Not to keep harping on the subject (too late, I know), but I recently stumbled across another "DRM Bill of Rights" at CheckYourHud.com. I don't necessarily agree with their list but obviously I am in favor of the whole concept.
Their story was originally posted October 8th, 2008, so this isn't exactly hot news. Still, if you are interested in the topic it may be worth a look.
Point of fact: I originally posted my own DRM Bill of Rights to Usenet on September 24, 2008. I beat them by two weeks. ;-)
Showing posts with label DRM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DRM. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Bang That DRM
DRM remains the online topic of choice for PC gamers.
It really started with StarForce, a disc-based copy protection package that quickly became the poster-child for invasive digital-rights management. Its use of Ring-0 drivers open up the possibility of incompatibilities with other software, security vulnerabilities and alleged damage to hardware. StarForce was reasonably successful in stopping "zero-day" piracy (that is, the hacker community was no longer able to release a pirated version of the title on the same day as the game released to stores because it took them several weeks to bypass StarForce) but at a cost to customer relations; the people who actually paid for the software were outraged at Ubisoft for installing StarForce on their machines. It was such a fiasco that Ubisoft had to publicly reverse their decision to use such unpopular software to protect their titles.
Later, Steam and SecuROM upped the ante by requiring online activation; titles protected by this software -even those without any online component - required users to connect to an Internet server run by the publisher before they could actually play the games for which they had laid down good, hard cash. Concerns over how long the publisher would maintain the activation service and transferability of the license became hotly contested topics. Valve reassured customers with vague promises to remove the activation requirement for titles protected by Steam should the company go out of business. EA Games and other publishers quickly retrofitted "deactivation software" into their SecuROM-protected games after consumer backlash. Spore, one of the first titles to be released with SecuROM, still lingers at a "1-star" rating on Amazon.com solely due to all the negative feedback regarding the activation requirements.
More recently, Ubisoft announced that its newest products would not only require online-activation, but a constant Internet connection. Any disruption of that connection and the game would pause until the activation servers could be contacted again. EA followed suit with similar requirements for the latest sequel in their best-selling Command & Conquer series of games. Once again, PC gamers took to the message boards to vent their frustrations and promises never to buy any game with such onerous copy-protection mechanisms. Others took more direct action, launching an internet attack on Ubisoft's activation servers, preventing anyone -even paying customers- from activating or playing the protected games.
So if gamers are so vehemently opposed to these restrictions, why do PC game publishers keep forcing them down the community's throat? Even publishers that should have learned from past experiences (both Ubisoft and EA Games suffered from backlash over StarForce and SecuROM requirements) continue to up the onerous requirements on paying customers. It is all the more baffling when one considers how ineffective these copy protection methods actually are; Ubisoft's touted new copy-protection was cracked on the day it was released. Even the mainstream media are starting to take note. It is costing the publishers sales, good relations with their paying customers and it doesn't work. Why do they even bother?
The reasons behind this apparent insanity are myriad. The most obvious answer is because they can; despite all the uproar, games protected by these copy-protection mechanisms continue to be best-sellers. Regardless of its rating on Amazon.com, Spore sold over a million copies in the first month. Other similarly protected titles followed suit. Whether this is because those concerned over the issues raised by modern copy-protection are just a vocal minority or because the majority does care but not enough to stop them from buying the game, remains a debated topic. It seems no matter how bad the press, PC Game publishers can still be assured of making a profit. Meanwhile, PC gaming has the highest piracy rate of any platform, ensuring a need for strong copy-protection. Our behavior as the PC gaming community necessitates DRM.
1) To begin, the use of online-activation is rather useful in slaying the other bogeyman that haunts game publishers beyond game piracy: the sale of used games. Publishers do not want gamers buying used games; they would rather you spend your money on a new title. But, barring their ability to shut down that avenue entirely, the publishers desperately want a piece of that pie. Online-activation is way for them to achieve either of those goals. Either the activation is limited to only a single user (in which case the value of used games plummets, as anyone who buys your copy will not be able to activate and play the game), or they use the online-activation to force a "transfer fee"; you can sell the game but the publisher still gets their cut.
2) Then again, some gamers never sell their older games but keep playing the same old title year after year. These leeches don't go out and buy new games. Online activation allows the publisher to enable forced obsolescence. The publishers do not want you to linger over ancient games; they want you to go out and buy the latest and greatest. They don't make money if you replay a game from ten years ago. Originally they could depend on technology moving forward to the point where nobody had the hardware to play those old games, but clever software programmers taught them the error of that thinking. DOSBox and emulators? Publishers hate them! So how else to make sure you can't play games from years ago? Online activation require you to beg permission from the publisher to play the game; in five years, publishers could easily refuse that permission by simply turning off the servers that activate the software. With no way to play your old classics, gamers will be forced to shell out for the newest titles. Particularly nasty publishers might resell "updated" versions of the same game, requiring you to pay twice for the same product.
