Speaking up against our would be soviet overlords.
Published on January 21, 2010 By taltamir In PC Gaming

DRM as a whole is not meant to stop piracy; no form of DRM has ever been effective in stopping piracy, nor has any of it ever been designed in a way that could be effective in stopping piracy. DRM is nothing but a trick to force customers to purchase the same product again and again; which several big DRM advocates (such as the CEO of sony BGM) have publicly declared as their ultimate goal. DRM pushers also came on records as saying that libraries are nothing but massive scale piracy by the government and should thus be shut down. It is no surprise that the library of congress (and many others) have been complaining about their inability to archive works with DRM as libraries are another of the real intended targets of DRM.

Software companies like to pretend that their product is both intellectual property which they license, as well as a physical product which they sell you at the same time. Furthermore, they pretend that somehow the two are combined so that the consumer gets the responsibilities of both and the benefit of neither while they get the benefits of both and the responsibilities of neither.

When you sell a DVD you are transferring a physical product, one that was manufactured, transported, purchased, and has to be disposed of (at taxpayer expense) when trashed. And has to be repurchased if damaged. Just like a car. This is taking the "physical object" approach.

Digital distribution does not do that. Digital distribution treats it as 100% IP that is licensed to you. You have one lifetime license to use a game/song/movie/program/etc. A license that does not need to be repurchased if your CD is scratched, degrades from age, or otherwise damaged. Therefore you are getting the benefits (you can make copies, transfer devices, and get a duplicate of the data at no cost) and drawbacks (you may not resell it) of the IP licensing method. Which is fair and reasonable; you must remember that in the license approach, you should not have an inherent right to resell an item.

If you wanted the model in which you the consumer could resell the DVD than you have to agree to a model where DVDs can not be duplicated under any circumstances, that the DVD has to be in the drive to run the game. And that if the DVD breaks then you are obligated to buy a new one at full price, even if you already purchased the game/software. This is a ridiculous notion since a DVD is worth under 10 cents, but the software on it is worth at least 50$. It isn't a car, it is a method of transferring the software, which is pure information.

Most unauthorized copying (called piracy by DRM advocates) exists to reclaim the benfits of either the license or the physical property method, but many users forget that if you reclaim both at once than you are going from protecting your rights as a customer and into the realm of thievery (which, ironically, is what the content owners do to you when they claim the rights of both and the responsibilities of neither).

I am very happy with license type digital distribution. Now in a system that no longer tries to exploit me and steal from me (which is exactly what software companies do when they pretend that their product is two different things at once) I am quite satisfied with purchasing software again. This is why services such as impulse are so much better than buying a DVD at the store.


Comments (Page 7)
7 PagesFirst 5 6 7 
on Mar 02, 2010

there are two ways for companies to prove it:

1. Actually close shop and do it (extremely rare and unlikely)

2. put DRM free exes in escrow with the requirement of them being released upon shutdown of the company, and give reviews access to said files to prove that they work as claimed.

"they say they will" is not a good enough argument. I guess actually having a chat with the CEO of stardock in the forums does create a rapport of some sort and I am inclined to trust him unlike EA and their ilk, but such trust is subjective and isn't actually "proof" that this will occur.

As for multiplayer saves. I don't think this is a matter of "malice", probably just a practical consideration (development costs, connection speed/issues, etc). But I think it is one that will turn off certain customers and it should be optional (that is, where you can save to their servers OR your own server/computer, your choice). time will tell how it will be in the final product.

on Mar 02, 2010

taltamir


As for multiplayer saves. I don't think this is a matter of "malice", probably just a practical consideration (development costs, connection speed/issues, etc). But I think it is one that will turn off certain customers and it should be optional (that is, where you can save to their servers OR your own server/computer, your choice). time will tell how it will be in the final product.

Please explain to me how offloading saved games onto custom servers, servers of your paying clients, costs Stardock money? Keep in mind I said paying customers.  Cloud saving is only a feature when it is optional, when it is forced, it is DRM.

on Mar 02, 2010

Nesrie
You want Arset to prove that a companay who falls under the weight of it's own debt doesn't have the ability to just do what it wants because the creditors all want a piece? The proof is in bankruptcy court and the fact that EA, Ubisoft, Activision and Microsoft all shurt down their servers at will for no other reason than to save money.

You're not citing a case of a Digital Distribution service that impacts upon retail purchases being closed down, you're citing multiplayer servers and content servers for outdated and discontinued programs. I can still purchase Lord of the Rings Conquest and play on a third party server. The game still functions. If Steam and VALVe went down, and I tried to play Half-Life 2 or Modern Warfare 2, I can't. Period. Different situation entirely. And as I stated, any and all providers of content on Steam have already been paid upon the purchase of a game on Steam; patching the Steam client to not require online authentication once the service is discontinued doesn't impace upon a third party's profits or operation; they've already been paid. If Ubisoft closed down its Assassin's Creed 2 online servers, thus rendering the game unplayable, do you honestly think they'd not release an unlock for the game, or at the very least be forced to release an unlock by legal action?

