4 ms·

As I said, I am not saying the DRM is the reason. Though I suspect it helps. When people cannot steal things they want - they do buy them. Not everyone, but the

As I said, I am not saying the DRM is the reason. Though I suspect it helps. When people cannot steal things they want - they do buy them. Not everyone, but there seem to be enough such people. >A lot of such games have poor quality on PCs, and more focused on console UX, or there can be tons of other factors which affect it. Sure. But games like COD are pretty well done on PC as well. Yet they sell a small fraction on PC even compared to a single platform. You seem to be very sure the DRM reduces sales so should not it be a slum dunk for you here? A system with a strong DRM vs a system where a "strong" DRM means a crack will come out in a month. Where sales will suffer? Where do they actually suffer? It's not some rocket science, the numbers get published every once in a while and everyone who ever shipped a multiplatform title knows them as well. >Also console manufacturers cultivate lock-in approach and push for exclusives rather than preferring cross platform games. Obviously I am not asking about exclusive games. Exclusive games do not get PC ports, do they?

shmerl 12y ago
> When people cannot steal things they want - they do buy them. Not everyone, but there seem to be enough such people Or may be those people don't want to buy them, but if they get it for free from pirates, they infringe. And if they don't get it, they ignore it. So far I didn't see any studies which showed that DRM increases sales. But I saw studies to the opposite however. > Yet they sell a small fraction on PC even compared to a single platform. Because gaming platforms were unnaturally shifted to consoles by MS and the like? They tried to kill PC gaming market on purpose (consoles give them more monopolistic control). So disproportional amount of console gamers is not surprising. I suspect it has much bigger impact on sales numbers than any DRM can have in either direction.
- pandaman 12y ago
  >But I saw studies to the opposite however. Well, we are running in circles in here, are not we? These studies do not seem to be able to explain why the console DRM is not reducing sales. So you come with some other explanations instead of DRM. Which is something I expected because the whole premise seems very unnatural to me. Some intrusive and complicated DRM schemes might be able to affect sales negatively but there are just not that many people who have emotional reaction to DRM. I would not buy a game that required me to enter code from manual myself. I would not buy a game that depends on some central server verification. Not because I am religiously opposed to DRM but because it's asking for too much of my attention. I am just fine with console games - they just work. On the other hand, the PS2 modchips required 20+ wires soldering and expensive at the time DVD-R technology. A lot of people went for that. So, while there are some people who infringe just because it's free, there are also people who infringe just because it's somewhat cheaper. The later category is converted to paying customers with the DRM.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    > These studies do not seem to be able to explain why the console DRM is not reducing sales. How do you know it doesn't? I don't think you have any easy way to measure that. As I said before, console sales numbers relate to the way the market shifted. They can as well be even higher if not for DRM. > Which is something I expected because the whole premise seems very unnatural to me. The premise is very natural. Reduced usability means crippled product (in some way). Crippled product means some users will more likely to avoid it. Pretty straightforward and iron logic no DRM proponent can deny. But they don't function according to common sense, or as I already said they use DRM not for anything related to sales, but for completely different reasons. > while there are some people who infringe just because it's free, there are also people who infringe just because it's somewhat cheaper. And of course there are those who break DRM for sport just because they like breaking it. I.e. if not for DRM they wouldn't even have paid attention. A clear example when DRM boosts piracy directly. > The later category is converted to paying customers with the DRM. Not at all. The later category stays a non paying customer, since why should they buy the same thing with DRM when pirates offer them it without it? I.e. without crippled usability? The only thing that can convince them to become paying customers is the same product offered without DRM by legitimate source. That's because that DRM is always broken.
    - zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
      > How do you know it doesn't? What you are engaging into (and in pretty much every single message I've seen you post on the subject of DRM) is shifting the burden of proof. This is the same kind of argument we get from creationists or people who want the world to conform to a mental model they have ("The Earth is 4.7 billion years" "How do you know, were you there?"). Strong correlations have been observed between the presence of DRM and strong sales (for games that are worth it). The most obvious examples of this phenomenon would be World of Warcraft, Sim City 5 and Diablo. These games are very close to being impossible to pirate, are extremely high quality and have sold millions of copies. All you have against the claim that DRM for good games seems to help sales is requesting certainty, but you're the one making the claim that DRM hurts sales, so the burden of proof is on you. I know you really, really want it to be the case, but so far, you've offered very little convincing evidence (not even circumstantial). I dislike DRM and as a regular buyer of games, it's often been more of a pain than anything else, but I'm also a software engineer and I can't help but acknowledge that it works with sales.

