DRM / Activation

Ogremindes wrote:

Doctor Nick wrote:...Stardock. Read this to see their views on DRM.

I just did, and their DRM is pretty much the same as Hothead's, the chief difference being that Stardock requires the use of a special program to download while Hothead simply requires a code and an internet connection. I'd say that Stardock's is more restrictive really.

Hmm. I thought that the game did not require activation to play, and that the verification was simply for the download process, but it does. That's disheartening.

Shamus has eloquently summarized my concerns. This isn't hypothetical. In the last few years I've had a blast replaying my old Lucasarts games, from Curse of Monkey Island (1997) to Maniac Mansion (1987). Clearly playing 10 or 20 year old games is a real concern. (No, Lucasarts is not out of business at the moment, the point is that I really do play old games.) I also have copies of Thief 2 and System Shock 2 that I'm planning on reinstalling soon, and I'm thankful they still work despite Looking Glass being out of business.

Shamus offers several reasonable suggestions. I'm a happy season pass subscriber to both seasons of Telltales Sam & Max games; I'm looking forward to sending them money for season three as well as the upcoming Strong Bad game. Part of why I'm happy to send them money is that when a season finishes, for the price of production and shipping (a few bucks), they'll send me a CD with the season's episodes, in a DRM free form. It's clearly a profitable model; they're working on several new series as well as continuing Sam & Max. I hope something like that is put in place for the Penny Arcade Adventures.

slander36 wrote:Just for those people mad that the activation requires internet : you downloaded this game, so you have a way to access the internet. I don't know why something as simple as entering a key and letting it authorize is such a bad thing

It's not a bad thing. I'm happy for them to apply some measure to protect their work - as long as it doesn't impact on me as a customer. I don't really care too much about what measures are used as long as I don't notice them.

I do not have an internet connection at home, but do have access to internet cafes where I can purchase and download the game - why do they want to exclude me from their potential market?

As it stands, what I paid for is worthless to me at the moment.

asret wrote:

slander36 wrote:Just for those people mad that the activation requires internet : you downloaded this game, so you have a way to access the internet. I don't know why something as simple as entering a key and letting it authorize is such a bad thing

It's not a bad thing. I'm happy for them to apply some measure to protect their work - as long as it doesn't impact on me as a customer. I don't really care too much about what measures are used as long as I don't notice them.

I do not have an internet connection at home, but do have access to internet cafes where I can purchase and download the game - why do they want to exclude me from their potential market?

As it stands, what I paid for is worthless to me at the moment.

Are you sure you can't save it onto a flash drive and then install it on your own home computer?

Iron Curtain wrote:Are you sure you can't save it onto a flash drive and then install it on your own home computer?

You can install the demo, you just can't activate it. I've calmed down a bit about it now

Unless there's a way to work around this though, either officially or unofficially, I just won't get the next episodes.

If you can get internet access for just the few moments it takes to authenticate you should be fine though.

I agree with the notion that the online activation needs to go at some specific date, rather than "in case we go under". That is a promise that might be much more ambitious than you might expect. There are all sorts of both legal and practical ramfications to it. Can't you simply say "once we stop profitting from it"? I find it odd that all kinds of security is employed years later when the revenue lost due to piracy is trivial at best.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 05/28/2008 04:46:43

Hmmm... I enjoy following debates like this, and can't resist throwing in my 2p!

To my mind, DRM is pointless. If you look at games devs such as Introversion Software, they haven't put DRM on either of their first two games, and as the third game was online only, requiring an authentication check is no biggy. (Anyone trying to claim the code card that came with uplink was a method of DRM will get spanked with my titanium spork

) They also came up with a more effective idea for stopping early piracy. We, the community, had around 30 different fake versions of Darwinia on the torrents at one point, with several thousand peers. The games weren't just blank, they contained a copy that appeared to be legit, until you reached then end of the second or third level, at which point the game would end, and ask you to buy the full copy. By padding the files with various amounts of junk, it was made very hard to distinguish real from fake. I don't know if this generated any sales, but it was a good way to get the community to help you beat the pirates without treating the legitimate customers as the criminals.

