Valve's Gabe Newell was recently quoted in an email to a gamer as saying "As far as DRM goes, most DRM strategies are just dumb. The goal should be to create greater value for customers through service value (make it easy for me to play my games whenever and wherever I want to), not by decreasing the value of a product (maybe I'll be able to play my game and maybe I won't). We really really discourage other developers and publishes from using the broken DRM offerings, and in general there is a groundswell to abandon those approaches."
It's certainly great to hear this kind of talk from an industry big wig like Valve. I think the problem with DRM is not so much the particular method used, but the attitude behind it. It makes us feel like we're all being punished for the sins of the few. It is also pretty clear that most DRM is not a problem for the pirates, just for the legitimate consumers. These two factors combine to make a ton of bad feelings on the consumer side.
From the company's side, it's not hard for me to see where some of this comes from. If someone stole from me, I'd be pretty peeved about it, and I'd want to take immediate action. Also, the faceless nature of piracy makes it hard to go after the actual bad guys. I think that DRM is a necessary part of our digital world. However, the attitude behind DRM needs to shift, and that's what was so heartening about Mr. Newell's words.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: positive reinforcement is what's needed here (i.e. "creat[ing] greater value for customers through service value"). Offering premium downloadable content for your game, or giving me cool ways to interact with the game (like GTA IV's in-game movie making tools) will add value to the legitimate consumer's experience while making the pirate jealous.
On another DRM note, GTA IV released today on the PC and does include the controversial SecuROM 7 DRM system. Rockstar has put an interesting twist on the much-maligned software by removing the install limits that have plagued other games, though the software still installs components that can be very difficult to remove should you want them off your hard drive. It seems like a reasonable compromise to me, but what do you think? Is the lack of install limits enough to overlook the installation of code you can't remove? I think the answer is yes, but the jury's still out for me.
