A whole bunch of people have been submitting Ian Hickson's writeup on the true purpose of DRM. Given how many people have submitted it, perhaps you've seen it already, but there are some really good points in there. His main thesis is that the debates over DRM tend to focus on the wrong thing. The anti-DRM crowd points out that DRM does not and cannot stop copying. Supporters of DRM say that's not true. Hickson agrees that DRM does not stop copying, but he argues that the purpose of DRM has never really been about stopping copying, but about gaining control over software and hardware tools that play content:

The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations.

The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices.

Content providers have leverage against content distributors, because distributors can't legally distribute copyrighted content without the permission of the content's creators. But if that was the only leverage content producers had, what would happen is that users would obtain their content from those content distributors, and then use third-party content playback systems to read it, letting them do so in whatever manner they wanted.

He provides a few examples, such as how DVD players force you to watch "unskippable" ads, how services like Netflix can try to limit you from watching the same movie simultaneously on two devices, and how if you buy a movie on iTunes, and want to then watch it on a non-iPhone, you'll have to buy it again. As he notes none of those things are really about copyright violations.

In all three cases, nobody has been stopped from violating a copyright. All three movies are probably available on file sharing sites. The only people who are stopped from doing anything are the player providers -- they are forced to provide a user experience that, rather than being optimised for the users, puts potential future revenues first (forcing people to play ads, keeping the door open to charging more for more features later, building artificial obsolescence into content so that if you change ecosystem, you have to purchase the content again).

If you're wondering why copyright holders are soooooooo desperate to have anti-circumvention provisions in copyright law, this is why. In the past, we'd pointed out that it didn't make sense for the movie studios and record labels to be so focused on anti-circumvention/digital locks, since if people are violating copyright law (such as by reproducing or distributing copies), existing copyright law already covers that. So why add in a separate provision all about circumvention -- and then be so focused on making sure the same provision exists in all laws around the globe? It seemed silly, because the only "additional" benefit it seemed to be providing was to outlaw legal forms of copying, since everything else was already covered under existing law.

However, Hickson's argument explains much more clearly why anti-circumvention provisions are seen as an absolute necessity. It has nothing to do with copying, and everything to do with controlling the players so as to limit the kind of innovation they can provide. It's basically a de facto veto power over new technologies. And, really, that puts a bunch of other statements in context as well. Remember how former Copyright Register Ralph Oman was saying that new player technologies should be illegal until Congress approved them? Yeah, same basic thing.

All of this shows a legacy copyright industry that is so focused on holding back innovation so that they have a veto right and control over the pace of innovation. That, of course, is bad for the economy, bad for the public and bad for society. Innovation is important in growing the economy, and due to silly laws around DRM, we are purposely holding it back.

The wheels have now come completely off EA's DRMobile, thanks to its botched SimCity launch that was marred by server issues, long lines at the refund counter and some amazingly bad coding, all held together by Maxis GM Lucy Bradshaw's irrepressible bullshit-spinning. The backlash has been enormous and EA is likely wishing it was back in the good old days when Spore (remember that backlash?) was nothing more than harmless vaporware.

It's safe to say that EA has almost single-handedly run the good highly-tarnished name of DRM and internet-only requirements into the ground, finishing the job Diablo 3 began last year. Many gamers have pointed out the futility of these anti-piracy (and anti-cheating/hacking) efforts as well as unleashed their fury at being handed a worthless, broken-on-purpose product in exchange for their money.

And it's not just angry customers making noise. Super Meat Boy developer Tommy Refenes has weighed in with his thoughts on EA's open hostility towards its paying customers. (It's a truly excellent post, and I would encourage you to click through and read the entire article.)

The first problem he sees with EA's actions is its insistence on using intangible losses from piracy to shape its software development.

I think I can safely say that Super Meat Boy has been pirated at least 200,000 times. We are closing in on 2 million sales and assuming a 10% piracy to sales ratio does not seem unreasonable. As a forward thinking developer who exists in the present, I realize and accept that a pirated copy of a digital game does not equate to money being taken out of my pocket. Team Meat shows no loss in our year end totals due to piracy and neither should any other developer.

