An anonymous reader writes "There was some discussion last month about the proposed DRM for Mass Effect and Spore that required the game to phone home every ten days. They backed down from that, but have left in that a user is only allowed 3 activations per license key. A license key is burned up when the O/S is reinstalled, when certain hardware is upgraded (EA refuses to disclose specifics of what), and possibly when a new user is set up in Windows. Only in its first month, some users are already locked out of their games from trying troubleshooting techniques to get the game running."
So true... people still hack the software to make it work, but those trying to follow the straight and narrow get nothing but grief. How is this a good thing? Reminds me of the DRM used a few years ago (still is?) where the game was faster cracked since it wasn't constantly scanning the CD drive verifying the disc was still in there.
But if it only stops casual piracy what's the point? I'll pirate software I own all the time to remove those annoying bits of DRM from the game. I paid for the game, I see no reason why I should have to change discs every time I change games.
Most of the time my disc is in a different room, or packed away. And I usually forget to put the CD back, so I'll have to hunt around to remember where I put it. Having to place it into the drive just increases the likelihood that it'll be scratched.
It also usually has the unpleasant side effect of making it hard or impossible to run via wine or emulator.
Seriously, the commercial pirates are a lot better at providing a compelling install service than the studios are. It's really hard for me to believe that the "good" guys are the ones that are making it impossible to reinstall the game an unlimited number of times.
Considering how often Windows has to be reinstalled, I can't imagine how this could ever fly.
But if it only stops casual piracy what's the point?
The point is to get cheapskates to pay up. I'd argue that a reasonable amount of money is lost because people would rather pirate instead of pay.
If they couldn't pirate, then one would assume sales would go up. Thats the theory behind it all.
The theory falls short because its always remained easy to pirate the game. Download the game, then crack the exe. For some this will be out of their league, and its those people that casual DRM is most effective on. Taking an arms race on DRM on those that know how to crack a game will achieve nothing, because game publishers are far too outnumbered to put up a real fight.
However in their attempt, a lot of innocent customers are getting are getting caught in the cross-fire. From having CD's fail to be read due to improper FAT tables, system instabilities from malware running in the background, and now license key lockouts.
The sad part is, DRM on games just isn't effective, and whats worse, for all those pirates that don't/won't purchase a game, i strongly suspect they boost the legal sales of the game indirectly (viral marketing)
I've been forced to cracking games I've legally purchased just to get around their DRM lockouts. And the more DRM they add to the games, the faster I'll resort to cracking.
Moral of this rant was best said by vader: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers"
I've been forced to cracking games I've legally purchased just to get around their DRM lockouts.
And in buying the game, you voted with your wallet for copy protection. If a game or other software uses copy protection and I know about it, I vote against it. Viral marketing and word of mouth support all die with the purchase not made.
I don't pirate it. I just don't use it. There are alternatives.
You obviously don't have kids with kids games. It doesn't matter if you tell the kid "don't change the CD, call me and I'll do it" once kids figure out how to do it for themselves they will.
Let me put it this way. Would you hand a bare CD you didn't want to have to buy another copy of to six year old?
Well, I bought some Broderbund games for my kid from Half Price Books for $5 each, and she loves them. Turns out ripping disk to ISO's, mounting the ISO's to a virtual CDROM drive via a batch file launched with the icon the game came with works really well. I have The Cat and the Hat and Green Eggs and Ham disks safely tucked away out of reach while the perfectly legal backup copy is on the hard disk for play purposes.
If you assume that the user is on a desktop sits next to his shelf full of game discs. On the other hand, if the user has a laptop (which may not even have an optical drive) and doesn't feel like lugging all his game discs around with him all the time, it is a huge inconvenience -- so much of one, in fact, that he'd be very likely to pirate the game out of pure spite!
Like many such schemes... The radio in my car requires entering a code every time the battery is disconnected, as the legitimate owner of the car i have forgotten the code and gone to considerable expense to get it recoded... The guy who recoded it didn't take very long, neither i suspect would a thief. So only the legitimate user gets inconvenienced, anyone who steals the radio will have a lot less problem with the "anti theft" mechanism than i have. On the other hand, my radio is obsolete (1995), a nonstandard size, and riveted and bolted into the car so it's not likely to get stolen anyway.
So true... people still hack the software to make it work, but those trying to follow the straight and narrow get nothing but grief. How is this a good thing?
DRM is not about getting people who were not paying for something to pay for it.
It's about getting people who were paying for something to pay for it twice.
For example, I downloaded a couple ring tones for my phone. Phone died. I replaced the phone with EXACTLY THE SAME MODEL, but even though I was able to back up and restore all my contacts and other information, the ring tones did not transfer because there's some weird DRM on them.
So now if I want my ringtones back, I have to buy them AGAIN, and apparently every time I replace my phone. How stupid is that?
No, the stupid part is USING ringtones. No one wants to hear anyone else's crappy taste in music. Everyone needs to put their phones on vibrate and STFU!
Elder Scrolls 3 - Morrowind, safedisc harmed performance so much that the developers removed it [tweaktown.com] in the first patch. The nocd crack was recommended by just about everyone [google.com].
Part of the problem is that the developers don't usually install any DRM, it's usually done by the distributors.
So even if the developers thoroughly test a product, but the public always beta tests the DRM.
That's the problem with most if not all copy "prevention" (the quotes are necessary, since it prevents jack) mechanisms: Those who play by the rules get shafted while those that don't get rewarded.
The actual problem with DRM is that, unlike with ordinary goods where I have an additional value when I buy something rather than hoping it "falls off a truck". I get warrenty, I get a manual, I get support, I may get cheap(er) addons. It's exactly reverse with DRMed goods. You get more value out of "stealing" it.
