What makes a well-executed DRM

There is a lot of literature on poorly executed DRM schemes out there that say things like it treats players as criminals, prevents them from using the product when they want to use it, and so on.


Some players even go as far as to claim that DRM should simply not exist because they do not do any good.


But what are some examples of DRM schemes that were executed well?

I'm one of those people that don't believe in DRM. I think the company or individual will profit equally off a DRM free game, with a lot less headache from vocal gamers who can't login on day 1 or who get scared of having a SecuROM folder somewhere on their hard drive.

Also, I think most pirates are more up to the challenge of cracking a game like Spore, which had excessive DRM than say a game like Minecraft which had basically none.

I have no evidence to support my claims, but this is the internet, who needs evidence? :D

~Saturn

First off, DRM schemes don't work unless they rely on server code, and even that can be hacked/replicated with enough work. With strictly client code your game will be hacked within a week if it's good enough for anyone to care about. That's reality.

The only system I can think of that doesn't bother me is Big Fish Games. I can install a game I've bought on a new machine faster than I can transfer the files from one computer to another over my home wifi, games work forever, and I can download them as many times as I want on as many machines as I want (my daughter in college, still my legal dependent, shares my account with no troubles). The fact that I can buy games for $3-5 helps a lot too, and they actually make good recommendations for "Games I Might Like" based on my purchase history.

Other than that, I don't do DRM. If I see Origen or Steam required on a PC title, that's one that I won't be buying. Don't get me going on SecuROM or any of the other 'deep' solutions out there. Anything more than a disc check for an off line game and I will not buy the software.

If you're asking in regards to adding DRM to a title you're working on, I'll say the same thing here I say on the game dev forums: don't bother. The work you put into adding DRM is time you could have spent improving your game in some way, and that will pay you higher dividends in the future.

There are a few kinds of people who play games:

1) People who buy games. These people buy their games and never use pirate sites, either from lack of knowledge, fear of viruses/malware, or just plain principle. You don't need DRM with these people, make a good game and they'll buy it.

2) People who pirate games. These people never pay for games, so any copies of your game they end up playing don't legitimately count as 'lost sales' as they were never going to pay you anything anyway. Btw, they laugh at your feeble DRM.

3) People who sometimes buy games. DRM can help you with this group so long as you don't lock the game down too much. Recent examples of overkill and the resulting backlash include requiring a persistent online connection for offline single player games, and rootkit DRM schemes that FUBAR machines. Make a good game at a reasonable price (what reasonable is differs from buyer to buyer, obviously), and these people will probably buy it, if only because it's simpler than the alternatives.

Edit: 4) Impulse buyers. If you can get your game on store shelves with a picture of a hot chick in a chainmail bikini carrying a big sword or a voluptuous woman wearing a very loose fitting and 'open' robe people may pick up the box / jewel case and read the words. If the words sound interesting, they may drop it in their cart as long as it's priced low enough. DRM doesn't help you much with these people either. They may lend their disc to a friend, but it's just as likely their friend will play the game at the purchaser's house and go buy it because the purchaser either has no idea where he left the disc, or else his daughter used it as a coaster for her oreos and milk. [/end Edit]

Notice that there is no group of consumers out there (at least that I've ever met) that look at software and go,

"Oh boy! It's got DRM!" and decide to buy the game because of that.

Make a good game, advertise it well, price it reasonably, and people will buy it.

There is a fifth type of buyers, and that's the reason why there are "successfull" DRM's.Big Companies spent a lot of money on DRM and have done so for years - they would not do that unless they would consider that money spent well, so they do consider the DRM they use "successfull" - what most players fail to see is that "successfull" to them is NOT "unbroken".

It takes time to break the DRM, and then time to distribute the cracked program to the players. depending on the method of DRM, that time can be several weeks to a few months - and most games go to the budget bin within half a year of release.

The big companies only care about DRM for those first few months of sales - everything after that is only a nice extra for them.

And that is where the fifth type of buyer comes in, one that is a lot more often:

5) I want the game NOW, my friend/schoolmate/XY has it...

The place where DRM is successfull is those programs that have only a limited timespan as their sale-life on the shelves, either because they're series (you don't play "Football 2013" if "Football 2014" is out) or because they're hyped beyond their true quality and you need to get sales out before everyone realises that the game is extremely bad (usually combines DRM with no demo, no independant testing and a lot of photoshopped advertisements).

