So with new DRMs being released (some being claimed "uncrackable"), I just wonder what you guys think of it.
Would you support DRM if its development lead to a "perfect" state where:
- Legit customers don't get affected
- Impossible to bypass (probably will never happen, but just for argument's sake)
- Lightweight / won't affect performance of whatever it's running on
- Not always - online (or one online check, which is debatable)
Saying "Yes" doesn't have to mean you believe DRM can be "perfect", just you want it improved on.
My $0.02:
[sp]I would support account-based DRM like Steam or Origin, just not either intrusive stuff like the age of CD keys or DRM in DRM (GFWL/Uplay/Social Club added on top of Steam in some games). I still appreciate DRM-free games, which are infinitely more convenient, but I would understand why developers want to defend their games behind DRM, even if it will be broken sooner or later. [/sp]
yeh because no matter how much i like getting things for free, people work hard on games, and need to make money y'know?
I see no reason why it shouldn't have DRM if it's done right, it might help the developers get the money that's normally lost by piracy.
I'm cool with basically any DRM that doesn't require extra work on my part. So fuck uplay and fuck rockstar social.
Good DRM and Demos for seeing if my toaster can run the game would be a dream for me
Hell no. Make good games with good PC ports and not many people will pirate them. There is no need for DRM
I like the way CD Projekt Red goes about DRM.
[QUOTE=Adarrek;46446456]Hell no. Make good games with good PC ports and not many people will pirate them. There is no need for DRM[/QUOTE]
if i can do something for free, I'll do it for free, weather or not it's a quality game. No one's going to pirate a bad game, just to spite the dev, that's really dumb
I think DRM is the wrong solution to a problem that deserves to be solved, or attempted to be solved.
It's an expensive arms race for the industry and the DRM-makers are well aware they won't ever "win" the arms race, a "win" for them is delaying the cracking by a few weeks or so. Which is great for them, means their future products stay relevant, but between that and most solutions demanding extra servers to control user traffic, it seems like a lot of investment for what's a short-lived bandaid at best.
It also comes with considerable downsides for your customers, be it locked out of Singleplayer games because of server errors/unreliable internet access, or varieties of preorder DLC that you either have to pick and choose from or wait for until they're released in a Complete Edition, while pirates have no such worries. Not to mention customers are already taking a risk by paying for something without exactly knowing its content, especially for preorders, which are being very aggressively pushed nowadays for various reasons.
When the most sensible way of purchase becomes pirating a game at launch, then buying the Complete Edition later if you're convinced (and still haven't forgotten about the game) and the most risky and dangerous way becomes buying in the way publishers would like you to; when you're feeling like pirates are getting a better support and service than customers, that's when you know something's terribly wrong with the system and a bandaid won't fix it.
That said, it's not an issue with an easy solution, especially when there's so many sources for piracy. There's some people you can convince by trying to offer them a better service than pirates, but if someone doesn't even have the money to spend on games during Steam sales, that's not really a solution. Tho there's also grey-area arguments about how those people aren't lost customers anyway and yadda yadda, the moral back-and-forth on this issue has no end.
Right now I feel like the games best off are those that receive a steady stream of free updates because they gain the most convenience out of platforms like Origin or Steam. Pirates have to worry about updates being complete rehosts or building on previous releases, compatibility with other groups' releases or language settings or OS versions, waiting for renewed cracks, groups losing interest in a game after a while or, if they're new to the game and need to download the base version and then every piece of the update chain, one piece of that update chain missing because a hoster took it down or the seeders wandered off. Download platforms like Steam meanwhile download stuff in the background quietly and without complications.
That and/or multiplayer are imo the most reasonable and consumer-friendly ways of shackling someone to a monitored online platform.
[b]TL;DR[/b]
I think the more convenience features online shops can offer and the less shady official deals appear compared to what cracking groups offer, the less piracy is going to happen. Make buying something feel as satisfying and rewarding as possible. Even cute little extras like Steam's Trading Cards or emoticons will eventually add up.
