What poses a greater threat to the gaming industry?

[lengelb]

I'm in my last year of high school and a large part of one of our portfolios is a pretty big research project. My topic revolves around whether or not DRM works and if it does, in fact, drive customers to piracy. So, if you could answer, it would be much appreciated, since it would help me pass and all. Thanks :D Edited May 23, 2012 by CE19

[Eddieawsome]

Piracy is the police`s job to control, but if i called know to report someone for piracy i promise you the operator would just hang up on the spot. DRM is just the corporations half ass attempt at stopping piracy since the law wont do anything. All those people who are whining about DRM are just people who think they deserve better than being treated like a pirate. Though i realy cant see how DRM is a threat to anything( exept sales of course).

[Vagrant0]

All those people who are whining about DRM are just people who think they deserve better than being treated like a pirate.

I think you're forgetting those people who feel jaded because of draconian DRM policy that essentially removes their right to play the game they legally purchased. Such as Ubisoft which demands a constant online connection to play a singleplayer game, or EA who can (and has) banned people from being able to play/install ALL games on their service for altering game files, making posts on the forums, and other minor things. In these cases the DRM doesn't do a damn thing about piracy and only serves to limit the rights of the customer.

 

DRM, time and time again also proves to be completely ineffective about stopping piracy, and in more than a few cases (Diablo 3 most recently) became an attractive alternative even for those who would happily buy the game but don't want to deal with having to stay online, or deal with connection/account issues in a single player game.

[hoofhearted4]

i had a whole thing typed out but i accidentally hit "Add Reply" when trying to click the correct spelling of a word and i lost everything so im going to paraphrase this time.

 

1) i think you should change the question from "if we think Piracy/DRM drives away customers" to "if it drives us away" or at least add a separate question. there is no doubt in my mind such things drive away customers. but it doesnt drive me away personally.

 

2)Piracy has been around for a long time. and it hasnt hurt the gaming industry yet. what hurts the industry is the Publisher's paranoia about Piracy and god forbid lose a tiny but of money, taking their huge profit and making it into a still huge profit. oh no. i bet Publishers lose more money from being paranoid then they do through piracy. so its not the fact that they implement DRM that will destroy gaming. DRM in and of itself is just a nuisance. its the thought of what will they do next. DRM. stopping used game sales. banning people at will from complete use of their games, needed to sign up for their services just to play their games. not letting people play a single player game offline. its all of this and whatever they do next that will destroy it. its their version of Big Brother. its sad really. and that is what will kill it. it all depends on how Big Brother they wanna get ad that will determine the future of gaming. but stuff like this only hurts the big companies that can afford to do this. indie gaming companies dont do this, so youll find that it will be the indie gaming companies that thrive. while the big names slowly go down.

[SubjectProphet]

Hard to decide. Piracy takes a companies money, causing a loss in budget, which might cause companies to shut down. Pirates have increased in number aroun 29% in the last three months. It's becoming a serious problem and a major threat to gaming, movies, etc.

 

DRM also takes a person's internet rights away, and causes people to stop playing the games because of DRM. So, this also takes money away, almost as equal to piracy.

 

As of right now, 31% of gamers have admitted to online piracy. 7% have been arrested for pirating ALL of their games. This number continues to increase, and the main excuse is programs like Steam becoming required to play the game, and people don't like Steam because of it's ways being just like Spyware.

 

 

A lot of gamers are currently fearing DRM restricting gaming to a certain level to prevent piracy. This means we'll lose games that have been pirated before, which means all of our major titles we love, and have these crappy games no one likes to replace them.

 

Both are a heavy threat to gaming, but which one is worse? Impossible to decide.

[Eddieawsome]

I think you're forgetting those people who feel jaded because of draconian DRM policy that essentially removes their right to play the game they legally purchased. Such as Ubisoft which demands a constant online connection to play a singleplayer game, or EA who can (and has) banned people from being able to play/install ALL games on their service for altering game files, making posts on the forums, and other minor things. In these cases the DRM doesn't do a damn thing about piracy and only serves to limit the rights of the customer.

 

DRM, time and time again also proves to be completely ineffective about stopping piracy, and in more than a few cases (Diablo 3 most recently) became an attractive alternative even for those who would happily buy the game but don't want to deal with having to stay online, or deal with connection/account issues in a single player game.

 

What you are talking about is DRM abuse. Anything can be abused no matter how benevolent its nature. If they poll meant DRM abuse then it should have stated so. DRM in itself is not that big a threat, DRM abuse is.It looks like because of experiences like the ones mentioned above people have decided that DRM and DRM abuse is one in the same.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Eddieawsome

[justwannaddl]

Witcher-2-DRM-Free-Version-Was-Pirated-Less-Than-SecuROM-Version

 

The article is basically an example of how not only does DRM not work, it has reached such a point that it provokes pirates into pirating the DRM version over non-DRM versions. Is the Witcher 2's situation the norm? Of course not. Most games do not have a DRM and DRM free version. It does prove though that the Witcher 2 still would have been widely pirated with or without a DRM free version.

