Tuesday, June 03, 2008
DRM With a Reset Button
You know, I never looked too close at Apple's DRM for iTunes. Apparently, according to my brother, they reset the hardware "locks" every year. So you have a limit of a certain number of machines you can play your media on THIS year, but next year you can start all over. This works nicely with upgrades to hardware and so forth.
Now, I haven't double-checked this to verify that this is how iTunes works or not. But it struck me as a clever idea that would work much better with computer games. Game publishers are really worried about the sales in the first QUARTER - and to a lesser degree, sales the first year. For online / casual sales, maybe the first two years. So would it really matter all that much if players could do the "casual piracy" thing in a year or two by installing the game on extra machines belonging to friends?
While I like the idea, it doesn't resolve my number-one problem with "phone home" DRM... that the company responsible might drop support / drop off the face of the planet. I play games that are YEARS old. I love DOSBOX. Have I mentioned this before? I'm not one of these fifteen-year-olds who subscribes to the industry's marketing dogma that anything more than a year old is garbage.
But as a step to wean themselves off of DRM, I'd love to see the game industry adopt this stance. Financially, it's almost no risk to a mainstream publisher. It wouldn't make everyone happy (not me, and not Shamus Young), but it'd be a step in the right direction.
Oh, and final request: No CD-based protection anymore, please? Especially not with DRM. One alone is bad enough. Both are ... ridiculous, redundant, and only pushing your paying customers to hunt down pirate sites.
Labels: Biz
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 10:08 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I wouldn't say that's the perfect solution to the problem, but it certainly lessens the blow of DRM phoning home somewhat.
But how it would work? I mean, checking for the date is not exactly ideal. The inmediate solution would be to use the clock on the server.... and then we are stuck with the same porblem: what if the server goes down?
Even if it checks the clock on google's servers it isn't such a great garantee.
Anyhow, if this would work then it should assure that you are going to be able to play the same game in the next decades if you say please. It's not ideal but it's a compromise at least.
But how it would work? I mean, checking for the date is not exactly ideal. The inmediate solution would be to use the clock on the server.... and then we are stuck with the same porblem: what if the server goes down?
Even if it checks the clock on google's servers it isn't such a great garantee.
Anyhow, if this would work then it should assure that you are going to be able to play the same game in the next decades if you say please. It's not ideal but it's a compromise at least.
In my experience, the big publishers want very high sales in the first few quarters, but then they want nobody to play the game at all after a year or so. Otherwise the old title is just competing with the publisher's newer titles, without generating any more cash. DRM in this respect pays off twice: it "prevents" piracy when the game is popular, then prevents the game from being played when they have newer products on the market. I'm not sure I'd expect too much traction on this one.
Diego - I'd expect this to be on the server level, using the anniversary of your original sign-in as the trigger point.
John - Maybe, but I think that would be a tertiary concern at best. They'd have to decide that allowing a "reset" would be more beneficial in selling more games initially (putting potential customers' minds at ease) than any loss they might suffer from extra copies of an old game being distributed to cheapskate friends a year or two later. I think a compelling case could be made in favor of resetting the DRM.
John - Maybe, but I think that would be a tertiary concern at best. They'd have to decide that allowing a "reset" would be more beneficial in selling more games initially (putting potential customers' minds at ease) than any loss they might suffer from extra copies of an old game being distributed to cheapskate friends a year or two later. I think a compelling case could be made in favor of resetting the DRM.
That was my main issue with Mass Effect. I really don't mind the online authentication the first time you play. It was the limited number of times that you could install the game that lost me as a customer. Even Bioshock had a revoke tool so you could reclaim one of your install tokens, but Mass Effect/EA has said 3 installs, that's it, and we aren't releasing a revoke tool. At least a yearly "reset" would be better than an absolute number for the lifetime of the product.
# posted by 
: June 04, 2008 4:58 PM
: June 04, 2008 4:58 PM
I'm the aforementioned brother who mentioned the reset switch for iTunes DRM.
