taltamir taltamir

The true face of DRM

▼

The true face of DRM

from JoeUser Forums

DRM as a whole is not meant to stop piracy; no form of DRM has ever been effective in stopping piracy, nor has any of it ever been designed in a way that could be effective in stopping piracy. DRM is nothing but a trick to force customers to purchase the same product again and again; which several big DRM advocates (such as the CEO of sony BGM) have publicly declared as their ultimate goal. DRM pushers also came on records as saying that libraries are nothing but massive scale piracy by the government and should thus be shut down. It is no surprise that the library of congress (and many others) have been complaining about their inability to archive works with DRM as libraries are another of the real intended targets of DRM.

Software companies like to pretend that their product is both intellectual property which they license, as well as a physical product which they sell you at the same time. Furthermore, they pretend that somehow the two are combined so that the consumer gets the responsibilities of both and the benefit of neither while they get the benefits of both and the responsibilities of neither.

When you sell a DVD you are transferring a physical product, one that was manufactured, transported, purchased, and has to be disposed of (at taxpayer expense) when trashed. And has to be repurchased if damaged. Just like a car. This is taking the "physical object" approach.

Digital distribution does not do that. Digital distribution treats it as 100% IP that is licensed to you. You have one lifetime license to use a game/song/movie/program/etc. A license that does not need to be repurchased if your CD is scratched, degrades from age, or otherwise damaged. Therefore you are getting the benefits (you can make copies, transfer devices, and get a duplicate of the data at no cost) and drawbacks (you may not resell it) of the IP licensing method. Which is fair and reasonable; you must remember that in the license approach, you should not have an inherent right to resell an item.

If you wanted the model in which you the consumer could resell the DVD than you have to agree to a model where DVDs can not be duplicated under any circumstances, that the DVD has to be in the drive to run the game. And that if the DVD breaks then you are obligated to buy a new one at full price, even if you already purchased the game/software. This is a ridiculous notion since a DVD is worth under 10 cents, but the software on it is worth at least 50$. It isn't a car, it is a method of transferring the software, which is pure information.

Most unauthorized copying (called piracy by DRM advocates) exists to reclaim the benfits of either the license or the physical property method, but many users forget that if you reclaim both at once than you are going from protecting your rights as a customer and into the realm of thievery (which, ironically, is what the content owners do to you when they claim the rights of both and the responsibilities of neither).

I am very happy with license type digital distribution. Now in a system that no longer tries to exploit me and steal from me (which is exactly what software companies do when they pretend that their product is two different things at once) I am quite satisfied with purchasing software again. This is why services such as impulse are so much better than buying a DVD at the store.

272,113 views 102 replies
Reply #76 from JoeUser Forums Top

I thought you were referring to "activation servers" not "multiplayer servers".

The problem of servers shutting down exists for every multiplayer game ever made, and has absolutely nothing to do with impulse. This is why it did not occur to me that you were referring to the multiplayer servers.

The solution would be to release server hosting software with your game, as well as a server list aggregator with an easy to modify host link. That also is completely unrelated to impulse.

Reply #77 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting taltamir, reply 76
I thought you were referring to "activation servers" not "multiplayer servers".

The problem of servers shutting down exists for every multiplayer game ever made, and has absolutely nothing to do with impulse. This is why it did not occur to me that you were referring to the multiplayer servers.

The solution would be to release server hosting software with your game, as well as a server list aggregator with an easy to modify host link. That also is completely unrelated to impulse.

You are misunderstanding... again. Stardock plans to release software for dedicated servers as in not "hosting" the game on their own servers , which will still be an option I think, but they are requiring that ALL saves be on their server. It's just ridiculous. It's a weird attempt to provide ded. servers yet at the same time throw in something that will make it very difficult for the game to outlast the company which, to me, is not a just ignore the pirates kind of stance. It is partially related to Impulse in that it will probably be labeled as an Impulse GOO protected title.

