Tales of the Rampant Coyote
Adventures in Indie Gaming!


(  RSS Feed! | Games! | Forums! )

Friday, May 09, 2008
 
Monkey Island and DRM
That one dude, Shamus Young, just can't leave DRM issues alone. Thankfully. His latest analogy:

In the original Monkey Island, at one point you are captured by natives who lock you in a simple bamboo hut. There is a trap door in the floor through which you may escape. If you’re dumb you can walk over to the natives once you’re out, and they will grab you and throw you back into the hut. The second time they throw you in, they add chains to the door. The next time the door is made of metal. This keeps going until eventually (if you keep going back) they have a bamboo shack with a massive steel vault door on the front, a timed lock with an alarm system on it. It looks like the front of Fort Knox.

How he keeps getting out is almost as mysterious as why he keeps coming back.

In a lot of ways these DRM schemes are a bamboo hut with a vault door on the front. The keep using a bigger and bigger lock and a more complex system of authentication, but it still has to run on a machine where you can edit the executable, and all the hacker has to do is go in and disable the part that says, “Do the security check.” It doesn’t matter how secure or complex or devious the security check is, if the machine’s not doing it, it’s not doing it.

Microsoft was going to "correct" this "problem" at the Operating System level with Vista, or so I had heard. I guess that got pushed back until the next version of Windows, or dropped when cooler heads realized that deliberately crippling your customer's systems might not be a wonderful business strategy.

But I really liked Shamus's analogy here. Okay, sure, ANY analogy involving Monkey Island is likely to gain my approval! But this was a well-known problem when I was working on the security side of the software fence. As a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, copy protection and DRM is only as effective as the easiest work-around... and for as long as it takes until the very first pirate releases a crack.

To make matters worse - GBGames has an article discussing what happens to customers - or "victims" - when the reputable company they go through for DRM decides to drop the expense of supporting old DRM solutions. Basically, the customer gets screwed. The implication with DRM is that it will be supported forever, but its clear that this is not even the case with stable, long-lived companies.

This bugs me a lot. My family jumped on the BetaMax train back in the early days of videocassettes. When Sony finally bowed under pressure and Beta went away, it didn't make our library of Beta-format tapes disappear. We could still play them, so long as our old BetaMax player stayed in working condition. But that's not the case with this kind of DRM. what's the poor customer to do who bought music from Sony or Microsoft in good faith, and then finds that their purchases have been sabotaged by remote control like this?

I'm sure the companies in question would hope that said customer would throw good money after bad, and re-purchase their old product.

I think most consumers, faced with this lose-lose scenario shoved onto them by the company for which they were a formerly loyal customer, would feel perfectly justified in acquiring an unprotected version of their product from a less-than-reputable source. Oh, and as long as they are there, why not enjoy one of millions of other easy downloads, some of which might not have been legally obtain by other means on a previous occasion?

Especially when they are getting a superior product than the crap the legitimate customers are paying good money for? And how much worse is it going to get?

So I postulate the following:

#1 - Yes, piracy is killing (non-online) PC gaming. Not shooting-it-in-the-head, going-the-way-of-the-8-Track-Tape dead, and it's not solely responsible, but it's definitely a major contributor to PC gaming's marginalization over the last several years.

#2 - DRM / Copy Protection is only a short-term solution that will ultimately fail in the long term

#3 - Onerous and untrustworthy DRM solutions, like the one proposed for Spore and Mass Effect (and lest we forget, Bioshock), may actually do a lot more long-term harm and encourage piracy.

Labels:



Did you enjoy this post? Feel free to share it: del.icio.us | Digg it | Furl | reddit | Yahoo MyWeb

Comments:
I consider piracy to be killing PC gaming by encouraging the use of DRM. Piracy is the prime cause, but DRM is the proximate cause. If publishers want to continue publishing for PC, it's time they started assuming the person buying the software is honest; as long as they assume I'm a criminal and demand I prove otherwise, they're not getting my business.

Of course, there's no obligation on publishers to publish for PC. I'm not certain I wouldn't prefer to have AAA titles decide the PC market isn't worth the bother.
 
It seems Bioware & parent company EA may be backing off from the "re-register every 10 days" idea. So - as an alternative to DVD checking - I can't say I'm against the idea. However, I'm really worried about the Microsoft / Sony thing happening 5 years down the road. "Oh, sorry, we don't want to pay to maintain those servers anymore... you weren't planning on playing those games EVER AGAIN were you?"
 
I do not believe that piracy is "killing PC gaming" any more now that it was 10 years ago. The rise of consoles has likely had more effect. (And no one seems to ever bother whining about the effects piracy has had on the console markets, especially in places like Brazil.)

DRM has never had any appreciable effect on piracy and I doubt it ever will. It only serves to punish legimate game owners.
 
Bioshock, Half-Life 2 all other things Steam didn't find their way on my harddisk (legally or not) and never will.
Mass Effect will be the next title going to be ignored which is a pity as I bought most Bioware titles.

Not that I don't understand the motivation behind this protection scheme (online-activation for a non-online single-player game) but I still think that this is a travesty for honest customers and the industry is taking the easy way here.

This is especially bothersome as I'm a retro gamer who revisits older games quite frequently (sometimes because of the lack of good new stuff that interests me). A good game - and all the titles I name here are A-titles - that can't be made to run alone is worthless to me.
 
I think these systems wouldn't be so bad if they didn't keep these systems around, the rule should be once the game hits the $20 mark, the copy protection schemes should be removed as the bulk of the money has been made, the copy system for sure should have been broken by then anyways, and it gives the creators a chance to make money off those who are against blatant copy protection.
 
Let me tell you my own DRM sob-story. Right now, DRM is actually preventing me from giving money to a game company.

I just got a new computer, and want to put one of my old games on it. However, I also moved across the country a few months ago, and packed light. I only brought the game CD, not the jewel case or manual, which has the game's product key written on the back. Dumb move, I know, but at the time I was thinking about saving money on shipping, not DRM.

Here's the punchline: my new machine is an intel mac and the game is PowerPC. But, they *sell* an upgraded intel binary for something like 5 or 10 bucks. I'd happily pay for that. I'd give 'em my credit card number right now.

'cept I can't actually install the game. So what's the point?
 
Here's another live example of bad copy protection that I just came over yesterday ... I was about to try out the trial of Pixology's ZBrush 3.1. It installed but never wanted to run, instead giving me a dialog saying that the connection to the license server DLL cannot be made. Several hours later after trying every possible solution like disabling firewall, antivirus etc. I read their troubleshoot guide and it turns out that their copy protection mechanism has trouble with RAID harddisks. It seems their protection uses the harddisk at low level and RAID causes trouble for that! Can you say 'nasty copy protection'?! Now I'm left with not being able to try their product except for running it on a virtual PC that uses an image file harddisk (but my wacom will not work under it).
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

Powered by Blogger