Pirates Crack Microsoft’s UWP Protection, Five Layers of DRM Defeated

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

There is a midfield of information on DRM out there, It's easy to find articles that support the perception it is only negative,  but the thing is that doesn't stand to reason. Companies are only concerned with money, if DRM was only a sink and not, at the bare minimum, a protection of income, they wouldn't be hell bent on using it every time.  If it plays no role in revue stream and only costs, then why is it part of the business model?  

Personally I hate it when I see a research paper on it and they have filled it 80%-90% of Indy or low volume not very popular titles which completely skews the analysis. There is also a difference between piracy not negatively effecting the industry as a whole, and in ways benefiting it, and piracy effecting specific franchises or publishers that only deal in large volume popular titles.

 

Another issue is including console sales in the data set when looking at piracy rates on PC or not breaking down the results so you can see it on a per platform basis. There is a reason why developers by in large have switched to console first then port to PC. There is also a reason why PC gaming as made a big shift towards online elements that require an account and to be signed in at all times, this is a very clear understanding by developers/publishers that their games will get cracked and the only viable way to combat this is to develop the game itself to counteract this.

 

It should be fairly obvious that certain games have different requirements, risks and protections required than other games. To expect that everything is the same within the industry is lack of critical assessment on the matter, probably influenced by only reading the summary of studies that come to the conclusion you support without doing any critical analysis of it to understand how it was conducted and why it came to the conclusion.

 

As much as I like the idea of games not using DRM, actively buying games from developers and publishers that do no use them, re-buying most of my classic games on GOG I can still see the need for popular large volume of sale games that are heavily single player focused needing DRM to protect against piracy. Piracy is not a one size fits all issue.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Personally I hate it when I see a research paper on it and they have filled it 80%-90% of Indy or low volume not very popular titles which completely skews the analysis. There is also a difference between piracy not negatively effecting the industry as a whole, and in ways benefiting it, and piracy effecting specific franchises or publishers that only deal in large volume popular titles.

 

Another issue is including console sales in the data set when looking at piracy rates on PC or not breaking down the results so you can see it on a per platform basis. There is a reason why developers by in large have switched to console first then port to PC. There is also a reason why PC gaming as made a big shift towards online elements that require an account and to be signed in at all times, this is a very clear understanding by developers/publishers that their games will get cracked and the only viable way to combat this is to develop the game itself to counteract this.

 

It should be fairly obvious that certain games have different requirements, risks and protections required than other games. To expect that everything is the same within the industry is lack of critical assessment on the matter, probably influenced by only reading the summary of studies that come to the conclusion you support without doing any critical analysis of it to understand how it was conducted and why it came to the conclusion.

 

As much as I like the idea of games not using DRM, actively buying games from developers and publishers that do no use them, re-buying most of my classic games on GOG I can still see the need for popular large volume of sale games that are heavily single player focused needing DRM to protect against piracy. Piracy is not a one size fits all issue.

The other thing is since 2000, demand for games has increased, expendable income has increased, access to pc's capable of playing AAA titles has definitely increased/become more affordable (this is reflected in sales figures with both Intel and AMD and GPU sales figures). Yet revenue from AAA titles does not seem to have shared the same increase.  What makes it hard is (as you say) the lack of separation of data, especially between MMO (which require server log in and are less likely to be pirated) and stand alone single player. 

 

 

[JoostinOnline]

11 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Really?  How many times have we seen draconian DRM that limited the number of times people could reinstall (on the same machine, no less)?  Or times where the DRM failed to perform properly and cause legitimate customers to have issues?  Illegal?  How about the developers just screwed up the implementation.

A fraction of a percentage of the time that DRM has gone by unnoticed.

[jagdtigger]

5 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

A fraction of a percentage of the time that DRM has gone by unnoticed.

We already busted that flawed argument, stop throwing it around....

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

I understand the implications, I just hate the companies not the concept of DRM, just like I hate child traffickers and not the concept of encryption.  But if in my analogy, working around DRM has the same implications as working around encryption, then no one is safe to use it.

Again, your analogy is flawed because the primary purpose of encryption is not to hide child traffickers. It wasn't designed with that specifically in mind.

DRM however, is designed with the specific intention of limiting the freedoms of paying customers. That is the design-goal of it.

 

And like I said earlier, depending on how you phrase the question, encryption is the problem.

 

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

There is a midfield of information on DRM out there, It's easy to find articles that support the perception it is only negative,  but the thing is that doesn't stand to reason. Companies are only concerned with money, if DRM was only a sink and not, at the bare minimum, a protection of income, they wouldn't be hell bent on using it every time.  If it plays no role in revue stream and only costs, then why is it part of the business model?  

