What's YOUR solution to DRM/piracy?

Now, before we start I don't want any answers like "there's nothing we can do about piracy so let's just drop DRM and everything", that's just lazy .

Imagine yourself as one of those who implement DRM; what [realistic] measures would you take so that the damn DRM that everyone is complaining about is no longer needed? Basically, what would be YOUR solution to the piracy problem rather than all those silly DRM methods we've seen up to date?

*If you actually support one of the current/past DRM methods, feel free to mention them as well.

Just curious as to everyone's thoughts with all the complaints about DRM methods in the past few years

 

My solution is, just don't pirate. If you want the game, buy it. Simple as that. But of course there will always be pirates, and DRM schemes always circumvented. Such is the way of the world. If you don't agree with the DRM scheme that any given company implements, just don't buy/use the software (like what I do). I think that sends a much clearer message to the companies than pirating a game. Just vote with your wallet.

 

I feel that the only way to stop piracy is if the developer/publisher has complete control over the game. If services like OnLive take off where the game is streamed to you, I believe that would kill piracy but also hurt some customers in the process such as having no more mods for PC games.

 

Well according to a report steam published a while back cutting prices resulted in huge increases in sales. Prices for games seem to be going up for no apparent reason and with the information steam found out, theres really no reason at all for it. Yes they would need to sell more to equal the same amount of profit, but they would also be getting a lot more people to actually buy the game. When they release big titles like MW2, ME2, Assasin's creed 2 back to back there just aren't many people that can buy them all. Instead of paying 60$ for one game cut the prices and make them more affordable and people might be more inclined to buy two or more games. Think back to the christmas sale steam had, I'm sure several people on these forums didn't just buy one game, I know for a fact, many people bought several.

 

steam fan here. drm should provided features rather than restrictions.

 

Steam

But it simply boggles my mind that publishers feel the need to add 3rd party DRM to a Steam distributed game? Other than that, I haven't had much problem with SecuROM or activation limits (yet). I just get really angry when it's layers of DRM that pirates don't have to deal with, only paying customers do. And GFWL is absolutely useless junk. It really needs to die.

 

1. Develop a great game.

2. Adopt the Stardock approach of limiting updates to properly registered clients.

3. Unique CD-keys.

4. No fancy software/hardware measures that mess up your PC (like Starforce).

 

Ask these pirates that let's suppose you cause the "death" of PC gaming. Would you be sad over the loss of this great gaming platform and all the unique benfits and experiences it offers. Or will you just not care and just migrate to the consoles and attempt to pirate from there as well?

 

There's no such thing as DRM providing "features", except on the part of the game developer/company (as in more profit, less piracy, or so the theory goes).

 

I'm a huge fan of Steam as well. Even if you do manage to pirate a Steam-based game, you'll only be able to play single player games, or if you're lucky, multiplayer with other hacked VAC-unsecured games, which will generally be full of aimbots and other such crap.

If you ask me, Valve is the one developer that's still doing it right for PC gamers. For starters, they actually make PC games, rather than making Xbox/PS3 games and porting them over last-minute. They haven't changed anything drastically since their Steam system first came out, and it works. They price their games very reasonably, and they sell millions of copies. They don't implement ridiculous DRM, and they don't need to. Even if they do lose some profit to illegally downloaded copies of Half-Life 2 or something, it's negligible in the long run. Obviously they're making enough to continue putting out great new games, and continuing to update them with free content; just look how far Team Fortress 2 has come, and the additional maps/game modes for Left 4 Dead, with more to come.

So far, the closest thing I (and many others) have to a complaint about them is how little time they left between Left 4 Dead and its sequel; just one year. But you know what? I bought it, and I love it. I can honestly say I have never been disappointed by Valve's products or business decisions.

If you ask me, every single company that takes on the title of "PC game developer" should learn some lessons from Valve. Just look how far some devs have fallen...Epic Games, for instance; the Unreal series were some of the definitive arena shooters of the 1990's and early 2000's. Compare that to now, where Gears of War was a hasty port to the PC, and they didn't even bother with Gears 2.

