DRM for online functions

[eRe4s3r]

I just above described a system that let's you play always and NEVER will prevent you from playing the game, it just doesn't let you update always......

Why does everyone assume when he reads DRM I mean access restrictions to the game, I said DRM has to be a service that adds benefits to a customer, not a service that restricts rights to the game or restricts when you want to play. That means if your DRM is not adding benefits to a customers experience then your DRM is pointless.

A good DRM lets me log-in with my user account and knows what expansions I have registered under it, and never asks me for serials again. Even when I am offline, as the system can work on a 1-time-only online check or the manual entering of serials (but they get checked against the account when the game goes online).

This is also why I love steam, even though that is even more drastic than the DRM i just described in previous posts.

[keith.lamothe]

I just above described a system that let's you play always and NEVER will prevent you from playing the game, it just doesn't let you update always......

Exactly: can't update = less enjoyment of the game itself.

If the updates are actually improvements, at least

[eRe4s3r]

*cough* I edited my post ;p Needless to say I disagree, updates are a service for your customers and that is what DRM should be. A service, not a restriction.

[keith.lamothe]

*cough* I edited my post ;p Needless to say I disagree, updates are a service for your customers and that is what DRM should be. A service, not a restriction.

If it can interfere with a legitimate customer getting access to updates, then it's a restriction   It might also be a service, but that's beside the point.

[eRe4s3r]

It is not restricting anyone from playing the game

Actually, by the standard, AI War has a pretty restricting hardcore DRM, so there
Current DRM worst thing since Starforce! 

(Also adds nothing for the customer)

[TechSY730]

*cough* I edited my post ;p Needless to say I disagree, updates are a service for your customers and that is what DRM should be. A service, not a restriction.

If it can interfere with a legitimate customer getting access to updates, then it's a restriction   It might also be a service, but that's beside the point.

Warning: psuedo philosophical stuff ahead about this conversation itself

And it seems we have finally gotten to (possibly one of) the central disagreement over eRe4s3r idea. Hopefully this means we can stop repeating points trying to imply what the idea disagreement is and begin to talk about the central disagreement. Basically, both positions make sense depending on which answer you give to the posed point (are updates an optional, revokable service or a psuedo-obligation/part of the agreement with product users?)

I do appreciate it when arguments (arguments in the logical discourse over disagreement sense, not the negative form of communication, "yell fest" sense) can finally hone down to the central issue, as that is really where you can start seeing how both sides came to different conclusions, even if they share many of the same assumptions. This is where progress can be made.

[keith.lamothe]

It is not restricting anyone from playing the game

This is Arcen, the updates are part of the game   I keep prodding Chris that we need to put something in the AIW tutorial about "Now, be careful as you attack this next planet, because midway through the developer will nerf your most effective strategy.".

Actually, by the standard, AI War has a pretty restricting hardcore DRM, so there

How does the serial check get in the way of the updates?  You can update a trial version, and you can do it with saved copies of the update files if our server were to disappear (you'd have to find copies of the update files, but I doubt they'd be hard to find as anyone who'd run those updates would have them).

(Also adds nothing for the customer)

It lets the demo, the base game, and the expansions all share the same executable, and lets us keep them all up-to-date together.  That's something we couldn't do without the serial check because then we'd need to either make it effectively freeware (people probably wouldn't even realized they were supposed to pay for it) or make the demo and different expansions different binaries.

So it does add convenience compared to the alternative.

Not that it has to, in my mind: it's great if whatever protection/DRM involved does add some benefit, but it's more important that it not detract from the value of the product.  Once that's achieved, sure, if it can add value then fine.  But not really necessary.

[eRe4s3r]

Do you remember the off-topic talk in the Drox topic? This is exactly what I meant ,) My post are not pebbles they are rocks, you can not pick up pebbles that are part of the rocks and reply to them, I am talking about a thought, if you dismantle it, you are not ever going to see what I talk about). If you reply to my post singularly you can always find a retort. How absurd this becomes (and what TechSY730 meant) is that we have fundamental different views on the same thing and we are at a point where I can reply to your post by just quoting myself. (Which usually indicates the end of a discussion ;P)

I said DRM has to be a service that adds benefits to a customer, not a service that restricts rights to the game or restricts when you want to play. That means if your DRM is not adding benefits to a customers experience then your DRM is pointless.

A good DRM system rewards customers with service and doesn't punish them with play restrictions should they not choose to do the online verification. This can happen with a serial system offline that only optionally gets checked online and then unlocks FEATURES that are online and bound to an account. Like a proper player profile, stats, etc. But also easy registration and unlocking of paid and free expansions and easy patching.

Demo's would still work, no entered serial and no account = DEMO
Either serial or proper account would unlock the game.
Proper account + serial unlocks patches and online services.

In fact, I think we have become full circle ;P I seem to recall this topic was titled DRM for online functions ^^

[keith.lamothe]

It may well be that we simply disagree, my point was to show the rational basis for the way we do things.

