I brought the point up, as it's why EA established that they wanted DRM with Spore in the first place
And look how much that helped.
And you DO have the ability to install and uninstall the title as much as you want, it's simply a phonecall away after your five installs.
Oh yes, I really want to put through hoops with something that I shouldn't have to do. How kind and generous of them indeed.
Or, I could pull my middle finger to them and tell them where they can stick the phone, then buy games from Stardock and mock EA copiously, like now, when they get pirated to hell anyway. Actually, that's the ultimate win/win for me too!
I like how the SecuROM removal tool tells me it can't remove SecuROM.
The DRM data could not be vacated because the application or other applications require it for proper operation.
I don't even have any programs installed that use it. I'm think I got it with either the BioShock demo or the Spore Creature Creator demo, both of which have been removed from my hard drive. I haven't had any problems with it so far, but just having it sit there bothers me.
Maybe it tricks other programs on the compy into thinking it is needed.
I brought the point up, as it's why EA established that they wanted DRM with Spore in the first place
And look how much that helped.
And you DO have the ability to install and uninstall the title as much as you want, it's simply a phonecall away after your five installs.
Oh yes, I really want to put through hoops with something that I shouldn't have to do. How kind and generous of them indeed.
Or, I could pull my middle finger to them and tell them where they can stick the phone, then buy games from Stardock and mock them copiously, like now, when they get pirated to hell anyway. Actually, that's the ultimate win/win for me too!
Actually, with the way it is now, it's 5 separate computers that you can install on. If you uninstall on that computer, it returns an installation token and you get that install back.
I brought the point up, as it's why EA established that they wanted DRM with Spore in the first place
And look how much that helped.
And you DO have the ability to install and uninstall the title as much as you want, it's simply a phonecall away after your five installs.
Oh yes, I really want to put through hoops with something that I shouldn't have to do. How kind and generous of them indeed.
Or, I could pull my middle finger to them and tell them where they can stick the phone, then buy games from Stardock and mock them copiously, like now, when they get pirated to hell anyway. Actually, that's the ultimate win/win for me too!
Well, thinking that DRM will eliminate piracy entirely is absurd. Theft has happened well before the internet, as I remember people making copies of Quake 2 discs from the local supermarket and selling them from a car in the parking lot.
Spore's also sold more than a million copies. The game has done phenomenally well, considering that it has some sort of anti-moral, against God DRM that half the internet is furious about.
I just get extremely frustrated when people 'take a stand' and pirate the title simply to 'stick it' to EA, or wish that any company is taken down for something so ludicrous.
Yeah, that's the message we want to send, gamers. Will fucking Wright, one of the true visionaries of our industry, makes a game that encompasses more than the sum of it's parts, and differs from the same goddamn genre that's over-saturated in the PC market. Let's steal it!
Actually, with the way it is now, it's 5 separate computers that you can install on. If you uninstall on that computer, it returns an installation token and you get that install back.
The shit I still can't grasp about the insistence of major publishers to force in this kind of "harmful" DRM is that it violates the logic of basic economics.
If you've ever taken Econ 101 you've probably heard about "inferior goods". Basic economic theory dictates that people will buy high quality products as long as they can afford them, but when they have limited purchasing power they will tend to buy more "inferior goods".
For example, somebody at the grocery store who's not worried about how much a box of cereal costs is going to grab some Frosted Mini-Wheats without a second thought, while somebody who's scraping the bottom of their bank account might buy the cheapo "Frosted Mini Spooners" instead. They'd rather have the real thing, but they'll settle for the inferior good because it costs them less.
But when you load your software release with shitty DRM like this, your official product becomes the inferior good. The version of Spore that you buy at the store for $50 is inferior to the DRM-free pirated version. The same thing applies to movies: you buy a DVD for $20 and it's front-loaded with unskippable "YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR" anti-piracy trailers, or you pirate it and it's trailer-free.
I don't claim to know exactly how this all plays out statistically, but I just don't see how it makes any sense at all to load down your product with something that makes it shitty--you're giving people who might have considered stealing your product even more reason to do so, and not having much effect on the ease with which people pirate your product at all. (at least it seems that way, doesn't it?)
Captain K on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I brought the point up, as it's why EA established that they wanted DRM with Spore in the first place
And look how much that helped.
And you DO have the ability to install and uninstall the title as much as you want, it's simply a phonecall away after your five installs.
Oh yes, I really want to put through hoops with something that I shouldn't have to do. How kind and generous of them indeed.
Or, I could pull my middle finger to them and tell them where they can stick the phone, then buy games from Stardock and mock them copiously, like now, when they get pirated to hell anyway. Actually, that's the ultimate win/win for me too!
Actually, with the way it is now, it's 5 separate computers that you can install on. If you uninstall on that computer, it returns an installation token and you get that install back.
How wonderfully generous of them I'm so sure. I'll believe it the day I ever attempt to have to do it, which is never because I don't support them or buy their DRM infected products. Instead, I'll buy, I dunno, Sins of a Galactic Empire. I can install it where I want, when I want, as many times as I want and hey, I can still do so in 10 years time where I want, when I want and as many times as I want.
I know who gets MY money and doesn't have to be the subject of an hilarious lawsuit because they are caught installing malware without peoples explicit knowledge.
