1 hour ago, loik_1 said:

Resources about how to implementing DIY DRM scheme on the web are limited.

Requirements:

• Convenience and not annoying for the User
• User account for update and online features
• Watermarks
• Product key
• Code obfuscation
• Respect fair dealing

Other such things: Easter egg, Trading Cards, Stats, Achievements, Modding, Leaderboards, and Unlockables.

Any resources?

I'm sure others will have their opinions on this, but there is little to no way to have DRM that isn't some form of an inconvenience to the end user while being an effective form of DRM. I do not support DRM, nor do I believe it's an effective way to ensure 100% protection for your application. This is why we see AAA games that spend countless amounts of dollars protecting their product still get pirated.

User accounts to login online to get updates wont matter. Only one user requires the file to redistribute to the masses. You can essentially only allow people to register online accounts with one-time use product keys. You will also have to consider if someone is able to get access to the web-server to obtain the files.

Digital Watermarking is easily bypassed. It can be used to mark pre-release copies or review copies, ect...

Product keys would only be effective for programs that run online that requires one unique account per product key to play. Such as an online RPG running server side. Product keys to run applications on the client side can be easily bypassed. It's too easy to fake authentication, and even prevent that processes while editing the file. If your product is offline and requires a constant internet connection to verify, you'll be annoying the user.

Client side Code Obfuscation will not prevent the attacker from succeeding. The main purpose of code obfuscation is to make potential attackers less likely to bother with your code, but it's not an effective form of security for your code in itself.

Respect fair dealing depends on your country.

DRM in general isn't accepted in the gaming community as an acceptable practice, and hurts the legitimate user.

1 hour ago, loik_1 said:

• User account for update and online features

Other such things: Easter egg, Trading Cards, Stats, Achievements, Modding, Leaderboards, and Unlockables.

I'm not really sure what any of the above have to do with DRM? They seem like a grab-bag of features mostly related to the game being online.

That said, the game being online (and hence requiring the user to be logged into a server to play) is the only form of DRM that has proven effective in the long run.

There are still a handful of offline DRM vendors, but their products seem to survive on the order of days after a popular AAA game launches, be3fore being cracked, and then stripped out by the publisher in a software update.

11 hours ago, Rutin said:

DRM in general isn't accepted in the gaming community as an acceptable practice

Sure it is - ever heard of 'Steam'?

It's unfortunate that developers have to use methods to stop people ripping them off, but it's a fact that they do need to do it, and also a fact that it's worth doing.

I'd love to get back to a world where games don't require me to be online to play, and can be traded freely like books, but for that to work we need to get a handle on piracy first.

26 minutes ago, Kylotan said:

Sure it is - ever heard of 'Steam'?

It's unfortunate that developers have to use methods to stop people ripping them off, but it's a fact that they do need to do it, and also a fact that it's worth doing.

I'd love to get back to a world where games don't require me to be online to play, and can be traded freely like books, but for that to work we need to get a handle on piracy first.

Yes, I use Steam and it's a platform for majority of my games. A lot of people use it as well, but it doesn't mean we approve of the DRM practices generally applied to games (a layer above steam). Even though your library is locked into Steam, you can still play offline if the game itself doesn't contain another DRM layer on-top restricting it. It's not like the DRM we had seen with games like Diablo 3 were single player is online only. If you recall the horrid Games for Windows Live, it doesn't follow a trend of happy campers either.

On average I will find more people that do not support DRM as a gaming community then those that actually like it. Steam is something a lot of us put up with because it's a main stream hub for games, it doesn't mean we all welcome DRM on average as a community. There are many things in life that we do not like but we have to put up with because it's the way of the land.

I'm on the other-side of the fence with DRM than you are, and that's okay. I understand the importance of protecting your product, but I'm well aware that if someone wants to crack your game they will. As @swiftcoder stated, Online - Server Side gaming is the most effective form of DRM as seen in Diablo 3, but it doesn't mean people like it. I personally do not add in DRM unless it has an online play component which I will tie game codes to an account, but offline play has no restrictions.

Another factor to consider regarding platforms like Steam is that you really don't own the games, you've paid for a license to play the games, so it's better to have one single hub to go to. Steam also brings in better advantages than other DRM, such as a wider selection, cheaper prices, sales, cloud backups, friends lists, community groups, markets, and more.

Steam is not a perfect solution, but the better one for a non-invasion form of DRM.

Of course people don't welcome any restrictions on their stuff. It goes without saying. But they accept it, in this context. It's "the way of the land" as you put it, and that is because the DRM protection it offers is a large part of what is keeping games companies afloat.

I somewhat question Steam's effectiveness in so far as it constitutes a form of DRM. All of the AAA games on steam are also floating round the net in cracked form, so it's not like Steam is actually preventing folks from pirating those games.

Steam does however offer sufficient convenience and discounts as to make pirating games not worthwhile for many users. But that's a whole other tangential discussion about whether the carrot (Steam) is better than the stick (DRM).

Nothing fully prevents piracy, but many things reduce it, and games needing to authenticate via Steam is one of them. There are more effective methods, many of which are more intrusive, and obviously every developer has to make that decision for themselves.

Ease of purchase is obviously a factor but it has always been overstated. The music industry saw this when iTunes, Amazon, etc. all implemented one-click (or near enough) solutions to buy music downloads, and piracy levels barely changed. Turns out you not only can't compete with pirated copies on price but you can't compete on convenience either because the major pirate sites are well-organised and allow one-click downloads too.

The only things that work to any significant degree are keeping your stuff off the piracy sites as long as possible, and requiring an authenticated connection to play.

8 minutes ago, Kylotan said:

The only things that work to any significant degree are keeping your stuff off the piracy sites as long as possible, and requiring an authenticated connection to play.

But neither of these things are the case for most popular/AAA single player titles on Steam. By and large they show up in cracked forms within hours or days of release, and their single player modes usually don't require an internet connection anyway.

4 hours ago, Kylotan said:

Of course people don't welcome any restrictions on their stuff. It goes without saying. But they accept it, in this context. It's "the way of the land" as you put it, and that is because the DRM protection it offers is a large part of what is keeping games companies afloat.

Lets not kid ourselves here, publishers don't force DRM into games because they wouldn't stay afloat without it, they do it to try and make more money. If that's wrong I'd love to see some citation proving otherwise. That's about akin to implying the loot-box phenomenon flying through the industry the last few years is in any way required and isn't just there because it makes more money and customers are willing to put up with it enough to earn them more profit.

I've seen many companies that put zero DRM in their products and still stay afloat, you can't pretend steam is the reason that happens, people crack steam games every hour.