This mix up between Impulse, GOO, and this weird hybrid thing Elemental is going to have combined with claims that Stardock titles don't use DRM, which is not correct because what Stardock actually said and does is not put DRM on the CD but to get updates/patches just to make the game work, yeah requires a form of DRM, makes the whole thing a mess to discuss. Hey, my original copy of Neverwinter Nights did not work out of the box, couldn't run at all and required a massive download to fix. I doubt most people would have let EA claim that patches aren't necessary and therefore access to them is not DRM.

Star Control: Origins
Reply #78 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Nesrie, reply 77
You are misunderstanding... again. Stardock plans to release software for dedicated servers as in not "hosting" the game on their own servers , which will still be an option I think, but they are requiring that ALL saves be on their server. It's just ridiculous. It's a weird attempt to provide ded. servers yet at the same time throw in something that will make it very difficult for the game to outlast the company which, to me, is not a just ignore the pirates kind of stance. It is partially related to Impulse in that it will probably be labeled as an Impulse GOO protected title.

This mix up between Impulse, GOO, and this weird hybrid thing Elemental is going to have combined with claims that Stardock titles don't use DRM, which is not correct because what Stardock actually said and does is not put DRM on the CD but to get updates/patches just to make the game work, yeah requires a form of DRM, makes the whole thing a mess to discuss. Hey, my original copy of Neverwinter Nights did not work out of the box, couldn't run at all and required a massive download to fix. I doubt most people would have let EA claim that patches aren't necessary and therefore access to them is not DRM.

That sounds like the plot from a technological romantic comedy.

Reply #80 from JoeUser Forums Top

You are misunderstanding... again. Stardock plans to release software for dedicated servers as in not "hosting" the game on their own servers , which will still be an option I think, but they are requiring that ALL saves be on their server. It's just ridiculous.

That is indeed ridiculous, what makes you think stardock actually "plans" to do that? where have you heard such a claim because this is news to me (and contrary to everything they have done with their games thus far).

Reply #81 from Stardock Forums Top

https://forums.stardock.com/373887/page/4

32 player multiplayer. This is a big one and will take a lot of work but it we are requiring that the game handle up to 32 players playing together. To make this work, it also means that games need to be automatically saved (to our servers regardless of whether it’s on a custom modded server or ours) so that stopping and starting games later is easy.

Reply #82 from Sins Forums Top

Why is that actually nessesary though? I mean can't the host (a player) upload the save file (takes a couple of minuets at worst) and then the server can send it to all the players?

I don't understand, maybe im dumb.

Reply #83 from JoeUser Forums Top

the way you said it I thought you mean they want to hold your single player saves on their server (which is very bad).

What this actually says they will be holding the autmatic saves for multiplayer saves only (who the hell uses mutliplayer saves?).

why this needs to happen I am not sure. the link you posted indicates it has something to do with having 32 player games. Although that is just a ridiculous amount. you don't save games played with strangers, and who the hell is going to have more than a handful of friends who play elemental?

I expect to never be affected by it... that being said, I understand why you would be upset if you do intend to play very long turtling games with 32 friends... or if this means that you can't save lower player amounts games, single player games, or it makes it impossible to play / save manually without access to their servers. However, whether that is how it is implemented would be easy to tell once the game is actually released.

Reply #84 from Stardock Forums Top

It says up to 32 players, not just 32 players. People who play games like Civilization, Age of Wonders umm Heroes of Might of Magic, none of those multiplayer games typically finish in one sitting. This would affect pretty much anyone who intends to play Elemental multiplayer. There has not yet been a reasonable explaination for it since yes, it seems like a custom server could load and save games too.  As for what I implied... i said dedicated server. There not many single player games that utilized dedicated servers ( if any outside of DRM crap)... so it was a given that I was referring to multiplayer.

Reply #85 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Phew, glad it's only the multi-player. You had me worried it applied to single player as well. A few years ago it would have been obvious that you meant multiplayer, but with all the ridiculous DRM schemes we're seeing now, it is entirely plausible that a company would force you to use their servers to play a game offline (although the fact that it was stardock made me think it most likely it was a multiplayer only thing, as they're one of the few companies left now I can trust to not put ridiculous DRM onto everything)

Reply #86 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Nesrie, reply 81
https://forums.stardock.com/373887/page/4

32 player multiplayer. This is a big one and will take a lot of work but it we are requiring that the game handle up to 32 players playing together. To make this work, it also means that games need to be automatically saved (to our servers regardless of whether it’s on a custom modded server or ours) so that stopping and starting games later is easy.

