What's YOUR solution to DRM/piracy?

^I think we've already established that we can't permanently end pirating(I even mentioned it in the OP), my question is rather than rant about DRM, what would YOU do about it? How would you, as a person set with the task of dealing with piracy, do it?

 

the answer is i wouldn't spend much time on anti-piracy control. the most i would do is have users who bought the software register the software to an account on a website (should the game be an online multiplayer game). if it's a single player and offline type of game, then i wouldn't bother with anti-pirating measures.

 

Exactly, that's why I proposed the "social" solution, cause this is a social issue.

 

:Soapbox:
Please don't pirate Borderlands - I had a ridiculous amount of fun with that game, and hope they expand on it and make another one. It's cheap, too. It came out off of Steam at around $35, and despite the poor restraints on cheating, it's one hell of a nice effort and more of what I want to see.
/step off :Soapbox:

 

The problem with social issues is that it's a lot harder to deal with them since usually you have to either deal with the people or change the system.

Think of stealing: what's the easiest solution, convince people it's bad or increase security?

 

Combination of both, but if you go too far in the direction of "increasing security" you will ruin it for paying customers. That destroys your market. CD-Key, Account - type ways are the best, because they provide ownership without threatening your paying customers. That's what DRM does, let's face it - threatens paying customers with termination at any time, sometimes from the moment they buy your product. Extortion is bad for business, long term.

 

As you said, it's not really good at all and I'm not saying it is. I'm simply stating that attacking the media is easier for companies than to attack a social issue such as the morality behind piracy/copyright.

 

You are right. That's why dealing with piracy is so hard too. I personally don't think any technical solution will do it.

May be games more on-line oriented, although a lot of us prefer individual gaming, and for now on-line graphics quality is not nearly good.

 

You hit that nail on the head. Some people will pirate simply because they can. I used to know guys in college that had thousands of pirated programs they never used. They just had them. Digital packrats. Others will pirate because they can't afford it, or because they don't think the product is worth it. When you have a major disconnect between the public's perceived value of something and the pricing of it, you get dissent. If loaves of bread cost $100, there would be a LOT more theft of bread and home-baking of it. Cost and value are NOT the same thing.

The only "solution" to piracy is in very classic economics... provide a product of certain value at a price that people are willing to pay for. People understand the value of things being official. If you hold up a burned CD and a legit one and ask someone which one they'd rather have, almost all of them would go the legit one. Now tell them that the burned CD is $1, but they'd have to pay $5 for the legit one. Still, many people would rather have the legitimate CD with all the value that goes with it than the burned one. When you start hitting $10 and $15, people start feeling ripped off. The exact same thing happens with games. If you price your game higher than the value that people feel they get out of it, piracy will increase above the baseline of what will happen no matter what you do. You can also affect things negatively... unfixed bugs, incompatibility and DRM all significantly decrease the value of a game to the consumer. I still play the original StarCraft because I can install it without activation, it had free LAN play built in (install it as many places as you want), it only needs to validate that the disc exists to play a single-player or online game. I convinced MANY people to buy that game because of those features. I'm no longer excited about StarCraft II because they're completely removing LAN play, and moving to episodic content. They have completely gutted most of the value of the game, and they've increased the price to boot. I'm betting it will see piracy and sales rates similar to Spore because Blizzard doesn't understand that they do not have a captive audience. They have customers that they need to serve, and that they are entering into an agreement with. If they provide something that the customers want at a good price, they will get great reviews and lots of fans. They already control things with Battle.Net. Almost all of their potential customers (previous StarCraft players) know that locking things down like they did is purely a money grab. And customers don't like being treated like walking wallets.

Edit: Whoo. Bit of a rant there Sorry guys

 

I think lower prices would definitely lower piracy by quite a bit since arguably, the main reason lots of people pirate is because they don't want to pay so much for whatever it is they're pirating.

Let's take a basic example, my friend likes to buy copied DVDs. Everytime she went to Toronto she'd stop by the Chinatown there and buy a bunch of DVDs. Recently, I introduced her to 1$-1night DVD rentals and honestly, she doesn't see the use of buying copied DVDs(which were roughly 5$ a piece).

I agree with Pita that given the choice of a copy or a legitimate version, if the legitimate version is within reasonable prices, most would chose the legitimate version anyways.