You are not entirely correct that companies are only concerned with money.

Control over users is also a VERY important thing to them. The indirect effect of controlling consumers is of course money, but companies are often willing to give up short term monetary gains if it means they can, for example, push a competitor out of the market using sleazy tactics like forcing compatibility issues outside of their own ecosystems. 

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

I am very much a proponent of if you build it, you get to decide what it is and how it is used.  If that cost you money so be it.   Anything that dictates to a company (or person for that matter) that they can't make their products their way is abhorrent to me.  As a consumer I do not buy products I don't like.  I do not own any Ubisoft titles since HOMM7 was an unsupported failure.  

I disagree. When you are modifying a product for the purpose of harming customers I think you should not be free to do whatever you want.

I am certain you agree with that mentality too, in certain situations. For example the recent news about a DRM hijacking Chrome passwords. The developers made their product that way on purpose, and I think the law should step in and dictate that they can't do that.

That is an extreme example but you get the point. Advocating for no regulations is advocating for no consumer protection, and that will not end well.

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

Also an interesting side note, many of the studies into game revenue/profits and DRM/piracy, don't take into consideration the changing economics of the average gamer and the growth of the industry.   Which are very important considerations I'd like to know more about.   I have previously linked to pretty damning proof that the music industry suffered greatly due to piracy and the internet.  There is no reason to assume there will not be some similar effects in software.

Regarding the growth of the industry, companies are making more profits than ever before.

In the last 10 years EA's spending have increased by 59% and their profits have increased by 100%.

Not sure if that's the kind of information you were asking for though.

I wrote about it in this thread here.

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

So because some DRM is not implemented right you think all DRM should be compromised?

I believe the only way to implement DRM "right" is to not implement it at all, so yes.

I think it is an unnecessary thing which only harms consumers. Since I am a strong believer in the idea that everyone should strive to make the world a better place (a position I completely understand not everyone shares), DRM is a big slap in the face of my core beliefs.

It is designed to be a tool for oppression. There is of course a scale of how bad the different DRMs are, but I can't think of a single one which falls in the territory of having a positive impact.

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

You can't argue that someone using something for bad purposes is evidence it lacks good implementation and use.

I can argue that because I don't think DRM can be used for anything but bad purposes. Like I said, I don't think good implementations of it exists. There exists implementations that are better or worse than other implementations, but they are all varying degrees of bad.

Can you think of a good DRM? One that doesn't have a negative impact on the consumers. Even better would be if you could mention one with documented evidence that it has had a positive effect for the developers too.

 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

The other thing is since 2000, demand for games has increased, expendable income has increased, access to pc's capable of playing AAA titles has definitely increased/become more affordable (this is reflected in sales figures with both Intel and AMD and GPU sales figures). Yet revenue from AAA titles does not seem to have shared the same increase.  What makes it hard is (as you say) the lack of separation of data, especially between MMO (which require server log in and are less likely to be pirated) and stand alone single player. 

I highly recommend you read what I linked earlier regarding EA's financial situation now vs 10 years ago.

At least with EA, it seems like it has shared the same increase.

[leadeater]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I believe the only way to implement DRM "right" is to not implement it at all, so yes.

I think it is an unnecessary thing which only harms consumers. Since I am a strong believer in the idea that everyone should strive to make the world a better place (a position I completely understand not everyone shares), DRM is a big slap in the face of my core beliefs.

It is designed to be a tool for oppression. There is of course a scale of how bad the different DRMs are, but I can't think of a single one which falls in the territory of having a positive impact.

So you believe in only making it a better place for consumers? What if the end result of your ideals is to destroy the thing you like? What if the end result is a regression in the industry?

 

I've only ever seen you argue on the position of the consumer, and don't give me a giant spiel about greedy corporations and massive profits etc I'm not blind to that and it's a real thing but your giving off an screw everyone it's all about me vibe.

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

So you believe in only making it a better place for consumers?

Not necessarily. There is certainly a balance. If it's between making consumers having to put in a CD key when they install the game, or a game developer losing millions of dollars then I can completely side with the developer, just to take an extreme example.

I do however put more weight on the consumers since they are far the majority. Call me a socialist or whatever, but if something is detrimental to let's say 5 million people, and benefits 5 people, then I will usually side with the 5 million people (again, I may not always do that because there is a balance to be had).

 

I am OK with some types of DRM. I still think they have a negative impact to the quality of the product, even a simple CD key has, but I can understand why developers use them on some level. Like I said earlier in the thread, it's a necessary evil, but it's still evil (DRM as a whole that is, not specifically CD keys). But the lack of evidence that they have a positive impact for the developers makes it very hard to side with them if you compare it to the negative effects.

