Didn't get a chance to respond/edit in "DRM Boycott" thread before it was locked out:
Vote for new elected officials that support the viewpoint that DRM is illegal and wrong. Playing a game should be fun, not an exercise in frustration
A previous poster, "Jonathern" mentioned:
Why can't we just register to their site with our key and play the game ...[quote/]
Buying a license direct from the game developers is a good way to undercut pirating. When purchased, the game could be obtained by any source, thus the piraters would become distributors that don't get paid. The game companies could place all kinds of ads inside the game, distribute them for free and then sell licenses to remove the ads and add content.
To the poster on the last "DRM Boycott" post:
I have never "spazzed", ever. I point out the facts. I look for solutions. DRM is not needed or wanted. DRM, in my opinion is a close minded Dark Ages response to a percieved problem. Education is the number one necessity needed to solve the pirating problem. Every person I suspect of piracy, gets a lecture from me about how their games will suck, if they don't pay for the game, because good games will not be made as developement budgets shrink in accordance with lower earnings.
That said, many people are staying away from buying newer games because of DRM. Some have half a shelf filled with unopened or incomplete games, that it may take decades to finish.
Copyright was originally conceived so that the indiviual original artist/creator could retain credit/control of their own work. Before copyright, the workers original work was owned by the corporation they worked for.The Corporation profited from the work by the artist, while the artist got no credit or money.
Licensing direct from the developers is a good way to compensate the artists.
I'm guessing you're trying to say that it's better if we paid the developer directly by passing the publisher? Theoretically it makes sense, but when taken into real world it's not that easy. Let me elaborate - when the developer is working and developing the game, those people need money to live on while they develop the game, but since the game hasn't released yet there's no incoming funds to pay the employees of the developer. So, question becomes how to fund the development process, you need to find investors that would be looking to pay the developer to develop the game and then when the game releases collect some profit on that investment. This is why publishers are essential for smaller developers. For bigger developers they can seek investors to their company as a whole, sell their stock, accumulate income from previous games, etc. Point is there are ways to raise money for development even without a publisher and even if you're a startup development company. At least that's how it was in the past, today, many devs seem to choose the easy way out by getting in bed with some publisher which then pushes their agenda on the developer (most noticeable with EA titles, but others too)
However, there's another feature that we must not forget, publishers also handle distribution, that is marketing, making the DVDs with the game, shipping them to retail outlets, etc. The developer could do this themselves, but it requires part oft the money they have to be diverged from development budget, which isn't so hot if you think about it. This is also why you see so many indie games on steam, small developers cannot afford to release a game on DVD, and digital download is significantly cheaper alternative.
Another point that you bring up is to sell codes to add features to the game, that is precisely what DLC is, yet there's so many people hating the concept. Removing the ads once you pay for the game is a neat idea, however for those ads to work you'd require for them to be hardcoded (which makes them outdated rather fast) if you wish to keep up with current ads you'd require an internet connection (hey not that different from DRM now is it). What we've seen ubisoft try with a few titles (Heroes 6) they allow you to use certain game features only if you're online and authenticated with their game servers. If not, you can still play the game, just with a few features disabled.
So, what I'm trying to say is, there's experimentation going around in DRM world, and Ubisoft is at the forefront of trying different things, sometimes ending up with a lot of blame for it. Truthfully, it would be best if we could get rid of DRM completely (as some companies seem to be going that way now), but then you run into the issue with your artist and company or conversely company and pirates. How does one protect their work so others don't profit from it for free? or how does one protect their investment so pirates don't profit from it for free? Those two questions might seem like different situation, but if you think about it they are one and the same.
In the end I believe that piracy is driven more by economic factors, teenagers often cannot afford to pay for their games. Folks living in 3rd world countries cannot afford to pay their monthly/yearly salary for one game. Truth be told, video gaming is a leisure for the rich, because you need funds to purchase the system that will play the video games and then you need to spend money to purchase each game. People who cannot afford both will often resort to piracy, because they wish to experience the leisure the rich enjoy.
Truthfully, it would be best if we could get rid of DRM completely (as some companies seem to be going that way now), but then you run into the issue with your artist and company or conversely company and pirates. How does one protect their work so others don't profit from it for free?
DRM does not protect their games as i always download DRM'ed games even if i don't play them. There is no DRM inside the pirated game!! Knock knock! Wake up game publishers!!! On the contrary i always buy DRM-free games.
One side of the coin:
DRM = Unhappy Customers
Unhappy Customers = No sales
Oh! This DRM is not enough! Our sales are dropping! Add more and more DRM until customers can not play the game while pirates enjoying their game with no cost and no hassle!!!
I have quite a few games with DRM, it hasn't presented me with any issues that would make me unhappy. But that's my personal experience and probably not reflective of pc gamers mass as a whole.
but, I don't see a statement "DRM = unhappy customers" as true. "Bad DRM = unhappy customers" sounds more accurate. Games like WC3 or SC1, they had DRM but everybody was happy with those games. So, I think it begets to the point where if the game is good, you will enjoy it, if the game isn't good then any negative things around it will diminish your bad experience even further. For instance skyrim upon release had terrible performance issues that took them 5 months to fix, and yet game has been selling like crazy. It has default steam DRM on it, I have yet to see a single place that complains about steam DRM on skyrim as opposed to bad performance or bugged quest.
After testing out a few free to play MMORPG's I've come to the conclusion that my idea is being pseudo-implemented with free to play MMORPG's.
You are right there is some advantages to having a publisher. In my opinion though, it seems as if the pirates have created a better distribution network and its time to use them. since they don't get pay, the developers will cut costs enormously.