As an added bonus, this tactic kill things like user maps and mods which might otherwise extend the lifespan of the game. After all, if the player wants more maps they should buy the sequel.
3) Another advantage to online-activated DRM is the ability to soak the user for the right to play a game on multiple computers. EULAs have already generally restricted gamers to playing the same game on more than one machine, but circumstance has forced publishers to turn a blind eye to the inevitable violations. Online-activation methods typically check the hardware of the computer requesting authorization before they activate the title. If it varies too much, the activation is refused. Thus, if a gamer has multiple machines he now has to buy additional copies of the same game for each computer. If he bought a game but activated on his desktop he can't, thanks to online activation, play it simultaneously on his laptop. But he's free, off course, to buy another copy.
4) Frequently overlooked by opponents of online DRM is how it can be used as a bonus sources of income for the publisher. Collecting marketing and demographics information can equal big money! In days of yore, it was extremely difficult for publishers to figure out who was buying their games; after all, who really took the time to fill out all those registration cards? Nowadays, with ever-increasing online requirements, not only do they know what hardware is on a customer's computer, but they increasingly know more about him: when he plays, how often he plays and even -if the software is invasive enough- personal information like where he lives and what websites he likes. This data can then be used internally for the publisher's own marketing efforts or, as likely, sold to advertising firms for a tidy profit.
As a bonus, an always-on online-activation scheme also mean the customer is always available for "timely and informative" advertisements to be pushed down his way by the publisher's helpful (and well paying) advertising partners!
But are those all the benefits offered by online-activation? Heck no! There's still more!
5) You know what publishers really want? They want you to pay everytime you play the game. Subscription-based service gaming is (they hope) the wave of the future. But how to get gamers to accept the idea that gaming -with a few notable exceptions- needs to change from a "pay once" transaction to an endless term of monthly fees, especially for products that traditionally do not require such? Like the old saw about boiling a frog slowly, the publishers do it step by step; they just keeping taking away rights in slow increments and requiring the publisher's permission to do what used to be an accepted right until the idea of tacking on a fee for this "service" becomes the logical next step.
6) But even if all of the above were to go away, the publishers would still be forced to install copy protection. As publicly held companies, the board of directors has a duty to ensure that the shareholders' investment is protected. If the board releases an unprotected title onto the market knowing that it will be pirated to the extent that it is impossible to make a profit, the shareholders can sue them for negligence. True, most DRM has been proven again and again to be ineffective, but at least the CEOs can point to the DRM and claim they are trying to stop the efforts of the pirates.
Another bonus: even if the publishers can't convince the market to support subscription-based gaming, the "always online" component does help move the market towards digital-only sales. 40% of a game's price goes to distribution and retail. Digital downloads allow the publishers to cut out these costs and pocket the difference for themselves.
So, given all the above, it seems unlikely that DRM or online activation are going anywhere soon. The only hope of stopping it is a clear and obvious boycott of games encumbered by these copy-protection mechanisms with simultaneous support of products that are free of DRM. Unfortunately, the gaming community has proven again and again to lack the strength or unity for such tactics to work. The sad fact is, if we wonder why our beloved games are saddled with online activation, we only have ourselves to blame.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Ubisoft's DRM, Our Shame
So, there's a lot of uproar about Ubisoft's recently announced DRM. The game developer released the facts about its new copy protection methods last week and to say gamers were not taken with their scheme would be a modest understatement. Many developers have required customers to activate their products online before they could play the game; Ubisoft has taken it a step further; not only do they require that initial activation, you must be online to play the game. Worse, lose your network connection, even momentarily, and you are booted from the game and your progress since your last save-point is lost.
As stated earlier, gamers are outraged. The usual objections have been raised: not everybody has broadband, ISPs are notoriously unreliable, this violates first-sale doctrine, there are privacy and security issues, and DRM does nothing to stop pirates anyways. Similarly, the usual calls to action are also being offered: Internet petitions, people are swearing not to buy the game, and threats are being made to pirate the title to teach Ubisoft a lesson.
Meanwhile, I just can't get all that upset about it all.
Mind you, I hold Ubisoft's latest tactic against copyright violators in no more favor than any other gamer. Personally, after upsetting customer so much with first Starforce and later SecuROM, I would have thought that the publisher might have learned its lesson; certainly, it seemed to be moving in the right direction with the DRM-free release of Prince of Persia. Apparently not.
