You hear all the time from industry pundits, CEOs, devs, publishers and anyone else else with a vested interest in promoting the extinction of physical media about how digital distribution "will eventually rule the world" and how games on discs "will be a thing of the past". We all know the usual chorus.

I think it should be clear from my obvious bias at this point that a CD or DVD (or even cartridge or memory card, in the case of older consoles and my PS Vita) is my preferred medium. That's not to say that I hate digital distribution and all it stands for. It certainly has its virtues. It enables promising, talented indie developers for whom a retail release is too expensive and who are unable to secure support from a publisher a means of monetising their work. It provides gamers with a means of obtaining old, out of print games legally without having to resort to paying exorbitant amounts for rare copies (or, heaven forbid, to piracy).

But as with anything, digital distribution also has its fair share of flaws.

Most prominent among forums and comment boards is the fact that you cannot resell digitally purchased games, at least not in a reasonable manner. While the recent European Court of Justice ruling shook up matters somewhat here in Europe, there is some debate about whether this can be applied to games, whether publishers will now seek out loopholes to get around this requirement, and whether publishers are obligated in the first place to assist in this matter - by having Valve shift your Steam game from one account to another, for example - or whether the DRM itself is a hindrance that puts distributors in violation of the ruling. It's fairly apparent that one of the main motivators behind the industry's drive towards digital downloads is the impracticality of used game sales. All of this ignores the fact that many PC games sold on physical media still need to be bound to some kind of account, be it a Steam, UPlay, Origin or Rockstar Social Club account. I think many of us are waiting with bated breath to see how this develops.

Legal issues aside, it holds true that transferring licences for digital downloads is an impractical affair and is wide open to fraud and abuse. How do you, as a publisher, determine whether the person selling the game really has deleted the game from their hard drive? How do you, as a buyer, determine whether you have bought a genuine licence or if you've been hoodwinked by a con artist effectively selling pirate copies? Physical media has the advantage of providing you with iron-tight proof that you are the legal owner of that particular licence, namely the box, manual and disc.

Then there's the issue of cost. One of the advantages oft quoted by the industry as digital distribution was in its infancy was that it enabled games to be cheaper. The industry were quick to paint brick-and-mortar retailers as evil empires sucking publishers dry, with 1C's Darryl Still even going so far as to claim that retailers give publishers just 35% of the sales share, while Valve gives publishers 70%.

I personally would seriously doubt the validity of this claim - no business could seriously have survived for so many years on receiving such a minor share of the income - and there's no doubt that quite the opposite has proven true. A cursory comparison between games on Amazon and their PSN or Steam counterparts shows that retail is often cheaper. Retail encourages competition and prices are dictated by demand. Digital distribution has no supply limitations and publishers are free to set prices to whatever they choose, sometimes resulting in some very unwise pricing policies.

And anecdotal evidence suggests that while unit sales of games on digital distribution games are high, physical media remains the medium of choice for those buying full-price games - even on PC - rendering Mr Still's assertion very pointless when you realise that even with his outrageous claims, 35% of $50 is $17.50, while 70% of $10 is $7. Percentages don't count. Bank statements don't record percentages, and it is well established that the vast majority of users of digital download services use them because of the heavily cut prices.

A lesser mentioned reason is the physicality of DVD media. For better or worse, people like to have something physical in their hands when they pay money. The idea of paying for nothing more than bits and bytes is repugnant to many people. True, some games - with the PC and PS Vita being particular culprits in this regard - consist of nothing more than a box and the game, dispensing in many cases even with the manual.

But in recent months, proper physical packaging on the PC has been seeing something of a revival. The bamboo wood box of Shogun 2. The velvet box and bonus DVD of Two Worlds 2. The maps and minted coin of The Witcher 2. These are all part and parcel of the experience, things to keep and treasure. They make for better gifts than a download code, they are an integral experience, and publishers ignore gifting seasons such as Christmas at their peril.

Why do we buy boxsets of TV series on DVD or Bluray when we can watch it on TV? Why bother buying a Bluray of a film when we can watch it on TV or Netflix? Physicality. Collectability. Giftability. Perception of value.

There's been a lot of talk lately about the rise in always-on DRM. Most recently, Blizzard announced that Diablo 3 was going to require a constant connection to play even the single-player mode. An idiotic decision if ever I heard one, and one that will probably halve sales. When I say halve, I mean instead of six million copies being sold, there'll probably be three million sold, which will still be a commercial success by anyone's measure.