 

Is it possible this only means the "automatic" saves, and maybe a manual save can be done to/from anywhere?

Reply #87 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Leo, reply 86

Is it possible this only means the "automatic" saves, and maybe a manual save can be done to/from anywhere?

I am not sure. You are looking at the same thing I read, and I did ask for clarification I think because I really thought I misread what he was saying. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy using official servers and the like because it keeps my group and myself from screwing around with routers all the time. But we also play games from companies that no-longer exist and would have taken their servers with them had they forced us to use them and only them in the first place. If stardock forced saved games onto their servers in single-player then they would just be Ubisoft 2.0. Fortunately, they're not doing that at least.

Reply #88 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting ZehDon, reply 10


I think you'll find that if a service ever closed down, its licenced games would received patches that allow the player to play without the use of the service's platform. I believe Gabe Newell, from VALVe, has already stated that if Steam were ever to close - and it wouldn't be a blink-and-you'll-miss-it shut down either - then all of the games available on your Steam account would be unlocked before the shutdown.

I think you'll find that they won't.

1. They have no legal obligation to do so.

2. They'd need permission from the publishers of the games to unlock them. Not a problem for their own games, but unlikely for any others.

3. If they're going out of business for financial reasons will they be able to pay developers to unlock them? Would they even be allowed to? It may be illegal if they've filed for bankruptcy, paying off creditors would be the priority, see (1) above.

Before I'd trust a company's claim that it will unlock their games, I'd need to see the patches created and placed in escrow - with a copy of the contract that states under what conditions the patches were to be released.

Ideally I'd like to see the titles unlocked anyway after a certain period of time - long enough for it to be a hassle to find a working torrent at least (2 - 5 years maybe?). The convenience (and likely price drops) would probably outweigh the lure of free at that point, and the pirated product would no longer have any extra advantages (no DRM).

Reply #89 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting Asret, reply 88
I think you'll find that they won't.

What evidence do you have to support this?

Quoting Asret, reply 88
1. They have no legal obligation to do so.

If VALVe itself whent bankrupt, unable to pay its creditors and was forced to close down permanetly, all of their millions of customers would lose access to their games and products. We're not just talking about people who digitally purchased their games - we're talking about people who bought games in-store that have the Steam Works DRM in place. Games like Modern Warfare 2, for example. We're talking, literally, millions upon millions of customers. The ensuing legal action that would result from people being unable to play their bought games - keep in mind Steam itself is the service, not the games on it - would ensure that the games were 'unlocked'. We're not talking about a product here, or even a service that costs money to supply - the games have already been bought and provided. The closest comparable situation would be a product manufacturer who goes broke, with an entire warehouse of their product already paid for by their customers, waiting to be shipped out to them.

Quoting Asret, reply 88
2. They'd need permission from the publishers of the games to unlock them. Not a problem for their own games, but unlikely for any others.

They wouldn't spend millions of dollars and thousands of man hours patching each of their thousands of available titles - They'd patch the Steam client itself to not require online authentication, list the date of closure on its VALVe's website and tell their clients to download all of their titles before the end date or lose them. Its how the service was reversed engineered and cracked. And the publishers wouldn't be able to prevent it - they've been paid for their sales the moment the game is purchased online - its why the Digital Distribution method is fastly becoming the method of choice for selling a game; near zero overhead costs.

Quoting Asret, reply 88
3. If they're going out of business for financial reasons will they be able to pay developers to unlock them? Would they even be allowed to? It may be illegal if they've filed for bankruptcy, paying off creditors would be the priority, see (1) above.

