GDC: DRM a "waste of time" - 2D Boy Related content
-
World of Goo - Gameplay trailer
-
Latest World of Goo screenshots
- Interview 2D Boy's Ron Carmel and Kyle Gabler [32]
Advertisement
GDC: DRM a "waste of time" - 2D Boy News
PC News by Robert Purchese
World of Goo co-creator Ron Carmel reckons protecting PC games with DRM software is a waste of time and money.
"Don't bother with DRM, it's a waste of time," said Carmel during a GDC keynote, reported by GameSpot. "You just end up giving the DRM provider money.
"Anything that is of interest gets cracked, and the cracked version ends up having a better user experience than the legit version because you don't have to input in some 32-character serial number.
"Anybody who wants the game is likely to find it on BitTorrent sites," he added. "It's going to get cracked even with DRM, it's going to be available very quickly, so we don't see the point in having DRM."
Carmel, one half of developer 2D Boy, went on to say there was no difference between piracy figures for World of Goo and other PC titles. 2D Boy told us last November that 90 per cent of people playing World of Goo had pirated the title.
And Carmel was equally weary about the necessity of publishers for independent games.
"Don't do it," he stated. "Retail distribution - which is what publishers are good at - doesn't generate many sales for indie games. Go with digital distribution, you won't need a publisher for this. Self-fund your game, and when you get to retail, go for per-country flat-fee deals."
World of Goo now deservedly enjoys a healthy following and makes money. Pop into our World of Goo review to see what all the fuss is about.
Advertisement
Are you excited about World of Goo on PC/Wii?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Thanks!
Related Games
World of Goo
Latest Features
-
World of Goo Interview [32]
-
World of Goo Review [67]
-
World of Goo First Impressions [27]
-
World of Goo Review [92]
-
World of Goo First Impressions [42]
Latest Videos
World of Goo - Gameplay trailer [5] 14 April, 2008
Latest News
-
World of Goo experiment a "huge success" [79]
-
Pay what you want for World of Goo [22]
-
World of Goo announced for iPhone [30]
-
World of Goo launches Great Indie Games [28]
-
PC fans forcing DRM into extinction [53]
Latest Screenshots
2 October, 2008 [2]
Release Date Out now!
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
Hank Scorpio
24/03/09 @ 09:26
0
I am upset (but brave enough) to admit I was one of the 90% - it came out at a time where there were just so many games, and, as detailed above, it was so easy to get on the Mac. But after having so much fun with it, I'd be quite happy to pay something - maybe not $20, but when I saw it was less than a fiver on Steam if I would have had a PC I'd happily have bought it and never played it again.
Maybe 2D Boy should set up a little "pay what you think we deserve" thing for the pirates to cough up a bit of cash, a little bit like Little Bay Restaurant in Farringdon. I'd have no problem with passing on a little bit of my paypal balance to them!
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 24/03/09 @ 09:27
|
|
0
90% is a depressing statistic for such an exceptionally clever and well made game, and not to mention - a pretty cheap one at that.
There really is no excuse whatsoever, even the usual 'reasons' are redundant...this isn't some big mega-corp releasing a game, it's not paying a bunch of shareholders so they can stick a deposit down on an Aston Martin One 77. The really sad thing is, half these people will be the first to moan about the state of the industry and how the Wii/casual experience is ruining everything (or the big companies 'updating' the same games constantly). |
|
michaelius
24/03/09 @ 09:42
0
90% figure while probable is taken out of air becouse they compared number of unique ips to the number of games sold
|
|
TheMoonRat
24/03/09 @ 10:01
0
@michaelius: 2d boy actually explain how they reached their 90% conclusion, and that is taking into account dynamic ip addresses / multiple installations etc - http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/
|
|
0
DRM does prevent someone lending a friend a copy of their game to install on their PC though, which is presumably the reason publishers invest so much in copy-protection. If they can make it less easy for people to get hold of the game illegally this way then the DRM is a success and they'll continue using it.
Personally, I never had a problem with entering a string of numbers and letters to unlock the game, that method has been used for years. What I do object to is online activations and having a restricted number of activations, I think that is both unfair and unnecessary. EA seem to be the worst for doing this. I picked up Prince of Persia for the PC just before Christmas and was surprised that it had no online activation and key that needed entering prior to the install. It also plays without the disc in the drive too. I wonder how well that sold on the PC? If it did reasonably well then it might encourage other publishers to do the same. After all DRM protected music downloads are getting rarer these days... |
|
0
"DRM companies should have to refund in full their fee if a fully playable version of the game they "protect" is downloadable from the Internet within 28 days of release."
