> Are you aware that commercial piracy used to be a big thing? You could walk about your local market and see pirated copies of games on sale for a quarter of the price.
Did it change much? Except now all that is available through torrents and so on and even for 0% of the price. While DRM didn't prevent it then and doesn't prevent it now. All it does is annoying legitimate users who buy the product, and as well gives some control freaks tools to shape the industry and the law (with DMCA-1201 like methods).
>While DRM didn't prevent it then and doesn't prevent it now.
Current generation console games are pretty well protected with their DRM and sell much better than their PC ports. Care to explain how it works with the theory that the DRM kills sales and gets cracked immediately?
Console games aren't "protected" by DRM, they are "protected" with reducing their portability. And those companies (like Nintendo) try to attack those who produce emulators. I.e. they want to control how you use the product. It's not about piracy, it's about their desire for control.
When Geohot tried to distribute tools to strip DRM from PlayStation, Sony was all rage and sued him. As I said, DRM is about control freaks trying to shape the industry with corrupted laws, not about any piracy or the like.
Sorry, I understand you rage, but I don't see an answer to my question. On the other hand, an angry outburst is a kind of answer too. I assume your theory failed here.
The answer to your question is, that DRM doesn't help console games in the least. It helps some companies like Sony to control the market with lock-in and restrict what users can do using corrupted laws. DRM itself can be broken and will be broken as the practice shows.
I never said it helps. I asked how you reconcile the believe that DRM hurts sales with the better sales on the system with uncracked DRM. If you consider much smaller installed base and much higher price the console sales are even more amazing.
I'm not sure what you mean by better sales. Some cross platform games which sell better on consoles than let's say on PCs? And why would you think that DRM is the reason for that?
A lot of such games have poor quality on PCs, and more focused on console UX, or there can be tons of other factors which affect it.
Also console manufacturers cultivate lock-in approach and push for exclusives rather than preferring cross platform games. So sales numbers aren't indicating normal competition.
As I said, I am not saying the DRM is the reason. Though I suspect it helps. When people cannot steal things they want - they do buy them. Not everyone, but there seem to be enough such people.
>A lot of such games have poor quality on PCs, and more focused on console UX, or there can be tons of other factors which affect it.
Sure. But games like COD are pretty well done on PC as well. Yet they sell a small fraction on PC even compared to a single platform. You seem to be very sure the DRM reduces sales so should not it be a slum dunk for you here? A system with a strong DRM vs a system where a "strong" DRM means a crack will come out in a month. Where sales will suffer? Where do they actually suffer? It's not some rocket science, the numbers get published every once in a while and everyone who ever shipped a multiplatform title knows them as well.
>Also console manufacturers cultivate lock-in approach and push for exclusives rather than preferring cross platform games.
Obviously I am not asking about exclusive games. Exclusive games do not get PC ports, do they?
> When people cannot steal things they want - they do buy them. Not everyone, but there seem to be enough such people
Or may be those people don't want to buy them, but if they get it for free from pirates, they infringe. And if they don't get it, they ignore it. So far I didn't see any studies which showed that DRM increases sales. But I saw studies to the opposite however.
> Yet they sell a small fraction on PC even compared to a single platform.
Because gaming platforms were unnaturally shifted to consoles by MS and the like? They tried to kill PC gaming market on purpose (consoles give them more monopolistic control). So disproportional amount of console gamers is not surprising. I suspect it has much bigger impact on sales numbers than any DRM can have in either direction.
Well, we are running in circles in here, are not we? These studies do not seem to be able to explain why the console DRM is not reducing sales. So you come with some other explanations instead of DRM. Which is something I expected because the whole premise seems very unnatural to me. Some intrusive and complicated DRM schemes might be able to affect sales negatively but there are just not that many people who have emotional reaction to DRM. I would not buy a game that required me to enter code from manual myself. I would not buy a game that depends on some central server verification. Not because I am religiously opposed to DRM but because it's asking for too much of my attention. I am just fine with console games - they just work.
On the other hand, the PS2 modchips required 20+ wires soldering and expensive at the time DVD-R technology. A lot of people went for that. So, while there are some people who infringe just because it's free, there are also people who infringe just because it's somewhat cheaper. The later category is converted to paying customers with the DRM.
> These studies do not seem to be able to explain why the console DRM is not reducing sales.
How do you know it doesn't? I don't think you have any easy way to measure that. As I said before, console sales numbers relate to the way the market shifted. They can as well be even higher if not for DRM.
