Is DRM Destroying Archival Games?

[mindcycle]

By saying on a video game site that Digital Rights Management (DRM) sucks, I'm preaching to the choir. We've all heard the stories about and, in some cases experienced, StarForce, SecuROM and other schemes of various effectiveness to prevent the piracy of video games. Most of us are aware about how futile it is, and I'd guess that a significant portion of you have pirated a game that you legitimately purchased so that you could enjoy a DRM-free experience. Many companies have gone with an explicitly DRM-free model, favoring indirect copy protection measures, whether that means a rise in MMORPGs, where server verification requires that you have a key to create the account, or providing bonus content for verifying that your copy is legitimate. DRM remains a scourge of PC gaming. It's an unfortunate element of gaming that companies would love to pass off as a necessity, but gamers question its existence altogether.

However, one aspect of it that many players haven't experienced reared its ugly head in the direction of my PC when I tried to review FlatOut: Ultimate Carnage. Yes, it's an old game, but someone's got to work on clearing the backlog, right? (Coincidentally, that could be you, but I digress.) Upon loading the game, I was presented with the Games for Windows Live dialogues. I'll admit, this was the first time I had seen them. Immediately, the game started requesting a login, and thankfully, my Xbox Live credentials worked. Then the game started to download a patch that could involve restarting my PC when the game download did not. The patch hung forever. If I canceled it (as I eventually did), I could not sign on to Live ... and could not save my game progress at all.

A little research showed that the FlatOut: Ultimate Carnage publisher had gone kaput. Empire Interactive was gone, and with it, the patch servers, and the ability to save the game. The game's DRM, in the form of Games for Windows Live, essentially prohibited progress in the game without being able to download that patch, which no longer existed. The results aren't pretty when you try to review a racing game and can't access more than the first (admittedly enjoyable) track and initial three cars.

What's stopping this from happening elsewhere? Just ask anyone who has enjoyed many NCsoft games that are now lost, seemingly forever, to the mists of time (and ones that soon will be, like Dungeon Runners). I wonder what will happen to that icon of the industry, World of Warcraft, when Blizzard finally decides that it's time to move on once and for all into its next MMO or RTS. Look at fans of Burnout. Even on the Xbox, where Live is supposed to allow servers to remain up indefinitely, older versions of the game can no longer be played online, removing large chunks of replay value from those games.

Interesting read IMO. Read the rest here: http://worthplaying.com/articl...0/10/editorials/69239/

 

[Zensal]

Well, to give some companies credit, many have released a patch for older games that removes the DRM. Some examples off the top of my head are Witcher and Bioshock. Maybe Medieval 2: Total War.

This should be standard practice, maybe law. DRM should be removed from games once they hit the 2 or 3 year old mark. That should be a good compromise for everyone involved.

But, I myself have purchased a game and then was forced to pirate it just to play it.

 

[lupi]

nothing new to see here. one of the main reasons the non-intellectually challenged have been complaining about drm.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: lupi
the non-intellectually challenged have been complaining about drm.

Humm.. I'd agree with you, although I don't think that's what you meant to write. lol

 

[BladeVenom]

The game's DRM, in the form of Games for Windows Live, essentially prohibited progress in the game without being able to download that patch, which no longer existed.

Yet another good reason to avoid Games for Windows Live.

Reminds me of games that relied on Microsoft's Gaming Zone.

 

[shortylickens]

I still play a lot of DOS and Win95 classics, either cuz they had no DRM, or very simple DRM that didnt fuck up my computer or require calling home.
And not enough companies are releasing DRM free patches when they go out of business. I am glad Cavedog never did that shit. I can still play Total Anhilation and TA: Kingdoms because they werent a bunch of pricks.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

This isn't an interesting read, it's just more anti-drm propaganda.

More to the point, the problem he's 'experienced' is actually due to required auto-patching, which isn't the same as DRM. His problem here isn't with DRM at all, it's with games for windows live.

But far be it from your typical ravenous anti-DRM 'author' to let a little something like reality get in his path from flawed premise to foregone conclusion.