The problem with all the boycott incitement is this - whenever I hear the word "boycott", it evokes a sense of having to miss out on an essential good like fuel, food or water. You boycott Esso because of their environmental record. Farmers boycott supermarkets for not offering the prices they feel they're entitled to. Mothers boycott Nestle baby milk products for their activities in Africa.

But I don't "need" Diablo 3. Nor do I "need" Modern Warfare 3 or Battlefield 3. If I don't like the look of a luxury product, or the company producing does something that I personally find offensive, I just won't buy it. I'm not going to encourage everyone else to boycott any particular title because I know that there are enough idiots and fanboys out there that will buy it nonetheless to make any organised boycott, no matter how large, a futile exercise.

Three years ago, when DRM started to become popular, I got angry. Why? Because I felt that my childhood passion was in danger of being overrun with a "€60 rental" attitude. Now, thanks to the sheep-like mentality of many fanboys, this danger has become a reality and I practically never buy full-price games anymore - at least not on the PC.

And this is the problem - many gamers and, by extension, the publishers, seem to believe that these titles are essential goods. Companies like Ubisoft and Blizzard believe that, if you are faced with only titles that force you to accept a certain restriction, that gamers will accept it.

Unfortunately, this is an erroneous way of thinking. If you try to force gamers into your way of thinking by cornering them, many won't accept it - they'll just do what I've done. Gradually stop gaming altogether.

I finally got around to buying Final Fantasy 13 for the PS3 a couple of days ago. Having played through it for around six hours now, I just wanted to share my thoughts on my initial opinions of the game.

First thought - the game is linear. Very linear. When you consider that recent instalments (especially 12) have moved towards a less progression-based model and have opted for more free-roaming, this comes as a bit of a culture shock. Good or bad? That's for each individual to decide, and I'll answer this question by saying "neither". It just simply doesn't feel like Final Fantasy with the story being so forcefully driven along.

I've heard that the game starts to open up around the half-way point, but that's going to be a while by the looks of it. Now, I know that previous FF games have started out very linear (FF7's startup Midgar storyline was almost entirely linear and took a good 5-6 hours to play through), but part 13 really does take it to an extreme.

I'm not sure I like the battle system either. It felt in some ways like a mixture of FF8 and FF12, neither of which I liked particularly. It does feel a lot more dynamic, but there seems to be a lack of strategy. You spend the first few fights trying to be clever and get a feel for how certain tactics work, until you realise that the best way is simply to select "auto" every time and switch to a defensive paradigm every time your health is getting low. Compared to Final Fantasy 7, 8 and 10, the battle system feels very disjointed and you really don't feel like part of the action.

The story, however, is truly great. It basically follows the same trend that FF7 started, combining a sci-fi storyline with JRPG mysticism and it's a time-old recipe that never gets old. Watching a simple everyday joe living in his comfortable world of technology and comforts suddenly get plunged into a world of magic and mayhem is something that never ceases to amaze me. It worked with Cloud, it worked with Squall, it worked with Tidus, and it works with Lightning as well. Most of the characters are fairly well developed and interesting (Hope keeps you on your toes for a while) with one minor exception - Vanille - who is just simply irritating as hell.

The graphics, too, are absolutely gorgeous. The world of Cocoon is rendered in absolutely startling detail, with skyships, wildlife, spotlights and the like being rendered in the smallest detail. There's very little difference in the quality of the pre-rendered CGI cutscenes and in-game graphics, and considering the high quality of the CGI, that's quite an accomplishment, even for the PS3. The characters themselves are very well rendered and modelled, with the hair on each of the characters looking particularly impressive.

I think my major problem with FF13 though is that it just doesn't feel like a Final Fantasy game. Whenever I've played a FF game, it has always introduced the various mechanics, characters and storyline relatively quickly and thrust the player into an open world environment that allows the characters to explore, visit shops, talk to people and generally look around. Six hours into the game, and it feels more like Tomb Raider than Final Fantasy. I'm now well into the story (no spoilers here!) and the game is still introducing new features to the battle system every now and then and keeping me strictly on the path intended for me. I can never help but wonder when this prolonged tutorial is going to end.