 

Back in this post in this same thread:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=5793115&postcount=23

I offered a solution based on prices and usage that seemed like they might fit current gamers and game makers.

People suggested that it is basically what Steam is - without the time limited part of my suggestion. When I asked for prices for Steam games, none were presented. I did have time to see for myself today and would like to respond below.

The prices I saw ($30 and up) are exactly why the catch-22 of piracy/DRM exists. Those are ridiculous prices to be paying - especially if I want to try a half a dozen games a year (which doesn't seem unreasonable to me?).

With my business model the people who love trying games can so so very inexpensively ($100 per year). The people who love a certain game can buy the physical media with no time restrictions ($25 per title) and the people who want to 'pay as you go' can do so for as little as $5 per month per title or $20 per year per title.

The question/issue was raised that 'rentals' do not make sense. I have addressed that already with the 'unlimited time restriction physical media' option.

The 'time limited' issue also is a sore one - but, let me ask the gamers here: do you collect new games and keep playing the old one too? Or, do you effectively only play the newer games after a while? Again, if a title really is an all time favorite, then buy the non-time limited version.

I don't think people really took a good look at what was suggested. As the whole thread and Forever_Melody has summarized, lower prices will be more effective than DRM for making pirating a lesser possible reason for less profit for the game makers.

By paying a reasonable price ($5) for a full immersion demo for a whole month, we should know if we want/need to purchase the yearly option for $20, or if we love the game and need/want the unlimited time option for $25. If we don't like the game, $5 is not anything we can complain about, really and we can move on from there.

What we are giving up for these much better pricing models is that we don't 'own' the game to resell (not even the time unlimited version). This may sound like a lot to give up, but there has to be some compromises so that the business end of it could continue to make money and more importantly, more games.

I have read the whole thread up to this point and nobody has really addressed these issues.

In the final analysis (now that I have seen some prices for Steam):

The game maker makes the same amount of money if someone tries the $5, 1 month demo and then decides to purchase the physical time unlimited media for $25.

The gamers have the choice to try new games without too much consideration for how it may affect their future game purchasing power ($5 is not even a hamburger and coke in most places).

The pirates will have to realize that their efforts are really not worthwhile for the hassle involved.

More importantly, with a renewed interest in developing new and better games for this business model, the programmers will be able to put their heart and soul into the newest games without worrying if all their effort was simply going to be stolen by more people than will be buying it - and the end result will be better games for everyone.

Anyway, this is my input - I'll try to answer questions on my proposal more promptly on this thread than I was able to the last few days.

 

Both Steam and GOG.com have the most effective anti-piracy method in the world.

Reasonable prices.

@guy above me: $30 isn't ridiculous. $30 is cheap. It's half price. New console and PC games at places like Gamestop go for $60 a pop. That's ridiculous.

I wish $30 was the default price for video games. Movies are already around the $20 mark for Blu-ray, and movies usually cost more to make.

 

Actually tiller, your solution would be economically ideal and actually practical as the companies wouldn't lose their oh-so-precious profits as much in this scenario rather than simply say "drop the prices" without any specific way or form

I think the big issue people have with this is the whole "property" thing. We're cultivated in our society on the basis of "personal property" and "me before the rest" so the idea that something you paid for isn't yours isn't an idea people like, even if it is somewhat practical in theory.

You're kind of attacking a social construction in a way so kudos to you for attempting it

 

It's not really a social construct. It's a genetic construct. Until we got these electronic bits, EVERYTHING was scarce. If I had something, you couldn't also have it at the same time. The problem is that we're also trying to treat ideas and bits as if they're scarce, and then getting frustrated that it's not working. The problem is that we aren't actually selling the scarce bits. An official copy of the game with a manual is worth MUCH more than a virus-infested torrent, to pretty much every gamer. But when they get the choice between paying $60 for the privilege of having their computer screwed up (through DRM and such) or downloading something that doesn't phone home, doesn't require a registration key, and just works? I can see why most people make the choices they do. The value for the money just isn't there. They've stopped including manuals, stopped giving you any actual scarce value for your money to go along with the infinitely replicable bits, so why would people want to pay actual money for that?

 

Damn, I thought that was called warez and pirate products were those that came in shipping containers from China, like my shirt and sneakers.