That's a really good idea. I only object when you're left with an inferior, less functional product, and it's still easily pirated. If it gets cracked that quickly, it clearly hasn't worked, so they shouldn't be paid for a software solution that doesn't function passed 28 days. |
|
StooMonster
24/03/09 @ 10:31
0
not paying a bunch of shareholders
Yeah, sod those pension funds, mutual funds, and institutional investors ... old people and savers, screw 'em, I'll never be either! |
|
Sunyavadin
24/03/09 @ 10:38
0
World of Goo is actually the first game in years I've bought BEFORE playing it. AND LOVED IT
|
|
Kirly_Wombat
24/03/09 @ 10:58
0
Darren : "Personally, I never had a problem with entering a string of numbers and letters to unlock the game, that method has been used for years. What I do object to is online activations and having a restricted number of activations, I think that is both unfair and unnecessary. EA seem to be the worst for doing this. "
+1 Spot on :) |
|
0
Wouldn't exactly stand up in court now would it?
No, but isn't that the point? It's personal morals, not the law, that affects a person's decision to pirate. Harsher laws and more obtrusive DRM isn't the solution here IMO. A question: I bought Guitar Hero for the PC. Later, I downloaded all the Rock Band songs from The Pirate Bay and added them to my game. Rock Band is unavailable on PC, so it's not like I would have been able to ever buy those songs. This would not hold up in court either, but I do not feel bad for having done this. Should I? |
|
IneptPercy
24/03/09 @ 12:56
0
DRM has never bothered me until recently.
A mate wanted to crysis warhead running on his 64" TV so I pick up my PC with a few cables and off I go... I needed permission to play my game!!!! after messing with his USB wireless internet thing I finally got it going. I installed a crack when got home for a game I have paid for... |
|
kangarootoo
24/03/09 @ 13:05
0
He speaks a lot of some kind of sense.
Common sense is one of those things that is oddly named, for the fact it is rarely very common. "No, but isn't that the point? It's personal morals, not the law, that affects a person's decision to pirate. Harsher laws and more obtrusive DRM isn't the solution here IMO." I agree. Telling pirates they are bad is all well and good on internet forums, but it means nothing in the real world. We can argue the pros and cons and morality of it all day long, but it won't make one iota of difference to a developer trying to make a return on their investment. I think one of the most sentient points this guy makes is that if DRM simply doesn't work (in the broader ACTUAL sense, rather than whether the technology functions as described) why on earth would any company want to pay a fortune for it? Even more pressing a question is if having bought it and seen the poor results, why on earth would you throw more money down the same chute on future titles? |
|
kangarootoo
24/03/09 @ 13:06
0
It reminds me in some ways of a just say no policy on drugs, or teen pregnancy rates, or many other subjects of that type.
So many responses from those supporting prohibition are focused on "we need to stop people doing XYZ". But the overwhelming voice of reason is responding "They already ARE doing XYZ. Accept that reality and deal with it in the best way you can." |
|
0
I don't know if they aren't underestimating casual piracy. People who wouldn't download huge files, and mount drives, and faff about with all this stuff, but do copy discs if it's possible comparatively simple. I've been a gamer since the 1970s, but I 'd have no idea how to get a warez version of the 'net running.
I sure knew how to give all my friends a copy of World of Goo though, if I wanted.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 24/03/09 @ 13:20
|
|
0
A lot of sense being spoken in this thread, and article.
Regardless of the morality of it, no DRM at all has ever prevented piracy. So why pay for it? The whole "It stops you lending the disk to your mates" thing was solved just with CD checks, years ago, which are annoying, but at least never really stopped anyone playng their own game, which DRM seems almost designed to do in some cases. Yeah, sure, then some people can copy it and give it to their mates, but stuff like the old securom used to prevent that, and nobody continuously bitched about that either, because it didn't go wrong and stop you playing what you'd legally paid for anywhere near as often as this online activation crap. Also... Really, is the "lending games out to the people immediately near you" market actually the real problem? How many games sales are really lost to that? |
|
0
Also... Really, is the "lending games out to the people immediately near you" market actually the real problem? How many games sales are really lost to that?