Anyway, I'm going to keep on playing and hopefully reach greener pastures in the near future. Stay tuned.

Hate mail and death threats to the usual address please.

Seriously though, the titular claim is one that has been made repeatedly over the course of the past decade. Be it the arrival of the latest console with the latest processor and GPU technology, low sales in the stores or the delaying of the PC version of a title in favour of its cousins, doomsayers will always find a reason to foretell the imminent demise of the humble 1980s platform.

The PC is a unique platform among platforms. It is, to date, the only gaming platform that has survived from the 1980s. The Amiga, C64, Spectrum, Sega Master System, Nintendo NES are, aside from the efforts of a few hobby projects and emulator enthusiasts, to all extents and purposes, dead. The sole survivor of the technological boom that has dominated the gaming world of the past thirty years is the PC-AT form factor, albeit in a hugely evolved form. In the 1980s we had DOS, today we have Windows. Back then, video acceleration was a several thousand dollar luxury afforded to video editing buffs and professionals, today we find it on every graphic card from the basic onboard chipset to the latest high-end NVIDIA or ATI card.

To be fair, the PC was never really taken seriously as a gaming platform in the 1980s. Unlike its competitors, the vast majority of home PCs never enjoyed the same dedicated video hardware needed to provide the smooth scrolling. Only when Windows and 3D gaming began to take off in the mid-90s did the PC become a worthy contender to the Amiga and Atari ST, then considered kings of the gaming computers. The Miggy and ST possessed dedicated graphics hardware that offered ultra-smooth scrolling, hardware sprite rendering and funky effects. When it came to sheer processor speed, however, the PC beat the two hands-down, and it was the processor that the then latest 3D games took advantage of.

All this in spite of the rampant piracy that reigned on all three platforms of the time. Piracy is frequently blamed for the demise of the Amiga and ST gaming scenes. What happened on the PC? We can only surmise that the rise of CD-ROM, which was considered difficult to pirate at the time due to the prohibitive cost of CD burners, aided the battle against piracy. When CD burners became more affordable, DVD was on the rise.

Why, you may ask, am I talking about this?

Many publishers in the PC gaming scene are quick to mention the horrendous level of piracy on the PC when it is pointed out that fewer and fewer titles are released for the PC. Yet the PC survived the piracy wave of the 1980s and 1990s.

Last month I was stuck at Ahrensburg railway station with nothing to do for an hour. I popped into the local newsagent and picked up a copy of a German PC gaming magazine and discovered, to my horror, a mere six reviews for new titles. This month was not much better with just seven titles.

Not believing my eyes, I scouted back through my archive collection of PC magazines and noticed that, indeed, there were usually 20-30 games reviewed a month just five years ago on the PC. What went wrong?

Piracy, the publishers claim. It may well be that the level of piracy on the PC has had a causal effect on the incentive to release titles for the PC, but this doesn't explain why the PC scene blossomed regardless of this issue in the 1990s.

The use of piracy as justification is often simply sour grapes. Sony recently made themselves look rather ridiculous by blaming piracy on the poor performance of the PSP. Publishers make themselves look equally silly when using this claim on the PC. Some of the most pirated games on PC have been the biggest sellers.

You often see PC enthusiasts deriding the idea that PC gaming may be dying in the forums, stating that PC sales are doing just fine and that digital distribution sales are not being counted. There are two fundamental flaws with this argument. Firstly, although Valve and Stardock do not release sales figures for their platforms, the publishers do, and they have been reporting a constant drop in revenue from the PC platform. While retail sales have indeed been dropping drastically, digital distribution sales have massively failed to make up for this shortfall. Secondly, while Steam does occasionally reveal a Steam-exclusive title that cannot be purchased elsewhere, these are far and few between. I think there were just two new Steam exclusives in May. Most other titles available on Steam are available in retail.

Now, even if we cannot prove a drop in PC sales, we have certainly established that fewer games are being released for the PC. The big question - why?

Reason number one is more than likely the rise of DRM in PC gaming. Since PC games have begun to require the user to connect to the internet to authenticate their title (using SecuROM, Steam, TAGES etc.), there has been a considerable wave of discontent among the community. Some defend the use of DRM, some "tolerate" it, some make a concerted effort to avoid games with DRM. Others have flocked from the PC altogether towards the consoles, no doubt aided by the second reason.

