DRM Boosts Profits & It's Here To Stay

I'm like Ivancillo in that I also have zero tolerance for DRM. It doesn't provide any direct benefit to the customer and pirates end up with cracked versions very soon after release anyway, so anyone who wants a free version can get it (pirating isn't particularly complicated these days).

Public companies like Square Enix, Ubisoft and EA are traded on the stock market and so have shareholders, shareholders they need to appease. DRM and other copy-protection methods might well be useless, but if they're absent then shareholders might start complaining that a company's IP isn't being adequately protected. Shareholders aren't necessarily gamers or people who have any real interest in gaming - they just want to make money. If said companies don't use various DRMs it could be argued that they're not taking all reasonable steps to protect their IP and hence making money, regardless of whether this is true or not.

This isn't always the case of course. CD Projekt RED who make the Witcher series doesn't use DRM and are on the stock market, but they're a unique case in that they're openly against the inclusion of DRM technology in video games and software and make it part of their public image. Bigger companies like EA and Square Enix don't give a shit about such things because gamers (in general) don't give a shit about such things regardless of how much we complain, because most gamers will put up with DRM for the next hot title.

Sorry for the rant. I don't like how DRM has been accepted (even "light" DRM like Steam). We're happy to provide an artificially enforced time-frame on gaming history and that's fucking disgusting.

There was an IAMA with DRM developer.
He says that their job is to make a DRM that will last as long as possible because most of the sales of major titles happen in the first month and than they drastically decline.
So if you have a DRM and can't pirate the game for a month, then you are more likely to buy this game.

Now, I am not supporting DRM in any way, just explaining what the publishers think.

Links to IAMA:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1bzkia/iama_developer_of_drm_systems_and_software/

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ufw0e/i_develop_drm_systems_and_software_activation/

Quoting: MaximBThere was an IAMA with DRM developer.
He says that their job is to make a DRM that will last as long as possible because most of the sales of major titles happen in the first month and than they drastically decline.
So if you have a DRM and can't pirate the game for a month, then you are more likely to buy this game.

Now, I am not supporting DRM in any way, just explaining what the publishers think.

Links to IAMA:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1bzkia/iama_developer_of_drm_systems_and_software/

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ufw0e/i_develop_drm_systems_and_software_activation/

Good reference. From that, I get that DRM is only effective to protect from piracy for a month, but it will bother the legitimate customer for the whole game lifetime. Great thinking.

It also says that in the long term they seek protection for "casual" piracy, i.e., lending the game to a friend. I understand this better but I still don't like DRM anyway and won't buy it.

Steam I can tolerate because it's a DRM that actually gives something to me - cloud save, installing my stuff as many times as I effin' want, screenshot upload, a bit of proof of reviews and really good prices.

Everything else can piss off, I'll crack and pirate it if I want to.
Most times there's nothing worth buying that has DRM other than steam though.

I don't mind some forms of DRM, like steam. If it was a choice between steam as it is and downloading each title from the publishers with no DRM, I would take the former, just for the convenience of having all my titles in one place.
That said I have passed up some really good specials on greenmangaming / gamers gate / getgamesgo etc because they had all kinds of other strange DRM.

I believe that Square enix did see a boost to profits. but there are other facts they need to take into account, including the re-emergence of PC gaming.

Quoting: biffI don't mind some forms of DRM, like steam. If it was a choice between steam as it is and downloading each title from the publishers with no DRM, I would take the former, just for the convenience of having all my titles in one place.

It is important to remember that Steam itself is not DRM and a lot of the features people like from it do not necessarily need to tie the game itself to Steam. Steamworks is the component which ties a game to Steam, not the Steam client software itself, and even most of Steamworks could be kept separate from the binary in a perfect world.

I must admit I too have gotten lazy and unwilling to buy a game that is not on some storefront that can manage my purchases - meaning that I only buy games on Humble, Desura, and soon GoG. That does not necessarily mean I need to embrace DRM for that convenience, however.

Quoting: HamishIt is important to remember that Steam itself is not DRM and a lot of the features people like from it do not necessarily need to tie the game itself to Steam. Steamworks is the component which ties a game to Steam, not the Steam client software itself, and even most of Steamworks could be kept separate from the binary in a perfect world.

That is in theory. But in practice, if publishers have the possibility to tie with Steam's DRM (I think it's called G.E.M.), they'll tie. Mostly AAA+ games/game publishers.

Except for some honorable ones that break the rule.

I know that many people like Steam, but I would be happy if publishers didn't have that "possibility" (meaning G.E.M.).

Silly Square Enix. Guess I won't be buying any of its games in the foreseeable future!

Quoting: IvancilloI know that many people like Steam, but I would be happy if publishers didn't have that "possibility" (meaning G.E.M.).

Well yes, which is why I do not use Steam, but it is still important to make the distinction. Not all the features that Steam provides are DRM, or are dependant on it.

DRM can't be good for business, if it's a fair business. DRM is used for nefarious purposes however, so in that sense it's "good" for crooks. I.e. DRM has nothing to do with piracy. So far it seems there can be several reasons why DRM is used:

1. Clueless / stupid execs, who think that DRM prevents lost sales (i.e. reduces piracy). These can be compared to Lysenkoists, who insisted that plants can be "trained" to grow in the cold climate.

2. Crooked execs who excuse their incompetence with DRM (i.e. if sales are low, instead of admitting that they created a garbage product they blame it on pirates and say that they aren't idling about it and put DRM in place).

3. Crooked execs who want to control technology progress by poisoning it with DRM.

4. Crooked execs who want to spy on users (DRM often simply equals spyware - it never improves privacy, on the contrary).

To summarize, it's either crooked or clueless, but DRM is never good for fair business.