These new DRM "anti-piracy" measures are more like "anti-PC gaming" than anything else. Sure, they can hinder pirates from getting illegally downloaded games to work, but it's never effective. I challenge any of you to name me one single game that has not been pirated and cracked due to foolproof DRM.

So, DRM often becomes a right pain for legitimate PC game consumers. Limited installs, internet verification, SecuROM, interfering with virtual drive software, etc. This all makes it harder and harder for us to enjoy the games we love. And in the meantime, those who manage to crack the games get to jump right into them without having to deal with any of this stuff. That hardly seems fair.

I'm all in favor of piracy prevention, but the way these devs have been going about it is clearly not working.

 

Well, I suppose one feature that is offered is "cloud" support such as for save-games, which some Steam games offer as well as this new Ubisoft DRM scheme. You can't say that is a bad feature but I wouldn't want them to only have save-games on a "cloud", let me save them to my hard drive as well as the old-fashioned coot I am.

 

You and me both.

 

Modern Warfare 2 makes decent (though somewhat flawed) use of the cloud system. It saves your data locally, but then synchronizes it to the Steam Cloud.

However, I think they have it backwards. As it is, single player campaign/special ops status is only stored locally, not backed up to the Cloud, and multiplayer rank/stats information is stored both locally and in the cloud. Ideally, multiplayer data should be stored entirely on the Cloud, so people can't manually edit rank data and instantly get rank 70 10th Prestige. Then, have single player data stored locally and backed up to the cloud; this way, single player data remains unaffected by loss of internet connection, while multiplayer data, while not stored locally, would not be of any use locally without an internet connection anyway.

Hell, they really should just hire me for stuff like this.

 

i agree, adding many little extras what can access only with identification or with ticket what come with software when bought

 

Sadly this won't discourage piracy anymore than current DRM methods. This will only serve to kill 2nd hand game sales.

 

Multiplayer games conquered this a long time ago - use a CD-Key, and make it correspond to an account.

Single player games have conquered this by creating games so awesome that people want to buy them, particularly by making regular patches that upgrade/change the protection that it is too irritating to pirate them, offer an online profile of some sort such as DA:O, and adding frequent DLC.

The only reason games get pirated so heavily is when they are of questionable quality in the first place that people download them first to see if they are even worth buying. Since that's the vast majority of them, they get pirated. A perfect example of a game that you *could* pirate, but don't would be Torchlight. It's a fun little game, and it was priced right at 19.99. Stop charging $50-60 for shovelware, and people would be more open to actually paying for it.

Some people aren't going to buy regardless - they'll go without because they can't afford it. Give most people a value-added reason to buy though, either by making a fantastic game or something extra, and they will. An easy way is to have a scoring system of some sort that is online. If you are too cheap to do that, then expect it to be pirated if you charge too much for it, and price it accordingly.

See my third paragraph - some people aren't going to buy regardless - they will go without.

 

Well they hardly exist for the PC gaming market anyways.

 

I'm ok with Steam (actually love Steam itself) as DRM, as it adds a benefit and a use, yet isn't so limited that if I am away from a connection, I can't play off-line. The biggest problem now is that Steam is letting these developers add all of their own DRM/Activation limits/Third Party Clients to Steam registered and bought games.... umm, why? That's the point of Steam, why do i need to register for a third party game client to play a Steam purchased game??

 

Piracy is part of my solution to supporting developers, actually. Before I buy a game, I often pirate it. If I like the game, then I buy a legitimate copy of it. If I don't like it, then I don't play the game and I don't buy the game. Sometimes I will immediately buy a game if I'm fully convinced by reviews and such, but this is pretty rare.

In this way, I can choose where my money goes: to quality developers, without my taking any risk of buying a crappy port or unstable or poor quality game.

 

2nd hand games sales? Don't be so sure. I have sitting on my amazon wishlist more than 30 games I want to get, all classics.

 

For all those endorsing steam as a good anti-piracy method, it's not at all. Pirated versions of MW2 are able to play on normal MW2 matchmaking servers right now. There goes the old argument of pirated games can't play online

 

Maybe we're looking at it from the wrong perspective, is there any way to crack down on the distribution of pirated games? I say this because hackers wont stop until they crack a game, so in a way using anything more than basic security is pointless. If there was a way to stop distribution pirating would stop.