Said second reason is the convergence of PC gaming and console gaming. It used to be that PC games and console games were two completely different kettles of fish. PC games have steeper learning curves, more complex game structures, more longevity and, most recently, have included online play as a fundamental element. Console games traditionally were simpler, easier to learn, shorter and relied on the physical presence of other players for multiplayer.

With the release of the latest generation of consoles, this has changed. Now equipped with in-built hard drives and ethernet adapters, PS3s, Wiis and XBox 360s possess the same hardware needed for a PC-like gaming experience. Indeed, when a PC gamer is asked why they game on the PC, the answer is usually that they prefer a mouse and keyboard to a gamepad or the debate descends into juvenile anti-console insults. Call of Duty, a staple of PC gaming, is now just as commonly played online on consoles as its PC counterpart. Recent consoles offer the average gamer an appealing alternative - the same advantages as a PC, only without the issue of hardware and driver incompatibilities.

If PC gaming does survive in the future to come, the fundmental differences between PC and console gaming will fade over time. Publishers need to begin dispensing with their anti-PC attitudes, which includes the automatic assumption that PC gamers are by definition pirates and hackers. They need to stop with their obsession with DRM, a technology that will only continue to pose legal, technical and economic problems in the near future. And, as inferred, they need to apply a more platform-agnostic attitude. It is nice if PC ports are tailored to the platform, but ultimately I perceive interoperability with the consoleros to be a much more important goal.

And yes, this does entail a change in attitudes in the community too. No more looking down at console users.

There's been a fair bit of talk about online DRM lately, especially with the advent of Ubisoft and EA's latest systems (including EA making themselves look rather ridiculous by claiming that their DRM wasn't really DRM). With all the criticism directed at DRM lately, apologists have been popping up out of the woodwork to try and convince us that DRM is "necessary" or "isn't so bad".

In the process, however, a number of half-truths, myths, misconceptions and outright lies that have been circulating, and I hope to be able to debunk some of them here.

Everybody/the vast majority of gamers have an internet connection.

Untrue. A 2009 survey conducted by Nielsen Online revealed that just 52% of Europeans and 74% of North Americans (i.e. USA and Canada) have access to the internet. And although 74% of North Americans have access to the internet, barely 57% of households in the United States have access to broadband internet.

The situation in Europe is not much better. There are large swathes of the UK, France and Germany where DSL internet is still not available, and even in remote areas with high-speed internet the full speed is never guaranteed due to the distance to the exchange.

EA/Ubisoft/Valve/Zuxxez will never go out of business, so their activation servers will never be switched off.

Untrue. Companies in the video and computer game industry come and go all the time. A few are well established, most don't last more than a decade. Recent experience has shown that a long existence provides no protection against bankruptcy - ask Factor 5 and Ascaron, both of whom based in Guetersloh, Germany and who were in business for 20 years. EA, Ubisoft and Valve are indeed well-established, but you never know when the financial pressures will become too great.

One of the greatest misconceptions in the gaming community is that a company will continue to support their games until the day they close their office doors for good. As a rule, however, publishers only support games for two to three years, perhaps less if the title in question is unsuccessful. Sega have been known to deactivate matchmaking servers for their PC titles within a relatively short space of time (Sega Rally, Outrun 2006), and the same applies to EA Games.

There have been exceptions in the past. Nintendo famously supported the original NES until a couple of years ago. Blizzard continues to support Diablo 2 and Starcraft. These, however, are exceptions to the rule and support for games usually ceases within three years at the latest.

The problem is here that publishers are only liable per the EULA and consumer protection law in the majority of cases to guarantee that their games will work for either one or two years. In many countries, what happens to the game thereafter is not the problem of the publisher. If it becomes unprofitable to continue supporting a certain title, the publisher will cease supporting it. In the game of EA Games, for example, support usually ceases relatively quickly of their sports titles to encourage gamers to buy the latest edition.

A further problem is that DRM services are often provided by a third-party provider. While Ubisoft have since opted to make use of their own internal servers, as have Zuxxez, many 2008 and 2009 titles from EA Games and Atari make use of the online version of Sony DADC's SecuROM, meaning that continued activation support is dependent not only on the publisher but also the DRM provider. If the service agreement between the publisher and the DRM service provider is terminated (due to expiry, dispute, the insolvency of one of the parties), it will no longer be possible to activate the title in question. The same applies to Steam - should the publishing agreement between Valve and the publisher be terminated, it may well be possible that you will not be able to access your games.

