4 ms·
For a publisher, DRM really helps with securing the game for the first few months when it gets most sales, the protection will be broken anyway. So protection d
by takeda 7y ago
For a publisher, DRM really helps with securing the game for the first few months when it gets most sales, the protection will be broken anyway. So protection doesn't matter that much later.
For SecuROM blocking after expiration is a better strategy, because blocking games that were purchased will encourage publisher to renew the subscription.
I think for the Disney it would be best to simply release patch that removes the copy protection, that is assuming they still have the source code.
- arcticbull 7y agoSeems like a case could be made for treating DRM like cell phone carrier locking. Legislation could be passed to permit DRM only for the first 12-24 months of a games life post release and require developers to provide patches that remove said protections thereafter.
- als0 7y agoWe live in a world where patents can be extended almost endlessly. Intellectual property is also treated in the same way, and I think unless there's a big cultural shift in company incentives this will remain for a long time to come.
- jefftk 7y ago> We live in a world where patents can be extended almost endlessly. Why do you say that? Twenty years from filing and everything in your patent is now available for anyone to use. Various parts of our IP system are pretty broken, but "patents last forever" isn't a thing.
- mlyle 7y ago> For SecuROM blocking after expiration is a better strategy, because blocking games that were purchased will encourage publisher to renew the subscription. Yes and no. Stories like this make me even more nervous to acquire SecuROM-protected content.