Inside Game Piracy, Part 2: The Countermeasures
December 5, 2008 8:00 AM | Simon Carless
[Yesterday, big sister site Gamasutra's Leigh Alexander spoke to the ESA and the PC Gaming Alliance about just how complex video game piracy really is, and how a combination of enforcement and education can form a solid foundation to fight it.
Completing our two-part special on piracy, we look at countermeasures against PC piracy, from Mass Effect to Titan Quest and beyond, with the PC Gaming Alliance's Christian Svensson explaining: "We don't make money by making your lives difficult."]
Developing standards to measure piracy's impact and then educating consumers seems like solid footing on which both the PC Gaming Alliance and the ESA can begin to address their respective constituencies. But then what?
Christian Svensson, senior director of strategic planning and research at Capcom and a PCGA member, says it best: "You can't talk about piracy without talking about countermeasures."
One such countermeasure is, of course, digital rights management utilities that work in various ways to copy-protect software, and some of these have been controversial -- in particular, SecuROM, which most recently drew fire for EA with Spore.
The ESA steers clear of opining on which DRM methods work best, or on judging various solutions, preferring instead to leave it at the publisher's jurisdiction.
"Generally, publishers undertake their own measures based on their own judgment about the effectiveness and the cost of various applications that can be used, and measures that can be used to prevent the piracy of their game products," says the ESA's Ric Hirsch, senior vice president of intellectual property enforcement.
But as for the PCGA, Svensson says that internal discussions have focused on some possible best practices for DRM -- although he stresses that there is "absolutely no policy" in place for such standards just yet. "I think that Stardock's Bill of Rights, for example, touches on DRM slightly," he says.
But even standardizing best practices is a complicated goal. "[Stardock CEO] Brad [Wardell]'s approach is very hands-off," says Svensson. "I think that if the PCGA as an organization is going to be all-embracing, if Stardock were to become a member and EA were to become a member, I think there are very obvious differences in their strategy as pertains to DRM. As a PC gaming organization, we probably need to be able to embrace both approaches, and still be able to make recommendations."
"I think it's fair to say that, along the continuum of what is the best experience for the consumer and what provides the highest level of protection for developers and publishers, there's a whole realm of grays in there. I don't think that anyone has the right answer today."
The New Solutions
Svensson says new, emerging technologies that make rights management increasingly transparent to end users -- and also increasingly secure - can help. "Everything, no matter how you slice it, it tends to be net-authenticated," he says. "I do believe that session-based online protection... like [Valve's] Steam, is probably the most secure and least onerous, in most cases."
Indeed, Valve has placed a particular emphasis on unintrusiveness with its Steam service; widespread media reports recently focused on an email Newell purportedly wrote to a fan, who published it on his LiveJournal, in which Newell said that most DRM offerings are "broken" and "just dumb."
"The goal should be to create greater value for customers through service value (make it easy for me to play my games whenever and wherever I want to), not by decreasing the value of a product (maybe I'll be able to play my game and maybe I won't)," Newell wrote, as he addressed a fan who wanted to "give as little money as possible to EA" -- a distribution partner to Valve -- in protest of its use of SecuROM DRM.
As for Svensson, he spoke to Gamasutra strictly on behalf of the PCGA, and not as a representative of Capcom's individual stance as a company -- "We have an exclusive agreement with SecuROM at Capcom, and we're very pleased with that level of protection," he says.
"But I think you're going to see a number of technologies emerging from various vendors that do allow for session-based access, that free up the issue of, 'am I renting this thing, or do I own this thing?'."
Speaking of newer technology, "Mass Effect probably had the best DRM implementation that I've ever seen," says Svensson.
"They had tripwires all through that thing that basically would do an authorization check at certain activities... if any failed, it would trigger weapons overheating, or you'd level at a slower rate... it was really well thought-out, and really well-engineered."
However, there was an unintended side effect of that sort of efficacy. "I think a lot of pirates got frustrated by that - but I also think there's a messaging component there," Svensson explains.
"You have those pirates saying, 'what kind of buggy POS is this?' and then legit copies didn't have that experience at all, but potential buyers say, 'I don't want to buy that buggy game,' because they didn't really message, or give people any awareness."
Svensson says Titan Quest might have suffered from the same issue - it would crash when tripwires failed to authenticate, and so gained a reputation for being an unstable title, creating a negative perception of the product.
Titan Quest's creator, Iron Lore, recently shuttered its studio -- notably, Michael Fitch, creative director of Titan Quest publisher THQ, blamed rampant piracy in part for Iron Lore's failure to thrive.