Again, they'd merely patch the client itself rather than their thousands of individual titles - its how the service was cracked originally, and I find it difficult to believe the 'End Game' plan wasn't covered when VALVe started contacting Developers and Publishers about putting their content on Steam.

Quoting Asret, reply 88
Before I'd trust a company's claim that it will unlock their games, I'd need to see the patches created and placed in escrow - with a copy of the contract that states under what conditions the patches were to be released.

Then you've made your point clear - the problem isn't with any singular platform, rather the concept as a whole. The information your 'demanding' will not be provided. Contact any large scale company - such as Microsoft - for a copy of their Bankruptcy plan because your a customer and want to know that you're purchase is protected in some way. Be sure to hang up before the ensuing laughter; it'll be loud.

Reply #90 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting ZehDon, reply 89



Quoting Asret,
reply 88
I think you'll find that they won't.
What evidence do you have to support this?

You want Arset to prove that a companay who falls under the weight of it's own debt doesn't have the ability to just do what it wants because the creditors all want a piece? The proof is in bankruptcy court and the fact that EA, Ubisoft, Activision and Microsoft all shurt down their servers at will for no other reason than to save money.


Before I'd trust a company's claim that it will unlock their games, I'd need to see the patches created and placed in escrow - with a copy of the contract that states under what conditions the patches were to be released.
Then you've made your point clear - the problem isn't with any singular platform, rather the concept as a whole. The information your 'demanding' will not be provided. Contact any large scale company - such as Microsoft - for a copy of their Bankruptcy plan because your a customer and want to know that you're purchase is protected in some way. Be sure to hang up before the ensuing laughter; it'll be loud.

There is a huge difference between Stardock and Microsoft, and I am not just talking size. Stardock claims to support consumers to a different level than it's bigger brothers (and on many levels delivers on that claim) and takes a stance against "stupid" DRM. Microsoft was one of the companies that started this activation BS to begin with.

I don't think your tone needs to be so condescending though. He has a point. In order for any of these companies, Valve, Stardock, etc to actually prove to consumer's their word is worth a hill of beans if they are suddenly closing shop is for them to actually close shop and do it, or close shop and not. At that point, it's too late. Money is spent, promises broken. Solution, don't put your paying customers in a position where you closing your doors makes out games unplayable and the pirates... well they get to continue business as usual.

Reply #91 from JoeUser Forums Top

there are two ways for companies to prove it:

1. Actually close shop and do it (extremely rare and unlikely)

2. put DRM free exes in escrow with the requirement of them being released upon shutdown of the company, and give reviews access to said files to prove that they work as claimed.

"they say they will" is not a good enough argument. I guess actually having a chat with the CEO of stardock in the forums does create a rapport of some sort and I am inclined to trust him unlike EA and their ilk, but such trust is subjective and isn't actually "proof" that this will occur.

As for multiplayer saves. I don't think this is a matter of "malice", probably just a practical consideration (development costs, connection speed/issues, etc). But I think it is one that will turn off certain customers and it should be optional (that is, where you can save to their servers OR your own server/computer, your choice). time will tell how it will be in the final product.

Reply #92 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting taltamir, reply 91


As for multiplayer saves. I don't think this is a matter of "malice", probably just a practical consideration (development costs, connection speed/issues, etc). But I think it is one that will turn off certain customers and it should be optional (that is, where you can save to their servers OR your own server/computer, your choice). time will tell how it will be in the final product.

Please explain to me how offloading saved games onto custom servers, servers of your paying clients, costs Stardock money? Keep in mind I said paying customers.  Cloud saving is only a feature when it is optional, when it is forced, it is DRM.

Reply #93 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting Nesrie, reply 90
You want Arset to prove that a companay who falls under the weight of it's own debt doesn't have the ability to just do what it wants because the creditors all want a piece? The proof is in bankruptcy court and the fact that EA, Ubisoft, Activision and Microsoft all shurt down their servers at will for no other reason than to save money.

