Posted April 03, 2009
I sure as hell find having to enter serial numbers (especially since so few publishers understand that an O and a 0, and an l and a 1 can look very similar if you use a bad font...) every time I want to install a game. I fear uninstalling Neverwinter Nights because it has three keys (does that mean I should firebomb BIoware and Atari? :p). Yet pretty much every release (except, shockingly, the activation models. Usually) still has those bits of DRM.
I guess I should be more specific about what kind of DRM is going to be done away with. What constitutes "bad" DRM is, naturally, entirely subjective; I, personally, have issues with any kind of online activation, install limits, or the installation of drivers that have the potential to screw with my system, and not so much of an issue with CD checks and CD keys (although I'll agree that those three keys for NWN plus expansions were fucking annoying, and the fact their installer was coded by retarded monkeys and ends up corrupting files half the time certainly doesn't help matters). Other people, however, have entirely different preferences with regards to what they consider tolerable DRM. What DRM stays and what DRM goes will depend on how large a portion of the market has their purchasing decisions affected by it, and this basically boils down to how many people get bit by the DRM and how much of a stink is made about it.
I wouldn't say people were vehemently opposed, but rather that they were quite wary and skeptical with regards to a new business model, and that has naturally changed over time as Steam became more established (and worked out early technical issues). Now, fast forward to when Steam or a major Steam-like service shuts off their servers, cutting people off from their games, and all this will quickly change. Generally it's taken people getting annoyed or burned to really trigger a response against a form of DRM. Those of us who tend to see the problems coming a ways off (sometimes accurately, sometimes not) are in a very small minority and not in a position to exert much market pressure on our own.
Actually I'll argue no such thing. What is considered "annoying" or "limiting" varies from person to person, and I'm not quite enough of a wanker to tell someone that something they find annoying isn't actually something they should consider annoying.
Actually, since it seems I haven't been clear on this, let me plainly state that I consider myself to be in a very small minority with regards to my views on DRM, that I consider people who take DRM into account when making purchasing decisions to also be a minority (although a large enough one to affect business decisions), and that I believe the majority has no clue about what DRM even is.
What we have a history of is the vast majority taking no notice of DRM until their legitimate purchase is affected by it, then a non-trivial minority kicking up enough of a stink that a particular method of DRM is dropped. Indifference is the default position of most people right up until they're affected; it's not a position that they slowly work themselves towards.
Please don't try to conflate digital distribution with online activation; I'm pretty sure that you also realize that this is complete and utter bullshit.
I actually have a beef with Stardock over needing to activate any game purchased through Impulse (I consider all such games to be rentals, just as with Steam), and also consider a lack of stand-alone patches to decrease the value of any product I'm thinking of purchasing. And since you've done this several times now, let me request that before you try to attack me on some position you take the time to find out what my position on the matter actually is- it'll save us both quite a bit of time.
Alternatives only need to be proposed if the opposing side is behaving rationally and has legitimate concerns. One of the reasons I'm willing to put up with CD checks (other than the ease of finding NoCD cracks) is because I consider the argument that they're useful in stopping "casual" piracy to be a rational and legitimate concern. However, when the industry responds to arguments that a type of DRM fails to prevent the piracy it was implemented to stop with "we need to use this in order to combat piracy", all rational discourse is pretty much impossible and there's no middle ground to be negotiated. And when certain companies basically come out and say "we want to use this type of DRM to do an end run around the right of first sale and kill the second-hand market" the only proper response is "go fuck yourselves."
Moreover, at the end of the day the reasons publishers want to include DRM really don't matter at all. All that really matters is the product and price they're offering up to potential customers, and whether the customers feel the product is worth the asking price. If the included DRM drops the perceived value below the asking price then people simply aren't going to be buying the product and there's nothing more to be said. The market for entertainment is incredibly competitive, and if game companies aren't willing or able to offer up products people want at prices they're willing to pay then those companies are going to disappear.
