8 ms·

> There does not exist a single peer-reviewed study that shows a correlation between increased sales and DRM systems. I'm not aware of a peer-reviewed study sa

> There does not exist a single peer-reviewed study that shows a correlation between increased sales and DRM systems. I'm not aware of a peer-reviewed study saying the other way, either. This is such a weird thing to say. Do you only believe information that comes from peer-reviewed studies? Many indie developers who might be sympathetic to the anti-DRM cause still choose DRM platforms, because they perceive it makes money for them. Or maybe they choose to make webapp type software, which conveniently avoids the issue while being the most unfree method of all. Since they are closest to the market, they posses what economists call 'local knowledge'. Some have released numbers to back up their claims, which is more than you've done. (Also, how many people do you think had a VHS copier when Blade Runner came out? 0% of people I knew growing up could copy VHS tapes.) Anyway, I think it is correct to look at market behavior if you want to talk about market behavior, not what bloggers say when they aim to maximize pageviews.

Fargren 14y ago
Just to be clear in case anyone doesn't know: while Steam offers DRM, it's possible to distribute games through Steam without DRM, and many developers do so. The DRM part of Steam is optional for the developer.
jiggy2011 14y ago
I think the most effective DRM systems are those on consoles like the Xbox and devices like the iphone/ipad. In other words when you have a "Don't run by default" policy. Because here you can actually block binaries from running on an un jailbroken device. As soon as you allow execution of user specified code it's game over for DRM. This present a sort of problem in that there is still a need for computers which can run software that wasn't bought through some particular channel such as an app store, therefor there are still computers that can run pirate content. I have a bunch of games on Steam, I have no idea which ones use DRM but I'd wager strongly that every single one of them is available DRM-free on a torrent website. Speaking personally the main incentive not to pirate games is the Steam sales and humble bundles which give me games so cheap that I'd really feel like a bit of an idiot jumping through whatever hoops in order to get the games for free.
belorn 14y ago
We do live in a society based on evidence gathering, and thus market behavior should be based on it. My attempt to address the issue is mostly to point that out, and then do some observation regarding the market. Observation is the first step before evidence is gathered, while theory/best practice is the last step after Observation, evidence and analysis has proven something to be "true". When people give out best practices, or gives out necessities of the market based on nothing but opinion and theory, it become pure myth and superstition. Sysadmin work which is my line of work, has a bunch of myths. Some people still making firewall rules against win95 ping of deaths, even if everyone in the company is running around with this years gadgets. But you did ask if I have any evidence of my own, and here I relied on common sense and observations. DRM cost money, in both time, effort and support. Additional, I looked at the indy crowd of movie makes which has only has weak/no DRM, and the indy crowd of games which has all from strong to no DRM. What I can see, there are no major difference what so ever, and both groups often suffer from low revenues in products that later get critical acclaimed as a master piece. But Im sorry, no, I do not have any research paper to support that observation. That would be the second step, through one can glimpse some truth by checking if anyone are disagreeing with it. Also, since DRM cost money, it should naturally require a higher burden of evidence to become best practice or necessity in the industry. Minor note about Blade runner: It took several years before the movie reached a cult status. By the time it did, people started to have dual VHS players at home or could call some dude in the campus to do a copy.
- Kylekramer 14y ago
  I am just confused why you require a peer review study to prove DRM is good while your evidence it is bad is "common sense" and "well I think Blade Runner didn't make money till people passed around VHS tapes".
  - belorn 14y ago
    I do not think we need to provide evidence that a developers time cost money (ie, to code/acquire DRM software). Second, I don't think we need to provide evidence that running a server and having bandwidth to run authentication servers cost money. Last, I doubt we need to provide evidence that extra support calls thanks to DRM issues cost money. Each three of those are what I call common sense, ie, we know them all to be true. Those are also the only assumptions I included in my "I relied on common sense and observations". The rest is observations, which is the first step in a honest and scientific discussion about the effect of DRM. First you do observations, second you collect evidence, third you do analysis and last you create theory. Only once you done each step and reached theory should economic decision be made in the case of including DRM to increase revenue. Before that, only the cost of DRM is know and everything else is speculations. Those speculations has both those that say its great and those that say its crap and there is nothing in the world that will convince them beyond a scientific approach.
Natsu 14y ago
> I'm not aware of a peer-reviewed study saying the other way, either. DRM costs money (dev time, QA, etc.) and may hurt legit customers when done wrong (all too frequent). Rightfully, the onus should be on proving it to be worth the costs, but people add it without even testing the effects.
- mehwoot 14y ago
  Can you provide the link for the peer-reviewed study that says all that? Why should the onus be on the party making the DRM? It is their product and their copyright, why should they have to prove it is effective?
  - Natsu 14y ago
    You've misinterpreted what I said completely if you think they should be compelled to do that, rather than for it being a waste of money. One would do something more like A/B testing, anyhow. The fact that GOG.com makes good money off of old games with the DRM removed could be considered evidence. Publishers are certainly free to waste money if they want to, it's simply not good business. Right now, we know it costs money and available evidence indicates that it doesn't help at all. I don't really think you want them to fail, so I can't see why you would argue that they should continue wasting money?

