What makes a well-executed DRM

[Kes]

I think that both Dream3r and CashmereCat make valid points.  DRM has come up as a topic on several threads over the last year or so, and indeed most of those arguing for no DRM are speaking as players.  However, I am interested in making commercial games, and for that I have to have some assurance that I will get paid.  Without DRM, I can forget ever trying to make a commercial game, the income will not be greater than the costs.

Touchfuzzy made a very good point on another thread (which unfortunately I can't find, so can't give the link).  My paraphrase of his argument is this:

Games are still sold, and not just pirated, because there are people who recognise that justice requires that the developer receive payment for their labour, and without that payment there will be no future games from them - they'll go bust.  There are enough of such people to keep the market in operation.  Those who pirate are acting as parasites on the backs of the legal buyers.

I do not wish to support the activity of parasites, so I argue for DRM.

 

[Mouser]

@CashmereCat: don't get me going on copyright terms. Decades of American culture are being lost forever because the people who hold the 'rights' to the content have no interest in reproducing or even preserving it, but will fight anyone else who does. All the music and literature from the 30's and 40's falls into this (as well as later, but that's at least preserved a bit better). As it is written now, nothing that you enjoy in your youth will ever become public domain in your lifetime: and the purpose of copyright is to increase the number of works in the Public Domain, and to keep content creators creating, not resting on their laurels for their life and the letting their children (and even grandchildren) reap the benefits while society gains nothing. For the 1% of stuff that's still making money after twenty or thirty years you have the 99% that is still wrapped up under lock and key that could be released into the Public Domain without hurting the creators: they've already made all the money they're realistically going to make.

@ksjp17: I'm working on a commercial project to. I don't plan on putting DRM on it. The premise "If it doesn't have DRM nobody will buy it so I won't make any money" is just plain false. I give you Torchlight as a recent example - released _completely_ DRM free in the retail version. Still SOLD over a million copies in its first four months and even now is holding its price point years later (launched @ $20 now selling for $15).

In other industries: iTunes has proven that people will pay for music that they otherwise could get for free without much trouble.

If your game is popular the DRM will be cracked and your game will be available for 'free' for anyone who wants to pirate it. That's the reality of the situation. If it's not popular it might not get cracked, but then you aren't making any money anyway, because it means no one is buying your game.

Here's another reality: Most people don't want to pirate games. They know about the viruses and trojans and other malware that just love to piggyback on warez. Make the game convenient enough to buy, and entertaining enough to be worth buying and people will.

I'm anti-DRM, anti a few provisions of the DMCA (most of it is good), anti-SOPA because I believe consumers do have some rights that these are taking away: "Fair Use" and the "Doctrine of First Sale" being two easy examples to come up with.

 

[Andar]

I give you Torchlight as a recent example - released _completely_ DRM free in the retail version. Still SOLD over a million copies in its first four months and even now is holding its price point years later (launched @ $20 now selling for $15).


In other industries: iTunes has proven that people will pay for music that they otherwise could get for free without much trouble.

Yes, but both examples have a limit: the price.
They both work because the prices they're asking are low by comparison, like Torchlights $20 compared to prime games with prices of $50.


And that limit creates a limit on production costs - If the production of the game requires more money (and a lot of games with high-quality-rendering do need more money to be produced), then you'll need DRM because there are not enough people willing to pay 40$ instead of pirating or going to other games.


And that's why you see a lot of small, independent companies working without DRM, but none of the bigger companies do - and a lot of the growing companies of the past switched to DRM, when their games became larger and required more graphics and so on.

 

[Tuomo L]

I've spent so much time and money to make my game, I'm going to invest to a good DRM to protect my interests because I don't want to see the game being shared for free. It's not like I'll make it super expensive either, I'll try and keep it just barely on levels to cover up my expenses and the taxes and all. I know no DRM is perfect but if I create a company and am expected to pay bills and my food from my products, every single sale I can make counts.

However, the benefit I have is that I live in Finland and if I need to take lawsuits, the people literally would have to fly over here to fight me in court. Considering how much it'd cost to fly over the person and their lawyer as well as any possible witnesses, I think that'll be good when I just send "cease and desist" notices.

