That's a valid point but it dodges the thrust of the post, which is that piracy is pushing the industry in this direction --- this is a mainstream title from a mainstream vendor that is making a clear and visible usability concession to protect the new release window from pirates.
Most users probably won't care (remember that we're a disproportionately vocal minority --- or, you are; my job is to make these titles worse for you, and I don't ever play video games), and vendors are going to get users to adapt to concessions like this.
You're right, many users won't care about the DRM. What they will care about is a game freezing up and crashing. They won't even realize it's from DRM issues.
I also wouldn't underestimate the tech chops of gamers. These are the guys who overclock hardware, do case mods... just because they're not hardcore hackers doesn't mean they don't understand or care about these issues.
Agreed - I don't care at all and would buy this game if it was my style. Am I going to give up on having an internet connection at my place, ever? No. So how would this negatively affect me? A little bit of downtime? We all need bathroom breaks.
I understand the resentment at these anti-hacking measures given that this is a hacker community but not all companies choose to make their products in the open-source tradition, and that's a perfectly valid choice for them to make.
You'd put up with the game crashing and losing your save data when your internet gets a little bit wonky? I have fiber to my house within the city, and my connection still gets flaky at times.
And you're right, it is a valid choice. Doesn't mean their choice won't be criticized. This also has nothing to do with open source, and everything to do with treating your paying users like criminals. This pic from the other day is perfect: http://t1.xavimg.com/2010/02/piratelegal.jpg
What's funny is that they're making it more convenient to play the pirated version than the legit version. The more invasive DRM you force on your legit users, the more they're going to look for workarounds online and fuel piracy.
Titles can offload more and more of their game content into code paths that depend on the Internet, and if those titles generate more revenue (because they're harder to pirate effectively), it's not unlikely that the market will move that way.
Why is more pervasive DRM necessarily more of an inconvenience for the user? It will be an inconvenience for an unfortunate minority, but a well designed and executed system could well be unnoticed by most.
I only notice Apple's DRM in iTunes when I have to de-authorize an old computer or authorize a new one, which is only once or twice a year at most.
It depends on how common the minority is, yeah. In the days where DRM required you to insert the original game disc to verify it, a lot of legitimate purchasers of games got cracked copies too just to avoid the hassle of having to swap CDs. With the internet-based DRM, I think it depends on how many gamers have flaky internet connections, or play on laptops at places where there's no internet (e.g. on most trains, buses, and planes).
A lot of that can be addressed by making the connection a bit more "robust." A lot of people who play on trains and buses can could be accommodated by having 24 hours to authenticate.
Publishers have it in their head that piracy equals lost sales.
It's this belief, that DRM can recapture those sales, that is pushing them in this direction.
Sales of PC games, which are dead-easy to steal, dropped off sharply at right around the dawn of the Internet. Meanwhile, the market for console games, which have a much higher barrier to entry to pirate, is booming:
Rightly or not, PC game makers have it in their heads that piracy is killing their business. I can see it both ways: On one hand, I find it hard to believe that not even a small fraction of computer game pirates would purchase more games if they couldn't easily steal them. But I also wonder if declining PC sales aren't just a byproduct of the "serious" gamers' shift towards preferring console games.
Regardless, the market for PC game sales has flatlined, and Ubisoft is trying desperately to jumpstart it by enacting a system that makes piracy significantly more difficult, at least for a little while. I'm sure they'll use the 3-4 months of nearly-zero piracy rates as a yardstick with which to measure the potential of the industry sans piracy. It will be interesting to see if you're right.
> a byproduct of the "serious" gamers' shift towards preferring console games.
Or maybe the complete opposite: Casual gamer's are a much bigger audience than serious gamers. And PC games tend to be more serious. So the shift could be explained in this way, too.
(Just a hypothesis. Your argument has more going for it.)
There are plenty of other data points besides 'dawn of the internet'. Complexity of PC games shot up. Prices shot up. Consoles began to get titles in genres that were traditionally 'PC only'. Also, PC games have always been dead-easy to pirate. It's thoroughly unconvincing to wave your hand at an aggregate sales graph and note a single data point.
And, frankly, none of that matters.
All that matters is that publishers believe DRM can turn would-be pirates into customers. It's a belief that's never been borne out by the data. But still they try.
Whether their cause is noble, or reasonable, or justified is irrelevant. It's their belief that DRM is worth-while that causes DRM. Not piracy. Not sales.
Most users probably won't care (remember that we're a disproportionately vocal minority --- or, you are; my job is to make these titles worse for you, and I don't ever play video games), and vendors are going to get users to adapt to concessions like this.