Spore, Mass Effect to use retardedly strict DRM.

[Vendetta]

And of course everyone that pirated the game would have bought it otherwise, right? And No one that pirated the game actually went on to buy a copy either, I'm sure...

Given the rates of piracy some games show, even one in ten of the pirates actually buying the game would double their overall sales, and remember, these were the proportion of copied keys in ongoing use on games with online servers, and those rates stayed relatively stable. So it's not "people trying it out before they buy", it's the vast majority of PC owners simply copying games because it's so easy to do so and they don't want to pay. No bullshit rationalisations, PC gaming is a poisoned well now, and you should be happy any games are coming out at all, because it's simply much more profitable to launch to closed hardware like consoles.

[weemadando]

I own the game and pirated a copy due to install issues w/ my particular DVD drive.

[Vendetta]

Which would mean you were using a legit key for access. The 80-90% piracy rate comes from the number of pirated product keys. People with legit keys wouldn't show up in it.

[Stark]

Not that I deny the huge amount of piracy in PC gaming, but are you basing these on the word of a marketing guy for a company that failed? I mean, Diablo still sells and it is just as insecure as Titty Quest. Sacred made money. While I'm sure piracy doesn't help, Iron Lore wasn't just killed by evil pirates, any more than Auron was killed by anything but their own stupidity.

[Ar-Adunakhor]

Which would mean you were using a legit key for access. The 80-90% piracy rate comes from the number of pirated product keys. People with legit keys wouldn't show up in it.

You know, I second the request for some actual figures on this rather than the nebulous percentages stuff.

[Lord of the Abyss]

So it's not "people trying it out before they buy", it's the vast majority of PC owners simply copying games because it's so easy to do so and they don't want to pay. No bullshit rationalisations, PC gaming is a poisoned well now, and you should be happy any games are coming out at all, because it's simply much more profitable to launch to closed hardware like consoles.

And why should I believe that ? Given the success of games without copy protection, why should I believe that piracy is this industry crippling problem ? And not, say, an excuse for anti-piracy companies to sell bad copy protection schemes, and bad game developers using piracy as an excuse to handwave away their own failures ? And is there any actual evidence that most PC owners are using mostly pirated games ? Or is it just a convenient claim by gamemakers or copy protection companies ?

And regardless of how common piracy is or isn't, driving away customers isn't the way to solve it. I'm not going to buy these things ( and no, I won't pirate them either ). And judging from the reaction I've heard everywhere I've looked, I think that an awful lot of people aren't going to buy these games, because of this nonsense.

[Zixinus]

From the topic I somehow received the impression that we are talking about the industry where the developers and the users blame eachother for the contenious failure of industry as a whole. I think that then there is a very big amount of static between the two groups or something.

Here is something: consoles can be pirated too. There is the magic little devices called "mod chips" that remove the copy protection from the console. Getting one can be pretty hard but its still saves a shitload of money later on on games.

[bilateralrope]

Actually, I have a question about DRM in general.

How is the DRM tested before it gets released ?

[Molyneux]

Actually, I have a question about DRM in general.

How is the DRM tested before it gets released ?

That's...a good question.

As for me...I have been waiting for Spore for around, what, five years now? More? I want to say that if it's released with this stupid fucking scheme, I will cancel my preorder out of protest...but I honestly don't know if I can bear to do that.

As for Mass Effect, well, I was planning on getting the PC version. So much for that.

[Zixinus]

How is the DRM tested before it gets released ?

They ask a 10 year old pirate from prison and tell him to crack the thing. Since he obviously can't, they assume its safe.

I doubt that there is any real test. The developers most likely try to do the more simple and granted tricks to see if they work, bughunt and then they assume they're done. I presume they might even ask a proffesional hacker to make an attempt.

[White Haven]

The trouble with piracy statistics being treated as theft figures is that the software industry is the intersection of a scarcity-based economy (I have two things, I sell one, I have one thing, you have one thing) and a non-scarcity-based economy (I have one thing, I sell one thing, I have one thing, you have one thing). They overlap enough to make translating between the two possible, but the concept of theft becomes a good deal more elastic. Someone who pirates one copy and buys one copy is a net gain of one sale with no loss, whereas someone who steals one car and buys one car is a net loss due to low profit margins. Someone who pirates and does not buy software is a loss, someone who pirates and would not have bought software is not a loss. Someone who steals a car is a loss, someone who would not have bought a car still doesn't have a car, but it's never reported as a loss statistic.

[Crazy_Vasey]

Actually, I have a question about DRM in general.

How is the DRM tested before it gets released ?

