DRM - what do you think?

[PoolMan]

Jan 13, 2009 15:21:46 GMT -5 DARTHMADLER said:

Yes, in a supreme bit of irony, one of the games I tried to trade was one I bought from them used.

That, my friend, is worth a big old LOL.

Jan 13, 2009 15:21:46 GMT -5 DARTHMADLER said:

I also can't help noticing how much their PC section shrinks everytime I go there. I think they find it too much hassle to sell them.

Seeing as you and I shop at the same EB most of the time, I know exactly what you're talking about. I actually found myself searching for the shelf on my last visit.

Jan 13, 2009 15:21:46 GMT -5 DARTHMADLER said:

I still wonder how far off the day is when console games will also require online activation to use.

Hmmm... given the rise of consoles that more and more closely resemble PCs, I've got to hand it to you, I think you're on to something there.

[Rett Mikhal]

All the Gamestops here (Massachusetts) have legit abandoned all PC games. It makes me wonder what they did with all of their stock, because it wasn't a slow dissolve - it was a hard cut. One day there were PC games and the next day, none.

I find this surprising, as PC games have always been superior thanks to mods. I, like most people, enjoy reaping the benefit of other people's hard work with none of my own, and thus love mods. They make games entertaining enough to play through just because I have Obi-Wan's padawan lightsaber. It makes a DIFFERENCE!

However, in the last few years PC games have become impossible to find. This is frustrating to a Flight Sim fanatic. Statistically speaking, you can't simulate flight worth a damn on a console. Unless it's an X-wing.

[PoolMan]

Yeah, the EB Games me and Madler shop at pretty much took all the PC stuff off the walls... it's all console stuff now. There's one PC shelf in the middle of the store, on that cheap looking wire frame rack. Kind of sad, really.

But you know what? I'm actually pretty happy about that. I have actually preferred doing digital downloads for the past year or so... fast, no travel, and no packaging! I'm actually rather environmentally minded, so having as much extra packaging removed from the market is a good thing in my opinion.

[Rett Mikhal]

I wasn't aware a thing like this existed, except for Steam. The problem is with Steam games you HAVE to be connected with Steam to play... even single player only games. I find this highly illogical.

[PoolMan]

Oh, digital downloads are getting more and more popular. There's Direct2Drive, and Greenhouse Games (the Penny Arcade guys). Neither of these two require connection to play your game.

I actually like the Steam model, though. To me, it reduces packaging (again, quite important), allows me to browse and try demos, and I like that it (for a while) eliminated the need for any kind of DRM. Of course, people figured out a way around that, but I like the concept.

[dex]

I am too late for the first part of the discussion, so let me just add a small point to your summary:

Oct 9, 2008 12:41:52 GMT -5 PoolMan said:

We all seem to have come to a loose agreement that software companies need money to operate, and that good software is worth paying for. What we need is a mechanism of protecting proprietary info/games without stunting the life of the software or treating paying customers like crooks.

Agreed.

Still waiting for suggestions on this...

Yes, it's a very difficult problem to solve. But it's not my problem. I'm a customer. I don't want to worry. The industry chose their field of business with its opportunities and problems, so it's their responsibility to solve this problem.

Of course it is still interesting for us to discuss this question (hence this thread) and, in theory, if we were to find a good solution and could convince the industry, we would profit.

My point is: I will not accept the kind of argument that says: "Swallow this DRM. Yeah, it sucks a little for you, but without it, it would suck much worse for us, so all in all, it's the fairest solution."

Another point (who was I kidding when I said "just a small point"): A vendor has to make crystal clear what I will get for my money and how exactly I will be restricted. What I will then accept and what not is an individual decision. I hope my arguments so far are rather objective.

Jan 17, 2009 16:46:23 GMT -5 PoolMan said:

I actually like the Steam model, though. To me, it reduces packaging (again, quite important)

Interesting. When anti-DRM consumers give advice to the (in this case: music) industry, they often say: "You know, if you made pretty CD cases and gorgeous booklets, I would pay money for that. And you can't pirate this."

Of course, your point (environmental and anti-clutter, I believe?) is valid as well.

So why not have two versions: A pretty physical package for a premium of a few bucks and a bare-bones download? Increases profit and satisfaction, reduces waste.

[PoolMan]

Well, this exists now. You can buy lots of games as either a digital download or a box pack. What I've learned (for my own tastes) is that I no longer care about having boxes or jewel cases or manuals.

[dex]

Ah, I wasn't aware that was so common. You can tell I don't buy many games. (No, don't pirate them, either.)

[PoolMan]

I don't know if I'd call it common, yet. But it's definitely on the way up. There are more companies following the model, and more models evolving. I'd actually love to see the percentages over the last year.

[remaxwell]

The major question I feel comes into effect, and is something I'm not quite sure we've covered completely is: what is software? Is it a good, or is it a service?

