Easy on the DRM pretty please?

Hopefully the Steam versions won't require some third party DRM on top of Steam's own DRM, like some games do. Hell, it would be great if retail copies of the game didn't have any DRM beyond a disk check (including a Steam requirement). I just wonder how likely that is in this day and age.

If they just stick to a disk check, that would be great, but if they do decide they want some form of increased protection, to at least slow piracy,* then personally I'd like to see them use Steam's. Although that is because it's not really a hindrance if I'm already happily using it, that's obviously not going to be true for everyone.

*A disk check is pretty much useless at stopping zero-day piracy, copies get "acquired" a few weeks before official release and cracked without much difficulty. There'll always be people who are anticipating a game and if they see they can play illegitimate copies before release, they will. To what degree that effects release day sales is a different matter (I'm sure there'll always be people who will buy the game when it's released and also people who would have bought the game but then failed to see the need after jumping the queue with a pirate copy).

 

The single player game should not have any kind of authentication/activation/verification or anything else. Steam or otherwise. I'm buying the product, please do not treat me like a criminal by forcing me to prove my bonafides. Companies, even ones I love as much as Firaxis, fold. If Civ II had had authentication then we'd be unable to play it today.

If they would like to include some sort of registration check or authentication in order to use the built-in Mod browser, which they will apparently be hosting and supporting, then that's understandable and acceptable. Or if they wanted to provide some real multiplayer services (Not gamespy, please. But otherwise anything more robust than the DIY that Civ 4 has), and require authentication for that, then that is also understandable and acceptable. Those would be services above and beyond the game itself and it makes sense that they'd shy away from giving those services to thieves.

However, as a would-be legitimate owner of the game, I expect to be able to own and play it in perpetuity. Installing it from the DVD in the box should always work. No calling home, no hardware verification, etc. Just me and my game.

 

Ubisoft absolutely disgusts me... not only will I never again buy anything even somewhat related to an Ubisoft product, or a product that is even remotely tied to Ubisoft in any way, but I will speak out about these maniacs.

You need an internet connection to play offline? Among the hordes of other craziness they have added. The top-guys at Ubisoft have some kind of paranoid delusion complex. Companies that do this stuff are crazy... they are asking for people to not buy their games.

Although all they care about is the masses, once you have gone through this with one of their products and had a tough time, or couldn't play the game because of their DRM, they feel it.

News has shown:
- Ubisoft is heading towards consoles so they don't have to deal with PC's anymore because sales are down.
- Sales are down massively on PC overall because of the draconian controversial DRM.
- Ubisoft ignores it's customers, and defends it's crappy DRM.
- After all the money they spent on their new DRM, it was cracked within 24 hours of it's release. Perhaps they should be concerned more about their paying customers, instead of pissing all over them without at least giving them the courtesy of calling it rain.

 

The problem companies have with piracy is the way they look at it. Currently, companies just look at piracy numbers and see it all as lost revenue. But hardly any of it is. Mostly it consists of young people who simply don't have any money, and therefore would not buy the game if it was unavailable via piracy. Some of it even consists of people who have bought the game and want to get around the copy protection so they don't need to switch cds all the time.

The number of potential customers who are pirating any particular game is a vanishingly small fraction of the number of people pirating a game. I haven't got a clue what the exact numbers are, but companies really need to do a more accurate assessment of their exact lost revenues - I expect that in many cases, the costs in development and lost sales for rigorous protection schemes far outweighs the lost revenue.

 

I've always been a believer that most of the people who pirate games weren't going to spend the money in the first place. These companies ain't losing as much as they think they are. This anti-piracy argument is BS, IMO.

 

Can you really say that for sure? If you haven't got a clue what the exact numbers are, how can you be sure the percentage of potential customers who instead pirate is "vanishingly small"? It seems to me that the numbers are unknown and guessing with gut feeling isn't a sensible or fair way of establishing figures.

 

WARNING: Strong Language http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt4BpnfAN-o

DRM creates more "pirates" than it prevents simply by preventing useful normal actions such as playing a game without a disc in the drive or running it under a operating system other than windows.

 

That guy is my new hero. Thing is, he is absolutely correct... the ONLY people that lose are the buying customers... no one else loses out. Almost everyone that has purchased a game recently has run across something of this sort, and after you have dished out 50 bucks, this kind of crap can do nothing but piss you off.

You have to crack some games in order to play the store bought version. People who are not computer literate would have no clue what to do... and once you open the box, you can't bring it back to the store.... So those people are really getting screwed.