 

[MStele]

I agree with the premise the article makes, however the act of keeping a game for so long was more a luxury of infant technology and less a feature of the past. Remember, no gamer has ever owned a game insomuch as bought a license a developer to use that software. The fact that up until now developers had no power to enforce those licenses has been convienent. Remember that the ultimately form of DRM has been in use for decades now. The game console by definition is DRM because it requires the use of specialized hardware provided for the sole use of running software developed and licensed for it. Today, production costs are skyrocketing, and companies like Steam are trying to come up with ways to facilitate license distribution without installing invasive software like Starforce, Securom, Tages, Etc. DRM is going through growing pains, and what we see now isn't what will be the final form. Remember the Starforce days? DRM has come a looonng way from rootkits. Bottom line, you don't own any of the software you've ever purchased, only the media they came on. I miss the old days, but they are gone. We either adapt or find another hobby.

 

[Oceandevi]

I would love to see more software companies allow private servers if they plan on killing off official servers. That way serious fans of a game can continue to mod and play multi-player easily.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Zensal
This should be standard practice, maybe law. DRM should be removed from games once they hit the 2 or 3 year old mark. That should be a good compromise for everyone involved.

I'd take it further and say DRM removal or the right to circumvent it (and the right to create and commercialize tools for others to circumvent it) should be mandated by law after 7 years. If 7 years is long enough for lifesaving or enhancing drugs, which take billions to R&D and get to market, to make a profit and then allow anyone with the knowhow to copy their product and sell it themselves; it's long enough for digital content which does nothing except entertain the masses and can't be produced by other companies due to copyright law.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
More to the point, the problem he's 'experienced' is actually due to required auto-patching, which isn't the same as DRM. His problem here isn't with DRM at all, it's with games for windows live.

Soooo...server side client licenses aren't DRM?

They'd love you to believe it's not DRM...

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: MStele
I agree with the premise the article makes, however the act of keeping a game for so long was more a luxury of infant technology and less a feature of the past. Remember, no gamer has ever owned a game insomuch as bought a license a developer to use that software. The fact that up until now developers had no power to enforce those licenses has been convienent.

Right...license. I'm pretty sure if I go buy a PC game and someone snatches my bag, the charges will be filled with the BSA rather than my local police department. Theft involves stealing property and the law recognizes merchandise as property of the purchaser. No amount of publisher FUD in the form of an EULA will change this fact.

 

[Golgatha]

Is DRM Destroying Archival Games?

Oddly enough, no, but only because of PC game piracy if you really think about it.

Pirate downloads of full games or the cracks for games circumvent this BS. The pirates are putting out a higher value product than the publishers basically.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: MStele
I agree with the premise the article makes, however the act of keeping a game for so long was more a luxury of infant technology and less a feature of the past. Remember, no gamer has ever owned a game insomuch as bought a license a developer to use that software. The fact that up until now developers had no power to enforce those licenses has been convienent.

Right...license. I'm pretty sure if I go buy a PC game and someone snatches my bag, the charges will be filled with the BSA rather than my local police department. Theft involves stealing property and the law recognizes merchandise as property of the purchaser. No amount of publisher FUD in the form of an EULA will change this fact.

You actually don't really but games anymore, what you buy the ability to lease, for an unspecified amount of time the right to use the software until the publisher no longer feels like letting you use it.

Technically, it can be argued that EULA's are contracts of adhesion and thus may not be fully lawful, but nobody has the ability to take on a corporation legally to really find out sin ce they can just out-lawyer and outspend you. Technically, IIRC, the court has ruled they are enforceable since you have to click I agree to install the software, but the fact that the contract is only presented after purchase leaves you high and dry.

Welcome to America, where every corporation tells you to go fuck yourself and you have to like it.

 

[MStele]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: MStele
I agree with the premise the article makes, however the act of keeping a game for so long was more a luxury of infant technology and less a feature of the past. Remember, no gamer has ever owned a game insomuch as bought a license a developer to use that software. The fact that up until now developers had no power to enforce those licenses has been convienent.

