great article.

Agreed, That was a very good article. I don't agree with DRM in the principle that it restricts my ownership of something I purchased (Didn't rent, lease, time-share, or say "give backs" allowed.) I agree that developers have a right to protect their products from rampant piracy, but (typically the publishers doing AFAIK;) When you add egregious and restrictive DRM, it is just asking for piracy. I'll pirate a game to spite them for what they did.

On the other hand, minimal DRM that allows me in 20 years to boot up my computers and play the games...That is where the market needs to go and this ability shouldn't hinge on the chance that the publisher is still around and in Ubisoft's case still supporting their authentication servers (assuming they hold to their word and release 'patches' to address their DRM issue).

Good article, though there are a couple logical fallacies. The article makes the point that if even 1% of pirates became customers, then Ubisoft was losing 25,000 customers a month.  That's slightly inaccurate; they were losing 25,000 potential sales a month, assuming 1% loss.  I think Stardock's take--and I think they're right--is that they will increase sales by more than potential sales lost to piracy.

Brad made a great point, too, about the additional overhead of maintaining a server to store user info, saved games, etc.  The follow-on which he didn't mention--or which was cut during editing--is that eventually, Ubisoft will turn it off.  "Oh, sorry, you licensed the game, you didn't purchase it.  Hope you got your $60 worth."

Because Stardock and GoG don't have DRM, if they go out of business tomorrow and have a server bonfire, my purchases are still safe.  This is especially valuable to the casual gamer who doesn't play 40 hours/week, and plays titles several (many) years old.

A while back I use to be one of those who used pirated software often. As time went by I noticed how annoying it was to use pirated hacked software and that freeware that could do the same things or better became a better choice for me. As for the lose in potential sales, I never had any intentiones of purchasing the software in most cases. I may buy some games if I want to play them, but things like Photoshop, Microsoft Office and AVG Pro I would not purchase if I have a legit freeware version of it that can do the work just as good if not better. Now, things like ObjectDock I paid for because the alternatives did not catch my attention enough. There is the difference to me, not every pirated piece of software is a potential sale. There is always a freeware alternative that needs to be taken into consideration in these calculations.

Interesting read, some comments;

How do publishers really know how many illegit copies of a game were actually downloaded and used.

Even if they could obtain a reasonable estimate, how can they have any idea of how many downloads actually resulted in lost sales.

All of it is pure speculation.  I think piracy is a paranoid obsession for the guys is suits managing the bills.  I would venture to say that an extremely small percentage of people who pirate games would actually buy them otherwise.  I bet some of these publishers are spending a lot more protecting their content than they're losing on lost sales.  Add in customers lost due to insane DRM and things get even more lopsided.  That's a good example of "penny wise and dollar foolish".  Unfortunately, it's the paying customers that suffer.  However, if the suits go too far, the company suffers too. 

When professional CEOs and board members mismanage public companies and make fatal business decisions, they skate out with a nice fat golden parachute just before the company goes bankrupt.  Where's the motivation for these professionals to do anything that benefits anyone but themselves.

Stardock has the right approach, motivate rather than coerce.  But that's the difference between a private company with a founding CEO and a public company with a professional CEO.

All DRM is good for is to enable managers to tell the shareholders they are "doing someting" against piracy.

Sure, it doesn't actually work, and the link between piracy and lost sales is nowhere near what is stated ,but that's hardly the point. The point is letting the shareholders (who are unlikely to have any actual tech or market knowledge) know they are being "tough on piracy".

Investors reassured, bonus earned, everybody's happy. Well, except the customers, but since when does their opinion matter? As long as you can keep them buying (sorry, "taking out licences" ) through the efforts of the PR and marketing departments, all is well.

Yur reel smart.

I'm one of those people that pirates for the hell of it at times to try a game I would never buy otherwise. I have little interest in sci-fi so when Mass Effect 2 was coming out, I decided to download the original game and give it a whirl and see how I liked it... well by the time I finished Mass Effect I was so impressed I went out and bought a ME/ME2 bundle the next day.

By the way, in the old days, or in the world of consoles, this is known as borrowing a game from your friend to try it out - and many sales result from such 'piracy.' They'll never get it, though. They just don't understand that PC gamers love giving their money to companies like Stardock that respect consumers.