> Which is something I expected because the whole premise seems very unnatural to me.
The premise is very natural. Reduced usability means crippled product (in some way). Crippled product means some users will more likely to avoid it. Pretty straightforward and iron logic no DRM proponent can deny. But they don't function according to common sense, or as I already said they use DRM not for anything related to sales, but for completely different reasons.
> while there are some people who infringe just because it's free, there are also people who infringe just because it's somewhat cheaper.
And of course there are those who break DRM for sport just because they like breaking it. I.e. if not for DRM they wouldn't even have paid attention. A clear example when DRM boosts piracy directly.
> The later category is converted to paying customers with the DRM.
Not at all. The later category stays a non paying customer, since why should they buy the same thing with DRM when pirates offer them it without it? I.e. without crippled usability? The only thing that can convince them to become paying customers is the same product offered without DRM by legitimate source. That's because that DRM is always broken.
What you are engaging into (and in pretty much every single message I've seen you post on the subject of DRM) is shifting the burden of proof. This is the same kind of argument we get from creationists or people who want the world to conform to a mental model they have ("The Earth is 4.7 billion years" "How do you know, were you there?").
Strong correlations have been observed between the presence of DRM and strong sales (for games that are worth it). The most obvious examples of this phenomenon would be World of Warcraft, Sim City 5 and Diablo. These games are very close to being impossible to pirate, are extremely high quality and have sold millions of copies.
All you have against the claim that DRM for good games seems to help sales is requesting certainty, but you're the one making the claim that DRM hurts sales, so the burden of proof is on you. I know you really, really want it to be the case, but so far, you've offered very little convincing evidence (not even circumstantial).
I dislike DRM and as a regular buyer of games, it's often been more of a pain than anything else, but I'm also a software engineer and I can't help but acknowledge that it works with sales.
The burden of proof is on those who introduce the preemptive policing. It's their idea to accuse everyone in advance.
There was already proof that DRM decreases sales however. But I've seen none that it helps anyone except those who pursue lock-in and other corrupted practices. DRM has no place in any ethical business.
> Strong correlations have been observed between the presence of DRM and strong sales
Can you point to any studies on this subject please? There are published studies in the other direction. Sales numbers can't simply be attributed to DRM because DRM is broken. Even latest upstart Denuvo was broken not long ago. So the theory of sales coming from DRM is easily refuted by reality.
> All you have against the claim that DRM for good games seems to help sales is requesting certainty,
No, what I have is certainty that DRM serves nothing related to sales. If anyobe still thinks that DRM is used for sales they are simply delusional or are akin to Lysenkoists who thought that plants can be trained to grow in cold climate.
> I'm also a software engineer and I can't help but acknowledge that it works with sales.
And your acknowledgement is based on what exactly? All engineers I spoke about it clearly say that DRM is dumb and never serves any useful purpose (and if it serves any, that purpose is crooked).
Lot's of things can be observed. Conclusion of correlation or rather causation is purely speculative however.
What I'm repeating and will be repeating is that such unethical methods like DRM have no place in any decent business. And they don't help sales of course. All they help are some crooks who want more control over the market or technology (DCMA-1201 and similar laws is their leverage on top of DRM).
Well, we have the same game selling much more on "crippled" platforms than on PC despite higher install base and cheaper price. If you want to say that without DRM it would be selling even better you have to present some proof. For example, what would have happened if a console's DRM had been cracked in a way that everyone could download game ISOs and play without doing complicated modifications to the hardware like they can on PC? Why, this has actually happened to Dreamcast. Its title sales have not increased because of this, in fact, it has tanked so much that Sega has retired it soon after this happened. But, of course, Sega is run by some reality-ignoring cretins, their sales actually increased, right?
>Not at all. The later category stays a non paying customer, since why should they buy the same thing with DRM when pirates offer them it without it?
Pirates are not offering the PS4 and X1 games without DRM. Please, talk about something you know.
> Pirates are not offering the PS4 and X1 games without DRM. Please, talk about something you know.
Because their DRM is one of the most intrusive ones. It will be broken as well, don't worry. No DRM will ever be unbrekable, that's the nature of it. Of course the more intrusive garbage they pile into it, the longer it can take to crack it. PS4 and XB1 won't be an exception though.
Did it change much? Except now all that is available through torrents and so on and even for 0% of the price. While DRM didn't prevent it then and doesn't prevent it now. All it does is annoying legitimate users who buy the product, and as well gives some control freaks tools to shape the industry and the law (with DMCA-1201 like methods).