Would you buy Civ5 if it was only offered on Steam?

[Brael]

The game would be able to deduct the cost of the CDs, let's say that's $1. So, that will defer part of the cost.

CD's cost virtually nothing. A company can buy something like 30 for a dollar so replacing the CD doesn't do anything to the cost.

For the rest, presumably the executives at 2K are convinced there's value in DRM, and would pay for the added cost out of the (possibly misguided) conviction that it would increase sales (by virtue of reducing the piracy %).

My theory on this has always been that DRM is there for investors not developers, it's a marketing gimmick to get investment money to make a game. It would also explain why there's such a gap between very small developers and developers doing titles that can get shelf space.

Consider WoG... as I mentioned, the ease of pirating (no technical expertise necessary, anybody or their grandma could just DO it) can in fact be an enabler. By making it more difficult, the "casual piraters" are eliminated. And some % of those people are those who "actually like the genre" as you say.

I can agree with you here. A minor amount of copy protection so that some minimum level of expertise is needed can be a good thing. It's cheap, generally non restrictive, and standard on almost any software that's sold. Stopping this type of piracy seems ok to me too, because these people generally don't even know they're pirating.

Ideally, any DRM does not include such a bias. Ideally, it's totally transparent to the user.

A hardware key in this case is basically the same thing as a cd requirement to play the game.

THAT is why some people (such as Felch) have such a bug up their rear about DRM. Because it's intrusive and annoying.

The more protections there are, the more intrusive and annoying it has to become. That's just the way it works, it's a balancing act between having some protection (because it does work, it just has rapidly diminishing returns) and giving the user the best possible experience. A cracked game bypasses all DRM, so being intrusive and annoying is something that's only possible on a legitimate version. I don't see how that's a good thing for a game, so that's why I side with less. It gives the paying customer a better experience than the alternative.

My suggestion has the game stored on the USB drive, so it's a little different than your standard "hardware key". In fact, the DRM would be totally transparent; it would be best to be marketed as a way to have a totally transportable game from computer to computer, no wear & tear on your hard drive, etc.

USB 1.1 has a transfer rate of 1.5 MB/sec
USB 2.0 has a transfer rate of 5 MB/sec
56x CD has a transfer rate of about 8.6 MB/sec
24x DVD has a transfer rate of 32.4 MB/sec

Keep in mind too that typical speed for USB is about 75% of those speeds (some nice/expensive usb drives can get to the 95% range). USB's are nice for some things, but they aren't fast which makes them a poor medium for games. At 3.75 MB/sec my 3.51 gig civ 4 folder would require 16 minutes to copy, in addition to the install time which would bring it up to around a 25 minute installation. If someone were using USB 1.1 (quite a few computers without 2.0 are capable of running civ 4, maybe even civ 5 depending on the requirements) it would be 54 minutes to copy the files and another ~10 to install giving you an install time of over an hour.

Distributing the game on USB's isn't practical when the alternative is cheaper and faster. A hardware key can be placed on a CD as well (and is often done, what do you think the CD requirement to play civ 4 was?) so I'm not sure there's really a big advantage to your suggestion as it would simply mean plugging in a USB drive into a sometimes crowded mess of usb devices in order to have the cd/dvd tray free.

Google pointed to a couple articles in IGN.



21% is the U.S. rate. The rate for east Asia is about 75% as I recall.

You might like this one, it seems to support your side of the argument.

http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_4.html

Though when I read it, I see things like MW2 not as a pure 90% piracy rate, but as an additional 300k sales for the developer (it was originally made for consoles then ported over) that it wouldn't have had if they kept it console only. The 21% figure just doesn't make sense to me either, the article lists all these games with 80% and 90% piracy but then says the US only has a 21% piracy rate which means to me that outside of a few major titles each year there's actually very little piracy going on.

But what they don't have is anything but grassroots marketing and anything resembling mass market distribution to retail channels.

Entrepreneurs are healthy for any industry, but they aren't ever going to get rid of the tried-and-true performers. Unless the entrepreneur model can be successful 100% of the time, real game companies aren't going to do it. They make games because their demographics and projections say selling X copies will break even, and they expect to sell Y, which tells how much money they'll make.

If and when the entrepreneur model becomes successful 100% of the time, that's when 2 guys in their basement will put 2K and Blizzard and everybody else out of business.

