The DRM Dilemma

[Emabulator]

GameSpot has posted Part One (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6209660/p-4.html?tag=nl.e579) of a feature in which they looked at a brief history of DRM, games that have received a negative response from the community over their strict systems and spoke to the makers of SecuROM.

The question of ownership plays a big part in the debate surrounding DRM. When we buy a game, to what extent do we own it? While we can recognise that it’s necessary to protect the intellectual rights of artists, when the methodologies used to do this begin alienating an entire community then a solution must be found. Miguel Sicart, assistant professor in Game Design at the Center for Computer Game Research at the IT University of Copenhagen, argues that DRM has become an inefficient tool that creates more problems than it solves.

“[What] DRM tends to do is eliminate our sense of ownership, which leads to a certain detachment and annoyance: even though we paid money for a game, we are still not capable of doing anything we want to do with it within the limits of legality, because the game will think that we are going to break the law,” Sicart said. “DRM makes our legally purchased products suspect of us, and they act accordingly. It adds a layer of complexity that feels both invasive and unnecessary.”

[Rhaze]

Preaching to the choir on that one.

[brandonjclark]

What I'd like to see is a game publisher directly respond to Miguel's statement. That would be wonderful. Better yet, a dialogue between the two. I'd pay admission fees for that.

[Azriel77]

Steam is the only DRM (I dont even consider it DRM) I have accepted because it does not treat people like criminals and the benefits (like downloading your game anywhere), out way the negatives. I wish companies would just give up, anything that uses something like securcom is just asking to be pirated. A new (or old depending) trend I am seeing which is really pissing me off is the selling of bare bones games and then nickel and dime DLC which is obviously was taken out of the game to sell later (the upcoming sims 3 for example).

[Jadedgamer]

Steam is the only DRM (I dont even consider it DRM) I have accepted because it does not treat people like criminals and the benefits (like downloading your game anywhere), out way the negatives. I wish companies would just give up, anything that uses something like securcom is just asking to be pirated. A new (or old depending) trend I am seeing which is really pissing me off is the selling of bare bones games and then nickel and dime DLC which is obviously was taken out of the game to sell later (the upcoming sims 3 for example).

Who was it said, 'When I use a word it means exactly what I wish it to mean, nothing more and nothing less'. He'd approve of your description of steam of 'not even being drm'. Sorry, REQUIRING YOU TO AUTHENTICATE TO SERVER TO PLAY A GAME IS DRM. Oh, you say you don't have to? Well, maybe. Sometimes. If it works. If steam doesn't CHANGE THEIR MIND and let you not play their games. Which they can do, btw, any time they like. STEAM IS NOTHING BUT DRM.

[ElfShotTheFood]

Any game that requires Steam activation cannot be re-sold, traded, or loaned to a family member or friend.

Save for the removal of install limits on most Steam games, that's exactly the same as the other types of DRM people complain about.

[kefka95]

Sorry, REQUIRING YOU TO AUTHENTICATE TO SERVER TO PLAY A GAME IS DRM. Oh, you say you don't have to?

You don't have to. You can set Steam to offline mode right now, disconnect your computer from the internet, and play all of your games with no problems for the next 100 years if you want to.

[Gunbuster]

You don't have to. You can set Steam to offline mode right now, disconnect your computer from the internet, and play all of your games with no problems for the next 100 years if you want to.


What ElfShotTheFood said;
"Any game that requires Steam activation cannot be re-sold, traded, or loaned to a family member or friend."

when I'm done with a game, I usually lend it to a friend/relative or sell it back to get some cash for my next game. If steam can do that, then I'm all for it.

I feel DRM (including Steam) is like a rental service, but you play the full retail price to keep it for a long time.

[ElfShotTheFood]

What ElfShotTheFood said;

when I'm done with a game, I usually lend it to a friend/relative or sell it back to get some cash for my next game.

That's what I do: once I'm done with the game I pass it on down the line. Only my all-time favorites never get moved.

I'll never buy a disc-based game that requires Steam activation, because the disc will be useless to me once I've finished the game, seeing as how it's tied to my account for life and no one else can use it.

I always wait for the Steam sales before buying a game from the service, since I know I won't have a bunch of useless coasters taking up space once I'm through with the game. ;)

[Pluvious]

DRM was the main reason I stopped playing PC games a few years ago.

[Syl]

DRM hasn't hurt me, the legal game buyer. Sure, its a very small inconvenience that I can't have Process Explorer running when I have a few of my games running - but that is the only problem i've had with computer DRM for the entire existence of it.