I'm unhappy about Ubisoft's decision and, like many, have decided that any games poisoned with this copy-protection mechanism is not worth buying. But I can't help but feel that the problem isn't with Ubisoft, but with us gamers.
Oh, not for the expected reason; not because so many people illegally copy software. Sure, that is a cause of this current crisis, but there was rampant software copying twenty years ago and software publishers managed to survive despite a lack of online activation. So it's hardly fair to lay the blame entirely on piracy for Ubisoft's decision to add these onerous requirements on its customers in 2010.
What then led the publisher to this point? We did, but showing our acceptance to this sort of thing by buying games that had similar restrictions to its use. It didn't matter if it was SecuROM online activation, or Steam, or Stardock's Impulse; it's all the same. Step by step the publishers have been moving in this direction, and we customers haven't done any more than whine as we willingly moved in the very direction we swore we never would.
Oh sure; we had our reasons. Steam demanded online activation, forced upgrades on you, tracked your online activity and prevented you from reselling the game, but dammit, surely we couldn't be expected to not play Half Life 2? Bioshock used online activation that was limited to five installations (and, initially, no way to de-authorize the product) in addition to a disc-check, but the hype for that game was enormous; how could we mere mortals resist buying the game? Modern Warfare 2 did the same, plus they took away hosted servers, but obviously the billion dollars we poured into EA's pockets indicated we must have had some reason to ignore the fact we were getting screwed. We have, collectively, shown the publishers that despite all our howls of protest, we really don't care about DRM. Why then are we surprised that they continue to tighten the screws on us with every new release?
I'm not innocent of any of this either; I bought Half Life 2, I bought Bioshock. In fairness to myself, I did resist for a long while; I was absolutely opposed to Steam when it was released. I was not only opposed to what it did then, but what it meant for the future of the industry. I argued and warned people that if they bought Half Life 2 today, knowing full well that it required online activation, they shouldn't be surprised when other publisher's followed suit. I posted on various forums and even went so far as to write to Valve regarding my dissatisfaction. But I admit, a year later when it became evident that the community had spoken overwhelmingly in favor of Steam I became a convert. Not happily, but willingly because the choice was clear. Gamers didn't care about DRM, so publishers were going to keep using it on new games; I could either abandon my hobby or accept the turn of events. Could I have held my ground? Of course... but it wouldn't have made any difference. So I caved, well aware that I was now a part of the very problem I had once railed against.
And so here we are, in 2010; Ubisoft has upped the ante with its new onerous copy protection. I am not surprised, and neither should be you. They aren't to blame; the fault lies entirely with us. And while the solution lies with us too - we could all agree not to buy of Ubisoft's games (and, as important, not pirate them either) - history shows us how unlikely this is to happen. We had a chance to avoid this future five years ago; we chose a different path. Together we've made the bed we're being forced to lie in; let us not cry about it and shake our fists at Ubisoft.
As stated earlier, gamers are outraged. The usual objections have been raised: not everybody has broadband, ISPs are notoriously unreliable, this violates first-sale doctrine, there are privacy and security issues, and DRM does nothing to stop pirates anyways. Similarly, the usual calls to action are also being offered: Internet petitions, people are swearing not to buy the game, and threats are being made to pirate the title to teach Ubisoft a lesson.
Meanwhile, I just can't get all that upset about it all.
Mind you, I hold Ubisoft's latest tactic against copyright violators in no more favor than any other gamer. Personally, after upsetting customer so much with first Starforce and later SecuROM, I would have thought that the publisher might have learned its lesson; certainly, it seemed to be moving in the right direction with the DRM-free release of Prince of Persia. Apparently not.
I'm unhappy about Ubisoft's decision and, like many, have decided that any games poisoned with this copy-protection mechanism is not worth buying. But I can't help but feel that the problem isn't with Ubisoft, but with us gamers.
Oh, not for the expected reason; not because so many people illegally copy software. Sure, that is a cause of this current crisis, but there was rampant software copying twenty years ago and software publishers managed to survive despite a lack of online activation. So it's hardly fair to lay the blame entirely on piracy for Ubisoft's decision to add these onerous requirements on its customers in 2010.
What then led the publisher to this point? We did, but showing our acceptance to this sort of thing by buying games that had similar restrictions to its use. It didn't matter if it was SecuROM online activation, or Steam, or Stardock's Impulse; it's all the same. Step by step the publishers have been moving in this direction, and we customers haven't done any more than whine as we willingly moved in the very direction we swore we never would.