This last sentence goes against the ingrained thinking of many in the content industries. These industries tend to conjure up huge loss numbers year after year to justify DRM, always-online requirements and a general push for more anti-piracy efforts (including legislation.) To them, every illegal download is a lost sale. It has to be, otherwise the entire premise behind their actions falls apart. (Contrast this all-too-common reaction with Edmund McMillen's [Tommy Refenes' partner at Team Meat] disappointment that Super Meat Boy wasn't charting higher on the Pirate Bay's download charts.)

Creative accounting is the norm in these industries and nothing is more creative than showing a loss you can't possibly quantify, as Refenes points out.

Loss due to piracy is an implied loss because it is not a calculable loss. You cannot, with any accuracy, state that because your game was pirated 300 times you lost 300 sales. You cannot prove even one lost sale because there is no evidence to state that any one person who pirated your game would have bought your game if piracy did not exist. From an accounting perspective it’s speculative and a company cannot accurately determine loss or gain based on speculative accounting.

Accuracy isn't really the aim when it comes to justifying the punishment of your paying customers. In order to get them to accept broken software wrapped in restrictive licenses, they first must be made to believe that millions and millions of dollars are lost each year to piracy. They must be at least somewhat convinced that EA (and Ubisoft, among others) were "forced" to insert crippling coding in order to keep the company afloat in a sea of pirating pirates.

But what have these companies actually lost when something is pirated? Is that "cost" greater than the very real cost of returning a customer's money to them? EA doesn't seem to understand there's more than one way to lose a sale.

After the frustrations with SimCity I asked Origin for a refund and received one. This was money they had and then lost a few days later. Applying our earlier conversation about calculable loss, there is a loss that is quantifiable, that will show up in accounting spreadsheets and does take away from profit. That loss is the return, and it is much more dangerous than someone stealing your game...

In the retail world, you could potentially put a return back on the shelf, you could find another customer that wants it, sell it to them and there would be virtually no loss. In the digital world, because there is no set amount of goods, you gain nothing back (one plus infinity is still infinity). It’s only a negative experience. A negative frustrating experience for a customer should be considered more damaging than a torrent of your game.

For some reason, many content companies cannot see the truth in this statement. Even though they can't prove that a pirated copy equals a lost sale, they continue to act as though piracy is a greater threat to their business than an angry customer base. For companies like EA, the customer base is large enough that it can usually be shrugged off. For smaller companies, this sort of thinking can do much more damage. In either case, negative experiences do no favors for content creators, especially in an era where people have thousands of entertainment options at their fingertips, 24 hours a day.

Refenes brings the fight to developers (like Maxis) who use "lost sale" figures pulled from the ether to justify the addition of DRM.

I challenge a developer to show evidence that accurately shows implementation of DRM is a return on investment and that losses due to piracy can be calculated. I do not believe this is possible.

Any honest developer simply can't do this. Pointing to something like a download total from The Pirate Bay doesn't definitively show anything more than the number of times that title was downloaded. Anything else is merely a theory, and a pretty weak one at that. But Refenes has a suggestion, one all content creators should take to heart.

I do believe people are less likely to pirate your software if the software is easy to buy, easy to run, and does what is advertised.

Why this instead of fighting piracy? Because taking away the free option just isn't enough.

People have to WANT to buy your software, people have to WANT to support you. People need to care about your employees and your company’s well being. There is no better way to achieve that than making sure what you put out there is the best you can do and you treat your customers with respect.

EA clearly has little respect for its customers. The frontmouth of Maxis, whether using her own words or having them supplied from higher up, proved this with a week of complete denialism. There was no respect from launch day forward. Every new hole in EA's story was greeted with re-confirmation of the same story, occasionally mixed with a bit of hedging.

The developers at Team Meat obviously respect their customers and have been rewarded for their efforts. Even with evidence of massive piracy staring them in the face, they never opted to cripple their game with a "piracy speedbump" that would have adversely affected those who chose to give them their hard-earned money.

DRM is rearing its malformed head again and biting the hands that feed it. Rather than simply making an otherwise useful product useless unless requirements x, y and z are met, this time DRM is issuing a clawback on purchased rented digital goods.

Nate Hoffelder at The Digital Reader has the details.

JManga broke some hearts this week when they announced that they were ceasing operations.

