Thank you for getting in touch with us, the PC community, Sven, we appreciate it. Before I reply to your questions a small clarification.
Blizzard and Valve both use DRM in their games... and when they do have offline forms, they have reduced functionality/features.
Correct about Blizzard and Battle.net, Steam however allows you to play offline without penalties if the game can be played offline. This isn't a criticism to anything, just a clarification, nothing more.
For your questions:
Question 1: Without using a secure network authentication mechanism of some kind (SSA, Steam CEG, Impulse GOO, SecuROAM, etc.) how can we validate that a copy is legitimate versus pirated?
I don't think anyone here is against SSA or any kind of DRM to validate a copy. To be honest I will be fine with a check validation to validate that my copy is, indeed, legal. From what I've read in the posts here in this thread I don't think anyone is against SSA or a check-validation of the game.
Question 2: If it isn't what we've proposed, what form of limitations would be acceptable in the event that there in a "non trusted" mode, assuming that it can be secured?
I think GFWL have patched the way pirates could use a key from a legit game to play any GFWL game online. Taking away the online component is a limitation but I think you mean making a limitation offline for copies that are not legit. Honestly, I think the 15 characters, no setting saves, no achievements restrictions offline would be fine for a pirated copy. You could even limit it to 2 characters, it could serve as a very restrictive demo in a way and if you wanted to play more than, say, 2 characters buy the game. I think the problem that everyone is complaining here is that this DRM is hitting us, who want to buy the game, and not the pirates and it should be the other way around. After GFWL does a valid check that our key, our game copy is legal and valid, we, paying customers, should have no restrictions offline. If GFWL checks that a pirated copy is pirated and illegal, put these restrictions into place. In fact, if you want to go even further, only allow the benchmark tool to work in a pirated copy offline.
Question 3: If there were a network validated install and we put in an offline mode that would allow you to have funtionality for some period of time, but require revalidation on a frequent interval, would that be acceptable?
Depends on the interval. If it was, say, once or twice a month I personally wouldn't be against the DRM. I think, as a general rule, people don't mind a regular check as long as it's spaced apart by a good period of time, once or twice a month for instance. It would also be important for us, the users, to know when the check happens too so we can connect to the net for the check to occur.
Question 4: There seems to be a lot of supposition that the pirates will instantly crack whatever protections we put in place. One never knows, that could well be true. Personally, I'm not quite as defeatist. One at least has to try. Now, if we promised to "sunset" those protections in the event of a crack being created so that legitimate users don't have a substandard experience to pirates, is that an acceptable solution?
Yes, it would, though if the DRM remains as it is it would punish both the pirates and legitimate users and that's not fair, I think. There's also other concerns. Let's say the pirates never crack it, what guarantees do gamers have that one day years from now the DRM stops working and we no longer have access to the game? Or, for instance, if the GFWL authentication servers have an outage and we get locked out of the game, both online and offline? It wouldn't be fair to us, paying customers, to be on the mercy of external factors just to open the game.
I will state that I don't mind GFWL as I don't mind Steam. Never had a problem with GFWL so I don't mind it. I think that the DRM should hit the pirates, not us. If you don't mind me say so, create a DRM that punishes the pirates without punishing us while at the same time allows the pirate to have a glance, even if brief, at how the game is to encourage them to buy the game. I think punishing us who will happily buy your game, however, is wrong since we have done nothing wrong. By punishing us the DRM creates the feeling in us that we are the ones doing something wrong when that is very far from the truth.
If the DRM actually did the offline restrictions to the pirates instead of us who have bought the game I think everyone would be happy. Heck, go wild on the restrictions! As I've said, you could even go as far as allow only the benchmark to work! But please, please, don't punish us who are happy and willing to buy your game for the things we did not and will not do.
