"Digital Rights Management drove me to Piracy"

Fidelis

What I'd like to know is, will the servers still be operating in 10 years time? What happens if the company goes títs-up? This always-online DRM sets off my klaxon in the same way that Steam does. What happens if the company is no longer around to authenticate the game?

Can you imagine if Duke Nukem 3D had had this DRM? You'd no longer be able to shoot humanoid-pigs and kick hookers in the face.

Overheal

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

It's called "Onlive"

Thats at least justifiable given the basis of the system is to locate the Hardware at the server-side. Which would also invariably make it difficult or impossible to pirate as the user would have zero access to the executable

This always-online DRM sets off my klaxon in the same way that Steam does. What happens if the company is no longer around to authenticate the game?

Steam Launched and gained its initial playerbase on the Primary Understatement that in the event that Steam went tits-up, they would do Right by making all of their Titles (that they have the rights to do with) Unlocked from the Steamworks System, and that users would be emailed their appropriate Licenses.

Steam still stands as the example of DRM done Right: It conveniences me to buy it, rather than pirate it, despite that logistically with an Internet connection I could easily get it both ways: But steam tracks and dedicates the storage of my Locker of games. In Piracy, you're at the mercy of the mob - and can never be guaranteed a title will be seeded in a years time. So you either invest in a $300 Hard Drive or you buy the game to the same or better effect; with online and update support.

Azza

Wicknight wrote:

The problem with numbers for piracy is that publishers count every priated copy as a lost sale.

From the Gamesutra article you linked too.

On this specific issue of the assumption that wach pirated copy equals a lost sale IDC analyst Billy Pidgeon is quoted as saying.

"I’m glad that publishers are not adhering to that view".

On the same issue Mariam Sughayer of EA's corporate communications was quoted as saying.

"Stepping aside from the whole issue of DRM, people need to recognize that every BitTorrent download doesn’t represent a successful copy of a game, let alone a lost sale,".

Again on the same issue Dan Hewitt, the ESA's senior director of communications is quoted as saying

"It’s important to remember that it’s not a one-for-one equation. Our calculation isn’t such that we say that every game that’s been stolen is a sale loss."

It seems the industry disagrees with your viewpoint. Perhaps they once thought as you do now and have changed viewpoints (again I have never seen an article online where a publisher claims that each pirated game is a lost sale) or perhaps the people quoted in the article where just referring to a general assumption among the gaming media and consumers at the time and it was never a widespread belief in the industry at the time. After all no name or compaines are specifically mentioned.

The role reversal the article referred to was not on this one specific point.
Normally when a game publisher/developer is interviewed on the topic of piracy they will say something along the lines "Our game was pirated X number of times resulting in a loss of earnings". They never say "Our game was pirated X number of times and as a result we lost that(X) amount of sales". However in this article the people from he industry where simply where not stressing the "Our game was pirated X number of times resulting in a loss of earnings" point as they have done so many times before.

Personally I think game publishers have for a long time known that each pirated copy does not equal a lost sale. They just never publicly stated that until that Gamesutra article and without doing so the gaming public just assumed they did and to a large extent they still. They want additional ammunition to throw against publishers and game developers for various reasons, like being burned by their DRM systems or because they disagree with their DRM systems on prinicpal or simply because they dislike the publisher because of experiences with previous games (stuff like developers/publishers rushing games, not delivering on promises, annoyed at DLC, lack of suppport etc etc).

CiaranC

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Agree with You there, piracy is not something new, piracy was rampant during the 8bit days 25 years ago

There was DRM then too, bad sectors on 1541 disks on C64, game manuals and wheel charts to type in codes etc

PogMoThoin

CiaranC wrote: »

There was DRM then too, bad sectors on 1541 disks on C64, game manuals and wheel charts to type in codes etc

Yes, along with the write protect tabs on the cassette. My point was that piracy isn't something new and didn't just suddenly become an issue, its always been there. Just now they can get figures which makes it look worse than it actually is.

Do pirates get a clean working copy with each and every download? No. Lots of pirate copies don't work for whatever reason. Pirates sometimes have to download more than one copy to get a working, clean copy and it means nothing only bandwith to a pirate to download 3 copies to get one that works. So the figure is wrong no matter what it shows.