Big companies spend money on DRM because they want to keep drumming the word 'piracy' and maintain control over games.

Their real threat is the used games market - they are using DRM to try to make buying used games impossible (openly stated).

It's the same reason the RIAA spends millions on anti-piracy campaigns and lobbying in Congress when they know that people will still 'pirate' music no matter what they do. Keep shouting something long enough and people start to believe it.

It's the reason the Dept of Justice arrested a Russian citizen visiting the US for writing a program in Russia that was completely legal in Russia but violated the DMCA in the US. It's the reason the DoJ shut down the DNS server for a Spanish website hosted in Spain that the Spanish courts ruled was legal.

The goal of Big Companies is seldom as obvious as it may appear. They know their DRM will be cracked (and it's closer to a week or two than months), but it keeps most people 'in line' and helps them when it comes time for new legislation to be written.

Indie developers and smaller companies don't have the same issues and priorities that large multi-national conglomerates do.

Of the DRM schemes, I like Steam the best.  From my point of view as a player, it's transparent, allows me to run a game on multiple PCs (one at a time), and does let me run games when I'm not connected (if I last connected from that PC).

Besides that, you'll probably spend a lot of time and/or money making a DRM scheme which a determined pirate will break.  Famously, the game Spore had its copy protection broken even before the game was released...

The ideal DRM system, to me would:

1. Be non-invasive (some schemes forbid me from using a CD drive while playing the game, for example)

2. Not require me to always be online to play the game

3. Not tie the game to a particular hardware profile (what if my PC dies)

4. If not following #3, at the very least make it extremely easy to move a license between machines as needed, even if the source machine is not available

5. Not install a rootkit or the likes

But, the paradox here is a good DRM scheme, from the point of view of the game publisher, would completely control the PC, somehow ensuring the game is never pirated.  So it would act like a legal computer virus.  And, any DRM installing a rootkit, well, serves as a prime target for virus writers, who love to piggyback on existing DRM schemes' rootkit privileges...

So I'd say follow the classic concept of keeping it simple:  Price the game well, market it well, and just assume some percentage of copies will be pirated.  The latter will happen anyways, but at least you won't be putting a huge amount of effort into developing or inserting a DRM scheme into your game.

the best execution of DRM is the lack of one

people will pirate your game. it cannot be stopped. if you try to stop it they will be even more 'violent'.

Steam is the most accepted "DRM" platform because it isn't technically DRM, it's just a digital distributor.

Steam is DRM. You may like the convenience, but that doesn't change the facts.

They have the ability to remotely 'kill' any game you have leased from them at any time (you don't buy or even license games from steam the way you do from almost anywhere else). Read their EULA and ToS carefully. It controls what computers you can play the game on: have it installed on three? can't play it on all three at the same time, or even the 'wrong' one if you're offline. All of these are "features" of Digital Rights Management (or Digital Restrictions Management, as I prefer to think of it).

DRM, what a bunch of BS, even some indie game sites are trying to get you to buy DRM software to post your games on there. The best way to say it is the best DRM is no DRM. And Oh speaking of steam and DRM let me thank the staff for saying it's a good idea to buy Ace on steam, I just love having Ace slowed down because I have no internet connection and want to use the program. Steam and DRM make slaves of us all.

I don't trust any of it or anyone that speaks for it!

Since I (and nobody else) mentioned Steam is a good idea, I'm on the staff?   I'm definitely not.  I just prefer the Steam framework to any other DRM scheme I've seen out there.  And there have been a TON of them.  These include:

- Product activation.  After installing X times, you can't install it anymore.  This includes significant hardware changes on your PC requiring an additional install activation.

- Require always-on Internet connection, even for single player.

- Rootkit-type DRM which takes over your PC and which offers virus writers a nice easy backdoor into the PC's security.

- Require the media to always be present in the drive while the game is running

- Hardware-based dongle which must be inserted into your PC's USB port, while the game is running

- Require entry of a code phrase from the user's manual (older PC games)

Personally, I think they distribute on Steam because their users have asked for it.  One of the artists who works for them remarked they give extra bonuses for people who purchase from their site precisely because they make more money when the packs are bought from them directly.  So, if anything, the artists lose money for distributing their packs on Steam.  Obviously, Steam asks for a chunk of the purchase price.

Ideally, yes, I actually agree that not using DRM is the best.  But, if a company is going to use DRM on their products, there are a ton of much more painful ways to do it...