I just get extremely frustrated when people 'take a stand' and pirate the title simply to 'stick it' to EA, or wish that any company is taken down for something so ludicrous.
Abloo abloo abloo.
Wait, no, I don't care. I'll take a stand against whatever I like for enforcing blatantly anti-consumer practices. Thanks for playing.
Yeah, that's the message we want to send, gamers. Will fucking Wright, one of the true visionaries of our industry, makes a game that encompasses more than the sum of it's parts, and differs from the same goddamn genre that's over-saturated in the PC market. Let's steal it!
Who said anything about stealing it? Would you like a picture of all my PC games, console games and everything else I've legitimately bought? I don't advocate piracy period, if I don't want Secrurom malware installed on my computer, I don't buy the game but I don't pirate the game either. If I'm so desperate to play a game or curious, I have friends and I can certainly play it on their computer if they have it. I don't have to do anything illegal period and neither will I.
Once again, are you confused who you are arguing with? Perhaps you should go find them where such witty statements will actually be making some relevant point.
Yes. Everything I know about business leads me to agree entirely with you.
Sadly, that effect doesn't just drag down specific publishers. If someone is sick of PC games being filled with bad DRM in general, they will probably either stop buying PC games, or just pirate them.
If this is the case, even publishers that do a good job of DRM (or have none at all) will suffer.
Captain K, you make a great point, and it's true that it becomes a hassle if it gets in the way of the user experience.
I, however, have had NO negative qualms with Spore (or for that matter, SecuROM, that came with Crysis Warhead), so no spilled milk.
What gets me, though, is the rampant conspiracy theories of 'Oh, they sold 1 million copies WITH DRM, imagine how many they'd sell WITHOUT! IT'D BE A HUGE GAIN!'.
Really? Really?
I guess I just dont see how it could play in that direction.
I don't know if the number of copies sold if they hadn't had DRM would be significantly larger or not - a release like Spore isn't really comparable to most PC releases anyway.
But if people are pirating the game even with DRM in place, it stands to reason that the money they are spending to license and/or develop DRM would be better applied to making more games, or making their games better.
DarkPrimus on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
I prefer to say it didn't make a bit of difference except antagonize legitimate customers. If it cost them sales who knows, because pirates will pirate the damn game anyway and DRM has, historically been associated with poor sales or boycotts (starforce for example) not increased sales. So I'm inclined to believe that DRM does not increase sales, because pirates pirate the game anyway. When you're getting it for free do you really care if you have to wait an extra day (not that it matters in this case because Spore was broken very fast)?
It's really down to:
Why put something with no real, actual, observed benefit against customer dissatisfaction.
I guess I just dont see how it could play in that direction.
OK, but do you think it would make them sell less?
Even if they sold the exact same amount, they would have a more valuable brand, and would not have to have paid whichever company makes Securom to license their crippleware.
I know anybody can raise their hand and go "but, where is the data to back up your claims, sir?!" but it just seems like common sense dictates that putting in this kind of DRM is a completely boneheaded move. It's probably going to get cracked within days after the release, if not before. The people who want to pirate the game will still be able to. You might turn off potentially legitimate customers from buying the game, or even encourage them to piratre the game. You run the risk of negative press or even lawsuits.
Like I said, I've got no data here, but am I really making any unrealistic assumptions here? It seems like the only real argument you can make in favor of adding in this kind of DRM is "well, we have to do something, don't we?"
Why put something with no real, actual, observed benefit against customer dissatisfaction.
Well, I now have two games installed with SecuROM, and am running more anti-virus than should be allowed, and absolutely nothing has come up negative for me. Nada.
The customers I sell Spore to on a daily basis? I warn them about the DRM, and you know the reaction? They shrug, and say something to the amount of 'If it's as good as the reviews/news/tv made it look, I'll buy more copies anyway'.
Sure, Spore is much different than other PC titles in that regard, but in all honesty, the only hoopla I've seen is from internet enthusiast sites, which have users who are more likely to know HOW to pirate the games in the first place, and get caught by DRM measures like SecuROM or somesuch.
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
I'd like to point out that nobody has ever proven that DRM actually positively increases sales or reduces piracy. Nobody. But I think it's immensely obvious that DRM does increase customer dissatisfaction and in fact, I would argue that this is indisputable (See Bioshock, Mass Effect, Spore etc). So really, if you advocate DRM you are basically making the hilarious argument that you feel a useless system, that has never been proven to actually do what it purports to do (reduce piracy) is more valuable than legitimate customer satisfaction.
Well, I now have two games installed with SecuROM, and am running more anti-virus than should be allowed, and absolutely nothing has come up negative for me. Nada.
I had the opposite experience and so did many others. The point is that DRM causes customer dissatisfaction: do you dispute this?
Because you know, if you want evidence that proves me right you might want to look at historical examples like Bioshocks release fiasco, Mass Effects "Calling home" system (that was later abandoned) and this very threads OP.
which have users who are more likely to know HOW to pirate the games
Once again you continue with this implication about me and my arguments. Once again, I must tell you that you are just desperately reaching here. Are you shilling for securom? Do you get paid by them to spout nonsense while not reading your opponents arguments?