EA/Ubisoft/Valve/Zuxxez/[insert publisher here] will release a patch at the end of the day when the activation servers are deactivated.

Partly true. A number of companies (Ubisoft, Zuxxez, Valve) have publicly stated that they will release patches or software that will enable the games to be played years down the line should the DRM no longer be supported. Others (EA Games, Atari) have been relatively silent on the matter.

However, statements in forums and customer support e-mails do not count as being legally binding, as it is often too difficult to prove that the statements in question are genuine. The only legally binding document that you have recourse to as a gamer is the End User License Agreement or EULA, which lays out your rights and responsibilities as a contract partner. Most are fairly obvious (don't pirate the game etc.), others are not.

What is interesting is that some companies (e.g. EA Games) do not include their obligation in the EULA to release a patch deactivating the DRM in the event that the servers are shut down, even though they do mention that the license is terminated should the user attempt to circumvent the copy protection. Others, such as the Steam Subscriber Agreement, explicitly distance themselves from any obligation to release a so-called 'standalone' version of the game should it no longer be possible to activate it.

If their fail to make good on their promise, you can use illegal cracks anyway.

Partly true. It is indeed true that while the circumvention of copy protection systems is illegal, most copyright laws would permit it if it is necessary for the fulfilment of a contractual obligation. A EULA is not time-limited, meaning that it does not expire. If activation servers are deactivated at a later date and you wish to continue using the software, and the publisher does not release a patch deactivating the activation requirement, you are entitled to take appropriate corrective measures yourself (e.g. use a crack) or terminate the agreement (which would mean that you are no longer permitted to use the software - only an idiot would opt for this).

The problem here is that the use of cracks carries its own set of risks. Cracks developed by hacker groups are sometimes host to viruses, trojans or keyloggers, even if the crack itself is genuine. Furthermore, as cracks are developed by reverse engineering the game in question, it is very possible that the crack may contain errors or bugs not present in the original software.

Of course, there's also the possibility that such a crack simply doesn't exist. One of my favourite PC platformers, Lomax the Lemming, is unplayable today thanks to an over-zealous CD-based copy protection system that does not play well with Windows XP, and the only way around this would have been a crack. Unfortunately, there isn't one, so I'm flat out of luck.

DRM is necessary to prevent piracy/DRM is uncrackable.

Untrue. Since these two claims are closely intertwined, I thought I'd kill two birds with one stone here.

Publishers and DRM apologists have often claimed that DRM is an indispensible tool in the fight against the unauthorised copying of software. They claim that CD key/disc-based protection has been ineffective in the fight against software piracy and that more drastic measures are necessary to combat the threat.

The problem is that copy protection, whether of the online DRM sort or a more conventional CD/DVD check, always relies on the same approach - a key authentication system embedded in the code or in a library file. The difference between a traditional CD/DVD check and online DRM lies in the source of the authentication key - in the former, the key is located on the disc, in the latter, on a server provided by the publisher. Whichever method is chosen, it is a given that the bare, unencrypted code required to authenticate the software will at some point be located in memory and thus can be replicated.

This means that any DRM or copy protection system is crackable by its very nature. Some games are cracked more quickly than others, because the DRM used may be identical or highly similar to forms used in other games. Since Half-Life 2 and Spore, for example, it has become very easy for hackers to release games stripped of SecuROM and Steam.

Cracking involves modifying the code in such a way that this check is bypassed or the code is stripped entirely. Whether the key is obtained from the CD/DVD or the activation server, hackers simply ensure that the check is not necessary to begin with.

This shows us that DRM is not necessary for the prevention of piracy. If the claim had been that it affects "casual piracy", then I might be more inclined to agree, but since the advent of DRM the approaches taken in casual piracy and mass piracy have become more or less the same. As it stands, piracy has sadly proven highly resilient to the introduction of DRM, whereas legitimate users continue to be punished.

DRM is necessary to prevent used game sales.