Moreover, this sort of technology requires detailed implementation and testing, and Svensson notes how time consuming and expensive such an investment can be. "So there's a cost/investment/loss equation," he says -- which again comes back to the issue of how hard it is to quantify the benefit when the impact of piracy is so hard to map out.
As the PCGA convenes a new subcommittee to investigate just this very quantification issue, Svensson ultimately hopes they'll come up with information that will make those calculations easier. But in the meantime, he recalls when, on the heels of EA's own DRM controversy, CEO John Riccitiello told Gamasutra that he hated DRM.
"I don't like locks on my door, and I don't like to use keys in my car... I'd like to live in a world where there are no passports. Unfortunately, we don't," Riccitiello said at the time.
"I think that was spot on," says Svensson. "People rail against DRM and feel that it treats them like criminals - unfortunately, we live in a world where some people are criminals, and sometimes we have to take steps to mitigate as best we can. We live with some slight inconveniences, and obviously, we try to keep inconveniences to a minimum."
"I think people who put it out there that publishers are just trying to be evil -- I assure you. We don't make money by making your lives difficult. If we didn't feel it was absolutely, positively imperative that we have this for our business, we wouldn't do it."
Categories:








23 Comments
As much as I would like for games companies to stay in business, I really don't buy the comparison with locks. I mean, it would be valid if the locks on your doors only sort of sometimes worked with your key, in rare cases set your entire house on fire, and were consistently cracked by trained internet ninjas the day you installed them, but the last time I checked that wasn't really happening.
Philip | December 5, 2008 9:15 AM
""I think people who put it out there that publishers are just trying to be evil -- I assure you. We don't make money by making your lives difficult. If we didn't feel it was absolutely, positively imperative that we have this for our business, we wouldn't do it."
Then the only other reason would be ignorance.
Which is it? Evil or Ignorance?
So ignorance with heft dose of greed and an equale dos of not giving a crap about their consumers.
DosFreak | December 5, 2008 9:43 AM
I think many companies are doing DRM to prevent piracy, but to try and defeat rentals and first sale doctrine (which lets you sell an item that you purchased).
James BLackwell | December 6, 2008 2:45 AM
In regard to the 'keys' metaphor (and current SecuROM implementations), it would also be closer to the lock companies requiring that all keys be physically grafted into your hand (or other portion of anatomy). Even if you decide later that it's finally become too irritating to deal with, you can't remove it without significantly greater time, expertise, and any kind of assurance that it's actually all been removed, rather than leaving bits behind to cause massive problems later.
John | December 6, 2008 3:04 AM
With the ongoing rise of open source and related philosophies, in the long run, the model will change where it isn't even a business anymore. The players become the developers. It's not like we pay anyone to play catch or hide-and-seek; video games will become like that someday.
ray | December 6, 2008 3:32 AM
A better key metaphor would be that the only one needing a key to your house would be you, the legitimate owner. No one else who wants access (like a criminal) would need one.
That is how DRM works today. It inconveniences legitimate owners without stopping thieves.
Magnus | December 6, 2008 3:51 AM
Riccitiello's argument was good, but does not mix well with Svensson's follow-up, unless the lock was put in place by those selling us the house to protect their interests and we as owners could not change it.
The problem is that we cannot place unlimited products in the same category as limited ones. A house is make once sell once, a game is make onces sell infinite times without added cost.
Just because you see you could sell the same house to me, my wife, my children, my parents, and all my friends that come visit, does not mean you should be able to arbitrary restrictions in order to sell more houses. Your child moved out - sorry, your ownership does not permit someone moving into his room again. You may only have 5 visitors in your house.
Who want a house with such arbitrary clauses? Should those clauses be possible to place only because we now can make infinite copies of the same house?
ken | December 6, 2008 5:18 AM
The problem with what the publishers are saying are epic and boil down to a single thing, current DRM does not protect anything, it simply annoys and potentially breaks the computers of people who actually PAY for the software instead of pirating it.
Do the people who download the game even see copy protection? No.
Do the people who download the game have to deal with absurd limitations on software they buy like limited installs? No.
Does copy protection significantly slow down those remove it from software? No. It's called "Zero-Day" for a reason... and often, as with spore, the non-drm'd version comes out long before the legal version.
How does pissing down the backs of the people WILLING to give you money help your business? It doesn't. It just encourages further piracy when people who had been willing to pay get burned enough times that they become unwilling to pay to have their computer screwed up yet again.
Those who wouldn't have paid for the software aren't going to no matter what you do. I know this as both a software developer and as a consumer. Until the publishers get that through their head they're just encouraging further piracy.