I don't advocate piracy *period*. I advocate doing what consumers should do, not doing something illegal and doing the very legal thing of buying awesome games, from awesome companies like Stardock that do not treat you like a thief or use invasive anti-consumer DRM. Argue against this, your next implication I am a pirate earns you my ignore list.
I guess I just dont see how it could play in that direction.
OK, but do you think it would make them sell less?
Even if they sold the exact same amount, they would have a more valuable brand, and would not have to have paid whichever company makes Securom to license their crippleware.
Edit: and what these two guys said^
The DRM was there to prevent the 'Dude, dont go buy the game, I'll just burn it to DVD' piracy, not the downloading and digital piracy. In that regard, it's effective.
The casual customer simply does not care, period. At all. I talk with them everyday about it, and I've never heard a negative comment from anyone that has 1) bought it from my store 2) come back to tell me their Spore stories, and give me their Username to add to their friend list.
All of these situations are completely rhetorical, and lead to crazy strawmen arguements, I'm just completely astounded by how insane people are getting over it. Seriously, lawsuits?
I agree with the assertion that lack of DRM does not mean less people buy it than if DRM is in place. People who pirate will pirate, and if they say they are pirating it only because they don't want to pay for it with DRM, that's just an excuse for actions they would have taken regardless.
If I don't think a game is worth paying for, then I either wait for it to drop in price, or I just never end up playing it. If a game isn't worth spending any amount of money on it to you, then perhaps it isn't worth playing in the first place.
Although this is getting somewhat off-topic, I want to voice this opinion: The sort of people who pirate games tend to pirate a LOT of them, but they never end up actually finishing any of them, because the second they get bored or distracted it's off to the next game they've pirated. They never end up really appreciating anything they play, and this is probably why the people who pirate games always end up saying "That game was a piece of crap anyway".
I'm not saying negative experiences don't happen, but I personally have NOT run into any. I'm absolutely not saying they dont exist, and never will, as that's ludicrous as well.
I actually think the strides of DRM, or anti-piracy measures are in their infant states, and they'll evolve. Are there better ways than SecuROM to digitally protect media from piracy? Most likely. Don't misunderstand my points I'm trying to make, I'm not shilling ANY company, I just get behind the idea of trying to prevent piracy in an industry where it's rampant.
On a somewhat related note, I'm curious as to the whole future of 'Putting Console games on my console harddrive', and what sort of protection plans companies come up with for that. That's a bridge for another day, though, I'm just concerned that if the PC industry is getting such a backlash, the console industry will implode if it's ever added.
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
I just get behind the idea of trying to prevent piracy in an industry where it's rampant.
And it starts by not treating your legitimate customers like shit and encouraging them to go and learn what this whole "piracy" thing is all about.
You know, I come from a country where I pay $100+ dollars for games. I do so, because it's the right thing to do. I will not, absolutely will never agree to, pay $100 dollars for a game and "jump through our stupid fucking DRM hoops". Doing the right thing is only the right then when the other party is playing fair. Installing malicious programs on my computer is not playing fair and never will be. I don't accept the more current forms of securom that behave in these manners and I never will.
I cannot make it more clear that they will destroy themselves by treating their customers like thieves, instead of adapting to a changing marketplace. There are already models like Stardock and yes, even Steam, that are infinitely superior. Steam allows me to install any of the games I own when I want, as many times as I want and where I want. Once done, I can put steam into offline mode and it will never bother me again unless I allow it to go back online - but it ultimately ends up being transparent on my end. I can also back up games on steam to a physical copy as well if I require, so Steam gives me sufficient control over what I buy to placate me perfectly.
DRM that installs malicious software without my approval and which can make itself very hard to remove (depending on hardware configuration, that is if you're even aware the DRM won't leave with the game being uninstalled) is unacceptable: period.
I absolutely agree that Steam is a superior model, as literally 80% of my PC gaming purchases are through the client.
However, Steam IS a form of DRM. Yes, you can turn it to Offline Mode, but nonetheless, the system they have set is to check your client, to make sure it's legit, and that's something I can completely get behind.
I think that since I haven't run into any SecuROM problems, I'm a bit out of that loop, but it really does seem that people were being completely absurd over the fact that Spore had DRM period, not necessarily the specifics of the way it handled it. My arguement isn't about shilling SecuROM, my argument is about shilling the theory of DRM, as it is a protocol that is absolutely needed. If SecuROM ends up fucking me over, dont worry, I'll grab the picket sign and join you all in line, but I've yet to see the negative effects of it on my machine, and I hope it stays that way.
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
However, Steam IS a form of DRM.
But steam is not, in any way, installed without your knowledge or permission. When you uninstall steam, it is uninstalled.
Securom can be installed without prior agreement or knowledge (bioshocks demo is an infamous example).
It doesn't leave your system when the game is uninstalled.
Limiting installs is the icing on the cake.
These three, key and critical points are why I completely and utterly despise the DRM method that EA has chosen to use. When you give them an inch they can take a mile. When you let them install programs without your knowledge and permission, where can they stop? More importantly, when such hidden programs aren't removed with the game (as you would expect) there is a MASSIVE problem.
I absolutely agree that Steam is a superior model, as literally 80% of my PC gaming purchases are through the client.