But really, I would like to see something Steam-like with some kind of money-back guarantee: if game sucks, you can get refund in a reasonable time and the game rights are removed from your account. Now if that could be applied to movies and music too...

One good example is Section 8: I saw it in local supermarket for 59,95e (83USD) for PC. Then I went to publishers website: "We do not have plans to release a Section 8 demo for the PC at this time. Currently, we only have a demo for the Xbox 360 version." I'm lucky I tried it before buying, since it was really bad, even tho I'm still hardcore Tribes fan. Best part of that game was it uninstalled quite quickly.

 

Well I agree with your initial premise that personal property is ingrained within us, but modern capitalist society has all but further worsened the case. As people, we can evolve past our initial instinct to have to own everything for ourselves, but society makes it so the instinct stays with us.

Now, addressing the second point, I'm not denying the fact that the industry has gone downhill, and not just the gaming one, lots of industries have "gone cheap" in order to maximize profit and many times at the cost of the consumer in question.

So the idea of lowering prices of games would definitely appeal to consumers as they would feel that the tradeoff wouldn't be so bad. As I stated priorly, if given the choice between a potentially virus-infested pirated torrent and a genuine game, the genuine game would be picked if the price difference was worth it. It's like anything in life, we scale according to what we consider value(though God knows where we decided what was valued at what, but still). There comes a point where it's just simpler to buy the darn thing.

So basically, if prices go down(in one way or another), people are more inclined to buy the genuine stuff rather than go through the trouble and risk of pirating. Piracy goes down, DRM becomes less useful and reduces in terms of presence.

 

Thanks for the comments Forever_Melody.

I guess I'm a 'try before you buy' kind of person - not only with hardware, but software too. I've actually made some pretty high up people sit down with me at their computer and let me see what the 'fuss' was about before I decided to actually purchase new items they happened to be promoting.

With games, not only does this (demos) seem like a necessity for the exact reasons KLF states above, but by simply driving the price higher and higher you're giving more people on the 'bell curve' to find reasons to pirate instead of buying. With a decided negative effect for all parties involved.

As a non-gamer, I see it like this:

If all my photo-editing products required me to buy before trying, then I would still be working on images with PS v1 and Corel Paint v1 and missing out on a lot of advancements that do make economic sense to pay for - even if the cost does seem high at first.

Instead, not only do I have multiple products that can save time and give my work a special edge for my clients, I can compare my current products/workflow with anything new that comes along and allows me a fair demo of it. Doesn't matter if it costs $3K, if I can put it to use in my workflow effectively. But, even if it cost $300 (and depending on what it does, even $30, sometimes), I would be hesitant to buy - just to see/gamble if it works for me.

Gamers have to come together and simply refuse to buy games based on nothing but marketing - I'm not promoting pirating at all, just need to give the 'gaming' industry a wake-up call that they depend on gamers, not the other way around.

I'm sure some company will do this - they have to - there is no other real solution to spiraling higher prices, more DRM and less 'game' in the new games for people to sink their teeth into.

The company that does do this (well) first, will also have most of the gamers for life - who wouldn't rather spend $100 a year to try/play every single game in a companies portfolio - especially if they can license all/most the popular games under their brand name. The second company that offers this model can't price it cheap enough to get a reasonable sized customer base - at least, not for the gamers that the first company has exclusive rights to specific games they love.

Sometimes institutions (or whatever we want to call it) must be challenged. The time seems right; now.

 

best solution, same as sins of a solar empire, make the DLCs and support so good that you have to buy the game to enjoy it to the fullest

 

Steam, demos, promotions, and DLCs.

 

Fair points, and it's a fun game indeed from what I've seen. But in the end, I'm glad I acquired it the way I did, because through that, I found out that my computer cannot run it at all; we're talking 20 frames per second on a good day, with all settings minimized at 720x480. Had I bought it from Steam, I would have been at a loss having paid $35 (as excellent a price as that is) for a game that I am not able to enjoy.

For what it's worth, you have my word that if I ever build a new system with the graphical capability of running Borderlands, it will be one of the first games I buy.

 

That is another great point. Have an actual return policy especially if you don't offer a demo. A consumer has no recourse if the game runs like crud on their machine despite what the system requirements say. Not to mention if the game is complete and utter crap.