 

[Mouser]

However, the benefit I have is that I live in Finland and if I need to take lawsuits, the people literally would have to fly over here to fight me in court. Considering how much it'd cost to fly over the person and their lawyer as well as any possible witnesses, I think that'll be good when I just send "cease and desist" notices.

The flip side of that is you live in Finland, so you can send out cease and desist notices as long as you want and no court in Finland has the authority to back them up by charging damages, no matter what the judge rules.

Yes, but both examples have a limit: the price.

They both work because the prices they're asking are low by comparison, like Torchlights $20 compared to prime games with prices of $50.

Show me a "prime" game whose DRM wasn't cracked within a week of launch. Maybe some held out for two, but they're all available 'free' if you want to go that route (more than a few are cracked before release). The price and the DRM didn't help them any, although the DRM they used has created a lot of negative 'Goodwill' in the gaming community.

The main goal of major companies with their DRM is to get around the 'Doctrine of First Sale' by making game transfers impossible: meaning you can't sell a used game to somebody, like you can sell a used book. It isn't to prevent people from downloading pirated versions: that's a lost cause and they know it (unless you go the Diablo 3 route - and even that can be emulated).

Truthfully, it isn't like the pirates don't bring some positives to the table ("It's an ill wind that blows no good" and all that): They play your game, the post on YouTube and tell their friends about your game - they do generate a lot of word-by-mouth and social media advertising.

Edit:

Keep this in mind: Pirates getting a free copy of your game don't hurt you (they weren't going to pay for your game anyway). People like me who would have bought a copy of your game but don't because it comes with DRM do.

 

[Sharm]

Mouser, this has been said before, the point of a DRM isn't to stop people from pirating your game, it's to make it hard enough to pirate for long enough that it's just easier to buy it in the first little while where the majority of sales happen. It's trying to catch the "I want to play it now" people. There's actually a good point being made too, that with so many of these games being free there are some users who just wouldn't know it was a pirated game if there wasn't some anti-piracy stuff involved.


In my mind the best DRM is one that doesn't ever punish the player for not using the cracked version. Any time you punish people for being honest you make new pirates who otherwise might have bought your game.


My favorite anti-piracy thing is to leak a "cracked" version of your game that is actually a broken copy that has about as much playability as a demo version.

 

[Tuomo L]

The flip side of that is you live in Finland, so you can send out cease and desist notices as long as you want and no court in Finland has the authority to back them up by charging damages, no matter what the judge rules.

I am pretty sure it doesn't work that way, if you are violating my copyright and I live in Finland, then the laws are being handled by the country you're being sued in, in this case my country so it does not matter if you live in America, Poland or Denmark as you'd still be judged by Finnish court. So if Japan's Enterbrain ever wants to sue you, it means you'd hae to fly to them, not other way around. Lawsuits and copyright matter are always handled in the country that has made the copyright and lawsuit claims.  So yes, my courts do have the authority to back them up.

 

[Andar]

I am pretty sure it doesn't work that way, if you are violating my copyright and I live in Finland, then the laws are being handled by the country you're being sued in, in this case my country so it does not matter if you live in America, Poland or Denmark as you'd still be judged by Finnish court.

Not exactly, Mouser and you are both partially correct.
This process requires that the country where you live and the country where the sued person lives have to have an international law agreement supporting each other. If such an agreement doesn't exist, then Mouser is correct and your claims will simply be ignored.


Because how would you enforce your legal claim otherwise? Flying to America yourself and asking the police there to arrest someone because of a Finnish lawsuit?

 

[Tuomo L]

Not exactly, Mouser and you are both partially correct.

This process requires that the country where you live and the country where the sued person lives have to have an international law agreement supporting each other. If such an agreement doesn't exist, then Mouser is correct and your claims will simply be ignored.

Because how would you enforce your legal claim otherwise? Flying to America yourself and asking the police there to arrest someone because of a Finnish lawsuit?

America does have international law agreement though. 

 

[Mouser]

Yes, but both examples have a limit: the price.

