Valve and DRM

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.  

Comments

[RR]

DRM like SecuROM needs to be re-architechted, from the ground up, or simply abandoned. Its current implementation causes too many problems. It can't be easily removed from your system, it can interfere with other applications, and newer versions of SecuROM can even conflict with older ones that have already been installed with other games. Also, limited installations was just a bad idea to begin with. It smacks of total contempt and greed on the part of the game publishers.

Steam and Impulse are probably the only forms of DRM I'm willing to tolerate, right now. For all the reasons that Mr. Newell has pointed out. They don't burden you with needless restrictions or hoops to jump through, they're unobtrusive, and they actually provide value or a service.

I'd rather there was no DRM at all, of course. But as a realist, I can see the need for compromise.

[Abdul]

If SecuROM goes under, then no one wins as GTA4 won't be able to be activated anymore. This is why I think we need some sort of standard DRM solution that we can be guaranteed won't go under and will continued to be supported.

If game developers and publishers insist on using third party DRM solutions, they should start releasing patches a year after release which removes the activation requirement.

And I echo Gabe's sentiments-- installation limits are dumb. That is by far the worst thing that DRM has brought to the table.

For me the whole SecuROM thing sucks. I own Test Drive Unlimited and I think its an AWESOME game and plan on playing it years down the road, but I wasn't even aware that SecuROM had installation limits, and I'm afraid of maxing out the installation limit of the game now. Even the DLC for TDU has the activation/installation limits in it.

So if Atari ends up going under or stops supporting TDU I'm basically out of luck for buying their games and supporting them. And I really supported them too-- I bought the game for BOTH PC and 360 (yes, I loved it that much).

[Graeme]

I'm not sure how you can say this:

"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."

But then follow it with this:

"I think that DRM is a necessary part of our digital world."

If you acknowledge that DRM poses no problem for pirates (and don't kid yourself, it doesn't), then its *entire* reason for existing is gone. If it doesn't stop piracy, then it has no reason to exist, and it *certainly* has no reason for me to support it. There are no rational arguments for its continued existence, and if you continue to do so, you're basically an apologist for everything consumers hate.

I don't buy things with DRM. Most people I know feel the same way. I also no longer use Windows for anything but gaming, because it enables companies to do bullshit like install things I can't remove. The sole copy of Windows I have I received for free through a University licensing program, so Microsoft is not receiving *any* of my money to support this abusive behaviour. The fact is, it's my computer. If you restrict what I can do on it, you are no longer welcome on my computer. More people are realizing this, and companies that support DRM are going to continue to lose money because of it.

[Les]

Using SecuROM is a guaranteed way to insure that I will not buy your product and it has nothing to do with how many installs of the game you allow me to have. I have no problems buying multiple copies of a game for each of the PCs in my house. We were planning on buying three copies of Spore so that I, the wife, and my daughter could all play at the same time, but requiring me to install software that I cannot easily remove if it should conflict with other software on my system -- and I've had such conflicts with SecuROM in the past -- and which does not uninstall itself when I uninstall the game, and which downloads updates to my PC without my consent that have the potential to break the functionality of one or more of my applications, is simply not acceptable. All you're doing by using SecuROM is ensuring that a potential sale to someone who is a legitimate customer and buys all his games will not happen. Perhaps my $50 or $60 won't harm your bottom line much, but it's another $50 or $60 you could have had and lost. Or, in the case of Spore, that's a good $150 you won't have.

The thing nobody seems to want to acknowledge is the simple fact that use of software like SecuROM has less to do with piracy than it does with eliminating the option to sell a game you've grown tired of. GameStop makes an obscene amount of money on the resale of used games and it's driving the developers and publishers up the freaking wall. Electonic Arts has publically complained about second-hand game sales and has already instituted steps to try an curb such sales. If you buy the latest Madden second-hand you'll find that you don't have access to online stats updates that are included with the retail purchase. Electronic Arts will be happy to sell you that service for an additional $20 above and beyond whatever you paid for the game, but you're going to have to cough up the money.