Theres also those who bought who also download the iso. I've often done this for backup, I've 6 games here on the shelf looking at me on disk that I've also got the iso, it installs quicker from iso and the iso is easier keep. The Arma dedicated server we run was installed this way as I've no access to the disk tray and it would take ages for me to upload the game files. I've had damaged disks before and went looking for the iso

Then there's those who download the game and decide they don't like it after 5 mins, or realise their pc isn't up to the job of playing it....

Azza

Crytek estimated that Crysis was pirated 15-20 time per every copy sold legit.

I believe Crysis sold at least 1.5 million copies which puts the numbers of downloaded copies at 22.5 million assuming we use the lower estimate they gave us.

Now granted as people said, some of those who pirated the game bought it, or decided they did not like it, or could not run it so they are not really lost sales.

However at least some of them are lost sales. Lets take a lowish number say 1%. Thats 225,000 lost sales. Multiplay that by about an average price per copy of €30.00. Thats €6,750,000 in lost revenue.

Even if say Crytek over exagarrated its piracy claim by a factor of 3 and say the percentage of people who would of bought the game if they coult not pirate it is only say 0.5%. You would still see a loss of €1,150,000.

No one really knows what percentage of pirated games are lost sales. But the point I'm trying to make is even a low percentage could make a considerable difference to some games developers.

gizmo

+1 to what Azza said however there is one other issue that is being missed.

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Yes, along with the write protect tabs on the cassette. My point was that piracy isn't something new and didn't just suddenly become an issue, its always been there. Just now they can get figures which makes it look worse than it actually is.

While piracy was certainly present "back in the day", the scale of it due to the internet has made it a far larger problem. You can look at those figures any way you want but at the end of the day that is the number of times a game was downloaded illegally. It may not have been working, it may have just been for backup but each time it was downloaded someone was stealing a copy of a game.

As I've said previously, it's a matter of escalation in terms of piracy vs. DRM. Eventually the latter will win by default as we move towards services such as OnLive et al however in the meantime I do hope a system can be developed which at least offers some protection to publishers/developers without hurting legit customers.

Doodee

Just thought I'd chime in with this:

http://www.osnews.com/story/23153/US_Government_Admits_Most_Piracy_Studies_Are_Nonsense

discuss

Overheal

Doodee wrote: »

Just thought I'd chime in with this:

http://www.osnews.com/story/23153/US_Government_Admits_Most_Piracy_Studies_Are_Nonsense

discuss

well thats damning

PogMoThoin

Azza wrote: »

Crytek estimated that Crysis was pirated 15-20 time per every copy sold legit.

I believe Crysis sold at least 1.5 million copies which puts the numbers of downloaded copies at 22.5 million assuming we use the lower estimate they gave us.

Now granted as people said, some of those who pirated the game bought it, or decided they did not like it, or could not run it so they are not really lost sales.

However at least some of them are lost sales. Lets take a lowish number say 1%. Thats 225,000 lost sales. Multiplay that by about an average price per copy of €30.00. Thats €6,750,000 in lost revenue.

Even if say Crytek over exagarrated its piracy claim by a factor of 3 and say the percentage of people who would of bought the game if they coult not pirate it is only say 0.5%. You would still see a loss of €1,150,000.

No one really knows what percentage of pirated games are lost sales. But the point I'm trying to make is even a low percentage could make a considerable difference to some games developers.

See, much like the film industry telling us Wolverine failed because an unfinished version was leaked before release, it still made ~$200 Million in the box office, how is this a failure? Same can be said here, ~1.5million copies at say €30 per copy is €45million, it didn't cost €45million to produce and market, they made money, lots of it, they're just getting greedy and want more. Piracy may have helped them here by making it a popular game.

I much agree that piracy can help sales, look at Nero, supposedly the makers upload the latest copies themselves as it helps sales. Its not a great product, completely average IMO, other burning softwares are much better, its made famous by it being so available and getting a product brand recognised is all You need to help sales

Fidelis

^^ so really what you're saying is that you're pirates are doing them a favour?

Azza

Crytek never said Crysis failed. Crytek have stated they did make a profit on it.

PogMoThoin

Fidelis wrote: »

^^ so really what you're saying is that you're pirates are doing them a favour?