Shadus | December 6, 2008 7:27 AM
Consumers don't mind DRM that gives them something in return for the hassle, such as Valve's steam. The anywhere, anytime model is a good incentive to tie the game to your purchaser id. Not even the pirates guarantee they'll keep the game updated or make it available for re-download after 10 years like valve does.
The EA way, where you pay for it but can't install it on a different PC or play it because you (or your kids) scratched the DVD, is broken. Who wants broken POS software that may or may not work?
Nelson | December 6, 2008 7:48 AM
There is a major "gap" between the reality that we live in and the fantasy that people believe we live in. The reality is, a portion of people will take something for free if they can, and the internet makes it very easy to do so.
As people have been pointing out, there are two distinct ways that companies are going about DRM, trying to perform a complete product lock-down, or tying features and service level to authenticated copies. I think the consumers have very quickly and from their standpoint, correctly said that the first method is not for them. Why would they want to pay full price on something that has less "value" to them then similar items from a few years ago?
The first type of DRM (and actually all types), have major restrictions on things that consumers were able to do not too long ago, like re-sell their legal copy of the game. In fact, this was a major part of the whole gaming industry, as you would see lots of people re-selling their old game(s) and use that money to purchase new ones. Sure, there were games that people kept, and those were games that really had an experience which the consumer truly enjoyed and had a high "re-play-ability" quality to the game. This rewarded game studios to produce games which had that "re-play-ability" quality because more of their games would be sold due to less consumers re-selling their copies of the game, and thus it was a BIG incentive for the studios to keep "re-play-ability" in mind while developing the game. Now with DRM, the studios are removing that ability of consumers to re-sell their game. The consumers can no longer get back a portion of their investment if they hate the game, or have done everything there is to do. In the past, they would sell it, but they can't do that anymore because of the way DRM is being implemented.
So from a consumer's point of view, the game is now LESS VALUABLE, but the studios have NOT reduced prices while their product's value was reduced. So what does that mean? It means the market is saying that your product is not worth its current price, and when that happens, the consumers look for alternate products which are at the correct price...
Let us all THINK REAL HARD here as to what that is... *DING* *DING* *DING* WE HAVE A WINNER, if you said "piracy"! DRM is CAUSING piracy. Not only that, it is actually shifting the ENTIRE MARKET to piracy. As consumers are looking for alternate products, they very quickly find the pirated goods on the internet. Once they start using the pirated versions they are saying to themselves, why in the world should I pay for a restricted product, when I can get an un-restricted product for "free"! This is VERY BAD for the studios, and they have not yet realized the whole "solution" to piracy is actually DRIVING MORE people to piracy.
Until the game studios develop an implement DRM which has the CONSUMER's wants and needs as its primary focus, you will see more and more piracy of games which are putting the studio's wants first. To the consumer, until DRM allows for a quick, easy, hassle-free, and no-cost method to transfer "ownership" of their game to another person, they aren't going to support it. The DRM platform will also need to be completely un-intrusive in the normal operations of a consumer's hardware (i.e. no creating of hardware driver wrappers for changing how a computer can operate, no recording and reporting back of activities that are done on the hardware, no adverse effects to the performance of the hardware, and finally being easily and COMPLETELY removable from the hardware... studios are forgetting that it is not THEIR hardware that the software is being run on, just as they want to consumers to respect the studio's property, that respect needs to be shown to the consumer as well...).
Fallen Kell | December 6, 2008 9:02 AM
There are two points where I draw the line. When the copy protection limits what I can do with the game and when it wants to install unrelated software on my PC.
The first is ridiculous given that people don't experience the limitations if they install a pirated copy. $50 for software that its publisher may or may not allow me to use? No. I avoid buying bridges as well.
The second is obnoxious and is a deal breaker. This PC cost a hell of a lot more than your disc and is my private property. I decide what software is installed and malware such as StarForce and SecuRom is specifically not allowed on it.
I did not buy Fallout 3 or GTA 4, although I sorely wanted both games, because they crossed these lines. Game developers need to wake up. Their publishing companies are killing the PC gaming market by driving away their loyal customers.
I have GTA 3, VC and SA, all purchased legally and all still played regularly. I've been waiting with impatience for GTA 4, had the money set aside for it, then learned they had bundled SecuRom with it. So I sputtered, yelled at the monitor, wrote an angry diatribe on Slashdot and then spent that money buying a new expansion to an old game from Stardock.
Suck it Rockstar.