Hell, Microsoft has gone one better with Gears of War 2. There's a code included with the game to allow you to download new versions of classic maps from GoW 1, but it only works one time. If you buy the game second-hand and want the maps you're S.O.L buddy. As far as I know Microsoft isn't offering to sell you the map pack separately, but perhaps that's changed since I first heard about this.

How does tie in with SecuROM? It starts with those install limits some publishers have been putting on their games. The license agreement for Spore has a section stating that transfer of the right to install the game to other parties is not guaranteed. In other words if you buy Spore second-hand you may not be able to install or play it purely at the whim of Electronic Arts. The fact that Rockstar isn't placing install limits on their SecuROM for GTA IV doesn't mean they can't use it to restrict your right to sell the game later if you want to. Or rather you'll be able to sell it, but the guy who buys it may not be able to play it.

This isn't about piracy no matter how much publishers claim it is. Spore was cracked and on the torrent sites five days before it hit store shelves. Crysis was cracked and available before release. Fall Out 3 was cracked and available prior to release. All were SecuROM games and none of them stopped piracy of the game for any amount of time which makes including SecuROM completely pointless for any reason other than to control the ability of people to resell the game after they bought it. It's all about control and getting a slice of the resale pie and it's a crappy way to treat the people who are buying the game legitimately, second hand or otherwise, rather than just downloading the cracked copy. My PC game purchases have plummeted this year due to SecuROM. Soon I may end up being console only. At least until they start jerking me around too much on those platforms as well.

Note: I included links to back up some of my assertions, but apparently this blog is frightened of HTML so you'll just have to look them up for yourself.

[Abdul]

So the GFW Client is out: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=6F966188-1E50-41C3-A689-181EDC57C0E0&displaylang=en#top

[dave]

I have had a terrible experience with a SecuROM-protected game, Crysis. I made the mistake of installing it on my new Vista-Media Center system in the living room and life as been hell on that system ever since.

I can't PROVE that SecuROM/Crysis is the culprit, but the events leading up to my current woes sure lead me to believe it is:

1. Carefully installed Vista x64 SP1, drivers, configured Media Center, etc. Tested. System appeared completely stable. Created a restore-point.

2. Used system for 6-weeks as the family media center. Absolutely NO problems. No crashes, no instability - rock solid. Nothing else has been installed other than windows updates.

3. Created another system restore point and then installed Crysis & Crysis, Crysis SP1 & SP2.

4. Now the problems begin. Daily APPCRASH crashes of ehrec.exe. Constant issues with tuner hardware failures, etc.

5. Restored system to state before Crysis was installed. Problems continued. Researched SecuROM, searched for evidence that SecuROM was still installed on the system: it was (null keys in registry). Downloaded and ran SecuROM uninstall utility from Macrovision - it fails for unknown reasons.

6. Restored system to earliest restore point, losing my carefully configured system. SecuROM is still installed, SecuROM uninstall utility still fails to uninstall SecuROM. System is still very unstable, crashing typically once a day and not recording on on average one program a day (randomly).

So, do I blame Microsoft for Vista or Macrovision/EA for SecuROM? Either way I have a sick system that will need to be reinstalled from scratch. There goes an evening. So my wife and kids hate Vista - they want the old WinXP MCE system back. At least it was reliable.

Bottom line is that I will have to wipe that system and reinstall everything from scratch. But I will NEVER, EVER install a SecuROM-enabled game again. And I will warn my friends and family away from this evil rootkit as well.

At least I can take some comfort that I'm not alone. While researching MCE problems -> Crysis -> SecuROM -> DRM I learned a lot. Steam, on the other hand, I have had ZERO problems with on other systems. Maybe I'll give it a try. After fully backing up that system!

[Iain]

I'd rather have absolutely arbitrary install limits imposed than be forced to install a whole load of crap I don't want clogging up my system and not be able to remove it short of a complete hard drive wipe and OS reinstall. All Rockstar have done is replace one DRM hot button with an even bigger one.

