Recently, despite some internet reports to the contrary, we noted that EA had not taken a stance on SOPA -- and it seemed clear the company had no intention to do so. It seems that many EA and video gaming fans don't find that acceptable. They've created an online petition asking EA to actually take a stand on the bills:
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is a tool that protects monopolists and targets sites relied on by small-time businesses, like indie game developers and artists, condoning disproportionate action against these sites for any evidence of copyright infringement from any of their users. If EA wants to protect their monopoly so badly, we need to let them know that they will lose far more business by supporting this bill than by allowing indie developers to operate unimpeded. It is obvious that this bill's primary use is to paint a big red bullseye on the main distributors of indie content, protecting the market shares of big-time businesses like Electronic Arts.
EA is a member of the Entertainment Software Association which supports SOPA. It's time for EA to stand up and publicly oppose SOPA. Don't mess with the internet, EA. You will regret it.
It's too bad they don't mention PIPA too, but... As I write this, there are already about 120,000 signatures, which is pretty impressive. Will EA listen?
It seems likely that the company doesn't want to take a stance either way, but as the petition notes, not saying something about this could be just as bad. And it doesn't even have to be anything big. Take, for example, how NVIDIA just came out against the bill. Despite also being a member of the ESA, NVIDIA notes that it disagrees with ESA and doesn't think this bill is the right approach:
NVIDIA wasn’t consulted by ESA in formulating their position on SOPA. Our position is this: we oppose piracy, as it hurts our game-developer partners. However, we do not support SOPA. We don’t believe it is the right solution to the problem. We remain committed to working to address this problem in a constructive and fair manner.
It seems like EA could do the same thing... assuming that it, too, did not work with ESA on its position. Of course, if it did... well... then things are complicated.
Advertising is a fascinating topic. When ads are done well, the content is usually good enough to stand alone without trying to market a product. Who wouldn't want to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony? But it's not easy to create really great and memorable ads. Maybe it's an ancient Chinese secret, huh?
There's been lots of talk about members of Congress being proud of how ignorant they are of technology and the online community -- and then seeking to regulate that which they do not understand. One exception has been Jared Polis, who was an internet entrepreneur before he was a Congressional Rep. And it turns out he's a video gamer as well. Via the Legal Lady, we discover that Rep. Polis jumped into the middle of an online forum discussion about SOPA/PIPA when he noticed it on a forum involving a game he plays, League of Legends. This wasn't even a case of him starting the discussion, but seeing an ongoing discussion about the bill already, and just jumping in (you have to scroll down to see it):
Hi, this is Congressman Jared Polis of Colorado. As a member of the League of Legends community (partial to Anivia and Maokai), and as someone who made his living as an Internet entrepreneur before being elected to Congress, I'm greatly concerned about the future of the Internet and gaming if Congress doesn't wake up. You may have heard that Congress is currently considering a bill called the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. While SOPA has a ton of problems, there are some significant issues that I thought fellow gamers might want to know about.
I'm particularly concerned that SOPA might stifle the kind of innovation that brings us games we love, such as LoL. The bill makes it far too easy for angry competitors to sue good law abiding companies out of existence. It threatens any company or website that depends on user-generated content, even companies like Riot. Instead of coming up with great ways to keep making games like LoL even better, companies will have to spend their money hiring lawyers. That's why companies like Riot, who want to protect the games they create, are opposed to SOPA.
I've been working on alternative legislation that would protect the games companies create while also fostering innovation. But we also need you to call your members of Congress and let them know of your opposition to SOPA. This bill has a very real chance of passing, and it is up to all of who want to protect the Internet to take action. More information is available at http://keepthewebopen.com/. Please make your voices heard in this debate! I will be happy to respond to your posts below, and will check back every few hours today and respond to as many as I can.
After hearing about so many elected officials who are totally ignorant about online communities... it's kinda refreshing to see one who is much more net native...
