[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1348694042' post='4984117']
but i don't agree that people who are torrenting games wouldnt buy them if it was possible to torrent.
I know quite a lot of people who says they would probably of bought many of the games they torrented if they had no other way to get it for free.

You may not agree, but most experts say otherwise. Your evidence is anecdotal at best, and it certainly seems to not consider the bigger picture. I wish I had the source, but I read statistics on android piracy that showed that something like a 2/3rds of pirates don't play the game longer than a few minutes -- about half of them didn't even play it at all. This means that, of all pirates, only about 1/3rd are giving your game a second look. Many of those pirate because they are too poor or cheap to pay for a legit copy at any price, and still some more outright object to the notion of paying money for any software at all. In the end, you have perhaps 5 or 10 percent of pirates who are even on the fence over paying you. Who you still have to convince that your game is worth your price... Hence, you cannot think in terms of "X people pirate my game, my game sells for Y, therefore pirates have cost me X * Y dollars." Even with perfect (read: impossible) piracy prevention and perfect (100%) conversion to paying customers, its more like (X/20) * Y -- best-case-scenario. DRM and anti-piracy task-forces are not the crushing theft/would-be-windfall that the MPAA, RIAA and other industry groups would have you believe.

Seriously, the best thing an indie can spend his time on is making his game better. DRM and anti-piracy measures do him exactly no good, and will do harm to his reputation.
[/quote]

I understand this kind of prevention is bad now.

I would like to see the souce very much indeed that you mentioned.

but about 2/3 dont play more than a few minutes doesnt matter really.

I've bought games and only played it a few mins then stopped because it wasnt that fun.
But I still bought it because they made it look really fun in description, pics and trailer.

Yeah, DRM generally doesn't achieve much long term apart from annoying your own customers. I could see it being somewhat useful in limited circumstances, such as if you could sufficiently raise the social value of having an upgrade/content pack first and people wouldn't want to wait for it to be cracked.

One thing I have wondered about (if it's download only) is digitally fingerprinting each copy so you know which customer to blame for the leak when it happens. Depends how litigious you are.

There already was similiar DRM in Assasin's Creed. It was easier to play the game on cracked version then original. Anyway, what if I'd like to play the game somewhere where I DON'T have an internet connection ? If you want to make a game that requires constant connection then first make worldwide internet available for your customers, which will be enough to send and recieve data from server. Ubisoft learned it in a hard way that DRM's aren't really cool.

There is only one way to make your game sell. Make a good game.

IMHO it's better to have piracy than to have that fas*ist SOPA thing.I'd rather have a small revenue loss and a huge popularity increase from piracy(it's pretty much free advertisement for your game).For instance look at Terraria.It sold millions.At first a friend sent to me and the rest of the mates the first version of the game to check it out.Then all 4 of us purchased it to get the wall of flesh and hallow update.The point is - most people who pirate weren't gonna buy it anyway,so it's no much of a loss.Piracy is very beneficial to the producer in many cases and can actualy get more people to buy it.I mean it's not even piracy,they're not stealing the copy from you and they're definately not selling it to make a profit out of your work.

I wonder, is it ever a demand from investors that a publisher should release its games with DRM to try and protect sales?