This digital manga distributor announced earlier this week that they would no longer sell manga as of 26 March and planned to shut down completely in May.

These things happen. Nothing unusual about a company going out of business, but the words "digital manga distributor" should give you pause (especially if you were a customer).

Any customers with store credit would get a refund in Amazon.com gift cards...

Well, that's certainly thoughtful of them. Wait, why's there an ellipsis on this sentence?

… and any purchased content will be lost when JManga turns off the lights in May (no downloads allowed).

Oh. Fun. Yes, JManga, distributor of digital manga, decided to hold off the pirates by screwing the customers and it's all spelled out in infuriating black and white at JManga's official, soon-to-be-former site.

c.) Manga Viewing Service Termination

Date: May 30th at 11:59pm (US Pacific Time) Details: As of May 30th 2013 at 11:59pm (US Pacific Time) users will no longer be able to view digital manga content on JManga.com. At this time all purchased and free digital manga content will be erased from all JManga Member’s accounts.

And, yes, no downloads are allowed, according to the FAQ.

It is not possible to download manga from My Page.

So, the pirates win again. JManga's DRM will allow the distributor to delete paid for manga from customers' accounts, but presumably all DRM-stripped pirate "accounts" will remain unaffected in perpetuity.

It began promisingly enough.

JManga launched with much fanfare in 2011. This company was backed by the 36 publishers of the Japanese Digital Comics Association, and it was created as a laudable response to the then rampant fan-based scanlation (piracy and English-language translation) of Japanese comics. By offering a legitimate option these publishers hoped to provide the content that was obviously desired by fans.

Unfortunately, things went downhill quickly thanks to pricing issues (mainly that they were too high) and a failure to capitalize on a rapidly growing smartphone market. Now, it's out of business and its insistence on protecting its products with DRM has resulted in the following scorecard -- pirates affected: 0; paying customers affected: ALL.

What we have here is a yet another example of the fact that DRM does nothing but punish the paying customer. It doesn’t actually stop piracy; in this case piracy was already rampant thanks to readily available scanners and a large and enthusiastic fan base.

All that was accomplished with JManga was that the legitimate customer was punished for being honest and paying for the content they received. The pirates, on the other hand, weren’t bothered at all.

I wish more publishers could learn from this mistake, because the hostility that has been shown toward JManga customers is appalling.

"Hostility" is the correct term. Protecting your offerings from those who aren't paying by making those who actually support you subject to anything from minor annoyances to HAVING ALL THEIR PURCHASES DELETED can't really be described as anything but. Adding a layer of perversity to the mix is the fact that JManga is still allowing customers to purchase its products until March 26th, despite the fact that these too will be deleted on May 30th.

When you combine digital goods with DRM, it's lose-lose for paying customers. It turns purchases into rentals and subjects purchasers to the whims of the company. Whether its a verification server being shut down or a company going out of business and taking all its content with it, it all spells bad news for those who exchanged money for goods not even worth the paper the license isn't printed on.

Well, it's been several hours, so obviously someone must have done something stupid over at the SimCity franchise. I could run through a long list of links from our coverage of this debacle, but I'll make it easy on you. The key links are the launch debacle, the backlash, and the evidence that all of this is wholly unnecessary. That last one is important because during the initial stages of this muck up, EA/Maxis came out hard, saying that offline modes were logistically impossible because of all the cloud-based resources needed to run the games simulation calculations. The evidence in the link proves rather conclusively that that is absolutely not the case. In that post, I had suggested that it was time for the game's producers to finally come out with a strong mea culpa. Here is that mea culpa, from Maxis GM Lucy Bradshaw:

So, could we have built a subset offline mode? Yes. But we rejected that idea because it didn't fit with our vision. We did not focus on the "single city in isolation" that we have delivered in past SimCities. We recognize that there are fans – people who love the original SimCity – who want that. But we're also hearing from thousands of people who are playing across regions, trading, communicating and loving the Always-Connected functionality. The SimCity we delivered captures the magic of its heritage but catches up with ever-improving technology.