Proper account + serial unlocks patches and online services.

I know you hate the one-line-quotes but I can't think of a better way to do this  

Anyway, that one line is where it breaks down for us: if the game cannot be patched without a proper account, the game cannot be patched if for whatever reason the person cannot get to our servers.  That's not acceptable.

[eRe4s3r]

It is equally not acceptable if you service pirates on the same level as your paying customers. As (lengthy) detailed on page 1 ;p And this is the rational basis why I disagree. But as said, it is good to reach the core of an argument. When posts become short and on point a topic is usually over, at least between the involved parties.

To me,

the game cannot be patched if for whatever reason the person cannot get to our servers

  would be acceptable ;p If someone can browse the web he can download patches. But if that is the only tipping point, you could always offer patches that check for serial if no valid account/serial is found. It would require each patch to be cracked and serials could easily be blacklisted.

[keith.lamothe]

It is equally not acceptable if you service pirates on the same level as your paying customers.

I completely disagree with your use of the word "equally" there:
- I agree that there is some problem with pirates getting more than they deserve.
- But I completely disagree that it is as-bad as legitimate customers getting less than they deserve.  That is far, far worse.

To me,

the game cannot be patched if for whatever reason the person cannot get to our servers

  would be acceptable ;p

And it's not completely and utterly unacceptable to me, really; it's just a matter of tradeoffs. If there were sufficient gains to balance out that "cost".  But I think that cost is higher than any gains I've seen any proposed pro-active DRM scheme (including yours) promise or deliver.

If someone can browse the web he can download patches. But if that is the only tipping point, you could always offer patches that check for serial if no valid account/serial is found. It would require each patch to be cracked and serials could easily be blacklisted.

Here I don't get where your scheme works better than ours:
- If they can download an update outside the game and apply it offline without having to provide a valid account (the serial is no more defensible in this scheme than ours), then they can play the full, patched game with just a keygen'd or leaked serial.  So back where we are now, right?
- If they have to provide a valid account to apply a downloaded patch, and for whatever reason they cannot access our server, they cannot update, which is too high a cost in this context.

As for blacklisted serials, if they can install, patch, and play the game offline then we'll never know that they're using a given serial (which is the current situation) and thus know to blacklist it in the code (I'm assuming that there's no point in having it do a blacklist check on our servers since they're playing offline).

[KingIsaacLinksr]

I'm curious eRe4s3r, has there ever been a DRM-system that's been a benefit to the customer and not a restriction? Because you've brought up that DRM should reward the customer for buying from the original source, but I've never heard of a DRM system that was an actual benefit to the customer for buying products from X source. It's usually met with a lot of grief so I'm curious if you have an example of a DRM system done right.

King

[keith.lamothe]

I'm curious eRe4s3r, has there ever been a DRM-system that's been a benefit to the customer and not a restriction?

Steam is an excellent example of a DRM-system that provides significant benefits.  There are restrictions (on games that actually use their DRM wrapper, at least), but having the library, being able to pretty quickly install a game to any machine I own, steam-cloud for games that support it, relative ease of joining someone else's game in games with steamworks (dungeon defenders comes to mind), etc.

Steam's awesome.  The very core "DRM" piece of it isn't a benefit to the consumer directly, but it does help a lot of publishers/developers get comfortable with the idea of not putting other DRM on the games they sell there, which I think works out much better than the probable alternatives.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

I'm curious eRe4s3r, has there ever been a DRM-system that's been a benefit to the customer and not a restriction?

Steam is an excellent example of a DRM-system that provides significant benefits.  There are restrictions (on games that actually use their DRM wrapper, at least), but having the library, being able to pretty quickly install a game to any machine I own, steam-cloud for games that support it, relative ease of joining someone else's game in games with steamworks (dungeon defenders comes to mind), etc.

Steam's awesome.  The very core "DRM" piece of it isn't a benefit to the consumer directly, but it does help a lot of publishers/developers get comfortable with the idea of not putting other DRM on the games they sell there, which I think works out much better than the probable alternatives.

Ok, fair point, I forgot about that, though it still brings up its own worries of future problems, but we can't always worry about tomorrow hehe.

King

[keith.lamothe]

Ok, fair point, I forgot about that, though it still brings up its own worries of future problems, but we can't always worry about tomorrow hehe.

Yea, I don't like the "what if Valve disappears?" scenario but I find it sufficiently unlikely that I'm willing to pay a reduced price for games I get there.  It's basically a really-long-term rental and while I'm not willing to pay $60 for a game on those terms I am willing to pay something.

If I were in a position of having to put some significant DRM on a game I'd probably (Valve-permitting) just make it a steamworks-only game and call it a day; that way all the infrastructure and such is someone else's problem, and it would at least deliver some significant benefit to offset the fact that the customers wouldn't actually own anything in return for their money.