That all gets back to the quality of the game. Everyone hides behind the "no return" policy which allows publishers to release unfinished or complete doo doo titles that have no business existing. And then just say "sorry, you can't return open software".

 

Well honestly, "quality" is a relative statement and should not be used as an argument all too much. Things like "if developers made better quality games"... I'm sorry but I'm fairly certain some developers were proud of games we might consider "crap" so in their minds, they might not have known it was going to be an utter flop; it's kinda like Hollywood movies, some directors are quite proud of their movies yet they flop epically. So let's forget this argument.

Now, as for a return policy on software, it's always tricky as they have no proof that you didn't install the thing on your computer and do a nocrack hack to keep the game without the CD. This is why they bother with DRM; if they had SURE way to make sure you couldn't actually have the software [in a usable manner] after returning it, they wouldn't mind returns.

IMO, it'd be a lot simpler and more practical to act BEFORE the purchase than after. It's kind of like going to a restaurant and having a bad meal, it sucks, but tough luck you can't refund it most of the time. SO the simple solution is to make you aware BEFORE you purchase the product(ex: restaurants now typically put a list of ingredients for their plates rather than only a fancy name which means nothing).

IMO it all comes back to 2 things form what I can tell:
- meaningful demos which would allow people to properly see a game's value before purchasing it
- lower prices(perhaps in the line of tiller's method so as to keep the whole industry happy that they're still getting their profit) which would dissuade people from the hassle of pirating

 

I'm sorry, but anyone that has anything to do with the gaming industry knows what is "quality" gameplay. There's no reason for any game to exist that gets 20-30% review scores. That's just poor quality control. Nobody cares to do any market research. They just ask grandma if it looks neat.

In any case, I'm more concerned about quality control. So many games are released unfinished, unoptimized, and lacking key features. This tells me it's rushed or they don't want to spend a dime more with it so it's either cancel it and take a complete loss, or release it and hope to recover costs. That's absurd.

Too many people say you should research your games fully before buying. I'm sorry, but a $30-$50 game is an impulse purchase for many people. For me these days not so much. But when I was in better financial shape, if I had a free weekend and a new game came out that looked "neat" I'd buy it. No time to wait a month to get all the reviews or read up on it too much.

 

I'm sorry, I still fail to see your argument. Fail games exist just as fail movies, or fail books, or fail...whatever...

"Quality" is relative. What one finds crap, the other might find good and vice versa, it's the very essence of quality. If everyone had the same view of quality, there would be no variety.. AT ALL. I find CS gameplay crappy yet lots of people love CS(random example since I'm fully aware CS has the same exact gameplay as any other FPS game); it's not some magic rule that everyone knows. And what if a developer wants to try something new? Not all of them want to stick with the same recipe(arguably many of them do, but that's not my point).

And I'm sorry, but if a game is an impulsive purchase, how exactly can you expect quality when you yourself aren't even arsed to bother looking into what you buy? Just because you're shelling out cash doesn't give you king's right over everything; you have to choose where you shell your cash. I believe in the whole "the customer is king" thing but the word is "king", not "god". I grow tired of people with money giving themselves all the rights.

You don't "have to wait a month"... if marketing was done properly, you'd know a month BEFORE the game came out what it was about and there might be a demo or two out BEFORE the game came out .

I do however agree on quality control, but I can't just sit by the argument of "making quality games"; it's just silly in itself when you think about it. Sure, in a way it's obvious(better product = more sales) but it's not way to really deal with either DRM or piracy. IMO, if prices are horrendously still high, even a good game can still be pirated by those who deem it's not worth it. I can really really like Douglas Adams' series, yet I'd still not pay 200$ for it(I paid 30$ for the whole series ).

 

"Quality" and "Quality Controls" are the same thing in my mind. A product is high quality because it met or exceeded the quality standards or controls for that market. Quality control is more relaxed in some industries than in others, and games in particular. Plus there's multiple facets. You can have the best looking and optimized 3D engine which is marvelous, but if the gameplay isn't up to expectations or standards, it will fail, period. Kind of like if you have a great looking car that breaks down all the time.

And you're saying "if marketing was done properly", which doesn't make sense. Marketing is just the company's way of telling you how great their product is, and for you to buy their product, whether it sucks or not. They'll only accentuate the positive stuff. Marketing done properly is being able to sell a blank CD for $50.

