GOG has already done this. They just flat out removed DRM. Per your words, games are already perceived "free". GOG is profitable and growing. I'm not sure what else to add. No DRM works ALREADY or we wouldn't have this forum to discuss it on.

One game at a time.

I imagine there is likely some curiosity, even within the high-up decision-making layers of EA and the other 'bigs', of what would actually happen if they took a step back from DRM. And there's no reason it couldn't be tried, on a predicted-to-be-popular but less then AAA (read: around $20) title to see what the results really end up being.

Actually, just thought of an interesting (to me, anyway) experiment:

As a test, for a few titles serialize each installer, so every single instance has a unique identifier at the time that it's purchased and downloaded the first time by each discrete consumer account. Meanwhile, release to the pirate / torrent world a slightly different version with a different set of self-generating serial numbers but with a unique marker within the serial number that identifies that instance as coming from one the planned-for-piracy copies. Track the use of the serial numbers, not necessarily by WHO is using them, but simply by how many different times that serial number shows up online, or maybe how many times it shows up at the same instant (if serial number 123abc is in use at 3pm by 47 different people, then it's assumed that it was pirated at least 46 times). With a mechanism like this, there should be generated a data set with some correlation to the actual level of piracy, and also where it comes from: individual users handing out an installer to buddies here and there, or organized piracy on torrent sites, for instance.

That should create at least some data with which to compare pirate versus purchase. For obvious reasons it would have to be done in secret else the public would decide that since the publisher was putting out the pirate version itself then it must be prepared to face a 100% loss, and thus the consumers would have no problem with stealing the game.

The key would be to do nothing to track personal data, and also not take legal action against any who download the versions seeded by the publisher itself, since this would be purely for the purpose of gathering data. Not sure if the consumers would allow it, but they could also add a mechanism to identify individual PCs (essentially tracking the 'who'), and see how many pirated copies eventually become purchases. Many people say they do this, but nobody knows if it's 2%, 15%, or 83%. This would give them some indication, not 100% accurate, sure, but at least an idea of what the numbers are. And try it for multiple titles so one fluke doesn't skew the data.

The problem is that it would eventually leak before the data gathering was complete, and people would scream to high heaven about big brother and all that, even though the goal would be to get some real-world data of the scope of piracy, and with the aim of determining the pros and cons of DRM for the seller and consumer.

Maybe nobody says "there'd be no piracy" but there's a lot of people who say "I would buy your game if you didn't use any DRM". That group is large enough so that Ubisoft was willing to execute that experiment that I mentioned above and perhaps even prooved their hipocrisy (although nobody can prove the connection between low sales and the DRM). But I generally agree with you that companies should focus on attracting mature gamers. The math just doesn't add up for teenagers - every publisher has several big releases a year, I want to see the teenager that can afford all of them... and doesn't feel the urge to see/play them all.

Why you people like all this philosophy?

money = no stealing unless you are douche..

everyone has money = no one tries to push shitty games... everyone works a job they like to work. Less douchery...

Douche companies attract other douchebags..:D

Do you know what I see when I see DRM on games? A challenge that pirates MUST crack. You can pretty much guarantee that a game with DRM will be cracked and on the net for download on the day of release. If it is a real challenge, the day after. It is what they do. Do you think they do it for funsies? no. They do it because they can. If there was no DRM, then they would have no reason to pirate them.

I mean take TW2 for example. The game that was pirated was not the GOG version, but the steam version. Now what does that tell you? If every other company was like CD PROJEKT, then we would not have these people pirating games because there would be no point. And I dont doubt that some people would see this as an opportunity to take it as a freebie. However most of us who see a decent quality game, are willing to pay for it, and hopefully this will show others that if you see it has worth, you pay for it.

Call me naive if you like, but I feel that if you lead by example, others will follow.

Do remember, when talking about the software business, that these are the same types of people who will happily sue each other over the intellectual property rights of a shape, colour or some other nebulous concept (that they bought from some bloke down the pub, rather than conceived of) with one hand whilst smiling and shaking the other hand on a mutual development deal with the same company they are suing.

I'm not holding my breath for much in the way of common sense from these folks.

Exactly, and therefor I don't buy into that logic. Your single example is dependent on too many unknown factors. How many people actually claimed they would buy this specific Ubisoft game if it was DRM-free and how many of them actually bought it when it was offered without DRM? How long did the sale run, how many people actually knew of it etc.etc. (and if you're talking about the Amazon sale, many people outside the US couldn't buy it even if they wanted to).

Of course I couldn't prove that there's no hypocrisy on the part of the DRM-free supporters either. There are always a few bad apples, and in the end it's all just speculation on both sides. ;)

I think your base assumptions are wrong, people pay for stuff because it's convenient and because it's "the right thing" to do. Music basically had all it's DRM removed and people still buy music. The DRM didn't actually stop anyone when it did exist. DVD DRM is laughably broken, no I mean really so broken it might as well not even exist, *THAT* kind of laughably broken. People still buy DVDs or at least Netflix/Redbox them.