With the news that the ESA supports SOPA and more and more gaming companies and related organizations coming out with their stances on the topic, I have been reaching out to some organizations that have yet to make a public stance on SOPA. One of these organizations is the PC Gaming Alliance, a trade group dedicated to building up the PC gaming market. With all the piracy that many companies complain about and their efforts to stop it using DRM, online authentication and other forms of validating a legit game, SOPA must seem like a godsend. However, the PCGA states that it is "mostly neutral" on SOPA and PIPA. I was asked to quote its whole statement to avoid being taken out of context, so here it is in its entirety.
Our Stance: The PC Gaming Alliance's position on these two pieces of legislation is MOSTLY neutral, on both pieces of legislation in their current iterations for several reasons:
1) These are both highly contentious forms of legislation; and it's simply too early to tell what the true impacts & implications are really going to be.
2) Several PCGA members belong to other organizations that either are in support of, or opposed to both or either Acts.
3) These Acts are, for the most part, in their infancy. Several indicators point towards both, or either, of them being overturned, being heavily modified from their current instantiation, or even outright not manifesting at all. This makes it difficult at best to endorse either of the Acts in their current forms.
Our Position Statement: The PC Gaming Alliance is always in strong support of protecting Intellectual Property, reducing counterfeit goods, and taking steps towards reducing or eliminating all forms of Piracy. To that end; we're remaining cautiously optimistic that these 2 pieces of legislation will accomplish the goals they're trying to tackle in way that doesn't result in encroaching on other freedoms, or create additional grievances for the consumers and developers they're designed to protect. The PCGA will continue to closely monitor developments on these two pieces of legislation and we'll likely take a more proactive stance based on the outcomes and desires of the majority of our members that we represent in the near future.
Matt Ployhar (Pres. PC Gaming Alliance)
As Matt pointed out in points numbers one and three, with all the controversy over SOPA and PIPA and their questionable fate in both the House and Senate, this is probably the best stance (short of out right rejecting them both) that any interested party could take. I am glad to see them recognize that fact and that they are willing to stand by it. While Lamar Smith seems confident in SOPA's passage and the perceived lack of opposition, the reality is that SOPA is far from a done deal.
As for point two, this is a wholly different take from the ESA. The ESA has taken the liberty of supporting SOPA for all its members, regardless of the individual member's positions. If we look at the members of the PCGA, we can see that we already have a small variety of outlooks on the legislation. For one, we have Capcom that is happy following the ESA's lead. We have also learned that Epic rejects SOPA in its current form and 38 Studios does as well. So with this early conflict of opinions, it is probably best that the PCGA does not take a firm stance just yet.
However, I would take to task the idea that SOPA and PIPA are salvageable and are anything resembling laws that do what the PCGA hopes they will while not encroaching on anyone's freedoms. Even the OPEN act that has been introduced as an alternative has its own problems. I remain firm in my ideal that any problem with piracy is: First, a business model problem. Companies should do all they can do to mitigate piracy by providing the level of service their customers desire. Valve has shown this is possible and still make a profit. Second, a connection problem. Many customers feel disconnected from the developers of the games they make. If SOPA passes, that disconnect will only become worse as fans of games would be unsure of just how they can express their enjoyment of and excitement for games without being targeted under SOPA's enforcement provisions. Let's hope that more companies take such a "cautiously optimistic" point of view on SOPA while still remaining open to the idea that it may not be the solution they truly need.
Over all the brouhaha regarding SOPA, a number of industries have come out either for or against SOPA. We have seen comments from the tech, film, music, publishing industries and many consumer organizations. However, one industry that would benefit from SOPA has remained relatively quiet on this front, the video games industry. There have been no actual public comments from any video game company or organization representing video game companies expressing anything in regard to SOPA. Yet, it shouldn't come as a surprise to note that the ESA, the chief lobbying organization of video game publishers, has quietly supported SOPA. This quiet support from the ESA doesn't sit well with at least one game developer, Mommy's Best Games, the developers of Serious Sam Double D.
