I am creating a massive space-exploration game.

After the SimCity fiasco, and other fiasco's related to people hating DRM games, such as Diablo III, is any form of dedicated servers/DRM for a game considered bad? If my game is entirely multiplayer, and that's how the game will always be played; it's not a single player game at all, is it really bad? For example, the previous SimCity games WERE single player and it is the type of game that COULD be single player and work fine but it's not. But a game like World of Warcraft couldn't really be played without advanced player economy, interactions, etc. You don't see anybody freaking out about that games DRM.

For a game like mine which the entire game revolves around multiplayer mechanics, would I receive hate for having dedicated servers which you must be on to play?

Basically what I'm trying to ask is if DRM is ALWAYS a terrible thing in the eyes of gamers, or if there are variables involved, and a game like SimCity or Diablo III has no excuse for being DRM?

Thanks.

The problem with D3 and Sim City isn't that they use DRM. The problem is that the servers were unable to cope with the number of players, so thousands of people who paid for the game were unable to play it.

Steam has millions of users playing DRM-ed games, who don't complain as long as there are no server outages.

For a decade before Steam, millions of gamers played games where the DRM system was entering a CD-Key printed on the disc/manual, and that was just normal.

Then there's a second issue, D3 doesn't just use DRM, but the game logic is hosted on a server. This isn't DRM, this is turning a single-player game into a server-hosted game. This caused anyone who wanted to play LAN games to legitimately complain, and people without fast internet to legitimately complain.

e.g. For me, the closes D3 server is across the entire pacific ocean, meaning that even when I play single-player, I have several hundred milliseconds of lag, which is enough to make the game's "hardcore mode" unplayable.

DRM makes sure that only authorized people get to play the game -- forced server-side-hosting of the game-logic makes sure that no-one gets to host a game, not even people who bought it. Under this system, the DRM makes sure that only authorized people can be clients of a game, and then the private server system makes sure that no-one but Blizzard can be a host of a game.

Isn't the term DRM a little fuzzy?

If by DRM, you mean restricting the number of machines on which the game can be installed, it seems a little pointless for a fully multiplayer game like WoW or League of Legends, or any such game.

wouldn't it be better to just have an "accounts" based solution? I'm kind of confused as to what you're trying to accomplish by adding DRM to a fully multiplayer game.

If you're game is something like Starcraft 2(with both offline and multiplayer options), I suggest you take the route blizzard has taken. games can still be played offline v/s AI, but to access all of the cool features, you need to be online. Again, there are no limits on the number of machines you can have Starcraft 2 installed on. What matters is that with each purchase, you only get a single account

Just my 2 cents :)

~Bollu

If your game is entirely multiplayer, the DRM question does not arise. Multiplayer without network is hardly possible, and apart from peer-to-peer LAN games, how would one implement such a thing without a server?

Other than in the case of the games you mentioned, this is necessary.

The problem with the forementioned games was not that there were server problems, even though one should probably say "shame, shame on you" considering that these are not 1-man-shows but presumably multi-million dollar companies with at least a dozen (probably more) server administrators who are presumably experienced craftsmen that aren't setting up a server for the first time in their lives.

You would also normally expect that a multi-million company does a reasonable estimate of necessary resources based both on marketing research, pre-order sales, shop sales, and beta-launch metrics, and is able to afford more than a single $4.99/month server to handle the requests of a million customers.

The real problem is that they rendered the game entirely unplayable with their DRM solely because they can't get their shit straight, even though the game could be perfectly playable (for single player mode only, obviously). The server connection is strictly not necessary, except for enforcing restrictions on users.

Technical excuses for some missing functionality (online community, cloud store, whatever) aside, it is hard for a user who paid some real money to understand why he cannot use what he paid for at all when there is no obvious reason for that. Solely because some server doesn't work, which frankly, he couldn't care about less.

And then of course, there's the legitimate "what if they decide to turn off servers next year?" thought. It is very conceivable that the game publisher decides from one day to another that they don't want people to play D3 any more, but rather buy the new, expensive D4 (which is exactly identical, except for marginally better graphics, and you must pay for it again). So what do they do? They shut down the D3 servers, and the game stops working.

Bang. Now, the customer still paid real money for something that doesn't work at all, ever again.