However, Steam IS a form of DRM. Yes, you can turn it to Offline Mode, but nonetheless, the system they have set is to check your client, to make sure it's legit, and that's something I can completely get behind.
You're right, Steam is DRM. In what way is the install limit of SecuROM a MORE EFFECTIVE form of DRM than Steam? It's placing increased limitations on the legitimate purchaser right? So what benefit does it offer above and beyond?
Part of the reason that people are getting up in arms about this crap isn't necessarily about the direct effects of SecuROM either. It's about the increasing restrictions placed on the consumer and... getting what out of it? And when SecuROM's additional restrictions has failed to curb piracy, the logical conclusion is always that our DRM wasn't restrictive enough.
It's standard practice to include the DRM with the demo. The theory goes that the crackers would use the demo .exe in order to breach the template on the actual product.
subedii on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I absolutely agree that Steam is a superior model, as literally 80% of my PC gaming purchases are through the client.
However, Steam IS a form of DRM. Yes, you can turn it to Offline Mode, but nonetheless, the system they have set is to check your client, to make sure it's legit, and that's something I can completely get behind.
You're right, Steam is DRM. In what way is the install limit of SecuROM a MORE EFFECTIVE form of DRM than Steam? It's placing increased limitations on the legitimate purchaser right? So what benefit does it offer above and beyond?
Part of the reason that people are getting up in arms about this crap isn't necessarily about the direct effects of SecuROM either. It's about the increasing restrictions placed on the consumer and... getting what out of it? And when SecuROM's additional restrictions has failed to curb piracy, the logical conclusion is always that our DRM wasn't restrictive enough.
This is very true, but I've ran into exactly 0 people that have installed the game on more than 5 PCs. It's not a limitation if I never hit it.
Like I said, my views are skewed on SecuROM, as I've never hit any negatives with it. I'm in the land of candy butterflies and unicorn popsicles perhaps, but I've yet to have a bad experience. My PC is clean as a whistle, if my Spybot and HiJack This are anything to go by.
I prefer the DRM of Steam to any of the above (Stardock, SecuROM, etc), but I haven't run into problems with ANY of them. I just can't realistically justify the argument that having no DRM is a smarter move than having it. Having no DRM is asking for disaster on new products.
I absolutely agree that Steam is a superior model, as literally 80% of my PC gaming purchases are through the client.
However, Steam IS a form of DRM. Yes, you can turn it to Offline Mode, but nonetheless, the system they have set is to check your client, to make sure it's legit, and that's something I can completely get behind.
You're right, Steam is DRM. In what way is the install limit of SecuROM a MORE EFFECTIVE form of DRM than Steam? It's placing increased limitations on the legitimate purchaser right? So what benefit does it offer above and beyond?
Part of the reason that people are getting up in arms about this crap isn't necessarily about the direct effects of SecuROM either. It's about the increasing restrictions placed on the consumer and... getting what out of it? And when SecuROM's additional restrictions has failed to curb piracy, the logical conclusion is always that our DRM wasn't restrictive enough.
This is very true, but I've ran into exactly 0 people that have installed the game on more than 5 PCs. It's not a limitation if I never hit it.
Like I said, my views are skewed on SecuROM, as I've never hit any negatives with it. I'm in the land of candy butterflies and unicorn popsicles perhaps, but I've yet to have a bad experience. My PC is clean as a whistle, if my Spybot and HiJack This are anything to go by.
I prefer the DRM of Steam to any of the above (Stardock, SecuROM, etc), but I haven't run into problems with ANY of them. I just can't realistically justify the argument that having no DRM is a smarter move than having it. Having no DRM is asking for disaster on new products.
Meanwhile, I prefer Stardock's "DRM" to Steam, so that' just an impasse we'll have to have.
I can appreciate the sentiment that you've not had any problems with DRM. What I would ask though, is if you agree that companies involved are happy to increase the restrictions on the home consumer without actually combating piracy? Because as far as I'm concerned, that's what's happening right now. And it's a trend that I do not want to see the logical conclusion of.
Meanwhile, I prefer Stardock's "DRM" to Steam, so that' just an impasse we'll have to have.
I can appreciate the sentiment that you've not had any problems with DRM. What I would ask though, is if you agree that companies involved are happy to increase the restrictions on the home consumer without actually combating piracy? Because as far as I'm concerned, that's what's happening right now. And it's a trend that I do not want to see the logical conclusion of.
Oh I absolutely agree with you all, the more restrictions you put on the customer, the more you're going to drive them away.
However, the entire DRM fiasco was created by the PC gaming scene in the first place. The PA forums are a bit of a different folk, as we respect the medium enough to purchase our products to support a company, however, the years of rampant piracy drove publishers to create this style of system.
I can't outright blame these companies for making a stand against piracy, even if it does cause a headache. Like I said, it's still in infant stages, but with Stardock and Steam leading the front, with GoG coming up quick, the future looks more bright for DRM.
EA's best bet is to team with Steam, although EA's too stubborn to let someone else put their hand in the cookie jar.
I've an ancedote, that I think is quite telling. My GF bought a kick ass mac recently. And being one of them there intel ones, it capable of running windows.