I haven't bought three (3) copies of Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction because I think Blizzard deserves three times as much as they charge for it. I have done so because DRM has screwed me over twice (for example Blizzard changing the CD key format so the old key doesn't work with the new installers).

 

 

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

your giving off an screw everyone it's all about me vibe.

That is not my intention but I can see why I come off that way. I'd like to think of it as the other way around.

That I despise selfishness and look down on it, and most of the time corporations are extremely selfish to the point of harming everyone else. It's not that I want everyone to appease me and I only side with consumers because I am one, but rather that I want society as a whole to be better.

It's not that I think all corporations are evil, but I find it very difficult to side with a lot of the decisions they make when they put their needs above society as a whole.

 

I know that not everyone will agree and that's fine, but I hope you can see where I am coming from too.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Again, your analogy is flawed because the primary purpose of encryption is not to hide child traffickers. It wasn't designed with that specifically in mind.

DRM however, is designed with the specific intention of limiting the freedoms of paying customers. That is the design-goal of it.

DRM is not designed with the specific intention of limiting genuine customers, that's just the way some companies have used it.

 

Quote

And like I said earlier, depending on how you phrase the question, encryption is the problem.

 

 

You are not entirely correct that companies are only concerned with money.

Control over users is also a VERY important thing to them. The indirect effect of controlling consumers is of course money, but companies are often willing to give up short term monetary gains if it means they can, for example, push a competitor out of the market using sleazy tactics like forcing compatibility issues outside of their own ecosystems. 

Which all equals money.

 

Quote

I disagree. When you are modifying a product for the purpose of harming customers I think you should not be free to do whatever you want.

Customers are also free not to use it.  If I want to write a program that sends me a copy of your hard drive then permanently deletes your. And this is written clearly all over the box then you have no right telling me not to.  

 

 

Quote

I am certain you agree with that mentality too, in certain situations. For example the recent news about a DRM hijacking Chrome passwords. The developers made their product that way on purpose, and I think the law should step in and dictate that they can't do that.

That is an extreme example but you get the point. Advocating for no regulations is advocating for no consumer protection, and that will not end well.

Consumer protection?  if you can't use a product you paid for then take them to consumer affairs. you don;t need to break today's DRM to prove a point there.

 

Or alternatively, if a company doesn't adequatley describe what their product limitations are then either A. don't buy the product or B. take them to consumer affairs.

 

Quote

Regarding the growth of the industry, companies are making more profits than ever before.

In the last 10 years EA's spending have increased by 59% and their profits have increased by 100%.

Not sure if that's the kind of information you were asking for though.

I wrote about it in this thread here.

No, the problem is the their profits have only grown 100% while the rest of the industry has grown in excess of 160% .  They are not experiencing the same returns on that growth.  I can't really claim why because as I said earlier there are no break downs to were the revenue is and where it is going.

 

Quote

I believe the only way to implement DRM "right" is to not implement it at all, so yes.

I think it is an unnecessary thing which only harms consumers. Since I am a strong believer in the idea that everyone should strive to make the world a better place (a position I completely understand not everyone shares), DRM is a big slap in the face of my core beliefs.

It is designed to be a tool for oppression. There is of course a scale of how bad the different DRMs are, but I can't think of a single one which falls in the territory of having a positive impact.

If you ask software developers most of them will tell you the positive impact is in maintaining sales revenue. And don;t tell me that's bullshit because we just don't know. there are just as many small time business without DRM (LIKE audio books and GOG etc) as there are who strive to implement DRM bigger and better every time.

 

Quote

 

I can argue that because I don't think DRM can be used for anything but bad purposes. Like I said, I don't think good implementations of it exists. There exists implementations that are better or worse than other implementations, but they are all varying degrees of bad.

Can you think of a good DRM? One that doesn't have a negative impact on the consumers. Even better would be if you could mention one with documented evidence that it has had a positive effect for the developers too.

 

I highly recommend you read what I linked earlier regarding EA's financial situation now vs 10 years ago.

At least with EA, it seems like it has shared the same increase.

Again, you are only comparing ea to ea,  you need to compare that to the entire industry and see if there has been a difference in profit growth and revenue growth depending on the product.   You don't think it is curious we have more cheaper gaming hardware on the market, significantly more gaming pc's and MMO s through the roof. Steam seems to be seeing an average of 32,000 copies of every game in their store (some just are shit) and there are something like 2000 new games produced every year. but AAA title prices seem to be dropping, not even keeping up with inflation. general increases in profit do not mean there is no problem. The growth in sales does not seem to in line with every other metric.

 

Don't you want answers to that before making claims about it?  I do.