Conventional Foolery

Ever since Ubisoft decided that forcing users to constantly “phone home” over the internet was a great way to stop unauthorized sharing of their games, the tired old DRM debate has been experiencing yet another flareup. I was rather disappointed with the treatment the issue got by a few of the webcomics I follow: While the comics they drew were funny, their editorial comments seem to be based on the flawed “conventional wisdom” rapidly losing traction in today’s world.

One of the most poorly argued comments came from Tim Buckley at Ctrl+Alt+Del. He takes a placating approach, giving Ubisoft the benefit of the doubt even where they’re pretty clearly in the wrong. With statements like “It’s a gamble, without a doubt,” he actually talks as though a DRM scheme like this is going to work. DRM of all kinds has a failure rate approaching 100% – what makes this plan any different? Online games like World of Warcraft and Team Fortress 2 can already be played independently of their respective authentication systems. What keeps people playing through authorized channels is not the online requirement, but the value added from tight communities and constant support.

He admits that it will be embarrassing for the company to find out weeks after release that their DRM had been cracked, but doesn’t seem to realize that this is not a possibility, but a given. Remember the “uncrackable” DRM on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs? Yeah, that worked well.

Tim uses the oft-debunked statements equating downloads with lost sales, claiming that if “solid roadblocks” to unauthorized sharing appeared (How? By magic?), the software industry would start to see sales rise. I guess that means games offered without any such attempt wouldn’t be able to sell, say, half a million copies. He completely ignores the fact that DRM schemes do nothing but restrict what legitimate purchasers of the game are able to do. From online requirements to limited installs, how is reducing the functionality of your product a good business strategy?

No, if companies like Ubisoft do manage to effectively restrict their games, they will lose sales to competing products that give their customers what they want. Other software companies like Electronic Arts are slowly beginning to realize that offering less DRM, not more, is a better way to increase sales. How much more attractive are their games going to look when compared against Ubisoft’s Net Nanny system?

Sorry Tim, Ubisoft deserves not your “A” for effort but an “F.” In trying to combat unauthorized downloaders (offensively and erroneously labeled “pirates”), they’ve effectively made the unauthorized version of their software better than the authorized version. Game players will only have to access the internet once to get a version of an Ubisoft title that never needs net access again. Trying to compete with free by making your product worse is never a good idea.

I’m usually a huge fan of Jerry “Tycho” Holkins’s writing over at Penny Arcade, but his comments aren’t much better than Tim’s. The associated comic is true, but perhaps not in the way he means. First of all,  downloading is not at all the same thing as stealing. As Mike Masnick said on TechDirt, stealing means taking something away. Making a copy of something means there’s two such things, not one, and nothing is missing. Whenever somebody regurgitates these kinds of lobbyist-crafted falsehoods it’s hard to believe they know what they’re talking about.

Aside from that, Jerry (and Tim) seem to believe that because downloading occurs, these companies are somehow justified in restricting functionality for legitimate purchasers and installing invasive spyware in the name of “protecting” their product. His comic suggests that people downloading “in protest” is actually a perfect illustration of why DRM fails. By desperately trying to gain control over their customers, they drive increasing numbers of them toward unencumbered free versions. Even legitimate purchasers of Ubisoft games will have to get an unauthorized version if they want to play on the road.

It’s ridiculous for the suits at Ubisoft think that this kind of stuff makes sense. But what’s entirely inexcusable are the people who set themselves up as apologists for the practice. The customer outrage at this latest attempt to invade their computers is entirely justified.While Ubisoft may have the “right” to break their product in the name of protection, they don’t have the right to complain when customers get a better version of that product elsewhere.

If gamers like Tim and Jerry want to see their favorite companies succeed in the marketplace, they should be encouraging them to compete, not standing up for asinine protection schemes that do nothing but frustrate fans and encourage unauthorized downloading.