So this is the first windows machine I've had for the best part of 6 years. And I got really excitied about being able to play decent new PC games. But the more I thought about the DRM and the like the more I realised that installing these games would be like work.
This mac is for important stuff. I can't take any risks with it. And after a while I realised that the precortions I would need to take to protect my GFs machine means I just can not be bothered. The games aren't worth it. Because whether it is true or not, I now consider DRM a risk.
Blowing out DVD drives. SecruROM deciding that some programs (especially DVD authoring programs) are not legit and so stopping them working. Things I can't install. Sony root kits. Program after program running in the background stealing another 1% of the CPU.
And so someone who really wanted to get back into PC gaming. Just decided it was too much effort to jump in.
It's not that DRM is making me pirate. It's that DRM has just stopped me having any interest in PC games. At all. It's made me give up the platform.
EA's best bet is to team with Steam, although EA's too stubborn to let someone else put their hand in the cookie jar.
EA don't need to team with Steam, they've got enough more than enough money to make their own system, and have actually made their own service.
It's a service with a 6 month time limit on your purchases, two years if you pay extra. EA isn't being stubborn there. Their system wasn't made before they saw how successfully the Steam model was performing, they simply refuse to give the purchaser the same benefits and it's difficult for me to see it as anything other than a cynical attempt at extracting more cash from the paying customer.
Actually, with the way it is now, it's 5 separate computers that you can install on. If you uninstall on that computer, it returns an installation token and you get that install back.
See, this is what I dont get.
5 PCs? Seriously?
That's 4 more PCs than I was expecting!
Yeah but it is sort of a pain in the ass. I have the same issue with iTunes. If my HD dies, I didn't de-authorize and it isn't really something I immediately think of when preparing to re-do my machine. It is now, of course, that I've accidentally run through 3 of my 5 activations but since I have a laptop and a desktop (at least) that I would want to access my music and (if they could communicate easily) other programs this is a realistic problem for me.
Meanwhile, I prefer Stardock's "DRM" to Steam, so that' just an impasse we'll have to have.
I can appreciate the sentiment that you've not had any problems with DRM. What I would ask though, is if you agree that companies involved are happy to increase the restrictions on the home consumer without actually combating piracy? Because as far as I'm concerned, that's what's happening right now. And it's a trend that I do not want to see the logical conclusion of.
Oh I absolutely agree with you all, the more restrictions you put on the customer, the more you're going to drive them away.
However, the entire DRM fiasco was created by the PC gaming scene in the first place. The PA forums are a bit of a different folk, as we respect the medium enough to purchase our products to support a company, however, the years of rampant piracy drove publishers to create this style of system.
I can't outright blame these companies for making a stand against piracy, even if it does cause a headache. Like I said, it's still in infant stages, but with Stardock and Steam leading the front, with GoG coming up quick, the future looks more bright for DRM.
EA's best bet is to team with Steam, although EA's too stubborn to let someone else put their hand in the cookie jar.
EA is releasing Crysis and Warhead on Steam, so maybe that's a start on one of the best courses EA's taken in years.
Meanwhile, I prefer Stardock's "DRM" to Steam, so that' just an impasse we'll have to have.
I can appreciate the sentiment that you've not had any problems with DRM. What I would ask though, is if you agree that companies involved are happy to increase the restrictions on the home consumer without actually combating piracy? Because as far as I'm concerned, that's what's happening right now. And it's a trend that I do not want to see the logical conclusion of.
Oh I absolutely agree with you all, the more restrictions you put on the customer, the more you're going to drive them away.
However, the entire DRM fiasco was created by the PC gaming scene in the first place. The PA forums are a bit of a different folk, as we respect the medium enough to purchase our products to support a company, however, the years of rampant piracy drove publishers to create this style of system.
I can't outright blame these companies for making a stand against piracy, even if it does cause a headache. Like I said, it's still in infant stages, but with Stardock and Steam leading the front, with GoG coming up quick, the future looks more bright for DRM.
EA's best bet is to team with Steam, although EA's too stubborn to let someone else put their hand in the cookie jar.
EA is releasing Crysis and Warhead on Steam, so maybe that's a start on one of the best courses EA's taken in years.
Meanwhile, I prefer Stardock's "DRM" to Steam, so that' just an impasse we'll have to have.
I can appreciate the sentiment that you've not had any problems with DRM. What I would ask though, is if you agree that companies involved are happy to increase the restrictions on the home consumer without actually combating piracy? Because as far as I'm concerned, that's what's happening right now. And it's a trend that I do not want to see the logical conclusion of.
Oh I absolutely agree with you all, the more restrictions you put on the customer, the more you're going to drive them away.
However, the entire DRM fiasco was created by the PC gaming scene in the first place. The PA forums are a bit of a different folk, as we respect the medium enough to purchase our products to support a company, however, the years of rampant piracy drove publishers to create this style of system.
I can't outright blame these companies for making a stand against piracy, even if it does cause a headache. Like I said, it's still in infant stages, but with Stardock and Steam leading the front, with GoG coming up quick, the future looks more bright for DRM.
EA's best bet is to team with Steam, although EA's too stubborn to let someone else put their hand in the cookie jar.
EA is releasing Crysis and Warhead on Steam, so maybe that's a start on one of the best courses EA's taken in years.
