Why Bother With DRM? 376
Brad Wardell of Stardock and Ron Carmel of 2D Boy recently spoke with Gamasutra about their efforts to move the games industry away from restrictive DRM. Despite the fact that both have had their own troubles with piracy, they contend that overall piracy rates aren't significantly affected by DRM — and that most companies know it. Instead, the two suggest that most DRM solutions are still around to hamper a few more specific situations. Quoting:
"'Publishers aren't stupid. They know that DRM doesn't work against piracy,' Carmel explains. 'What they're trying to do is stop people from going to GameStop to buy $50 games for $35, none of which goes into the publishers' pockets. If DRM permits only a few installs, that minimizes the number of times a game can be resold.' ... 'I believe their argument is that while DRM doesn't work perfectly,' says Wardell, 'it does make it more difficult for someone to get the game for free in the first five or six days of its release. That's when a lot of the sales take place and that's when the royalties from the retailers are determined. Publishers would be very happy for a first week without "warez" copies circulating on the Web.'"
Encourage piracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
How does this even make sense? GameStop doesn't sell used -PC- games, which is what this "limited install" DRM is made for. Hard to resell a game with a serial code.
Property or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
This struck me as a hypocritical position on the part of those game publishers. Either IP is property or it is not. If it is property, then there should be no restrictions allowed on whether or how frequently it can be resold (i.e. no one tries to stop you from reselling your car or your house). If it is not property, then there should be no artificial scarcity surrounding it which would also make this or any other DRM an inappropriate practice.
It should be obvious that what they seem to want is a level of control that is unavailable to the manufacturers of any other sort of good or service. It's surprising that anyone takes them seriously. Much lively debate occurs on the fine nuances of copyright law while missing the point that what they want is to be singularly special, to wield powers unavailable to other industries. That's known as the inability to see the forest for all the trees. That's why I think it's a phony debate, just like most media discourse surrounding what should be regarded as power grabs. They are aiming at an unreasonable amount of control over the marketplace in the name of copyright.
Lost Sale Fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was a starving student (and associate engineer struggling to pay rent), I had a very slim budget, and would play "warez" until I could save/beg/borrow enough to buy the full versions, and I would *unless* the game sucked anyway. Now that I can afford software and music, I make it a point not to pirate copyrighted info, but I will still "evaluate" music before I buy it from MPAA publishers. And most people I know feel the same way.
So, the real product that DRM protects is the "Turd in a Can," a product that the consumer would not pay for if they knew beforehand that they were buying crap.
Sophistry To Kill First Sale Doctrine (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, if we distill the arguments for DRM down far enough, it becomes clear that the idea is to try to work around the First Sale Doctrine and kill the second-hand market.
Re:Just an thought. (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone who is involved with having to decide whether DRM goes into our products or not (I work for a book publisher), I can tell you that we are most certainly aware that DRM does not 'work'. We are under no illusions that it is tamperproof. However, we are also aware that DRM can make something 'hard enough' to copy that only really motivated people will bother-- the rest will just say, "heck, I'll just pay for this thing." Our financial people claim that they can show this is indeed the case. We are, of course, looking into alternatives, like the Books24x7-type solution which is DRM-free, but which is also a total PITA to copy.
I strongly advocate copyleft, so my role is occasionally difficult. But in the end, my company signs the paychecks, so my responsibility is to them. At the very least, it forces me to see the issue from both sides. A _lot_ of money goes into developing and printing books, so you really don't want to see that go down the drain.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Hard to resell a game with a serial code.
Yes, yes it is. Especially if the game has an online multi-player component. But what about for single-player games? That's where limited-install makes sense for the developers and why Gamestop has a hard time with used PC software.
Re:first weeks is exclusively "warez" (Score:5, Insightful)
Pirating the game later has the same effect as buying the game second hand as far as the publisher is concerned, but by pirating it you don't support the second hand market, which benefits the publisher. I might see such practices justified for games that break the second hand market, but if they have no/reasonable DRM, I can't say I entirely agree with you.
I think you've got that backwards. By buying used games (instead of pirating), you give money to people who bought the new game, reducing the effective cost for them, and making it possible for them to buy more new games. Say I have $50 to spend, and used games sell for $25. So I can buy one game for $50, you pirate the same game, that's it. Or I buy a game for $50, three months later you buy it used for $25, I buy another game for $50, three months later you buy it used for $25, so it cost me the same $50, but the manufacturer got $100. So buying used games _does_ support the manufacturer by making new games less costly.
Re:first weeks is exclusively "warez" (Score:5, Insightful)
"same effect as buying the game second hand as far as the publisher is concerned"
The publishers need to focus on games that have replay value (so more people will want to keep them) and being competitive (adaptive pricing). The reason used video game stores exist is that many people aren't willing to pay $50 to $60 for a new game.