Yes, convenience is a value in a good. Actually, convenience has become a good in and of itself. Valet parking is nothing but a convenience, still people pay for it. The reason why Windows is still more in use than Linux with private users is the convenience of its use and the software for it. Convenience is a big selling point. And just this important key point is actually better when I copy&crack software rather than buying it?
That's why DRM will fail with the masses. Not because of the privacy invasion or the "phoning home". People don't care about that. But they do care about the loss of convenience.
Yup -- that's why I'll put up with Steam, but not with SecuROM: Steam is convenient; it reinstalls my games for me if I replace my hardware, prevents me from needing to keep track of physical media and CD keys and whatnot, and (ever since I've had it, at least -- I didn't get on the bandwagon at first release) Just Works; the only thing I worry about is whether I'll be able to fire up my old games and go for a trip down nostalgia lane 20 years from now when the good folks at Valve have gone on to other things.
I have a question about steam... how does it work if you have two computers (or more)? I mean if I buy Bejeweled, on my steam account, can my wife play it while I'm playing Civ?
Only one PC can be logged in to a Steam account at a time.
Most singleplayer games under Steam can be played in offline mode, which somewhat resolves this.
The safest way around the problem is probably creating one Steam account per game, but that also removes a lot of the convenience in Steam - and convenience is our reason for accepting their Digital Restrictions Management.
But, because I am not blinded by the sheeple mentality I do actually see that there is a benefit to DRM if used properly, implemented properly...
Not to the purchaser, unless you want to say "without DRM, the content would not have been made available at all". Any digital file without DRM is inherently more flexible and useful than after it's applied, and to say that it's beneficial to the purchaser is twisting words around - DRM exists solely to benefit the content provider at the expense of the purchaser.
As regards the "sheeple" comment - just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't automatically make them incapable of critical thought. I read your opinion, I understand it, but I still disagree with it from the perspective of the buying public - that doesn't make me or anyone else deserving of that kind of ad hom.
Without the DRM the content would not have been available at all.
Or maybe the 'owners' would have realized that content sitting on the shelf doing nothing earns nothing and thus even just 1% of the pie is better than 0%.
Or maybe someone who would have been motivated by the complete absence of content would have given away *their* version of the content, but the presence of locked down content was enough to discourage them from the effort.
Or maybe someone who would have done an incredible job of incrementally updating the content with massive amounts of newer and more current information just gave up because the DRM prevented him from editing and building on the original content.
Or maybe enough people would have pooled their money to hire someone else to produce similar content and make it available for free, but the price difference per person wasn't worth the effort.
We know the, "without DRM, the content would not have been made available at all" argument all too well, that's why NormalVisual pre-emptively mentioned it, no need to elaborate. For each time it gets used, there are at least 4x more reasons to discount it. If anything, it is the sheeple argument because it assumes that there is only one way to skin a cat, is stuck in the box, etc.
There are benefits to restrictions as odd as that sounds.
Restrictions in of themselves are generally useless and often counter-productive. They need to be backed up with solid empirical evidence based on current conditions justifying those restrictions. Not someone's opinion, even if it is an opinion shared by millions of others. The conditions under which copyright was conceived, and DRM proponents still labor, are centuries old and were highly questionable even then. The world has moved on, its time the market did too.
What a load of horseshit. Let us say that life is fair and the world is perfect and everyone who wanted to use some piece of software actually paid for it. Greedy Corp X will still throw DRM at it because now they want you to pay for it for every machine you want to run it on... for every user that has an account on every machine you want to run it on... every three months for eternity.
DRM isn't REALLY about software piracy. I haven't known one person that has said "Hey! It is difficult to pirate this. I may as well just go buy it!". It is about squeezing the most money out of you that they possibly can for the least amount of product.
because they see the drop-off of their revenue due to piracy
Due... to... piracy? That is a pretty bold claim. Maybe because they are spewing out the same old tired garbage, that no one sees value in it anymore. The percieved value of everything changes. Even the value of your cash. When people don't want your crap, you will sell less. If people can't do something more useful in your new version, you will sell less.
And do you think it is coincidence that even though we are talking about software, this is the exact same issue with the other big industry, music. People are tired of paying for the 13th Pearl Jam album that all sounds like filler from their first, so they sell less. They are tired of paying for a whole album just for a song or two, so they are selling less. Yet they are SURE that their revenues are slipping.... due... to... piracy.
Now, I call DRM the biggest problem of the software industry, and at the same time I don't steal software and actually make my living by writing it. How does this work out?
Well, as pointed out above, not only by me, if DRM accomplished anything, it's that people who got dicked over by DRMcrippled software they bought start looking for a way around DRM, find out about cracks and then you lost a customer. And unfortunately, not only the companies using DRM to harrass their customers lose them, everyone does. Someone who has found cracked soft doesn't discriminate anymore between "good" companies that employ either no DRM or less invasive DRM, and "bad" companies who try to enforce something as ridiculous as the crap we're discussing here.
He just sees free soft and starts grabbing.
If DRM accomplishes anything, it drives more people towards cracked software. You can't get those that download&crack on principle to buy your stuff. For many, it's a sport to avoid buying software, and you won't get them to buy yours. DRM now drives the rest away from buying as well by pretty much sending them towards cracks to regain the convenience and ease of use they enjoy about software they bought.
There will always be those that choose to pirate software (it's not stealing unless you pick a box off a shelf in a store), and there will always be those that choose to buy.
I pirated a lot when I was younger and without disposable income. This lost the game companies little to nothing since there was no money to be had from me either way. I now have buckets of disposable income, but do not buy games with this sort of DRM. If they don't want my money, they don't get it. There are plenty of games without DRM for me to give my money for.