Oh sure; we had our reasons. Steam demanded online activation, forced upgrades on you, tracked your online activity and prevented you from reselling the game, but dammit, surely we couldn't be expected to not play Half Life 2? Bioshock used online activation that was limited to five installations (and, initially, no way to de-authorize the product) in addition to a disc-check, but the hype for that game was enormous; how could we mere mortals resist buying the game? Modern Warfare 2 did the same, plus they took away hosted servers, but obviously the billion dollars we poured into EA's pockets indicated we must have had some reason to ignore the fact we were getting screwed. We have, collectively, shown the publishers that despite all our howls of protest, we really don't care about DRM. Why then are we surprised that they continue to tighten the screws on us with every new release?
I'm not innocent of any of this either; I bought Half Life 2, I bought Bioshock. In fairness to myself, I did resist for a long while; I was absolutely opposed to Steam when it was released. I was not only opposed to what it did then, but what it meant for the future of the industry. I argued and warned people that if they bought Half Life 2 today, knowing full well that it required online activation, they shouldn't be surprised when other publisher's followed suit. I posted on various forums and even went so far as to write to Valve regarding my dissatisfaction. But I admit, a year later when it became evident that the community had spoken overwhelmingly in favor of Steam I became a convert. Not happily, but willingly because the choice was clear. Gamers didn't care about DRM, so publishers were going to keep using it on new games; I could either abandon my hobby or accept the turn of events. Could I have held my ground? Of course... but it wouldn't have made any difference. So I caved, well aware that I was now a part of the very problem I had once railed against.
And so here we are, in 2010; Ubisoft has upped the ante with its new onerous copy protection. I am not surprised, and neither should be you. They aren't to blame; the fault lies entirely with us. And while the solution lies with us too - we could all agree not to buy of Ubisoft's games (and, as important, not pirate them either) - history shows us how unlikely this is to happen. We had a chance to avoid this future five years ago; we chose a different path. Together we've made the bed we're being forced to lie in; let us not cry about it and shake our fists at Ubisoft.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
The DRM Bill of Rights
This is an article I originally posted about a year ago after EA first announced it's "five installs only" limit for the upcoming release of Spore. Backlash from that announcement has made EA wary of such heavy-handed copy-protection, but -as evidenced by Ubisoft's recent announcement- not all publishers seem to have learned the lesson.
II. The Right of Activation: If the Publisher requires Activation, they must provide some assurance of method to bypass this should the method of Activation no longer be available.
What it entails for the Publisher
III. The Right to Privacy: Any data-collection from these activation services will be opt-out (except as what is required for Activation), will not be matched to any personally identifiable information and it absolutely, positively will not be shared with anyone.
What it entails for the Publisher
What it entails for the Publisher
V. The Right to Support: All problems with copy protection mechanisms must be handled by the Publisher (or their agent) free of charge
What it Entails for the Publisher
How It Would Work
Comments
DRM is all in the news now, what with EA's bungled handling of Spore and general gamer dissatisfaction with its SecuRom copy-protection. Okay, maybe the mainstream media hasn't picked it up, but it got mentioned on MTV so its obviously gone beyond something just the geeks and hard-code gamer crowd care about.
Now, I generally try to stay out of DRM conversations but the following idea has been percolating in the back of my head for a few days so I thought I'd share it. Brad Wardell, CEO of Stardock, recently suggested a "Gamer Bill of Rights" that beautifully constructed an perfect world where paying customers weren't treated like dirt . This is a very wide-ranging list of some very good -but hard to implement- ideas. My idea is related, but a bit more limited in scope.
I want a DRM Bill of Rights, an agreement between Publishers and End-Users about what their DRM software can and cannot do. It needs to be palatable to both the Publishers - who want to protect their copyright and investment in the software - and to the users, who want to be able to use software they paid for not only today but in the future.
Let me be straight on this subject: I hate DRM and especially online activations. I think DRM is invasive, anti-consumer, bad for the culture, and ultimately an expensive, useless waste. It doesn't work and all it does is interfere with paying customers while the people it hopes to stop -the pirates- don't have to deal with it at all. But, like it or not, it's here to stay. At best we can hope to mitigate the damage it causes.
So, below, I present the first draft of the DRM Bill of Rights. I offer it to the newsgroup for discussion, amendment and dissemination. I encourage you to pass it on to your favorite web-forums and post it on your 'blogs. You don't have to use it verbatim; you don't even have to attribute it to me (although it'd be nice if you mentioned me as the originator of the idea). You may disagree with certain ideas I have below, or think certain concepts need strengthening. Feel free to add to or subtract from the list. But the idea is to hammer out something both parties -t he publishers and the users - can agree to rather than just create a bitch-list of things we hate about DRM. The publishers spent a lot of time and money developing the software; it is understandable that they want to protect the investment. We need to provide them a way to do that without going so far as to interfere with our own rights.