Okay, so it isn't so much a mea culpa as a, "Hey, customers, why don't you go outside and play hide and go f@#$ yourself!" It's difficult to imagine a more tone deaf statement, given the circumstances. To essentially come out and say that you understand lots of people wanted an offline version of this game, and we already know you could have made one quite easily, but you rejected the idea of filling a customer need because it didn't match with your "vision"? I'd suggest that if this launch has been a faithful representation of your vision, it may be time to get idea-glasses.

And can I ask the other obvious question? Where the hell are all the people clamoring for online only mode? I have no doubt that there are folks who wanted and still want online components to the game, but who the hell is asking for a blatant limitation on their game? There's a major difference between offering online components and requiring it be online all the time. Personally, I think Bradshaw is reticulating our splines on that one.

On the other hand, when discussing the need for the servers in Bradshaw's blog post, there was one glaring omission: server resources/calculations. It appears the game's designers have finally decided to stop lying about why the servers in the cloud are needed and instead moved on to suggest that it's just a big part of their customers that are unnecessary instead.

This SimCity debacle can only be described as an onion. Every time you peel back another layer, you just find yet another bitter layer underneath to make you cry. It all started, as you no doubt know, when EA decided to make the game with an always online requirement. The explanation for this was that it was in part a DRM attempt, but also SimCity was developed to be a social game, requiring an online connection, and EA had also shifted resource consumption and calculation to their own servers, ostensibly freeing up resources on the player's machine. Regardless, the launch looked more like an attempt to reporduce the Hindenburg disaster than any attempt at serving EA's customers and the backlash that followed was harsh. Most recently, someone inside of Maxis reached out to RockPaperShotgun to suggest that the online requirement was strictly DRM and that no important server-side calculations were actually being done. Despite the report, EA maintained that offline play of the game is logistically impossible.

And by logistically impossible, they must have meant that all they'd have to do is turn on the debugging mode, as that's what one game modder has done to make the game work nearly flawlessly without any online connection.

The video above shows the game being played offline. The modder states that this can be done for as long as you like without issues. The only real downside being you can’t save the game because it utilizes cloud saves. However, if you reconnect the game it does save, so you can play all day then just go online to save your progress at the end of a session.

Thanks, random modder guy, for making EA's product do what EA couldn't, or wouldn't, enable it to do themselves. Assuming this is all legit, the excuses for server-side calculations melt away like the loyalty of EA's customers when they bought this game-on-crutches. Hell, even the requirement for online saves needing a constant connection is clearly nonsense. It isn't like the game couldn't be written to only connect once a save is initiated.

Now, here's the fun part. To achieve this, the modder had to go in and edit the game code to enable debug mode, as I mentioned. Far from simply removing the online requirement, it actually made the game perform better.

In fact, it actually improves the game in some ways. City populations are actually tracked correctly and you can edit outside of your city boundaries. Those additional edits are also saved when you reconnect.

Great job, EA. You made your game worse even when it did function, which it mostly didn't, all the while lying your collective faces off to the people giving you their money. It's probably time to come out and issue a serious mea culpa.

We recently wrote about the truly stupid idea of building DRM into HTML5. At SXSW this week, web inventor Tim Berners-Lee was asked about this, and he surprisingly defended the decision, claiming that it was necessary to get companies to use HTML5:

During a post-talk Q&A, he defended proposals to add support for "digital rights management" usage restrictions to HTML5 as necessary to get more content on the open Web: "If we don't put the hooks for the use of DRM in, people will just go back to using Flash," he claimed.

Berners-Lee is so good on so many issues (most of his talk seemed to be about the importance of openness) that this response really stands out as not fitting with his general view of the world. Cory Doctorow has responded eloquently to TBL, explaining why he should be against the DRM proposal.

What's more, DRM is wholly ineffective at preventing copying. I suspect Berners-Lee knows this. When geeks downplay fears over DRM, they often say things like: "Well, I can get around it, and anyway, they'll come to their senses soon enough, since it doesn't work, right?" Whenever Berners-Lee tells the story of the Web's inception, he stresses that he was able to invent the Web without getting any permission. He uses this as a parable to explain the importance of an open and neutral Internet. But what he fails to understand is that DRM's entire purpose is to require permission to innovate.

