If you include console gamers, it's definitely in the 30-40% area, I think.

PC gamers only? 10-15% would be my guess.

DRM refers to using the product (installing and/or playing a game, for example), not to the part when you purchase or acquire (=download) it.

When you buy a retail game or a Blueray movie, the part where you have to go to a brick and mortar store and pay for it, is not DRM.

But when you get home and use that product you purchased, if it e.g. refuses to work before you authenticate it online or by calling somewhere, that would be considered DRM.

I doubt that had as much to do with DRM as a concept itself than it did with just the logistics of the necessity to be connected at all times. Meaning there were a great many people that either didn't have an internet connection for their XBOX or didn't have it in a room where it was easily connected all the time.

But you may be right. No way to know, as we're all just tossing personal opinions when it comes down to it.

A bit more: I'm more ready to accept "DRM" if the system and service is more open about its terms and doesn't try to seem something that it isn't. For example, I don't have a real problem with Netflix or Spotify because I feel it is pretty straightforward: they don't pretend you are paying for anything besides the ability to listen to lots of music or watch movies through their service, for a fixed monthly fee. They don't claim you are "buying" tunes or movies from them, as far as I can tell.

But then, many DRM digital stores like to pretend that you are somehow guaranteed with your purchases (while their TOS actually says that they can terminate your ability to play the games at any point), or pretend that they have a fully working offline mode which will always allow you to play your games even without the service.

Or even worse, EA claiming that the always-online DRM in SimCity is fundamental part of the gameplay and the game couldn't really exist without it, or Blizzard claiming similar things about Diablo 3. Please, stop treating me like I couldn't see through your bs.

I feel DRM-free stores like GOG have stronger legs to stand on with such claims. GOG wouldn't be able to prevent me from playing my downloaded GOG games, even if they wanted to.

More this.

*I'm surprised no Steam users have picked a bone over comments here describing Steam as DRM... which it very much is. Please, let's not have the argument here.*

I'd say the number of gamers who don't like DRM is probably about 50%. The numbers of gamers that actually put their money with where their mouth is in regards to DRM is much lower. For an average, take the total number of users in the Steam/Origin/OnLive/U-Play networks and whatever the number is opposite of that, I'd say that would be a fair guess as to the gamers that refuse to engage in draconian DRM.

From what I've gathered in reading, it seems that Steam is about 80% or so of PC gaming now. Origin and the others probably make up about 10% combined, since they are after all poor copies of an already bad idea. So that's 90% total of a gamer base. That leaves 10% of gamers who want nothing to do with arbitrary networks, id systems, and thumb printing. I can live with that. Nations have risen and fallen by groups of people numbering far lower than 10%. If that 10% would just be motivated enough to coalesce into a real market force, imagine the possibilities.

Of course you are right!
It wasn't all about DRM.....seeing that every retail game must be in the drive to play it.
Allways on, and don't resell of used games were the highlights...minor point the possible spy function of
Kinekt was underrated...but hey with the new smart tv's we have that already.

It all depends on the DRM. If it's something horrid like Starforce or SecuROM more people would be against it.

Also, if you ask someone...would you rather have to do something before you play a game you bought or would you want no interference in playing your game that you paid for...I think everyone would pick the second option, +/-1% for the internet trolls.

I read recently that PS4 sales lead Xbox in North America. I don't know about global. I wonder how much of an impact MS's earlier DRM/restrictions plans leading up to the outcry have to do with that, if any. What do you think?

:)

Remember that it also wasn't just online, either. They were going to give publishers a lot of power, like control resales and used games. I can't remember all the details.

Yeah, you're right. I just don't get the feeling that the outcry was about the implications of the DRM, rather it was about the inconvenience. But I could well be wrong. I hope so. The more people protest it, the better.

I'm sure a lot of it was over online DRM. I was personally a little more disturbed by the other implications. I'm not a console gamer either, but I was a little disgusted when I read all the changes that they had planned.

What's DRM? Another of those fancy new designer drugs?

Gee, kids these days.

Aye, same here. I'm also not a console gamer, but the proposed changes left me cold.