 

Now, I don't play games, nor will I ever in these few last years I have on earth, but...

If I were managing a game business, this is what I'd offer:

$5 will buy a fully working demo for 1 month.

$20 will buy you the rights to download your own copy and 1 year of use.

$25 will buy you physical media that gives unlimited time usage to a single registered owner - non-transferable (you pay for the right to play indefinitely, but give up the right to transfer/sell that right).

$10 per year to continue playing after the first year for downloaded games.

$15 per upgrade to the next version (and year) of the same game title for downloaded games.

$120 per year gives you access to all online titles with no restrictions except that your account/key codes can only be logged in to a single game at any one time.


You register once for each game and your keys/codes are yours alone for each game and tied to your personal registration info.

The product key/codes are hardwired inside the physical or downloadable media you purchased. If two or more instances are 'online' at the same time, the product keys/codes are deemed expired immediately. Multiple infractions would cause you to lose your registration entirely.

You must 'logon' to play online or offline games - if not connected to the internet, the offline game will store and send the logon info the next time you are connected. Offline game play will be available for up to one month before needing to connect to play again - this is not per title, but per month, period - even for physical media products.


I think the above would be a good start for a model with significant and constant income potential for the game makers. DRM has and always been useless, not to mention costly for both the game makers and the gamers themselves not only in monetary form, but also frustration levels too, when DRM issues make a game unplayable for a legitimate user.

For the 'pirates', this will make them have to stop and think if their efforts should be put towards playing the game for a mere $20/yr, or having to crack the game each second time they try to play it.

For anyone who wants to game, these costs will not only be feasible to achieve and meet, but much lower and the quality level of the games would probably drop to unacceptable levels for most gamers.

Now, the question is; if my assumptions are correct as presented here, who will be the first to drop DRM for not only more profit, but more importantly; satisfied customers for life?

I don't pretend to know anything more about the gaming industry than what I've presented above, but I thank Forever_Melody for posing the question and letting my mind chew on this a bit.

 

^I can't say I agree with the suggestions of 'time-limited' purchases. I think the backlash we've seen with DRM over the past few years shows that people aren't interested in paying for glorified rentals, they want to buy the game and be able to use the product they've purchased, without any restrictions. I can see that approach causing a backlash.

Everything else you describe is basically = Steam tbh.

 

Hmmm... thanks for the remarks.

I do state you can get a time unlimited (physical media) product though.

Steam huh? Do they offer things that inexpensively, and per year?

 

Well that's the thing - purchases on Steam aren't time-limited, but they are tied to specific users. I can log into my Steam account on any computer in the world and download it, because my purchase is tied to myself as an indivudual user. No time limits, you can redownload it as many times as you want for as long as Steam exists, as long as you log in to your account. This is one thing that physical media cannot offer - access to your content from anywhere in the world (great for someone like myself who is at university across the country, and am thus unable to access my physical discs). Couple that with regular special offers, and you have an excellent (and successful) business model.

Time-lmited digital downloads will never be popular. There has been enough blacklashes over things like limited internet activations because it is percieved as a 'glorified rental'. Having your purchases expire after a year would make it quite literally a rental. People would just refuse to buy your product and grab another game on Steam instead.

 

I think Modern Warfare 2 is the exception rather than the rule. Infinity Ward left a large number of security holes open, and between that and the peer-to-peer connections and zero player control over the actual games, MW2 is significantly more vulnerable than other games. Hell, people are still exploiting bugs and holes that Treyarch patched out of Call of Duty: World at War well last year. MW's security failure is a reflection on Infinity Ward, not Steam.

Steam doesn't do subscription-based purchases. You buy a game through them, and it is tied to your account at the moment of purchase, forever. For the most part, these games are 100% identical to their retail counterparts, except that they require no physical disk to be in a drive, and can be downloaded anywhere, any time. Call of Duty 4, for instance. If you bought the retail version, you get a DVD from which you can install the game and run it. You also have to manually download all patches. If you bought the Steam version, Steam automatically downloads the game and installs it, and automatically applies the latest patches as they are released, without the need for the actual disk.

 

But that is exactly what games are: rentals.

And, because your credentials can be stolen, there must be DRM.