They both work because the prices they're asking are low by comparison, like Torchlights $20 compared to prime games with prices of $50.

And that limit creates a limit on production costs - If the production of the game requires more money (and a lot of games with high-quality-rendering do need more money to be produced), then you'll need DRM because there are not enough people willing to pay 40$ instead of pirating or going to other games.

Ok, how about The Witcher 3?

$60 new, $53 for a pre-order - 100% DRM free from launch.

I don't know exactly what the budget was for that game, but from looking at the trailers, I'd bet that it's up there.

I'll be getting my pre-order

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

Possibly betting that those who liked the first and second games will buy it... and I do think it has quite a playerbase (though I'm not a fan of it myself)

Show me a "prime" game whose DRM wasn't cracked within a week of launch. Maybe some held out for two, but they're all available 'free' if you want to go that route (more than a few are cracked before release). The price and the DRM didn't help them any, although the DRM they used has created a lot of negative 'Goodwill' in the gaming community.

Though they ("Prime" games) do sell out a lot during the first week, and also, pre-order seems to be a hype right now so even if the game gets cracked in a week or so, I do think they already got a chunk of money... 

I give you Torchlight as a recent example - released _completely_ DRM free in the retail version. Still SOLD over a million copies in its first four months and even now is holding its price point years later (launched @ $20 now selling for $15).

One word: Playerbase... Seriously, Torchlight (the first one) was a hit (was really awesome IMHO) and the only problem is the lack of multiplayer... so Runic announcing TLII and confirming that it will have multiplayer support is enough to get those players have their cash ready...

So IMHO, you can go no-DRM from the get-go but it's really a high risk for someone who is selling his first ever game. Unless you can build up a playerbase for your game (pre-release) even if it's just the first game that you'd be producing, then I do think having no-DRM at all will just increase your risks... 

and as a player and as a dev, I do hate extreme DRM especially those always online ones... I even do hate the famous DRM called Steam for some personal reasons... for me the best would be a simple "enter key to activate once"

 

[Kokoro Hane]

In response to original post;

In truth, I personally do not agree with it as both a gamer and an amateur game dev. However, if there is to be DRM, the only DRM I am willing to accept is "you must insert the disc to play" sorta DRM. I still do not like it, as this puts more wear and tear on my disc (so if it is damaged and the game is out of print, I am screwed) while installing once and playing without disc allows the disc to remain in pristine condition. But still, I can handle this type of DRM as if it is out of print I can still play the game,

DRM such as YOU MUST BE ONLINE is the worst DRM practice and should be done with. I hardly buy new games anymore because of this; not only do I not enjoy rubber-banding (this is when you try to advance on a map, and it bounces you back) when I am not on an MMO,  if the Internet is down, I cannot play the game! And sometimes for the DSL unit to rest if it gets hot, we need it off but I still wanna game on my computer. I cannot play Diabo III because of this, it was getting too much, and I cannot try many games I would love to because of this either. What happens if the company goes out of business? I no longer have my good old game to play, now do I? No company wants to think they are going to go out of business, but let's face the facts, it can happen. It doesn't mean it will, but it can. Or if they decide to abandon the game, which eventually happens. 

So the only "DRM scheme" that works and I can deal with is you must play with the disc. Oh, and you must use the security code (which I think should be printed on the disc so it cannot be lost). That, while a hassle still, is bearable. Anything beyond that, I feel as if I am being punished as a PAYING CUSTOMER while pirates just probably hack it and do whatever. There will always be pirates, but the losses do not have to be great if you treat your paying customers right for legally obtaining the game by buying it like everyone should. This is probably why a lot of games seem not to go on PC lately anymore, and I can't exactly afford the latest consoles and will just begin to play on the consoles I missed out on since they're affordable now! 

Anyway, in conclusion, the reason I officially began game developing is BECAUSE of bad DRM. I want to create games with the gamers in mind, and try to find a way to reward paying customers. You can't stop pirates, but paying customers need to be treated well for supporting the games they love. While I had always dreamed of making games as a kid, the DRM (and fact that games are released half finished more often than not) is what sealed this as "yeah, my career will be game making". So for me, I personally support DRM-free, but if it must be done, then the enter security code and play with disc is as far as I am willing to accept. 

