EA Loosens Spore, Mass Effect DRM 249
An anonymous reader writes "In response to recent criticism, EA has decided to eliminate the periodic validation of Mass Effect and Spore. 'Specifically, EA's plan to dial in to game owner's computers every ten days to check whether they were running a legitimate version of their software has been scrapped, ShackNews reports. EA had planned to use the validation method for upcoming titles Mass Effect and Spore. EA now says that validation will now only occur when a user attempts to download new content for either game. Chief among the voices in opposition to this measure were members of the armed forces, who pointed out that they could not rely on having an internet connection every ten days.'"
The Horror (Score:5, Insightful)
1939/45... Troops freeze through the Battle of the Bulge, across Russia.
2008... Access to certain videogames sometimes limited in certain situations for a few days until net access can be resecured.
I know "Won't anybody think of the troops!" is second only to "Won't anybody think of the children!" and can thus never be questioned unless you're a terrorist as well as a paedophile.. but there comes a point where the rallying cry is used for such ludicrously trivial things that it just devalues everyone involved.
Re:The Horror (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument could be used to justify almost any bad treatment.
"Sarge, this stew tastes like horse meat!"
"Shut up and eat your stew, Private. Just be glad you don't have trench foot!"
Or, what the hell, I guess I shouldn't ever complain about anything, because some of my ancestors had to live through famines.
Um, there's a problem with this. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've said it before, I'll say it again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Phew! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Phew! (Score:5, Insightful)
How about? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhhhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus it would be dumb for EA to shut out a large market. Especially since both of these games have strong single player components, and thus are of interest when you aren't going to have net access.
It isn't being used as a rallying cry, it is that the soldiers were honestly concerned they wouldn't be able to get their game on.
Re:Phew! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um, there's a problem with this. (Score:5, Insightful)
More to worry about than that (Score:5, Insightful)
A wise decision would be to forgo the DRM altogether, and apply the savings to reducing the retail price of the games. I guarantee that will have a far greater effect on sales than any DRM scheme ever would.
Re:Phew! (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose it sucks if you don't have internet access (but then how are you posting to Slashdot?) to begin with, but considering they dropped the overly silly requirement of having the CD/DVD in the drive while playing the game, they've more than made concessions. I'll also mention that this allows you to easily install and enjoy the game on multiple systems since you don't have to haul the stupid CD/DVD around.
Either I've completely misunderstood you or I can't even comprehend what you're objections to the new scheme that they've developed are.
Re:Sudden outbreak... No not Really (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sudden outbreak... (Score:5, Insightful)
- "Listen" to backlash from fans
- Announce less heavy-handed DRM
- Pat yourself on the back when the fans lavish praise on you, knowing you still got your foot in the door anyway
Sudden outbreak of common sense, my foot!
It's still bad, even if it's a little better (Score:5, Insightful)
The DRM still only allows three total installs for the lifetime of the game (although you can call EA tech support and ask for more, no guarantee though). I have many games that have existed on more than three of my personal computers. Just glancing at my shelf I see 1830, Star Fleet Command, Transport Tycoon, Starcraft, Rome Total War and the list goes on. I don't want to have to beg tech support every time I upgrade my game machine, many of these companies don't even exist anymore.
The fact of the matter is that DRM that limits the total number of times you can install the game is unacceptable. They may have fixed other problems with the DRM, but this issue remains.
This is blowing my mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, you know, that's probably exactly how the execs over at EA think.
Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I think you have it a bit backwards. This might be how The Industry thinks, but the lessening of DRM suggests that they've actually realised it's not quite so simple as that.
You state it yourself: Assuming that you both want to play this game and don't want to deal with the DRM, would you pirate it?
The answer to that is clearly "yes", which means "I would have bought if it weren't for the DRM". Publishers are realising that not only do most copy protection schemes not hugely inconvenience pirates, but it actively inconveniences your paying customers.
If you buy it regardless of the DRM, what incentive does that give the publishers to stop using it?
I think it's more accurate to say that this is the ONLY thing* you can do to help, but it only helps if you make sure they know that they are losing sales specifically because of the DRM measures. Mentioning it on forums is a good and semi-anonymous way to get the point across. If they're reading "yeah I love the game, the copy protection is annoying but it's worth the hassle" then they'll get the message that ... their paying customers think it's worth the hassle, and they'll keep using it so long as they think it helps reduce piracy*. If they're constantly reading "I would've bought it, but the protection was too invasive" then their attitude toward it will change.
What it comes down to is that they make a list of pros and cons for and against their protection schemes. In the pros list, they have "might reduce piracy, for a little while". In the cons list they have "increases development and support costs, inconveniences users".
So, make sure they add "reduces sales" to the cons list, and it starts looking like a very poor return on investment.
* - since nobody knows how many people have pirated a game, not buying it is effectively the same as pirating it. The fact that any piracy figures are (by necessity) made up means that it gets the blame any time sales are lower than hoped.