Nesrie
I don't think your tone needs to be so condescending though. He has a point. In order for any of these companies, Valve, Stardock, etc to actually prove to consumer's their word is worth a hill of beans if they are suddenly closing shop is for them to actually close shop and do it, or close shop and not. At that point, it's too late. Money is spent, promises broken. Solution, don't put your paying customers in a position where you closing your doors makes out games unplayable and the pirates... well they get to continue business as usual.

I'm being condescending because the concept of spending, literally, thousands of dollars on software across a digital service only to lose it all because the service closed down is, honestly, laughable. Ignoring the cost to profit ratio of Digital distribution and the lack of expenses in providing it besides bandwidth and storage space and thus the unlikelyhood of the digital service ever being closed down, can you explain to me why the scenario of an unlocked Steam Client wouldn't occur if Steam closed down? Leaving the servers turned on for a month to allow its customers to download and backup all of their content as well as patch their Steam Clients to no longer require online authentication is, honestly, the only method that would allow VALVe to proceed into Bankruptcy - anything else generates additional costs and expenses.

Is the fear a warrented one? Not really, considering that a Digital provider's likelyhood of going into bankruptcy is less than any retailer due to the profit model. No boxes, no discs, no warehouses, no transportation. Nothing. Just bandwidth and storage space, which are only getting cheaper by the day.

on Mar 02, 2010

ZehDon



 I can still purchase Lord of the Rings Conquest and play on a third party server. The game still functions.

To clarify before I address any of your other statements. Are you saying YOU'VE purchaed Lord of the Rings Conquest and YOU can still play on third party servers?

on Mar 02, 2010

Nesrie
Are you saying YOU'VE purchaed Lord of the Rings Conquest and YOU can still play on third party servers?

I don't buy anything with EA on the Box. The point remains: if I bought the game, I could still play it; it still functions despite the offical servers being closed down. EA closed them because they were simply not being used. An understandable move, if entirely avoidable by simply making a better game or realising a Battlefield-style game built on the back of the LotR universe was a fucking terrible idea for a game. If VALVe closed down the Steam servers, nothing works. Not even single player only games. Entirely different situation.

on Mar 03, 2010

Please explain to me how offloading saved games onto custom servers, servers of your paying clients, costs Stardock money? Keep in mind I said paying customers.  Cloud saving is only a feature when it is optional, when it is forced, it is DRM.

Quite simple actually.

Stardock MUST make servers capable of hosting multiplayer save games in order to provide acceptable (to most) gameplay quality with 32 players.

In order to provide the alternative of saving it locally, they must create extra code in the base software for one of the players holding the saves for the others, or syncing from multiple players, or having one of the players run a dedicated custom server for saves. This requires extra programming. (how much exactly I am uncertain).

Programming self storage of multiplayer saves is probably going to be a lot cheaper and easier than programming the server based, but for practical reasons they must offer the server based. So their choice is really between allowing BOTH, or just the server based. This is something that easily looks like malice, but CAN be a matter of practicality and cost.

This isn't to say that this ISN'T some form of sneaky DRM done with no regards to cost, I don't know that for sure, I am just saying that its possible that this is unintentional cost saving.

I don't buy anything with EA on the Box. The point remains: if I bought the game, I could still play it; it still functions despite the offical servers being closed down. EA closed them because they were simply not being used. An understandable move, if entirely avoidable by simply making a better game or realising a Battlefield-style game built on the back of the LotR universe was a fucking terrible idea for a game. If VALVe closed down the Steam servers, nothing works. Not even single player only games. Entirely different situation.

That is true, the two are completely different cases. closing a DRM server prevents you from playing single player, closing a multiplayer server prevents you from playing multiplayer only (assuming there is no allowance for direct ip connections or private servers).

on Mar 04, 2010

You talk a lot but you don't really say anything. They HAVE to cloud save because of 32 players. Right, because most of Demigod's players, a multiplayer game, played online... wait, what's that, they didn't. Nope, according to Brad there was a large portion of legal copies that never played online and that didn't have a singleplayer game to speak off. Care to take bets on how many Elemental games will actually have 32 players? Not only that, there are a ton of games that handle dozens of players that do not REQUIRE cloud saving.


Zehdon, it's interesting that you demand proof but use hearsay yourself; not that i was surprised.

on Mar 04, 2010

Demigod was a completely different type of game, there was nothing to save. One byte for your class, one byte for your level, a few bytes for your assigned skills and item codes.

Elemental is a strategy game which seems to go quite in depth, there will be lots and lots of data to save.

just because others games do it doesn't mean every game can do it.