 

^And this is where we will have to fundimentally disagree, I'm afraid. My right to use the product that I have purchase does not necessarily have to infringe on someone's so-called 'intellectual property'. I wouldn't be claiming the right to do what I see fit with it, merely to be able to use the product that I have purchased. This is what DRM takes away from the customer- the fundimental right to use the product that they have purchased.

 

How do you figure that?

Steam usernames and passwords can be easily recovered; they have multiple security failsafes just for such occasions, just like your bank, email, and this very forum do. And besides, DRM has nothing to do with account credentials; it's all about the actual game data.

 

On its own or in the context of a digitally insecure age, this is an extremely weak argument when we know that companies and studios are pushing DRM for financial reasons, not security concerns.

Btw, I am surprised nobody has jumped on my previous post. Perhaps it suggests that everyone here is doing the same thing?

 

I personally don't do what you do, but I'm not here to judge you for it.

In fact, I can see the logic behind it. If I weren't worried about my university banning me from internet access, I'd probably do exactly that on occasion. And I'm not above taking games that other people have torrented; for instance, I snagged Borderlands from a friend who put it on his external hard drive.

 

I don't agree with what you do or said, but honestly, wasn't worth the argument... you are a huge part of the problem, because even if you do supposedly buy some you like, you are stealing them all, and helping others steal them and helping the pirating world grow. So, you are the problem, sugar coat it if you want, but as long as you are illegally downloading games, you are helping to kill the gaming industry and encourage others to do so.

And now back to what we were discussing, how we as gamers are suffering because of selfish users like yourself that are "innocently" stealing games. Go you.

EDIT: Only responded because you did ask why no one had previously responded to your post, not to argue, etc. Those are my thoughts, plain and simple.

 

Thanks for all the answers guys!

I doubt anyone will jump on you Boq because in this digital age, piracy is pretty common and I've yet to meet a person who hasn't downloaded a single song or movie here and there. Nonetheless, we're not exactly here to discuss the illegality of piracy as it's pretty clear in itself(and I don't want the thread to be closed due to it since it seems we're picking off pretty well ).

So Steam is the answer eh? I haven't really had much experience with Steam(only have 2 games which are Steam related in my house) so I can't really comment on it all too much. If memory serves right it's a digital distribution interface no? Could someone explain to me how this would be enough to stop piracy? Is the Steam system that efficient? I know that most games can be purchased and played through Steam, but would linking ALL PC games to Steam solve in majority piracy?

The major problem with piracy in general is that the only way to know you're pirating something is to catch you somehow. In the case of industries, the only way they'd know is usually through the internet. However, if you're not connected to the internet, there's little way to really prevent the pirating of single player games. Perhaps in a way this explains the surge of MMOs in the past decades(i.e. constant internet connection/surveillance possible).

I mean, what would you guys do if prompted on the issue of piracy(assuming you were a developer)?

 

I honestly don't have any problem with what Bog is doing. He tests out a game. If he likes it, he buys it, thus supporting the developer. If he doesn't like it, I assume he wipes it from his computer. While I don't know his definition of "test", I assume it's reasonable. Which ultimately means he's supporting the games he likes and not the other ones. Can't fault him for wanting to try a game out before he commits his money to a buy.

As for Steam, one major seling point I can think of is that the games are linked to the user's electronic account, not a physical disk. People like having a game for a lifetime, and not have it be dependent on whether or not they tend to forget things like DVDs and car keys and their spouse's birthday.

In fact, I'm annoyed with my retail Borderlands. I don't really like having to insert my disc everytime I want to play the game. Oh well. It was cheap.

 

Well there are still physical games which are linked to Steam accounts. IMO it's more convenient that way because not everyone has a monthly download limit high enough(nor even bandwidth for that matter) to download an entire game let alone a set of them on a Steam sale.

 

Thank you for a good topic.

It is a digital distribution service, but also a management platform and DRM system. Many games are so deeply integrated into Steam that they just will not ever work properly without Steam itself. All Valve games are this way (as Steam is Valve's own product). Full-scale Steam integration is also entering third party games now. Modern Warfare 2, for instance, uses VAC (Valve Anti-Cheat), and requires a Steam connection for multiplayer to work, as well as saving multiplayer data via the Steam Cloud. Granted, MW2's implementation is not perfect (Infinity Ward left some security flaws that allow owners of cracked games to access the IWNet system), but it's a step forward for Steam integration, at least.