The fact games with no DRM whatsoever still turn a good profit (Stardock's titles are a prime example), proves beyond any doubt that tossing away DRM does not equal zero return on investment.
Chicken or egg? Not an interesting question, in my opinion. There has been piracy since the birth of the games industry. This hasn't prevented them from becoming so large they are now on par with the movie industry.
DRM is now an industry in itself. If not a single person on the planet pirated, the DRM industry would still somehow manage to sell their crippleware to game companies. It's not like they don't already produce fictional losses to rival that of the **AA.
"Then again, if people actually did what they were supposed to and actually supported the things they enjoy using instead of stealing them, DRM wouldn't be needed."
That's not really true. The restrictions aren't put in there because people will. Instead, they're put in there because people might. Reality isn't a factor in deciding to put copy restrictions into a software, so altering reality won't change the outcome. You should look at the movie industry's out-cry about the sale of vcrs many moons ago, it'll give you some insight into where I'm coming from.
Thats what they get for buying it instead of pirating it. The cracked version(s) don't have any problems like this.
I think it's worth pointing out that the two methods (purchasing and cracking) aren't mutually exclusive. When a company adopts draconian (or just plain stupid) licensing tactics, you can still purchase the software (for legal, moral, etc reasons) and then proceed to download a crack for your copy or just a cracked one via "the usual places". It's not ideal and not perfect, but at least you can run the software you paid for.
At my last job we had some software that required a hardware dongle attached to a license server. The problem was that the licensing software used some hacked-up bastardized version of NetBIOS which meant that only clients on the same subnet as the server could connect and authorize themselves. After weeks of haggling with the company and them refusing to fix their crappy licensing software ("It works for everyone else!") we just found a license crack online and applied it to all the client workstations.
Were we legal enough to survive an audit? I have no idea, but we we were fully licensed for all the clients connected and I think that's what mattered.
Why the heck should I buy that crap? No game is good enough to make me jump hoops like a circus lion. Personally, I'd feel insulted. I get to cry, rant and rave, spend my time and money trying to find a solution to their copy protection problem, while I watch others play the cracked and downloaded copies.
Is that the message I should get out of this? Buy and cry, but copy and enjoy?
I warned people about the same BS with Bioshock. You don't want to pay $50 to just hire a game, because anything that stops you from using what you buy is hiring.
At least Bioshock and Mass Effect have used it so far. Unless enough people protested by not buying those, I don't see why they'd remove it from Spore.
It's a pity, but a lot of people either are ignorant about the DRM, or don't care. Obviously they never bought music from an online store that since shut down.
I legitimately own this game and use cracks on it anyway. I don't see why I should be inconvenienced more than the pirates. I do this with all my games, mainly because I don't want to have to have the disk in the drive if there's no legitimate need for it.
I personally prefer "Sins of a Solar Empire" creator's model of copy protection: the game will technically work fine if you pay for it or not...for version 1.0.
If you want updates and any add-ons they come out with, though, you need to purchase a key(one-time purchase only, mind) in order to register the game.
I love it: I downloaded two of their games and tried them for 3 days. One, I got rid of; the other, SoaSE, I liked so much that I went and bought a legitimate key to register with online.
Granted it has its flaws: it would be very easy for someone to pirate a game with this kind of "protection". Even the key itself would be easy to spread around, I bet.
But if you actually like the game, don't you want to see improvements and add-ons come out for it? And/or more games like it? Most people are aware that these things cost money, and without that money, no more will be made like it. So if customers like what they see and want more, they come back and pay for more.
I've liked some of Bioware's earlier releases, but I guess I'll just keep on waiting for Mass Effect, till they come to their senses.
Honestly, if Bioware never 'needed' DRM (outside of a license key) for earlier games such as the Baldur's Gate Series, Neverwinter Nights, Knights of the Old Republic, etc, and made millions upon millions of dollars of revenue, why do they suddenly need such restrictive DRM? I guess it's to keep people like me from buying the game who probably otherwise would.
Publishers, pay attention: DRM doesn't generate more revenue, it costs you revenue. It's costly to develop and deploy, and to some extent, reduces your sales. I doubt a single person who would have pirated a non-DRM'ed version will actually pay because of the DRM, but it definitely goes the other way - some percentage, even if small, of potential customers who would have payed will be turned off by the DRM and will simply not purchase the game.
Also, DRM like this violates the Doctrine of First Sale [wikipedia.org] - you know, that little concept that if you buy a book, recording, or copy of a computer program, you can let your friends read it, listen to it, libraries can lend it out, etc. Any DRM which prevents lawful re-use of a legally purchased copy should itself be illegal, but of course our corrupt congress which only cares about pandering to rich lobbyists don't care about flushing a century of copyright law down the toilet.
Honestly, if Bioware never 'needed' DRM (outside of a license key) for earlier games such as the Baldur's Gate Series, Neverwinter Nights, Knights of the Old Republic, etc, and made millions upon millions of dollars of revenue, why do they suddenly need such restrictive DRM?
The same that I've sadly come to the conclusion about many times. Your best bet is to buy the game, stick the box on the shelf and then use the pirated version. I'm all for creators receiving compensation for their work because they work hard and pour themselves into their work, but at the same time I'm not going to let their (or more correctly their publisher's) paranoia about what might happen to their software deny me the goods/service I paid for. As the a sage bit of advice goes, the people who were going to steal your product were never going to be your customers and generally going to draconian lengths to stop them will make your actual customers steal your product because it's less hassle than the legitimate version. SecuROM in particular has been a grievous offender in this regard.
