I've been getting a lot of email since the announcement of the Gamers Bill of Rights -- quite a bit from game developers who make the argument that it's easy to throw stones at what other people but what solution do we suggest for them?
For example, one of the things I've seen is that Stardock is "anti-DRM" in all cases. This isn't true. WindowBlinds, for example, requires activation. In fact, nearly all our software requires activation. Yet, you rarely if ever see anyone complain about it. Why is that? Because our activation is largely invisible, most people aren't aware of it. The beta of Demigod has activation in it too. Yet, it too is invisible to the user.
So clearly, activation, unto itself, isn't necessarily a problem. Yet clearly with Spore, people had a big problem with it. What's the difference? The difference in my opinion is the arbitrary limitations set ("3 activations" for instance). Or more generally, anything that materially interferes with a legitimate customer's ability to use their game.
So those people who were so unhappy with Spore's activation, I'd be curious to hear what specifically bothered them? What was it about Spore that causes such an uproar versus things done in the past?
Here are things that annoy me about various types of copy protection:
My tolerance may be higher than others, hence why I'd like to try to understand what caused the Spore backlash.
As others know, our games ship with no CD copy protection at all since not all users have Internet access but we require users to download our free updates from us so that we know (to a high degree) that only legitimate customers are getting our free updates. And even with that laid back system, some people still object. So we'd like to get an idea of what invisible threshold you think Spore crossed that made so many people upset.
Boom. Cool! Thanks guys!
I tend toward not allowing used copies if they include all rights of a new copy - specifically tech support, updates, online play, etc. Yes, you can purchase used books, movies, music, etc., but with those media the publisher's expenses and obligations end when the customer pays for it. I would not approve of any scheme that obligates a company to expend resources on players that never purchased the game from the company.
I too support user-centered licenses instead of machine-centered limits. I support the goals of DRM, it's the means and side effects I disapprove of.
That is disgusting. Typical, but despicable. Thanks for the read.
Say... I can redeem these Karma points at a 1:1000 ratio of dollars on my VISA, right Frogboy?
And not an employee or representative in sight. In the meantime, we chat with the CEO quite often here .
WIllythemailboy:
In theory, I agree with the concept that companies need to be recompensated for services rendered apart from point of sales, but I don't think that used copies are necessarily exempt from that. A sale is a sale. Whether the primary user usses it for the remainder of his life or someone else does is immaterial - that particular instance of a sale requires support for the added value.
Yeah - you have to love it. On the official forums no less. I love the "no-EA" sig images people are starting to use - classic. If infringement needed a poster child then EA is it.
I might argue that used copies *are* exempt from that. The original sale implies product support from the producer. If the software is sold, the original purchaser no longer uses it, therefore the attached product support still goes to only one owner. Kind of like the transfer of warranty/guarantee when you sell your car, isn`t it? Companies shouldn`t have a problem with that - they already made the excusing sale.
If anything, they should be pleased that over time there are still people playing their game, filling up online servers (if that is the case). The larger and more sustained the community, the more vibrant the project/franchise.
(I hate using that word, "franchise"...)
(-1 Karma!...)
(but leave the VISA alone...)
As a matter of fact, I do insist and expect that a car insured or warrantied for 10 years will continue to have that warranrty even when I acquire it second hand. Certainly, I would expect the same for an iPod or a cellphone - and I get it. A product sold to me void of otherwise normal warranties would be extremely suspect - I would not even consider a purchase for 75% value of an otherwise new car, which is the standard markdown as soon as you drive it off the lot.
Toyota, Honda, and even Apple and Sony Ericsson shops locally honor warranty certificates as long as you can provide the receipt and proof of purchase. Whether or not that name is yours is immaterial. I wouldn't purchase any of their products for their locally listed prices otherwise - I expect to be able to sell their guarantees when I sell their products to the secondary market.
I know you think that you're arguing with me, but I think you misunderstood what I meant. Like you, I expect a resale of owned software to include a surety of support and updates, just as with the original owner.
Oh, alright - I probably did misunderstand. No problem!
Scale really matters for things like this, which is why I'm very glad that Brad seems committed to keeping Stardock a privately held business. It would be an unbelievable shame to see them swallowed up by some industry behemoth who'd send suits over to nag him about getting his "messaging" vetted before it goes to the public.
Roxlimm/WarlokLord - The warranty on a physical item is not equivalent to tech support on a computer game. If a part is going to fail on a car, it's going to fail regardless of who's driving (unless you factor in karma, of course ). But with a computer game, the need for tech support is highest the first time each user installs.