In other words, let's suppose we have Sierra Entertainment. We pay Sierra Entertainment for that game - is that game a "good"? Is ownership of that individual game transferred to us by method of that payment. So, to use another word: are games (and, in general, is software) a commodity?

Or, we might suggest it's a service. After all, software itself is intangible - the main definition of a "service" is intangibility. However, services are also perishable, arguably in contact with the one providing the service, and can only be used once. This doesn't seem to fit video games at all - ignoring imposed limits by the producer, a video game can be used an infinite number of times (assuming that the medium by which it's being used doesn't break down - but this is an error not in the game, but in the hardware).

Furthermore, when we play the majority of these games, we play them in the comfort of our own home, with no direct connection or interaction with the person who provides the service (which, it seems to me, would most logically be argued to be either the publisher or designer). That is, they do not render the service, as say, a bellboy would render a service to you, or a restaurant would. In both those examples, you are in constant interaction with the person physically rendering you the service. We play them separated and independent from the publisher/developer.

But this also brings in an interesting division - whereas, say, Dead Space wouldn't fit this criterion, a connection to Blizzard's World of Warcraft servers would, and we could make the argument that either World of Warcraft in general, or Blizzard's services in specific with regards to server access, is a service. We might furthermore from this designate the initial $40 payment as the purchase of a "good," and the monthly $14.99 as the payment of a "service." But this is, no doubt, a controversial conclusion, at best.

The third criterion has been dealt with in close regard to the first. Looking as close as Wikipedia, we can find a general definition of a service:

A service is a set of singular and perishable benefits

* delivered from the accountable service provider, mostly in close coaction with his service suppliers,
* generated by functions of technical systems and/or by distinct activities of individuals, respectively,
* commissioned according to the needs of his service consumers by the service customer from the accountable service provider,
* rendered individually to an authorized service consumer at his/her dedicated request,
* and, finally, consumed and utilized by the requesting service consumer for executing and/or supporting his/her day-to-day business tasks or private activities.

In regards to the first star, this is (in most cases) not true. Rather, the game itself is provided via a middleman, such as Gamestop or Direct2Drive.

In regards to the second, we might make the argument that, as the games we play are produced by the technical functions of coding and data, that this fits.

In regards to the third, it doesn't fit - we don't commission games, nor do we (save for exceptional circumstances) interact with the creators of the "service," - the developers - directly in asking for their creation.

In regards to the fourth, it can be said to fit: using Direct2Drive, for instance, we might make the argument that each individual order is a dedicated request upon which the "service" is rendered to us.

In regards to the fifth, we can say that video games, while "utilized," are not "consumed," as such, as they remain after the utilization is complete (i.e., we exit the game). From the middleman's point of view, there is consumption, as physical objects leave their stores.

The first and the third do not fit; the fifth fits partially; the second and fourth fit totally.

However, let us look at this example: a bespoke suit. We pay directly for the suit, not for the services of fitting - however, the cost of the suit itself, well above ready-made suits, most certainly contains the cost to the tailor in both materials, labor and opportunity costs. However, even though we are purchasing a good (the suit), we are nevertheless a) paying for the actions of one person in production (second point), b) making and purchasing a direct, dedicated request (fourth point), and c) is likewise utilized, but not "consumed" as such.

Therefore, even though a video game fits some of the above criteria, so does a bespoke suit, which is undoubtedly a good. Even though we arguably pay indirectly for the service, our expenditure results in a physical product, as it does with video games. This is what leads me to conclude that a video game is a good - rather, purchase of the game entails ownership. This is why I'm against the DRM - I believe it infringes on the ownership rights of the individual who purchased the good.

[dex]

That's a clever and thorough analysis. However, I don't completely agree. You imply any item must fall under one of two categories: good or service. You decide this by examining a set of criteria. You do this so you can conclude software has been placed in the wrong category.

I see several problems with your analysis. First, in principle, there is no such thing as a pure good (only lawful, hahaha.); it will always be a conglomerate incorporating at least a fraction of service. (And arguably, vice versa.) It does not make sense to tear this conglomorate apart at the end of the analysis, if the economic interaction between customer and provider cannot be torn apart accordingly. Still, you may call items "more good than service" or vice versa.

Second, you left out the criterion that most differentiates software from anything else: it can be copied like a suit (or lawnmower) cannot. This is so fundamental that I prefer to see software (or information) as a third category (which is relatively young and whose rules are therefore still contested and evolving; cf. patents/copyright).

Your analysis has the advantage that we can see software companies have artificially laden software with attributes that make it less like a good. This leads to my third point: The industry decides what they sell. They decide which attributes they attach to the conglomerate they sell. DRM (to be exact: the consequences thereof) are properties of the game, and are thus given data when you apply a definiton to tell good from service. You don't have a say in whether they are selling you a good or a service -- except by choosing a definition (btw, I reject the Wikipedia one) to apply, which changes nothing about the facts.