I'm not sure where they got the idea that treating their legitimate customers to a worse experience than the ones who steal their product was all that smart, but I'm pretty sure it was from the same think tank that told the RIAA that suing their customers would be good for business.
I'm all for creators receiving compensation for their work because they work hard and pour themselves into their work
That's the difference between you and me. I'm all for punishing dimwits who treat their customers as their enemies.
My solution is to simply avoid buying and using the product. I'm sure others will only omit the first part. But no game is worth stepping into illegality.
I really think this kind of bullshit violates the first sale doctrine. By and large the courts have never sympathized with the view that shrink-wrapped software is licensed and not bought; and this has been confirmed in some recent higher court rulings.
When you guy a game, you have bought it. The courts now *clearly* recognize this. (To wit the recent case involving auctions of Autodesk software on eBay in alleged violation of Autodesk licensing.) You definitively have the right to sell it. It seems that along with that right must come the right to use it yourself.
I wonder why Will Wright subjects us to this shit, or at the least, why he tolerates it. Why hasn't he gone the Sid Meier way and left his lame publisher? If EA wants guaranteed income, why not charge a reasonable subscription rate for online gameplay and content?
Meanwhile I don't see any way that EA will be made to stop this short of a boycott (not likely with Spore and Mass Effect) or legal intervention. EA already got the smackdown for its illegal employment practices; why not its illegal "licensing" practices?
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday June 17 2008, @04:18PM (#23830491)
I picked this up from Target Sunday night after a buddy of mine told me that it was out for the PC. I came home and installed it...
I think it took 4 hours to decompress 9GB off of the DVD. I'm not sure, I ended up falling asleep before it completed.
So, Monday night, I came home from work to play it. What a pain in the ass.
a. needs new drivers, but b. looks as good as BF 2142 (which worked on my older drivers and ran faster) c. we're talkin' "high seas" choppy (12-16 fps) even on 800x600 with linear aliasing and no music. d. OTOH BF2142 can run in 1600:900 widescreen at 60 fps.
Did I mention that it failed to load after (I kid you not) 10 minutes on the splash screen? Apparently, the SecuROM DRM blacklists SysInternal's Process Explorer. Yeah, major hacking tool. Whatever.
Ok, so, I upgraded drivers, turned off PE and rebooted (!), and fired it up again. Like I mentioned, choppy sound fx and graphics and crazy load times (we're talking no UI response for upwards of 10 minutes).
Eventually, I did get to "play" for about an hour or so before an uninterruptable cutsceen black-screened-of-death my computer. Why oh why aren't they using industry-standard works-forever Bink video? Or if they are, they've seriously misimplemented it.
It should go without saying that this game appears to have undergone the most lazy subcontracted porting job from the xbox to the PC.
Against my better judgement, I'm putting it on the shelf until they release a patch rather than returning it. (Mainly because I don't think Target accepts software returns...)
Bottom line: I got what I deserved for buying this game without doing any research beforehand. (Surely, this is 2008, and Big-Name games aren't released in a broken state, right? wrong.)
The users did purchase their games, but low, the game installer caused much discord. From its discord came much reinstalling. From the reinstalling came excess activations, and from the excess activations came denial. Among the users there was much unrest and gnashing of teeth.
And it came to pass that the users gathered together and announced their lamentations unto the manufacturer, but the manufacturer heard their lamentations not declaring "For ours is to profit and yours is to consume, for the criminal he doth consume, but from that that the criminal consumes he also copies, and allow others to consume from the results of my minions labor. How doeth it profit us for a criminal to copy, and how doeth I as the provider of my minions labor know that you, and those gathered with you are not a criminals? Nay, not only is it safer for me to lock in the results of my minions by allowing not but three activations, it profits me even more if those activations are squander on unclean install and hardware not fit for supporting our products."
Then the users hearing this from the manufacturer brought their lamentations unto Slashdot, for Slashdot has a voice which carriers farther than just the voices of the users alone, but the manufactures still heard their lamentations not.
In the months that followed there was much casting of stones, but the fortress of the manufacturer had high walls and the stones cleared them not. The users then declared "We will trap them within their stone walls, and we will purchase their products not, and in time, when they hunger, they will come forth from their walls and allow us unlimited activations, for they will have empty wallets."
In this plan there was much wisdom, but the bulk of the users had not the courage to uphold this plan, for they were already committed and could survive without their games not. Among the users was a multitude for which the plan fell upon deaf ears, and money continued to flow to the manufacturer as water flows down a river.
And it came to pass that a band of users gathered together and gave their lamentations unto the pharacies, and they stated unto the pharacies that for the loss of their wages they were entitled a class action.
The spies of the manufacturer were many, and the spy among the pharacies reported back to the manufacturer of the news of class action. It was then that the manufacturer relented, not of wisdom, or of kindness, but of cowardice, for the manufacturer loves his purse and the money which it contains and wanted to part with that the he has already obtained not, prefer instead to risk the reduction of that which comes in by way of bandit interception.
The users upon hearing this declared that it was good, and their activations were good until the end of days.
Note to John Riccitiello and the meatheads at EA: Take a page from Brad Wardell and the folks at Stardock Entertainment - DRM doesn't work - his words were....
"Blaming piracy is easy. But it hides other underlying causes. When Sins (of the Solar Empire) popped up as the #1 best selling game at retail a couple weeks ago, a game that has no copy protect whatsoever, that should tell you that piracy is not the primary issue."
I love SotSE and it's about as hassle-free of a game as it gets. WHY does nobody else other then Wardell and his group get this?
On the whole, it's a pretty disgusting press technique EA's gotten away with here.
EA: Mass Effect and Spore will have invasive DRM that re-checks with a central server every 10 days!