Not at all, but if they release a good game, at a good price and if it gets a good name people will buy it. Disregard the piracy figures completely and look at the profit ones which are already healthy

gizmo

PogMoThoin wrote: »

See, much like the film industry telling us Wolverine failed because an unfinished version was leaked before release, it still made ~$200 in the box office, how is this a failure? Same can be said here, ~1.5million copies at say €30 per copy is €45million, it didn't cost €45million to produce and market, they made money, lots of it, they're just getting greedy and want more. Piracy may have helped them here by making it a popular game.

I don't have the figures to hand for the first game but I do know that Ubi Montreal had 450 people working on Assassins Creed II between the upgrade from Scimitar to Anvil and the actual game development itself. Also factor in the cost of marketing (inc. that pretty awesome live action) and you have a budget that easily approaches that figure. Now consider the fact that the publisher doesn't even get the full €30 for each game sold and you can see where you're argument falls apart.

As for the Wolverine thing, I don't think they ever called it a commercial failure but what they did point out was that the receipts could have been higher if the movie hadn't leaked which is completely true. And who are you or we to say they're just getting greedy? If they're going to invest $150m in making a movie then they're entitled to considerable rewards. Same goes for games publishing, where it's even more important the stalwart licenses make their money as they're essentially funding the riskier titles in production which may not make their development costs back.

Finally, the helping sales remark is pretty amusing as for every sale a pirated copy helps generate I can almost guarantee you that there is ten it is making it lose.


Sidenote: Crysis didn't fail at all, it ended up selling quite well actually, albeit not spectacularly. What you may remember is that the initial sales were extremely poor and EA commented on them at the time. It was after this period that they began to pick up.

Maximilian

Great article on the history of piracy on Eurogamer. Brings back all the crap I had to put up with as a kid.

Zombrex

Azza wrote: »

It seems the industry disagrees with your viewpoint.

Some of them certainly do now, but you will notice that in every article about this the journalists comment that it is a reversal of previous positions.

I think it is good that companies are wising up about about the melodrama tactics they have been using in the past. That sort of nonsense just makes them look out of touch and silly.

BTW I'm not attempting to justify piracy. I haven't pirated a game since I was like 12 copying Amiga games in the playground.

marco_polo

Maximilian wrote: »

Great article on the history of piracy on Eurogamer. Brings back all the crap I had to put up with as a kid.

And the history of anti piracy ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI

Scram

Overheal wrote: »

Thats at least justifiable given the basis of the system is to locate the Hardware at the server-side. Which would also invariably make it difficult or impossible to pirate as the user would have zero access to the executableSteam Launched and gained its initial playerbase on the Primary Understatement that in the event that Steam went tits-up, they would do Right by making all of their Titles (that they have the rights to do with) Unlocked from the Steamworks System, and that users would be emailed their appropriate Licenses.

Steam still stands as the example of DRM done Right: It conveniences me to buy it, rather than pirate it, despite that logistically with an Internet connection I could easily get it both ways: But steam tracks and dedicates the storage of my Locker of games. In Piracy, you're at the mercy of the mob - and can never be guaranteed a title will be seeded in a years time. So you either invest in a $300 Hard Drive or you buy the game to the same or better effect; with online and update support.

Wow very interesting topic been reading for the last 15 mins. Just wanted to add my 2cents.

What you say about steam is true, id rather get a game from steam than have to downloading it from some "unofficial source" for a few reasons. Not only do you avoid the whole hassle of cracks,patches,rars,isos and risking viruses on your PC but its a hassle.

1) steam its instant and i like to have all my games in 1 place
2) auto updates, remember when you had Battlefield 2 and the nightware of patching that or any other game tbh eg Multiplayer games or MMO's.
3) im lazy, sure its cheaper to order the game from play.com for which i still dont understand but you have to wait and then it can be a pain if the game needs an update or theres some Free DLC or something steam takes care of all this.
4) Supporting the Developer and "doing the right thing" if a game is good ill buy it, not always but 95% of the time. Id never pirate a Valve game and never have as they are a great PC Developer that actually care about the PC Games industry.
5) DLC its nice to get something when you buy the game or per-order it i think its a great incentive to people to buy the game.

Yes ive pirated games in the past but im buying my games now when i can afford them but the vast majority ive never even installed or played nor would even buy tbh (not an excuse). I think its a case sometimes of "feck must download that before its gone"..only for it never to be used.

Anyway enough about Steam, but its clear that PC Gaming is dying slowly or at least it changing from what it was.