How are you going to pirate a single player game without internet?

 

Physical games linked to Steam accounts aren't linked, per se. I can link my retail Borderlands to my account, i.e. I can open up the game from Steam, but if I lose the disc and wipe my hard drive, I'm out of luck. If it's bought through Steam, it's connected to your account and can be DLed as you wish.

Also, there are handy backup tools for the games so you don't have to DL a fresh copy every time. Just plug in your external and there you go.

 

You're welcome MasterShroom!

I'm actually very pleasantly surprised because I was afraid/expecting this to just become another rant thread against DRM(like the other few threads about DRM which have arisen within the past year), but I'm glad people are inputting

I do suppose Steam sees like a pretty good anti-pirating system, but is their account protection really up to notch? I mean, they'd need to deal with stolen account credentials really fast(there's still money in there).

The one thing I can think about Steam is that it's made by a game company so they could reap profits form it no? I mean, it'd be good if a system was made by a 3rd party unbiased company rather than a game company. Not that I'm saying Valve is biased but they could be(ex: advertising their games more often than others etc.).

I don't get your argument about not being able to pirate a game without the internet. Games can be bought and cracked without having to access the internet.

Ah okies, well they should somehow link both systems. I mean, in either case you purchased the game. There shouldn't be a royalty treatment for having purchased it through Steam or not since both are linked to Steam in themselves.

We're still in the same problem though, you have to download the game to have these privileges and downloading isn't a luxury everyone has(though arguably most do in modern society). I already bust my monthly limit just with regular browsing imagine downloading a whole game? lol

 

Yeah, it's pretty much the standard account protection stuff. Minimum password length, security override questions if someone does manage to get your password...and if all else fails you can always contact support. The best account protection is the latest edition of common sense.

Actually, you'd be surprised. Looking at the Steam store's front page right now, the only Valve game even displayed is Left 4 Dead 2, which appears for about 5 seconds as a rotating ad, alongside Bioshock 2, Global Agenda, MW2, Napoleon: Total War, Dragon Age: Origins, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Aliens vs. Predator, and Star Trek Online.

Steam is a Valve product, but there's a reason hundreds of other developers, huge behemoth corporations as well as underground indie devs, have chosen to distribute via Steam. There really is no bias towards Valve's own software. It's just that their own games tend to be more deeply ingrained in the system (for example, Counter-Strike and TF2 can find servers through Steam without the games actually being launched). But like I said, other games are starting to get deeper into it as well.

Speaking of indie developers, Steam is hugely popular with them. They have their own Indie category in the store, and it's a great way for devs who have a hard time getting their products onto actual store shelves to be able to sell their games.

And of course, let's not forget the epic weekend deals and sales they have all the damn time. Just last weekend they had the entire Company of Heroes collection for $13. And their holiday sales this year were nothing short of astounding.

I guess that's true, but that means someone has to buy it, which means it's not really piracy. The developer and publisher still get their profit out of it. If you ask me, that's the way it should be. You pay for a game, and it's yours to do whatever the hell you want with, within reasonable limits of course (i.e. obviously you can't cheat in multiplayer games and ruin everyone's fun).

The problem there is that there are often two different versions of the same game, like Borderlands, or Call of Duty 4. There's the retail version that you get on a disk, install via the disk, and usually run off the disk. The Steam versions are ones you buy and install via Steam, and launch from Steam, with no need for a disk. These two are generally incompatible, though; i.e. a CoD4 retail key cannot be used to acquire CoD4 on your Steam account.

More and more exceptions to this are happening. Once again, take MW2 for instance. Even if you buy the retail version on disk, you enter your product key and it links it to your Steam account permanently, and from there you can either install via disk or download via Steam. Either way, you'll never really need the disk again.

This is why Steam is not perfect, although they're sure trying hard. There are some games that you can install via disk even if they're linked to your Steam account though. All Valve games that you can buy in retail stores, for instance, come in DVD form. You activate the CD key on your Steam account, but if you want you can use the DVD's to install the games. Of course, these DVD's were produced months, if not years ago, so Steam will still have to download some updates, but it's one way around the problem.