So, here it is. Take it away, gamers.
Now, I generally try to stay out of DRM conversations but the following idea has been percolating in the back of my head for a few days so I thought I'd share it. Brad Wardell, CEO of Stardock, recently suggested a "Gamer Bill of Rights" that beautifully constructed an perfect world where paying customers weren't treated like dirt . This is a very wide-ranging list of some very good -but hard to implement- ideas. My idea is related, but a bit more limited in scope.
I want a DRM Bill of Rights, an agreement between Publishers and End-Users about what their DRM software can and cannot do. It needs to be palatable to both the Publishers - who want to protect their copyright and investment in the software - and to the users, who want to be able to use software they paid for not only today but in the future.
Let me be straight on this subject: I hate DRM and especially online activations. I think DRM is invasive, anti-consumer, bad for the culture, and ultimately an expensive, useless waste. It doesn't work and all it does is interfere with paying customers while the people it hopes to stop -the pirates- don't have to deal with it at all. But, like it or not, it's here to stay. At best we can hope to mitigate the damage it causes.
So, below, I present the first draft of the DRM Bill of Rights. I offer it to the newsgroup for discussion, amendment and dissemination. I encourage you to pass it on to your favorite web-forums and post it on your 'blogs. You don't have to use it verbatim; you don't even have to attribute it to me (although it'd be nice if you mentioned me as the originator of the idea). You may disagree with certain ideas I have below, or think certain concepts need strengthening. Feel free to add to or subtract from the list. But the idea is to hammer out something both parties -t he publishers and the users - can agree to rather than just create a bitch-list of things we hate about DRM. The publishers spent a lot of time and money developing the software; it is understandable that they want to protect the investment. We need to provide them a way to do that without going so far as to interfere with our own rights.
So, here it is. Take it away, gamers.
THE DRM BILL OF RIGHTS
A Balanced Agreement of Rights Between Publisher and Customer
I. The Right of Free Use: If you limit number of installations, the Publisher MUST provide a "revoke" tool.
What it entails for the Publisher
The Publisher is allowed to limit the software's installation to one or more computers based on their hardware configuration and registered online ("Activation"). They must provide a free stand-alone tool, preferably on the same distribution medium, that the User can use to de-authorize previously activated computers ("De-activation"). The total number of Activations and De-activations must be unlimited in number, but can be limited as to number of uses in a particular time period.
How It Would Work
When you install a game, the software must be activated online as is the standard practice today. However, what this Right provides is a method for the User to deactivate an installation so the software can be transferred to another computer, either due to hardware failure, upgrade or resale. This tool needs to be provided free to the User, preferably on the CD/DVD or other install medium provided at purchase (or downloaded if the game is purchased through digital distribution) and must be stand-alone. Deactivation would require proof of ownership (the CD in the drive and the CD-key should be enough), and would display a list of all computers authorized to run that software. The User could then select the computers to be de-activated. Note that this tool does NOT have to be run on the Authorized computer, or require the Authorized software to be installed. In order to prevent misuse of this tool, the Publisher can allow only a certain amount of Activations / De-activations per day/week/month, but cannot limit the total amount of De-activations.
Comments:
One of the biggest worries I hear about online Activations is the worry about how to De-activate the software. Some users wonder about being able to replay the game many years -and many computer upgrades- down the line, others fear that unexpected computer failure might lock them out of a game they paid for, and still others wonder about how activations might effect resale value. This Right provides a fair balance between the Publisher's need to limit the number of people using a game at anyone time while still providing the Users the flexibility they desire.
II. The Right of Activation: If the Publisher requires Activation, they must provide some assurance of method to bypass this should the method of Activation no longer be available.
What it entails for the Publisher
The Publisher is allowed to require the User to Activate their software through the method of their choice. But if that method should no longer be available (be it due to technical or financial reasons), they must ensure that the User can continue to use the software they paid for even although the Activation service is no longer running. This assurance can take many forms; a legal promise to release a patch should the Activation Servers be taken down; a waiving of the Publisher's rights to take legal action of any third-party who rights software to allow the same; or a universal "key" that is held in escrow, to be released only should the Activation servers go down, that allows installation and use of the Software without Activation.