In a combined call to action for both game developers and gamers, Mommy's Best wants these individuals to contact member companies in an effort to get two reactions: 1) a public statement from the company on its position regarding SOPA. 2) pressure the ESA to pull its support of SOPA.
Fellow gamers developers, If you work for any of the companies that are ESA members, please talk to your higher ups about contacting the ESA to have them withdraw SOPA support. In effect, your company is supporting the SOPA bill. There are over 30 really great companies that have made amazing games that are effectively supporting the SOPA bill.
Fellow gamers, If you love those companies, get on your favorite company's forums and complain that they are letting the ESA support SOPA by proxy! And consider writing the actual ESA as well.
While the internet world made a big stink about several companies no longer supporting SOPA, which we pointed out never actually happened, this is a move toward making that dream a reality. If the companies represented by the ESA were to come out against SOPA, the ESA would have only one option, to drop support of SOPA. We have already seen this happen when the BSA dropped support for SOPA after fans of its member companies expressed anger over the implied support for SOPA by those companies. Mommy's Best is hoping for a similar response from the ESA.
Additionally, Mommy's Best points out that over the past few years, the ESA has done some tremendous good for the games industry specifically in its victory over the California law that sought to restrict the sale of violent games and that supporting SOPA is a direct contrast to that legacy.
The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has done a lot of good for the video games industry, including facilitating the landmark Supreme Court ruling that games should be protected by the First Amendment like books and movies, and promoting STEM to further games and learning.
Unfortunately the ESA is still shown on the SOPA support list. The "Stop Online Piracy Act" bill will be voted on some time this year (probably soon). The proposed bill will likely stifle innovation and self-expression on the internet, and grant corporations plenty of power to abuse, given the broad manner in which the bill is written. If you're wondering what the fuss is all about, here's a detailed explanation as to why constitutional scholars believe the bill infringes on the First Amendment, and a general overview of what the bill is about.
This does call into question the intentions of the ESA. The company claims to support the free speech rights of game developers but supports legislation that would threaten the free speech rights of gamers. Why would this organization not see the disconnect here? Is it that it is still riding on the collective good will of its victory in the Supreme Court and is trying to remain quiet over SOPA in order to maintain that good will? If that is the case, why allow itself to continue to be associated as a supporter of the bill? One would think that supporting SOPA would be a sure fire way to kill any good will an organization has with its customers.
In the end, Mommy's
Best provides a number of useful tips for contacting the ESA and its member companies. It also provides a nice template letter on which to base your own letters. I agree with Mommy's Best. It is no longer viable to remain quiet on this issue. It is time for the ESA to come clean with its support.
As a follow up to our post this morning concerning the status of EA (and Sony and Nintendo) concerning the false report that the three had quietly removed their support of SOPA, we spoke with someone at EA who made it clear that the company has not stated an opinion either way on either SOPA or PIPA.
In September, we joined 400 other companies and associations in a letter asking Congress to explore legislative solutions to piracy. However we NEVER expressed an opinion on any of the specific proposals that have been drafted.
That's what I had assumed prior to my post, but now it's official.
That said, as people have pointed out, EA is a major member of the ESA, and the ESA is listed as a current supporter (pdf) though they were not on the original supporter list.
Separately, while the US Chamber of Commerce letter that EA refers to does not directly support SOPA or PIPA, it certainly implies that the companies would like this kind of legislation. I recognize why EA would like to stay out of making a definitive statement either way on these bills, but it still seems to reflect poorly on the company in the long run. By now these bills have been out for quite some time, and the company surely has had a chance to review them. It seems like it should be willing to make a direct statement one way or the other on how it feels about the bills. The original story may have been wrong, but not stating a position on the bill seems like a cop out to avoid pissing people (on either side) off.
