And now, back to your regularly scheduled ranting.

Published March 16, 2006
Advertisement
For those who are getting linked here from who knows where - please read the follow-up post after this one. It makes things much more clear I think.


I've been reading up on the StarForce/Galactic Civilization II scandal this afternoon. I find the whole thing disgusting on several fronts. First and foremost, what StarForce did is obviously reprehensible and someone deserves to bleed (as in literal physical blood) for that kind of scummy behavior.

However, the more important issue here is that these calls for StarForce boycotts need to stop.


Now, lest I give the wrong impression, let me be clear about why this bugs me: as I read through dozens of pages of blogs, blog comments, news articles (to use the term loosely), and various forum postings, I see a lot of mention of boycotting StarForce and StarForce-protected games. One of the games that comes up quite often is X3. I literally can no longer count the number of people I've seen claiming to have not bought games like X3 simply because of StarForce's involvement. So, up-front, let me be perfectly clear that I'm pissed about this because it affects me, personally.


So I hope you understand me perfectly when I say that that kind of attitude is only slightly less scummy than StarForce's. That's a strong statement for me to make, so let me explain my position.

Most boycott activists whine about StarForce supposedly being invasive, incompatible, unstable, and so on. That was true - at one point in time. However, the current generation of their software is vastly improved from what it once was. It properly cleans up after itself (in most cases), does not have severe effects on performance (I've run protected and unprotected builds of X3 side by side, with a negligible difference in performance, and only a slight increase in load times), is far more compatible (based on technical support queries in the Egosoft forums), and I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever that the current generation is unstable.

The bottom line is that, in the current generation, there's vanishingly little reason to "hate" StarForce except on a purely philosophical level. I'm a professional game developer, for Bob's sake, and I hate the notion of copy protection. But I also realize that it is, more or less, a necessary evil these days.

The boycotters seem to believe that, by not buying protected games, they directly "injure" the protection companies like StarForce. It doesn't take much common sense to figure out that this is entirely ludicrous. They still get a very healthy cut. They're probably going to use reduced sales as "proof" of piracy, not as evidence that people hate their protection schemes. And they're certainly not going to shut themselves down and go out of business just because some people don't think they should exist. Wake up and join reality, folks - boycott activism rarely makes a real, positive difference.


It does make a real, negative difference, though. The most dangerous are the people who buy the games, and then crack them to bypass the protection schemes. I won't argue whether or not it is "acceptable" for someone to do this - but it is an idiotic behavior. It seems unfashionable in this day and age to consider the consequences of one's actions. Most of these "legit crackers" are serving only to escalate an arms race. Sure, the pirates themselves contribute to the escalation, but it would go a lot slower if the users would quit using cracks.

Arguably, at this point, it's too late. The activists have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. "I crack this game because protection schemes are too invasive." So the companies have to go and create more invasive, more "effective" schemes to retaliate. Can't you guys see you're digging your own graves deeper here?


All that is gravy, though. What really bugs me is how short-sighted and ignorant most of the activists are. At Egosoft, we use StarForce primarily at our publishers' insistence. Anyone with even passing familiarity with the game industry knows that publishers hold the power. We sell a niche game, one that struggles to even get shelf space next to more "famous" and money-laden publishers - even when their games are bilge. We had to fight hard to get a publishing deal at all. We either make some concessions to sell the game, or we don't sell it at all.

Most importantly, though, is what the hot-headed, ignorant, short-sighted boycott weenies do to sales. Every time you refuse to buy a game, you're not hurting StarForce. StarForce is going to make a boatload of money no matter what you do. You would literally have to boycott the entire games industry into nonexistence, and rebuild the entire industry from the ground up, to get them to go away - and you know what? Another one is just going to spring up to take their place. It's stupid - patently moronic - to believe that a boycott movement will ever really change things for the better.