EA don't have the exclusive rights to publishing. Whilst admittedly old EA would've probably insisted on being the only publisher, I don't really see Crytek publishing the games on Steam as a major reflection of EA's benevolence or anything. When they clean up their own DD service, then maybe I'll say they done good, but until then, not really.
By the way, for the record, SecurRom is never mentioned BY NAME in the EULA. I had to read through the whole goddamn thread and ignore one guy's post to make sure I didn't miss.
Posts
And look how much that helped.
Oh yes, I really want to put through hoops with something that I shouldn't have to do. How kind and generous of them indeed.
Or, I could pull my middle finger to them and tell them where they can stick the phone, then buy games from Stardock and mock EA copiously, like now, when they get pirated to hell anyway. Actually, that's the ultimate win/win for me too!
Maybe it tricks other programs on the compy into thinking it is needed.
Actually, with the way it is now, it's 5 separate computers that you can install on. If you uninstall on that computer, it returns an installation token and you get that install back.
Well, thinking that DRM will eliminate piracy entirely is absurd. Theft has happened well before the internet, as I remember people making copies of Quake 2 discs from the local supermarket and selling them from a car in the parking lot.
Spore's also sold more than a million copies. The game has done phenomenally well, considering that it has some sort of anti-moral, against God DRM that half the internet is furious about.
I just get extremely frustrated when people 'take a stand' and pirate the title simply to 'stick it' to EA, or wish that any company is taken down for something so ludicrous.
Yeah, that's the message we want to send, gamers. Will fucking Wright, one of the true visionaries of our industry, makes a game that encompasses more than the sum of it's parts, and differs from the same goddamn genre that's over-saturated in the PC market. Let's steal it!
/facepalm
See, this is what I dont get.
5 PCs? Seriously?
That's 4 more PCs than I was expecting!
If you've ever taken Econ 101 you've probably heard about "inferior goods". Basic economic theory dictates that people will buy high quality products as long as they can afford them, but when they have limited purchasing power they will tend to buy more "inferior goods".
For example, somebody at the grocery store who's not worried about how much a box of cereal costs is going to grab some Frosted Mini-Wheats without a second thought, while somebody who's scraping the bottom of their bank account might buy the cheapo "Frosted Mini Spooners" instead. They'd rather have the real thing, but they'll settle for the inferior good because it costs them less.
But when you load your software release with shitty DRM like this, your official product becomes the inferior good. The version of Spore that you buy at the store for $50 is inferior to the DRM-free pirated version. The same thing applies to movies: you buy a DVD for $20 and it's front-loaded with unskippable "YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR" anti-piracy trailers, or you pirate it and it's trailer-free.
I don't claim to know exactly how this all plays out statistically, but I just don't see how it makes any sense at all to load down your product with something that makes it shitty--you're giving people who might have considered stealing your product even more reason to do so, and not having much effect on the ease with which people pirate your product at all. (at least it seems that way, doesn't it?)
How wonderfully generous of them I'm so sure. I'll believe it the day I ever attempt to have to do it, which is never because I don't support them or buy their DRM infected products. Instead, I'll buy, I dunno, Sins of a Galactic Empire. I can install it where I want, when I want, as many times as I want and hey, I can still do so in 10 years time where I want, when I want and as many times as I want.
I know who gets MY money and doesn't have to be the subject of an hilarious lawsuit because they are caught installing malware without peoples explicit knowledge.
Abloo abloo abloo.
Wait, no, I don't care. I'll take a stand against whatever I like for enforcing blatantly anti-consumer practices. Thanks for playing.
Who said anything about stealing it? Would you like a picture of all my PC games, console games and everything else I've legitimately bought? I don't advocate piracy period, if I don't want Secrurom malware installed on my computer, I don't buy the game but I don't pirate the game either. If I'm so desperate to play a game or curious, I have friends and I can certainly play it on their computer if they have it. I don't have to do anything illegal period and neither will I.
Once again, are you confused who you are arguing with? Perhaps you should go find them where such witty statements will actually be making some relevant point.
Sadly, that effect doesn't just drag down specific publishers. If someone is sick of PC games being filled with bad DRM in general, they will probably either stop buying PC games, or just pirate them.
If this is the case, even publishers that do a good job of DRM (or have none at all) will suffer.
I, however, have had NO negative qualms with Spore (or for that matter, SecuROM, that came with Crysis Warhead), so no spilled milk.
What gets me, though, is the rampant conspiracy theories of 'Oh, they sold 1 million copies WITH DRM, imagine how many they'd sell WITHOUT! IT'D BE A HUGE GAIN!'.
Really? Really?
I guess I just dont see how it could play in that direction.
But if people are pirating the game even with DRM in place, it stands to reason that the money they are spending to license and/or develop DRM would be better applied to making more games, or making their games better.
It's really down to:
Why put something with no real, actual, observed benefit against customer dissatisfaction.
OK, but do you think it would make them sell less?
Even if they sold the exact same amount, they would have a more valuable brand, and would not have to have paid whichever company makes Securom to license their crippleware.
Edit: and what these two guys said^
Like I said, I've got no data here, but am I really making any unrealistic assumptions here? It seems like the only real argument you can make in favor of adding in this kind of DRM is "well, we have to do something, don't we?"
