DRM Broke Dragon Age: Origins For Days 214
Martey writes "Ars Technica reports that a server problem with the DRM authentication servers has caused Dragon Age: Origins players to be locked out of any saved games that include downloadable content. Quoting: 'Thanks to a combination of DRM idiocy and technical and communications failures on the part of EA and Bioware, I (along with thousands of fellow EA/Bioware customers) spent my free time this past weekend needlessly trapped in troubleshooting hell, in a vain attempt to get my single-player game to load. The problem, it turns out, was the Bioware's DRM authorization servers.'"
An update to the article indicates the problems have finally been resolved.
DRM should come with an SLA (Score:5, Interesting)
When a software company embeds DRM into an application, there ought to be an SLA they are held to.
Things like:
1) Availability of DRM servers
2) A warning that unavailability of DRM servers could prevent gameplay
If we must have DRM, can we at least have some level of service with that DRM so we can actually *use* the product?
Re:Once again... (Score:5, Interesting)
Obvious question though: Does the pirate version include the game's DLC?
TFA notes the problem was with savegames containing DLC content. Put another was, legitimate customers who own "DA:O vanilla" were fine, legit customers who owned "DA:O deluxe" were screwed.
Of course this highlights the real problem. Dragon Age is a single player game. It doesn't need an online component, except for patches and achievements, neither of which should involve any risk of savegame lockout when the servers crash. The sole reason for having severs that can render savegames unloadable in the first place was copy protection for the DLC (not copy protection for the basic campaign), and a fundamental rule all game developers should follow is: Don't let anti-piracy measures get in the way of playing or enjoying the game. Any anti-piracy measure that can fail in this manner should not be included in the first place.
Also, frankly, they'd have never included DLC savegame lockout as a feature if EA hadn't made it company policy to focus on DLC as their financial holy grail. If they wanted to, they could easily make single player DLC work on a machine that isn't connected to the internet. Do they really need additional copy protection for additional content? Are there really paying customers out there who'll buy the game for $40 and pirate the DLC to save less than $5?
Re:DRM should come with an SLA (Score:5, Interesting)
I would add a mandatory third clause:
3) DRM cannot be used unless a method is made available to remove it through a certified third party in case DRM fails, whatever the reason. (Failure to meet SLA, software company ceases to exist, etc)
Re:"There is no right to play" (Score:4, Interesting)
So what your basically saying, is that for your money you get "a piece of shiny plastic and the possibility that at random points for a limited time the supplier of that shiny piece of plastic may allow you to play a game"...
If people knew what they were really getting for their money, they probably wouldn't pay. The problem is that these companies spend a lot of money on advertising and try to hide the true nature of what your paying for.
Re:Once again... (Score:3, Interesting)
A better analogy would be to compare DRM to older turnstiles as found in subway stations to stop people without a ticket from riding. At a certain (past) point in time, turnstiles were typically simple devices that only let people out, and not in - because they would only turn one way - unless you swiped your card.
Legitimate customers were expected to pull their subway card out of the wallet and swipe it into a card slot to make the turnstile unlock so they could get through. Free-riders would just turn the turnstile cross back far enough so that they can slip past it easily. It got to the point that whenever I rode the subway I would just pull the turnstile back and slip past it to get past it, because it was easier and quicker than fishing the card up and swiping it. (I have never cheated the company running the subway once in my life. I realize that whenever I get on it, I'm consuming a limited resource, the power required to move the train increases as its payload increases - not to mention the fact that more trains are needed to handle increased traffic - unlike copying software.)
After that, they added infrared sensors that would lock the turnstile going both forwards and backwards if nobody was detected to be standing in the right place. Free-riders defeated this quite easily using readily available free newspapers (found on every subway station) to trip the sensor on the other side and proceeded as usual). At this point I started swiping my card again - because swiping the card was more convenient than tricking the sensor. But I was still inconvenienced for a security measure that was trivial to circumvent.
After that, they switched to an electrically operated sliding-door system. The newspaper trick worked for those too for a time, as did simply jumping the barrier, until they raised the height of the doors to make it impractical to easily jump, and made the sensors wiser. Even so, you can still just tailgate behind people quite easilly.
While these security gates still required swipe cards, I would tailgate whenever the opportunity presented itself. I got "caught" a few times, but since I had a valid ticket, nothing happened, and I saved more time and effort than I lost.
These days, the system has been switched to a contact-less card system, and it's sufficient just to take out your wallet and lay it against the sensor to get the doors to open - and I'm older, so I don't bother with stupid tricks any more. The legitimate method of access is easier than circumventing the security. But even so, defeating the security remains very easy for those who want a free ride.
The situation I described is the situation in Stockholm. Now let's compare and contrast to the system that was operational while I lived in Brussels (I don't know if it still works like that, though). In Brussels there are no turnstiles or security gates. If you cross the red "ticket line" you're expected to have a valid ticket. Instead, ticket checks were more frequent (but not frequent enough to be inconvenient) and fines for cheating were a lot steeper - and increased for repeat offenders. This is a far more effective system to ensure payment for services rendered, and does not inconvenience legitimate users, nor does it line the pockets of companies selling ineffective security equipment.
The way I'd prefer for public transport to work is the same as the way I prefer software to work - free. Public transport, like Free Software has societal advantages - either where it is reducing your carbon footprint, ensuring easy mobility of labor where this is necessary or by ensuring that software is freely customizable by those who need such customization. I'm not opposed to taxes to finance this, in Stockholm, public transport is already 50% subsidized as it is. People that still need to use cars for whatever reasons have the advantage of emptier roads, because it's hard to compete with free. At the same time, software companies who work with open source software have to provide a service more valuable than tha