Debate Time: Ubisoft Says DRM Is Needed, Valve Says No It Isn't.

from the don't-hate-your-fans dept

It's not every day you get two diametrically opposed views on DRM from two high profile companies in the video game industry, yet that is what happened recently.

While both were speaking to different gaming news sites, their conversations have an almost debate-like feel. So I think we will let the two execs duke it out on the debate floor. In one corner we have Martin Edmonson of Ubisoft Reflections speaking to Eurogamer. In the other corner, we have Gabe Newell of Valve speaking to Kotaku (thanks to Matt for being the first of many to send this in).

We will let Martin have the opening statement:

You have to do something.

It's just, simply, PC piracy is at the most incredible rates. This game cost a huge amount of money to develop, and it has to be, quite rightly - quite morally correctly - protected.

If there was very little trouble with piracy then we wouldn't need it.

Gabe shoots back:

We're a broken record on this. This belief that you increase your monetization by making your game worth less through aggressive digital rights management is totally backwards . It's a service issue, not a technology issue. Piracy is just not an issue for us.

Martin responds:

DRM is not a decision taken by us as a developer at all. It's a purely a publisher decision. The publisher has every right to protect their investment.

It's difficult to get away from the fact that as a developer, as somebody who puts their blood, sweat and tears into this thing... And from the publisher's point of view, which invests tens and tens and tens of millions into a product - by the time you've got marketing, a hundred million - that piracy on the PC is utterly unbelievable.

Gabe shares a story of how Valve protected their investment, in Russia no less:

When we entered Russia everyone said, 'You can't make money in there. Everyone pirates.'

When people decide where to buy their games they look and they say, 'Jesus, the pirates provide a better service for us.'

The best way to fight piracy is to create a service that people need. I think (publishers with strict DRM) will sell less of their products and create more problems.

Ok, so it wasn't a long debate, but I think the point is clear. Ubisoft and many other developers and publishers are under the impression that those who pirate games are doing so just to get free games. Yet, Valve has learned that piracy is a symptom of a greater problem: unmet customer needs. It learned that Russians pirated games to get a better quality localization than what the publishers provided. It didn't respond by upping the DRM. It responded by providing high quality localization.

So rather than fight your fans and treat them like criminals, why not embrace them and provide them with the product they want? It's amazing that anyone needs a debate to figure that out.

Filed Under: debate, drm
Companies: ubisoft, valve

Ubisoft Removes 'Always On' DRM From New Driver Game; Replaces It With Something Slightly Less Annoying

from the if-you-really-want-to-stick-it-to-the-pirates,-just-stop-making-games dept

As I'm sure many of you tuned into the gamosystem (Now officially a word! Use it for your next startup!) are aware, Ubisoft has a long tradition of irritating the hell out of the very people it wishes to have purchase its games. A short while ago, Ubisoft announced the latest Driver sequel would require players to be handcuffed to a solid internet connection in order to fully utilize its "Always On" DRM.

Of course, an uproar took place and Ubisoft is now attempting to calm its potential customers, as Rock Paper Shotgun reports, by walking back its "always on" DRM, as evidenced by this official statement:

We've heard your feedback regarding the permanent internet connection requirement for Driver and have made the decision to no longer include it. So this means that Driver PC gamers will only need to sign in at game launch but can subsequently choose to play the game offline.

"And this improves things how?" RPS' John Walker asks:

[W]hat Driver's DRM has been reduced to is almost pointlessly different. Before if your internet connection went down while you played, the game would stop, and it wasn't possible to play anywhere without an internet connection at all. Now, er, if your internet connection is down you still can't play, and you still can't play anywhere without an internet connection.

While this concession makes it slightly less annoying to play Ubisoft's game, the fact remains that this minor compromise doesn't alter the general "treat everyone like thieves" principle behind it. If you really want to prevent piracy, rather than please your customers, why not just take your protective measures to the logical conclusion?

Always On is by far and away the most egregiously stupid and unfair DRM to have ever been included with a game... It's something Ubisoft have boasted, without providing any proof whatsoever, has reduced piracy. While the claim without proof is meaningless, it also ignores the rather larger issue that so would locking the only copy of the game in a concrete block buried beneath the sea reduce piracy. It would also make it even more inconvenient for a paying customer.

