EA’s CEO, Mr. John Riccitiello, recently gave an interview with Gamasutra, and surprisingly he said:
I personally hate DRM,” EA CEO John Riccitiello tells Gamasutra.
Am I the only one who thinks that is a huge steaming pile of horse manure?
“I don’t like the whole concept; it can be a little bit cumbersome. But 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 – and I think the vast majority of people voted with their wallets and went out and bought Spore.”
Bad analogy. Locks on your door & keys in your car serves one purpose: to protect you and your investment. This is more akin to installing anti-virus on your PC. Sure you can remove them, but removing them dissolves you of the protection that they offer and require you to be more vigilant. DRM on software does nothing for the user. Instead, it benefits the publisher and gives no freedom to the user what he wants to do with the software that he purchsed. So it is more akin to the company who built the house holding the key to the lock and unlocks it for you each time you want to enter the house. What if Honda were the ones who hold the keys to your car?
I have to admit that the game’s concept is very intriguing and I would so very much love to go out and buy it. That’s why a lot of people went out and bought it. But just think how much more would have gone out and bought it if there is no DRM?
“I think that, in general, a year and a half ago EA was pretty well hated — and I think for good reasons,” he says. “Today, you’d be hard pressed to go to a forum and not see a lot of people defending EA and its products.”
I’ve read and seen Blizzard fanboys. But I didn’t know there are EA fanboys! (I just had to put this in.)
“There are different ways to do DRM; the most successful is what WoW does. They just charge you by the month,” Riccitiello says, noting that the subscription model means that even those who pirate the software itself can’t play without paying.
How can he compare an online game, as opposed to a single player game? WoW is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game, or MMORPG, for short. The game thrives on the social aspect in a persistent world, which of course requires a user to have an account to play. WoW also doesn’t skimp on the client. In fact, one of the most fabulous things about WoW is that I can simply copy the folder WoW resides in into a portable harddrive and copy it onto a different machine, double click on WoW.exe and start playing. It’s that simple! As for the monthly subscription model, I see it as simply the cost of maintaining a persistent world, which happens to be part of the game, not a form of protection against piracy.
Funnily enough, Spore is a game that also has an online component. The user has to log on to EA’s server so that Spore can populate the user’s world with other user-generated content, making no two worlds alike. So why does it need SecuROM and the install limit in the first place? Why can’t it be as accessible as WoW? I have bought WoW, twice in fact, which means Blizzard has gotten their fair share of my money.
A user was also burned by EA’s lies EA’s licensing agreement. Is this a company that should be supported?
“Everyone gets that we need some level of protection, or we’re going to be in business for free,” Riccitiello says. But he sees a lack of understanding among “a minority of people that orchestrated a great PR program. They picked the highest-profile game they could find,” he says. “I respect them for the success of their movement.”
“‘I’m guessing that half of them were pirates, and the other half were people caught up in something that they didn’t understand,” he says. “If I’d had a chance to have a conversation with them, they’d have gotten it.”
So by his statement, Stardock is probably not making any money at all and will go under very, very soon. But surprisingly, their previous two games, Galactic Civilizations 2 and Sins Of A Solar Empire, which came without ANY protection whatsoever, went into the top ten sales charts for PC games. By the way, Sins Of A Solar Empire, a game made on a fraction of a budget, went on to sell more than 500,000 copies.
Also, why would pirates be lamenting on the DRM? They got away scot-free didn’t they? No install limit to contend with. No online activation needed. Spore is the number one most pirated game of all time. EA’s response? Downplay it, of course! Strangely, EA also insinuated that a pirated copy isn’t a lost sale. Wait, isn’t that what all industry bigwigs are saying in the first place?
If DRM did not prevent piracy as EA seem to suggest, what does it accomplish?
I think that the installation limitation will definitely kill off second hand sales of the game. Would you buy a copy if the original owner had used up one or two installs? Why would anyone take such a huge gamble? Let’s say a person buys a used copy with only 1 installation left for $10. Then, he realised that a graphics card upgrade will increase his enjoyment of the game more. Aha! But he can’t! If he did, his PC will be detected as a new PC, and there is no more activations left. Who wants to bet with me that EA’s customer support will be awesome enough to promptly issue him a new key 10 minutes after getting through to an officer?
We have seen what will happen once the 3-install limit is up. The first advice they give you: buy another copy! So instead of directing users to call customer support, some of those who breached this, will go out and buy another copy instead. It’s just like spam. If a fraction of those who got it responded, it is good enough for them.
So, final rhetorical question: does DRM serve to hinder piracy or boost sales?
Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20655