You talk about positive reinforcement, and you're absolutely right - good karma shouldn't be the only reason why people should choose to buy official copies of games rather than download them from a torrent site. Unfortunately, the only "added value" you get from a DRM'ed copy of a game these days appears to be inconvenience, instability and draconian limits on the use of something you've paid good money for. The attitude of a lot of the bigger developers and publishers seems to be "It's our way or the highway." So much for consumer choice, huh? Well, actually, I do still have a choice, if you're going to try and dictate unreasonable terms as to how I can use your product, I'm not going to buy your game.

Developers need to start realising that DRM doesn't discourage piracy. The only thing it does is discourage people from buying your product. And then developers turn around and complain that PC gaming is dying. Stop worrying about your bottom line and worry about your customers, because if you can't keep them happy you don't have a business.

More developers need to take a lead from people like Valve and Stardock, whose stances on DRM are much more enlightened (DRM that actually facilitates you being able to play games on more than one PC without stupid limits, and no DRM at all, respectively), and these guys are hardly going bankrupt due to piracy - quite the opposite, in fact. Given the option these days, I tend to forgo buying games on the high street and buy direct via Steam or Impulse, because it gives me all the advantages of torrenting while still justly rewarding the developers who made the games.

Needless to say, I'm not going to buy GTA 4. (But I'm not going to pirate it, either. I'm so over GTA - it's all been downhill after Vice City, if you ask me).

[John H.]

I was reading about this at Ars Technica, and when I came across the quote:

"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 had to come here and reply.

Are you serious? Really? You've got to be fucking joking. Hell NO it's not enough; not nearly. You can't install non-uninstallable code on my PC. It's my PC, not Microsoft's, or EA's, or Rockstar's; you don't get a say in what stays installed on my PC. If you want to control what users can do with their PCs, I suggest you buy them for us.

Damn. Really? Unbelievable.

[Nelson]

The only reason to ever have something like SecureRom is to prevent PCs that *aren't* connected to the Internet from using pirated games. That doesn't seem too likely a scenario to me.

If a PC *is* connected to the Internet, the value-added model like Steam is *far* superior. Any place, any time. That's *better* than the pirated version in every respect except cost (but no amount of DRM will fix that issue, so it's a moot point).

EA has a download model too, but their games expire after a few months. This sucks for consumers that actually spent money on the game then lost their hard drive (or upgraded computers). I don't feel bad for EA when pirates take advantage of them because EA takes advantage of their legitimate customers.

So go with value-added DRM that keeps the game better than the pirated copy, such as one that knows who you are and gives you the ability to easily download and install it on any PC you come across, forever and ever. Stay away from any DRM that makes the legitimate game worse than the pirated copy or treats the paying customer worse than the pirate "customer".

[Andrew]

DRM isn't going away from PC games because the alternative is that rampant piracy continues. I actually want DRM to succeed because I want people to continue investing in PC games. However enough people hate how the current DRM implementations go about their business that unless the approach changes I can see it slowly killing the PC game business (let along thinking about what might happen if one of these low level DRM implementations had a bug that screws up somebody's photo collection!).

I've got to believe that the console alternative where stuff just works (and with hi-def graphics also looks good) is pretty appealing to a lot of people right now.

[David Cameron]

Jury still out? Give me a break. The jury has, passed judgement, left, done several book deals and now two of jurors have got married and are raising kids.

DRM is simply a method for punishing existing, paying customers. There is no other way to look at it.

People will pirate games, no matter what speed humps you provide in the form of DRM. At the moment the pirates are providing a better product than the game publishers, by removing limits and in some cases fixing bugs generated by the DRM. In addition, very few of the "pirates" would pay for the game, even if there were a perfect scheme to lock things down.

You call Rock Star's compromise acceptable, I think of the future where I want to install said game and the authentication servers are no longer online.

Haven't we already done this one to death with music? This also cuts both ways. Plays for sure effectively means that Microsoft must pay for their auth servers to stay online indefinitely so that their customers can play their music.

Game publishers need to wake up to reality: annoying paying customers leaves you with less customers. I for one will not be buying GTA 4, having bought GTA VC and GTA SA.

