A Brief History Of 'Always-On' DRM, And How It Can Be Done Right

Recently, I delved into the causes and concerns raised by SimCity's always-on debacle. However, the controversial mechanic was by no means introduced by that game. Always-online systems might be a relatively new development in the industry, but even in its short time, it's already made waves.

Many publishers tend to shy away from explaining the need for always-on features as "DRM." Historically though, it is rooted in prior methods for dissuading piracy. In 2008, the release of EA and BioWare's Mass Effect signaled a wave of titles implementing a DRM scheme known as "SecuROM." These games required authentication with an online server before they could be played, and often limited the number of times a specific copy could be installed.

This backfired spectacularly with Spore, again an EA title, which limited each copy of the game to three installations. Gamer protests against these measures led to Spore becoming the most pirated game of 2008.

However, DRM measures continued to strengthen, with Ubisoft introducing Uplay in 2010 with Silent Hunter 5. Uplay can be considered one of the most significant advances in always-on DRM, requiring gamers to have a constant connection with Ubisoft's server. The reason for this was because Uplay titles  only installed part of the game's code on the user's PC. It would then continually download subsequent pieces of the code from Ubisoft's servers as the player progressed in the game. If this sounds like a recipe for disaster, you aren't far off.

In early 2010, Uplay servers were hit by a large scale DDoS attack, which locked a significant portion of their userbase out of their games. Ubisoft later credited these users with a free game (does that sound familiar?).

In 2010, Blizzard Entertainment also entered the realm of always-on (their MMO notwithstanding) with StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty. It should be noted that both Wings of Liberty, as well as its 2013 follow-up, went off without a hitch. Unfortunately, the title that was released between them, 2012's Diablo 3, didn't go so well. Huge numbers of players flooded Blizzard's servers on launch night, rendering the game unplayable for many (and turning "error 37" into a rallying cry for gamers sick of always-on systems). Over two weeks later, players were still reporting intermittent connection errors ranging from glitchy gameplay to full lack of connectivity.

And of course, may we never forget this year's SimCity disaster. I think very little more needs to be said on the matter.

With huge game companies like EA, Ubisoft, and Blizzard all giving us reasons to hate always-on, is the technology simply bad news? Surprisingly, no.

For one reason or another, many seem to forget the hero of PC gaming, Valve itself, is the number one proponent of an always-online system. All of its products, including Steam, its massive digital distribution infrastructure, rely on gamers having a constant, mandatory connection to Valve's servers.  Steam does offer an offline mode, but it requires six steps of preparation, and is a far cry from being able to play however you want, especially if your connection goes out unexpectedly.

Steam is far from perfect, and for those with a logical level of paranoia, it's certainly not an ideal situation. In ten years, if Valve's fortunes falter and it, pardon the pun, runs out of steam, what's going to happen to your treasured library of hundreds of games? If you think "refund" is on the table, you are sorely mistaken.

So what makes Steam different? Performance. Pure and simple, it's a matter of being a reliable, trustworthy company.  In the six or so years I have used the platform, I have experienced connectivity issues two, maybe three times. That is a miniscule fraction of a percent of downtime for a piece of software I use every single day.

Always-on DRM isn't the devil by any stretch of the imagination. What it provides though, is just one more way for a publisher to fall flat on its face. Even worse than buggy gameplay or cut features, there is absolutely no excuse for physically locking your players out of a product they purchased; and that's exactly what happens when you screw up with always-on.

There's no reason always-on systems can't work, Valve is living proof of that. However, gamers need to be unforgiving when it comes to this technology. Publishers should have the choice of whether or not their games are available offline. However, we as the consumers need to make it very clear, it has to work. No excuses, no gimmicks, no bloated promises. Simple reliability is all we ask.