I wouldn't mind the cloud as an option, but the software MUST work without internet or it's no go for me. I absolutely refuse to rely on servers and waste my limited bandwidth on a single player experience unless I choose to do so.

You'll find that this forum is heavily against the DRM situation by a really really heavy majority.

Stardock attracted a lot of people with the whole Gamer Bill of Rights deal and anti-DRM policy.

So it sounds like quite a few of you don't want DRM because it forces you to pirate and play hacked versions of the game 

 

Software is not a physical thing being exchanged between two parties- instead it is a infinitely clone-able commodity. DRM as much as is possible protects the investment made by developers from copies being made as much as a Patent protects inventors from someone copying their design. Unfortunately in the case of software the remediation process against individuals would result in very little compensation. It also says to consumers that their investment in that product is valued and that all attempts to prevent others for getting for "free" what they paid hard earned wages for is respected. 

Now you may choose to become a criminal and hack games or pirate hacked games. This doesn't make you some sort of hero in the process- it just makes you a criminal. 

 

I can respect peoples opinions like myfist0 or others that are making a choice not to buy something because they disagree with the terms of the purchase. It doesn't mean game companies are doing anything malicious by requiring DRM though- which as Harpo pointed out has been around since software first started exchanging hands.

As a software developer I would never release a product to the world without some sort of DRM protecting it.

 

There are always people who pay money for soft and those who don't regardless of whether there is DRM or not.

The second part always pirate and they don't bother about your DRM but the first one can choose among DRM protected games and DRM-free. For example, Distant Worlds: Shadows has just been released and I have already bought it. But I never buy Stardrive because it requires Steam. And until it will be released on GOG or somehow I won't buy it even at 75% or more discount.

Of course, I must admit when I hear DRM I think of horrific invasive DRM, such as iirc Spore's. Some DRM, such as SoaSE:R's usage of Steamworks, does not bother me. Non-invasive, non-"always online", DRM is not an issue personally speaking.

DRM can mean many things so it must be specified what exactly it means.

 

SteamWorks I support since it feels worth it to buy games with it since you get achievements and the Steam overlay.

I bought Puzzle Quest 2 on Steam since it has achievements. If there wasn't a SteamWorks version then what is the incentive to buy it since there is no downside to pirating it.

 

Yes, I said it.

 

I want to support gamedevelopers. I really do. But then I want something that a piraterelease can't give me. Those things are either:

• SteamWorks features like achievements and the Steam Overlay
• Game fixed to work on modern machines and OS's

 

 

Common sense, since you want a developer to have sufficient funding to continue making games you enjoy? Ethics, assuming a willingness to give others value for their own hard work, much as we'd desire for ourselves?

DRM means potential unreliability in the future.  Your software may end up as useless as a virtual doorstop if it is not allowed to run because of an 'Error, could not connect to the server.'

The thing that customers worry about is wasting their money on software or games which don't work.  So if you design it in a way in which it won't or will very rarely break down, that is one less thing to put them off.

Obviously it should be as unobtrusive as possible.  I login to play Minecraft all the time but because I'm just pushing a button I don't really stop and think 'Hey, I see what you're doing there!'

If that's how it sounds to you, you seriously need to see an Otologist, stat.  It doesn't force anyone to pirate or play hacked versions of a game ... we simply refuse to buy or play such games.  Read again:  obtrusive DRM reduces the number of legitimate sales of a game.  It will never improve sales, nobody buys a game because they really like intensive DRM.

What was said again and again (but you didn't hear it right the first or second or third time because you have your mind set on worshipping DRM as a holy grail that will protect developers from pirates and magically improve ROI on software development, which is pretty much the opposite of the truth) is DRM infringes the experience of your legitimate, paying customers and, increasingly, customers who might otherwise be interested in your sofware (game or otherwise) are increasingly put off by obtrusive DRM and many folk -- myself included -- refrain from purchasing software we might be interested in.  Case in point -- I love the SimCity series, have been loyal from the very first iteration, and was thrilled to hear it was finally getting a modern update, but upon learning it has obtrusive, always-on DRM, its on my never-buy list.  I am not going to download the pirated version (yes, its always-on DRM was bypassed in days -- as every DRM has been -- so DRM doesn't stop pirates at all), nor am I going to buy the legitimate version, nor will I buy the legitimate version and repair it with a hack to bypass the DRM.  If the publisher wants my business, they will stop treating potential customers as criminals and render paid-for software completely unusable as SimCity was when EA's servers their game required a connection to overloaded ... there was nothing paying customers could do on their end.

Anyone who develops software like this does not deserve to be in business.  Unfortunately, there is still a sizable mass consumer crowd that doesn't care ... but indications are tolerance for this is waning, and a growing number of gamers -- like myself -- have become so disenfranchised by obtrusive DRM making a game unenjoyable, or in the cases of always-on DRM requiring connections to the publisher's servers we have no control over their being onlin that we will simply never purchase software that includes such defective code.