You're not citing a case of a Digital Distribution service that impacts upon retail purchases being closed down, you're citing multiplayer servers and content servers for outdated and discontinued programs. I can still purchase Lord of the Rings Conquest and play on a third party server. The game still functions. If Steam and VALVe went down, and I tried to play Half-Life 2 or Modern Warfare 2, I can't. Period. Different situation entirely. And as I stated, any and all providers of content on Steam have already been paid upon the purchase of a game on Steam; patching the Steam client to not require online authentication once the service is discontinued doesn't impace upon a third party's profits or operation; they've already been paid. If Ubisoft closed down its Assassin's Creed 2 online servers, thus rendering the game unplayable, do you honestly think they'd not release an unlock for the game, or at the very least be forced to release an unlock by legal action?

Quoting Nesrie, reply 90
I don't think your tone needs to be so condescending though. He has a point. In order for any of these companies, Valve, Stardock, etc to actually prove to consumer's their word is worth a hill of beans if they are suddenly closing shop is for them to actually close shop and do it, or close shop and not. At that point, it's too late. Money is spent, promises broken. Solution, don't put your paying customers in a position where you closing your doors makes out games unplayable and the pirates... well they get to continue business as usual.

I'm being condescending because the concept of spending, literally, thousands of dollars on software across a digital service only to lose it all because the service closed down is, honestly, laughable. Ignoring the cost to profit ratio of Digital distribution and the lack of expenses in providing it besides bandwidth and storage space and thus the unlikelyhood of the digital service ever being closed down, can you explain to me why the scenario of an unlocked Steam Client wouldn't occur if Steam closed down? Leaving the servers turned on for a month to allow its customers to download and backup all of their content as well as patch their Steam Clients to no longer require online authentication is, honestly, the only method that would allow VALVe to proceed into Bankruptcy - anything else generates additional costs and expenses.

Is the fear a warrented one? Not really, considering that a Digital provider's likelyhood of going into bankruptcy is less than any retailer due to the profit model. No boxes, no discs, no warehouses, no transportation. Nothing. Just bandwidth and storage space, which are only getting cheaper by the day.

Reply #94 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting ZehDon, reply 93



 I can still purchase Lord of the Rings Conquest and play on a third party server. The game still functions.

To clarify before I address any of your other statements. Are you saying YOU'VE purchaed Lord of the Rings Conquest and YOU can still play on third party servers?

Reply #95 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting Nesrie, reply 94
Are you saying YOU'VE purchaed Lord of the Rings Conquest and YOU can still play on third party servers?

I don't buy anything with EA on the Box. The point remains: if I bought the game, I could still play it; it still functions despite the offical servers being closed down. EA closed them because they were simply not being used. An understandable move, if entirely avoidable by simply making a better game or realising a Battlefield-style game built on the back of the LotR universe was a fucking terrible idea for a game. If VALVe closed down the Steam servers, nothing works. Not even single player only games. Entirely different situation.

Reply #96 from JoeUser Forums Top

Please explain to me how offloading saved games onto custom servers, servers of your paying clients, costs Stardock money? Keep in mind I said paying customers.  Cloud saving is only a feature when it is optional, when it is forced, it is DRM.

Quite simple actually.

Stardock MUST make servers capable of hosting multiplayer save games in order to provide acceptable (to most) gameplay quality with 32 players.

In order to provide the alternative of saving it locally, they must create extra code in the base software for one of the players holding the saves for the others, or syncing from multiple players, or having one of the players run a dedicated custom server for saves. This requires extra programming. (how much exactly I am uncertain).

Programming self storage of multiplayer saves is probably going to be a lot cheaper and easier than programming the server based, but for practical reasons they must offer the server based. So their choice is really between allowing BOTH, or just the server based. This is something that easily looks like malice, but CAN be a matter of practicality and cost.

This isn't to say that this ISN'T some form of sneaky DRM done with no regards to cost, I don't know that for sure, I am just saying that its possible that this is unintentional cost saving.

I don't buy anything with EA on the Box. The point remains: if I bought the game, I could still play it; it still functions despite the offical servers being closed down. EA closed them because they were simply not being used. An understandable move, if entirely avoidable by simply making a better game or realising a Battlefield-style game built on the back of the LotR universe was a fucking terrible idea for a game. If VALVe closed down the Steam servers, nothing works. Not even single player only games. Entirely different situation.