DRM is often an ugly thing. Many software companies have crippled perfectly good software in hopes of deterring piracy, only to find themselves alienating their paying customers while only momentarily inconveniencing their non-paying nemeses. Ubisoft, in particular, has waged war against pirates at the expense of its own reputation, deploying unpopular anti-piracy schemes such as requiring an internet connection to play its games, even in offline, single player modes.
But not every company is interested in doing the same old "internet connection required" or "original disc in drive" or "x number of installs" copy protection. Many have tried other, less draconian, methods to hamper the gaming experience of those operating pirated versions. Not only are these anti-piracy schemes less likely to affect legitimate users, but they're also infused with a welcome sense of humor. Or a jet black mean streak. Either way, it's refreshing to see some creative thinking in the DRM department, which often suffers from the touch of unimaginative spreadsheet operators, rather than the somewhat anarchic spirit of the actual game creators.
Blowing up all over at the moment is the recently released FPS Serious Sam 3. There's DRM in that baby (not counting anything Steam-related), and if you've pirated the game, it's out to kill you. Starting about 10 minutes into the game, the pirating player is suddenly presented with a "giant invincible armoured scorpion" which relentlessly pursues them for the rest of the game.
This has led to paying players expressing an interest in downloading the pirated version in order to play the game with this additional level of challenge. It's DRM as "dare" and no doubt someone is off polishing a deadly-DRM-scorpion speed run at this very moment.
By no means is this the first gameplay element added/subtracted as a way to push players towards purchasing the game. Bohemia Interactive has been experimenting with gameplay degradation (called DEGRADE, obviously) as DRM for a few years now, starting with its Arma series. Players with pirated versions were treated to wildly inaccurate weapons, hallucinogenic landscapes and even occasionally turned into birds and greeted with the message, "Good birds do not fly away from this game, you have only yourself to blame." Bohemia's latest title, Take On Helicopters, features the same protection scheme which led to the banning of forum members who asked for tech support on this "graphics issue."
Crysis: Warhead took the same route as Arma, but with a twist. Not only is your gun a bit more inaccurate, but all of your ammo (including your grenades) is made entirely out of live chickens.
Uber-Half Life 2 playground Garry's Mod utilized faux graphical problems to deter pirates as well. However, illicit copies didn't get much further than the loading screen before kicking out an error message about being "unable to shade polygon normals." Creator Garry Newman admits that this additional "feature" will probably do little to increase sales, rather that he added it to give paying customers "something to be smug about." (Presumably followed by "TROLOLOLOLOL.")
Another recent release, Batman: Arkham Asylum featured a "bug" inherent to unofficial copies: a broken "Glide" function, which led to Batman collapsing in a cloud of poisonous gas rather than floating gracefully (you know, like a bat) from ledge to ledge. Once again, tech support was sought at the official forum, only to be greeted by a reply that the actual "bug" was in the user's "moral code." (Protip: when seeking tech support for your pirated game, it's probably best to wait until after the game is officially released.)
And it's not just FPS games getting into the act. Even software developers for systems not exactly swarming with pirates have added additional "content" solely with the purpose of harshing pirates' mellows. Big-in-Japan Nintendo DS dating simulator LovePlus+ utilized DRM that completely removed the sole reason for the game's existence. Gamers with pirated copies found themselves completely unable to get any of the virtual girlfriends to return their affections, putting them in the awkward (but possibly not unfamiliar) situation of having to pay money for female attention.
Ultra-hardcore action-RPG Dark Souls further punished its masochistic crowd by sending "maximum level Black Phantoms" (level 145 monsters with 1900 hit points and all of their abilities set to maximum) out en masse to greet early purchasers who broke the official street date, taking the game from merely "Nintendo hard" to "Nothing but SNK Bosses all the way down." This would be one of those incredibly rare instances where DRM is instituted to prevent paying players from playing the game and giving themselves an advantage over other online players who waited (or were forced to wait) until the street date to get in on the action.