Regarding impulse purchases, do you research the $40 sneakers you bought, the $30 you spent on that steak dinner, or the oil and wrenches mechanics use to change your oil? No, you don't, . Should you complain then when your shoes fall apart after a few days of use? Don't bother taking them back to the store then because you didn't do your research, so it's your fault. You pay the money with an expectation that it at least meets minimum "normal" standards.

And a making the best product is absolutely the best way to counter piracy. Throwing all this DRM crap on a CD or DVD only delays the pirating for a *VERY* short period. Like maybe 24 hours if that.

Think of this theoretical scenario. If there was an uncrackable DRM, do you really believe the game sales would increase drastically if it was a crappy game? No it would not. People would not buy the game, period. If it was a good game, they would.

I do think lowering prices helps, but again, probably only a small percentage.

Game demos won't help much either. If they're released before or at the full product release date, it's based on beta code, so they hide behind the fact that it is beta code and may not be representative of the full product release. If they work on a demo based on gold code, then it won't be available until many weeks after full retail product release, which is usually too late for it to be of any value.

This is what I have always struggled with. The gaming industry seems to put this multi billion dollar annual loss due to piracy, yet there's no way to prove or know what it is. Just because someone pirates the game doesn't mean they'd buy it even if it cost $1.

Here's a theorem for you, and not hard to prove: Good games (loose term, I know) sell regardless of type of DRM. DRM does not increase sales. So I don't see how they make the leap to DRM = good for company, good for customers.

 

I think you need to play more FPS games, because that is 100% false.

Counter-Strike plays absolutely nothing like Call of Duty, which plays nothing like Halo, which plays nothing like Team Fortress 2, which plays nothing like Unreal Tournament, etc. Hell, even games in the same series can change gameplay up quite a bit. Just look at the transition between Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2.

 

That's a key point: the value of the money isn't there anymore. And we have been raised to evaluate the value of things. And again a point: bits are so common, they have a low value.
In most countries (actually I would say: except the U.S.), culture is not a marketing product, so it is actually subventioned by the government. Of course, that makes them make way less movies, books and games than the U.S. (cause market has much more money than government) but a good point of that is that 99% of them are really good and actually worth paying products. i.e. for making a movie in Spain you have to make a project, apply to a government grant, and if they pass you, you get the money to make the movie. Of course then, they make much less movies than the U.S. but all are good quality. And if someone copy your movie it isn't a great deal: you got the money from a grant.
May be piracy is just an unavoidable part of all the marketing system, which has its good and bad points, as everything does. The good part of it is the quantity of products, that we all enjoy, the not so good part is that you depend on the market, which is cold and ruthless.

 

Ok well how do you propose we make better "quality control"? Do we need more beta testers? Do we need more demos+feedback? What do we need? Quality control in the gaming industry is even a more vague term than quality control anywhere because it's entertainment. I mean, apply your scenario to movies for example, or books. It's hard to aptly judge an entertainment's "value" without doing a census of half the population.

I'm using the term "properly" to imply where marketing would be used to actually show what a game WAS. You know, there was a time where marketing was actually used to showcase a product's worth without being ridiculous. As I said, demos are part of marketing so if we have proper demos(i.e. ones that reflect the game), then consumers get a better idea of what they're purchasing. Think of it more like taste samples for food products.

The problem I see is that you're comparing quality control in regards to entertainment in the case of a game to quality control in regards to functionality in other products. You're allowed to complain if your shoes fall apart yes, but that would equate to you complaining that your game doesn't work i.e. the CD doesn't install or something of the like. You're complaining functionality problems in both cases. Now, in the case where you're unsatisfied with the entertainment value of a game, it'd be equating to you complaining that you don't like the color of the shoes, or the comfort of the shoes. The shoes in themselves work, they're just not to your liking. While you are still allowed to complain, or get a refund, it's not a flaw in quality control if it simply doesn't satisfy you as a person. perhaps someone elsewhere is happy with the shoes' color or their shape.

I fail to see how. Great movies get pirated all the time, so do great games. How exactly did them being great stop the pirates? In fact, it's the opposite, if it's so great, they'd want it, but sometimes the price doesn't justify what it is, regardless of how great it is, so they pirate it rather.

