Looking Back On Computer Game DRM

It’s been a while since I blogged about DRM. The last time was me ranting about Steam more than 7 years ago. Funnily enough, as it turned out, Steam has become the least restrictive of the current popular DRM measures. I’ve chosen to rant about it this time because recently I’ve ended my boycott against Steam.

When Steam was first announced in 2002, I decided I would have no part of it. While I do have an account with Steam, I didn’t buy any Steam or Steam-DRMed game until now. At the time, it was the most restrictive, most ridiculous piece of DRM. This was back when most DRM was disc-based - and more importantly, back in Malaysia, we were still predominantly dialup or slow ADSL.

To make things even worse, Steam at this time did have an rather unreliable offline mode (on my computer, anyway), together with encrypted data on the discs. There was no question – this was the new enemy, and so I stopped buying Valve games.

As time passed, Steam started allowing third party games on the service, got even more creative with the DRM, and now even has a Mac version. Meanwhile, the rest of the game publishing world has decided to whip their own customers with even more horrendous anti-copying measures, like persistent online authentication (in some cases, you need to be always online to play a single player game) and limited activation schemes. We have even had cases of games being tampered with on purpose, so that the game is unplayable off a fresh install off a disc.

The one piece of DRM I can most certainly agree with is the one where the game chooses to do hilarious things to the player when they use an illegal copy – invincible enemies, impossible enemy spawns, permanently drunken driving. Although, this can sometimes result in the game being given a bad review by our dear pirates because they didn’t know any better.

Now Steam is our go to place for games. Why? Sales on good games, (funnily enough) less restrictive DRM than other places, and hell, even weekends when we can try and play a game for free!

So here we are, nearly 10 years later, and I’ve finally bought my first game on Steam. The honour happens to go to Bastion – which was on sale for USD 6 for a copy I could play on both Windows and OS X. So, Valve – you win. (Also, I look forward to Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and DOTA 2 being released.)

E3 Keynotes: Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo

Another year, another E3, another set of fun new announcements. As usual, Nintendo failed to impress me, with nothing I can think of being interesting, and anything remotely interesting is coming out next year. Phooey. Microsoft just blew everyone away with Project Natal. I have my doubts about how well it'll run in my crowded living room, compared to say, a certain handheld IR camera, or a really stupid looking wand, which you know, would probably work in a crowded living room, but I'm sure Microsoft has already thought of a solution. Otherwise, nobody living in a high density city can use Natal. :P

I can't say I'm fond of Microsoft and Sony's offerings this year besides their motion sensing tech. There Gran Turismo PSP - which must have been promised to us for what feels like ages now - I think it will be ages before we get it. More Halo! I seen so much Halo I think I'll immediately switch off my brain the moment I see more Halo. Best news for me was Forza 3's release date, which I of course already knew.

Haiyaya.

The Value of a Video Game: Part 4 - Resale Value

Here's Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 if you haven't read them or need a refresher. Here's the most economically or financially interesting bit - second hand value of a game.

To me, this is among the most important source of value in a video game. Why? It makes buying a game non-permanent.Why is this important? It means that when you buy a game, you are essentially actually having in on really long term rent. Most stores have a return policy - if you can finish the game in 7 days, or don't like it - guess what? You can return it.

I can never finish games in 7 days, unless it was a short FPS. I'm still playing Disgaea 3 up to now. RPGs and realistic racing sims can last you forever - well, unless you get bored.

Game companies don't see it this way. They think that by locking you in once you've bought it, they can make more money. If your game is good, this is never a problem. Why? Ever see many copies of Final Fantasy XII second hand in a store? (Well, I don't know about other countries, but in Australia, good luck finding a 2nd hand copy of a good game.) Even if you see them - consider how many got sold - and then think about how many are being sold now.

If your games are awesome, most people will keep them. Companies who make good games should never worry about this. Of course, they'll whine about the (maybe) millions of dollars they'd supposedly make.

Bad games however pile up VERY VERY quickly on preowned shelves. Notice how there's somehow like tons of copies of a certain game on the preowned shelf? These are the people who would be losing money over resales. Why? Their games are getting recycled through the market at a super high rate.

This is good for us. This gives game companies a massive incentive to make good games - and a punishment for churning out bad ones.

I, for one, make it a rule to only buy games I intend to keep. But I have friends who buy games to try. They're more adventurous (and probably more loaded) than me. Would companies really earn more from locking them into their purchases?

They'd be punishing faithful buyers for their bad purchases. I can imagine people beginning to question their purchases a lot more for less reputable games. I think this is going to hurt the game industry in general - unless they give us something in return. And what is that something? Cheaper games.

Games with less resale value (or maybe even none) sells for less. A look on eBay easily confirms this. The market knows resale value counts towards the value of a video game - and it will be enforced. A lot of people saying they don't like recycling of games should take this into account - not many people will pay the same price they're paying now for a game that has no resale value - and you run the risk of your game doing even worse than it would otherwise (since people have to be more careful buying games they can't resell).