Bad press happens
EA: We learned our lesson. Mass Effect and Spore won't use that invasive system we were thinking of using. We decided we had to listen to our customers, so we decided we'd use this less invasive method (which is still invasive, and is the same system used on Bioshock)
Good press happens, despite the fact that EA has just said it would use the same protection system as Bioshock, which got bad press for... having an invasive protection system that locked legitimate consumers out of their own games.
This is called the foot in the door technique [wikipedia.org], and at least up to this article, EA pulled it off masterfully.
It's funny, just a few days ago my Mass Effect started acting up, and I was close to the end already, so I went looking for a crack... god, there are tons of fake ones out there, or half-working ones that don't let you save (demo executable?).
I eventually found a home-made (vs warez-released) crack, by some guy name Gniarf on some random forum, that works 100%. I don't know who Gniarf is or how he pulled it off, but if a random dude on a forum is able to crack the DRM in Mass Effect, it seems to me like EA wasted a shitload of money on that DRM for absolutely nothing.
What did EA gain from the DRM ? A bunch of frustrated customers who got clobbered by the 10-day activation, as many had predicted. Would it have sold less copies without DRM ? Doubtful, seeing how quickly the fix was produced. It's not even a race anymore, the cracks come out so fast, I wonder why the game houses even pretend to put up a fight. Dead horse much ?
I'd disagree - this DRM is making this honest man pirate. If a DRM suite cripples my legitimate use of the product, then I'm going to acquire the product without the DRM.
There is no distinction between weak and strong copy protection. No matter how strong, it will be broken. Whether 1% or 0.000001% of the people have the skill to break it is meaningless, it only takes one person to break it. Then it's spread millionfold through the net. Whether someone else breaks it too doesn't make a difference.
There is a difference between copy protection that is a minor nuisance (i.e. having to have the disk in the drive to use the software) and a major nuisance (i.e. disabling the software altogether after a while). The first will be swallowed grungedly. The latter will cause people to find a way to get around it to use the software they legally bought again.
If this has any effect, it will make more people search for ways to disable copy protection. It will show people who didn't even think about copying how to do it, how to acquire "cracks" and how to download cracked software.
And once the initial "work" is done to get a hand on such software, the incentive to keep doing it is immense. It does take some time initially to dig up sources for cracked software, but once you have the source, getting more software without buying for it is fairly trivial.
So the net effect of crippling DRM methods like this is to drive more people towards cracked soft. Because once you know where to get it, it's easy to get more.
And not playing is exactly what you'll be doing once they shut down the activation servers.
What you are doing, in effect, is accepting the fact you're renting a game, but still paying full price for it.
I for one won't accept that. Either slice the prices down to rental levels, or let me actually own the game I buy. They're doing a great job not getting my money. Not such a great job keeping me from enjoying the games. If they ever change their minds and want my money after all, they know what to do.
Thats what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
Protection like this certainly doesn't encourage paying for the game when the free version is better.
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Informative)
5 minutes and 3 no CD exes later my game runs even better.
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the time my disc is in a different room, or packed away. And I usually forget to put the CD back, so I'll have to hunt around to remember where I put it. Having to place it into the drive just increases the likelihood that it'll be scratched.
It also usually has the unpleasant side effect of making it hard or impossible to run via wine or emulator.
Seriously, the commercial pirates are a lot better at providing a compelling install service than the studios are. It's really hard for me to believe that the "good" guys are the ones that are making it impossible to reinstall the game an unlimited number of times.
Considering how often Windows has to be reinstalled, I can't imagine how this could ever fly.
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
If they couldn't pirate, then one would assume sales would go up.
Thats the theory behind it all.
The theory falls short because its always remained easy to pirate the game. Download the game, then crack the exe. For some this will be out of their league, and its those people that casual DRM is most effective on.
Taking an arms race on DRM on those that know how to crack a game will achieve nothing, because game publishers are far too outnumbered to put up a real fight.
However in their attempt, a lot of innocent customers are getting are getting caught in the cross-fire. From having CD's fail to be read due to improper FAT tables, system instabilities from malware running in the background, and now license key lockouts.
The sad part is, DRM on games just isn't effective, and whats worse, for all those pirates that don't/won't purchase a game, i strongly suspect they boost the legal sales of the game indirectly (viral marketing)
I've been forced to cracking games I've legally purchased just to get around their DRM lockouts. And the more DRM they add to the games, the faster I'll resort to cracking.
Moral of this rant was best said by vader:
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers"
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Funny)
How do you manage to get the quote verbatim, but misattribute it so badly?
Parent
Re:Vote with your wallet (Score:5, Insightful)
And in buying the game, you voted with your wallet for copy protection. If a game or other software uses copy protection and I know about it, I vote against it. Viral marketing and word of mouth support all die with the purchase not made.
I don't pirate it. I just don't use it. There are alternatives.
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me put it this way. Would you hand a bare CD you didn't want to have to buy another copy of to six year old?
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
If you assume that the user is on a desktop sits next to his shelf full of game discs. On the other hand, if the user has a laptop (which may not even have an optical drive) and doesn't feel like lugging all his game discs around with him all the time, it is a huge inconvenience -- so much of one, in fact, that he'd be very likely to pirate the game out of pure spite!
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Interesting)
The radio in my car requires entering a code every time the battery is disconnected, as the legitimate owner of the car i have forgotten the code and gone to considerable expense to get it recoded...
The guy who recoded it didn't take very long, neither i suspect would a thief. So only the legitimate user gets inconvenienced, anyone who steals the radio will have a lot less problem with the "anti theft" mechanism than i have.
On the other hand, my radio is obsolete (1995), a nonstandard size, and riveted and bolted into the car so it's not likely to get stolen anyway.