Ubisoft may be slowly learning that the public isn't going to put up with Always On, but it seems deaf to the facts that its DRM does nothing to slow down piracy and everything to annoy its customers. Walker closes with this plea, which could be directed at any purveyor of DRM-laced goods:

But Ubisoft - if you're genuinely listening to the reaction against your DRM, then please actually hear what's being said. With DRM that requires an internet connection to launch, every time, you are once again mindlessly and needlessly punishing your legitimate customers in a way that will not affect those with pirated copies. You will, once again, be selling a product with a serious and significant defect, that those who download it for free will not be encountering. There's no logic or rationale that makes that okay. By requiring an internet connection for launch, on every launch, you punish anyone whose internet isn't working, who wants to play away from home (on a train, on a plane, on a holiday in Cornwall, at their grandparents' house, in their barracks...), or who cannot afford a broadband internet connection. It is cruel. It is stupid. It doesn't work on any level. If you are listening, really listening, then stop this. Stop treating customers like criminals, and start showing respect to those who pay you significant amounts of money for your products.

Once again, if your product can't outperform the pirated version, your battle against piracy will always be uphill.

Filed Under: driver, drm
Companies: ubisoft

Ubisoft Learns Nothing From Its DRM Past; Condemns Paying Customers To Repeat It

from the achievement-unlocked:-infinite-stupidity dept

Rock Paper Shotgun brings us the unfortunate (but rather unsurprising) news that Ubisoft will be (once again) requiring an online connection to play their upcoming title, Driver: San Francisco. As far as DRM options go, this is by far the worst one, especially considering the failure of Ubisoft itself in keeping its own servers up and running.

As is par for Ubisoft's effed-up course, this DRM will also cripple the apparently unsociable "single player" part of the game. This crippling will also extend to any player, single or not, whose internet connection fails them for whatever reason:

Even if the system weren't a gross mistreatment of customers, unforgivably stupid and spiteful, it's a DRM designed for a universe other than this one. My home internet, with the extremely reliable Be, drops frequently. A noise on our BT line causes problems, along with normal service outages, sudden blips, and all the times I trip over the phone wire and pull it out of the wall. Let alone if I want to do something crazy like, I don't know, play a game outside of my house.

Compounding this farce is the fact that console players will be saddled with additional DRM in the form of U-Play. Granted, this won't affect the original purchasers whose outlay of ~$60 will nab them a full-featured game that will often be rendered unplayable. However, second-hand gamers looking to save a few dollars will find themselves in possession of an incomplete game.

"In each new copy of a Uplay Passport-enhanced game will be a one-time use registration code that, when redeemed, provides access to Uplay Passport content and features," the company said in an emailed statement. "The code can be found on the insert card inside the game box. Gamers can identify Uplay Passport-enhanced games by looking for the logo on the back of the box."

Given that this code can only be redeemed once, consumers who purchase a used game laced with Uplay Passport restrictions will be forced to shell out an extra $9.99 to unlock online content and features. This means that a used game which normally costs $5 less than the new packaged version will essentially cost $5 more than the new unopened copy.

Well, that is certainly a fine way to stick it to the second-hand market. At this point you might as well buy it new, or better yet, not buy it all. And you have to love the PR team's misinterpretation of "enhanced," which is rarely linked to something that is also described as "mandatory."

But it's not all bad news, as RPS points out. Ubisoft is going the extra mile to make sure that PC gamers will be screwed just as quickly as their console counterparts:

Astonishingly, Eurogamer reports, when one customer complained on Twitter about the PC DRM, Ubisoft replied saying, "Bear in mind though that the PC version of DRVSF is released simultaneously to consoles."

Brilliant. I suppose the bright side is that cracked versions for consoles and PCs should appear within moments of each other. But Ubisoft isn't done ruining the "game experience" yet:

Oh, this one just keeps getting better. As reader Anarki points out, Ubisoft have now tweeted confirming the driving game will not support steering wheels!