My dear, some people pirate because they can; some pirate because it's fun; some pirate because they're poor; some pirate for thousands of reasons. I think some answers in this thread have made it pretty clear that this is not a secret. Regardless of how good a game can be, unless it's somehow very very well linked to the internet, it'll still be pirated by the masses. Even WoW's pirated apparently(or used to be).

No you're right I don't. When did I ever say DRM was even a valuable solution. DRM will just impede people regardless of the game it's on.

Well that's where we differ in opinions. I've seen posts in this very thread saying that some people pirate due to lack of funds(especially in 3rd world countries). Remember that pirating a game usually involves shady software mods, possible keyloggers set in keygens or cracks and all kinds of other potentially dangerous stuff.

Now let's place a scenario. You live in a 3rd world country, where you make poor money and have poor services. If you tell me I can download a crack which would say cost me 1/3 of my internet download limit(say I pay 50$/month so that's roughly 16.50$) and then I get the option of purchasing said game for 20$. Honestly, I think I'd just purchase the damn original thing rather than go through the hassle of trying to pirate it and potentially getting caught. I'm sure some people would STILL crack it even if the original was 1$, but some wouldn't.

Which comes back to the term PROPER demos. The current protocol for demos is to use beta code, hence why it's sometimes not fully representative, but it's still a demo. It's still a taste of the game right? A deceitful taste? Perhaps, but a taste nonetheless. There was a thread here in the gaming section complaining about the lack of demos period so I think at least HAVING some is a proper step if anything.

I could use that same argument even with "if the game was good". I'm sure very good game titles get pirated every year as well.

DRM can decrease sales. Just look at that "Ubisoft unveils new DRM" thread, some people are refusing to buy games from Ubisoft(Assassin's Creed 2 is pretty successful in general and I saw some people refusing to buy that on PC) solely due to the DRM method.

I'm not just saying things, I'm linking posts I see in multiple threads here in the gaming section which complain about prices, demos and yes, quality, but it's not the only thing.

I think we need a combination of all these things to really make a dent.

 

you will never make a dent in piracy unless games are account based and subscription based. but no one is going to be willing to toss down money every month to own a game unless the game expands much, much greater over the life of the game.

MMO's work in this matter. they might be pirated, but really, it costs people money to host private servers, and the population of private servers is relatively low, especially compared to regular servers.

you're not going to stop piracy. piracy is much different than robbing a bank. you can prevent robbing a bank. everything is physical there. the people are present together, there is a physical act of holding a physical object with physical witnesses.

since piracy is electronic, there are THOUSANDS of ways around security for software. far too many people know their way around a keyboard, so you're never going to really put a dent into piracy with DRMs and whatnot. if a bank decided to have it where the only way to pay for goods is by withdrawling cash from their bank because they stopped electronic money transfers due to PII being stolen and so many fraudulent payments, then people wouldn't go to that bank, would they? now the people who fraudulently steal information to do transactions can't use members of that bank, but you've left the members who have accounts with that bank in a position they most likely don't want to deal with. how has this hurt people who steal identities? all that will happen is that they are going to find other people to do it to.

this is how DRMs are treating people. with only having the capability of installing a program a few times before requiring a new key, you're not really hurting pirates, especially since they can develop and steal keys themselves. circumventing piracy is just like banning firearms - you're only taking away from those who abide by the law.

making a good, quality game actually does work against 'losing money towards piracy'. it's true that there will be much more pirated copies of a good game versus a bad game, but there will also be much more sales of a good game versus a bad game which overcomes the 'loss due to piracy'.

if people pirate the movie Avatar, frankly, it doesn't matter in regards to losing revenue. the only thing we can argue is ethics at that point. even 1 million copies which 'would equal' ~15 million dollars, isn't anything at this point.

i think the problem many people have in this thread is that people are inferring that "people pirate because" is the same as "it is OK to pirate because".

 

I still don't understand most publishers' decisions to use some form of DRM like SecuRom. They pay a premium for this stuff. Yet it only hurts the consumer. The way companies are being run these days putting profit over anything else, I'm surprised that DRM is even considered since it costs the publishers money that they gain nothing back from. I dunno. All I know is I want DRM to not punish the legit buyer, and let us play games without the need for a CD or DVD present.

 

It's all because of the whole "digital copyrights" movement in the past decade. I mean, I'm sure most larger companies(those who usually are the worst with DRM) like EA or such are the ones losing the least amount of money due to piracy. It's the small guys who would have the most to lose yet they can't even afford DRM methods.

