DRM: The Story So Far

18 Mar 2010 at 00:00:00 by Andy Alderson

If there's one thing that gets PC gamers all wound up like Richard Dawkins at a baptism, it's DRM. Oh, and dedicated servers. But mostly DRM. Digital Rights Management, the PC gaming industry's response to the spiralling piracy issue, is arguably the hottest of topics for PC gamers at the moment.  It seems that with every new game comes a new DRM controversy as publishers experiment with new and increasingly unpopular ways to keep their products out of the hands/hooks of the pirates. While Ubisoft and 2K are the latest to feel the indignant wrath of the legitimate PC gamer, they are by no means alone.

DRM is publishing's successor to the largely ineffective methods of copy protection and has not endeared itself to the gaming community. While Valve's decision to link Half Life 2 to Steam was arguably an early version of DRM that attracted some negative attention, it wasn't until EA began experimenting with the technology in 2008 that it really began irk gamers. Mass Effect and Spore were the first EA titles to feature DRM, requiring the games to be authorised by an online server and allowing a limited number of installs. Unfortunately, as anyone familiar with PC gaming will know, limited installs are intensely annoying, especially if you're the type to regularly format your HD/upgrade your OS. In the case of Spore, EA scored a spectacular own goal with overly restrictive DRM (not helped by incorrect info in the manual) and as a result the game became the most pirated title of 2008. Which, I'm pretty sure, was exactly the opposite of what EA intended. The publisher was forced to backtrack embarrassingly and, to its credit, has since taken a more measured approach to DRM, relaxing its policies in accordance with the wishes of the community. Something that can not be said for the most recent DRM offender, Ubisoft.

In 2008, Ubi generously left it to the gaming community to decide its DRM policy, releasing Prince of Persia with no protection whatsoever, announcing “we’ll see how truthful people actually are.” The answer, it seems, was not very as at the beginning of this year the publisher unveiled its new DRM system which requires users to have a constant connection to the internet to play their games. Outcry ensued (despite the fact Valve requires something similar for some Steam titles) and it wasn't helped in the slightest by the news that, following the release of Assassin's Creed 2 on PC, many users were unable to play the game and/or had their saved games wiped, while news emerged that pirates were able to play a cracked version of the game without issue. The farce continued with Ubi denying that a cracked version existed, then claiming that any cracked version that did exist (hang on!) would be incomplete.  And then, in a final master-stroke of comical irony, it was revealed that the reason that legit owners couldn't play the game was that pirates had hacked the DRM servers. The word “clusterfuck” was bandied around forums and suddenly Ubi became the big bad wolf, giving Activision the day off.

But, you know what? It was all a bit unfair. Now hang on, if I can just qualify that before the lynching commences: it was unfair because PC gaming is trapped in a wretched feedback loop of issues. By its very nature, PC gaming is more susceptible to piracy due to the downfalls of variable hardware. Despite efforts to standardise the industry over the past couple of years, there are so many variables that can render a game unplayable, or playable only on a basic level, to PC gamers. We've all found ourselves trawling desperately through tweak guides and tech support forums at some point in our PC gaming career and the fact that it can be so inconsistent feeds into the notion of piracy. Can you blame people for downloading a game to find out if it will play on their rig? Well, yes, if you're a publisher I guess you can. But the point is, in the UK least, many retailers don't allow returns on PC games and, should you buy and subsequently discover that it runs like a three legged dog, you're stuck with it.

Arguably, this inconsistency feeds piracy which, in turn, prompts publishers to implement stricter DRM which then attracts the wrath of PC gamers. It's a seemingly unbreakable cycle of dissatisfaction. You can't really blame the publishers for wanting to protect their products, even if sometimes they do indulge in a spot of horribly ineffective overkill. And, of course, you can't blame the legit PC gamers who find themselves at the shitty end of the DRM stick while the pirates play with impunity. Undoubtedly piracy is an enormous threat to PC gaming and, while many will argue that piracy dates back as far as gaming itself, when you have publishers like Crytek openly stating that they're moving away from PC exclusive development because they can't protect their work, then you have a problem. Piracy could force all the talent out of PC gaming which would be hugely detrimental to an industry which has historically been pushed forward by PC game development. However, while it's obvious that something needs to be done, it's equally apparent that DRM is not the answer. Like Valve and 2D Boy have said, the only winner in the DRM war is the creator of DRM software. Unfortunately, a solution to the problem of piracy does not appear to be immediately forthcoming (I can't sort everything out, you know, I'm busy). But perhaps we can get closer to it by accepting the idea that, until people stop being arseholes, believing they deserve something for nothing (clue: never going to happen), we may have to indulge in a little give and take with the publishers.   

Comment