How It Would Work
Basically, the Publisher needs to provide the User with a "back-door" -either legal or technical- that they can use to bypass the Activation requirement should the Publisher chose to no longer allow Activations, either because it is costing the Publisher too much money to maintain the activation servers or because they are no longer in business. The best way for the User is if the Publisher has a patch or some sort of universal serial number that allows the User to bypass Activation; this patch/key is held in escrow until the Activation Servers go down and is then released to the general public. Of course, this may dramatically compromise the usefulness of the DRM, so other methods can be used, for example: providing source-code and funds that can be released to pay a programming team to successfully develop a patch after the fact. Alternately (but least palatable to the User) the Publisher can simply promise to release code and not prosecute should a third-party (e.g., a "cracker") want to develop some method to bypass the Activation (but, note, they must provide enough code to make this a possibility).
Comments
The second biggest worry I hear about Activation is this: what if I want to play the game in ten years and I can't Activate it because the Publisher dropped the servers, or went out of business? This Right provides for that eventuality, by legally binding the Publisher to allowing some sort of method so the User can keep using the software should the Publisher no longer want to support it.
III. The Right to Privacy: Any data-collection from these activation services will be opt-out (except as what is required for Activation), will not be matched to any personally identifiable information and it absolutely, positively will not be shared with anyone.
What it entails for the Publisher
The Publisher is allowed to collect information from the User's computer solely for the purpose of identifying him for Activation so that the software can only be used by Authorized computers. However, any information collected for this purpose, no matter how seemingly innocuous, cannot be used for any other purpose beyond Activation. On De-Activation, this information -no longer useful- will be purged. The Publisher can run other data-mining operations, but this data-collection cannot be a requirement of the Activation.
How It Would Work
When the software is Activated, the Publisher needs to gather certain information from the User. At the very least, a snapshot of the computer configuration will be required; the Publisher might also gather other information. If the software is run on some other computer, that configuration is matched to the one on file and the Publisher can allow or deny the software to run as they desire (with, of course, the stipulation of Right I: The Right of Free Use given above, that computers can be De-activated by the User at will). But any information the Publisher collects for this purpose can only be used for this purpose: it can't be used for any sort of data-mining, it can't be shared with the marketing department or partners. If the Publisher wants to gather this sort of information, they can do so, but they can't make it a requirement to install the software; it has to be an opt-in program separate from the Software.
Comments
The right of privacy is not something many people care about, but I do and I think it's worth defending. We get that the Publisher may need to collect information about our hardware so that only that the software is activated to only one computer, but beyond that the information cannot be used by them. Publishers MAY offer to opt-in to sharing this information, but this offer must be completely separate from the install (and not at all a requirement for activation) and must be in clear concise language, preferably with some advantage to the Gamer (so hiding it in the EULA is right out)
IV. The Right of Resources: Copy-Protection mechanisms must be self-contained software that leave no lingering traces on the computer.
What it entails for the Publisher
If the Publisher requires DRM software to protect their copyright, this software must be self-contained and non-invasive. The DRM should only run when the Software runs, and stop running when the Software runs. It cannot install any drivers or background processes that linger in the background when the User is not using the Software. While the DRM can refuse to let the Software run should it find other programs in memory, it should not interfere with the use of those other programs when the Publisher's software is not in use. Finally, the DRM must be fully uninstalled when the Publisher's software is uninstalled.
How It Would Work
DRM software needs to be limited in its scope. Currently, it runs roughshod on the User's computer, installing ring-0 drivers and potentially installing root-kits and backdoors. It interferes with other software, such as disc-emulation programs EVEN WHEN THE GAME IT IS PROTECTING IS NOT RUNNING and does not uninstall cleanly. All this needs to change. The software will need to be rewritten and, potentially, this will make it less effective. However, DRM is not particularly effective now, so this is no big loss. The Publisher can still restrict what programs run concurrently with its own Software (both to prevent piracy and in-game cheating) but only when the Software is running.
Comments
Once I'm done with a game, I don't want some crudware sitting in the background stealing resources. And I when I say "done", I don't just mean "uninstalled"; I mean "done playing this session". When I quit Bioshock, I want any and all processes associated with it - including copy-protection mechanisms- uninstalled from memory as well. Think of a way of protecting your IP without ring-zero drivers that potentially compromise my machine. And while I grant you the right to refuse to run a game should I have potentially interfering programs running (such as Alcohol 120%), the DRM better let me play the game once I kill that process, even if the software itself is still installed (and if the game isn't running, I should be able to use Alcohol 120% as much as I damn well please)
V. The Right to Support: All problems with copy protection mechanisms must be handled by the Publisher (or their agent) free of charge
What it Entails for the Publisher
The Publisher must provide, either on their own or through an agent, free support solely to handle problems that result from its copy-protection software. This support must be both timely and knowledgeable, and if it cannot help the User with their problem, must offer them the right of return. Toll-free numbers wherever the game is sold and/or e-mail support with same-day turn-around must be offered. This support must exist for the lifetime of the product.