 

False, DRM harms the 'investment' made by adding greatly to the development costs while actually reducing sales.  DRM never increases sales.

In what world does increasing costs and decreasing sales make good business sense?

Now you are way off in lala-land.  It is NOT illegal to modify legally purchased software for one's own personal use, whether its unofficial patches put out by fans, or mods ... any more than its illegal to repaint a car you bought from a dealer or modify its engine.

Are your falsehoods really what's acceptable in the world of software publishing today?  Unfortunately it seems to be, as I hear obvious falsehoods coming from upper management from several big publishers, unfortunately, right up there with claiming secondhand sales hurts firsthand sales.  That's a whole other soapbox for me ... its easily reasoned to be the reverse of the truth, and seems to stem from the same delusioned arrogance from large software houses that software customers are cattle to be herded, controlled and exploited rather than respected and served.  I bitterly disagree with Brad Wardell on many of his political ideologies, but he has my great respect for being among the very few to stand against the 'gamers are nothing more than a source of entitled wealth to drain from them into the pockets of software publishers' grain.  Lots of publishers put out defective products ... among them was Stardock's War of Magic.  Brad at least accepted responsibility and seemed to genuinely concern himself with doing right by the paying customers whom helped make creating computer games from an idle hobby to a successful business for him, something sorely lacking among far too many software publishers.

Always-on DRM -is- malicious.  Suddenly, software has gone from an infinitely clone-able commodity to completely relying on a stable Internet connection between a customer's computer and the publisher's, as well as the ability of the publisher's servers and connections to handle the load of every sold license ... that's reckless and malicious.  EULAs have become ridiculous, essentially legalizing taking a customer's money while not taking the slightest responsibility for providing anything at all in return.  A software publisher could create a fake product, sell licenses for it, keep the money and provide no actual product, or just as bad do nothing to ensure the reliability of their servers they require customers to connect to -- there is absolutely nothing a customer can do on their end, but they are left unable to play a game they paid for, but the EULA insulates the publisher against having to offer money back for failing to abide by a single promise.

If that's not malicious to you, then you have serious problems with your judgment, reasoning, ethics and morals.  Unfortunately, that puts you in the company of a lot of wealthy software publishers.   It persists because the wealthy publishers can easily afford to drown out all criticism from the workine joe customers ... there's simply no way I, a low-rung wage-earner, could come close to countering the multi-million dollar marketting budget of a publishing company like EA if EA wrongs me, takes my money and, through no fault or failing of mine, does not provide anything of what they promised in their advertisements.

Oh, you don't have to wait for the future.  Ijit masses buy things on marketting hype, which is at its maximum just before release and ensures peak load on a DRM server will be the day it launches ... you often don't have to wait long for a server to go down after buying a game, it will crash within hours of launch.

Isn't a game like Stardock's Galactic Civilizations II -- which, if you buy it from a digital download provider that does NOT stamp in its own DRM as Steam does -- which purposefully left out any DRM -- preferable to even light DRM?

Quit taking things out of context of what Zombie is saying. He didn't mention shit about Always Online DRM. He said "some form of DRM". He did not say heavy, intrusive, or always on. If you wish to make a respectable arguement then actually argue the damn points he's making.

"NOT illegal to modify legally purchased software for one's own personal use" Again, the point Zombie's making is that many games if not most games are quickly hacked or "cracked" so to say, and placed on sites for download. You can make a crack if it is your own leagally purchased product for your use only. Nobody is arguing against personal usage. However when said "hacking and modifying" is used to ILLEGALLY distribute the product for OTHERS then it becomes and issue.

And what are you a market analysis with years of experience within the industry? Since when do you actually know if DRM heavy or light actually lowers sales. I don't know if it raises or lowers but I am not arrogant enough to make such a claim. Last time I checked the actual sales figures of software and especially interactive media is pretty much unknown to us. To make such a claim is heavily biased on your own personal opinion and experience. And don't bring the arguement that others are against it as well and people keep screaming out against it. It may as well be considered as the vocal minority.

Wake the hell up. Consumers have given no reason that companies should just trust them to be without DRM. The outstanding moralities and ethics you think companies should have is not even shared around with consumers. As cynical as it may sound, that's the reality of the situation. Both parties are at fault and in constant warfare with each other.

In general I don't buy DRM games. I consider it a lack of trust of the consumer, and also a source of inconvenience to customers. The intended targets, the pirates, are quickly able to hack their way around it. No DRM exists that hasn't been hacked... except maybe those that haven't been used yet or are too new to be known about.

I recall reading about bank vaults and safes, and how they use a measurement system to measure how long it would take a professional safe breaker to break into it. You heard right, they measure how long it takes for a professional to break it. They fully acknowledge that if a determined person is given enough time and resources (and left alone to do their work), they can break any safe. The same problem exists with DRM because you give them the program and the DRM to protect the program, and then you mysterious expect it to remain uncracked without someone there to stop them. Ludicrous.