Re:It's still bad, even if it's a little better (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sudden outbreak... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now if one of the machines crashes, I am thinking about my Gaming (win XP) Desktop here, it has become unstable and needs a reload soon
Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. (Score:1, Insightful)
The presence of a zero-day or first-week torrent release and crack has been shown to have a notable impact on first week sales of a title. When the cracked torrent release hits within the first couple weeks after a launch, sales have a detectable sudden drop.
Unfortunately I can't link to or cite these sources as they aren't exactly posted on the web to read, but if you think about it, it's fairly logical.
Re:How about? (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to start thinking like a Suit guy.
Most of them seems to think they have a God given right to sell as many games as their marketing department projected, if they don't meet the projections then it s clearly due to Piracy and weak DRM.
If we don't make sure to tell them why we are boycoting them then we will eventually end up with something like this [penny-arcade.com].
Re:How about? (Score:3, Insightful)
Whereas I agree that boycotting a certain product can be a very good tactic, I also think that if it's possible (with minimal effort) to let the producer know beforehand that you have problems with some aspects of their product, it can accomplish the same thing where you still get to play their product, and them realising that this time, they took it a bit too far.
I'd pretty much call that a win-win situation.
I was btw in the camp of boycotting Spore if this DRM would have shipped with it; But I'm also forgiving enough in this instance that I see they realised that it would have been costing them a lot of customers, and I'll happily buy their game now.
Re:Sudden outbreak... No not Really (Score:3, Insightful)
I also know a lot of people from other service branches, from various backgrounds with varying perspectives on the war. Of course most of those soliders would "rather be home with their families" as opposed to dealing with a hostile combat environment every day. That said, those same soldiers are proud to be serving their nation (the "government" you speak of in your post), and have a job where they voluntarily agreed to accept and execute whatever orders are deemed necessary by those in command. That includes the Commander in Chief.
Just some perspective from a Sailor.
Off Topic: military in Iraq (Score:4, Insightful)
"Obeying orders" is never a valid excuse for doing something unethical or illegal. It doesn't relieve the wrongdoer of responsibility.
I'm not the OP and FWIW: I'm a mathematician and I worked in my last two years for a company that produces prostheses. My work for the next couple of years will be used to predict eruptions and reduce their threat. Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the message.Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's still bad, even if it's a little better (Score:5, Insightful)
This has bitten consumers in the ass when it comes to music, don't let it get a foothold in gaming.
Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever thought of... just NOT playing the game. As in, at all? I understand I'll probably be modded troll because I'm talking crazy talk, but seriously. If there is something that you don't like, you could always:
* Complain to the company. (Obviously, in this case it worked! Shock!)
* Boycott it. Don't buy it. Don't play it. Don't buy their other games, even used. Even if corporate won't listen to you, they will listen to retailers. Find other creative ways to protest. Here's a site [starhawk.org] with 198 ways to have a non-violent protest. (Although I'm not sure in this case #22, "Protest disrobings" - aka, mooning the company - would work
* If you own stock in that company, dump it.
* Mail peanuts to the company [usatoday.com] (or in this case, lots of mushrooms -- get it, spores?
Oblig. Office Space ref:
PETER: Ah, no. No. You don't understand. It's, uh, very complicated. It's, uh, it's, it's aggregate so I'm talking about fractions of a cent that, uh, over time, they add up to a lot.
JOANNA: Ok. So you're gonna make a lot of money, right?
PETER:Yeah.
JOANNA:Ok. That's not yours?
PETER:Well, it, it becomes ours.
JOANNA:How's that not stealing?
PETER:I don't think, I don't think I'm explaining this very well.
Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Off Topic: military in Iraq (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a gender-neutral pronoun. How can you be unaware of such things in this day and age? You might think anyone who uses them is a wanker (I do) but you should at least be aware that they exist. I mean, what year is this? How long have you been living under a rock? How long have you had internet access?
The military is made up of its members, the military is executing illegal actions, every member of the military has a responsibility not to support illegal actions, therefore every member of the military is involved in illegal actions.
The very structure of the military is such that you are not supposed to know (unless you need to know) what you are doing, which makes it that much more difficult. But that does not detract from my point, only from the soldier's ability to exercise judgment.
Actually, it's the price you pay for having human beings in charge. Orders come from above.
Since we actively brainwash inductees to make them more likely to follow orders, it's hard to blame this on human nature.
Re:Phew! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you misunderstood him.
He said "protection like this makes me MUCH less likely to buy a game", I believe "protection like" referred to the DRM malware itself. I believe his position is that the "new and improved" malware is absolutely no different than the the original malware that the company just got publicly spanked for.
The one and only change announced here is nothing more than an announcement that it won't phone home as much. That's it. It's still exactly the identical malware, the code is still just as hostile, it merely hides that hostility slightly better merely by trimming back the most obvious attacks on running on a ten-day-timer.
Among many other issues, if the company closes up shop or if their server gets hit by lightning or anything else, this malware still attacks your system. It is still actively hostile and it still actively prevents you from using the software you bought and it still wages an active war against any attempt to get your computer and your software working properly.