I have an XBox and id rather play Splinter cell on that than have to wait for the PC version and put up with that DRM (which i cant see being a big probably for me but it isnt a fair way to treat legit customers).

I bought AS2 on the Xbox and it was a fantastic game, a game that changed the way i see consoles. Same with GTA 4 which was the reason i got an Xbox i bought all the DLC and even bought the PC version when it came out on steam. As rockstar are a great developer and it was worth the money.

Steam is great,it has all the right ideas except for price which really needs to be sorted out. Theres normally a 15 euro difference between steam game prices and play.com of course with play.com being cheaper.

eg Steam: Is a Rip off – Steam Vs Retail Sales Prices

I dont blame Ubisoft for there harsh DRM as they make great great games that should be bought but its a step too far.

pwd

Piracy drove me to digital rights management.

gizmo

LIGHTNING wrote: »

3) Why would you pay more or the same for a digitial copy that limits you in terms of DRM. Why not order the game online and install it when you recieve it.

Perhaps because of the convience of being able to buy games without going to the store to get them? Being able to install them on any machine which your Steam account is signed into without having to worry about bringing CDs around? Being able to delete them and reinstall whenever you want without having the cases take up space?

LIGHTNING wrote: »

What if steam goes out of business in a 5-10 years time? All your games will be useless and dont think big gaming companies havent gone belly up in the past.

This has been covered countless times both by Valve, in this forum and even on this thread. Valve have catagorically stated that if Steam is one day discontinued then it's users will be given licences to their games which will allow them to be played online. It's a non-issue so I don't know why people keep bringing it up.

Drakar

In addition, I know many of the games I bought on cd / dvd 5-10 years ago are either missing cds, or are scratched, or are missing the sekkrit code thats written on page 59 of the manual.

gizmo

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Who said you have to buy them in a store? You can conviently buy them online from your favourite retailer and then install them at your convience.

You still need to wait for them to be delivered. A wait which would be a fraction of the time if you had purchased them on Steam.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Then if you want (because you can as you own the media) create a ISO of the DVD and store it on your PC/external hdd/phone etc. You can then use it whenever you want without having to take the DVD out of the case again. So therefore I have the convience of having them whenever I want as I can delete/reinstall them at will. Thats what I do, I have most of my games in ISO format.

They're still sitting there taking up space. Space which wouldn't be taken up if they had been purchased via Steam.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

DVD cases dont take up a large amount of space. So your point about convience is null in void.

DVD cases themselves don't, a lot of them do however and I'm sure a lot of people on this forum have a rather large collection of games.

I should mention that despite saying the above I still prefer owning physical copies of games. I like having the boxes, I like having the manuals and I like having the collectors editions that are worth it. The only Steam games I own are either those which can be activated with Steam (FEAR 2, MW2 etc..), indie titles bought from Steam and, of course, The Orange Box. That being said I do see the advantages in digital disutribution and while I do think they should be cheaper than boxed copies, I think people's expectations of how cheap they should be are a little misguided.

.Moosejam

I haven't been playing pc games for a while but whenever there is a big release I download it - seed it to 10:1 then delete it, because torrents are cool, the idea is cool , freedom of information rules , I do download heaps of music and films so I want to give back.

I care nothing for the developers, if these guys are incapable of producing content that a kid in his moms basement can't crack well then he sucks, so tough t1tties if everyone and his dog downloads your stuff maybe if you were good at your job they wouldn't.

If people are more concerned about some phantom developer in some far off land than they are about the contents of their back pocket then they have some seriously warped values that need revision lest every right thinking individual they come across screws them over.

Seriously won't someone please think of the developers. Laugh. Out. Loud.

dreamers75

Game developers dont make DRM they make games, software companies are employed to create DRM you should know this being a leet hacker type.

Azza

.Moosejam wrote:

I care nothing for the developers, if these guys are incapable of producing content that a kid in his moms basement can't crack well then he sucks, so tough t1tties if everyone and his dog downloads your stuff maybe if you were good at your job they wouldn't.

As dreamers said game developers don't make DRM thats not there job.

.Moosejam wrote:

If people are more concerned about some phantom developer in some far off land than they are about the contents of their back pocket then they have some seriously warped values that need revision lest every right thinking individual they come across screws them over.

If people are concerned about their back pockets they have a choice not to buy a game. Games are luxury items you can live without.