You may however choose not to buy software as a service and let the industry know you will buy software when it's offered similarly to a good. (Like Al said: vote with your wallet. Be consistent. I believe that's key to changing sth. and be happy with your choices.) That's pretty much my stance, so we seem to be of similar opinion after all.

[remaxwell]

You're absolutely right in that whether we unilaterally determine it as a good or a service, it doesn't change the fact of our purchase. However, I think the key point of this discussion is to establish a normative claim on whether DRM is acceptable or not, which is where I see the good vs. service claim particularly useful.

I feel if we have a pre-conceived notion of whether DRM is good or bad, this discussion will be admittedly useless. However, on the other hand, I feel that whether we define videogames as mostly a good or a service (and you're absolutely correct about there being a fraction of both in everything, something I admit I should've mentioned) leads to a conclusion regarding our perception of a company's rights to DRM. If some decide to see a video game, or any software product in general, as mostly a good, as I do, I believe the restriction placed upon the consumer is an unwarranted infringement of ownership. I can therefore restrict my consumption on the basis which I have reasoned out, and be consistent in doing so.

Likewise, others that see it as mostly a service very well may take the position that, as any service provider, they may provide terms for that service, and thus, DRM is entirely within their rights.

As for us being able to copy software, I wonder myself if this truly impacts its status as either of the two - after all, let's take a decidedly lower-tech version of "information," that is, a book. Like a CD, DVD or Bluray can be copied, likewise can a book similarly be copied onto a notebook. Yet, few would argue, I think, that a book is a service nor reject the idea that the book itself is a good.

Of course, copying a book out is many times more painstaking than just hitting a button on, say, Nero or whatever program you decide to use. The argument can then be made that they're incomparable, since it takes more effort to copy out the book than it does a CD, but then again, we never quite mentioned how easy it would be. So, when we purchase a book, are we buying a good or a service? Are we buying the material book, without regard to the content, and that's what makes it a good? Or are we as well purchasing the content of the book? Can we say the same if we buy an e-book, or a Kindle book? Are they just as much goods as physical books, or more or less so?

This, I think, is the cusp of the argument - whether we possess ownership of the software code itself, like we would similarly possess or not possess the contents of a book. It may very well be a heretofore unheard of mixture of the two that requires a new approach, but part of me suspects that this might have something to do with the fact that, compared to books, lawnmowers or suits, software code as a purchasable commodity or service is so comparatively abstract that it's difficult to deal with.

But, as I said before, in agreement with yourself, it makes no difference here and now whether we determine it's more of one than of the other, but I see it more as a heuristic discussion in that it allows us to somewhat more clearly determine and reason out our positions on DRM, and allow us to formulate an attitude towards purchasing software that includes it with more consistency.

[dex]

Fair enough. I appreciate the value of your approach.

Claiming software is a good, I demand ownership, i.e. the rights to do with it as I please to the same extent as with a good. This includes the ability to use it and transfer ownership of it anonymously and whenever, wherever and however I want, restricted only by technical necessity and design choices for entertainment reasons.

Additionally I demand the right to back it up. I cannot derive this from the idea of a good, however. But claiming software is also like information, which is plain common sense to back up, justifies my claim.

I do not claim the right to distribute or obtain unauthorized copies of the software. But that's a thorny issue I won't discuss here.

It seems any game sold today curbs my rights in some way. I may accept this, possibly even to such an extent that the software becomes like a service, if and only if I'm compensated by appropriately lower prices.

On another level, transparency is important. Customers need to be informed exactly and reliably before the purchase what awaits them. And they need to be able to compare the different offers. That goes for any product, but is more important for a complex one.

I'm unhappy with many current games and movie DVD. (For the sake of my blood pressure, let's not talk about Bluray.) My mood further worsens considering the industry's business strategy, lobbying and attitude versus their customers.

In short, if I'm supposed to pay full price, I want neither sneaky hooks deep into my operating system nor unskippable FBI warnings. If I get a crippled product, I will only pay a pittance, though I won't be bitter. And I don't want to be tricked.

[DARTHMADLER]

My hats off to you dex and remaxwell for an interesting look at it.

Could it be possible that Game makers are trying to turn games more into a service than a good? For example, if I were to buy a console game I could go to a store, buy it, take it home and instantly play it to my hearts content. When I bought my last PC game, I had to have an account with Steam in order to download the last piece of the game so that I could play it and also needed an account with Windows Live in order to play multi-player. Thus, Steam has turned my game into a service in that I'm required to have an account with them in order to play it and Microsoft has turned my online play into a service provided by them by also requiring an account.

Even with most new console games, online play requires an account. How far are we away from no longer being able to buy a game off the shelf but required to pay for an account from a provider in order to access the game at all? It would seem that internet access is becoming more and more a requirement to play than a option.

[PoolMan]

Mar 6, 2009 16:37:10 GMT -5 DARTHMADLER said:

Could it be possible that Game makers are trying to turn games more into a service than a good?

Snort... you HAVE heard of World of Warcraft, haven't you?