For limiting copying is only the superficial reason for adding DRM to a technology. DRM fails completely at preventing copying, but it is brilliant at preventing innovation. That's because DRM is backstopped by anti-circumvention laws like the notorious US Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) and the EU Copyright Directive of 2002 (EUCD), both of which make it a crime to compromise DRM, even if you're not breaking any other laws. Effectively, this means that you have to get permission from a DRM licensing authority to add any features, since all new features require removing DRM, and the DRM license terms prohibit adding any features not in the original agreement, and omitting any of the mandatory restrictions featured in that agreement.

Doctorow makes two other key points in this: (1) that the W3C (the standards setting body for HTML5) has an enormous role in keeping the web free and open -- and imposing DRM is abusing the trust it has built up and will backfire badly and (2) that the big content players who insist they "need" DRM are bluffing.

As the leading standards-setting body for the Web, the W3C has an enormous, sacred and significant trust. The future of the Web is the future of the world, because everything we do today involves the net and everything we'll do tomorrow will require it. Now it proposes to sell out that trust, on the grounds that Big Content will lock up its "content" in Flash if it doesn't get a veto over Web-innovation. That threat is a familiar one: the big studios promised to boycott US digital TV unless it got mandatory DRM. The US courts denied them this boon, and yet, digital TV continues (if only Ofcom and the BBC had heeded this example before they sold Britain out to the US studios on our own high-def digital TV standards).

Flash is already an also-ran. As Berners-Lee himself will tell you, the presence of open platforms where innovation requires no permission is the best way to entice the world to your door. The open Web creates and supplies so much value that everyone has come to it – leaving behind the controlled, Flash-like environs of AOL and other failed systems. The big studios need the Web more than the Web needs big studios.

The Big Content guys have been seeking to remake the web in their image (i.e., "TV") for over a decade now, still believing that they're the main reason people get online. They're not. There's room for them within the ecosystem, but professional broadcast-quality content is just a part of the system, not the whole thing. If the world moves to HTML5 without DRM, the content guys will whine about it... and then follow. Especially as the more knowledgeable and forward-looking content creators jump in and succeed.

Oh, EA. I would imagine that there are more than a few execs and PR people who are hoping their employer is siphoning off a bit of its $5 billion market cap and putting it towards time machine R&D. With this post-facto mulligan tearing a new hole in the spacetime continuum, EA should be able to do a proper game launch and collect some accolades along with a ton of non-refundable cash. (Obviously, the time machine has yet to be built because this post still exists. Mind blown?)

EA's debacle, which makes the Diablo 3 launch look positively competent and issue-free by comparison, has seen the company receive even more criticism than it's accustomed to. Not only have a variety of game reviewers delivered less than flattering reviews, but now public figures like Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe (an avid gamer) are stepping up to pile another helping of derision onto EA's overloaded plate. (Note: all redacted swearing courtesy of Business Insider.)

Don’t get me wrong, the game itself is great. When it works, that is. And oh boy, does it hate working.

At the time of writing this piece, SimCity 5 has been active for almost 62 hours. Of those 62 hours, I’ve been able to log in for around ten. Of those ten, four consisted of massive latency issues and corrupted games, so (quick calculation here), I’ve had access to the actual game for maybe 10 percent of the time I’ve had it. EA’s servers are, to put it bluntly, utterly bug[redacted], and there’s no option to play the game offline.

We're going to do a little math here, because there's more interesting math on the way. Who in their right mind would purchase an item that worked roughly 16% of the time, fresh out of the box, especially if the product didn't even perform at 100% capacity when it actually got going? Thousands of people, many of them not in the NFL, paid for a product with a mere 1 in 10 chance of working as advertised and only a 16% chance of doing anything at all. Understandably, Kluwe and thousands of others are irate.

Making matters worse is the insistence that the "always on" connection is required because so much processing is being handled on EA's servers. Kluwe's experience seems to indicate that EA isn't being completely honest about this in order to justify its online-only requirement.

The fact that EA requires an “always on” connection is ostensibly because so many operations are taking place server side that your computer won’t be able to handle it (which is a blatant falsehood, since when I was streaming the other night, the only times I DIDN’T have latency was when I was disconnected from their servers and my computer had to run all the game operations), but in reality it’s to try to combat piracy.