----

Stardock games were a rare exception, but I tolerated it because it was very DRM lite. I felt it was reasonable for them to expect me to have an account with them so that I could download and install my purchased games. You also used it to download updates, though I was happy with free separate patch files that you could get with earlier games. I was also tolerant of Impulse Reactor and GOO since their design focus was first not to inconvenience the consumer.

Now that Stardock has sold Impulse and use Steam only now, I don't buy from them anymore.

I agree with parts of this. I see the situation as something of a feed back loop. Pirates pirate games. Companies that were pirated feel the need to protect their products. They apply DRM. Consumers feel outraged and some become pirates and deliberately attack companies that use DRM. Those attacked companies then conclude that their DRM isn't good enough to deal with the increased pirate menace. The companies then seek to create better DRM. Both sides feel that they are justified in what they are doing and seek to intensify their efforts. This might lead to things like always online DRM, or torrent sites that might list more pirates than what actually exists...

I happen to think the best way to beat this problem is for everyone to suddenly stop pirating altogether and outright ignore DRM products. Only acknowledge that the game uses DRM so you don't care about it (many of these companies feed on hype as to how good their products look, and then use that hype to convince investors to fund them). Stop all the other stuff to try to hurt the DRM companies. Let the only conclusions that these companies can draw is that the reason why their products are not being bought is because of the presence of DRM (and maybe because their products are crap). Any other conclusion would be a delusion on the part of the DRM using companies. I'm aiming for death by apathy.

Unfortunately I have no clue as to how to get the whole world to do that...

It'll always exist. Much like it happened in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Just this time it's between consumer protection and corporate ownership rather than workers' protection and corporate authority.

 

It doesn't help that US Copyright Laws are very outdated when it comes to Intellectual Protection for software.

Down with DRM!

Look at Universe Sandbox, its developer will take anything the customer can pay, and is alright if those who have nothing to give pirate it.

EDIT:(off topic)

Also, please do not make the large mistake of leaving the game for high end $15,000 PCs/Macs only.

lolol...

• Latest version of Universe Sandbox 2.x with Steam Achievements

I don't consider Steam to be DRM, its easy to bypass.

Goto:

Windows:

OS/Program Data/Steam/Apps/Common/{INSERT_GAME} then make a short cut to the .exe and launch from there.

no clue for Mac/Linux and I think its impossible for iOSs.

galacticruller5, that is NOT MY experience with stream games eg rubblellion & lost heros, ie they ONLY can run on machines that HAVE stream installed, and copying from a stream machine to a non-stream machine( or non-stream OS on the SAME computer) of mine in my network the games do NOT run.

harpo

Well, this seems to be the root of your problem in understanding.

In general you don't own the software. You purchased a license which grants you certain rights to use the software. Again, it's not your property.

A car on the other hand has a title of ownership transfer which allows you to legally modify it as the car is your property. Unlike most software you also have the legal right to rent, lease or transfer your ownership of a car.

 

Now some software EULA's allow for certain end user modifications- but only to the extent of which it has been granted to you by the actual property owner. This may exclude modifications of executable, reverse engineering source, etc.

The license granted to you may or may not be rented, leased or transferable as well. 

It's important you read any EULA associated with any software to ensure you agree with the terms and conditions set forth.

 

30s to break into house. So stop locking the doors on my house. (check)

10s to break into car. No reason to lock doors to car. (check).

Gun safe can be cracked. Leave guns out in open. (check).

 

Zombie, quit defending the corperate giants.

Again people are looking way too much into Zombie's arguements.

This isn't a defense of "corporate giants". However you guys just automatically regard every tolerant of DRM as a supporter of corporations.I find you guys to be very aggressive when it comes to people who disagree with YOUR OPINION/VIEW. Not everyone who is tolerant of DRM is a moral scumbag that deserves to rot in the pits of hell. You guys take it way too damn far.

Zombie is simply stating the reality of the situation and how borked the logic of "anti-DRM" people can be. No protection is foolproof. Doesn't mean you stop having it.

 

Please don't put anyone who speaks up against DRM in this category.

Most I know really don't like the always on DRM, yes Steam Works I put in there as well. You never heard any such uproar from people like me with what SD originally had, but being able to close servers at any time without any reason is maybe not malicious, but highly unethical.

Must park your car in a car park that can close at anytime leaving you without access. CHECK

Must lock your gun in a government facility and can be confiscated at anytime without reason. CHECK 

I am not grouping every single person who speaks up against DRM in a single category.

Nor do I agree with the usage of DRM, I too am against Always On DRM. I know of the consequences of it, especially after purchasing SimCity day 1.

I am only noting that some people here become unnesseciarly hostile when it isn't something of a "total down with DRM" arguement.

 

Steam however I don't take to be "Always Online" DRM or at least not in the heavy sense that is like SimCity's incident. I can still play all of my games in offline mode just after downloading and installing once. However this isn't the point nor purpose of my arguement.