You remove DRM and make sure your product is superior to the pirated copy. You already cannot compete on price, so your make yours "better" in some way.

DRM actually drives people to piracy. Slapping 28 day wait periods on DVD rentals drives people to pirate them, not buy them.

So to some up:
1) Your premise is wrong
2) Make sure your purchased product is superior to the pirated copy and available, part of the superiority is removing any DRM or other obstacles to getting and enjoying the product.

I've always been against DRM but I also believe that game companies need to protect themselves somehow, without punishing those who support them. So whilst I don't think the complete removal of DRM is a long term answer, I do believe the use of unobtrusive DRM is.

My real concern with DRM is that at some point I'm going to be locked out of a game that I've paid for. I don't like being at the mercy of someone else and hoping that they stay in business so that I can still activate one of their games should I feel like playing it 5 years from now.

So my ideal form of DRM is a once-off activation at time of purchase, and thereafter, I'm free to uninstall and reinstall the game as many times as I like - and I don't actually uninstall games, I just reinstall a clean image of the operating system every now and then as it keeps the registry nice and clean. I only actively play a couple of games at a time, so I only reinstall those I want to play at that time. And I've already got all my saved games backed up separately, so I don't lose anything when doing a reinstall - not a chance I'm trusting that to some cloud based system!

So what's a once-off activation? Here I'm following the examples of companies like Cakewalk and Garritan. With Garritan for example, they send you a graphic image of your registration card which has your name. You drag this image onto the product once you've installed it and voila, it's activated. So I'm happy because I'll keep this registration card indefinitely and hence I can reactive my product whenever I want. And it's great for Garritan because my name is on the card, which means one can't just go and give all one's buddies copies without having one's name splashed all over their computers clearly indicating that they're using a pirated copy and who gave it to them.

Can this form of DRM still be easily hacked? Probably. Will some people not feel guilty playing a game with a splash screen that shows someone else as being the registered owner? Probably. But we're talking about a compromise. It's a DRM scheme that will deter casual pirates, and yet is still unobtrusive.

And a "friendly" once-off activation DRM scheme is the primary reason I bought Cakewalk's Sonar instead of Steinberg's Cubase, despite originally intending to buy the latter... and taking into account that the former was more expensive and far more difficult to source in my country.

I'm getting this. It seems to be the general response in some form or another.

Ok, question answered.

Thanks for all responses.

I don't understand why companies bother us players with DRM. Their games end up cracked in the internet anyway. If someone is not willing to spend a cent for a game, he doesn't buy it even if it wasn't for "free" on the internet.

And if someone mentiones music, there will always be a chance that someone will buy a ticket for concert even when he doesn't buy albums. Games don't have this advantage. But you often even have to buy soundrack! LOL

The experiment wasn't tied to any distributor or anything. Around 2008 Ubisoft published several games free of DRM, Prince of Persia among others (the retail release could be played without the DVD in the drive if the articles I read about it are true - I can't confirm this personally though as I only have the Steam release). I don't remember which other games were part of this experiment but it shouldn't be too hard finding a list on the web. Personally I also don't believe in massive connections between DRM and sales but I'm sure that neither does Ubisoft. Let's face it: this "I'd buy it if there was no DRM" is mostly a dumb excuse used by pirates who probably never even thought that any big publisher would be willing to "prove" they're lying. Of course neither side can prove anything, that's probably why pirates used this excuse in the first place but at least now Ubisoft has an excuse for applying DRM that is just as good as the one used by pirates - which was achieved by stepping down to their dumb logic. Ultimately the truth remains: pirates are gonna pirate, publishers are gonna... DRM... is there a verb for this?

Better enough to justify the price difference? That will be hard because the digital product and all the goodies can easily be copied. For single player games there isn't much more, that is really valuable. Not everybody needs a collectors edition.

And is DRM really that broken? Has anybody succeeded in hacking OnLive for example?

I think what makes it superior isn't really the goodies but the service, the support, and the feeling that you can trust the source where you get it from and that you are doing the right thing. This might not work for everyone but apparantly for more people than I would have thought, otherwise GOG would be out of business now. You can probably find pirated copies of GOG games and their goodies on the internet, too, and still people come here and buy games they didn't even know they wanted, just because they like the service and feel like supporting it. GOG somehow managed to turn the "I hate to pay these greedy publishers / salespersons and are reluctant to pay them, if I can avoid it" into a "I love you guys, please take my money!".

you haven't understood the way DRM works. hint: it's not copy-protection.

out there in the real world, DRM is a non-issue, OK? the vast majority of gamers don't care about DRM. the record-breaking PC games all have fairly heavy DRM: Skyrim, Modern Warfare 2, Battlefield 3, StarCraft 2, the upcoming DIablo 3, etc. most gamers apparently don't even care about always-online DRM.

as far as digital sales go, the Steam edition OUTSOLD the DRM-free GOG edition of The Witcher 2, by far. that should tell you all you need to know.