If your game is entirely multiplayer, the DRM question does not arise. Multiplayer without network is hardly possible, and apart from peer-to-peer LAN games, how would one implement such a thing without a server?

Other than in the case of the games you mentioned, this is necessary.

The problem with the forementioned games was not that there were server problems, even though one should probably say "shame, shame on you" considering that these are not 1-man-shows but presumably multi-million dollar companies with at least a dozen (probably more) server administrators who are presumably experienced craftsmen that aren't setting up a server for the first time in their lives.

You would also normally expect that a multi-million company does a reasonable estimate of necessary resources based both on marketing research, pre-order sales, shop sales, and beta-launch metrics, and is able to afford more than a single $4.99/month server to handle the requests of a million customers.

The real problem is that they rendered the game entirely unplayable with their DRM solely because they can't get their shit straight, even though the game could be perfectly playable (for single player mode only, obviously). The server connection is strictly not necessary, except for enforcing restrictions on users.

Technical excuses for some missing functionality (online community, cloud store, whatever) aside, it is hard for a user who paid some real money to understand why he cannot use what he paid for at all when there is no obvious reason for that. Solely because some server doesn't work, which frankly, he couldn't care about less.

And then of course, there's the legitimate "what if they decide to turn off servers next year?" thought. It is very conceivable that the game publisher decides from one day to another that they don't want people to play D3 any more, but rather buy the new, expensive D4 (which is exactly identical, except for marginally better graphics, and you must pay for it again). So what do they do? They shut down the D3 servers, and the game stops working.

Bang. Now, the customer still paid real money for something that doesn't work at all, ever again.

The most common reason for shutting down multiplayer services (or DRM services since that happens as well (i can't think of an example where the developer didn't patch out the DRM before pulling the plug on the servers though)) is not really to push people to buy new games, its to save money, a DRM server costs money to host and for games that are only paid for once this will eventually become a loss affair for the developer/publisher and thus it will be shut down and the customers will be left with a broken product. (most have the good sense to release a patch that removes the DRM but if the company goes bankrupt there are no guarantees that that will happen).

To make me accept some form of always online DRM scheme for a game i pretty much require the developer/publisher to have either:

a solid trackrecord of keeping gameservers up and running with few interruptions for 10+ years. (Blizzard and Valve are the only two i trust in this area (Blizzard might fail miserably every time they launch a new game but their original Diablo battle.net servers are still up and running despite a very low number of players actually using them, and that game was released in 1996/1997)

or

server binaries(and preferably sourcecode under a reasonably liberal license) and a client patch that they can push out to remove the restrictions and/or allow players to host their own servers if/when they become unable or unwilling to provide the service the game requires. (They need to be able to legally push these out in case of a bankruptcy or takeover)

I want to feel confident that i can dust off the game 10+ years from now and still play it if i want to, even if the developer and/or publisher goes bankrupt, or worse: gets bought by Ubisoft.

Basically what I'm trying to ask is if DRM is ALWAYS a terrible thing in the eyes of gamers

It is in my eyes.

I don't agree with the concept of having to ask someone else to use something I pay for. I am a legitimate, paying customer, and I get bit by faulty or ill conceived DRM checks all the time. There have been a few recent cases of massive DRM failures with EA and I believe UBISoft.

Half my downloaded games on PSN deny me the ability to play them every time PSN goes down for maintenance, which is a few times a week. Capcom's DRM servers rely on PSN being up. It's fun coming home from work and trying to play the game I just bought, only to be told 'I'm unautorized' because Sony needs from tuesday at 9am to thursday at noon to fix their network again.

I can't use half my android software as soon as I leave wi-fi range. Most tablets sold at retail do not have any connectivity beyond wi-fi unless you spend an extra 50$ to get a 3/4g model, or you get one from a cell phone store.

I have a star charting app that wouldn't run (online check seems to have been patched out recently) when I'm not home. Yes, you read that right. An app made to use outside on a portable device that won't run because you're outside.

It's fun paying 20$ for an a tablet game, and then being told I have an unauthorized copy because I went one step too far in my backyard. Square-Soft "allows" me to run FF3 a random number of times with failed wi-fi check. Which means when I run it on my way home I have to pray that it works, and then remember to run it once when I get home to restart my failed wifi check counter, or I'm out of luck the next day? I would have no problem with the wi-fi check if it happened once during the initial install.