Note that it's not automatic. You have to go request, and you're only allowed to request a DRM reset once a year. And since ALL of Apple's DRM is the "phone-home" type, there's no real getting around the limitation if you requested a reset less than 12 months ago.
Perfect? No way. I'd still rather pay the extra $5 to get the CD from the store so I can have the songs unencumbered with DRM.
Note that it's not automatic. You have to go request, and you're only allowed to request a DRM reset once a year. And since ALL of Apple's DRM is the "phone-home" type, there's no real getting around the limitation if you requested a reset less than 12 months ago.
Perfect? No way. I'd still rather pay the extra $5 to get the CD from the store so I can have the songs unencumbered with DRM.
Heh, I'd rather not have games phone home to play disc-based games at all. It's one things when I snag digital downloads off of Steam, Stardock Central, etc, but when I drive to GameStop, buy a fancy box with a fancy disc and take it home, I should be able to install and play the game regardless of whether Comcast decides to be down or not. I can play a 360 game without having to be online, why shouldn't my computer get the same treatment?
Also, I definitely agree with taking out disc-based protection. It does absolutely no good to prevent against copies and all it does is slowly and steadily wear out disc drives. I can understand needing a CD back in the 90s, where games would dump a minimal install to the hard drive and stream data from the CD (remember that?) but nowadays games install everything to the drive anyway. There's no compelling reason to require a CD to be in the drive aside from encouraging legitimate users from cracking the game and/or preventing them from easily playing the game on a laptop.
Digitally distributed games actually one-up disc-based games nowadays for that reason. I can play any of my Steam games on my laptop, Internet connection or not, without having to fool around with discs (which are easily scratched), ISOs (which put quite a dent on a 120GB laptop hard drive after a while), or cracks (which, sadly, are insanely convenient) for games that I purchased.
It truly is more convenient for pirates. I know people who download just about everything they play and they don't have half of the issues that I do when I throw money down on the same games. They don't have to deal with SafeDisc, SecuROM, the software calling home, nothing. They just download the game, install it, and crack it. They don't need to mess with discs and they don't have to wear out their drives on useless disc-based protection schemes. Need I go on?
This is why I love love LOVE indie developers. The games are generally more innovative, more fun, and aren't bogged down with ludicrous, borderline useless forms of copy protection. About the only thing they usually lack (due to the size of the dev team) is bling, but big deal; I still play ZZT, Kroz, and enjoy interactive fiction for cripes sake. ;P
Post a Comment
Also, I definitely agree with taking out disc-based protection. It does absolutely no good to prevent against copies and all it does is slowly and steadily wear out disc drives. I can understand needing a CD back in the 90s, where games would dump a minimal install to the hard drive and stream data from the CD (remember that?) but nowadays games install everything to the drive anyway. There's no compelling reason to require a CD to be in the drive aside from encouraging legitimate users from cracking the game and/or preventing them from easily playing the game on a laptop.
Digitally distributed games actually one-up disc-based games nowadays for that reason. I can play any of my Steam games on my laptop, Internet connection or not, without having to fool around with discs (which are easily scratched), ISOs (which put quite a dent on a 120GB laptop hard drive after a while), or cracks (which, sadly, are insanely convenient) for games that I purchased.
It truly is more convenient for pirates. I know people who download just about everything they play and they don't have half of the issues that I do when I throw money down on the same games. They don't have to deal with SafeDisc, SecuROM, the software calling home, nothing. They just download the game, install it, and crack it. They don't need to mess with discs and they don't have to wear out their drives on useless disc-based protection schemes. Need I go on?
This is why I love love LOVE indie developers. The games are generally more innovative, more fun, and aren't bogged down with ludicrous, borderline useless forms of copy protection. About the only thing they usually lack (due to the size of the dev team) is bling, but big deal; I still play ZZT, Kroz, and enjoy interactive fiction for cripes sake. ;P
Links to this post:
<< Home