How It Would Work
The Publisher needs to provide some method of support resulting from problems caused by the DRM. This support needs to be separate from regular support issues, and it needs to be free and timely. The best method is to have the company that developed the DRM software handle this for you. This support needs to be knowledgeable but, should they be unable to solve the problem, they must offer - should they determine the problem to be caused by the DRM - to let the User return the software and get a refund.
Comments
If your obnoxious copy protection is keeping me from installing a game I paid for, don't make me pay for the call to correct the problem. Set up a toll-free number and staff it with people who can correct the problem. E-mail works too, but a timely response is a must. Too expensive? Get the developers of the copy-protection to do it for you; make it a requirement of the contract. Maybe if SecuRom had to handle all the calls they'd start to write decent software. Ultimately, of course, all these costs will be passed on to the consumer, but if this raises the price of the software too far beyond what its competitors are charging, the Publisher will be encouraged to use other methods of copy protection that do not cost them as much in support.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Bioware and DLC, part deux
Continuing the story of my previous posting...
It was brought to my attention this isn't Bioware's first foray into offering as DLC content that should have been part of the original game. Dragon Age : Origins, a CRPG released by the same company a few months earlier, was missing what many consider a standard component of such a game: a chest or stash to store all your hard-earned loot. It was a curious omission.
Well, guess what? One of the first bits of purchasable DLC offered by Bioware included this very feature. The Warden's Keep DLC does offer significantly more than that (new quests, new locations and new items) but I can imagine a number of people are going to buy it simply for the storage chest.
Given the additional content offered in Warden's Keep, this example is a bit less cut and dried than the missing Mako in Mass Effect 2. Still, it's hard to imagine that the absence of this feature, so common to many other role-playing games, simply slipped by such a talented development team. And, judging by the speed in which gamers modded it into the PC version, it obviously isn't something that was all that difficult to code.
So if it wasn't because it was an unusual feature, and if it wasn't because Bioware just didn't have the time or skill to add it in, you just have to wonder: why wasn't it part of the game in the first place?
It was brought to my attention this isn't Bioware's first foray into offering as DLC content that should have been part of the original game. Dragon Age : Origins, a CRPG released by the same company a few months earlier, was missing what many consider a standard component of such a game: a chest or stash to store all your hard-earned loot. It was a curious omission.
Well, guess what? One of the first bits of purchasable DLC offered by Bioware included this very feature. The Warden's Keep DLC does offer significantly more than that (new quests, new locations and new items) but I can imagine a number of people are going to buy it simply for the storage chest.
Given the additional content offered in Warden's Keep, this example is a bit less cut and dried than the missing Mako in Mass Effect 2. Still, it's hard to imagine that the absence of this feature, so common to many other role-playing games, simply slipped by such a talented development team. And, judging by the speed in which gamers modded it into the PC version, it obviously isn't something that was all that difficult to code.
So if it wasn't because it was an unusual feature, and if it wasn't because Bioware just didn't have the time or skill to add it in, you just have to wonder: why wasn't it part of the game in the first place?
Mass Effect 2 and the Broken Promise of DLC
It occurred to me, as I was wrapping up the final quests in Mass Effect 2, that there was something odd about this game. It wasn't anything to do with the story or gameplay itself; rather, I suddenly remembered something unusual about 
the "Options" screen. Hadn't there been, I asked myself, a whole section in the control setup about binding keys to control a vehicle? And yet, I had nearly completed the entire game without driving any vehicle; was it possible I had missed an entire section of Mass Effect 2 where I could drive across a planet instead of laboriously scanning it with my mouse?
This was, of course, one of the biggest complaints about the sci-fi sequel. Whereas in the first game, you could (optionally) explore strange new worlds by dropping down onto them in your six-wheeled "Mako" assault tank, in Mass Effect 2 you never got to see the surface of the planet. Rather, your explorations were limite
d to a tedious mini-game depicting the planet's surface. Pixel by pixel you move your mouse across that surface until a sensor indicated there was something interesting beneath it. Click the mouse and a remote probe goes and picks it up; the only visual change, however, is that the numeric values indicating your ship's resource store goes incrementally up. Then you repeat the process... over and over again.
Initial reviewers wondered why such a boring time-sink was added to what was otherwise a decent game. Were the developers, Bioware,
simply trying to stretch out the game? It seemed an unlikely tactic for such veteran designers and, in any event, the game was long enough already. And it still didn't explain those unused "vehicles controls" in the Setup screen.
