Your thoughts on DRM.

General Discussions
#1

For a long time I have been conflicted on my thoughts for DRM. On the one hand, it helps prevent piracy, on the other its usually at a huge disadvantage to legitimate customers. Now I love downloading the latest overpriced AAA game for free as much as the next guy, but as a business man myself obviously I wouldn’t be ok with that if people could easily download my hard work for free. However, I do believe that I should not try to hide behind laws to prevent this. It is my responsibility as a product creator to build it in such a way that that is not possible, hence DRM (in it’s current form its still rather trivial to hack and get passed). What I’d like to hear is your thoughts on DRM as it is, as well as what it could be. If I had a say I would propose these guidelines be followed in order to allow DRM technology to be implemented in the first place on a product:

  • Playable demo of the game (a good portion of it, 5-10% of the entire game, or at least enough to experience everything that is to come)
  • Functions on all devices a user could possibly play the content on. I think this is the biggest fault in DRM today, mostly for movies. (Hello 1997 DVD players)
  • Online requirement of multiplayer portion only.

Can anyone think of other things that could help DRM work as intended without screwing legitimate customers?

#2

Make the purchase, download, and install management so convenient and seamless that the user doesn’t even realize there’s DRM at all. See Steam for one example of how to do this. See Games For Windows Live for an example of how not.

If you can’t do that, just skip the DRM entirely.

#3

Steam is definitely good, though not all games(or other creative content) can or should be released on the platform. Will there be a point where online requirement is ok for most things? Nearly everyone has internet these days, its only a matter of time before EVERYONE has it, or at least the companies core audience will. In the case of the recent Sim City BS, personally I think the online requirement to play is terrible, but saving the games in the cloud is an interesting idea that requires and authenticated user account to access(granted still essentially requires an internet connection). What about 1 time internet required applications that download some type of encrypted file necessary to play thats different for every person and that works forever?

#4

If the game is “in the cloud”, you already have an online requirement inherent in the game. As for downloading a license file, that’s your choice, but if you don’t make it seamless and effortless, you just chase away people who would actually pay while putting up no effective deterrent to people who were going to pirate it anyway.

#5

I was thinking less of a license file and more like required code. It would be seamless, like steam’s install before release thing where the files are encrypted until the release date. I’m not thinking of any of these options for a product im putting out, just talking about it in general. I’d like to know what is acceptable and what isn’t. Personally I think there has to be something, if it is available to pirate, people can and should pirate it. The company is soley responsible for protecting their (digital) products from piracy and should not hide behind laws(you can’t tell me I can’t download something when my torrent client says otherwise, you have to physically prevent me from doing so). That said it has to be fair and give the benefit of the doubt to the consumer if there is an issue.

#6

The “always online” thing is something you have to package properly so people can accept it. If you call it “always online” like Ubisoft did - you fail because boohoo all those people who do they think they are bla bla. But if you call it “the cloud”, you succeed even if it is basically the same deal with the same possibilities. Then all of a sudden it is no longer a limitation, it is a service.

#7

Behold the coolest DRM ever.

Cas :slight_smile:

#8

I hate single player games, that requires me to be online all the time. There’s no reason what so ever for a single player game to require an online connection(I can live with it, if it requires a connection when installing, but after that, it should fuck off with the “always online” requirement!).

Besides, DRM wont stop people from stealing your game. “Just” make the game good enough so that people will actually bother supporting you.

Feel free to obscure the source as much as you want, and do all sorts of hacks to make it harder to decompile, but don’t require always online, unless there’s no single player gameplay.

And preferbly do as Cas and co. :slight_smile:

#9

We deploy our code unobfuscated. We even give away our source code. It makes no difference to sales (which, ahaha, are pitiful anyway :)) We make most of our money now from Steam, which has draconian DRM, and there’s no demo. This is what consumers actually want. Go figure.

Cas :slight_smile:

#10

I’d say make the demo uncrackable by only including code for the content available. Make the full version a separate download. Now someone has to buy your game before they can redistribute it. Not much, but better, and this won’t bother any users.

To take it further, you can uniquely identify users, eg by having the full version request a serial number or better by embedding the serial in the user’s download. Make the app call home so you can see how many computers a serial number is running on. If someone distributes the full version of your game, you can disable that serial. If they run it without internet, let them play.

Whatever you choose to do should not bother users at all while at least providing some protection over people just uploading the full version for mass distribution. Anything can be cracked, so don’t bother trying to make it uncrackable. The most I would do is litter your code with checks, making it annoying to remove them all.

I do think DRM is the wrong problem to fret about until you are successful. :slight_smile:

#11

I personally think it’s the wrong problem to think about even when you’re successful!*

Cas :slight_smile:

  • we’ve yet to get there properly of course so my advice is technically worthless posturing
#12

Interestingly, a recent research report suggested that providing game demos actually reduces sales quite significantly (whatever the quality of the game).

