Can I stick my hand up and point out that logging on to the server is a form of subscription? This method looks so much like any other subscription based software that's going around (Adobe CC, Microsoft Office365.) Whether or not in name this is in fact signing in to a subscription. Because I can go to any one of your PCs and if Elite Dangerous is installed, I can log on to it with my password and play my commander, right?
Microsoft has done with keys to unlock their software years ago. Hence Office 365 is DRM free - you can download it and install it anywhere, but you have to log in to use it properly. That's subscription, not DRM.
That is server-side DRM based on user accounts.
DRM stands for digital rights management. Does the program, at any stage, in the client's computer or in a different system, checks the user's credentials to determine if he can run the program and which features he can use? Then it has DRM, by its literal definition even.
BTW, not all DRM is bad. If your bank allows you to do your banking online you really,
really, want them to restrict access to your account so only you can access it. What many have issues with is when DRM is used to control access to a product they legally bought.
Never really understood why people get so hung up on DRM, I can understand the arguments for offline (which in all fairness was something that I was interested in), but DRM, who cares? You've purchased the game, unless it somehow stops you playing the game what does it matter?
Interested in an explanation from someone against it, if there is a sensible one.
G
Different persons have different reasons.
Local DRM systems run on the consumer's computer. Which means they are basically unwanted extra software running on the consumer's computer, and some dislike that. Back when computers were less powerful some even resorted to cracks for their legally purchased games simply because the cracked game was marginally faster, since the DRM wasn't running.
DRM needs to prevent tampering in order to be effective. The anti-tampering mechanisms often rely on obfuscation and little documented features to prevent said tampering. This can be prone to bugs, causing anything from system instability to outright rendering the computer inoperable, and depending on how it was protected the DRM system might remain in the computer even after the game was uninstalled. I was personally hit by this more than once (which led to my current stance of, for offline games, only purchasing them if they either are DRM-free or if a good, reliable crack with no side-effects exist).
When the DRM system fails it tends to render the protected product unusable. I've been hit by this in the past too, particularly with GFWL. Which is part of why I'm very unlikely to purchase an XBox for this generation and perhaps the next one, I'm still not over the sheer harm Microsoft did to PC gaming by pushing that steaming... something onto publishers (not to mention that blasted thing managed to lose my saves of both Batman games that used it, and then prevented me from restoring my backup, sending dozens of hours down the drain).
From a philosophical point of view, DRM is basically telling the consumer that he is guilty until proven innocent. Some take offense at that.
DRM is often useless, at least for the kind of game where stopping piracy matters; cracked versions of popular games often appear on the same day the game launches. Worse, it often means the ones that use pirated games have a better experience than those using the official version.
Certain kinds of DRM rely on an online authorization from a third party, which means that the game will stop being usable when that third party goes out of business.
Also, the effects of piracy on sales, while not well understood, seem to be far less harmful than most publishers, studios, labels, and other companies that trade on copyright want us to believe. In fact, some studies suggest that piracy actually increases the revenue for smaller companies and less known authors, since for them the extra publicity more than makes up for any potential lost sale. The products that definitely lose sales are those that aren't very good, but have expensive marketing campaigns to prop up sales (which, incidentally, might be why big studios and similar companies try so hard to demonize piracy; it disproportionately harms them, putting them at a weaker market position).