Parent
That's the magic of DRM. (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM is not about getting people who were not paying for something to pay for it.
It's about getting people who were paying for something to pay for it twice.
For example, I downloaded a couple ring tones for my phone. Phone died. I replaced the phone with EXACTLY THE SAME MODEL, but even though I was able to back up and restore all my contacts and other information, the ring tones did not transfer because there's some weird DRM on them.
So now if I want my ringtones back, I have to buy them AGAIN, and apparently every time I replace my phone. How stupid is that?
Parent
Re:That's the magic of DRM. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:That's the magic of DRM. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Interesting)
Part of the problem is that the developers don't usually install any DRM, it's usually done by the distributors.
So even if the developers thoroughly test a product, but the public always beta tests the DRM.
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
The actual problem with DRM is that, unlike with ordinary goods where I have an additional value when I buy something rather than hoping it "falls off a truck". I get warrenty, I get a manual, I get support, I may get cheap(er) addons. It's exactly reverse with DRMed goods. You get more value out of "stealing" it.
Yes, convenience is a value in a good. Actually, convenience has become a good in and of itself. Valet parking is nothing but a convenience, still people pay for it. The reason why Windows is still more in use than Linux with private users is the convenience of its use and the software for it. Convenience is a big selling point. And just this important key point is actually better when I copy&crack software rather than buying it?
That's why DRM will fail with the masses. Not because of the privacy invasion or the "phoning home". People don't care about that. But they do care about the loss of convenience.
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Interesting)
SecuROM, on the other hand...
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Informative)
Only one PC can be logged in to a Steam account at a time.
Most singleplayer games under Steam can be played in offline mode, which somewhat resolves this.
The safest way around the problem is probably creating one Steam account per game, but that also removes a lot of the convenience in Steam - and convenience is our reason for accepting their Digital Restrictions Management.
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to the purchaser, unless you want to say "without DRM, the content would not have been made available at all". Any digital file without DRM is inherently more flexible and useful than after it's applied, and to say that it's beneficial to the purchaser is twisting words around - DRM exists solely to benefit the content provider at the expense of the purchaser.
As regards the "sheeple" comment - just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't automatically make them incapable of critical thought. I read your opinion, I understand it, but I still disagree with it from the perspective of the buying public - that doesn't make me or anyone else deserving of that kind of ad hom.
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe someone who would have been motivated by the complete absence of content would have given away *their* version of the content, but the presence of locked down content was enough to discourage them from the effort.
Or maybe someone who would have done an incredible job of incrementally updating the content with massive amounts of newer and more current information just gave up because the DRM prevented him from editing and building on the original content.
Or maybe enough people would have pooled their money to hire someone else to produce similar content and make it available for free, but the price difference per person wasn't worth the effort.
We know the, "without DRM, the content would not have been made available at all" argument all too well, that's why NormalVisual pre-emptively mentioned it, no need to elaborate. For each time it gets used, there are at least 4x more reasons to discount it. If anything, it is the sheeple argument because it assumes that there is only one way to skin a cat, is stuck in the box, etc.
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM isn't REALLY about software piracy. I haven't known one person that has said "Hey! It is difficult to pirate this. I may as well just go buy it!". It is about squeezing the most money out of you that they possibly can for the least amount of product.
Parent
Re:I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Due... to... piracy? That is a pretty bold claim. Maybe because they are spewing out the same old tired garbage, that no one sees value in it anymore. The percieved value of everything changes. Even the value of your cash. When people don't want your crap, you will sell less. If people can't do something more useful in your new version, you will sell less.
And do you think it is coincidence that even though we are talking about software, this is the exact same issue with the other big industry, music. People are tired of paying for the 13th Pearl Jam album that all sounds like filler from their first, so they sell less. They are tired of paying for a whole album just for a song or two, so they are selling less. Yet they are SURE that their revenues are slipping.... due... to... piracy.
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, as pointed out above, not only by me, if DRM accomplished anything, it's that people who got dicked over by DRMcrippled software they bought start looking for a way around DRM, find out about cracks and then you lost a customer. And unfortunately, not only the companies using DRM to harrass their customers lose them, everyone does. Someone who has found cracked soft doesn't discriminate anymore between "good" companies that employ either no DRM or less invasive DRM, and "bad" companies who try to enforce something as ridiculous as the crap we're discussing here.
He just sees free soft and starts grabbing.
If DRM accomplishes anything, it drives more people towards cracked software. You can't get those that download&crack on principle to buy your stuff. For many, it's a sport to avoid buying software, and you won't get them to buy yours. DRM now drives the rest away from buying as well by pretty much sending them towards cracks to regain the convenience and ease of use they enjoy about software they bought.
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
I pirated a lot when I was younger and without disposable income. This lost the game companies little to nothing since there was no money to be had from me either way. I now have buckets of disposable income, but do not buy games with this sort of DRM. If they don't want my money, they don't get it. There are plenty of games without DRM for me to give my money for.
The fact games with no DRM whatsoever still turn a good profit (Stardock's titles are a prime example), proves beyond any doubt that tossing away DRM does not equal zero return on investment.
Chicken or egg? Not an interesting question, in my opinion. There has been piracy since the birth of the games industry. This hasn't prevented them from becoming so large they are now on par with the movie industry.
DRM is now an industry in itself. If not a single person on the planet pirated, the DRM industry would still somehow manage to sell their crippleware to game companies. It's not like they don't already produce fictional losses to rival that of the **AA.
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Informative)
And its not piracy either. (Unless you take a ship at sea.)
What you evidently meant to say is that "There will always be those that choose to infringe copyrights."
