I will state this again.
I do consider DRM necessary, in some form. However, most of what you mention (such as below), is not something I would consider acceptable, nor should anyone else.
But remember that there are fair DRM and draconian DRM. The first is okay, the latter is not.
If your game simply checks with an activation server that your game is legait, what's the harm? Similarly, if it checks if the legit disc is in the drive, what's the harm? It may be somewhat annoying (the latter), but suck it up! At least we can do this much to support game companies.
This does not mean you should put up with any draconian DRM. Instead, don't buy it, don't pirate it and fire off a hate mail to the company, making your opinion clear.
I also do believe that companies should take additional actions, some of the good from the article are:
Release more demos. Demos are becoming rarer these days, and this provides an excuse for piracy. Of course Crysis had a full demo for example and was still pirated to the tune of almost 1 million copies in 2008 alone, however a demo released before the final game will help some legitimate purchasers avoid the temptation of day-zero piracy, help manage user expectations about the final game, spread valuable word of mouth legitimately, and also help identify major bugs earlier, leading to quicker patches.
Stop delaying releases by region. Releasing games earlier in some regions is probably the single biggest incentive for people to pirate a game and contribute to day-zero piracy. Releasing games with different protection methods in different regions also allows pirates to simply attack the weakest link to achieve a working crack. For example the TAGES system in STALKER: Clear Sky went uncracked for two weeks after release, however the Russian StarForce version of the game's executable - which was released three weeks earlier in Russia - was cracked and used as a working crack for the non-Russian versions upon their release. So release all games globally at approximately the same time, and unify the protection method if you're serious about slowing down day-zero piracy.
Lower prices on digital distribution. Instead of making sure that digital copies match retail copies in an effort to protect retail distribution, accept the transition to digital distribution by lowering prices to realistically reflect the lower costs, potentially increasing sales due to the greater convenience at a lower price.
Drop the DRM hysteria. Work with developers and publishers to provide verified and rational feedback on problems you genuinely believe are related to DRM so that they can rectify the issues, either through patches or workarounds, and of course to prevent these issues in newer versions of the protection systems. If all else fails, don't buy games which have problematic DRM, but don't pirate them either - this sends an unambiguous message to the games companies that all demand for their product - both legitimate and illegitimate - is falling.
I agree they should, one of the things I believe is very necessary (as quoted above).
Originally Posted by whiteflags
That is a very evil DRM scheme that should not exist, or so I do believe.
As has been raised several times, the presence of DRM does not frustrate pirates and mainly frustrates purchasers (enjoy your $50 rental, oops, limited install release). The so-called casual pirates merely get their digital copies from other people who have done the work, it's pointless to argue that.
You still forget that people pirate just because they can. The DRM hysteria going away won't change that. In fact, taking away DRM altogether would just harm them for no good.
And if consumers quit the hysteria over DRM, as the author put it, then don't be surprised if DRM is simply a relic, because people are supporting the companies. Someone in the private sector will decide this eventually once the distribution models are working.
Then again, maybe the piracy will go away, who knows? But right now, it's not there yet!
At first, music was all DRM. Yet, people bought music, supported the companies. And now the DRM is going away and they are still making huge profit. It's a win-win, but first steps first.
But this, my friend, is a form of DRM. And it's a fair DRM, too.
I'm not sure if Blizzard does this for all their releases but Starcraft allowed people to "borrow" the game in the sense that you could install a spawned version from a friend's disk. The only difference was that you couldn't play online. Preventing outright stealing all without DRM. It is possible.
If it wasn't DRMd, you would be able to play online, no?
So obviously there is some sort of DRM, but it's kind of fair, don't you agree?
That is the kind of DRM that we might hope to get and accept.
By surrendering to that sort of DRM, we support the companies and everyone becomes happy.
We can't have everything--we must sacrifice something--but that doesn't mean we have to give up all of our rights.
Does this make sense? Because this is my point.
The article is also really nice because it helped open my eyes. I just thought DRM was all evil before, but after reading it, I decided to throw my support behind fair types of DRMs and support companies.