Fargren 14y ago

Just to be clear in case anyone doesn't know: while Steam offers DRM, it's possible to distribute games through Steam without DRM, and many developers do so. The DRM part of Steam is optional for the developer.

jiggy2011 14y ago

I think the most effective DRM systems are those on consoles like the Xbox and devices like the iphone/ipad. In other words when you have a "Don't run by default" policy. Because here you can actually block binaries from running on an un jailbroken device. As soon as you allow execution of user specified code it's game over for DRM. This present a sort of problem in that there is still a need for computers which can run software that wasn't bought through some particular channel such as an app store, therefor there are still computers that can run pirate content. I have a bunch of games on Steam, I have no idea which ones use DRM but I'd wager strongly that every single one of them is available DRM-free on a torrent website. Speaking personally the main incentive not to pirate games is the Steam sales and humble bundles which give me games so cheap that I'd really feel like a bit of an idiot jumping through whatever hoops in order to get the games for free.

belorn 14y ago

We do live in a society based on evidence gathering, and thus market behavior should be based on it. My attempt to address the issue is mostly to point that out, and then do some observation regarding the market. Observation is the first step before evidence is gathered, while theory/best practice is the last step after Observation, evidence and analysis has proven something to be "true". When people give out best practices, or gives out necessities of the market based on nothing but opinion and theory, it become pure myth and superstition. Sysadmin work which is my line of work, has a bunch of myths. Some people still making firewall rules against win95 ping of deaths, even if everyone in the company is running around with this years gadgets. But you did ask if I have any evidence of my own, and here I relied on common sense and observations. DRM cost money, in both time, effort and support. Additional, I looked at the indy crowd of movie makes which has only has weak/no DRM, and the indy crowd of games which has all from strong to no DRM. What I can see, there are no major difference what so ever, and both groups often suffer from low revenues in products that later get critical acclaimed as a master piece. But Im sorry, no, I do not have any research paper to support that observation. That would be the second step, through one can glimpse some truth by checking if anyone are disagreeing with it. Also, since DRM cost money, it should naturally require a higher burden of evidence to become best practice or necessity in the industry. Minor note about Blade runner: It took several years before the movie reached a cult status. By the time it did, people started to have dual VHS players at home or could call some dude in the campus to do a copy.

Kylekramer 14y ago
I am just confused why you require a peer review study to prove DRM is good while your evidence it is bad is "common sense" and "well I think Blade Runner didn't make money till people passed around VHS tapes".
- belorn 14y ago
  I do not think we need to provide evidence that a developers time cost money (ie, to code/acquire DRM software). Second, I don't think we need to provide evidence that running a server and having bandwidth to run authentication servers cost money. Last, I doubt we need to provide evidence that extra support calls thanks to DRM issues cost money. Each three of those are what I call common sense, ie, we know them all to be true. Those are also the only assumptions I included in my "I relied on common sense and observations". The rest is observations, which is the first step in a honest and scientific discussion about the effect of DRM. First you do observations, second you collect evidence, third you do analysis and last you create theory. Only once you done each step and reached theory should economic decision be made in the case of including DRM to increase revenue. Before that, only the cost of DRM is know and everything else is speculations. Those speculations has both those that say its great and those that say its crap and there is nothing in the world that will convince them beyond a scientific approach.

Natsu 14y ago

> I'm not aware of a peer-reviewed study saying the other way, either. DRM costs money (dev time, QA, etc.) and may hurt legit customers when done wrong (all too frequent). Rightfully, the onus should be on proving it to be worth the costs, but people add it without even testing the effects.

mehwoot 14y ago
Can you provide the link for the peer-reviewed study that says all that? Why should the onus be on the party making the DRM? It is their product and their copyright, why should they have to prove it is effective?
- Natsu 14y ago
  You've misinterpreted what I said completely if you think they should be compelled to do that, rather than for it being a waste of money. One would do something more like A/B testing, anyhow. The fact that GOG.com makes good money off of old games with the DRM removed could be considered evidence. Publishers are certainly free to waste money if they want to, it's simply not good business. Right now, we know it costs money and available evidence indicates that it doesn't help at all. I don't really think you want them to fail, so I can't see why you would argue that they should continue wasting money?