Right...license. I'm pretty sure if I go buy a PC game and someone snatches my bag, the charges will be filled with the BSA rather than my local police department. Theft involves stealing property and the law recognizes merchandise as property of the purchaser. No amount of publisher FUD in the form of an EULA will change this fact.

You misunderstand. You don't own the software, but you do own the media that it is supplied on. If someone steals your dvd, you can file a report because you have lost a physical posession, but you have no ownership rights to contents (movie) on the disc just as you have no ownership rights to any software you use. People learned along time ago that some monopolistic behavior is necessary for capitilism to work, and the copyright provides that monopoly. If you come up with a product, copyright give you completely monopolistic control over that product. No one can sell nor change it without your permission. Licensing is an extension of copyright in that you are basically paying for permission to use that product. You might have a moral objection to this but this is the way it works, like it or not.

 

[Yeahrt]

Originally posted by: MStele

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: MStele
I agree with the premise the article makes, however the act of keeping a game for so long was more a luxury of infant technology and less a feature of the past. Remember, no gamer has ever owned a game insomuch as bought a license a developer to use that software. The fact that up until now developers had no power to enforce those licenses has been convienent.

Right...license. I'm pretty sure if I go buy a PC game and someone snatches my bag, the charges will be filled with the BSA rather than my local police department. Theft involves stealing property and the law recognizes merchandise as property of the purchaser. No amount of publisher FUD in the form of an EULA will change this fact.

You misunderstand. You don't own the software, but you do own the media that it is supplied on. If someone steals your dvd, you can file a report because you have lost a physical posession, but you have no ownership rights to contents (movie) on the disc just as you have no ownership rights to any software you use. People learned along time ago that some monopolistic behavior is necessary for capitilism to work, and the copyright provides that monopoly. If you come up with a product, copyright give you completely monopolistic control over that product. No one can sell nor change it without your permission. Licensing is an extension of copyright in that you are basically paying for permission to use that product. You might have a moral objection to this but this is the way it works, like it or not.

http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=10421

US District court recently ruled that the license = ownership and can be sold.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: MStele

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: MStele
I agree with the premise the article makes, however the act of keeping a game for so long was more a luxury of infant technology and less a feature of the past. Remember, no gamer has ever owned a game insomuch as bought a license a developer to use that software. The fact that up until now developers had no power to enforce those licenses has been convienent.

Right...license. I'm pretty sure if I go buy a PC game and someone snatches my bag, the charges will be filled with the BSA rather than my local police department. Theft involves stealing property and the law recognizes merchandise as property of the purchaser. No amount of publisher FUD in the form of an EULA will change this fact.

You misunderstand. You don't own the software, but you do own the media that it is supplied on. If someone steals your dvd, you can file a report because you have lost a physical posession, but you have no ownership rights to contents (movie) on the disc just as you have no ownership rights to any software you use. People learned along time ago that some monopolistic behavior is necessary for capitilism to work, and the copyright provides that monopoly. If you come up with a product, copyright give you completely monopolistic control over that product. No one can sell nor change it without your permission. Licensing is an extension of copyright in that you are basically paying for permission to use that product. You might have a moral objection to this but this is the way it works, like it or not.

I believe your wrong; wasn't there a recent court ruling that stated the individual does own the software?

 

[MStele]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: MStele

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: MStele
I agree with the premise the article makes, however the act of keeping a game for so long was more a luxury of infant technology and less a feature of the past. Remember, no gamer has ever owned a game insomuch as bought a license a developer to use that software. The fact that up until now developers had no power to enforce those licenses has been convienent.

Right...license. I'm pretty sure if I go buy a PC game and someone snatches my bag, the charges will be filled with the BSA rather than my local police department. Theft involves stealing property and the law recognizes merchandise as property of the purchaser. No amount of publisher FUD in the form of an EULA will change this fact.