 

You are connected to Steam when you play a Steam game, and you can only be logged onto your account in one place at a time. If someone steals your credentials, then you can't log in when they are logged in, thus it's not like multiple people are playing the game off one account at once. It's like if you have an MMO account.

It's a good idea - it protects developers, and keeps the customers from having to jump through ridiculous hoops/and or having game bugs related to copy protection. That's not a myth, either - there are still games that run better with a nocd crack than they do if you play them legitimately. I used to think it was just people trying to explain away piracy until I actually had it happen to me with a game. It's a random problem, but very irritating to buy something and then not be able to play it without bugs until you use a nocd crack.

A CD key or something similar that links it to an account is so much easier to deal with.

 

I'm sorry Forever Melody, but I'm going to be lazy the other way...

The software implementation of DRM doesn't bother me...never has. I've never really ran across an issue with it.

I guess there's some background process running SecuRom or something on my laptop, but I don't notice the performance hit. And I've never run across an issue with being limited by re-installations. Also, if you click on the link in my signature, you'll probably notice I don't re-sell my games...I have an OCD need to collect.

The only thing that irritates me about copy protection is that, if you buy physical media, most DRM schemes require the optical disc in the drive. However, you can find no-cd patches very quickly after a game or update release and they work quite well. (No-cd patches are illegal also...you, the end-user, are not allowed to modify code.) I don't do online multiplayer so patching the main executable, in the event that the multiplayer server does some type of CRC check, isn't an issue for me although I can see how others would be frustrated.

And I think there's a misconception about Steam...you do NOT have to be online to play games purchased through Steam...the Steam client has to be running, but you can run it in offline mode...I would not accept being limited in when/where I play my Steam purchased catalogue by internet availability...I'm one of those few remaining luddites that does not have a 3G laptop card...

I do think that publishers who have invested large amounts of money in their products have the right to protect their investment...we would all cringe if we saw someone walk into Best Buy, take a game off the shelf and try to walk out with it...for some reason, our moral values on the internet aren't as fully developed yet (and I think it has a lot to do with anonymity...and it's not just in the arena of game piracy)...

And piracy will always exist...it existed prior to the internet...in the 80's, we didn't download mp3s and torrents...we made tape-to-tape copies of albums and then CD-to-tape for our friends...mp3s have just made it easier to mass transfer...my friends and I spent hours 'cracking' Commodore 64 games (overcoming the 1541 drive intentional error sectors that simple disk copy commands wouldn't imitate)...we were poor and couldn't afford $30 games, but the funny thing was that after we cracked them, we never played the copied versions and rarely the original...there was more fun in cracking the disk copy protection than playing the game (teenage resistance to authority or rules)...

Having said all that (which is too much, but I'm off work today), I don't mind online activations with unique keys...this method is rapidly broken, so, in the end, you give a small amount of pain to legitimate users and slightly more pain to non-legit users...but this is what Microsoft uses (used?) and what Direct2Drive uses...a one-time online activation...(of course, if you upgrade your hardware x amount of times, MS requires you to re-activate which is pesky if you can't remember where your CoA is)...

And limiting the cost of games (I rarely pay $50...I will pay $20 for a great game without even pausing to check if I have enough money in my account) will help publishers be profitable but won't eliminate piracy...and Stardock's/Wardell's philosophy of 'embrace the consumer, ignore the pirate' vs other companies' 'combat the pirate/ignore the consumer' goes a long way with me for wanting to support Stardock's titles, but it also won't eliminate piracy, but may help Stardock's bottom line...

Finally (I hear the sigh of relief), what really bothers me is where we've gone with digital rights...rather than repeat it here, here's a link to a few posts a while back in a thread where a gentleman was banned from his Steam account...I went back to my old boxes and pulled EULAs...I was shocked to find that somewhere in the early 90's, we, the consumers, stopped owning games...tilleroftheearth is right...we technically are renting games these days...and the software industry's technical/legal term is 'license'...