That is true, the two are completely different cases. closing a DRM server prevents you from playing single player, closing a multiplayer server prevents you from playing multiplayer only (assuming there is no allowance for direct ip connections or private servers).

Reply #97 from Stardock Forums Top

You talk a lot but you don't really say anything. They HAVE to cloud save because of 32 players. Right, because most of Demigod's players, a multiplayer game, played online... wait, what's that, they didn't. Nope, according to Brad there was a large portion of legal copies that never played online and that didn't have a singleplayer game to speak off. Care to take bets on how many Elemental games will actually have 32 players? Not only that, there are a ton of games that handle dozens of players that do not REQUIRE cloud saving.


Zehdon, it's interesting that you demand proof but use hearsay yourself; not that i was surprised.

Reply #98 from JoeUser Forums Top

Demigod was a completely different type of game, there was nothing to save. One byte for your class, one byte for your level, a few bytes for your assigned skills and item codes.

Elemental is a strategy game which seems to go quite in depth, there will be lots and lots of data to save.

just because others games do it doesn't mean every game can do it.

Anyways, I said it is a possibility that it is not designed as an antipiracy measure, not that it is a certainty. I am sorry it offended it to think that there might just be a chance that it is a legitimate move meant to increase the quality of the game.

Reply #99 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting Nesrie, reply 97
Zehdon, it's interesting that you demand proof but use hearsay yourself; not that i was surprised.

Once bitten, twice shy.
Innocent until proven guilty.
A penny saved is a penny earned.
Please, take your pick over - the fact of the matter is EA have consistently screwed over its player bases, however shutting down multiplayer servers for unpopullar games isn't really one of the those moves.

VALVe have also made some questionable moves as well. Left 4 Dead 2 springs to mind. Merely a few weeks after I purchased the original, the sequel is announced and the first one's promised DLC is ... ironically, left for dead by Valve. They also have several games on Steam which actually don't work correctly on moder systems without warning. Splinter Cell, for example, can't render the real-time shadows on todays hardware and thus leaves the game unplayable. They merely pointed me to Ubisoft, who gleefully told me that they no longer supported the game.
Its enough to warrant cautious optimism and further research before purchasing any game made before the current calender year, however I wouldn't consider it enough to place the company on the same level of EA Games. Activision, on the other hand, is teetering on a knifes edge at this point.

Reply #100 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting taltamir, reply 98


Anyways, I said it is a possibility that it is not designed as an antipiracy measure, not that it is a certainty. I am sorry it offended it to think that there might just be a chance that it is a legitimate move meant to increase the quality of the game.

I am still on this forum, and I am still interested in Elemental. If Stardock has a legit reason for this move, I've been waiting to hear it. I've yet to hear it and until I do, I still think this is a move away from "ignore the pirates" to hey let's force everyone on our servers with cloud saving so a handful of years later we can say the servers cost too much to maintain and shut them down (Zehdon praises their efforts of course) but still try and claim our games ship DRM free.

Zehdon, I am aware what Valve did. I purchased L4D after L4D2 was released and after having played the demo for 2 long enough realize just how close to 1 it still was. If you have been reading what I said, at no point did i say Stardock was EA or Activation or even Valve, doing what they are doing with their servers makes me like those giants. If that is what you think, then you aren't trying very hard to see my position at all. If you don't give a shit if some company yanks a game's server you haven't purchased, then good for you. I know they can do it, and they will do it and any company that puts them in a position where they are able to screw their customers at leisure gets a black mark from me. I haven't drunk enough Kool-aid to make Stardock immune from that. EA still has BFMII servers up and that's a much older game, but I am not going to give them a pass for it just because I have BFMEII and don't have Conquest because I, like a lot of people, thought Conquest was going to be BFMEIII and heard how crappy it was. That game is just barely a year old, is still be sold as multiplayer game, and in my book EA made a dick move, and I am not going to say otherwise.