You're not hurting StarForce. You're hurting the game developers. You're hurting us, on our small and relatively unknown team. Suppose the anti-StarForce mob successfully "prevents," say, 10,000 sales of X3. The publishers then compare us to other titles, which (maybe on merit, and maybe just on publicity) have sold better. Guess whose contract gets the axe? Guess who still sells copy protection by the boatload, blissfully unaffected? Guess who really goes out of business?

You may think you're pissing all over The Evil Greedy Corporations, but they're smarter than you are. They know how to duck. You're not getting your urine all over them, you're hosing us.

This lunacy isn't fixing the problem of rampant, excessive copy-protection. It's killing the small guys, the underdogs. Your religious fanatical war is slaughtering innocent bystanders by the millions while the real enemy laughs at you from inside their impenetrable bunkers - and just sits back and escalates the carnage still further when you refuse to back down.


The whole issue of piracy really comes down to respecting developers enough to support them for making a game. Yes, there are peripheral issues and other things that get lumped under the same banner, but that's really what it's all about, in the end. And yet people have gone so far that they're missing the forest for the trees. You may claim, on the surface, to be fighting for the rights of developers and consumers to live in a world free of ridiculous copy-protection schemes.

But when it all adds up, you're screwing the developers, too - and maybe even contributing to the death of the small-time studios out there. You're not even making the consumer's side of things better, either, because it just sparks an escalation that shows no signs of slowing down.



All of this craziness is supposed to keep pirates from destroying the creators of legitimate works like games. But, in the end, I don't think pirates are anywhere near as much of a threat as the supposedly upstanding consumers that are fuelling this war.
0 likes 32 comments

Comments

jollyjeffers
Can't say I disagree with you... but the sad truth is that consumers will probably always think that they're "Sticking It To The Man" by boycotting things [rolleyes]

This sort of thing usually make me want to go and beat some sense into customers. But I've been warned that beating up customers isn't much better for sales...

Jack
March 16, 2006 04:31 PM
Telastyn
[opinion follows]

I certainly don't agree with the boycott bandwagon, I certainly don't expect people to sit idly while their ability to actually use their computers is taken from them. I certainly wouldn't expect people to trust Starforce after being bitten once.

Copy protection mechanisms have never worked. We've 20+ years of data to show it. Blame your publishers for making a boneheaded decision, not consumers for making a reasonable one.
March 16, 2006 04:35 PM
Ravuya
The question is, does your publisher know whether StarForce is "evil" and will cost them sales alone? If not, any drop in sales will just look like "Hey, that ApochPIQ made a shitty game and there are no sales coming out of it".

FYI: StarForce (the company) does tons of scummy things. They have a deal where they'll pay you $10 000 if you can prove that it breaks things, but the only problem is that you have to fly out (on your own dime) to Russia to prove it, and they make you do it on a bare-skeleton install of Windows.

There's this GalCivII thing, which is just slightly close to extortion, and facilitating theft (and showing that they're willing to encourage as much illegal behaviour as possible so they can sell more products -- I doubt it was localized to this single moderator).

I completely respect your need to be paid, that's why I bought the game. However, if customers don't buy your game because of StarForce, and hurt you, the developer, that's a tragedy -- and you need to let your publisher know that. They need to know that because of one of their decisions, the software they are financing (in whole or part) is losing potential sales because of a product they have installed to prevent the loss of potential sales.

Now, if people are pirating the game to get around StarForce and just not buying it period, then I have an absolute problem with that -- they're pirating cunts and deserve the chair.

However, if the consumer is looking at two games on the shelf, and one has StarForce and one does not, and the consumer goes "StarForce is bullshit" and buys the other game, that's fully within his rights as a consumer, because honestly StarForce is bullshit. It's not up front about what it does at all, and while I'm sure it is getting improved all the time, it's not perfect, nor will it ever be. Consumers are starting to balk at user-hostile content-protection systems like StarForce and the SonyBMG garbage, and unfortunately the content providers are getting caught in the middle by clueless dumbshit middlemen and newly-hostile consumers.