Some publishers have likened the resale of used games to piracy, which has caused quite an uproar in the past. There are nonetheless apologists that defend this position, which is untenable for two main reasons:

1. For a game to be resold, it has to be bought new in the first place. Furthermore, market forces dictate that a seller of a used game will determine their price based on the price of the new product. They wish to obtain the maximum amount possible and will usually offer just a few dollars/euros/pounds discount on the price of the new product. Thus, there is often little incentive to purchase a used copy of a very recent game.

2. The resale of boxed games is protected by law in many countries, including the United States (first-sale doctrine) and Germany. Some EULAs state that you are not permitted to resell your software, but this is in contradiction with consumer law in many countries and is thus unenforceable. The reason for this lies in the nature of the way games are sold. The legal conditions surrounding the sale of services is different to those regarding the sale of products in many countries, and (boxed) games are sold as products due to their tangible nature. Their classification as products means that they are also subject to appropriate consumer protection laws, which permits the resale of such products. If games were classed as licences (and thus services), publishers would more than likely be subject to higher taxation. A recent court decision in Germany affirmed that while there is no obligation to permit the resale of games purchased via digital distribution, the resale of boxed copies is still permitted by law.

You can sell your games.

Mostly untrue. You would be amazed how often I hear this argument and the above claim mentioned in the same breath, even though they contradict one another.

There are two situations that need to be discussed here, depending on the DRM form used. For the purposes of this article we will talk about system-bound and account-bound DRM.

Account-bound DRM systems bind the serial number of a game to be bound to a non-transferrable account. Examples of these include Steam and Ubisoft Online Services. An account usually includes a number of private details, including name, address and possibly bank details. Steam in particular forbids the resale of accounts, and will only transfer a serial number to another account for a fee. A copy of the receipt for the game must also be presented. This fee prevents the resale of games being worthwhile, which I suspect was the thinking behind it.

System-bound DRM systems bind the serial number of a game to a particular hardware configuration. Examples of these include SecuROM and TAGES. Most system-bound DRM systems restrict the number of concurrent installations, although the majority these days allow for the revocation of activations upon deinstallation of the game. Even with the revoke system, it is impossible to guarantee that the game's serial will still have enough activations when you purchase a used game.

As you see, the binding of a serial number to an account (which is becoming the norm in DRM these days) makes the resale of a game impossible, and even the binding of a serial number to a certain PC configuration carries its own risks, as you have no way of knowing if you will be able to play the game.

DRM offers advantages that we wouldn't have otherwise had, such as not having to have the CD/DVD in the drive, cloud saves etc.

Untrue. It is a fallacy to believe that DRM was necessary to offer these features. It is not the DRM system that enables this, rather these features are the result of a conscious decision taken to 'sell' DRM. They are perceived bonuses provided by the publisher as a trade-off for the use of DRM.

There are, however, numerous DRM-free games that do not require the insertion of the game CD or DVD to play - the Unreal Tournament games, the Blair Witch games, Ascension to the Throne and Street Racing Syndicate all work perfectly without a CD, DVD or illegal crack.

Cloud saves can also be provided alongside a more conventional saving system. Ironically, it is the much maligned Games for Windows Live that offers the best implementation of this, as many GFWL games provide the means to either create an online profile bound to your GFWL account (thus saving your game on the GFWL server) or to create an offline profile whereby your games are saved on your local computer. This feature is used in games such as Quantum of Solace and Batman: Arkham Asylum.

The only people that complain about DRM are pirates.

Untrue. This is an argument that basically states 'you disagree with me, so you must be my enemy'. I think the problem with this logic needs no explanation.

As mentioned above, DRM is usually cracked relatively quickly, so pirates are inconvenienced for several days at the most. This means that pirates are, in the long term, unaffected by the DRM applied to a certain title, giving them no cause for complaint. I have yet to see a major title that has not been cracked to date.

Honest consumers, on the other hand, have every cause for complaint. Logic dictates that counterfeit products should be inferior to the genuine article. Let's say, for example, someone buys a fake Rolex gold watch. These watches are not made of real gold and are poorly built, so they lose their luster after a while, may even rust and cease to work. The genuine Rolex gold watch is a product of quality, guaranteed to work for longer and look better.

Unfortunately, the inverse applies to games with DRM. DRM-infected software is, by its nature, inferior to the counterfeit article, as the counterfeit product is identical to the real product but is not subject to the same restrictions in usage. This makes the use of a counterfeit product more attractive and rightly angers users that wish to invest in the genuine article.