More thoughts on copy protection

Published June 02, 2008
Advertisement
I've been making some posts on copy protection over in a thread in the lounge at the moment which I think is best expanded upon here, otherwise I'd completely hijack the other thread to my own purposes. Plus it fits neatly as a continuation from my previous journal post.

In the last journal post I expressed my dissatisfaction with the over-the-top copy protection scheme EA was incorporating into the PC released of Mass Effect and Spore. My main objection was that rechecking the validation of a game every 10 days was like a slap in the face for those who actually bought the game. Subsequently it seems they quickly dropped that particular element. And I've also heard that it didn't delay the crack for Mass Effect by more than a few days, so it's not as if it would have been much of a benefit.

However if I plan to make an indie game for sale, then I'll eventually have to tackle the question of copy protection myself. Is it worth it to include copy protection in an indie game, or conversely is it folly to release a non-protected game for download over the internet?

I'm aware of Stardock and their copy protection free Galactic Civilizations II, but I'm not sure if their model is directly applicable to the sorts of games I wish to make. My understanding is that Gal.Civ.2 is unprotected for single player or local LAN play, but requires activation for internet play or downloading updates. Also, the game itself is quite large with about a CDs worth of material. My games however are far more likely to be single player only and small downloads.

I'm also of the opinion that spending any significant amount of effort to come up with a crack-proof system is wasteful, as absolutely anything and everything seems to be crackable these days. The options for my games would be either no copy protection or something very simple just to stop very casual copying. Furthermore, I also consider anything that makes it significantly more of a hassle to play the game for paying customers than pirates to be pointless as well. Anything more than a one-time entry of a key would be too much, and something done automatically would be better.

On the practical side of things, having no copy protection would make designing the program easier, especially if I go with Python at the core. I could release the main program script as there's no need to protect the part that does the copy protection. Plus I really don't want to spend much time working on how to integrate copy protection that could be spent doing something else.

And on the social side, I'd much rather deal honestly with customers who are the kind of people nice enough to buy my game than try to whack them with restrictions in order to rap the knuckles of would-be pirates. But there's a small part of me that's wondering if I'm naive about this.

The obvious thing to do is make it much easier to be honest and buy the game from the official channels than get it from somewhere else. My concern isn't so much about the warez sites lurking around the bowels of the internet; the sort of person who frequents those isn't the sort of person who would buy my game anyway. I'm more worried about casual copying; friends giving copies of games to other friends. That's the sort of thing a simple protection scheme can help against. However if it's at the cost of playability for the customers, or it wouldn't be much more of a benefit over, say, including a reminder screen in the game to please not share copies, would it be worth it?

I know I'm babbling now, but it's something that has been lurking in the back of my mind for months now. Personally I want to trust potential customers to pay for software, because I feel if you approach your customers with the mindset that you trust them, then you're more likely to attract those who are genuinely trustworthy. But I'm not an expert in business, so I don't know if this is a foolish philosophy to take.

Regardless it's not something that I need an answer for right away, as it's not as if I'm close to being ready to launch a business. But it is something I think I need to keep in mind as part of the whole parcel of customer relations, a completely new area for me to make new and exciting mistakes in.
0 likes 3 comments

Comments

LachlanL
For an indie game (especially on the scale you're talking about), I reckon any sort of complicated copy-protection scheme is going to be overkill and most likely not going to yield a net gain. However, there are simple ways that you can "encourage" people to buy their copy of the game without going over the top.

The easiest way to do this is if you have online play that is facilitated by your own servers. In this case you can make it so that each user can only be logged on once (concurrently). Its certainly not crack-proof, but cracking it would most likely be beyond the capabilities of the average user, that's pretty much the best you can hope for.

To facilitate this you have to keep a database of unique registered user keys, not authorization algo. That way, people can't create a "key gen" program that can create a valid key from scratch. When someone pays for the full version of your game, they get a file with the registration code that identifies them on your servers. Someone could copy the game, but if they tried to go online at the same time as their friend, one (or both) of them would get kicked, or blocked from playing.

On the other hand, you could use the Diablo/StarCraft model, where someone can play with a copy of the game, but only with that person they copied the game from. That way they can play the game a bit and get introduced to it, but if they want to play on their own, they'll have to buy a copy.

That's my $0.02 on the subject. Its certainly not definitive.
June 02, 2008 06:51 PM
Gaiiden
Quote: Original post by LachlanL
On the other hand, you could use the Diablo/StarCraft model, where someone can play with a copy of the game, but only with that person they copied the game from. That way they can play the game a bit and get introduced to it, but if they want to play on their own, they'll have to buy a copy.

I was not aware of this, but that's pretty darn cool.

I'm against copy-protection for small indie titles. Like LachlanL, it's just not cost-effective in the long run and will only hurt your users. You really have to consider your audience. If you're developing for the casual space, not a lot of people interested in your game would have any knowledge of how to hack it anyways, nor would they feel the need to. Furthermore, as an indie you need all the publicity you can get. If that means people are downloading and playing your game for free, so be it. Instead of chalking it up as a loss in revenue, think of it as not having to spend so much marketing dollars - because they people playing for free are telling their friends if the game is good and hopefully a few of them will buy it.
June 06, 2008 02:17 PM
Trapper Zoid
Quote: Original post by Gaiiden
I'm against copy-protection for small indie titles. Like LachlanL, it's just not cost-effective in the long run and will only hurt your users. You really have to consider your audience. If you're developing for the casual space, not a lot of people interested in your game would have any knowledge of how to hack it anyways, nor would they feel the need to. Furthermore, as an indie you need all the publicity you can get. If that means people are downloading and playing your game for free, so be it. Instead of chalking it up as a loss in revenue, think of it as not having to spend so much marketing dollars - because they people playing for free are telling their friends if the game is good and hopefully a few of them will buy it.

That's my gut feeling too. I'd probably go with just a reminder page that this game is just for the buyer similar to the one in Deadly Rooms of Death (which is quite well done) and have no copy protection.

June 07, 2008 01:20 AM
You must log in to join the conversation.
Don't have a GameDev.net account? Sign up!
Advertisement
Advertisement