shmerl 12y ago

> When people cannot steal things they want - they do buy them. Not everyone, but there seem to be enough such people Or may be those people don't want to buy them, but if they get it for free from pirates, they infringe. And if they don't get it, they ignore it. So far I didn't see any studies which showed that DRM increases sales. But I saw studies to the opposite however. > Yet they sell a small fraction on PC even compared to a single platform. Because gaming platforms were unnaturally shifted to consoles by MS and the like? They tried to kill PC gaming market on purpose (consoles give them more monopolistic control). So disproportional amount of console gamers is not surprising. I suspect it has much bigger impact on sales numbers than any DRM can have in either direction.

pandaman 12y ago
>But I saw studies to the opposite however. Well, we are running in circles in here, are not we? These studies do not seem to be able to explain why the console DRM is not reducing sales. So you come with some other explanations instead of DRM. Which is something I expected because the whole premise seems very unnatural to me. Some intrusive and complicated DRM schemes might be able to affect sales negatively but there are just not that many people who have emotional reaction to DRM. I would not buy a game that required me to enter code from manual myself. I would not buy a game that depends on some central server verification. Not because I am religiously opposed to DRM but because it's asking for too much of my attention. I am just fine with console games - they just work. On the other hand, the PS2 modchips required 20+ wires soldering and expensive at the time DVD-R technology. A lot of people went for that. So, while there are some people who infringe just because it's free, there are also people who infringe just because it's somewhat cheaper. The later category is converted to paying customers with the DRM.
- shmerl 12y ago
  > These studies do not seem to be able to explain why the console DRM is not reducing sales. How do you know it doesn't? I don't think you have any easy way to measure that. As I said before, console sales numbers relate to the way the market shifted. They can as well be even higher if not for DRM. > Which is something I expected because the whole premise seems very unnatural to me. The premise is very natural. Reduced usability means crippled product (in some way). Crippled product means some users will more likely to avoid it. Pretty straightforward and iron logic no DRM proponent can deny. But they don't function according to common sense, or as I already said they use DRM not for anything related to sales, but for completely different reasons. > while there are some people who infringe just because it's free, there are also people who infringe just because it's somewhat cheaper. And of course there are those who break DRM for sport just because they like breaking it. I.e. if not for DRM they wouldn't even have paid attention. A clear example when DRM boosts piracy directly. > The later category is converted to paying customers with the DRM. Not at all. The later category stays a non paying customer, since why should they buy the same thing with DRM when pirates offer them it without it? I.e. without crippled usability? The only thing that can convince them to become paying customers is the same product offered without DRM by legitimate source. That's because that DRM is always broken.
  - zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
    > How do you know it doesn't? What you are engaging into (and in pretty much every single message I've seen you post on the subject of DRM) is shifting the burden of proof. This is the same kind of argument we get from creationists or people who want the world to conform to a mental model they have ("The Earth is 4.7 billion years" "How do you know, were you there?"). Strong correlations have been observed between the presence of DRM and strong sales (for games that are worth it). The most obvious examples of this phenomenon would be World of Warcraft, Sim City 5 and Diablo. These games are very close to being impossible to pirate, are extremely high quality and have sold millions of copies. All you have against the claim that DRM for good games seems to help sales is requesting certainty, but you're the one making the claim that DRM hurts sales, so the burden of proof is on you. I know you really, really want it to be the case, but so far, you've offered very little convincing evidence (not even circumstantial). I dislike DRM and as a regular buyer of games, it's often been more of a pain than anything else, but I'm also a software engineer and I can't help but acknowledge that it works with sales.