If you are going to be pedantic about definitions then be pedantic about definitions
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not really true. The restrictions aren't put in there because people will. Instead, they're put in there because people might. Reality isn't a factor in deciding to put copy restrictions into a software, so altering reality won't change the outcome. You should look at the movie industry's out-cry about the sale of vcrs many moons ago, it'll give you some insight into where I'm coming from.
Parent
Re:Thats what they get (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's worth pointing out that the two methods (purchasing and cracking) aren't mutually exclusive. When a company adopts draconian (or just plain stupid) licensing tactics, you can still purchase the software (for legal, moral, etc reasons) and then proceed to download a crack for your copy or just a cracked one via "the usual places". It's not ideal and not perfect, but at least you can run the software you paid for.
At my last job we had some software that required a hardware dongle attached to a license server. The problem was that the licensing software used some hacked-up bastardized version of NetBIOS which meant that only clients on the same subnet as the server could connect and authorize themselves. After weeks of haggling with the company and them refusing to fix their crappy licensing software ("It works for everyone else!") we just found a license crack online and applied it to all the client workstations.
Were we legal enough to survive an audit? I have no idea, but we we were fully licensed for all the clients connected and I think that's what mattered.
Parent
Umm... could anyone explain? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is that the message I should get out of this? Buy and cry, but copy and enjoy?
Don't buy DRM'd games! (Score:5, Informative)
Spore... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Spore... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a pity, but a lot of people either are ignorant about the DRM, or don't care. Obviously they never bought music from an online store that since shut down.
Parent
Re:Spore... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Screw Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
I do this with all my games, mainly because I don't want to have to have the disk in the drive if there's no legitimate need for it.
Re:Screw Piracy (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want updates and any add-ons they come out with, though, you need to purchase a key(one-time purchase only, mind) in order to register the game.
I love it: I downloaded two of their games and tried them for 3 days. One, I got rid of; the other, SoaSE, I liked so much that I went and bought a legitimate key to register with online.
Granted it has its flaws: it would be very easy for someone to pirate a game with this kind of "protection". Even the key itself would be easy to spread around, I bet.
But if you actually like the game, don't you want to see improvements and add-ons come out for it? And/or more games like it? Most people are aware that these things cost money, and without that money, no more will be made like it. So if customers like what they see and want more, they come back and pay for more.
Parent
I'll just keep on waiting. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, if Bioware never 'needed' DRM (outside of a license key) for earlier games such as the Baldur's Gate Series, Neverwinter Nights, Knights of the Old Republic, etc, and made millions upon millions of dollars of revenue, why do they suddenly need such restrictive DRM? I guess it's to keep people like me from buying the game who probably otherwise would.
Publishers, pay attention: DRM doesn't generate more revenue, it costs you revenue. It's costly to develop and deploy, and to some extent, reduces your sales. I doubt a single person who would have pirated a non-DRM'ed version will actually pay because of the DRM, but it definitely goes the other way - some percentage, even if small, of potential customers who would have payed will be turned off by the DRM and will simply not purchase the game.
Also, DRM like this violates the Doctrine of First Sale [wikipedia.org] - you know, that little concept that if you buy a book, recording, or copy of a computer program, you can let your friends read it, listen to it, libraries can lend it out, etc. Any DRM which prevents lawful re-use of a legally purchased copy should itself be illegal, but of course our corrupt congress which only cares about pandering to rich lobbyists don't care about flushing a century of copyright law down the toilet.
Re:I'll just keep on waiting. . . (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Lesson I take away is... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure where they got the idea that treating their legitimate customers to a worse experience than the ones who steal their product was all that smart, but I'm pretty sure it was from the same think tank that told the RIAA that suing their customers would be good for business.
Re:Lesson I take away is... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the difference between you and me. I'm all for punishing dimwits who treat their customers as their enemies.
My solution is to simply avoid buying and using the product. I'm sure others will only omit the first part. But no game is worth stepping into illegality.
Parent
For God's Sake Someone Sue Someone Already (Score:4, Insightful)
When you guy a game, you have bought it. The courts now *clearly* recognize this. (To wit the recent case involving auctions of Autodesk software on eBay in alleged violation of Autodesk licensing.) You definitively have the right to sell it. It seems that along with that right must come the right to use it yourself .
I wonder why Will Wright subjects us to this shit, or at the least, why he tolerates it. Why hasn't he gone the Sid Meier way and left his lame publisher? If EA wants guaranteed income, why not charge a reasonable subscription rate for online gameplay and content?
Meanwhile I don't see any way that EA will be made to stop this short of a boycott (not likely with Spore and Mass Effect) or legal intervention. EA already got the smackdown for its illegal employment practices; why not its illegal "licensing" practices?
I just bought this game Sunday night... (Score:5, Informative)
I think it took 4 hours to decompress 9GB off of the DVD. I'm not sure, I ended up falling asleep before it completed.
So, Monday night, I came home from work to play it. What a pain in the ass.
a. needs new drivers, but
b. looks as good as BF 2142 (which worked on my older drivers and ran faster)
c. we're talkin' "high seas" choppy (12-16 fps) even on 800x600 with linear aliasing and no music.
d. OTOH BF2142 can run in 1600:900 widescreen at 60 fps.
Did I mention that it failed to load after (I kid you not) 10 minutes on the splash screen? Apparently, the SecuROM DRM blacklists SysInternal's Process Explorer. Yeah, major hacking tool. Whatever.
Ok, so, I upgraded drivers, turned off PE and rebooted (!), and fired it up again. Like I mentioned, choppy sound fx and graphics and crazy load times (we're talking no UI response for upwards of 10 minutes).
Eventually, I did get to "play" for about an hour or so before an uninterruptable cutsceen black-screened-of-death my computer. Why oh why aren't they using industry-standard works-forever Bink video? Or if they are, they've seriously misimplemented it.