That, and Brad knows that if he offers beta access for a preorder he will get my money every time

Here is how to stop piracy.  Make it an actual crime.  If you are caught, you face a year in prison or a $5000 fine.  simple.  Sure, your odds of being caught might be less than 1%.  But if you were caught you would wish you had never done it.

Great article!  I'm glad Brad has a chance to sound off, and I hope some of thos utter idiots out there listen.  (Steam, and your screwed up SupCom2 launch, I'm looking at you!  DRM = bad!)

  I'm in agreement with most of the views expressed in this article and the resulting responces.  Stanley can you please explain your views on DRM?  I don't agree with your viewpoint in a big way.  If you have something worthwhile to say about the subject I'm more than willing to listen.  Otherwise, your view sounds misguided or maybe ignorant.

  Have you been pc gaming long?  Don't want to offend you but I really don't understand your viewpoint on this long, drawn out issue.  Most people I know feel almost all DRM schemes fail, because they penalize the purchaser. 

The thing that I am always amazed with in similar articles/studies is the amount of hand waiving and verbal posturing that is used blame DRM only on piracy. While I don't deny that piracy exists on the PC and the XBOX360, this recent waive of DRM (i.e. even EA "DRM-Free" methods ... cough cough ... Cerbeus network) are an attempt to attack used game sale on eBay  / Gamestop. Piracy is the easy scapegoat and it is amazing how little effort is needed to blame lower revenue on the billions lost to piracy, when the numbers they continue to quote are obscure at best and outright lies at worst (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy.ars/4).  Don't let them keep distracting you from the real goal of increased profits through the elimination once common practices (i.e. loan the physical game to a friend (no EULA violation since only played on once system at a time), games rentals for consoles, playing the game beyond it's deemed lifespan (i.e. activation servers do get turned off) and used game sale) and one more step towards "software as a service". 

The biggest problem I have is the latter two, since I have a vast collection of newer / vintage PC games dating back to the early DOS games that, I even to this day rummage through and play at random.  When the games functionality is tied to an activation server there is no guarantee that the game with work 3-5 yrs from now let alone 10 yrs and the argument that "if the servers ever go down we will release a patch to remove the check" is plain BS since many times the IP has already transferred hands to complicate the legal obligations and the original programmers that made the promise are long gone. In terms of the used market, there really isn't an issue for movies or music, but it is amazing how quickly software titles disappear (i.e. poorer selling games disappear usually within 1 yr of release) from the market with no legitimate means to acquire other than buying used.

Now to be fair I understand that companies have the right to make profits and if we want to see continued titles we need to support the company/franchise, but it seems like that goal is almost a lost cause today.  Take any of the major studios and notice how even record sales / profits don't equate to better games / franchise.  In the last decade there has been the oft followed strategy of hyping the game, release the game, within a month layoff all the employees at the studio that made the game, later if sales are good hand the franchise off to a different division within the company.

As much as a grumble I unfortunately don't see anything that can be done to change this other than continue to support the smaller more independent game companies and continually remind them that you appreciate them moving further from invasive DRM techniques. Lastly I am sure this will fall on deaf ears in the Stardock official forums, but Stardock is NOT DRM free but rather DRM lite.  I understand that the initial disc release is without DRM, but the developement goes through significant changes through its lifecycle (some additional content, but many are plain bug-fixes) and these patches are tied to server activation with system specific hashes.  I understand the reasoning, but I would still urge Brad that at some point when the title reaches full maturity in terms of sales to avoid this method and release a FINAL patch that can be used without the servers to remove this constraint from collectors / archivist like myself. 

  Heya Malachite.  I am glad you took the time to respond with a fairly good argument.  However, I am not sure this will be accurate-

 "I would still urge Brad that at some point when the title reaches full maturity in terms of sales to avoid this method and release a FINAL patch that can be used without the servers to remove this constraint from collectors / archivist like myself."

  I know most like to find and paste a link but at moment just responding.  I "believe" that you will not need to be connected to online server, either foreground or background, to play single player.  As to multiplayer online, if that was what you mean, I would agree on that.  I don't currently know the difference between going to a private server vs. going to a Stardock server(when and if Stardock was to be bought/sold/goes under for whatever reasons) for continued playability/modding, etc..  However, Stardock has been nothing but open and honest in its own disclosures about how they view/use DRM(IMO). 