The question at this point is no longer "When will Ubisoft learn?" but rather "How much does Ubisoft despise its customers?" And it looks as if the answer to the second question is swiftly approaching "infinitely."

Filed Under: drm, internet connection, video games
Companies: ubisoft

Capcom's Resident Evil DRM Is Evil: You Get To Play The Game Once And That's It

from the so,-it's-a-railshooter? dept

DRM use by game manufacturers is old news. Every so often, a software company thinks it's got something "nigh invulnerable" (+30 Geek points to whoever recognizes that reference), only to find its latest piece of copy protection hacked and discarded along the virtual superhighway faster than you can say "stoptreatingyourcustomerslikethieves." Lately though, the game companies seem nearly as distraught by used game sales, which bypass their pocketbooks completely. Consequently, they've shifted their efforts towards making second-hand users feel like the last kid in line for family hand-me-downs by giving them the tattered remnants of the latest game in exchange for their second-hand money.

Capcom, however, has trumped everyone with its latest DRM, scheduled to debut on the Nintendo's 3DS. "Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D," along with being a mouthful-and-a-half to say, will feature this crippling new "feature":

You only get one save file.

And...

It can never be overwritten.

In other words, if you decide you'd like to start your game over and replay the whole zombie shooting match from the get-go, too bad. You only get one shot. How's that for sticking it to the second-hand market? If you, being the good non-pirating customer that you are, go and plunk down your $40 for this game, you would kind of expect to do things that you could do with all the other games you've spent money on. Like have multiple save files. Or a chance to start over.

Instead, Capcom is going to give you a piece of software with all the save features of the original Nintendo and possibly even less. Let's say you happen to have friends/family members who'd like to play the game. (I know: gamersz. But some of them still socialize/co-habitate.) Too bad. Those free-loading bastards you used to call friends and family will just have to open up their wallets and buy their own damn copy if they want to experience the game for themselves, rather than "enjoy" it vicariously through your save file. 

You're twice as screwed if you decide to save a few bucks and pick this up at Upsell Boutique or GameReserveYourCopy or wherever. You're starting wherever the previously unimpressed gamer left off. And if they finished the game, well... then I guess you get to watch the end credits and try to determine which of the scrolling names deserves the full blast of your rage.

And Capcom's already has its "out" for when the angry gamers come calling. "Why, we printed it right there in the manual! That's hardly hidden and/or underhanded!" The manual? You mean that worthless little booklet that had no importance until I tried to resell RE:TM3D down at the local GameUpsellBoutique? That thing? Who even reads those? More importantly, why is the clerk at the trade-in counter giving me a pro-rated payout based on completion percentage? What the hell?

Oh, Capcom. You've built yourself a very slippery slope with this move. You care so much about the potential loss of income from secondhand sales that you've completely removed yourselves from reality. I have a feeling there's some nasty backlash in your future, and I fully expect to enjoy every second of it.

Filed Under: drm, play once, resident evil, video games
Companies: capcom

Locked Up Technology Is Broken Technology

from the broken dept

This comic was inspired by Sony, but they’re not exceptional. It’s also my first animated GIF Mimi & Eunice. Gear animation modified from Wikimedia Commons.

Filed Under: drm, locked up technology
Companies: sony

Sony's Insane Fear Of 'Piracy' Means Many Movies Now Suck In Digital Theaters

from the ridiculous dept

Nina Paley alerted us to an article from the Boston Globe that's been getting some attention about how many theaters are showing digital projections of regular "2D" movies that look really bad because projectionists don't remove 3D lenses. Basically, lots of theaters are using digital projectors, which were supposed to be a huge boon for the theater industry. It's easier than shipping and loading film. It can often present a crisper picture. In general it provides plenty of benefits. Those same projects can show 3D movies, but if you try to show a 2D movie via the 3D lenses, you can lose a ton of light. In some cases, the films are being projected 85% darker due to this. In other words, it's making the theater experience dreadful.