It should go without saying that this game appears to have undergone the most lazy subcontracted porting job from the xbox to the PC.
Against my better judgement, I'm putting it on the shelf until they release a patch rather than returning it. (Mainly because I don't think Target accepts software returns...)
Bottom line: I got what I deserved for buying this game without doing any research beforehand. (Surely, this is 2008, and Big-Name games aren't released in a broken state, right? wrong.)
Behold! (Score:5, Insightful)
And it came to pass that the users gathered together and announced their lamentations unto the manufacturer, but the manufacturer heard their lamentations not declaring "For ours is to profit and yours is to consume, for the criminal he doth consume, but from that that the criminal consumes he also copies, and allow others to consume from the results of my minions labor. How doeth it profit us for a criminal to copy, and how doeth I as the provider of my minions labor know that you, and those gathered with you are not a criminals? Nay, not only is it safer for me to lock in the results of my minions by allowing not but three activations, it profits me even more if those activations are squander on unclean install and hardware not fit for supporting our products."
Then the users hearing this from the manufacturer brought their lamentations unto Slashdot, for Slashdot has a voice which carriers farther than just the voices of the users alone, but the manufactures still heard their lamentations not.
In the months that followed there was much casting of stones, but the fortress of the manufacturer had high walls and the stones cleared them not. The users then declared "We will trap them within their stone walls, and we will purchase their products not, and in time, when they hunger, they will come forth from their walls and allow us unlimited activations, for they will have empty wallets."
In this plan there was much wisdom, but the bulk of the users had not the courage to uphold this plan, for they were already committed and could survive without their games not. Among the users was a multitude for which the plan fell upon deaf ears, and money continued to flow to the manufacturer as water flows down a river.
And it came to pass that a band of users gathered together and gave their lamentations unto the pharacies, and they stated unto the pharacies that for the loss of their wages they were entitled a class action.
The spies of the manufacturer were many, and the spy among the pharacies reported back to the manufacturer of the news of class action. It was then that the manufacturer relented, not of wisdom, or of kindness, but of cowardice, for the manufacturer loves his purse and the money which it contains and wanted to part with that the he has already obtained not, prefer instead to risk the reduction of that which comes in by way of bandit interception.
The users upon hearing this declared that it was good, and their activations were good until the end of days.
It's EA... (Score:5, Interesting)
Note to John Riccitiello and the meatheads at EA: Take a page from Brad Wardell and the folks at Stardock Entertainment - DRM doesn't work - his words were....
"Blaming piracy is easy. But it hides other underlying causes. When Sins (of the Solar Empire) popped up as the #1 best selling game at retail a couple weeks ago, a game that has no copy protect whatsoever, that should tell you that piracy is not the primary issue."
I love SotSE and it's about as hassle-free of a game as it gets. WHY does nobody else other then Wardell and his group get this?
Foot in the door (Score:5, Informative)
On the whole, it's a pretty disgusting press technique EA's gotten away with here.
EA: Mass Effect and Spore will have invasive DRM that re-checks with a central server every 10 days!
Bad press happens
EA: We learned our lesson. Mass Effect and Spore won't use that invasive system we were thinking of using. We decided we had to listen to our customers, so we decided we'd use this less invasive method (which is still invasive, and is the same system used on Bioshock)
Good press happens, despite the fact that EA has just said it would use the same protection system as Bioshock, which got bad press for... having an invasive protection system that locked legitimate consumers out of their own games.
This is called the foot in the door technique [wikipedia.org], and at least up to this article, EA pulled it off masterfully.
Mass Effect don't bug me (Score:5, Interesting)
I eventually found a home-made (vs warez-released) crack, by some guy name Gniarf on some random forum, that works 100%. I don't know who Gniarf is or how he pulled it off, but if a random dude on a forum is able to crack the DRM in Mass Effect, it seems to me like EA wasted a shitload of money on that DRM for absolutely nothing.
What did EA gain from the DRM ? A bunch of frustrated customers who got clobbered by the 10-day activation, as many had predicted. Would it have sold less copies without DRM ? Doubtful, seeing how quickly the fix was produced. It's not even a race anymore, the cracks come out so fast, I wonder why the game houses even pretend to put up a fight. Dead horse much ?
Re:DRM is pointless (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:DRM is pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:DRM is pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
- Buy software.
- Install software.
- Get frustrated.
- Crack software.
you'll soon start to cut out steps 2 and 3, and then just cut out step 1.Parent
Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)
And it'll still be cracked
Since Spore is a single-player game
and mass effect too...
Parent
Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a difference between copy protection that is a minor nuisance (i.e. having to have the disk in the drive to use the software) and a major nuisance (i.e. disabling the software altogether after a while). The first will be swallowed grungedly. The latter will cause people to find a way to get around it to use the software they legally bought again.
If this has any effect, it will make more people search for ways to disable copy protection. It will show people who didn't even think about copying how to do it, how to acquire "cracks" and how to download cracked software.
And once the initial "work" is done to get a hand on such software, the incentive to keep doing it is immense. It does take some time initially to dig up sources for cracked software, but once you have the source, getting more software without buying for it is fairly trivial.
So the net effect of crippling DRM methods like this is to drive more people towards cracked soft. Because once you know where to get it, it's easy to get more.
Parent
Re:A solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
What you are doing, in effect, is accepting the fact you're renting a game, but still paying full price for it.
I for one won't accept that. Either slice the prices down to rental levels, or let me actually own the game I buy. They're doing a great job not getting my money. Not such a great job keeping me from enjoying the games. If they ever change their minds and want my money after all, they know what to do.
Parent