Now if PC game companies were more aggressive with their pricing then they could compete with the used market. Just look at console games "Greatest Hits", "Players Choice", and "Platinum" titles. If a game has a 2nd hand market, many publishers will re-release the game at $20 to $30, taking the wind out of the 2nd hand market (why pay $17.49 for a used copy of game X when you can get it new for $20!).
Ya well (Score:5, Insightful)
I think 2D Boy gives publishers more credit then they are due. I think publishers ARE stupid over all. I think they really do think they can win this war. They think "Well if we just keep getting better DRM, we'll find something they can't crack." I think they also believe that DRM does give good ROI, which is to say that the increase in profits is greater than the cost of the DRM. I really believe that most publishers are stupid about this, just like the music publishers.
The problem is they see these big numbers of copies out there and get dollar signs in their eyes. They think "Man, if we had been paid for each of those copies we'd be RICH!" They are right too. Games are heavily copied. If every person who ever downloaded a copy instead paid for the game, they'd probably make 5-10x the money. What they don't consider, of course, is that not everyone would. There's a lot that people will take for free that they won't take at any price, much less a $50 price. You offer it for free, they say "Yes I'd like that." You want any money for it, they'll pass.
However, greed is able to short-circuit logic for many people I don't think the people at publishers are any different. They see the money they could be theoretically making and stop thinking logically about it.
Also the DRM companies push their products heavily, of course. They reassure the publishers "Oh ya, our DRM is really effective it'll get you a bunch more sales but if you DON'T use it, we'll you'll go to the poor house because nobody will buy your game!"
Personally, I think the numbers on the Bittorrent sites tell the real story. Demigod sure as hell got downloaded a lot, because people were very interested in it. However, Spore got downloaded even more, because even more people were interested in it. The difference DRM had on downloading in that case? Zero. People downloaded if they wanted to.
One Week? (Score:4, Insightful)
Get real. When was the last time a popular game* was released and it wasn't available that day via P2P? In fact you often see them days BEFORE release on P2P already cracked and ready to go.
I remember when Spore came out the first day or two had something like 30,000 seeders on TPB. Even right now there's about 15k people seeding both the star trek movie and the latest episode of fringe ... and as many people downloading. And this is just ONE tracker. It's actually faster to download the game/movie than drive to the store and buy it half of the time.
Any software company that deludes themselves into believing DRM stops piracy by any significant amount delusional. It's all about preventing resale...which is still detrimental to the customer. Stupid how a library can rend DVDs, CDs and books but somehow software managed to squeak in such an exception.
* Excluding exclusively online games (aka WoW, etc.)
Becuase after all, who cares about resale value? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, carmakers worry about it enough to *advertise* their car's historical resale value (well, if its good, eg Honda).
Granted, I suppose 'gamerz' probably dont worry *quite* as much about resale value when deciding to buy a game as someone buying a new car, but with the way the economy is going, they might start doing so more and more.
Just like companies that don't offer support (even documentation) on older products becuase they don't sell them anymore - no concept whatsoever that resale value might affect the price the market is willing to pay for new products.
Shareholders. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, trying to kill the second hand market (both the friend handing over a game they no longer play and the selling-on-to-recoup-some-cash parts of that market) is the publisher's primary reason for DRM, there is another factor that many seem to forget about when it comes to piracy/DRM.
That factor is shareholders and other investors. The developers and publishers know that DRM essentially does nothing most of the time and is in fact sometimes a cost (if the time cost of wiring the DRM deep into the game, as some do, is greater than the small or zero amount not lost in sales), but do they want to spend an age explaining that to the mugs who pony up the venture capital.
When an investor asks what you are doing about people copying your games "there is nothing we can do" is not an answer that will go down well.
As Jon Stewart Pointed Out (Score:4, Insightful)
Case in point:
Fire hoses do not work against pirates equipped with rocket propelled grenades.
Fire hoses have not be tested on thieves. EA may be working on the technology.
DRM has not been tested on pirates. The Coast Guard may be working on the technology (You pirate, you can no longer listen to your ipod! Bwahahaha!)
DRM does not work on thieves.
Shooting them in the head works on pirates.
Shooting them in the head is against the rules of engagement for thieves in this class. EA may be working to change that.
Re:Sophistry To Kill First Sale Doctrine (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, if we distill the arguments for DRM down far enough, it becomes clear that the idea is to try to work around the First Sale Doctrine and kill the second-hand market.
Really, if we distill the arguments against DRM down far enough, it becomes clear that the ideas is to try to get shit for free.
Both of you are right. There's a group of people fighting for each of those extremes. The rest of us are getting drowned out in the chaos of the battle.