Until then, all we have are one or two success stories in the backdrop of a bunch of failures. We don't ever hear about them.

They have zero marketing period. Most independent developers don't, because that costs a lot of money. The reason they're able to succeed is because they hit portions of the market that large companies mostly ignore. You're not going to see a major fps from a small company, but you might see an rpg (with poor graphics) or a flash game that people play for 10-15 minutes at a time.

[wodan11]

CD's cost virtually nothing. A company can buy something like 30 for a dollar so replacing the CD doesn't do anything to the cost.

That's not true. I've purchased large quantities of CD production. You also are probably forgetting the sleeve/case and printing, graphic design labor of same.

My theory on this has always been that DRM is there for investors not developers, it's a marketing gimmick to get investment money to make a game. It would also explain why there's such a gap between very small developers and developers doing titles that can get shelf space.

As conspiracy theories go, that's a pretty reasonable one.

A hardware key in this case is basically the same thing as a cd requirement to play the game.

Yes and no. It's more akin to the chip being built into your hard drive. You wouldn't even know it's there.

Present game delivery has "throwaway" CDs. You install the game and never use the CDs again *except* for DRM. So the DRM is in your face.

If the game ran off a USB drive you'd never even think about the DRM; it'd be transparent to the play experience.

Now, you may or may not think the USB "feature" is a benefit, that's a different decision point. We'd have to talk about the pros/cons of it, which we haven't really yet.

Keep in mind too that typical speed for USB is about 75% of those speeds (some nice/expensive usb drives can get to the 95% range). USB's are nice for some things, but they aren't fast which makes them a poor medium for games. At 3.75 MB/sec my 3.51 gig civ 4 folder would require 16 minutes to copy, in addition to the install time which would bring it up to around a 25 minute installation. If someone were using USB 1.1 (quite a few computers without 2.0 are capable of running civ 4, maybe even civ 5 depending on the requirements) it would be 54 minutes to copy the files and another ~10 to install giving you an install time of over an hour.

I never suggested the game would be installed from USB to the hard drive. In fact, I said several times that was not the case. If that was the suggestion, it wouldn't accomplish the purpose. All it would do is swap a CD for a USB drive, the DRM would be just as much in your face.

You might like this one, it seems to support your side of the argument.
http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_4.html

Read it already, thanks though.

[MikeH]

If your computer can read off the USB drive in order to play the game people can copy what's on it, and hack any protection checking out. I don't see why that is any more secure than a DVD?

It worked back in the old days with console cartridges, which were hardware protected more by the fact you couldn't buy blanks to copy onto.

[Roman]

I personally hate Steam as well as any other system which makes you log in to their server before you can even launch the game on your own desk top so if the game is only offered on Steam then I won't be buying it. [/I]

Same here - I simply don't buy games that require a connection to an external server to play, start or even install. I only buy good games that I expect to last and like to fire up the old ones from time to time too. A good example, would be Civilization II, which would currently be unplayable if it had draconian DRM based on external servers, since Microprose no longer exists. Even if it existed, however, it probably wouldn't be economical for it to continue running the authentication servers.

Game longevity is the reason I have a firm "no buy" policy on games that need connection to an external server. If all electronic games transition in this direction, I will cease to play them altogether (apart from firing up the old ones I already have from time to time).

[Roman]

Another possible solution is a hardware key. A USB drive that has a hardware license integrated into the chip. Amounts to the same thing as a DVD, but harder for pirates to defeat.

I would have no problem with that kind of system. Some questions though:

1) Why would this protection be harder to defeat than DVD-based DRM? I don't see the reason why whatever is implemented on a USB cannot be implemented as a protection system on the DVD. Than again, I am not a computer expert, so if there is a reason that I am missing, I would love to hear it. If it is indeed harder to defeat, sure, I would go along with this quite happily.

2) Wouldn't this be significantly more expensive than a DVD? DVDs are cheap compared to USB sticks, even accounting for the price of the DVD case and so on. Indeed, the price difference might be a multiple of 10 or more, which feels fairly substantial and even though the media make up only a relatively small portion of the cost of a game, it would eat into the profit margins of the companies using this system.

There might, however, be some minor price benefits in terms of distribution - USB sticks are more compact and durable than DVDs. This would surely not be enough to offset the costs, but it cannot be discounted entirely.

