Post by dex on Mar 6, 2009 19:24:08 GMT -5
Well, Darthmadler, you've got it. And your second sentence is correct as well. 
The industry believes their strategy of restrictions is more lucrative. Fair enough, as long as the free market works. That's not inherently evil. But I have two suspicions.
Firstly, who says the market is not in danger? On the one hand, DRM (and serviceifying software in general) is a likely area for (tacit) collusion, i.e. the few big relevant companies will all go in the same DRM direction, eliminating choice. Given the prevalent philosophy in the industry, it seems unlikely the big players will discover the lack of DRM as a USP. OTOH, customers may not even understand or perceive* all DRM-related problems, so that those immediately cease to be a concern for the industry.
*I won't go into this now, because I don't want this posting to become a rant.
Secondly, some claim games are art (mostly in the context of defending games against accusations of causing violence and social isolation). I think games have the potential to be an artform; certainly they are a relevant part of popular culture. Keep that in mind. We have established DRM is more than just copy protection. So what is it really, from the industry's point of view? Control. They don't just want to design a product to sell to you, they want to craft and control your experience with their service, from the beginning to the end.
You know that cozy mom and pop pizza place around the corner that your family likes so much? It's part of a chain. The rustic interior, the seashells and starfish in the fishing net, they are in the company manual, were delivered by HQ and designed based on input from marketing experts and psychologists. If you don't believe me, think of Disney World instead. If we hope games will enrich our culture, do we want the industry to control more or less of our gaming experience?
Before you think me a looney crusader, keep in mind I'm not all "PEOPLE! See the writing on the wall!!!" -- I said the above were just suspicions. But -- while I fall short of Rett's Skynet theory -- we have once more arrived at predicting the downfall of civilization.
The industry believes their strategy of restrictions is more lucrative. Fair enough, as long as the free market works. That's not inherently evil. But I have two suspicions.
Firstly, who says the market is not in danger? On the one hand, DRM (and serviceifying software in general) is a likely area for (tacit) collusion, i.e. the few big relevant companies will all go in the same DRM direction, eliminating choice. Given the prevalent philosophy in the industry, it seems unlikely the big players will discover the lack of DRM as a USP. OTOH, customers may not even understand or perceive* all DRM-related problems, so that those immediately cease to be a concern for the industry.
*I won't go into this now, because I don't want this posting to become a rant.
Secondly, some claim games are art (mostly in the context of defending games against accusations of causing violence and social isolation). I think games have the potential to be an artform; certainly they are a relevant part of popular culture. Keep that in mind. We have established DRM is more than just copy protection. So what is it really, from the industry's point of view? Control. They don't just want to design a product to sell to you, they want to craft and control your experience with their service, from the beginning to the end.
You know that cozy mom and pop pizza place around the corner that your family likes so much? It's part of a chain. The rustic interior, the seashells and starfish in the fishing net, they are in the company manual, were delivered by HQ and designed based on input from marketing experts and psychologists. If you don't believe me, think of Disney World instead. If we hope games will enrich our culture, do we want the industry to control more or less of our gaming experience?
Before you think me a looney crusader, keep in mind I'm not all "PEOPLE! See the writing on the wall!!!" -- I said the above were just suspicions. But -- while I fall short of Rett's Skynet theory -- we have once more arrived at predicting the downfall of civilization.