Now, we have heard from the developers themselves that EA servers do host (and very often, corrupt) players' saved games, making a mockery of such modern inventions like hard drives. But the insistence that a large amount of processing happens server-side has been met with incredulously raised eyebrows, including Kluwe's own. Even if true, the main reason for the server-side processing is to keep client machines from containing enough code to go rogue and starting their own brisk trade at The Pirate Bay.

So, EA's simply protecting itself from the piracy threat by crippling the paying customer's experience. The ultimate aim is to make more money. But EA's anti-piracy calculations apparently never factored in negative reviews and word-of-mouth, both of which can have a deleterious effect on game sales.

Sadly, EA seems to have failed to do some very simple math. Let’s look at an example. We’ll assume that for an amazingly successful game like SimCity, about 20,000 people will end up pirating it (those who have the technical knowhow and Internet savvy to find a working crack). I have 160,000 Twitter followers, of whom around 50,000 follow me for gaming. I just told those 50,000 people NOT to buy SimCity because EA cannot handle its s***, and the game is unplayable. We’ll say half those people listen to me and haven’t bought the game already. Soooo, carrying the pi, we see that EA is already out 5,000 more sales than if they had just created a normal, single player offline capable game with multiplayer components.

Many members of various industries have wrangled numbers in order to equate a pirated copy to a lost sale while failing to realize that a bad review can ALSO equal a lost sale. Because of this faulty extrapolation, the assumption generally becomes "more DRM/enforcement = good." EA is finding out, firsthand, that this just simply isn't true.

Even if Kluwe's back-of-the-internet calculations are completely wrong, EA is still leaking sales. Many have demanded refunds from Amazon (and received them), and many more are lining up at Origin to get their money back. EA is taking a hard line on refunding digital sales, which is only going to hurt it in the long run. It might be able to push back here in the US, but overseas (the market it's currently underserving launching in) generally has stronger consumer protections, which makes its no-refund-on-digital-sales policy null and void.

In addition, more than 1,000 negative reviews are doing even reputational damage at Amazon, which has decided to stop handing out refunds, not by screwing customers, but by pulling the digital version from its shelves.

Beyond the bad math, the inadequate customer service, the decision to make the game even worse until the servers can keep up with the demand, is EA's refusal to allow customers to own the product they purchased. By keeping enough of the code running only on its servers, no SimCity purchaser can ever claim they own the game. All they own is a key to the door. EA still owns the house. And once EA decides the house is no longer worth living in, 5 or 10 years down the road, even the key will be worthless.

Well, we've certainly heard plenty about DRM and shoehorned-in multiplayer recently, what with EA's recent Hindenburgish SimCity "launch." As was detailed all over the web, the only people hurt by these "features" were paying customers, many of whom spent $50-60 for a server Roulette wheel that limited users to one spin every half hour.

Many developers are concerned with piracy and have made the mistake of crippling their software with DRM that punishes paying users disproportionately while affecting pirates hardly at all. At best, these efforts result in a Pyrrhic tie, damaging the developers' relationships with their customers while having a negligible effect on infringement.

Fortunately, some developers would rather not sacrifice their customers' happiness in order to briefly irritate a few pirates. Avalanche Studios, the developer behind Just Cause 2, is one of these forward-thinking developers. In an interview with Gaming Bolt, founder Cristofer Sundberg had this to say about DRM.

"DRM solutions which limit the game experience should not exist. That's my honest opinion...

They make us look greedy, which we are not. It treats our fans like criminals, which they are not. With that said, I think that we deserve getting paid for years of hard work and I think piracy is hurting our ability to make great games."

However you may feel about his statement on piracy, there's no arguing with the fact that he's unwilling to put anti-piracy efforts ahead of providing Avalanche's customers with a great experience. He also parts ways with EA (among others) on another aspect of piracy prevention, one that's almost always presented as a "feature," rather than just another limitation on the end user.

He is also against adding multiplayer component to a game to prevent the game from being traded.

He uses his own game as an example. Just Cause 2 is rarely sighted in used game stores simply because the players who purchased it years ago are still playing it. There's no (native) multiplayer in Just Cause 2 (excluding an awesome PC-only mod), but that has done nothing to diminish its popularity). As Sundberg sees it, throwing multiplayer options in for their own sake (or as a form of DRM/resale prevention) weakens the original product.