Speaking of "Nintendo hard," cult classic RPG Mother 2 (a.k.a. Earthbound) used multiple layers of DRM to nudge pirates towards a purchase. The DRM first makes itself known by simply popping up a FBI-esque warning, reminding the user that it's a "serious crime to copy video games." If this first self-check was cracked, a second line of defense would kick in, greatly increasing the number of enemies in any given area. If all the self-checks fail, the gamer is cruelly allowed to proceed through the enemy-laden deathtrap and into a final boss battle, at which point the knife is fully inserted, twisted and yanked out through the gamer's virtual spine. During the climatic battle, the game freezes, deletes all saved games and resets. Ow.
And who can forget the godawful, skull-piercing sound of the vuvuzuela, which heralded a new era of obnoxiousness in both soccer fans and DRM, courtesy of none other than DRM-poster boy Ubisoft in its Nintendo DS game, Michael Jackson: The Experience. (Have you forgotten it? Click through to bring it back to horrible life.)
Obviously, any DRM scheme will net itself some legitimate users. But the more developers look to targeted deterrents like these rather than broad "everyone's a thief" copy protection, the less chance they run of pissing off their paying customers by delivering a product that is less usable than the cracked version.
Here's one last link to attempt to scrub that nightmarish vuvuzuela out of your brain. Here's a jaunty little anti-piracy theme that showed up in "Worms 2D." It's short, catchy and may even make you lawl a bit. Enjoy.
A new Humble Indie Bundle is upon us. Once again, the guys who popularized the "pay what you want" model have brought it back with a whole new treasure trove of DRM-free, cross-platform PC games. This time, they have brought a number of heavy weights including Super Meat Boy and Cave Story+. While the games themselves are awesome, what makes this bundle so amazing is that it is already well on its way to breaking the sales record of the third bundle. Announced via twitter, the Humble Guys proclaimed, "We just hit 100,000 sales and $500,000 in a tiny bit over four hours!" The previous sales record was the third Humble Indie Bundle which brought in a total of $2,167,519.10 and sold 372,346 bundles. If this bundle can sell 100,000 in 4 hours, breaking that record should be a snap.
Perhaps this success is attributable to this being the holiday season and the addition of the Red Cross instead of the EFF as one of the supported charities. Or maybe in some strange way this success is a result of my 1000th tweet being a promotion of the Humble Indie Bundle. Most likely, this success is a result of a group of dedicated game developers connecting with their fans and giving them a reason to buy. That is true success. While the "pay what you want" model won't work for everyone, all developers can learn from the attitude and effort these developers put into selling their games.
Kotaku has published an article in which the International Committee of the Red Cross proposes that real life laws such as the Geneva and Hague Conventions should be enforced within video games. Before you get too riled up, they are not proposing that video game players be locked up and punished for war crimes for actions performed within the game, but are rather proposing that game designers program those conventions into the games.
In computer and video games, violence is often shown and the players become 'virtually violent'. However, such games are not zones free of rules and ethics. It would be highly appreciated if games reproducing armed conflicts were to include the rules which apply to real armed conflicts. These rules and values are given by international humanitarian law and human rights law. They limit excessive violence and protect the human dignity of members of particularly vulnerable groups.
The practically complete absence of rules or sanctions is nevertheless astonishing: civilians or protected objects such as churches or mosques can be attacked with impunity, in scenes portraying interrogations it is possible to torture, degrade or treat the prisoner inhumanely without being sanctioned for it and extrajudicial executions are simulated.
These types of arguments are very similar to the arguments made by those who have requested laws regulating violence in video games in the past. Those people argued that the lack of consequences in the game would influence player behavior in real life. We know that the US Supreme Court rejected those arguments as the science behind them was not sound. But we all know that pesky court rulings never get in the way of those who want to control human behavior.
The Red Cross is looking to have game developers to voluntarily include these laws within the game world noting that some developers already take the time to do it. If that fails, it has no qualms about getting the government involved.