They are pissing and crapping all over their customers that keep them in business.

Almost as bad, are things like the crap ports to consoles (Fallout 3 anyone?) that freeze so often the game becomes unplayable, and once the save file gets to a certain size, disaster strikes. Thank you Bethesda. Not only that, Bethesda won't comment on it, won't patch it, and simply doesn't care. I just threw away another $60 on that PS3 game, that I cannot get back, and can't play. Any respect I had for Bethesda went down the toilet some time ago. My list of companies who I will not buy products from grows by the day.

 

I personally agree, but disagree with the sentiment. Plus, I'll probably be too broke to buy civ5 anyway

But from a marketing standpoint, Steam is about the best way to go. They don't hassle their users too much, just need to log into the system once to verify and done. It looks like malware too me, but I'm comfortable compiling source code, your average user is not, and really to alot of users Steam is pretty easy to use and isn't too intrusive.

I believe it's more of a middle ground. You want to have DRM protecion strong enough so that a user at least needs to google a little to get around it, so that it's not easier to pirate then purchase. But at the same time, if your DRM is so intrusive that pirating becomes easier then purchasing legally, users will pirate the software just on principle, and this also teaches users who otherwise wouldn't bother how to pirate in the first place. So companies like Ubisoft are pretty much shooting themselves in the foot there.

 

While a lot of computer illiterate users might have to google a work-around to DRM, it just takes one look at the "how old are you?" thread to realize most people are around 28 years old, which means they are of the ripe age to know exactly what a torrent file is and how to use it.

With that in mind, everyone is exactly three clicks away from downloading any game, DRM free. This means everything is easier to pirate than purchase, regardless of how much DRM is in a program. The company is relying only on the ignorance or honesty of users to get them to pay, and that is not a good business model.

The solution? Incentive to buy the game. Incentive to register that doesn't include, "we will send you promotional offers! And so will our partners!"

 

The guy has a point and all; if DRM is creating a major hindrance to legitimate customers, then there's obviously a problem. But firstly, not all forms of DRM are equivalent. Some are definitely worse than others (StarForce has a lot of controversy surrounding it, for one).

My point is, saying things like "DRM creates more "pirates" than it prevents" and "The number of potential customers who are pirating any particular game is a vanishingly small fraction of the number of people pirating a game", seem to just be statements based on nothing but gut feeling. They could be right, they could also be wrong. To put it another way [Citation needed].

 

If you purchased through D2D, you can have them email you the old key; there is no need to get a new key.

I reinstall all the time as well and this is why I like D2D over Steam. I can have the install files on my home network share and then just have D2D email me the keys.

 

The same way I can be sure that only a tiny percentage of people miss telegraph service. Don't need a pollster to tell me, don't need to know the exact number. Common sense and experience! Whatever happened to it?

 

That argument strikes me as pretty non sequiter. Economically speaking, as piracy of games becomes easier, unless the penalties or conviction rates increase, the piracy should increase. also, could you please expound on what you mean by 'vanishingly small?' I'm not sure whether I should interpret that as 'minor in comparison to those that purchase' which I could believe, but would, as Modiga said, like some kind of data backing that up. Alternatively, should I interpret it as 'growing smaller as time goes on,' which I would have a harder time believing.

 

It's not common sense if you're making it up on no real basis. It's undoubtable bias.

 

Wrong ... if I use the D2D installer I must enter an activation key and it has to be shiny new. Anyway they don't offer support for the game anymore- D2D even removed the purchase from my account. I had to dig deep in my email archive for the original order receipt for them to acknowledge that I even bought it last time I got a key and the support ticket system is a major hassle. It shouldn't take hours to install a game. Steam ftw ... no reinstall necessary anymore.

 

To be honest I see the piracy issue in other light, that is the costs of making and implementing a DRM for the company ,especially some very draconian and convoluted that were already mentioned here and in other threads ( cough*Ubisoft*cough ) . Can they really say their DRM will save them money, even without any backslash issues ? To be honest I'm not sure....

 

Regardless of whatever protections they try to throw with it, a pirated version of the game will likely be available to download on the same day of its release. Though I suppose DRM has more to do with avoiding reselling than with avoiding piracy itself...

 

Technically you are just buying a license to play the game, not the game itself.

But I agree with the sentiment.

 

Modiga-Disabled:

Here is an article with some of the numbers. Its a long read but informative.

http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html

Personally I look at it from a consumer's perspective. I buy something if I need or want it. I can't see paying for the privilage of trying to circumvent DRM. At some point the hassle created is more than the enjoyment created.