LGP Introduces Linux Game Copy Protection

[Vadi]

I don't. At all.

Okay, you're just one person. How about for everybody else who is against this?

[M1AU]

If your machine is not directly connected to the internet, or for some reason your internet connection does not allow direct connection to our servers, the game will allow you to continue to play for a certain amount of time before requesting you re-verify with the LGP key server.

How long exactly is "a certain amount of time"?
Is it like a popup every half an hour or so that you should go and verify it, or is it just install and playable for about 3 days without ever asking again?

[Chris]

DRM can't be fought at the same time that you're trying to get Linux gaming going

Nor can it be whole-sale accepted, IMO. Obtrusive methods, especially. The more in-your-face DRM methods get (eg. re-verification every so-and-so days), the less likely they are to be bought. The more they require unnecessary things to play the game (eg. be online for an offline game), the less likely they are to be bought. And if they aren't bought, how will that help Linux gaming? And that's not even touching when people would have to buy the game a second time to play it natively. Why would they want to buy it a second time just to be constantly hassled?

Sure, a CD check won't stop many people from buying. A one-time CD key won't stop many people from buying. Online verification may (depending on the implementation and game). Continual re-verification may. Some of it may get by, but there is a cumulative effect here. It's not "Is there DRM?" that'll stop most people, it's "How bad is the DRM?". Though I wonder how many people realize the kind of DRM they're getting with a game because it doesn't pop up a message box "Verifying User Innocence...".

this is not any real difference than Steam, QW:ET, Savage, Penny Arcade Adventures.

I have completely sworn off Steam. It never has, and never will touch my computer. QW:ET I only played the demo of, but I won't really consider buying it because it's just not my type of game. I've never heard of Savage. And thanks for letting me know about Penny Arcade. If it's as bad as this, shame I'll have to skip it.

The last three games I've bought are: Dark Messiah: Might and Magic, played via Wine (does not require Steam for the single player, which is all I play).. Oblivion, played via Wine (a regular old CD check, easilly gotten around if needed; I also consider this a Thank You to Bethesda for not including any of the horrid DRM schemes that were prevelant when it came out).. and Doom3, played natively (the Linux version never had the CD check; and there's a one-time CD key check that doesn't assume you're a thief simply because you're not online to verify).

EDIT:
It's also been shown that lack of DRM increases sales, if you have a good game. Most top selling PC games have little to no DRM. It's also apparent that publishers aren't getting the message that people don't want to buy DRM-laden products. Their idea to fix the problem is to throw more DRM at it (which just makes it worse, causing them to throw on more, etc).

So obviously, publishers are not listening to their costumers. LGP, though, is in a position where they *can* listen to their customers (you know, the users that want to buy the games). Good, well-known titles with little-to-no DRM is what sells. Little-know titles (honestly, I've not heard of the majority of the games in the catalog on their site; and the ones I've had don't strike me as anything special) with obtrusive DRM will not sell (even if the game ends up being good, no one will know because they won't buy it).

There's also the issue that people have had bad experiences with crappy ports. What is heavy DRM going to do to that image? "We can't sell games because they're not good enough, so we're just going to (futilly) try to stop people from pirating to make us look good to prospective clients"? That's not the kind of company I'd want to do bussiness with.

[curaga]

Okay, you're just one person. How about for everybody else who is against this?

I already mentioned I have nothing to do with Steam. I don't play ET:QW, and also haven't heard of Savage before. Nor do I play Doom 3. And I'm against DRM.

[LavosPhoenix]

LGP is full of bullshit. A pirated copy of their game does not necessarily mean a lost sale. I request that if they are going to use DRM, that they change their name to remove any mention of Linux, as they are insulting it. Not to mention that I surely won't be buying any of their games with DRM at all. It's a shame they have to blame their financial and marketing problems on their customers, instead of blaming the leaders of their company.

[Svartalf]

LGP is full of bullshit. A pirated copy of their game does not necessarily mean a lost sale. I request that if they are going to use DRM, that they change their name to remove any mention of Linux, as they are insulting it. Not to mention that I surely won't be buying any of their games with DRM at all. It's a shame they have to blame their financial and marketing problems on their customers, instead of blaming the leaders of their company.

Heh... I have a question for you.

Would you be pitching a hissy fit if your code, say in busybox, for example, was copied, in violation of the terms of the GPL, as it had been with Actiontec and Verizon? What if it's a kernel driver or piece of kernel code you wrote?

If you'd be screeching about GPL violations, either because of the principle of the thing or because it's your code, you need to stop and think long and hard about your comments about lost sales, etc. as it's not about lost sales- it's about violating the terms under which the protected work was provided to you. Copying it without a derivative works and publication license is no different than violating the terms of the GPL.