How many sales are actually lost will always be a mystery, but "schoolyard distribution" is pretty effective. Pirating on the C64 was rabid, and that was long before the internet. It's basically a pyramid scheme, but works for everyone. If everybody gives a copy to 3 people he knows, it will spread rapidly. Bear in mind, I am theorising here. I have no idea how common that actually still is, which is why I earlier wrote "I don't know if they aren't underestimating..." :)
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 24/03/09 @ 13:31
|
|
0
I don't really have a problem with serial codes. That's the most simple form of DRM (if you could even call it that). But all this fancy pancy limited activation thing, online activation (for a non-online game), DVD-protectioning thingies, etc. - all these just create more problems than solutions. I'll give to the DRM salespeople that they must very good to be able to convince publishers time and time again to buy their DRM solutions.
I also agree that independents should distribute digitally and probably not bother with some "complex" DRMs. |
|
0
@ skillian
I'm a programmer. I know the effort, resources, blood sweat and tears that goes into developing any piece of software. That's why I never pirate software - ever. So yes you should feel bad for downloading those Rock Band tracks as the excuse 'I wouldn't have bought them anyway' doesn't wash. I suggest you create an Xbox.com account and buy the Rock Band downloads that way - I'm sure you can do this without actually needing an Xbox - and then continue to use the PC versions you already have. Contribute towards the effort and costs expended. |
|
0
What I don't understand is why at least big publishers don't try to plug the holes that obviously exist in the pre-release chain. Why is nearly every game online weeks before the launch? Is it really impossible to prevent that more effectively? Is it bored workers in China in some random DVD factory, or people closer to the whole thing?
|
|
0
Really, is the "lending games out to the people immediately near you" market actually the real problem?
This is a good question. I tend to think that DRM (both for music and games) is bought and added to products exactly because of this. Big media companies are not all morons - DRM doesn't stop massive internet piracy, and it is as obvious to them as it is to us. So if it is to stop small scale lending and copying then why do they never mention this and only talk about BitTorrent? I think it's because people have lent CDs, movies and games to their friends for years, and people would have less sympathy for the big media companies if they admitted it is this they are trying to crack down on. @moggsy: I appreciate that. And, like Hank Scorpio, I would donate a bit of cash for these songs if that was an option. I know lots of people won't believe this, but I have donated to quite a few websites when I was under no obligation to do so. But no way am I going on Xbox.com with my only Xbox account that contains my legitimate purchases and basically flat-out admit I pirated some Rock Band songs. They would probably investigate and/or ban me. Also, the songs are basically hacked into the game, contain none of the bass, vocals or drum parts and don't retain high scores. Paying full price for them doesn't seem reasonable to me.
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 24/03/09 @ 13:42
|
|
0
And, like Hank Scorpio, I would donate a bit of cash for these songs if that was an option.
I find that a bit cheeky, to be honest, in particular HS's post. There's something rather nasty about taking something for free illegally, then deciding what it is worth to you and pay according to that. Like 5 US$ for World of Goo. I prefer a simple "I pirate because I can" statement to this hubris, to be honest. |
|
0
I find that a bit cheeky, to be honest, in particular HS's post. There's something rather nasty about taking something for free illegally, then deciding what it is worth to you and pay according to that. Like 5 US$ for World of Goo.
I prefer a simple "I pirate because I can" statement to this hubris, to be honest. Well in general I agree with you, but in this case the songs are unavailable for me to buy, so donating would be the only way to pay for them (but I did buy World of Goo, and paid a lot more than $5). My example isn't a case of "I pirate because i can", it's a case of "I pirate because there's no other way of getting this on my PC". If you can't/aren't willing to pay for them then don't use them. This is why anti-piracy/pro-DRM campaigns will never convince most people. No-one is losing any money in my example, nor losing any sales, and I am doing nothing that offends mine or my friends' moral sensibilities. Yet somehow they/you want to convince me that I shouldn't do it. It's not gonna happen.
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 24/03/09 @ 14:52
|
|
0
I agree that I don't really see a moral issue in your example with GH, skillian.
This is why anti-piracy/pro-DRM campaigns will never convince most people. No-one is losing any money in my example, nor losing any sales, and I am doing nothing that offends mine or my friends' moral sensibilities. Well, like I said, your example is fair enough. I think one of the problems though is that people are lying to themselves when they say "I wouldn't have bought it anyway". And there's the question of respect for developers. Whether they're losing money or not, it annoys many of them if people use something for free, whether you would have bought it or now. Which I find perfectly understandable. |
|
0
I think one of the problems though is that people are lying to themselves when they say "I wouldn't have bought it anyway". And there's the question of respect for developers.