 

For the developers of The Witcher 2, it means that DRM is a waste of resources that only serves to aggravate their user base.

[ziitch]

(Note: I do not advocate piracy. What is presented is mostly general knowledge, and is my personal opinion on the state of the industry. Also, big wall of text!)

 

I don't think either are as big of a threat as the one I see. Those are just scapegoats to the usual underlying problems that cause piracy.

 

So what is the real threat to the industry, the constant mistake made by many companies, and often by the larger developers and publishers that will eventually cause their problems?

 

Easy - Ignorance and Numbers.

 

Ignorance is basically what causes piracy because they're not wanting to admit a problem on their end is what causes people go to illegitimate copies. One of the factors of piracy is simply that there is hindrances in the game, e.g. online DRM, user account logins, stuff that doesn't feel necessary in order to start a game. In fact, for a way to curb piracy, there is a very easy rule to remember, yet so many seem to get it wrong: The player simply wants to play the game. The quicker you can make this happen, the more satisfied that player is likely to be at the beginning. "Hoops", like online DRM, CD keys, site account logins, even developer/publisher intro logos - These need to either be removed, able to be skipped, or made optional to play the game, as they can scare away a legitimate sale or even make the game unplayable due to a unmet requirement. This actually leads me to online requirements as well - If there are no elements that require an online connection, then aim to make a game not require online. I think the fact that developers think most players have online can be validated, but the kind of online they have is very, very much forgotten. There are ISPs that charge according to the amount of data exchanged, and if you make a game that requires online connection, you're likely racking up a rather large bill for that player just for anti-piracy measures. In other words, you are literally making legitimate customers pay for piracy. See how that can infuriate players? :facepalm:

 

Another element of ignorance, and cause of piracy, is the lack of customer support. These are big companies, and if they have help hotlines or help chats available, the people there should better be helpful. Now, I have never needed help from such services, but it's a good idea to recognize where there are problems both in the personnel level and in the actual game. If there is a problem often repeated, and it deals with the game, it's a good idea to make sure that that elements that cause the problem are either fixed or better explained in-depth or made more clear, and include it ASAP into the next patch. Personnel-wise, there are credentials you need to fulfill, and I think one of the better credentials is to make the people play the game several times beforehand before letting them work in the customer service center. In fact, I'd suggest that the more amiable QA testers for the game be brought back and work the service as they would know the game extremely well compared to other players. Checking the mental health of these employees might also be necessary - Receiving calls about the same thing over and over again can grate on a person and can cause their attitude to drop, meaning reduced and negative satisfaction on that person, and perhaps making a consumer, while they want to try out new products by the company, pirate any of their game from now on because of how poorly they were treated when they needed help.

 

 

Thirdly, game publishers seem to be short-sighted and refuse to see or plan for long-term consequences. For example - I, for one, do not own all the Fallout 3 DLC, nor any of the New Vegas DLC. However, many of the newest mods tend to have these as a requirement, meaning that if I want to play a new mod, I have to buy the associated DLC - DLC that I do not have any interest in. So, if I have to buy the DLC to play a mod, am I technically buying the mod itself? See where this can get complicated? Another example is dead MMOs. Most old MMOs are just a client, designed to connect you to the servers and use the proper assets that are included where needed. When a MMO is shut down or no longer sold, what is to be done with the assets? What if the community wants to continue the service themselves? They often have to build a new client in order to replace the now-defunct one, but using the assets still requires the game - A game that is dead, no longer sold, and would be worthless to anyone unbeknownst of the community effort. Is there a reason why said assets cannot be released for community use and preservation? If they want to take up to responsibility and problems with that MMO, developers should open their arms real wide in that case and give what they need from the development of that now-dead game.

 

But a part of this ignorance is tightly rooted into the numbers game - Or specifically, mostly aim for very high ratings and a high number of sales, hoping to surpass the (often huge) production cost many times over. This, IMO, should rarely determine if a game is successful or not. If they want to determine a real measurement of success, they should be looking at the impact made on those players, and if they did not like it, then that was truly not a success. EA and Bioware is learning this the hard way, and others such as Blizzard will soon need to learn that nobody is immune to it. While not playing the numbers game means a bigger risk, or reduced budgets, I really think that's a good thing - Too many ideas or opinions going into a game can ruin it whole, and in these days the phrase "small but beautiful" has been proven again and again; big budgets are not needed to make a good game that sticks in player's minds for a long time. Playerbase size is also a big risk as well - If you plan to release another in a series, you're going to have to satisfy that big playerbase, and often many won't be as satisfied with something as much as others. This is where I suggest keeping a niche and small audience, as niche audiences are much more likely to easier satisfy because they have a more collaborative interest and direction in seeing where the sequel/series goes. So why not aim there? Start small, try to make a big, positive impact, and let the satisfied playerbase grow by itself rather then try and pursuade every player in the world into buying your game and that they will have fun.