You might just think the issue is lazy projectionists who don't want to change lenses. While that might play a part... the bigger issue appears to be Sony's insane fear of digital infringement:

So why aren’t theater personnel simply removing the 3-D lenses? The answer is that it takes time, it costs money, and it requires technical know-how above the level of the average multiplex employee. James Bond, a Chicago-based projection guru who serves as technical expert for Roger Ebert's Ebertfest, said issues with the Sonys are more than mechanical. Opening the projector alone involves security clearances and Internet passwords, "and if you don't do it right, the machine will shut down on you.'" The result, in his view, is that often the lens change isn't made and "audiences are getting shortchanged.'"

Yes, the projector requires you to get security clearances and internet passwords just to change a lens... or it shuts down on you. Why? Because of the fear of the dreaded "piracy." Of course, all this really does, in the long run, is drive more such "piracy" by making people question why they should go to the theater for a crappy movie-going experience.

* Oh, and yes, it's pretty freaking cool that Roger Ebert's projectionist is named James Bond.

Filed Under: 3d, digital movies, drm, projectors
Companies: sony

Nigerians Looking To Crack Down On Movie Piracy, Despite Thriving Nollywood Movie Industry

from the missing-the-point dept

One thing that's common as you look through the history of intellectual property law is how stronger IP laws almost inevitably lag increases in creative or inventive output. Of course, this flies in the face of everything that we're told about intellectual property law, about how it's necessary to incentivize such creativity or inventiveness. In fact, if that were the case, we wouldn't see such creativity showing up in places with very lax or non-existent laws. And yet, time and time again we do. For example, we've highlighted how the movie industries in Nigeria, China and India are thriving, despite very lax laws and enforcement. In fact, with Nigeria, we've discussed how widespread "piracy" was a large part of what helped "Nollywood" succeed.

So what's happening now? Once again, after this explosive outgrowth in creativity, then people look to put in place these laws. Loricnet points us to the news that in Lagos, Nigeria, officials have been looking at technological solutions to "deal with" the issue of infringement. Officials are reviewing five separate technologies, and the "winner" will be rolled out for use by city officials. At least some of the solutions on the "short list" appear to be focused on providing new business models and greater sharing, rather than using technology to "block" certain activities, but some of them appear to be the same old DRM.

I'm not sure why politicians are getting involved here, but it really does highlight how, once again, intellectual property law is not about incentivizing creation (that already happened without it), but rather about protectionism for those already there. It's the same thing we've seen in the past. After there's an outburst of creativity, those who were there first don't want new competitors, and they run to the government for greater protectionism against competition, and the preferred tools: greater IP laws and greater IP enforcement. Sad to see the same thing happening yet again.

Filed Under: drm, movies, nigeria, nollywood, piracy

Librarians And Readers Against DRM [Updated]

from the pushing-back dept

HarperCollins recently announced it would limit library e-book checkouts to 26, after which said e-books "bought" and paid for by libraries would self-destruct. Some librarians I know were none too thrilled about this, and asked me to create a graphic to show it:

 

 Update: we've added an Authors Against DRM graphic, again by popular demand (from authors).

 

 

Filed Under: drm, ebooks, librarians

Music Companies In Korea Guilty Of Price Fixing, Collusion For Boycotting DRM-Free Music Retailers

from the is-that-a-surprise? dept

For many years, we've wondered why there hasn't been a serious lawsuit brought against various companies in the music industry (and possibly the tech industry) for price fixing around digital music. The fact that the labels are dictating prices to retailers as well as all agreeing on identical prices certainly hints pretty strongly at price fixing or some form of collusion. But it seems that most folks just don't care. However, over in Korea, a bunch of digital music players -- including services, labels and telcos -- have been fined for price fixing (thanks to Bas for pointing this out). The details are a bit confusing in the link above, but other reports highlight that a part of the problem was the labels pulling music from services that didn't offer DRM. They also used this as an opportunity to fix prices:

"In order to block competition coming from smaller businesses, the companies listed above rigged their own prices. By rigging the prices in compliance with one another, they placed great harm on the consumers and other businesses in the industry. Indeed, by equalizing the prices of their products, they've made the music industry believe that such a phenomenon was permanent. They have completely set up a blockade against the production of products that fit in different price categories. This is a violation of the consumer's right of choice."

Filed Under: drm, korea, music, price fixing