "Hi potential thief, please let me irritate you - and potentially make your game not work."

Silicon_Avatar

3/16/2009

I think his main point is that current forms of DRM actually reduce the service value of the product by inconveniencing legitimate customers.
The "opposite effect" is that if the customers acquire it illegitimately through piracy, these inconveniencing factors are removed. You are making it more difficult to pirate, but at the same time making the product that pirates offer more attractive.

Do you agree that there is a trade off being made in this situation? This is completely ignoring the question of how significant it is, or if the current situation is worth it, as you obviously believe so and that's not really what I'm getting after. This isn't so much defending Gabe on the specific remarks he made as it is seeing what you think about some of his broader, more interesting (and less volatile ) points.

Personally, I think that it is an interesting and valid point even if the occurrence of customers going "Because this has DRM, I am going to pirate it" is low.

I think that the way Valve has approached the problem of piracy reflects the kind of mindset he was talking about. Steam is, in part, a means of restricting illegitimate use of their products. However, it is also a system that adds tremendous utility to their products; people WANT to use Steam, which makes everyone happier.

I would actually be interested in seeing your take on how Valve as a whole handles piracy. What do they do? How effective is it? Why is it effective? Can other companies do the same things?

Thanks,
Jonathan

Jonathan Sheets

3/17/2009

I realise by reading comments what's really, really smart from Gabe Newell here : now everyone is speaking as if Steam is the anti DRM angel. When it's actually a huge DRM monster !

You got it wrong, John. Gabe isn't a noob in DRM. He's a roxxor in communication!

Gregory

3/17/2009

Trying to approach this not in Newell's defense, but more-so trying to speak from an unbiased standpoint:

First Quote:
I think you both nailed it on the head. In regards to the type of people we're talking about, they will most likely spend money when they have to, and pirate when they can. But the main point is, THEY HAVE MONEY. How do you get it from them?
I think subscription services have been one good solution to this issue, as well as providing top-notch game support (such as patches and downloadable content).
If I'm not mistaken Newell's original speech was addressing exactly that...

Second Quote:
This is a topic that can be settled easily by provided concrete data. Neither of you have supported your comments with REFERENCED sources/statistics, effectively making it a moot point.

Third Quote:
I sense that Newell is pushing the fact that more tech-savvy consumers would rather pirate software and not have to worry about having to deal with problematic retail DRM. This is a result of poorly executed DRM and the publicity it received (I think we all know who I'm talking about).
This, again, is an argument that could quickly be settled with data. Show us sales comparisons of "good" DRM vs. "poor" DRM and reference your sources.

Again, I'm not trying to speak in Newell's defense but you've taken his speech, which was more or less his thoughts/opinions on the subject, and are trying to argue them with your own opinions.
Opinions don't make for a strong argument...

On a side-note, and I address this to both you and Newell- I think the greater issue is that we live in an age where people (generally) feel they are owed.
I'm not quite sure why/when this became socially acceptable, but I'm fairly certain it's partly a result of quickly changing technology- and the feeling consumers have when their new product is quickly outdated.

If you can make a product, and convince the consumer that it will stay supported for a reasonable period of time, as well as provide them with a sense that they are receiving more than they have paid for...you'll probably end up pretty successful.

derekxiii

3/17/2009

Even as one of your former customers, I think calling a survey of your client base a "broad-based study" might be stretching it just a little.

In my experience, MOST companies implement DRM exceptionally poorly. It doesn't seem to matter whether they implement it themselves or pay a third party such as yourself to implement it. Most wind up punishing their honest customers by making them jump through hoops and generally inconveniencing them while those who pirate have no problems at all.

Gabe's Steam comes the closest I've seen to "perfect" DRM (although I'm anxiously awaiting Stardock's solution as well). It still inconveniences the honest customer, but not quite as onerously as most other DRM. This leads me to believe that Gabe might know a little about what customers want, and what they're willing to tolerate in forms of DRM.

Your position sounds more like those who insist on installing root kits on my PC so that I can prove I'm not copying their software illegally. Essentially I'm guilty until proven innocent. In my humble opinion, not the best way to treat your honest customers. Some may rationalize that if I'm treated as a criminal anyways, I might as well act like one. I don't think it's right, but we don't need to deliver any more rationalizations to the pirates. They come up with enough on their own.

Jamie

3/17/2009

1) Gabes point is that "people are perfectly willing to spend money", saying that people are also willing to pirate when possible doesn't refute this point. He's simply saying there is a market there to be had in the right circumstance and it just needs to be done right.

2) Gabe is right in so much that the strength and invasiveness of the DRM is increasing but the ability to stop pirates has not increase with it, doing harsh things like limiting the number of installs has not been proven to stop piracy any more than simply requiring a CD check, both are equally as easy to crack for scene groups.

3) The end goal of businesses making software is to totally eliminate piracy, DRM is getting more invasive over time (CD Keys -> CD in drive checks -> Online activation -> limited number of installs) but not stopping more copies from being pirated, in so much that scene releases of all major games are still released on the time for launch. In this sense DRM is still very much expanding/growing and so are the negative side effects, but more harsh and invasive DRM is not acomplishing anything more than basic DRM. Yet publishers still push and push trying to make it "better" and drive more and more customers away.

Sam

3/17/2009

JOHN SAYS: "DRM is good."

REALITY: All I've got from DRM so far is headaches and yes I will proudly admit it, I pirated games which utilize draconic DRM AND ONLY THOSE WHICH UTILIZE DRM. I mean yes, I can live with the old-fashioned online activation, I still buy games which only use that, but now what, you give me limited activation times, you install spyware on my computer, which, when removed renders my game unplayable, and single-player offline games which I have to reactivate weekly, well I'm sorry, I'm NOT buying it. Gabe's not a "noob" in this, Gabe actually got it all right. Please compare the piracy rates of Spore (a way overhyped game using draconic DRM) and, say, Counter-Strike (a not quite hyped game using one-time online activation).

Baliame

3/17/2009

Sadly this article is very misguided and biased from a person who makes their living selling DRM schemes that are innefective. John, like most supporters of DRM, you fail to mention that it has absolutely no effect on an entire section (and argueably the largest section) of piracy. While DRM may keep a friend from making copy for another, the majority of piracy, web based, laughs at your feeble attempts to protect a product. I have not seen one game which has not been available on torrents sites, either before street date, or withing a day or two of retail.

You mention good DRM reduces piracy. Can you provide an example of a DRM scheme for a major videogame in the last 10 year which has not been cracked? Your statements are simply... false.

demingo