Comments on: EA: 99.8% of gamers don't care about DRM

If even a single customer is mad at your company then you haven't done your job well.

[quarky42]

Most gamers don't care about DRM because they simply don't understand it, don't know what it is, or know what the ramifications are of having embedded on media and worse having its rootkits injected onto their systems.

Anyone that I've talked to that knows what DRM is, does, and what limits it creates has been dead set against it even though they ardently purchase their games and music... they are starting to realize that DRM keeps them from using what they buy as THEY see fit!

[Lerianis]

The fact is that DRM is becoming a deal-breaker for most people, especially when it is combined with those 'activation limits' ********. I should be able to make as many account and install the thing on as many computers as I want, as long as I actually own those computers. Not have to buy 2 or 3 copies of Spore or another game so that I, my mother and my father, as well as my kids, can play on our computers.

[streamOG]

LOL!!

"And if he really doesn't like DRM then they should figure out another way to solve the piracy problem. A community/enterprise version approach akin to open source might be one way to get things started."

Right because OpenSource solves everything right? Like people want to buy OpenSource video games or rely on a bunch of hobbyists in their parent's basement to solve a major business issue like piracy.

Come on Dave GET A CLUE!! Nobody buys anything opensource. OpenSource=Free. It's the software equivalent of the MP3. The reason nobody is buying MP3's like they buy encrypted iTunes tracks??

Because in the consumer's mind MP3=Free and it always will.

BTW he got his figures by taking the number of games sold and comparing it to the number of actual complaints they received from actual customers. A anti-DRM blogger who isn't a customer doesn't count.

[gtyron]

First off I agree with quarky, most gamers don't understand DRM. Now to my main point, if 99.8% of users don't care, then that means that 99.8% of users have a legitimate copy. 0.2% would not make them go to the trouble to implement the DRM and endure that bad publicity.

[Tarindel]

This article is blatantly mistitled. Riccatello said, "We implemented a form of DRM and it's something that 99.8 percent of users wouldn't notice". That's not the same thing as saying gamers don't care about DRM -- in fact, the two things aren't even related.

[streamOG]

But does that SUPRISE YOU Tarindel? This is CNET! The site purely exists as a platform for the disenfranchised open source anti-MS anti big business writers that belong to CBS media empire. Every day it's another story about how opensource or DRM free are going to solve every problem we face in digital media and yet none of these writers or bloggers have a clue about how. Be sure and vocalize your distaste with the false statements made here by contacting the editor at:

http://www.cnet.com/1991-13403_1-6722482-1.html

[Lerianis]

I have no distaste for this article, because it is right on the button about opensource and DRM-free. The fact is that DRM is more and more becoming a deal-breaker for people and people are getting tired of being forced to install things that limit how they can use their software.
If these companies would start selling things at a REASONABLE COST (10 dollars for a Harry Potter game, 20 for a Diablo III type game).... we wouldn't be seeing any or most of the problems with piracy.

[IHateDRMAdmin]

Removing DRM is just one step to solving the problem. I'm pretty sure every consumer expert on the subject would agree. DRM is and never has been about piracy. Some people as high up as Riccatello MAY actually believe that it is about piracy but they also know it's a way to lock consumers in and in many cases force them to re-buy the same software more than once.

For all of those who think gamers don't understand DRM you couldn't be more wrong. I'm not sure if you just think gamers are 12 year olds playing halo in mom and dad's basement or if you just think we are stupid. Either way, statistics show that most gamers are between 25-35 years old. Some studies even say the average age of a gamer is 33. Age alone doesn't mean you are smart but many of us have full time jobs, make good money, have families, own houses, etc. So I can tell you, we are informed. We do care. And it DOES make a difference to our buying habits.

I am probably on the fringe but I have a LOT of gamer friends as well. Almost all of them buy their software and games; some pirate. Of the people I know who buy games, heavy DRM like this will sway their dollars but most of the time they don't even know a game has it until after it's opened. Once that happens it's too late and there is nothing they can do. What most gamers don't understand is the difference between a publisher and a developer and who controls what so it's hard for them to understand why they shouldn't buy games from one company or another. Having clearly labeled boxes with the exactly DRM methods would help consumers make an informed decision. At least people would know what they are buying before it's too late. If they are so confident that DRM doesn't matter to gamers then clearly label it on the boxes. But that isn't the case and I'm sure no one would do this because it would "hurt" sales. Think about that statement. "Hurt" sales.

Now, the gamers I know that pirate wouldn't have bought the game in the first place because 1) they can't afford it or 2) they are not willing to spend $55-$65 on a game and hate it. Either way, these people are not and will never be customers. In my opinion, these people aren't "costing" anyone anything because they never would have bought the game in the first place. This doesn't mean there aren't those people out there that would have purchased software if they couldn't download it but my information suggests it's a MUCH lower number.

Now Spore has actually stepped up the DRM quite a bit. People have not blown this out of proportion. From a consumer point of view, limiting the number of times a game can be installed is probably the dumbest idea I have heard. Many gamers are constantly reinstalling their OS like I do or re-imaging their OS. Either way, you need to install all your games again and again. I could never own a game like this just because it would cost me a ton of time calling EA. I was planning on buying this game until I heard about how bad the DRM was.

If you do any research into the Spore issue you will find that one of the biggest problems EA is having with sales is the aftermarket sales of their games. They feel they are "losing" millions of dollars on people selling their old games. So guess what, let's create a system that locks a game into a single account. Let's lock that account to a single person. Let's limit the number of times that person can install the game so eventually if they sell it, the after market purchaser will be forced to call us and we can deny the activation code whereby forcing another sale!! Brilliant!! This is the essence of what is happening with Spore. The DRM it employs is designed to eliminate or drastically reduce the aftermarket sales.

Gamers aren't buying it and neither am I because we do care and we are informed.

www.ihatedrm.com
-Admin