Given how often DRM schemes break horribly because of hardware incompatabilies, I'll guess at 'badly'.

[Darmalus]

You know the system is broken when the pirates are producing a superior product. I think I'll wait for the DRM free version.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Seems EA has already decided to drop SecuROM for both games due to the overwhelmingly negative reaction within the last couple of days:

http://kotaku.com/5008452/bioware-backs ... entication
http://kotaku.com/5008454/spore-to-use- ... entication

[Losonti Tokash]

Could it be...that EA sees reason? They dropped that retarded "buy in-game guns with real money" idea from Bad Company after all.

[Atavarius]

This maybe worthy of a new thread but I figure since there is some pretty good DRM conversation going on in here its relevant. If a mod disagrees please split to a new topic.


Great post by a Stardock dev on piracy and DRM here.

Recently there has been a lot of talk about how piracy affects PC gaming. And if you listen to game developers, it apparently is a foregone conclusion - if a high quality PC game doesn't sell as many copies as it should, it must be because of piracy.

Now, I don't like piracy at all. It really bugs me when I see my game up on some torrent site just on the principle of the matter. And piracy certainly does cost sales. But arguing that piracy is the primary factor in lower sales of well made games? I don't think so. People who never buy software aren't lost sales.
Is it about business or glory?

Most people who know of Stardock in the gaming world think of it as a tiny indie shop. And we certainly are tiny in terms of game development. But in the desktop enhancement market, Stardock owns that market and it's a market with many millions of users. According to CNET, 6 of the top 10 most popular desktop enhancements are developed by Stardock. Our most popular desktop enhancement, WindowBlinds, has almost 14 million downloads just on Download.com. We have over a million registered users.

If you want to talk about piracy, talk about desktop enhancements. The piracy on that is huge. But the question isn't about piracy. It's about sales.

So here is the deal: When you develop for a market, you don't go by the user base. You go by the potential customer base. That's what most software companies do. They base what they want to create on the size of the market they're developing for. But not PC game developers.

PC game developers seem to focus more on the "cool" factor. What game can they make that will get them glory with the game magazines and gaming websites and hard core gamers? These days, it seems like game developers want to be like rock stars more than businessmen. I've never considered myself a real game developer. I'm a gamer who happens to know how to code and also happens to be reasonably good at business.

So when I make a game, I focus on making games that I think will be the most profitable. As a gamer, I like most games. I love Bioshock. I think the Orange Box is one of the best gaming deals ever. I love Company of Heroes and Oblivion was captivating. My two favorite games of all time are Civilization (I, II, III, and IV) and Total Annihilation. And I won't even get into the hours lost in WoW. Heck, I even like The Sims.

So when it comes time to make a game, I don't have a hard time thinking of a game I'd like to play. The hard part is coming up with a game that we can actually make that will be profitable. And that means looking at the market as a business not about trying to be "cool".
Making games for customers versus making games for users

So even though Galactic Civilizations II sold 300,000 copies making 8 digits in revenue on a budget of less than $1 million, it's still largely off the radar. I practically have to agree to mow editors lawns to get coverage. And you should see Jeff Green's (Games for Windows) yard. I still can't find my hedge trimmers.

Another game that has been off the radar until recently was Sins of a Solar Empire. With a small budget, it has already sold about 200,000 copies in the first month of release. It's the highest rated PC game of 2008 and probably the best selling 2008 PC title. Neither of these titles have CD copy protection.

And yet we don't get nearly the attention of other PC games. Lack of marketing on our part? We bang on the doors for coverage as next as the next shop. Lack of advertising? Open up your favorite PC game publication for the past few months and take note of all the 2 page spreads for Sins of a Solar Empire. So we certainly try.

But we still don't get the editorial buzz that some of the big name titles do because our genre isn't considered as "cool" as other genres. Imagine what our sales would be if our games had gotten game magazine covers and just massive editorial coverage like some of the big name games get. I don't want to suggest we get treated poorly by game magazine and web sites (not just because I fear them -- which I do), we got good preview coverage on Sins, just not the same level as one of the "mega" titles would get. Hard core gamers have different tastes in games than the mainstream PC gaming market of game buyers. Remember Roller Coaster Tycoon? Heck, how much buzz does The Sims get in terms of editorial when compared to its popularity. Those things just aren't that cool to the hard core gaming crowd that everything seems geared toward despite the fact that they're not the ones buying most of the games.

I won't even mention some of the big name PC titles that GalCiv and Sins have outsold. There's plenty of PC games that have gotten dedicated covers that haven't sold as well. So why is that?

Our games sell well for three reasons. First, they're good games which is a pre-requisite. But there's lots of great games that don't sell well.