The reason I started this thread was because of the whole realization that DRM doesn't do much good, but at the same time, digital copyright is something of an issue(although not as big as some would suggest) and I wanted to see if we as people on the other side had a better alternative.

 

Ok, these are just random ideas (each paragraph) after reading all the responses:

I agree with the OP, why would the companies integrate DRM already for so many years if they were losing money? This only proves that paying to incorporate DRM is just an extra fee than otherwise risking low sales.

Also, I'm not sure why so many complain about DRM and it being a nuisance, quit using MS Windows if that is the case.

Somehow I agree with the idea that the business model for digital stuff has to be different, but free is not a business model unless we want spam ads every 5 minutes.

How to stop piracy? Well, that is difficult but the least one can do it stop talking it like a 'solution' to DRM/low quality games/improve the gaming industry or any other excuse we may come up (personally the 'testing' reason should be given an award of the best of the best excuses).

And... buying a game is not like going to the movie theaters or watching a play. We buy the rights to use pieces of bits (play games in this case), not just a use-only-once kind of buy. Therefore as owners of rights there should be a reasonable way to give up those and be compensated (refund policy).

Just my multiple 2 cents afterthoughts.

 

Realistically, I really think offering a refund will do wonders. Even if it's understood that there is a 20% fee for a refund, at least you aren't out $50 or $60. And make the return period short, like 3 or 5 days. Sure you can copy or finish a game in 3 or 5 days, but it minimizes those things. So you can at least return a game if it's really buggy or utter crap. I'd rather be out $10 than $50.

 

Refunds would work, but I doubt companies would take the risk of you copying it. They'd need to develop a way to make sure the software in question can't still be in working condition on your computer if they were to take such a risk, especially with very expensive applications like corporate products of creative suites.

 

Although I agree with the refund policy, I don't see any reason to pay a return fee. This is a matter of negotiating when you don't have to, and it is obvious that some companies will choose to make that fee unreasonable. There will be cheaters in any unclear system that will spoil the effectiveness of the system for everyone. Imagine having to also factor in the varying refund fees among games on top of the other factors that lead you to buy a game.

The solution that I would personally like to see is a full refund policy along with an activation-upon-purchase system.

When you buy the game, the store activates it for you and the game can connect to the internet in order to enable gameplay. If you return it, the store disables the serial or code that enables you to play that game, thereby denying you the license to play the game despite the possibility the customer still having a copy of the game. This is a minimalistic version of DRM that makes the safe assumption of an internet connection; I think it makes a reasonable balance between the company's rights and the consumer's rights. Developers could also use complex algorithms in creating these keys, which the internet community would have extreme difficulty duplicating; the game owner would likewise not be able to view the serial.

 

I'm talking strictly about games than the expensive apps and stuff. That's a whole new topic.

With a short return window and having to still pay money, you'd have to be awfully desperate to buy, copy, and return games regularly.

Sites like Steam should do the same thing. Try before you buy, or at least before you pay full price. And with Steam they could probably even cut you off from the game after a certain number of play hours in a trial period or after you get past a certain level. Of course do this with new releases at $40 or $50, not the $5 and $10 games of course.

I like this idea. Then the customer doesn't need to activate, only the store where you buy it has to activate it and has an internet connection. Of course the one issue I see is if you buy the game, they open the package and activate it, and you decide to return the game before even playing it, then they have an open box item to manage. But I'm sure that's rare.

 

I like Bog's idea, the only downsides I'd see are:

- having to go through a sales rep at the store to activate/purchase a game. Imagine on big game releases how there could be a lineup due to lack of sales reps.

- the need of an internet connection(but as Bog stated, it's becoming pretty standard nowadays)

 

Well, heck, most games require the end user to have an internet connection. A store that sells games sure as heck better. They could also have phone in activation for those far reaching places without internet or places too cheap to buy it.

Plus most major stores (i.e. Target, Walmart, Best Buy, etc) could probably just activate it right at the register. They already do that with electronics and scan the serial number.