Why am I being treated like this? Over the course of my life, I've spent near 1,000$ on Square-Enix products. I (and others like me) am the reason these idiots denying me the use of MY game even have a job right now. If it wasn't for the support of their paying audience, there wouldn't be a Square-Enix. Same goes for any other software company. They are privileged to have our business. They are not entitled to it.

So now when FF4 on android comes out soon, my potential purchase comes with a list of conditions in an e-mail. I politely state my support over the decades, going all the way back to their first release until now, and all the problems they have given me trying to use and enjoy the software I have have bought from them. And that if current practices continue, we will have to unfortunately end our business relationship.

This stuff has gotten out of control, and these guys have forgotten how the relationship works. These companies make products that no one needs, and they are asking us for our money and support. They are lucky when and if they get that support, and they are entirely reliant on the customer for their continued existence.

The only model I support anymore is 'I buy it. I own it.' The GOG.com model.
If you think you're going to tell me how, when, why, or on what machine I can run something on, you're not getting my money.
If you think you're going to install something else that will watch me, or 'manage' something, you're not getting my money.
If you think I'm going to ask permission to run use your product, you're not getting my money.

Thankfully, most of the e-book world now agrees with the above. I'll be happy when the gaming world catches on.

Also, I know I didn't touch on piracy, because I don't care. I know it's a real problem, but it's not MY problem to deal with. You either treat me like a proper customer, or I'll go do business with someone else that does. I don't call up Home Deport and ask them permission to sit on my own toilet just because other people are stealing toilet seats, or stealing water service. I also don't let the grocery store send an employee over to check up on the eggs I bought from them. It's no less ridiculous when a software company does it.

It's funny how this works with software, and only software, too. Imagine this:

• You pay 25,000 for a new car, turn on the engine, and drive home.
• A pedestrian crosses the street, you step onto the brake, and nothing happens.
• Pedestrian is dead. You find yourself in court.
• Your lawyer calls in the car manufacturer, and they say "Yeah, that was release day, you have to expect problems if you drive on release day. Next week your brakes will work reliably. Oh, and besides, don't worry -- your brakes are fully functional, we only didn't enable them yet, because we haven't verified that you own the car yet".

You really couldn't imagine such a thing happening (well, maybe in Bizarro World). Only with software, this is entirely possible and almost "normal".

There's a difference between being required to be connected to the server because it's a multiplayer game, and being required to be connected to the server if it's a single player game.

If your game is multiplayer, it's fine for you to require people to be connected to your server (and then it's easy to do authentication, which is a very non-intrusive form of DRM). That makes sense. You can't do multiplayer networking if they aren't connected to the server in the first place, so that's fine.

If your game is single player, it makes little sense for you to require people to be connected to your server (which is a form of intrusive DRM).

Generally, people don't mind non-intrusive DRM that works. If your DRM is intrusive, or if it doesn't work*, people typically have issues with that.

So what should you do? Whatever makes sense. Just be logical and realistic in your decision making. Too many people/companies aren't.

*by works/doesn't work, I mean your DRM works if it lets legal customers play the game, and it doesn't work if it doesn't let legal customers play the game.

If you have to log in to play, that is, effectively, DRM -- you don't need to expend effort elsewhere, just concentrate on making your login system secure. Like WOW, or other MMOs, if your game is multi-player only, then no, there's no reason to hate that you have to login--but, like I said, there's no reason to apply additional DRM.

MMOs and such aren't really selling a game -- they sell a service, and the fact that it happens to be a game is largely inconsequntial--it operates the same as any other subscription-based service, essentially, like Netflix, or any site with a paywall.

The common complaint I see with always-online connectivity is that adds another potentially major single point of failure. If a game contains a game-breaking bug, that will happen intermittently and its occurrence is player-dependent, based on how someone is playing the game. If a game is rendered unplayable because of a server failure, that effect is widespread and affects a lot of players at once.

Cornstalks makes a good point about DRM that's intrusive. DRM should be practically invisible to a user that plays within the rules of the service agreement.