One possible course of action could be to encourage game designers/producers to incorporate IHL in the development and design of video games, while another could be to encourage governments to adopt laws and regulations to regulate this ever-growing industry.
I don't know why they think that a law regulating this would succeed, especially this soon after the US Supreme Court ruled that such laws are a violation of the US Constitution. Even with all that, such a law would be just as pointless as applying it to a movie such as Commando or Rambo. People look to entertainment as an escape from reality. Why would they want to play a video game that would end up with them being punished for war crimes? That doesn't sound like fun to me.
Thanksgiving week was not a good week for Ubisoft Shanghai creative director Stanislas Mettra. When asked if a PC version of the game I Am Alive would be coming, he responded that it wouldn't because of piracy.
It's hard because there's so much piracy and so few people are paying for PC games that we have to precisely weigh it up against the cost of making it. Perhaps it will only take 12 guys three months to port the game to PC, it's not a massive cost but it's still a cost. If only 50,000 people buy the game then it's not worth it.
This statement and one about PC gamers "bitching" got the gaming press and PC gamers all riled up. Very soon the news was everywhere that Ubisoft, the company pushing always on DRM and complaining about piracy on the PC at every turn, was at it again. This bad publicity led to Mettra backtracking on his comments.
What I meant is that the pc version did not happen yet [sic]. But we are still working to see the feasibility of it, which is not necessarily simple. I gave some examples to illustrate the problematic [sic], but obviously it is not in my hands and not my part to talk about this.
Although he attempts to avoid the topic of piracy specifically in his retraction, he still leaves the reader with the same message, PC gaming is a losing venture. Is this in the Ubisoft training material or something? Are they trained to believe that the PC is rife with piracy and that it should be treated with the utmost contempt and caution? It wasn't that long ago that other Ubisoft developers were complaining about the same thing.
I would be happy to leave this discussion at that if it weren't for the comments from a few other developers that same week on the very same topic. While Mettra believes the problem lies with piracy and the lack of paying customers on the PC, these other developers came to a very different conclusion. First we have Devolver CFO Fork Parker speaking about the PC version of Serious Sam 3:
Piracy is a problem and there is no denying that but the success of games like Skyrim and our own Serious Sam 3 on PC illustrates that there is clearly a market willing to pay for PC games, It's on the developers and publishers to put something out on the market that's worth paying for in the first place. Those that place the blame on the consumer need to rethink the quality of their products and the frequency in which they shovel out derivative titles each year.
The other side of the equation is the distribution model. In games, we have amazing PC digital download services like Steam, Get Games and Direct2Drive doing the same thing for games that iTunes did for music. Offer the consumer a variety of great digital content at a reasonable price and the majority will happily pay for the games that suit their tastes.
Here is a developer who recognizes that the market for PC games is ripe for the taking. Gamers are willing to buy quality product. If the game fails to turn a profit it is not the fault of the gamer or the pirates, it is the fault of the developer and publisher. If they take advantage of the services that PC gamers use to distribute their games, they will see a return on that investment.
We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. For example, if a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24/7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country three months after the U.S. release and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable.
Most DRM solutions diminish the value of the product by either directly restricting a customer's use or by creating uncertainty.
I know we quote Newell a lot when the topic of game piracy comes up, but his comments are always relevant. He is a man who gets it. He has learned that the battle with piracy cannot be won through the use of DRM, region restrictions or any other restriction that you can throw at the customer. This is something that Ubisoft has continually failed to learn. If you want to succeed in PC gaming, you need to bring the games to where the customers are, make them available and restrict them as little as possible. When you do that, honest customers will support you.
Really Ubisoft, this is getting old. I feel like a parent scolding his child for the 20th time about hitting his sister. You think the child gets it after the first time and that the second time is an honest mistake. But, when the child continues to hit his sister, you need to take drastic disciplinary action. What will it take to get the message through to those in charge at Ubisoft? Gamers want your games and will buy them, but you have to provide the service they want. That is the only way you will succeed.