Rooker | December 6, 2008 9:11 AM
The "locks on doors" is too simplistic an analogy. Here's a better analogy. You get a mortgage and buy a home. When you arrive at your new home, you not only discover a set of locks you've purchased, the mortgage company installed THEIR OWN set of locks on the same doors! If the mortgage company wants more money, they lock their locks and you now cannot get into the house you paid for. I think that's way more accurate of an analogy.
The Truth | December 6, 2008 9:50 AM
What if you have DRM installed on your computer by a game that causes other programs and games to crash? One example is SecuRom.
ericdered | December 6, 2008 3:31 PM
I really wish game companies stopped releasing games for Windows. Let´s be honest, that OS is completely useless, incompatible with the rest of the world and has been obsoleted by BSD and Linux since 1993.
joseph | December 7, 2008 11:48 AM
I'd like to see someone from the industry respond to the excellent observations that are being made in these comments.
I have great sympathy for publishers. As consumers of computer games, we should be interested in ensuring that those who produce games can make a comfortable living.
On the flip side: As providers, those who product the games should be interested in ensuring that we are pleased with the purchases we make.
Presently neither of these things are happening. People who pay for games get a WORSE product than those who download a cracked version from the Internet. The restrictions, inconvenience, instability and damage to our systems associated with retail DRMed games are an incentive to steal. It goes far beyond the issue of people wanting "something for nothing"; it's a quality problem.
Clearly people are willing to risk the consequences of installing software MODIFIED BY THIEVES rather than install DRMed games. This is an industry in crisis!
This era of restrictions imposed by publishing companies will need to end if piracy is going to be brought under control. No form of content protection is going to be effective - surely that's become obvious by now? Instead there needs to be a dialogue between the publishers and the players to establish a system that's fair to everyone.
The current situation is fair to nobody.
Breathing Meat | December 7, 2008 4:57 PM
The key analogy is pretty sound to me...
Are the house keys necessary for the enjoyment/use of the house? Not really. After all, you can leave your house unlocked if you want, and it can be an inconvenience to always have to carry around a key that could get lost/stolen, and being locked out of your own home. But most people still carry around house keys and lock their doors anyway.
But while most everyone only wants to look at the "consumers point of view", one should also see if from a game publisher/creator perspective.
How would you like it if you came up with a great game, that cost you a lot of time and money, and practically half of your users didn't even pay for the thing?
And even assuming someone disputes my arguments (and I'm sure someone will), many of you missed the point of the above article: Piracy is hurting the industry.
Will the ideas mentioned in the article prevent piracy? Probably not, as many of you have mentioned. In fact, some comments have even stated that such measures will actually promote piracy. Many people attack the ideas, but refuse to come up with one of their own.
The real question is: if the above solutions are a bad idea, how would YOU prevent piracy?
The Kid | December 7, 2008 10:30 PM
I haven't pirated software since high school (back in the 80s).
However, if I ever run Spore, I will be running a pirated version. If I like the game enough, I'll buy the real version but that real version will never touch my computer.
Sony's rootkit bricked the CDROM of my laptop. EA's not getting the chance to mess up the computer that I use for work and play.
Jeff Miller | December 7, 2008 11:18 PM
Well, since the question of how the normal user would want to battle piracy did come up:
With the curent model of releasing 90% of all games before they are finished. Make the patches rely on having a unmodified previous version. If you are running a cracked version you are going to be stuck with a buggy/worse version.
Same for expansions, keep back a few extra levels or a few extra items for those whom can verify they OWN their copy.
Unless the program verifies it won't use anything in the "mod" folder or similar as well.
This'd make a pirated copy at best a demo of the full experience.
And for the people who had bought it, it'd be a bit of a promise of a longer life-cycle for their game.
Adam Östergren | December 7, 2008 11:49 PM
The industry to look to how Valve did things: you can purchase the game *once* on Steam, and as long as you have an internet connection to verify it, you can redownload and reinstall that game on your account any number of times on any number of computers. That's good quality service right there, and that's half the reason Valve's user base are LOYAL (the other half is Valve's never released a trash title). Instead of making the system a pain in the ass that destroys computer, make it convenient to the user. Hell, the disk makers should strongly consider enabling users to be able to get digital back ups of the games they buy in store incase of a disk failure, with the catch being you have to register and verify your CD key with the company before doing so.
To give you an example, a kid tried to convince me to make my copy of Left 4 Dead off line, and give him a copy because he couldn't be assed to buy one himself. Now if it had been EA, or Sony, or one of those game companies that would happily brick my computer to protect their game, I wouldn't have a problem with it being pirated, but not Valve. I told him go and pay for it because its a good product. If Sony goes under because of pirate back lash on their DRM that destroys computer, cry me a river, but *nobody* messes with Valve.