Pulling numbers out of my ass to make the point:
Assume each user of the game will require an average of 6 minutes of tech support time - 90% of users will have no problems, while the other unfortunates will spend an hour talking to or emailing tech support. The cost of this tech support is factored into the game price. When a person buys a game second hand, the cost of tech support comes straight out of the publisher's bottom line, as the tech support cost factored into the game's price was expended by the first owner.
Maybe the first owner didn't use tech support; maybe the second won't either - it's irrelevant. Because it's possible they BOTH would, and this type of calculation is based on the odds, not what any one set of serial users do. ON AVERAGE, the publisher is out money. Then consider that the company is likely spending more on an hour of tech support than what a new copy of the game would sell for.
I was mulling it over, but yeah, I think you've hit upon the salient point - even with the understanding that you are dealing with a license rather than a physical object, like any other contract that's wrapped in with a piece of physical property, you can't vounch for the argument that the intellectual property should be subject to protection as if it were physical property, and then say 'except when inconvenient to the IP holder'.
Every other form of contract/liability like that passes with title, if there's a physical object that's mine to sell/dispose of as I wish, then any contractual obligations should pass with it.
Jonnan
I don't believe that that's all that different. An iPod likewise will have the most issues when reinstalling or reinitializing it to a new computer, as a new user would. Apple provides the same product support whether you're the original owner or not. Likewise, when a new user adapts a new phone to his interfaces, likings, and SIM, that's when it's most likely to have a problem, too. Nokia still gives product support.
Generally, if I buy a second-hand game I get my product support from Google`ing keywords associated with whatever issue I`m encountering. I provide my own product support in conjunction and generous coordination with those who came before me in the community, including good-minded developers/support people who sometimes complement those user efforts. Usually (95% of the time) I get hits on forum posts and threads by users themselves wherein an issue is discussed at fairly useful length and to productive end, including descriptions of workarounds, root causes, and updates on the status of official fixes. We are a pretty smart, helpful bunch, honestly. We probably have to be.
Official corporate help lines are my last line of support - and these have reliably been plundered by others long before my second-hand hands ever reach such a point. So I don`t believe the contention that post-original sale support is an issue pertinent to DRM.
If you look a little closely, removing CD-keying and online checking is essentially just a product add-on, being the same kind of program modification as a minor patch. The checking of ownership is not an integral part of the game. The same skills involved in correcting product problems in a game are also involved when that problem is DRM and similar limitations on games sold publicly.
If companies would be persuaded to be more reasonable in terms of price point and product quality assurances, we would not have communities that address these problems.
An imperfect suggestion here: companies that utilize DRM such as Securom could adopt an official stance that 'X' weeks after a product release they will offer a tool to completely & cleanly remove said protection, it having served its initial sale spurt purpose. Protection of the initial sale period is an argument for DRM that I am not agreeing with, but perhaps a parsing avenue by which one could compromise the community away from hardline DRM in general. Some companies have on occassion done this already in patches that appear many moons after their fare has sat upon the store shelves.
If the DRM is utilized by other software on a user`s system, the protection would remain but could be divorced from that particular product.
Unacceptable. Third party "protection" software is a no-go on any level. The entire line of reasoning in support of it needs to be abandoned. Additionally when one reinstalls the software they would still need to get removal software because their original disk will forever be infected with it. Such a system is needlessly cumbersome and simply awkward at best. However if the companies will send new disinfected disks to all registered users at no additional cost to the consumer then it could be a solution but one I would still not be in support of on principle but may accept.
The biggest problem with Spore was not just the limited activations.
Spore has Invasive DRM. The kind that messes up your entire computer.
It will kill I-Tunes, and Nero (any burning software). After you've discovered what is killing your computer you try to uninstall the game - hoping to remove the DRM from your system. Guess what - it stays in your system. My sister had to wipe her hard drive to finally eliminate all the DRM.
But what about people who don't know how to build computers? What if you don't know how to wipe a hard drive, work in dos, or tell the difference between a hard drive and a CD drive? Those people are the ones who are blindsided by this atrocity.
Everyone has been saying, "DRM is the worst mistake game companies have ever made". Which made me think of something a bit scary - what if it wasn't a mistake?
The big game compaines want people to buy consoles. Consoles cost a lot of money...you can't repair them yourself...the games even cost more. I avoid consoles because I can't afford them. I'll just buy a new video card if my computer can't keep up with my new game. It's much cheaper than the console nonesense.
It's almost like they are trying to make PC games so troublesome that everyone switches to consoles. They get more money in the long run. The longer the boycott drags on, the less PC games will be made. Perhaps to the point of no PC games at all.
Please remember the above statement is just a theory - I'm just throwing it out there - to give everyone a new angle to look at this issue from.
Feel free to call my crazy!
I just wanted to chime in and say that Steam and Impulse are both acceptable forms of DRM. They've made PC gaming incredibly easy. Search for a game, buy it, and download it whenever. No physical media, no bullcrap. I also know that my money's going to the developers and not some stupid company like Gamestop.Indeed, at this point I'm one of those "if it's not on Steam and/or Impulse I don't buy it" blokes
Yea but I'm rude and obnoxious.
Frogboy == Draginol.
It is your right and common sense for you to use some sort of DRM. You have to protect your IP.
That said, I think DRM crosses the line when your rights as a publisher start to cross the rights of the consumer. The main thing that upsets me with DRM is activation limits as you said. Online activation is not a problem at all. But when you tell me how many times I can install a product that I payed for, that crosses the line. This is why I pretty much only buy games from Stardock/Valve(or any game on Steam that does not include additional DRM aside from Steam). I consider myself an enthusiast, so I do reformat often, mess with my overclocks quite a bit. As such, I obviously reinstall my games quite a bit. I like the ability to install my games whenever I want, wherever I want, and how many times I want. Also, logging what I do on my computer (IE: SecurROM) violates my rights as well. The newest version of SecurROM can only be completely removed with a reformat of windows. This is not right at all. So my main two points are:
1. NO activation limits. Online activation/CD Keys are perfectly acceptable, just don't tell me when, where and how many times I can use the key.
2. No intrusive extra "crap" that isn't necessary for gameplay. IE: SecurROM and Gamespy Comrade
My 2 cents.
I`ve always believed in this theory. If you compile enough evidence, at some point in time you can refer to the theory as something more... . It is historical fact by the way that Microsoft`s long-term plan was/is to supplant PCs with their own proprietary platform - they stated as so many moons ago. Entertainment is the key to consumer tech.
Anything that furthers that end... furthers that end.
DRM is mainly about eliminating the resale market. Just read how often game publishers piss and moan about used games "killing" the industry blah blah blah. EA, Take-Two, Sony, MS, and everyone else would love to see Gamestop and its used game business go away. Expect next-gen consoles to have a Steam-like digital distribution service. (Once again, PC leads with regards to innovation.) In that regard, Steam and Impulse have achieved what the consoles can only dream of: millions of customers willingly surrendering the ability to resell a game, all while handing money directly to the publisher. While it's still too early to write-off retail sales of PC games, I think it's safe to say that online revenue is where the action's at.RE: Microsoft and the X360. AFAIK, the Xbox division still hasn't reached profitability; that entire enterprise was subsidized by revenue from MS's software and OS businesses. As a MS shareholder, I hate how the company wastes its time with crap like the Zune while its core business languishes. (I say shareholder loosely; I have a very small number of shares, but I will be heard, Redmond! )Microsoft's unwillingness to embrace PC gamers (GFW is a joke, btw) is a stupid long-term move.At the end of the day, people don't care what OS they use. They only care about the programs. PC Gaming, despite all the b.s. from the press about its "death," is one of the main reasons why people still care about Windows.You lose games on Windows, you lose customers to Linux and OS X, both of which are superior operating systems from a purely technical POV. (I use all three on a daily basis.) They just lack a rich development environment with regards to games and high-end programs.Any migration from Windows wouldn't happen overnight, to be sure. And that's the problem. PC gaming is nebulous to MS's bottom line; how do you quantify its importance to the Windows experience? (For example, I dual-boot Linux and only keep Windows around for gaming.) With a console, the bean counters can see immediate financial results.
Microsoft needs to show some PC gamers some love -- and not by forcing everyone into a crappy Xbox-like experience by throwing money at publishers to shoehorn GFWL into their games.
It is historical fact by the way that Microsoft`s long-term plan was/is to supplant PCs with their own proprietary platformWhen hasn't Windows been a proprietary platform? For all the crap MS gets, at least with Windows you have lots of freedom to do what you want, install it on any hardware config you want.
As a MS shareholder, I hate how the company wastes its time with crap like the Zune while its core business languishes. (I say shareholder loosely; I have a very small number of shares, but I will be heard, Redmond! )
Just in case you actually get them to listen to you, you should know that the Zune Division is profitable, and hasn't affected their approach to PC gaming one bit. Microsoft prefers the extra control inherit with their console platform, which is why PC gaming is a lower priority for them, despite all of their denials.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