The other two reasons are:

* Our games work on a very wide variety of hardware configurations.
* Our games target genres with the largest customer bases per cost to produce for.


We also don't make games targeting the Chinese market

When you make a game for a target market, you have to look at how many people will actually buy your game combined with how much it will cost to make a game for that target market. What good is a large number of users if they're not going to buy your game? And what good is a market where the minimal commitment to make a game for it is $10 million if the target audience isn't likely to pay for the game?

If the target demographic for your game is full of pirates who won't buy your game, then why support them? That's one of the things I have a hard time understanding. It's irrelevant how many people will play your game (if you're in the business of selling games that is). It's only relevant how many people are likely to buy your game.

Stardock doesn't make games targeting the Chinese market. If we spent $10 million on a PC game explicitly for the Chinese market and we lost our shirts, would you really feel that much sympathy for us? Or would you think "Duh."


You need a machine how fast?

Anyone who keeps track of how many PCs the "Gamer PC" vendors sell each year could tell you that it's insane to develop a game explicitly for hard core gamers. Insane. I think people would be shocked to find out how few hard core gamers there really are out there. This data is available. The number of high end graphics cards sold each year isn't a trade secret (in some cases you may have to get an NDA but if you're a partner you can find out). So why are companies making games that require them to sell to 15% of a given market to be profitable? In what other market do companies do that? In other software markets, getting 1% of the target market is considered good. If you need to sell 500,000 of your game to break even and your game requires Pixel Shader 3 to not look like crap or play like crap, do you you really think that there are 50 MILLION PC users with Pixel Shader 3 capable machines who a) play games and b) will actually buy your game if a pirated version is available?

In our case, we make games that target the widest possible audience as long as as we can still deliver the gaming experience we set out to. Anyone who's looked at the graphics in Sins of a Solar Empire would, I think, agree that the graphics are pretty phenomenal (particularly space battles). But could they be even fancier? Sure. But only if we degraded the gaming experience for the largest chunk of people who buy games.


The problem with blaming piracy

I don't want anyone to walk away from this article thinking I am poo-pooing the effect of piracy. I'm not. I definitely feel for game developers who want to make kick ass PC games who see their efforts diminished by a bunch of greedy pirates. I just don't count pirates in the first place. If you're a pirate, you don't get a vote on what gets made -- or you shouldn't if the company in question is trying to make a profit.

The reason why we don't put CD copy protection on our games isn't because we're nice guys. We do it because the people who actually buy games don't like to mess with it. Our customers make the rules, not the pirates. Pirates don't count. We know our customers could pirate our games if they want but choose to support our efforts. So we return the favor - we make the games they want and deliver them how they want it. This is also known as operating like every other industry outside the PC game industry.

One of the jokes I've seen in the desktop enhancement market is how "ugly" WindowBlinds skins are (though there are plenty of awesome ones too). But the thing is, the people who buy WindowBlinds tend to like a different style of skin than the people who would never buy it in the first place. Natural selection, so to speak, over many years has created a number of styles that seem to be unique to people who actually buy WindowBlinds. That's the problem with piracy. What gets made targets people who buy it, not the people who would never buy it in the first place. When someone complains about "fat borders" on some popular WindowBlinds skin my question is always "Would you buy WindowBlinds even if there was a perfect skin for you?" and the answer is inevitably "Probably not". That's how it works in every market -- the people who buy stuff call the shots. Only in the PC game market are the people who pirate stuff still getting the overwhelming percentage of development resources and editorial support.

When you blame piracy for disappointing sales, you tend to tar the entire market with a broad brush. Piracy isn't evenly distributed in the PC gaming market. And there are far more effective ways of getting people who might buy your product to buy it without inconveniencing them.

Blaming piracy is easy. But it hides other underlying causes. When Sins popped up as the #1 best selling game at retail a couple weeks ago, a game that has no copy protect whatsoever, that should tell you that piracy is not the primary issue.

In the end, the pirates hurt themselves. PC game developers will either slowly migrate to making games that cater to the people who buy PC games or they'll move to platforms where people are more inclined to buy games.

In the meantime, if you want to make profitable PC games, I'd recommend focusing more effort on satisfying the people willing to spend money on your product and less effort on making what others perceive as hot. But then again, I don't romanticize PC game development. I just want to play cool games and make a profit on games that I work on.

I little interest in their games but I may just have to buy one because this was a great post.

[Praxis]

Here is something: consoles can be pirated too. There is the magic little devices called "mod chips" that remove the copy protection from the console. Getting one can be pretty hard but its still saves a shitload of money later on on games.