Agreed. I do think that in a large number of cases it's true that people wouldn't spend £30 on a game if they couldn't get it for free, but there's no doubt that there are lost sales. Respect for developers is an important factor, and really once you know how to use bittorrent that's one of the only reasons to actually buy it when it's sitting there available for free. That's also why I think developers are doing a lot of damage to themselves by pissing off their customers with overly-restrictive DRM. I'm not the first to say it, but they are only hurting off their customers who do buy the game while the pirates deal with none of the hassles. |
|
GamesConnoisseur
24/03/09 @ 16:35
0
I purchased all my consoles games and PC but have one serious crime, since I found how easy it is to download and pirate DS games couple of years ago or so, and now never bought a single retail DS game.
So all the excuses or faffing about NEVER going to deny the fact that the money going back to deserved devs are lost forever with each pirated ds title downloaded onto my 4gb card. Only one advantage is that the long wait before European release is circumvented. I recall Spectrum days when I was part of the school playground piracy and both have the same effect, this time Nintendo is large enough to absorb the losses but still a simple crime that should not be excused. The real question is should we just accept this as normal and legalise? OR acknowledge that the industry and consumer need both to find a solution to a wide spread problem that is going to get worse with increasing size of broadband traffics. |
|
0
The real question is should we just accept this as normal and legalise? OR acknowledge that the industry and consumer need both to find a solution to a wide spread problem that is going to get worse with increasing size of broadband traffics.
It's kind of like the drug war in that way. Or the war on terror. Unfortunately neither of those are going too well, which doesn't bode well for the war on piracy. |
|
Hank Scorpio
24/03/09 @ 17:12
0
Wow, didn't think my honesty would stand out along side what I expected from other comments, but it seems I'm somehow in the simultaneously in the 90% majority, and the vocal minority. Firstly, I'm happy to see software companies engaging with the piracy issue in an intelligent manner. It's never really going to go away, and that's something Ron Carmel understands - he is obviously a very smart (as well as talented) man.
UncleLou - you're right, the "pay what you think" might seem cheeky, but it's worked in other areas (music, theatre, clubbing, food, drink), and surely game developers should be looking at new ways of increasing/continuing their revenue in the current climate, without resorting to EA style "micro-transactions" at every turn. I paid £10 for my digital copy of In Rainbows, I regularly donate to Wikipedia's online raising, and just put my hand in my pocket last week to give some money to the publicly funded RadioLab. What we think of as cheeky today might well be the norm in 10 years time ... One final question (and I appreciate the difference in company size and relative income here) but how many of the "non-piracy people" are running copies non-legit copies of Adobe Photoshop / Microsoft Office / ? And, irrelevant of company size, isn't this exactly the same issue? |
|
0
Unless I read through these posts too quickly and missed it - did nobody point out that 2D Boy went bankrupt?
I'm not saying that they would have done better with DRM - but either they did something wrong or there is no hope for any indie developers in the current market. With regards to the comment "piracy is never going to go away" - I do believe it will in our lifetimes. I have said it before and I still have not heard anyone else predict it yet, but it seems obvious to me:- Once the networks are fast enough, there will be no proper consoles and all games will be played over the network with the control inputs being sent up the wire to the game server, processing performed remotely and the screen output sent back down to the game playing customers. Try and pirate the game when you never have possession of it in the first place! |
|
giant_frying_pan
24/03/09 @ 18:37
0
2DBoy didn't go bankrupt, but one of its publishers, Brighter Minds, did.
http://www.edge-online.com/news/world-go... |
|
0
lol - I got my facts wrong on 2D Boy and I didn't read the news far enough before posting regarding remote processing gaming:-
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/onlive... I'll shut up now then ;~( |
|
IneptPercy
24/03/09 @ 19:12
0
I do believe having the option to pay what you like directly is the best option right now.
With that if I could send smaller payments direct to the producers of the games I would, you have to consider that if somebody gets a game over bittorrent etc then what is overhead to the company for distribution? so with that if many people sent £5 then it is £5 for nothing in distribution terms. Or more importantly they have £5 they would never have seen otherwise. And I do believe many people would send something even if it was just token payments. If this is right or wrong is debatable but it would help with damage control. |
|
0
@UncleLou: You're right, of course, people did always complain about securom back then too.
I still think the addition of online activation has caused a lot more problems than the standard old CD checks did, though, and the old method did largely prevent the "Giving out copies to your mates" flavour of piracy, so why bother with the new methods at all, when they add extra problems? Unless people really were right to accuse the industry of trying to stamp out the second-hand games market. That always seemed a bit too far fetched to me, personally, but who knows. |
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