So we come to this game. I don't mind buying it, precisely because DRM is so useless. The copy of the game I use on my main (linux) box is the legit client which has been authenticated, the copy on my 2nd windows box (which has no net connection 99% of the time), is a pirate copy. This for me is the crux of the issue, we don't NEED to boycott games because they have DRM, eventually, the devs will realise it is costing them more in time to code, and tech support for DRM, than they are saving in preventing piracy. There are those out there who will never buy games, and will only pirate them. I will admit for a while I fell into this category, before I realised how self-destructive this behaviour was. You just have to ignore these people, the vast majority are still willing to fork over cash, if the product is good enough.

In the end, the thing that finally swayed me to buy it was the Linux release. I feel it is far more import to reward the few devs that produce games for Linux, than it is too punish the majority of developers that use DRM

I was really, really hoping to tease some information from the Greenhouse crew - Is there ANY point OTHER than the tragic demise of your company at which you would offer a version of the game which will continue to operate even after you stop? Will the boxed version require activation? What about a "collection" of all of the games from a particular story arc as a self-contained product? I know these questions are foremost in the minds of others as well.

Like I said: I'm just engaging in a little due diligence. Can we do business?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 05/29/2008 01:05:40

edd8990 wrote:
In the end, the thing that finally swayed me to buy it was the Linux release. I feel it is far more import to reward the few devs that produce games for Linux, than it is too punish the majority of developers that use DRM

I agree. Although I am opposed to DRM on principle, I believe that helping support game developers on linux outweighs my objections to this particular instance of DRM on the game. However, that won't stop me from speaking out against the DRM on the game, and I will still be trying to change the minds of the developers and the users about this issue.

Regarding the "code card" with Uplink, I'm not completely sure how the game was distributed, but I believe that it was distributed as shareware and the code card was required to activate it. Distributing your software as shareware and requiring activation for the full version is fine. However, when you buy the full version of the software, you should have the option of receiving the full game unencumbered with DRM. I believe that was the deal with Uplink as well. (edit: Uplink was not distributed as shareware, and the code card was something else entirely, sorry about the confusion. The point about shareware still stands, though.)

Regarding authentication of online games, this is also fine. This can be thought of as subscribing to a service when buying the game. UT3 was a perfect example of this. It required a key for online play, but you could play offline without entering one. Authenticating when using an online service makes perfect sense.

Anyway, while I hope Hothead changes their mind about this, I still give them big ups for supporting games on Linux from the start.

Doctor Nick wrote:Regarding the "code card" with Uplink, I'm not completely sure how the game was distributed, but I believe that it was distributed as shareware and the code card was required to activate it. Distributing your software as shareware and requiring activation for the full version is fine. However, when you buy the full version of the software, you should have the option of receiving the full game unencumbered with DRM. I believe that was the deal with Uplink as well.

Nope. It was never shareware (well, I believe the American company who released it may have done a shareware version, but they ended up in legal battles with introversion anyway!) The code card was put in by the devs as a homage to the old games which first used code cards - where to play games you would have to input a code or a colour to play

(Can't rember the exact name of the game they were paying homage to though!)

I want to note a few things

DRM is worthless in this game because it will only piss legit customers when they:

A. Run into problems with authenticating

B. Try to install it on a PC without net connection (yes, they still exist)

C. Want to play it much later in the future or after various reinstallations. Having to contact support and wait a few hours at best or a few days at worst is not fun when you want to play a quick game.

You say you just want to prevent the casual copying of the game but currently, noone bothers in swapping CDs around. Knowledge spreads by word of mouth and sharing happens with torrents. If someone would like to share the game with a friend, they would not email them the game, they would email them a .torrent file. It's easier that way and you ignore Copy Protection schemes.

Yes, not getting money for your work sucks but if you made the cost of the game low enough, there is not reason for people to pirate. Piracy is the better choice only because the publishers shoot themselves in the foor with DRM & Costs.
Drop the price of the game to 10$, remove DRM and make dead-easy to pay and you'll potentially double your market. It would take a really commited pirate to decide that a non-DRM, almost-free game is still not worth supporting. If you were to put a notice in the game that said something like "If you have pirated this game and you liked it, please consider bying it for 10$ (link)" you instantly get word of mouth advertisement from torrent sites. Include some kind of tangible good for people who buy it (poster or whatever) and the benefit starts to be bigger.
You could even make the boxed set more expensive but provide more than just the CD. If you were to provide extra stuff that cannot be downloaded (Like Trent Reznor did) then the value of the boxed set increases and even people who bought the game may have an incentive to buy the box set.