Do you? Do you really have to do something?
Well, I now have two games installed with SecuROM, and am running more anti-virus than should be allowed, and absolutely nothing has come up negative for me. Nada.
The customers I sell Spore to on a daily basis? I warn them about the DRM, and you know the reaction? They shrug, and say something to the amount of 'If it's as good as the reviews/news/tv made it look, I'll buy more copies anyway'.
Sure, Spore is much different than other PC titles in that regard, but in all honesty, the only hoopla I've seen is from internet enthusiast sites, which have users who are more likely to know HOW to pirate the games in the first place, and get caught by DRM measures like SecuROM or somesuch.
I had the opposite experience and so did many others. The point is that DRM causes customer dissatisfaction: do you dispute this?
Because you know, if you want evidence that proves me right you might want to look at historical examples like Bioshocks release fiasco, Mass Effects "Calling home" system (that was later abandoned) and this very threads OP.
Once again you continue with this implication about me and my arguments. Once again, I must tell you that you are just desperately reaching here. Are you shilling for securom? Do you get paid by them to spout nonsense while not reading your opponents arguments?
I don't advocate piracy *period*. I advocate doing what consumers should do, not doing something illegal and doing the very legal thing of buying awesome games, from awesome companies like Stardock that do not treat you like a thief or use invasive anti-consumer DRM. Argue against this, your next implication I am a pirate earns you my ignore list.
The DRM was there to prevent the 'Dude, dont go buy the game, I'll just burn it to DVD' piracy, not the downloading and digital piracy. In that regard, it's effective.
The casual customer simply does not care, period. At all. I talk with them everyday about it, and I've never heard a negative comment from anyone that has 1) bought it from my store 2) come back to tell me their Spore stories, and give me their Username to add to their friend list.
All of these situations are completely rhetorical, and lead to crazy strawmen arguements, I'm just completely astounded by how insane people are getting over it. Seriously, lawsuits?
If I don't think a game is worth paying for, then I either wait for it to drop in price, or I just never end up playing it. If a game isn't worth spending any amount of money on it to you, then perhaps it isn't worth playing in the first place.
Although this is getting somewhat off-topic, I want to voice this opinion: The sort of people who pirate games tend to pirate a LOT of them, but they never end up actually finishing any of them, because the second they get bored or distracted it's off to the next game they've pirated. They never end up really appreciating anything they play, and this is probably why the people who pirate games always end up saying "That game was a piece of crap anyway".
I actually think the strides of DRM, or anti-piracy measures are in their infant states, and they'll evolve. Are there better ways than SecuROM to digitally protect media from piracy? Most likely. Don't misunderstand my points I'm trying to make, I'm not shilling ANY company, I just get behind the idea of trying to prevent piracy in an industry where it's rampant.
On a somewhat related note, I'm curious as to the whole future of 'Putting Console games on my console harddrive', and what sort of protection plans companies come up with for that. That's a bridge for another day, though, I'm just concerned that if the PC industry is getting such a backlash, the console industry will implode if it's ever added.
And it starts by not treating your legitimate customers like shit and encouraging them to go and learn what this whole "piracy" thing is all about.
You know, I come from a country where I pay $100+ dollars for games. I do so, because it's the right thing to do. I will not, absolutely will never agree to, pay $100 dollars for a game and "jump through our stupid fucking DRM hoops". Doing the right thing is only the right then when the other party is playing fair. Installing malicious programs on my computer is not playing fair and never will be. I don't accept the more current forms of securom that behave in these manners and I never will.
I cannot make it more clear that they will destroy themselves by treating their customers like thieves, instead of adapting to a changing marketplace. There are already models like Stardock and yes, even Steam, that are infinitely superior. Steam allows me to install any of the games I own when I want, as many times as I want and where I want. Once done, I can put steam into offline mode and it will never bother me again unless I allow it to go back online - but it ultimately ends up being transparent on my end. I can also back up games on steam to a physical copy as well if I require, so Steam gives me sufficient control over what I buy to placate me perfectly.
DRM that installs malicious software without my approval and which can make itself very hard to remove (depending on hardware configuration, that is if you're even aware the DRM won't leave with the game being uninstalled) is unacceptable: period.
However, Steam IS a form of DRM. Yes, you can turn it to Offline Mode, but nonetheless, the system they have set is to check your client, to make sure it's legit, and that's something I can completely get behind.
I think that since I haven't run into any SecuROM problems, I'm a bit out of that loop, but it really does seem that people were being completely absurd over the fact that Spore had DRM period, not necessarily the specifics of the way it handled it. My arguement isn't about shilling SecuROM, my argument is about shilling the theory of DRM, as it is a protocol that is absolutely needed. If SecuROM ends up fucking me over, dont worry, I'll grab the picket sign and join you all in line, but I've yet to see the negative effects of it on my machine, and I hope it stays that way.
But steam is not, in any way, installed without your knowledge or permission. When you uninstall steam, it is uninstalled.
Securom can be installed without prior agreement or knowledge (bioshocks demo is an infamous example).
It doesn't leave your system when the game is uninstalled.
Limiting installs is the icing on the cake.