Mezorin | December 8, 2008 12:50 AM
"Svensson says Titan Quest might have suffered from the same issue - it would crash when tripwires failed to authenticate, and so gained a reputation for being an unstable title, creating a negative perception of the product.
Titan Quest's creator, Iron Lore, recently shuttered its studio -- notably, Michael Fitch, creative director of Titan Quest publisher THQ, blamed rampant piracy in part for Iron Lore's failure to thrive."
Partially correct. I was present in the semi-official TQ forums from the release of the demo until the second patch for the game. The main problem that Iron Lore had with piracy was that they had no idea which bug reports were coming from legitimate users and which were coming from the pirated versions - this is what cost them more time and thus money.
The fact that Titan Quest was a buggy game even after the first patch (as is the expansion) cannot be denied.... and thus sales would have been retarded due to this fact.
@ Mezorin
"The industry to look to how Valve did things: you can purchase the game *once* on Steam, and as long as you have an internet connection to verify it, you can redownload and reinstall that game on your account any number of times on any number of computers. That's good quality service right there, and that's half the reason Valve's user base are LOYAL (the other half is Valve's never released a trash title)."
Exactly, though their customer support and protection (as with all online systems) is virtually non-existant. As soon as bad and really buggy games are released on Steam and consumers' experience with the system comes under real scrutiny then it's hard to find a reason to dislike steam for most consumers.
A case in point is GTA 4. Some people are able to get refunds (for the crap that was released) from Steam.... however, Valve consider this a one-time courtesy and will not normally do this - probably because it costs them money. Which begs the question: Will digital distribution, EULAs and the degredation of consumer rights with regards to entertainment software purchases allow publishers and developers to put out any old crap and not suffer the consequences of it in the short term?
Digital distribution needs a radical overhaul to get around the problems it currently faces - as does selling games in general.... i don't know of any other product where you don't 'own' the copy you pay for and can be denied access to it by a third party.
Duoae | December 8, 2008 7:31 AM
The house key analogy is broken on many levels. To start with, a house key does not restrict what you can do with your house, nor are you required to use it. It's also possible to remove all locks from your house if you want to (legally, as opposed to removing DRM which is illegal). Secondly as the owner of the house, it's your call whether you have locks installed, and/or how they are used.
Where the lock analogy does hold up, is that DRM, like locks, is only a minor nuisance to those that know what they're doing, and mostly functions to keep the honest people honest (realistically the primary purpose of a lock is to indicate to someone trying to enter a location that the owner does not wish them to enter, if the person attempting to enter really wants in, a lock won't stop them or even slow them down much).
It's hard to come up with a proper analogy for DRM because there are very few things that really are like DRM. Lets try to define the essential properties of DRM sha'll we?
1) DRM annoys the crap out of people attempting to use software
2) DRM can be easily circumvented by those with minimal technical knowledge
3) It is illegal to remove DRM (see DMCA circumventing a copyright protection device provision)
4) DRM does not stop piracy
5) DRM does not appreciably slow down piracy
6) DRM makes games, other software, and potentially the OS it's installed in unstable, buggy, and crash prone.
7) DRM violates first sale doctrine
8) DRM prevents many actions that would be covered by fair use
Yes, I can clearly see the value of DRM.
Now, piracy is a problem, but no, DRM is not a solution. As others have already said, the answer is to make people not want to pirate your games in the first place, companies like valce and stardock are clearly leading the pack in this regard. Repeat after me, Pirates are not, and never will be your customers, you will never convert a pirated copy into a sale, that would not have already been a sale had you not used DRM. You can not force the pirates to use DRM, only your paying customers (and not even all of them). DRM is yet another instance of trying to make something illegal "more illegal", it's a idiotic thing to do, as you can't make something more illegal, it's either legal or not.
On the topic of valve, and steam in particular, I think steam is very nearly a perfect anti-piracy system, although what would make it just that much better is if they had a system in place to allow steam users to sell their games to each other. Doing that would allow first sale doctrine to be honored even if the game was wholly bought and downloaded through steam.
K. Murphy | December 8, 2008 9:01 AM
Yah, all hail the great God Steam?
I'd be a lot more into Steam if their pricing more realistically reflected the fact that their distribution costs are far lower. Where I come from I could buy the products off-the-shelf for the same price or less than I'd pay Steam. Why would I do that and get no installation media, no printed manual, and have to pay my ISP for the megs I download?
Steam is nearly there, but not quite.
Breathing Meat | December 14, 2008 1:31 AM
thats why I just download 10 year old pc and abandonware games and consoles
Gnashly | December 21, 2008 6:37 AM