Of course, if USB sticks were significantly better (though as I said, I don't see why they would be) at providing copy protection to games, the increased cost of the media might be more then offset by higher sales volume.

All, in all, if USB sticks replaced DVDs as difficult to copy media, I would go along with that - especially if patches and updates and so on could be stored on the USB and thus all be in one location (though in that case, I would like the option to install an older/unupdated version of the game, in case I like it more).

[wodan11]

Most of this was already covered. Harder to beat (if not impossible) because it's got a chip in it that performs part of the game execution. To beat it would be like... creating a software emulator so that a wussy graphics card could substitute for a top of the line graphics card.

It would be more expensive. Significantly? No. And, profit margins are not an issue because, presumably, the corporate execs would be willing to cover the difference because less piracy = more sales = greater profit.

[jeon]

With all this talk about DRM i just love my completely DRM free (at least, as far as i know ) "Civilization IV complete" DVD.
No online registration, no serial key at install, no disc needed for playing, just nothing.

[Roman]

Most of this was already covered. Harder to beat (if not impossible) because it's got a chip in it that performs part of the game execution. To beat it would be like... creating a software emulator so that a wussy graphics card could substitute for a top of the line graphics card.

It would be more expensive. Significantly? No. And, profit margins are not an issue because, presumably, the corporate execs would be willing to cover the difference because less piracy = more sales = greater profit.

If that is the case than, yes, I would be in favor of such a system. But why aren't publishers using it then? Is it just inertia (sort of, we have always used optical discs so we will continue to do so)?

[wodan11]

If that is the case than, yes, I would be in favor of such a system. But why aren't publishers using it then? Is it just inertia (sort of, we have always used optical discs so we will continue to do so)?

People holding pursestrings are a conservative bunch. They'd rather go with the tried and true.

[Azuarc]

Would you buy Civ5 if it was only offered on Steam?[/I]

Hell no. F--- Steam. Avoid it at all costs, and nothing but bad experiences when I can't.

[proviisori]

I like my games on DVDs.

[Aro]

I personally hate Steam as well as any other system which makes you log in to their server before you can even launch the game on your own desk top so if the game is only offered on Steam then I won't be buying it. Plus I just like having a CD in my hand which I can use even if my internet is out or I'm in the middle of no where on my laptop.

edit by RP: piracy is not an option

Simply not true. Steam allows you to put a game into offline mode so you can play without an internet connection. The only time an internet connection is required is initial install (gotta download it) and first time playing (to register the game). After that simply put Steam into offline mode. Considering the CD/DVD will probably require you to activate online anyways (most games are going that way now for DRM) there's really no difference.

The only time you would need an internet connection all the time is if the publisher put that in as part of the DRM. That will affect you on a DVD as well.

Not to mention how hard is to get a copy of CiV here in Brasil before four, maybe six months. And maybe you can't get some expansions...

Steam is fine.

[Dinner]

With all this talk about DRM i just love my completely DRM free (at least, as far as i know ) "Civilization IV complete" DVD.
No online registration, no serial key at install, no disc needed for playing, just nothing.

Yeah, that's pretty much the ideal, isn't it?

[Blue Lion]

There will be no online copy protection on my pc. These software firms are loosing a paying customer - me.

[SandMonkey]

Hmm, I've had Steam since 2003 and have had no problems whatsoever. It's pretty amazing that a lot of people have no problems, and other people have such terrible experiences. I think that those people had one, maybe two bad experiences and never used it again, but I suppose that's a valid reason to stop using their service. To answer the question, I would absolutely buy Civ5 if it was a Steam only release.

Do people hate Impulse just as much as Steam? I find Impulse to be slightly less user friendly, but all in all they're basically the same thing and serve the same purpose.

My thoughts about the running DRM argument: I bought Spore, had a helluva time getting it installed because of the DRM, returned it and never went back to it, so they lost money on me (at least the store did). Also, I refuse to buy Settlers 7 because of the Ubisoft drm, so they're losing money there.

As far as piracy goes, once one pirate cracks a game, EVERY pirate essentially has that game. DRM is solely for companies to show their shareholders that they are doing something to stop people from stealing their product. As has already been pointed out, unfortunately this usually inconveniences paying customers more than the people stealing the product, but not many people are willing to invest in a company that says "Meh, a bunch will download this for free, but we hope more people will buy it."