One last thing I'd like to touch on:

Quoth Joel: The limit on the number of installs is solely intended to prevent casual copying of the game and sharing of license codes. If you have more than three machines that you want to play the game on, send an email to support@playgreenhouse.com explaining the situation and we'll up your limit straightaway.

That is, until a bunch of people out there abuses your trust and goodwill and attempts to get 10x10 activations for all their friends and family. Then you decide that this is not such a good idea and require more proof or whatever, making it annoying for the rest of us.

I am glad that you guys are trying hard not to be dicks, which is why I've supported you by bying this game, but it is in your best interest to ditch DRM schemes and embrace your customers. Goodwill goes a long way in this age.

edd8990 wrote:

Doctor Nick wrote:Regarding the "code card" with Uplink, I'm not completely sure how the game was distributed, but I believe that it was distributed as shareware and the code card was required to activate it. Distributing your software as shareware and requiring activation for the full version is fine. However, when you buy the full version of the software, you should have the option of receiving the full game unencumbered with DRM. I believe that was the deal with Uplink as well.

Nope. It was never shareware (well, I believe the American company who released it may have done a shareware version, but they ended up in legal battles with introversion anyway!) The code card was put in by the devs as a homage to the old games which first used code cards - where to play games you would have to input a code or a colour to play (Can't rember the exact name of the game they were paying homage to though!)

Oh, ok. I was just trying to make a point about shareware anyway

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 06/01/2008 21:46:36

Ogremindes wrote:

Doctor Nick wrote:...Stardock. Read this to see their views on DRM.

I just did, and their DRM is pretty much the same as Hothead's, the chief difference being that Stardock requires the use of a special program to download while Hothead simply requires a code and an internet connection. I'd say that Stardock's is more restrictive really.

Not true at all.

Yes, you need to use your serial key and an internet connection to download anything from Stardock. That includes upgrades and the install files for the game if the version you bought didn't come with a DVD. This is unavoidable by definition - if you have bought a version of the game which doesn't have media and can only be downloaded then obviously you will have to download it over the internet!

However, if you buy a Stardock game which comes with a DVD (either at retail or online with it mailed to you) then you don't need any internet connection. Just use the DVD. From memory I don't think you even need to enter the serial number during install from DVD. If you want to upgrade your game to the latest version then yes you need to download them from Stardock... hardly an unusual scenario for patches though!

Even if you did buy the download only version I believe you can archive the install files for the game so once you have downloaded them once you don't need to again. You can also use these archived install files to reinstall it on a new computer without having to download (I have done this to transfer my Stardock games to new PCs without downloading the install files again).

Frankly Stardock is still standing head and shoulders above any other reasonable sized game developers in terms of how they treat their customers.

Long may it continue!

[quote=db0]
You say you just want to prevent the casual copying of the game but currently, noone bothers in swapping CDs around. Knowledge spreads by word of mouth and sharing happens with torrents. If someone would like to share the game with a friend, they would not email them the game, they would email them a .torrent file. It's easier that way and you ignore Copy Protection schemes.

...........

That is, until a bunch of people out there abuses your trust and goodwill and attempts to get 10x10 activations for all their friends and family. Then you decide that this is not such a good idea and require more proof or whatever, making it annoying for the rest of us.
[/quote]

You broke your own point.

Nobody bothers swapping CDs. But if all it took was one guy posting their download code to, say, GameFAQs or some big forum....

Then a bunch of people who otherwise don't know how to pirate, wouldn't bother to pirate, or consider the lack security reason to make this "okay sharing"...

The system in place stops this.

And yeah, uh, I am no businessman. But halving the price of your product to stop pirates doesn't seem like "the solution" to me. That's like telling a person with a nice car that they should've bought a cheaper car if they didn't want it stolen.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 06/01/2008 22:57:50

These two sentences were irrelevant to each other.The first one is explaining how casual copying happens through torrents, not CD swapping, and in torrents, no serial is needed anyway.

The second sentence just shows the weakness in that mentality.

And yeah, uh, I am no businessman. But halving the price of your product to stop pirates doesn't seem like "the solution" to me. That's like telling a person with a nice car that they should've bought a cheaper car if they didn't want it stolen.

That is a weak analogy. A car is nothing like a digital good and sharing is not stealing. And yes, reducing your price can easily reduce piracy.
Think of it as a car dealer reducing the price of his cars in order to compete with someone who is renting out cars for zero cost.