Yes, their motivation for it is an attempt to reduce piracy. However that does not change the fact that it is hostile code, does not change the fact that it is maleware.
I suppose it sucks if you don't have internet access (but then how are you posting to Slashdot?)
Just because I'm posting to Slashdot from this computer, and doing so today, does not mean that the computer I install it on to play is connected to the internet, or even that I will have any handy access to the internet at all at that time. Which is aside from the point that by computer shouldn't be "phone home" to them at all unless I ask it to, and that it is entirely illegitimate for the software to interfere with my usage of my computer and usage of the game I bought if their DRM server goes down or even I merely *don't* have my computer call them over the internet.
the overly silly requirement of having the CD/DVD in the drive while playing the game,
Right, MALWARE.
It's malware, in contrast to legitimate valuable software such as a CD emulator utilities. Such utilities are valuable for playing old games that assume data is on the CD for the mere reason that hard drives weren't big enough to fully install the game back then... and which as also legitimate and valuable for working around stupid DRM CD-check type malware.
And hypothetically, a equivalent legitimate valuable utility to enable me to install and run the game I bought even when I have no internet access, or to install and run the game I bought even if the company goes out of business or their DRM servers otherwise go offline, or even to do so when I do have access and merely decline to notify the company over the internet.
So while removing the ten-day timer is a "good thing", I'm still just as pissed off today as I was yesterday.
If one day story comes out that a company plans to actively add lead and mercury to the milk you buy, and the next day a story comes out that that the company has decided to stick with the lead but not add the mercury, is that supposed to be good news? Are we supposed to be happy about that? Are we supposed to say 'ok, I'm not pissed at them anymore"? Are be supposed to be GRATEFUL that they decided not to add the mercury?
No.
Either I am not skip the milk entirely...
or I will get the milk from some Good Samaritan who volunteers to do some work to filter the lead out. And if that Good Samaritan also happens to offer me that clean milk for free, well gee, that's a seriously tough call there...... I can pay for poisoned milk, or I can get nice clean milk for free.... oooooo that's a real toughie.
-
Unfounded MS bashing (Score:2, Insightful)
Complaining about Windows's stability is like complaining that Linux is hard to install and has poor hardware support. Get with the times.
Re:Sudden outbreak... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have tons of games that came from companies that are no longer around, or companies that have completely changed since those games came out. I've reinstalled my OS or upgraded my computer countless times since those games came out. They still work fine for me, and I don't have to jump through hoops every time I need to reinstall the software I paid money for.
I seriously doubt EA/Bioware will be quick to release a patch to fix this once the game is out. So, even though I fully intend to buy the game, I'm stuck with cheering for the pirates.
Just an illusion (Score:4, Insightful)
By accepting this DRM, you agree to have you ability to play a single player offline game controlled by an online server. There is no such thing as a one time only activation, as each time the system detect your computer has changed (which can be triggered by simply using a different windows account with crappy DRM), it will ask for activation again, eating your previous activation credit.
Nothing guarantee the auth server will be there when you want to play. Even if it is there, nothing guarantee it will give you the right to play because of some "normal usage" rules implemented on it (and which can change over time). And don't expect too much competence and generosity from a consumer service, especially a few months after launch.
The software, music and video industries are full of horror histories about activation servers going down or being simply dumb and rigid.
Re:It's still bad, even if it's a little better (Score:1, Insightful)
I paid for it, it's mine. Nowhere in copyright law does it say what I do after the sale is any of your fucking business.
Here's where the 10 day thing comes from (Score:5, Insightful)
BioShock released with an earlier version of this system; SecuROM with Product Activation. After outcry from people then, publisher 2K Games promised a "deactivation" tool (which isn't enough for me to rent their game, but I guess it was enough for some). The problem with this tool goes a little something like this:
Step 1: Install BioShock
Step 2: Activate BioShock. SecuROM server now thinks you have "n-1" activations left. Your game is activated, and BioShock will never phone home again.
Step 3: Ghost/clone your hard drive image.
Step 4: Deactivate BioShock. SecuROM server goes back up to "n" activations left. Your game is deactivated.
Step 5: Restore your harddrive from the image you created in step 3. Now your game is activated again, but the server doesn't know that, and still thinks you have "n" activations left.
This is obviously a bit of an onerous process to go through, but it isn't hard to imagine someone automating this process (or even just automating the important part; finding where the activation is stored on your drive, backing it up, and then restoring it after the deactivation process is finished updating the server).
I strongly suspect the "phone home every 10 days" was an attempt to "fix" this. If 30 different machines are all phoning home every few days with the same key, then you know people are using this (or a similar technique) to pirate the game, so you can ban the key and kill all those installs. Without the phone home part, this activation scheme is essentially worthless.
The CORRECT fix, of course, is to get rid of product activation, because it's stupid, invasive, and is pushing your formerly paying customers into circumventing your copy protection.