You misunderstand. You don't own the software, but you do own the media that it is supplied on. If someone steals your dvd, you can file a report because you have lost a physical posession, but you have no ownership rights to contents (movie) on the disc just as you have no ownership rights to any software you use. People learned along time ago that some monopolistic behavior is necessary for capitilism to work, and the copyright provides that monopoly. If you come up with a product, copyright give you completely monopolistic control over that product. No one can sell nor change it without your permission. Licensing is an extension of copyright in that you are basically paying for permission to use that product. You might have a moral objection to this but this is the way it works, like it or not.

I believe your wrong; wasn't there a recent court ruling that stated the individual does own the software?

Copyright law is copyright law. If you find something to the contrary please let me know, but only congress can change those sort of policies. All a court can do is rule on individual cases on the low end and on the high end deem some policies unconstitutional. I think the case your talking about had to do with Autodesk and the ruling was in Washington state, and it was about an individual selling the software he had purchased. Judge said that it was legal for him to sell it. We all know its legal to sell software, afterall, look at the used games market. My point was that with software there are two parts, the media and the software itself. You own the media but license the software. The judge ruled that he had the right to sell it, but that only congress can decide on making the license portion more explicit in regards to resale. In any case, the court was in Washington state and doesn't count anywhere else.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: MStele

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: MStele
I agree with the premise the article makes, however the act of keeping a game for so long was more a luxury of infant technology and less a feature of the past. Remember, no gamer has ever owned a game insomuch as bought a license a developer to use that software. The fact that up until now developers had no power to enforce those licenses has been convienent.

Right...license. I'm pretty sure if I go buy a PC game and someone snatches my bag, the charges will be filled with the BSA rather than my local police department. Theft involves stealing property and the law recognizes merchandise as property of the purchaser. No amount of publisher FUD in the form of an EULA will change this fact.

You misunderstand. You don't own the software, but you do own the media that it is supplied on. If someone steals your dvd, you can file a report because you have lost a physical posession, but you have no ownership rights to contents (movie) on the disc just as you have no ownership rights to any software you use. People learned along time ago that some monopolistic behavior is necessary for capitilism to work, and the copyright provides that monopoly. If you come up with a product, copyright give you completely monopolistic control over that product. No one can sell nor change it without your permission. Licensing is an extension of copyright in that you are basically paying for permission to use that product. You might have a moral objection to this but this is the way it works, like it or not.

I fail to see what copyright has to do with my purchased copy other than prohibiting me from copying and then selling the copy of the copy. If I want to transfer ownership of the right to use my copy, therefore depriving me usage of it, then this should be allowable in all cases due to first-sale doctrine. Forget my moral objection, I have the force of law telling the corporations they can't keep me from reselling a piece of software for instance. True they can take me to court, but the law of the land ought to (not that it will) protect me from punitive judgment.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: MStele
I agree with the premise the article makes, however the act of keeping a game for so long was more a luxury of infant technology and less a feature of the past.

Do you really believe that? If I pay $50-$60 for a game it's ok if it just stops working at some point in the future?

I would be pissed if my copy of Diablo 2, Doom, or Duke Nukem 3D stopped working at some point since I frequently come back to those games year after year.

Originally posted by: MStele
The game console by definition is DRM because it requires the use of specialized hardware provided for the sole use of running software developed and licensed for it.

Sure, and consoles are pretty good at doing that and stopping piracy. But the games on my 360, or PS2, or NES for that matter, won't suddenly stop working at some point if the developer or authorization server goes offline since that don't exist on consoles.

 

[MStele]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: MStele
I agree with the premise the article makes, however the act of keeping a game for so long was more a luxury of infant technology and less a feature of the past.

Do you really believe that? If I pay $50-$60 for a game it's ok if it just stops working at some point in the future?

I would be pissed if my copy of Diablo 2, Doom, or Duke Nukem 3D stopped working at some point since I frequently come back to those games year after year.

Originally posted by: MStele
The game console by definition is DRM because it requires the use of specialized hardware provided for the sole use of running software developed and licensed for it.

Sure, and consoles are pretty good at doing that and stopping piracy. But the games on my 360, or PS2, or NES for that matter, won't suddenly stop working at some point if the developer or authorization server goes offline since that don't exist on consoles.