If three out of four people are copying it (and I'm inclined to BELIEVE this...) then it's not a bad business model and lost sales that are really not lost but rather people that talk a good talk about Linux and FOSS but in the end are just being dishonest about it all. It's NOT "okay" to breach someone's rights regarding production, etc. and then turn around and wave the anti-DRM flag and the GPL flag, etc. DRM isn't going to fix the problem, but you all on your high horses about it this way need to find a solution then rather than just mouthing off about it.

[Chris]

DRM isn't going to fix the problem, but you all on your high horses about it this way need to find a solution then rather than just mouthing off about it.

I think it depends on what the actual problem is. Is it the supposed lost money? Is it just the fact that people are copying it and breaking the law? There are things legally wrong with pirating, no question, but the way to go about dealing with it depends highly on what the developers/publishers are trying to fix.

DRM, by nature, is designed to prevent people from playing. This is obviously not something you'd want to do if you want to get people buying and playing it. If it's lackluster sales that are the problem, then there are a few things here.

1) Not all games are good. It's a fact. Even if you put a couple million dollars into a game, it can still be crappy and people won't want to buy it.
2) People like to know what they're buying. If people can't test before they play, they tend to just not play. Having a freely distributable demo helps, but the demo has to have enough context to it. If the demo's short, set in the middle of the game, or the multiplayer-only portion of a largely single-player game, people aren't going to get a good sense of the game and will likely skip it.
3) It has to have good availabilty. Simple, but true. The easier it is to get the game, the more likely it is someone will be interested in buying it. This also goes true for returns. The easier it is to return a game to get their money back, the more comfortable a potential buyer will be with the initial purchase.
4) Price. People have to feel that the price they're paying is a good deal for the game they get. If the port comes out a while after the main game, there's the added issue that people may have already bought the Windows/original version, and won't feel that paying full price again to run something they already have on a different OS is worth it. Free, or significantly reduced in price, binaries (without the game assets) would be more appealing to people that would be customers.

[movieman]

DRM isn't going to fix the problem, but you all on your high horses about it this way need to find a solution then rather than just mouthing off about it.

The problem with DRM is very simple: it inconveniences your paying customers while pirates can just download a cracked copy that doesn't inconvenience them at all. Unless you provide other benefits to compensate (as Steam does, with the ease of buying and updating games), your paying customers actually get a worse product than the pirates get for free.

Going back to my dongles, they do make sense, because although I'm sure the software is as easily cracked as any other, any company or employee who pirates a dongle-free copy of the software will get into big trouble if they're found out; the hassle is limited and the cost of the software is far less than the potential cost if they pirate. But with games the DRM has to be extremely low hassle for legitimate purchasers before it actively begins to discourage people from buying your game.

Essentially you're tying to find a balance between minimising the income lost from the number of purchasers you drive away with intrusive DRM while maximising the income you gain from people who would otherwise have pirated the game but bought it instead. That's very hard to do and there's no magic solution.

[Aradreth]

1) Not all games are good. It's a fact. Even if you put a couple million dollars into a game, it can still be crappy and people won't want to buy it.
2) People like to know what they're buying. If people can't test before they play, they tend to just not play. Having a freely distributable demo helps, but the demo has to have enough context to it. If the demo's short, set in the middle of the game, or the multiplayer-only portion of a largely single-player game, people aren't going to get a good sense of the game and will likely skip it.
3) It has to have good availabilty. Simple, but true. The easier it is to get the game, the more likely it is someone will be interested in buying it. This also goes true for returns. The easier it is to return a game to get their money back, the more comfortable a potential buyer will be with the initial purchase.
4) Price. People have to feel that the price they're paying is a good deal for the game they get. If the port comes out a while after the main game, there's the added issue that people may have already bought the Windows/original version, and won't feel that paying full price again to run something they already have on a different OS is worth it. Free, or significantly reduced in price, binaries (without the game assets) would be more appealing to people that would be customers.

Piracy isn't the solution to any of these problems, you want to play the game you pay for the game simple. Whilst the DRM will eventually be crack as is always the case it may give LGP a few more customers are people do not want to wait for a crack to come out. Now if the gain in customers is worth the loss in customers due to people boycotting because of DRM is debatable but in the end it's LGP's choice.

And for all of you bitching about the DRM I'm curious how many of you have actually bought a LGP game.

[Vadi]

LGP is full of bullshit. A pirated copy of their game does not necessarily mean a lost sale.

Haha!

In the overwhelming majority of cases, it does. Not that many people buy the game, lose the cd, and pirate it.