DRM the killer of games?

[zakobi]

So, is the DRM over-hyped or is it a evil, necessary or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(yes, this is to draw the DRM talk away from the RoF thread.)

[Grimes]

DRM sucks when it-itself sucks.

 

When the DRM is a little more than just DRM then the pain of it is smaller. Steam allows for friends list, in game chatting, and has a great catalog of games. Quite sure Comrade is very similar but not as pretty or straight forward as steam. So the fact that it is DRM kinda gets lost on users. Which isn't a bad thing really. Offering more to the overall DRM package of choice is obviously a good choice if the gamers use it. And in the case of Steam friends... alot of ppl use it.

 

The complete other side of the spectrum is Ubi's service. Which requires a constant connection to a central server to play any hickups and the game pauses. They barely give you anything for your troubles aside from Cloud saved games... which is ok but not that critical of a features.

[CE_Mikemonster]

Some DRM takes the piss, 'nuff said.

 

I had a very irritating experience lately with typing my e-mail in incorrectly for the game East India Company. It didn't even send a confirmation letter (like a free forum would) to confirm that it was my real address.

 

So I got locked out of the game, and had to wait a fortnight for the DRM customer service to help me. Needless to say it wasn't profitable to help me, so they took their time. Very annoying.

 

But then, I don't download/play pirated games.

 

Sometimes I use cracks so I can leave my cd in the box.

 

 

It just seems to me though that DRM companies get their contract and then do the business equivelent of flipping the bird to customers and Developers. Seems always to be a "That'll Do" culture.

[RedTiger]

I was just think about this yesterday. I think that several decades from now we're probably going to look back upon DRM at this point in time with a mixture of ridicule and good-humored disbelief. Similar to the way one looks back at the movie industry when Thomas Edison literally wanted all movies filmed only on his equipment by only his own company.

 

Something has got to give and without saying that I "guarantee" it, I find it strongly possible that the anti-DRM side will win. The odds are stacked so much against DRM, its mind boggling. In the long run, DRM simply cannot win.

 

Its not just the fact that there are potentially millions of people trying to crack DRM the instant the software becomes available, its just the sheer size and scope of the internet. Information itself has become something of an artifical life-form. It reminds me of Ian Malcom in the Jurassic Park movie -- "life finds a way". ;) Nothing can contain it and nothing can stop it. The idea of "control" of it is an illusion, and a dangerous one. The idea of a cold and hot war being fought over its perceived control isn't too farfetched to me.

 

Either the entire set of "rules" of the internet will change (for the worse, IMO), and change forcibly with all the catastrophic consequences, or DRM will have to adapt and allow people to feel like they actually own a product they purchased. Care to bet which one is quicker, actually feasible, and which one a person with a working brain would choose to do? ;)

 

This is all my opinion, of course. :D

Edited April 13, 2010 by RedTiger

[CE_Mikemonster]

I would hesitate to say this but there's no such thing as a free meal, and I don't really see the 'peoples' internet being around for my kids.

 

Sorry to derail the [deadish] thread. It needs to be said though. DRM won't be needed if a certain set of circumstances prevail.

[coder1024]

well, the DRM with BS and FC2 was pretty painless. I installed, pasted in my key from the order info, and was good to go. I've installed BS multiple times and installed FC2 on multiple machines, and had no issue. Just paste in the code and it activates. You could run out of activations eventually, but you can probably get more if needed. the DRM hasn't negatively impacted either sim for me.

[Grimes]

The FC2/BS DRM isn't that terrible to deal with. It just has one feature that I disagree with and that is limited installs. So when you run out of installs you must ask for permission to get some more. A few great games of the past had these features... BioShock and Spore both had something like a 5 game install limit. Subsequently both of these limits were completely removed shortly after release due to the public outcry.

[EtherealN]

Grimes, please be more specific before misunderstandings get propagated: DCS:BS and FC2 activation schemes do not limit installs. You can literally install three times a day and nothing will happen for it. What is limited is activations, based on hardware profile.

 

The issue in several other cases where there was an outcry is that there were install limits that were not advertised - some of them as few as 3 where the only pre-purchase information was "Uses copy protection". I think you'll agree that there is a quite significant difference between that and the model used by ED.

[Grimes]

Whats the difference between install and activation limits? You could install the game 20 times a day without activating it... but you still can't play it. What good is it to install the game and not activate it? There is no purpose to that other than just having it on your harddrive nearly ready to play. Besides I consider activation of games part of the installation process.

 

How many games ask for a CD key when you install them? FC2/BS is slightly different because it asks for the key after its installed when you try to play it.

 

The point I was trying to make is that the game has a limit to the number of times you can use your game key. Upon reaching said limit you must ask for more keys, and there is not always a guarantee that you will receive more keys.

 

Its the difference between copy protection with unlimited installs vs copy protection with limited installs. Unlimited installs is much much more user friendly.

[EtherealN]

The difference is this, and this is an important difference:

 

1 - I install FC2

2 - I activate

3 - I play around with the cfg files and totally break it

4 - I uninstall

5 - I install FC2

6 - I do not have to activate since it's already activated for that computer

 

Similarly, step three might have just been me growing tired of the game and needing the HDD space, with a couple months until #5.

 

And yes, unlimited installs is much more user friendly. And my point is: you have unlimited installs. You are even able to do a good couple changes in your hard drive configuration without setting it off (I've played a lot with my HDD drive bay, RAMsticks and so on and never been made to re-activate). I've also reinstalled quite a few times just to get a clean install.

[TheMoose]

From my experience thus far (DCS-BS, FC1.2) on windows Seven, if you un install the game on the same PC and re install it. It will ask you to re activate it. I'm thinking that the un install process removes the string in the registry or corrupts it somehow...

 

I even recall a warning in the past, asking me if I would like the keep the activation in the un install process. I said yes, please keep it. But then again when re installing it, starting the game it re asked to activate... No hardware change has been made. Maybe just my MAC address of my connection...(clone mac inside my Linksys)

Edited April 27, 2010 by TheMoose