Its the height of hypocrisy to talk about warped values when you seem incapable of appreicating the hard work that goes into making these games.

steviec

.Moosejam wrote: »

I haven't been playing pc games for a while but whenever there is a big release I download it - seed it to 10:1 then delete it, because torrents are cool, the idea is cool , freedom of information rules , I do download heaps of music and films so I want to give back.

I care nothing for the developers, if these guys are incapable of producing content that a kid in his moms basement can't crack well then he sucks, so tough t1tties if everyone and his dog downloads your stuff maybe if you were good at your job they wouldn't.

If people are more concerned about some phantom developer in some far off land than they are about the contents of their back pocket then they have some seriously warped values that need revision lest every right thinking individual they come across screws them over.

Seriously won't someone please think of the developers. Laugh. Out. Loud.

You don't seriously believe that do you? You're basically saying that people who don't have hardcore security deserve to be robbed?

And anyone who buys goods rather than stealing them has a warped sense of value? Do you shoplift all your groceries, after all surely you should care more about your back pocket than some shop keeper.

Overheal

.Moosejam wrote: »

I haven't been playing pc games for a while but whenever there is a big release I download it - seed it to 10:1 then delete it, because torrents are cool, the idea is cool , freedom of information rules , I do download heaps of music and films so I want to give back.

You want to give back to the people that steal them, not to the people that make them?

Its a bit of a cop out. I download. I could care less if my seed ratio is >1. Its laughable to try and justify it as "Giving Back".

I care nothing for the developers, if these guys are incapable of producing content that a kid in his moms basement can't crack well then he sucks, so tough t1tties if everyone and his dog downloads your stuff maybe if you were good at your job they wouldn't.

The developer builds the engine that runs the game, writes the story line, hires the voice talent, adds all the weapons, the effects, the game balancing. Spends 3+ years on the development of one title, working typically over 60 hours per week per team member.

The publisher upon receiving the source code and executable writes the game to disk, installs DRM, prints labels, ships discs, turns a profit, etc.

After all, J.K. Rowling isn't the one who bound her books, and had them published: she just wrote the damn things. On a computer I think.

If people are more concerned about some phantom developer in some far off land than they are about the contents of their back pocket then they have some seriously warped values that need revision lest every right thinking individual they come across screws them over.

Seriously won't someone please think of the developers. Laugh. Out. Loud.

Oh right, because they aren't Irish, its ok. :rolleyes: Lets not forget Intel has been happy to fill your coffers, and Microsoft through Dare to be Digital and XNL has worked very hard to springboard an Irish Development Industry. I guess thats your way of saying thanks?

Scram

.Moosejam wrote: »

I haven't been playing pc games for a while but whenever there is a big release I download it - seed it to 10:1 then delete it, because torrents are cool, the idea is cool , freedom of information rules , I do download heaps of music and films so I want to give back.

You want to "Give back"? You can only give back what you own, your getting "Stealing" and "Giving back" mixed up.

Your sound like the kind of person that then turns around and complains and about the DRM on a game you downloaded.

.Moosejam

Calling it stealing is the basist form of emotionalism going these days. Once you hear that word from someone on this topic you know whose pocket they are in.

Overheal

.Moosejam wrote: »

Calling it stealing is the basist form of emotionalism going these days. Once you hear that word from someone on this topic you know whose pocket they are in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

Comparison to theft

Further information: Dowling v. United States (1985)
Copyright infringement is often equated with theft, for instance in the title of the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, but differs in certain respects.
Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not (for the purpose of the case) constitute stolen property, and writing:

interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

—Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218

The key distinction generally drawn, as indicated above, is that while copyright infringement may (or may not) cause economic loss to the copyright holder, as theft does, it does not appropriate a physical object, nor deprive the copyright holder of the use of the copyright. That information can be replicated without destroying an original is an old observation,[57] and a cornerstone of intellectual property law. In economic terms, information is not a rival good; this has led some to argue that it is very different in character, and that laws for physical property and intellectual property should be very different.[58]
A British Government's report, Digital Britain, characterizes online piracy as a form of theft: "Unlawful downloading or uploading, whether via peer-to-peer sites or other means, is effectively a civil form of theft."[59]



Anyway rather than get hung up on the semantics of Copyright Violation and theft you seem to be sidestepping a valid discussion point which seems to be the hypocritical practice of feeling indebted to other copyright violators and not the copyright creator themselves for generating the content you find so fascinating.