 

1. Simple CD-key and online verification with publisher website with an associated and verified account. (so u can play game unless u have proper key authenticated on website in ur login)

2. Alternate phone activation process/ enter cd key into publisher website with a reply code (if firewall blocks outgoing verification by game )

3. Games with fair amount of dlc, so a simply pirated game wont feel complete without dlc. This content too shud be registered at said website. And the game will require another batch of authentification.

4. Why not just have episodic games/ more content as u go along and the pricing should be done smartly so that its profitable and not sending consumers into fits of rage (more long term profit rather than short term gain)

5. A GAMING Licence, games associated with ur gaming licence, simple login and contingency login methods and all ur games stored in that account. This links in well with the concept of a internet passport, a method coined to remove illegal activity off the net, u need passport to use the net, do something evil and wrong and ur identified and prosecuted. (but then this requires a great deal of trust between the enforcer (govt?) and the consumer to have the liberal latitude to surf the net for all sorts and the line of illegality shud be far off into serious crime rather than superficial surfing of questionable material.

Edit: and games on ur licence cannot be returned, killing pre-owned games market, more money for dev/pub, love given back to consumer by further reducing price (intial reduction since all game sales wud be legit) And even if u download a game from dubious places, even a copied game wud need linking with gaming licence as part of its core installation. And if ur copy game sucks (missing textures/sound/video) and u have paid for the game thru licence u can redownload any bits and bobs required

even better, get game, play it for 5 hours (dunno depends on game) and then u have to authenticate to ur licence and pay. Play before u pay -> the ways demos shud be

 

1. Easily crackable.
2. Same as 1.
3. Gives incentive to publishers to leave things out of final version, only so they can charge more for it as DLC. Reregistration is just as crackable as registering the first time.
4. Same as 3.
5. Too invasive for anyone to agree to.

 

i'm gonna go in tangent here.
i think most crack teams do it because it's a challenge, i mean they even bought the game. maybe drm just give them more excitement than deterrence.
sorry if someone already bought this up, i didn't read all 15 pages.

 

Here is something I find interesting and I'd like to get an answer on it.

Look at how the music and movie companies are taking very aggressive action against pirates who download these files illegally by hitting them with huge lawsuits, targeting their IP addresses on Bitorrent and sending warning letters, using a 3-strikes law to tell their ISP to remove their internet service, etc.

Why aren't game companies doing this and instead putting all this garbage DRM to bother us legitimate customers!?

 

There is a great deal of potential buyers in Latin-America (Mexico and below, for those who wonder what that is).

However, the price of legal games in those countries are really high; about twice the price of games here in USA and Canada (which are already high prices, IMO).

Plus, availability is really low; most of what you can find there on retail are pirated copies.

Latin-American dedicated servers are rare, and Internet services are much more expensive and less accessible there than here in North-America, making online gaming difficult.

Thus, people have no choice but to mostly buy pirated games. Therefore, the Latin-American market should be brought into consideration instead of being ignored.

Oh and I heard mature games were banned in Venezuela, which doesn't help at all.


Same goes for other continents like Africa and Asia, I guess.

In-game advertising can help developers lower prices; and for those who hate In-game advertising, Special Editions are available.

 

Sorry but I don't agree with the RIAA abusing laws and exploiting people to gain profits that make up for their boneheaded business decisions and changing industry conditions. Those punishments DO NOT fit the crimes and as for the 3 strikes law... How would you like to lose ALL YOUR INTERNET because you have a somewhat defiant teenager in the house. No email, no internet banking, no anything and everything a family might do on the web. There's a reason these are controversial "solutions" to piracy.

And don't give me this "it's the parents fault" BS. I know plenty of very good parents whose kids did some pretty boneheaded things and guess what... those kids grew up to be very successful and law abiding citizens. Kids are kids and sometimes this kind of stuff happens.

 

Also because lawyers are expensive. It costs more to file suit and go through with the case than what they would get back from the defendant.

 

I haven't read through all the 15 pages, but does someone have some actual data on what percentage of people who play PC games download game illegally?

 

According to the sources brought up by Pitabred, 90%.

 

http://news.spong.com/article/20189/Only-4pc-of-US-Gamers-Pirate

 

That's a self-report. About as accurate as asking how large someone's unit is online.

 

Steam. PERIOD

Even if you wanted to pirate a game (Most good pc games are multiplayer except for bioware games) you won't be able to play online if you pirate a steam game. Mw2 is an exception because IW is a bunch of noobs.