 

[whitesphere]

While developers need to get paid for their work, it is a very tricky balance to strike.  If the game's DRM is too invasive, and causes problems for paying customers (i.e. glitches in the DRM which cause crashes or device errors on their computer), the bad press from upset gamers might outweigh the extra sales from people who bought the game rather than downloading a cracked copy.

For example, I know that, many years ago, when I worked for a company which made several other types of software and licensing software for large business applications, more than half of the tech support calls were problems with the licensing software.  This despite having quite a few other software packages available.

I can't imagine how many more problems overly invasive DRM causes for non technical users.  

And, if there are problems with the DRM, since it is embedded in the game, the game itself will be blamed particularly by non technical users.  I see that all the time with software --- if one component fails in a system, the most visible "container" for that component is blamed.

The best DRM schemes are the ones which are transparent to the end-user and do not inhibit offline play, and either do not require re-activating a copy, or if they do re-activate the software, do NOT place limits on the re-activation counts (Spore's DRM had a max of 5 re-activations, so hope you don't upgrade your PC often).  

In contrast, Scrivener has an unspecified small number of re-activations, but I've never had a problem even when the original PC croaked and I installed the software on my new PC.  

Maybe a good compromise would be "no more than 3 activations per serial number, but if a PC hasn't been online in <X> days, consider it inactive and automatically increment its activation count."

However, consider any DRM which connects to a server requires the developer or a third party pay to maintain that server.  The cost of which must be borne by the DRM license.   

I also like the idea of leaking a cracked version that is basically a demo.  This gives pirates the possibility of trying out the game.  If you look online, there are a lot of creative ways developers penalize pirates in-game.

There's no one size fits all solution here.  

 

[Matombo]

I also like the idea of leaking a cracked version that is basically a demo.  This gives pirates the possibility of trying out the game.  If you look online, there are a lot of creative ways developers penalize pirates in-game.

"BTW if you like the game, buy it or die!" /endquote MsAnne NPC Pokemon Firered/Leavegreen when played on an Emulator. XD

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

On most NFO files that I've touched from pirated copies, most of them says: If you like the game, buy it... though I wonder how many people do read those... XD

Anyway, just no to really restrictive ones...

 

[Zeriab]

A well-executed DRM from my point of view as a player is one that provide easy access to what I have rights for, and does not hinder me in playing my games, and more generally do not hinder my usage of what I have the rights to use.

 

[whitesphere]

"BTW if you like the game, buy it or die!" /endquote MsAnne NPC Pokemon Firered/Leavegreen when played on an Emulator. XD

I saw some very interesting ways of punishing pirates, including:

- Earthbound.  When you reach the final boss, the game erases ALL of your savefiles and then locks up

- Game Developer Tycoon.  For maximum irony:  At a certain point, in-game pirates start stealing all of your games, causing your profits to plummet to 0

- Chrono Trigger.  Trips to a different time take literally forever

- Some first person shooter:  Guns gradually get less powerful and less accurate, becoming useless after several dozen shots.  Another one replaces all guns with guns which shoot chickens (said chickens do 0 damage).  And another creates an indestructible enemy who always stalks you...

 

[Shion Kreth]

People who are dead set against drm are very honest people(or very self-interested pirates) who've never gotten a copy of a drm-free game from a friend, even when they were young and had no concept of supporting the industry, and liked it but didn't buy it after because there was no need to.

 

[Caitlin]

Earthbound has the best DRM, when played on an emulator, there are more enemies & in the last battle, it freezes up.  After that, you reset it & the game erase your game.  I know it's not possible in rpg maker, but interesting. 

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

who've never gotten a copy of a drm-free game from a friend, even when they were young and had no concept of supporting the industry, and liked it but didn't buy it after because there was no need to.

It seems like your statements actually battle each other since if I never got a free-copy of a game why will there be no need for me to buy the game? Since I never a free copy, I will need to buy the game for me to play it