Right, but it costs money, requires you mess around with hardware, and takes a little effort.

PC piracy is quite often done by idiots, hence the numbers can be so high.

[Vendetta]

And why should I believe that ? Given the success of games without copy protection, why should I believe that piracy is this industry crippling problem ? And not, say, an excuse for anti-piracy companies to sell bad copy protection schemes, and bad game developers using piracy as an excuse to handwave away their own failures ? And is there any actual evidence that most PC owners are using mostly pirated games ? Or is it just a convenient claim by gamemakers or copy protection companies ?

How about when Crytek specifically mentioned it as a significant factor in their decision to produce console games from now on? Like it or not, it's costing more money than developers are now willing to spend. Sorry, PC gamers, you've screwed the pooch.

And whilst console piracy exists, it no longer exists in the realm of total monkeys, like PC piracy, as chipped consoles can now be detected by their online presence and barred from significant features like online access.

[Molyneux]

Not ideal - I certainly don't like the idea of a limited number of installations (I'm planning on keeping a game through at least two or three computer systems if I buy it), but the every-10-days check was the deal-breaker for me.

[Stark]

How about when Crytek specifically mentioned it as a significant factor in their decision to produce console games from now on? Like it or not, it's costing more money than developers are now willing to spend. Sorry, PC gamers, you've screwed the pooch.

'Marketing guys said some stuff' is not numbers. To support DRM you have to prove a) piracy is huge (you claim 80-90%) and b) DRM will significantly increase real sales.

Some stuff a marketing guy said as their company failed or retreated from an entire market proves netiher of these points. Certainly, console games are more profitable; simply removing the QA of all that hardware and OS bullshit is going to save a company money.

Games still sell, even games with no DRM at all sell by the million. Crysis got poor sales, I recall (much like UT3 at a similar time). Can we blame this on piracy, or other issues? Does anyone blame the failure of bog-standard old-fashioned UT3 on piracy?

[Ar-Adunakhor]

How about when Crytek specifically mentioned it as a significant factor in their decision to produce console games from now on? Like it or not, it's costing more money than developers are now willing to spend. Sorry, PC gamers, you've screwed the pooch.

'Marketing guys said some stuff' is not numbers. To support DRM you have to prove a) piracy is huge (you claim 80-90%) and b) DRM will significantly increase real sales.

Some stuff a marketing guy said as their company failed or retreated from an entire market proves netiher of these points. Certainly, console games are more profitable; simply removing the QA of all that hardware and OS bullshit is going to save a company money.

Games still sell, even games with no DRM at all sell by the million. Crysis got poor sales, I recall (much like UT3 at a similar time). Can we blame this on piracy, or other issues? Does anyone blame the failure of bog-standard old-fashioned UT3 on piracy?

I'd be more inclined to blame Crysis tanking on the Devs trying to require Octo-core, 48 gig RAM, 99000 GTXOC machines to run it than I would any amount of piracy. The marketing debacle where they screwed themselves over by saying "It's all FIIIIIIIINE. You're to blame!" didn't help them either.

[Stark]

You could even argue that both Titty Quest and Crysis are in 'big piracy' genres, so even IF IT WAS TRUE (which hasn't been proven) it wouldn't affect 'PC gaming' in general. This is largely why I believe Stardock gets away with it; certainly there is piracy of their games, but no millions of people pirating them as there would be if they were hyped mulitplayer shooters or big-name RTS's etc.

If the FPS and RTS genre die on PC (something for which no numbers have been presented) I'd actually be pretty happy; developers making interesting games no huge pre-set population of pirates exist for would suit me fine.

[Adrian Laguna]

Question: How does the game determine that 10 days have passed? The only thing I can think of is the system clock, which is pitifully easy to modify.

[Terralthra]

If it's connecting to the internet to recheck activation, it's laughably easy to ping http://whattimeisit.com/

[bilateralrope]

How about when Crytek specifically mentioned it as a significant factor in their decision to produce console games from now on? Like it or not, it's costing more money than developers are now willing to spend. Sorry, PC gamers, you've screwed the pooch.

'Marketing guys said some stuff' is not numbers. To support DRM you have to prove a) piracy is huge (you claim 80-90%) and b) DRM will significantly increase real sales.

And more importantly, c) DRM can actually reduce piracy.

Since I don't know of any DRM scheme which hasn't been cracked quickly after release. And once cracked, none of the pirates have to bother with it.

If it's connecting to the internet to recheck activation, it's laughably easy to ping http://whattimeisit.com/

I think the crack would be altering the last checked time whenever the program starts up. After all, that has to be stored somewhere on your computer.