IMHO the best form of DRM is adding value to your product that is practically impossible to copy.
This can be different things that apply to different people.

  1. For example an online community can be very important to some people (MMOs and such, but also things like friend lists on platforms like XBL etc)
  2. For many people, having the original in its original packaging simply adds value in itself that no pirated copy can provide. This doesn’t even necessarily need to depend on physical packaging: Knowing you downloaded an official copy is valuable for many people. Liking the company you buy from helps a lot there.

This doesn’t really apply to a large number of games and to a large number of people.
For example single-player games often don’t benefit from online features. Many people just don’t see the value of getting legitimate copies. The sense of ‘value’ is a very subjective thing.

So I don’t really have an answer for that other than making sure your game is visible everywhere and getting your game via legit channels is as easy as possible.
But trying to prevent creating a digital copy is usually a waste of time and can even promote piracy.

#13

My computer is constantly connected to the internet, I have no problem with always online DRM. Not to tarnish everyone with the same brush but the people IRL who have bitched about this wanted to pirate it, straight up

#14

I have a problem with being thrown out of my single player game/unable to play it, if there’s problems with my internet connection. I wish everyone would do as Cas is doing. DRM doesn’t stop people from pirating your game anyway, it’ll only slow them a day or two, at best.

The best “DRM” is to make buying your game super convenient, this is what Steam does, even if they have DRM and whatnot. But I can play all my single player games, offline. Plus I get updates delivered to my door, without having to do anything myself.

And “syncing your saves to the cloud” is just a crap excuse for DRM*. Sure it’s convenient for the people who play on tons of different computers, but who does that? No one I know, that’s for sure. And that’s even despite the fact that they have multiple computers.

  • It’s fine to sync, but don’t make it mandatory. If a save game gets out of sync, tough cookie. Ask the player which copy to use, or just add it as another save file.
#15

I have several reasons why I would want to never have a game that requires this always-on connectivity.

Firstly, I commute by rail which claims to have wifi access, but it’s slower than a 4kbps modem connection when it actually does work. There are other times when I am using my laptop outside the house where my wifi does not reach. In each of these scenarios, I may wish to spend a few moments on Popular Game (it’s happened many times), and if it requires an internet connection, then I won’t be able to play it. This makes me much less likely to want to buy the game in the first place.

Secondly, any game that requires connection to a server makes me question my ability to play said game after that company has gone out of business, or if it decides that running its DRM servers isn’t worth their while (like what EA did to its “older” sports titles). While not a show-stopper for me, it does make me reconsider whether I should buy it or not.

#16

Two very good reasons to hate it. I highly agree, for those reasons it sucks really badly.

Me - I’d use an “always online” feature to keep track of what players do and adjust the game accordingly - AND make it optional so you can keep playing even when you don’t have internet available to you. A game like SimCity 2013 should have applied it for that very reason, but alas it seems to be used for DRM reasons only.

#17

Fair enough about on the train. Perhaps this wont be a problem 10 years down the line though, when we are connected no matter where we are.

The stuff about the game servers though, do you know the name of any of the games? I mean its a problem with Steam too, being unable to download them if Steam went under. I would of thought in the case of always online DRM theyd just release a lil patch making it no longer neccesary?

#18

EA shut down some multi-player servers a while back: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/EA-Sports-MMA-Multiplayer-Shutting-Down-Soon-40599.html. Not quite the same thing, though. A better example, though not directly related, was when Microsoft turned off its music service: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/04/drm-sucks-redux-microsoft-to-nuke-msn-music-drm-keys/

As for Steam, this big long thread on their forums discusses what their plans are: http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=870603. The tl;dr version is “Steam would revert to “Offline” mode.”

#19

First of all, I think your game should have BASIC copy protection, so that you cannot copy it as simply, because that will hurt sales.
You dont have to really invest there… once a game is popular enough that someone with skill enough to hack it will look at it - you wont need it anymore

Now, I see the “perfect DRM” as kind of a engineering challenge (not only engineering though).
I believe it is possible to create the prefect DRM which will cause legitimate users absolute zero trouble, and will stop people from pirating it.
DRM has gotten a bad rep because its been done badly - but that doesnt have to be that way.
With a good DRM, a legitimate user will never even notice that there is a DRM.

#20

do it Serious sam 3 style. if it’s pirated make a boss enemy constantly follow you around and shoot at you.

but seroiusly, puppygames’s approach to DRM actually makes sense. Also, lots of people who pirate games buy the second one if they liked it, assuming the DRM isn’t a total jerk.