Hacker News Reader

Comment by nikomen | Hacker News Reader

Contrary to popular belief, game companies have salaries to pay and are interested in protecting their IP so they can continue to pay those salaries.

View on HN

Contrary to popular belief, not using DRM really shows respect by game creators for their users. I simply won't buy any DRMed game. Luckily some publishers like GOG emerged, who promote DRM free games, and have such major contributors like CD Projekt Red who aren't scared to show respect for their users by selling DRM free games. They (CD Projekt Red) managed not only to pay salaries and improve their products, but also attracted a lot of potential customers for their future titles. GOG is behind in providing Linux versions yet, but I'd rather get DRM free game to run under Wine, than DRMed native one.

Hold the phone everybody -- shmerl won't pay for DRM'd games. Better pack it up folks, we're done here.

In all seriousness though (and this is a question that everyone should ask themselves semi-regularly in a product-consumer situation): why do you matter? If you don't have a compelling answer to this question, it may be that you don't.

Your choice matters. In this case I'd call it "vote with your wallet". Preferring non DRMed games shows support for their developers, as simple as that.

No. For Valve many peoples' choice matters. My individual choice to purchase or not purchase TF2 is of negligible concern. Now, if my individual choice is indicative of a wider trend of people purchasing TF2, then maybe my choice would matter.

The problem with people arguing about DRM is that fundamentally most people don't seem to care. Video games are a billion dollar industry, but non-DRM'd games are not.

You can vote with your wallet, but the data seems to indicate that your wallet is too small to matter.

The argument "since most don't care - you shouldn't either" is flawed. If you are sure something is right - it doesn't matter how many care to do what's right.

> Video games are a billion dollar industry, but non-DRM'd games are not.

It only should increase the incentive to avoid buying DRMed games, and specifically support those who aren't scared to release theirs DRM free.

For example look at the latest Humble Indie Bundle. Linux users pay highest average for the set. It shows that they encourage developers to produce Linux games more than users of other OSes (obviously since Linux games scene is lacking). You can argue, that Linux games market is miniscule, and if so, why even bother to send your message in such form? But you still see people showing appreciation, and developers can take note of this.

Usually for every Humble Bundle, the Linux share of the total is not so minuscule, something like 15-20% if I remember correctly.

If we assume every bundle gets a total of a million dollars, shared between 5 games or so, that makes 200 000 per game, minus the donations to charity and the fees to the Humble Bundle organization. Let's say 150 000 dollars per game in the end. 15%-20% is 23 000 to 30 000 dollars, just for the Linux Port. If you are an small team of indie developpers, I'd say that is not negligible at the end of the day.

By "major contributors like CD Projekt Red" I assume you mean "owners". Good Old Games was created and is owned by CD Projekt so it's not exactly fair to simply call them "major contributors". :)

Thanks for the information, I didn't know they are the owners. That's even better, it shows how a serious and successful games production company can promote DRM free approach. They used to rely on DRM before, but I guess they reconsidered at some point, and turned it completely around.

You're setting up a false dichotomy. DRM isn't required for game developers to get paid. It's not "DRM or developers don't get paid". Games sell even without any kind of copy prevention mechanism. If you are worried, you can still use Kickstarter (or grant) model. In that model, it's irrelevant if the game is copied out of control after release. Devs have already been paid.

In my opinion Kickstarter (or grant) model is infinitely better, because it doesn't insist on treating a game like a physical object. The "selling software" model is horribly flawed. Writing software is like research - a big cost and effort once, then very little cost to benefit from it. It is fair to have effort of research/software development proportional to reward the researchers/devs are getting. With "selling software/drugs" it's not proportional.

Here is a good interview with Marcin Iwinski (CEO of CD Projekt Red) about DRM:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnyegriffiths/2012/05/18/th...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com