Would you make more money selling less copies that cycle through the market - or more copies at cheaper prices that don't? It's something to ponder and a topic to research - not something I can answer. But I love my physical copies. :D

The Value of a Video Game: Part 3 - Multiplayer

Here's Part 1 and Part 2, in case you were wondering, or need a refresher after so many months of me having writer's block. Here's Part 3. Now, I don't particularly care much for multiplayer components of games, especially console ones. Having online multiplayer is new to me - and it'll take a while before it sinks in. For one, I'm not accustomed to having Internet connection on my consoles. This generation, everything seems to come with wireless. Except the XBOX 360. No surprise I still don't have an XBOX Live account. It's not like I didn't try - I did indeed try out playing Warhawk and Unreal Tournament III on the PlayStation 3 - it's just not my style to go off and play multiplayer games.

I'm not particularly competitive - so I won't go and practice an hour a day just to get good at killing random people online. I'd rather be reading a good book or solving a math problem.  I didn't train up my FPS skills - whatever little I have is whatever little I'm going to have for a while. Sure, I used to be able to headshot regularly in Counter-Strike - doesn't mean I'm gonna go try and do the same in Left 4 Dead.

Speaking of Left 4 Dead, there are many games like it where the multiplayer counts a lot. Games like Left 4 Dead and Rock Band really shine when you've got friends to play co-op with. These games were built to be played with multiple players working together and they are a whole load of fun with friends and family. There are many other games like this - local multiplayer changes the game entirely - Nintendo makes plenty of these - Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Mario Kart Wii are prime examples of what Nintendo is capable of.

Arguably, that's kid stuff. MMO and most FPS games shine online in multiplayer. What's so funny? FPS games used to be one of the few things PCs did great - they still do great, just that console multiplayer is doing so well - not to mention, sales are way better too. This, of course, translates to more players - and more fun online than people with PCs have now. MMOs are still mostly domain of the PC gamers - and rightfully so: with so many free betas, free-to-play games - and the huge disk space requirements (ahem, WoW, for example) have put them off the console and their expensive certification requirements - for now.

The ability to patch games has made multiplayer a lot more possible for consoles now and in the future. Of course, this has led to us getting bugged versions of console games - but often, even buggier versions on PC. We could blame the fact on being able to patch - but I think the problem is less on being complacent due to ability to patch - and more that the games are getting more difficult to debug every day as they get more complex and difficult to make. (Although Fallout 3 was absolutely abhorrent to anyone except maybe the developers for crashing like a newborn baby trying to drive a jet plane.)

Well, there have been numerous efforts to bring another multiplayer favourite, the real time strategy genre of games to the consoles. Halo Wars, Endwar - and even console versions of C&C3 and Red Alert 3! Without a question, RTS games are most certainly multiplayer domain - although most of them come with a great and rewarding single player campaign to play through all by themselves. Let's face it - the point is to pummel your opponent with your massive (or occasionally, reasonably sized) army. And the best opponents? Other humans.

There's no doubt multiplayer holds loads of value for a gamer in a video game - not to all of us - but most certainly for most of us. And yes, in case there was any doubt - there will be a part 4. ;)

Quick Review: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3

Unless you've been living under some rock, you'd know Red Alert 3 was released recently. If you know me, you'll also know that I'm a fan of the EA LA age of Command and Conquer games - but let's face it, after the abominations that were C&C2 and RA2, any improvement I would've seen as a godsend.

Red Alert 3 turns up the craziness a few notches - loads of units are amphibious - and naval warfare is BAAAAACK. If there's anything that I notice - it's that the scissors-paper-stone philosophy that's been creeping around RTSes is a lot more pronounced in RA3. I haven't felt the need to keep such a varied unit base in a C&C game before, of course that could be my skills improving a little bit - but there's no denying there's a greater focus on micro, with nearly every unit having some skill that get be triggered by the 'F' key - which using correctly will get you out of a lot of sticky situations.

The campaign is rather short - 9 missions each side, no intertwining storyline, no canonical ending (apparently) since all the sides seem to just kill everyone else at the end of the game, which is reminescent of the Generals story, where nothing seems related. That being said, they did hide a few pleasant surprises in the story - and if you look around and pick pieces up here and there, you can build a timeline of the missions - since some things don't conflict with each other - but it doesn't help that there is no canonical ending, since they all end similarly: death to all the enemies. (If history is any indication, the Allies ending is usually the one considered canonical. Heh.) I would've liked a intertwining campaign, but hey, the missions are fun, and you get to play with the 3 commando units of the 3 factions at some point. (Not to mention a certain Empire of the Rising Sun campaign-only epic unit.)

They've also introduced the concept of disables/suppression where certain units can immobilize or disable other units (and sometimes make them more vulnerable to damage) - which stops you from relying too much on small numbers of powerful units, or at the very least, make you pay attention to the battlefield.

Me being me, you know which side I favour. :D Empire of the Rising Sun FTW!

The Empire is the only side that doesn't have an airfield. :D And this is why:

And at the press of the 'F' key later:

(The screenshots have been downscaled from 1680 by 1050 to 1280 by 800 to save space - no reason to put super large screens to make a stupid point, and yes, I did lower the shadow quality - although it was unnecessary, I was too lazy to change it back.)

I don't think any C&C fan should pass up on this instalment, the skirmish mode is fun (with the 3 varying AI per side to keep you interested for slightly longer than usual with their varied strategies - you still kick their asses though). The fact that there are three locations units can be in (air, land and sea) although makes you plan a little more with what units to bring around and which units to keep - which makes both attacking and defending and interesting endeavour.