 

As it is now, piracy is not going to die as long as it's the scapegoat to devs who played the numbers game, "failed", and are not willing to blame themselves for that failure. But, that won't completely stop it. You can make it obsolete, however, but it takes a lot of work, collaboration, negotiation, and a bit of pandering for it to be attempted at such a massive scale...

 

...Simply put, for piracy to be dissolved, we need to reinvent the economic structure.

 

One of the reasons I can see why piracy is done is because it offers an equal opportunity to those that have access to it - That is, it's free and often hassle-free compared to the legitimate copies. A reinvented economy that offers that same amount of opportunity would likely that reason obsolete. Another is the need to archive and make such works open to those interested. Games fall into the same realm as movies and books, and currently piracy does this archiving automatically, as many games that are no longer on sale and are hard to find can likely be found on a pirate's torrent site. Making archiving and release of all assets mandatory after dropping support for a game or the dissolution of a developer or publisher should also be considered; this lets others freely discover the history of gaming and offers other, newer, and less-experienced developers research and improve upon other works, making advancement wider and easier to explore (unlike the limitations brought upon the current copyright and legal system). So yeah, a legitimate digital library that lets you try out and dissect games that no longer supported and sold or the developer/publisher dissolved would probably be another partial solution to take down pirate sites.

 

(Whew!)

Edited May 23, 2012 by ziitch

[JimboUK]

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/07/opinion-ubisoft-piracy-and-the-death-of-reason/

 

This link has been posted before but it's worth posting again.

[TheBestIdiot122]

(Same as above, I'm just giving my two cents on the subject.)

 

Even though, Zittch does make some VERY good points, I would like to add another point that devs and publishers seem to be getting wrong also, and I'm pretty sure most PC players know what I'm talking about, which is... The devs and or publishers having "Console favoritism."

 

What?! Console favoritism? What do you mean? Well, this is when a game is about ready to come out. It was first developed for the console (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, est.) Then, they announced it will be on the PC. Of course, now everyone is happy right? Nope. Now, when the game firsts releases, everything is good and dandy for the console players, but the PC players have a truckload of bugs, annoying game issues, and countless other problems. The game was obviously a console to PC port rushed game that was obviously not tested before release. (*Cough* Resident Evil *Cough*).

 

Again, you think "Well, the devs can get those fixed, right?" Again, you would think that. However, the PC support is barley there, non-existent, or incredibly unhelpful. Now the PC players have to find work a round's or even release unofficial patches. However, if the game has DRM abuse, (Which a lot of them have been lately) as mentioned above, even the players can't even release unofficial patches. This is why most PC gamers always seem to pirate games because of these type of issues. I don't think developers realize that PC players aren't an easy selling crowd. This is what leads to the downfall of any console ported game.

 

I'm not saying that the console shouldn't get support, but I would like to have at least some forum of support on the PC, as in treated just as good as console players. Also, I'm not saying that every developer and or publisher does this, it can be incredibly annoying to deal with though. Especially when the bugs/issues are game breaking.

 

I know that most company's prefer the console, due to the fact that it's much easier to work with. However, if the company wants to make a successful game, it needs to support it's customers. Especially if there isn't a demo of some sort to look at the game, or see if you can even run it. I have always thought that demo's could always be incredibly useful to company's, so that the customers can find bugs before even the game releases. Which in turn, can make a better release for sales. But, it seems that a lot of gaming company's have, and will continue, to ignore it's customer base. For some odd reason.

 

DRM may or may not work against piracy, (From what people have seen so far, it doesn't seem to work... at all.) I personally don't really have a problem with DRM, but people that have to pay for data that is used for each MB downloaded, this could be a MAJOR problem. Being connected to the internet at all times just can't work with them, or they don't have the money. This is why a lot of people avoid Steam, GFWL, Orion, and other sorts of DRM. It's just more of a nuisance to them then it is helpful.

 

Now, for the actual game ports. Every gamer agrees, it's more worth to delay the release, and make the game better, then to rush and make a fool of themselves for the piece of junk that they had just released. It applys for ports also. Don't rush the port, take your time or even rebuild the game to be made just for PC. It's more costly this way, but you would get WAY more sales then with a crappy port.

Edited May 24, 2012 by TheBestIdiot122