Well, it turns out, Bioware/EA intend to release some DLC that will include a vehicle and the necessary maps and missions with which to use said vehicle. In other words, the DLC will be adding the functionality we already had in the first game and which was replaced with the most monotonous mini-game ever thrown into an RPG.
One of the big worries expressed by gamers when publishers started playing around with the concept of downloadable content was that the publishers would use it as a method to gouge their customers. Rather than sell a full game, they'd sell a program that was almost complete, and then require the purchaser to further shell out their hard-earned cash to buy DLC so they could have the full experience. The publishers, of course, assured us they would never do such a thing (even as they incrementally moved in that direction). I have to wonder if Mass Effect 2's DLC is the first indication of gamer's fear come to life.
With its dodgy controls and terrible maps, driving the Mako in the first game was never anybody's favorite part of the original Mass Effect game. Still, it did add an element of size and openness to the game that was otherwise confined to fairly linear and small levels. Nobody expected the Mako to disappear entirely in the sequel; nor did they expect the horrible scanning-game they saddled us with. Asking gamers to pay what should have been in the game in the first place is what they expected least of all. In fact, I have to wonder if the scanning mini-game was intentionally made as tedious a placeholder as it was in order to encourage people to buy the DLC. Certainly, as made evident by the control options in the main game, vehicle segments were intended from the start; they were not a late-hour design addition. They were purposely kept out of the game in order to sell later.
It's unfortunate that such a respected development house as Bioware has decided to resort to such scurrilous tricks, betraying their own reputation in chase of the almighty dollar (it's par for the course for EA Games, obviously). Unfortunately, I fear it's only the start of what will soon become common practice, despite earlier assurances to the contrary by publishers.
the "Options" screen. Hadn't there been, I asked myself, a whole section in the control setup about binding keys to control a vehicle? And yet, I had nearly completed the entire game without driving any vehicle; was it possible I had missed an entire section of Mass Effect 2 where I could drive across a planet instead of laboriously scanning it with my mouse?This was, of course, one of the biggest complaints about the sci-fi sequel. Whereas in the first game, you could (optionally) explore strange new worlds by dropping down onto them in your six-wheeled "Mako" assault tank, in Mass Effect 2 you never got to see the surface of the planet. Rather, your explorations were limite
d to a tedious mini-game depicting the planet's surface. Pixel by pixel you move your mouse across that surface until a sensor indicated there was something interesting beneath it. Click the mouse and a remote probe goes and picks it up; the only visual change, however, is that the numeric values indicating your ship's resource store goes incrementally up. Then you repeat the process... over and over again.Initial reviewers wondered why such a boring time-sink was added to what was otherwise a decent game. Were the developers, Bioware,
simply trying to stretch out the game? It seemed an unlikely tactic for such veteran designers and, in any event, the game was long enough already. And it still didn't explain those unused "vehicles controls" in the Setup screen.Well, it turns out, Bioware/EA intend to release some DLC that will include a vehicle and the necessary maps and missions with which to use said vehicle. In other words, the DLC will be adding the functionality we already had in the first game and which was replaced with the most monotonous mini-game ever thrown into an RPG.
One of the big worries expressed by gamers when publishers started playing around with the concept of downloadable content was that the publishers would use it as a method to gouge their customers. Rather than sell a full game, they'd sell a program that was almost complete, and then require the purchaser to further shell out their hard-earned cash to buy DLC so they could have the full experience. The publishers, of course, assured us they would never do such a thing (even as they incrementally moved in that direction). I have to wonder if Mass Effect 2's DLC is the first indication of gamer's fear come to life.
With its dodgy controls and terrible maps, driving the Mako in the first game was never anybody's favorite part of the original Mass Effect game. Still, it did add an element of size and openness to the game that was otherwise confined to fairly linear and small levels. Nobody expected the Mako to disappear entirely in the sequel; nor did they expect the horrible scanning-game they saddled us with. Asking gamers to pay what should have been in the game in the first place is what they expected least of all. In fact, I have to wonder if the scanning mini-game was intentionally made as tedious a placeholder as it was in order to encourage people to buy the DLC. Certainly, as made evident by the control options in the main game, vehicle segments were intended from the start; they were not a late-hour design addition. They were purposely kept out of the game in order to sell later.
It's unfortunate that such a respected development house as Bioware has decided to resort to such scurrilous tricks, betraying their own reputation in chase of the almighty dollar (it's par for the course for EA Games, obviously). Unfortunately, I fear it's only the start of what will soon become common practice, despite earlier assurances to the contrary by publishers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)