These three, key and critical points are why I completely and utterly despise the DRM method that EA has chosen to use. When you give them an inch they can take a mile. When you let them install programs without your knowledge and permission, where can they stop? More importantly, when such hidden programs aren't removed with the game (as you would expect) there is a MASSIVE problem.
Seriously?
You're right, Steam is DRM. In what way is the install limit of SecuROM a MORE EFFECTIVE form of DRM than Steam? It's placing increased limitations on the legitimate purchaser right? So what benefit does it offer above and beyond?
Part of the reason that people are getting up in arms about this crap isn't necessarily about the direct effects of SecuROM either. It's about the increasing restrictions placed on the consumer and... getting what out of it? And when SecuROM's additional restrictions has failed to curb piracy, the logical conclusion is always that our DRM wasn't restrictive enough.
It's standard practice to include the DRM with the demo. The theory goes that the crackers would use the demo .exe in order to breach the template on the actual product.
Yes. The hilarious part was the blatant lying and evasiveness that it didn't, which is what drove me against securom permanently.
This is very true, but I've ran into exactly 0 people that have installed the game on more than 5 PCs. It's not a limitation if I never hit it.
Like I said, my views are skewed on SecuROM, as I've never hit any negatives with it. I'm in the land of candy butterflies and unicorn popsicles perhaps, but I've yet to have a bad experience. My PC is clean as a whistle, if my Spybot and HiJack This are anything to go by.
I prefer the DRM of Steam to any of the above (Stardock, SecuROM, etc), but I haven't run into problems with ANY of them. I just can't realistically justify the argument that having no DRM is a smarter move than having it. Having no DRM is asking for disaster on new products.
Meanwhile, I prefer Stardock's "DRM" to Steam, so that' just an impasse we'll have to have.
I can appreciate the sentiment that you've not had any problems with DRM. What I would ask though, is if you agree that companies involved are happy to increase the restrictions on the home consumer without actually combating piracy? Because as far as I'm concerned, that's what's happening right now. And it's a trend that I do not want to see the logical conclusion of.
Oh I absolutely agree with you all, the more restrictions you put on the customer, the more you're going to drive them away.
However, the entire DRM fiasco was created by the PC gaming scene in the first place. The PA forums are a bit of a different folk, as we respect the medium enough to purchase our products to support a company, however, the years of rampant piracy drove publishers to create this style of system.
I can't outright blame these companies for making a stand against piracy, even if it does cause a headache. Like I said, it's still in infant stages, but with Stardock and Steam leading the front, with GoG coming up quick, the future looks more bright for DRM.
EA's best bet is to team with Steam, although EA's too stubborn to let someone else put their hand in the cookie jar.
I've an ancedote, that I think is quite telling. My GF bought a kick ass mac recently. And being one of them there intel ones, it capable of running windows.
So this is the first windows machine I've had for the best part of 6 years. And I got really excitied about being able to play decent new PC games. But the more I thought about the DRM and the like the more I realised that installing these games would be like work.
This mac is for important stuff. I can't take any risks with it. And after a while I realised that the precortions I would need to take to protect my GFs machine means I just can not be bothered. The games aren't worth it. Because whether it is true or not, I now consider DRM a risk.
Blowing out DVD drives. SecruROM deciding that some programs (especially DVD authoring programs) are not legit and so stopping them working. Things I can't install. Sony root kits. Program after program running in the background stealing another 1% of the CPU.
And so someone who really wanted to get back into PC gaming. Just decided it was too much effort to jump in.
It's not that DRM is making me pirate. It's that DRM has just stopped me having any interest in PC games. At all. It's made me give up the platform.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
EA don't need to team with Steam, they've got enough more than enough money to make their own system, and have actually made their own service.
It's a service with a 6 month time limit on your purchases, two years if you pay extra. EA isn't being stubborn there. Their system wasn't made before they saw how successfully the Steam model was performing, they simply refuse to give the purchaser the same benefits and it's difficult for me to see it as anything other than a cynical attempt at extracting more cash from the paying customer.
Yeah but it is sort of a pain in the ass. I have the same issue with iTunes. If my HD dies, I didn't de-authorize and it isn't really something I immediately think of when preparing to re-do my machine. It is now, of course, that I've accidentally run through 3 of my 5 activations but since I have a laptop and a desktop (at least) that I would want to access my music and (if they could communicate easily) other programs this is a realistic problem for me.
EA is releasing Crysis and Warhead on Steam, so maybe that's a start on one of the best courses EA's taken in years.
Because that refused to work on my PC because I had CD burning software on it.
Which really is phenomenally stupid.
Steam may be DRM, but at least it doesn't take a huff because I use my PC for things other than playing games.
That's Crytek releasing it on Steam, not EA.
Ah, my bad, then.
Yup, it was on Kingdoms. Aren't you glad that you were pre-emptively prevented from becoming a filthy pirate?
Which is a pretty big deal.
EA don't have the exclusive rights to publishing. Whilst admittedly old EA would've probably insisted on being the only publisher, I don't really see Crytek publishing the games on Steam as a major reflection of EA's benevolence or anything. When they clean up their own DD service, then maybe I'll say they done good, but until then, not really.
*note* there were no pics to go with said post: