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.
Beg pardon, I know this is a bit of a quibble, but...
Even though we're talking about games here, it isn't quite kosher to call the situation "zero-sum." That model applies to contexts with a finite set of resources where one player's loss is always exactly equal to another player's gain.
Software by its nature cannot fit into this model because it is infinitely copyable at little to no effective cost. Modern money also doesn't really fit any more because, AFAIK, the major currencies are all "faith-based" (not backed by gold or other commodities).
(I hope this doesn't get double posted. First time around nothing happened when I clicked add comment)
DRM is not copy protection, it's restrictions imposed on your customers. Technically speaking, I accept no DRM. But there is one exception.
I accept activation given some requirements being met.
1. I bought the product from an online service (activation of a boxed product is unacceptable). When buying online I accept the fact "buy" is in reality "rent until the service shuts down or changes its mind". Obviously, I limit what services I shop from rather heavily based on their likely longevity.
2. The amount of activations are limitless (I'm fine with a limit per day or similar, but there needs to be a rolling window type algorithm). I believe Stardock actually fails on this account as I, after an evening of technical issues forcing me to uninstall/reinstall Windowblinds several times, had to contact them to reset my activation count. This was on a single computer. That should never happen. Ever.
3. The service offers added value. Like Steam and Impulse through easy access, automatic updates etc. This is necessary to outweigh the rental nature of the transaction.
Spore fails on all of the above. I would've been fine with it had it required authentication through serial number to access its online services should I choose to do so, and that authentication locking the serial to my computers following the rules in #2 above. That's not the route they chose to go though.
Mascot, I don't mean this as an argument but rather an explanation. For the most part, I agree with you even though I'm not quite as harsh on DRM. However, your 2) contradicts itself. The major reason for having activations is to track how many times a license is activated as a means of detecting when a license is getting spread around more than it should. To that end, it would be impossible to manually police all the distributed licenses to see abnormalities, which is why activation systems typically contain a limit which triggers an automatic lock on further activations as a precaution. Now, the limit on Spore is pretty low, and I know Stardock's is higher. But in the end, if you don't have an activation limit you may as well have no activations at all because limitless activations are self-defeating
If you install DRM's, even Stardock's , you are going to piss off some customers and lose some sales.
The key is to minimize sale losses from piracy (which isn't the amount it's downloaded, but people who pirate the game instead of buying it), and minimize sale losses from people upset at your DRM. (My guess with Stardock is about 100-200 people don't buy the game due to Impulse- which is a piddling sum) Here's another advantage Stardock has- hardcore strat gamers tend to be more affluent, and less likely to not support games they like, though they are willing to pirate if it's the best version of a product, or if it's the only way to get the product.
The best way to do this is to tie your DRM into something of value (Steam does this, though it has drawbacks, and Stardock does this as a core operating principle)
I wouldn't be surprised if 50% of a budget for a Stardock game is post-release budget.
That said, I do think Stardock should go from a lifetime activations model to a rolling activations model that resets every month or something.
Mostly in agreement with Mascot. However, Stardock activations expire. I don't think it's same day, but it's a relatively short period of time. So they do have a rolling system, you just happened to hit it. Stardock is also cooperative, instead of making you call them long distance to have any hope of getting a same day solution to your problem.
I do not agree with the premise that an online purchase is a rental however. If it stops working when the company does, I'm pissed. I feel Stardock has earned my trust thus far and I trust them to unfuck their customers before they go out of business, otherwise I wouldn't buy any of their games off Impulse. They only get me because of that trust though.
For activations, further clarification on what I deem reasonable. An online purchase, by nature of being online, I don't care about as I either don't trust the company and wont buy from them at all, or do and will ignore it as I'm already connecting to start with. A retail purchase had better not need to activate to work. If I have to depend on a server to play the single player campaign, it's a no no. If I have to activate to download content, play on their servers, whatever, that's not a problem. The features no longer exist if the activation server doesn't.
i bet if Spore was a better game there wouldn't be quite as much uproar about the copy protection. from what i've seen the game itself looked rather disappointing for all its hype. hell, there were people i know who never game talking and asking me about Spore. from what i've seen it has elements from a number of different games, but none of them are developed enough to be good.
a game is more than the sum of its parts. throwing a lot of mediocre small games together does not make one great game. it makes one mediocre game with DRM.
still, it's a mediocre game that i can see people wanting to come back to from time to time. and that's where the copy protection becomes a sticking point. already disappointed, i think people became angry that it might be difficult (or, *gasp* require talking to a real live human being) to re-install the game as some hypothetical point in the future.
i just hope Blizzard's watching all this and taking notes. i hate to see terrible copy protection, of all things, hurt StarCraft II.
First of all, that 1% of people used 3 installs is pure BS when the game has just released.. If that was 2-3 years ago, I'd be a bit more likely to acccept it.
I would have bought spore on day 1 if it hadn't been for the DRM.
My objections are threefold.
1. What happens in 2-4 years when I feel like playing it again ? In that time my hardware will have changed and a reformat is 99.99995% likely (it is windows after all).
2. Securom is a rootkit, as such it's a security risk for viruses/malware.
3. Calling EA support isnt free. And you pay for the call while they keep you on hold, and get an extra activation if THEY feel like it/require you to prove whatever the want.
Stardock has THE best system to my knowledge. I dont mind a one time/install online check or when you update. But it should be transparent and should respect my privacy.
My beef with DRM is a bit dependent on which DRM scheme it is, and what company employs it.
Mainly though, DRM doesn't stop piracy. It barely even slows it. This much is proven, it's a completely irrefutable fact. Hence, the only explanation for still using DRM, especially a DRM scheme that is cracked very early, is (as mentioned earlier) that it is not in place to hinder piracy, but to limit a legitimate user's use of the program. This sits very badly with me, as I refuse to pay a company to treat me that way and put extreme limitations on how I may use a program.
Secondly, DRM schemes that are driver based like Securom/Starforce causes a lot of technical issues for many legitimate users, you only need to take a glance at the official Mass Effect forums (to mention one) to see how many people had problems getting the game to run due to the protection. Sure, percentage-wise this might be a low number, but when you're one of the paying customers not getting the game to run due to the DRM, the argument "oh, but that happens to very, very few people" is neither any help nor comfort. And as known, next to no shop will let you return games you can't get to run, nor will most companies who publish them, so essentially the publisher has stolen your money.
Third, EA has a very bad rep. Customer service is difficult and expensive to reach (especially if you live in a small country like I do), and they're not known to be the most cooperative ones either. They are known to drop support for released games rather quickly, and overall just come across as, to put it bluntly, "hostile" to users who get upset when they encounter problems. Coupled with the disdain a lot of gamers have for EA due to their habit of buying out good developers and then shutting them down (Bullfrog and Westwood being the two that stand out the most) plus the crummy quality some of the IPs have taken after EA got their hands on them... Well, I could go on for a while about EA, and I'm far from the biggest hater out there. I've also read some very disturbing stories of how they treat employees and the working conditions they are under (the EAspouse stories). Although supposedly improved now, it does give you a view of a company that will shy from nothing to earn as much money as it can, no matter the cost. Anyway, the point of this part is, it's not just the DRM, but also the company employing it, that matters. If you experience problems with the DRM, it's less of an issue if it's from a company that has a history of being honest, forthcoming, trustworthy and helpful, and EA really doesn't fit that bill in my experience.
I really don't mind transparent DRM, but Securom is anything but transparent, and it's almost as bad as Starforce was, if not already worse (even if it doesn't physically break optical drives like Starforce did; I lost 2 drives to it before I read online that Starforce could cause it). I really think that Stardock's way of doing it is the way forward, however that means commiting to supporting a product long after the sales have died down, and EA, as well as many other companies, just want to release a game in barely working condition, cash in as much as they can while patching only the most serious issues (if even that), then leave the game alone. That is the major challenge for Stardock's view on "DRM" really, getting publishers to commit to long term support, improvements and extra content development that they aren't going to earn much from (in the short term).
Edited for spelling.
Personaly, I see it as a phsycological thing mostly. 3 activations, 5 activations, 10. Its all a limit, however distant on players bility to 'own' the thing they paid for. I don't buy cars but I don't suppose I would like it if the agreement said the car can only go on dirt tracks 10 times before you have to take it back to the garage for a inspection to make sure you wern't smugling drugs with it.
However unlikely it is to actualy happen, its something galring and obvious to say "This is a bad deal". If they put it to 5 and didn't tell anyone I doubt very many people would really know about it. There defintatly deciding to make a few thousand people at least suffer the phone call or other problems however and for a system that DOSN'T do what its suposedly for, that's just wrong.
The phsycology aspect appears again with the 'being treated like a criminal' sentiment. Instead of feeling GOOD about buying a product they feel bad. Starkdocks model, to me, makes me feel rewarded. They feel the need to ensure my money hits thier pockets with updates and the like and I benfit because im legit. This seems the right way to do things.
As for people who don't like impulse: There are people who don't like change. I've seen them all over, they will always exist and time will forget them. (They also seem to have some irrational obssesion with something that is far too complicated or boring for normal people).
I second most of the points made above. The gist of everything is I don't mind buying a product+service deal - but I am a paying customer and I am extremely irritated with forking my money over, whenever someone would like to make an amendment of terms and an extra buck. I am not employed by the gaming industry, if anything I am paying a part of its wages.
1) I am not OK with any activation limits etc - because I frequently burn laptops (research and play on the same machine). When I buy the game, I expect to be able to switch to a different machine in about 6-7 months (or in 5 years or in 5 days, whichever I choose). I am not interested in begging anyone for it and I refuse to waste resources on a product that requires me to do so.
2) I am not OK with having to check what kind of communication the software performs and any invasion of my privacy without exact, prior notice what the software will be doing and an easily accessible "no thank you - uninstall - return to us" path.
3) I am just not interested in any product with an iTune-like scheme of authorizing/deauthorizing it on a device, since I do reinstall the system quite a bit more often than once per year and can't be bothered to remember to run some tool prior to that.
4) I am just not interested in rental of most software (which does not require any additional publisher-side stuff), since I am not getting any added value from that and the seller is not doing any extra work that would entitle it to get more money.
On the other hand:
1) I am ecstatic about not having to carry CDs, remember to note the corresponding CD keys or manually check for updates. I have enough on my head with 1k+ of books and many times that research articles clogging up my home and workplace.
2) I don't mind phone home ONCE after install/update/major upgrade scheme if it allows me to play offline while travelling, afterwards.
3) I don't mind not being able to transfer the product (i.e. tying it to a personal account), if it's how it is from the beginning.
Generally I mind DRM because it gives me trouble. Here I am, with my new game - I want to install the game, and I want to play the game without any worry and have fun. Plain and simple. I want to be able to install it on as many PC's as I like and play it with, or without internet connection.
Upon Install, I only require my CD-key. Nothing more. Should I want to update my game, I don't mind installing something like Impulse and let it download and install patches for me.
I don't like limitations or hassle. Plain and simple. And above all - if the DRM slows down my PC in ANY WAY, or runs on its own without the game - or isn't uninstalled with the game, thats when you lose (and piss off) a costumer.
I'm not too bothered with piracy. No matter how hard DRM you put onto your game, people will still crack it within a few hours. And most people I know simply pirate a game to see what it's like (demo's don't usually cut it for people anymore), before purchasing it or removing it from the PC. But if you really want to keep people from pirating, find a compelling reason to want the updates and to play online in said game.
I'm a user of STEAM and own The Orange Box, being a frequent TF2 player - I find it insanely annoying that I have to wait bloody 30seconds before my game even starts (I believe Steam is using that 30seconds to confirm that I own the game or something - as the wait is identical regardless of PC specs). I just want a hassleless experience without feeling that I don't own the game with it checking every darn minute if it's pirated or not. Pirates will crack anything anyway, and consumers will buy instead of pirating if they're treated well.
Brand their ass and cut their Wii off.
Oh wait that's extremely effective Copy protection, you asked about viable
I hate copy protection, if it's there in the product I don't want know about and I don't want it to interfere with my quiet use and enjoyment of the software. That said you can't have an electronic store shelf with no locks on it. So, authentication works well because I don't have to have an original disk in my disk drive. I will tolerate that probably because it's so prevelant but, I don't like it. I like being able to start my software by just clicking on a shortcut or launcher and it just starts up.
I also don't want to worry about what happens if I have a hard system crash, will I have to replace software as well. Will companies work with me to get me computing again. Will I have to jump through too many hoops to meet all their restrictions.
One company sells 1 year renewals they also sell insurance on the download past 30 days. If something happens to your computer it's up to you to restore and if you can't do that they state they bare no responsibilty to help. Quite the policy, of course you could buy the insurance from them to protect you from a calamity. That is, they would then let you re-download and re-install the product again from their servers.
I think software companies should also consider opening up on the transfering of a software title perhaps a nominal transfer fee because ultimately it will expand sales. I know of a number of people who routinely buy new and used cartridges for game consoles both handheld and full size consoles and its an easy choice for them because if they don't like it well enough or get bored with it they can trade it in for partial value.
In fact all consumer products tend to have used markets except for software in the US possibly elsewhere.
So what's viable Copy Protection? Protection that works without creating a negative impression on the customer and if it's completely unrecognized as copy protection so much the better. In short it should be there but as close to invisible to me and my use of my pc as is possible.
There's no real sense of product ownership. Whilst I have the packaging there's a sense you're holding onto smoke.
For me Spore's finite number of activations and EA support phone charges ($2.95 per minute) to get an additional activations which you're at their mercy is a big problem.
Knowing support wait times are long with an average of around 10 minutes makes the purchase cost too high. It really feels like we're being gouged for repeated use.
In the end I didn't purchase it. I've adopted a wait and see approach to Spore. However the reviews so far say it great but what I saw at a friends place shows that it gets boring quite quickly. I'm starting to think EA shipped it too early with the hope of adding needed 'fun' features later via expansion packs.
So with that in mind I'm off to purchase Colonization.
My thoughts on this issue is, people expect to own things when they spend money to buy something. This applies to licensed software they buy, regardless of the legal technicallities. Although it may be the intellectual property of the company who made it, the customer expects a certain level of convience when they buy something. People would expect to be able to play their Nintendo Wii (or other system) on a Sony TV that they recently purchased. I'm sure that there would be plenty of people upset if Sony started selling TVs that refused to work with DVD players not made by them, or were any system other than a playstation.
The current stardock model seems to work well because it lets the user enjoy the game without any concern about limited activations or annoyances like online authentication (an issue because not everyone has internet). The user may install the game from disk and never have to connect online to play. If they want updates, they probally need to connect online to do so, so online authentication isn't a big inconvience. In fact, online authentication can easily double (and probally does) as logging into your account and checking to see what games you own that have updates.
Securom however, as I've read, is a real pain. It restricts you to a finite number of installs. You need to be online to authenticate, thus allowing you to play, so no internet dead zones for you. There are a number of bad stories out there, some of which have already been posted in this thread. There is also a bad taste left in people's mouths after Starforce, and many wrecked computers.
So at the end of the day, people actually expect to be able to use what they buy. Weird no?
My problem with Spore is the three activations DRM, it is completely over the top and just punishes the poor guy/gal that paid for the game.
I have both Mass Effect and Spore both of which I have used one activation - in the next couple of months I'll be upgrading to a new computer with Vista (got XP at the moment), when I reinstall both these games I'll be up to two.
My point is - there is a very good chance I'll have to format a new computer at least once due to mistakes, so thats it - three counts used, it's just mad to assume that any user will need 'just' three installs then have to prove your not a thief.
I can't belive that EA did this to be honest - I don't care what reasearch they did its just plain bad business to call your paying customers thieves.
Stardock has a excellent form of copy protection, reward the customers for buying your game - perfect! I really, really wish other publishers would follow your example on this.
Ironic that they actually caused players that WERE ready to buy it to pirate it instead. Generally speaking, piraters never have any plans of buying what they pirate - for whatever reason. So if someone pirates a game, it isn't a loss of a sale. There was never going to be a sale in the first place.
After reading all the comments here, i really wish there's someone who bring up the sales statistic of Pc games, and compare it to the DRM implement, in order to see if those DRMs can really reduce the number of pirates or not. But still, just by see Spore and Crysis, we still see crack version pop up the same day it release. and i kinda agree that people who pirate usually have no intention to buy the game whether they like it or not, but we who buy the legal copy always buy one when we really like it, and pirate when we cannot buy it or when it's better to pirate than the legal.
I think EA have finally realised that there's a problem - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7628962.stm - and its about time. I bought Spore on release day, fully in the knowledge that DRM wouldn't affect me - I've only got one computer to put it on.
I think that it's sad that such a good game has been marred by this debacle over copy protection. It wasn't Maxis' fault that EA put DRM on it, and ruined the reputation of a game that had been worked on for so long. As far as I'm concerned, its the first really 'new' game to be released for years. Gal Civ II is a brilliant game in its genre, and has loads of really innovative features, but it is in essence a TBS game like Civ and co. There is no game anything like Spore.
Related news: a class-action lawsuit has been filed against EA for Spore's DRM: http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/09/23/Spore.pdf
Interesting to see how that goes..
Yeah, I don't think that class action lawsuit is going to hold much water. EA's probably got some damn good lawyers. The whole lawsuit seems to be based around the fact that it wasn't easily clear that SecuROM is a separate "app", but I don't think that in and of itself means they're entitled to any compensation. Now if SecuROM was inherently malicious and actively tried to disrupt normal PC operations, I can see them having some case. But as it is? I expect them to be laughed out of court, pretty much.
Well, my 2 cents.
If I buy a game I want to be able to do with it what I want. The only fair restriction is that I should only run one instance at a time. Any other restriction is at least a nuisance. Some nuisances I don't mind too much others I really hate.
I hate limited installations. Yes I can understand I should not install it 43 times in one weekend, but over the years I probably have installed my Civ2 game that often. So I really hate activation limits which don't reset, I have been burned by it in the past, and I will not knowingly buy any game with such a restriction.
I hate the installation of rootkits and other kinds of malware which destabilize my machine or prevent me from running other software the developers are not too keen about (anyDVD for instance or some DVD burning programs) Those programs are legitimate and I have legitimate uses for them (at least in my country they are legitimate).
My main problem with mandatory CDs while playing a game is that the CDs can become unreadable and indeed have in some occasions. If the company would offer me free replacement disks with no shipping fees and prompt delivery, I would have no objection, but normally I either run from a mounted image, if possible, or I use a cracked version.
I'm not too bothered with underwater activation. As long as I don't notice it and it doesn't affect the performance of my machine, I'm fine.
My main dislike with Impulse is that I have to install Impulse first if I ever want to reinstall an old game I obtained through it. There is no guarantee that will work in the future, in fact Stardock history has proven it won't. So changes are you have to contact support and wait a few days just to be able to install 'your' game. I understand it is the intention to make it possible to generate selfinstalling versions of your purchases, and if that is easy enough to use, this won't be a big issue for me.
Have you something specific in mind?
But the thing is, you are not buying a product, you are buying a license to use software, and that limits your rights over it. It excatly the same as with Photoshop or Windows.
I doubt that lawsuit goes anywhere too, but hopefully it sends a clear message to EA: "We don't want to deal with this s**t!".
Far from me to claim i have THE solution for all problems such as what has been discussed both above and into bazillions of forums, locations, threads and where else... but read on, if you're truly interested.
1- I pay for something - it IS mine for eternity.
2- Local incode builtin verifications by **manufacturer** of the virtual content (aka-software) to protect my copy is the ONLY reliable way.
No keys, no DRM, no CD checks, no logons, no interactive mess, no activation, no invisible records, nothing.
A simple localized code routine (into the software) which does verify that my *BOUGHT* copy is valid, genuine. Somehow.
a-- MOO1 would ask me to go into my manual, turn to page x and verify that the picture of a specific ship is number x.
b-- XCom:UfoDefense would ask me for a number xxxx:xxxx that could be found on page x of the manual.
c-- Expand this kind of reasoning to modern ways of compiling a solid UNIQUE asset per each single bought items. Where the device itself uses a secured 128bits password for MY own copy. Once installed on any PCs. Forever. Mine.
Commercial bar-codes, anybody?
Good'ol OS_driven_Registry, anyone?
The only way a message can be sent is to make EA games unprofitable. I want EA out of the marketplace.
As for licenses, I think a company has a right to demand no resale, but then customers should have a right to a refund if the game is shoddy or substandard, not just "doesn't work on the computer"
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