[grumpy]

How can it be an "interesting twist" that GTA4 simply does not include restrictions that have only been used for the last 8 months or so in any case? Despite recent games from Bioshock and up till today, unlimited installs has *always* been the default. Sticking with that is not an "interesting twist". It's completely and totally unremarkable. It's not a point in their favor, any more than it's a point in their favor that if a game enables mouse/keyboard controls. It's just what you've always done, it's the absolute least your customers expect, and it's basically what you need to *have a product*. It's like promising "installs in less than an hour", which, apart from a few GfW flagship games (cough, Gears of War), *every* game in the history of PC gaming, has been able to provide.

The only interesting twist is that a few companies are stupid enough to feel these fundamentals are not important.

[Abraxxas Redrum]

in my opinion there is no way for publishers to create greater value for honest customers that justify any kind of DRM (that includes Valve, I don't like Steam since its very first release). How could anyone seriously say something like this?

I'm from Germany and studied justice there. DRM, in the form it is currently used, violates nearly every single principle of right I was teached during these studies.

I can understand that companies try to protect their "intellectual property", but if this means you have to punish the wrong ones (the paying customers), well then it is simply a inappropriate approach. It violates the principle of commensurability.

I wonder if there comes a time, the only way for me to play my nearly 200 games i bought the last 5 years is to look out for some pirate copies or cracks, because the according DRM-Server aren't there anymore :)

Your interests cherished, but with this approach you will loose the fight. Even with your DRM machines called XBOX 360 or PS3.

There could be said so much more about this topic. But i doubt it will help to make the game industry rethinking there point of view ....

[Mart]

I have recently bought GTA 4. To me, it was one of the best GTA games to date, and I was so excited to see it come to the PC. However, upon purchasing, I am very disappointed with how it handles the DRM.

First, I need to run Rockstar Social Club on the background for reasons unknown to me. I do not plan to access the multiplayer, but I still can't shut it off? Then I need to be signed in to Games For Windows Live, just so I could save. I have no idea why I must be online in order for me to save my single player game. To add salt to the wound, in spite of all this online restrictions, I still must have the DVD in the drive to play!

To me, this is a very disappointing experience that gets in the way of me truly enjoying GTA 4. I am hoping and praying that the day won't come when my DSL connection gets lost while playing GTA 4, lest I am not able to save my progress. Imagine playing through a difficult mission, and after 9 tries, you finally managed to get through the most difficult part, only for your internet connection to be broken and you are unable to save.

I find that DRM not only lowers the value of a legitimate purchase, but also somehow ruins the experience one can have.

Stardock has already shown to the PC gaming industry that a good game (heck, 2 good games!) without any DRM restriction whatsoever can be a success. If a player has an online connection, he/she can register his/her game, log on and be provided with updates or other services, or even download the whole copy of the game. What's the main difference between this and GTA 4? It is not mandatory for the user to be online to play.

It is also proven that all these new fangled DRM, be it SecuROM or online activation, can be easily broken. It is amazing how PC gaming publishers and developers still maintain that DRM prevents piracy, when a quick Google search can easily disprove that. I now question the motives of such publishers. If piracy is not being prevented, what purpose then is the DRM serving?

[dreamhunk]

why do software game try to mess with pc gaming and pc gamers

who do you think has more power hardware companies or software programers.ati's chip set is old hardware they don't much money on them!if those those chips cost more those console go up in price. That is why sony is having a hard time with that cell and console sales.It's also the reason sony can't drop their price on their consoles right now.

old hardware means it's cheap parts and can be used to make consoles. By the way amd is hurting real bad in sales. Their gpu's is whats saving them right now with ati cards. Pc gamers are the ones buying those ati cards by the way.

who buys the newest and more powerful hardware for games. who is the backbone of the pc industry pc gamers.

[zilo]

I'd rather have install limits than have to put the disc in the drive to play. It's (obviously) one or the other- the former might, at some future time, annoy me. The latter annoys me every day.

Easy choice.