Steam has this ability but have they ever used it? not to my knowledge, but I'm sure they might have in rare situations, it is far from the norm however.

this can boil down to the ethics of what you think purchasing software nets you. in the example you provided, why would you need to play a game on three different computers? at the same time? you don't, it's unrealistic. you can argue that you can always lend a game to a friend, sure; i agree. however you cannot play that game while your friend has it because you physically do not have it. steam has the same restrictions, but digitally. it's what's most fair to the publishers and developers. you don't want people just giving out copies of your game for free, right? its impossible to do it physically for obvious reasons but Steam has a way to do it that makes sense digitally.

like i said before, this all boils down to the ethics you follow when purchasing software.

Me, my wife, and my daughter. I can make a copy of anything (an album, software, a DVD) for either of them and it falls under fair use (straight from the mouth of Orrin Hatch). Diablo 2 handled this nicely allowing LAN play from a single disc but still only allowing one key on Battle.net at a time. Even games with disc checks will run fine if we're all in the house together - just pass the disc around. So, not unrealistic at all.

I also don't like the idea of the last computer I was on being the only one I can play offline when the internet goes out. Laptops still work when the power goes out, desktops don't. See where I'm heading with that one?

It's simply a matter of choice and how much of your freedom you're willing to give up in the name of convenience. It's not all that different from the question of how much freedom people are willing to give up in the name of 'security', though that leads down 'controversial' paths best left for other boards. I don't think all software needs to be Free, but I won't buy recreational software that requires me to wear handcuffs on the assumption I'm a criminal either.

@Whitesphere: she wasn't accusing you of being on Valve's staff. She's upset that this site encouraged people to buy Ace on Steam rather than directly, since the Steam version apparently gives her some performance issues.

I so miss the times of split-screen multiplayer games on consoles, you only need 1 system, 1 disc and no DRM problems...


on the topic though, I do think it depends on how we define a "well executed DRM"... well executed in terms of it's purpose (preventing sharing perhaps?) or well executed in a more consumer-point-of-view thing? IMHO, Steam lies somewhere on the middle of this which I think is good (though I still don't like Steam or any DRM)

I personally was alright with ones that were like 'this product may be active on 3(for example) computers' and once you've got it on three and want to install it elsewhere you have to disassociate it from one at which point if you didn't remove it from that one when you go to start it up it tells you you're at your limit of 3, yadda yadda, x number of times starting it with no connection grace before it imposes restrictions of use. Seems fair, uninvasive to me, 

I could never fairly say there should be no drm because everyone has or knows people who have pirated games back before companies invested in drm, and as people pouring our blood, sweat and tears into projects in the hopes of getting the resources to make their dream game or even make a living, we have to appreciate that we don't want people freely downloading and distributing our games without any obstacles(as most young people will never consider the moral and practical grounds for supporting the industry).

That would be my definition of "invasive".

Yep, I know plenty of people who have pirated software, going all the way back to the early 80's. I've even been guilty of it myself on a few occasions (though back then, buying software wasn't always a simple thing to do to begin with).

DRM didn't work then, doesn't work now, and costs a lot of time and money that could be better spent improving the game. This is more true of indie projects than big corps as they roll one giant DRM "solution" for everything they got. Their long-term goals are a bit more complex than simply stopping people from copying their games as well. Destroying the 'used game' market is pretty high on their list atm. The biggest competition for 'new' games is people's existing library of 'old' games.

Don't dismiss the positive effect of getting your game out in front of as many eyes as possible. People talk about what they like, and people who buy games do so from word of mouth advertising more than any other type.

There are only two kinds of DRM that are effective at limiting (not eliminating) "piracy":

1) Completely off client code required to run the software - this means you must have an active internet connection to at least start the game. If somebody wants to 'crack' your program, this could take them up to a month or so (less if a team gets together) if you do a _really_ good job of it. After that, it's out in the wild the same as if you did nothing.

Read that last sentence again if you're still not sure why DRM "solutions" are a waste of resources. Long term (which isn't very long at all), they accomplish nothing. No matter what you do, if your game is worth playing, it will be hosted for "free", able to be downloaded by anybody who cares to. The more popular the game, the faster it will be out there.