Regarding the boycott witch-hunt, I don't know if it's the right thing to do. I do like providing public information so we now know which games contain StarForce: at least four of the games on the Boycott StarForce page have been purchased by me without any knowledge of what StarForce would do to my computer, or even that StarForce was inside the product, or even that there was copy protection software in the first place. Naturally, if it destroys my computer, I'm going to assume it was the game.

Boycotting all games with StarForce is rather extreme: knowing which ones have it or not is a much better solution.
March 16, 2006 10:11 PM
rick_appleton
I don't agree with this at all, and frankly I find it extremely short-sighted.

First of all I'd like to state that I know full well where you're coming from. I'm a game developer myself (albeit for handheld consoles, so this issue doesn't really crop up) and I do agree with your sentiments.

Pirating and boycotting both effect your bottom line. Less games will be sold, which will also effect your future business at whichever publisher you are now (and probably future publishers as well). As such it has a direct negative effect on your income now (and possibly the future).

However, take a look at the game you mentioned, Galactic Civilisations II. It has no protection. Yet it seems to be selling extremely well for a niche game. So the loop you mention (consumers pirating games -> copy protection schemes become more draconian -> consumers pirate more games -> ...) can certainly be broken.

Obviously in the short term a boycott will not effect Starforce in any way (I'm assuming they get a lump sum pay for the protection scheme, and not a percentage of every sale made). It may indeed hurt the publisher and thus you. For this game you may have had no choice on the copy-protection scheme, but this does not necessarily apply to the next game. Nor should you stand by idly. You should make your publisher aware of the issues with Starforce and forcibly show them that by using that copy-protection they are affecting their sales.

I'd like to reiterate what Ravuya said: if there's two games I like, X3 being one, and another space game not using Starforce, and I choose to buy the other one because of the Starforce protection on X3, then it is not the boycott effecting that sale, nor the pirates. It is the choice of your publisher to use a copy-protection that might not be entirely user-friendly.

Why should I buy a game which uses a copy-protection I don't trust, just to support the developer? I'll also be supporting a publisher who foists some ugly piece of software on me (the copy-protection, not the game), and a developer of crappy copy-protection.

About that fact that Starforce is better now that it used to be. I wouldn't know about that, so it's certainly possible. But do remember that anyone who was burnt by them before isn't buying your game now. So their past practices have also cost you sales.

As a final note, I do totally agree that pirating is not allowed in any case either, and I'm not argueing that at all.
March 17, 2006 04:21 AM
Ysaneya
I'm sorry, but as a developer too, and although i can really feel the pain for you, your company and your loss of sales, i agree with the other posters.

To me it doesn't matter if Starforce is a copy protection system or something else. It could be some other middleware. Let's say a networking library. If that networking library was not stable and disconnected some users randomly, the customers would be angry at the poor networking performance and decide not to buy the game. The fact that you haven't developped that third-party library doesn't prevent the fact that it's been included in the game and that it negatively affected the player's experience. If they choose not to buy the game, can you blame them ? They see it as a "whole", and they're probably not even remotely interested (nor should they) in who developped what.

Y.
March 17, 2006 09:33 AM
ApochPiQ
I'm not sure where this got linked from, but if you're here from wherever that was, be sure to read the followup post as well - it clarifies quite a few things.

I appreciate all the comments - but suffice it to say most of you clearly have no comprehension whatsoever of how the game industry works. That's very unfortunate, because it leads to precisely the kind of situation that we're in now. I wish there was more publicity over how the industry is run, because I honestly think that if most people realized just how skewed the power is towards the publishers, you might understand the predicament of niche developers such as myself.

Hopefully the Ubisoft drop of StarForce will start generating good effects in the rest of the publishing land. We'll have to see. I honestly wish it were so black and white, but it isn't.

In any case, all we can really do is keep working, and hope that we can continue to deliver our work to people in an effective and productive way.

But definitely check out the follow-up post.
April 22, 2006 04:56 PM
You must log in to join the conversation.
Don't have a GameDev.net account? Sign up!
Profile
Author
Advertisement
Advertisement