Re:first weeks is exclusively "warez" (Score:3, Insightful)
I wanna know how you're getting 50% back on your used games. Around here, you're getting maybe 10-20 PERCENT back, and they're selling it for maybe 5-10 DOLLARS less than new. Unless you do one of the special deals, where you trade in 4 games, and get the game on special free. Or if it's a big-name game they're really trying to push, they might even make it trade 3 get it free. That's still only a 33% return on your investment, assuming all the games are the same price. And then they turn around and sell it at 80% of it's new price. So they're getting 40% of the price of the game as profit for themselves. Now, for an extra $5, I'd rather support the developer directly, rather than through an intermediary, who might be jacking up the prices on new games, rather than lowering what they're charging on used ones to make them more attractive.
Re:Sophistry To Kill First Sale Doctrine (Score:3, Insightful)
That, and to encourage people to re-buy the same content for different devices. Years ago, there were statements by record companies (sorry, I have no citation, but I remember it) that you should have to buy a copy of the song for your MP3 player, for your home stereo, for your mobile phone, and for your car stereo. 4 different copies. If a new device came out, you should have to buy a copy for that device too.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
The solution for single player games is just as easy. Make it easier to get the game than to pirate it. The assumption here is that you're not connected to the network, now you have to go to a store (game stop) or whatever to buy the game. Make it easy (less expensive).
If they have a connection to the internet, but the game is single player (eg Civ), then make it available online even cheaper than retail.
Who cares about finding a Torrent or cracked version that isn't spyware/virus plagued when it is just as easy to go get it from the source?
Pirates only operate where it pays to pirate, and the commodity is scarce. If you offer a good product and service at a fair price, you'll have customers. Yes, there will be people who STEAL (yes I said steal) the game to play, but that is not the software company's problem. They are going to do it anyways.
The point is get to a point of "why would I need to Crack and Torrent something that is so easy to get from SOFTGAMECO?"
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
For the record, I don't pirate games anymore (and really only ever downloaded a couple that I played for any length of time). Now that I'm out of school and have a decent income, I buy all my games if/when I want them.
For me, it's not about the game being easy or difficult to get (either price or effort). I don't want to keep track of a dozen accounts with different game developers just to get their content. There's a limit to how much of that I'm willing to deal with. It's a matter of practicality.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Only after it's too late to do anything about it.
He ALMOST gets it... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not even that he's unaware of DRM-free iTunes. If that were the only problem, I'd be quite happy to inform him of an opportunity that I simply don't see being exploited right now:
Purely web-based purchasing, with an open API.
Amazon MP3 is pretty cool. Better than iTunes, because I can use any program I want to play the music, and because there's a Linux client, I've now set my mother up to purchase music that way, and have it automatically imported into Amarok.
But it could be so much better.
Purely web-based would mean no client I have to download and figure out. An open API, or even a decent enough web interface, would mean I could write an Amarok plugin -- be able to listen to a preview, and buy it right there, just like (I assume) iTunes does. Others could write Songbird plugins. It's possible they could even make a deal to incorporate it into iTunes.
Protection would be relatively easy: Just a temporary URL, and it'd be about as good as Amazon MP3 is right now.
The problem is, of course, that he doesn't get it at all.
A lot of people thought Sony's content download service was doomed, but it's in a pretty good place right now in the form of the PlayStation Network, available to PS3 users for network gaming, video, etc. The DRM is based on Marlin, an open scheme developed by consumer electronics companies and other companies.
So close, and yet so far...
So, I'm guessing to this guy, "open" is just a buzzword. He seemed to have a basic grasp of what it means, and then he went and claimed a DRM scheme could be "open".
Re:Sophistry To Kill First Sale Doctrine (Score:5, Insightful)
My argument against DRM is that I want to use the shit that I fucking paid for.
If it was just about getting shit for free, I wouldn't be bitching about it on Slashdot. I'd be downloading the pirated version, which doesn't have a limit on the number of installs and doesn't require me to ask permission from some company's server before I can play.
I can get shit for free now, regardless of DRM.
Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the problem: That $50 price includes the game's value at resale. If the resale value is $35, then you're diminishing the value of the original purchase price by making it impossible for a 2nd buyer to use. Simple, basic economics. So, if you remove that functionality, some of which justifies the $50 price, the game is no longer worth $50, because the value of its resale is now gone.
So, the result of adding DRM to your game and not lowering your price to reflect the diminished value is that your game now appears overpriced. Good job, you've now guaranteed yourself flagging sales because of greed.
Imagine if car companies programmed their cars to self-destruct if sold to a second buyer. It's ridiculous. The argument that second hand sales take money out of the pocket's of the producers? Ridiculous also. Just stop it, you idiotic, economically ignorant publishers. Focus on making a damn good game, one that's good enough to purchase in the first place.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)