2) Hardware based DRM solutions. Ye old - stick this plug in your serial port to get AutoCAD to run - to the newer ILok type devices. Those are prohibitively expensive to roll out on any software costing less than at least several hundred (and usually several thousand) dollars. Even Maya and Max don't do that to people any more. It's a customer service hassle in the best of times (my kid was playing with the shiny blue key thing, pins bent, I stepped on it, it's not working and I don't know why...). For production software, damaging the "key" means being without your production software for potentially a couple of days (even with 'insurance'). Not cool.

I suppose there is 3) Your game sucks so bad no one wants to play it anyway... That's probably the most effective DRM overall.

The best way there is to make sure you see as much profit as possible from your commercial product (not limited to games, or even software - anything you want to sell) is to make a product that people see as worth the money you're asking for. Most people do buy stuff (our entire economy is pretty much based on this premise). Make your game worth buying, and people will.

I've said this on the gamedev forums, and I'll say it here. If I ever get a game on store shelves (say a jewel case at Walmart) it will have written across the top in BIG SHINY RED LETTERS: "THIS GAME IS DRM FREE". That's the sort of thing that can get people to at least pick the jewel case up, which is half way to the sale.

Could they buy it and put it up for free? Of course, but see my note under #1 above. I'd bet that more people would buy it because it's DRM free than legitimate 'lost sales' I would suffer (people who pirate and never buy software don't count as 'lost sales').

My opinion might be an unpopular one but I believe for myself some DRM is necessary.  Here's why...

1) We're making a game that has cost thousands and will cost up near $40,000 over the next year or so.  I'd like for it to not all be for nothing.

2) We're unknown, if someone were to just publish our game for free somewhere most people wouldn't even know it wasn't there's to be giving away.

3) We're small.  If someone was selling or giving away our game, they're would be very little we could do about it.  Legally I'd be able to sue them as I go through the process of buying the rights to our property but I don't have a lawyer nor could I afford one.

    That being said I believe DRM is right for us, but not everyone.  If you're really big like EA you don't need it in my opinion because I believe at that point it more so hurts the average gamer, and the people who were going to steal were going to steal it anyways.  EA and other big publishers have the legal power to fight it so no worries.

It's the smaller people who truly need DRM.  It doesn't have to be much DRM, for example I would never make someone have to be online to play, now if Steam or someone sells my game it's kind of up to them but through our website we wouldn't sell a online required game, but there should be some for the reasons I stated above.

Long story short, a little DRM isn't bad it's when it becomes too much is the issue. Simcity is a fine example of far too much and screwing the public.

Oh boo hoo, most of you guys are talking from the perspective of buyers whereas for game businesses, DRM is a dream. People say, "if you include DRM then you're doing a disservice to your users and everyone" but frankly DRM is making game businesses money so why in the world should they stop? They shouldn't because it's a profitable scheme and whatever gets profit is good for a business.


That said, if you want to achieve your ideals and be a DRM-free release, then be my guest, but if you actually want to make money and aren't Jonathan Blow (i.e. you don't make the perfect indie game that stuffs your pockets with cash dollars), then stop being a non-digital-rights-managing sonofa-"oh wait I have no money now" indie developer and get your dollars together. You're a business now, this is how the world works. It's ebb and flow via Network, it's a market to be milked.


Basically, I see DRM opposers as people who want to download songs for free because they want to, and use laws to cover that up. SOPA scares them because they want to keep doing what they do, and only the small minority actually give a eff about their Star Trek fanfiction that can't be published because of copyright laws not expiring, and the rest of them are just like, "oh wait I can't download movies illegally without being seen, F@#$ the system!"


I think it's time we grow up and realize that our government and the systems that control us are actually one of the best in years, and opposing it is the cool thing to do if you're dissatisfied with your life which is generally your fault anyway. So if you're not happy with people making things harder to crack and distribute for free online for you to have your free smorgasbord of paid entertainment, let's not blame the people that set up these measures that wouldn't have to be put in place if we didn't download stuff illegally anyways.


Come at me.

Music stealing? Why I never. . .Well not much anymore usually just Pandora stuff and buy from the small guys who need it

Btw this wasn't aimed at you. Music stealing is just a symptom of a greater culture that believes they're entitled to paid crap and it's wrong. DRM is a failsafing service that is the choice of game developers and it should be entirely their choice. I'm completely fine with it, if it does the job and doesn't interfere too much with the playability of the game itself.

Oh I know I was actually agreeing with some of what you stated.  Maybe not as aggressively but yeah.