But at the end of the day it's still a very complicated issue with no dominating "correct" solution as far as I can see.
Voted no. ''Improving'' DRM is making it harder to crack. Often, DRM that's harder to crack has more of an impact on paying customers as well,and fuck that.
I prefer NO DRM and honestly I feel that if I purchase a product I should be able to do with it what I want. I mean I get the idea of not giving copies of it away for free in the thousands, but in my own private household I see no issue with doing with it what I want, even if that means making a billion copies, as long as it never leaves the household.
In Denmark, there's a few laws regarding copyright that permit this, but it is still very limiting. However, I do not think that DRM should be in place, when there's already laws that forbid what DRM is trying to do.
People who don't care about the laws and want to share shit and break shit are going to do it regardless of DRM or not (which would be broken anyway).
So in my opinion, making DRM is a waste of money and time. Make a great product or service, and sell that in the most consumer friendly way you can.
[QUOTE=Riller;46446449]I'm cool with basically any DRM that doesn't require extra work on my part. So fuck uplay and fuck rockstar social.[/QUOTE]
Some DRM is pretty fucking invasive such as SecuROM (used by bioshock)
The only DRM I was ever comfortable with was using Steam and CD-keys. Anything else can suck fat noodles. Improve DRM? Fuck that, since most current DRM is invasive and counter productive (needing to be always online, for example).
as long as it stays out of my way and doesnt hamper performance, I personally dont care
Over the last couple of years, I've been using Good Old Games along with Steam.
If i hear a game has bad DRM, i won't even pirate it. I want to support the game i like, but if i have trouble playing it because of the DRM, then i won't get it. I don't pirate things unless there is absolutely no way of me being able to purchase it anyway.
Improving DRM is a nice idea, but really it's been shown that if you make it more convenient to purchase the products you want or to view them legally, people will pirate way less.
Netflix has caused the piracy of movies to go down significantly since you pay a minimal fee, and get a great functioning streaming service to watch most things you'd want to, and with no ads. This is more convenient usually than having to pirate your movies, since the original draw to pirating movies was that you'd never have to see the terrible advertisements that get slapped on.
As for games, I think GOG right now is the absolute perfect service for buying games, even better than Steam since Steam actually is somewhat intrusive. GOG is completely hands off, painless to buy and play games from, and they have plenty of sales to make it completely worth while to buy games off it
to summarize, it's better to invalidate the need for DRM than it is to improve it.
Always online DRM for singleplayer games is the most inane shit I have seen in my life
people who legitimately think it's OK are crazy
if you actually believe that it's OK to block save functions / kick the player out of their game when they internet is out, even though it doesn't actually really stop piracy at all, you are trolling.
DRM that doesn't actively fuck over the customer is fine with me. Steam and origin for example really only bug you when you sign up for your account to access your wide variety of games. Things like uplay which are really just used for a couple games can go fuck itself. And DRM that actively fucks you over like spore's can go die.
[QUOTE=absolalone111;46446420]yeh because no matter how much i like getting things for free, people work hard on games, and need to make money y'know?[/QUOTE]
I think people seem to be missunderstanding this post, waht I mean is "I'm fine with DRM when it isn't shit" not "All DRM (always online for an example) is good and perfect"
Fuck DRM, at most I will tolerate is Steam and CD Keys, since its a great way to ban hackers in multiplayer games.
I support the IMPROVEMENT of DRM, it exists for a reason, but it needs to be changed so that it is not an inconvinience for the customer, but at the same time blocks out dirty pirates.
Everybody always claims they lose money from piracy when the truth is that the money would never have been theirs because pirates rarely have the intention of purchasing something they want to pirate.
[editline]9th November 2014[/editline]
I should add that money is lost, but not in the way that they expect.
As long as they don't fuck it up as badly as Uplay and GFWL I don't really care, go ahead and do it.
I pretty much exclusively use Steam, and I think it's quite nice.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