"Nobody wins in the end; the developer can't make the great experience that they want to, the publisher doesn't get its money back and the consumer is disappointed. I am convinced that this mentality contributes to the downfall of the industry."

So, either Sundberg is crazy or he's actually paying attention to the gaming community. At times, it almost seems as though certain companies think their customers are the last people they should listen to -- a very strange position for entities in the business of selling things. Hopefully, more will realize the damage they're doing far outweighs the nominal gains and DRM will become an exception rather than the rule for AAA developers.

It's not as if EA couldn't have seen this coming. Pretty much everything that could go wrong with SimCity's launch has gone wrong. But EA was warned. A Reddit AMA with the SimCity developers made it perfectly clear how unhappy people were with the online-only requirements. SimCity's closed beta had its own issues, mainly server access (not enough of it).

But EA didn't seem too concerned and went ahead with the launch. Shortly thereafter, everything fell apart. The servers couldn't handle the demand, something which would have been less damaging if there had been any sort of offline option. Much of the processing is handled server-side (along with storage of all saved games) and if customers couldn't find a free slot on a server then they just didn't get to enjoy their $60 purchase.

The backlash was immediate. And immense. Polygon (the Verge's gaming site) lowered its original 9.5 rating to 8.0 because of the online issues. Giant Bomb gave it a rather low 3 out of 5, largely due to the fact that EA made a single player game multiplayer-only to justify its online-only DRM/"social" features. Reviewer Jonathan Cresswell handed in quite possibly the most succinct (but most telling) review of all.

Elsewhere, paying customers have expressed their displeasure. Metacritic's critic score sits at 82. The user score? 1.8. Things are nearly as bad at Amazon, where SimCity currently holds a 1.5 star rating. (The digital version is faring even worse - 1.0.) In a rather unprecedented move, Amazon has pulled the PC Download version completely, citing EA's server issues. When will it be back? Amazon says: "We don't know when or if this item will be available again."

Other game retailers have pounced on the opportunity provided by EA's colossal blunder. GOG tweaked EA with a tweet pointing out that DRM-free SimCity 2000 doesn't require an internet connection (and is only $5.99), resulting in a sales bump that has sent SimCity 2000 to #3 on the "Top Sellers" chart. Another Redditor suggested Steam follow suit and kick off an "offline-capable city sim sale," featuring non-online-only city sims with new deals arriving each day "until SimCity is playable."

EA, for its part, is working hard to add capacity, but much of the effort seems a bit too late. The damage has already been done, and EA has destroyed a lot of gamer goodwill, something it really doesn't have in excess. As part of the effort to extinguish these self-inflicted fires, EA is now shutting off "non-essential features" to ease the server load. One of the first to go is "cheetah speed," the fastest simulation setting. This may do exactly what EA hopes it does (free up servers), but it is going to piss off even more customers, as Kyle Orland at Ars Technica points out.

Presumably this is to give the servers more time to process the thousands of simultaneous city simulations that are all feeding into its global and regional networks. In any case, this is a core piece of the gameplay that's now being hampered by EA's continuing server problems; in my 16 or so hours playing the game, I'd estimate 15 or so have been spent running at Cheetah. Slowing things down, even temporarily, is likely to impact a whole lot of players negatively.

Whether or not this backlash/implosion will hurt EA in the long run remains to be seen. It has made no secret of the fact that it wants all of its games to eventually have some sort of "online component," if for no other reason than to (slightly) impede piracy and eliminate second-hand game sales. The odds are that EA will continue to push the online requirement, passing the costs of any outages along to the customers in the form of useless purchases and higher game prices.

Some gamers are attempting to push back. A petition has been started at change.org requesting EA remove "online only" requirements from SimCity (most likely impossible, but...) and future games. It's well on its way to hitting 25,000 signatures in less than 24 hours (and should be well past that by the time this hits the front page), which should give EA some idea how many people are displeased with the SimCity debacle.

It's not completely unheard of for AAA developers to reverse course on onerous DRM (Ubisoft, for one), but EA didn't become one of the most hated companies in America by catering to the whims of its customers. If nothing else, gamers can take heart in the fact that other developers will view this as a cautionary tale, rather than a blueprint for success.