  I bet you will get a reply from someone at Stardock.  Probably soon.  I have seen and heard nothing but good from their direct support. 

I agree that Stardock has been open about its DRM and with plans for GOO, I just get a bit annoyed when people give them credit for being "DRM free" just because the don't use SecuRom or Starforce.  I was just trying to stop the trend where if enough people mistakenly believe in something, then it suddenly becomes true (like DRM free) .

Actually my issues was more with being able to get the patch at all for single player, as I am sure my hardware will change over time or I will want to use an emulator or virtual machine in years to come.  However using the current system this is impossible if Stardock or its activation servers are offline. The same is true for Stardock's current offline installation method or its backup/archive method, as these have hardware hashes that will require revalidation if restored on a different machine.  I agree that once a game is installed and activated it no longer needs further connection, but without activation there is no way to more forward to newer systems. My goal it to completely remove the dependance on my system or the activation servers without causing any financial harm to Stardock, even if that means they need to reintroduce a disc check or use some sytem where my personal information is embedded in the FINAL patch I am hoping for.

I believe what Malachite is talking about is the patching system Stardock uses. Without patches and bug fixes a lot of games are useless. In order to receive patches and support for Stardock games now you have to get All your patches through Impulse. Without a legally purchased activation key you won't be able to connect and get updates.

Lets throw in a "for instance" here and you'll see how this is hampering and not Truly "No DRM" . A Hypothetical company, we'll call them Starlaunch, makes a killer game with no on disk DRM. Unfortunately a rather nasty crash bug made it through beta testing and into the final launch. This bug will crash your game on turn 20 and corrupt your save games more or less making the game unplayable. As a Pirate, I download the game, try it out, encounter the crash bug and stop playing the game calling it a buggy P.O.S.

As a registered user who bought the game, I install the game, activate it using my key, and it auto-connects to the Starlaunch server and downloads a patch/hot fix that fixes the turn 20 crash bug. I play my game and all is well, never even knowing about the turn 20 crash bug because it was fixed in my game before I even had a chance to play.

Back in the old days of PC gaming if you needed a "Patch" for a game you'd go to the game's official site and go to the "Download" section where the company would host it's patches, demo's, videos and things like that. You download the patch you need and can keep it on your hard drive or back it up to a disk so you'll always have that patch should you decide in 5 years you want to go back and play the game again.

By only releasing patches through Impulse Stardock guarantees that pirates aren't using fully functional versions of their software because Pirates can not hop on Impulse to download patches and bug fixes like a hypothetical "zero day patch fix" that seems all too common these days in the industry.

As a "Archivist" we have No Way to save these patches on our systems for use at a later date. What if we move to a place with little or No internet? That does happen. I know someone who's living in Alaska right now working on a oil rig, my friend Jeff. Jeff has no internet access where he is. He can't play online games but he has his laptop with him. If I were to send him a game like Elemental he'd only be able to play "Vanilla" Elemental with no patches or bug fixes what so ever because he has no internet. I can't put the patches on a disk and mail them to him because Impulse doesn't work like that. It doesn't download a "Patch" file and save it to my system. It updates and fixes the game its-self. Kinda makes you feel sorry for Jeff, huh?

I worry that I my-self will have to live somewhere with no internet as I did for 10 years in Lake County Florida, a redneck backwoods hole in the wall with limited to no internet activity in almost the whole county accept for a couple bigger cities. If I ever have to move back out there, and I have to re-wipe my Windows installation for some reason, I'm screwed and I won't be able to play half of my games because I won't be able to connect online and "Authenticate" them or download and bug fixes.

My personal opinion, all game patches for every game ever made should have to be hosted by the game makers and made public for ALL customers so they can keep the patches that make their legally purchased products work. Even Stardock doesn't let us do that, thanks to Impulse, which in its-self is not only a sales and distribution tool, but also a light form of DRM in conjunction with the new GOO system. No online? Tough titty pal, no updates and patches for you, sorry you paid for my product that says "Internet not required for play" right on the box. Sure you can "play" without the internet, you just can't register your game to make it work so you Can play it. Oh did we mention we put this nasty bug in there that makes the game un-playable without the release day patch? Yeah, sorry about that...