EULAs from another thread (yes, I hand typed the one from Syndicate...the HAWx one, I cut and pasted from Steam)

PS. Don't think it has much to do with DRM, but most awkward game installation/execution ever: Dawn of War 2. Purchased the game from Direct2Drive. After downloading it, the game used Steam to install it (it's a Steam game now and the Steam client must be running). And when you click the game to run it, it launches GfWL. You almost wish publishers could make up their minds...I guess, for some reason, the developers like the multiplayer portions of GfWL over Steam.

 

lol yes I'm a full supporter of Common but I was just inquiring about the actual account protection involved with Steam.

Btw how does the Offline mode work?

Ah okies well as long as it's open to every company equally then it's good

I guess that's true, but that means someone has to buy it, which means it's not really piracy. The developer and publisher still get their profit out of it. If you ask me, that's the way it should be. You pay for a game, and it's yours to do whatever the hell you want with, within reasonable limits of course (i.e. obviously you can't cheat in multiplayer games and ruin everyone's fun).
[/QUOTE]
Well it's a question of definitions, but it's still considered "illegal distribution" which is part of what piracy is about. Just because someone paid for it doesn't mean that it can be distributed massively.

I mean, you could argue that illegal DVD copies are ok sine someone paid for a DVD/movie ticket somewhere down the line but it's still against the law to do it...

Well that's my point, there should be 2 versions(digital and retail), but they should still somehow link to your Steam account and provide the same features. That way, those with lower bandwidth/crappy internet connection can still benefit from the Steam system.

In the "ideal Steam world", all games would be linked to Steam and every game would have both a retail and digital copy, both with the same features pertaining to the Steam account.



@IWantmyTV: Thanks for the post, it was a very interesting read

Nonetheless, I'm not sure I totally understand your position though lol . I know piracy will always exist, my question was simply pertaining as to what you, as a user who experienced all the methods used to date, would do to combat piracy. I understand that you seem to be ok with what's currently out, btu what would be YOUR take on it(not your opinion on what's now, but what would YOU do)?

Once again, it's about "being in the other guys' shoes".

 

DRM is failing in games as it is in music. The one solution is to make quality games that people would like to play. For example, Blizzard releases are really fun online so they reap a lot of profits by only allowing clean cd-keys to work on their official servers. MMORPGs -> 'nuff said. Using console and other more restrictive devices to prevent hacking, as in the xbox series, also works. It can also detect and blacklist your console if it's modded, preventing you from playing online and discouraging pirating.

 

Onlive would be harsh on gaming companies in the traditional business model, especially if key serving is allowed. This would result in way less sales for a greater amount of people playing. Think lan cafe's..

 

You can't "steal" a game, you commit copyright infringement by pirating it. If you steal anything at all, its revenue. In the post below, I will argue that my practice actually helps the industry as a whole while harming only those developers whose games I would have regretted buying anyway.

The troublesome part of buying PC games is that you can't return a game if it is a piece of crap; and that is actually the majority of games. Ironically, this dead-beat policy plays favorably into the hands of good and bad developers. If I bought all the games that I am interested in without testing them for quality, entertainment value, and other criteria then I would spend a lot of my hard-earned money supporting all developers rather than just developers that I like. Of course, I don't want that. The consumer must always have choice, and the PC gaming industry restricts choice by forcing the consumer to accept a no-return policy.

My method of buying games is not at all detrimental to the industry because I don't steal revenue from the developers, and ultimately that's the measurement of significance here. Only a fool would buy all the games he is interested in without having some way to test that they're actually worth buying. This is exactly equivalent to the music industry; if you buy a retail music CD, you're allowed to listen to a few tracks to see if you like it. This method benefits both the industry and consumer. The industry has low-revenue musicians weeded out, and the consumer has a higher rate of product satisfaction.

This is precisely the reason why my practice actually helps the PC gaming industry. It's a bit like natural selection, except I as a consumer get to choose who gets my money and who doesn't.

For some lame reason, you can't do this with a PC game and its the primary reason why I pirate a game first to test whether I buy it.

I support the developers whose games I keep by buying their games, and I don't buy games that I know I won't like or won't be able to play. Indeed it is selfish, but only in the sense that I don't want to pay for every good and bad game that I'm interested in. If I weren't selfish, I'd be a fool. And as the saying goes, "a fool is soon parted from his money."