Now, if you're still waiting for an open server slot, why don't you kill a little time with the included Solitaire game? (Image by Redditor PainLing)

A few months ago, the SimCity devs stopped by Reddit for an AMA and found themselves fielding several questions about EA's plans to release the game with an "always online" requirement. Requiring an internet connection to play a game, even in single-player mode, has been utilized by more than one company, often with disastrous results. Still, game companies continue to craft software with this requirement, mostly for anti-piracy reasons, although they often play up the "social" aspects as a sort of (completely transparent) smokescreen.

As was pointed out by several Redditors during the AMA, the online requirement was ridiculous and seriously inhibited playability. For one, no one's internet connection is perfectly reliable. Secondly, SimCity was going further than most games, allowing only server-side saves, meaning that players could easily lose progress if their connections dropped.

Six weeks later, a different Redditor signed up for SimCity's closed beta. Even in this limited release, servers were swamped and EA's infrastructure couldn't handle the traffic, something that didn't bode well for the massive amount of players looking forward to playing the full version when it finally launched. The Redditor pointed this out to EA in a lengthy, well-worded forum post that cited previous issues with other online-only game launches that had gone horribly.

This brings us up to date and, now, SimCity has finally been released. One eager SimCity fan (and Redditor), who pre-ordered the game. thought he'd put a little playtime in before bed, and ran head on into this dialog box:

So, the reality is even worse than previously indicated. Not only are your saved games server-side only and an internet connection required to simply fire up the game, but every game is "multiplayer," whether you're interested in playing socially or not, and every game requires an open server slot.

As the Redditor points out, this simply isn't an acceptable situation:

I figured from everything I'd read that the always-on part of the game simply required an internet connection, not a slot on a server like I'm about to PvP or something. I'd be more understanding if I could just play my private region by myself like I intended.

While many people were aware of the online-only requirement, this aspect of the game seems to have been completely underplayed. Why should a paying customer be forced to wait in line for an open server slot? This is a much more onerous requirement than simply requiring an online connection to verify software authenticity. Sure, it's meant to be a social game where people can visit the cities of others, but there should be some option for those wanting to play a "private" game.

EA had to have some idea of how much its servers were going be hammered after the issues it experienced during the closed beta. No one's expecting launch day to go flawlessly, but if you're going to require an internet connection that's reliant on open slots on regional servers, you are going to make paying customers very angry. Many of the people experiencing these problems paid for this game weeks or months ago and are having their loyalty rewarded with half-hour waits to spin the wheel on possibly accessing an open slot.

Not only are paying customers being locked out of playing the game they purchased, but other purchasers are still waiting for their downloads to complete or have their purchases authenticated and unlocked. The authentication servers are being hammered so badly that, according to TotalBiscuit's "review" video, people with pre-orders are purchasing second copies because these new purchases are unlocking immediately, while authentification of their pre-ordered copies is still seriously delayed.

Now, some people may ask, after viewing this dialog box, "Why not just play on another server with more open slots?" Well, therein lies another piece of bad news for SimCity players. Should you have actually managed to get online and start a city, you'll be exceedingly disappointed (and possibly homicidal) to discover that saved games DO NOT transfer between servers.

This all adds up to another spectacular DRM failure. When discussing piracy, game companies like to point out that a majority of their sales occur shortly after release, making these first few weeks critical to the success of the title. This critical sales period is used to justify DRM measures because, while every piece of software will eventually be cracked, anything that delays this inevitability results in a few more sales.

Sadly though, this same crucial sales period is when EA will be punishing its paying customers the most. By refusing to allow single players to start private, unconnected games (in case of a lost or unavailable connection), it's now racing around putting out server fires. Using the launch day traffic surge as an excuse for unplayable/unauthenticated purchases is not acceptable. EA knew the game would be popular. It even had advance warning thanks to the large number of pre-orders. But it's kind of hard to teach a company a lesson about DRM hurting paying customers when it already has their money.

For EA, this works out nearly perfectly. Sure, it's probably not evil enough to want players locked out for hours on end, but it probably considers these "hiccups" a small price to pay to keep piracy to a (temporary) minimum. Of course, considering someone else (the customer) is actually paying that price, it's really not sacrificing anything at all.