I think they should just clarify the licensing and go with a fixed timeline, maybe 5 years from purchase. You mentioned game consoles, but what will you do when that 360 or PS2 dies out and you can't get a replacement? I actually agree with you that I wish I should be able to play these games 20 years from now when nastalgia kicks in, but as software keeps more complex software like DOSBOX will be less feasable. I'll totally pick your side right now if you can my Mask of Eternity working with full 3dfx running on my desktop. It seems the Windows 98 machine i used to play it on died like 5 years ago....(thats actually true i loved that game!!!)

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: MStele
I think they should just clarify the licensing and go with a fixed timeline, maybe 5 years from purchase.

I don't think games should simply stop working some point in the future because an auth server goes down, the DRM license expires, etc.. There needs to be systems or regulations in place to make sure things like that doen't happen. Right now, in many cases, there is not.

If I purchase a game and it's made very clear that the license is for a set amount of time, then that changes things. But thus far that hasn't been the case with any game license that i'm aware of, so there is no excuse for auth or patch servers going offline and causing legally purchased to not function properly. It simply shouldn't happen. Plus, if there ever were games with that restriction in place, unless they were significantly discounted, I and many others simply wouldn't purchase them. So I just don't see that becoming a reality anytime soon.

Originally posted by: MStele
You mentioned game consoles, but what will you do when that 360 or PS2 dies out and you can't get a replacement?

Quite simply, i'd buy another one. They still sell new PS2's. Shit, I can still easily buy a used atari 2600 and that system is almost 30 years old at this point. This is not the case for PC games if an auth server goes offline. You can't just go out and buy a new one of those..

Originally posted by: MStele
I actually agree with you that I wish I should be able to play these games 20 years from now when nastalgia kicks in, but as software keeps more complex software like DOSBOX will be less feasable. I'll totally pick your side right now if you can my Mask of Eternity working with full 3dfx running on my desktop. It seems the Windows 98 machine i used to play it on died like 5 years ago....(thats actually true i loved that game!!!)

I think you are just stating what you believe to be true, and that's cool and all, but I don't agree with your views here. If your win98 machine dies and you can't get Mask of Eternity to play through dosbox, just go buy another win98 machine. Probably cost you $20. The issue that the article talks about is completely different than replacing some hardware. If Mask of Eternity required online authentication and the auth servers went offline, there would be nothing you could legally do to get your game working again. That's the real issue here.

 

[MStele]

I think we both sit on different sides of the fence, but you make a good arguement. I think both of us makes a great point depending on perspective. I guess we'll just have to see how it goes in the future.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
More to the point, the problem he's 'experienced' is actually due to required auto-patching, which isn't the same as DRM. His problem here isn't with DRM at all, it's with games for windows live.

Soooo...server side client licenses aren't DRM?

They'd love you to believe it's not DRM...

The server side licensing is NOT the problem. The problem was the forced patching and GFWL required saving. One's a convenience measure that has many purposes besides DRM, and the other is more platform lock in then DRM.

More simply, plenty of DRM exists which does not have the issues he is complaining about. Therefore, his complaint is at best with one very specific implementation of DRM, not DRM in general. In all likelihood, it is focused on the non-DRM portion of a package that includes DRM.

 

[Zensal]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
More to the point, the problem he's 'experienced' is actually due to required auto-patching, which isn't the same as DRM. His problem here isn't with DRM at all, it's with games for windows live.

Soooo...server side client licenses aren't DRM?

They'd love you to believe it's not DRM...

The server side licensing is NOT the problem. The problem was the forced patching and GFWL required saving. One's a convenience measure that has many purposes besides DRM, and the other is more platform lock in then DRM.

First of all, you can patch outside of GFWL, if a standalone patch is available. I was forced to do this with Universe at War. I don't know if the saving would still break it though.

Also, it should be legal to break DRM or other such devices if the software has been abandoned. I think there is actually legal precedent or at least accepted practices when it comes to "abandonware".

If it is still up and running and you simply don't like GFWL, then tough cookies.