Yes, someone who understands! Thank you!

 

Offline mode is pretty self-explanatory. If you're in normal online mode you can switch to Offline via the menu, or if you try to start Steam without a connection and it realizes this (which, for some reason, takes about 5 whole minutes), it will ask you if you want to start in Offline mode. Basically, it's exactly what it says it is - Steam, without any of the internet-related features. For instance, the Steam Store and Community tabs, when clicked on, (or your Friends list, when opened) simply show the message "This feature not available in Offline Mode" or something to that effect. The Games tab looks pretty much no different than it normally does. However, you obviously aren't able to download updates or patches, and if you try to start a game that syncs with the Steam Cloud (like Left 4 Dead or Modern Warfare 2), a little disclaimer will pop up saying that the Cloud is unavailable and asking if you want to proceed anyway. It's really nothing significant, considering Steam Cloud only really affects multiplayer games anyway.

Fair points. I was under the impression that you meant cracking the game for private use, not cracking followed by distribution.

I agree with this. Ideally, any game that works on Steam should be able to link to your account perfectly with the retail version as well as a Steam-bought version.

 

I had my Steam account pinched by some no-good lowlife rapscallion!

It took 3 days for them to respond to my email and a further 3 days to actually do a damned thing about it. Needless to say I was furious. I can certainly see the many benefits of Steam and I can understand why so many people support it but I for one do not like it. I prefer to own a hard copy of a game, call me old fashioned but its just the way it is. What if I want to play a game I haven't installed/downloaded in an area where I have no internet? Think before you answer this please! Many of you will rarely find yourself isolated from an internet connection but I personally often find myself in this situation.

I'd like to think there are other ways to prevent piracy. Such as writing something into the disc itself that prevents people from copying it? I know there are measures such as these and they are regularly circumvented but thats not a reason to give up on this method. Game developers just need to stay one step ahead with their programming/code/whatever instead of saying "this is too much effort, lets simply not bother".

Or like somebody has mentioned previously, unique CD keys? Sure there are plenty of keygens out there but the answer remains the same. Try harder! If these high profile developers with all their millions of pounds of equipment and their technical specialist are being outsmarted by some greasy little hacker sitting in his bedroom with the blackout blinds down, hammering away on his £300 laptop, then if you ask me they're earning their just desserts.

As a matter of interest I would quite like to know why console piracy is so scarce in comparison to PC piracy. I mean, the console market is much bigger than the PC market these days. I imagine it has something to do with a different file format that cannot be read, and therefor copied, using a PC. If anyone knows anything about this I'd love to hear it! And yes I know that people do pirate console games but I'm sure you'll agree it constitues a fraction of the piracy problem.

And it may have very little effect on piracy but how about putting games on SD cards these days? It'll be like the good old cartridge days! I would like to think there are more ways to secure data on a chip than a disc, although I have no evidence to support this theory and indeed, logic tells me I am foolish to even think it.

Anyway, I just don't like paying for something when I don't get anything physical out of it, so Steam really doesn't do it for me. I like to think that when I pay for something it is mine to do as I please (I know this is not the case, even with a hard copy of a game), whether that be to lend it to somebody, sell it to somebody else or indeed pirate it (I don't pirate anything, it is just an example).

After all, we are free to choose our path are we not? If that path is illegal is another matter entirely. The possibility that we might make the wrong choice is not a valid reason to take the decision out of our hands.

I don't know... It's all very complicated. I just hope those who support and instigate piracy can see the situation they are causing. I know that nothing will prevent them from doing it but maybe once in a blue moon said pirates will suffer a sleepless night thanks to that little thing decent people like to call "conscience".

 

^ The reason console piracy is more easily dealt with is because the hardware is more uniform. It's easier to secure something with only a handful of different hardware configurations than to secure something that can do in 1000000 different machines. This is why console piracy usually requires modding of said console(or some type of modification/jailbreaking) while PC gaming rarely does(PC piracy is usually mostly software based).

 

atleast for me its pretty rare for me to play a game again after i beat it and i normally do so in the first few days to weeks. So for me yes games are pretty much rentals. This reguards to sp games.