Anyways, I said it is a possibility that it is not designed as an antipiracy measure, not that it is a certainty. I am sorry it offended it to think that there might just be a chance that it is a legitimate move meant to increase the quality of the game.

on Mar 04, 2010

Nesrie
Zehdon, it's interesting that you demand proof but use hearsay yourself; not that i was surprised.

Once bitten, twice shy.
Innocent until proven guilty.
A penny saved is a penny earned.
Please, take your pick over - the fact of the matter is EA have consistently screwed over its player bases, however shutting down multiplayer servers for unpopullar games isn't really one of the those moves.

VALVe have also made some questionable moves as well. Left 4 Dead 2 springs to mind. Merely a few weeks after I purchased the original, the sequel is announced and the first one's promised DLC is ... ironically, left for dead by Valve. They also have several games on Steam which actually don't work correctly on moder systems without warning. Splinter Cell, for example, can't render the real-time shadows on todays hardware and thus leaves the game unplayable. They merely pointed me to Ubisoft, who gleefully told me that they no longer supported the game.
Its enough to warrant cautious optimism and further research before purchasing any game made before the current calender year, however I wouldn't consider it enough to place the company on the same level of EA Games. Activision, on the other hand, is teetering on a knifes edge at this point.

on Mar 04, 2010

taltamir


Anyways, I said it is a possibility that it is not designed as an antipiracy measure, not that it is a certainty. I am sorry it offended it to think that there might just be a chance that it is a legitimate move meant to increase the quality of the game.

I am still on this forum, and I am still interested in Elemental. If Stardock has a legit reason for this move, I've been waiting to hear it. I've yet to hear it and until I do, I still think this is a move away from "ignore the pirates" to hey let's force everyone on our servers with cloud saving so a handful of years later we can say the servers cost too much to maintain and shut them down (Zehdon praises their efforts of course) but still try and claim our games ship DRM free.

Zehdon, I am aware what Valve did. I purchased L4D after L4D2 was released and after having played the demo for 2 long enough realize just how close to 1 it still was. If you have been reading what I said, at no point did i say Stardock was EA or Activation or even Valve, doing what they are doing with their servers makes me like those giants. If that is what you think, then you aren't trying very hard to see my position at all. If you don't give a shit if some company yanks a game's server you haven't purchased, then good for you. I know they can do it, and they will do it and any company that puts them in a position where they are able to screw their customers at leisure gets a black mark from me. I haven't drunk enough Kool-aid to make Stardock immune from that. EA still has BFMII servers up and that's a much older game, but I am not going to give them a pass for it just because I have BFMEII and don't have Conquest because I, like a lot of people, thought Conquest was going to be BFMEIII and heard how crappy it was. That game is just barely a year old, is still be sold as multiplayer game, and in my book EA made a dick move, and I am not going to say otherwise.

on Mar 04, 2010

I understand your position Nesrie, and I understand your concern. However if you're only ever going to purchase a game once you have a signed contract stating multiplayer servers will be left active literally forever, complete with ongoing support for your life time and that the company who's developed the game and the game that has published the game - and any digital distribution providers inbetween - who have made this agreement will never close down then you're never going to purchase a game again.

Battle.net can be closed down, meaning Blizzard's title's online multiplayer would no longer work. World of Warcraft's servers will be closed down one day - probably in about forty years - so does this mean you shouldn't buy either title now? Of course not. Closing down offical servers for an unpopullar game may be a dick move, but it's entirely understandable. The game simply wasn't very good to begin with, and as a result didn't really develop much of a community to warrant keeping the servers active. If EA Games made a policy for shutting down the servers for each instalment of a series once a new instalment was released to force their multiplayer communities to migrate - and they will, believe me, when trying to charge a subscription fee for single player games fails - then your fear would have some form of rationale behind it. As it stands - you're basically saying that any company that produces any game has to stay in business and provide their services until the ending of the world for you to get on board. That's simply laughable.

on Mar 04, 2010

ZehDon
I understand your position Nesrie, and I understand your concern. However if you're only ever going to purchase a game once you have a signed contract stating multiplayer servers will be left active literally forever, complete with ongoing support for your life time and that the company who's developed the game and the game that has published the game - and any digital distribution providers inbetween - who have made this agreement will never close down then you're never going to purchase a game again.

You hopped way out in left field on this one. At no point did I EVER say a company needs to give me a signed contract in order for me to play a game. Who cares about Battle.net. Diablo 2 has direct IP. It can STILL be played multiplayer even after they pull the servers. If they want to offer servers packed full of goodies and features that make it worthwhile for people to use them, go ahead, offer it alongside an option that does't make every game sold have an umbilical cord attached to each copy. This is just another case of companies trying to maintain controles of each copy they sell. That is not what copyright is intended for and it is a form of DRM I will continue to be verbal against.

7 PagesFirst 5 6 7